Oakleigh Bob Jane store accused on mediawatch - Page 2

Trevor 57 · 14-04-2010, 04:19 PM

In a 20 second snippet in last nights 6.00 pm news, Peter Hitchener said that the cameraman was terminated from Ch. 9 yesterday.

I watched Mediawatch, I always do, i was stunned at what I was watching, what a ************ this bloke is, he deserves to join the ques at Centrelink

FGII-XR6 · 14-04-2010, 05:02 PM

As far as I'm concerned the reporters were reporting on a valid news item , The "subject" is just criminal scum who assisted in the destruction of someone’s business assets for no reason what so ever ( the store involved is only a franchise and is not owned by bob janes but he was obviously too stupid look into this before his criminal rampage )

He has no right to privacy outside the court house unless so ordered by the court. His actions made him a target for public ridicule and his father was defending his son when if he had any decency he would be trying to bring his son onto line. If he is not happy with this he should refrain from criminal activity

The most disappointing thing I have seen in this thread is the sentiments that acts of violence against cameraman would have been a good reaction (like the moronic comment quoted below) too many people feel a smack in the mouth solves problems, are we heading back to our convict roots????? Violence is never the answer and never should be.

It’s about time the criminal scum who try to use destruction and violence to try to get their way ( is this not a terrorist act by definition ) be treated with the disrespect they deserve

Quote:

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

I would have probably given him a knuckle sandwich if I had to tell him twice to get lost.

vztrt · 14-04-2010, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gcg2503

Australian media is a farce. A plane goes down with 130 fatalities in Russia and what does Channel 9 have as their lead story

Mick Malthouses outburst at a rival player.

Nothing else to add your honour.....

Problem is the News will go for what will rate, so that tells you something about the mainstream Australian public.

GS608 · 14-04-2010, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by au3xr6

As far as I'm concerned the reporters were reporting on a valid news item , The "subject" is just criminal scum who assisted in the destruction of someone’s business assets for no reason what so ever ( the store involved is only a franchise and is not owned by bob janes but he was obviously too stupid look into this before his criminal rampage )

He has no right to privacy outside the court house unless so ordered by the court. His actions made him a target for public ridicule and his father was defending his son when if he had any decency he would be trying to bring his son onto line. If he is not happy with this he should refrain from criminal activity

The most disappointing thing I have seen in this thread is the sentiments that acts of violence against cameraman would have been a good reaction (like the moronic comment quoted below) too many people feel a smack in the mouth solves problems, are we heading back to our convict roots????? Violence is never the answer and never should be.

It’s about time the criminal scum who try to use destruction and violence to try to get their way ( is this not a terrorist act by definition ) be treated with the disrespect they deserve

Have to disagree there, everyone has a right to privacy, sure the kid is a dropkick but the camera man deliberately provoking them trying to get them to act outrageous so it can be shown on the news is plain wrong.

i couldn't care less what language was used more so how it was used, trying to get a rise. Anyone else would have knocked him senseless, if a gang member or bikie was outside court having just been there for a drug dealing charge, and was harassed and hounded and provoked like that by a camera man I'd be surprised if he didn't react violently. Just sayin..they need to watch who they provoke.

Jim Goose · 14-04-2010, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by au3xr6

As far as I'm concerned the reporters were reporting on a valid news item ,

There was no reporter with them... it was a cameraman and boom mike holder. 10 to 15 mins of harassment is unwarranted. This 19yr commited in a riot. He wasnt a murderer or pedo....

Quote:

The "subject" is just criminal scum who assisted in the destruction of someone’s business assets for no reason what so ever ( the store involved is only a franchise and is not owned by bob janes but he was obviously too stupid look into this before his criminal rampage )

He got caught and is going to face his actions.... again lets take it into context. Yes he is an idiot for the riot. But on the scheme of things it wasnt as if he is the criminal of the centuary.

Quote:

He has no right to privacy outside the court house unless so ordered by the court.

Im sorry is this Germany 1938???

Quote:

His actions made him a target for public ridicule and his father was defending his son when if he had any decency he would be trying to bring his son onto line. If he is not happy with this he should refrain from criminal activity

We are not talking about the public... we are talking about a moronic racist bogan camerman. How hard is it?
And his father showed great restraint and told his son not to react to the camera mans rudness and racist comments.

Quote:

The most disappointing thing I have seen in this thread is the sentiments that acts of violence against cameraman would have been a good reaction (like the moronic comment quoted below) too many people feel a smack in the mouth solves problems, are we heading back to our convict roots????? Violence is never the answer and never should be.

