Most Explosive Piece of News Rubbish This Year

The little news story that rocked an entire nation. The greatest display of overt puritanism since the impeachment of Bill Clinton. The point that marked the height (& therefore decline) of Wowser Power. The saga that exposed the cretins whose strength had been growing steadily.


16th

I am yet to see a decent, logical argument from a moralist yet. Anywhere. My two cents says I have destroyed their arguments already, point by point, above. I'll make up some more.

'An expose such as this is a good thing because it moves the debate about women in NRL forward.' Wrong. 'Clare' has suffered innumerable personal attacks since this story aired. There is way too much target space with this girl. She is not a credible witness, and her allegations would not even be considered in a court of law. We are left with a crying girl being evidence of wrongdoing. Christ, girls learn when they are 5 or 6 that crying can solve all of their logical problems. It is an outward attempt to remove logic from the equation and replace it with sappy emotion. ie 'Emotionally I feel I have been wronged, so therefore I have been wronged.' Give me a break. Genuine victims will be torn to shreds in the aftermath of this tawdry media affair. If you can argue that is progressing the debate, I am the Pope.

'It is in the public's interest to know the frugal details of what a player does in his spare time.' Utter rubbish, this one. Anyone who agrees with this tripe is actually a totalitarian. They have a prescription for the world that is digusting. They hide behind their crappy morals as an excuse to force their will upon others. They obviously are not interested in the brand of cereal the player buys. They just want to selectively use information to promote their base agenda.

'Most of the money paid to a major sports player comes from advertising etc. An advertiser effectively represents the majority. Therefore minor indiscretions should be brought to light, as the player is receivng his pay packet, effectively, from the public.' The same message as above, with a little more spin. Every major sponsor has withdrawn from the Cronulla Sharks. The club is potentially facing financial ruin. ('Oh, good, it is deserved' chirp the brainless moralists) If the above statement with all it's deficiency is accepted, the reverse must also be true - "Now that Cronulla sharks are not being paid the majority of their funds by advertising, we are no longer interested in their private affairs." Complete illogical crap. Nothing else. 'Oh, but most of the revenue comes from the TV rights package. Therefore the argument is still valid'. I'll just follow up - if rugby league was not shown on TV, would we no longer care? Of course not, people would still go to games etc and talk about 'issues'. This is just an excuse by small minded people to give them validity for their idle gossip.

'A rugby league player is in the media spotlight. If he is uncomfortable with this spotlight, he should find another job.' This is a statement demonstrating the height of neo-liberal decadence. Firstly, a presumption of choice exists at every turn for these morons. How does Ms 'Clare' fall under this presumption? Oh, she didn't choose you say, ok then. Inconsistencies abound. Once again, totalitarians under a thin disguise. Secondly, every job has its downside, so how do these fools believe one should pick a job? 'On the lesser of two evils' they might say. It can easily be demonstrated that this is bogus. I have previously used the example of doctors working in the emergency department. Six months plus ago, it was big news that doctors were being attacked by freaked out people on ice in emergency. Should a doctor not perform emergencies because he/she is afraid of having a knife held to their neck? An utterly ridiculous question designed to highlight the idiocy of the above statement. Needless to say, there is not one person on the planet who enjoys having their life threatened. (I await a daft response to that one). Following the garbage neo-liberal logic, not one person on the planet should be a doctor in emergency. Or any of other countless jobs one could bother dredging up. If the neo-liberalists wish to confine the argument to media attention, not one job with media attention is worthwhile under this childish scheme.

"The girl was clearly traumatised. That in itself is evidence of wrongdoing." This is just the Tracy Grimshaw argument re-spouted. Done & dusted.

"The issue is not about consent, it is about duty of care." Anyone who says this with any intended meaning is a puritanical idiot. They are saying that their personal judgement is what matters between consenting adults. This line can easily be extended to target anyone who engages in acts one may find unsavoury.

"Group sex, or more accurately, gang-bangs are a shameful abuse of power by many men over one woman." Sure, nothing to disagree with in the general sense. Exception, when the girl wants it - the statement may still be true, but it is now meaningless. Same thing can be said about bondage etc. The 'victim' is willingly putting themselves there. In effect, they enjoy the 'abuse'. Personally, I would substitute the word 'use' for 'abuse'. (ie 'Clare' would not gang-bang them if they weren't semi-famous). Also, I choose to ignore the word 'shameful'.

