Sorry I haven’t been about much. It’s been nuts, literally.
But I thought I’d write about the furore which has arisen in Melbourne after a 17-year-old girl posted photos of nude AFL players from St Kilda football club in retaliation for alleged ill treatment at the hands of various players. The Age reported yesterday:
St Kilda Football Club was under extraordinary attack in cyberspace last night, with naked photographs of several of its star players going viral on the internet, despite a court order intended to stop their publication.
The club was rocked yesterday when a teenage girl posted the explicit photographs of captain Nick Riewoldt and Nick Dal Santo on her Facebook account.
The 17-year-old was the subject of an AFL investigation this year when she said she fell pregnant to a separate St Kilda player when she was a schoolgirl.
Last night, a Federal Court judge ordered that the teenager and Facebook remove the images. Facebook closed the teenager’s account shortly after 8pm, but she responded at about 9pm by posting a link on Twitter to the pictures.
That link was removed at about 9.20pm, but by then the images had gone viral and were widely available elsewhere on the web.
At 9.50pm, she pointed on Twitter to a friend’s Facebook account, which featured the Riewoldt photograph and was last night rapidly gaining ”friends”. But it, too, was shut down shortly after 10.30pm.
One of the photographs shows Riewoldt posing naked next to teammate Zac Dawson, who is wearing jeans and is holding out what appears to be a condom packet. The other shows Dal Santo in a more explicit pose.
”Merry Christmas courtesy of the St Kilda schoolgirl” is written across the photographs.
The problem for the players is this: once the image is out there, it’s really hard to stem the flow. An action restraining the girl didn’t work, because the photos were already in the hands of other people who were not restrained. Also, the girl showed a distinct lack of respect for the injunction, as she went on to defy it by publishing more photos. The law finds it difficult to deal with mass media, and if you’re dealing with a private individual with mass publishing capabilities rather than a newspaper, the difficulties are magnified. Unlike a newspaper, this girl apparently doesn’t care about her reputation or about being seen to breach the law. Today, it was reported:
[The girl] said she had not broken the law because she still had not been presented with any court order.
”I don’t really see myself as an outlaw, more like someone who actually stands up to the football players. In a way, I guess it’s kind of bad what I’ve done, but I’m happy with it as well because I know there’s a lot of girls out there who thank me for having the guts to actually do it.”
The girl has made it clear she is acting out of revenge. She claims to have become pregnant with a child – or, in some reports, twins – to a St Kilda player, but to have lost the pregnancy to stillbirth in October. She laid a complaint and there was an investigation by the AFL and by police that found no grounds to proceed with charges.
She has said she was partially motivated by abusive Facebook messages and voicemails from footballers that she had received over the past few months.
When her Facebook site was closed, the girl went to Twitter and posted a link to the pictures.
…
She earlier told The Age she was writing her autobiography – bridling at a suggestion that this might be a little early, at 17 – and is looking for an agent.
She said she was not concerned about what repercussions her actions would have on her later life. She said, ”I don’t really want to know what’s going to happen in the future. I take every day as it comes.”
It’s not clear who actually took the photographs. Another St Kilda footballer, Sam Gilbert, has said that he took them, however, the girl alleges she took the photos and uploaded them to Gilbert’s computer.
I wouldn’t be surprised if cases like this led to the enactment of privacy laws. The girl in question could be in all kinds of legal hot water so I can’t help thinking that she’ll regret her action in the future. The Lara Bingle episode shows that the woman gets demonised even when it’s her privacy which has been violated, and there would be even less sympathy for the girl in this case because she’s the one breaching privacy.
I’ve summarised much of the relevant law in two previous posts here and here. However, I’ll make a quick dot point summary below of the main legal issues raised, and what I think the likely outcomes would be.
Criminal liability
- Section 41C of the Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic) provides that “A person who visually captures or has visually captured an image of another person’s genital or anal region (whether or not in contravention of section 41B) must not intentionally distribute that image”. This is likely to have been breached. There is a penalty of 2 years imprisonment.
- Section 7(1) of the Surveillance Devices Act 1999 (Vic) provides that a person must not “knowingly install, use or maintain an optical surveillance device to record visually or observe a private activity to which the person is not a party, without the express or implied consent of each party to the activity.” Query whether there was consent in this case? It seems that the players must have consented to the photographs from the nature of the photographs.
- Contempt of court for disobeying court injunctions.
Civil liability
- None of our statutory privacy laws would cover this situation. The Commonwealth Privacy Act 1998 (Cth) deals with obligations of privacy over information on the part of government organisations and large corporations, not individuals. The Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities recognises a right to privacy in Article 13, stating that a person has a right not to have their personal privacy, family, home or correspondence unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with. The Charter also prohibits unlawful attacks on a person’s reputation. But it only covers the acts of public authorities, not private persons. In August 2010, the Victorian Law Reform Commission released the Surveillance in Public Places: Final Report which suggested that there should be two new statutory torts, one which deals with misuse of private information, and one which deals with intrusion upon seclusion (See Recommendation 22).
- There is arguably a nascent common law tort of invasion of privacy based on breach of confidence after obiter comments by the High Court in ABC v Lenah Game Meats and by the Victorian Court of Appeal in Giller v Procopets (see also post here). If there was such a tort, it may have been breached in the circumstances.
- This would be likely to constitute a breach of confidence, especially if cases like Giller v Procopets are anything to go by (where Ms Giller’s former partner disseminated images of himself and Ms Giller having sexual intercourse). Ms Giller was able to claim damages for mental distress falling short of mental injury, and the players might also be able to do so.
- The players in the photos may be able to sue for defamation (damage to reputation) particularly considering the parallels with the Ettingshausen case mentioned here in my post on Lara Bingle.
- Finally, as this article in The Age pointed out, if Gilbert took the photos, he could sue the girl for breach of copyright.
Apparently this incident is being dubbed “Dickileaks”, in ironic reference to the recent Wikileaks release of American documents. One can’t really blame the girl for thinking that releasing private information about people is a legitimate course to take to try and redress a perceived inequality of power, particularly when many have been feting Wikileaks. However, as I said in a post on Wikileaks, there is an important distinction between breaching the confidence of governments and breaching the confidence of private individuals. It is presumed that governments are supposed to share as much information as possible with the public because they are governing in the name of the people. There is a defence of “public interest” for those who breach the confidence of governments. By contrast, there can be no public interest defence in a case like this. Clearly there is a lot of public interest per se (the girl’s Twitter account has suddenly burgeoned to have 2000+ followers) but that’s not the same as establishing that there’s a legitimate public interest in seeing pictures of the genitalia of private citizens. Obviously, in the heyday of the “Red Tops” in the UK there was a different attitude, probably as a result of Lord Denning in Woodward v Hutchins (1976), a case dealing with unsavoury allegations in the Daily Mirror newspaper about the private life of Tom Jones and other pop stars. Denning LJ said:
If a group of this kind seek publicity which is to their advantage, it seems to me that they cannot complain if a servant or employee of theirs afterwards discloses the truth about them. If the image which they fostered was not a true image, it is in the public interest that it should be corrected … In this case the balance comes down in favour of the truth being told, even if it should involve some breach of confidential information. As there should be ‘truth in advertising’, so there should be truth in publicity. The public should not be misled.
Nonetheless, I don’t think this would succeed these days in the UK, particularly given the privacy provisions in Human Rights Act, and the way in which breach of confidence has been utilised to protect privacy interests in cases involving Naomi Campbell (Campbell v Mirror Groups Newspapers Ltd (2004)), Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones (Douglas v Hello! (No. 3) (2006), although cf A v B plc (2002), a case involving allegations about the affairs and sexual exploits of a Premiership League footballer where it was said that there was a public interest).
What do people think? Is there a legitimate interest in taking revenge against footballers like this? Or is it an egregious breach of the rights of the footballers, being both criminally and civilly illegal? I tend towards the latter; no matter that the girl has allegedly been wronged, this is not the right way in which to take revenge.
143 Comments
‘The Lara Bingle episode shows that the woman gets demonised even when it’s her privacy which has been violated.’
Which is the main point AFAICS. Well spotted.
It’s the good ol’ double standard. When it comes to these kinds of sexual interactions, women are sluts, men are studs. Somehow it’s always the woman’s fault, whatever side she’s on. This poor girl hasn’t realised this yet because she’s only 17. Maybe she thinks she’ll be treated just like a man who did this. She’ll learn, sadly.
She does strike me as extremely naive in her disregard for both her present and future selves, and in her lack of understanding of the law and of social mores. Of course, that’s not going to give her any protection.
As she’s supposedly a 17 year old schoolgirl, where are her parents in this? Do they even know about it?
It does raise so many interesting questions about the ubiquity of cameras and access to publication, and how uneducated people in general are about the legal implications of publication. There seems to be a belief that you can do what you like, and no-one can touch you if it’s on the internet.
Wondering whether female-equivalent-of-stud might apply when female sports stars are involved with “civilians” (male or female) in similar incidents, like the Oz women’s netball, hockey or cricket teams.
Would this indicate female sport is getting the recognition it deserves? A sad case indicating a welcome improvement?
M-H – various articles said the girl was on holidays with her parents, but her parents weren’t speaking to her (horrified at all this? asked her to stop or not to do it?) Dunno that I’d let my 17 year old go on holiday with a bunch of footballers in the first place. Who knows what the back story is.
Dave, I still think the double standard would apply with a female sports star, but I just don’t know.
I bet nothing happens to her.
From a civil law perspective I could almost guarantee it. First, what’s in it for anyone? Secondly, double standards are indeed rife – it is equally apposite to note the gender of the plaintiff in Giller v Procopets.
From a criminal law standpoint I also doubt that anyone would be highly motivated to prosecute her. If they did then those double standards return – she would get more like two days than two years, which if it got to criminal charges would probably be time in custody pending trial anyway.
Perhaps the only party which would care enough would be the Court itself. In which case she might reasonably argue that the Court’s order was misfounded for futility! (no not suggesting that would work, but I’d be tempted to try if I was a lawyer and was representing her).
Social mores of the under 30′s have certainly been disintegrating over the last 15 years. I see it as a result of the internet, where there is little demand for social responsibility – probably the opposite. If you want to see genitalia you can go to thousands of social network sites and business sites that feature the big, the small, and the freaks.
Groupies have been around for 50 years, so its not unusual to see a young girl become involved with a bunch of famous, fun-loving, cashed-up muscle-men. It was stupid of the team members to take photos in the first place. I really can’t see how you can establish ownership of electronic media anyway. Is it owned by the person who shoots the picture, or the phone that it was taken on, or the memory card, or the computer hard-drive? Is a jpeg file indeed a picture, or storeplace of computer codes? Is the image on a camera screen actually a picture or an electronic display?
If you canvas the public, how many would take this episode seriously? We’ve come to expect that footballers are capable of high jinks, and girls in their tent being treated with disrespect. Its all a bit of fizz in the passing parade.
How could you argue defamation of character, when its generally believed that footballers have a culture of womanizing, partying, and low morals. After all, you don’t need good morals to accept 2 or 3 million dollars to play sport once a week!! I have to work 40 years to earn that, and its not playing sport. I dear say Nick will get $100,000 to appear as a centre spead soon.
I wonder if this public sentiment is one of the drivers of the apparent inequities in media coverage of the different genders. Women are culturally perceived (at least historically) as weak innocents; unethical actions by them are considered to be misguided by default, and unethical actions towards them are taken to be horrible and barbaric. Men on the other hand are culturally perceived to be tough and perverted; unethical actions by them are considered to be perverted and malicious by default, and unethical actions towards them are taken to be trivial and deserved. Thus if one attempts to argue against this culturally ingrained patriarchal or paternalistic view of women to drive it towards a more rational point of equality, one will inevitably be more frequently making points about the wrong doings of women and harm done to men, than vice versa.
I wouldn’t use the word “egregious” but I do think that distribution of such images should be illegal. I think it’ll be hard to determine an appropriate punishment for a 17 year old student though; it’s not like she’ll be able to afford to pay any damages.
Does she actually have to have received a formal order for her to be in contempt of court, or would the awareness through the media be enough?
17 years old, eh?
If she is half as daft as I was at seventeen, she’ll be paying for the rest of her life.
Why did she not take her letters etc to the cops, or check out legal options for dealing with these characters?
Most of all, why is this on the front page of the newspapers?
I know, footy bogans and groupies sells newspapers and keeps more disturbing news off the front pages.
Not the sort of stuff you’d find in the “Guard” , eg Dick Cheney and the Nigerian oil swindles running into tens of $billions, or Cameron and other neolib cutting social infrastructure spending that could provide education/self awareness programs for young people, for example.
