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

[iameviljez]

I don't accept that because if you're going to take a commercial stance over ethics you have to apply it across the board not pick and choose when to do it which us what they've done.

They also won't own it and be honest about why they are applying the penalties. The CEO of the afl who is ex ex lawyer no less is standing there blatantly pretending the afl cares about women's rights or domestic violence etc when the afl couldn't care less about it (their approach to gambling shows it).

If anything I'm most annoyed at the journalists. When he started spouting this they should have interrupted him, pointed out the gambling issue and asked him why the afl is being hypocritical. And when he refused to answer it properly (which is likely) the journalists should have all walked out of the press conference and refused to their editors to cover the story. Sure the afl probably would have put a spin press conference on their website anyway but at least the journalists wouldn't be condoning such lies and spin and they would be forcing the afl to own their own falsehood.

Unfortunately most people don't know how to critically think and base their views on how the media frames stories to them so this matters. As a society we need to demand a hell of a lot better from both our sporting bodies like the afl and the media. It's obvious why society has such a problem dealing with these issues when it doesn't stand up for ethics.

Completely agree with you, the AFL is happy to dish out ridiculous fines to players who did nothing but takes SportsBet's filthy lucre as fast as they can shit it into their bank accounts.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

I mean, there is a third option (don't have rape skits), but yes, if they had gone for an exclusive location which does handle secrecy and discretion a little more willingly - perhaps a nightclub comes to mind - they would have done a lot better.

You have to ask yourself, why would secrecy and discretion be required, if it’s all just a bit of harmless fun?

 

[Carringbush2010]

but they paid for a private event, not a secret one.

Semantics, point being, obviously that group did not want this to be public.

If you pay for a function to be private or secret, then that should be your right.

All the staff/venue did was lodge a complaint with the club so far as I know, which is their right.

Like I said, IF the staff / venue were not accepting of the actions / costumes then it's their right to deny it in the first place. Instead of making a complaint and by extension the situation escalating further.

if they had gone for an exclusive location which does handle secrecy and discretion a little more willingly - perhaps a nightclub comes to mind - they would have done a lot better.

Like I've repeatedly said, a group with such high profile it's almost impossible to have a totally exclusive location. A nightclub is not one of them.

 

[iameviljez]

You have to ask yourself, why would secrecy and discretion be required, if it’s all just a bit of harmless fun?

I agree.

I think some of it has to do with being a young man in a herd full of, exclusively, young men. I was nothing like this - I am pretty sure I would have found skit abhorrent - but it wasn't until I realised that some of my female friends had been r*ped, or molested, and carried that with them, that I seriously looked again at the world around me and how it dismissed these people.

 

[iameviljez]

Semantics, point being, obviously that group did not want this to be public.

If you pay for a function to be private or secret, then that should be your right.

Private function does not mean secret function, in the same sense as private sector, public-private partnership, private investigator, etc., don't mean secret.

Doesn't matter than they didn't want it to go public. You don't want it to go public, then you have to remember that waitstaff are people too.

 

[Carringbush2010]

You have to ask yourself, why would secrecy and discretion be required, if it’s all just a bit of harmless fun?

Problem is that some view it as not harmless fun, which it isn't.

It is ONLY harmless when those involved view it as harmless, which seemingly the players did, so the issue is the inability to have it not public, which at a pub, even being 'private function' is not possible.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

I agree.

I think some of it has to do with being a young man in a herd full of, exclusively, young men. I was nothing like this - I am pretty sure I would have found skit abhorrent - but it wasn't until I realised that some of my female friends had been r*ped, or molested, and carried that with them, that I seriously looked again at the world around me and how it dismissed these people.

It’s when a group of young men get together, all trying to impress/outdo each other, that boundaries are crossed that each of them wouldn’t cross if they were alone.

 

[EagleShore]

You have to ask yourself, why would secrecy and discretion be required, if it’s all just a bit of harmless fun?

You sound like those people who have such a superficial comprehension of all the possible problems associated with ubiquitous surveillance and lack of privacy...

"I have nothing to hide, so I don't care if the government or people in the public know all my business".

Would you be happy for there to be cameras on you at every event in your life, including inside your own house? What about access to all your private details like passport number, photos, address, phone number, bank details etc.?

You have nothing to hide, so why the need for privacy?

**** there are some stupid, poorly thought out opinions flying around in here.

If the GWS players contravened specific clauses in either (A) their player contracts, and/or; (B) the terms and conditions of the venue upon booking the event, then yes, they deserve some kind of reprimand.

