Jayden Okunbor to appeal NRL deregistration for schoolgirl sex scandal

Superuber

Kennel Participant
Joined
Sep 18, 2016
Messages
281
Reaction score
182
Yes it’s a ridiculous comparison mate, I was trying to be civil..
Seriously, can you even comprehend English.
If you are unable to understand the point that was being made
You know what, I can't even be bothered with absolute fools to explain, just keep travelling through life like fools.
Bye
 

Bazildog

Kennel Legend
Joined
Mar 9, 2014
Messages
11,211
Reaction score
20,491
Seriously, can you even comprehend English.
If you are unable to understand the point that was being made
You know what, I can't even be bothered with absolute fools to explain, just keep travelling through life like fools.
Bye
You ok mate? Yes I am pretty sure I understand Australian ( fuck English) born in Auburn in 65.

Your point is ridiculous, your comparing a rock spider with a couple of fuckwit footballers..

Get a grip mate, your argument is rubbish.

Stick to what you know best like “surge” rates..
 

Superuber

Kennel Participant
Joined
Sep 18, 2016
Messages
281
Reaction score
182
You ok mate? Yes I am pretty sure I understand Australian ( fuck English) born in Auburn in 65.

Your point is ridiculous, your comparing a rock spider with a couple of fuckwit footballers..

Get a grip mate, your argument is rubbish.

Stick to what you know best like “surge” rates..
Wasn’t a comparison because saying this TYPE OF INCIDENT IS WORTHY OR YOUR ANGER, indicates it’s not similar.
Unless Australian is different to English
 
Last edited:

2144superman

Kennel Legend
Joined
Aug 28, 2010
Messages
10,353
Reaction score
15,427
I can see the validity in both sides of the argument, but I also think they are now gone and won't ever be seen in Bulldogs jerseys again because of the action taken against them be it fair or harsh so for that reason were just running around in circles by continuously talking about it.
 

Tassie Devil

Kennel Immortal
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
17,045
Reaction score
14,799
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.
I think the first step in all of this is to establish that FOR A FACT, "it is a CRIME for a person who is caring for you, supervising you or has authority over to have sex with you while you are between the ages of 16 to 18. Some examples of people who are in a position of care or supervision over you would include your teacher, sports coach, youth worker, counsellor, foster carer, religious instructor, health professional, or police officer."

Too many on here have tried to paint a different story, but this is the law. The fact that a girl of legal age and gives consent means nothing if she has sex with a person in carer or supervisionary role.

Now, of course there will be debate whether JO was actually in this 'carer or supervisor' role while at the school. And whether the girl he slept with would actually count as someone who was under his care or supervision. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not privy to all of the facts about this case so it's impossible for me or anyone on here to say this way or that.

However, considering:
  1. There's a photo of him with the girl at school,
  2. Screen shots of between him and her clearly showing he knows she was at the school where he was acting as a carer or supervisor
I think it's hard to deny that link .... but again, I don't know all of the details.

As the Attorney General said in 2018 "School students are entitled to a safe learning environment, free from sexual exploitation and manipulation by those in a position of authority and trust,” I honestly think if the girls had made a formal complaint and pushed this more then he could've been in a lot more trouble than he is.

So ... let's stop with the "he did nothing illegal because he slept with someone of a legal age" crap. Clearly (as seen above) it doesn't matter as a carer or supervisor can't sleep with a 16 year old. It's a fact. Based on what's been presented to us so far he indeed did do something illegal and based on current laws could've served 4 - 8 years in jail and be registered as a sex offender.

If you want to debate about JO, do so by all means. But leave out the "she's of legal age" because it means absolutely nothing. NOTHING!
 

TwinTurbo

Kennel Legend
Gilded
Joined
Oct 22, 2018
Messages
9,347
Reaction score
15,418
I think the first step in all of this is to establish that FOR A FACT, "it is a CRIME for a person who is caring for you, supervising you or has authority over to have sex with you while you are between the ages of 16 to 18. Some examples of people who are in a position of care or supervision over you would include your teacher, sports coach, youth worker, counsellor, foster carer, religious instructor, health professional, or police officer."

Too many on here have tried to paint a different story, but this is the law. The fact that a girl of legal age and gives consent means nothing if she has sex with a person in carer or supervisionary role.

Now, of course there will be debate whether JO was actually in this 'carer or supervisor' role while at the school. And whether the girl he slept with would actually count as someone who was under his care or supervision. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not privy to all of the facts about this case so it's impossible for me or anyone on here to say this way or that.

However, considering:
  1. There's a photo of him with the girl at school,
  2. Screen shots of between him and her clearly showing he knows she was at the school where he was acting as a carer or supervisor
I think it's hard to deny that link .... but again, I don't know all of the details.

