Hahaha.
Anyone who thinks a person could sleep with their boss's partner and remain employed in the long term lives in Disneyland. People lose jobs (or are forced out of employment one way or another) for far less every day.
Anyway, this is mostly off topic anyway. The point I made was that when you're a television personality, or even a professional sportsman, your employment requires that you are palatable to consumers - namely the viewing audience. If you do something that is perfectly legal but unpalatable to the consumer, it will impact on your employment ... and it might ultimately make your continued employment untenable.
And in this case, it wasn't someone overhearing Johns or Firman bragging about the event that brought this to a head - it was a complaint by the woman involved. People can speculate at her motivations, whether or not her "pain" is genuine, and whether or not she "deserves whatever she gets" ... but the complaint is what made this private encounter into a public spectacle.
As for Rudd's strip joint excursion - it just proves that the voting public (a politician's consumer, if you will) was not particularly disturbed by it. There are other perfectly legal and normally private actions he could take, however, that if made public would result in a voter revolt and possibly even being immediately sacked by Cabinet.
The only argument I'd really be open to here is that (like Rudd's strip club visit) rugby league fans and sponsors at large aren't really as upset about the Johns event as the media have made out.
The issue for Johns is that it's another (Although in this case legal and consenting) issue amongst many others. Johns has been made a scapegoat for the acts of others, although over a long career both on the field and off the field and at representative levels I haven't heard of any issues with him.
I think the best method to deal with it would have been the way it's dealt with in the policing ranks. Pending the final investigation (of which has already been closed off... or in leiu in this case for it to blow over which it will as they all do, Dane Tilse is now for example forging a good career for himself after his act) would be for him to be suspended from on air activities with pay.
The overriding issue I have on this whole saga is this; Matthew Johns will lose out financially for being made scapegoat for a perfectly sane incident. There will be others, and many others, who will get involved with group sex activities, and nothing will come of it.
Where do we stand if the allegations made by her work-mate are true, that she was boasting about it?
Where do we stand if Ninness' view on the incident is true, that she afterwards invited players back to her home? I think this is absolutely critical and would further indemnify Johns on the basis of her lack of character alone. Although, to be fair, it's consensual sex and everyone has a right to get their rocks off. Even bar maids, even rugby league players.
At the end of the day, we are talking about an issue that was 7 years ago first and foremost, and secondly and probably just as importantly a legal act. That's ultimately the crux of the issue. Johns' is being victimised for handling himself with professionalism, mutually terminating his services with the Storm and Channel Nine to help out his family and also save both those entities unsavoury yet unfair embarrassment, and for being contrite about what was a legal incident. The only person Johns' has to feel sorry for is his wife, and he has already been through that. If John's was manipulative or totally career hungry, and was pushed by both those organisations I am quite certain he would have access to successfully pursue legal avenues for loss of income. That's the part you have to get Ike, you are taking a totally moralistic view of an issue that you need to put into severe context... he's a scapegoat off the back of Tilse, off the back of his brothers drugs, off the back of Latu, off the back of Crockett being charged, off the back of countless incidents whether be assaults, drunken behaviour, whatever you want to call it, and the sad thing is over a damn long time he's been a shining light for this code. And now it's people like you who have sold him up the river. Personally, I'm a Kiwis supporter, I'm not a Knights or a Sharks fan, but John's character has been largely impeccable and his involvement an asset to the game.
One other question - does this woman now stand to pocket from her 7 years on interview for the ABC?