Other than that, the snitch, the club, and the AFL have overstepped here. And even if they did contravene such clauses in the aforementioned contracts/T+C, the punishments are completely out of proportion to the alleged "offences".

I mean, 9/11 skits...for ****'s sake. Are we serious about living in a free society here or not? The rape skit, yeah I can kind of see how some people may be triggered by that, but it was not their event (the snitch/employee or whoever had a ****en problem with it), so **** off with your faux offence.

 

[Carringbush2010]

then you have to remember that waitstaff are people too.

Of course they are, that shouldn't allow them to out a private function so the public can see it.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

83 pages! Christ on a bike

And for a Giants thread!!

They're gonna have to do this sort of shit more often. At least BigFooty knows they exist now.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Problem is that some view it as not harmless fun, which it isn't.

It is ONLY harmless when those involved view it as harmless, which seemingly the players did, so the issue is the inability to have it not public, which at a pub, even being 'private function' is not possible.

Yeah, I'm probably not leaving it up to the judgement of a group of boozed-up blokes to judge what is and what's not harmless.

 

[Frank Bunn]

We’re on shaky ground if we’re saying depictions of sexual assault are ok IF the level of ‘artistry and sensitivity’ is considered to have a met some sort of arbitrarily defined benchmark.

I'm asking you. Do you think making a joke out of sexual assault is funny?

Which sexual assaults are we talking about?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Yeah, I'm probably not leaving it up to the judgement of a group of boozed-up blokes to judge what is and what's not harmless.

If it's between themselves and no one else, and they all agree to themselves that it is not harmless to themselves, then it is not harmless because no one else is involved.

 

[iameviljez]

Of course they are, that shouldn't them allow them to out a private function so the public can see it.

Look, clearly we don't have an accord on what a 'private function' actually means here.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Look, clearly we don't have an accord on what a 'private function' actually means here.

Maybe google private.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

If it's between themselves and no one else, and they all agree to themselves that it is not harmless, then it is not harmless because no one else is involved.

Mate, you're a great poster and a sound thinker. Surely you've thought about this a bit deeper than that. There's a line that can be crossed, even amongst a private room full of people who appear to be in unison. Full agreement on harmlessness shouldn't come with an "anything goes" clause.

I've been in a room of blokes when I was younger full of perceived harmless fun, which with the hindsight of 30+ years later was actually attempted rape. And there's a whole lot of jail cells full of creeps who thought that sharing torture pr0n or kiddie pr0n amongst likeminded souls was harmless.

For the record, I'm not offended by anything that went on in that Giants room. Why should I be? I wasn't the butt of their skits and as a result I've no real right to feel aggrieved or reviled. It obviously wasn't kiddie pr0n on their big private screens, but I'd be a pretty shallow thinker if I didn't recognise that others still might feel humiliated by the Giants stuff.

At the very least, these young blokes were extremely ignorant, and it looks like they are now paying the price for their stupidity.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Mate, you're a great poster and a sound thinker. Surely you've thought about this a bit deeper than that. There's a line that can be crossed, even amongst a private room full of people who appear to be in unison.

I've been in a room of blokes when I was younger full of perceived harmless fun, which with the hindsight of 30+ years later was actually attempted rape. And there's a whole lot of jail cells full of creeps who thought that sharing torture pr0n or kiddie pr0n amongst likeminded souls was harmless.

For the record, I'm not offended by anything that went on in that Giants room. Why should I be? I wasn't the butt of their skits and as a result I've no real right to feel aggrieved or reviled. It obviously wasn't kiddie pr0n on their big private screens, but I'd be a pretty shallow thinker if I didn't recognise that others still might feel humiliated by the Giants stuff.

At the very least, these young blokes were extremely ignorant, and it looks like they are now paying the price for their stupidity.

As I've stated on several occasions, I'm not defending their actions, I'm defending their right to privacy and that would entail the staff that worked there to accept that on their employers directive if that was the case.

We don't know if that was the case, but it should've been.

The idea of it not being public, which one would fairly assume would've been the intent, then that wish for it not to be public should've been upheld.

At the very least, these young blokes were extremely ignorant, and it looks like they are now paying the price for their stupidity.

All of which could've been avoided if the paid for privacy was provided.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

As I've stated on several occasions, I'm not defending their actions, I'm defending their right to privacy and that would entail the staff that worked there to accept that on their employers directive if that was the case.

We don't know if that was the case, but it should've been.

