Matthew Johns sex scandal in 2002

[aqua_duck]

ffs happened 7 years ago and resurfaces because the **** involved now regrets it, cry me a river. It was entirely consensual and if his family can forgive him than I dont see what the big deal is. If this **** wants to name and shame Johns she should have the decency to reveal herself to the public, then again decent women don'y behave like this

 

[aids]

maybe she got pissy because the fellas didn't abide to the deli ticket rule she setup earlier on in the evening.

 

[Pierced Soul]

another question which is never looked at by the feminists is why girls go and have group sex. this is simialr in anture to the broncos last eyar wheere the chick goes to the toilet with 3 of them and claims rape afterwards, or that s**t in the bulldogs case.

if a player (or any male) drags off a chick and rapes her or coerces her then i'm all for castrating them, but it seems in a lot of these group 'rape' situations the chick has gone off with the players before deciding afterwards she didnt like it

if johns has coerced/forced her then by all means it needs to be looked at but if she's gotten upset cos she got something in her eye or has decided to try and get some money she should be exposed for what she's done

 

[Baron Vo Mandor]

rather ironic how she is quick to name Johns on 4C, yet she refused to be named or show her face

Mate I found that to be absolutely disgusting as well she consentated to have sex regardless of the circumstances(which I think are disgusting) yet she can get away with naming and slandering him..... Yet doesn't have to show her face.

If it wouldn't look so catty it would be lovely for Johns to name her and paint her all over the TV and papers.

Be interesting to find out how much $$$ she got paid.

 

[sneaky_is_here]

Rugby league players are people to... 4 corners should be ashamed of this story.

 

[butchmcdick]

How exactly are you all claiming that she is a s**t without knowing any of the facts of the case ?

Wake up to yourselves and actually watch the program before you pre judge who is innocent. But it seems like some of you have made up your minds already.

 

[butchmcdick]

Mate I found that to be absolutely disgusting as well she consentated to have sex regardless of the circumstances(which I think are disgusting) yet she can get away with naming and slandering him..... Yet doesn't have to show her face.

If it wouldn't look so catty it would be lovely for Johns to name her and paint her all over the TV and papers.

Be interesting to find out how much $$$ she got paid.

It is four corners, they don't pay for interviews

 

[Baron Vo Mandor]

How exactly are you all claiming that she is a s**t without knowing any of the facts of the case ?

Gee's Butch considering their just interviewing the chick surely you arent dumb enough to realise that its going to be a one sided affair.

f**kwit.

 

[God-King Dean]

How exactly are you all claiming that she is a s**t without knowing any of the facts of the case ?

Wake up to yourselves and actually watch the program before you pre judge who is innocent. But it seems like some of you have made up your minds already.

Yep. Massive s**t.

 

[aqua_duck]

How exactly are you all claiming that she is a s**t without knowing any of the facts of the case ?

Wake up to yourselves and actually watch the program before you pre judge who is innocent. But it seems like some of you have made up your minds already.

the same way your claiming she's a victim...
BTW butch why are we getting all defensive? She wouldn't be a friend of yours would she?

 

[Nightward]

we know the police didnt press charges , therefore johns is innocent.

Without wanting to come off as a tinfoil hat wearer, the fact no charges were pressed does not indicate innocence.

What it means was that the Police involved and/or DPP did not believe there was sufficient evidence to merit a trial.

Was she raped? Perhaps, perhaps not. Was there monetary or other political force bought to bear to sweep the issue away? Perhaps, perhaps not. There certainly has been in other cases.

if a player (or any male) drags off a chick and rapes her or coerces her then i'm all for castrating them, but it seems in a lot of these group 'rape' situations the chick has gone off with the players before deciding afterwards she didnt like it

On the other hand, if the woman (or man, or whatever) involved says "no" or "stop" or anything of that nature doing proceedings and the other party does not, it is then no longer consensual.

Unfortunately the vast majority of rape cases come down to he said/she said. Difficult enough to prove at the best of times, even if the party who was assualted is willing to face the social stigma attatched to laying charges and then the court case, where they will almost certainly be painted as fast and loose. Among other things.

When you're looking at group sex situations, it's even worse. If the woman (or man, or whatever) says no- or wants to say no- they are in a situation where they can very easily be overpowered physically and where there is a very high probability that the group will swear up and down that everything was consensual.

Issues of Police charges and court cases aside, the onus is really on the Rugby players to keep it in their pants, girlfriend, wife, family or not. Admittedly this is something bought up from some time ago, but still. They're big boys, and should be expected to act like it.

 

[The Tank]

Without wanting to come off as a tinfoil hat wearer, the fact no charges were pressed does not indicate innocence.

What it means was that the Police involved and/or DPP did not believe there was sufficient evidence to merit a trial.

Was she raped? Perhaps, perhaps not. Was there monetary or other political force bought to bear to sweep the issue away? Perhaps, perhaps not. There certainly has been in other cases.

One of the articles I read said the police "cleared" them.

Issues of Police charges and court cases aside, the onus is really on the Rugbyplayers to keep it in their pants, girlfriend, wife, family or not. Admittedly this is something bought up from some time ago, but still. They're big boys, and should be expected to act like it.

:roll: Fagball troll

 

[butchmcdick]

the same way your claiming she's a victim...
BTW butch why are we getting all defensive? She wouldn't be a friend of yours would she?

Why are you getting so aggressive ?

I am pointing out that for you to label her a s**t then takes away all blame from anyone male involved. BTW what is a s**t to you ? What does it matter if she is sexually promiscuous, does that mean that men can do whatever the f**k they like to her because in the past she has had sex with lots of partners ? Put the meat out and the cats will eat kind of deal with you is it duck ?

Even if she is a s**t ( and what the f**k does that mean anyway) as you seem intent on labeling her does that mean she has no right to say no to anything ? For example if she consented to have sex with 4 guys and the 5th guy has a go she still has a right to say no. In fact at any point she can say no.

Lets wait and see what she has to say first.

For the record I don't know this women but what exactly are you implying ?

 

[IanG]

Wasn't much on the Footy Show. Opened with Matthews side of the story and now it's done.

And let's hope they leave it there. But I'm not holding my breath. I wanna know what's this bird's motivation to dig up something that was 7 years ago.

 

[butchmcdick]

Gee's Butch considering their just interviewing the chick surely you arent dumb enough to realise that its going to be a one sided affair.

f**kwit.

Have you ever watched four corners Baron ?

Perhaps you should watch the program before judging it although something tells me you have already. I am sure that they will have given M Johns a chance to comment but something tells me that he didn't take up the offer. Why would he when he has channel 9 and several posters here to defend his good name.

 

[Azkatro]

I'm a bit disappointed in the general consensus on the forum. According to most of you guys, Matthew Johns is 100% innocent because no charges were laid, and the girl involved is a s**t because she consented.

First of all, this all began because it seems Four Corners are going to interview the girl. Nobody said she was making any accusations, they are just talking to her because she claims she has been traumatised by the experience. Just because it was consensual at the time, and legal, doesn't mean it was a good idea. As he has suggested Matthew Johns has been somewhat traumatised by it too because it nearly f**ked up his marriage.

As I said before, I would consider it an important interview for anybody to watch because it will give an insight into the effect your actions can have, even if they seem alright at the time and they are legal.

This issue is not about Matthew Johns getting charged, it is about the consequences of what they did with (note I say with, not to) this girl back in 2002.

And I'm not surprised she is keeping her identity concealed, with the attitude of some of you lot.

 

[Mr Saab]

Its not his go Butch.
He is a good bloke
Matty is "star"

 

[sharko]

I don't want to act like a choir boy or a prude but why are "allegedly" so many footballers interested and involved in group sex with each other?
Maybe it's a bit "normal" but that kinda stuff doesn't interest me at all.
Seriously, what is up with that?
Is alot of it to do with alcohol?
I don't know.

I think it is a "mob" mentality thing..as has been said before, league players are physically big, they hang around in their group when on tour or playing away, they love the kudos it brings them when one of them gets lucky, even more so when their mates can watch them whilst they are doing it.
They feed a lot of alcohol to young women and then take advantage of them.
Mathew Johns is just being shown to be a hypocrite, he criticsed others for their conduct but is taking exception when his own degrading conduct is exposed.His missus must think he is a class act, so do his kids.

 

[myanonymoususername]

Without wanting to come off as a tinfoil hat wearer, the fact no charges were pressed does not indicate innocence.

What it means was that the Police involved and/or DPP did not believe there was sufficient evidence to merit a trial.

Was she raped? Perhaps, perhaps not. Was there monetary or other political force bought to bear to sweep the issue away? Perhaps, perhaps not. There certainly has been in other cases.



On the other hand, if the woman (or man, or whatever) involved says "no" or "stop" or anything of that nature doing proceedings and the other party does not, it is then no longer consensual.

Unfortunately the vast majority of rape cases come down to he said/she said. Difficult enough to prove at the best of times, even if the party who was assualted is willing to face the social stigma attatched to laying charges and then the court case, where they will almost certainly be painted as fast and loose. Among other things.

When you're looking at group sex situations, it's even worse. If the woman (or man, or whatever) says no- or wants to say no- they are in a situation where they can very easily be overpowered physically and where there is a very high probability that the group will swear up and down that everything was consensual.

Exactly! And what is it with these players that seems to have them thinking, if the woman has consented to sex with player x, then she's consented to the rest of his team, also?

I'm always sceptical about the team's claims that everything was consensual. Of course they're going to stick together and say that. Chances are that the boundaries of consent vs non-consent are crossed somewhere in all these cases. When the facts are grey, clouded by alcohol and drugs, and its her word vs x number of players, banding together, its no wonder the police decide that charges will never stick.

And what is it with the attitudes in this forum? Some of you are doing nothing to dispel the impression that rugby league is a bogan sport played by bogans and supported by bogans - kind of self-limiting the market for it. (and the way Channel 9 promotes it, broadcasts it and carries on with crap like the Footy Show certainly makes it clear they are catering to the yobbo/bogan market).

 

[myanonymoususername]

And let's hope they leave it there. But I'm not holding my breath. I wanna know what's this bird's motivation to dig up something that was 7 years ago.

Maybe she feels hard done by? That the matter was poorly handled by the police, that she was wronged and justice wasn't served. Perfectly reasonable feelings.