Statement re Thomas

[CURLY]

Still no idea what the issue is.

Maybe you should have sat this one out then. If you don't understand DV by now, with everything going on in the country, I'm afraid it's too late for you.

I fully understand what DV is and the effects of it. Gubby Allens role is to get the best available talent and fit into our club not to sit in judgement and condemn a person.

[St Dave]

Still no idea what the issue is.

Maybe you should have sat this one out then. If you don't understand DV by now, with everything going on in the country, I'm afraid it's too late for you.

I fully understand what DV is and the effects of it. Gubby Allens role is to get the best available talent and fit into our club not to sit in judgement and condemn a person.

Maybe re-read the thread then if you still don't get it.

Appreciate you agreeing that Gubby was best performing his role though, because as it stands Thomas isn't available talent (he is under suspension and the AFL needs to ok him to come back), and we probably need to wait until the legal process that it is place to 'sit in judgement and condemn a person' is over before Gubby as representative of the club judges him innocent.

[CURLY]

Still no idea what the issue is.

Maybe you should have sat this one out then. If you don't understand DV by now, with everything going on in the country, I'm afraid it's too late for you.

I fully understand what DV is and the effects of it. Gubby Allens role is to get the best available talent and fit into our club not to sit in judgement and condemn a person.

Maybe re-read the thread then if you still don't get it.

Appreciate you agreeing that Gubby was best performing his role though, because as it stands Thomas isn't available talent (he is under suspension and the AFL needs to ok him to come back), and we probably need to wait until the legal process that it is place to 'sit in judgement and condemn a person' is over before Gubby as representative of the club judges him innocent.

Gubby was doing what he's payed to do.

[CURLY]

Still no idea what the issue is.

Maybe you should have sat this one out then. If you don't understand DV by now, with everything going on in the country, I'm afraid it's too late for you.

I fully understand what DV is and the effects of it. Gubby Allens role is to get the best available talent and fit into our club not to sit in judgement and condemn a person.

Maybe re-read the thread then if you still don't get it.

Appreciate you agreeing that Gubby was best performing his role though, because as it stands Thomas isn't available talent (he is under suspension and the AFL needs to ok him to come back), and we probably need to wait until the legal process that it is place to 'sit in judgement and condemn a person' is over before Gubby as representative of the club judges him innocent.

Gubby was doing what he's payed to do.

[St Dave]

Still no idea what the issue is.

Maybe you should have sat this one out then. If you don't understand DV by now, with everything going on in the country, I'm afraid it's too late for you.

I fully understand what DV is and the effects of it. Gubby Allens role is to get the best available talent and fit into our club not to sit in judgement and condemn a person.

Maybe re-read the thread then if you still don't get it.

Appreciate you agreeing that Gubby was best performing his role though, because as it stands Thomas isn't available talent (he is under suspension and the AFL needs to ok him to come back), and we probably need to wait until the legal process that it is place to 'sit in judgement and condemn a person' is over before Gubby as representative of the club judges him innocent.

Gubby was doing what he's payed to do.

Go after unavailable players?

[CURLY]

Still no idea what the issue is.

Maybe you should have sat this one out then. If you don't understand DV by now, with everything going on in the country, I'm afraid it's too late for you.

I fully understand what DV is and the effects of it. Gubby Allens role is to get the best available talent and fit into our club not to sit in judgement and condemn a person.

Maybe re-read the thread then if you still don't get it.

Appreciate you agreeing that Gubby was best performing his role though, because as it stands Thomas isn't available talent (he is under suspension and the AFL needs to ok him to come back), and we probably need to wait until the legal process that it is place to 'sit in judgement and condemn a person' is over before Gubby as representative of the club judges him innocent.

Gubby was doing what he's payed to do.

Go after unavailable players?

Explore all options. The world doesn't end at the conclusion of 2025.

[St Dave]

Still no idea what the issue is.

Maybe you should have sat this one out then. If you don't understand DV by now, with everything going on in the country, I'm afraid it's too late for you.

I fully understand what DV is and the effects of it. Gubby Allens role is to get the best available talent and fit into our club not to sit in judgement and condemn a person.

Maybe re-read the thread then if you still don't get it.

Appreciate you agreeing that Gubby was best performing his role though, because as it stands Thomas isn't available talent (he is under suspension and the AFL needs to ok him to come back), and we probably need to wait until the legal process that it is place to 'sit in judgement and condemn a person' is over before Gubby as representative of the club judges him innocent.

