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

[Carringbush2010]

Nup- don’t think I did say that- I’m saying the law and the vast majority of people in our society, as evidenced by their behaviour, for the great majority of the time, buy into a pretty common and accepted version of what is reasonable. And I’m quite happy with that.

Ok then, given I've provided what is a pretty liberal value (the right to do privately that doesn't offend anyone in that intended private setting).

Please explain what the majority view as 'reasonable'. Not what msm tells you what is popular belief.

To be clear.

I'm not defending their actions, I'm defending their right to privacy. So that means if staff member is offended then that should not override the customers right to their privacy.

I think that's fair enough, if the intent is for their edgy wacky Wednesday to be NOT public they should be allowed that.

To oppose that is not at all liberal.

 

[Romeoh1]

Ok then, given I've provided what is a pretty liberal value (the right to do privately that doesn't offend anyone in that intended private setting).

Please explain what the majority view as 'reasonable'. Not what msm tells you what is popular belief.

To be clear.

I'm not defending their actions, I'm defending their right to privacy. So that means if staff member is offended then that should not override the customers right to their privacy.

I think that's fair enough, if the intent is for their edgy wacky Wednesday to be NOT public they should be allowed that.

To oppose that is not at all liberal.

I’d hope and do believe that the majority of people would find jokes about sexual assault unfunny, or offensive, or unacceptable. Whilst context can matter, I’m assuming the afl have investigated and found that in this situation, it didn’t make the skit ‘acceptable.’
You seem focussed on privacy/snitching issues more than certain behaviour. And it’s just naive to say this was a purely private event - there must have been several people working there that night and I’ve no doubt things were shared on social media.
Are you a parent? And whether it was private or not, would you be ok with your son making jokes about sexual assault? Isn’t that the bigger picture here?
And that’ll do me for now-thank you for the chat.

 

[treeebeard]

Lol, you went from

People who want to clamp down on freedom of expression, freedom of speech, disgust me.

To

It depends, if it mocks the accuser, mocks the act, then I see no harm. If I thought it was distasteful. Remember, they never committed the acts. Do you get offended when these issues are depicted in movies?

Is it best that these issues are never spoken about again, brushed under the rug?

In the space of minutes.

 

[StillAtLarge]

83 pages! Christ on a bike

 

[Kennedy84]

Happy for them to take a whack ( sexual assault isn’t funny according to most reasonable people?) but yep, maybe the consequences could have been lighter. But are they that harsh anyway? It’s not that tough to miss a couple of games or get a 50

Lol, you went from


To


In the space of minute.

I was asked if I found sexual assualt jokes funny....my response, it depends. You need to look for nuance, I can find something distasteful, but still defend their right to do it.

 

[iameviljez]

Which is impossible to avoid, especially being a high profile bunch of footballers.

Yet, staff (read the public) will still take offence to things going on at said hens / bucks night.

There's a reason why those players wanted their event 'private', but the dumb asses didn't count on the 'public' (read the staff) being there taking offence. So what's the point of having a 'private' function if it is not permitted to be 'private'?

So wacky Wednesday WILL offend someone in the 'public', so best not have one.

You’re catastrophising.

17 clubs have had Whacky Wednesday this year without issue.

Hundreds of bucks and hens go on every week in Australia without issue.

The point of a private function is that you get to celebrate with your mates and not randos. Normal for every staff end of year party.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I’d hope and do believe that the majority of people would find jokes about sexual assault unfunny, or offensive, or unacceptable.

Of course, that shouldn't equate to a paid employee at that function being allowed to publicize a private function. After all the event was INTENDED to be NOT PUBLIC - for obvious reasons.

You seem focussed on privacy/snitching issues more than certain behaviour.

More focused that if a group pays for a private function they should be allowed that right for it to be private, that's what they paid for but didn't get it.

A paid employee might not like the event but that shouldn't give them right to out them because they don't like it, I don't like everything my employer 'allows', shouldn't give me the right to out the company because I disagree with some of their 'values'

And it’s just naive to say this was a purely private event - there must have been several people working there that night and I’ve no doubt things were shared on social media.

