Some of us have clearly been influenced by the ABC s witch hunt.
Few have not put this problem in the NRL,s lap.
It is clearly an Australian cultural problem,
Yes I said it was wrong, for some more than others.
But spare me the idea only men get it wrong in sexual things.
Group sex is happening every hour of every day, inffering rape is involved may be quite wrong.
Blame? my good friend foxy blame is the whole target of this story.
IF this girl agreed to it, she may well have, then a whole life has been destroyed , and she is not any more a victim that Matty Johns.
Look each of us, back to our wild oats days can anyone claim they never regreated a one night stand?
NO woman or man EVER should be sexualy assulted EVER but re read the uncontested statement this girl asked Johns to return to her.
We could turn this thread into social commentry, ask why some convict the man and of what?
Or why few want to question both sides.
And yes the rubbish, bigoted rubbish, that its an NRL problem, other football games , like other sports reflect this country,s culture.
It common practice group sex its often offered by the female, groupies do exist.
Lets get our stones ready to flog Mathew , but let he/she with nothing to hide throw first.

Way back up there ^^^ I asked "Why is this "wrong"?" and I've still not heard a reason from the supporters of the witch-hunt. It's a simple enough question, isn't it?

The police investigated and say they spoke to 80 different people, yet they say there was nothing "wrong".

On another thread ("Sexting it Up" in the articles section), there has been a discussion about the credibility of a claim of an attempted rape perpetrated against the author. Her principal defence of her claim, reiterated a couple of times, is that the police took a report and have collected evidence, therefore her claim is verified. The police file is still open, apparently, as no assailant has been located. I have no way of knowing whether the police regard the investigation as active.

If we accept her argument, and it seems that some do, why do we not accept the same argument in this case, especially given that the police apparently carried out a comprehensive investigation and have closed their file on the grounds that there is no case to be made?

I also asked the question about the rights of Trish Johns, which is another one people seem to find hard. She is being punished mercilessly by this hoo-ha, and given the many statements about Johns being stood down "for the good of his family", I suspect there is a great deal of sympathy for her in the NRL. I'd also not be surprised to find there's been a significant payout offer made.

Does the ABC have no responsibility to innocent parties in cases like this? Why is the "victim" afforded all consideration, including complete anonymity, while it is acceptable to wreck the life of a truly innocent bystander?

These are not rhetorical questions: I'd be genuinely interested in some answers, because it's got me beat.

It seems to me that there are several issues being mixed up here and one no sooner answered then it is countered by the next issue.
As I see it Matt Johnson did the unspeakable he ignored other peoples expectation of being a star. Tragically the reality is if you become a star and held up as an idol this is the dark side . As I said there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Next issue Trish Johns as an individual she has been badly treated. But as someone who shared in the benefits she is copping the other side of the coin.

Next issue was the ABC wrong with their slant probably. Simply because apparently they focused on players. Personally I turned it off for all the reasons above and below.

Third issue mentioned in what I saw that NRL and also AFL and other contact sports in order to make money focus solely on the physical prowess of the player (“risk takers”).
The consequences of this are a list of bad public behaviours which are the consequences of both this type of individual and lack of real concern for the players.
The same could be said of rock stars and young movie stars etc. the ego get out of proportion.
The power they wield goes to their heads and they start to believe they ARE different and that they can ignore the consequences at their peril.

Let's not forget the corporate 'focus on $' by both the codes and the media in that it trawls gutters for ratings and therefore $'s. Controlling both these imply both rules and censorship both anathemas to the conservative element in society

It is interesting to note that the US basketball league had a similar issue with violence. And the after a intense study by scientific researchers they came up this the similar conclusions to the above.

Foxy is indeed right all the participants are 'victims' of among other 'cultural issues' in addition the above and therefore blame is counter productive what is needed are solutions. .

Foxy:"Focusing on blame is not going to solve the
problem. "

Sorry, I didn't see this earlier. Does this mean you don't support the blaming and sacking of Matthew Johns? Also, what is "the problem"? See my last post.

Foxy: "The League has got to put into place real penalties
for inappropriate behaviour. "

What is "inappropriate"? Who decides? On what basis?

csteele:"Trish Johns has really only one person to blame for the stress she must be feeling, not the girl nor the reporter, but her husband."

By her own account, her husband told her of the incident at the time. I'm sure it was very painful for her, but it should have also been the end of it. She is suffering now because of a mendacious "victim" and a reporter with no sense of the ethical responsibility she bears.

Examinator:"Matt Johnson did the unspeakable he ignored other peoples expectation of being a star."

It's Matt JOHNS and he wasn't a "star" at the time, but very much in his brother Andrew's shadow and a middle-rank player. How could he have foreseen the advent of the New Wowsers that feminism seems to have spawned? Tracey Grimshaw even said that a 19-year-old woman is incapable of consenting. I heard Ian Skippen on 4MMM, in reference to someone saying that players are now photographing their prospective partners giving consent, say "they think that lets them off the hook". In a normal world, it would, but not in the world of the New Wowsers. What do you think?

Examinator:"Trish Johns as an individual she has been badly treated. But as someone who shared in the benefits she is copping the other side of the coin."

Are you saying that every spouse is culpable for acts committed by the other? There is a large body of Law that disagrees with you.

Examinator:"NRL and also AFL and other contact sports in order to make money focus solely on the physical prowess of the player"

Every sport does that. When was the last time you saw a slow sprinter, or a high-jumper with weak legs? Business does it too: how many labourers are hired because of their exemplary moral conduct? How many CEOs because of their physical strength?

Examinator: "what is needed are solutions"

What is needed is to work out if there is a problem, because I've not yet seen a case made to support that contention. There are already too many hawking "solutions in search of a problem".

What I'd like to know is why it is apparently some sort of tradition for groups of rugby league players to stand around jerking off while one or more of their team mates has sex. While I don't think that there's anything intrinsically "wrong" with such an activity if all concerned are consenting adults, such behaviour is well outside my relatively broad experience, and that of everybody I've talked to about the current controversy.

I'm certainly no wowser, but there's group sex and there's circle jerks.