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
No charges have been filed? I didn't know that. Shit ....
So a law is only broken when charges are filed. Is that correct? I'm not much of a lawyer mate, but this line of argument really doesn't stand up. I'm sorry.
It's like saying that 70% of the women in Australia who experience domestic violence but don't report it didn't actually experience it, and the men weren't actually committing a crime when they did it ... Just because the police don't press charges it doesn't mean a crime hasn't been committed.
There's no doubt that this case with JO is grey, which I've said from the outset. We don't have all the information in front of us so it's really impossible to make an educated opinion on this specific manner as we've got so little to go by. But ... with that knowledge we can't also sit here and say "He did nothing illegal" simply because charges weren't pressed. Fuck. I've committed plenty of crimes where charges weren't pressed simply because the parties couldn't be bothered with formally complaining about me. Doesn't mean I shouldn't have been locked up though.
Was JO actually in a carer or supervision role while at the school? I honestly don't know the content of the school visits if I'm honest and I'm not going to pretend to know his specific case. However based on what I've read no doubt he'll be at a minimum leading some footy drills for an extended period of time. Based on the fact he was with older students I know they lead more discussion based sessions on life etc. in addition to football related skills but was it in the case for him?
I don't know. But he was in a position of power. That can't be argued. And he was supervising children at some point whether it be in discussion or running drills. That can't be argued either. Remember, it states it's a crime for a person who is
"caring for you, supervising you or has authority over" and I'd say it was definitely the latter two. No?
Remember what the club and Greenburg stated about the players receiving specific training for these school visits? It's clear his role was more than simply "signing autographs and taking pictures."
Know most people on here won't agree with me, and don't expect to change anyone's mind. Realise you, along with most, will hold onto the old "nothing illegal was done as he wasn't charged" line ..... The reality of the situation is that if he was charged over this the likelihood of him getting a sentence or being found guilty probably wouldn't have been extremely high. I'd say simply because this was only a short visit so it's hard to assertain that he took advantage of his position of power for an extended period of time .... Maybe the outcome would've been community service? I don't know.
But this "because she's of legal age nothing is illegal" line simply isn't true in is case, and more importantly in any other case. It's not. He's extremely lucky that the club stepped in when they did, otherwise he would've been in a world of pain. Those of you who're parents and said this is no big deal really need to read the law on this and realise how much JO was/is dancing with fire in this case, and to be more wary with your own children.