Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
whiskers3614 wrote:A more selfless player would have stood aside to save the club dramas.
Milne and selfless in the same sentence, now that is a paradox!
Fair point.
It's actually not anymore about guilt or innocence. He is not guilty of anything at the moment and that is a clear fact.
But he's tarnished the club's image and reputation - unfortunately that's a reality that can't be ignored.
Wrong. He hasn't tarnished anything. That's implying he has done something bad.
The court sesh on July 5 was nothing more than legal jargon.
Not a committal hearing even! Next one is when a trained judge decides whether yappa has a case to answer, or if he can be let go with a quick "sorry".
Remember, trained judge who studied law and has practiced for years.
A real Sainter will pledge allegiance to the ❤ and despise the Pies, the Blues, and the Injectors.
Remember one of the 10 Commandments : Thou shalt have no other team before thee
whiskers3614 wrote:A more selfless player would have stood aside to save the club dramas.
Milne and selfless in the same sentence, now that is a paradox!
Fair point.
It's actually not anymore about guilt or innocence. He is not guilty of anything at the moment and that is a clear fact.
But he's tarnished the club's image and reputation - unfortunately that's a reality that can't be ignored.
Has he though? At this stage we dont know if he has or not.
whiskers3614 wrote:A more selfless player would have stood aside to save the club dramas.
Milne and selfless in the same sentence, now that is a paradox!
Fair point.
It's actually not anymore about guilt or innocence. He is not guilty of anything at the moment and that is a clear fact.
But he's tarnished the club's image and reputation - unfortunately that's a reality that can't be ignored.
Wrong. He hasn't tarnished anything. That's implying he has done something bad.
The court sesh on July 5 was nothing more than legal jargon.
Not a committal hearing even! Next one is when a trained judge decides whether yappa has a case to answer, or if he can be let go with a quick "sorry".
Remember, trained judge who studied law and has practiced for years.
Image as in the PR marketing sense I meant.
i am Melbourne Skies - sometimes Blue Skies, Grey Skies, even Partly Cloudy Skies.
Is detaining alleged offenders on remand not presuming their guilt? Do you object to that?
bigcarl wrote:
plugger66 wrote:I know murder is obviously much worse but there isnt a chance in the world a potential murderer would be allowed to play.
Why not? To not play him would be presumption of guilt wouldn't it? Others will disagree, but in my book legally and morally the club is okay on this one. Innocent until proven otherwise.
The self appointed "sex assault victims' group" and the HUN have clearly overstepped the mark. They are commenting on a case that is before the courts which can only have an adverse effect on the named party. The issue of whether or not a player can play when he has been charged with an offence is difficult to say the least. My view, is that it is only something that the individual can decide given all the circumstances. The judgment of the rest of us will have to wait until another day, or at least it should.
perfectionist wrote:The self appointed "sex assault victims' group" and the HUN have clearly overstepped the mark. They are commenting on a case that is before the courts which can only have an adverse effect on the named party. The issue of whether or not a player can play when he has been charged with an offence is difficult to say the least. My view, is that it is only something that the individual can decide given all the circumstances. The judgment of the rest of us will have to wait until another day, or at least it should.
If you think this wasnt going to happen once he played I reckon you are being naive. That was always going to be an issue once picked. Just another reason why some would think he shouldnt have played. Wait until the Sunday papers headlines and then Monday. the Saints need something else to happen on the footy field this week.
markp wrote:Yeah yelling ''what about the presumption of innocence?'' on saturday night should quieten the baying crowd down.
Club between a rock and a hard place on this.... PR and brand wise it's an awful look, and we'll haemorrhage for it.
It is a very tough one for the club.
Don't play and the AFLPA and Milne's lawyers will be all over them.
Do play him and the public will be all over them.
No way to win. And to be fair, I think the way they've handled it so far has probably been the best way.
I'd prefer that he didn't play personally. But I also understand that that isn't really fair on Milne who claims innocence and by law is allowed the right play. For once, I think Demetriou's words were well articulated and pretty accurately summed up the situation:
"I don’t really know if it is appropriate or if it’s not appropriate.