Corporations have no right to privacy. Individuals do have a right to breach of confidence and of course there is no public interest defence in relation to an individual. However without rendering any moral judgement as to whether her actions were justifiable, I see the AFL as tantamount to a Government. I realise that legally they are a chartered organisation however they are very powerful. Football clubs are given special legal standing and there is no question of the public nature of their functions and the importance of their activities in public life. The way the Americans see it is very different than the English and Australians, however I loathe to judge a girl of the age of 17 too harshly under the circumstances. It is an age old thing that if you mistreat a woman then a woman may give you a slap in the face. However we are talking about a child who has allegedly been the subject of statutory rape by authority figures and viewed as heroes. There are consequences where the Police fail to enforce justice with regard to the behaviour of football players. There is certainly a perception that this has been the case.
PW@9 People have connections footballers, etc. It is a local and understandable drama. Nigeria is “a far away country of whom we know little” to paraphrase Neville Chamberlain. There are human reasons, not Chomskian conspiratorial ones, for what tabloid press concentrate on. The Age and ABC would be delighted to tell all of the evils of Cheney, Campbell et al. But they appeal to their audience by methods which guarantee they will not have a wider one.
On the criminal law:
s. 41C of the Summary Offences Act only applies if the person who took the photo is the one who intentionally distributed it. I read somewhere that a fellow footballer took the photo and then the schoolgirl got it from his harddrive and distributed it. If that’s right, then s. 41C is inapplicable.
In the Surveillance Devices Act, the relevant offence actually seems to be s11, which bars knowingly communicating a record of a private activity that was made as a result of the use of an optical surveillance device. A camera is an OSD, but the sticking point is the definition of private activity, which excludes ‘an activity carried on in any circumstances in which the parties to it ought reasonably to expect that it may be observed by someone else’. I’m murky on when and where the photos were taken, but, if the activity was a solo one that occurred in a shared space (like a locker room or a multi-person dorm or motel room), then it doesn’t seem to be covered.
But I might have the facts wrong. Also, distribution outside Vic may infringe a non-Victorian offence…
LE: rhadamanthine, or omphaloskepsis?
I know, Lorenzo.
It’s just that it is one football bogan story too many, in a year when the papers and taboid media have been awash with this sort of bunkum.
Fascinating bloke, Chomsky. He must be older than god, yet he is as sharp as a tack, judging by the interview somewhere I saw him in, recently.
Congrats Dr LE!!!
For once am agreement with Patrick (I think). Two years sounds a bit way too draconian for a youthful indiscretion. Sounds to me like what this kid has actually missed out on is good advice/guidance, from someone (older?), that she could respect.
She’s already apparently pregnant from her adventures.
She needs time to learn to think through things and to wait a moment before yielding to impetuosity.
Jumping on her legally won’t help things at all, beyond a certain point, just build up more resentment. Good counselling and a steadying hand, that it looks like she might have needed in the first place, could be a better bet.
Thanks, Jeremy, I defer to your better knowledge in all things criminal law. I’m just moonlighting really. I was proceeding on the initial basis that she took the photos, but it’s looking less and less likely that she did so. My initial gut feeling re Surveillance Devices was that s 11 was the relevant one, but then I removed it from the draft post – doh!
I don’t know that I’d want the full force of the law on this girl. I don’t think it would help at all. I’m more speculating on the kinds of legal trouble she might be getting into. Obviously, as I said in one of my initial sexting posts, one of the difficulties with dealing with the phenomenon is that a teenager isn’t going to have deep pockets, and you’re not going to look very nice if you sue her.
Riewoldt’s manager made the comment that she doesn’t seem to have any sensible advice, and that she needs some counselling. Sounds like a good idea to me.
The problem is that all these online media forums lend themselves to impetuous behaviour. Once you’ve released the material, it’s too late already.
Thanks Pete M. Absolutely STOKED.
P.S. Rhadamanthine is a lovely word, KVD.
LE I thought you might like it, although with your preference for equity in all things, I doubt it suits you. (it will be such a waste if all our communication becomes Twitterfied in years to come)
Many congratulations on your doctorate.
I’ll just make my customary point about the absurdity of using sports stars and celebrities as role models. The sooner we see them as merely there to amuse us, and accept that most of them are lummoxes from which we can learn nothing, the better.
The idea that everyone has something useful to contribute has caused untold damage. It has caused us to take sportsmen and actors seriously, which is never a good idea.
What is coming across is that she is very angry. What we do not know if this anger is justified. The apparent behaviour of the foot ball players leave much to be desired. If the report is true that the football club has up to 20 meetings with her and the police have been involved. We should remember that if the police do not proceed, it does not necessary mean that she is lying but there is not enough supportable evidence to proceed.
According to one media report, her mother does know.
Catching up, yes, she’s very cross. I imagine that some of these blokes just made her feel like she was a resource to be used, then dumped.
In my late teens, I remember being horrified by the opinions of some male acquaintances on “easy” girls. When I expressed that horror, the guys said, “Oh, but you’re not like that, you’re a nice girl.” The idea seemed to be that if the girl wasn’t a “nice girl”, then you could use her for sex and dump her, but if she was a “nice girl” you didn’t do that. Of course, not all guys think like that, but at that age, I think a certain proportion do.
Perhaps this poor girl thought that she was special and felt great because she was attractive to footballers, but then it transpired that the footballers actually had contempt for her, and once she became too needy they dumped her? This is pure speculation on my part, but it would explain the anger.
Update: The girl has been told to front a Melbourne court hearing today, but she says she’s not coming.
ROFL.
Agree with the interpretation of s41C Jeremy and the question of what is a private space re: the Surveillance Devices Act. Many law reform commissions and Courts have been grappling with the issue of public/private spaces. We don’t know all the facts with regard to these questions
“
Agree. The reality is that they are role models. Positive role models maybe not. We can’t tell kids to not treat the players as role models and expect that to stick all the time. I certainly didn’t worship sporting heroes or actors, but was aware that we live with the consequences that others in my age group did.
The purpose of the girls’ actions apart from whatever motivations she had was to put a spotlight on the behaviour of AFL players.
The facts havn’t been fully aired.
Everybody seems to have overlooked the fact that Nick’s condom message didn’t prevent a minor from getting pregnant, allegedly to a St Kilda player. The girl herself was a junior champion athlete apparently. This isn’t about what should be. It is about reality.
Nick Riewoldt is supposed to be a ‘captain’, a leader and if I was his PR consultant I would perhaps add that he regretted the photo being taken, rather than only regretting it not being deleted.
Socially the more important story is that this is a pattern. It is a pattern of star athletes on school teams and fantasy worlds.
It really isn’t an honour, as demonstrated in the transcripts, that Gilbert wanted her to invite a friend. Sight unseen, she is welcome, in other words, any female will do. (something of a breach of warranty) I suspect that if she was 16 her friend may have also been a minor and possibly younger.
It amazes me that people havn’t remarked on the fact that this girl has also recently lost a child, a child she carried to term. We know nothing really of how much support she got from her 20 talks with the AFL. We don’t know exactly what physiological effect the stresses had on her physical and mental well being, and the health of her unborn child.
It almost certainly would have put the child at risk.
It isn’t morally defensible to treat a pregnant woman poorly, let alone a child, if they look like doing anything that would jeopardise their team.
Indeed. It’s human nature (particularly in children) to emulate behaviour that we see. Our culture is such that we spend much of our time looking at those who entertains us. It’s somewhat inevitable that the entertainers’ behaviour will be reflected in wider society.
As long as entertainment is derived from the more base human instincts (violence, tribalism, etc), the entertainers will be those with the most extreme of these instincts and I think we’ll have this problem of bad role models.
pace legal’s coment intrigues me.
I understood that the girl was pregnant, pace adds that she “lost” the child.
My first thought was, “has the child died?”.
Or has the baby been fostered out or taken into care?
Either way, the loss must have exacerbated her problems, exponentially.
Desipis makes the point that young people of this sub culture are subject to raunch culture- they “beleive “it. But raunch culture is only simulacra, its actuality is derived of both high-powered marketing and the truth that the “marketing” is often based on reinforcement of unconsidered atavistic notions.
The young “blokes” are ultra blokey and unlike their bodies, their consciousness has no more been developed than that of the girl. They are commodities, all of them and the footy players are as circumscribed as the girl.
They are meat in the sandwich, grist for the mill.
The current business culture of externalizing social costs is going to continue to create these types of problems.
Aren’t we all?
Paul Walter@28, she says it was still born. I agree that a still birth is a massive thump.
L.E. or others, is giving notice of injunctions or court hearings by email etc. valid? Is it sufficient to show that she knew? I’d have thought it would be hard to show she knew the details of the injunction.
I remember Alan Bond running around (and overseas) to avoid being served his bankrupcy notice until 366 days after he transferred the assets to his wife, so the transfer was not reversible (and getting away with it).
DavidP, yes it does depend whether she was served with the injunction. I understand they’ve served her electronically since the leak of the photos but I’m unaware of whether they served it on her before then.
Evasion of service is a well-established way of escaping legal proceedings. Usually you have to give it to the person. However, if you’re an astute lawyer you get around it by seeking substituted service (i.e. you get a court order that sending it to the last known address is enough, or that an e-mail will suffice, or something like that).
Once I tried to serve someone by text message, at a time when text messaging was in its infancy. It was bloody painstaking, but I persisted. I gave up and sought an order allowing me to send it to their last known address instead.
A still birth is bloody awful. It probably explains some of the girl’s anger too, particularly if the father didn’t support her during the pregnancy, and then the baby died. She may have felt that if she’d had proper support from the father then the child wouldn’t have died. I’ve since read allegations that the footballer who took the photos was the father of the child, which explains how she would have had access to his computer.
Actually, that she has knocked back her court appearance in itself, lends to me a secret sense enjoyment, I like it when people fight back!
Not a very good baptism of fire as to her maiden flight into the world of “adult”, but she is learning fast, in the school of hard knocks.
Now, as to pacelegal again, do carnal knowledge provisions apply?
Which has me wondering.
everyone else has been bagged for their role in this.
But at fifteen or sixteen, where are the families and parents of these kids?
Asleep at the wheel, allowing their kids to get mixed up with the full-on end of raunch culture?
By analogy, if you don’t want your pet kitten bitten, do you leave it locked in a guard-dog run?
I think I said above that I wonder myself about parents who let their daughter run around with a bunch of footballers. I don’t know that I’d let my daughter do that.
Still, it sounds like she wouldn’t take advice from her parents anyway. Having not had a teenager, I’m reluctant to stand in judgment because they may well have tried to counsel her, but she may just rebel against everything they say.
LE@33
ROTFLMAO
I can tell you that my 3yo grandson, unless chucking a tanty, listens to my advice more than my daughter as twentager and teenager, even when she’s not chucking a tanty. *sigh* (For irregular visitors, both live with me)
The parents in Zits comic strip have an easier time than most.
Brains from teen to 25 have really bad risk assessment skills compared to a 30 yo. So a teen girl, and a mob of guys mostly under 25 is a recipe for ill-considered actions of all sorts, especially with sports stars these days rarely having a “day job” (as teacher, sparkie or whatever) like they used to, the day job requiring 40 hours a week with moderately responsible behaviour.
I’m starting to wonder about any similarities between kildaleaks and wikileaks…
…and the irony of the Saints rather than Demons. What next? Cats chasing cars and going “woof”?
pace legal’s coment intrigues me.
I understood that the girl was pregnant, pace adds that she “lost” the child.
My first thought was, “has the child died?”.
Or has the baby been fostered out or taken into care?
Either way, the loss must have exacerbated her problems, exponentially.
Desipis makes the point that young people of this sub culture are subject to raunch culture- they “beleive “it. But raunch culture is only simulacra, its actuality is derived of both high-powered marketing and the truth that the “marketing” is often based on reinforcement of unconsidered atavistic notions.
The young “blokes” are ultra blokey and unlike their bodies, their consciousness has no more been developed than that of the girl. They are commodities, all of them and the footy players are as circumscribed as the girl.
They are meat in the sandwich, grist for the mill.
I understand that she chose to engage in this behaviour.
But girls of that age group are inexperienced and that is the reason for statutory rape being a crime.
It is a typical situation, at one stage she feels honoured and privileged to be treated by an AFL player in this way. Later on she comes around to the understanding she has been used.
That is why the statute is there. You aren’t supposed to engage in that behaviour.
