Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Leftism » Anti fun brigade » Lets speculate

Lets speculate

It has been a source of great amusement to me that the Pure Poison boys have been making such a dogs breakfast of going “big time” with their Crikey blog and now it has been Jeremy’s turn to have an online version of foot in mouth disease. Two days ago I emailed Jeremy to ask him what he thought about the Matthew Johns scandal and the essence of his reply was that he did not care about the story at all, because he does not follow rugby, Well that is fair enough he is a Melbourne lad after all and they follow a different football faith down there. Then Andrew Bolt wrote about it so suddenly my learned friend was interested and he wrote a short post at his personal blog but the keyboard had hardly cooled when he wrote a longer piece for Pure Poison but when you check the link you will find a new version and if you want to see the original text check out these screenshots from the Pure poison feed  from Blogotariat :

The reason you have to do this is quite simply because the Pure poison boys have, once again, stuffed up on some journalistic essentials, namely that any author should be very careful indeed when it comes to alleging criminality.

Scott Bridges “explains” why the post went off-line and is now “revised” with this comment:

Scott Bridges

Posted May 15, 2009 at 4:51 pm | Permalink

Some commenters have noted (in still-moderated comments) that this post was taken offline for a period of time. Alterations have been made to this post and no comment or speculation about the changes made or the reasons behind those changes will be published.

Thanks for your understanding on this matter.

Well the Pee Pee boys  may want to quietly forget this major faux pas  but those of us who find their antics so amusing can speculate to our hearts content. To make such speculation I have copied the post in question here and worked out just where changes have been made and you will find below that I have shown those changes in red .


Consent is not a “furphy”, Andrew

Regarding the NRL/Matthew Johns scandal, Andrew Bolt knows who to blame:

If Johns is sacked, why not Lumby?

Catherine Lumby’s crime offence?


That’s not what he’s learned at all. Well – he’s learned that consent doesn’t trump the commercial interests of major entertainment corporations. He’s learned that he’d better stick to their arbitrary version of public “morality” – in this case, that group sex is WRONG BY DEFINITION – if he wants to keep those jobs. And if Lumby were his PR adviser, and had told him that Channel Nine wouldn’t mind if he were revealed to have engaged in group sex, then she’d certainly deserve to be sacked for that – clearly she’d have been astoundingly wrong.

But the main thing Johns is in trouble for is allegedly NOT following Lumby’s subsequent advice, that “informed consent” is vital.It’s that there’s an open question as to whether he stood by as the girl was effectively raped by the other team mates.It’s the allegation – which may be untrue* – that he stood by as a girl was effectively raped (again, only an allegation) by his team mates.

Because – and it staggers me that a prominent newspaper columnist doesn’t seem to get this – consenting to sex with two men does not equal consenting to sex with any man who happens to walk into the room. And standing by while a woman is raped would itself be a crime. (If that was what in fact happened, in respect of which all we know is that the NZ police have investigated those allegations and decided not to prosecute.)

It shouldn’t, in 2009, be all that difficult for any functioning adult to understand.

But Bolt thinks{…)#

Now, responses to this incident have run the gamut from the misogynist “if she said yes to two she said yes to all” to the puritan “group sex is wrong and should be punished”. Bolt’s attempt to blame it all on his cultural war opponents lurches awkwardly from one extreme to the other – if you were to try to tie it together, the only sense you could make is that he blames all participants for falling short of his personal moral code, and thinks that the harm described – the harm of a rape – is simply the consequence of such a failure. He wants to blame Lumby’s focus on consent for an incident that is claimed by the woman now not to have been consensual – for the players she advised allegedly NO FOLLOWING HER ADVICE. following her advice.


*We have no idea what occurred on that night, and are not alleging anything. We are commenting on the general issues raised by the subsequent discussion. Mr Johns has not been charged with any offence, and the allegations against him that are being widely discussed in the national media are just that – allegations. We know nothing more on the specific incident that prompted the debate than that.


There have been some minor changes made to this post to make the above note doubly clear. Obviously, this post is about the general issue, not the specific incident in question. It is responding to Andrew Bolt’s thoroughly disturbing suggestion that consent is merely a “furphy” – and his ridiculous attempt to use the incident to try to get a “culture war” opponent sacked.

Of course the question that I would love to have answered is who complained?

Was It Lumby?

Was It Matthew Johns?

Was it someone from the NRL?

Hmm so much remains unanswered and somehow I doubt that the Pee Pee Boys will be forthcoming with any answers however  the speculation has to be how long will it be before Crikey pull the plug on this troop of bumble headed ideologues?

Cheers Comrades



The sections that are apparantly unchanged have been edited down to shorten this post please refer to the blogatarit screenshots. Because belive it or not Jeremy is throwing a hissy fit in the comments and elsewhere , about copyright, looks like its “cat pictures” all over again with threats  ect… 🙄

## JF Beck points out the latest  update to the post in question that I have added to my quote above, me thinks that the Pee Pee boys are not thinking straight my guess is that they will be on the piss drowning their sorrows and pretending that they are kings of the universe, until the rattle of the trains brings them back to earth.

Update 2

Another piece of the puzzle comes via a report in The Herald Sun which has the builder of the motel room in question saying that a key part of “Clare’s” story is physically impossible :

She claims that on the following night, Cronulla players climbed in through the bathroom window of Room 15, where she was having sex with Johns and Brett Firman.

Mr Butterfield, whose son built the motel-style unit, said that was not possible.

“There’s no way you can get through the window,” he said.


As I see it this casts a great deal of doubt on other claims from “Clare” is she now going to suggest that the players teleporting into the room?


  1. kevin says:

    Have you got any idea how much crikey pays these guys Iain? I wonder if the money reflects the quality?

  2. Toaf says:

    Wow, Iain! You’ll get a guest post at Beck’s one of these days!