The idea of it not being public, which one would fairly assume would've been the intent, then that wish for it not to be public should've been upheld.

At the very least, these young blokes were extremely ignorant, and it looks like they are now paying the price for their stupidity.

All of which could've been avoided if the paid for privacy was provided.

Private or secret, doesn’t make it any better, which is the point. If they don’t want anyone to know about it, they kinda know it’s not something to be proud of.

 

[iameviljez]

Maybe google private.

There’s more than one definition.

belonging to or for the use of one particular person or group of people only.
"all bedrooms have private facilities"

And then there's the one about secrecy (i.e. private information).

 

[Ghost Patrol]

As I've stated on several occasions, I'm not defending their actions, I'm defending their right to privacy and that would entail the staff that worked there to accept that on their employers directive if that was the case.

We don't know if that was the case, but it should've been.

The idea of it not being public, which one would fairly assume would've been the intent, then that wish for it not to be public should've been upheld.

At the very least, these young blokes were extremely ignorant, and it looks like they are now paying the price for their stupidity.

All of which could've been avoided if the paid for privacy was provided.

You drive a private vehicle, but people can still look through the windows.

VicRoads has a lot to answer for.

 

[iameviljez]

About 20 years ago a bunch of guys did a jackson five impersonation on hhis red faces . Harry connick jnr almost caused the show to close down as he was offended as a judge

The kicker was that the guys were indian med students

Mate, they basically dunked their heads in boot polish and put on afro wigs. It was a straight up minstrel show, and whether the singer was Indian or not (FWIW, not all of the group was) doesn't matter, because the act was so far gone.

They weren't students, either. They'd done the same act on the show 20 years prior and were invited back for the reunion.

For what it's worth, though, I remember at the time (I was a Uni student) thinking that Connick Jr was over the top - that he was being a bit too uptight, and a bit too 'woke' (for want of that particular word in the 2000s). I look back at it now, and think that Connick Jr was absolutely right, and we had a long way to go in race relations in this country.

 

[gambinotosserflog]

Mate, they basically dunked their heads in boot polish and put on afro wigs. It was a straight up minstrel show, and whether the singer was Indian or not (FWIW, not all of the group was) doesn't matter, because the act was so far gone.

They weren't students, either. They'd done the same act on the show 20 years prior and were invited back for the reunion.

For what it's worth, though, I remember at the time (I was a Uni student) thinking that Connick Jr was over the top - that he was being a bit too uptight, and a bit too 'woke' (for want of that particular word in the 2000s). I look back at it now, and think that Connick Jr was absolutely right, and we had a long way to go in race relations in this country.

HCJ is from North America, so they view everything through the prism of race given their history. It's their first response to any situation where race is clearly different, to imput some sort of racism or discrimination or whatnot. Our social context here is no where near as racially charged. Look at that dingbat Eric Andre (comedian) who tried to play the race card coming through Australian customs. It's their first reaction to anything - make it about racism.

 

[iameviljez]

HCJ is from North America, so they view everything through the prism of race given their history. It's their first response to any situation where race is clearly different, to imput some sort of racism or discrimination or whatnot. Our social context here is no where near as racially charged

I certainly agree that the US environment is much more racially charged, as HCJ pointed out, if you tried that skit in the US you'd have been off the air by the next commercial break.

 

[Satan]

I certainly agree that the US environment is much more racially charged, as HCJ pointed out, if you tried that skit in the US you'd have been off the air by the next commercial break.

Quicker than doug mulray

For you russian bots

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/flashback/crude-clip-that-saw-doug-mulray-tv-show-famously-yanked-off-air-by-nine-boss-kerry-packer/news-story/ce3a5fdb3090a91c5df14386e1d13b96?amp

 

[treeebeard]

As I've stated on several occasions, I'm not defending their actions, I'm defending their right to privacy and that would entail the staff that worked there to accept that on their employers directive if that was the case.

We don't know if that was the case, but it should've been.

The idea of it not being public, which one would fairly assume would've been the intent, then that wish for it not to be public should've been upheld.

At the very least, these young blokes were extremely ignorant, and it looks like they are now paying the price for their stupidity.

All of which could've been avoided if the paid for privacy was provided.

You sound like youre expecting that staff should have signed NDAs before the event. If a worker feels unsafe at any stage before, during or after an event at their workplace, they are well within their rights to report it. Good on them for having the courage to speak out. If you want your actions to remain private, do them at home, not at a pub. Which is short for public house btw