Demetriou and Nixon AFL Cover Up In Saints Girl Case

In the midst of investigations into the behaviour of AFL player manager Ricky Nixon by David Galbally QC,  according to the ABC and sportsnewsfirst, Ricky Nixon has reportedly stated he intends to stand down from his role as AFL player-agent.  He has checked into a rehabilitation clinic for treatment.

Nixon returned to Melbourne today from Europe.   At this point in time, it is still  unclear as to whether he will co-operate with Galbally’s enquiry.  David Galbally has sent correspondence to Ricky Nixon’s lawyer requesting him to answer questions about his sexual relationship and his alleged supply of cocaine to the 17 year old Saints girl at the centre of the St Kilda Football scandal.  The latter allegation is a serious criminal matter with harsh penalties.  It doesn’t appear as if the Police have questioned Nixon over the criminal allegations and there doesn’t appear to be any explanation why.

Whilst Nixon has announced he is quitting as a Manager and Agent,  he formerly insisted that it was his intention  to continue to effectively run his sports management ‘Flying Start’ through another AFL accredited agent.   Nixon was adamant he would do this even if  his licence was revoked.

The AFL Players Association hasn’t made any statement in response to Nixon’s expressed intention to continue to remain active in the company behind the scenes, using another AFL accredited agent as a puppet.  This kind of conduct is not tolerated in any profession or company in which a Director has their powers stripped by ASIC.  Why should it be tolerated in AFL land?

The girl at the centre of the Saints scandal has gathered graphic video evidence of Nixon’s activities which has been inspected by David Galbally QC as part of his investigation commissioned by the AFL Players Association. 

As previously reported Matt Finnis, CEO of the AFL Players Association didn’t seem too fussed about whether Nixon co-operated with Galbally or answered any of his questions about his dealings with the adolescent.

The teenage girl alleges Nixon brought cocaine and alcohol to her hotel room, the same room which the St Kilda Football Club paid for as part of their settlement of earlier legal matters pursued by them against her, involving compromising pictures procured by the girl of St Kilda Football players. 

The girl also alleges that Nixon and her had sex on several occasions in the accommodation arranged by the St Kilda Football Club as a safe haven.

The St Kilda Football Club had earlier promised to tie up the girls’ life for the next 15 years for publishing the photos by vigorously pursuing legal action against her.  As part of a settlement of the matter they promised the ward of the state  to pay a few months accommodation to get her life back on track.

One of the most disturbing aspects of the affair is Nixon’s early intervention in the case. On his own admission he was one of the first to try to fix the conflict between the girl and the Club, and publicly claimed to be the first to ring her parents over the issue.

Months ago there were photos of the adolescent semi-naked in Nixon’s hotel room, facts which the AFL and players were well aware of, including text messages between the two, yet chose to ignore or turn a wilful blind eye to.

During Nixon’s intimate relationship with the girl, he learnt that journalist Caroline Wilson was going to write a questionable article about him concerning his relationship with the teenager.

Nixon then started to apply pressure to the girl to put in a good word for him and to tell the journalist that he was ‘sort of trying to help her out’.

This is the face of the AFL, a culture of pressuring witnesses, victims, law enforcement agencies, the media and anyone else who threatens to expose their misbehaviour into participating in their  brotherhood like culture of cover up.  

What the public seem to have forgotten is that Andrew Demetriou and Ricky Nixon were, on their own admission, the first individuals to come into contact with the girl and deal with her complaint.  Both have a well established reputation in the field of public relations and damage control.

At the time of investigating her complaint, a large part of which involved complaints over humiliating behaviour, transcripts and emails circulated by players, Demetriou was in possession of incriminating evidence in the form of emails which identified several former and past AFL players which were directly the subject of the teenager’s  complaint.  

Instead of acting on this evidence Demetriou made a conscious decision to ignore it and sweep it under the carpet in traditional AFL style. This was the old way of dealing with matters, Demetriou has told us many times in the past.  Under his leadership everything would change, particularly in dealing with allegations of sexual misconduct against women under his Respect and Responsibility Program.

In the early phase of the complaint when there was an opportunity to deal with and hold players accountable absolutely nothing was done by the CEO of the AFL, apart from suppressing evidence, which Demetriou was solely responsible for as both the CEO of the AFL, and the person in charge of the investigation and complaint lodged by the teenager.

 Demetriou has on many occasions promised the public that under his watch the culture of cover up  he claimed to know of personally would cease.