  3. Toaf says:

    Hey, Iain. Running with the theme of editing posts or pulling them down, I’ve got a scoop for you.

  4. Iain Hall says:

    you lot must be very desperate indeed if you think that Leon’s post is in the same boat as this little back down.
    what ever it is I am sure that it is too much 😉

  5. Jeremy says:

    Iain, you do not have permission to repost the entirety of the piece above.

    It’s not your work, and reprinting it wholesale is not “fair use”. (Although if you’d like to pay me for the right to reprint it, I’d be happy to charge you a special Iain Hall rate.)

    Further, since the changes are obviously to make it doubly clear that we’re not ourselves alleging anything about the night, and that the post is responding to andrew’s fatuous line that consent is a “furphy”, I’d suggest you be careful that YOU aren’t repeating allegations someone may object to down the track. We’re not responsible for the content on this site.

    PS: No-one complained; we just decided to be extra cautious, as the piece was about Bolt’s weird approach to the issue, not Johns. And, fyi, my AL post went up hours before Bolt’s.

  6. Toaf says:

    No, Leon’s post isn’t in the same boat as this one. Leon pulled his post without explanation because he made a total goose of himself (several times in one go). The Poison post was pulled so that it could be edited in accordance with legal considerations and then republished. One post is evidence of stupidity, one not. It’s telling which one you comment upon. Cheers, comprade!

  7. Leave it out, Toaf says:

    Toaf: “The Poison post was pulled so that it could be edited in accordance with legal considerations and then republished. ”

    Really? No one at Pure Poison has said that was why it was pulled or even why it was changed when reposted. In fact, the entire explanation from Pure Poison went like this:

    “Alterations have been made to this post and no comment or speculation about the changes made or the reasons behind those changes will be published.”

    Jeremy’s excuse that “the changes are obviously to make it doubly clear that we’re not ourselves alleging anything about the night” is not only not on the Pure Poison record but also clearly misleading. In the original post Jeremy claimed that the girl was “effectively raped” and implied that someone (Johns? someone else?) stood by while a rape occured. Jeremy claimed that a rape took place and, as he submits, rape is a crime.

    So what is it, Toaf?

    Do we take your word for it that the post was pulled down and re-published without any explanation because of legal reasons?

    Do we take Jeremy’s word for it and accept that the post was edited to re-inforce a point that was never made in the original post?

    Or do we just accept that the original post is significantly different to the new one and that the Pure Poison lads have said nothing on their blog to even suggest that the post now online is different in anyway to the original one…except for down in comments, the same place they get upset about News Ltd bloggers making announcements?

    Whatever your conclusions, Jeremy’s lack of both legal and journalistic skill is showing.

  8. Shawn Whelan says:


    OK, I will reprint it if you pay me.
    Give me a special Jeremy rate.
    What a joke.

  9. Shawn Whelan says:

    A tip to women.

    It is a bad idea to go to a hotel room with the rugby team.

  10. Iain Hall says:

    My use of your text IS fair use under the copyright act because the text I post is a composite of your old and new versions with the differences highlighted in a contrasting text colour, It is fully and appropriately attributed with your authorship acknowledged.

    I am certain that no one would read my post as any kind of allegation of criminality by any rugby player (or hanger on)* because clearly the focus is on your ineptitude in writing the piece in the first place and secondly the rather less that upfront way that you guys failed to acknowledge the edits in the actual post , relying instead on Scott’s less than satisfactory explanation in the comment thread.

  11. Toaf says:

    “Leave it out”, did you read the comment by Jeremy?

  12. Jeremy says:

    Iain, you’re a thief. Crikey pays me to print my work. You’re just taking it for free, without permission.

    Good thing you only have a Noddy car to your name, or you’d be at risk of someone doing something about it.

    LIOT – get stuffed, you anonymous coward. (Although given that I know perfectly well who you are, it’s obvious why you wouldn’t want to associate your real name with this miserable site of crap.)

    The original also referred to the allegations with “allegedly”. It did not say there was a rape – it said there was a question in the media about it. Crikey wanted to make it even clearer that we were not alleging anything about what happened, so we did. I dispute that the original was defamatory of Johns either – it was, and is, about Andrew Bolt’s ridiculous idea that consent is a “furphy”.

    I mean, seriously – consent a “furphy”? In what age does that man live?

  13. Toaf says:

    And now Iain’s deleting his own comments without explanation. What is the interweb coming to?

  14. Iain Hall says:

    So quick to allege criminal behaviour still I see Jeremy, As you will notice I have shortened the quote to salve your sensitivities about copyright and to make doubly sure that I am very well within the fair use provisions of the copyright act.
    Even so I think that you do yourself no favours with the implicit threats of litigation.
    PS thanks for the admission that you are being paid by Crikey for your efforts there. Up until now you lot have all been rather coy about the terms under which you write there, whatever they are paying you it is obviously too much.
    Cheers Comrade

  15. Jeremy says:

    Only to Iain would being paid for work come as a surprise.

  16. Toaf says:

    But, hang on! I thought Jeremy was paying Crikey!!1!

  17. AR says:

    Jeremy Sear,

    Where is the case law to suggest that Ian Hall could face a financial penalty for comparing and contrasting your two posts?

    I think you are talking out of your hat. It seems highly unethical for a barrister to be making dubious legal threats of this nature.

  18. Phill says:


    But, hang on! I thought Jeremy was paying Crikey!!1! ”

    For the schlock he dishes up he should be.

  19. Toaf says:

    Anyway, Iain. You have still not commented on the content of the post. Do you agree with Bolt’s assertion that consent is a “furphy”?

