Oakleigh Bob Jane store accused on mediawatch

[Barry_v]

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/tra...s/s2870685.htm

the channel 9 cameraman was a bit keen, if he's behaved like that more than once I'm suprised he hasnt been bashed/stabbed.

[Bucknaked]

What I don't understand is who the "Terrorist" slant was aimed at. Dad or the son. I'm not condoning the use of the word, but put it into some context. Actions by the son as a rioter (I think it's yet to be proved) could be seen as an act of terrorism, especially if by standers were in fear of their lives. I think it's more like an act of vandalism. But was the comment aimed at the son or the father? I say father. Dissapointing. But what can you expect from media. Never let facts get in the way of a good story.

[zdcol71]

Originally Posted by Bucknaked

What I don't understand is who the "Terrorist" slant was aimed at. Dad or the son. I'm not condoning the use of the word, but put it into some context. Actions by the son as a rioter (I think it's yet to be proved) could be seen as an act of terrorism, especially if by standers were in fear of their lives. I think it's more like an act of vandalism. But was the comment aimed at the son or the father? I say father. Dissapointing. But what can you expect from media. Never let facts get in the way of a good story.

The question of who the terrorist claim was aimed at is completely irrelevant. The sons actions are being dealt with by a court of law ,and I can gaurantee that the charges, if any laid, will have nothing to do with terrorism. You are right in thinking it will more likely be associated with vandalism, and terrorism is a word that just should not have been involoved anywhere in this story. The camera crew has been shown up for what any commercial news organization is often guilty of.Either it is a sad indictment on the intelligence of the people employed to do this job, a rather sledgehammer tactic to elicit "good press" or a sad indication of the general concensus of the wider population regarding the attitude towards muslims(read anyone other than wasp of this country). For Channel 9 to say the camera man has been stod down till all the facts are available is laughable, all the facts are on their "own" footage.
Ps Given the circumstances, I think the "terrorist/vandal/rioter" son remained surprisingly sensible about the whole thing.

[Barry_v]

of course he's a terrorist, al qaeda always ask people to 'stop please' 25 times before resorting to stronger words.

[GS608]

Originally Posted by Barry_v

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/tra...s/s2870685.htm

the channel 9 cameraman was a bit keen, if he's behaved like that more than once I'm suprised he hasnt been bashed/stabbed.

What a disgrace, If he had of said that crap to anyone else they would have king hit him.

[R0BD0G]

things like this should never happen... shows the stupidity of some people.

[burnz]

was that for nine news or for aca??

[Mickxr8]

personal opinions aside. i think those two handled that pretty well. this is gutter journalism at its best. "just doing my job" doesnt cut it for me. mainstream media wonders why they cop so much flack. thank god for mediawatch !

[iliov]

Simon fuller is a joke of a man.

[MITCHAY]

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

[g220ba]

Simon fuller should be sacked without question. In the circumstances the father and son acted rather calmly. Channel 7 and Channel 10 should be very much ashamed of themselves for showing the confrontation in the context they did.Any wonder why i and many others have lost all confidence in the mainstream media organistaions of this country,

While i don't agree in any way with the way the son behaved during the riot nobody should be harrassed so badly while walking down a public street, I would almost go as far as to say the camera crew be charged with harrassment after watching that footage. They were asked so many times to go away politely and refused.

[deesun]

Originally Posted by 84ltd

Simon fuller should be sacked without question. In the circumstances the father and son acted rather calmly. Channel 7 and Channel 10 should be very much ashamed of themselves for showing the confrontation in the context they did.Any wonder why i and many others have lost all confidence in the mainstream media organistaions of this country,

While i don't agree in any way with the way the son behaved during the riot nobody should be harrassed so badly while walking down a public street, I would almost go as far as to say the camera crew be charged with harrassment after watching that footage. They were asked so many times to go away politely and refused.

Well said, agreed +1

[MethodX]

Simon Fuller can always apply for a job at FOX news.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by MethodX

Simon Fuller can always apply for a job at FOX news.

Just make him a reporter on ACA. That show appeals to the lowest common denominator.

[Bearman]

Originally Posted by MethodX

Simon Fuller can always apply for a job at FOX news.

He's gonna need to, he's been sacked. Got what he deserved!!

[FGII-XR6]

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

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

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

[GS608]

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]

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....

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.

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

Im sorry is this Germany 1938???

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.

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

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.

[FGII-XR6]

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

[Jim Goose]

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.

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.

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...

[FGII-XR6]

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

[|||]

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.

[FGII-XR6]

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

Originally Posted by |||

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

[GS608]

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

[Rodp]

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]

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)

[|||]

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

[Trevor 57]

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

[Jim Goose]

Yes I watch that last night.

It was absolutely disgusting what they did and he should be sacked, not stood down.
In typical fashion CH7 and CH9 showed a completely different story on the news about the altercation.

Mindless morons who goaded a father and son because of their religion. (Hence the terrorist jibe)..... Sickening to see such actions by a so-called professional cameraman

The son showed great restraint and his comment at the end about "profiling" was spot on!!!!!

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

In typical fashion CH7 and CH9 showed a completely different story on the news about the altercation.

Channel 9 didn't air any of the footage.

Camera man earned a smack in the mouth before he called him a terrorist, after that he earned a full blown **** kicking. I can't stand ************** like him.