Andrew Lovett

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • CureTheSane
    Carpe Noctem
    • Jan 2003
    • 5032

    #16
    Originally posted by Donners
    Unless you are either Andrew Lovett or the complainant, you have no basis to state that as fact.




    I am quite familiar with the judicial system of this country, having been involved in it for a pretty fair part of my life.

    I am also quite familiar with this particular case, having been involved in the trial.

    I respect the decision of the jury, and understand how they could have reached it.

    But my position on Lovett is absolutely clear. I will not accept him coming to my club.
    You probably need to find a new country then.

    Lovett is probably looking into what kind of legal action he can take against the Saints (if any) and so he should.

    Football clubs with their 'holier than thou' attitudes annoy me.
    The Saints play the roles of arresting offices, judge and jury all on their own, and the guy was not found guilty.

    I'm with Annie & Al
    The difference between insanity and genius is measured only in success.

    Comment

    • AnnieH
      RWOs Black Sheep
      • Aug 2006
      • 11332

      #17
      Originally posted by Donners
      Unless you are either Andrew Lovett or the complainant, you have no basis to state that as fact.
      I do believe that is what he based his case on ... going by the article from the newspaper.
      Unless the journo was making it all up.

      The guy has been found innocent by our Court system and is free to go.

      For those who want to try him again here .... suck it up. Please.
      Wild speculation, unsubstantiated rumours, silly jokes and opposition delight in another's failures is what makes an internet forum fun.
      Blessed are the cracked for they are the ones who let in the light.

      Comment

      • Donners
        On the Rookie List
        • Jan 2003
        • 1061

        #18
        Originally posted by CureTheSane
        You probably need to find a new country then.

        Lovett is probably looking into what kind of legal action he can take against the Saints (if any) and so he should.

        Football clubs with their 'holier than thou' attitudes annoy me.
        The Saints play the roles of arresting offices, judge and jury all on their own, and the guy was not found guilty.

        I'm with Annie & Al
        Perhaps you favour a country where people cannot form their own informed opinions?

        You might also note that Lovett already did take action against St Kilda, and reached a settlement, long before this outcome.

        Originally posted by AnnieH
        For those who want to try him again here .... suck it up. Please.
        I am not "trying him again". I said I respect the jury's decision. I also have my own view. And I will continue to hold it.

        Comment

        • ScottH
          It's Goodes to cheer!!
          • Sep 2003
          • 23665

          #19
          Originally posted by AnnieH
          I do believe that is what he based his case on ... going by the article from the newspaper.
          Unless the journo was making it all up.

          The guy has been found innocent by our Court system and is free to go.

          For those who want to try him again here .... suck it up. Please.
          He hasn't been found innocent. he's been found Not Guilty.

          Comment

          • AnnieH
            RWOs Black Sheep
            • Aug 2006
            • 11332

            #20
            I also have my own view and I will continue to hold it.
            Wild speculation, unsubstantiated rumours, silly jokes and opposition delight in another's failures is what makes an internet forum fun.
            Blessed are the cracked for they are the ones who let in the light.

            Comment

            • AnnieH
              RWOs Black Sheep
              • Aug 2006
              • 11332

              #21
              Originally posted by ScottH
              He hasn't been found innocent. he's been found Not Guilty.
              Explain the difference.
              Wild speculation, unsubstantiated rumours, silly jokes and opposition delight in another's failures is what makes an internet forum fun.
              Blessed are the cracked for they are the ones who let in the light.

              Comment

              • ScottH
                It's Goodes to cheer!!
                • Sep 2003
                • 23665

                #22
                Originally posted by AnnieH
                Explain the difference.
                Innocent means he didn't do it.
                Not guilty means there was insufficient proof to find him guilty.

                I'm not taking any side here, I have not read (albeit in the biased media) or heard much about the case except on the news.
                I wish to believe he is innocent. And sincerely hope he is.
                Just based on my experiences in the Court system. Not guilty does not always equate to innocent.

                Comment

                • Donners
                  On the Rookie List
                  • Jan 2003
                  • 1061

                  #23
                  Originally posted by AnnieH
                  Explain the difference.
                  A jury was not convinced beyond ANY reasonable doubt that he knew a woman was not consenting.

                  That is a very broad stroke.

