8 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

Sounds like the Forces of Dusty trying to mitigate the seriousness of events.

Where's a Jedi when you need one? 

Just now, Hobbits's said:

Where's a Jedi when you need one? 

Just as an aside - I went to the ACDC concert on Sunday ( ugh...meh..) and when Angus got hot and sweaty he actually looked identical to your picture. He hasn't aged well. (but he can play guitar)

2 minutes ago, nutbean said:

Just as an aside - I went to the ACDC concert on Sunday ( ugh...meh..) and when Angus got hot and sweaty he actually looked identical to your picture. He hasn't aged well. (but he can play guitar)

So you're telling me he looks a lot like KB?

About bloody time: Why did police take so long to launch Dustin Martin probe?

"One of the key priorities in such cases is the welfare of the victim.
While the police and the AFL were handing out press releases did anyone bother to tell this woman the case was now a criminal investigation. The answer is no.
She learned about it on Twitter and feels betrayed by the very people she needs to trust.
What a disgrace."

17 minutes ago, ManDee said:

 

And you think you are better? 

absolutely

21 minutes ago, stuie said:

About bloody time: Why did police take so long to launch Dustin Martin probe?at a disgrace."

That's disappointing. As Sly of the underworld says what a stuff up. 

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

I'm just passing this on and not making comment on it or trying to imply anything....ok

It has been reported on radio and other media that a number of witnesses have come forward disputing the account of events as described by the woman involved

furthermore it has been intimated that because this has caused some uncertainty the afl effectively have handed it over to the police and that they and richmond will WAIT on the outcome of the police findings before deciding on their actions. I say intimated because as of yet neither the afl or richmond have made a definitive media statement (at least not that i have heard)

 

Conflicting reports....typical....

 

Thanks for the info DC.

2 hours ago, daisycutter said:

I'm just passing this on and not making comment on it or trying to imply anything....ok

It has been reported on radio and other media that a number of witnesses have come forward disputing the account of events as described by the woman involved

furthermore it has been intimated that because this has caused some uncertainty the afl effectively have handed it over to the police and that they and richmond will WAIT on the outcome of the police findings before deciding on their actions. I say intimated because as of yet neither the afl or richmond have made a definitive media statement (at least not that i have heard)

 

What a novel idea! Wait until all of the facts are investigated/known before jumping to a conclusion.

10 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

What a novel idea! Wait until all of the facts are investigated/known before jumping to a conclusion.

 

I think many have jumped to a conclusion based on Martin and the club apologising for what he had done. Read the below and you don't think much of the comment here is warranted based on the below ?

A club spokesman said that Martin's behaviour was clearly unacceptable, that he had apologised to the woman in question as well as to the managers and owners of the restaurant.

"He had been drinking and was clearly disruptive to other diners and a female patron," the spokesman confirmed.

"He has subsequently called her and apologised and that apology has been accepted. His behaviour was not good enough."

Martin said in a statement released by the club late on Monday afternoon: "Regrettably, I was intoxicated and that, in itself, is completely unacceptable.

"I do, however, take responsibility for my behaviour and I am deeply embarrassed.

"If anything I have said or done has caused anyone to feel threatened, then that is totally inappropriate."
 

 

 

17 hours ago, Curry & Beer said:

Let's not lose grasp of the fact that there is a gigantic difference between threatening something and actually doing it

 

17 hours ago, monoccular said:

 

Not necessarily a gigantic difference, especially if a drunk / drugged madman then goes ahead and does it.

C&B, this is what you've got yourself so worked up about. You responded to monoccular's post about how bad Martin's actions were by saying "Let's not lose grasp of the fact that there is a gigantic difference between threatening something and actually doing it". Monoccular then said that the difference wasn't necessarily "gigantic", and then many others called you out for devaluing the incident by comparing it with a something else.

It's simple, C&B. You went too hard, a number of people rightly called your out on it, and since then you have tried to attack everyone who disagrees with you in a vain attempt to save face .... especially since Stuie (who you have a historical beef with) has fallen on the correct side on this issue. 

If you wanted to weasel out of it, you should have said "I'm sorry, I think I phrased that badly. What I was meaning was ........" and then everyone would have accepted it and moved on. It's certainly a much better option than getting indignant and slagging off everyone.

He looks like a feral pig with that haircut and those horrible tattoos on his neck.

Concur with the title of the thread... but I've thought that a long time

Funnily enough so did the other 17 clubs when he was shopping himself around

3 hours ago, Curry & Beer said:

The irony being that Axis of Bob and Stuie are just mean-spirted bullies who thrive on attacking others, yet they want to see Martin lynched in the town square because they are just these noble enlightened protectors of women? Yeah I noticed it too.

