Another poorly thought out lightweight opinion piece that demonstrates by how far she misses the point.

So never mind that you are innocent until proven guilty and never mind that you have a very good case "in legal terms", Wilson has pronounced us guilty before the charges have even been laid.

To Wilson's feeble mind we need to do away with the legal system altogether. That way we can send people we don't like to the gallows as they do in backwater dictatorships or to remote prison camps without trial as they did regularly in tyrannical regimes.

Welcome to Wilson's Gulag Archipelago.

The same feeble mind that produced this addle brained thinking a few months ago:-

... if Carlton is guilty then the current mood of the AFL indicates that club, too, will be forensically examined and punished.

What makes her so pathetic is that she knows full well that the club isn't in a position to respond to this sort of garbage.

Edited February 12, 201312 yr by Spirit of the Demon

wow there are a lot of so called "facts" in her article....

I look forward to Caroline receiving her comeuppance. She continues to lose the respect of her readers because it is so important for her to be seen to have inside information. This is her modus operandi... In this case, if she does have inside information, she is merely confirming that she is part of a corrupt process! Ironic, isn't it?

I think she was being facetious

Yep, it does seem quite odd that the whole investigation was launched on the back of what McLean said and then later on we learn that he backtracked and didn't provide any 'evidence.' The media should have been all over it but have conveniently let it slide.

Her words ...

Certainly the whistleblower Brock McLean provided no evidence.

Edited February 12, 201312 yr by Macca

I just had this horrible thought of Bob sitting alone at home reading this crap and loving it.

Another poorly thought out lightweight opinion piece that demonstrates by how far she misses the point.

So never mind that you are innocent until proven guilty and never mind that you have a very good case "in legal terms", Wilson has pronounced us guilty before the charges have even been laid.

To Wilson's feeble mind we need to do away with the legal system altogether. That way we can send people we don't like to the gallows as they do in backwater dictatorships or to remote prison camps without trial as they did regularly in tyrannical regimes.

Welcome to Wilson's Gulag Archipelago.

It smacks of an attempt to twist the AFL's arm to bring charges, in the hope that they might need some encouragement from the mighty press (and Wilson's bloated idea of her ability to influence public thinking).

At the very least, she's getting in first and pronouncing from out of her nasty biased thinking, that MFC is GUILTY.

She displays no awareness of legal process, nor of the "bias rule" in natural justice as applied to a properly conducted investigation.

Another poorly thought out lightweight opinion piece that demonstrates by how far she misses the point.

So never mind that you are innocent until proven guilty and never mind that you have a very good case "in legal terms", Wilson has pronounced us guilty before the charges have even been laid.

To Wilson's feeble mind we need to do away with the legal system altogether. That way we can send people we don't like to the gallows as they do in backwater dictatorships or to remote prison camps without trial as they did regularly in tyrannical regimes.

Welcome to Wilson's Gulag Archipelago.

Let me get this right.

She's saying that we don't have the right to defend ourselves even if we have a valid defence?

If this is the chief football writer at this rag, how bad are the hacks?

Both the article this morning by that nonentity Rucci and Kero's latest offering make very confident assertions about Melbourne's guilt. While we all wait for some official comment, I cannot help but wonder what is behind these two "journalists" comments.

In Caroline Wilson's mind we will be guilty no matter what the outcome is.

"The Demons' unofficial defence since it became clear they had a very

serious case to answer has been run along several lines. The first is

the schoolyard excuse: that everybody else was doing it - or at least a

sufficient number of clubs, meaning that their club should not be

singled out. Further, if the club is punished, then it will drag down

others along with it."

I implore her to publish her sources/quotes because I'm honestly struggling to find any presser where we have said:

1) Everyone else did it;

2) We will bring everyone else down.

That article was a desperate attempt to push the AFL back to AA's desire for blood.

She won't admit it but her language bears this out - she doesn't think we can be punished.

As another poster pointed out - she said that our reasons are 'childish, irrelevant and so-so' but most likely legally correct.

How does that work?

"Excuse me your honour, the defence is correct and legally accurate but they are saying it childishly and being just so irrelevant."

It's F__ing Legally Blonde 3.

Oh, and lol at the Great Contrarian - yeah, that was such a good synopsis of the whole thing.

Send it in to Wikipedia FFS.

When I read all her articles about us I can't help but ask: who the f&%k from the Melbourne Football Club ran over her dog?

Most likely CC driving erratically away from the Zulus

The last few lines also set herself up for continuing to slag us off if we get away with a "nothing to answer for"

amazing comments on what the club is allegedly claiming in its defence

especially as the only statements from the club are a claim of our innocence, the hiring of a prominent silk and the determination to fight the charges

that would have to be one of the most poorly constructed pieces of prose i have read from a "senior" journalist

Both the article this morning by that nonentity Rucci and Kero's latest offering make very confident assertions about Melbourne's guilt. While we all wait for some official comment, I cannot help but wonder what is behind these two "journalists" comments.