                  They had to be convinced not only that she was not consenting, but that he was aware of that fact beyond ANY REASONABLE DOUBT based solely on the word of someone who had a BAC of .14-.18.

                  Very, very hard to do - "reasonable doubt" is a pretty open term, and when someone's memory is affected by alcohol, it's near impossible to eliminate that doubt.

                  That's not finding it was consent. It's finding they couldn't be sure that it wasn't and/or that he wasn't aware of that.

                  Comment

                  • Lucky Knickers
                    Fandom of Fabulousness
                    • Oct 2003
                    • 4220

                    #24
                    I would not support him coming to the Swans he does not behave like a professional footballer. He turned up drunk to training.
                    As donners says he's settled his case with St Kilda re unfair dismissal.
                    Last edited by Lucky Knickers; 26 July 2011, 09:49 AM. Reason: -ve not the +ve

                    Comment

                    • swannielady
                      On the Rookie List
                      • Jul 2011
                      • 63

                      #25
                      I don't see the point of all these explanations really cause it just seems to me that any footballer bought up on charges of rape brings out hysteria from football fans. They seem to feel these poor souls are being shafted by some sneaky female whose out to make the mans life hell and ruin a football side as well. There is always a groundswell of support for these players, especially the good footy players not because they are known to the fans but because they are vital to their teams. It is really quite perverse.

                      Comment

                      • Big Al
                        Veterans List
                        • Feb 2005
                        • 7007

                        #26
                        Agree Lovett has had discipline issues in the past and probably wouldn't be a good fit for us. However if anyone could get the best out of him it would certainly be us and at 28 you would hope that he has grown up a bit.
                        ..And the Swans are the Premiers...The Ultimate Team...The Ultimate Warriors. They have overcome the highly fancied Hawks in brilliant style. Sydney the 2012 Premiers - Gerard Whately ABC

                        Here it is Again! - Huddo SEN

                        Comment

                        • Big Al
                          Veterans List
                          • Feb 2005
                          • 7007

                          #27
                          Originally posted by swannielady
                          I don't see the point of all these explanations really cause it just seems to me that any footballer bought up on charges of rape brings out hysteria from football fans. They seem to feel these poor souls are being shafted by some sneaky female whose out to make the mans life hell and ruin a football side as well. There is always a groundswell of support for these players, especially the good footy players not because they are known to the fans but because they are vital to their teams. It is really quite perverse.
                          What is also perverse is that these bad and terrible footy players are assumed to be guilty by some just because they are footy players. They can't even go out for a beer now because if there is an incident the public assume the players are at fault.

                          It's also perverse but a fact of life unfortunately that in the court system the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty but is the exact opposite in the court of public opinion.
                          ..And the Swans are the Premiers...The Ultimate Team...The Ultimate Warriors. They have overcome the highly fancied Hawks in brilliant style. Sydney the 2012 Premiers - Gerard Whately ABC

                          Here it is Again! - Huddo SEN

                          Comment

                          • ScottH
                            It's Goodes to cheer!!
                            • Sep 2003
                            • 23665

                            #28
                            Originally posted by Big Al
                            Agree Lovett has had discipline issues in the past and probably wouldn't be a good fit for us. However if anyone could get the best out of him it would certainly be us and at 28 you would hope that he has grown up a bit.
                            Agreel. We took Plugger, Barry, and Spida. All had issues in the past.
                            And not all our players have been angels in the past.

                            We'd get a ready made footballer for nothing in the draft. Assuming his fitness levels are still pretty good.
                            Worth a crack IMHO.

                            Comment

                            • Triple B
                              Formerly 'BBB'
                              • Feb 2003
                              • 6999

                              #29
                              Originally posted by Big Al
                              What is also perverse is that these bad and terrible footy players are assumed to be guilty by some just because they are footy players. They can't even go out for a beer now because if there is an incident the public assume the players are at fault.

                              It's also perverse but a fact of life unfortunately that in the court system the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty but is the exact opposite in the court of public opinion.
                              /thread
                              Driver of the Dan Hannebery bandwagon....all aboard. 4th April 09

                              Comment

                              • Jewels
                                On the Rookie List
                                • Oct 2006
                                • 3258

                                #30
                                Originally posted by Big Al
                                It's also perverse but a fact of life unfortunately that in the court system the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty but is the exact opposite in the court of public opinion.
                                Spot on Al!

                                Comment

                                Working...