 

The real irony is that which you say about others could be attributed to you.

48 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

 

 

C&B, this is what you've got yourself so worked up about. You responded to monoccular's post about how bad Martin's actions were by saying "Let's not lose grasp of the fact that there is a gigantic difference between threatening something and actually doing it". Monoccular then said that the difference wasn't necessarily "gigantic", and then many others called you out for devaluing the incident by comparing it with a something else.

It's simple, C&B. You went too hard, a number of people rightly called your out on it, and since then you have tried to attack everyone who disagrees with you in a vain attempt to save face .... especially since Stuie (who you have a historical beef with) has fallen on the correct side on this issue. 

If you wanted to weasel out of it, you should have said "I'm sorry, I think I phrased that badly. What I was meaning was ........" and then everyone would have accepted it and moved on. It's certainly a much better option than getting indignant and slagging off everyone.

i'm not weaseling out of anything. I was 100% right when I said 'it's not as bad'. It's a statement of fact. I was forced to continue pushing it because a few like mo64 were challenging it. If others choose to ignore my many clarifications and talk about this 'devaluing' BS that is not my problem. I am dealing in facts. The facts are we should not be treating Martin like he has murdered somebody because he hasn't. That is how the law will be dealing with it also because they understand it is not as bad. Tell me again which part of this I am incorrect about again?  BTW your use of the collective 'everyone' is not accurate. There are plenty who have backed me up as you have chosen to ignore.

15 minutes ago, ManDee said:

 

The real irony is that which you say about others could be attributed to you.

I don't care for your commentary on the matter mate

58 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

 

 

C&B, this is what you've got yourself so worked up about. You responded to monoccular's post about how bad Martin's actions were by saying "Let's not lose grasp of the fact that there is a gigantic difference between threatening something and actually doing it". Monoccular then said that the difference wasn't necessarily "gigantic", and then many others called you out for devaluing the incident by comparing it with a something else.

It's simple, C&B. You went too hard, a number of people rightly called your out on it, and since then you have tried to attack everyone who disagrees with you in a vain attempt to save face .... especially since Stuie (who you have a historical beef with) has fallen on the correct side on this issue. 

If you wanted to weasel out of it, you should have said "I'm sorry, I think I phrased that badly. What I was meaning was ........" and then everyone would have accepted it and moved on. It's certainly a much better option than getting indignant and slagging off everyone.

PS why don't you suggest that mono apologise for his comparison to ISIS and medieval torture, that is far more off-base and absurd than what I am apparently being accused of, which is some sort of murky 'unintended devaluation' FFS

From John Silvester crime reporter The Age

 

"He reacted extremely angrily, very very agitated, began swearing at me, standing over me physically, it was extremely intimidating," the Sydney woman, identified as "Tracey", told Channel Seven.

This means he will, belatedly, be investigated for threats to kill, assault and assault with a weapon.

Under the law, it doesn't matter if someone intends to carry out a threat to kill, it is still an offence if the victim fears he or she will.

 

"If a police officer was on the scene you would have expected Martin to have been arrested on the spot. But this is a relatively simple investigation with a simple outcome.

If there is sufficient evidence Martin will be charged, if not, he won't.

The AFL and police have tried to lead in the area of violence against women but they have stuffed this up.

One of the key priorities in such cases is the welfare of the victim.

While the police and the AFL were handing out press releases did anyone bother to tell this woman the case was now a criminal investigation. The answer is no.

She learned about it on Twitter and feels betrayed by the very people she needs to trust.

What a disgrace."

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/about-bloody-time-why-did-police-take-so-long-to-launch-dustin-martin-probe-20151210-gll17x.html#ixzz3tyqkhnpG 
 

26 minutes ago, Curry & Beer said:

i'm not weaseling out of anything. I was 100% right when I said 'it's not as bad'. It's a statement of fact. I was forced to continue pushing it because a few like mo64 were challenging it. If others choose to ignore my many clarifications and talk about this 'devaluing' BS that is not my problem. I am dealing in facts. The facts are we should not be treating Martin like he has murdered somebody because he hasn't. That is how the law will be dealing with it also because they understand it is not as bad. Tell me again which part of this I am incorrect about again?  BTW your use of the collective 'everyone' is not accurate. There are plenty who have backed me up as you have chosen to ignore.

