News Welcome to Hawthorn Jon Patton : Retired

[Noel Gallagher]

Understand Robbo has a job to do but when a young bloke is in hospital for nearly four weeks receiving treatment for mental health issues surely there's a human element where you don't write an opinion peace that he needs to be deregistered from the competition.

There will be a time for all of that, but it's not now.

Looking like Patton may be playing the Robert Doyle card. If so very disappointing and won't do him any favours in the long run.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

I hope every female member refuses to renew their membership to the club until this clown is cut.

Investigation is out of the club's hands and the player involved is in hospital. But sure - do ask for half the population to harm the club financially for something an employee did.

 

[Gralin]

Investigation is out of the club's hands and the player involved is in hospital. But sure - do ask for half the population to harm the club financially for something an employee did.

I'm paying close attention to how this plays out with the club

 

[Ned Ryerson]

I'm paying close attention to how this plays out with the club

Look if he gets away with things entirely then sure let's start throwing the toys out of the cot. But talking membership boycotts when things are yet to play out is just juvenile.

 

[Gralin]

Look if he gets away with things entirely then sure let's start throwing the toys out of the cot. But talking membership boycotts when things are yet to play out is just juvenile.

Club and league have both done enough recently for me to question spending my money, especially when I still don't know if this will be another year without being able to actually use my membership.

I've not seen anything direct from the club about this, they've put paragraphs in other announcements, been pretty soft on the whole online harassment of women issue that's come out of this.

Not giving them money is about the only thing they might actually listen to, so if you don't agree with how they are handling this then cancelling your membership is the way to go, because at the end of the day we are not talking about punishing the club for what Patton did, we are talking about how they respond to the situtation

 

[MrPremiership]

From a footballing perspective, what are the chances he can play again?

He already has a really poor injury records and hasn't played much footy in the last 3 years.

He's currently in hospital and hasn't trained for a month. If he doesn't play at all this year, does he stand a chance in 2022? That's a long time without playing.

What's the latest he could get back to training this year and realistically play a game?

 

[OnTheRocks]

Investigation is out of the club's hands and the player involved is in hospital. But sure - do ask for half the population to harm the club financially for something an employee did.

As an employee of the HFC, surely the club would be diligent enough to asked the appropriate people questions arising from the allegations and not just leaving it up to the AFL to "investigate"?
There may just be financial concerns for the club regarding to some of its female members if the AFL prolongs the investigation by being thorough and/or in the hope that it becomes less 'AFL newsworthy'.
Not hearing from the alleged perpetrator due to incapacity or unwillingness might also have an undesired effect.
We wait and see....

 

[Gralin]

AFLPA would be playing a big role in this as well

 

[Ned Ryerson]

As an employee of the HFC, surely the club would be diligent enough to asked the appropriate people questions arising from the allegations and not just leaving it up to the AFL to "investigate"?
There may just be financial concerns for the club regarding to some of its female members if the AFL prolongs the investigation by being thorough and/or in the hope that it becomes less 'AFL newsworthy'.
Not hearing from the alleged perpetrator due to incapacity or unwillingness might also have an undesired effect.
We wait and see....

The thing is we don't know. We don't know if we handballed it or if the AFL wanted to take control due to the potential PR issues in an off-season with not much else to talk about and wanting all focus on the product this year. Maybe the AFL is using this as a test case now that more and more players are of the generation that have only ever known mobile phones. We don't know the inner-workings of the club and the league on this issue and we don't know where Patton's head is at and his ability to participate in any review - so that's why I think it is rash to start talking boycotts until everything is known.

 

[Lickmesocks]

Everyone needs to relax.

Facts are, Jon won’t be playing again.

Hawthorn have a duty of care for the time being. He has been in hospital for a month seeking treatment. The Hawks have tried to investigate and it’s now in the ands of the AFL and I would think the police to work this through.

My thinking is there will be a press conference and an announcement soon enough.

Robbo writing articles on the back of the newspaper right now is poor judgement and timing from him.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

 

[Beandip]

View attachment 1051836

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

You’ll being doing yourself a favor if you never read or listen to Robbo again.

 

[OnTheRocks]

I subscribed to not reading the Herald Sun a long time ago.

 

[MrPremiership]

View attachment 1051836

It would be an alternative for toilet paper, but it's already full of s**t

 

[Toasted]

You’ll being doing yourself a favor if you never read or listen to Robbo again.

So brave

 

[Rushed_Behind]

It would be an alternative for toilet paper, but it's already full of sh*t

My bum deserves 3 ply. So it’s not even useful for bogroll

 

[GOHORCS]

Am I?

