Tracy Grimshaw interview...fair?

[myanonymoususername]

Also, it definitely questions the integrity of those involved but if Matthew Johns is in fact an innocent man - Are none of the others involved going to come out and back him up?
The guy's life is ruined, surely someone must come forward?

I suspect the problem with Johns naming people or anyone coming forward is that there probably were criminal acts that happened sometime that night. He may be guilty of only bad judgement and immoral behaviour but I doubt that can be said for all that were there.

By naming people, Johns may be incriminating them. Same with outing themselves. This then invites further investigation by media and the police, and these investigations may be more rigorous than in 2002 and may reveal discrepancies in the different players' stories, and creating splits in the player ranks may in turn lead back to some criminal behaviour by Johns - eg he lured her back to his room to a pre-arranged gangbang.

By isolating the blame to himself, it keeps the lid on these other possibilities.

 

[Blind Freddy]

I suspect the problem with Johns naming people or anyone coming forward is that there probably were criminal acts that happened sometime that night. He may be guilty of only bad judgement and immoral behaviour but I doubt that can be said for all that were there.

By naming people, Johns may be incriminating them. Same with outing themselves. This then invites further investigation by media and the police, and these investigations may be more rigorous than in 2002 and may reveal discrepancies in the different players' stories, and creating splits in the player ranks may in turn lead back to some criminal behaviour by Johns - eg he lured her back to his room to a pre-arranged gangbang.

By isolating the blame to himself, it keeps the lid on these other possibilities.

How about no one else has been named because it's irrelevant. The police investigated it. No charges were laid, therefore nobody should be named or incriminated for a private moment.

Perhaps gossip columns in Woman's weekly or by Bourban Bec in the Daily Telcrap might tell you if you're into gossip and inuendo

 

[rabbitohs]

No not Catholic, not sure what that has to do with it.

So morally you'd be ok with a large group of footy players banging your daughter/sister/cousin or anyone else for that matter.
That sort of sh*t maybe ok in your neck of the woods, but not mine buddy. So put your teeth back in and tune your banjo.

Of course if that is what she wanted and it was legal.

 

[ride the tiger]

if matt's version of things is correct, then i think the players involved showed a great deal of respect to the women.

i mean, if she had to actually ask players to f*&k her then obviously they were being polite & waiting patiently for her to invite them 'in'.

 

[Shorty]

Your question infers that he's guilty!

.

Never said that or meant to infer that.
But I fail to understand why he felt the need to apologise if the woman was consenting to everything involved.
For the record I don't think Matt Johns is guilty of anything but bad judgment.

But there is definitely more that needs to be researched in regards to the footballers watching...

 

[redvscotty]

I thought the little sniffles from Johns throughout the interview were pretty pathetic tbh.

Tracy Grimshaw needs a good root. Maybe tryout some group sex? It'd surely loosen up that plug shes got stuck fair in her arse!

 

[rabbitohs]

Finally some balanced journalism

http://www.sbs.com.au/blogarticle/1...s-wrecking-of-Matthew-Johns/blog/The-Finktank

 

[Helen]

no we continue to accept what the courts found was true. Then there are people in here playing the little hypothetical game, you realise how dumb it makes you look.

A 30 year old making a judgment on a 19 yr old is LEGAL, it is allowed in our laws so why should a guy get lambasted for it? And this happened in 2002 how does that = continue to exist :crazy:

Slavery was legal as well. Didn't make it right.

Helen

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

You are turning this into an AFL v NRL debate. It has nothing to do with it wanker.

It's exactly what is it chode boy.

It has EVERYTHING to do with tv image.

bullsh*t.

If it were, Sam Newman wouldn't have been seen in front of a camera for a decade.

This is AFL v NRL. This is about AFL wanting to take over the Winter sporting landcape in Sydney and Brisbane.

A 7 year old incident where no charges were laid and it just happens to pop out now, when AFL have committed to Western Sydney and the Gold Coast ?

It probably is a coincidence, but the article in today's papers tell us how wonderful AFL are with women isn't.

Before this incident came out, Matthew Johns had an excellent image with a large number of league followers.

Thanks for the information, I had no idea. He probably didn't either. I'll email him and tell him he was popular.

Moron.

There can be no disputing the fact that Matthew Johns done the wrong thing MORALLY.

See, that's the problem. The only people he has to answer to are his family members. Not you. His wife is 100% right, it's between him and her.

If it was Mick Jagger involved, nobody would blink an eyelid. Johns had a positive image that will be forever tarnished by this incident.

How you perceived Matthew Johns is your problem. I don't recall Matthew ever telling me he was an angel?

What you're saying is you expected him to be Mother Theresa. Well, f**k me dead, Matty Johns isn't perfect, call the press....

He's not perfect, he's just a normal person with foibles just like the rest of us.

I don't blame nine at all. They had no choice but to cut him.

No, they chose to cut him and use it to boost ratings on a few shows. Nine are immoral bastards who should be shot for hanging this bloke out to dry.

The only people who have the right to judge Matty are his family members.

 

[rabbitohs]

Slavery was legal as well. Didn't make it right.

Helen

OH FFS YOU WILL BRING HITLER INTO IT NEXT!!

Comparing someone WANTING a gang bang to slavery is beyond PATHETIC!

 

[Firey_Dragon]

Pretty lame mate. So she's (Grimshaw) an AFL and St. Kilda supporter, therefore she's stiching Johns up??