Gubby was doing what he's payed to do.

Go after unavailable players?

Explore all options. The world doesn't end at the conclusion of 2025.

Maybe we should be looking forward to our lunches with Gubby then, because as it stands we are all as much of an option as Thomas is.

I don't know about you but I could probably say I am a better option because at least lunch with me isn't going to bring heat down on the club.

[D.B.Cooper]

Still no idea what the issue is.

Maybe you should have sat this one out then. If you don't understand DV by now, with everything going on in the country, I'm afraid it's too late for you.

I fully understand what DV is and the effects of it. Gubby Allens role is to get the best available talent and fit into our club not to sit in judgement and condemn a person.

Maybe re-read the thread then if you still don't get it.

Appreciate you agreeing that Gubby was best performing his role though, because as it stands Thomas isn't available talent (he is under suspension and the AFL needs to ok him to come back), and we probably need to wait until the legal process that it is place to 'sit in judgement and condemn a person' is over before Gubby as representative of the club judges him innocent.

Gubby was doing what he's payed to do.

I didn't realise Gubby was a deck hand

[thejiggingsaint]

For a minute I thought it was a thread about GRANT Thomas!!

[skeptic]

I found it interesting on one of the Saints groups on FB. Thread after thread about how morally outraged people were that we would even talk to Thomas, that they would tear up their memberships etc…
No way we could ever support a player that has those types of attitudes towards women

Then the clip of Milne’s 11 goals vs Brisbane and it was all emojis.

Now I know it’s not a like for like comparison but this is why I find people taking these stances uncomfortable. Doesn’t seem to me that the consistency or conviction of message is very strong

[Vortex]

I know it’s not a like for like comparison

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-06/ ... ed/5870710

[St Dave]

I found it interesting on one of the Saints groups on FB. Thread after thread about how morally outraged people were that we would even talk to Thomas, that they would tear up their memberships etc…
No way we could ever support a player that has those types of attitudes towards women

Then the clip of Milne’s 11 goals vs Brisbane and it was all emojis.

Now I know it’s not a like for like comparison but this is why I find people taking these stances uncomfortable. Doesn’t seem to me that the consistency or conviction of message is very strong

There are a few key differences, like it is one thing for a club to stick by an existing player in the face of allegations and before they have been charged (as the Roos tried to do before the weight of offending forced their hand) vs the appearance of wanting to recruit that player. But also times themselves have changed (for the better), and if they happened today Milne's offending might not have been rumours for a decade.

Getting to your point about Facebook thumbs up and things. There is a similar interesting dilemma in the art/entertainment world of separating the art from the artist, eg is it ethical to still enjoy the art of people like Kevin Spacey or Woody Allen etc while obviously not supporting their actions as individuals.

It is up to everyone to draw that line themselves (it would be interesting to see how many of the same people talking about ripping up their membership liked the Milne post). Personally I think you can still enjoy the art up to a point, but appreciate if others feel differently for different cases.

[skeptic]

I found it interesting on one of the Saints groups on FB. Thread after thread about how morally outraged people were that we would even talk to Thomas, that they would tear up their memberships etc…
No way we could ever support a player that has those types of attitudes towards women

Then the clip of Milne’s 11 goals vs Brisbane and it was all emojis.

Now I know it’s not a like for like comparison but this is why I find people taking these stances uncomfortable. Doesn’t seem to me that the consistency or conviction of message is very strong

There are a few key differences, like it is one thing for a club to stick by an existing player in the face of allegations and before they have been charged (as the Roos tried to do before the weight of offending forced their hand) vs the appearance of wanting to recruit that player. But also times themselves have changed (for the better), and if they happened today Milne's offending might not have been rumours for a decade.

Getting to your point about Facebook thumbs up and things. There is a similar interesting dilemma in the art/entertainment world of separating the art from the artist, eg is it ethical to still enjoy the art of people like Kevin Spacey or Woody Allen etc while obviously not supporting their actions as individuals.

It is up to everyone to draw that line themselves (it would be interesting to see how many of the same people talking about ripping up their membership liked the Milne post). Personally I think you can still enjoy the art up to a point, but appreciate if others feel differently for different cases.

All great points St. Dave… adding also that Milne didn’t have any history of that nature and was a pretty consummate professional thereafter from what I can remember. One can only hope that people put as much consideration into these discussions as you obviously do. That’s what I’m kind of getting at.