However history has proven that in relation to this scandal, the culture of cover up started and ended with Demetriou and his close friend of many years, AFL player-agent Ricky Nixon.

Demetriou self-righteously suggested Nixon should stand down, conveniently glossing over the fact that he had engaged in a cover up of his own as CEO of the AFL, the head of the AFL who was directly involved in suppressing evidence.

He ignored evidence which would have and could still be used to punish AFL players under various codes of conduct he so proudly speaks of bringing into being. Demetriou says a lot of things to impress the public.  In his statement relating to the Nixon matter, he said that the hard lesson learnt was that the Code should be extended to AFL player-agents.  Why bother extending a Code of Conduct so that more people subject to sanction under the Code can escape it’s consequences Andrew?

Demetriou and Nixon have a long relationship, both personally and professionally.  It was Nixon who was responsible for catapulting Demetriou through the ranks of the AFL to where he is today.  Both share the same mentality on many matters including transforming AFL from a sport into a highly lucrative commercial product.

Both fiercely defend ‘the brand’ and showed that in doing so they were prepared to sacrifice a young adolescent girl to protect their commercial and professional interests.  

Both issued the same kinds of verbal statements when the girl’s story first broke, namely “this girl needs help“. 

The commonalities don’t end there.

Both were involved in contaminating investigations, Demetriou in suggesting when the story broke that this girl was just a ‘troubled adolescent who the AFL had offered support to and was in need of counselling.

Demetriou knew that he had ignored incriminating evidence he had in his possession, not limited to emails, which may have put an end to the matter in early 2010 when her complaint was first brought to his attention by her. He knew she was troubled and had attempted suicide at that point yet, despite his professed concerns for her welfare, he chose to do absolutely nothing to prevent the ongoing damage to her welfare and state of mind.

Nixon also employed a strategy which was eerily similar, portraying the girl as “troubled’ and unstable.  If you look into the annals of history when any woman has brought similar complaints to the AFL it is a time worn strategy.

Nixon also tried on more than a few occasions to pervert and obstruct any scrutiny of  his behaviour and to obstruct investigations. Nixon’s attempts to do so by verbally coaching the girl were caught on tape.  

Ricky Nixon’s  text messages, emails and phone calls reveal him urging her  to  issue a media statement authored by Nixon himself. 

Nixon asked the girl to read the following statement as if it were her own:

I want to clear the air about what happened that night in the hotel room. I want to put on the record there was no sex and there was no drug-taking. When I tell people I have been having sex with him, I never dreamt it would get the coverage it has. I then put together a video which gives the impression we had sex and drugs.”

This is the culture that the teenager has been dealing with since the inception of her dealings with the AFL, in addition to a culture of Police corruption. The AFL were consistently contacting her whilst she was speaking with Police with AFL figures coaching her to inform the Police that there were no drugs involved in her activities with AFL players.

The two main AFL figures which have been involved in handling the  girls’ complaints have been Demetriou and Nixon.

At a time of desparation early in 2010, when her life was being ruined by hurtful emails surrounding her relationship with AFL players, Demetriou had the evidence in his hands and could have put a stop to it.   He decided not to.  If he was concerned about her welfare when the story broke, why did he sit back and do nothing precipitating what could easily have been a suicide by a girl who was besieged by death threats, mockery and humiliation?  Was her welfare and state of mind likely to improve in the face of the deluge of unrelenting pressure being brought to bear upon her?  She was alone compared to the crazed AFL players whose fans were and still continued to join in their  frenzied attack upon her.  

Instead of dealing with those grievances,  the most powerful man in AFL, and perhaps in Victorian life, merely sat back and allowed his codes and policies to rot, permitting  her to be subjected to unrelenting mockery and public humiliation at the hands of AFL players and a growing bunch of AFL fans and hangers on.

It was only at this point that the girl used the internet as her only weapon to reveal ‘her truth’. 

To compound the situation Demetriou continued to allow Nixon to deal with the matter whilst continuing to portray her girl publicly as deeply troubled and in need of counselling. 

It must have come as a relief to Demetriou to have the spotlight taken off him by Nixon’s subsequent behaviour. 

However Demetriou, in his capacity as the CEO of the AFL, and the person to whom the girl brought her initial complaint, is culpable for a large part of  what subsequently occurred, by choosing to engage in a culture of cover up and suppressing evidence, rather than confronting the problem when it could have been managed. 

Despite all of  Demetriou’s public rhetoric about having effected real change in the AFL, particularly  in the treatment of women, he behaved in the same kind of conduct as did Nixon.