If you were to consider having sex with an underaged girl I would think it would be prudent to be very careful of that, namely that you weren’t misusing you. So if the sex was pre-marital and monogamous that would certainly be a lot less likely to get you into trouble and would be certainly morally a lot less reprehensible.
That statute does what it is intended to do, discouraging behaviour that is destructive to the girl, anti-social and doesn’t build a good pattern in a young man’s life either. The coaches and assistant coaches, club officials should be trying to get a handle on it. They have shown a great deal of indifference. As long as the players keep up with their training and keep winning, then they don’t appear to care. Look at the trail of the destruction it leaves behind. It can’t be rewarded by this kind of indulgence
Pacelegal, it relates to my comments @ 23 – the girl would have thought that she was special, and then suddenly it would have become apparent that she was being used. I remember when I was about 14 or 15, there were certain girls in my class who were showing off about sleeping with a ski instructor on holidays. At the time I was awed. Now I wonder: (a) was it true? (b) if it was true, was it statutory rape? (c) the ski instructor who was the subject of the stories had the same name, and was possibly the same person – if so, did he have a thing for 15 year olds? Erk.
Some girls think that because sex is physically intimate, therefore there must be emotional intimacy between themselves and their partner. But it’s not necessarily the case. I know that I’d get hurt in that situation, so I was never a very “liberated woman”. I’m not a prude or religious or anything; it was more a matter of self-protection – the last thing I wanted was to be used. Other women aren’t like me, and that’s fine, but I had enough understanding to know that I wasn’t someone who could have one night stands.
Update 2: The Saints players have indicated that they intend to sue the girl for a number of the civil actions named above, and a few more:
The girl said she was not speaking to her parents, who had strongly advised against posting the photos.
Hey, LE, I disagree that you are not a liberated woman: that you’ve applied judgement on the basis of the effort of thought, in private situations and more important, stuck with the plan in response, probably indicates the opposite, in meaningful terms.
The girl in the case was unfortunate to lack good guidance and influences, maybe has lacked wherewithall at that age, if ever, and, if she’s the paradigm for what constitutes “liberated”
I think you know now that you were wise to hang on to the training wheels for a bit, in light of this girl’s adventures.
Got learn to walk before you can run and the girl shows what happens when you miss the first bit.
“Too much, too soon”, as the song goes.
It occurs to me, that if much older people can’t “get it right”, as with slick Julian Assange and his complex playmates, what hope for our sweet sixteen?
I basically agree with PW’s several comments on this young girl. I don’t think the post title is quite appropriate to the combination of youth and hormones on display. It sometimes seems that there should be some sort of “junior law” applicable to this sort of folly.
Perhaps William Congreve – who apparently coined the LE’s title – would have been better quoted for his:
“O fie, miss, you must not kiss and tell.”
Okay. Firstly it was premature and wrongheaded of me to call something statutory rape as we don’t know all of the dynamics and facts. We know that there is a continuum with respect to Children and Young Persons from the age of 13 to 25, and that rights and responsibilities vary from state to state and the issues in question.
However, as a broad proposition, there is a crime of statutory rape, and whether or not it is applicable in this situation depends a lot on issues of consent, age differentials and what actually occurred. It was premature of me to label this a criminal act, however I was alluding to the purpose of the statute broadly speaking.
@LE I do agree with what you say in substance and I can relate to what you are saying about being more discerning at a young age. On the other hand, perhaps, through good fortune, or whatever it was, I was less ‘at risk’ than certain teenagers for that kind of behaviour. When we are talking about ‘at risk’ children and young persons, I think there is a place for compassion. We don’t really know very much about this girl’s life and I believe in the Adler non-judgemental bias approach. Try to walk in another person’s shoes before you judge them. We know that one in four girls are sexually abused. We know that certain factors combined with other events in a person’s development puts them more at risk than others for certain behaviours and that there are different paths that children can take in the developmental phase.
I don’t know that it is all that simplistic to say that ‘I was okay and didn’t need to feel special’ and therefore I was intelligent enough to avoid being damaged. We are all damaged in some way. We are all fragile at different points in life. My father passed away when I was 11 years old, but I could never imagine my mother and father disowning me at a time when I needed them the most. We are only starting to learn a little more about this girls’ life. That tells me something about her relationship with her parents, although once again I can’t judge them either.
I consider myself liberated, but on the other hand have had some terrible things happen to me. Truth can be stranger than fiction. Human beings at all stages of life can be fragile. We are still human beings and nobody deserves to be abused.
@PW – tend to agree with you. There is enough judgement in the world. The world could use a little less judgement. I think the title is perhaps a little provocative and inappropriate, but it captured attention and evoked commentary. I think things like this should be explored at more than a superficial level.
@LE – The Saints can sue for breach of copyright, defamation and infliction of emotional distress and pursue this girl vigorously by enforcing any order for the next 15 years of her life if they are successful.
However I don’t think it was the wisest PR move they have made and think there will be a serious backlash.
I think they’ve managed things well. St. Kilda are a club with a recent history in this area so it’s in their interest, so it’s a marvel that the players implicated weren’t lynched on the spot.
why am I reminded of the victory of the
Harley St specialist in QB VII – and his damages. I can still hear the voice of Jack Hawkins (already well gone with throat cancer) – “for the damage to his reputation, one farthing, the lowest coin in the realm”. Why would the AFL even bluff about recovering damages for young men who clearly consider gang-banging willing school kids one of the perks of their job. I have been a Footscray supporter for many decades (a dux of Footscray Public School 1911 badge on my shelf – my dad’s), but the AFL could finally turn me away permanently.
Too right, Pacelegal.
The best thing St. Kilda football club could do now is refocuss on winning the premiership they missed so narrowly, instead of sinking to the morose, self righteous instigating of the legal equivalent of a melee.
The “fans” don’t like “enforcers” laying out little guys on the “other team”.
Riewolt’s discomfiture at the photies also offers other sad insights; so precious, so sweet sixteenish from a supposed man’s man.
This is the same man who has carried numerous severe and painful injuries into numerous campaigns to become one of the outstanding players in a demanding sport?
Another marine who faints at the site of a vaccination needle.
KVD, thanks, but I’d hope also something is done to ease the girl’s woes, she is as much a member of the community as anyone else.
Apparently this kind of behaviour is tolerated by St Kilda. It is a question of what is tolerated at a particular club and the club’s culture. It is hardly an isolated event.
There is an element of irony in Andrew Demetriou’s statement that this girl has some issues and needs professional help. I think when the facts become fully known it might show the authority figures for what they really are. If she has issues they have certainly contributed to them.
My point is that Akermanis was lynched for far less and his career peremptorily terminated (inappropriately IMO). I think Nick PUBLICLY stating that the photo was a JOKE throws up some interesting questions about the relative artistic merits of social commentary. What was Nick’s angle? They say a picture is worth a thousand words.
It seems that transcripts of group sex with young girls involving st kilda players is not deserving of any code of conduct violations.
The facts are starting to surface finally and people are putting the jigsaw puzzle together relating to various news stories which have broken recently.
She may have been of the age of consent but there are some grey areas that may be deserving of further exploration. (whoever may have been the perpetrator)
Come on pacelegal. Unless you are this girl’s sister or mother or BFF, then surely there are bigger issues on Christmas eve? LE’s summary of the black and white law pertaining was (as always) very interesting. But life is mostly grey, except when you are a teenager – and then it’s vibrant technicolour.
I hope the court appoints some wise grandparents, assuming she has none to lean on. Paul Waters @9 and 16 really said it all. Further dissection of the particulars seems just a bit over the top. Who are these “people putting the jigsaw puzzle together”? How do you spell “get a life”?
Pacelegal, spot on. Less bums on top sheets and more focus on the main game, during the season, would have seen them win that first drawn grand final.
All else would have flowed from there; accolades and homage like a river of honey.
Perhaps what they took, maliciously or more likely out of ignorance, from the girl, in In the wider scheme of things was taken from them, in turn, on their GFday.
Winning in this sort of sport is about character, also. If character failed off-field, what hope that that character would be there on GF day.
For what it’s worth, I dislike smug armpits like Demetriou as well, even tho he passed muster on a footy field, his smug complacency as an administrator has been a big turn off.
I don’t want to paint this case as black and white without knowing more. Given the complexity of human life, it’s probably that both the girl and the footballers are victims in some sense, and that they have used each other in some sense. Both sides probably have some “contributory negligence” for what has transpired (used in the non-technical sense).
I’m no great fan of the AFL’s nasty blokey culture either, and this very strange boys’ club behaviour just turns me off. (My husband’s comment in the background: if they go around taking photos of themselves in the nude, they deserve everything they get).
What is quite horrible is if you do a search on the story. The girl’s name is quite readily available, and you can see the litany of comments on Facebook slagging her off as a sl*t out for money. Poor silly, impetuous girl. In her Twitter account she says she’s scared about court – why oh why did she ignore the court order? Why did she set herself up for this?
In 46 Paul Waters should be Paul Walter. My apologies. Diverge, disengage, dissociate, disinterest, etc. @47, politely.
Girl Ordered to Destroy Photos update
Dikileaks or Dikigate
The big boys with and their high powered mates in the AFL and the legal fraternity show all the tough things they can do to a 17 year old girl. Good on ya Ross Lewin. He beat a 17 year old girl disenfranchised from everyone into submission with millions of dollars of high priced lawyers.
ex- Melb Lawyer
KVD, have long lived with the corruption of the good name of “Walter” into various permutations.
You are forgiven for not calling me “Walters”, which is the most usual and egregious corruption.
LE, re your agonised, “why did she set herself up for this”, wasn’t it you who suggested earlier that this girl wouldn’t listen to her parents?
Like I said earlier, it is to be hoped that the girl finally receives the intelligent reassurance and counsel thus far denied her.
If a community is like a team, the smaller players need protection by “big” team mates, not dismissal. We all fall on the unconsidered snapping of the weakest link, as the Saints have found out.
@PW. Nope, I didn’t suggest either.
@PW. Agree wholeheartedly. Character has become conflated with something completely divorced from sports and what it is supposed to represent.
@LE, now she is waking up. She was behaving like a mixed up kid which doesn’t totally surprise me.
Even adults have become known to have become confused when custodians of the law behave in very unexpected ways.
On that note I guess we shall have to wait for the full facts to be aired and hold our judgement of her in suspense.
I am sure if you have practised in the law you would know that all professionals misbehave in egregious ways. She is a child confronted by a very confusing world, trying to come to terms with it.
A mix up.
Pacelegal, I suggested that LE rather than yourself had questioned the kid’s relationship with her parents and she did skirt the issue, in a number of posts, mid thread.
Hence my response, based on her info.
Re “…. custodians of the law behave in unexpected ways”, you jolt me into recall of a story with graphic footage on tonight’s news, concerning unprovoked capsicum spraying on some sort of scale, seemingly as a matter of course, by police at the holding cells in Canberra.
Shades of Doomagee Mulrunji, I thought, watching the footage.
Unfortunately errant police have a lot of tools and experience that enables them to avoid detection and certainly prosecution. After all who knows Police methods better than Police.
Of course there are bad apples in the barrel in every profession. One only needs to read the Medical Board Reports (now VCAT) and comparative Tribunal reports in other States or the Legal Profession Disciplinary Hearings to read of some of the indiscretions (where of course they are available to the average member of the public).
Relatively speaking these kinds of reports, although largely hidden with parties anonymised are easier to obtain access to these reports than an ‘internal police investigation’ or external review body such as the Crime and Misconduct Commission or Ethical Standards Investigation which just isn’t accessible.
All professionals want the public to think that their members don’t misbehave but unfortunately the public is lead to believe that they don’t make any mistakes or commit ‘errors of judgement’ for want of a better word.
Mistakes and indiscretions are much better dealt with than covered up and tolerance, forgiveness and trying to understand why things happened is the key to prevent misbehaviour recurring. Being in denial is easier than thinking there is a systemic problem. We don’t want to believe there is a systemic problem (you mention Doomagee Mulrunji as one example).
It is much easier to think it is one individual that is dysfunctional than an entire system or elements of a profession or organisation. It is much healthier to confront the fact that misbehaviour is widespread than to ignore it.
Fitzgerald tried his best to do this in Qld.
When I said ‘well handled’ by St. Kilda , I mean from the point of view of minimising damage to their club, (which may or may not coincide with other goals expressed in this thread.) The ‘Miami holiday’ story seems to be the prevailing one in the public view.
This, If true, makes the focus on Riewoldt bizarre. Making him out in this case to be an innocent but foolish individual. But this was already known, (see Power Balance endorsement, etc.)
