Lovett lodges notice of grievance with club

meher baba · Mon 08 Feb 2010 10:10pm

mbogo wrote:
meher baba wrote: But Lovett? This is the guy alleged to have imprisoned his ex-gf in a car and made her fear for her life. That's the aspect of Lovett that is creating any "prejudice" towards him by forumites. Not his race.
And this is what confuses me about this entire episode. He has a reputation and two girls go back with two guys - one of which is him. Then somehow allegedly there is a mistaken identity situation .... and people seem to go missing (in the stories on here) And then a Coll player is called! And this is JGs girl? WTF?

I was puzzled too about why girls would ever place themselves in a vulnerable situation with AL. But she must have felt safe for some reason.

I'm not sure that the mistaken identity scenario has any credibility: it hasn't been reported anywhere, it's just a rumour from a poster on here.

The original report is that the girl was sound asleep when she was assaulted. In such a scenario (and I'm not saying that this what happened), even if there was mistaken identity and some sort of apparent consent to have sex with a person who the victim thought had awakened them, it's still a case of impersonation and a criminal act by any standards.

mbogo · Post: # 879627Post **mbogo** » Mon 08 Feb 2010 10:18pm

meher baba wrote:
mbogo wrote:
meher baba wrote: But Lovett? This is the guy alleged to have imprisoned his ex-gf in a car and made her fear for her life. That's the aspect of Lovett that is creating any "prejudice" towards him by forumites. Not his race.
And this is what confuses me about this entire episode. He has a reputation and two girls go back with two guys - one of which is him. Then somehow allegedly there is a mistaken identity situation .... and people seem to go missing (in the stories on here) And then a Coll player is called! And this is JGs girl? WTF?
I was puzzled too about why girls would ever place themselves in a vulnerable situation with AL. But she must have felt safe for some reason.

I'm not sure that the mistaken identity scenario has any credibility: it hasn't been reported anywhere, it's just a rumour from a poster on here.

The original report is that the girl was sound asleep when she was assaulted. In such a scenario (and I'm not saying that this what happened), even if there was mistaken identity and some sort of apparent consent to have sex with a person who the victim thought had awakened them, it's still a case of impersonation and a criminal act by any standards.

Sure but that is exactly why this thread is significant - Lovett has made it an issue with the club - and the police have not charged him (yet). This (coincidence?) implies they might not.
If the original story you describe could be corroborated easily without doubt - he would be in jail now - and deservedly so.

plugger66 · Post: # 879659Post **plugger66** » Tue 09 Feb 2010 7:16am

GrumpyOne wrote:
mbogo wrote:I do not mind saying that I have had quite a colourful life - yet this seems very strange in so many ways.
My point exactly.

This situation is all very strange.

Two and two are not adding up to four, and nobody can explain why.

Was Lovett set up, was it a race thing, what is the involvement of senior players and coach of the club in all this, have sponsors threatened the club, why would the club risk a legal action of several million dollars in maintaining its hard line stance? ....... so many questions and no answers.

Something is being covered up here.

I dont even see what is strange at all about this case. The time the cops are taking to make a decision seems reasonable to me. And what the hell does set up mean. Who set him up. The girl, Grammy, Santa claus. And another thing you were blaming racism for how some were acting on here no it seems you may be blaming racism for what we have heard may have happened. At the moment i think 2 and 2 are exactly making 4.

GrumpyOne · Post: # 879668Post **GrumpyOne** » Tue 09 Feb 2010 9:43am

plugger66 wrote: The time the cops are taking to make a decision seems reasonable to me.

Go back a few pages Plugger to a post by Borderbarry, an ex detective with Victoria Police.

He said he can't understand why it is taking so long.

I would suggest that he would be far more aware of police procedure than you or me.

GrumpyOne · Post: # 879669Post **GrumpyOne** » Tue 09 Feb 2010 9:50am

meher baba wrote:The accusations against Lovett a case of racism?

Absolute bollocks IMO (and I've been lambasted on here in the past for having the temerity to suggest that some of the critics of Raph Clarke were racially motivated (a view I continue to hold).

But Lovett? This is the guy alleged to have imprisoned his ex-gf in a car and made her fear for her life. That's the aspect of Lovett that is creating any "prejudice" towards him by forumites. Not his race.

It's bleeding obvious to me Grumpy One. So why you go on and on about race is hard to fathom. Perhaps you're the one with the race problem. I found your carry-on about the photos of sponsored players last year a bit odd too.