Bit hypocritical to say that peoples comments on here about violence directed to the camera man are unwarranted and then in the same breath have no issues with what the camera man said and did.... Pot meet Kettle

Quote:

It’s about time the criminal scum who try to use destruction and violence to try to get their way ( is this not a terrorist act by definition ) be treated with the disrespect they deserve

The comment was a direct attempt to insite a reaction because of the guys ethnic origns and religion.... dont attempt to down play it be cause everyone here has seen it for what it was.
"Terrorism" as such is a term specifically used to define a certain act.....
Not used when a bunch of teenage idiots riot in the streets.

||| · 14-04-2010, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by au3xr6

As far as I'm concerned the reporters were reporting on a valid news item , The "subject" is just criminal scum who assisted in the destruction of someone’s business assets for no reason what so ever ( the store involved is only a franchise and is not owned by bob janes but he was obviously too stupid look into this before his criminal rampage )

He has no right to privacy outside the court house unless so ordered by the court. His actions made him a target for public ridicule and his father was defending his son when if he had any decency he would be trying to bring his son onto line. If he is not happy with this he should refrain from criminal activity

The most disappointing thing I have seen in this thread is the sentiments that acts of violence against cameraman would have been a good reaction (like the moronic comment quoted below) too many people feel a smack in the mouth solves problems, are we heading back to our convict roots????? Violence is never the answer and never should be.

It’s about time the criminal scum who try to use destruction and violence to try to get their way ( is this not a terrorist act by definition ) be treated with the disrespect they deserve

i'll remember that if you're ever accused of a crime.

Trevor 57 · 14-04-2010, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by au3xr6

As far as I'm concerned the reporters were reporting on a valid news item , The "subject" is just criminal scum who assisted in the destruction of someone’s business assets for no reason what so ever ( the store involved is only a franchise and is not owned by bob janes but he was obviously too stupid look into this before his criminal rampage )

He has no right to privacy outside the court house unless so ordered by the court. His actions made him a target for public ridicule and his father was defending his son when if he had any decency he would be trying to bring his son onto line. If he is not happy with this he should refrain from criminal activity

The most disappointing thing I have seen in this thread is the sentiments that acts of violence against cameraman would have been a good reaction (like the moronic comment quoted below) too many people feel a smack in the mouth solves problems, are we heading back to our convict roots????? Violence is never the answer and never should be.

It’s about time the criminal scum who try to use destruction and violence to try to get their way ( is this not a terrorist act by definition ) be treated with the disrespect they deserve

Not worthy of a reply, other than

FGII-XR6 · 14-04-2010, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Bit hypocritical to say that peoples comments on here about violence directed to the camera man are unwarranted and then in the same breath have no issues with what the camera man said and did.... Pot meet Kettle

there is a big difference between what the cameraman did and bashing someone

FGII-XR6 · 14-04-2010, 10:02 PM

this scumbag is not just accused he was caught on camera destroying property because he didn't like an event being cancelled If I commit a crime I will face up to my responsibility like this violent criminal needs to do

Quote:

Originally Posted by |||

i'll remember that if you're ever accused of a crime.

GS608 · 14-04-2010, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by au3xr6

this scumbag is not just accused he was caught on camera destroying property because he didn't like an event being cancelled If I commit a crime I will face up to my responsibility like this violent criminal needs to do

who says he's not? he's going to court facing the charges isn't he

FGII-XR6 · 14-04-2010, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

"Terrorism" as such is a term specifically used to define a certain act.....
Not used when a bunch of teenage idiots riot in the streets.

An individual who uses violence, terror, and intimidation to achieve a result. See also terrorism.mili()
Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. US Department of Defense 2005.

society today seems to forgive acts of violence as being just a bunch of teenagers but the behaviour involved in the riot was an act of terrorism if you examine the motives and tactics used
violence was used in an attempt to have a decision overturned

Rodp · 14-04-2010, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by au3xr6

this scumbag is not just accused he was caught on camera destroying property because he didn't like an event being cancelled If I commit a crime I will face up to my responsibility like this violent criminal needs to do

...and the courts shall decide on the punishment, not a cameraman who harassed the pair when they left the court as he was facing up to the responsibility of his moronic actions.

Clearly the cameraman was doing his best to elicit a violent reaction so the news department could stitch them up even more with the bollocks they ran as the news piece. That's a lot more concerning to me than some clown kicking in a window.

