Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
1/if charged and it goes to trial..verdict will be not guilty (note this is not clearing, just finding that thier is not evidence to declare a guilty verdict), or guilty. Public would probably take not guilty as "clearing'...but it actually does not.
So he's guilty until proven guiltier? comeon
No..just that our legal system does not find people innocent..or clear them.
Yes it does.
They are always innocent until proven guilty.
You have our court system mixed up with some tinpot african dictatorship.
1/if charged and it goes to trial..verdict will be not guilty (note this is not clearing, just finding that thier is not evidence to declare a guilty verdict), or guilty. Public would probably take not guilty as "clearing'...but it actually does not.
So he's guilty until proven guiltier? comeon
No..just that our legal system does not find people innocent..or clear them.
Yes it does.
They are always innocent until proven guilty.
You have our court system mixed up with some tinpot african dictatorship.
WEll if Lovett is found 'innocent' that can only mean one thing G.O. - that the victim is lying. I guess she'll be charged with perjury then. How else do you explain your theory?
Sadly no-one is found innocent. ( be nice if things were that clear cut) All it means is that there isn't enough evidence to sustain a charge. Not that he didn't do it.
1/if charged and it goes to trial..verdict will be not guilty (note this is not clearing, just finding that thier is not evidence to declare a guilty verdict), or guilty. Public would probably take not guilty as "clearing'...but it actually does not.
So he's guilty until proven guiltier? comeon
No..just that our legal system does not find people innocent..or clear them.
Yes it does.
They are always innocent until proven guilty.
You have our court system mixed up with some tinpot african dictatorship.
WEll if Lovett is found 'innocent' that can only mean one thing G.O. - that the victim is lying. I guess she'll be charged with perjury then. How else do you explain your theory?
Our legal system presumes innocence until proven guilty, and thank God for that, otherwise the lifeless body pf Lovett would be hanging from the nearest tree by now, if a lot of SS posters had their way.
If the verdict is "Not Guilty" it does not mean necessarily mean that the accuser is lying. It may mean that, or it may mean that her recollection of events is faulty, or is unable to be substantiated.
To be found innocent, you have to be presumed guilty beforehand. Too many SS posters are willing to believe that for some reason. Is it because he came from Essendon, is it because he has a history with the police, or is it because he is black?
GrumpyOne wrote:
To be found innocent, you have to be presumed guilty beforehand. Too many SS posters are willing to believe that for some reason. Is it because he came from Essendon, is it because he has a history with the police, or is it because he is black?
Or is it because he was suspended immediately and the head coach hasn't had any contact with him since?
The way the club has handled this, in addition to some 'one sided' media reporting, has really suggested a 'guilty' verdict already.
GrumpyOne wrote:To be found innocent, you have to be presumed guilty beforehand. Too many SS posters are willing to believe that for some reason. Is it because he came from Essendon, is it because he has a history with the police, or is it because he is black?
(d) All of the above.
(e) Intuition - he's guilty
MM didn't seem to suffer the same problem, with Saints fans at least. Only one of these issues applied to (one) of them. There are still plenty out there who think innocence was only a miscarriage of justice, Lovett will face the same problem if found innocent...if that's the case, unfortunately, s*** sticks, he'll have to live with he's reputation playing life on the edge.
Hypothetically, if he isn't charged (and it looks less likely each day that goes by) I wouldnt have thought that $$$, what pick we gave up and even the sponsors will ultimately count for much.
The two key (inter-related) questions are 1 what do the other people who were in the flat think happened? And 2 will the other players agree to play with him?
Carey's colleagues refused to play with him and that ultimately was that. I suspect the same thing is going to happen here.
Even if they can be persuaded to play with him, question 1 comes back into play. It'll be a time bomb: the story will come out in the press somewhere in some form. That story could be outrage-producing in relation to Lovett and/or humiliating for Gram. Any way it plays, it will put the club in an extremely bad position, will lead to the M&M incident being replayed in the media, etc.
I have had to deal with managing all sorts of bad news stories in the media and my experience tells me that - unless it can somehow be proven that there is far less to this incident than has been reported to date, then the club will have no choice but to cut AL adrift, regardless of the cost.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
GrumpyOne wrote:To be found innocent, you have to be presumed guilty beforehand. Too many SS posters are willing to believe that for some reason. Is it because he came from Essendon, is it because he has a history with the police, or is it because he is black?
