swoodley wrote:The sanctimony in this thread is laughable
All the brouhaha about Fevola taking a pic and then circulating it to mates etc etc is so over the top.
Apparently, this photo has been doing the rounds for a few years and no uproar.
Then, that bastion of women's rights ( ), Woman's Day decides to print it in their latest edition (surely just what their female audience wants to look at)
This immediately gets the rest of the media in a self righteous funk and they also proceed to show the photo on TV etc
And then one of our own puts it in this thread.
All the moral outrage seems to be directed at Fevola but I for one had not seen the pic until the media splashed it all over.
Maybe some of the angst and outrage should be getting directed at them.
Fevola (assuming that it was him that first started circulating it) has done what heaps of others have done over the years and yet he is being treated as the worst kind of criminal.
Get over it people
Well said.
Yes
No Moral outrage from me - I think its a hoot and actually welcome characters like Fev who help to desanitise the hospital ward that is AFL football (dont get me wrong, Fev is a drop kick but geez - who the hell are we to judge)
T o put it into context, imagine how dull this forum would be without the Gimp - yes he is on a lifetime prescription of Ritelin but without some colour, the world would be very bland - Fev and Gimps - we salute you
Being a total cynic, people like Bingle need publicity like oxygen. Ther have been plenty of topless pics of her around for years and all of a sudden she takes exception to this one. Net result: Front page coverage, Womens Day and God knows what else.
She has a history of sueing magazines for "unauthorised" pictures of her when in fact thay bring welcome publicity to her doorstep.
Realistically, with the openess of the Internet, how the hell can they pin this one on the Fev. I know he is a tool, but.........
Too far for Baker now he's on to it, now he’s got it, OPEN GOAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The Dons are in front by one point at the 8 minute mark
swoodley wrote:The sanctimony in this thread is laughable
All the brouhaha about Fevola taking a pic and then circulating it to mates etc etc is so over the top.
Apparently, this photo has been doing the rounds for a few years and no uproar.
Then, that bastion of women's rights ( ), Woman's Day decides to print it in their latest edition (surely just what their female audience wants to look at)
This immediately gets the rest of the media in a self righteous funk and they also proceed to show the photo on TV etc
And then one of our own puts it in this thread.
All the moral outrage seems to be directed at Fevola but I for one had not seen the pic until the media splashed it all over.
Maybe some of the angst and outrage should be getting directed at them.
Fevola (assuming that it was him that first started circulating it) has done what heaps of others have done over the years and yet he is being treated as the worst kind of criminal.
Get over it people
Well said.
Yes[/quote]
No Moral outrage from me - I think its a hoot and actually welcome characters like Fev who help to desanitise the hospital ward that is AFL football (dont get me wrong, Fev is a drop kick but geez - who the hell are we to judge)
T o put it into context, imagine how dull this forum would be without the Gimp - yes he is on a lifetime prescription of Ritelin but without some colour, the world would be very bland - Fev and Gimps - we salute you[/quote]
Whether anyone likes or dislikes either of these two persons is not the point here.
Whether it's been going around for years now is not the point.
This picture should not have been circulated, and should not have been taken without her permission.
It seems the responses here are very "blokey". A mole? Really? Gee, is it still just males that can go around and get a shag?
Ignore, or try to, the personalities here. What is right, and what is not?
Re: the original question, I expect Fevola will be coming close to important sanctions. When/if he breaks a law, then he will find it very difficult to maintain his career. Currently, he has been mostly guilty of serious civil and behavioural misdemeanours of which we all have an opinion.
His football currency is high, and clubs will want to preserve that. The law will be one way that bastion is overcome.
F111 wrote:Whether anyone likes or dislikes either of these two persons is not the point here.
Whether it's been going around for years now is not the point.
This picture should not have been circulated, and should not have been taken without her permission.
It seems the responses here are very "blokey". A mole? Really? Gee, is it still just males that can go around and get a shag?
Ignore, or try to, the personalities here. What is right, and what is not?
Re: the original question, I expect Fevola will be coming close to important sanctions. When/if he breaks a law, then he will find it very difficult to maintain his career. Currently, he has been mostly guilty of serious civil and behavioural misdemeanours of which we all have an opinion.
His football currency is high, and clubs will want to preserve that. The law will be one way that bastion is overcome.