Mickxr8 · 14-04-2010, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by au3xr6

this scumbag is not just accused he was caught on camera destroying property because he didn't like an event being cancelled If I commit a crime I will face up to my responsibility like this violent criminal needs to do

dude !?. last time i checked it was innocent till proven guilty.. now we all know this guy is a tool and will go down. until then... dont play the race card. i stand by my last comments on this post
oh and the camera guy deserves everything he gets (gutter journalism)

||| · 14-04-2010, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by au3xr6

this scumbag is not just accused he was caught on camera destroying property because he didn't like an event being cancelled If I commit a crime I will face up to my responsibility like this violent criminal needs to do

the court is making him face up to his responsibility. shouting racist taunts at his father and pretending you're "just doing your job" is the act of a coward

Jim Goose · 14-04-2010, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by au3xr6

there is a big difference between what the cameraman did and bashing someone

He was inciting violence.... seems to me your the one who cant see it.

Quote:

this scumbag is not just accused he was caught on camera destroying property because he didn't like an event being cancelled If I commit a crime I will face up to my responsibility like this violent criminal needs to do

I think you need to re-acess whats being discussed here.. as you dont appear to be following the discussion. We are discussion the actions of the camerman.... inciting violence and hatred.
We are not discussing the actions of the 19yr old who is facing court for his own stupidity.

Quote:

An individual who uses violence, terror, and intimidation to achieve a result. See also terrorism.mili() Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. US Department of Defense 2005.

what does the US MILITARY have to do with this?
Your arguements are a bit flimsy to say the least.
Your again comparing apples with oranges...
Do we invade his country?
He isnt a "terrorist" organisation... nor is he on the FBIs most wanted list...

gtxb67 · 14-04-2010, 10:53 PM

i would think that if someone kicking in a window in front of thousands of sheep is considered terrorism
then hiding behind a camera giving a verbal tirade that is intended to inflict mental pain, while using the camera to safeguard yourself is an act of terrorism too
maybe more so

FGII-XR6 · 14-04-2010, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

I think you need to re-acess whats being discussed here.. as you dont appear to be following the discussion. We are discussion the actions of the camerman.... inciting violence and hatred.
We are not discussing the actions of the 19yr old who is facing court for his own stupidity

the actions of this 19 year old are related to the actions of the cameraman . what is wrong with this world when a cameraman reporting on a criminal court case ( all be it a bit excessivly) is crucified and the criminal is perceived as the victim

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

what does the US MILITARY have to do with this?
Your arguements are a bit flimsy to say the least.
Your again comparing apples with oranges...
Do we invade his country?
He isnt a "terrorist" organisation... nor is he on the FBIs most wanted list...

everyone is bringing up the use of the word terrorist well I was just giving you a definition and most other sources had similar definitions . true he is not a terrorist as most people would perceive one but his actions at bob janes was a terrorist act by definition. the point I am trying to make is your rage should be focused at a criminal who decided to destroy an inocent mans buisness assets not an over zealous cameraman who may have over steped the mark but broke no laws. some here argued that when he was told to leave them alone he was breaking the law by continuing , but in a free country like ours he had every right to continue unless ordered by the court to cease.
sorry but I feel the rights of someone doing his job in a lawful manner ( no matter how over the top he is) far excede a criminal who destroys property to attempt to get his own way

Walkinshaw · 14-04-2010, 11:41 PM

RE: camerman

Quote:

Originally Posted by au3xr6

but in a free country like ours he had every right to continue unless ordered by the court to cease.

The guy is a joke of a person. the world would be better off if he doesn't wake up tomorrow

MethodX · 14-04-2010, 11:44 PM

But then if our great media had spun the story their own way to make the father look bad and more inoocent muslim Aussies had been attacked?
When you ask cameramen to back off they should.

Jim Goose · 14-04-2010, 11:49 PM

Quote:

the actions of this 19 year old are related to the actions of the cameraman . what is wrong with this world when a cameraman reporting on a criminal court case ( all be it a bit excessivly) is crucified and the criminal is perceived as the victim

No, the camerman was not being a professional.... he was being a ************.
It is not up to him to goad people into violence.... your not getting message are you?

Quote:

everyone is bringing up the use of the word terrorist well I was just giving you a definition and most other sources had similar definitions . true he is not a terrorist as most people would perceive one but his actions at bob janes was a terrorist act by definition.

So now he is being compared to the IRA.. Osama... ahh thats right... if he is a terrorist.. (and muslim) we can harrass them , Sorry I forgot...

Quote:

the point I am trying to make is your rage should be focused at a criminal who decided to destroy an inocent mans buisness assets not an over zealous cameraman who may have over steped the mark but broke no laws.