The only difference was that Nixon engaged in a sexual relationship with the girl and supplied her with drugs after much of the damage had been done to her by the Demetriou/Nixon team. 

Demetriou obstructed the course of an AFL investigation, after pledging to the public that the culture of cover up he was so intimately acquainted with would end under his reign. 

The public rarely stop to closely examine what Demetriou says publicly and compare it to his actions which are the true test of the substance of the man.  If you carefully scrutinise Demetriou’s rhetoric that is really all it is.  If you consider some of his public pronouncements more closely, major holes in his credibility emerge.

Demetriou publicly announced that his close friend Ricky Nixon should step down in his opinion.

However to any person who has followed the chain of events and Demetriou’s actions and inaction, his words and his deeds, it becomes clear that responsibility for what has occurred rests with Demetriou.

Demetriou should step down in his role as CEO of the AFL pending an investigation into his serious mishandling of the saints girl scandal.

There are serious questions surrounding Demetrious’ conduct revolving around his failure to enforce the AFL Codes of Conduct,  and the blatant misrepresentation that the emails he claimed he had  personally and thoroughly inspected, consisted only of those which identified PAST AFL players, not present AFL players.

This public assertion subsequently turned out to be untrue.

Demetriou has not provided an explanation to the public for his lies in the wake of the emails becoming available to the Age newspaper.

 When asked by Neil Mitchell on 3aw why he wouldn’t take action against former AFL players whose identity was known from the emails, his response was that they “weren’t the beneficiaries of the current policy“.  

Clearly Demetriou’s response reeks of deception and obfuscation.

The part that he has played in this sad affair has been critical yet seems to have been overlooked by all concerned.   Demetriou knew all along that the emails could be associated with present players over whom he had power.

Even past players could have been effectively sanctioned through their membership rights where they were current members.

By contrast where the NRL have been involved in allegations of wrongdoing, David Gallop has shown strong leadership which the NRL as an organisation have been the beneficiary of.   If anything, the NRL have on occasions been overly punitive in their condemnation of inappropriate behaviour, however their players have come to realise that for the most part unacceptable behaviour will not be tolerated.

On the other hand Demetriou symbolises the old culture of cover up.

Whilst he continues to allude to his progressive sparkling new set of policies, codes and programs, his conduct and public statements speak of a ‘leader’ more concerned in protecting the AFL’s commercial interests.  To that end, he has been prepared to engage in the suppression of evidence and the portrayal  of young  girls who come to him asking for their complaints to be dealt as simply dysfunctional.

Related posts:

  1. AFL brotherhood & Saints girl cover up
  2. AFLPA, Galbally, Nixon and the privilege against self-incrimination
  4. Dickileaks – Demetriou Should Resign Pending Investigation of Misconduct
  5. Dickileaks – Saints and Teenager Arrive At Settlement in Saints Photo Scandal
This entry was posted in Internet censorship, Online defamation, Sports Law, Twitter, Uncategorized, Whistleblowers and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Demetriou and Nixon AFL Cover Up In Saints Girl Case

  1. Now, just for interest sakes, what are we holding the players accountable for doing again?

    As I said to you a long time ago, what is true and what is lies?
    I can’t see how the AFL can act on anything! Again, they are handling it about as well as they can by trying to support the girl, even though she continues to lie and spit in their face!

  2. pacelegal says:

    There are numerous provisions of AFL codes of conduct dealing with harrassment, offensive emails etc etc etc which the afl players who authored the emails breached.

    It is beyond my last molecule of imagination that you dont appreciate:

    a) that they exist
    b) why they exist
    c) that this conduct by the knownn afl players was in clear breachof them, including the spirit & letter of the law and
    d) this was a major part of the teenager’s complaint

    She wanted her complaint dealt with

    Demetriou had hard evidence associating named players with them beyond the emails, in the form of admissions from players of age inappropriate sex, transcripts etc.

    He admitted he had evidence but said he wouldnt do anything to punish the players as they weren’t present AFL players.

    He lied.

    They were

    He suppressed evidence in an investigation he was in charge of.

    If you don’t understand how seriouus that is I cant explain it to you

    Perhaps that doesn’t come as a surprise to you that the AFL interfere with evidence

  3. pacelegal says:

    Andrew Demetriou’s pathetic claim that he knew the girl was ‘probably lying’ about her pregnancy to Sam Gilbert smacks of desparation, coming the day after she announced it on public television.

