Matthew Johns sex scandal in 2002

[butchmcdick]

well i know i wouldn't pay a cent to someone if i had done nothing wrong

what sane reason would there be to do so?

Perhaps they feared that even though they had done nothing wrong any publicity about the event would hurt their careers. I bet certain television personalities who have not had any charges against them wished they had paid some cash and got certain parties to sign a confidentiality agreement right about now.

 

[El Diablo]

but it did get publicity

 

[butchmcdick]

but it did get publicity

Sorry it's late mate. Which incident the one about the AFL guys or the sharks one ?

 

[El Diablo]

Sorry it's late mate. Which incident the one about the AFL guys or the sharks one ?

Perhaps they feared that even though they had done nothing wrong any publicity about the event would hurt their careers. I bet certain television personalities who have not had any charges against them wished they had paid some cash and got certain parties to sign a confidentiality agreement right about now.

there has been no report the Sharks paid any money

 

[butchmcdick]

there has been no report the Sharks paid any money

And I am not saying that there has been any money paid. What I am saying is I bet those involved now wished they had paid some money and got the lady involved to sign an ironclad agreement not to talk.

I was answering your question about why an innocent party would pay hush money even though they did nothing wrong.

 

[El Diablo]

And I am not saying that there has been any money paid. What I am saying is I bet those involved now wished they had paid some money and got the lady involved to sign an ironclad agreement not to talk.

I was answering your question about why an innocent party would pay hush money even though they did nothing wrong.

but it gained publicity

how else would we know they paid hush money?

 

[butchmcdick]

but it gained publicity

how else would we know they paid hush money?

Look if it was hush money then it didn't really keep her quiet did it. Perhaps the agreement was crap. I have no idea and niether do you.

 

[Cloud9]

I don't understand what the fuss is about when the gang bang was consensual. She's probably fantasised about it. She's a tart, in bed and in the media. I bet its Charmyne Pavlavi.

 

[myanonymoususername]

I don't understand what the fuss is about when the gang bang was consensual. She's probably fantasised about it. She's a tart, in bed and in the media. I bet its Charmyne Pavlavi.

Charming aren't you?

With your remarkable ability to make character assessments, you should offer your services to the NRL when it comes to selecting people to be their "face". After all, they are failing miserably this year. Brett Stewart = Fail, Matthew Johns = Fail.

 

[myanonymoususername]

well i know i wouldn't pay a cent to someone if i had done nothing wrong

what sane reason would there be to do so?

Maybe a sense of "thankfully it wasn't legally wrong, but gee, it was borderline and certainly immoral and dodgy and not a great look for me if this gets out in the public arena"?

 

[Azkatro]

To be honest I'm not getting my knickers in a twist about this one... at least not until I've watched the show itself.

To do otherwise comes across as a bit like fundamentist religious types who protest at the openings of certain movies but haven't actually seen the movie in question...

We can stick our head in teh sand and pretend that these things don't happen, or pretend that our game has responded to incidents (reported and unreported, subject to police charge or no charges arising) and the culture as it should have in the past decade...

We can get upset at how the program doesn't (seem?) to mention other codes, or go into depth about their own incidents...

But that doesn't change the truth of the program's premise, from the link above:


This implies that the program will cover any positive efforts there are, and ask the valid question is what we are doing enough? Without seeing the program, I think the answer is no, our game isn't doing enough to stop incidents and change our players' education and culture, when you stop comparing to other codes and just look at it on its own face value.

If this program does any small thing that helps change that, then I think it is a positive thing, that we all should be happy about?

Bartman, how dare you display such flagrant common sense on this forum about an issue which might hurt rugby league. Didn't you know you're supposed to hold up the burning cross at anything which might defame our game? Burn the heathens, burn!!!

Seriously though, you're absolutely right. It's the tabloids I worry about. Heck, all this blowing up we're seeing in the papers over this issue is merely because they are going to report on it. I mean seriously... forgetting society, and forgetting all the other codes for a second .. is anyone really going to try and deny that rugby league has a problem with a group sex culture, if not today then in the past?

 

[Timmah]

I have a question - why is Johns being the only player implicated?

Group sex involving one person? :?

 

[Flapper]

I have a question - why is Johns being the only player implicated?

Group sex involving one person? :?

I think Reg was there as well, with Trent the Fight Steward also taking it up the caboose.

 

[bartman]

Even worse that he is used as a poster child by the NRL on occassion .

Hopefully that now becomes a was, if the league is serious about trying to appeal to new generations of families and female fans. (And thinking male fans for that matter.)

 

[bartman]

I have a question - why is Johns being the only player implicated?

Group sex involving one person? :?

My guess is it's simply the hook to get people interested in the program. Like how movie trailers often feature the main star of the movie, not every single actor who appears in some supporting role? He is the most well known participant, so like the movies gets top billing.

I doubt it will be a program all about Matt Johns, that incident or that woman. It reads like they are using that incident as the basis to then examine league culture in relation to gang banging (or buns) in general as the main jist of the rest of the show.

I remember a great Four Corners expose of rugby league in the early 80s (1983?) which ended up bringing down the then CEO Kevin Humphreys (and others) on the grounds of accusations of corruption - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Humphreys. The game is healthier and more professional now as a result of that program going to air.

I have similar hopes that this program going to air might whip our current NRL into order about how they need to improve the culture of our professional players and their behaviour. I don't give a sh*t about comparisions to AFL, because I don't watch the code and hence don't care about it. I don't think it helps our game to stick our heads in the sand and pretend that our game doesn't have any problems with player attitudes to women, alcohol etc - problems that damage the game's image, reputation and ability to access teh moeny it needs for clubs to survive and thrive.

But I always want our game to improve and am interested in what this program has to say (not about the Johns incident itself, but about the wider issue).

 

[El Diablo]

the game is getting bashed from pillar to post and it's because the media only want one code of football

they are simply trying to kill league. nothing more, nothing less

look at the DT story on chair pulling ffs. despite it being denied they accuse them anyway with no proof

i hope to read the ABC journos name in the road toll

 

[bartman]

Further evidence that it's not all about Johns or one player...

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25455073-5001021,00.html

The Four Corners investigation, titled The Code of Silence, examines a decade of alcohol, women and sex scandals among NRL players.
It questions whether the game's officials have done enough to end the cycle of problems that have dogged the code.

Seriously, what league fans wouldn't want to see this aspect of our code be analysed and potentially improved as a result of quality (ie non-ACA/Today Tonight) tele-journalism?

 

[El Diablo]

4 corners is just the same as ACA and TT except that it goes for an hour

 

[El Diablo]

is the ABC reporter causing his wife trauma again for no good reason? Yes

is she causing trauma to his children again at home and more than likely at school? Yes

could she be costing charities money in the future'? Yes

did Johns do anything illegal? No

will any good come out of her reporting this 7 year old story? No

she has done far worse than Johns imo

 

[LeagueNut]

I have a question - why is Johns being the only player implicated?

Group sex involving one person? :?

Johns has been the only one named by the woman I think ... maybe she didn't know the others by name? (or has forgotten?)