Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
I wish the filthy little pig would retreat back into the hole he crawled out of.
The resounding words of an uneducated, bottom-feeding neanderthal.
You posted that......
Should be on your tombstone.
Why would I worry that anyone should forget? Can you not read? I stand by that statement. Never debated it.
You may not like what I have posted, but he is what he is. He has a PROVEN record of abuse with additional charges and a CRIMINAL trial pending.
So my utter distaste and disgust for a man that REPEATEDLY abuses women makes me an uneducated, bottom-feeding neanderthal...?? Whatever floats your boat.
bigred wrote:Anyone else get the feeling that he is in some serious barney rubble?
One charge is bad enough, but now two.
I know it's still "alleged" but it doesn't look great for him and rightly so if he is found guilty.
Quick question-Did the first alleged incident happen while he was at Essendon? I'm sure this has been answered already but just curious.
happened with the same women same night...
part of me says perhaps their first rape charge is not strong and thus give them the back up.
Exactly.
My thoughts when I heard this was that there may be some weight in the rumour that she jumped into bed with him - and the prosecutors realised their case was not strong enough. - time will tell the truth - we hope
bigred wrote:Anyone else get the feeling that he is in some serious barney rubble?
One charge is bad enough, but now two.
I know it's still "alleged" but it doesn't look great for him and rightly so if he is found guilty.
Quick question-Did the first alleged incident happen while he was at Essendon? I'm sure this has been answered already but just curious.
happened with the same women same night...
part of me says perhaps their first rape charge is not strong and thus give them the back up.
Exactly.
My thoughts when I heard this was that there may be some weight in the rumour that she jumped into bed with him - and the prosecutors realised their case was not strong enough. - time will tell the truth - we hope
Totally wrong
Don't wait for the light at the end of the tunnel to appear, run down there and light the bloody thing yourself!
bigred wrote:Anyone else get the feeling that he is in some serious barney rubble?
One charge is bad enough, but now two.
I know it's still "alleged" but it doesn't look great for him and rightly so if he is found guilty.
Quick question-Did the first alleged incident happen while he was at Essendon? I'm sure this has been answered already but just curious.
happened with the same women same night...
part of me says perhaps their first rape charge is not strong and thus give them the back up.
Exactly.
My thoughts when I heard this was that there may be some weight in the rumour that she jumped into bed with him - and the prosecutors realised their case was not strong enough. - time will tell the truth - we hope
Peanut!!!!
Are you suggesting that there may be the very faintest chance that Lovett is innocent?
How brave of you to post that on the forum. Seriously.
Watch out for the "Filthy Little Pig" posters.... they're feral this time of year.
Australia...... Live it like we stole it....... Because we did.
It's obviously very difficult to prove 'beyond reasonable doubt' in a court of law if it's only one persons word against another... but I'm wondering if a tribunal could/would rule and find on the basis of probability or likelihood, much like someone being found not guilty in a criminal case, but liable in a civil one.
SENsaintsational wrote:Has Lovett ever come out and said "I am innocent"?
If so, I may have missed it.
I hear bleatings from DHumphrey-B-Bear about him being financially hard done by, and his career in ruins.
But I haven't heard anyone pronounce publically his innocence. Surely if you didn't do it, you'd be yelling it from the tree tops??
Could someone point me to a link or article where this has happened, should I have missed it.
He has steadfastly maintained his innocence through his solicitors, as is appropriate.
Be absolutely stupid with a trial hanging over his head to discuss the matter in open media.
I've just never heard the words "Andrew Lovett is innocent of these charges and we will be fighting them all the way".
Did I miss them? (serious question)
His reputation has been destroyed, surely you'd fight back. Humphrey B Bear is on SEN weekly. Surely he can say his client is innocent.
" "The facts are there has been a charge, and it is a very serious charge, but all the way through Andrew has maintained his innocence and he has the right to be assumed innocent until proven otherwise," Lovett's manager Alex McDonald told radio 3AW"
The media don't like that part of the story because it doesn't sell papers - so it is seldom noted.
He may be guilty for all I know but I would prefer to know the full story before I give a call.
