Rumour Multiple GWS players are set to be suspended to start the 2025 season after distasteful costumes and skits from their post-season function

[Muddiemoose]

if its consistent than yes, You dont think there would be any simulated sex acts from the gay community during or after mardi Gras? Lets fine everyone involved in that event including PM's, CEO's etc for not stopping it.

I mean if someone on the premises wanted to complain they would have every right to lodge one

Just like in this particular instance

 

[Ghost Patrol]

I don't agree with the fines, so everyone else should be fined!
-Anonymous user, Police State.

 

[SC_Power]

Um, I'm pretty a couple of them did

Ah yes, maybe that explains the Hinkley fine.

 

[SC_Power]

I don't agree with the fines, so everyone else should be fined!
-Anonymous user, Police State.

What an odd take.
This is about the AFL, a private organisation, not the government.
If anything, you making the comment trying to discredit opposition is reminiscent of a police state / AFL apologist.

 

[Bluelegs]

Ah yes, maybe that explains the Hinkley fine.

It's never okay for a coach to threaten to '9/11' a player.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

What an odd take.
This is about the AFL, a private organisation, not the government.
If anything, you making the comment trying to discredit opposition is reminiscent of a police state / AFL apologist.

Dude, people are saying they want to fine Mardi Gras because GWS players did some dodgy stuff.

But my comment is reminiscent of a police state?

 

[SC_Power]

Dude, people are saying they want to fine Mardi Gras because GWS players did some dodgy stuff.

But my comment is reminiscent of a police state?

I’ll make comment of their comments when I want to.
Just like everyone make comments about mine when they want to.

As an aside, I wonder how the employees of BF feel about comments like the ridiculous Mardi Gras ones.
They might send them to the AFL, who can suspend football supporter accounts for not meeting their standards.

 

[Bostonian]

Doesn't sound like a private function then does it, genius?

Yes it does.

They didn't see it first hand because they weren't invited to the private function.

You would have thought your big brain could work that one out.

 

[Chief]

Yes it does.

They didn't see it first hand because they weren't invited to the private function.

You would have thought your big brain could work that one out.

If people who weren't invited saw it, it sounds like it wasn't private.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

I’ll make comment of their comments when I want to.
Just like everyone make comments about mine when they want to.

As an aside, I wonder how the employees of BF feel about comments like the ridiculous Mardi Gras ones.
They might send them to the AFL, who can suspend football supporter accounts for not meeting their standards.

You realise that BF has terms and conditions that you have agreed to, and users do get suspended for breaking those terms and conditions, yeah?

 

[Bostonian]

If people who weren't invited saw it, it sounds like it wasn't private.

That's only due to very poor security procedures by the venue.

Doesn't mean it wasn't a private function.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

Where would this fit in with the right to disconnect laws also?

Entire point of the laws is you are not available 24 hours a day to a company. This seems to me like AFL are saying the players work 24 hours a day for them and therefore can be punished outside of working hours?

Not much of a right to disconnect huh

 

[treeebeard]

That's only due to very poor security procedures by the venue.

Doesn't mean it wasn't a private function.

Irrelevant if it is private. You do dumb shit and get caught, you wear the penalty that the relevant authoritie give you. Just like P Diddy and Epestein.

 

[treeebeard]

Where would this fit in with the right to disconnect laws also?

Entire point of the laws is you are not available 24 hours a day to a company. This seems to me like AFL are saying the players work 24 hours a day for them and therefore can be punished outside of working hours?

Not much of a right to disconnect huh

I'm sure the AFLPA and club legal counsel are all over it. I presume the event was not compulsory attendance though.

 

[SC_Power]

You realise that BF has terms and conditions that you have agreed to, and users do get suspended for breaking those terms and conditions, yeah?

Of course, but I’m talking about the employees.

 

[Bostonian]

Irrelevant if it is private. You do dumb shit and get caught, you wear the penalty that the relevant authoritie give you. Just like P Diddy and Epestein.

Well it is relevant.

Hopefully the business bottom line suffers due to their dickhead employee and they get fired for it.

Teach them to have far more secure systems in place when it comes to how they protect their client's privacy when no crime has been committed.

 

[BF Tiger]

What's the penalty for Eric Bana?

 

[Bostonian]

It's a private forum.

Very public actually.

You don't even have to sign up to see you at work.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

Serious question here, but should Geeling players not be punished post incident for what they did? Im not sure why time means they get off the crime they committed?

 

[Underarm]

Where would this fit in with the right to disconnect laws also?

Entire point of the laws is you are not available 24 hours a day to a company. This seems to me like AFL are saying the players work 24 hours a day for them and therefore can be punished outside of working hours?

Not much of a right to disconnect huh

It was a work function. Paid for by the club and attendance was optional, let alone the offensive material.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Very public actually.

You don't even have to sign up to see you at work.

No, scroll down. There is a Privacy policy.

 

[treeebeard]

Well it is relevant.

Hopefully the business bottom line suffers due to their dickhead employee and they get fired for it.

Teach them to have far more secure systems in place when it comes to how they protect their client's privacy when no crime has been committed.

People have a right to a workplace they feel safe in. D...head footy players shouldn't have been re-enacting trauma inducing events in front of staff. And if they get caught out, suck it up and take the penalty of the relevant authority, just like everyone else in the world.

 

[Bostonian]

People have a right to a workplace they feel safe in. D...head footy players shouldn't have been re-enacting trauma inducing events in front of staff. And if they get caught out, suck it up and take the penalty of the relevant authority, just like everyone else in the world.

Oh please.

This trauma inducing garbage is such nonsense.

Nobody is under any obligation to consider your feelings.

It's the most ludicrous thing to suggest people can't do things because someone might get upset about it.

Especially when you take that mindset and apply it to every single person and every single situation people encounter.

 

[iameviljez]

It was a work function. Paid for by the club and attendance was optional, let alone the offensive material.

It wouldn’t matter anyway. Right to disconnect covers obligation to work, not bringing your employer into disrepute.

 

[Underarm]

Oh please.

This trauma inducing garbage is such nonsense.

Nobody is under any obligation to consider your feelings.

It's the most ludicrous thing to suggest people can't do things because someone might get upset about it.

Especially when you take that mindset and apply it to every single person and every single situation people encounter.

Isn't this just an argument a rapist would make when someone doesn't consent?