Bulldogs Issue

[Bedseys Achillies]

i just seems fine to everyone to speculate their guilt. but not okay to speculate based on hope that the better players in your opinion are innocent...

 

[antonius]

Of course player behaviour should be investigated if it's inappropriate, I am more talking about the "what if this," "what if that," "what if it's him", "I've heard it's so and so", that's been bandied around in the dozen or so threads all over these forums. Player behaviour in general is a different kettle of fish. We're talking about Allegations of a reported actual event here, all the supopsitions that I mention above achieve nothing.

 

[antonius]

i just seems fine to everyone to speculate their guilt. but not okay to speculate based on hope that the better players in your opinion are innocent...

Are you refering this comment to me? If so I am not saying it's fine to speculate about anything, and I can't see anywhere wher I've said that.

 

[Bedseys Achillies]

NO, Not you antonious...

 

[Doctor]

Of course player behaviour should be investigated if it's inappropriate, I am more talking about the "what if this," "what if that," "what if it's him", "I've heard it's so and so", that's been bandied around in the dozen or so threads all over these forums. Player behaviour in general is a different kettle of fish. We're talking about Allegations of a reported actual event here, all the supopsitions that I mention above achieve nothing.

I for one am not commenting on allegations and the 'who did it' rumours. I haven't heard any names, nor do I want to know names. As you say: what is it all based upon? More speculation.

But it is important to draw specific circumstances out to a wider perspective and look at the issue of player behaviour generally - it is, afterall, a recurring theme on forums every year, mostly during end-of-season trips.

 

[Bedseys Achillies]

Has anyone been reading those articles by Cindy Wockner in Daily Telegraph?? If so, what are your views?

 

[B.L.L.G]

Yes i have been reading Cindy Wockners articles and according to her she has already found them guilty so why isn`t she getting into trouble for speaking out early!
If she can say it why can`t i!!!!!!!!!!
According to her she`s of the opinion that they are already guilty as charged of the allegations.
Why is she aloud to publicise articles when noone else is?
If anyone is to be sued it`s her.
Although she hasn`t named names she has implied and hinted, virtually saying yES their guilty!
And i`m with her!
But i wish i could say stuff on the matter.

P.S. but do you see how this has all died down and isn`t hot anymore.
Yesterday looked positive for the Bulldogs.
I`d prefer it if we kept the heat on them.
But this is all part of the legal process.
Stretch it out so that it will down die and will be less severe.
Ask me and i`d say that the heat is gone and the outlook for the Dogs is good.

 

[Bedseys Achillies]

Yes I agree with you UT. While this Cindy person seems to be able to be judge and jury on the whole thing with no sideways glance from the Head Honchos at Daily Telegraph, the letters page is empty of anyone else’s opinions on the matter… because that would be speculation wouldn’t it??!

 

[Alex28]

if the 2 articles were in the telegraph - then i would doubt it. i think the herald has too much integrity to make something up like that.

and we are remembering footballers arent the smartest bunch out there - i have no doubt that they had a word to some journalists and said what they said...

 

[~bedsy~]

It reeks of BS to me. The things quoted from the Dogs players are the height of stupidity for them to tell the media, whether true or not. Why don't the SMH name the sources of the quotes? They could basically print ANYTHING and claim it was said by "a Bulldogs player".

Their footballer's... their not the sharpest tools in the box. Yes the press maybe making it up, but highly unlikley as the players don't seem to give a toss what their doing.
I think their PR person has failed them somewhere along the way.

 

[Kaz]

I wonder if the journalist taped what the players said.

 

[~bedsy~]

Well that's always a possibility.

 

[~knights~]

Steve Mortimer said that he asked team member individually about the interview in Sundays paper.

No-one came forward :roll:

So he reacts and says it was rubbish.

Does he really think that the person would come forward :?:

After all they were anonymous in the article :roll:

I still don't want to comment on the allegations of the "rape" BUT that article in the paper just totally disgusted me :evil:

 

[northey]

i like how there was talk of kicking them out of the comp... the whole team that is

 

[Alex28]

after the reaction the article got who would admit to talking to the journalists? i have no doubt they recorded the conversations - they are journalists after all...

 

[northey]

players may refuse dna test

 

[Doctor]

after the reaction the article got who would admit to talking to the journalists? i have no doubt they recorded the conversations - they are journalists after all...

The interviewee has a legal entitlement to know if he/she is being taped. It is the journalist's responsibility to request that a sound recording be made to assist them with writing the story and getting comments word-for-word.

The player has every right to refuse such a request.

Interestingly, you can make visual recordings of people without their knowledge (quite legally I'm told, provided it doesn't break any laws on perversion etc) but you just can't tape the noise/voice.

Feel free to correct me if anyone knows for sure.

 

[Razor]

Interestingly, you can make visual recordings of people without their knowledge (quite legally I'm told, provided it doesn't break any laws on perversion etc) but you just can't tape the noise/voice.

The states control the laws on that matter. In QLD, it's legal to record video, but not audio, without their permission, so long as the owner of the property gives the okay to do so and the video is not put in the public domain. If it's outside in a public place then anything can be recorded and put in the public domain.

You can even legally film someone showering without them knowing if you own the property. There was a case last year, where a woman unsuccessfully sued a man filming her in her bedroom and the bathroom for his own use, he didn't put them in public. There was a move to amend the law, but AFAIK it never occured.

 

[*trojan*]

I might be being totally ignorant here, but take David Hookes' death. The dude that was arrested and charged with manslaughter's name was platered in all the papers, and I'm pretty sure the guys who was jailed for 55 years' name was relaeased while being investigated. Does that mean that the alleged bulldogs "rapists" identies are being proteced becasue they are bulldogs? Or am I way off? Seriously, I'm not trying to be a smart ar*e, just wondering???

 

[*trojan*]

Sorry guys, ignore that. I just read back.