"It remains a very complex issue and I think it was appropriate at the time that there was a pause, as we said. And that pause has been nearly a month. And out of respect for the individual involved, the woman I’m talking about, it was appropriate at that time to take a pause.
"It’s probably appropriate in the scheme of things, when you’re talking about natural justice, than an individual who has been charged but has yet to face these allegations in the proper judicial system - which we support and we welcome - he’s entitled to be judged innocent until proven guilty. And on that basis he should be allowed to continue with his craft.
"We’ve restricted his duties in some of the areas that he deals with. But in so far as plying his craft on the football field, he should be entitled to do that."
markp wrote:Yeah charged with 4 counts of rape vs playing a game of footy.... Obviously playing a game of footy is more important.
Just as obviously as him not being able to play footy would be akin to stoning him to death.
It's not just "playing footy" and you know it. If it was me or you it would "just be playing footy", buit for this guy it's being allowed to do his job. Suddenly there is some moral divide based on employment type, that determines if someone awaiting legal proceedigs is still considered a free citizen ith the right to go about their life.
There is a clear logic to standing someone down on pay if, for example, they are a teacher and are awaiting trial on child pornography charges.
What logic is there to saying an athlete cannot compete because of charges pending? It's got nothing to do with safety, morality or logic, it is a marketing based rhetoric, and if marketing is now running all of society then I want out.
The heavy metal artist formerly known as True Believer!
IF you look around the room and can't identify who the sucker is, then it's probably you!
Just purely from a legal perspective if it happened 9 years ago and he hasn't set a foot wrong since and been playing, he could sue the club for not allowing him to play as it is effecting his ability to earn money and his chances of a fair trial. It would be better for them to let him play a couple then drop him than not let him play again that way he isn't seen as being dropped for image reasons. Even Lovett was sacked for breaking team rules not the rape charge. It isn't just a moral issue or an image thing it is a democratic right to be able to work until the time he is actually tried in court.
markp wrote:Yeah charged with 4 counts of rape vs playing a game of footy.... Obviously playing a game of footy is more important.
Just as obviously as him not being able to play footy would be akin to stoning him to death.
It's not just "playing footy" and you know it. If it was me or you it would "just be playing footy", buit for this guy it's being allowed to do his job. Suddenly there is some moral divide based on employment type, that determines if someone awaiting legal proceedigs is still considered a free citizen ith the right to go about their life.
There is a clear logic to standing someone down on pay if, for example, they are a teacher and are awaiting trial on child pornography charges.
What logic is there to saying an athlete cannot compete because of charges pending? It's got nothing to do with safety, morality or logic, it is a marketing based rhetoric, and if marketing is now running all of society then I want out.
But what charge do you actually stand someone down until it does get to court. As i have said previously rape is one of the worst crimes that can be committed. We dont know if Milne has done anything wrong but if a person was on a murder charge and somehow got bail there is no way that person would ever be able to play any sport anywhere until the charge is heard. i still have no idea if he should have been picked but it seems as many have said there are no winners here.
markp wrote:Yeah charged with 4 counts of rape vs playing a game of footy.... Obviously playing a game of footy is more important.
Just as obviously as him not being able to play footy would be akin to stoning him to death.
It's not just "playing footy" and you know it. If it was me or you it would "just be playing footy", buit for this guy it's being allowed to do his job. Suddenly there is some moral divide based on employment type, that determines if someone awaiting legal proceedigs is still considered a free citizen ith the right to go about their life.
There is a clear logic to standing someone down on pay if, for example, they are a teacher and are awaiting trial on child pornography charges.
What logic is there to saying an athlete cannot compete because of charges pending? It's got nothing to do with safety, morality or logic, it is a marketing based rhetoric, and if marketing is now running all of society then I want out.
It is just playing footy... and only 8 games/weeks to go now.
No one is suggesting he be stood down without pay and deprived of his livelihood.
And yes there are obviously certain professions that would make it untenable or more difficult for someone to continue to work while facing these or other charges, for a whole range of reasons. Each case on its merits I'd have thought.
It's more complex than a PR issue (though that is not insignificant as it directly affects the clubs bottom line and prospects), there's also the rights of members, attending fans, venue employees, and the issue of all people being able to (feel they can) attend and enjoy a game in safety.