"The homo-erotic nature of the players is revealed when they partake in activities such as this." Ok, so not an argument at all. Yet another attempt to attack behaviour seen as immoral. To the morons who give this line stake - have you ever watched pornos? Are you more excited by the sight of a woman having 'sex' with herself? Pornos without men are boring. (See, I'm secretly gay). I really can't be bothered with this one, it's stupid. I add that this line comes from people who supposedly defend minorities. Wow, attacking one unliked group by likening them to another attacked group. Stroke of genius.

"Matthew Johns has apologised. Therefore he has admitted that what he did was wrong." Ok, I'll assume that upholders of this line have only dealt with infantile dilemmas. He has been told he is wrong over & over, most vociferously. As highlighted above, apology is a weak area. He never apologised to 'Clare' until the ACA interview. Previously, he apologised only to his family. My opinion is that David Gyngell, head of Channel 9, basically told him to apologise to keep his job. This he did. To the dullards who believe this shows 'wrongdoing' - I repeat - you are equipped only to deal with issues of children to age 8. Even then, you would be pathetic educators. An 8 year old can easily learn the apology complex that wiffy moralists have.

I question whether anyone who is on the opposite side of the debate actually has any brains. Their's has been the most emotional, reactive, logic-ridden display I have seen for some time. That other, more level-headed media figures have been too scared to voice their moderate opinions is a major worry. Whenever moderates speak, a PC computer is chiming away in their head, forcing statements of little meaning to arise. So boring. If this is called education, the taxpayers have wasted a severe amount of money for negative gain. The educated female 'elite' have the most to answer for in this debate. Pru Goward - venomous drivel, she was so angry and so illogical, it was scary. She has been a Sex Discrimination advisor to the Federal Government in the past. Tracy Grimshaw - as above. Rebecca Wilson - an instant believer in victim mentality. A gullible fool. Sarah Ferguson - mass peddler of one-sided rubbish.

My conclusion is that 'media feminists' have little connection with the real lives of women. They use their positions to grandstand on issues they falsely believe are relevant. The majority should turn in their feminist cards. In a perfect world, I would replace them with more level-headed (& therefore better educated in life - not some crappy gender studies university degree) women whose comments can actually contribute to a debate.

Goodbye & good riddance to typical feminist comment. It will not be listened to for many months to come.

16th

Reading the newspaper. Further (unproven) allegations have come out.

The father & brother (of Christchurch girl) had no knowledge of the 'assault' until it was aired on 4 Corners on Monday night.

The Christchurch girl changed her story 5 days later because her boyfriend of the time found out.

'Clare' had a contract with the Racecourse Hotel that specifically forbade sexual conduct with hotel guests. (just a point of interest, I don't care that she ignored it - I would too)

17th

The media appear to have completely given up on this issue. As they should. There is nothing to run. Finally. Blown out of proportion and now the balloon has popped. Party's over.

Expect to see Matthew Johns back on TV in .... 3 weeks.

22nd


Issue still pretty much dead in Melbourne. Have been reading a bit of Sydney papers. Issue still paddling along, though much less intense. The articles, for mine, are all bogus PC frontpieces, male or female. The comments are the only point of interest.

There are still issues that the Sydney journos seem to not want to touch. The public appear to be saying it enough, but usually brought down with a 'that's disgusting' comment.

One issue is young girls throwing themselves at famous people - in this case NRL players. Talk to any male who is in a situation of some (minor, whatever) fame. It is almost impossible for these guys to have any respect for a woman who throws herself at his sexual whim. By extension, almost all sex under this circumstance lacks respect from the very beginning. The assumption many make is that she must be 'young, naive' to not understand the situation. I would put it to you that it matters not. It is irrelevant whether or not the girl is aware of this. If she chooses to proceed, the consequences are extremely obvious - guilt, disgust, regret.

It is about time we stopped pretending about absolute equality between the sexes. Needless to say, a one male & many female incident would garner no public outcry. This is an admission by pathetic defenders that this is so. It is a brainless approach. All defenders have to say now is that group sex (of this nature) is disgusting. So what? It does not change the fact that this is a regular occurence, with many 'Clares' being created each day. Solution - educate the players? What a joke. Education in this sense only leads to more believable lies (eg saying "I am sorry for the shame I have caused you" while thinking "you are a dumb slut") Educate the groupies? - an even bigger joke.

Feminists need to accept that not all women live by their garbage moral code. Wake up & smell the roses. The actions of 'Clare' are a natural response to her social position. Many young girls in the same situation would do just as she did. Would they whinge 7 years later? Most likely, but it changes nothing. Harshly put, she is in search of a star sperm packet. (To deny this, and claim we are not animals - get off your high moral chair for once). She got it. 'Clare' is now married to a rugby union player. Once again, she is just following her natural instincts. Comparing the baseness of instincts is a stupid activity (eg is she better/worse than Johns?).

