Football Idiots

[old dee 23,871]

Just when you thought Footballers could not get any more stupid along comes this pair.

If they could not play football would you feed them?

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-01-18/swan-cloke-in-nude-photo-scandal

[stuie 7,374]

Not the two sharpest tools in the shed as we've all seen over their careers. BUT why is the blame being put on them for this? they've privately shared photos with someone who has then made them public. All of the negative attention should be on them rather than the players, especially given the focus on "revenge porn" in recent times. Yeah they're dumb for sending pics, but they've not done anything illegal or harassing here as all accounts say this was a mutual thing.

 

[daisycutter 29,723]

 

Not the two sharpest tools in the shed as we've all seen over their careers. BUT why is the blame being put on them for this? they've privately shared photos with someone who has then made them public. All of the negative attention should be on them rather than the players, especially given the focus on "revenge porn" in recent times. Yeah they're dumb for sending pics, but they've not done anything illegal or harassing here as all accounts say this was a mutual thing.

 

don't think their partners would be in agreement, stuie. may not be illegal but i thought you had a moral compass

Edited January 18, 2016 by daisycutter
edit for stuie's pedantry. change "wives" to "partners"

[stuie 7,374]

 

don't think their wives would be in agreement, stuie. may not be illegal but i thought you had a moral compass

Not defending that part of it (Swan isn't married btw), merely saying the focus is wrong here.

 

[old dee 23,871]

 

don't think their wives would be in agreement, stuie. may not be illegal but i thought you had a moral compass

I doubt they would recognise one if it bit them on the arse dc

[Whispering_Jack 30,610]

IIRC, at one stage Swan was mentioned in despatches in relation to the St. Kilda schoolgirl saga?

 

[old dee 23,871]

 

IIRC, at one stage Swan was mentioned in despatches in relation to the St. Kilda schoolgirl saga?

 

One look tells me all I need to know WJ

Edited January 18, 2016 by old dee

[Wiseblood 24,637]

Storm in a teacup really.

Yeah, it's incredibly stupid to send nude photos of yourself, especially if you're an AFL player, but they've done nothing illegal.

I love how the people who had the photos flogged them around to the TV stations first who all declined before the lowest of the low, Woman's Day, accepted them.  They are just in it for a buck.

[Tony Tea 2,809]

Society needs continual reminders about the horror of tattoos.

[stuie 7,374]

 

Storm in a teacup really.

Yeah, it's incredibly stupid to send nude photos of yourself, especially if you're an AFL player, but they've done nothing illegal.

I love how the people who had the photos flogged them around to the TV stations first who all declined before the lowest of the low, Woman's Day, accepted them.  They are just in it for a buck.

The irony is that so many of the pages sharing this on social media have previously posted about how publicly sharing intimate images is a form of sexual violence.

 

[monoccular 17,573]

Nothing illegal, just stupid, but then......they are AFL footballers, and we know that many take absolutely no notice of repeated exhortations about sensible and legitimate activities.  Plenty of evidence for the latter in the past week.

Never send an email or text (or twit or face or book wahtever etc etc) that you don't want the world to see; politicians never seem to learn either.  If you want to say something and keep it private, whisper it in a noisy environment, otherwise it will become public knowledge, and all the more if a "public figure" (cannot stand the term "celebrity" which only serves to boost already overinflated egos).

[old dee 23,871]

 

Nothing illegal, just stupid, but then......they are AFL footballers, and we know that many take absolutely no notice of repeated exhortations about sensible and legitimate activities.  Plenty of evidence for the latter in the past week.

Never send an email or text (or twit or face or book wahtever etc etc) that you don't want the world to see; politicians never seem to learn either.  If you want to say something and keep it private, whisper it in a noisy environment, otherwise it will become public knowledge, and all the more if a "public figure" (cannot stand the term "celebrity" which only serves to boost already overinflated egos).

Well said mono.

[John Crow Batty 8,878]

Footy will be boring if there weren't any idiots around. Just adds to the colour.  How dull  if they were all clean cut mummy's boys?

[Nasher 33,617]

 

Not the two sharpest tools in the shed as we've all seen over their careers. BUT why is the blame being put on them for this? they've privately shared photos with someone who has then made them public. All of the negative attention should be on them rather than the players, especially given the focus on "revenge porn" in recent times. Yeah they're dumb for sending pics, but they've not done anything illegal or harassing here as all accounts say this was a mutual thing.

 

Yep, the old blame the victim trick again. 

