Jake Friend AVO

[bondi.boy]

The only perfect person who's ever walked on earth was the man with holes in his hands and feet...happy birthday for the 25th!

Everyone is under pressure at some time...life seems more difficult these days than ever before.
Hopefully changes can be made, so that the AVO disappears.

[ism22]

The only perfect person who's ever walked on earth was the man with holes in his hands and feet...happy birthday for the 25th!

Everyone is under pressure at some time...life seems more difficult these days than ever before.
Hopefully changes can be made, so that the AVO disappears.

Agreed mate.

Not excusing DV in any form and this isn’t a comment on Jake specifically. But there’s a big gap between a relationship under stress with arguments / bad moments and genuine, ongoing abuse.

Real life and families are messy. Sleep deprivation, work pressure and kids can push otherwise decent people into behaving poorly at times. That doesn’t make it OK, but context matters.

AVOs and court involvement can be necessary but in a world of cancel culture and instant outrage, treating every case as if it’s the worst-case scenario helps no one. You can take DV seriously without assuming every allegation means someone is irredeemable.

[Paddo Colt 61]

Mate, this is not helpful.

Is there ANY possibility that people can express their opinions without being personally attacked?

If you don't like what Mr Walker has to say perhaps you could put forward an argument about why you disagree with him rather than just sledge.

We are all family on the Chookpen, that doesn't mean you have to agree with everyone but maybe treating people with a modicum of respect would be more productive.

And Batemans Bay Rooster I'm not singling you out I feel like we could all show a bit more grace in what we post.

While I mostly support your policy Red, especially when some protagonists have a record of animus toward one another, it does seem a little quixotic when applied generally. It reminds me a little of Albo and his Holy Grail of harmony and inclusion that he insists on while at the same time our fractious MSM, with far more influence, does exactly the opposite. The sad thing is that the sheeple love conflict as evidenced by the popularity of shock jocks and indeed, our media. This would be a dull, and, indeed out of step with reality site if distasteful human nature was eradicated.

"Personal attack" can be widely defined. The late Snr. Salvatore was often intemperate and hurtful but Penners, generally, took exception to that which showed that most of us can actually think for ourselves. What are not huberistic personasl attacks are things like rebuking egregiously incorrect posts and damning the parroting of divisive msm propaganda as well as comments too accepting/forgiving of Souffs.

Of course, we should love one another more but tolerating stupidity has its limits and most would hesitate to compose a polite and reasoned counter argument to a rant. Much easier to call the poster a dill. Most of us tend to ignore spats between the usual suspects anyway, finding their issues boring, if not embarrassing.

Your intent is noble, no doubt, but policing the flow of free comment is, ultimately more damaging to the site than it is helpful.

[Paddo Colt 61]

Mate, this is not helpful.

Is there ANY possibility that people can express their opinions without being personally attacked?

If you don't like what Mr Walker has to say perhaps you could put forward an argument about why you disagree with him rather than just sledge.

We are all family on the Chookpen, that doesn't mean you have to agree with everyone but maybe treating people with a modicum of respect would be more productive.

And Batemans Bay Rooster I'm not singling you out I feel like we could all show a bit more grace in what we post.

While I mostly support your policy Red, especially when some protagonists have a record of animus toward one another, it does seem a little quixotic when applied generally. It reminds me a little of Albo and his Holy Grail of harmony and inclusion that he insists on while at the same time our fractious MSM, with far more influence, does exactly the opposite. The sad thing is that the sheeple love conflict as evidenced by the popularity of shock jocks and indeed, our media. This would be a dull, and, indeed out of step with realitySn. site if distasteful human nature was eradicated

"Personal attack" can be widely defined. The late Snr. Salvatore was often intemperate and hurtful but Penners, generally, took exception to that which showed that most of us can actually think for ourselves. What are not huberistic personasl attacks are things like rebuking egregiously incorrect posts and damning the parroting of divisive msm propaganda as well as comments too accepting/forgiving of Souffs.

Of course, we should love one another more but tolerating stupidity has its limits and most would hesitate to compose a polite and reasoned counter argument to a rant. Much easier to call the poster a dill. Most of us tend to ignore spats between the usual suspects anyway, finding their issues boring, if not embarrassing.

Your intent is noble, no doubt, but policing the flow of free comment is, ultimately more damaging to the site than it is helpful.

[fletch]

The Roosters have reportedly stood Friend down pending the result of his court case.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/austr...fbfa5325&ei=15

[Easts75]

It wasn’t his partner who applied but it was the police who issued it so they must have had a reason to.
She still could have lied so they believed she was in danger. But it’s more likely he gave them reason to issue it.

We will never know the full story and it’s none of our business, I don’t care if it’s my best mate or a footy star, you don’t treat women in a way they have fear.
Unfortunately there will be one eyed fans who will think anyone involved with the roosters can do no wrong and he is being framed.

The Police don't need much of a reason at all
I had 50% care of my Daughter from 8 years of age, things were civil with her Mother. A day after her 15th Birthday she ghosted me. Nothing happened. Her and her mother cut me off overnight. I tried to give my daughter room. After 3 months of nothing (I had previously not gone a single day without contact) I tried to ring her 8 times in a day and about 6 text messages. My ex went to the cops. The Police deemed this harassment and they placed an AVO on me despite zero evidence ever of threatening or abusive behaviour. AVO was in place for 2 years and it effected my employment as I have access to guns. 5 years later, still zero contact. The way the Police spoke to me was disgraceful. I can't stand the filthy dogs. 2 Cops showed up at my door at 11.30pm to serve it on me, 2 man hating lesbians.

[ism22]

> Court records show that, under the interim order, Friend must not approach or be in the company of the protected person for at least twelve hours after drinking alcohol or taking illicit drugs.

> He must not assault, threaten, stalk, harass or intimidate them, and must not intentionally or recklessly destroy or damage any of their property or harm any of their animals.

IMO the wording of these things is always pretty stupid as he's not allowed to assault her, break her property or murder kittens either.

Assuming they live together (maybe they don't? IDK) he now can't have a beer after work or he can get charged with the criminal offence of what... seeing her while not even drunk. It's a power move IMO, unless she's actually been bashed and he's been a dickhead while drunk/drugged.

From my experience my ex did a similar thing and nothing was proven against me (she later went to prison for trying to kill me, and calling the cops with false claims was just one method of abuse she deployed against me!) What it did mean was that I had to pay 2 sets of rent for 6 months (coulda stopped paying her rent and had her kicked out if I wanted). When I returned the place was a fugging mess and she'd just been partying with friends (she kept our bank accounts separate and had this secret account where our wedding money + the fortnights split of my pay went into... refused to use it for shared costs so it had a fair bit of dosh sitting in it which was arguably 'ours').

IDK... dunno Jake's situation so don't wanna assume anything. IMO the wording's mischievous though as it puts saintly requirements on him in terms of drinking, while (through the drafting) suggesting he uses illegal drugs, assaults women (plus animals), intimidates women and breaks shit. IMO it basically lists out stuff that's already criminal (so doesn't need to be listed) and then mixes it in with a booze/drug ban.