P@46 Akermanis was dumping on (or threatening to dump on) team mates in inappropriate way, and my distinct impression is that the club and team were just over him. The final straw rather than one-off instrument.
Just skimmed the comments so sorry if this has already been mentioned.
There seemed to be some discussion of the girl’s attitude to the footy players as authority figures. Apparently the same girl is also the girl in this case, Derryn Hinch connected the dots here. I think that adds a fairly significant context to her actions, not to say that it would make them necessarily justifiable, but more certainly more understandable.
As a non-lawyer i’d be interested to know if that context could ever be put before a court in any of the cases that may come from these incidents. Or indeed, whether anyone here feels it’s particularly appropriate or inappropriate for the link to be made in the media, or for that matter, in a blog comment
.
Skeptic – I think this is the view that some people take regarding 17 year old school girls.
The wetmale mentions “context”, am not quite sure what this is, in this case. I praise you for connecting the dots tho, a fascinating corollary.
The case involving the copper is seperate and being dealt with on its merits. He looks like he’ll go for a row of brick outhouses, on “duty of care”. He had responsibilities imperative, defined a priori in specific terms relating to specific situations, especially this sort of one.
In contrast, the footy players responsibilities to the girl seem less well defined, legally. Hence no moves made on them such as have been made on the policeman. The rule applying to the cop was specific and specified, as to his work.
Which is not to say the policeman is any more, or less ignoble than the players.
The case involving the copper is seperate and being dealt with on its merits. He looks like he’ll go for a row of brick outhouses, on “duty of care”. He had responsibilities imperative, defined a priori in specific terms relating to specific situations, especially this sort of one.
Whether or not it has a bearing on the case, I would propose that information has been released which has identified her to some people.
Are we not talking about privacy and violation of privacy rights.
The Policeman is going through a code of conduct disciplinary violation.
The Police Officer is in a position of special trust, however in many ways footballers are too, particularly where they are attending school clinics. The facts aren’t known in either case, however it would have been refreshing to see a St Kilda footballer to go through some form of internal code of conduct process as part of the ‘respect and responsibility program’.
Would the girl, if her allegations are true, not have been legitimately entitled legally to much much more in child maintenance and birth preparation expenses than $20,000 for the unborn twins that she lost which she claims were fathered by Gilbert?
All we hear about however are talks of Elliott hush money and demands by her for money.
It has hardly been fair and balanced coverage although I suppose that there are media interests and revenues at stake.
Pacelegal would be aware that commercial media operates on on the notion that you, “never let the truth get in the way of a good story”.
When Mitchell and co get self righteous and demand that the media be “free”, they do not mean that they are expanding broadsheet investigative journalism, but the power to smear and the power that derives of the fear of smear.
Like yourself, Pacelegal, am actually floored that, after a decade of incidents like the one involving the girl evolving a club as big as St Kilda woudn’t have had some sort of program in place beforehand, as you suggest.
Would have saved them a lot of grief, for there is indeed a whack of egg on St Kilda’s face itself; they dont seem to have been able to explain to their players what a player and the game are supposed to be and be about.
If your players don’t know what and who they are and value that, how are you going to win premierships ?
If you can’t value your own fans, how could you value a premiership enough to win it for those fans and yourself?
Little underlying philosophy or quality of discipline there at all, you think.
Agree with all of the above.
I just can’t help thinking having read the comments that the AFL and officials have made that there are a few legal actions in there for her to bring.
If you read through some of the comments I’m wondering whether anyone else thinks so.
I would have hoped someone from PILCH may have picked it up and run with it. I’m not saying I think that’s the best way to deal with things, but it wouldn’t hurt to see a bit of commentary on the possible legal actions (civil) she might have both against the Police Officer for his indiscretions, and against the AFL in respect of the statements they made about her.
It might balance things out a little in the public’s mind who is thinking legal offender versus legally wronged. I don’t think it is that simple as she did the wrong thing, they are the victims.
Can anyone see anything in any of the statements that have been made that looks slightly defamatory of her.
Also just as a school has a parens patriae type resppnsibility over the schoolgirl at school, and stands in loco parentis to her at school, those duties could be said to extend perhaps beyond the school precincts in the sense that they stem from a duty of care owed to provide a safe environment within the school yards. I understand that a school or even the AFL in sending footballers to the school clinics would argue that their duties, if any, which are analogous to those owed by the school to students begin and end at the school gate, but is it really that simple?
Particularly if they are on notice of incidents of inappropriate or harmful behaviour occurring arising out of the school clinics. Surely there is some argument for extending that duty beyond the school’s precincts. Eg an imperfect analogy but if inappropriate behaviour is occurring such as bullying, etc between students schools know and are held liable for the consequences of it wherever it plays out I believe just as workplaces can.
I guess I am missing the fact that there is a lack of a civil cause of action….
It is a bit of an ask to expect a school or the AFL to be responsible for every single aspect and decision a person under their care or who comes into contact with them on school time.
On the other hand, parents have bailed out, schools are off the hook legally, as are the Police and AFL programs in terms of the behaviours of their players at school footy clinics.
If there is no cause of action or responsibility on the part of the education system or the AFL then that’s troubling.
Can anyone see any possible civil actions for her…?
I was thinking about it, pacelegal. I can’t think of any either.
Breach of privacy doesn’t work. As the girl herself has intuited, she left herself open to her privacy being raked over by using her real name. She contributed to any breach of privacy by putting all kinds of stuff out there publicly at the outset. The newspapers were careful not to publish her name (and I think rightly so), but I came across it accidentally when researching this post because of the volume of unpleasant Facebook updates which mentioned her by name. Nor did the newspapers draw the link between the policeman and the footballers, although again, they surely must have known. I wondered myself whether it was the same girl, particularly after I saw that the policeman said he was “comforting” the shoplifting girl who had recently suffered a miscarriage. Meanwhile, the AFL girl said that she’d been arrested for shoplifting a few times (just like the girl in the policeman story) and had suffered a miscarriage, also she had a history of making herself available for authority figures.
The only thing I can think is going after the footballers in their personal capacity, as it seems to me that they are the ones who need to be taught a lesson. Okay, maybe the girl threw herself at the footballers. Maybe she’s a girl who regularly throws herself at guys in authority. Nonetheless, footballers, that doesn’t mean you say YES! She’s only 16! You’re older and in a position of power and trust, you have a moral obligation to act sensibly. (Some of the players probably aren’t much older or much more sensible. The content of the photos suggest that none of them are very sensible, sadly.) I don’t know what the cause of action would be though. Some kind of negligence or breach of statutory duty? I’m not sure that there’s anything that covers it. Also there would be a big dose of contributory negligence which would reduce any award.
To those who have mentioned problems with culture in high-profile sports clubs, I will point out the approach of my beloved Cats to sins, even when those sins are pretty much victimless.
This is a team held in high regard by the local community, based on the last of the suburban grounds, where the temptation to abuse celebrity is greater.
When a star like Stevie Johnson starts making a habit of little more than being a drunken rowdy off-season, even though a match-winner, he is slammed in the sin-bin, prevented from attending training or club functions for months.
When Matty Stokes gets a single-dose of illicit drugs for a visiting mate, he is again sin-binned, told to get a real job.
Harsh, but supportive, both cases led to reform (particularly Stevie J), return as better persons and better players.
And there has been on-field dominance by the team, unlike the long wilderness when the sins of club heroes (not dissimilar to the current sins of Saints) were swept under the carpet, victims paid off in return for silence.
Appropriate club discipline and ethos is a win for everyone, the players, the community, and indeed the game itself.
When I was at law school, James Hird attended one of our law balls. My best friend grabbed my arm and said, “Look, look, there’s James Hird!” Her must have heard us as he was smiling slightly. I was, erm, rather tipsy, and said loudly, “Who the F*** is James Hird, and why should I care anyway?” Poor James Hird looked rather crestfallen. I felt very guilty afterwards when I realised who he was – he’s always seemed one of the nice ones. But maybe that’s what all these footballers need – some girl to say “Who the F*** are you, and why should I care anyway?”
Those who think women are not taking advantage of the power they wield when they claim to have been wronged by a bloke/ sexually assaulted/ raped should have a gander at this most illuminating blog http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/
The blog has no trouble finding fresh examples of false sexual assault/ rape claims somewhere in the Anglosphere on most days of the year. Also note how the false accusers almost always face penalties that are far less severe than the penalty for a rape conviction. As often as not, false accusers are let off with no penalty at all.
Another intriguing point, false accusers are often still able to access victim of crime compensation while the falsely accused are almost never eligible for victim of crime compensation, even if they’ve spent months or years in jail, been bashed a few times, undergone intrusive genital examinations and had pictures of the willie taken and possibly flashed up on a big screen for the benefit of a jury.
The current system involves a truckload of moral hazard. Women know it and are playing the system.
What i was wondering was, if the girl is taken to court by the St Kilda players in the photos, could the girl’s defence mention in any way what the police officer is alleged to have done to her? In my mind, and if there was a jury i reckon quite possibly in their minds, her actions in publishing the photos could be at least be partially excused if she thought she couldn’t trust, not only the footy players and club, but the police as well. I can also imagine a defence lawyer arguing that the girl was hit by a succession of incidents to try and build an argument that what she did was a relatively minor response to what was done to her by a range of people.
OTOH, i would expect introducing such evidence could be problematic, if not completely denied, if the case with the police officer isn’t resolved at the time. I also wouldn’t have been surprised if there were additional reasons why that evidence may be ruled out.
As for thinking of other legal moves, i wonder at what point footballers continuing to act up leads others who are more sensible and respectful of women to feel their reputation is being harmed by association. The same at club level, to use Dave’s example; at what point does Geelong decide that their business is being harmed by the association of playing in the same competition as clubs with internal cultures and attitudes like St Kilda’s? I’m surprised we’re not hearing the catch-all phrase “the game being brought into disrepute” around this. Perhaps people are waiting for court cases to be resolved first.
I think the game has been brought into disrepute already by incidents such as this, but that the girl has also brought herself into disrepute by invading the players’ privacy. No one comes out smelling of roses. Nonetheless, thewetmale, that is a very interesting analysis. Could the invasion of privacy be excused by saying that it seemed that the “establishment” was against the girl? Ultimately I don’t think this would be a legal defence, but it does explain her actions.
“Could the invasion of privacy be excused by saying that it seemed that the “establishment” was against the girl? Ultimately I don’t think this would be a legal defence, but it does explain her actions.”
Miss “X” loitered around the St Kilda players change rooms two weeks after the school visit, in order to initiate contact. She made the trip from her home on the Gold Coast to Sydney for exactly that purpose. Miss X is an instigator, not a victim.
The “oh but she is only 16″ line of argument is bullshit. Sixteen is the age of consent. I can think of a couple of girls I know who who hooked up with a bloke at age 16 and are now, many years later, still married to him.
We have some serious double standards at work here, dudes.
@legaleagle. Re: scratching your head for a cause of action. I was thinking breach of statutory/negligence but it’s hard.
There aren’t any winners or loses, heroes or villains. It isn’t black and white. It is sad for AFL, a game I have liked since I was 4 years old but not in the same way as girls liked it, whether then or now. As you pointed out with respect to Hirdy, I feel the same way. Now women constitute 48% of the membership base of a club so they are the lifeblood. Whilst there was always some element of that now it’s a glamour thing.
However I couldn’t help thinking of the girl who (once herself a champion athlete which shows a degree of persistence at something) went off the rails. After falling pregnant and being rejected she loses a child, is ostracised as the temptress/seductress/precocious girl who ‘asked’ for it who had taken on the biggest institution Australia, if not legally, from a social and cultural perspective.
I can relate to this girl in some ways and not in others. I do agree with LE that there is a line and the law needs to be respected. That is a line I havn’t breached.
However consider being a victim of 9 violent crimes and it finally being over after two years when an offender is being put in jail. Do people blame the victim? Well in actuality there is always a response such as ‘why did it happen, how did you get MIXED up with this person?’. When they find out that it was a stalking situation maybe they don’t. When they find out you have run from one state to another and been pursued they start changing their mind. But before the details comes out I think people do make judgements.
You go to seek some victims of crime counselling and are in a sexual relationship with a person who is a professional ‘helping’ you (and themselves, with a big age disparity. You are 18 years old). They are 42yo.
Your life goes on as normal and you don’t wish to have ‘professional help’, because the professional body states you were of the age of consent. (forget about the professional ethics rules).
After you feel a bit betrayed by certain elements of law enforcement who wouldn’t enforce the law against this criminal a lot quicker (thus mitigating the damage) and the ‘helpers’ you start to think you will just get over any after effects yourself. (of both traumas).