    Not only does it make him look like he lacks any credibility, this gratuitous commentary is unnecessary and is the outward sign of a man who is not at all concerned for her welfare. He is trying to once again give the appearance of being concerned for her welfare to any reasoning person. It shows that he is desparate to exonerate himself from wrongdoing in terms of the disgraceful way the matter was mishandled by him and the fallout it caused.

    It shows incredibly poor judgement and reveals his true intent is to perpetuate the rally cry of the fans, namely ‘she is just a liar’ to save himself and salvage his tattered reputation and that of the AFL. Nothing will ever change under his reign. He has let down the AFL, and the other players in the organisation who conduct themselves with honour and integrity.

    His attitude exposes a fundamental flaw in his reasoning. Demetriou says he believed she lied about being pregnant to Gilbert.

    Does that make her plight any different Andrew?

    Does the fact that you say you thought she was lying about being pregnant make it any less serious that AFL players were involved in a sexual relationship with a sixteen year old girl?

    It makes Demetriou look much worse for it reveals something about the leaders’ real concerns.

    Did Demetriou make the recent pronouncement about his belief that she is a ‘liar’ out of his purported ongoing concern for her welfare? If so, why now? If you believe this to be the case then you are not prepared to sit back and examine what his is saying and think about why he is saying it.

    To any reasoning person, there is something that doesn’t ring true about his reaction to the complaints about the jokes and taunts in the form of emails by players mocking the teenager about which player she was pregnant to.

    Surely if Demetriou suspected the allegations about her pregnancy were not true we would expect him to have been more inclined to take some form of action against the errant players for spreading such information in a way which was likely to damage her reputation? That was the major part of her complaint to Demetriou. Demetriou failed her. The AFL failed her. Instead of providing her support, they turned a wilful blind eye to her complaint, leaving her to unleash her anger on the internet.

    I don’t believe a word that comes out of Demetrou’s mouth to rationalise his wilfully botched investigation.

    The irony is that Demetriou is still claiming to act out of the girl’s welfare but in doing so making himself look ridiculous and showing where his real interests lie, namely in publicly portraying her as ‘just a liar’.

  4. If you don’t want to believe AD, you wont and nothing I say will change that!

    On your second post, can you give me evidence of this huge cover-up because right now, it seems the only evidence is the word of the girl and at the moment, what she says isn’t worth the paper it isn’t written on!

    And don’t give me emails as evidence, that is so easy to fake, it isn’t funny!

  5. If you want just one example how to do the faking, there is a website that will do it for you!

  6. pacelegal says:

    We are all aware of anonymisers and the difficulties involved in forensic evidence. However we are presently dealing with them everyday, as disputes increasingly involve the use of electronic evidence to establish facts in dispute.

    You would know that there are forensic means of establishing whether an email was sent from a particular computer.

    Demetriou took that choice away from the girl and the public, and said his rationale for doing so was that there were no PRESENT AFL PLAYERS which could be identified from the emails he claims he thoroughly inspected. The information from the Age newspaper proved that was false.

    Hundreds, maybe thousands of workers lose their jobs over such emails in the workplace, who find the resources to establish the provenance of emails to their satisfaction.

    Andrew told us in the same interview he lied about the emails that he saw to it that a person working in a law firm was sacked due to an email sent to him personally. Demetriou was prepared to expend resources out of his 2.2 million dollar salary to pursue an email which offended him in some form on his own admission. He wasn’t however prepared to pursue emails which were egregious and over which a young girl was presenting in a suicidal state over.

    I suppose you are satisfied with the bare statement that the AFL ‘investigation’ was conducted with integrity, that Santa Claus exists,that electronic evidence is never the subject of examination in the workplace or any other arena and that none of the players had inappropriate sex with the girl or breached any of the Codes of Conduct.

    Phillip, fans like you are part of the problem, but very much a part of the solution for the AFL public relations machine.

  7. Okay, I am out! Should stuck to my guns. Silly me!

  8. admin says:


    You are an AFL fan. I am already aware of the manner in which you use logic to arrive at conclusions. Your previous conclusion was that it was unlikely that the girl met the players at the school “because she wasn’t an extraordinary specimen” like Elle McPherson. Being an AFL fan who is blinded by your attitudes you are free to:

    1. Ignore the fact Andrew Demetriou lied to you on a 3AW talkback program with Neil Mitchell

    2. Ignore the fact that forensic evidence is becoming commonplace in trials involving digital communications & there is both legislation dealing with the electronic world and detailed processes set out for the admission of electronic evidence in both our state and federals courts’ procedural codes

    3. Ignore the fact that Andrew Demetriou was in possession of a variety of forms of electronic evidence including facebook transcripts between Kim and the players.

