Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
matrix wrote:so youre saying they couldnt have provided support any other way?
im with K
couldve met him outside, at the pub etc
im pretty sure milne wouldnt have thought any less of his mates and understood the situation, being the ultimate club man he was.
2c
Well there are obviously many ways to show support.
I think you guys a overeacting and being a bit sanctimoniousness. I don't think it's such a big deal..sponsors won't leave us because of this..
Roo has a right to support his mates.
by all accounts club is trying to land a new big fish...
matrix wrote:so youre saying they couldnt have provided support any other way?
im with K
couldve met him outside, at the pub etc
im pretty sure milne wouldnt have thought any less of his mates and understood the situation, being the ultimate club man he was.
2c
Well there are obviously many ways to show support.
I think you guys a overeacting and being a bit sanctimoniousness. I don't think it's such a big deal..sponsors won't leave us because of this..
Roo has a right to support his mates.
by all accounts club is trying to land a new big fish...
didn't mean current sponsors
big pic of Roo on age website
sanctimonious?
hardly
Yes, that is what I meant.
I respect him for not selling out a mate for money.
I can also distinguish between Roo the citizen and Roo the footy player.
I put a person's right to express himself by supporting a mate ahead of sponsors and footy.
The first is a fundamental human right…..the second is just about money. They are just things. .
Holder of unacceptable views and other thought crimes.
Moods wrote:I haven't got a problem with Lenny and Roo being there. Even if a mate HAS done the wrong thing that doesn't mean he's no longer a mate. Surely in a mature world even potential sponsors can understand that. Especially as this happened 10 years ago and Milne no longer plays at the club.
From what I hear I reckon it's a good outcome for Milney....
Considering the longevity of time that has passed since the alleged offence, the sordy circumstances of the whole thing, and Milnes good character, I'd be surprised if he gets any jail time
A very good friend of mine went to court as a victim of an indecent assault charge among others. 38 years after the event. Perpetrator had lots of character witnesses saying what a great church going, old people helping, loving husband type of guy he was. Still went to jail for 4 years. So did Rolf Harris.
As I understand Indecent assault is often used as an alternative for statutory rape prior to 1986 I think as that offence wasn't legalised (not sure the correct term for this) until then. Which is why jail time is often given to those historical rape cases in certain circumstances, even though the charge is indecent assault. Rolf Harris was guilty of statutory rape and rape. Not sure about British law but in Victoria he would have had his stat rape charged amended to indecent assault and he was also guilty of rape. He got the right penalty (imo)
A good example being the Gavin Hopper case about 10 years ago. Was charged with rape as it was a 14yr old school girl he was having consensual sex with. I think in the end the charge was amended to indecent assault for the reasons outlined above. He pleaded not guilty and was found guilty at trial. Received 3mths gaol time as a result.
Under certain circumstances Milney may have been in a bit of trouble. Considering what we know of the circumstances, ie the victim involved was an adult, victim was known to Milne, etc etc the fact he has pleaded guilty, and the passage of time I stand by the fact that he won't receive gaol time. Before you jump up and down and say that these factors make no difference I am NOT defending Milney or his conduct. Some where along the way he did the wrong thing and responsibility has been accepted (finally) Each case is different and certain factors mitigate the sentencing, which is why we have an Act for sentencing alone. ie Milney standing in the bushes, dragging some unsuspecting jogger in and indecently assaulting her would be considered worse (from what we know) as to what he has allegedly done.
matrix wrote:what a f****** mess this turned out to be
tarnished for life because a couple of chicks wanted to score with footy players.
Ummmmm...no. I'm sure there are chicks wanting to score with AFL players every day of the week.
Milne is tarnished because of committing the crime of indecent assault. His choice. His responsibility.
Cmon its no where near as simple as that. Why are we continually defending the fact the lady chose to be in bed with two men?
Wow - some people are trying to revise what happened on this thread.
Nobody wins on here, especially the woman who has endured 11 years of this, had her case trashed by Vic police and had her reputation smashed on fan forums like this.
Indecent Assault is a very serious crime. Milne IS GUILTY of it by his own admission.
I for one am glad this player has retired and is no longer associated with the football club in a playing capacity.
Thanks for the effort Milney, but am glad you are now retired.
Moods wrote:
As I understand Indecent assault is often used as an alternative for statutory rape prior to 1986 I think as that offence wasn't legalised (not sure the correct term for this) until then. Which is why jail time is often given to those historical rape cases in certain circumstances, even though the charge is indecent assault. Rolf Harris was guilty of statutory rape and rape. Not sure about British law but in Victoria he would have had his stat rape charged amended to indecent assault and he was also guilty of rape. He got the right penalty (imo)
A good example being the Gavin Hopper case about 10 years ago. Was charged with rape as it was a 14yr old school girl he was having consensual sex with. I think in the end the charge was amended to indecent assault for the reasons outlined above. He pleaded not guilty and was found guilty at trial. Received 3mths gaol time as a result.
Under certain circumstances Milney may have been in a bit of trouble. Considering what we know of the circumstances, ie the victim involved was an adult, victim was known to Milne, etc etc the fact he has pleaded guilty, and the passage of time I stand by the fact that he won't receive gaol time. Before you jump up and down and say that these factors make no difference I am NOT defending Milney or his conduct. Some where along the way he did the wrong thing and responsibility has been accepted (finally) Each case is different and certain factors mitigate the sentencing, which is why we have an Act for sentencing alone. ie Milney standing in the bushes, dragging some unsuspecting jogger in and indecently assaulting her would be considered worse (from what we know) as to what he has allegedly done.