The club was probably right for washing their hands of him for obvious reasons (in this immoral corporate world) ... but the way the media and footy supporters go around with their high and mighty attitudes against people who are in strive doesn't go down with me.
The club obviously knows more than me so there must have been an issue - but I will wait to hear the whole story thanks.
The Peanut wrote:
The club obviously knows more than me so there must have been an issue - but I will wait to hear the whole story thanks.
yeah good idea, makes me wonder why you didn't do that before you stated this...
The Peanut wrote:My thoughts when I heard this was that there may be some weight in the rumour that she jumped into bed with him - and the prosecutors realised their case was not strong enough. - time will tell the truth - we hope.
Don't wait for the light at the end of the tunnel to appear, run down there and light the bloody thing yourself!
SENsaintsational wrote:Has Lovett ever come out and said "I am innocent"?
If so, I may have missed it.
I hear bleatings from DHumphrey-B-Bear about him being financially hard done by, and his career in ruins.
But I haven't heard anyone pronounce publically his innocence. Surely if you didn't do it, you'd be yelling it from the tree tops??
Could someone point me to a link or article where this has happened, should I have missed it.
He has steadfastly maintained his innocence through his solicitors, as is appropriate.
Be absolutely stupid with a trial hanging over his head to discuss the matter in open media.
I've just never heard the words "Andrew Lovett is innocent of these charges and we will be fighting them all the way".
Did I miss them? (serious question)
His reputation has been destroyed, surely you'd fight back. Humphrey B Bear is on SEN weekly. Surely he can say his client is innocent.
I am positive he has, but don't have the time to research that.
You have plenty of time to post ridiculous and churlish responses but you don't have the time to do a quick google search?
Would not surprise me though if he did claim his innocence. How many people have you actually heard admit they are guilty of a crime? Especially in a sexual assault case. Charges and court proceedings usually only occur if there is a VERY solid case in this particular type of crime.
Just a heads up for you grumpy, I don't usually call people 'filthy pigs' without a very good reason. Just occasionally, people know more than they are willing to share on an internet forum.
The Peanut wrote:
The club obviously knows more than me so there must have been an issue - but I will wait to hear the whole story thanks.
yeah good idea, makes me wonder why you didn't do that before you stated this...
The Peanut wrote:My thoughts when I heard this was that there may be some weight in the rumour that she jumped into bed with him - and the prosecutors realised their case was not strong enough. - time will tell the truth - we hope.
.. because this is a footy forum where people can speak their mind.
saint75 wrote:[You have plenty of time to post ridiculous and churlish responses but you don't have the time to do a quick google search?
Would not surprise me though if he did claim his innocence. How many people have you actually heard admit they are guilty of a crime? Especially in a sexual assault case. Charges and court proceedings usually only occur if there is a VERY solid case in this particular type of crime.
Just a heads up for you grumpy, I don't usually call people 'filthy pigs' without a very good reason. Just occasionally, people know more than they are willing to share on an internet forum.
I don't have time to do either, and have not done either.
Charges and court proceedings continue if a magistrate decides there is a case to answer, guilt is never presumed as implied in your post.
And "people know more blah blah blah" !!!!!!
You have already proved that you know SFA.
That line won't fly.
Australia...... Live it like we stole it....... Because we did.
SENsaintsational wrote:Has Lovett ever come out and said "I am innocent"?
If so, I may have missed it.
I hear bleatings from DHumphrey-B-Bear about him being financially hard done by, and his career in ruins.
But I haven't heard anyone pronounce publically his innocence. Surely if you didn't do it, you'd be yelling it from the tree tops??
Could someone point me to a link or article where this has happened, should I have missed it.
He has steadfastly maintained his innocence through his solicitors, as is appropriate.
Be absolutely stupid with a trial hanging over his head to discuss the matter in open media.
I've just never heard the words "Andrew Lovett is innocent of these charges and we will be fighting them all the way".
Did I miss them? (serious question)
His reputation has been destroyed, surely you'd fight back. Humphrey B Bear is on SEN weekly. Surely he can say his client is innocent.
" "The facts are there has been a charge, and it is a very serious charge, but all the way through Andrew has maintained his innocence and he has the right to be assumed innocent until proven otherwise," Lovett's manager Alex McDonald told radio 3AW"
The media don't like that part of the story because it doesn't sell papers - so it is seldom noted.