Is it right that the media get to splash this photo all over the place?
I have no issues with Fevola copping a fine etc but is the hysteria just because it's him?
Should there be sanctions against media outlets for displaying the image so frequently and glaringly?
Mark Robinson made an interesting comparison in an article in the hun yesterday comparing this situation to Nathan Bock of Adelaide who assaulted his girlfriend last year....his punishment was a $5000 fine and a one match suspension.
So on that basis, what penalty should Fevola cop?
"You can quote me on this... He is gawn" - bomberdonnie re Hurley's contract status 25 February 2012
F111 wrote:Whether anyone likes or dislikes either of these two persons is not the point here.
Whether it's been going around for years now is not the point.
This picture should not have been circulated, and should not have been taken without her permission.
It seems the responses here are very "blokey". A mole? Really? Gee, is it still just males that can go around and get a shag?
Ignore, or try to, the personalities here. What is right, and what is not?
Re: the original question, I expect Fevola will be coming close to important sanctions. When/if he breaks a law, then he will find it very difficult to maintain his career. Currently, he has been mostly guilty of serious civil and behavioural misdemeanours of which we all have an opinion.
His football currency is high, and clubs will want to preserve that. The law will be one way that bastion is overcome.
Is it right that the media get to splash this photo all over the place? I don't think so. Imo, the person that forwarded the pic to WD should be made accountable just as much as Fevola should be. Scum journalism looking to make a name. Common these days in the jungle of journalism..
I have no issues with Fevola copping a fine etc but is the hysteria just because it's him? Probably, but I expect if it wasn't a high profile "picture" it might not be news. The fact that Bingle is Clarke's partner would contribute to a perception of newsworthiness. It might've still happened if the female was someone without profile, but I guess it's newsworthiness would be less.
Should there be sanctions against media outlets for displaying the image so frequently and glaringly? Big question. We'll all have our own answers based on beliefs and mores. Perpetuation of privacy issues based on public voyuerism shouldn't be allowed imo. I expect the community mores and privacy legislation here are very blurred. Technology has made this scenario a simple procedure. Everyone from Fevola to each individual forwarder and the media for publishing the pictures have impinged on the privacy of an individual during a private moment. What do you think here?
Mark Robinson made an interesting comparison in an article in the hun yesterday comparing this situation to Nathan Bock of Adelaide who assaulted his girlfriend last year....his punishment was a $5000 fine and a one match suspension. Illegal assault verses poor form/social misdemeanour/teenage blokey values/dumbar$e immaturity...is this an apple and oranges comparison? Mark Robinson is not a social or legal commentator. He should stick to footy issues.
So on that basis, what penalty should Fevola cop? Would Hurley's circumstance be the better comparison for Bock? Illegal assault, police and courts involved. Fevola has already paid for this...AFL removed him from their latest media whatever it was, and further damage to his reputation. I doubt he cares too much...at least it'd be no surprise if it was all water off the ducks back...
Media gets all aroused when AFL players are in the spotlight especially Fev , the serial offender.
All i'm concerned with is the success of the Bombers, the other sides & their players can do whatever they like, if they stuff up , like our guys, they pay the penalty.
F111 wrote:Whether anyone likes or dislikes either of these two persons is not the point here.
Whether it's been going around for years now is not the point.
This picture should not have been circulated, and should not have been taken without her permission.
It seems the responses here are very "blokey". A mole? Really? Gee, is it still just males that can go around and get a shag?
Ignore, or try to, the personalities here. What is right, and what is not?
Re: the original question, I expect Fevola will be coming close to important sanctions. When/if he breaks a law, then he will find it very difficult to maintain his career. Currently, he has been mostly guilty of serious civil and behavioural misdemeanours of which we all have an opinion.
His football currency is high, and clubs will want to preserve that. The law will be one way that bastion is overcome.
Is it right that the media get to splash this photo all over the place? I don't think so. Imo, the person that forwarded the pic to WD should be made accountable just as much as Fevola should be. Scum journalism looking to make a name. Common these days in the jungle of journalism..
I have no issues with Fevola copping a fine etc but is the hysteria just because it's him? Probably, but I expect if it wasn't a high profile "picture" it might not be news. The fact that Bingle is Clarke's partner would contribute to a perception of newsworthiness. It might've still happened if the female was someone without profile, but I guess it's newsworthiness would be less.