(d) All of the above.
(e) Intuition - he's guilty
MM didn't seem to suffer the same problem, with Saints fans at least. Only one of these issues applied to (one) of them. There are still plenty out there who think innocence was only a miscarriage of justice, Lovett will face the same problem if found innocent...if that's the case, unfortunately, s*** sticks, he'll have to live with he's reputation playing life on the edge.
Sorry....are you saying that SS posters are coming down hard on him because he is black? Is that what you are agreeing with?
Poster formerly known as SENsaintsational. More wisdom. More knowledge. Less name.
GrumpyOne wrote:Is it because he came from Essendon, is it because he has a history with the police, or is it because he is black?
Yes because they can be the only reasons he is in the serious doghouse with supporters.
And another for the swinging from trees comment.
You are better than that GO. Don't the race card you so desperately want to. It's got zero to do with anything.
To discard the race element in this situation is to ignore that a vast % of the Australian Community is racist. Therefore, by extrapolation, a vast % of SS posters must be too.
GrumpyOne wrote:To discard the race element in this situation is to ignore that a vast % of the Australian Community is racist. Therefore, by extrapolation, a vast % of SS posters must be too.
That assumption would only hold if the population of SS samples broadly from the Australian community. I don't think that's true owing to the size of the forum, the nature of our common interest and the general calibre of contributions.
And that is if you accept that the vast % of the Australian Community is racist. I'm not wholly convinced. I think a significant proportion are genuine racists and there's a latent racism in some parts but it isn't a uniquely Australian trait.
GrumpyOne wrote:To be found innocent, you have to be presumed guilty beforehand. Too many SS posters are willing to believe that for some reason. Is it because he came from Essendon, is it because he has a history with the police, or is it because he is black?
(d) All of the above.
(e) Intuition - he's guilty
MM didn't seem to suffer the same problem, with Saints fans at least. Only one of these issues applied to (one) of them. There are still plenty out there who think innocence was only a miscarriage of justice, Lovett will face the same problem if found innocent...if that's the case, unfortunately, s*** sticks, he'll have to live with he's reputation playing life on the edge.
Sorry....are you saying that SS posters are coming down hard on him because he is black? Is that what you are agreeing with?
GrumpyOne wrote:Is it because he came from Essendon, is it because he has a history with the police, or is it because he is black?
Yes because they can be the only reasons he is in the serious doghouse with supporters.
And another for the swinging from trees comment.
You are better than that GO. Don't the race card you so desperately want to. It's got zero to do with anything.
To discard the race element in this situation is to ignore that a vast % of the Australian Community is racist. Therefore, by extrapolation, a vast % of SS posters must be too.
A 'vast' percentage? 10%? 20%? More than 50%?
The questions I would want answered......did he do the crime? That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. Black, white, orange, pink colours don't come into it.
And any attempt by you to portray this board as 'vastly' racist is absurd.
Poster formerly known as SENsaintsational. More wisdom. More knowledge. Less name.
GrumpyOne wrote:To discard the race element in this situation is to ignore that a vast % of the Australian Community is racist. Therefore, by extrapolation, a vast % of SS posters must be too.
That assumption would only hold if the population of SS samples broadly from the Australian community. I don't think that's true owing to the size of the forum, the nature of our common interest and the general calibre of contributions.
And that is if you accept that the vast % of the Australian Community is racist. I'm not wholly convinced. I think a significant proportion are genuine racists and there's a latent racism in some parts but it isn't a uniquely Australian trait.
btw this thread needs a precis
I would argue that this forum is a reliable sample of cross-section of Australians as supporting a football club covers all socoi-economic indicators.
I agree that Australians on the whole are not as racist as some others. Southern States of USA, Great Britain and India I would rank as more racist. Doesn't mean that racism is extinct in Australia though.
GrumpyOne wrote:To be found innocent, you have to be presumed guilty beforehand. Too many SS posters are willing to believe that for some reason. Is it because he came from Essendon, is it because he has a history with the police, or is it because he is black?
(d) All of the above.
(e) Intuition - he's guilty
MM didn't seem to suffer the same problem, with Saints fans at least. Only one of these issues applied to (one) of them. There are still plenty out there who think innocence was only a miscarriage of justice, Lovett will face the same problem if found innocent...if that's the case, unfortunately, s*** sticks, he'll have to live with he's reputation playing life on the edge.