He may be guilty for all I know but I would prefer to know the full story before I give a call.
The club was probably right for washing their hands of him for obvious reasons (in this immoral corporate world) ... but the way the media and footy supporters go around with their high and mighty attitudes against people who are in strive doesn't go down with me.
The club obviously knows more than me so there must have been an issue - but I will wait to hear the whole story thanks.
Thanks Peanut. Appreciated.
Poster formerly known as SENsaintsational. More wisdom. More knowledge. Less name.
GrumpyOne wrote:
I don't have time to do either, and have not done either.
Charges and court proceedings continue if a magistrate decides there is a case to answer, guilt is never presumed as implied in your post.
And "people know more blah blah blah" !!!!!!
You have already proved that you know SFA.
That line won't fly.
Before the case gets to a magistrate, the police have to investigate it and make sure there is enough evidence to present to the magistrate. With a sexual assualt case, the evidence has to be almost iron clad as too often it ends up being one persons word against another. Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story though.
in regards to guilt being presumed, you already know my opinion on this issue and on what I base that opinion on. Without taking the latest charges into account, he has already PROVEN in the past that he likes to rough up women so lets not try and make the man out to be an angel shall we.
GrumpyOne wrote:
I don't have time to do either, and have not done either.
Charges and court proceedings continue if a magistrate decides there is a case to answer, guilt is never presumed as implied in your post.
And "people know more blah blah blah" !!!!!!
You have already proved that you know SFA.
That line won't fly.
Before the case gets to a magistrate, the police have to investigate it and make sure there is enough evidence to present to the magistrate. With a sexual assualt case, the evidence has to be almost iron clad as too often it ends up being one persons word against another. Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story though.
in regards to guilt being presumed, you already know my opinion on this issue and on what I base that opinion on. Without taking the latest charges into account, he has already PROVEN in the past that he likes to rough up women so lets not try and make the man out to be an angel shall we.
So... did you get off the charge or are you writing this from Barwon?
Only joking.
It's just that you seem to know so much detail about process. I'd understand if this was St Fid posting, but I wonder about your source.
Never made Lovett out an angel.... I just believe in the principles of justice. He has a right to be tried in front of a jury of his peers before being determined guilty.
Australia...... Live it like we stole it....... Because we did.
Well on the face of it , it would appear that the advice given to St Kilda, the AFL, THe Grievance Tribunal adn everybody except Derek Humphrey Bear was correct - the Criminal Case needs to be heard first.
It would be interesting to know when Derek Humphrey Bear calls the AFLPA to let them know he is avaialable to take Michael Johnson's case before the Grievance Tribunal. They may as well fund that cvase as well, to be consistant.
Afterall, he's been suspended indefinitely by the Dockers which is impinging on his ability to earn above his base salary.
Isn't that the origninal argument DHB was using to get St Kilda before teh Grievance Tribunal?
Well on the face of it , it would appear that the advice given to St Kilda, the AFL, THe Grievance Tribunal adn everybody except Derek Humphrey Bear was correct - the Criminal Case needs to be heard first.
It would be interesting to know when Derek Humphrey Bear calls the AFLPA to let them know he is avaialable to take Michael Johnson's case before the Grievance Tribunal. They may as well fund that cvase as well, to be consistant.
Afterall, he's been suspended indefinitely by the Dockers which is impinging on his ability to earn above his base salary.
Isn't that the origninal argument DHB was using to get St Kilda before teh Grievance Tribunal?
Yep totally agree. Cant stand solictors who try to do there best for their client.
Well on the face of it , it would appear that the advice given to St Kilda, the AFL, THe Grievance Tribunal adn everybody except Derek Humphrey Bear was correct - the Criminal Case needs to be heard first.
It would be interesting to know when Derek Humphrey Bear calls the AFLPA to let them know he is avaialable to take Michael Johnson's case before the Grievance Tribunal. They may as well fund that cvase as well, to be consistant.
Afterall, he's been suspended indefinitely by the Dockers which is impinging on his ability to earn above his base salary.
