GWS Players in the gun. AFL has gone mad.

[CURLY]

To me Curly that point is irrelevant.

Using Dud’s example… if I use my work computer to look up porn and get caught I’m the one that’s in trouble. Who found it and how it effects them doesn’t matter

Thats not the same.

Yes because I’m communicating a concept not an example.

If the players didn’t do…
The thing they shouldn’t have done…
They wouldn’t be in trouble.

How they got sprung isn’t relevant

The way in which it was bought to light is the issue can't you see that.

[St Dave]

To me Curly that point is irrelevant.

Using Dud’s example… if I use my work computer to look up porn and get caught I’m the one that’s in trouble. Who found it and how it effects them doesn’t matter

Thats not the same.

Yes because I’m communicating a concept not an example.

If the players didn’t do…
The thing they shouldn’t have done…
They wouldn’t be in trouble.

How they got sprung isn’t relevant

The way in which it was bought to light is the issue can't you see that.

That doesn't matter though.

That's like saying "its not the crime that is wrong it's the way they got caught that is the issue".

[CURLY]

To me Curly that point is irrelevant.

Using Dud’s example… if I use my work computer to look up porn and get caught I’m the one that’s in trouble. Who found it and how it effects them doesn’t matter

Thats not the same.

Yes because I’m communicating a concept not an example.

If the players didn’t do…
The thing they shouldn’t have done…
They wouldn’t be in trouble.

How they got sprung isn’t relevant

The way in which it was bought to light is the issue can't you see that.

That doesn't matter though.

That's like saying "its not the crime that is wrong it's the way they got caught that is the issue".

Seriously its not the same.

[St Dave]

To me Curly that point is irrelevant.

Using Dud’s example… if I use my work computer to look up porn and get caught I’m the one that’s in trouble. Who found it and how it effects them doesn’t matter

Thats not the same.

Yes because I’m communicating a concept not an example.

If the players didn’t do…
The thing they shouldn’t have done…
They wouldn’t be in trouble.

How they got sprung isn’t relevant

The way in which it was bought to light is the issue can't you see that.

That doesn't matter though.

That's like saying "its not the crime that is wrong it's the way they got caught that is the issue".

Seriously its not the same.

Given you are still yet to say that anyone did anything wrong (apart from 'i never said what they did was ok' which is straight out of the politicians weasel words handbook), and are happy to say 'The way in which it was bought to light is the issue'. I think that's pretty close to the mark.

I don't know why this popped in to my head, but you are a step away from 'and I would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for you meddling kids' like a Scooby Doo villain. Its the Scooby gang trespassing that's the issue, not the old man trying to steal jewels from the museum.

[The_Dud]

To me Curly that point is irrelevant.

Using Dud’s example… if I use my work computer to look up porn and get caught I’m the one that’s in trouble. Who found it and how it effects them doesn’t matter

Thats not the same.

Yes because I’m communicating a concept not an example.

If the players didn’t do…
The thing they shouldn’t have done…
They wouldn’t be in trouble.

How they got sprung isn’t relevant

The way in which it was bought to light is the issue can't you see that.

You have shown you actually have no idea how it came to light, so how can you criticise it?!

[CURLY]

To me Curly that point is irrelevant.

Using Dud’s example… if I use my work computer to look up porn and get caught I’m the one that’s in trouble. Who found it and how it effects them doesn’t matter

Thats not the same.

Yes because I’m communicating a concept not an example.

If the players didn’t do…
The thing they shouldn’t have done…
They wouldn’t be in trouble.

How they got sprung isn’t relevant

The way in which it was bought to light is the issue can't you see that.

You have shown you actually have no idea how it came to light, so how can you criticise it?!

Do you know how it did?

In an interview this morning a lawyer said staff members were watching the CCTV footage laughing when another colleague walked over to see what they were laughing at. They then made the complaint.