The entertainment aspect you raise is a really fascinating one. There’s a WWE wrestler named Chris Beniot… largely considered one of the greatest athletic performers of all time.
Without getting into it… the end of his life is one of the most shocking horror stories of all time and his legacy has essentially been erased from the company with much of of work edited out, profiles erased, no hall of fame etc. It remains a very contentious point amongst fans with many just wanting to enjoy the work but a lot of former colleagues saying they can’t see him without thinking of what happened to their friends.

And to be clear for the general discussion… this wasn’t a crack at Milne in any way, I always thought standing by him the way the club did was the right thing to do and he has always been one of my favourites

[Vortex]

One charge of indecent assault, and context is everything in Milne's case hence why I posted the link, there is nuance, however he paid the much heavier consequences as if he was a convicted rapist.

For mine, I feel like the two cases are not comparable, and the question remains, does Thomas understand consequences and can he be rehabilitated, which seems to be why his AFL career is over and why he has a pending court case.

Milne is rehabilitated in the eyes of the law AND his community for a one-off act that on the face of it doesn't suggest he is, or even was a continued threat to women's safety.

Thomas may have an ongoing issue with the concept of safety towards women let alone understand the concept of consequences and rehabilitation.

So is it too soon to separate the artist from his art?

[skeptic]

The issue isn’t/wasn’t Milne Vortex. And I never meant to suggest that it was.

But when people are suggesting a zero tolerance policy to the point burning memberships for discussions and how dare we even talk to him, how would wives/sisters/daughters feel about it etc… I have an issue with that position if you’re (generally speaking) actually not prepared to stick with it and will selectively choose what discretions are ok and which aren’t.

Personally I’ve felt frustrated with some of our supporter base (not the club which I actually think has done ok on the issue overall and has been pretty reasonable/consistent on its stances) that have preached a degree of morality/virtue that seems fairly selective/impractical.

And again… I really want to reiterate that there is no intention of deriding Milne or the clubs position with that. Just pointing out that many of the same people that scream zero tolerance with one breath don’t seem so bothered about it in another

[Vortex]

Personally I’ve felt frustrated with some of our supporter base that have preached a degree of morality/virtue that seems fairly selective/impractical.

This is something I can really relate to because it's how I feel about fans bipolar views on concussion and head trauma.

On one hand fans have been conditioned to preach a degree of selective morality/virtue when a head injury is caused by an illegal act, yet will be outraged at the suggestion of rule changes to legal acts causing head trauma as they consider it will ruin the "fabric" of the game.

So I agree, it's confusing if people want it both ways in these types of discussions however I think Thomas is a unique case as it appears he's underdeveloped to the point he could be a genuine risk to woman's safety and against the current backdrop, he's going to cop it from the community.

And so your Milne reference is then confusing for me to a degree because by injecting his name into the discussion it kind of does feel like a comparison is being made and I'm not sure Milne's offence was, or is considered violence against woman which I'm guessing is why Thomas attracts the angry attention. However I am willing to reconsider that position if I have it horribly wrong.

[skeptic]

Personally I’ve felt frustrated with some of our supporter base that have preached a degree of morality/virtue that seems fairly selective/impractical.

This is something I can really relate to because it's how I feel about fans bipolar views on concussion and head trauma.

On one hand fans have been conditioned to preach a degree of selective morality/virtue when a head injury is caused by an illegal act, yet will be outraged at the suggestion of rule changes to legal acts causing head trauma as they consider it will ruin the "fabric" of the game.

So I agree, it's confusing if people want it both ways in these types of discussions however I think Thomas is a unique case as it appears he's underdeveloped to the point he could be a genuine risk to woman's safety and against the current backdrop, he's going to cop it from the community.

And so your Milne reference is then confusing for me to a degree because by injecting his name into the discussion it kind of does feel like a comparison is being made and I'm not sure Milne's offence was, or is considered violence against woman which I'm guessing is why Thomas attracts the angry attention. However I am willing to reconsider that position if I have it horribly wrong.

Yeah I get what you mean RE the concussion.

RE Milne, the connection goes skin deep. It’s the last “transgression” I can recall from the club that wasn’t met with swift/heavy consequences.
Lovett was obviously sacked fairly quickly
The school girl fiasco was a fabrication

And you are correct in that it wasn’t (from my understanding) physically violent (as in holding down, punching etc), causing injury, fear etc. Or to put it another way… it wasn’t antisocial in nature.

