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

[Frank Bunn]

A time and place to joke about a terrorist bombing a tower?? Can’t imagine this great timing for it. Some things just aren’t appropriate for humor due to the sick nature of it. You can try all you want, but you will probably be that weirdo or loser people look down on. Each to their own.

Each to their own indeed. No one is forced to go to a Jimmy Carr, Isaac Butterfield or Bill Burr gig where they tell jokes that some people might find offensive.

This was a private party where a bunch of mates did some silly stuff. In the context of the theme of 'troublesome couples' dressing as the twin towers was pretty funny. They didn't do anything that the venue felt the need to kick them out for or involve the police.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Why do you keep saying "terrorist attack"?

Because that’s what it was

 

[Mudman85]

I wonder how many bucks / hens nights - featuring strippers, topless waitresses and whatever else might go on - have been held as "private functions" at any number of these businesses, quite possibly including this very same one. They very often rent out "private rooms" for "private functions" and stick a "closed due to private function" sign outside the door to warn off uninvited guests. Hell, I've attended a bucks night or two in "private function rooms" at pubs myself in my younger days.

They also hire out to swingers groups and the like. If the cctv of that got out people would be going after the pub like you wouldn't believe over privacy.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Each to their own indeed. No one is forced to go to a Jimmy Carr, Isaac Butterfield or Bill Burr gig where they tell jokes that some people might find offensive.

This was a private party where a bunch of mates did some silly stuff. In the context of the theme of 'troublesome couples' dressing as the twin towers was pretty funny. They didn't do anything that the venue felt the need to kick them out for or involve the police.

May be my American patriotism kicking in then. I don’t believe in the whole kicking out or punishment etc nonsense, I just think your a disgrace and a tosser… but at the same time if people want to be losers and be socially ousted that is their independence and choice to do so. We don’t need penalties handed down

 

[Mudman85]

This is what I have got so far:

Dressing up as twin towers = 2 week ban
Bringing convicted murderer into rooms = stern talking too
Homophobic slur = 5 week ban
Slavery = fine
Tackle = 3 weeks

AFLW = life ban

 

[FlowersByIrene]

I think you can separate the stuff about Jarryd Hayne and r*pe from everything else. While I don't think people should be punished for conduct occured in private (which for those saying "iTs nOt PrIvAte" - it is for all intents and purposes) that sort of humour is unbecoming to colleagues, particularly female colleagues, who may not understand that the joke is in no way endorsing or minimising the victim and I certainly wouldn't engage in that sort of conduct in a workplace setting or any setting with women involved, whether directly or indirectly. They shouldn't be suspended or fined over it, but an apology should have been sought.

In respect of the other stuff, the two towers, Conor Idun (a black man) portraying a slave from a film, raygun etc? This should not offend anyone, is no one else's business and the fact there are suspensions and fines in respect of this conduct is completely insane. If they had of just punished the Haye / r*pe stuff, that could have been one conversation, but the fact they're suspending and fining people for 9/11 jokes is actual "thought crime" crap and an exact example of the woke left gone mad.

 

[Zacs_Magic_Tooth]

I think some of the people covering the story are being very loose with the term “private”.

Now I’m no fancy big-city lawyer but I think that an event held on the premises of another business, under the auspices of their liquor license, insurance, policies etc as well as some interactions with their staff (whether that is management, bar staff, security, cleaners, caterers etc) who are entitled to certain degrees of workplace safety, can’t really been seen as a truly “private” event.

There’s certainly an expectation that in the setting they’d paid for the response isn’t for staff to wait until after the event, check cctv and go to the media. The expectation is that they’d warn the party to stop or kick them out.

 

[tdyen]

I think the AFL are worried about being sued by someone. I mean it was a private function but a "team" related event so potentially someone could/would have got offended and sued the AFL or GWS whichever was the easier target. Money is all the AFL really cares about and has for the last few decades.

Any bad taste comedy will just be outlawed, you have to do this sort of comedy get together on somebodies farm out in woop woop without any cameras present. Leave your phone at the door fellas. Just like Prince Harry going to a party as Hitler, like who really gives two hoots but its just the optics and the potential monetary damage.

 

[Tonythetiger]

A time and place to joke about a terrorist bombing a tower?? Can’t imagine this great timing for it. Some things just aren’t appropriate for humor due to the sick nature of it. You can try all you want, but you will probably be that weirdo or loser people look down on. Each to their own.

With controversial topics, there's always going to be a portion of the population that find them abhorrent and another that enjoys that. It's not to say that enjoying an off colour joke equates to condoning or applauding an action. Jimmy Carr did a bit once talking about how you can joke about anything, but you can't make jokes to anyone. Exactly what that earlier post made about a time and a place. You wouldn't go to a Jimmy Carr show without understanding that part of his act is to joke about the absolutely worst things.