Now as you and I weren't there can we believe this bloke or not

[Yorkeys]

Haynes had charges dismissed on appeal, didn't he. Is the issue then simulating rough sex, gross stupidity and mega bad taste?
GWS players involved are clearly morons with disturbing ideas about humour and deserve the punishments. Shocking behaviour in so many respects.
Now GWS is a wholly owned subsidiary of the AFL so why isn't the AFL CEO taking heat and making public apologies about his organisations culture and likewise the GWS President, CEO; no, the buck stops with the leaders in the room at the time. The lower ranks.
Does anyone know how Dillion sets penalties or is it an unlimited discretion he has.
Ironically, AFL Secretariat profits by way of fines levied on its own subsidiary. Fines should maybe go to an NGO that delivers how to not be a depraved idiot at least in public courses and mad Monday risk awareness courses for CEOs. It's the individual boys you know, not a facilitating club/subsidiary culture.

[The G Train Legacy]

Love the culture warriors leading to the defence of unknown actions. Nothing is off limits for Curly. Or maybe something is, out of curiosity what would justify a fine or suspension Curly?

Private party, nothing illegal .. I'm with Curly

So you have no line? I assume anyone leaping to the defence of unknown actions are fine with casual racism/sexism/homophobia, but I am asking at what point are you considering sanctions appropriate? Is something to do with sexual abuse (including of minors like has already referenced here) too far?

The line is the law. Based on what I've read about the so called incident, no laws have been broken, not one.

What has been violated, is the privacy of the players involved.

Is there really an issue with Toby Green dressing up as that fraudulent grifter and cheat Raygun? Seriously!

A couple of them dressed up as the Twin Towers, so!

And a couple dressed up as men who were found not to have sexually assaulted people after having been accused of doing so.

All of the above done at a private function.

The only investigation that should be occurring is by the venue, into the employees on duty at the time. I would then expect that if they identify the intolerant little f*** who made the complaint, that that employee be sacked without hesitation.

I also would expect that the Players Association fight this with great ferocity.

Disgraceful nonsense from the AFL!

You might want to explain how casual racism, sexism and homophobia are relevant here? Or is it just your reflexive response to anything you don't like?

[The_Dud]

Glad to see some of Saintsational's pre-historic brainstrust has woken up!

Jarryd Hayne is just a poor bloke who's survived a system known for targeting rich famous sportsman... lol

Skits at work about aggressively raping some footy sl*t is fair game, as she was asking for it of course!

People need to just harden up!

[The G Train Legacy]

Glad to see some of Saintsational's pre-historic brainstrust has woken up!

Jarryd Hayne is just a poor bloke who's survived a system known for targeting rich famous sportsman... lol

Skits at work about aggressively raping some footy sl*t is fair game, as she was asking for it of course!

People need to just harden up!

Just like the consummate limited (man, woman or otherwise) you are, you launch with an insult. Pre historic? You mean a time when we knew what a woman was? Has an idea ever crossed your mind that wasn't fed to you?

Aggressively raping? I believe Haynes was acquitted.

Maybe it was a skit about the illogical foolishness of the concept "believe all women" (as if they're immuned from lying) and the perils of shagging sociopath women.

And yes, regardless off how rich, lucky or entitled you may think he is, if he did have a false allegation against him, then he is very much a poor bloke!

[amusingname]

Maybe it was a skit about the illogical foolishness of the concept "believe all women" (as if they're immuned from lying) and the perils of shagging sociopath women.

Ahh yes, I am sure it really was a nuanced performance designed to start a conversation around issues of consent.

Next week they will be taking it to the local MRA meeting, I presume you will be there.

[St Dave]

Love the culture warriors leading to the defence of unknown actions. Nothing is off limits for Curly. Or maybe something is, out of curiosity what would justify a fine or suspension Curly?

Private party, nothing illegal .. I'm with Curly

So you have no line? I assume anyone leaping to the defence of unknown actions are fine with casual racism/sexism/homophobia, but I am asking at what point are you considering sanctions appropriate? Is something to do with sexual abuse (including of minors like has already referenced here) too far?

The line is the law. Based on what I've read about the so called incident, no laws have been broken, not one.

What has been violated, is the privacy of the players involved.

Is there really an issue with Toby Green dressing up as that fraudulent grifter and cheat Raygun? Seriously!

A couple of them dressed up as the Twin Towers, so!