As the Attorney General said in 2018 "School students are entitled to a safe learning environment, free from sexual exploitation and manipulation by those in a position of authority and trust,” I honestly think if the girls had made a formal complaint and pushed this more then he could've been in a lot more trouble than he is.

So ... let's stop with the "he did nothing illegal because he slept with someone of a legal age" crap. Clearly (as seen above) it doesn't matter as a carer or supervisor can't sleep with a 16 year old. It's a fact. Based on what's been presented to us so far he indeed did do something illegal and based on current laws could've served 4 - 8 years in jail and be registered as a sex offender.

If you want to debate about JO, do so by all means. But leave out the "she's of legal age" because it means absolutely nothing. NOTHING!
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
 

Tassie Devil

Kennel Immortal
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
17,045
Reaction score
14,799
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.
 
Last edited:

Superuber

Kennel Participant
Joined
Sep 18, 2016
Messages
281
Reaction score
182
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.
The following is your own words

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.

So you say it’s really impossible to make an educated opinion then go on to put forward your own. To me that means your opinion must be uneducated, so will only treat it as that. For the rest of us we have undisputed fact that he has not been charged with any offence so anyone who has that view are not having an opinion but stating facts.
 

dekepefc

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
2,207
Reaction score
3,715
I think the first step in all of this is to establish that FOR A FACT, "it is a CRIME for a person who is caring for you, supervising you or has authority over to have sex with you while you are between the ages of 16 to 18. Some examples of people who are in a position of care or supervision over you would include your teacher, sports coach, youth worker, counsellor, foster carer, religious instructor, health professional, or police officer."

Too many on here have tried to paint a different story, but this is the law. The fact that a girl of legal age and gives consent means nothing if she has sex with a person in carer or supervisionary role.

Now, of course there will be debate whether JO was actually in this 'carer or supervisor' role while at the school. And whether the girl he slept with would actually count as someone who was under his care or supervision. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not privy to all of the facts about this case so it's impossible for me or anyone on here to say this way or that.

However, considering:
  1. There's a photo of him with the girl at school,
  2. Screen shots of between him and her clearly showing he knows she was at the school where he was acting as a carer or supervisor
I think it's hard to deny that link .... but again, I don't know all of the details.

As the Attorney General said in 2018 "School students are entitled to a safe learning environment, free from sexual exploitation and manipulation by those in a position of authority and trust,” I honestly think if the girls had made a formal complaint and pushed this more then he could've been in a lot more trouble than he is.

So ... let's stop with the "he did nothing illegal because he slept with someone of a legal age" crap. Clearly (as seen above) it doesn't matter as a carer or supervisor can't sleep with a 16 year old. It's a fact. Based on what's been presented to us so far he indeed did do something illegal and based on current laws could've served 4 - 8 years in jail and be registered as a sex offender.

If you want to debate about JO, do so by all means. But leave out the "she's of legal age" because it means absolutely nothing. NOTHING!
Those are exactly the legal considerations for a case like this. Well written. The key is like you said care or supervision. In those clinics the players are generally guest speakers and help out with drills that are being overseen by a teacher. While open to argument, i would suggest the teacher remains the person in authority in that situation and the players have none over the students. There is another crimimal offence too, if she was 17, and he asked for/obtained boob shots over instagram: s.474.19(1) Criminal Code (cwlth)—use carriage service for child pornography material (material regarding child under 18 years of age)
 

Superuber

Kennel Participant
Joined
Sep 18, 2016
Messages
281
Reaction score
182
Those are exactly the legal considerations for a case like this. Well written. The key is like you said care or supervision. In those clinics the players are generally guest speakers and help out with drills that are being overseen by a teacher. While open to argument, i would suggest the teacher remains the person in authority in that situation and the players have none over the students. There is another crimimal offence too, if she was 17, and he asked for/obtained boob shots over instagram: s.474.19(1) Criminal Code (cwlth)—use carriage service for child pornography material (material regarding child under 18 years of age)
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.
 
Last edited:

maltalian_dog

DESeption
Joined
Jul 18, 2006
Messages
1,570
Reaction score
2,368
Just came here to say Locky Hunter AFL player done high level drink driving putting others at great risk and he will not be de registered and dragged through the mud.
 

Tassie Devil

Kennel Immortal
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
17,045
Reaction score
14,799
The following is your own words

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.

So you say it’s really impossible to make an educated opinion then go on to put forward your own. To me that means your opinion must be uneducated, so will only treat it as that. For the rest of us we have undisputed fact that he has not been charged with any offence so anyone who has that view are not having an opinion but stating facts.
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.
 