While I'd have thought that folk in the public eye might show a bit more discretion, at the end of the day it's their discretion to use and their right to decide who sees it, not the recipient of the photo.

[old dee 23,871]

 

Footy will be boring if there weren't any idiots around. Just adds to the colour.  How dull  if they were all clean cut mummy's boys?

No chance of having to worry about that adc there are more than enough idiots to keep you amused

[stuie 7,374]

 

Nothing illegal, just stupid, but then......they are AFL footballers, and we know that many take absolutely no notice of repeated exhortations about sensible and legitimate activities.  Plenty of evidence for the latter in the past week.

Never send an email or text (or twit or face or book wahtever etc etc) that you don't want the world to see; politicians never seem to learn either.  If you want to say something and keep it private, whisper it in a noisy environment, otherwise it will become public knowledge, and all the more if a "public figure" (cannot stand the term "celebrity" which only serves to boost already overinflated egos).

Actually think this counts as victim blaming.

Where's the responsibility for the person who sold privately sent intimate images for money? It's no different to blaming a rape victim who shouldn't have been out at night by herself, put the blame and responsibility where it should be, on the person who actually does the wrong thing. We're getting nowhere as a society until we stop telling people to adjust their behaviour to suit those who do the wrong thing, rather than trying to stop the behaviour of those actually in the wrong.

 

 

[stuie 7,374]

 

Yep, the old blame the victim trick again. 

While I'd have thought that folk in the public eye might show a bit more discretion, at the end of the day it's their discretion to use and their right to decide who sees it, not the recipient of the photo.

Spot on. Just finished writing a bit of a rant post about that at the same time you posted this too.

 

[Red and Bluebeard 2,089]

 

Just when you thought Footballers could not get any more stupid along comes this pair.

If they could not play football would you feed them?

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-01-18/swan-cloke-in-nude-photo-scandal

Assuming that question is not rhetorical, I would say brain food, because they seem to be lacking a few neurons. Yes, I get that these were presumably meant to be kept private, that someone has presumably betrayed their trust by publishing them, and that this is in principle no different to the (Danish?) journalist who was devastated when some !$#% circulated photos of her without her permission. But experienced high-profile footballers like these two should have learned the adage by now that you don't put anything on the Internet (or these days, on your phone) that you wouldn't shout at the top of your lungs from the steps at Flinders Street Station, with police present and listening to you. 

[daisycutter 29,723]

tacky, dumb, stupid for both sender and receiver. no sympathy for either. can't understand how someone would waste their time writing a blog on this. first world problem.

[old dee 23,871]

 

Assuming that question is not rhetorical, I would say brain food, because they seem to be lacking a few neurons. Yes, I get that these were presumably meant to be kept private, that someone has presumably betrayed their trust by publishing them, and that this is in principle no different to the (Danish?) journalist who was devastated when some !$#% circulated photos of her without her permission. But experienced high-profile footballers like these two should have learned the adage by now that you don't put anything on the Internet (or these days, on your phone) that you wouldn't shout at the top of your lungs from the steps at Flinders Street Station, with police present and listening to you. 

They are not real bright R and B but I guess the most surprising thing is I am still surprised.

[binman 43,719]

 

 can't understand how someone would waste their time writing a blog on this. first world problem.

Or posting about it....?

[stuie 7,374]

 

tacky, dumb, stupid for both sender and receiver. no sympathy for either. can't understand how someone would waste their time writing a blog on this. first world problem.

Yet here you are with your second post on the matter...

 

[daisycutter 29,723]

 

Or posting about it....?

good point.........i'll back out now and leave it to the kiddies

[Red and Bluebeard 2,089]

 

They are not real bright R and B but I guess the most surprising thing is I am still surprised.

Surprising what can surprise us these days, eh OD?  Personally I think it is the contrast between what we hear about clubs being more professional than ever, and footballers behaving like, well, a bunch of jocks ... 

[KingDingAling 3,758]

I thought we had laws (revenge porn) to prevent this thing from happening? If so, the woman's day would be complicit in breaking a law. The woman's day would've known that this woman broken the law, and then still went ahead and published them. Swan and co are the victims here, they may be flogs, and I'm not condoning their actions (it isn't a nice thing to go behind your girlfriend or wives back and trade pics, it is cheating in my eyes), but it doesn't give anyone else the right to share, profit and publish these pics. If this was to happen to Daisy Pearce and a few other female footballers, and a men's magazine published their nudes, we would all be outraged, and the PM would've had to come out and give a statement. Australia is becoming an absolute joke.