Life goes on and you get your Masters degree, and work full time, volunteer and for a decade you don’t see a Counsellor of any kind.
Then your professional body asks for a certificate regarding whether you are psychiatrically okay because you had psychiatric treatment for being a victim of crime 10-16 years previously. Fair enough. You get said doctors’ clearance. They are not satisfied yet there is no evidence of any impropriety, etc. However a complaint from the profession who you complained about re: the sexual misconduct is bringing pressure to bear.
They send you to a Psychiatrist who says you have a “long Psychiatric history”…lol…history being some Psychiatric professional committed a boundary violation agaiinst you after having been a victim of crime. Because you were 18, it is a ‘boundary violation’ but years later it becomes ‘an unsuccessful relationship’ according to Psychiatrist who is commissioned to give a report on your sanity. The Psychiatrist defends recidivist sexual offender doctors.
It doesn’t feel very good at all.
You are disbarred from practising your profession for 7 years because you refuse to submit another 10 psychiatric clearances. Something feels wrong. You start to say no to your professional body and feel aggrieved. (‘hey remember I was the victim ALL those years ago, why am I dysfunctional?’)
You now find yourself betrayed by three very powerful institutions. You are NOT and never have been a ‘professional victim’ because you have been taught that you just pick yourself up and you are responsible for your own welfare.
But on the other hand you see the double standards. You see the stereotypes. You see how if you start to question authority it just gets worse. Saying ‘no’ I refuse to be treated like this by a Doctor who is saying there is something wrong with me because I happened to be abused starts to make you feel aggrieved.
I sincerely hope the victim Pacelegal talks of in her last, was not Pacelegal herself.
I know a very similar story involving the daughter of a friend who got mixed with a hard case and is now rehabilitating slowly from the experience in the abscence of the perp, who is under police notice, I think, currently.
I almost think the worst injury done the subject was in the hamfisted way the certificate application was handled.
I also identify deeply with being locked out by the system, when you slip though the spaces that its perimeters cannot account for and the underlying cultural authoritarianism that seems to see every query of its operation as threatening; to be discouraged at any cost.
Yet, sorry, I feel Mel’s “Lolita” view also has validity, at least as an opposite pole, between which much happens that is less clear cut than in Mels or Paces opposites.
Once again, where was the parenting, particularly in the girls case when she was that much closer to actual harm.
Too much “Dolly” and “Home and Away” and not enough quality time and meaningful comunication from her people?
Put another way, if LE, as she claimed earlier, was able to avoid the worst of this out of control time of early mid teens what can account for the adventures of the girl the thread is devoted too?
I can see herer as victim, but I think there are shades of grey others might miss, coming from a different trajectory than they.
The old story, “if only you could understand my actual experience; if only I could, yours”.
Anticipating nemesis, I should add that the comment about the “certificate” rejection meant, apart from, the nastiness that occured during the earlier relationship, which of course would have been utterly intolerable, by the sound of it.
The old story, “if only you could understand my actual experience; if only I could, yours”.Very true. I suppose because overall I have always considered myself as very fortunate to have two wonderful parents, I am lucky. I have had parents with good values. My father died when I was 11, however fostered a very strong and loving environment for me. It always came back to helping oneself, having compassion, and taking responsibility.
It got me to win an Australian championship in my sport, it got me overseas by 16 to play sport, a little bit of sponsorship money and a government grant to train, which I turned in to work full time and do my University law degree.
Therefore I really had the foundation. However, having had the best upbringing one could ever hope for and still put myself through Uni working and studying full time, and gotten through some difficult times, I am a more compassionate person than others. We never understand what it is like to walk in another person’s shoes, but I do remember the upset I felt at discovering that this professional helper was married with three children. I didn’t post on the internet but smashed into his plantar box and drove off…lol..I guess that is a woman scorned response. It would have been worse maybe had my father been alive, as it may have been had this girl had someone to support her.
I had the sense of strength from an absent father therefore just went on with life and all worked out. I got my degree even if I didn’t do very much in life with it.
However had I not had those early positive experiences, it could have turned out very badly.
Furthermore dealing with the ‘certificate’ thing as you put it added a lot of insult to injury, even though it was long ago.
The person who treated me long ago was quite angry and astonished that a professional body would keep on making someone who was perfectly healthy consistently revisit very old traumatic violent offences (“recapitulation of traumatic abuse”)
as part of the price of gaining a Practising Certificate.
Fortunately I had a very fine QC who has since been appointed to the Bench acting for me back in 2003, who helped me gratis, and told me to let this dodgy report die a natural death and re-apply in another couple of years when I completed my Masters. I waited seven years.
The report in 2010 to the effect that I had completed recovered from PTSD and depression in 1994 was ignored in favour of a 2003 report which said I was “incurably” ill..
Yes I did write some letters to the professional body which I regret, bringing me into conflict with the professional body. The condition of submitting to the psychiatric interview included forcing me to agree to being examined by the Psych who did these Medical Board cases involving recidivist offender doctors. The other condition was that I allow him to read all correspondence sent to professional body about why I didn’t see any particular benefit in my self-directed recovery through psychiatry.
This led to four hours of examination by said Psychiatrist on my letters to Professional body, essentially judging me for my beliefs about very personal issues which had little to do with law.
Part of my anger on this issue stems from a situation I saw a few years ago involving a very close friend of mine. She was young (23 – 24) and her older boss seduced her (he was 45ish, from recollection). She naively thought he would marry her, but after a while, he dumped her because she was too “needy” (she was asking for things like commitment and monogamy). She was still working at that workplace, and the boss started to bully her when she got a new boyfriend. It was awful, and it absolutely devastated her. Consequently I’ve seen what can happen when an older more experienced man who should know better uses a woman. It can be awful. That’s not to say that there aren’t gold diggers, or women who go out to seduce footy players and break their hearts etc, but I wouldn’t seek to put anyone into a pigeonhole.
As for why I didn’t make these kinds of mistakes as a teenager; I can assure you, I did other things which must have broken my parents’ hearts at the time. I just didn’t make that particular mistake (of sleeping with men who didn’t care for me, and confusing sexual intimacy with emotional intimacy). Also I had study to distract me from getting too silly. My family moved to the UK when I was 14 or 15, and the challenge of getting the Poms to realise I had a brain was enough to keep me out of trouble for a good while. Additionally, I wasn’t one of those girls who look much older than they are – quite the opposite, so no one could have made a mistake as to my maturity and age.
I get a bit worried – Eaglet No. 1, who is four, sometimes behaves like she’s four going on fourteen. What’s she going to be like by the time she’s actually fourteen?
I’m sorry to hear that, pacelegal. As you can probably tell from my own account above, I can sympathise with your story. It’s very similar to the one above.
I wish I could take these men and say, Even if the women throw themselves at you, if they are much younger and more inexperienced, and if you don’t intend to keep on with the relationship, desist.
Of course sometimes, these relationships work. One of my bosses was married to a former colleague who was 25 years younger, and obviously that had started out in a way that was somewhat controversial at the time. But when I told him about my friend, he said, “If the guy doesn’t treat the girl with respect, and give her commitment, he’s a sh*t.”
LE says:
“I wish I could take these men and say, Even if the women throw themselves at you, if they are much younger and more inexperienced, and if you don’t intend to keep on with the relationship, desist. ”
You might as well as ask the cat to desist from catching mice. Men are not women and no amount of finger wagging about the evils of casual sex will change that.
I think it is very dangerous for the schools now to give access to girls, almost all of whom are minors and many underage having been put on notice of what has flowed from the character of things that has happened arising out of previous incidents if not the present one. .
Another thing I really don’t understand is the inattention to the Facebook transcript and the implications.
Gilbert was clearly encouraging her to come to a group sex event “with a friend” without qualification. This is dangerous. He seemed indifferent to the age of the girl on the face of the transcript. Since he was not vetting or checking for age in the transcript, it seems implausible and incongruous that he would be checking prior to or during the ‘event’.
She could have showed up with a girl her age or younger than 16.
So what was Gilbert asking?
For example if she showed up with a friend who was 40 would that be within the spirit of his request? Clearly not. That’s not what he was asking. The fact that she was her friend was not enough to qualify her.
You’d have to assume that she would have to be fairly young.
He could argue that he is asking that they be of legal sexual consent, but he was certainly not implying they be over the age of 18, as she clearly wasn’t. So he was very likely inviting at the very least another 16 year old.
There was no requirement however or implication that this friend be over the age of 15 if you peruse the transcript.
AT the very best he could argue he was implying she her friend/s be 16 or older. That would be the most generous interpretation, although it would be a bit harsh to put a presumption of illegality of him. On the other hand, group sex for people of that age group is inherently a very dangerous age. The fact that there was no explicit requirement of him that they be over 16 is a bit negligent on his behalf.
The fact that her and her friend act on the request (incitement or encouragement) could result in players who were unaware of the age of the friend. Clearly they could be unaware of the fact that they were having sex with a minor.
Her friend could equally be aware of the age of some of the players. There could be a possibility she could bring a 22 year old who could be guilty of having a liaison with a 17 year old footy player.
Once again, idealistic LE and dour realist, Mel.
As a bloke, I have to say I do feel sorry for women on the end of failed relationships, particularly when they’ve had a taste of honey, then had the spoon taken away. If you do right by women in this situation you are going to get a good partner who is glad you are about the place.
LE, nothing scares a fella off quicker than a clingy or “controlly” female who morphs by the second into becoming your living end.
But yes, if you don’t want to be with a certain woman, do what the fisherman do and set her free, before she gets hurt and you do in your own self respect.
Does any one here remember a Jeremy Irons film called “Damage”, if so they’ll remember the gloomy outcome.
If not, get a video and see what happens when “clever”people get tangled up in the webs of deception they apply on others and create for themselves their own utter comeuppance.
I’m sorry to hear that, pacelegal. As you can probably tell from my own account above, I can sympathise with your story. It’s very similar to the one above.
That’s okay LE.
I am okay but a little aggrieved as I stated by the fact that professions should be looking at those situations of trust. In this case we had an 18 year old versus a 42 year old. He was in a position of power and trust. He did promise marriage and did everything to endear himself to my widowed mother who saw him as responsible, respectable and well-meaning. A widow who was cautious but saw a man as being educated and well presented, despite having been involved in treatment, a man who professed his desire to marry me. Only problem was he was a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. The professional body I think would have been harsher today than back then. I had completed first year Uni and was quite studious, High Distinctions in two out of three subjects, so it was all study and work during vacations and I was ostensibly ‘normal’. I would say that it was to some extent ‘bad luck’ and maybe a bit of naivete. I think a person treating another needs to sever that relationship if they want to call it a relationship if they are in a position of trust. I would call it a duty of fidelity, doctor/patient which is a little more serious than lawyer/employee.
Although I do take on board what you are saying about men taking advantage of women irrespective.
I don’t think men taking advantage of and lying to young women is anything new and probably will continue.
“Her friend could equally be aware of the age of some of the players. There could be a possibility she could bring a 22 year old who could be guilty of having a liaison with a 17 year old footy player.”
Oh gosh a 17 year old having sex with a 22 year old. Quick, call a fucking priest, a rabbi and a mullah! Maybe an exorcist or two.
It sounds like our resident wowsers and uber-feminists would be much happier under Taliban rule.
ps. On the night of the last weddiing I attended one of the bridesmaids and her sister shagged the much younger brother of the groom, while a girlfriend of the bride shagged pretty well anyone who was interested while her husband and baby were asleep in a hotel room. This is the age we live in. I like it this way. The po- faced, self-appointed guardians of keeping everybody nice can go get stuffed.
pacelegal: sad that you haven’t had an easier road to travel
LE@75 on Leaglet 1: Oh dear, the tweens start earlier every year!
Of course men will be what they are however consider that there are supposed to be laws which bind professionals who are acting as lawyers or doctors who have sex with clients/patients.
That is all very well and good. But if you find out that he is a pathological liar, he you do what you do and get out of there, by slapping him across the face or smashing into his plantar box and throwing yourself back into study.
However to have someone come back later on and suggest that this kind of non-clingy behaviour is abnormal is counter-intuitive to me and smacks more of psychiatry covering up for the misdeeds of their errant profession.
LOL…I married and have been married for 11 years, my only relationship, so it’s hardly a recurring pattern. (a la Desparately Seeking Susan).
Is it dysfunctional to want to extricate yourself from a ‘relationship’ with a lecherous professional behaving badly or be a little guarded about going back to those who want to characterise it as something abherrent 16 years later????
