Jayden Okunbor to appeal NRL deregistration for schoolgirl sex scandal

[Tassie Devil]

My points around this page posts not previous history

my opinion on record . They deserved to get sacked and should have been But there acts not illegal otherwise even a investigation would have been done . It’s a grubby act what is alleged to have occurred imo.

also if anyone fair Dinkum , if they all employed like myself with a large organisation , irrespective of my age . If me and my colleagues went to a school for some sort of presentation and ended up doing it with school age children I would be sacked . Don’t know why everyone else thinks footballers are being treated , especially since they did lose sponsorship due to their actions

Good to get your fair Dinkum response

 

[dekepefc]

The confusion is that people think the argument is about the existence of such laws when in fact is how it apply to the issue with JO and CHN.

Police do not need a complaint to be made to press charges, they have the power to arrest on suspicion if they wish and then lay charges if evidence exists that can be presented to a court. How is it with all this evidence on phones, text messages and pictures has it not been done if a crime was committed. In this case I don’t think that anyone can dispute they behaved inappropriately and against the code of conduct of both the Bulldogs and NRL but to claim a criminal offence occurred as fact and not just an opinion is ludicrous.

I seem to get attacked with people questioning my morals thinking I agree with his actions when all I’m saying is no child sex crime was committed and claims of such is not helpful to the fight against such behaviours.

A debate on the harshness of the disciplinary action and reference to sanctions handed to players who have committed a crime is valid. Being against or for the sanctions in no way suggests that you accept or don’t the behaviour but the players.

Yes, I'm not claiming an offence has been committed .. im simply relying on what's been reported to give an opinion (if you take what's been reported as fact). Likewise police are unlikely to investigate when no complaint has been made, because without any official information it is nothing more than intelligence/rumour for them too. In the grand scheme of things they have enough sex offences to investigate without worrying about a guy in his early 20s possibly obtaining boob shots of a 17 year old when no ones officially reporting it to them or requesting they look into it.

 

[Tassie Devil]

Yes, I'm not claiming an offence has been committed .. im simply relying on what's been reported to give an opinion (if you take what's been reported as fact). Likewise police are unlikely to investigate when no complaint has been made, because without any official information it is nothing more than intelligence/rumour for them too. In the grand scheme of things they have enough sex offences to investigate without worrying about a guy in his early 20s possibly obtaining boob shots of a 17 year old when no ones officially reporting it to them or requesting they look into it.

Good post again!

Obviously no charges are going to be pressed, so we'll never truly discover whether the police had enough to take it to court. All we can do is hypothesise on the little information we have.

JO will appeal the ban, so at least we'll find out if there's justification for his ban. And as I've said before, good luck to him. Based on what we know i don't think he stands a chance but there could be a lot more to the story.

I've changed my views in this over time if I'm honest. I immediately said he'd done something illegal, however can see now it's a really grey area in his case. It's not clear cut which would've attributed to the police choosing not to continue with the case. Still laws there though which seem to have been crossed even though only marginally.

But ... Anyway. Let's wait and see what more comes out

 

[Superuber]

Aren't you the same person that said there were no articles stating JO asked for naked pics via social media and when presented with said articles went onto claim they're fake?

And you were also the one that said if it had been a teacher, police officer or health care worker it wouldn't have made a difference. None of these cases would've lead to charges being pressed. In your opinion.

And did you post an article completely unrelated to this case that was connected to a much more serious accusation? Then crap on that no one understood the point you were making?

I don't think people have attacked your morality. I think it's more your intelligence that's been questioned mate.

Aren't you the same person that said there were no articles stating JO asked for naked pics via social media and when presented with said articles went onto claim they're fake?
1)Yes I did because I hadn't seen any but my opinion is they are either not real or not related to incident

And you were also the one that said if it had been a teacher, police officer or health care worker it wouldn't have made a difference. None of these cases would've lead to charges being pressed. In your opinion.

2)Incorrect

And did you post an article completely unrelated to this case that was connected to a much more serious accusation? Then crap on that no one understood the point you were making?

3)Ill say it again, my post was about something that should be condemned and that cases like that are worthy of community anger. It seems like you still don't understand the point of the post.
There was nothing more than me remarking that offences like that disturb me and that others should be too.

I don't think people have attacked your morality. I think it's more your intelligence that's been questioned mate.[/QUOTE]

4) See 3 which makes me question your intelligence

 

[Tassie Devil]

1)Yes I did because I hadn't seen any but my opinion is they are either not real or related to incident
And you were also the one that said if it had been a teacher, police officer or health care worker it wouldn't have made a difference. None of these cases would've lead to charges being pressed. In your opinion.

