Non-eels footy stuff

[Poupou Escobar]

It has got nothing to do with the common law and the doctrine of precedent. The only way that public opinion should come into play is when it motivates decisions in the legislature.

It public opinion plays a role in this case, then the smear has done it’s job.

The whole point is it's not about this case. It is a completely separate issue. All it has in common with the case is that were it not for the case, the public would never have found out such an awful person existed.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

So why are you ok with the chick releasing that vid to the public to try and smear Reynolds name (which you posted here and gave it to Reynolds by saying ‘not his go’) but not ok with her having her credentials brought up and questioned in public? What’s the difference?

I dare say the difference is Reynolds has been charged with a crime. Obviously her behaviour shouldn't excuse his, other than in sentencing. But likewise, just because everyone hates Josh Reynolds shouldn't give her free reign to go to his house and harass him and then cry victim.

 

[Noise]

I dare say the difference is Reynolds has been charged with a crime. Obviously her behaviour shouldn't excuse his, other than in sentencing. But likewise, just because everyone hates Josh Reynolds shouldn't give her free reign to go to his house and harass him and then cry victim.

But he is worried about the smear campaign against her before the trial. The video is also a smear campaign against him that might influence the trial.

 

[Gronk]

Anyome who takes on a bunch of false names seems a bit untrustworthy to me

Even her mum doesnt seem to like her

Or maybe she changed her name to keep away from her nut job mum ?

Im just saying that there has only been one side of there story presented here and y’all need to be careful not to be so foolish enough not to afford her the benefit of the doubt. Only when all the facts are known can a person judge his peers.

~ If you get all the facts, your judgment can be right; if you don’t get all the facts, it can’t be right. ~

 

[Noise]

Only when all the facts are known can a person judge his peers.

~ If you get all the facts, your judgment can be right; if you don’t get all the facts, it can’t be right. ~

Like when you gave it to Reynolds after having seen an edited bit of footage that she secretly filmed and leaked?

 

[lingard]

Or maybe she changed her name to keep away from her nut job mum ?

Im just saying that there has only been one side of there story presented here and y’all need to be careful not to be so foolish enough not to afford her the benefit of the doubt. Only when all the facts are known can a person judge his peers.

~ If you get all the facts, your judgment can be right; if you don’t get all the facts, it can’t be right. ~

Should we not then give him the benefit of the doubt, too?

 

[Gronk]

Like when you gave it to Reynolds after having seen an edited bit of footage that she secretly filmed and leaked?

What did I say ?

 

[Noise]

What did I say ?

‘Not his go’ after posting the video on here.

 

[Gronk]

Should we not then give him the benefit of the doubt, too?

100% yes.

 

[Gronk]

‘Not his go’ after posting the video on here.

EVERY controversy about a footy players in these forums has a flippant “not his go” attached.

Is that all u got ?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Or maybe she changed her name to keep away from her nut job mum ?

Im just saying that there has only been one side of there story presented here and y’all need to be careful not to be so foolish enough not to afford her the benefit of the doubt. Only when all the facts are known can a person judge his peers.

~ If you get all the facts, your judgment can be right; if you don’t get all the facts, it can’t be right. ~

Actually you can have all the facts and understand a situation less because most of the facts are irrelevant red herrings. In the industry we refer to it as noise. The various facts don't all carry the same weight. Some are far more relevant than others.

 

[Noise]

EVERY controversy about a footy players in these forums has a flippant “not his go” attached.

Is that all u got ?

You posted the video and made a snide remark about his character. It’s there for everyone to see. We get it. You can smear people without all the facts as long as they aren’t women.

 

[Gronk]

Actually you can have all the facts and understand a situation less because most of the facts are irrelevant red herrings. In the industry we refer to it as noise. The various facts don't all carry the same weight. Some are far more relevant than others.

You’re muddying the waters here. Should a person be convicted after a court has only heard one side of the story ? I’ll answer that, no. Which is exactly what is happening in your so called court of public opinion.

 

[Gronk]

You posted the video and made a snide remark about his character. It’s there for everyone to see. We get it. You can smear people without all the facts as long as they aren’t women.

Rubbish. If there was a video of a woman standing over a merkin hitting him with a frypan, I’d throw in a jovial “not her go” as well. I’m sorry that you can’t grasp the nuance of my humour.

 

[Noise]

Rubbish. If there was a video of a woman standing over a merkin hitting him with a frypan, I’d throw in a jovial “not her go” as well. I’m sorry that you can’t grasp the nuance of my humour.

Bullshit. There’s a story of a crazy woman faking pregnancies and miscarriages, changing her name repeatedly, faking cancer amongst other things but you are up in arms about it. Where was the ‘not her go’

 

[Poupou Escobar]

You’re muddying the waters here. Should a person be convicted after a court has only heard one side of the story ? I’ll answer that, no. Which is exactly what is happening in your so called court of public opinion.

I'm sure I know her side of the story and I haven't even heard it. You can tell a lot about a person by their significant others, and in her case this includes Josh Reynolds as well as possibly a bunch of dudes willing to hang shit on her in the media. Meanwhile I would happily give any of my exes as character references.

To be fair, there aren't many of them.

 

[Bazal]

Next time a female breaks into my house, I’ll make her a coffee..

Has there been any proof she "broke in"?

I haven't been following closely so may, have missed it.

And if she did, does that make domestic violence OK?

 

[Bazal]

The same guys shitting on Reynolds are probably the same ones saying sivo doesn’t have a case to answer and done nothing wrong.

The game guys shitting on Reynolds missus probably beat their wives.

See, anyone can make a stupid, poorly extrapolated comment based on zero evidence

 

[Gronk]

Bullshit. There’s a story of a crazy woman faking pregnancies and miscarriages, changing her name repeatedly amongst other things but you are up in arms about it. Where was the ‘not her go’

Ugh, I’m only up in arms about the case being flashed about in the media before the trial. Remember? If I posted the Weedler video, I would have thought an ironic “not her go” would have been appropriately funny.

There are facts and the interpretation of facts. Maybe she is the worst con(wo)man ever. Or maybe there are a bunch of idiots who are licking their wounds after letting their dicks do all the thinking with a high maintenance girl ?

All of which mean absolutely zero if in fact he used violence against her. Everyone should focus on that and not be distracted with Days of Our Lives smear from either side.

 

[lingard]

You’re muddying the waters here. Should a person be convicted after a court has only heard one side of the story ? I’ll answer that, no. Which is exactly what is happening in your so called court of public opinion.

But the court of public opinion initially heard her side of the story - and now it is hearing his. That's two sides. What's wrong with that?