You're clearly more across the details of this case than me Moods. What you say sounds reasonable. Not sure about the passage of time having any impact, but certainly the victim not being a child is relevant. The case I was referring to was rape of a minor which occurred in the early 70's. When it eventually came to court the charge was 'indecent assault of a minor', which is in line with what you've said about charges for cases prior to 1986.
SainterK wrote:And why is our captain at a rape trial?
Show your support privately.
Need sponsors desperately, terrible decision IMO.
brand/face of club...
Hi K, looks like you're copping a bit for your stand here.
IMHO, I look at things as Roo and Lenny standing by a mate... as distinct from them endorsing anything illegal that Milney may (or may not?) have done.
Maybe a bit like a parent still loving a child, even if their child has done something seriously wrong... the parent loves their child, not their child's action/s.
It's Dave, man. Will you open up? I got the stuff with me! -------Who?
Dave, man. Open up ------------------------------------------ -----Dave???
Yeah, Dave. ---------------------------------------------------------Dave's not here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOiG1hAr ... detailpage
skeptic wrote: ↑Tue 30 Jan 2024 8:07pmCongrats to Dave McNamara - hereby dubbed the KNOWINGEST KNOW IT ALL of Saintsational
matrix wrote:what a f****** mess this turned out to be
tarnished for life because a couple of chicks wanted to score with footy players.
Ummmmm...no. I'm sure there are chicks wanting to score with AFL players every day of the week.
Milne is tarnished because of committing the crime of indecent assault. His choice. His responsibility.
Cmon its no where near as simple as that. Why are we continually defending the fact the lady chose to be in bed with two men?
How do you know she did that and even if she did why does that mean you can do what you want. Old fashioned rubbish.
SainterK wrote:And why is our captain at a rape trial?
Show your support privately.
Need sponsors desperately, terrible decision IMO.
brand/face of club...
Because its a close friend and he is supporting him like you and I have the right to do for our mates.
Completely disagree.
...you and I are not captain of the club.
awful judgement, meet him after IMO
News will lead tonight with "StKilda captain shows support at Milnes rape trial"
Nothing surer.
Meanwhile we're attempting to land a new major sponsor.
Club is bigger....and all that
Rooy is a great mate of Milney and has every right to be a mate and not a captain of the club at this serious time. Of course he should be there if he wants to be. Same for Lenny.
Bunk_Moreland wrote:
Nobody wins on here, especially the woman who has endured 11 years of this, had her case trashed by Vic police and had her reputation smashed on fan forums like this.
.
Her reputation smashed? She has remained anonymous the whole time
Milney not looking at any gaol time. In fact he may not even get convicted. Judge has indicated he's looking at a fine only and that the offending is at the lower end of the scale for this offence.
My sisters boyfriend is a Bummer fan and always give me lighthearted stick about Milney. He texted this arve:
'Still a rapist.
I texted back: 'Still 34 cheats'. He lol' at that. Then I texted that the Bummers may have to get Milney to play for them next season when the suspensions hit. No reply to that lol
stevie wrote:My sisters boyfriend is a Bummer fan and always give me lighthearted stick about Milney. He texted this arve:
'Still a rapist.
I texted back: 'Still 34 cheats'. He lol' at that. Then I texted that the Bummers may have to get Milney to play for them next season when the suspensions hit. No reply to that lol
I would have chucked in a barbed comment about Lovett and what a top bloke he was (thanks to Hird's reference) and if he got off, then it would have been nigh on impossible to gain a conviction against Milne for rape.
If the agreed statement of evidence is as per that relayed by the reporter on 774 afternoon drive, then the only reason he has pleaded guilty to indecent assault is to get the case over and done with after 11 years of financial and emotional costs. The report said that they were engaged in consensual sex; Milne with his partner and Montagna with his, on the same bed. They all left the room and then Milne, Montagna and Milne's partner went back in to continue engaging in consensual sex.
Montagna's partner, the complainant, then rejoined and engaged in sex with someone who she thought was Monty. That implies to me that the room was pretty dark? So, no chance Milne may have thought his partner has switched from Joey back to him?
From what was reported it really sounded like two people made a mistake, but one was determined the other would pay for it.
Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons; for you are a quick and tasty morsel.
Harvey To Hayes wrote:
The police who decided to reopen and charge Milney with this should be ashamed, as if any other result was even vaguely feasible then the charges being dropped after all that time...
Why should they be ashamed? He's pleaded guilty to a lesser but still serious crime. Do you propose that the victim should have no recognition or validation at all for whatever suffering she's experienced?
well....she got money in a civil case....not that money heals wounds...but tell that to the victims of crime people....
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
Moods wrote:I haven't got a problem with Lenny and Roo being there. Even if a mate HAS done the wrong thing that doesn't mean he's no longer a mate. Surely in a mature world even potential sponsors can understand that. Especially as this happened 10 years ago and Milne no longer plays at the club.
From what I hear I reckon it's a good outcome for Milney....
Considering the longevity of time that has passed since the alleged offence, the sordy circumstances of the whole thing, and Milnes good character, I'd be surprised if he gets any jail time
A very good friend of mine went to court as a victim of an indecent assault charge among others. 38 years after the event. Perpetrator had lots of character witnesses saying what a great church going, old people helping, loving husband type of guy he was. Still went to jail for 4 years. So did Rolf Harris.
different circumstances entirely......this case had previously been investigated and the police decided there wasn't enough evidence to
charge either player.......got political ten odd years down the track and the police caved in...now they are backtracking and willing to do a bit of plea bargaining.....their case is obviously piss weak but milne not willing to chance it....notihng like any of the cases against priess, boy scounts or ministers etc....
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