  20. Iain Hall says:

    Welcome to my blog AR
    I was supremely confident that Jeremy would not be seeking to actually sue me but it was no skin off my nose to edit my post anyway,the result is that he looks sillier as a result of his threats on top of looking inept for writing his post as he did in the first place. He even thinks that my post was “plagiarism” a claim that gave me the deepest of belly laughs I can tell you.
    I take it that you are withdrawing you treat to sue me for breaching your copyright now that you revert to the old jibes about my domestic arrangements.
    You will see that I make it abundantly clear that consent is a vital precursor to any sort of sex between any number of participants if you check both my “Rugby and raunch” post and anywhere else that I have written about sexual morality.

  21. Toaf says:

    If you don’t mind, Iain, could you address me by screen name?

  22. Phill says:

    Is toaf a movie star?

  23. Iain Hall says:

    why should I pay you that courtesy when you continually refer to me by various derogatory nicknames elsewhere?

  24. Toaf says:

    It isn’t a courtesy, Iain. I use a nick name on blogs for a reason. Grow up a little, eh?

  25. Toaf says:

    Phill, you totally pwned me there. Not “screen name”; I should have said “blogging nickname”. You win. Where’s my mummy?

  26. Iain Hall says:

    Damien I have always referred to you by your Christian name please explain why I should cease doing so now?

  27. Phill says:

    Iain what is the prerequisite for being a lawyer? Is it sort like a movie I once watched. It was set in a WW2 comedy, the German Doctor at the recruiting centre stuck a gun behind the poor fuckers ear of a potential soldier/lawyer mayhaps, pulled the trigger and shot over his head, got a reaction, and said “You passed your in “

  28. PKD says:

    Crikey, but what a non-event!

    But on the subject of who pays who, you guys should be paying ME for reading for all that!!!

  29. Phill says:

    What is all this bullshit about anyway? A load of prima donna football players getting their leg over. If they’re guilty of what they say they are, horse whip the bastards.

    If not, I wish everyone would take a pill and lie down. Any body that hasn’t been involved in some type of group sex is at best a lying bastard, or a nerd .Anyone thinking this just happens in sporting circles hasn’t got a grasp of reality.

    As they say folks I been around from cargo ships/ fishing trawlers and mining towns, the latter being the worst case scenario.Even at some of our finest grammar schools soggy biscuit party’s are all the rage, and to deny it is to live in a world of delusion.Of course some little urchins probably hid under the bed sheets when the fun was was going on.

    Men will walk over broken glass, tell the worst lies, piss on their mates,and get into full blown fist fights to get there end away, and to deny this borders on the barking mad.And before they even meet the opposite sex, they are pulling themselves morning and night every day for years.

    Still I guess some people who comment here may have lived in a Buddhist Monastery mayhaps. oh but no, cos you see they do it as well.

  30. on the subject of who pays who, you guys should be paying ME for reading for all that!!!

    I couldn’t agree more, PKD. It’s like Iain has put up a re-run of a very bad movie made by his ‘opposition’ and given it more credence than it ever deserved. And the whole point of the main issue (men behaving badly) is sadly lost.

    Phil, is that “group sex”. Is that what you think an “orgy is, six guys banging a teenager while six guys watch and pull their dicks? That’s just sicko stuff mate. It’s real meathead & moron territory. It ain’t even sex – it’s monkeys imitating monkeys.

  31. Phill says:


    ” Phil, is that “group sex”. Is that what you think an “orgy is, six guys banging a teenager while six guys watch and pull their dicks? That’s just sicko stuff mate. It’s real meathead & moron territory. It ain’t even sex – it’s monkeys imitating monkeys.”

    Call it what you like,I agree with you it’s sick, but don’t tell me it doesn’t go on.That is the whole point. Sicko Smicko I have been in brothels from Bombay to Damascus on my travels around the world, I am not shocked at anything I see or indeed hear about..

    And no before you ask I didn’t participate, I happen to be one of those boring latte sipping happily married men with three normal healthy latte sipping kids. I believe in Global warming and I hate John Howards guts..

    What that got to do with anything nothing, I thought I would just add it in thinking about it. he he.

    We as humans and I use that term loosely in some cases are embarrassed by their own frailties and faults. They are disgusted that their fellow travellers get up to such shit.

    I told you what should happen to the fuckers if they were found guilty.So please spare what you think I think what it is.

    If it was my daughter these fuckers, never mind what I would do to these fuckers.


  32. I agree Phil, it does “go on”. Rape (or borderline rape) and assault goes on all the time. They weren’t in a brothel mate and, if they were, they wouldn’t have gotten away with that shit.

  33. Phill says:

    “They weren’t in a brothel mate and, if they were, they wouldn’t have gotten away with that shit.”

    Ray is it me? I know it wasn’t in a ” Brothel ”

    I am trying to make the point by explaining to you I am no shrinking violet, and I know what is going on in the world.

    This type of behaviour is nothing new, it has been going on since the dawn of time.My point is, if they are guilty of a crime of rape, they should be horse whipped.If they are all innocent, and If the female concerned did this with her full consent, and was able to make that judgement with out coercion or drugs etc, and notwithstanding it is morally disgusting, why is everyone so willing to pass it off as a virtual non event?

    For mine the more sport orientated lovers among us would have a statue put up in honour of some of these wankers, in every major city centre of Australia no matter the outcome. In some peoples minds these sports stars are above the law.

  34. I must have misinterpreted you somehow Phil.

  35. Phill says:

    “I must have misinterpreted you somehow Phil.’

    It wouldn’t be the first time Ray, probably wont be the last.

  36. Shawn Whelan says:

    I must have misinterpreted you somehow Phil.

    No. You were right. Phill misinterpreted himself.

  37. Toaf says:

    I’m not going to bother arguing with you, Iain. One question, though. There’s a curious tag on this post. What do you mean by “anti fun brigade”?

  38. Iain Hall says:

    if you can’t be bothered to answer my question I won’t answer yours.

  39. Phill says:

    Shawn, go away, your a moron and you need counseling.

  40. AR says:


    I suspect its listed under anti-fun brigade because Ian has seen the photos of Sear’s Easter camping trip.

