BLWNBA

Stunning retort. If you want to play semantics, you'll need to be more specific - but going to the intention (as intention is very important) with regards to legal matters, and affording your own words their ordinary, natural and every day meaning, then yes there has been; and had you substantively and intellectually read my reply you would know and understand that to be the answer.

Also, I'm not overly offended that you do have an opinion - I don't mind genuine debate at all; but if you're going to try and strawman someone, at least be accurate.

I don't tend to get involved in these sort of back and forth, I often think that there is little point as the person on the other end is unlikely to give credence to a response, nor will they change their mind. But I digress slightly. While from a semantical standpoint while you're correct that there wasn't a 'gay panic defence', that is actually a misnomer and incredibly ill-guided. The entrenchment of a homosexual advancement defence (as it is known in Australian jurisprudence) via case-law, enabled this defence to have the full force of the law. In fact, in the case of Queensland, this was enshrined by virtue of s. 304 of the Criminal Code Act (note: prior to the abolishment, it did not use gender neutral language which is now in the section "unwanted sexual advance" and "by the person"). The first recorded case of the homosexual advance defence was employed by the defendant in R v Murley (1992), a Supreme Court case in Victoria, with the case law then becoming entrenched in NSW pursuant to a number of cases occurring between 1992 - 1995, with the most influential being the seminal case of R v Green. In Green, the accused reacted to 'gentle' touching by the Victim, who was then punched aproximately 35 times, had his head slammed into a wall, and was stabbed around ten times with a pair of scissors. Despite the NSW Court of Appeal determining that a romantic and amorous could not satisfy the traditional test for provocation, the High Court upheld the appellants appeal finding that a non-violent sexual advance could indeed satisfy the test. In such a fashion, and with nuance, cases like Murley and Green paved the way for homosexual advance defences to be both legitimised and entrenched in the law, subject to statutory and parliamentary intervention. What is then implicit within that, is that jurisprudence remains complicit in the legal argument that the fatal use of force against a gay male is legally excusable, in so far as that the action is not in fact murder, but akin to manslaughter (at worst), and is somehow less reprehensible than other forms of interpersonal violence. From a psycho-social perspective, at least in the Australian context, the theory around this defence was arguably the notion that lethal force can be employed against another male, as it is a natural reaction from a heterosexual male which would arise and cause loss of control in the heterosexual male, when hetero honour was threatened by a homosexual male. This was successful as a partial defence in Queensland as recently as 2009 and 2011. By way of a comment, in the Victorian jurisdiction this has been tested - and dispelled in R v Johnstone [2011]. I'd also refute your comment (for the sake of accuracy, to use your words), that there never was a homosexual advance defence - and that it was the law of provocation. That is plainly incorrect, an attempt to strawman the argument, and a poor attempt at playing semantics. Substantively it is incorrect. The (partial) or complete defence was based in the laws of provocation, but that is not akin to saying that it is the law of provocation. If anyone has actually stuck with me through this, it's appreciated. It is definitely a bit of TLDR'er, but if we're going to discuss these societal issues - we need to be nuanced and discuss them with accuracy, IMO. **For context, gendered language was heavily used in case law prior to the abolition of provocation, so it was essentially homosexually explicit.

Current scouting report notes: A big and powerful forward who can also rotate through the ruck, Ah-Mu has some impressive traits and has had some eye-catching moments and matches this year. He kicked six goals from 10 disposals and eight marks (five contested) in a trial match for Vic Country’s under-18s in April and went on to have a solid under-18 national championships campaign for the side. Ah-Mu kicked seven goals across Vic Country’s first three games, including two majors from 12 disposals and 10 marks (four contested) in the match against South Australia. Likened to Adelaide’s Riley Thilthorpe, his overhead marking is a clear strength but he also presents strongly on the lead and is a booming kick. When in the ruck, Ah-Mu competes well and can follow up at ground level to win clearances. In addition to games for the Stingrays and Vic Country, Ah-Mu has also had some monster games for Haileybury College in school football this season. Of Samoan decent, Ah-Mu’s father represented the island nation in both athletics and rubgy. 2025 National Champs 74 ranking points, 10 disposals, 4.3 marks, 1.3 contested marks, 7 hitouts, 4.5 score involvements, 1.8 goals, 1.3 tackles (4 games) Strengths: Overhead marking, strength, versatility and scoreboard impact. Currently ranked outside the top 40 draftees, but within the top 80.

It wasn't really a rumour per se, it was an opinion piece by Scott Gullan suggesting that May could be the missing piece that the Dogs need to challenge for a flag. The title definitely mischaracterises the piece in traditional click-bait fashion.

TC will reportedly also get a one year extension, though I would suspect Fullerton will be off the list.

Extremely impressed with the leadership that Nicks has shown over this, particularly the statement about Rankine not being the 'victim' in this. While it's not directly apples and oranges, this is the absolute antithesis of the way Collingwood (especially McGuire) often react in these situations (see - the Goodes racism controversy). A great write up and read is available here: Izak Rankine 'not the victim', Adelaide Crows coach Matthew Nicks says

Well said, missed your post before I replied in kind above.

Whilst their salary largely pales in comparison to a player on the primary list, they are recovering a minimum of $105,000 plus substantial match payments under the current CBA ($4,000 minimum). Not saying it is equitable, but it’s damn better than what it used to be for the work they put in.

Gawn doing Gawn things.

L In addition to hospital handballs. Schoolyard stuff.

No.

**the worst game so far

Bye bye, May. Pot/kettle/black.

McDonald not taking the mark, wtf?!

Yeah, seeing McCreery burn him off like that was insane.

The kick in very quickly brought me back to ground and confirmed, yes it is indeed, real life.

A fifty AGAINST Naicos, is this real life?

An annus horribilis from McVee.

Sadly, we’ll throw this lead. Zero confidence at all.

A lot of low footy IQ’s at this club, I reckon.

Guerra’s comments on both Petracca and Oliver pregame were very interesting. A noticeable difference from Green’s verbatim last year and over the offseason.

Hope Langdon is a better cyclist than kicker.