I know you aren't trying to weasel out of it, which is your main problem. You've instead decided to double down on a ridiculous point because you feel threatened.

You saying that "we should not be treating Martin like he has murdered somebody, because he hasn't", is like saying that we shouldn't set ourselves on fire because we aren't flame resistant. Yes, that's true, but a) it's obvious, and b) it's not in any way relevant.

In addition to this, your phrasing (" Let's not lose grasp of the fact that ....") devalued the actual crime by comparing it favourably with a more serious crime. This was the problem you had, and what you should be saying is: "I phrased it badly, but what I wanted to say is ..... " and then explaining that you found his actions awful and that he should face recrimination for them.

Your language later in this post (and other posts) shows that you clearly care about what the other posters think of you. You are embarrassed to be losing an online argument to Stuie, who you and your mates (who, interestingly, have left you largely to yourself during your recent struggles in this thread) use as a whipping boy. You're trying to bluff with a high pair .... everybody knows, but you're just going to keep throwing in chips out of pride. The only person losing money is you.

Edited December 11, 20159 yr by Axis of Bob

4 hours ago, Curry & Beer said:

I can not get rid of this everytime I post-------------THIS IS NOT A C& b QUOTE ---bloody thing will not go away.

Edited December 11, 20159 yr by ManDee
Cannot get rid of earlier post - help cannot edit in old way

6 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

I know you aren't trying to weasel out of it, which is your main problem. You've instead decided to double down on a ridiculous point because you feel threatened.

You saying that "we should not be treating Martin like he has murdered somebody, because he hasn't", is like saying that we shouldn't set ourselves on fire because we aren't flame resistant. Yes, that's true, but a) it's obvious, and b) it's not in any way relevant.

In addition to this, your phrasing (" Let's not lose grasp of the fact that ....") devalued the actual crime by comparing it favourably with a more serious crime. This was the problem you had, and what you should be saying is: "I phrased it badly, but what I wanted to say is ..... " and then explaining that you found his actions awful and that he should face recrimination for them.

Your language later in this post (and other posts) shows that you clearly care about what the other posters think of you. You are embarrassed to be losing an online argument to Stuie, who you and your mates (who, interestingly, have left you largely to yourself during your recent struggles in this thread) use as a whipping boy. You're trying to bluff with a high pair .... everybody knows, but you're just going to keep throwing in chips out of pride. The only person losing money is you.

Bolded bit - I have done this many times, but go ahead and keep ignoring it. So you've gone from saying i'm wrong and i'm losing and all that to saying i am in fact right but it doesn't matter. Or something. I value your wonderful contribution to the thread.

Quite the armchair psychiatrist aren't you, I can only laugh at you and suggest you get a life. Going in to bat for the most notorious scumbag on this site is baffling but if it makes you happy go right ahead.

4 hours ago, ManDee said:

It would be nice when you have a post removed to be informed why it was removed. 

I sent you a pm about this immediately after. Did you not receive it? If not, there may be another problem in the system.

35 minutes ago, Curry & Beer said:

PS why don't you suggest that mono apologise for his comparison to ISIS and medieval torture, that is far more off-base and absurd than what I am apparently being accused of, which is some sort of murky 'unintended devaluation' FFS

so no comment on this,Dr.Phil? What about you, Oprah?

2 minutes ago, Dr John Dee said:

I sent you a pm about this immediately after. Did you not receive it? If not, there may be another problem in the system.

No, I have not received any pm today. Can you resend?

Just now, Curry & Beer said:

Quite the armchair psychiatrist aren't you, I can only laugh at you and suggest you get a life. Going in to bat for the most notorious scumbag on this site is baffling but if it makes you happy go right ahead.

Ha! You're not making it very hard!

(PS- You are losing this argument, embarrassingly, to that 'scumbag'. Please make another appointment with my receptionist on the way out.) 

12 minutes ago, Curry & Beer said:

Bolded bit - I have done this many times, but go ahead and keep ignoring it. So you've gone from saying i'm wrong and i'm losing and all that to saying i am in fact right but it doesn't matter. Or something. I value your wonderful contribution to the thread.

Quite the armchair psychiatrist aren't you, I can only laugh at you and suggest you get a life. Going in to bat for the most notorious scumbag on this site is baffling but if it makes you happy go right ahead.

Most would know that I regularly disagree with stuie, his manner and tone are often way off and I have said so here both publicly and privately. In this case he is right. Give credit where credit is due. I have no doubt that in the future I will be siding with you against him if you are right IMO. Life can be like that.

Edited December 11, 20159 yr by ManDee
Fix error