Should there be sanctions against media outlets for displaying the image so frequently and glaringly? Big question. We'll all have our own answers based on beliefs and mores. Perpetuation of privacy issues based on public voyuerism shouldn't be allowed imo. I expect the community mores and privacy legislation here are very blurred. Technology has made this scenario a simple procedure. Everyone from Fevola to each individual forwarder and the media for publishing the pictures have impinged on the privacy of an individual during a private moment. What do you think here?
Mark Robinson made an interesting comparison in an article in the hun yesterday comparing this situation to Nathan Bock of Adelaide who assaulted his girlfriend last year....his punishment was a $5000 fine and a one match suspension. Illegal assault verses poor form/social misdemeanour/teenage blokey values/dumbar$e immaturity...is this an apple and oranges comparison? Mark Robinson is not a social or legal commentator. He should stick to footy issues.
So on that basis, what penalty should Fevola cop? Would Hurley's circumstance be the better comparison for Bock? Illegal assault, police and courts involved. Fevola has already paid for this...AFL removed him from their latest media whatever it was, and further damage to his reputation. I doubt he cares too much...at least it'd be no surprise if it was all water off the ducks back...
Thanks for the response mate
"You can quote me on this... He is gawn" - bomberdonnie re Hurley's contract status 25 February 2012
Filthy wrote:Bingle maybe a bit of a tart. She maybe a media junkie.
Naysayers herein must not have daughters, because if it was your girl that was the victim here you'd be crying blue murder.
Not a naysayer Filth but to be honest, if I had my daughter grow up like this "village bike" i would hardly be surprised by the latest events. Her old man has probably given up shaking his head in bewilderment.
Guarantee the home sex video is only a matter of time - thats why so much fuss is being made by Bingle and her LAwyers
Filthy wrote:Bingle maybe a bit of a tart. She maybe a media junkie.
Naysayers herein must not have daughters, because if it was your girl that was the victim here you'd be crying blue murder.
Not a naysayer Filth but to be honest, if I had my daughter grow up like this "village bike" i would hardly be surprised by the latest events. Her old man has probably given up shaking his head in bewilderment.
Guarantee the home sex video is only a matter of time - thats why so much fuss is being made by Bingle and her LAwyers
Nah - i reckon the court case has just been raised for publicitys sake. So she can get her 'tell all' mag deal(and that there is something to tell).
Filthy wrote:Bingle maybe a bit of a tart. She maybe a media junkie.
Naysayers herein must not have daughters, because if it was your girl that was the victim here you'd be crying blue murder.
Not a naysayer Filth but to be honest, if I had my daughter grow up like this "village bike" i would hardly be surprised by the latest events. Her old man has probably given up shaking his head in bewilderment.
Guarantee the home sex video is only a matter of time - thats why so much fuss is being made by Bingle and her LAwyers
Nah - i reckon the court case has just been raised for publicitys sake. So she can get her 'tell all' mag deal(and that there is something to tell).
FWIW F111, I'm a chick and I still think she's a mole This has nothing to do with the number of sexual partners she may or may not have had, but everything to do with the fact she was shagging a married father.
The pair of them are bogans, with not a great deal going on between the ears. IT has been questioned as to whether this issue causing sudden media interest is in any fashion related to the fact she has a new lawyer.
And... damn straight she has a right to have a shower without being harassed by dickheads. Damn straight he should be allowed to have nudie pics on his phone of his girlfriend without it being a big deal. But when you're 'famous'... the rules change. It's not right but it's the way it is. If you don't want dickheads taking nudie shots of you, don't get nude around dickheads. You only have to open a paper or google his name to know that he's an A grade tosser. If you dont want the media getting hold of pics you've taken, don't send them to all your mates. We all know where that's going to end up.
F111 wrote:It seems the responses here are very "blokey". A mole? Really? Gee, is it still just males that can go around and get a shag?
Stepped outside lately? That's the way it is unfortunately.
Not amongst my crowd...and not for a long time.
Women can chase a shag, just as much as a bloke, it's just that they need to be mindful of 20th century opinion re: the matter.
), Woman's Day decides to print it in their latest edition (surely just what their female audience wants to look at)
Even if you already have before,.... 
This has nothing to do with the number of sexual partners she may or may not have had, but everything to do with the fact she was shagging a married father. 