Thomas’ obviously is violence and antisocial driven… and repetitive at that.

I said it earlier in this thread… rumours abound of other foundation clubs paying off victims to keep them quiet and star players safe. The Saints to me have actually always been rightly or wrongly (rightly IMO) ahead of the curve. With the Lovett fiasco… we sacked him for what happened (though we claimed otherwise) at great personal cost to ourselves. That decision was pbly the difference between a flag and draw but we did it.

In terms of trying to use other examples… I don’t think there’s an abundance of them linked to us. Ultimately however it’s worth bowing my head that perhaps I should not have brought that up.

[Moods]

Personally I’ve felt frustrated with some of our supporter base that have preached a degree of morality/virtue that seems fairly selective/impractical.

This is something I can really relate to because it's how I feel about fans bipolar views on concussion and head trauma.

On one hand fans have been conditioned to preach a degree of selective morality/virtue when a head injury is caused by an illegal act, yet will be outraged at the suggestion of rule changes to legal acts causing head trauma as they consider it will ruin the "fabric" of the game.

So I agree, it's confusing if people want it both ways in these types of discussions however I think Thomas is a unique case as it appears he's underdeveloped to the point he could be a genuine risk to woman's safety and against the current backdrop, he's going to cop it from the community.

And so your Milne reference is then confusing for me to a degree because by injecting his name into the discussion it kind of does feel like a comparison is being made and I'm not sure Milne's offence was, or is considered violence against woman which I'm guessing is why Thomas attracts the angry attention. However I am willing to reconsider that position if I have it horribly wrong.

Milne’s offending was an indecent assault, which the offence has been redacted and the same type of offending is simply named. Sexual assault. It most definitely is considered violence against women. He plead guilty to it in a plea deal to avoid the rape charge. Milne still invokes anger from opposition supporters and I’m not sure how I’d feel about him if he was an opposition player whose alleged rape I hadn’t taken such a deep interest in.

Thomas’s crimes are not considered by law as remotely as serious as what Milne was accused of initially, or even what he pled to eventually.

Having said all that I agree with your assertion that it was a one off type of thing and he definitely learnt his lesson straight away. The concerning aspect of Thomas is that he just keeps continuing to do it over time. That’s about as concerning as it gets because obviously he doesn’t really think he’s doing anything wrong

[Vortex]

Personally I’ve felt frustrated with some of our supporter base that have preached a degree of morality/virtue that seems fairly selective/impractical.

This is something I can really relate to because it's how I feel about fans bipolar views on concussion and head trauma.

On one hand fans have been conditioned to preach a degree of selective morality/virtue when a head injury is caused by an illegal act, yet will be outraged at the suggestion of rule changes to legal acts causing head trauma as they consider it will ruin the "fabric" of the game.

So I agree, it's confusing if people want it both ways in these types of discussions however I think Thomas is a unique case as it appears he's underdeveloped to the point he could be a genuine risk to woman's safety and against the current backdrop, he's going to cop it from the community.

And so your Milne reference is then confusing for me to a degree because by injecting his name into the discussion it kind of does feel like a comparison is being made and I'm not sure Milne's offence was, or is considered violence against woman which I'm guessing is why Thomas attracts the angry attention. However I am willing to reconsider that position if I have it horribly wrong.

Milne’s offending was an indecent assault, which the offence has been redacted and the same type of offending is simply named. Sexual assault. It most definitely is considered violence against women. He plead guilty to it in a plea deal to avoid the rape charge. Milne still invokes anger from opposition supporters and I’m not sure how I’d feel about him if he was an opposition player whose alleged rape I hadn’t taken such a deep interest in.

Thomas’s crimes are not considered by law as remotely as serious as what Milne was accused of initially, or even what he pled to eventually.

Having said all that I agree with your assertion that it was a one off type of thing and he definitely learnt his lesson straight away. The concerning aspect of Thomas is that he just keeps continuing to do it over time. That’s about as concerning as it gets because obviously he doesn’t really think he’s doing anything wrong

If you read the reported details of the event that led to Milne accepting a plea deal and the details of Montagna's account of the event at the link below it seems like a really complex situation.

However I'm confused by the suggestion the event is significantly more serious than the Thomas situation so I am probably out of my depth on how to understand the comparison and need more education. I certainly understand the outcomes of both events resulted in harm to woman however it's the potential for sustained harm to the woman in the Thomas case that makes it feel like her situation is significantly more serious.

