Ricky on SEN Mon am

saintsRrising · Mon 21 Feb 2011 4:29pm

Well I don't trust either...

Only facts we know...is that both have acted inappropriately.

How inappropriate who knows...

markp · Post: # 1042292Post **markp** » Mon 21 Feb 2011 4:32pm

satchmo wrote:
GrumpyOne wrote:
Even if he gets the benefit of the doubt.... he's toast.

She got what she was aiming for...... his arse on a platter.
He's a pretty resilient piece of toast. I don't think Nixon is done for yet.

If the hun are off the mark here he'll go for them with all the legal fury that can be mustered, and then some.

perfectionist · Mon 21 Feb 2011 4:34pm

markp wrote:...If the hun are off the mark here he'll go for them with all the legal fury that can be mustered, and then some.

Either that or he'll be writing a column for them. After all, Andrew Bolt does.

plugger66 · Post: # 1042297Post **plugger66** » Mon 21 Feb 2011 4:35pm

markp wrote:
satchmo wrote:
GrumpyOne wrote:
Even if he gets the benefit of the doubt.... he's toast.

She got what she was aiming for...... his arse on a platter.
He's a pretty resilient piece of toast. I don't think Nixon is done for yet.
If the hun are off the mark here he'll go for them with all the legal fury that can be mustered, and then some.

Surely that is why there is something to this. He hasnt mentioned that once and that is usually the first thing mentioned when a lie is being told. And he has done enough interviews to mention the word sue.

Sainterman · Mon 21 Feb 2011 4:43pm

plugger66 wrote:
markp wrote:
satchmo wrote:
GrumpyOne wrote:
Even if he gets the benefit of the doubt.... he's toast.

She got what she was aiming for...... his arse on a platter.
He's a pretty resilient piece of toast. I don't think Nixon is done for yet.
If the hun are off the mark here he'll go for them with all the legal fury that can be mustered, and then some.
Surely that is why there is something to this. He hasnt mentioned that once and that is usually the first thing mentioned when a lie is being told. And he has done enough interviews to mention the word sue.

Could say the same thing about the Herald Sun too, why have they chosen not to publish the tapes this time when they do in every other case?

markp · Post: # 1042304Post **markp** » Mon 21 Feb 2011 4:47pm

Sainterman wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
markp wrote:
satchmo wrote:
GrumpyOne wrote:
Even if he gets the benefit of the doubt.... he's toast.

She got what she was aiming for...... his arse on a platter.
He's a pretty resilient piece of toast. I don't think Nixon is done for yet.
If the hun are off the mark here he'll go for them with all the legal fury that can be mustered, and then some.
Surely that is why there is something to this. He hasnt mentioned that once and that is usually the first thing mentioned when a lie is being told. And he has done enough interviews to mention the word sue.
Could say the same thing about the Herald Sun too, why have they chosen not to publish the tapes this time when they do in every other case?

Journalistic integrity?

Armoooo · Post: # 1042305Post **Armoooo** » Mon 21 Feb 2011 4:47pm

plugger66 wrote:
markp wrote:
satchmo wrote:
GrumpyOne wrote:
Even if he gets the benefit of the doubt.... he's toast.

She got what she was aiming for...... his arse on a platter.
He's a pretty resilient piece of toast. I don't think Nixon is done for yet.
If the hun are off the mark here he'll go for them with all the legal fury that can be mustered, and then some.
Surely that is why there is something to this. He hasnt mentioned that once and that is usually the first thing mentioned when a lie is being told. And he has done enough interviews to mention the word sue.

As far as I'm aware at this stage the Herald Sun haven't said he has done anything, we all know what conclusion they are leading the heard too, but IMO I think they have covered themselves from a legal point of view. I'm sure somebody on here would know how implied libel works?

The Herald Sun have only stated facts, that Nixon was in the hotel, that Nixon, by his own admission had an inappropriate relationship with her and that KD claims they had a sexual relationship.

As far as I'm aware they are all facts and the Herald Sun can't be blamed for that.

IMO the s*** will really hit the fan for The Herald Sun if KD's claims do turn out to be true.

The Herald Sun are currently paying for her accommodation, and blind Freddy can see how big a part the Sun played in this little sting operation.

If KD really did have sex whilst on the job so to speak, would this not be considered a form of underage prostitution?

Mr Magic · Post: # 1042309Post **Mr Magic** » Mon 21 Feb 2011 4:50pm

plugger66 wrote:
markp wrote:
satchmo wrote:
GrumpyOne wrote:
Even if he gets the benefit of the doubt.... he's toast.

She got what she was aiming for...... his arse on a platter.
He's a pretty resilient piece of toast. I don't think Nixon is done for yet.
If the hun are off the mark here he'll go for them with all the legal fury that can be mustered, and then some.
Surely that is why there is something to this. He hasnt mentioned that once and that is usually the first thing mentioned when a lie is being told. And he has done enough interviews to mention the word sue.

What have they actually printed/posted that he could sue for defamation against?