2)Incorrect

And did you post an article completely unrelated to this case that was connected to a much more serious accusation? Then crap on that no one understood the point you were making?

3)Ill say it again, my post was about something that should be condemned and that cases like that are worthy of community anger. It seems like you still don't understand the point of the post.
There was nothing more than me remarking that offences like that riles me.

I don't think people have attacked your morality. I think it's more your intelligence that's been questioned mate.

You wouldn't be the first to question it. Hahaha

Look ... I can see I'm annoying people with the way I do things so don't really want to continue this BUT ...

1) True explanation as this is exactly what happened. For me the first step would've been to acknowledge that you were wrong about there being no articles. We all make mistakes and I would've expected you to have admitted it which is what I was saying. And now for it not to be related to the incident when it covers EXACTLY what you were stating wasn't true? Weird mate. We all make mistakes. Feel free to admit it sometimes.

2) Just to recap the conversation (sorry don't know how to quote past posts)
ME: "My only question with all of this is what would've been the outcome of JO had been a police officer on a school visit talking about road safety? A paramedic talking about first aid? An exchange teacher from a different country talking about varying cultures?"
YOU: "I think the answer to your question would be that nothing would have happened to them legally as it was consensual however if they breached a code of conduct that thier organisation had then disiplanary action would have followed."
So it's not true that you said the above?

3) Each to their own. For me it was completely out of place and for no other reason but as a comparison as picked up by other posters but if you felt it was relevant then that's your right. At the same time it's in my right to form my own opinion on this.

4) What I will say is that I'm being a dick with the "intelligence" shit and apologise. Different opinions are OK. People on here seem to be accusing me of not budging from my opinions but for some reason completely leave you to do it regularly ... but that's your shit not mine so I do apologise for the "intelligence" comments. Childish of me.

 

[Superuber]

You wouldn't be the first to question it. Hahaha

Look ... I can see I'm annoying people with the way I do things so don't really want to continue this BUT ...

1) True explanation as this is exactly what happened. For me the first step would've been to acknowledge that you were wrong about there being no articles. We all make mistakes and I would've expected you to have admitted it which is what I was saying. And now for it not to be related to the incident when it covers EXACTLY what you were stating wasn't true? Weird mate. We all make mistakes. Feel free to admit it sometimes.

2) Just to recap the conversation (sorry don't know how to quote past posts)
ME: "My only question with all of this is what would've been the outcome of JO had been a police officer on a school visit talking about road safety? A paramedic talking about first aid? An exchange teacher from a different country talking about varying cultures?"
YOU: "I think the answer to your question would be that nothing would have happened to them legally as it was consensual however if they breached a code of conduct that thier organisation had then disiplanary action would have followed."
So it's not true that you said the above?

3) Each to their own. For me it was completely out of place and for no other reason but as a comparison as picked up by other posters but if you felt it was relevant then that's your right. At the same time it's in my right to form my own opinion on this.

4) What I will say is that I'm being a dick with the "intelligence" shit and apologise. Different opinions are OK. People on here seem to be accusing me of not budging from my opinions but for some reason completely leave you to do it regularly ... but that's your shit not mine so I do apologise for the "intelligence" comments. Childish of me.

2) Just to recap the conversation (sorry don't know how to quote past posts)
ME: "My only question with all of this is what would've been the outcome of JO had been a police officer on a school visit talking about road safety? A paramedic talking about first aid? An exchange teacher from a different country talking about varying cultures?"
YOU: "I think the answer to your question would be that nothing would have happened to them legally as it was consensual however if they breached a code of conduct that thier organisation had then disiplanary action would have followed."
So it's not true that you said the above?

That's true and ill stand by it in exactly same circumstances, what was incorrect is that you said TEACHER.

And I did acknowledge I was wrong about the articles but gave my view about them due to the journalist statement.

 

[Tassie Devil]

2) Just to recap the conversation (sorry don't know how to quote past posts)
ME: "My only question with all of this is what would've been the outcome of JO had been a police officer on a school visit talking about road safety? A paramedic talking about first aid? An exchange teacher from a different country talking about varying cultures?"
YOU: "I think the answer to your question would be that nothing would have happened to them legally as it was consensual however if they breached a code of conduct that thier organisation had then disiplanary action would have followed."
So it's not true that you said the above?

That's true and ill stand by it in exactly same circumstances, what was incorrect is that you said TEACHER.

And I did acknowledge I was wrong about the articles but gave my view about them due to the journalist statement.

