The bad behaviour thread

Buramada wrote:


The evidence is that a woman has made a rape claim against him, including going to the police and getting physically examined. She knows what happened and most of the country knows that she did this. If this happened to me the last thing I would be concerned about is my next season contract, it would be how did I get myself into this mess.

Why is going to trial = rape
Why he has lost his personal and public integrity = not establishing and maintaining enthusiastic consent.

REPEAT - He is not being punished. He is getting full pay. He is just not getting it for being in front and centre of millions of people for a bit for obvious reasons. Kind of like getting put out the back washing dishes instead of doing counter service for not grooming yourself well. Same pay, different role. Not being punished -- being moved somewhere, where he does less damage to the brand.

You keep saying he didn’t establish consent when you don’t even know that he did anything that needed consent. If you personally know something about this case that the public doesn’t then just PM without any details and I won’t mention it again(until then I will defend his right to be judged as innocent)However if you don’t then you’re accusing a person who hasn’t been found guilty of rape. As I said above what gives anyone other than the judicial system the right and power to convict and punish him of a crime that you don’t know he committed.

Buramada wrote:

If they cant maintain and establish enthusiastic sexual consent after they have had a few drinks then yes they probably should not go out, where they are liable to violate other peoples safety. If he had done this, there would be no rape allegation. This is pretty clear, No?

Not obtaining consent is rape that is clear. What you fail to see is that he may well have no need or reason to obtain consent. 
Two other things are clear. 1 you have judged him guilty. 2 I damn sure don’t ever want you to be part of a jury

Krump wrote:
You keep saying he didn’t establish consent when you don’t even know that he did anything that needed consent. If you personally know something about this case that the public doesn’t then just PM without any details and I won’t mention it again(until then I will defend his right to be judged as innocent)However if you don’t then you’re accusing a person who hasn’t been found guilty of rape. As I said above what gives anyone other than the judicial system the right and power to convict and punish him of a crime that you don’t know he committed.

Why would she allege rape if he had established and maintained enthusiastic consent... or is she guilty before being proven innocent?

Has not even gotten to the trial yet. You are missing the point. He has not been punished, just moved to another department until he can re-establish his integrity. That will come after the trial if he is proven guilty. Point is, it is very easy not be to accused of rape. All you have to do is make sure someone consents to every step of the process. Obviously a serious dispute there. Best for it to be resolved till he takes the field again (on FULL PAY). I don't get how that is a punishment. It is a professional decision

Buramada wrote:

Why would she allege rape if he had established and maintained enthusiastic consent... or he she guilty before being proven innocent.

She’s not guilty or innocent because she is not the one being accused of a crime. You don’t even know that he slept with her let alone did it without consent.

Buramada wrote:

Why would she allege rape if he had established and maintained enthusiastic consent... or he she guilty before being proven innocent.

Your right. No woman has ever falsely accused a man of rape in the history of mankind. Ever heard the terms "beware a woman scorned" or "gold digger" before? I'm not saying this is the case here, but it is not unheard of either. How about we wait and let the courts decide. Novel concept isnt it, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty? If he is found guilty, THEN throw the book at him.

spike27 wrote:

How about we wait and let the courts decide. Novel concept isnt it, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty? If he is found guilty, THEN throw the book at him.

Why do that when we can just judge and sentence him here. If he’s guilty my sentence would be chemical castration and make him lead every team out during women in league round so we can throw shit at him.

Krump wrote:
She’s not guilty or innocent because she is not the one being accused of a crime. You don’t even know that he slept with her let alone did it without consent.

I know that the police have collected enough evidence to charge him with rape. I know there is a dispute between two parties about whether consent was established. I don't need to know anything else until the trial. For now, he should probably not be on television in front of millions of people in terms of the NRL, especially with this being a problem over-represented in the NRL. If she says there was no consent, and she is the one providing that and there is a dispute, then it probably was not that enthusiastic. He has NOT BEEN PUNISHED. Just doing other duties until the complaint is resolved. Do you have a problem with that?

At no time have I said he was guilty of rape

spike27 wrote:

Your right. No woman has ever falsely accused a man of rape in the history of mankind. Ever heard the terms "beware a woman scorned" or "gold digger" before? I'm not saying this is the case here, but it is not unheard of either. How about we wait and let the courts decide. Novel concept isnt it, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty? If he is found guilty, THEN throw the book at him.