They make sure that all the allegations are psoed by teh girl.
They print his denial to the allegations
They choose to print/post only some of the facts they know (eg when he arrived at the hotel not reported - only when he left) so as to 'paint the picture' for their readers.

To sue them, they have to actually publish something defamatory.
They're being clever in not giving him any ammunition as yet.

The major damage being done to his repution is by Caroline Wilson adn Mike Sheahan in 'opinion pieces'.

It was quite interesting for me listening to Mark Robinson on SEN this afternoon.
I got the distinct impression he isn't too happy about the feeding frenzy what is going on over Nixon.
He made (to me) a really poignant comment at one stage along the lines of:-
This girl will turn 18 one day and lots of background information that currently cannot be divulged will come out.'

He also seemed quite unhappy with teh Sheahan piece in today's papaer when he was talking to Finnis from the AFLPA.
Finnis also seemed quite annoyed by it.
(My opinion of their remarks)

Ralphy · Post: # 1042313Post **Ralphy** » Mon 21 Feb 2011 5:01pm

what about his wife, gotta feel sorry for her.

markp · Post: # 1042321Post **markp** » Mon 21 Feb 2011 5:24pm

Armoooo wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
markp wrote:
satchmo wrote:
GrumpyOne wrote:
Even if he gets the benefit of the doubt.... he's toast.

She got what she was aiming for...... his arse on a platter.
He's a pretty resilient piece of toast. I don't think Nixon is done for yet.
If the hun are off the mark here he'll go for them with all the legal fury that can be mustered, and then some.
Surely that is why there is something to this. He hasnt mentioned that once and that is usually the first thing mentioned when a lie is being told. And he has done enough interviews to mention the word sue.
As far as I'm aware at this stage the Herald Sun haven't said he has done anything, we all know what conclusion they are leading the heard too, but IMO I think they have covered themselves from a legal point of view. I'm sure somebody on here would know how implied libel works?

The Herald Sun have only stated facts, that Nixon was in the hotel, that Nixon, by his own admission had an inappropriate relationship with her and that KD claims they had a sexual relationship.

As far as I'm aware they are all facts and the Herald Sun can't be blamed for that.

IMO the s*** will really hit the fan for The Herald Sun if KD's claims do turn out to be true.

The Herald Sun are currently paying for her accommodation, and blind Freddy can see how big a part the Sun played in this little sting operation.

If KD really did have sex whilst on the job so to speak, would this not be considered a form of underage prostitution?

Yup, well the video is up on the Age, and it looks awfully like him.

If there's footage of them 'doing' anything, and the media have been given or sold that footage, then both her and they would be in strife... but you'd think they wouldn't be so silly (although silliness is in no short supply here).

Con Gorozidis · Mon 21 Feb 2011 5:27pm

Grimfang wrote:Sorry, did I miss something? Where's the proof he was in his underpants with the girl in that hotel room?

She does have form for:-
-Theft of photographs from other people's computers/cameras/etc.
-Lying about being the photographer.

Sometimes where there is smoke, there is a smoke machine.

Happy to be proven wrong, but there is way too much taking this girl's evidence as gospel when she's got form for manufacturing evidence.

herald sun journo is adamant that nixon's car was parked out the front of her hotel room all night. what more do u want? nixon is absolute toast. and he has plenty of form. this aint isolated. its the old blow you know. makes u do silly things joe.

Con Gorozidis · Mon 21 Feb 2011 5:30pm

Armoooo wrote:
If KD really did have sex whilst on the job so to speak, would this not be considered a form of underage prostitution?

16 is age of consent. not illegal for him to have had sex with her. the booze thing is illegal though. incredible betrayal of his clients interests. hes toasted and roasted.

InkerSaint · Mon 21 Feb 2011 5:34pm

The video aired on ACA shows what looks like an occupied hotel room, with a large pair of trousers on the floor holding a wallet with Nixon's I.D. in it, and a nearby table with lines of white powder.

Where, when, and in what circumstances this has been filmed is impossible to tell. Clearly this is not a person you can leave alone with your personal effects but perhaps that had not been established at the time of the filming.

saintbrat · Post: # 1042333Post **saintbrat** » Mon 21 Feb 2011 5:44pm

Mr Magic wrote:[The major damage being done to his repution is by Caroline Wilson adn Mike Sheahan in 'opinion pieces'.

It was quite interesting for me listening to Mark Robinson on SEN this afternoon.
I got the distinct impression he isn't too happy about the feeding frenzy what is going on over Nixon.
He made (to me) a really poignant comment at one stage along the lines of:-
This girl will turn 18 one day and lots of background information that currently cannot be divulged will come out.'

He also seemed quite unhappy with teh Sheahan piece in today's papaer when he was talking to Finnis from the AFLPA.
Finnis also seemed quite annoyed by it.
(My opinion of their remarks)

http://www.sen.com.au/audioplayer/Audio ... t-Two/1841

joffaboy · Post: # 1042363Post **joffaboy** » Mon 21 Feb 2011 6:43pm

Con Gorozidis wrote:16 is age of consent. not illegal for him to have had sex with her. the booze thing is illegal though. incredible betrayal of his clients interests. hes toasted and roasted.