Really?

Without knowing the first thing about me that is a very big statement indeed.

I am not prejudging anyone. You are falsely claiming that people don’t on occasion play the mental health card. Like any instrument, it can be used for personal gain. Poorly performing employees do it all the time to block disciplinary action or prolong payouts from employers.

I also never made that claim of Patton. I simply put it out there that it isn’t out of the question. Unlikely, but not out of the question.

So, if you want to claim anybody as being ignorant you may start by looking in the mirror champ.

Yes, you continue to be. You cannot get into hospital for mental health unless you need to. Any suggestion otherwise is ignorant.
Generalising like you have and including this situation in "the devil made me do it" type attempts of people is lazy unjust.

On SM-A205YN using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[rei154]

Yes, you continue to be. You cannot get into hospital for mental health unless you need to. Any suggestion otherwise is ignorant.
Generalising like you have and including this situation in "the devil made me do it" type attempts of people is lazy unjust.

On SM-A205YN using BigFooty.com mobile app

Agreed- this isn't a workplace/school situation in which you can claim a mental health day.
To be admitted into mental health care in a hospital takes quite a lot for it to happen.
In any situation using the 'mental health is a cop out' is cold.

 

[PT Bar None]

Robbo might be attempting to provoke a reaction/comment from the AFL?

's all I got.

Naturally I haven't read the article

 

[mick]

Just looked it up for more clarity. The rules were changed 5 years ago for any sexual act regardless of which way it was conducted either via sms email etc. It was changed to protect people and kids from pedophiles and online stalkers.

If it's true he showed his junk to some without consent and did it multiple times, it will be classified as a stalking sex act. It's pretty serious, reason the AFL has taken over. If the sexcrimes people can show a long standing behavior of him doing it he has more to worry about then just footy

Hey Tiger71, prima facie it looks like he might have something to answer, but the intent of the legislation is to catch serious sex offenders, it would likely not be applied in this instance when the complainants went public rather than file a complaint with the Police. The legislation is SECTION 474.17 CRIMINAL CODE ACT 1995

I've done briefs of evidence on similar legislation and it can be tricky to prove. The following have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

1. Did Patton use a carriage service - Yep, got him there - if the victims have unedited copies of his texts for context. (note only edited texts have been produced in the media)
2. He did so in a way that a reasonable person would find menacing (no), harassing (no - need to be to the same person multiple times - sometimes an objection is required), or offensive. - This is where the reasonable person part comes into it, the standard of care required of the person who suffered harm is that of a reasonable person in that person’s position, to be determined on the basis of what the person knew or ought to have known at the time. The victim sends nude pics of herself out - would it be reasonable for her to find nude pics offensive when receiving them? I can't see any magistrate in the land agreeing that a nude model would find nudity offensive. As stated previously, that doesn't mean she can't be offended - she has every right to be.
3. that the person charged is the person who committed the offense - Yep, might have to do a dick line up but I reckon it's him.

There aren't any mens rea clauses (reckless, intentional, knowingly etc) so he is probably gone there.

There have been 3 complaints, and all the victims knew each other (according to the most outspoken victim) prior to the pics. Let that sink in for a minute. Patton is one hell of an unlucky bloke, it is unlikely that of the (thousands?) of dick pics he has sent out the only women to complain knew each other; a possible explanation is they are attention-seeking and sought to boost their profile, another explanation is that that they all worked together at OnlyFans and were disappointed when Patton showed them dick pics instead of paying for their nude pics. There are probably other explanations as well including a conspiracy to set Patton up. Or maybe Patton just treats OnlyFans as a dating site and thought it was ok to send them his pics, remember at least one of the victims (Ella) offered to have sex with Patton after seeing the dick pic. The chances of him being a serial dick pic sender to random people who just happen to know each other is dreadfully small.

Patton has denied the allegations but whether he is found guilty or not he has already been convicted in the public's eye, his career is toast.

I am not defending sending dic pics unsolicited, I think it is stupid, women don't dig it (even good pics with nice lighting) and it will almost always come back to bite you in the arse (my Mrs still has a dic pic I sent her 4 years ago - god knows what she is going to do with that in family court). I think Patton was an idiot for sending it out to strangers, but I do not think he should be thought of as a sex offender - he strikes me as an arrogant, inconsiderate dickhead who thinks he is a playa. I think at least one of the accusers has more malice in her actions than Patton exhibited in sending the pic.

 

[Rhayader]

Robbo might be attempting to provoke a reaction/comment from the AFL?

's all I got.