And a couple dressed up as men who were found not to have sexually assaulted people after having been accused of doing so.

All of the above done at a private function.

The only investigation that should be occurring is by the venue, into the employees on duty at the time. I would then expect that if they identify the intolerant little f*** who made the complaint, that that employee be sacked without hesitation.

I also would expect that the Players Association fight this with great ferocity.

Disgraceful nonsense from the AFL!

You might want to explain how casual racism, sexism and homophobia are relevant here? Or is it just your reflexive response to anything you don't like?

Thanks for being the first to finally answer my question. Your work parties must be wild if they edge up to the line of illegality before anyone faces sanctions. What are we talking? Private massages? Verbally abusing everyone with whatever you can think of? Dressing up as Hitler and doing skits about the holocaust? They must be interesting. Makes me curious as to where you work but appreciate you don't need to share that personal info.

The racism/sexism/homophobia line was more about where my line would be at work parties, if I am hitting those I would probably be sacked. I know other people's lines are different (and probably past those three of they were just reflexively defending actions they didn't know the details of at the time), so I was curious how much further those people's lines might be.

You might want to catch up on the thread/news though (I know it got a bit long going round in circles with Curly), because most of these have been addressed, but just quickly:
-Yes no laws have been broken, but no-one is being charged by the police, this is just the AFL sanctioning their employees.
-No-one is sanctioning Toby for dressing up as Raygun (interesting how you describe her though), his fine is based on being a leader of the club (and likely most senior person left at the event) and thus responsible for the actions of the people there.
-Generally people don't like seeing light made of terrorism.
-They were dressed as sportspeople who were linked to sexual violence act acted in skits involving sexual violence. And though Hayne was eventually released, he was convicted twice and as we all know sexual violence convictions are particularly difficult to stick given the he said/she said nature of them. This can be particularly true when the perpetrator has money (which I am sure is just a coincidence).
-A private function but critically a work private function.
-I don't think anyone is worried about the staff members getting in trouble, they are allowed to work in an environment free of abuse/things they might find confronting, so it would be perfectly reasonable to bring those concerns up with people involved. Where the Giants/AFL go from there is out of their hands.

We are currently at the question of 'Do you think skits about sexual assault/terrorism are appropriate at a work function? Particularly at a public venue with staff working' so appreciate your input on that one and we can go from there.

[SaintPav]

Who died?

Overcompensation can be a real biatch!

[SAINT-LEE]

Dont worry, our new vilification laws in Victoria WILL make these actions such as occurred at GWS a crime punishable by imprisonment regardless if held in private session with only one other person present.

I disagree strongly with the actions of the GWS players, its a lack of maturity. I also HATE corporations, private or public entities assuming control over private citizens.

But, I also understand Australia is NOT a democracy, not a republic. Our country was not formed "by the people, for the people" and we did not have a Bill of Inalienable Rights written into our constitution to protect citizen freedoms.

So if a private corporation ( the ones for whom our constitution WERE written to empower & protect) wish to impose sanctions based on their morals...its as good as a law being broken.

These are the facts, time to move along.

[repta]

Bad taste has become a criminal offence.

Since the season is over. Does that mean that the players suspended are out of the Brownlow?

[Dis Believer]

Bad taste has become a criminal offence.

Since the season is over. Does that mean that the players suspended are out of the Brownlow?

Brilliant summation!!!

For all the endless drivel posted in this thread, maybe someone can answer a question - the most commonly repeated word in all of this seems to be "offended".

Since when did being offended become a major crime?

[The_Dud]

Bad taste has become a criminal offence.

Since the season is over. Does that mean that the players suspended are out of the Brownlow?

Brilliant summation!!!

For all the endless drivel posted in this thread, maybe someone can answer a question - the most commonly repeated word in all of this seems to be "offended".

Since when did being offended become a major crime?

It’s not too hard to understand, don’t do a skit about raping a woman at a work function when your employer is a very publicly player in the “stop violence against women” space.

[The_Dud]

Glad to see some of Saintsational's pre-historic brainstrust has woken up!

Jarryd Hayne is just a poor bloke who's survived a system known for targeting rich famous sportsman... lol

Skits at work about aggressively raping some footy sl*t is fair game, as she was asking for it of course!