There is a novel concept! Blaming a victim who has not been charged with a crime.

If Jack thought this crime had occurred and he was willing to make a complaint and have her charged, I am sure he would have done so by now. Police don't charge people without some form of evidence. The easiest way to not have evidence of rape is to establish and maintain trust and enthusiastic consent. I believe they will probably be making this a condition of employment with the NRL soon and so they should. The money they get for their job is obscene. Best paid people in the country. Should come with some form of responsibility No?

Never said he is guilty of rape, however, he has not lived up to his job expectations. Or are you saying that he has? Should you be more focused on how long the court system takes to process this kind of thing, rather than Jack missing out on all his salary? (Oh wait!) That's right, he has not been punished.

spike27 wrote: Just because someone CLAIMS something happened doesn't make it so until proven in a court of law.

Just because someone CLAIMS something happened doesn't go to trail if there is no reasonable evidence.
Claims don't end up with charges in court for the fun of it

Krump wrote:
Why do that when we can just judge and sentence him here. If he’s guilty my sentence would be chemical castration and make him lead every team out during women in league round so we can throw shit at him.

This is probably a severe violation of human rights and really inappropriate. Better for Jack's welfare that he receive counselling and rehabilitation in this case (IF HE IS GUILTY) so he can continue to use his strengths to better society. I would hope you are never given the responsibility for other humans in this case.

You keep saying he didn’t get consent (which equals rape) so stop taking the cheap cop out route and saying that you’re not saying he raped her. 
As for the police not charging people without evidence you’re nothing bar completely wrong, that’s one of those 100% things I was talking about earlier. I sincerely hope you’re never charged with a crime you didn’t commit and have to learn just how wrong you are the hard way. 

He’s not being punished???? find me a reasonable person who agrees with you that this isn’t a punishment for him.

spike27 wrote:

Your right. No woman has ever falsely accused a man of rape in the history of mankind.

Such a male perspective.
Pretty rare and there'd be many more times ladies don't bother accusing because the whole legal process is stacked against them. Sad

Buramada wrote:

This is probably a severe violation of human rights and really inappropriate. Better for Jack's welfare that he receive counselling and rehabilitation in this case (IF HE IS GUILTY) so he can continue to use his strengths to better society. I would hope you are never given the responsibility for other humans in this case.

If he is guilty    
You’ve already judged a man who’s proven to have done nothing wrong yourself, it’s only a short jump to violating more rights that’s he given under the common law.

code delta wrote:
Such a male perspective.
Pretty rare and there'd be many more times ladies don't bother accusing because the whole legal process is stacked against them. Sad

Deny that it’s happened before.
Yes the process is stacked against them and yes it’s bloody disgusting. There are still people who falsely accuse sexual assault though and no person should be punished for an accusation.

code delta wrote:

Just because someone CLAIMS something happened doesn't go to trail if there is no reasonable evidence.
Claims don't end up with charges in court for the fun of it

Your honour I would like to call Jessica Peris to the witness stand.

Krump wrote:
Deny that it’s happened before.

FWIW I didn't deny. You detract from the point of my post.

code delta wrote:
FWIW I didn't deny. You detract from the point of my post.

You detract from the point of your post by opening it by pre judging every male on the planet. This isn’t a conversation about how victims of sexual assault are treated by our justice system. It’s a conversation about how one yet to found guilty person is being pre-judged. 
Im all for conversation about other issues and if you start a thread on them I’ll be more than happy to contribute. The reason I haven’t before you ask is that my opinions are always varied and generally divisive, if I started a thread about everything that worked me up I’d have more haters on here than Hench.

Krump wrote:What an amazingly passive aggressive time we live in where a person can anonymously put out there their dislike of an opinion for the world to see with absolutely no reasoning:rollinglaugh:

Without said reasoning, I'm going to assume someone meant to click 'like' but lacked the coordination to aim the mouse correctly.

Look I can handle your average punters like Buramada and Code Delta pre-judging the bloke prior to the courts deciding whether he is guilty or not but the NRL hierarchy are meant to be highly paid and intelligent people who should be making sensible and worthwhile decisions.

This is embarrassing and will be even more so when the implications/legalities force the NRL to backflip.

Pain wrote:Most people would be suspended from work if they were charged with rape or similar.

Check with your HR tomorrow if you're not sure.

Absolute rubbish