It is about power imbalances.
The professional body wouldn’t dare question a man about his sexual relationships (compare one bad experience and a long marriage) to the average male Solicitors’ relationships at my age.
Clearly it wasn’t about chastity or mental illness. I had made a complaint.
I did have a very eminent Counsel whose judgement I trusted and before being appointed to a very senior position in the bench in mid 2000s.
However unlike many other lawyers someone who was prepared to take confront a professional regulatory body which isn’t an easy task for any Barrister. To no avail.
I suppose the legal and medical professions are inherently conservative and there is still an element of male domination.
I don’t want to get into comparing footy with law but only those privy to it really believed it when they saw the documentation, which unfortunately will be very few.
The result?
Whilst the professional body release editions of the LIV talking about resilience and male lawyers who are doing drugs, or dealing with depression, or schizophrenia, it is all lip service.
Once again I compare. Female Solicitor. No drugs, no crimes, no misbehaviour, Married for 11 years. A bad relationship, but the most egregious thing was she later made a complaint. And she must be ill because she is now complaining that we seek endless doctors’ certificates. None are good enough.
Doctor X who did a report in 2003 says she is “incurable” despite the big DISCLAIMER on the front of the report…lol…In all my years of personal injury suits I never saw a report as bizarre as this. Doctor X in the face of references from Legal Professors, other up to date reports of Psychiatrists at the insistence of regulatory body gives further report in 2010.
“I have read my report in 2003 and based on what I said in 2003 I think would possibly and probably like to still be incurably ill”…..LOL
sorry I should really stop. It is all a bit of a circus and a bit raw
“Her friend could equally be aware of the age of some of the players. There could be a possibility she could bring a 22 year old who could be guilty of having a liaison with a 17 year old footy player.”
Oh gosh a 17 year old having sex with a 22 year old. Quick, call a fucking priest, a rabbi and a mullah! Maybe an exorcist or two.
It sounds like our resident wowsers and uber-feminists would be much happier under Taliban rule
I wasn’t talking about MORALITY.
I was sayinghis LEGAL JUDGEMENT may have been poor and he clearly didn’t think through the legal possibilities.
The very reason why I mentioned the 17yo male with the 22yo male was to show that there are all kinds of unforeseen consequences from a legal POV. (turning the situation around for a change so the focus isn’t on females)
The moral dimension of it is irrelevant.
It was meant to be a legal analysis with regard to his poor judgement those in St Kilda seem to be showing and the legal consequences.
And yes the law is written in the way where behaviour which I see as perfectly acceptable to the majority of people is illegal. Most people would think that sex between minors who fall just outside the law is acceptable. I didn’t write the statute.
I was just saying that Sam Gilbert seeming indifferent as to whether she brought 15 year olds to the group sex sessions is pretty good circumstantial evidence he wouldn’t have been doing his due diligence once the hormones were running high at the big event.
Besides we have seen 18 year old boys from Kentucky Fried Chicken being put on the sex offenders register as paedophiles for receiving an image through their mobile phone of a girl just shy of 16. Being in possession of child pornography. It is happening in the US all over the US and is now starting in Australia. He is branded a paedophile for the rest of his life.
sorry she was under 14, but they were girlfriend and boyfriend, however the application of sexting laws is having far some grave legal consequence for young teenagers using technology a little bit too freely.
However they are not St Kilda footy players who have all the benefits of good lawyers.
“I was just saying that Sam Gilbert seeming indifferent as to whether she brought 15 year olds to the group sex sessions is pretty good circumstantial evidence he wouldn’t have been doing his due diligence once the hormones were running high at the big event. ”
It has been reported umpteen dozen times that the police have found the St Kilda players broke no law.
I see it is still bubbling away.
The conversation now concerns whether a footballer invited an underage (?) girl (and friend) to an orgy.
Am not sure what happened next. Did she accept the invite, or refuse?
It may be that here are fifteen year olds who are naive, but then there are fifteen y ear olds who know far better how many peas there are in a pod, often more so than their alleged elders.
I asked earlier about the kids parents, the nearest i got to a reply was that-at this time- the girl rejects parental advice on the court case.
But what was happening a few years ago?
If the parents dont care and the girl herself doesn’t care, it gets a bit much to put all of theblame down on the male involved.
He asked, did she accept or refuse?
They didn’t say that.
They said they didn’t have sufficient evidence for a prosecution.
It doesn’t matter how much evidence they had they aren’t in a position to prove someone didn’t commit a crime.
Alternatively, they can decide to spend their resources as they see fit. They are guided by many considerations including Prosecution Policies which they are at least supposed to take into consideration in deciding to bring a matter to court.
There are many crimes which are committed which the Police don’t proceed with even where they believe there is a significant chance a prosecution would succeed.
I was making comments about Gilberts’ statement of mind, as revealed in the comments that he made in the Facebook transcript;.
I think it is morally questionable the way footy players use women when they are under the age of 18. I think his words, what he said and didn’t say are illuminating to the extent that you can infer what his attitude was.
He is showing questionable judgement and questionable morals however I see you disagree.
I see it is still bubbling away.
The conversation now concerns whether a footballer invited an underage (?) girl (and friend) to an orgy.
Am not sure what happened next. Did she accept the invite, or refuse?
It may be that here are fifteen year olds who are naive, but then there are fifteen y ear olds who know far better how many peas there are in a pod, often more so than their alleged elders.
No. You are saying there is a question of whether there was a minor involved. We know there was a minor. We know she 16 and he knew that she was. That isn’t an open question at all. It wasn’t unlawful for him to have sex with her as he was only 18.
That’s not the question at all. She was a minor and there is no question about that and he knew he was inviting a minor. He had been dating her and it is not reasonable to argue that he didn’t know what her age was. That isn’t the question. He even admitted he knew she was of the age of consent.
He was clearly his intent that she would have sex with OTHER footballers. That is what a SEX PARTY involves. Would you argue that he was thinking that every footballer would be of legal age to have sex with her. That’s a bit implausible.
I think it is agreed she accepted and went. You would hardly accept that this was an isolated incident., them inviting minors to sex parties.
Have a look at the Facebook transcript. He asked her and was very vigorously encouraging here to have group sex AND to invite her friends.
As a club their attitude isn’t “we didn’t do it”, it is that “you can’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt”. And the Police have chosen not to lay charges.
There is plenty of evidence to a civil standard to a sufficient standard. It is morally questionable. Why should their fans support it. Yes , we like St kilda games, but if the cost is the disruptive influence of having these boys womanising in their communities, and the message it sends to other up and coming boys, well that is find. They are entitled to accept and embrace that. They can equally decide to reject that.
If the community rejects them they are done.
They need to remember where their money comes from.
I personally don’t like the tortured image of a girl with five slash marks across her wrist, on anti-depressants, who has lost twins, is disenfranchised.
The funniest thing is the mismatch between Demetriou’s ‘concern’ for her welfare and his desire to support her, whilst Lewin is saying he would be delighted to have her on a legal leash for the next 15 years.
“I personally don’t like the tortured image of a girl with five slash marks across her wrist, on anti-depressants, who has lost twins, is disenfranchised. ”
She sounds like Glenn Close character in Fatal Attraction.
“Would you argue that he was thinking that every footballer would be of legal age to have sex with her. ”
What part of the legal age of consent being 16 are you still not getting?
“Have a look at the Facebook transcript. He asked her and was very vigorously encouraging here to have group sex AND to invite her friends. ”
I have no interest in looking at Facebook as it is in all aspects immaterial. Miss X was at the age of consent and perfectly capable of inviting her similarly aged friends to an orgy. If she chose to bring anyone younger than 16 to an orgy, then she deserves to be metaphorically horsewhipped.
Miss X is the guilty party in all of this, both ethically and legally in my opinion. I hope the Saints lawyers hammer her until her nose bleeds.
I think guys and gals should clearly communicate their intentions not for moral reasons, but because that’s how you stop things turning into really nasty situations. It’s about pragmatism, Mel, not morality. If people want to have causal sex, no strings attached, then go for it. Totally fine by me.
The problem arises when there’s a mismatch of expectations about what will arise from an interaction. It’s certainly not just guys who are guilty of this. In my post on sexual harassment a while back, I recounted the following situation:
That’s a situation where the woman has to just turn around and say, “No, I don’t like you like that.” There are times when a man has to do that, too. It’s when people give off confusing and conflicting signals that we get into messes. If they say one thing and do another, that’s when the other person turns into a stalker. I must confess that I’ve been on both ends of this kind of interaction. It’s often because we don’t want to hurt people by being upfront that these things happen, but being upfront saves pain in the end.
In SL’s forthcoming book, she has this concept where people sign contracts before they go off and have ritual orgies, no strings attached. They have to sign it alone, with no one else there to pressure them. I think this is a great idea. All the cards are on the table at the outset, and there’s no mistaken intentions. Then if there were 15 year olds, they’d be ruled out (lack of capacity). The thing that contracts do (or should do) is turn people’s mind to what the basis for an interaction is, and set it out clearly.
Thus: if Gilbert invited this girl to a casual group sex event, and she totally consented to that, with a full understanding of what it meant, then that’s fine by me, as she’s above the sexual age of consent. The problem probably arose because I’m guessing that she attended on the basis that she had a lasting relationship with Giilbert (she wanted to keep him happy). It’s when she found out that her various interactions with Gilbert weren’t predicated on a lasting relationship that things went sour, and in her view, an agreement was broken. He probably didn’t even know that her consent was predicated on her thinking there was a lasting relationship… It’s all about miscommunication.
@LE very well said. I didn’t take in carefully what the situation was with your friend. I can see how difficult that would have been for her, and you are absolutely right that men and women interpret things differently for a number of reasons, including cultural differences.
I look forward to reading the book.
@Mel – When a man sexually abuses/uses/misuses/misleads a woman, who becomes angry and retaliates, it is almost never prosecuted.
There is no crime of having a bad relationship (I think the situation LE is describing could fall over that line into proscribed behaviour)
There is very rarely ever a police complaint. Whether rightly or wrongly that is the reality.
Maybe you should stop and think about why this situation is so very different.
For example, If she kicked him where it hurt the most, 99 times out of 100, even where he was hurt seriously, the errant male would rarely would he make a complaint.
If you recall the Lorena Bobbitt scenario, most of the comment was humorous and that was a very extreme type of abuse.
She actually received quite a few proposals from guys all over the world. He got a lot of humorous sympathy from guys but given the extremity of what she did the reaction was fairly muted in terms of the condemnation
The common perception was people seeing that reaction is that ‘oh he must have done something pretty bad’. That is what people would normally say.
Okay so this is not what this girl did. She did post the pictures over the internet but is getting a lot of publicity as you said which is going on and on. Why the Saints would want it to be dragged through the courts beats me. It would just serve to perpetuate their misdeeds. I don’t buy that they will proceed.
Nobody wasted any time on legal action with threats of an intention to pursue the other for judgement for 15 years. His athletic abilities however weren’t probably comparable to the Saints, making him less worthy. I have read a few penis cases but I am really loathe to quote them as it is a bit off colour, and a bit off track and there is enough of a feeding frenzy over this.
Bottom line though – For practical purposes a man who was injured after such conduct (non-Lorena Bobbitt style, in the same vein but not as extreme) would usually be embarrassed to bring a complaint, and probably wouldn’t get much sympathy from the court of public opinion.
No, I dont hope they hammer her till her nose bleeds.
Or anyone else.
And I hope no lasting harm is done anyone.
Quality of mercy, milk of human kindness, and all that bunk.
She felt used, posted the photos in revenge (for fair cause or not we can only guess) and now all the sound and fury signifying nothing.
I know what what Mel means tho, they all need a reality check.
pacelegal, I’m actually talking about two different female friends in the comments threads. The first was the one who was seduced by her much older boss, the second was the one who was stalked by an acquaintance.
A circuit breaker’s basic function is to detect a fault condition and, by interrupting continuity, to immediately discontinue electrical flow. Unlike a fuse, which operates once and then has to be replaced, a circuit breaker can be reset (either manually or automatically) to resume normal operation.
Sorry if this is wrong thread, but I just wanted to thank Lorenzo for his very interesting link.
I seem to be stuck on this thread – sorry. But I just wanted to say that I agree with SL’s comment re Assange and his messy bits.
Like her, I believe it’s always best to leave justice to the law – which sometimes gets it right.
But the thing I wanted to say, on this topic, is that when my wife was diagnosed with a brain tumor, and given 14 months to live, I was advised by the butcher, baker, and lead glass window maker that they each had close personal experience of a sister/cousin/best friend’s mother-in-law’s exact same condition (aka cancer) and they lived to tell the tale.