Honestly. It's best to just leave it as I really don't know how to approach talking to you differenly and can't be arsed going back again through everything to show that you're wrong.

I tried taking conjecture out of it by stating the exact laws in this circumstance that clearly explain situations and circumstances (in this case carer and supervision roles) but clearly people will always just see what they want to see rather than looking for the truth. Each to their own and good luck with it mate!

 

[Superuber]

Honestly. It's best to just leave it as I really don't know how to approach talking to you differenly and can't be arsed going back again through everything to show that you're wrong.

I tried taking conjecture out of it by stating the exact laws in this circumstance that clearly explain situations and circumstances (in this case carer and supervision roles) but clearly people will always just see what they want to see rather than looking for the truth. Each to their own and good luck with it mate!

That fact is I agree that the laws you mentioned exist and understand what you're saying. The difference with us is that they don't apply in this situation and that's where the disagreement begins. You seem to think that justifies your view when its the opposite.
My opinion, he is a scumbag but the fact is the actions are not criminal, that's the truth. You are only having an opinion of the matter and when someone tries to provide you with information you refuse to accept, maybe you need to take your own advise and look for the truth.

Don't give up so easily there is not much else going on at 3am

 

[Tassie Devil]

2) Just to recap the conversation (sorry don't know how to quote past posts)
ME: "My only question with all of this is what would've been the outcome of JO had been a police officer on a school visit talking about road safety? A paramedic talking about first aid? An exchange teacher from a different country talking about varying cultures?"
YOU: "I think the answer to your question would be that nothing would have happened to them legally as it was consensual however if they breached a code of conduct that thier organisation had then disiplanary action would have followed."
So it's not true that you said the above?

That's true and ill stand by it in exactly same circumstances, what was incorrect is that you said TEACHER.

And I did acknowledge I was wrong about the articles but gave my view about them due to the journalist statement.

For #2 actually ... no. You're right. I'm wrong.

In this case if the people haven't had extended 'supervision or carer duties' so repeated visits to the school, or regular trainings, or their doctor, then by law it'd be harder to argue that they broke the law. You're simply standing by your early assertions about the JO case and in reality by law it wouldn't make a difference what their profession is especially when it's only a one off school visit. So you're right on this one.

As I've been saying though, it's a grey area and I'd love to know how similar cases panned out. It doesn't mean that they didn't do anything illegal, but that wasn't the point I was badly trying to make.

 

[Tassie Devil]

That fact is I agree that the laws you mentioned exist and understand what you're saying. The difference with us is that they don't apply in this situation and that's where the disagreement begins. You seem to think that justifies your view when its the opposite.
My opinion, he is a scumbag but the fact is the actions are not criminal, that's the truth. You are only having an opinion of the matter and when someone tries to provide you with information you refuse to accept, maybe you need to take your own advise and look for the truth.

Don't give up so easily there is not much else going on at 3am

Jinx. Seems as though we posted at the same time.

No. I get what you're saying. I don't agree with you, but that doesn't matter as it doesn't apply to the point or justification I was trying to make with a certain part of my text. Which is why I said I was wrong. I'll acknowledge that. Think you're wrong with the rest but whatever. I'll give you one out of three ...

We'll have to agree to disagree about the legal side of things as I really don't think it's as black and white as you're trying to make out. But at the same time it's not as black and white as I was trying to make out. It's really a grey area, and adding the exchange via Snapchat together it could've made big issues for JO. I realised that it's a grey area as I really tried to read into this as much as possible.

Guess we'll never know though.

As for giving up ... nah, but we're not going to agree on this or even see eye-to-eye so there's no point trying to change your mind. And it's 1930 atm here mate. So I should be more aware! I blame being in the 6th week of lockdown now ... I think?

 

[Superuber]

Jinx. Seems as though we posted at the same time.

No. I get what you're saying. I don't agree with you, but that doesn't matter as it doesn't apply to the point or justification I was trying to make with a certain part of my text. Which is why I said I was wrong. I'll acknowledge that. Think you're wrong with the rest but whatever. I'll give you one out of three ...

We'll have to agree to disagree about the legal side of things as I really don't think it's as black and white as you're trying to make out. But at the same time it's not as black and white as I was trying to make out. It's really a grey area, and adding the exchange via Snapchat together it could've made big issues for JO. I realised that it's a grey area as I really tried to read into this as much as possible.

Guess we'll never know though.

As for giving up ... nah, but we're not going to agree on this or even see eye-to-eye so there's no point trying to change your mind. And it's 1930 atm here mate. So I should be more aware! I blame being in the 6th week of lockdown now ... I think?