Perhaps, in your heart of hearts, you've got some ill-will towards our coloured brothers. Which you externalise by accusing others of racism?

As the old saying goes: it takes one to know one.

I have always respected your posts Baba. Sound wisdom and judgement backed up by sensible expression. One of my favourite posters.

You have let yourself down this time by speculating on my character when you know nothing about me.

If you were aware of my current situation and my history, the racist accusation would be the absolute last card you would pull out of the pack. Have you considered that the reason i go "on and on" about racist issues might be that I am very close physically to those issues?

meher baba · Post: # 879671Post **meher baba** » Tue 09 Feb 2010 9:59am

GrumpyOne wrote:
plugger66 wrote: The time the cops are taking to make a decision seems reasonable to me.
Go back a few pages Plugger to a post by Borderbarry, an ex detective with Victoria Police.

He said he can't understand why it is taking so long.

I would suggest that he would be far more aware of police procedure than you or me.

Well I've had a little bit to do with the cops and DPPs when high profile people (politicians, public service heads) are accused of crimes and, in my experience, they typically bend over backwards to be seen to have explored all possible angles before they decide not to charge them: lest the criminal justice system be accused of being bent in favour of the rich, famous or powerful.

This rule applies even when the evidence against the person is extremely weak. I suspect that, while the evidence against AL isn't totally weak, it isn't compelling enough for charges to be laid.

Speaking hypothetically again, if the other people in the flat were not paying much attention to who was in which bedroom with whom, ahd therefore the first they heard of the matter was the girl complaining after the alleged event had taken place. It's a bit better than her word against his, but it probably wouldn't convince a jury.

I reckon the cops could well be prepared to wait a little while longer, before making an announcement along the lines that the investigation is on hold.

Dis Believer · Tue 09 Feb 2010 10:02am

I think racism is like many things - if people go looking for it hard enough, then I am sure they will be able to find it, whether it's there or not.

I think trying to incorporate it into the current situation is ludicrous.

I think most would regard AL in a very poor light, but it has nothing to do with the colour of his skin, and everything to do with his perceived character, or lack thereof.

meher baba · Tue 09 Feb 2010 10:03am

GrumpyOne wrote:
meher baba wrote:The accusations against Lovett a case of racism?

Absolute bollocks IMO (and I've been lambasted on here in the past for having the temerity to suggest that some of the critics of Raph Clarke were racially motivated (a view I continue to hold).

But Lovett? This is the guy alleged to have imprisoned his ex-gf in a car and made her fear for her life. That's the aspect of Lovett that is creating any "prejudice" towards him by forumites. Not his race.

It's bleeding obvious to me Grumpy One. So why you go on and on about race is hard to fathom. Perhaps you're the one with the race problem. I found your carry-on about the photos of sponsored players last year a bit odd too.

Perhaps, in your heart of hearts, you've got some ill-will towards our coloured brothers. Which you externalise by accusing others of racism?

As the old saying goes: it takes one to know one.
I have always respected your posts Baba. Sound wisdom and judgement backed up by sensible expression. One of my favourite posters.

You have let yourself down this time by speculating on my character when you know nothing about me.

If you were aware of my current situation and my history, the racist accusation would be the absolute last card you would pull out of the pack. Have you considered that the reason i go "on and on" about racist issues might be that I am very close physically to those issues?

OK, fair comment. It was late at night and I was feeling a bit aggro. Respect.

There are undoubtedly some racists on here, but I don't reckon that's a major factor with Lovett, nor with last year's decision to put the photos of both the sainters whose christian names start with R on the same side of the screen header.

One thing I will say in favour of your argument: there is more genuine racism in the discussion of AL on this forum than there was in Stinger's dismissal of White South Africans.

GrumpyOne · Post: # 879676Post **GrumpyOne** » Tue 09 Feb 2010 10:11am

meher baba wrote:last year's decision to put the photos of both the sainters whose christian names start with R on the same side of the screen header.

Thanks Baba.

You are the first person in twelve months to actually find a reason for the separation of the guys on the forum banner, other than "it looked good".

Bit hard to justify the division on that basis, but your efforts are appreciated.

plugger66 · Post: # 879685Post **plugger66** » Tue 09 Feb 2010 10:50am

GrumpyOne wrote:
plugger66 wrote: The time the cops are taking to make a decision seems reasonable to me.
Go back a few pages Plugger to a post by Borderbarry, an ex detective with Victoria Police.