Last edited:

Tassie Devil

Kennel Immortal
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
17,045
Reaction score
14,799
Those are exactly the legal considerations for a case like this. Well written. The key is like you said care or supervision. In those clinics the players are generally guest speakers and help out with drills that are being overseen by a teacher. While open to argument, i would suggest the teacher remains the person in authority in that situation and the players have none over the students. There is another crimimal offence too, if she was 17, and he asked for/obtained boob shots over instagram: s.474.19(1) Criminal Code (cwlth)—use carriage service for child pornography material (material regarding child under 18 years of age)
Those are exactly the legal considerations for a case like this. Well written. The key is like you said care or supervision. In those clinics the players are generally guest speakers and help out with drills that are being overseen by a teacher. While open to argument, i would suggest the teacher remains the person in authority in that situation and the players have none over the students. There is another crimimal offence too, if she was 17, and he asked for/obtained boob shots over instagram: s.474.19(1) Criminal Code (cwlth)—use carriage service for child pornography material (material regarding child under 18 years of age)
Yes. Actually forgot about the requests for boob shots ...

Nice reading a balanced view on this ... Well done.

All information I've got is from laws created by federal government. And what I've read on legal sites. I definitely don't claim to know the legalities or details if this case. We'll prob never know it all.

What I do say though is that the claim "she's of legal age so nothing illegal happened" is entirely false because age has nothing to do with it in this case. Have said that repeatedly. It's whether he can be classed as being in a role of power or not.

Also the claim that because "no charges have been filed means nothing illegal happened" is also incorrect. The question is whether they felt at the time they'd be able to prosecute without a complaint being made by the accuser, and whether the accuser would assist with any prosecution. Of course they could've still pressed charges but without the support of the accuser?

Just because charges aren't laid it doesn't mean nothing illegal happened. See my point about domestic violence.

As I said though. Good reading your views and appreciate you showing balance
 

Riggs80

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 16, 2017
Messages
1,492
Reaction score
1,335
Seriously @Tassie Devil whilsto agree they got what they deserved and I think it’s correct punishment . YOU are FORCING your opinion on others and making out like their points are ludicrous and yours is the only correct opinion.

you argue that we don’t know all ins and out etc and then blast someone for saying it’s not criminal act as not charged by police. This whole case has been documented throughly in media IF it was illegal they would have been charged Or the police when asked would have said at least they would investigate .

also thankfully we live in a country that presumption of innocence till proven guilty . You my friend instead of arguing that their acts was grubby and having a discussion you are basically inferring that they have commuted criminal acts And that only your opinion is correct

 

Tassie Devil

Kennel Immortal
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
17,045
Reaction score
14,799
Seriously @Tassie Devil whilsto agree they got what they deserved and I think it’s correct punishment . YOU are FORCING your opinion on others and making out like their points are ludicrous and yours is the only correct opinion.

you argue that we don’t know all ins and out etc and then blast someone for saying it’s not criminal act as not charged by police. This whole case has been documented throughly in media IF it was illegal they would have been charged Or the police when asked would have said at least they would investigate .

also thankfully we live in a country that presumption of innocence till proven guilty . You my friend instead of arguing that their acts was grubby and having a discussion you are basically inferring that they have commuted criminal acts And that only your opinion is correct

Fair points mate and I certainly don't want to be seen as forcing my opinion on others. Each entitled to their own whether I agree or disagree with it

One thing to point out tho. I was very vocal on this when it all came out. Then shut up about it as it was clear I'd said my piece and nothing was going to change many of your opinions.

Since then on a seemingly daily basis I've seen people push the "legal age nothing illegal" line. Constant ramming down the throat about other cases being worse etc etc.

Why aren't you commenting on that then? If you're about people not forcing ones views on others? Because they make short statements?

It's not about people agreeing with me. It's about people having the balls to say "Shit, that's a fair point" it's about balance.
 

Riggs80

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 16, 2017
Messages
1,492
Reaction score
1,335
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
 

Bad Billy

Kennel Immortal
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
12,221
Here's the problem, neither the females nor their parents lodged a complaint of any kind, legal or otherwise. I'm sure if it was you or me involving our daughters we would have taken some action. But the fact is I know it wouldn't have been my daughter because she would not act in that way, so any comparison between them and us is irrelevant.

Go Dogs
I can honesty say the same regarding my daughter. She also knows that if a grub came near her with grubby behavior I would deal with them appropriately!

So maybe the parents are apart of the problem.

If the girls or the parents made a complaint or not, it still disgusting behavior and should not be tolerated in any walk of life, let alone folks that visit high schools as apart of their employment. If that was a teacher he would be in jail!
The reason they parents didn’t complain, is because they know their daughters, and fucking 25yo strangers is completely in character for them.
 
Top