Naturally I haven't read the article

I read what I assume is the full article on Reddit -- it's rambling and typo-riddled, so I am sure it's the real deal.

It seems to lack any reference to the Giants? I understand he is a Hawk now and this is the club's problem to deal with, but given the alleged behaviour goes back years, it seems intentionally misleading to just omit them entirely, ie:

He is a 27-years-old with almost a decade of education in the AFL system from the Hawks and the league.

So I think it's safe to read this as Robbo seeking an opportunity to have a crack at the Hawks. Not that there is anything wrong with that, he can write what he likes, but it does make it easy to ignore (which, to be fair, I always do anyway).

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

There have been 3 complaints, and all the victims knew each other (according to the most outspoken victim) prior to the pics. Let that sink in for a minute. Patton is one hell of an unlucky bloke, it is unlikely that of the (thousands?) of dick pics he has sent out the only women to complain knew each other; a possible explanation is they are attention-seeking and sought to boost their profile, another explanation is that that they all worked together at OnlyFans and were disappointed when Patton showed them dick pics instead of paying for their nude pics. There are probably other explanations as well including a conspiracy to set Patton up.

Maybe none of the above, because it’s actually Patton who’s got the problem.

 

[Gralin]

I read what I assume is the full article on Reddit -- it's rambling and typo-riddled, so I am sure it's the real deal.

It seems to lack any reference to the Giants? I understand he is a Hawk now and this is the club's problem to deal with, but given the alleged behaviour goes back years, it seems intentionally misleading to just omit them entirely, ie:

He is a 27-years-old with almost a decade of education in the AFL system from the Hawks and the league.

So I think it's safe to read this as Robbo seeking an opportunity to have a crack at the Hawks. Not that there is anything wrong with that, he can write what he likes, but it does make it easy to ignore (which, to be fair, I always do anyway).

To be fair I'm not sure he can remember that far back these days

 

[Gralin]

Hey Tiger71, prima facie it looks like he might have something to answer, but the intent of the legislation is to catch serious sex offenders, it would likely not be applied in this instance when the complainants went public rather than file a complaint with the Police. The legislation is SECTION 474.17 CRIMINAL CODE ACT 1995

I've done briefs of evidence on similar legislation and it can be tricky to prove. The following have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

1. Did Patton use a carriage service - Yep, got him there - if the victims have unedited copies of his texts for context. (note only edited texts have been produced in the media)
2. He did so in a way that a reasonable person would find menacing (no), harassing (no - need to be to the same person multiple times - sometimes an objection is required), or offensive. - This is where the reasonable person part comes into it, the standard of care required of the person who suffered harm is that of a reasonable person in that person’s position, to be determined on the basis of what the person knew or ought to have known at the time. The victim sends nude pics of herself out - would it be reasonable for her to find nude pics offensive when receiving them? I can't see any magistrate in the land agreeing that a nude model would find nudity offensive. As stated previously, that doesn't mean she can't be offended - she has every right to be.
3. that the person charged is the person who committed the offense - Yep, might have to do a dick line up but I reckon it's him.

There aren't any mens rea clauses (reckless, intentional, knowingly etc) so he is probably gone there.

There have been 3 complaints, and all the victims knew each other (according to the most outspoken victim) prior to the pics. Let that sink in for a minute. Patton is one hell of an unlucky bloke, it is unlikely that of the (thousands?) of dick pics he has sent out the only women to complain knew each other; a possible explanation is they are attention-seeking and sought to boost their profile, another explanation is that that they all worked together at OnlyFans and were disappointed when Patton showed them dick pics instead of paying for their nude pics. There are probably other explanations as well including a conspiracy to set Patton up. Or maybe Patton just treats OnlyFans as a dating site and thought it was ok to send them his pics, remember at least one of the victims (Ella) offered to have sex with Patton after seeing the dick pic. The chances of him being a serial dick pic sender to random people who just happen to know each other is dreadfully small.

Patton has denied the allegations but whether he is found guilty or not he has already been convicted in the public's eye, his career is toast.

I am not defending sending dic pics unsolicited, I think it is stupid, women don't dig it (even good pics with nice lighting) and it will almost always come back to bite you in the arse (my Mrs still has a dic pic I sent her 4 years ago - god knows what she is going to do with that in family court). I think Patton was an idiot for sending it out to strangers, but I do not think he should be thought of as a sex offender - he strikes me as an arrogant, inconsiderate dickhead who thinks he is a playa. I think at least one of the accusers has more malice in her actions than Patton exhibited in sending the pic.

Your reasoning would be exhibit a for why more victims don't come forward