    4. Ignore the fact that in terms of the emails he spoke publicly about, he deliberately mischaracterised evidence, which enabled him to suppress it, in the course of an official AFL investigation, to protect current AFL players from any sanction he has within his means to impose upon them for breaching various codes of conduct. What other evidence is he prepared to lie about and what other evidence has he suppressed? Your attitude is to trust absolutely in the AFL and their probity even when confronted with their lack of trustworthiness.

    5. Ignore the fact that he failed to enforce any AFL poliçy he waxes lyrical about in public, most importantly the AFL Child Protection Policy.

    6. Ignore the fact that in omitting to act, he sanctioned the bringing of court action instead against a ward of the State, which led to a settlement, and a man who he knew to have been closely associated with the Saints girl at the outset, to become engaged in criminal acts in the very location which was intended to be a safe refuge for the Saints girl to get her life back together.

    7. Ignore the fact that this all could have been prevented had he acted swiftly and decisively when she presented at the AFL in early pleading with Demetriou to enforce the AFL code of conduct to stop the players breaching the AFL Code of Conduct in the communications they were engaging in.

    8. Ignore the fact that he tells us he was concerned for her welfare at the outset, and one day after he tells her she wasn’t pregnant, tells us he knew this was probably the case at the time he spoke to her, and that he didn’t speak of his belief because of her welfare, however because he is still concerned for her welfare he is telling us she is ‘probably a liar’…lol…Don’t you see the fallacy of this?? If indeed she was lying about the pregnancy Demetriou had even more reason to take some action to hold those who were conducting the campaign against her (or look like he was at least) in order to protect her image and/or welfare. He chose not to. Andrew Demetriou’s line of thought that it mattered whether or not she was really pregnant as opposed to whether a 16 year old girl had been involved in age inappropriate sex with AFL players doesn’t ring true, or maybe that is what his main concern was, namely whether there was ‘evidence’ of her involvement in the form of offspring.

  9. Pingback: Demetriou Eager To Brief AFL Female Directors on Saints Girl Drama | Pace Legal Intellectual Property

  10. Tony says:

    I find it interesting that you try to present yourself as a legal entity with knowledge of the law when you are obviously nothing more than an opinionated blogger trying to give his poorly worded arguments credibility.

  11. admin says:

    I find it interesting that you have formed the impression I am legal entity. is a domain name. It is not a business name.

    If you peruse the website you will note that it is nothing more than an information resource and a forum for social commentary on many topics, not confined to the law.

    I am entitled to run a poorly worded website and to express my opinions in a clumsy way, as long as I don’t act unlawfully.

    However misconceived you believe my opinions or any other opinions which exist on this this issue are, I do have the right to hold them. They belong to me.

    I am not holding myself out as a Solicitor as you will note if you have read my website.

    Just like everybody else I hold opinions on issues.

    You can decide whether you agree or disagree, which you are entitled to do.

    The fact that I happen to be a Solicitor by qualification doesn’t mean that I am rendering advice or providing information of a legal nature which is intended to be relied upon in any way as authoritative.

    The last time I checked we had a limited form of freedom of speech in Australia, although judging by the hate-filled emails I have received of late, the freedom to express one’s opinion on matters concerning AFL players is anathema to AFL fans.

    You might like to provide some substantiating evidence for your assertion that Pace Legal is a legal entity, and what exactly you mean by a ‘legal entity’.

    The fact that someone decides to express an opinion on a public figure in Australia or a sporting organisation shouldn’t attract malicious code and threatening emails.

    Just my opinion, but I respect your right to disagree with it.

  12. Tony says:

    I agree that you have every right to express your opinion. As I previously stated I just found it interesting that you try to present yourself on your site as a commercial law firm, which you hope will add weight to your arguments.
    Your arguments are full of “opinion” presented as fact which I think is quite misleading, but certainly I fully support that you have the right to that opinion, no matter how wrong it is.

  13. pacelegal says:


    Thanks for agreeing with me that I have a right to express my opinion.

    I still find it very interesting that you think I am trying to “present my site as a commercial law firm, which you hope will add weight to your arguments”.

    I don’t see any sign of a commercial presence scanning my website.

    If you could point me to the clues and the signs please do so.

