Footballer a ‘broken man’ after ‘tragic moment’ of arrest for stalking and breaches of family violence orders.

[DancelikeEmmaGoldman]

The outrage is reserved for the copper who (clearly did the wrong thing), and took the photos and not the violent thug who had been terrorising his estranged wife.

It’s a sad state of affairs when a footy hero can’t don a dress and a bad wig to stalk his very own wife without the police getting involved. Luckily his “inner demons” are getting him a lot of sympathy.

I suppose this “hero” can be added to the list of 40.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8283225/AFL-Dean-Laidley-broken-St-Kilda-arrest-dressed-woman-police-mug-shot.html

The way the article talks about the footballer is disgusting.

I don't know about Australian law but if a British police officer had taken and shared those photographs, it would be a criminal and stackable act. The DM are pretending to be outraged but they're the ones publishing the photo.

The whole thing is so grubby I need a wash.

Two wrongs don't make a right - those photos in custody shouldn't have been leaked.

The DM are pretending to be outraged but they're the ones publishing the photo.

Yes. So hypocritical.

Sorry for his family, who are victims now both of the man and the leakage.

God wtf was that article about.

I cant even fathom what hes supposed to have done because that appears to be unimportant while they indulge the pity party

oh my god.

When can we start talking about the correlation between men dressing up in women's clothes and men who exhibit abusive behaviours?

This used to be well understood - look at all the talk about "panty stealers" on Mindhunters and the understanding that these men often escalated to much much worse criminality. But now it's marketed as a harmless kink, or as... well, we all know how else this fetish is sold to the public.

I'm sure it sometimes is a harmless kink! But we need to talk about how sometimes it's not. It's hard to even have the discussion because of course there is nothing intrinsically wrong with men wearing women's clothes. "Women's clothes" shouldn't even be a thing and everyone should wear what they like. But trying to have a conversation about how this behaviour is a red flag will cause people to assume you have some kind of irrational issue with the behaviour itself instead of with the other stuff it's a warning sign of.

This article is so weird. We are missing so much context I have no idea what’s going on. He’s “haunted” by a guy who Killed him self after he just had a few words with him? What? And I can’t work out what he was supposed to have done - did he stalk his wife? The overall impression is this is a chaotic man who can’t control himself.

Something I did find interesting is we hear vague references to his “life style choice” and the article makes it clear he was dressed as a woman. So that makes me think he’s a cross dresser. But then someone mentions “transphobia”. Wait, so he’s trans now ? How can there be transphobia if he’s just a cross dresser?

I think the insinuations are that his cross-dressing, if that’s what it is, was not unknown.

He breached a family violence order, which suggests it was his family involved.

The transphobia comment is via his lawyers who made a statement suggesting that the policeman who took the photos did so out of transphobia. It’s equally as likely that it was prurient interest in a well-known figure caught in unusual behaviour.

The policeman has been sanctioned because he obviously breached his ethical duty.

The quote from The West Australian said that Laidley wanted to be called Daniella.

It's like flashing and indecent exposure is often an early stage of sexual offending that builds up. What was it that prison psychologist said in one of the major newspapers in a letter, about the most common paraphilias seen in serious sexual offenders?

The only way to cover it up is to continually be outraged for poor men when they're held responsible for their behaviour when they offend against women.

So at implication that the long, documented history of paraphilia and sexual offending is mentioned because the reality of that gets in the way of the agenda of men and hurts feelings.

And at poor men actually being expected to control their behaviours and take responsibility for them, because consequences damage lives, people. They're upsetting for men. And after all, it was only women they stalked/harassed/terrorised/throttled/beat up/raped/ murdered.

(We love consequences for women though. Big, fat, nasty consequences, with public shaming. Get the mansized tissues out and loosen belts.)

A bit of a tangent but in Roman Polanski’s case, early life trauma (and making some good films) seems to excuse him raping a child

Think of the constant mantras:

If you mention DV, someone in seconds will point out that men are victims too, and women do it too.

We're told men who try and strangle/beat up/constantly abuse their children's mother are 'good dads'.

When a man systematically murders his wife and children in the most horrific ways, (and very often then comes out a history of having been a domestic abuser) he was a 'lovely man' and everyone sadly wonders what drove him to it.

Newspaper reports often talk about female victims of male violence without mentioning their names, or implying that she just kind of dropped dead, or the violence just magically happened rather than directly stating the perpetrator's actions.

Our whole culture is steeped in it.

And we wonder why vast numbers of teenaged girls are desperately trying to find ways to identify out of being female.

I've tweeted the story, having pinched a quote from your OP, DancelikeEmmaGoldman.

I can never get over how men are glorified, mourned over and excused for abusing, injuring and even killing their partners and children. It's appalling.

I didn't even read the article after seeing the first picture.

Gross, gross misconduct from the officer who I will assume, if identified, will lose his job.

It is a shame that the pictures were taken. The story would have come out anyway and then people would have more of the facts and not be giving this person the victim status they are now.

If this person was being picked in up the act of a crime, let's focus on that and the real victim of that crime.

A lawyer’s dream. Complete distraction from a man stalking someone, get to scream “transphobia!” and the actual victim of the actual crime forgotten. It will surprise no one that the Guardian follows this trope.

www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/may/04/dean-laidley-arrest-victoria-police-to-investigate-leaked-photos-of-ex-afl-coach

Gross, gross misconduct from the officer who I will assume, if identified, will lose his job

I hope so too.

However theres no denying that the footballer will be secretly pleased he did it in many ways and it's taken the heat off what he did and hes now the victim 🤔

Fine by me Prawn. It’s a big news story in Australia because Laidley is very well known.

The police breach is really unfortunate, because it takes the focus off Laidley as a violent man and his victims, and refocuses on Laidley as a victim.

Stalking is terrifying behaviour and taken in conjunction with breaching several orders suggests a dangerous man.

However, much of the commentary is sympathy Laidley’s “inner demons” and his “tormented soul”.

For example: “ Firstly, we should be addressing this person as a woman. Called Danielle. Secondly, we should excuse the charges against him (stalking and drugs) as mental issues. Danielle has mental issues. Enough said.”

A person's demons are only "inner" if they stay on the inside and don't spill over into behavior like, say, stalking.