That's all folks for me, 4am finish and going home

 

[Chris Harding]

All valid points, but here is my counter argument. The police and the crown prosecutors know the law better than we do. They have the powers to find and review the facts of the case and they have had plenty of time to do so. With that in mind NO CHARGES HAVE BEEN FILED.

We can draw many conclusions from that, but it would seem logical that the appropriate powers have determined that JO was not at the school performing the role of “carer or supervisor”. That it was a simple promotional visit, wherein he signed hundreds of autographs and had hundreds of pictures taken.

Go Dogs

The main point missing in your argument is that this was a fundamental breach of the club's code of conduct, which gives the club the right to terminate a contract.
The NRL has standards which allow them to de-register a player, a coach - and even a club; and that is what comes into play in this instance.

Forget about consent, or police pressing charges, it is the breach of the code of conduct, and its implications for the club that brought down the decision to cancel their contracts - with the full support of the NRL.

 

[Tassie Devil]

She was not under the care/supervision of JO. She was under the care/supervision of the school/teachers. He was a third party at the school representing the NRL with teachers present. He was not a sporting coach. There is a big difference in being a sporting coach and what he was doing in relation to transference of duty of care.

Put it this way. Both a teacher and JO were on the field. If JO told a student to do something, and the teacher said no. JO jas no authority over the student, that authority has been given to the teacher/school by the parent.

And before you bring up "if a police officer was there giving a lecture on road safety" argument. The police officer is at the school in a capacity of authority. Police have a social authority which they are granted. JO was there in a promotional role, promoting league for the NRL. In this he was assisting in conducting sporting drills. He was not coaching a team in hope of winning a competition.

What JO did was sly, and certainly worrying. He abused his NRL obligations and deserves his punishment. But in relation to being a crime, he is innocent until proven guilty, and I can tell you that the ODPP would not certify that specific charge nor would any court establish beyond reasonable doubt, that he is guilty of that offence.

Fairly good points you're making, and I have to agree with you for most of it.

Initially I believed that simply by him being there he would take on this 'duty of care' or 'carer/supervision' role when working with the kids. Upon further reading of the law, even if he were to take full control of the session it wouldn't be completely in line with having an extended amount of time with the girl as is stated in the law. He'd need to deliver regular lessons / sessions with them, as far as I can tell by the letter of the law. So it matches what you're saying.

However, the argument can then be made is what was his role on the sessions (I know what you state), and did his position of being a a 'superstar' then increase the 'position of power'. I'm not a lawyer. I don't know the facts. So I simply don't know, but neither does anyone else here.

To be very very clear on this. I've never said he's guilty of anything simply because I don't have any details about what happened. Time and again I've said this and will continue to. We'll know more when the appeal preceedings begin. Until then all we're doing is hypothesising as none of us really know, do we?

All I've said is that this nonsense about "she's of legal age so there's nothing illegal" needs to stop as it's clearly not the case. Her age has nothing to do with it. It's whether he firstly was in a position of power while running the clinics, and secondly if he abused that power. This is the key. You can then add to the theme and content of their social media exchanges as this could easily have been deemed illegal as other posters have pointed out.

Anyway. Enjoyed your post and appreciated learning more about the situation.

 

[CBDoggies]

What I keep thinking about was that interview chn did last year about him contemplating suicide and how he grew up hating to lose. How do you think the guy is mentally. I’d be a little worried especially how happy he was playing in our colours

 

[TwinTurbo]

The main point missing in your argument is that this was a fundamental breach of the club's code of conduct, which gives the club the right to terminate a contract.
The NRL has standards which allow them to de-register a player, a coach - and even a club; and that is what comes into play in this instance.
Forget about consent, or police pressing charges, it is the breach of the code of conduct, and its implications for the club that brought down the decision to cancel their contracts - with the full support of the NRL.

I wasn't arguing that point, I have always maintained that they broke the players code of conduct and deserve to the punished for that. They also let their team mates down severely and that will take a lot of forgiveness. What they did had repercussions in the way of cancelled sponsorship, costing the club $big. They may not have foreseen that at the time, but the first 2 had been drummed into them with every counselling session on what we expect from them as player conduct 24/7/365.

My problem has always been that the punishment doesn't fit the offence, they have not been charged with any criminal offence, it's gross overkill, it defies natural justice and it goes against many many obvious precedents of far worse actions from players drawing far less punishment. I await the court actions, I think it will be interesting.