Humans are just a bunch of animals who can talk. Most of this talk is manipulative, serving our own agendas. To pretend that we are higher than animals is a major furphy, that feminists (for one) have been perpetuating for many years.

From all available evidence, 'Clare' was not drunk. She went to the hotel room immediately after work. She was the players' waitress in the dining hall earlier in the day. It is reasonable to assume that the scenario was planned then and there. Legally, it was premeditated by both sides. An easy explanation for Tom, Dick & Harry to be in the room. Her story about players breaking in through the bathroom window appear to be nothing but lies. Another camera crew went to the exact hotel room. An adult of any size would not fit through. It casts enormous doubt on the 'innocent, naive' girl and her telling of events.

I finally watched the atrocious ACA interview. All boring & predictable. Tracy Grimshaw doing her best to ask daft questions in a seemingly intelligent manner (hint : doesn't work that way). Overdone looks of concern & horror. She should apply for a spot on Play School. Anyway, the one point that interested me was this - 'Clare' allegedly called up people to have sex with her. One guy she did actually say no to !!! However, she then (allegedly) pointed at Johns and asked him to have seconds. The simpletons out there who saw this issue as brutal male assault are as gullible as the idiot media.

Caught a few minutes of 4 Corners the other night. Reporter: Sally Sara. My verdict: sensationalist junk. Hmmm, me sees a pattern. Anything, in future, I happen to watch on this self-serving 'best of investigative journalism' TV show will be treated with utmost suspicion.

Over & out.

2009 - Official Year of the Sex Scandal






3 comments:

  1. Anonymous4:38 PM

    I think every single person involved is cretinous. The players, the girl involved - all deeply idiotic and devoid of any semblance of sense. The men are thugs and the girl is ridiculous for a number of reasons. The fact that the men are thugs is clearly established, however, the ridiculousness of the girl can be teased out a little, particularly since it goes against the Today Tonight opinion of her as a blameless victim. It's basically a clusterfuck of horror, with morons hurting other morons and the original morons retaliating. To employ a cliche so well worn it's positively limp, the girl was old enough to know better (the "star struck" argument is bollocks, they're not even proper stars for God's sake, they were NRL neophytes in NZ in 2002. We're not talking about George Clooney or Michael Jordan, here).

    For me, this issue isn't about the ins and outs (ho ho) of sexual assault. It isn't about who did what to who - it's about what the fuck is up with society where a) this kind of behaviour is a normal and usual social event. b) the fact that society feels that it is able to legislate against it, which, as the act has been established as consensual, is ridiculous and puritanical and c) that everyone is ignoring the fact that the police investigated this and dropped the charges 7 years ago!

    My basic opinion is that Matthew Johns is a thug and a fuckwit. His mates are too. The girl is unstable and stupid, and my gut feeling is that it has little to do with what happened to her in 2002. The whole thing is just so deeply deeply tacky in a way that Australians seem to do so well. It's like Bec and Lleyton gone wrong. Or wronger. Those who think an apology will fix it are misguided beyond belief - the problems lie much deeper than superficial words.

    I think I basically agree with you. And I'm most definitely a feminist.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I loved the 'star-struck' excuse too. Thought that any old excuse could be pulled out of the bag after that one. I'm still waiting for more bogus excuses. Wait, and the media will give.

    Legislation against it. Geez, it's gonna be rocky isn't it. A bunch of lawyers will be well paid to make zero progress. What a joke. The fun police are out in force. I just keep thinking that our parents lived in a less puritanical environment. What the hell has happened?

    I am still shocked about the public's ignorance of the police investigation. So few people care. I am sure the Australian Police will be receiving numerous requests from do-gooders wanting to re-open it. Again, ignoring another fact in that it happened in NZ.

    The sheer passion in the response is fantastic. An awesome comment

    ReplyDelete
  3. and his brother is a self confessed drug cheat so all his awards should be stripped, after all, he most likely would never have got them without the drugs, fine example he has set for the younger generation

    ReplyDelete

Donate your now worthless crypto to Igroki

ETH 0x31e0da9a8f3083ecbcba7d941d0a6e394ccf657b

LTC M85Q9RxzRZcDjYk8U72rnqhHyCVG3yZVdz

XRP rPvKH3CoiKnne5wAYphhsWgqAEMf1tRAE7?dt=5407

Big Deal