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!

Joel Monaghan quits Raiders over Twitter pic

Should he be banned from the game for life?

  • Yes

    Votes: 137 47.1%
  • No

    Votes: 154 52.9%

  • Total voters
    291
  • Poll closed .

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...inion-goes-viral/story-fn5hj8hz-1225953390661

Joel Monaghan dog incident a sorry tale of social media gone wrong

* by Rory Gibson
* From: The Courier-Mail
* November 15, 2010 12:00AM

HOW about that star footballer and his tryst with a dog, eh? Unbelievable. Imagine doing such a thing for the amusement of team-mates?

How can anyone think that is funny?

But they did. Talk about laugh! It cracked everyone up.

Bet they're not laughing now though, what with their friend being publicly humiliated and watching his career disintegrate.

Humiliated? What are you talking about? He's got a great job in the sports media and there was never any outcry.

Wait, are we talking about the same bloke? Joel Monaghan from the Canberra Raiders?

No, no, no. I'm talking about the other footballer, the Wallabies legend, the one who, according to a British broadsheet newspaper, had a very similar encounter with a dog to the one that has sent Monaghan's life into a very dark place.

Former England rugby international Paul Ackford, writing for The Telegraph in Britain, interviewed current Wallabies forward coach Jim Williams back in 2003 when he was playing for Irish side Munster.

Williams recounted the episode involving the player and his dog in graphic detail and it was published.

You could still read it on The Telegraph's website early last week, but curiously the page was removed by Friday.

If you do track it down perhaps you will be struck, like me, by how differently life has turned out for two people who allegedly did the same thing.

Both incidents were filmed, both became public knowledge.

But one footballer moved from a lauded playing career to a successful, high-profile television job, and the other quit his club in tears to avoid being sacked and is undergoing counselling to help him cope with the considerable fallout from his alcohol-fuelled moment of madness.

I'm not about to pass judgment on either of them, but I can't help but feel sorry for Monaghan. By all accounts he is an otherwise splendid fellow who, before this, was held in high esteem by fans, his fellow rugby league players and his employers, the Canberra Raiders. What's that joke about "just one goat!"?

There's been a fair bit of rough justice thrown at him, but more of the same should find a couple of other targets.

I want to know who took the photo of Monaghan that raced around Twitter. He should be sharing his mate's pain.

And I want to know who gave up that photo for public consumption. Monaghan should sue him for defamation, and include a seven-figure claim for potential lost earnings.

Whoever did that is a grub who should be subjected to public contempt of a greater intensity than what Monaghan is experiencing.

Is this how we want our society to progress? Is this how the internet and social media are going to shape our behaviour? If so, let me outta here.

We are already a country muted by the demands of political correctness, where no one SAYS anything interesting any more in case someone takes offence.

Now, with Twitter and Facebook, etc, things done in private can be instantly served up for scrutiny before the court of public opinion, and it is a very harsh arena indeed.

So we are fast becoming a nation where no one will DO anything interesting in case someone takes offence.

Why were the two footballers treated so differently?

Was it because the vision of one was only seen by a couple of dozen people – even though knowledge of its existence became widespread via the detailed eyewitness account recorded by Ackford – while the vision of the other was there for all to see on Twitter?

Was there a tolerance in 2003 that doesn't exist now?

Whatever, there is a lesson to be learned here by all of us.

No matter whether you are a teenager mucking around with your school mates, a footballer on an end-of-season trip, or a suburban parent at a neighbour's barbecue, you can never drop your guard. Or your pants.

If someone has a phone, that means they've got a camera. And if you so much as pick your nose, some bastard will take a snap of it and do their best to ruin your life.
 

Moffo

Referee
Messages
23,986
suing him for taking a photo of him being a complete douchebag?

bwahahahahahahahaha

courier mail...high quality journalism

ffs
 

adamkungl

Immortal
Messages
42,971
Yep. The sig file attack. I doubt there is a greater weapon in the forum arsenal. It's lethal, and there is no comeback.
No arguments there.

I dunno...it's a step above calling out spelling mistakes, but lets be serious. sh*t hasn't really gone down until someone has called someone else a Nazi.
 

Willow

Assistant Moderator
Messages
110,268
Whatever, there is a lesson to be learned here by all of us.

No matter whether you are a teenager mucking around with your school mates, a footballer on an end-of-season trip, or a suburban parent at a neighbour's barbecue, you can never drop your guard. Or your pants.

If someone has a phone, that means they've got a camera. And if you so much as pick your nose, some bastard will take a snap of it and do their best to ruin your life.
I've raised the privacy factor a couple of times. The incident took place at a private location. It was dumb, stupid, disgusting... put whatever condemnation you like on it. But the fact remains it was never meant for public consumption.

When Orwell wrote about Big Brother, it was assumed to be about government control over our thoughts and movements with surveillience cameras being everywhere. In the book, the Thought Police enforced this.

1984 is seen by many as tinfoil hat stuff now. At the very least, a dated notion. We have cctv surveillience and the world didn't end.

But the notion of Thought Police took an interesting turn. Did Orwell envisage that one day every man (and his dog) would be carrying cameras in the palm of their hands? In a matter minutes they could capture you at your worst and have that image transmitted around the world.

Monaghan is no doubt discovering who his friends are.
 

Willow

Assistant Moderator
Messages
110,268
if they are primarily there to line the coffers...yep
Scandalous photos get sold to the tabloids all the time.

Speed cameras are actually there to stop you speeding Moffo.

But I see, when they cause you an inconvenience, the taking of photos is wrong.

If you think they are just there for a revenue earner, does that mean you're also against people who take scandalous pictures for profit? Or are they providing a service to the community that speed cameras can only dream of?
 

adamkungl

Immortal
Messages
42,971
maybe Moffo thinks speeding, which can potential result in injuries and fatalities to drivers, passengers or pedestrians, is a lesser crime than taking a drunk photo of SIMULATING your dick in a dogs mouth

:roll:
 

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
Scandalous photos get sold to the tabloids all the time.

Speed cameras are actually there to stop you speeding Moffo.

But I see, when they cause you an inconvenience, the taking of photos is wrong.

If you think they are just there for a revenue earner, does that mean you're also against people who take scandalous pictures for profit? Or are they providing a service to the community that speed cameras can only dream of?

don't forget this one too http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/showthread.php?t=110553
 

Latest posts

Top