Coffs Harbour sex scandal revisited - Stateline NSW

[Copa]

Looks very interesting..

http://www.rleague.com/db/article.php?id=26478

Stateline NSW last night aired a special documentry on the Bulldogs Coffs Harbour case from 2004, which is must viewing for anyone seeking innocence and truth to the matter and there are three replays available over the weekend.
One of the senior police detectives in charge of the case Gary McEvoy and Bulldogs Chief Executive Malcolm Noad were interviewed for the story and snippets from various people including Ray Hadley, Steve Folkes and Steve Mortimer were also aired.
McEvoy reveals that police knew after 48 hours that the Bulldogs players were innocent.
For those who missed Stateline NSW last night, there are three replays on over the weekend.
NSW viewers can watch a replay at 12:00pm on the ABC.
Those with Foxtel can watch it on the ABC2 Channel (126) at 2:00pm today and at 4:00pm on Sunday.
The ramifications against several individuals including those within the game should be massive and heads at the NRL have to roll for their lack of support to a member Club. Thankfully there has been caution and commonsense to the Wests Tigers situation currently going on, which could suggest a number of things.

Keep an eye out for transcripts on this site..
http://abc.net.au/stateline/

 

[griff]

must viewing for anyone seeking innocence and truth to the matter

MattO has given himself away when he says he is more interested in "seeking innocence" than seeking truth.

 

[gunnamatta bay]

Tks mate. Will be watching.

 

[gunnamatta bay]

MattO has given himself away when he says he is more interested in "seeking innocence" than seeking truth.

No one was charged so thats about as innocent as you can get.

 

[Nathan B]

MattO has given himself away when he says he is more interested in "seeking innocence" than seeking truth.

That's incorrect. Nowhere in his article has Matt said he's more interested in innocence than truth. I think it's silly to put innocence in there, but the point stands.

 

[Timmah]

Brilliant viewing.

 

[griff]

He mentioned seeking innocence in the sentence before seeking truth, so that's an indication.

 

[jimmy_the_greek]

im not sure what i think about the story, been discussed again, i think it was a story that affected many bulldogs supporters, considering some of the spray we copped from opposition fans, (not saying it in a complain type of way, im just speaking from the heart)


but if mcevoy says that police knew that the bulldogs were innocent, after 48 hours, why is it been talked about today?
is there more info to the story?

 

[Nathan B]

He mentioned seeking innocence in the sentence before seeking truth, so that's an indication.

"...which is must viewing for anyone seeking innocence and truth to the matter..."

Since when has the order you place the words in a sentence implied any sort of order of importance? Fact is, it doesn't.

If I wanted to describe something as fat and hairy, and was totally ambivalent to which adjective was more important, then how exactly do I place them in a sentence? Should it be 'fat and hairy' or 'hairy and fat'? Answer is...IT DOESN'T MATTER.

Anyway...the whole thing is a little silly, because, in this case, the truth is innocence.

 

[Nathan B]

im not sure what i think about the story, been discussed again, i think it was a story that affected many bulldogs supporters, considering some of the spray we copped from opposition fans, (not saying it in a complain type of way, im just speaking from the heart)


but if mcevoy says that police knew that the bulldogs were innocent, after 48 hours, why is it been talked about today?
is there more info to the story?

Because A LOT of heads deserve to roll.

 

[griff]

"...which is must viewing for anyone seeking innocence and truth to the matter..."

Since when has the order you place the words in a sentence implied any sort of order of importance? Fact is, it doesn't.

If I wanted to describe something as fat and hairy, and was totally ambivalent to which adjective was more important, then how exactly do I place them in a sentence? Should it be 'fat and hairy' or 'hairy and fat'? Answer is...IT DOESN'T MATTER.

Anyway...the whole thing is a little silly, because, in this case, the truth is innocence.

Course it does, it's basic sentence structure. If you said something was hairy and fat then it would be obvious that it was the hairyness that was the main thing you were thinking about and wanted to convey in the sentence.

Whether there was any chance of it getting to court or not, either way it was a bad bad look for rugby league. Legally they are innocent, but in the public mind they will never be.

 

[TheManOnTheGrassyKnoll]

what time are these on ?

 

[Nathan B]

Course it does, it's basic sentence structure. If you said something was hairy and fat then it would be obvious that it was the hairyness that was the main thing you were thinking about and wanted to convey in the sentence.

Whether there was any chance of it getting to court or not, either way it was a bad bad look for rugby league. Legally they are innocent, but in the public mind they will never be.

You didn't answer my question. What if I wanted to describe someone as hairy and fat but I did not care or think that one was more important than the other. What would I write?

As I said before, I think you'll find that I can write it either way because it's not a hard and fast rule that sentence order implies importance order.

The ball was red and round. Am I implying that the fact it's red is more important than it's round? No I'm not...I COULDN'T GIVE A CRAP!

 

[Nathan B]

Legally they are innocent, but in the public mind they will never be.

I think that will change. The truth will come out eventually - it's starting to already. I don't see the 'other side' of things coming out at all. This copper is basically calling some of his colleagues liars. Where are they? Absolutely silent!

 

[griff]

You would write it the way that made the sentence flow better and has better cadence. Generally this would be having the shorter words earlier in the sentence.

Fat and hairy rather than hairy and fat.
Truth and innocence rather than innocence and truth.

To turn it around and use the longer word first implies you really want to give the earlier one more importance.

 

[griff]

I think that will change. The truth will come out eventually - it's starting to already. I don't see the 'other side' of things coming out at all. This copper is basically calling some of his colleagues liars. Where are they? Absolutely silent!

I think that the public will start to recognise they didn't actually commit any crimes, but gang banging a girl by the pool is not seen to be "innocent" behaviour by many people out there even when it was consensual.

 

[ibeme]

Course it does, it's basic sentence structure. If you said something was hairy and fat then it would be obvious that it was the hairyness that was the main thing you were thinking about and wanted to convey in the sentence.

Whether there was any chance of it getting to court or not, either way it was a bad bad look for rugby league. Legally they are innocent, but in the public mind they will never be.

That's about the biggest example of nitpicking I think I've ever seen. I think you're reading way too much into the sentence.

 

[Michaelson]

You didn't answer my question. What if I wanted to describe someone as hairy and fat but I did not care or think that one was more important than the other. What would I write?

As I said before, I think you'll find that I can write it either way because it's not a hard and fast rule that sentence order implies importance order.

The ball was red and round. Am I implying that the fact it's red is more important than it's round? No I'm not...I COULDN'T GIVE A CRAP!

Not to interfere in your pissing comp or anything, but your hypothetical fat and hairy sentence has a completely different structure to the one being discussed. "Innocence" and "truth" are not adjectives.

Saying something is "must watch viewing for anyone seeking innocence and truth in the matter" clearly indicates a preconceived notion that the Bulldogs players were innocent. People on this forum overwhelmingly want to believe in the innocence of the Bulldogs players.

I have no idea whether the bulldogs players raped anyone, but neither does anyone else except them and the girls involved. It is just as silly to be wholly confident that they didn't do it because they weren't charged (rape cases being notoriously difficult to prosecute), as it is to say with any confidence that they did it.

 

[Timmah]

I think that the public will start to recognise they didn't actually commit any crimes, but gang banging a girl by the pool is not seen to be "innocent" behaviour by many people out there even when it was consensual.

If you weren't there, or are not part of the official investigation which is aware of the facts, it's best you don't comment. Speculation about what you think happened is completely irrelevant. Wake up to yourself.

It seems you want them to be guilty... why? It's much better for our game if the truth is that the Bulldogs players are innocent.

 

[griff]

If you weren't there, or are not part of the official investigation which is aware of the facts, it's best you don't comment. Speculation about what you think happened is completely irrelevant. Wake up to yourself.

It seems you want them to be guilty... why? It's much better for our game if the truth is that the Bulldogs players are innocent.

Most of what happened is public knowledge. It is in Roy Master's new book as well.

I don't want them to be guilty, it would be much better for the game if the whole situation didn't happen at all. They are innocent in the sense of not having raped someone, but their behaviour then and during the scandal wasn't very good.