Isn't that the origninal argument DHB was using to get St Kilda before the Grievance Tribunal?
Yep totally agree. Cant stand solictors who try to do there best for their client.
Then we're in agreement on that one.
See it's not hard when you open the other eye and move from the 19th to the 20th century.
Well on the face of it , it would appear that the advice given to St Kilda, the AFL, THe Grievance Tribunal adn everybody except Derek Humphrey Bear was correct - the Criminal Case needs to be heard first.
It would be interesting to know when Derek Humphrey Bear calls the AFLPA to let them know he is avaialable to take Michael Johnson's case before the Grievance Tribunal. They may as well fund that cvase as well, to be consistant.
Afterall, he's been suspended indefinitely by the Dockers which is impinging on his ability to earn above his base salary.
Isn't that the origninal argument DHB was using to get St Kilda before the Grievance Tribunal?
Yep totally agree. Cant stand solictors who try to do there best for their client.
Then we're in agreement on that one.
See it's not hard when you open the other eye and move from the 19th to the 20th century.
Do see a chiropractor or a physio for you neck because it must really be hurting from some of your posts lately.
Well on the face of it , it would appear that the advice given to St Kilda, the AFL, THe Grievance Tribunal adn everybody except Derek Humphrey Bear was correct - the Criminal Case needs to be heard first.
It would be interesting to know when Derek Humphrey Bear calls the AFLPA to let them know he is avaialable to take Michael Johnson's case before the Grievance Tribunal. They may as well fund that cvase as well, to be consistant.
Afterall, he's been suspended indefinitely by the Dockers which is impinging on his ability to earn above his base salary.
Isn't that the origninal argument DHB was using to get St Kilda before the Grievance Tribunal?
Yep totally agree. Cant stand solictors who try to do there best for their client.
Then we're in agreement on that one.
See it's not hard when you open the other eye and move from the 19th to the 20th century.
Do see a chiropractor or a physio for you neck because it must really be hurting from some of your posts lately.
My neck's fine - thanks for asking.
What's the difference between Lovett's situation when the Club initially suspended him indefinitely adn Johnson's?
Well on the face of it , it would appear that the advice given to St Kilda, the AFL, THe Grievance Tribunal adn everybody except Derek Humphrey Bear was correct - the Criminal Case needs to be heard first.
It would be interesting to know when Derek Humphrey Bear calls the AFLPA to let them know he is avaialable to take Michael Johnson's case before the Grievance Tribunal. They may as well fund that cvase as well, to be consistant.
Afterall, he's been suspended indefinitely by the Dockers which is impinging on his ability to earn above his base salary.
Isn't that the origninal argument DHB was using to get St Kilda before the Grievance Tribunal?
Yep totally agree. Cant stand solictors who try to do there best for their client.
Then we're in agreement on that one.
See it's not hard when you open the other eye and move from the 19th to the 20th century.
Do see a chiropractor or a physio for you neck because it must really be hurting from some of your posts lately.
My neck's fine - thanks for asking.
What's the difference between Lovett's situation when the Club initially suspended him indefinitely adn Johnson's?
Well on the face of it , it would appear that the advice given to St Kilda, the AFL, THe Grievance Tribunal adn everybody except Derek Humphrey Bear was correct - the Criminal Case needs to be heard first.
It would be interesting to know when Derek Humphrey Bear calls the AFLPA to let them know he is avaialable to take Michael Johnson's case before the Grievance Tribunal. They may as well fund that cvase as well, to be consistant.
Afterall, he's been suspended indefinitely by the Dockers which is impinging on his ability to earn above his base salary.
Isn't that the origninal argument DHB was using to get St Kilda before teh Grievance Tribunal?
I can't see how it could possibly be any other way.
If St Kilda defence to the civil charge is calling witnesses and alleged victims of the criminal case, I can't see how the civil case can proceed.
Anyway you look at it, it prejudices the criminal case.
This has become more of a circus than it needs to be, I would have thought the best legal advice would have been to sort out the criminal charges not rack up 6 figure legal fees trying to force a civil case that can't be heard prior to the criminal case anyway.
Ridiculous.
Life is very short and there's no time for fussing and fighting my friends.