I took all that in vaguely, politely, but underneath I felt that sometimes it is not helpful to overlay one’s personal experience upon another’s life – even a life so close as that of one’s best friend’s sister’s boyfriend’s footy team .
Another point is that under current legal arrangements, if Sam Gilbert had been foolish enough to maintain Miss X as his girlfriend for a year or two, she would have have been perfectly entitled to leave him at a time of her choosing and take half his house, car, boat and the seat out of his pants.
From the point of view of financial security, young rich sportsmen are better off having multiple casual sex partners.
@Mel..Is that your expert family law opinion on the allocation of division of property and maintenance after a two year marriage Mel? .
Did you learn that from a fatal attraction DVD Mel? The one where you saw some similarities between this girl’s plight and Glenn Close???
Maybe you could watch it again and see if you can find something on maintenance and property division.
kvd, just wanted to endorse that perceptive expression of thanks to Lorenzo, since am here also, for his link.
not sure about his politics but he certainly does come up with some interesting stuff.
as i understand it,much of goes back to the growth of the big Latifundia, in the wakeof the Punic wars- extremely unscrupulous, but allowed for the rise of a dominant class, the like of which Cicero discusses scornfully in his accountof his time as governor of Cilicia, re the likes of Pompey.
theonly comment from SL I can find on the thread is back at 21, where she disavows us of the notion that much value is extant in the adulation of cut-outs, but the one about Assange, what was that about?
Paul, that comment by SL was the conclusion to her very interesting post about the differences in legal systems with particular reference to that applying to Assange in Sweden. I took it out of context because I thought it was widely applicable to any public discussion of any particular case – where the “facts” are only half-known, and the public is thereby “invited” to fill in the blanks from their own personal histories.
That said, I also very much agree with SL@21 above that you mention.
I see what you mean, kvd.
No wonder people have to study it for years to make sense of it, but as SL says, its going to lead to all sorts of unforseen insights, given its methodology.
“Did you learn that from a fatal attraction DVD Mel?”
One of these days, when you’re older, you too will realise Hollywood movies teach us all we need to know about life.
Yes I can see how they would be less taxing for you. The heroes, villains, and the black and white one dimensional characters.
Get a copy of the First Testament of the Bible and you’ll get plenty of content that would fail our regulatory rule in Australia re: obscenity etc. Plenty of incest, murder, rape and other appealing themes for you Mel
pacelegal@104 – I’d hope Mel@103 put the sarcasm quotes in too small a font.
Also, the Saints players with attitudes to women like the key position players in YaHooWaHoo’s legendary team? Now you mention it…
Mel seems to be behaving as if this girl is Lorena Bobbitt.
106 and 103.
Are these two people married?
“Mel seems to be behaving as if this girl is Lorena Bobbitt.”
Naah, I was thinking Bobbie Battista http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbZkjdcl8OY
Actually put me in mind of a ripping pom thing called “Broken News” a few years ago on SBS. Same patter cake routines played poe-faced and you wonder what the people in actual news rooms made of it.#108
I have just emptied a monumental amount of spam out of the spammer. If there were any legitimate comments in there, I didn’t check, so apologies if your comment went into the ether. We are all on holidays at the moment and will be back soon.
Holidays are nice, btw. But then you all knew that already.
In the meantime, please play nice.
I do so like SL s “cleaning out the guinea pig hutch” approach to moderation.
We will be nice kiddies and not king-hit the other tots in the sand pit, if it upsets the baby sitter..
Interesting how the cleaning out of the guinea pig hatch involves leaving all the frivolity of ‘Fatal Attraction’ Movies and news hype intact, the kind of commentary that heads off all the legal issues that go to whether it may be likely Sam turned his mind to involving more minors in his plans for the big event.
I think that his state of mind is legally relevant, although may you havn’t read the Facebook transcripts “and don’t care to”.
Even in England where we know there are stronger laws protecting privacy the UK High Court has stated that where activities conducted in private between consenting adults are to be treated as private, the Court qualified it by stating that if such pictures involved possible exploitation of the young or vulnerable then the case may be different.
Mosley v News Group Newspapers [2008] EWHC 17777
pace,
Im sure that SL just dumped ‘spam’ … nothing to do with the conversation at all. Just advertising and such.
She didnty intend to moderate the conv … just asked us to play nicely.
Regards,
Frank
Well, its my comment, Henry, but you are right- it was just a comment on the comment, an attempt at humour; no direct relevance to the thread topic.
Personally, I think she was having a dig at the stanndard of commentary here -sorry friends (Sl/Pace Legal) we cant all be geniuses, gift3ed with scu presience that we have spare time to look down down form celestial height. injudgement of the glarpings and flounderings others who gravitate to these sites in the hope of good current affairs conversation and information, rather than endless vituperation.
I actually felt you’d done a good job setting out much of the basis for the discussion, but you can’t keep out your own rancorous feelings and prejudices, rightly or wrongly acquired, so will instead contemplate how intemperate your response have been been to Mel’s scepticism and now apparently me, despite my attempts previously to indicate that I understand your viewpoint, as set out earlier in the thread.
Maybe the tribunals had a point, concerning your (limited) capacity for objectivity, after all.
Yeah I know some typos. Still some of you will get thepoint.
There is no point trying to discuss gender issues with feminists.
Well what can I say?
I am obviously not as eloquent. I thought that this was a blog about the law.
I think we’d all agree if it were anybody but a Priest, Football Player et al, the sympathy and maligning of this girl just wouldn’t be there.
However perhaps you are right..LOL.
@PW. Have you read the case? It doesn’t sound like it for there was no question raised regarding my objectivity. It was just alleged that I have multiple personality disorder (now dissociative identity disorder) a la Sybil.
Now there is a nice little DVD for you all to watch. At least I got something exotic rather than political monomania Chines or Soviet style…:)
Hey. Getting upset at a lecherous male is as common as dirt. Nothing unusual about it at all. As I said vigilante justice usually prevails. It has been happening since time immemorial and will continue to happen.
So the media are having a picnic over it. Nothing like a media frenzy. If you don’t think there are any issues arising fair enough.
Lets get back to Julian Assange. Some things disseminated through PCs are just more politically right than others, which is I think what the opinion piece was suggesting.
As stated I didn’t see PILCH leap to the girls’ side with the same fervour.
I think the phrase ‘hell hath no fury like a woman scorned’ is perhaps an appropriate starting point for a discussion, I think drawing analogies between ‘Fatal Attraction’ is just too funny to treat seriously. Well lets laugh then for a while, and lets laugh at the media.
As for the legal issues I guess I don’t have the luxury of mixing in legal circles with legal beagles. Therefore my comments are uninformed. I do have to work so my comments may seem a little ‘crude’ and less erudite.
I hope it isn’t unbalanced or “lacking in objectivity” to continue to pose those unanswered legal questions:
1. Who has standing?
2. Who are the parties going to be? Sam got the injunction
3. Do you consider viral photos once disseminated as being in the public domain.
If it is a copyright violation or judged under defamation or breach of confidence, but seems kind of pointless to go after everyone who has published or re-published (where multiple publication rule applies)
4. Did Judge Hunt’s ruling in Ettinghausen really deal with the imputation conveyed by the photo was defamatory? Would the plaintiff get home on this?
5. Is Macquarie Bank v Berg dead in the water?
Well, I must say, that’s a better effort- more like the stuff you were writing early and mid thread, that seemed more interesting than jibes about Lorena Babbit and Glenn Close.
But that was more between PL and Mel, altho it seems I’ve been caught in the crossfire.
I really think you do not have multiple personalty disorder, or any thing the like.
Just that requesite of paranioa in modern society that few of us are without.
Be a bit more interested in what others try to say instead of seeking to find offence, particularly from men, and you may find you have more friends than you’d previously surmised.
lol…Is that your medical opinion or your legal opinion PW? It was the legal opinion that I had MPD. So the question was asked “I think she has MPD. Do you Dr X?” ……I am rather flattered to be called MPD by a lawyer and seconded by a Doctor.
However it is a little off base to start saying that you think the Tribunal was right especially since a Judgement isn’t available to you (unless of course someone has made it available online). Now that would be contempt of some kind as it is subject to suppression order.
In any event this isn’t a blog on lawyers with MPD.
I thought it was a forum post about privacy on the internet, the questions which arose from the Law Reform Commissions’ Enquiry, the emerging tort of privacy and breach of confidence as it has developed in Australian courts, and the relevance or lack thereof in relation to the AFL case.
Maybe I am in the wrong place for this discussion?
Can somebody point me back to where I can elicit some meaningful commentary from someone who knows what the law is. I mean my Lecturers did spark my interest in these questions and I follow their blogs, however somehow the discussion got hijacked by an obsession with Glenn Close and “Fatal Attraction”.
I don’t know but I didn’t watch the movie as many times as someone else did.
BTW I don’t have friends in legal circles nor do I surmise about it, because otherwise I would be surmising about imaginary friends. Then perhaps my sanity (or objectivity, or feminists views, whatever you like to call them) could be called into question..lol
Ciao
I think what SL meant was this: We are all on holidays. I have been taking my kids to the zoo and things like that. I haven’t had time to closely supervise threads. I presume my co-bloggers are in the same situation – also they live in the UK so they come on in the evening or early morning our time. Given that we are all sporadic in our administrative duties at the moment, we can’t stop threads developing nastily. All we can do is ask people to be polite.
Note: Mel is a stirrer. He’s gotten me very riled before on a previous thread. However, he has intelligent points to make. Also we are pretty liberal in our comment policy: we let people comment as long as they’re not egregiously offensive.
Personally, I got a bit upset at his comment @90 because it hit a bit close to home for me, but instead of biting this time, I walked away, and didn’t post until a few hours later until I’d calmed down. I have close friends who have tried to commit suicide by cutting their wrists, and I am someone who has had problems with depression at times. Consequently I don’t particularly like sneers about that kind of thing.
One of the hard things about blog threads is that you can’t see someone’s reaction. And people read your comments quite differently to what you intended at times. If you’re having a discussion with friends usually they know your history and can read when you’re upset, but it’s not possible on a thread like this.
Re Julian Assange – I’m really fascinated about the reaction to this. It’s really interesting to see many progressive types running out and defending him, and saying that the rape charges are a conspiracy. In a recent interview:
Just imagine if someone like Mel Gibson had said something like that after women complained about sexual interactions with him. I don’t particularly like Gibson. I just chose him at random as another Australian with a very public profile. The knives would be totally out for him. Everyone would be attacking him as a misogynist bastard, and rightly so.
I tend to agree with SL that the best thing is for the law to take its course rather than railing about feminist conspiracies and Saudi Arabia.
LE@122: Come on, surely Saudi Arabia is a feminist plot, letting feminists whine on about how the west is supportive of those who oppress women.
Also, the assange case does seem strange as far as the procedures go, dodgy interviews, charges dropped, reinstated, etc. Very different from, say, polanski.
There may also be prejudices at work – geeks traditionally viewed as undersexed, footballers traditionally viewed as oversexed and often exploiting starry eyed groupies. (but i doubt if there is the football equivalent of the band phenomenon – the crew slut).
The age and history of the young girl involved makes the likely behaviour of the saints more scandalous, the story more attractive to tabloids, especially with golden-boy riewoldt involved, than with an older groupie and known bad-boys. (consider – fev gets drunk and disorderly – meh). Add in the novelty of facebook, the ability of people to look for the photos once they’ve gone viral, the way the msm would have checked google trends and seen the sales potential…
Another infallible recipe for column inches and threads-of-doom.
Sadly, the greater the scandal, the worse the alleged offences, the greater the publicity, the more the AFL machine wants to squash it rather than proceed on the merits of the case, even prepared to attack the less powerful girl if she puts a toe out of place. The MSM, from my limited tracking of the story, has seemed unwilling to criticise a powerful news-generating partner than it probably would have been for such strategies.
Ah yes, Julian Assange, Ulpian the 2nd Century AD Roman revolutionary feminist. This is very interesting, quite apart from the ‘YOU FAIL LAW FOREVER’ point.
As I explained on the Assange thread, Sweden’s rape law is derived from Ulpian’s writings on rape. Ulpian was Prefect of the Praetorian Guard. Like many upper-class Roman men, he also had both a wife and a concubine. He just didn’t like rape, and didn’t think proving a negative twice was fair.
And it is perfectly normal in a civilian system to have charges dropped and reinstated, and to deny the accused the right to enter a plea. In fact, this latter is considered an American encrustation and will often result in the accused (‘suspect’) being referred to a court appointed psychiatrist.