How was she a client of Nixon's?

Con Gorozidis · Mon 21 Feb 2011 6:45pm

make no difference whether she 18. thats just crap. cant believe people on here supporting nixon. nixon is supposed to be assisting the interests of our skipper Roo - and hes not.

Con Gorozidis · Mon 21 Feb 2011 6:48pm

InkerSaint wrote:Yes - it was an unfair comparison as her current performance is being enhanced by the yet-to-be-banned H/S steroid.

RN has been caught with his pants down, figuratively or literally, in underestimating the malice and resourcefulness of a 17 year old girl.

i dont think he was an innocent "victim". hes up to his neck (or nuts) in all of this. figuratively and/or literally.

mbogo · Post: # 1042371Post **mbogo** » Mon 21 Feb 2011 6:49pm

Con Gorozidis wrote:make no difference whether she 18. thats just crap. cant believe people on here supporting nixon. nixon is supposed to be assisting the interests of our skipper Roo - and hes not.

Con, I do not know you from "toast" but I feel myself agreeing - how can this not reflect poorly on us due to Nixon's stupidity - has anyone else noticed the link to Cousins and white powder and Nixon and the girl? Must all be coincidental!
I bet Ricky thought it was spilt flour.

Con Gorozidis · Mon 21 Feb 2011 6:56pm

well if i was roo id be getting a new manager quick smart.
shite role model. u have to wonder....

Armoooo · Post: # 1042391Post **Armoooo** » Mon 21 Feb 2011 7:03pm

Con Gorozidis wrote:
Armoooo wrote:
If KD really did have sex whilst on the job so to speak, would this not be considered a form of underage prostitution?

16 is age of consent. not illegal for him to have had sex with her. the booze thing is illegal though. incredible betrayal of his clients interests. hes toasted and roasted.

16 is the age of consent for sex however I believe you have to be 18 and licensed to have sex for money.

IT may be a bit of a long bow but if the herald sun was paying kd to get a story on Nixon which imo looks very likely then she may have had sex to complete a story which she was being paid for then imo this is prostitution.

Don't get me wrong. I am very disappointed with Nixon. HE has nobody to blame but himself. But that doesn.t excuse the behaviour of the media or that little hooker.

Armoooo · Post: # 1042393Post **Armoooo** » Mon 21 Feb 2011 7:06pm

Con Gorozidis wrote:well if i was roo id be getting a new manager quick smart.
shite role model. u have to wonder....

WHat does being a role model have to do with riewoldt. Are people trying to convince us that kids look up to player managers now?

This country has lost the plot. Roo should have the manager that he feels will get him the most cash. You don't have to be best mates with your manager...

plugger66 · Post: # 1042394Post **plugger66** » Mon 21 Feb 2011 7:08pm

Armoooo wrote:
Con Gorozidis wrote:
Armoooo wrote:
If KD really did have sex whilst on the job so to speak, would this not be considered a form of underage prostitution?

16 is age of consent. not illegal for him to have had sex with her. the booze thing is illegal though. incredible betrayal of his clients interests. hes toasted and roasted.

16 is the age of consent for sex however I believe you have to be 18 and licensed to have sex for money.

IT may be a bit of a long bow but if the herald sun was paying kd to get a story on Nixon which imo looks very likely then she may have had sex to complete a story which she was being paid for then imo this is prostitution.

Don't get me wrong. I am very disappointed with Nixon. HE has nobody to blame but himself. But that doesn.t excuse the behaviour of the media or that little hooker.

Yep i reckon the HS said make sure you have sex with this guy to build up the story afterall she is trustworthy and would never tell another paper that story.

Sainterman · Mon 21 Feb 2011 7:08pm

In terms of people on this site defending RN I think this is more about making sure they have the facts before passing judgement in most cases. Unfortunately, when it comes to this girl, it is hard to know fact from fiction. I think this is causing people to wonder.

The more I hear the worse it is getting for RN though, and the video does not look great.

What a sorry tale for all involved. Sad stuff.

joffaboy · Post: # 1042396Post **joffaboy** » Mon 21 Feb 2011 7:08pm

Armoooo wrote:
Con Gorozidis wrote:well if i was roo id be getting a new manager quick smart.
shite role model. u have to wonder....
WHat does being a role model have to do with riewoldt. Are people trying to convince us that kids look up to player managers now?

This country has lost the plot. Roo should have the manager that he feels will get him the most cash. You don't have to be best mates with your manager...

Thats it Armoooo, you are no longer my role model, Caroline Wilson, Mike Sheahan, and Rupert Murdoch have taken your place.

mbogo · Post: # 1042403Post **mbogo** » Mon 21 Feb 2011 7:15pm

Armoooo wrote:
Con Gorozidis wrote:well if i was roo id be getting a new manager quick smart.
shite role model. u have to wonder....
WHat does being a role model have to do with riewoldt. Are people trying to convince us that kids look up to player managers now?

This country has lost the plot. Roo should have the manager that he feels will get him the most cash. You don't have to be best mates with your manager...

Can you illuminate for us all what the "plot" is actually meant to be?