    I don’t know how many commercial law firms’ websites you have seen, but they certainly aren’t as chaotic and unstructured as mine. They are professionally presented. The structure of the website made provision for CEO and CEO’s mission. If you look under the mission statement you will note there is an aspirational statement to provide information and resources.

    There is no contact information for the name of a ‘Proprietor’ as one would expect if one were dealing with a business. There is no mention of fee structures, or blurbs about practitioners which are usually found on legal websites. They don’t contain extraneous information which is disordered and is written in the style of a wiki.

    They tell you what they can do for you and how well they can do it including how affordably.

    I hope my arguments stand on their own although I am not interested in convincing anyone of anything.

    Were I moved by a desire to add weight to my arguments by reference to my legal qualifications I would have certainly done so.

    You will not find a reference to my credentials on my website, nor do I display the fact that I hold a masters degree in law.

    I mention that I have experience in the law, which many people claim to have, including Sam Newman.

    I am not representing myself as a Solicitor, simply because to practise law one must apply for and currently be in possession of a practising certificate from the Law Institute of Victoria. Perhaps you should check all business name registers, and details of firms currently listed with them to satisfy your curiousity.

    If my arguments are full of “opinion” presented as fact in your opinion, so be it.

    I am an opinionated person and make no apologies for that.

    You may recall that Wendy Bacon was a Solicitor yet she didn’t practise law.

    If my opinions are wrongheaded or misguided then you are welcome to call me out on that by putting forward opinions which contradict or undermine my opinions.

    Judging by the information presented in the blogosphere it probably isn’t the first time you have seen opinion masquerading as ‘fact’ although there is often a fine line between the two, which I am sure anyone in media law would be confronted with everyday of their life in dealing with the complexities of the law and publishing.

    I don’t belong to the legal profession or the media.

    I belong to the blogosphere and try to inject a bit of balance into the equation, albeit in an unorthodox and clumsy style. I am not a writer nor have I ever presented myself as one.

    History is full of heretics and people who step out of the mainstream and question the conventional dogma and wisdom. They are usually marginalised for being part of a significant minority who hold views that contradict the mainstream. It is up to you to decide what kind of media you consume and turn your sights to another blog or source. Today’s new media offers a lot of choice.

    I am not here to further any agenda other than my own desire to write about topics that insterest me. If my blog looks a little disordered, then so be it.

    If my desire was to drive traffic to a “commercial law firm website” I can assure you it would look a whole lot different and professional in it’s presentation.

    I thought you the casual observer would be observant enough to detect that.

  14. admin says:


    Many of the hate filled emails and comments, in this case, representing me once again as “legal entity” (quite bizarrely) are always from anonymous people who hide behind their anonymity. I love the game of AFL. Who are you and what is your interest in continuing to call me a “legal entity” which is simply untrue? Another crazed St Kilda fan. I certainly hope you come out from behind your cloak of anonymity and if your behaviour escalates to threats that you make them in this forum.

  15. Tony says:

    Not sure what you mean by “cloak of anonymity” as I have given you a legitimate e-mail address by which you can contact me. I notice though that you do not provide your name or any contact details for yourself on your site other than the “Reply” option.
    Also, I am not sure why you keep jumping to the conclusion that I intend to threaten you in some way. I just wanted to voice my opinion, and i believe I have done so in a non-threatening, non-abusive way. Its just that I disagree with you, nothing more.

  16. admin says:

    As you have pointed out it is very difficult to establish the identity of a person behind an email address. Mine is tied to my domain name and is not hidden by privacy whois data. You are correct that I have not included a phone number or address for the reason that I am not a business.

    I do however use my real name, and it wouldn’t take a lot of effort for a determined investigator to discover my identity.

    You are correct in that the email I have sent to you has not bounced back, and at least it is tied to an ISP rather than being a web based email provider. I have received a lot of emails, thousands indeed consisting of spam and more concerning emails which bounce back. In either case it is difficult to discern the person’s identity.

    You are correct insofar that voicing your opinion that you disagree with me is not threatening or abusive. Perhaps I have been over-exposed to emails which are not as civilised. My apologies.

    If you would care to be more specific about what in particular you disagree with at least we could have a more constructive discussion.

  17. @Tony: Give up mate. I am sure there is a brick wall around you that a little head bang against would achieve a better result. You will never get the time on here back again!

  18. admin says:


    A well reasoned reply identifying the facts you disagree with would be more constructive Phillip.

    I know you go on instinct but you could try and engage with the arguments I am making.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *