The bad behaviour thread

Zac Woolford with the reach around. He must be from Massachusetts

nice to know the knights signed a player who is always willing to lend a hand

Pieman wrote:That enough MF?

You can be charged for

:invading privacy (often does not apply until you publish the photo).

:Failing to get permission for taking a photos of a recognisable person and making money with the photo

:taking photos in a restricted area (private and military property)

:taking photos of illegal situations that are under your control.

Im more against the photographer rather than for the bulldogs Pieman

Like the bloke who took pics of Princess Kate's tattas with the super dooper long lense ?

No Worries wrote:Like the bloke who took pics of Princess Kate's tattas with the super dooper long lense ?

I don’t know about this one but yeah what a creep. What’s worse is magazines buying these images that only encourage them

Mighty Fishes wrote:

You can be charged for

:invading privacy (often does not apply until you publish the photo).

:Failing to get permission for taking a photos of a recognisable person and making money with the photo

:taking photos in a restricted area (private and military property)

:taking photos of illegal situations that are under your control.

Im more against the photographer rather than for the bulldogs Pieman

I dont think the photographer did all of those things. They were at a public bar.
The only thing I think that they could remotely by liable for is the second one.

I think that if you are in a public place and you are naked and literally letting one of the boys wank you offf, you dont have any right to privacy.

is this one of those things that Carney got offside for? Sure, it's not assault, or something similar, but it's not going to be acceptable to the general public?

Pieman wrote:
I dont think the photographer did all of those things. They were at a public bar.
The only thing I think that they could remotely by liable for is the second one.

I think that if you are in a public place and you are naked and literally letting one of the boys wank you offf, you dont have any right to privacy.

I just listed everything you can be charged for. Definitely the first two. I would argue the 4th one too. If what they were doing was illegal he decided to take photos of men wanking each other off in a public space rather than calling the police thus he was in control

You shouldn’t be able to take sneaky photos of people and profit from it without consent. Simple as that!

Kim Kardashian doesn't seem to agree

Mighty Fishes wrote:

I just listed everything you can be charged for. Definitely the first two. I would argue the 4th one too. If what they were doing was illegal he decided to take photos of men wanking each other off in a public space rather than calling the police thus he was in control

nah its in a public place, therefore, it's not invading privacy, so its definitely not the first one.
some prob goes with the second one - if you are out in public its perfectly reasonable for someone to take a photo of you no matter who you are. Morally/ethically wrong yeah potentially, but its reasonable.
If you weren't allowed to sell the photos you took, not a single newspaper or magazine in the history of media would get sold. But if thats the letter of the law, and if you dont take into account the fact they were in a public bar they might be able to sue the photographer. Cant say I have ever heard of any photographer getting sued for that tho.

How would the photographer be in control? He has zero control of the situation and just snaps a photo of it. He didnt encourage them to do it or do it with them (as far as we are aware).

If they want to get nude and give each other reach arounds, I couldnt give a fuck less. But do it in your own home away from prying eyes.
I agree with you to a certain extent that you shouldnt be allowed to take photos sneakily and profit from it, but you also cant carry on like an absolute caveman in a public bar and just get away with it.

Pieman wrote:

nah its in a public place, therefore, it's not invading privacy, so its definitely not the first one.
some prob goes with the second one - if you are out in public its perfectly reasonable for someone to take a photo of you no matter who you are. Morally/ethically wrong yeah potentially, but its reasonable.  
If you weren't allowed to sell the photos you took, not a single newspaper or magazine in the history of media would get sold. But if thats the letter of the law, and if you dont take into account the fact they were in a public bar they might be able to sue the photographer. Cant say I have ever heard of any photographer getting sued for that tho.

How would the photographer be in control? He has zero control of the situation and just snaps a photo of it. He didnt encourage them to do it or do it with them (as far as we are aware).

If they want to get nude and give each other reach arounds, I couldnt give a fuck less. But do it in your own home away from prying eyes.
I agree with you to a certain extent that you shouldnt be allowed to take photos sneakily and profit from it, but you also cant carry on like an absolute caveman in a public bar and just get away with it.

So what I gathered from that.. I can legally take photos of woman’s clevages and upskirts and sell them to.. Fuck.. let’s say Standard and as long as I’m in a bar or somewhere else public  I’m not invading privacy? Fair game I’m surprised more people don’t do that

Fair enough I ranted probably wrongly about the photographer being in control but he still made the decision to capture illegal activity

Mighty Fishes wrote:


So what I gathered from that.. I can legally take photos of woman’s clevages and upskirts and sell them to.. Fuck.. let’s say Standard and as long as I’m in a bar or somewhere else public  I’m not invading privacy? Fair game I’m surprised more people don’t do that

Fair enough I ranted probably wrongly about the photographer being in control but he still made the decision to capture illegal activity

no mate you cant because that is sexual assault - if the chick was nude and running around Town hall station, sure fair game but illegally taking sneaky perv photos like that of some bird on the train - no you cant. Totally different situations mate.

So the photog standing on public property had every right to take these photos regardless of were the dickheads were.
Next. The photog and who he sold the photos to need to get a photo release form from the people in the photos if said photos are going to be used for profit (keeping it simple here). Photog and Terrorgraph profited without subjects permission.
Most celebs don't care about this stuff because it feeds their need for publicity which helps build their public profile.
Not sure the Bulldogs fellas bring up points of copyright law will help them forget what they have been seen doing.
Pieman's last post has nothing to do with what I've stated as his references break other laws.

Good vid of gal and fifi going around. Funny boys.

https://www.reddit.com/r/nrl/comments/ad37py/gallen_and_fifita_should_be_the_faces_of_the_game/?utm_source=reddit-android

haha fark me... thats not really bad behaviour but still, very entertaining lol

Now that Bolton has had his day in court and pleaded guilty he should get a minimum 6 week ban. Anyone who is found guilty or pleads guilty to anything like this should get an automatic 6 weeks and from there the details of the case can determine how much longer the ban should be. Want to stamp this behaviour out then make the bans bigger, dont let clubs replace or get salary cap relief (even if they sack them)

Knights have implemented a huge fine based system. If you being the club into disrepute you'll be charged 25% of your yearly salary. Starting with Jacob Safiti for his fight in a pub that resulted in his broken leg.

Love the initiative taken by the Knights to be honest. Harsh but it's going to bring players into line. Imagine being on a $800k contract you get fined $200k. Are you going to do it again? Fuck no.

Honeysett wrote:Knights have implemented a huge fine based system. If you being the club into disrepute you'll be charged 25% of your yearly salary. Starting with Jacob Safiti for his fight in a pub that resulted in his broken leg.

Love the initiative taken by the Knights to be honest. Harsh but it's going to bring players into line. Imagine being on a $800k contract you get fined $200k. Are you going to do it again? Fuck no.

I can see that playing out in a courtroom for months.