People need to just harden up!

Just like the consummate limited (man, woman or otherwise) you are, you launch with an insult. Pre historic? You mean a time when we knew what a woman was? Has an idea ever crossed your mind that wasn't fed to you?

Aggressively raping? I believe Haynes was acquitted.

Maybe it was a skit about the illogical foolishness of the concept "believe all women" (as if they're immuned from lying) and the perils of shagging sociopath women.

And yes, regardless off how rich, lucky or entitled you may think he is, if he did have a false allegation against him, then he is very much a poor bloke!

Acquitted? Was that in the first, second or third trial?

The only reason there wasn’t a fourth is because the rape victim didn’t want to go through the whole process again. Just another illustration that the legal system mostly sides with those who have the money to drag things out.

The evidence and testimonies say enough, not the lawyer spin.

[Yorkeys]

Bad taste has become a criminal offence.

Since the season is over. Does that mean that the players suspended are out of the Brownlow?

Brilliant summation!!!

For all the endless drivel posted in this thread, maybe someone can answer a question - the most commonly repeated word in all of this seems to be "offended".

Since when did being offended become a major crime?

When it causes public embarrassment to the AFL Executive. Otherwise, all good.

Now don't mention the direct harm of offensive gambling adds. Poverty is not a popular cause, no salaciousness to scandalise the custodiansof morality. AFL chooses when to be cross.

[St Dave]

Bad taste has become a criminal offence.

Since the season is over. Does that mean that the players suspended are out of the Brownlow?

Brilliant summation!!!

For all the endless drivel posted in this thread, maybe someone can answer a question - the most commonly repeated word in all of this seems to be "offended".

Since when did being offended become a major crime?

Criminal offence? Major crime? You guys are so dramatic.

[CURLY]

Glad to see some of Saintsational's pre-historic brainstrust has woken up!

Jarryd Hayne is just a poor bloke who's survived a system known for targeting rich famous sportsman... lol

Skits at work about aggressively raping some footy sl*t is fair game, as she was asking for it of course!

People need to just harden up!

Just like the consummate limited (man, woman or otherwise) you are, you launch with an insult. Pre historic? You mean a time when we knew what a woman was? Has an idea ever crossed your mind that wasn't fed to you?

Aggressively raping? I believe Haynes was acquitted.

Maybe it was a skit about the illogical foolishness of the concept "believe all women" (as if they're immuned from lying) and the perils of shagging sociopath women.

And yes, regardless off how rich, lucky or entitled you may think he is, if he did have a false allegation against him, then he is very much a poor bloke!

Acquitted? Was that in the first, second or third trial?

The only reason there wasn’t a fourth is because the rape victim didn’t want to go through the whole process again. Just another illustration that the legal system mostly sides with those who have the money to drag things out.

The evidence and testimonies say enough, not the lawyer spin.

Or the person was innocent but that doesn’t suit the agenda here.

[B.M]

How do woke wankers go watching Jimmy Carr, Bill Burr, Dave Chapelle or indeed Family Guy?!

Or any of the celebrity roasts???

Must be offended by comedy??

It’s a sad world where we can’t take a joke - at any expense

[CURLY]

How do woke wankers go watching Jimmy Carr, Bill Burr, Dave Chapelle or indeed Family Guy?!

Or any of the celebrity roasts???

Must be offended by comedy??

It’s a sad world where we can’t take a joke - at any expense

Watch music videos allow video games watch basically any movie.

[Sainter_Dad]

How do woke wankers go watching Jimmy Carr, Bill Burr, Dave Chapelle or indeed Family Guy?!

Or any of the celebrity roasts???

Must be offended by comedy??

It’s a sad world where we can’t take a joke - at any expense

Watch music videos allow video games watch basically any movie.

They pay for the privilege or chose the channel - the bar staff did not elect to indulge in what went on.

Remember - we are governed by what is found offensive - not the intent

What comes out of my mouth may not necessarily be what goes in your ears.

[B.M]

The bar staff was there to do a job

No make judgement on what was happening

Unless they were forced to participate in the frivolities