Carlton Supporters Club

I feel bad for his family, but this media narrative of him being a 'lovable larrakin with a heart of gold' is sickening. He had a long history of domestic violence charges, stalking and harassing women as well as recent theft and fraud charges. By all accounts he was starting to turn himself around, but I can't stand people who re-write history as soon as someone dies.

Most of us are aware of the issues Silvia had, his DV issues in 2006 and his previous DD traffic offenses in 2011.

Not sure if he has any kids and the other issues should probably be left out of this thread, anyone is free to start another thread on the more general issue of how the media paint the fallen. Does anybody take notice when it is a bloke like Garry Lyon telling you how good someone is?

I gather some of you will see the contradiction in the way Silvia is portrayed compared to how the media treated Fevola back in his indiscretion era. Again there is a Lyon link, is it just coincidence?

On the accident itself, a two car collision, with allegations both occupants know each other and had been traveling together in separate cars.

I don't think it warrants another thread. The topic is Colin Sylvia's passing and my comments related to the way his death (and life) have been documented by the media. You don't have to agree, but I think this false canonisation of people after they die is hypocritical and it is highlighted in this instance.

You have to weigh those comments by the people making them, I think it's wrong to label all commentary as some how absolving Silvia for his sins.

But even so, many may argue death is hardly proportional justice, or even justice at all!

Sorry, I was editing my post when you've responded. I certainly don't believe he got what was coming to him or anything like that. My only gripe is with the commentary around the type of person he was.

Don't apologise, happens to me all the time, amazing what can change when you add the missing "not" to a "do" or "will"

I frequently phone or tablet type and post as a form of saving the edit, especially on the long posts! It has led me into some significant barnies because my post was read and responded to before it was finished!

I do not mention his previous issues deliberately, not out of respect for him but in consideration of his surviving family, who most likely do not deserve to have that torment now!

I don't think it warrants another thread. The topic is Colin Sylvia's passing and my comments related to the way his death (and life) have been documented by the media. You don't have to agree, but I think this false canonisation of people after they die is hypocritical and it is highlighted in this instance.

Even in your own comments, you touch on some of his issues, but fail to mention his convictions early this year for stalking and harassment. It's that picking and choosing that I think doesn't do any of society a great service. It minimises the damage that a persons action caused. For others out there who have been victims of such violence, to see a bloke heralded as a good person despite his flaws is disrespectful. By all means focus on the tragedy for its facts; a family is mourning the loss of a loved one and a young man has lost his chance to gain redemption. That is the tragedy. Turning him into a Saint just because he died does no one any favours.

I don't normally get involved in these type of posts; however, YOU DON'T KNOW, the situation regarding the stalking OR domestic violence charges, now you talk about not wanting to 'canonise' people after their deceased. I have no real knowledge of his personal situation, but I have seen first hand how the law is now applied to the most menial situations with very serious charges now applied. An argument, or 'lovers tiff', can very quickly be turned to a story to which you have no defense. I saw this happen to somebody I know.

Colin Sylvia may have been guilty of a lot more - I don't know, but doubt you know either. Fine don't 'canonise', but don't 'demonise' either.

Well I'm assuming the judges that CONVICTED him did know the facts. They weren't baseless accusations, they held up in a court of law.

I think that is a slippery slope NM, and outside the facts it's not worth discussing, there are too many cases that are actually decided on hearsay, reported as a definitive ruling then over-turned in mostly media silence.

I know directly of one specific case with a young AFL player, not a 2nd hand rumor but 1st hand, of a player accused of all sorts of indiscretions by a jilted lover in a widely published media barrage. You may have even read the stories yourself. Accused of things that he could not have been guilty of because at the time that he was supposed to be acting in this manner he had sneaked interstate out of the media spotlight, and was sitting having lunch with family, friends and myself more than 700km away from the accuser. He didn't fight the allegations publicly for a number of reasons, primarily he wanted them to disappear quickly for his mother's sake, secondly his lover had been diagnosed with mental health disorder, he actually had pity and still cared for her to a degree but could no longer live under the same roof. Yet for him he lives out the remainder of his AFL career under those very public allegations, allegations categorised in some circles as indiscretion, domestic abuse or sexual assault!

Not a whisper or remorse or apology from the media accusers, not a single retraction that I have ever found!

Freedom does not and should not come at any price!

And as a result he wasn't convicted of a crime, correct? So a bit different that what I'm talking about.

Well I'm assuming the judges that CONVICTED him did know the facts. They weren't baseless accusations, they held up in a court of law.