  41. Iain Hall says:

    that is a hoot mate!
    and yes all of that crowd are very anti-fun !

  42. Toaf says:

    Iain, I ask you to respect my nick name because there is a possible impact on my work. As you knew anyway.

  43. Iain Hall says:

    Bollocks Damian!
    why would calling you by your Christian name (which is a rather common one anyway) make a scrap of difference? In any case why would you be saying anything under your nickname that you would not be prepared to own under your real name?

  44. Toaf says:

    I answered your question. Care to answer mine?

  45. David Davidson says:

    Not often I agree with you Ray, but spot on this time. Even though I abhor the crime of rape, there is a lack of common sense in this and many other cases. You go up to a footballer’s room, what do you think it’s for, champagne and caviar ?

    As for Jeremy’s threat of lawsuit Iain, what does he think he is going to sue you for ? Tearing his argument apart publicly ?

    You “sourced” and “cited” the material correctly, and everything written in an “open forum” situation is fair game. If it is a reprint of what is found in a blog, then it comes under similar law, as “creative commons”.

    Jeremy, your work is not academic, and was written for common viewing and ultimately, comment and criticism.

    In other words,

    get over it.

    Keep on trucking. At least until some other “no hoper” tries to turn you into their own personal super fund ? 🙂

  46. Phill says:

    Anyone who would use his position in society to threaten anyone with what ever! in the cut and thrust of the “Blog” would have to be a dead set squeezer.

  47. David Davidson says:

    I agree Phil.
    Assuming of course there is any position to “threaten” (or from?), in the first place ?

  48. Phill says:

    Well Dave blogdom is full of them.How anyone can take the shit that goes on, on these ere blogs is beyond me.

    Still life’s experience has taught me “cream puffs” all have the same M.O.

  49. David Davidson says:

    it has been my experience that :

    those, who “blow” the hardest, have the least “breath” ?

  50. Phill says:

    “those, who “blow” the hardest, have the least “breath” ?”

    Tooo bloody true Dave, toooo blooody true.

    I am from the old school, put up, or shut the fuck up.

    I don’t even mind a bit of fisti cuffs if it someones want to settle the argument. But oh no, how extremely working class, but as you know, cream puffs, and powder puffs hide behind their old lady’s dress.

    Problem is Dave, people like us from the old school are a dieing breed, now it’s all politically correct and social engineering.I am a lefty but a lot of the values we had back in the sixties are gone.A new breed of fairy farts have taken over, and as they say, the rest is history.

    What annoys me is, the left and that’s me partly, thinks we should all think in lock step together. Oh well such is life.

  51. David Davidson says:

    Everyone’s opinion is of value, hence why we look at these pages in the first place, UNLESS, that opinion come from inherent total lack of knowledge, ignorance or misplaced ‘tripping’ ego.

    Again, back to the subject at hand, and I say, I abhor the crime of rape, and that is what it is, a crime.

    BUT, why is it always the guys fault. There are cases of females raping young men, in a similar social situation, and the lack of punishment for the woman ? Merely, a smile at the young boy, saying “lucky bastard”, where it is not the case.

    Talk about reverse sexism ? There’s a lot more to this than anyone will let on ? When I was young, if I was out of line, I either had the girl give me a right hander, a brother, or worse still, the father with the shotgun. Fortunately, it never happened to me, but a few mates suffered that wrath.

    Still beats me as to what the hell she was doing there in the first place, so ‘innocent’ and ‘sweet’ ?

  52. Not often I agree with you Ray, but spot on this time

    Yeah? I’m not sure you do ~ you seem to be blaming her.

  53. David Davidson says:

    No Ray, that is not what I am saying.
    We all know what testosterone does, and if these guys are guilty of rape, then string them up by the short and curlies, no hesitation nor concessions.
    As this was a private room situation, common sense dictates that girls aren’t stupid, they can “scope” a situation and the safety of it. If you have daughters, surely you (or perhaps a school somewhere), teach them to defend themselves when out numbered or positioned. I gave my step daughters mace, and instruction on what a good knee can do, located towards the right position. Footballers or not, with half a belly full of alcohol (which is mandatory, as they wouldn’t risk all they are if they were sober, or unless totally stupid) [criticised my own argument then 😦 )
    Common sense would dictate as well. We are all born with great perceptions, and normally about to get into strife, is one of them ?
    My point Ray, was what the hell were they doing going to the room in the first place ? Doesn’t excuse rape, nor does it place the blame on the girl, but a valid question none the less ? It is a sad situation, and unfortunately, knowing the way these things work, it will all go away with the production of a cheque book from stage right somewhere. The police charges may not disappear, but with a thousand affidavits, dug up by the respective club, it will make all look like choir boys yet to reach puberty.

  54. Iain Hall says:

    I answered your question at about comment 54 and I quote:

    You will see that I make it abundantly clear that consent is a vital precursor to any sort of sex between any number of participants if you check both my “Rugby and raunch” post and anywhere else that I have written about sexual morality.

  55. Legal Eagle says:

    Iain, you do not have permission to repost the entirety of the piece above.

    It’s not your work, and reprinting it wholesale is not “fair use”. (Although if you’d like to pay me for the right to reprint it, I’d be happy to charge you a special Iain Hall rate.)

    Usually I stay quiet on these things. It is a bit like Groundhog Day – the same thing over and over – and frankly, it bores me. However, the “fair use” comment above is ridiculous. I’d say that Iain’s use of the Pure Poison material is a pretty clear example of “fair use for criticism or review” pursuant to s 41 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).

    Don’t take my word for it – let’s look at the Australian Copyright Council’s fact sheet on Fair Use:

    The Federal Court has stated that “criticism and review” involves making a judgment of the material concerned, or of the underlying ideas. Criticism and review may be strongly expressed, and may be expressed humorously, and need not be balanced. The defence can apply where the criticism or review takes place in a commercial context, such as in published books or newspapers or on commercial television.

    However, the court emphasised that the purpose of criticism or review must be genuine. If the person has other motives – especially if these motives involve using the material to make a profit, or using a competitor’s material to
    divert customers from the competitor – the fact that they have also engaged in a form of criticism or review is not
    enough to prevent the use from infringing copyright.

    It seems pretty clear to me that Iain’s use of the Pure Poison material was for comparison and comment. I find the suggestion that he should withdraw it for copyright reasons unpleasant – particularly given the disparity in knowledge and power between a lawyer and a non-lawyer where things legal are concerned.

  56. Iain Hall says:

    Thanks you very much LE for your opinion which is most welcome.

    I am endlessly and, rather sadly, amused that Jeremy has such a thin skin when what he writes is criticised, especially when it has been done in a respectful and good humoured manner.
    And if you don’t mind I would like to add your quote to my copyright disclaimer on my side bar.
    Would you have a link to the source by any chance?

  57. Legal Eagle says:

    Click to access G079.pdf

    It’s under “Fair Dealing” in the “fact sheet” hyperlink to my previous comment if the link above doesn’t work.

    Cheers, LE

  58. David, that response is all over the place.

  59. AR says:

    Thankyou Legal Eagle.

    Jeremy Sear has made a goose of himself with his claims that Ian was acting outside the law and with his vaguely worded suggestion that Ian could have faced financial sanctions as a result.

    Either Jeremy Sear’s legal knowledge is not up to par or he is aware that he has no legal basis for his demands but hopes that his position as a Barrister will give the impression that really does know what he is talking about.

  60. Iain Hall says:

    Thanks for that LE
    I was reading the comment on the “edit comments” page of my dash board and it does not show hype links very well.
    Jeremy has been very keen to play on his position as a barrister to intimidate those who dare to criticise him, and frankly I never expected a follow through but if cost me nothing to edit my post but it showed him up a great deal that he should make such demands in the first place. check out the “cat pictures link” that is another very amusing foible from our learned friend over copyright.

  61. pete m says:

    Not only was Jeremy’s threat facile, how about the hypocrisy?

    Just go to his blog and have a look at posts marked “copyright” as tags. He is constantly raving on about how it is unfair that others want to protect something like music or movies, because he wants to download them for free, and then we have him coming here raving about a lawful use of his obviously precious words.

    Take your hand off it mate!

  62. pete m says:

    And then there is his hotlinking of others photos, a Blogger no no.

  63. Iain Hall says:

    Pete M
    I confess Pete that I “hot-link” photos all of the time but usually that use also comes under the “criticism and review” provisions But you are right about his little rants about Music and movie downloads being hypocritical.

  64. David Davidson says:

    Told you had nothing to worry about.

    Maybe a bit over the place, but question remains, what were they doing up there in the first place. You go up to a man’s (never mind footballers, as they ain’t exactly the brightest lamps on the panel), room, what do you think is going to happen, a game of monopoly ?

    As I said, that does not excuse what allegedly occurred, but please, I hope if I taught my step girls anything, it was to use a bit of common sense in a situation like that ?

  65. David Davidson says:

    what can I say, it was late ?

  66. You go up to a man’s room, what do you think is going to happen

    The law doesn’t go out the window just because you put yourself in a vulnerable position, David. What you’re saying is the equivalent of “she asked for it”.

  67. David Davidson says:

    As usual Ray, you are attempting to “bait” someone, by over dramatising, and tunnel visioning a response, for a bit of cheap sensationalism.

    “The law doesn’t go out the window just because you put yourself in a vulnerable position, David”

    That is exactly the reason as to why the law is written in the first place.

    Common sense ? Too much to ask ?
    Ultimately, a person is responsible for themselves, and their actions.

    From http://www.todays-woman.net/article1488.html
    Author: Rose DesRochers

    “When do we start taking responsibility for our own actions? It appears that we no longer own our actions. Owning our actions, involves taking personal responsibility for what we do. Why is it that when something goes wrong, we need some place to lay the blame? Part of being a mature, responsible adult is to know that when we make a decision in life we are responsible for the outcome, not someone else. ”

    This is getting away from the main theme of the post, but, a few questions that need to be asked, and will guarantee, already have been.

    1. What were the girls doing there in the first place ?
    2. Who is the Club Advocate, who’s job it is to ensure that something like this does not occur, and, where were they in this instance ?
    3. How did the two groups meet,
    4. How was this drinking/orgy session organised, without the knowledge of the club (if that truly was the case ?). Guys talk in the locker room, someone in the hierarchy must have known what was brewing (in more ways than one ?)

    Finally, why is it always the ‘guys’ fault ? It takes two to tango, in more ways than one, and we have no idea as to the true goings-on in that room. There will be fault on BOTH SIDES, and you have implied, that for me to put SOME blame on the girls in this situation is ludicrous ? C’mon !

  68. Toaf says:

    Iain, you seem to have missed the question I asked: What do you mean by “anti fun brigade”?

  69. daddy dave says:

    “Iain, you seem to have missed the question I asked: What do you mean by “anti fun brigade”?”

    My advice is don’t respond to that, Iain, they’re trying to bait you into overstepping and saying something they can pound you for.
    It was a joke, leave it at that.

  70. Iain Hall says:

    I will leave that to your own imagination ok?

  71. Toaf says:

    No, daddy dave, “we” are curious. Iain often oversteps the mark in order to get attention. I want to know if, in this case, this is anything beyond attention-seeking.

    Iain, I’ll assume, then, that the “anti fun brigade” are those who want to stop blokes like Johns having “fun” with young women.

  72. Iain Hall says:

    Now you are being trite, if that was what I had wanted to say I would have said it in the text of my post so I will simply say that your assumption is wrong so you can try and imagine something else.

  73. AR says:


    You obviously have no evidence that Ian Hall ‘oversteps the mark’ to gain attention. If you had any evidence then you would have presented it.

    On the other hand, Jeremy Sear has repeatedly overstepped the mark on this issue, as demonstrated by his several retractions and apologies.

    Furthermore, just because someone isn’t as left wing as you and the people you hero-worship doesn’t mean that they support the actions of these footballers. Your assumption merely speaks to your partisanship.

    I suggest you owe Iain an apology.

  74. AR says:

    Go on Damian, apologise. Even Jeremy Sear, Barrister, can bring himself to apologise now and then.

  75. As usual Ray, you are attempting to “bait” someone …

    I’m hardly baiting you David, and your response seems to confirm that you’re not even familar with the facts of this incident. There was only one girl! (and 12 blokes).

  76. Iain, I refer to your “update #2” on this post.

    Mr Butterfield, whose son built the motel-style unit, said that was not possible. “There’s no way you can get through the window,” he said.

    Somehow I don’t think Mr Butterfield’s 2nd hand opinion of his son’s building (which looks at least 30 years old ) “casts a great deal of doubt” on her other claims. Even if he’s right, er, so what? The story as we know it (and has been confirmed by Johns) is that she went to the room with just two of them and the other 10 entered later.

  77. David Davidson says:

    That still hasn’t answered my question of basic common sense, and basic survival instinct ?

    Another fancy analogy for you.

    Just because you have come to the end of the pier, doesn’t mean that you have to jump off ?

  78. David Davidson says:

    Regarding the “putty tatt” situation ?

    He is correct up to a point. That point, and I have interated it above with ‘legal eagle’, that he does own the rights to the image, BUT, loses that ‘sole’ right, once he places that picture in the common domain. Once that happens, all ownership rights/claims and control are out the window.

  79. Iain Hall says:

    the age of the building has nothing to do with it. if the window is too small for strapping footballers to squeeze through then it certainly does cast doubt on “Clare’s” account of events. A good barrister would make a great deal of such a glaring inaccuracy were thr matter before the courts. After all could anyone climb in the bathroom windows at Grevillia Gardens?

  80. David Davidson says:

    To crack comment count of 80.

    Size of window – symantics

  81. Toaf says:

    Come on then, Iain. Who exactly is the “anti fun brigade” in this context?

  82. Iain Hall says:

    if the cap fits you are welcome to wear it , if it doesn’t then stay bare headed, you chose.

  83. Toaf says:

    You’re making as much sense as usual. It seems your tune has changed since you emailed me to request my home address. Whatever. Wasted way too much time here.

  84. Iain Hall says:

    Now you are telling lies, I offered to give you some”Earth Garden” magazines, which you politely declined, at no time did I actually ask for your address. I am happy to publish the correspondence if you want to dispute the facts.

  85. Toaf says:

    I’m not disputing anything, Iain. Fact is, you were happy to correspond with me then, now you’re not. Suit yourself.

  86. Legal Eagle says:

    As I’ve said at my own blog, some of these women, I’m sure, are just up for ’scalps’ – how many famous sports personalities can they shag and brag about after? Some of them, I’m also sure, are silly naive girls who are flattered by the attention from someone “famous” and don’t realise what they’re up for until it’s too late to say “no” easily. Some are probably too drunk to think straight and would never do something like that when sober.

    I’m reluctant to issue any blanket statements about those women one way or the other. It’s not a position I’ve ever been in, but I know other women who might have gotten into strife in their younger more naive days. I was always rather wary of drunken men, as well as being lucky with the company I kept.

    Just because the woman went back to the hotel room with two (or ten) footballers doesn’t mean she wanted what happened thereafter to happen to her. It probably wasn’t wise of her, and it’s not something I’d ever have done myself. I have a tendency to think of worst case scenarios, even when sloshed. But if those footballers had been decent fellows she wouldn’t have been in any danger. Clearly, they weren’t decent fellows.

  87. Iain Hall says:

    what makes you think that I am now unwilling to correspond with you? I have received no emails from you for ages and had no cause to send you any emails which does not mean that you are off my Christmas card list 🙄 .

  88. kevin says:

    What’s Earth Garden? Sounds a bit hippy.

  89. Toaf says:

    Iain, I mean “correspond” in the broader sense. I asked for an explanation for your use of “anti fun brigade” in this context and you want to play silly buggers.

  90. its all bout educayshun says:

    Damo, c’mon now, in the words of a champion “Group sex happens”, get over it!

    As a matter of fact “…it’s disgusting the way Matthew Johns has been put through the wringer in all this but her name has been kept out of it.”

    Look mate, “The reality is there are women out there who do hunt footballers down, are prepared to have sex with them in nightclub toilets.” Sheesh!

    How dare you make this woman a victim. This is the culmination of 200 years of wymins herstory, from some humble Blue Stockings to our paragons of grrrrrrrlPOWA (shazam!!!) who can now roar:

    We are “single woman who can have sex whenever, with whomever, I choose.” Errr “…mostly consensual, one-on-one sex, on my terms.” that is.

  91. Just because you have come to the end of the pier, doesn’t mean that you have to jump off ?

    Huh? Oh gee David, I give up ~ you haven’t made any sense on this issue from the outset.

  92. David Davidson says:

    That’s what happens when you look down a tunnel at a world through rose coloured glasses Ray

    Unfortunately, one thing you do have correct is, that now the media has it, the football clubs, who interestingly enough, spend millions through the media, and the media making millions off football, will do a great job, in either crucifying those concerned, or bury the whole thing in minutia.

    The powers that be tried to bury it, and for a year (or whatever the time scale was), they were successful, but as was mentioned elsewhere, testosterone filled youth often cannot control their mouths (along with other things).

    I still find it alarming that not once have you even considered the guys side of the story though ? You seem to think that it is all the guys fault in all of this, and as the old expression goes, it takes two to tango ? Media Watch on the ABC tonight did a spin on it all, watch that ?

    We both have strong feelings regarding this matter, as all common sensed people should. But, this is not cut and dried. Blame will be proportioned as more information comes to light. As usual in these types of cases, no doubt the girl’s (as well as her family’s) reputation will be dragged through the mud, as will the players. Blame should be proportioned on both sides, and will be in time.

  93. Iain Hall says:

    The choosing of tags and categories for a post is something that I do not give any deep thought to, I go through the lists and pick any and all that may have even the vaguest connection to the subject of my post. This is simply to ensure that what I write is found by the most search engines. Now your previous (and erroneous) assumption gives that category choice far more import than it requires or is justified. What I think about the events is in my text and that is it. This post is much more about the dogs breakfast made of this story by our learned friend. Now I am sure that you will be getting your fair share of backslapping from your pals for coming here and taking me on but it must be a very thankless task to defend the Pee Pee boys on this so I’ll give you a hat tip for trying.

  94. “It takes two tango”

    Two? Try 12 to 1, David. And it’s not a question of “blame”. You can “blame” the girl as much as you like but you seem to be making excuses for these animals who clearly went too far. “Their side of the story”? Give me a break, there was no excuse for doing that.

    Have you ever stopped to consider this: Just because you’ve got a young girl willing to sleep with sports people as some kind of ‘glory f*ck’ does not mean those blokes can pass her on to the whole team and slap her in the face with their erect penises while others stand around wanking themselves and cheering them on. That’s called assault, David, and you CANNOT legally consent to being assaulted.

  95. David Davidson says:

    There is a funny little legal thing, that sort of gets in the way of your argument Ray.

    Proof ?

    Before you go into another “hissy fit” I did not say it was her fault, nor am I saying for the upteenth time, is it all the guys. There is proportionment of blame on both sides. The ratio we will probably never know, as we weren’t in that room. The news report states that there were only 2 guys Ray, not 12, so me thinks you are over dramatising again.


    One final point, which pretty much negates all your rhetoric about indecency, assault charges and the like, is that the police investigated the incident, (by the way, in 2002), and charges were not laid. A complaint was never laid, so that pretty much is it.

  96. What “hissy fit”? Why do you always respond with personal insults you fckn dingbat?

    Btw, your link to Fox News proves nothing. The fact is there were 12 guys in the room and six had sex with her. Are you missing some brain cells?

    (Sorry for returning insults, but, oh what the hell, you’re an idiot)

  97. David Davidson says:

    Dingbat ? You arrogant senile little asswipe.

    Careful Ray, the fur on your back is flaring again.

    see 2 can play at that game Dixon. As usual, you explode when you lose an argument.

    12 guys, says who ? Her ? You of all people Ray know the meaning of the term media hype ?

  98. Phill says:

    Ray don’t lose any sleep you have already won the argument.

    This disgusting behavior has been going on far to long in the sporting world, to change the image a sacrificial lamb/lambs will have be found to create the image of the clean cut all Australian sportsman.At the end of the day it’s all about sponsorship.

  99. David Davidson says:

    Like “His Highness” above Phil, if you have the proof, fine, table it, then screw the players concerned to a tree somewhere. .
    If not, in the interim, it’s he said, she said, and ….

  100. Iain Hall says:

    Well that takes us to comment 100 Gents!

  101. David Davidson says:

    There ya go !!!
    Congrats Iain.

  102. Iain Hall says:

    No all contributors to this thread can take a bow because you have ALL helped make this possible!

  103. David Davidson says:

    Gotta have the topic to comment on first ?
    Again, congrats

  104. Iain Hall says:

    Thanks for that then (does a quick theatrical bow in front of the computer then he remembers that there is no web cam and invokes the deity!)

  105. Phill says:

    WTF! What proof ? WTF! this whole debate is predicated on, and we are all guessing the numbers.A group of blokes possibly invited, possibly not, allegedely fucked the guts out of some sheila. The concerned men, and I use that term loosely, may be guilty of five fifths of F.A. in law. But does that negate the fact they are, and carried on like a fucking mob of Orangutans NO.

    I am not debating that this exercise in abject scumbaggery is legal or not, just right or wrong. My earlier point that I have no doubt some mental fucktards out there in blog land, are no doubt jealous they couldn’t participate in the good time that apart from the women concerned,was had by all.

  106. David Davidson says:

    I agree. Added to that fact that the story is what, 7 years old now ? If there was any truth to it, we would have all heard by now due to the personalities involved, and the need to attempt to shank anyone as part of tall poppy syndrome. As I have said, if true, then hang the pricks by their toenails, but, and it is a big but, without that proof, it’s all just rhetoric.

  107. Phill says:

    Thank fuck we agree new topic Iain please.:)

  108. Iain Hall says:

    Any suggestions gratefully accepted for a new topic gentlemen 🙂

  109. David Davidson says:

    Gotta be something where we can crack 200 ?

    Creationalism ????


  110. Phill says:

    Creationalism ????

    Na! Tooo straight forward, anyone believing in that shite is so conservative, and there aint any on this blog apart from Shawn Wheeler. And he don’t count cos he’s a ? what is he again?

    Lets wind up some of my lefty mates of which I am one.

    What about faggots, or as I like to call shirt lifters.

    Oh sorry I’m at the wrong blog wink wink nudge nudge say no more. 🙂

  111. David Davidson says:


  112. PKD says:

    Hmmm, how about a post on the QLD incest family???


    Only in Queensland Iain??? 🙂

  113. Actually David, I think this post went on for so long due more to your incredibly vacuous comments that just had to be queried.

    Eg “If there was any truth to it, we would have all heard by now due to the personalities involved”

    Huh? Are you drunk?

    Don’t bother responding Mr Flip-Flop, I won’t be coming back to this thread.