Then you haven't being reading my posts, on several occasions I've conceded that 'private' is impossible, and because of that impossibility that then takes away one's right to privacy.

Not at all liberal.

And whether it was private or not, would you be ok with your son making jokes about sexual assault? Isn’t that the bigger picture here?

Just because those players agreed on what they were going to do, locker room stuff among each other, which seemingly none of the players had an issue with, doesn't equate they're going to make sexual jokes to their kids, or give their kids the impression that it's ok, highly unlikely.

I think you see msm and what it reports or opines and believes that Jan and Joe public agree with what is likely not popular belief.

Thanks for the chat.

 

[Carringbush2010]

You’re catastrophising.

17 clubs have had Whacky Wednesday this year without issue.

Hundreds of bucks and hens go on every week in Australia without issue.

The point of a private function is that you get to celebrate with your mates and not randos. Normal for every staff end of year party.

'Catastrophising' lol.

You're not getting the point.

To be clear.

I'm not defending their actions, I'm defending their right to privacy. So that means if staff member is offended then that should not override the customers right to their privacy.

Because they paid for the event to be PRIVATE and NOT BE PUBLIC.

I'll add, I also agree that the players should've given the establishment knowledge of what they did BEFORE doing what they did.

Then, the staff can request it not go ahead, and then the players would've been told yes or no at the establishments discretion.

If the establishment then allows the group their proposed following actions then the establishment should allow staff member the choice to work the shift or not.

This is what I believe should've happened, couldn't be any fairer and equal.

Instead we've got an embarrassed and hypocritical AFL, with very harsh penalties on players, an employee that is likely very unpopular with their employer, if they're still an employee.

All could've been avoided if.

-The event isn't held at all (which is what should've been IMO)
-The establishment and it's employees accepts that the event is intended to not be public and accept not to make it public given that was the wish of the customer, regardless of how offensive they may find the event.

 

[H00t]

'Catastrophising' lol.

You're not getting the point.

To be clear.

I'm not defending their actions, I'm defending their right to privacy. So that means if staff member is offended then that should not override the customers right to their privacy.

Because they paid for the event to be PRIVATE and NOT BE PUBLIC.

I'll add, I also agree that the players should've given the establishment knowledge of what they did BEFORE doing what they did.

Then, the staff can request it not go ahead, and then the players would've been told yes or no at the establishments discretion.

If the establishment then allows the group their proposed following actions then the establishment should allow staff member the choice to work the shift or not.

This is what I believe should've happened, couldn't be any fairer and equal.

Instead we've got an embarrassed and hypocritical AFL, with very harsh penalties on players, an employee that is likely very unpopular with their employer, if they're still an employee.

All could've been avoided if.

-The event isn't held at all (which is what should've been IMO)
-The establishment and it's employees accepts that the event is intended to not be public and accept not to make it public given that was the wish of the customer, regardless of how offensive they may find the event.

You seriously expect the list of every joke and action given to the establishment before the night. Ignoring that a lot of costumes would have been planned after the event was booked.

Plus you expect AFL footballers to stay on script?

If they did we end back up in the exact same situation that we are in now.

You seem much more concerned about bad behaviour being called out than the bad behaviour itself.

 

[Bluelegs]

83 pages! Christ on a bike

And still no leaked footage or pics to speak of

 

[iameviljez]

I'm not defending their actions, I'm defending their right to privacy. So that means if staff member is offended then that should not override the customers right to their privacy.

Because they paid for the event to be PRIVATE and NOT BE PUBLIC.

I accept that you're not defending their actions, but they paid for a private event, not a secret one. Pubs and restaurants usually only charge a minimum spend for private events, so that the cost of not being able to sell those seats to the general public isn't foregone. It's not NDA level money.

I should point out, the staff didn't make the behaviour public - either GWS or the AFL did. All the staff/venue did was lodge a complaint with the club so far as I know, which is their right.

All could've been avoided if.

-The event isn't held at all (which is what should've been IMO)
-The establishment and it's employees accepts that the event is intended to not be public and accept not to make it public given that was the wish of the customer, regardless of how offensive they may find the event.

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.

 

[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.