Sorry....are you saying that SS posters are coming down hard on him because he is black? Is that what you are agreeing with?
Are you saying categorically that no-one would?
No I am not. I can't speak for every person who is a member of this board.
In much the same way I contend that you can't label a group of persons 'vastly' racist. To me, that is majority. The majority of this board is racist? I can't go with that.
Change the player involved. Insert a player with white skin. You reckon the reaction would be any different?
Poster formerly known as SENsaintsational. More wisdom. More knowledge. Less name.
GrumpyOne wrote:To be found innocent, you have to be presumed guilty beforehand. Too many SS posters are willing to believe that for some reason. Is it because he came from Essendon, is it because he has a history with the police, or is it because he is black?
(d) All of the above.
(e) Intuition - he's guilty
MM didn't seem to suffer the same problem, with Saints fans at least. Only one of these issues applied to (one) of them. There are still plenty out there who think innocence was only a miscarriage of justice, Lovett will face the same problem if found innocent...if that's the case, unfortunately, s*** sticks, he'll have to live with he's reputation playing life on the edge.
Sorry....are you saying that SS posters are coming down hard on him because he is black? Is that what you are agreeing with?
Are you saying categorically that no-one would?
No I am not. I can't speak for every person who is a member of this board.
In much the same way I contend that you can't label a group of persons 'vastly' racist. To me, that is majority. The majority of this board is racist? I can't go with that.
Change the player involved. Insert a player with white skin. You reckon the reaction would be any different?
GO is being vastly argumentative today, not me. I'm intrigued as to the difference between this case and the previous one, in terms of supporter reaction. I'm not convinced by the brush-off's either. Fans can just dislike a player too, no problem, but I believe there are a lot of prejudices affecting people's attitudes towards AL's actions...not saying you can count or discount racism...is the fence pole far enough up my arse yet?
GrumpyOne wrote:To be found innocent, you have to be presumed guilty beforehand. Too many SS posters are willing to believe that for some reason. Is it because he came from Essendon, is it because he has a history with the police, or is it because he is black?
(d) All of the above.
(e) Intuition - he's guilty
MM didn't seem to suffer the same problem, with Saints fans at least. Only one of these issues applied to (one) of them. There are still plenty out there who think innocence was only a miscarriage of justice, Lovett will face the same problem if found innocent...if that's the case, unfortunately, s*** sticks, he'll have to live with he's reputation playing life on the edge.
Sorry....are you saying that SS posters are coming down hard on him because he is black? Is that what you are agreeing with?
Are you saying categorically that no-one would?
No I am not. I can't speak for every person who is a member of this board.
In much the same way I contend that you can't label a group of persons 'vastly' racist. To me, that is majority. The majority of this board is racist? I can't go with that.
Change the player involved. Insert a player with white skin. You reckon the reaction would be any different?[/quote]
Agreed
I really dont think skin colour is an issue here. Its the crime I care about most of all.
If he is found guilty Andrew Lovett has disgraced himself, the club, football and footballers in general and the league itself regardless of if he is black, white, yellow, green or orange
BANG BANG
Mitsuharu Misawa 1962 - 2009.
I am vengeance....I am the night...I....AM.....BATMAN
I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass and im all out of bubblegum
GrumpyOne wrote:To be found innocent, you have to be presumed guilty beforehand. Too many SS posters are willing to believe that for some reason. Is it because he came from Essendon, is it because he has a history with the police, or is it because he is black?
(d) All of the above.
(e) Intuition - he's guilty
MM didn't seem to suffer the same problem, with Saints fans at least. Only one of these issues applied to (one) of them. There are still plenty out there who think innocence was only a miscarriage of justice, Lovett will face the same problem if found innocent...if that's the case, unfortunately, s*** sticks, he'll have to live with he's reputation playing life on the edge.
Sorry....are you saying that SS posters are coming down hard on him because he is black? Is that what you are agreeing with?
Are you saying categorically that no-one would?
No I am not. I can't speak for every person who is a member of this board.
In much the same way I contend that you can't label a group of persons 'vastly' racist. To me, that is majority. The majority of this board is racist? I can't go with that.
Change the player involved. Insert a player with white skin. You reckon the reaction would be any different?
The term "vast percentage" does not necessarily mean a majority.
It just means a big percentage.... say 20 - 25%?
You don't have to go too far to compare Lovett's treatment to the threatment of similar players with white skin. Remember Milne & Montagna?