  114. David Davidson says:

    That’s ok Ray, it is nice to see you in our dimension every now and again ?

    Obviously, as the incident was supposed to be 2002, or whatever, if anything were to have come from it, the media would have snaffled it up, well and truly by now, because it would have been leaked. But that has been said elsewhere in the thread, if you had bothered to read it, rather than spending your time reading your own posts, whilst looking at your own image in the mirror ? .
    Yes you will. As you are such a narcissist, you just can’t help yourself.

    If that’s the best you can come up with, after six hours break, better take another break.
    Take your time, my work day starts in another hour or so, that will give you another six or so hours to come up with another blinding bit of Dixon Diatribe.

  115. Phill says:

    Brother! You people take this shit serious. I stopped blogging on the lefty sites as they all took themselves tooo serious sheeet.

  116. Phill says:

    “Lighten up” tell a few jokes. FFS.

  117. David Davidson says:

    Your spot on Phil.
    That’s why they come here every now and again. Righties are known to be a little more patient, and tolerable, but only to a point.

  118. David Davidson says:

    Thought we just did ?????

  119. Phill says:

    Mate I gotta tell ya, I’m a lefty for a lot of reasons but that don’t mean being politically correct, and in lock step with everything that is supposed to be “leftist thought”

    I’m a realist I know all opinions are just that an “opinion”

    I mean for fuck sake at the end of the day who gives a flying fuck? You gotta live with what’s right he he in your own mind.

    Nothing anyone says here will change how we think.

  120. David Davidson says:

    Can’t argue with that

  121. Just Another Bloody Lawyer says:

    “That’s called assault, David, and you CANNOT legally consent to being assaulted.”

    Um David completely wrong. Otherwise every surgeon in Australia would be up on charges. Unlawful assault requires an absence of [yes you guessed it] consent.

  122. David Davidson says:

    I didn’t say that JABL, Dixon did.

    However you are not progressing your cause, by your example. Surgeons get around charges by consent forms, and for accident victims, who are unconscious, or otherwise unable to give consent, the permission is given by family, and if that not available, the hospitals are covered by the courts.

    For there to be a defence against assault, there has to be either implied, or actual lack of communicated consent. That is why for many years, unfortunately, the “she asked for it”, or “the way she was dressed, she was asking for it”, was used so often in defence of rape and assault.

  123. JABL, she consented to sex, not to assault. What I meant was, a consent to sex cannot be used as a consent to being assaulted.

    David, when you start showing more respect for others who have different opinons to you (and when you drop the childish use of referring to & addressing me by my surname) that’s when I’ll stop calling you the dumbest c*nt on the internet.

  124. David Davidson says:

    Don’t hold your breath Miss Scarlett.
    I got sucked in to that argument with you three months ago, called a truce, but you can’t/couldn’t help yourself. When you can’t win an argument with a bit of common sense, or even five minutes of research, you go for the personality.

    I could not give a rat’s arse whether you call me the dumbest c**t on the internet or not.

    I as well as it looks like a lot of others here now, are beginning to realise, that you are even worse, and shit, that is saying something.

    Since you have disappeared for most of today, funnily enough, everyone has been getting along, with some good arguments being exchanged. Got the hint yet ?

  125. David, what truce? I’m not asking for one now and I never have before.

    Honestly, you just can’t handle a bit of egging on, can you? You’re the one who goes overboard, not me. Why don’t you just keep your fucking insults to yourself dimwit, and stop acting as though you’re the moderator around here? ~ Although, seeing as though you’re always here, you might as well ask Iain for the job!

    Goodnight. I expect you’ll still going for a few hours yet. Must be lonely in your place.

  126. David Davidson says:

    “David, what truce? I’m not asking for one now and I never have before”

    The last time there was a spirited discussion about illegal immigration from memory.

    “Why don’t you just keep your fucking insults to yourself dimwit, and stop acting as though you’re the moderator around here? ”

    Sob sob Mr Dixon.
    Shit, that was my comment to you earlier yesterday.
    For your ego as well, this is Iain’s blog, not yours, or mine. You have absolutely NO say, (and for that matter nor do I), as to how it is run.

    Time to look at your own advice, and start taking a bit of it yourself.

    I tried keeping peace with you, but your narcissism got in the way, so I am not interested. You wanna sling shit, at me, or in fact, anyone else here that has a fair comment or argument to put forward, you will cop a serve, if not from me, from other ‘balanced’ reader of these pages.

    About time you accepted the fact, that at least here, on these pages, you are not the most important person in the universe. In other words,

    I have, so in terms you commonly use,
    f**k off.

  127. Um yeah, David, I do know it’s Iain’s blog. Um, that’s what I just told you. Yet still you think you can tell other people what they can and can’t say, and tell them to f**k off.

    Um, oh, er, gee David, I take it all back. You’re just f&cking brilliant!

  128. David Davidson says:

    “Um yeah, David, I do know it’s Iain’s blog”
    With the way you carry on Scarlett, you coulda fooled me ?

    “Yet still you think you can tell other people what they can and can’t say, and tell them to f**k off.”
    You do, and often in terms that aren’t exactly polite. Only have to look above for that. What happened in your youth ? Did you miss your parents lessons, on how to get along with people, or do you think, we are all here for your own personal amusement ?

    Anyway, leave you will all your hard earned new friends. The market just opened on the west coast, and time to go to work.

  129. That doesn’t make any sense. It’s almost completely incoherent, David. Oh, look at the time. What am I doing here talking to you?


  130. David Davidson says:

    To someone who thinks they are the most important person on the planet, of course it doesn’t make sense.
    Ask someone else, and maybe they can explain it to you.

  131. […] Posted on June 11, 2009 by Iain Hall Regular readers may remember that a couple of weeks ago I wrote a post about yet another back down by Jeremy Sear and the Pee Pee Boys and his response was to complain […]

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: