What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

General Discussion Thread

Messages
3,216
Trust me, I don’t need your link.

The definition of sexual assault is veryo o simple, albeit there are other legal requirement's, case law that would have to be overcome in order to prosecute any alleged crime arising out of the incident involving J’Maine.
So you're arrogant now? Again you are wrong
 

age.s

First Grade
Messages
7,512
Lets take the stuff about definitions and criminal codes out of it and simplify the matter. The NRL is a workplace. Should an employee have the right to turn up to work and not have to worry about someone acting like that towards them? The answer is very obviously yes. Whether Hopgood saw it as just a bit of fun isn't the issue (and there's no evidence he did). Luke plays (works) with many other players and they have a right to be protected from that sort of behavior too.

I dont think Luke needs to be criminally prosecuted, but in virtually any workplace in the country you'd be marched for doing something like that multiple times and getting caught on camera. I'd have no issue with the club or the NRL tearing up his contract on that basis.
 

WestyLife

First Grade
Messages
6,801
Your a tough guy, always big on making the big statements, most of which are full of shit.

In order for the clowns who need to be further convinced perhaps you could clear up some lose ends, has Hopgood made a complaint, is he going to give evidence, how long did the alleged offence last, did the alleged offence involve actual digital penetration, if so, what finger or fingers were involved, were any injuries caused by the digital penetration, given alleged crime occurred in under three seconds what role did the victims shorts/underwear play in enabling or preventing Luke to digitally penetrate the victims anus. There lots and lots more basically questions that need answers you well know a sexual assault has been committed so addressing a few of these simple issues would be of great assistance for those not as prone to jump to stupid conclusions without knowing all the facts.

Whether hopgood complained or not is irrelevant. If Luke did that to a woman he'd be up on charges no question. It's only not because it was a man during a football game.

You really want to do the "what clothes they're wearing" thing?
 
Messages
3,216
That's horrible the world has some horrible people out there. People dismissing things like Luke is doing only makes things worse
It was. Twice in one night, by the same man. The perpetrator was my former best friends father. I fell pregnant. I was not allowed to speak to my mother. My mum was at work when it happened and fled to get to me. My parents arrived with the police, at the right time, as I was about to cop a flogging. He was acquitted of the rape, pre DNA days, guilty of the attempted assault

I'm sorry for what you went through
 

Iamback

Coach
Messages
18,733
Whether hopgood complained or not is irrelevant. If Luke did that to a woman he'd be up on charges no question. It's only not because it was a man during a football game.

You really want to do the "what clothes they're wearing" thing?

You need a complaint, It looks bad but you can't see if he copped a finger in the ass or not. Angles can be decieving.
 

Iamback

Coach
Messages
18,733
I'm talking about the principle of it and why it's so bad I'm avoiding the legal discussion.

Yeah but using a the general public argument.

CCTV video alone isn't enough more is needed, Even Dylan Brown. A compliant was made, video footage backed it up.

Similar here, Looks bad but the lack of reaction from the player then action can't be taken
 

Kilkenny

Coach
Messages
13,612
Whether hopgood complained or not is irrelevant. If Luke did that to a woman he'd be up on charges no question. It's only not because it was a man during a football game.

You really want to do the "what clothes they're wearing" thing?
The victim, male or female, is actually rather necessary on so many fronts.

In the Hopgood scenario, his shorts and swimming trunks, are particularly relevant if you want to consider whether a sexual assault has occurred. In such a short period of time say two seconds, three at most, even if you could prove Luke had the intent to penetrate Hopgood anus could it even have been possible. Could he achieve it from outside both layers of clothing? He might be able to accomplish his goals if he was able to get his hand inside Hopgood s swimmers but this could takes a fair bit of time, he would have been penalised for not getting of the tackled player long before being able to get his finger in Hopgoods bum.

You say no complaint, no issue, irrelevant, mate generally a criminal prosecution relies on a victim who during proceedings actually gives sworn evidence at court. The exception to this rule is murder, where in most instances the victim is not in a position to give evidence, in a verbal capacity anyway.
 

Latest posts

Top