Dave, the Swedish procedures are fine; in fact, the more I see of Assange, the more I suspect he’s a publicity-seeking, egocentric dick who doesn’t get that other countries have other legal systems that work perfectly well for them. And expect visitors to said countries to obey the local laws. Roman law is very hard on rapists and sexual offenders generally. It always has been. Believe me, Julius Caesar and Co were not ‘girlie men’. They really weren’t. Trust me on this.
Julian Assange needs to wake up and smell the espresso.
SL@124 I found out to my surprise that I am three degrees of separation from Assange (the colleague of a lawyer friend had him as a house guest). A lack of a sense of social distance, an inability to register (or, alternatively, care about) other people’s signals, a big noting approach that rapidly sets of “creepy” alarms was the gist.
Does not prove anything, of course, but does go somewhat to plausibility.
LE: If Bill Clinton’s problems and (more egregiously) the Polanski case did not demonstrate that “imbalance of power” critiques do not apply to the Virtuous, then the “blame-the-women” defenses of Assange will come as a surprise.
Like others, I thought the treatment of Hillary and Palin during the 2008 Presidential campaigns proved just how deep the well of misogyny is, and how easy the “progressive” find it to dip into.
On the positive, Michael Moore and Keith Olberman were forced to backtrack pretty swiftly, so perhaps things have improved a bit.
As for the girl in the St Kilda player case, she is clearly angry, hurt and clueless. She seems to have no rudder to guide her actions beyond her own emotions. She has also clearly suffered far more than anyone else in the mix. It must be a terrible thing, to have so much pain and so little personal resources to deal with it, or to guide her actions generally.
@LE understand perfectly what you mean re: holidays. Makes perfect sense. I hate flaming and it goes back to the BB site cases. Besides you have to have a little bit of levity. I pack a lot into one day, and partly because I don’t have kids. Went through 15 years of trying, and working three call centre jobs to pay for IVF cycle after cycle was difficult whilst trying to sell online and do voluntary work (kids are everywhere to be helped). Now the time is over, but I’d be with kids in a heartbeat if I had theme. Instead I let the kids in from the heighbourhood whenever they want (7 times a day!!!) and try to fill the void. The extra money as a lawyer would have come in handy for more cycles of IVF. So yes I can’t relate as well to everyone else’s situation but I have friends with kids and sometimes I see kids everywhere lately, when I go shopping, and don’t see the shops for the kids (wood for the trees). Just another few cycles, might have happened. A salary as a lawyer and maybe…all in the past. Water under the bridge.
That’s probably the greatest hurt anyone could ever throw at me, rather than silly comments on forum sites. I appreciate levity. I have to laugh because its better than crying
Laughter gets me through a lot and I have friends, maybe not in the same circles as you, but friends nonetheless. I am proud of them and they complete me.
However I do think that Mel does perhaps cross the line a tad, for we went from talking about hell hath no fury , where the boundaries of responsibilities are, taking charge of your own life, taking responsibility for mistakes, pushing through the difficult times and character to talking about PROSCRIBED behaviour.
I think if I understood you correctly you were talking about some pretty serious stuff. I call that stuff that breaches rights of others, breaking the law, not moralising. Stalking etc.
Sometimes black humour gets you through things like that but when speaking about someone else, in this case a 17 year old girl, I think sometimes there is a place for compassion and sensitivity. Maybe tact, but hey I am just a quasi-legal person on the periphery. Nobody can walk in anyone else’s shoes but we are talking about the law.
We aren’t talking about glenn close. I don’t really get into box office movies much. They are black and white, and far less taxing than reality. That is part of their appeal. One dimensional stereotypical characters. Everyone who isn’t in law or hasn’t had any contact with it but is a wannabe lawyer or criminologist just has to understand Hannibal Lector. LOL.
IF you do think about the implications of Glen Close’s character, the analogy is imperfect. Glen Close if I recall was the career power control freak with loads of money who thought she could have “everything”. She is more in the image of the ‘powerful’ except she turned into a “bunny boiler”. This kid is not so powerful
She is not politically correct. As I wrote in my article and what the author touched on, she is not Julian Assange.
When is it PC to use a PC to deliver your message?
I think of the priests, authority figures, well resourced corporate interests, dictators in brutal regimes who use libel laws, scientologists who use copyright laws to stifle free expression or social commentary or whatever you think she was trying to do. I think she was a mixed up kid who wanted to get back and did something silly. I think she was hurt. I think she found herself a little overwhelmed by being under the fourth arm of Government, the AFL. Then she had to deal with the coppers who abused her.She didn’t actually make the complaint. The School found out she was pregnant and they made it for her.
I think you can take the Lolita thing a bit far.
However you do cross the line (of good taste, forget liberal expression on forum boards) when you start to refer to women who have had crimes committed against them as you spoke of as pariahs of a sort.
Just my uninformed, unenlightened, non-legal opinion. As someone pointed out I am not in the inner sanctum of law and never will be. Maybe I have a chip on my shoulder but I see it a different way. I see it as the difference between poor judgement and women being second class citizens by virtue of their status in society.
Stats on human trafficking and poverty will tell you that women are vulnerable, in war, in peace and especially from third world countries. If that is having a feminist viewpoint then call me an uber-feminist. I never saw it like that. It is just reality.
I think we need to step back and question whether this kind of mentality is appropriate where someone steps over the boundary as in what you and I were talking about. After all, there are laws and I guess part of the pre-admission process in my day was your first duty is to the law.
I don’t think it is a good idea to talk too much about our own personal situations. I think someone made that point, but on the other hand we all know that in the real world there are abuses against women.
The other thing is that I do consider that remark about “maybe the tribunal were right about your lack of objectivity” strange and unusual. I feel it was a bit defamatory as there was no discussion or hint of lack of objectivity or judgement.
Appreciate the thing re: tone, lack of visual cues. I mean we have all read about the Megan Meier cases long before the recent suicides, based on people’s reaction to things that are said on the internet. This girl was also talking about the reaction in the community to her, not just the abuse through Facebook.
I don’t take offence at comments through forum boards, but have found the level of critique and civility is perhaps more akin to the level that I see through PW or yourself.
I also think that some people here if they are going to pass judgement, could try to using plain english if they want to attract any kind of commentary.
I can use that kind of language too (lol) but I would feel rather transparent and superficial. It does show a bit of insecurity to the average Rhodes Scholar let alone the average lawyer or social commentator.
I guess it takes all types!
Lorenzo, to my surprise, I find that I am one degree of separation from Assange. Both parties knew him from university days, well before all this hoohah. I suppose he attended my university at broadly the time I was there, so it’s not so surprising really. One friend is a close friend of Assange’s; another friend has never thought very much of him, for much the reasons you mention.
Interesting post script to this thread-Crikey’s latest seems to have taken up the subject.
in the comments section is a detailed comment from none other than Pacelegal.
The article had my focus back on the privacy component.
I really cant see the justification for using intimate photos of people without their prior permission, in most of these cases.
There is no “need to know/public service” component in what are basically, over time, a series of typically cheap and exploitative tabloid media stories with photos of celebrities (Ettinghausen, Bingle).
Ok when people are out in public, but why is a person’s privacy at home or some where else non public, not attended to as effectively?
Totally agree Paul. This is why I want a tort of privacy to be developed. I also don’t think it’s a defence that the footballers might have been nasty. The whole point is that the law treats people equally – everyone has a right to privacy in their private lives, whether they’re nasty or nice.
Like LE, it appears that I am also one degree of separation from Assange, this time from the Townsville end. While I’ve never lived in Townsville (although I have worked on the odd legal case up there), my sister lived there (and was prominent in the local trade union movement) for over 20 years.
Back before Australia’s cricketing fortunes tanked, I’d have suggested it was cooler being one degree of separation from Mitchell Johnson, but now I’m not so sure…
They are not “lucky”, just now.
Just watching Cook survive a catch appeal on 99, five minutes after the commentators were waxing on the extra two hundred plus runs Cook has scored after successfull appeals against dismissals, using replays, throughout the series.
“This is why I want a tort of privacy to be developed. ”
Hear, hear.
LE says:
“Personally, I got a bit upset at his comment @90 because it hit a bit close to home for me, but instead of biting this time, I walked away, and didn’t post until a few hours later until I’d calmed down. I have close friends who have tried to commit suicide by cutting their wrists, and I am someone who has had problems with depression at times. Consequently I don’t particularly like sneers about that kind of thing.”
Me too on all counts, LE. But unlike Miss X, I’ve never made my problems someone else’s. FFS she stole photos and attempted to extort $20,000 from someone who did her no harm and who she may never even have met, namely Nick Riewoldt.. She is also harassing someone who dumped her. When men do this type of shit they quite rightly get no sympathy and end up in jail. Screw the double standards.
Mel @ 134 – fair enough – it’s the issue of “tone” in blog commenting.
It is interesting to think how it would have been regarded if it had been a boy releasing pictures of a slightly more mature sportswoman. I’d suggest that the man would get far less sympathy than this girl has. Is that fair? I’m not sure that it is. Guys can be vulnerable too, and can also have their crazy moments.
LE@135 ..
Of course boys can get broken hearted, but they can’t get pregnant or have miscarriages. Maybe that’s where some of the sympathy lies.
Regards etc.
Henry2, you’re very right. Now you mention it, I think the double standard probably has a biological basis, because the girl’s the one left holding the baby (literally). Or, sadly, losing the baby, as in this case.
The risks of sex are greater for women than men, which does indeed drive a lot of the dynamics. It is an issue where different-but-equal really is the proper principle, and that is a difficult one to manage.
The visceral boys-are-bigger-and-stronger may also be playing a role, particularly given the boys involved are footballers, so outliers even among males.
It depends on the circumstances of the pregnancy, folks.
I’m aware of cases where a woman has said she was using contraceptives but wasn’t because she wanted to use her pregnancy as a source of power- “stay with me or you’ll never see your kid again and I’ll screw you for maintenance”. Undoubtedly, such a scenario is not common and I have no particular reason for suspecting Miss X did this but it can’t be ruled out.
ps. Don’t get upset LE, I’m simply trying to point out that the possible combinations and permutations that fit what little hard evidence we actually have does not allow us to draw concrete conclusions in favour of one party or the other.
There is no “need to know/public service” component in what are basically, over time, a series of typically cheap and exploitative tabloid media stories with photos of celebrities (Ettinghausen, Bingle).
Ok when people are out in public, but why is a person’s privacy at home or some where else non public, not attended to as effectively?
As for her legal position this girl has plenty of potential legal actions which could be brought against her. However I think we all know it was all posturing and designed as part of a media campaign.
there has been very little focus on her legal rights and the legal responsibilities of people at all levels within the AFL, the schools, the clinics, the leadership programs and everybody else involved.
As I stated previously, I see the school’s duty of care as possibly extending beyond the gate. s48(8)of the Crimes Act 1958 is a possible avenue of statutory recognition of the common law.
The AFL was in effect standing in the position of an “educator” (see s48).
…and please don’t accuse me of being far fetched but supposing X footballer decided he’d take her and her friends to Miami on their american tours they could have a NY prosecutor sicked on them. (contributing to the delinquency of minor offences)….
okay I am clutching at straws, however does anyone think s48 is apposite in this situation. Surely it is a statutory enshrinement which clearly articulates the common law responsibilities broadly and specifically.
Interesting sequel to this, if a story in the Adelaide Advertiser a day or two ago (13th or 14th Jan) is correct.
The young woman has fessed that her version of the missing photos is fabricated.
I wonder went on behind closed doors between thelawyers, to produce this outcome?
You certainly are clutching at straws, pacelegal. My intuitions have proved accurate; Miss X has now admitted she lied about the photos and has now lined up a book deal. She is seeing dollar signs.
Women lack the physical power of men and this causes some (a small minority) to become incredibly good liars and accomplished manipulators. I think most of us have experienced these types of women in our lives, at least once or twice.
Lest I be judged misogynist, let me point out that overall females are clearly more moral beings than men by at least one order of magnitude. I have always thought this. But averages always obscure some very interesting fine details.
3 Trackbacks
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Peter Black. Peter Black said: the law explained by @legaleagle777 … "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned – Sexting and the St Kilda football team" http://j.mp/glgfEp [...]
[...] of power. There may not be any public interest defence to an action for breach of confidence as skepticlawyer points out, however we are talking about a 17 year old girl who on her own admission has felt [...]
[...] written before about the schoolgirl who leaked photographs of St Kilda footballers after she was scorned by her footballer boyfriend. [...]