So why is the guy who filmed MP protected.

[Team Evil]

I have no idea who filmed Pearce but why is he protected. A lot of people are just as pissed at this guy as we are at Pearce but they wont release his name.
Pearce has to face the consequences of his actions for the incident but the other guy is protected, why?
Pearce did something stupid.
The other guy apparently did nothing wrong and got paid good money. So why is he protected?
This all stinks of double standards to me.
Every one is happy to end MP career but this guy is untouchable, I just do not understand.
In relation to a certain text that has emerged and could well and truly be FAKE, why is this allowed to be talked about even though unproven!
Just my thoughts.

And just to remind people on my thoughts with Pearce:
As with Todd Carney the club had to let him go, not because of what he did but because of the media circus and the unrepairable damage it was causing our club.
I now think Pearce is in the same category and for his sake and the Roosters he should move on.
I hate all the off field crap and the damage it does to our brand name.
I am actually looking forward to see what Andrew Johns can do with our young halves.
Furgo has to move to FB as young mitch is not ready.
Cant wait to see young Burges.
This is a rebuilding year but you cant be at the top every year.

Just my thoughts on the issues at hand.

Evil

[Team Evil]

Please don't anyone name people or organisations as the mods have already closed one thread.

[eddie]

If what this bloke did isn't illegal, it should be.

[Parkway_Drive]

Great post T.E, yeah he is protected, whomever he is,

If those texts are mistruthful re the supposed drug use then the author's of the text and media outlets should be made to pay or settle a defamation suit. They have possibly defamed Mitch, the other guys there that night and our great club.

I am not excusing Mitch for his behaviour, but the media circus has gotten out of hand just like it did for Todd Carney. Perhaps playing football for a club not like the Roosters or a party place like Sharks (as was for Carney) would be the best thing for him.

I remember plenty of drunken nights and only have a hazy recollection of many others in my 20s, Goshh, I must have needed therapy and counselling too but life has a funny way of changing and I guess I kinda grew up.

[Johnny.]

If what this bloke did isn't illegal, it should be.

You sound like those politicians that want to make whistleblowing a criminal offense. Ironically I've been watching All The Presidents Men on cable for the last few hours so my dander is up about this.

What the guy who filmed our ex-captain did was morally questionable and getting money for it was despicable but it wasn't illegal to the best of my knowledge.

[Arties Pie]

It's the world we live in today everything is on camera whether it be at work or out on the town, at work i am on camera from the moment I walk in to the moment i leave. Everyone has a mobile which most are atleast HD movie camera's. As with the current generation which seem to feel compelled to share everything in their lives on social media either by Photo or Video it's just the times we live, unless Pearce has been living under a rock for the last 7 odd years or so he would know this.

[Waerea-Beast!]

Apparently the guy who filmed and sold it is friends with another member of our playing squad (not the guy named by Ch7 - who is now going to sue for defamation).

[eddie]

You sound like those politicians that want to make whistleblowing a criminal offense. Ironically I've been watching All The Presidents Men on cable for the last few hours so my dander is up about this.
What the guy who filmed our ex-captain did was morally questionable and getting money for it was despicable but it wasn't illegal to the best of my knowledge.

Exactly, whistleblowing (case dependant) ain't morally questionable.
If Pearce was committing a crime like break and enter or something, the bloke could drop the recording off to Mr Plod and we'd all be happy.
But what he did amounted to invasion of privacy for profit.
Channel 9 is guilty, but we all know where their morals are at.

Politician? Me? Wish I had union bosses shouting me free lunches.

[Arties Pie]

Privacy what's that these days, we haven't had the right to privacy for a long time.

[Team Evil]

Again this guy (and the media) is happy to ruin MP career, he even said it as he was filming.
But he hasn't got the guts to put his name out there.
And now we have this bizarre circumstance where the wrong person (could) be named.
Gutless low life.

[Waerea-Beast!]

Again this guy (and the media) is happy to ruin MP career, he even said it as he was filming.
But he hasn't got the guts to put his name out there.
And now we have this bizarre circumstance where the wrong person (could) be named.
Gutless low life.

This.

Has even let someone else take the fall.

[Kentucky_Fried_Rooster]

I'm in two minds about it.

The guy who filmed it was after a quick buck or maybe his wanted 5 minutes of fame. But if Pearce wasn't being a dickhead than there is no story.
Thirty years ago if you went out on a work function and got pissed and made a dick of yourself everyone had a laugh about it.
These days the same thing cost you your job.

My old work would take us out to the footy, put lunch on and go for a few drinks afterwards. They also handed out a cab charge to everyone. I always went home afterwards and would not drink to much.
One bloke did what Pearce did and stayed at the pub all night making a goose of himself and used the cab charge to go to a brothel and claimed a second one on the Monday to get home from the brothel.Lost his job over it.

If it was Pearce's first or second time I would say yeah fair enough but he has been caught out many times. Plenty of players who have played NRL ten plus years and you hear nothing where some players get caught out again and again, they are not set up, just dumb dickheads.

[Kingbilly]

I am not convinced that the named individual is innocent and is the "wrong" person.
To me a person that did the filming and sold it is hardly going to show the morals to admit to it

[Waerea-Beast!]

I am not convinced that the named individual is innocent and is the "wrong" person.
To me a person that did the filming and sold it is hardly going to show the morals to admit to it

Fair comment as well. We might found out the truth down the track. If it is the wrong person, there will certainly be a defamation case on the cards.

[BUDDY]

I am not convinced that the named individual is innocent and is the "wrong" person.
To me a person that did the filming and sold it is hardly going to show the morals to admit to it

My thoughts as well. But it is reported that he is suing Channel 7 and Fairfax. I am sure that they will bring up Copley and the others present to identify whether Jack was in the room and whether he was taking the video. If this isn't the right Jack then the real Jack is a gutless carnt happy for someone else to take the fall.

Some clueless fools (one in particular) seem to think what JJ did was illegal yet police and RSPCA can't lay any charges. The lesbian who was smiling after the kiss also did not press any charges.