Go Dogs

 

[Dogna88]

Fairly good points you're making, and I have to agree with you for most of it.

Initially I believed that simply by him being there he would take on this 'duty of care' or 'carer/supervision' role when working with the kids. Upon further reading of the law, even if he were to take full control of the session it wouldn't be completely in line with having an extended amount of time with the girl as is stated in the law. He'd need to deliver regular lessons / sessions with them, as far as I can tell by the letter of the law. So it matches what you're saying.

However, the argument can then be made is what was his role on the sessions (I know what you state), and did his position of being a a 'superstar' then increase the 'position of power'. I'm not a lawyer. I don't know the facts. So I simply don't know, but neither does anyone else here.

To be very very clear on this. I've never said he's guilty of anything simply because I don't have any details about what happened. Time and again I've said this and will continue to. We'll know more when the appeal preceedings begin. Until then all we're doing is hypothesising as none of us really know, do we?

All I've said is that this nonsense about "she's of legal age so there's nothing illegal" needs to stop as it's clearly not the case. Her age has nothing to do with it. It's whether he firstly was in a position of power while running the clinics, and secondly if he abused that power. This is the key. You can then add to the theme and content of their social media exchanges as this could easily have been deemed illegal as other posters have pointed out.

Anyway. Enjoyed your post and appreciated learning more about the situation.

Total respect for your reply.

Good to have a decent conversation about differing (to an extent) of opinions.

We all base opinions off an array of different experiences. To me, from my knowledge and experience. Its as borderline criminal as it gets. And maybe if other facts/evidence were known. Might be a different outcome. But i can only go off what i know so far.

But mate. Criminal aspect aside. He deserved the punishment. Total disrespect for his contract and moral/ethical obligations.

 

[Tassie Devil]

Total respect for your reply.

Good to have a decent conversation about differing (to an extent) of opinions.

We all base opinions off an array of different experiences. To me, from my knowledge and experience. Its as borderline criminal as it gets. And maybe if other facts/evidence were known. Might be a different outcome. But i can only go off what i know so far.

But mate. Criminal aspect aside. He deserved the punishment. Total disrespect for his contract and moral/ethical obligations.

Mate. I tend to go all in guns blazing. Just way I am.

Happy to agree/disagree about the criminal aspect of things as I do understand and respect your views on this. As you say, we'll never know the full extent of what happened which maybe is best. In saying this, if he wins the appeal and the truth comes out that he indeed was hard done by then I'll be first to put my hand up and say I feel bad for the guy. And I will.

But ... let's be honest. Based on what we know there's no way he's going to win the appeal. No way. And based on what we know I'm happy with that.

Take it easy mate.

 

[Chris Harding]

I wasn't arguing that point, I have always maintained that they broke the players code of conduct and deserve to the punished for that. They also let their team mates down severely and that will take a lot of forgiveness. What they did had repercussions in the way of cancelled sponsorship, costing the club $big. They may not have foreseen that at the time, but the first 2 had been drummed into them with every counselling session on what we expect from them as player conduct 24/7/365.

My problem has always been that the punishment doesn't fit the offence, they have not been charged with any criminal offence, it's gross overkill, it defies natural justice and it goes against many many obvious precedents of far worse actions from players drawing far less punishment. I await the court actions, I think it will be interesting.

Go Dogs

The reason for the severity of the offence was because it was plastered all over the media. Neither the girls, nor their parents wanted to press charges, and it could have been contained in house with fines or suspension; but the nature of social media is such these days that the club knew it had to report to the NRL, or face something far worse if a cover up was exposed.

How it was released to the media would be an interesting piece of detective work; but the court of public opinion has always demanded a heavy price be paid by the Bulldogs. Coffs Harbour will never go away in the minds of the media - they are still seething that their accusations and "facts" were dismissed by the courts.

 

[Superuber]

The reason for the severity of the offence was because it was plastered all over the media. Neither the girls, nor their parents wanted to press charges, and it could have been contained in house with fines or suspension; but the nature of social media is such these days that the club knew it had to report to the NRL, or face something far worse if a cover up was exposed.

How it was released to the media would be an interesting piece of detective work; but the court of public opinion has always demanded a heavy price be paid by the Bulldogs. Coffs Harbour will never go away in the minds of the media - they are still seething that their accusations and "facts" were dismissed by the courts.

Don't blame the media when their audience consumes and allows this type of journalism. In the end we are all losers when trials are played out in the court of public opinion.

 

[CrittaMagic69]

Okunbor could probably get a gig with BLACKED if he's never allowed to return to the NRL