Having said that we don't know if any lasting impact has been experienced by the woman involved in the Milne case.

Coming back to the issue you raise skeptic, re the disproportionate stand by fans, I think it's a worthwhile discussion you have raised in terms of men continuing to understand and educate themselves on the issue of women's safety as there are many layers it would seem.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-13/ ... se/5089834

[D.B.Cooper]

Very hard to comment when you don’t know the full circumstances.

There has been a few stalking cases over the past handful of years with exact players and former partners.

Williamson from Carlton, booted out.
Danni Laidley, embraced by AFL.
Brian Lake, still welcomed at the Hawks.

Any others?

Are there different standards?

[Otiman]

How many people think that we would have gone for Thomas if there was overwhelming public/member support for it?

I think it's 100% driven by external viewpoints and potential impact to club memberships. Without the backlash we would be writing up contracts for him now.

[St Dave]

Personally I’ve felt frustrated with some of our supporter base that have preached a degree of morality/virtue that seems fairly selective/impractical.

This is something I can really relate to because it's how I feel about fans bipolar views on concussion and head trauma.

On one hand fans have been conditioned to preach a degree of selective morality/virtue when a head injury is caused by an illegal act, yet will be outraged at the suggestion of rule changes to legal acts causing head trauma as they consider it will ruin the "fabric" of the game.

So I agree, it's confusing if people want it both ways in these types of discussions however I think Thomas is a unique case as it appears he's underdeveloped to the point he could be a genuine risk to woman's safety and against the current backdrop, he's going to cop it from the community.

And so your Milne reference is then confusing for me to a degree because by injecting his name into the discussion it kind of does feel like a comparison is being made and I'm not sure Milne's offence was, or is considered violence against woman which I'm guessing is why Thomas attracts the angry attention. However I am willing to reconsider that position if I have it horribly wrong.

Milne’s offending was an indecent assault, which the offence has been redacted and the same type of offending is simply named. Sexual assault. It most definitely is considered violence against women. He plead guilty to it in a plea deal to avoid the rape charge. Milne still invokes anger from opposition supporters and I’m not sure how I’d feel about him if he was an opposition player whose alleged rape I hadn’t taken such a deep interest in.

Thomas’s crimes are not considered by law as remotely as serious as what Milne was accused of initially, or even what he pled to eventually.

Having said all that I agree with your assertion that it was a one off type of thing and he definitely learnt his lesson straight away. The concerning aspect of Thomas is that he just keeps continuing to do it over time. That’s about as concerning as it gets because obviously he doesn’t really think he’s doing anything wrong

If you read the reported details of the event that led to Milne accepting a plea deal and the details of Montagna's account of the event at the link below it seems like a really complex situation.

However I'm confused by the suggestion the event is significantly more serious than the Thomas situation so I am probably out of my depth on how to understand the comparison and need more education. I certainly understand the outcomes of both events resulted in harm to woman however it's the potential for sustained harm to the woman in the Thomas case that makes it feel like her situation is significantly more serious.

Having said that we don't know if any lasting impact has been experienced by the woman involved in the Milne case.

Coming back to the issue you raise skeptic, re the disproportionate stand by fans, I think it's a worthwhile discussion you have raised in terms of men continuing to understand and educate themselves on the issue of women's safety as there are many layers it would seem.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-13/ ... se/5089834

Appreciate your willingness to understand, I am no expert so if others can add more or put this better it would be good, but speaking generally sexual assault can also carry psychological impacts on top of the obvious physical impact which is still there.

Generally still, try to put yourself in the position of copping a beating, then try to imagine how much you would need to be beaten/restrained to have someone try to put something inside you without your consent.

Milnes offence sounds more like a case of mistaken identity/consent rather than anything more brutish, which helps fans be able to forgive him, but as you said it is a complex situation and you never know exactly what happened when it is he said/she said.

[skeptic]

Certainly the victim pursued the charges so that counts for something

[Saintmatt]

Very hard to comment when you don’t know the full circumstances.

There has been a few stalking cases over the past handful of years with exact players and former partners.

Williamson from Carlton, booted out.
Danni Laidley, embraced by AFL.
Brian Lake, still welcomed at the Hawks.

Any others?

Are there different standards?

Shannon Grant, Jonathan Patton, Colin Sylvia, Justin Murphy spring to mind.