I was a big fan of Johns, not anymore. Just because some sheila wants to take on a whole footy team doesn't make it right for the blokes to take part in it.

It was a good interview by Grimshaw. Good point about the other players involved needing to held accountable too. If they consider themselves as men they need to stand up now, before they are uncovered.
Johns wasn't alone and shouldn't be taking the whole rap.

Now you're judging purely based on their personal sex life? It's none of our business, that is if it was consensual. Your best mate might have a dungeon for their sex acts, does that make them different to the person you know as a friend? No, it's none of your business.

It seems to me based on all the interviews, that this girl willingly went back to their room and did not say no during the act, whether that constitutes consent is a judgement call. It is 7 years later, when Johns' profile is at an all-time high, it seems a bit odd to come out now after all these years unless a big paycheck was involved.

I'm stoked that Johns has been removed from Channel 9, as we never have to see any of his lame attempts at humour again, but I do sort of feel sorry for him, something that happened before his tv career really kicked off has come back to bite him big time, rightly or wrongly, I think it's very hard to determine based on the reporting we've seen.

 

[t1tan]

So its Tracy Grimshaw's fault that this happened?
From what ive read,the blame begins with Johns and his inability to stay faithful to his wife..dont shoot the messenger.

 

[sharko]

Johns was an ordinary footballer at best, his biggest asset was his surname "Johns" but he never had even a sliver of his brothers talent.
He was barely funny and the Footy Show and his routines soon became lame and very unfunny.
It does not appear that this is the first time he has been caught "rooting" out of school, his wife has had numerous issues with him over the duration of their marriage.
He will not be missed in any capacity.

 

[sneagle]

Thanks for tht Rabbitohs - a good read.

I do find it interesting the lack of "the consent" question in the 4 Corners interview (i.e whether it was conveyed that she wanted it to stop) as well as Mathew Johns being the only one that was remembered - "Clare's" words. What about remembering Firman at least as he was one of the initial ones also...

Who knows what John's apology was for - maybe language or comments used by the other players - no idea only speculation..

But whilst I don't respect nor like Johns and the idea of group sex/gang banging is to me personally abhorent - it is not illegal and given that there is no dispute that John's participation was consentual you'd have to say he has been made the scapegoat.

Surely the ABC has journalists that could uncover the other participants names..

Maybe "Clare's" hope for vengeance has been satisfied by the complete public humiliation John's and the destruction of his career.

 

[Bengal]

Never said that or meant to infer that.

One don't need to directly say it. Certain behaviors (asking particular questions and or making sarcastic jokes for instance) often give away people's true intentions.

But I fail to understand why he felt the need to apologise if the woman was consenting to everything involved.

Have you ever apologized or at the very least, cringed, at a friends behavior or actions despite the fact that there was nothing illegal or even morally wrong with it? Ever seen a circumstance where some pillick is acting in a manner not in keeping what the situation at hand? Situations like these happen all the time. People apologize for the actions of those assocaited with them all the time, regardless of the type of situation in question.

But there is definitely more that needs to be researched in regards to the footballers watching...

What can be researched is why players feel the need to get involved in situations like these? What are the factors involved here and can they be stopped? What can be researched is understanding the type of women that almost always tend to be involved in situations like these.

In other words, education is what is needed here, not a witch hunt (unless illegality has occurred).

.

 

[typicalfan]

Johns was an ordinary footballer at best, his biggest asset was his surname "Johns" but he never had even a sliver of his brothers talent.
He was barely funny and the Footy Show and his routines soon became lame and very unfunny.
It does not appear that this is the first time he has been caught "rooting" out of school, his wife has had numerous issues with him over the duration of their marriage.
He will not be missed in any capacity.

There aren't many players who do. Johns was a good first grade 5/8, he wasn't representative class but that doesn't make him ordinary!

He was ok you have to be pretty good to last that long in first grade.

 

[bluey]

Its simple If you dont like group sex DONt do IT,
If you Dont Like Smoking Dont do it
If you dont like drinking dont do it.
If you dont like fast cars dont buy one.
But dont rubish the people that may like any of the above it is a freedom we ALL enjoy.
Personally i like the old one on one sex scenes but hey if a few guys and gals want to get it on ( And all is legal) WHY is it any of our bloody bussiness.

 

[typicalfan]

Slavery was legal as well. Didn't make it right.

Helen

But it isn't now is it. One persons set of morals may not be anothers but whilst ever it is legal and consensual then I guess there isn't alot we can do.

Some people in the world find it morally wrong not to go to church every Sunday.

 

[Helen]

OH FFS YOU WILL BRING HITLER INTO IT NEXT!!

Comparing someone WANTING a gang bang to slavery is beyond PATHETIC!

Your f*cking dense.

I never made any such comparison.

I pointed out that something does not have to be a criminal act to be wrong. 'analogy'

PATHETIC are those who lambaste either Johns or the Girl.
I have done neither.

We have a case of two people giving two different versions. I doubt we will ever know who is 'really' telling the truth.

Helen

 

[rabbitohs]

Your f*cking dense.

I never made any such comparison.

I pointed out that something does not have to be a criminal act to be wrong. 'analogy'

PATHETIC are those who lambaste either Johns or the Girl.
I have done neither.

We have a case of two people giving two different versions. I doubt we will ever know who is 'really' telling the truth.

Helen

You did EXACTLY that. Why else bring slavery up except to compare its morality to the Johns incident?

The police have stated they took 80 statements and found no worng....is that enough to satisfy you or are you going to believe the media?