GrumpyOne wrote:To be found innocent, you have to be presumed guilty beforehand. Too many SS posters are willing to believe that for some reason. Is it because he came from Essendon, is it because he has a history with the police, or is it because he is black?
(d) All of the above.
(e) Intuition - he's guilty
MM didn't seem to suffer the same problem, with Saints fans at least. Only one of these issues applied to (one) of them. There are still plenty out there who think innocence was only a miscarriage of justice, Lovett will face the same problem if found innocent...if that's the case, unfortunately, s*** sticks, he'll have to live with he's reputation playing life on the edge.
Sorry....are you saying that SS posters are coming down hard on him because he is black? Is that what you are agreeing with?
Are you saying categorically that no-one would?
No I am not. I can't speak for every person who is a member of this board.
In much the same way I contend that you can't label a group of persons 'vastly' racist. To me, that is majority. The majority of this board is racist? I can't go with that.
Change the player involved. Insert a player with white skin. You reckon the reaction would be any different?[/quote]
Agreed
I really dont think skin colour is an issue here. Its the crime I care about most of all.
If he is found guilty Andrew Lovett has disgraced himself, the club, football and footballers in general and the league itself regardless of if he is black, white, yellow, green or orange
GrumpyOne wrote:To be found innocent, you have to be presumed guilty beforehand. Too many SS posters are willing to believe that for some reason. Is it because he came from Essendon, is it because he has a history with the police, or is it because he is black?
(d) All of the above.
(e) Intuition - he's guilty
MM didn't seem to suffer the same problem, with Saints fans at least. Only one of these issues applied to (one) of them. There are still plenty out there who think innocence was only a miscarriage of justice, Lovett will face the same problem if found innocent...if that's the case, unfortunately, s*** sticks, he'll have to live with he's reputation playing life on the edge.
Sorry....are you saying that SS posters are coming down hard on him because he is black? Is that what you are agreeing with?
Are you saying categorically that no-one would?
No I am not. I can't speak for every person who is a member of this board.
In much the same way I contend that you can't label a group of persons 'vastly' racist. To me, that is majority. The majority of this board is racist? I can't go with that.
Change the player involved. Insert a player with white skin. You reckon the reaction would be any different?
The term "vast percentage" does not necessarily mean a majority.
It just means a big percentage.... say 20 - 25%?
You don't have to go too far to compare Lovett's treatment to the threatment of similar players with white skin. Remember Milne & Montagna?
So your contention is the one in four persons in Australia is racist? Or one in four posters on SS is racist?
Poster formerly known as SENsaintsational. More wisdom. More knowledge. Less name.
GrumpyOne wrote:To discard the race element in this situation is to ignore that a vast % of the Australian Community is racist. Therefore, by extrapolation, a vast % of SS posters must be too.
That assumption would only hold if the population of SS samples broadly from the Australian community. I don't think that's true owing to the size of the forum, the nature of our common interest and the general calibre of contributions.
And that is if you accept that the vast % of the Australian Community is racist. I'm not wholly convinced. I think a significant proportion are genuine racists and there's a latent racism in some parts but it isn't a uniquely Australian trait.
btw this thread needs a precis
I would argue that this forum is a reliable sample of cross-section of Australians as supporting a football club covers all socoi-economic indicators.
I agree that Australians on the whole are not as racist as some others. Southern States of USA, Great Britain and India I would rank as more racist. Doesn't mean that racism is extinct in Australia though.
Women? English as a second language? I think (i.e. guess) we're missing quite a few so I disagree with that.
I doubt very much that the forum is a good sample of anything other than attractive and articulate middle aged men whose roguish good looks and boyish charm belie their age. I'm amazed GQ don't sponsor us.
cowboy18 wrote:I doubt very much that the forum is a good sample of anything other than attractive and articulate middle aged men whose roguish good looks and boyish charm belie their age. I'm amazed GQ don't sponsor us.
Now there's a contention I am prepared to support!
Poster formerly known as SENsaintsational. More wisdom. More knowledge. Less name.
cowboy18 wrote:I doubt very much that the forum is a good sample of anything other than attractive and articulate middle aged men whose roguish good looks and boyish charm belie their age. I'm amazed GQ don't sponsor us.
That would have been correct Cowboy, but the banning of the Saintsational 4 has put a dent in that theory.