Nasty anti-Melbourne Football Club bias.

Her own team is self-confessed of the same "crime".

THE AGE BETTER THINK QUICKLY IF IT'S PREPARED TO ALIENATE TOTALLY ALL MELBOURNE SUPPORTERS FOR A VERY LONG TIME.

In Caroline Wilson's mind we will be guilty no matter what the outcome is.

"The Demons' unofficial defence since it became clear they had a very

serious case to answer has been run along several lines. The first is

the schoolyard excuse: that everybody else was doing it - or at least a

sufficient number of clubs, meaning that their club should not be

singled out. Further, if the club is punished, then it will drag down

others along with it."

I implore her to publish her sources/quotes because I'm honestly struggling to find any presser where we have said:

1) Everyone else did it;

2) We will bring everyone else down.

Excellent point. To my knowledge there has been no official or unofficial defence issued by the club at all. Perhaps she reads Demonland and has cherry picked some of the poorer posts and anointed them as forming our "unofficial defence"?

She's certainly shown that she doesn't understand the fact that if you have a "serious case to answer", you are entitled and have a right to mount a defence based on the legalities of the situation.

Her sheer ignorance of this fact simply beggars belief.

I can only suggest sending The Age an email, explaining that you will no longer subscribe to their broadsheet rag, like I did months ago.

Anyway, I await either the announcement of "no finding" or that we will go to court and have any charges dismissed.

Either way, I'm not worried.

It's not much more than an opinion piece with a few current likelihoods thrown in. And I agree with her take on the overall situation.

The funny thing is that prior to any hint of an investigation into tanking most supporters on here thought we "tanked", but now there's an investigation into us "tanking" the indignation is extraordinary. I too don't believe there's enough proof to find us guilty, but I'm not indignant about the views of others when I share those very views.

The interesting thing is every one of her articles would have been passed through the legal department, and they just keep allowing her to publish this garbage... what does that tell us?

It's not much more than an opinion piece with a few current likelihoods thrown in. And I agree with her take on the overall situation.

The funny thing is that prior to any hint of an investigation into tanking most supporters on here thought we "tanked", but now there's an investigation into us "tanking" the indignation is extraordinary. I too don't believe there's enough proof to find us guilty, but I'm not indignant about the views of others when I share those very views.

I thought that we tanked in the same way that I thought other clubs tanked.

I guess, seeing as I can't use that as an excuse, that the goalposts of the conversation have changed.

Also, I think it's more than indignation of people responding to someone saying we tanked - it's the manner that some of the journalists, one in particular, are going about it.

Seeing the worth of losing is not the same as applauding the orchestrating of a loss!

It's not much more than an opinion piece with a few current likelihoods thrown in. And I agree with her take on the overall situation.

The funny thing is that prior to any hint of an investigation into tanking most supporters on here thought we "tanked", but now there's an investigation into us "tanking" the indignation is extraordinary. I too don't believe there's enough proof to find us guilty, but I'm not indignant about the views of others when I share those very views.

Difference is that she wants to see us burn. Little bit different from us wanting to improve our list.

I look forward to Caroline receiving her comeuppance. She continues to lose the respect of her readers because it is so important for her to be seen to have inside information. This is her modus operandi... In this case, if she does have inside information, she is merely confirming that she is part of a corrupt process! Ironic, isn't it?

I have just tweeted my thoughts to her and she has retweeted it. Everyone I talk to regardless of who they follow think exactly the same. No credibility

Even the word "excuses" is loaded with nasty bias:

Perhaps in legal terms they are correct even though their stated excuses are so so flimsy, irrelevant and in some cases childish.

excuse: A reason or explanation put forward to defend or justify a fault or offense.

This is a legal defence of a (quasi-)legal investigation. MFC presents "evidence", not excuses. MFC hasn't admitted to any fault or offence, that we have to find excuses for. We have evidence that is of legal weight, to the effect that we have not broken any AFL rule. This is the crux of any proper investigation, and certainly of any ensuing legal case before a court.

It's all just compelling evidence of some very biased and nasty personal opinions that are in fact, worth squat.

Someone said recently in a discussion on today's journalists, that in the old days they reported the news, today they try and make it. CW is probably the leading exponent of the latter.

It's not much more than an opinion piece with a few current likelihoods thrown in. And I agree with her take on the overall situation.

The funny thing is that prior to any hint of an investigation into tanking most supporters on here thought we "tanked", but now there's an investigation into us "tanking" the indignation is extraordinary. I too don't believe there's enough proof to find us guilty, but I'm not indignant about the views of others when I share those very views.

Wilson shows contempt for our right to defend ourselves on the basis of legal argument which she admits is a very good case.

She wants us to be punished heavily.

You share that view?