He said he can't understand why it is taking so long.

I would suggest that he would be far more aware of police procedure than you or me.

And he has done how many sexual assult cases. people on here who also claim to know a bit about the law claim it is a normal time procedure. Didnt Stokes take 3 months to get charged and they even had him on tape?

GrumpyOne · Post: # 879687Post **GrumpyOne** » Tue 09 Feb 2010 10:58am

plugger66 wrote: And he has done how many sexual assult cases.

If he has only done one, I suggest it is more than you and I put together.

Didn't ask him for his resume..... thought it a bit intrusive.

plugger66 · Post: # 879699Post **plugger66** » Tue 09 Feb 2010 11:29am

GrumpyOne wrote:
plugger66 wrote: And he has done how many sexual assult cases.
If he has only done one, I suggest it is more than you and I put together.

Didn't ask him for his resume..... thought it a bit intrusive.

Maybe he needs to do some drug charges as well to decide why Stokes took so long as well.

GrumpyOne · Post: # 879702Post **GrumpyOne** » Tue 09 Feb 2010 11:36am

plugger66 wrote:
GrumpyOne wrote:
plugger66 wrote: And he has done how many sexual assult cases.
If he has only done one, I suggest it is more than you and I put together.

Didn't ask him for his resume..... thought it a bit intrusive.
Maybe he needs to do some drug charges as well to decide why Stokes took so long as well.

PM him and ask him.

Moods · Post: # 879729Post **Moods** » Tue 09 Feb 2010 12:51pm

2 months is NOT a long time for charges to be laid. The informant would be acutely aware of the press/medeia speculation surrounding this case but I doubt he/she would be rushed just b/c the saints footy club want a speedy resolution.

chook23 · Post: # 880298Post **chook23** » Thu 11 Feb 2010 6:58am

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/l ... -nsfi.html

some interesting points made by Sam Lane

saint66au · Post: # 880301Post **saint66au** » Thu 11 Feb 2010 7:45am

chook23 wrote:http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/l ... -nsfi.html

some interesting points made by Sam Lane

GOD I wish people would stop comparing AL with the M&M case..

AL came to the club a mature player with baggage and prior form. The Club owed him nothing and the onus was on him to prove he was a reformed player. To put it mildly he's not done that.

M&M were young Saints players with no history or prior blemishes

plugger66 · Post: # 880302Post **plugger66** » Thu 11 Feb 2010 7:47am

saint66au wrote:
chook23 wrote:http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/l ... -nsfi.html

some interesting points made by Sam Lane
GOD I wish people would stop comparing AL with the M&M case..

AL came to the club a mature player with baggage and prior form. The Club owed him nothing and the onus was on him to prove he was a reformed player. To put it mildly he's not done that.

M&M were young Saints players with no history or prior blemishes

And there could be a witness who has told the club certain thins in the AL case.

GrumpyOne · Post: # 880317Post **GrumpyOne** » Thu 11 Feb 2010 8:42am

plugger66 wrote:
saint66au wrote:
chook23 wrote:http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/l ... -nsfi.html

some interesting points made by Sam Lane
GOD I wish people would stop comparing AL with the M&M case..

AL came to the club a mature player with baggage and prior form. The Club owed him nothing and the onus was on him to prove he was a reformed player. To put it mildly he's not done that.

M&M were young Saints players with no history or prior blemishes
And there could be a witness who has told the club certain thins in the AL case.

Very skinny evidence there Plugger.

Eastern · Post: # 880318Post **Eastern** » Thu 11 Feb 2010 8:43am

chook23 wrote:http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/l ... -nsfi.html

some interesting points made by Sam Lane

My take on the article:

A lot of grandstanding with a lot of disclaimers on the part of the journo !!

GrumpyOne · Post: # 880324Post **GrumpyOne** » Thu 11 Feb 2010 8:52am

About time the club came clean and stated why Lovett has been treated the opposite to M&M.

Would kill the rumours of a prominent someone pulling the strings in the background.

Dr Spaceman · Thu 11 Feb 2010 9:04am

Eastern wrote:
chook23 wrote:http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/l ... -nsfi.html

some interesting points made by Sam Lane
My take on the article:

A lot of grandstanding with a lot of disclaimers on the part of the journo !!