SainterK wrote:Your last paragraph is spot on markp.
Not sure much thought has gone into anyone outside the footy club.
Conflicting views at his selection.... Shock, anger, support, confusion, disgust, happiness.
All justified, all understandable.
And I should add that it goes without saying... the consideration for the alleged victim, and other victims of similar crimes.
AFL footballers are a strange and rare breed in our culture, we put them up on a pedestal and shower them with accolades... of course this is not the same as a plumber or a bank clerk facing similar charges. As I said, each case on its merits, surely.
BigMart wrote:Was it OK to sack AL before he was found innocent?
He did have misdemeanours, but I cannot be denied that he was let go after he was charged made the disciplinary action a result of his charge.
Most were not surprised or worried about him, or defend him, or give any of the same arguments suggested now?!
Milney is a club champion, is that clouding judgement? or The fact AL was a loser cloud judgment then? It is a major inconsistency....
This issue is bigger than Football
The difference is that in the AL incident other players were at the venue and immediately jumped to the defence of the girl and against AL, whereas in the Milne one it appears (I don't really know the details) that only one player was at the place that it happened and that the playing group immediately backed Milne.
I reckon that if AL had not been stood down then there would have been a player revolt, but if Milne was stood down then that would incite a player revolt.
Hird... The unflushable one is now... just a turd...
It's pretty silly as someone said to prejudice the case by commenting. It will be nearly impossible for Milne to get a fair trial and further public comment on the case is so counter to their chances of convicting him it's crazy. These groups probably see it as a way to highlight a high profile case and lobby on the back of it but it isn't in the best interest of the alleged victim either.
Old Mate wrote:I doubt the case will go past the committal hearing. I suspect this whole re-opening the case is an arse covering exercise by the DPP and VICPOL.
That's what I think but I've heard it will most likely go to a trial. I doubt they can convict.
It's a bit sad that we take police corruption and cover ups for granted but that is the real issue here IMO.
Holder of unacceptable views and other thought crimes.
Agree Pav, sad how its all worked out. I believe in hindsight Milne would've liked the matter dealt with when it occurred. Human Rights will also come into consideration in Milne's defence. Being charged nearly a decade after the incident is a clear breach of the Courts expectations given the complaint was made at the time of the incident a decade ago. This is why I don't see it going past the Committal Hearing
Milney is guilty.......of being really stupid when he was 23!
He's not guilty of rape.
All those who say they're so concerned about the girl...do you really mean it?
Were you also concerned about Kim Duthie?
You feel sorry for her but you're never going to meet her. Of course we're all concerned about her, but there's no way she can mean as much to you as one of the greatest ever players of a team you've followed all your life!!
If you say she does you are in fact lying for the sake of political correctness.
There's a lot of it about on this forum.
In honour of those who went before, in the dark and desperate years.
I Love Peter Kiel wrote:Milney is guilty.......of being really stupid when he was 23!
He's not guilty of rape.
All those who say they're so concerned about the girl...do you really mean it?
Were you also concerned about Kim Duthie?
You feel sorry for her but you're never going to meet her. Of course we're all concerned about her, but there's no way she can mean as much to you as one of the greatest ever players of a team you've followed all your life!!
If you say she does you are in fact lying for the sake of political correctness.
There's a lot of it about on this forum.
Were you there? Are you Leigh montagna??
Hi Joey thanks for posting in the forum!
I believe he is innocent as i have read stories an formed my own opinion. But that's all we have a opinion. No one will ever know except for 4 people and I believe from what I have read that 3 of those people believe he's innocent.
But you can't state he is not guilty as a fact!
SEXUAL assault victims' groups have slammed St Kilda and the AFL for the Saints' decision to select Stephen Milne to play while he fights rape charges.
Advocacy groups have also called on the AFL to develop stronger rules on how clubs deal with players charged with serious sexual assaults.
These people seem to regard presumption of innocence as something that should not extend to Milne!
So a whole bunch of pissed off feminists that have a huge whinge about Gillard's treatment then have a huge bitch and cry about
CONTENT EDITED BY MOD FOR BAITING AND SEXISM AGAINST THOSE WITH OPPOSING VIEW.
and despise the Pies, the Blues, and the Injectors.