Wrong again.... EQUALITY for all.... the cameraman has NO RIGHT to abuse members of the public. And YES HE BROKE THE LAW.... its called racial villification.

Quote:

sorry but I feel the rights of someone doing his job in a lawful manner ( no matter how over the top he is) far excede a criminal who destroys property to attempt to get his own way

I have no issues with the law dealing out punishment for the 19yr old... NO ONE HERE IS ARGUING THIS POINT EXCEPT YOU!!!!!
Does it need to be spelt out.... we are discussing the idiot camera man.

FGII-XR6 · 14-04-2010, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MethodX

When you ask cameramen to back off they should.

like in all the great dictatorships we have in this world???? one of the great things in Australia is our freedom to say what we feel without fear of legal retribution.
but I do note that some members are not mature or inteligent enough to accept that other people have different views to them, they resort to name calling and petty insults. I guess that just shows their level of inteligence and their lack of moral upbringing, I feel sorry for those unable to engage in healthy debate without resorting to these tactics

MethodX · 14-04-2010, 11:54 PM

So if someone calls you stupid ford loving, afl loving, rugby loving bogan scum your gonna smile and nod?
lol sureeee

FGII-XR6 · 14-04-2010, 11:55 PM

Sorry I must of missread the thread title

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

I have no issues with the law dealing out punishment for the 19yr old... NO ONE HERE IS ARGUING THIS POINT EXCEPT YOU!!!!!
Does it need to be spelt out.... we are discussing the idiot camera man.

"Oakleigh Bob Jane store accused on mediawatch " or maybe not

MethodX · 14-04-2010, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by au3xr6

Sorry I must of missread the thread title"Oakleigh Bob Jane store accused on mediawatch " or maybe not

Would it have a made a difference if the accused was a dinky di skip?

Walkinshaw · 14-04-2010, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by au3xr6

like in all the great dictatorships we have in this world???? one of the great things in Australia is our freedom to say what we feel without fear of legal retribution.
but I do note that some members are not mature or inteligent enough to accept that other people have different views to them, they resort to name calling and petty insults. I guess that just shows their level of inteligence and their lack of moral upbringing, I feel sorry for those unable to engage in healthy debate without resorting to these tactics

Differing views are perfectly ok, and healthy. Its just that no one can take yours seriously....really, you're really just trying to get an argument happening aren't you...you must be....no one can be this stupid and yet articulate

FGII-XR6 · 14-04-2010, 11:58 PM

I have the maturity to accept that others don't see things as I do I might try to argue my point in an inteliigent manner but throwing insults is immature and uninteligent, it acheives nothing but resentment

Quote:

Originally Posted by MethodX

So if someone calls you stupid ford loving, afl loving, rugby loving bogan scum your gonna smile and nod?
lol sureeee

this is my point if I have a different point of view I am stupid. and no I'm not looking for an arguement as such but I am putting across a different point of view , you might call it playing devils advocate but as I have stated earlier I have difficulty felling sorry for the ciminal who was supposed to be the victim of the cameraman. I have little doubt that had the been no witnesses and if the filming had stopped the cameraman would have been treated the same way as the bob jane shop had been treated you could see the agression being held back only because of the camera. society needs to stop focusing on the "poor criminals" and crack down on violent youths in our community if part of this process involves media confrontation so be it (but maybe better result would be acheived with better people skills on the part of the cameraman)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walkinshaw

you're really just trying to get an argument happening aren't you...you must be....no one can be this stupid and yet articulate

MethodX · 15-04-2010, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by au3xr6

I have the maturity to accept that others don't see things as I do I might try to argue my point in an inteliigent manner but throwing insults is immature and uninteligent, it acheives nothing but resentment

Tell that to the cameraman.

pauljh74 · 15-04-2010, 12:02 AM

The cameraman had the footage he needed after a minute - the father and son leaving court and we can see who it is, but there is at least another 5 mins of the cameraman right up their ***. If I was walking down the street and someone started filming me, I would feel like inserting the camera so it would be taking footage of the inside of his bowel after 30 seconds.

Barry_v · 15-04-2010, 12:02 AM

i guess irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.

montyv8 · 15-04-2010, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by au3xr6

I have difficulty felling sorry for the ciminal who was supposed to be the victim of the cameraman.

But didn't the cameraman call the father a f'n terrorist? not the 'criminal' son?
If i read your posts correctly the cameraman has all the rights in the world to harass the son, as he was in a riot.
So what gives the cameraman the right to harass the father? he wasn't there at the riot?