Blake Ferguson

[Danish]

The footage showed Pearce try to tap a girl as she walked past trying to get her attention. Completely different to Ferguson who snuck up behind a girl and purposely groped her between the legs.

Also, just to correct Inglis was actually charged and pleased guilty to assault. He too is a scumbag that I would not support at our club.

[Johnny Tobin]

Just like Carney, right? Look what ended up happening there. They all show sustained SIGNS of turning their lives around. But you can't polish a turd. That's what Ferguson is. Our turd. So yes, we'll have to learn to accept it for a year and hope he doesn't f**k up, once again.

Just like Friend.

I guess that particular "turd" is shining bright now.

So how is the air up there on the moral high ground?

[Johnny Tobin]

Charges don't need to be pressed by the victim anymore for cases involving assault. It was one of the new laws brought in last year during or possibly even the year proceeding that at the beginning of the king hit controversy.

If there's evidence an assualt of any kind was committed a charge can be pressed on behalf of the police. Its why the police investigated the issue and officially cleared him despite the lady in question never wanting to press charges of any kind.

So no they are not the same thing in any way shape or form, I didn't think you could discredit yourself over Pearce anymore but this is by far your worst post and its bordering on defamation.

Lol.

Go get 'em Perry Mason.

[Johnny Tobin]

Danish your a wanker. Go & start your own forum & only let those who are perfect like you on there. You could all grease each other up & find faults in others whilst living the perfect life.

As I said before, simpletons find comfort in hard and fast moral rules. It means they don't have to think.

At least until a member of their family is charged with an offence. Then they become hypocrites.

[Guest]

What a crock of shit.

Look at the 2 victims, one a skank that loved the attention, the other a young lady that took offence and went through the appropriate channels, because one had an ounce of self respect the other lady not dos not mean the event did not take place.

Are you saying Inglis, Bird and many others did not commit a crime because there partners did not press charges?

IMO What Ferguson and Teflon did were childish errors, childish errors which are done in every nightclub in Sydney every night of the week, the fact they are high profile footballers makes the situation worse.

Their infringement is not even close to Robert Luis, BIrd, Inglis, Packer, Wicks, the list goes on and on.

Defamation please !!!!

your post and dribble is closer to defacation

Have to agree with you PWN I'm not condoning what Fergo done in that nightclub was acceptable but in the scheme of things it's not in the same league as Bird,Lui and Inglis incidents especially Lui who's missus was pregnant when assaulted.

[ism22]

Agreed... time to close it.

Quick clarification though, people keep saying '[insert woman] did not press charges'. The cops press charges, not victims! Victims just report the crime... and the cops can make arrests without the victim reporting anything if they have other evidence that it occurred (e.g. CCTV footage or another member of the public signing a statement).

How the process works:
- The complainant (e.g. Woman who has just been bashed up) makes a complaint to the police.
- The police make the arrest based on either a complaint or their observations and they become the informant.
- Back at the station (usually after interviewing the accused... or not because they refuse) a more senior cop such as a Sgt... usually not the beat cop who made the arrest as the informant) reviews the evidence collected, does the paperwork and lays the charges.
- From there the prosecution use the evidence in court and if they have a case, the defendant will respond to the allegations.

---

So no... women can't say 'I don't want him to be charged!!!!' What they can do is refuse to give evidence... which in DV cases (where nobody else saw anything and the neighbours called the cops) will give the cops pretty well nothing to go off.

I believe the 'king hit' laws (more likely anti-bike gang laws?) make it possible for one to get some kind of a penalty if they were a witness to violence and intentionally refuse to talk to the police (and the police can prove they are intentionally hiding significant evidence). I think that's what's being referred to at least... don't quote me on this part! So, I don't think laws that penalise those who refuse to cooperate would have any real implications in cases involving alleged assaults against women where the victim refuses to talk. The cops aren't out there to say 'well eff this... we can't arrest him for punching her, so we'll arrest her instead!!!' I doubt that would happen.

[John Corey]

Here here.

Though I think the person you responded to is a sheltered white girl.

Well bloody said my friend. Longer than War and peace.....but well bloody said.

[redwhiteblue]

As I said before, simpletons find comfort in hard and fast moral rules. It means they don't have to think.

At least until a member of their family is charged with an offence. Then they become hypocrites.

I disagree with you there JT. An intelligent educated respectful human being doesn't need to be told how to behave.

[John Corey]

Agreed... time to close it.

Quick clarification though, people keep saying '[insert woman] did not press charges'. The cops press charges, not victims! Victims just report the crime... and the cops can make arrests without the victim reporting anything if they have other evidence that it occurred (e.g. CCTV footage or another member of the public signing a statement).

How the process works:
- The complainant (e.g. Woman who has just been bashed up) makes a complaint to the police.
- The police make the arrest based on either a complaint or their observations and they become the informant.
- Back at the station (usually after interviewing the accused... or not because they refuse) a more senior cop such as a Sgt... usually not the beat cop who made the arrest as the informant) reviews the evidence collected, does the paperwork and lays the charges.
- From there the prosecution use the evidence in court and if they have a case, the defendant will respond to the allegations.

---

So no... women can't say 'I don't want him to be charged!!!!' What they can do is refuse to give evidence... which in DV cases (where nobody else saw anything and the neighbours called the cops) will give the cops pretty well nothing to go off.

I believe the 'king hit' laws (more likely anti-bike gang laws?) make it possible for one to get some kind of a penalty if they were a witness to violence and intentionally refuse to talk to the police (and the police can prove they are intentionally hiding significant evidence). I think that's what's being referred to at least... don't quote me on this part! So, I don't think laws that penalise those who refuse to cooperate would have any real implications in cases involving alleged assaults against women where the victim refuses to talk. The cops aren't out there to say 'well eff this... we can't arrest him for punching her, so we'll arrest her instead!!!' I doubt that would happen.

Nearly correct mate. In regards to DV too many women were getting belted and then telling us they would not supply a statement of complaint. In fact I have lost count of the amount of women that jumped on my back when I was just trying to arrest their husband for giving them a flogging "Leave my hubby alone you bastard copper"

As a result of all these women continually being assaulted by husbands/boyfriends and taking no action, legislation was changed. So if it's obvious to police a dv offence has been committed, ie, she makes a verbal complaint, has a black eye, witness sees it, then Police can now arrest and charge, even if the women later declines to give a statement. Police can now put him before the court anyway, without a victim statement.

It's one of the smartest bits of legislation they have brought in to protect women.

[theGman]

time to close this one off before the personal insults snowball.