wonderful!
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- Con Gorozidis
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23532
- Joined: Thu 19 Jun 2008 4:04pm
- Has thanked: 100 times
- Been thanked: 78 times
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: Thu 11 Dec 2008 10:00pm
- Location: Melbourne
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3152
- Joined: Tue 02 Jun 2009 2:44am
- Location: Next to what's next to me.
- Has thanked: 71 times
- Been thanked: 35 times
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3303
- Joined: Tue 23 May 2006 6:14pm
- Location: East Oakleigh
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 40 times
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: Thu 11 Dec 2008 10:00pm
- Location: Melbourne
I dont think its going to be that easy, this is going to be in the news for a while, this is not going to do any good for our clubs reputation and the players. It's a rather serious matter, the club will sue you would think but i dont think that is going to stop her doing what she does.AnythingsPossibleSaints wrote:Seen 'em, had a chuckle, moved on. Next.
Sainter for life.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: Thu 11 Dec 2008 10:00pm
- Location: Melbourne
- meher baba
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7223
- Joined: Mon 14 Aug 2006 6:49am
- Location: Tasmania
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 516 times
- Dr Spaceman
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 14102
- Joined: Thu 24 Sep 2009 11:07pm
- Location: Newtown Institute of Saintology
- Has thanked: 104 times
- Been thanked: 62 times
People are naturally curious, myself included, but no way would I ever add this #*&#@ as a friendsaint66au wrote:Naming her or going to her damn page or worse, adding her as a friend, just gives her what she craves..attention!
I remember when this story first broke back in May some people were rightly pissed off with the (then unknown) girl, whilst others leapt to her defence with comments such as "remember there's a victim here", i.e. an unfortunate pregnant schoolgirl.
Well with what's been exposed since then (bad choice of words!) this poster is well and truly off the fence.
THE GIRL INVOLVED IS A VILE PIECE OF CRAP!!!
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: Thu 11 Dec 2008 10:00pm
- Location: Melbourne
the photos themselves are fine (just a bit embarrassing), but the fact she has posted them so the public can see (without consent of the players) is the problem.meher baba wrote:I've seen the photos. Seriously, what does it matter? It's hardly up there with Lovett or M&M as a major problem. Just a bit embarrassing, is all.
Sainter for life.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 635
- Joined: Sun 14 Mar 2004 6:08pm
She's put a picture of a 3rd player up according to the herald sun, and they have named the 3 players.
Don't give this slag the attention she is craving, don't add her as a friend... I really really hope the police charge this little skank and she gets what she deserves... I agree with a previous post, now eagerly awaiting Robyn Riley to come out now and back this girl
Don't give this slag the attention she is craving, don't add her as a friend... I really really hope the police charge this little skank and she gets what she deserves... I agree with a previous post, now eagerly awaiting Robyn Riley to come out now and back this girl
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: Thu 11 Dec 2008 10:00pm
- Location: Melbourne
yep, HS has now got a huge photo of riewoldt and dawson (with clothes on at least) on their article....http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/s ... 5973940526
Sainter for life.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 635
- Joined: Sun 14 Mar 2004 6:08pm
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: Thu 11 Dec 2008 10:00pm
- Location: Melbourne
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 931
- Joined: Sun 26 Aug 2007 10:06pm
- Location: Perth WA
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12798
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 811 times
- Been thanked: 433 times
Ch 7 News showed both photographs (with some pixelation).
Who would have given them legal permission to broadcast them?
Do they need legal permission?
Given that there is conjecture as to how the girl obtained them (legal or not?), is the fact that she publicly posted them on facebook sufficient for Ch7 to show them?
Who would have given them legal permission to broadcast them?
Do they need legal permission?
Given that there is conjecture as to how the girl obtained them (legal or not?), is the fact that she publicly posted them on facebook sufficient for Ch7 to show them?
- meher baba
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7223
- Joined: Mon 14 Aug 2006 6:49am
- Location: Tasmania
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 516 times
Well, it's a problem for her: she could conceivably face charges. The players surely ought to be thick-skinned enough to laugh it off.SaintSimmo wrote:the photos themselves are fine (just a bit embarrassing), but the fact she has posted them so the public can see (without consent of the players) is the problem.meher baba wrote:I've seen the photos. Seriously, what does it matter? It's hardly up there with Lovett or M&M as a major problem. Just a bit embarrassing, is all.
I'm a little bit sorry for whoever took the photos and gave them to the young lass who posted them on the Internet. But they have to take responsibilty for getting involved with a nut job and then letting her get hold of sensitive pics (unless, of course, the girl took the pics herself: can't be entirely ruled out).
I know she was a schoolgirl, and allegedly has a bit of a thing for boys from the Gold Coast, but this incident surely rather expands the definition of the term "toolies", does it not?
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
- Jonathan Swift
i'd say most likely scenario is that they were on someone's phone. he slept over at her house. she got up while he was asleep and copied them onto her computer. pretty straightforward if that's the case, and not so much a breach of trust on the player's part as opposed to a poor piece of judgement.meher baba wrote:I'm a little bit sorry for whoever took the photos and gave them to the young lass who posted them on the Internet. But they have to take responsibilty for getting involved with a nut job and then letting her get hold of sensitive pics (unless, of course, the girl took the pics herself: can't be entirely ruled out).
- Eastern
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 14357
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 1:46pm
- Location: 3132
- Been thanked: 1 time
Damm good question.Mr Magic wrote:Ch 7 News showed both photographs (with some pixelation).
Who would have given them legal permission to broadcast them?
Do they need legal permission?
Given that there is conjecture as to how the girl obtained them (legal or not?), is the fact that she publicly posted them on facebook sufficient for Ch7 to show them?
You would think they would have run it past their legal Dept prior to puting it to air !!
NEW scarf signature (hopefully with correct spelling) will be here as soon as it arrives !!
- Dr Spaceman
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 14102
- Joined: Thu 24 Sep 2009 11:07pm
- Location: Newtown Institute of Saintology
- Has thanked: 104 times
- Been thanked: 62 times
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: Thu 11 Dec 2008 10:00pm
- Location: Melbourne