In terms of this debacle, the Giants are at fault for not considering the venue staff and members of the public they may interact with so I totally get it and think the AFL have made the right call. If it was truly a private event and they ran it by all the bar staff to say "Hey we are encouraging the guys to go as edgy as they can think of, if your staff are uncomfortable with this then it's probably not going to work having the event here." Like anything, could have been handled a lot better.

It's so overblown when one side is like "You can't joke about anything anymore!" When the reality is that a lot of the Giants players saw it as a bit of fun and were not intending to truly upset anyone or condone these acts. You just can't do really controversial things and expect that everyone will go along with it.

 

[Corn Cobbers]

There’s certainly an expectation that in the setting they’d paid for the response isn’t for staff to wait until after the event, check cctv and go to the media. The expectation is that they’d warn the party to stop or kick them out.

It's a disgraceful ratting out, venue should be ratted out too

 

[Mudman85]

The overwhelming support in favor of the players is heart warming. Finally starting to see some push back from the majority. I hope people vote with their feet and hit the afl where it hurts. Fan boycott of round 1 would be a lot more $$$$ than the fines issued out. Where does that money go anyway? To the loudest complaining community group who were offended?

 

[Hollow Knight]

There’s certainly an expectation that in the setting they’d paid for the response isn’t for staff to wait until after the event, check cctv and go to the media. The expectation is that they’d warn the party to stop or kick them out.

A lot of assumptions there. What if the CCTV checking was in response to investigating a complaint made by an employee? They have legal obligations to their own employees that supercedes more informal ethical concepts such as "don't be a nark."

 

[Bunk Moreland]

I think you can separate the stuff about Jarryd Hayne and r*pe from everything else. While I don't think people should be punished for conduct occured in private (which for those saying "iTs nOt PrIvAte" - it is for all intents and purposes) that sort of humour is unbecoming to colleagues, particularly female colleagues, who may not understand that the joke is in no way endorsing or minimising the victim and I certainly wouldn't engage in that sort of conduct in a workplace setting or any setting with women involved, whether directly or indirectly. They shouldn't be suspended or fined over it, but an apology should have been sought.

In respect of the other stuff, the two towers, Conor Idun (a black man) portraying a slave from a film, raygun etc? This should not offend anyone, is no one else's business and the fact there are suspensions and fines in respect of this conduct is completely insane. If they had of just punished the Haye / r*pe stuff, that could have been one conversation, but the fact they're suspending and fining people for 9/11 jokes is actual "thought crime" crap and an exact example of the woke left gone mad.

If it was private you wouldn’t know about it.

It was, by definition, not private.

 

[mad-saint-guy]

Have no issue with the AFL coming down and the punishments here. In the same boat as many others here and if I did this myself at any form of work event, I’d be out the door instantly.

Whoever thought those scenarios and dress ups are funny I think need to reconsider their values.

Sexual assault, abuse and 9/11 aren’t some dress up joke and make fun of thing.

Ever been to a comedy show?

 

[geelong_crazy26]

With controversial topics, there's always going to be a portion of the population that find them abhorrent and another that enjoys that. It's not to say that enjoying an off colour joke equates to condoning or applauding an action. Jimmy Carr did a bit once talking about how you can joke about anything, but you can't make jokes to anyone. Exactly what that earlier post made about a time and a place. You wouldn't go to a Jimmy Carr show without understanding that part of his act is to joke about the absolutely worst things.

In terms of this debacle, the Giants are at fault for not considering the venue staff and members of the public they may interact with so I totally get it and think the AFL have made the right call. If it was truly a private event and they ran it by all the bar staff to say "Hey we are encouraging the guys to go as edgy as they can think of, if your staff are uncomfortable with this then it's probably not going to work having the event here." Like anything, could have been handled a lot better.

It's so overblown when one side is like "You can't joke about anything anymore!" When the reality is that a lot of the Giants players saw it as a bit of fun and were not intending to truly upset anyone or condone these acts. You just can't do really controversial things and expect that everyone will go along with it.

Tbh I’m not the type who runs around giving bans or punishing people, I’m all about independence of thought and expression. But I will simply think you are a loser and have my own judgment of you as anyone does. Terrorism for me is off the table with the twin towers or hammas killing the babies. No go for me

 

[greatwhiteshark]

The overwhelming support in favor of the players is heart warming. Finally starting to see some push back from the majority. I hope people vote with their feet and hit the afl where it hurts. Fan boycott of round 1 would be a lot more $$$$ than the fines issued out. Where does that money go anyway? To the loudest complaining community group who were offended?

No one ever does this. They believe their club needs them. They could change to a round ball and they would still all turn up. My club needs me. lol

 

[Jarman3]

The overwhelming support in favor of the players is heart warming. Finally starting to see some push back from the majority. I hope people vote with their feet and hit the afl where it hurts. Fan boycott of round 1 would be a lot more $$$$ than the fines issued out. Where does that money go anyway? To the loudest complaining community group who were offended?

The inflatable doll community thanks you for your support.

 

[Hollow Knight]

The overwhelming support in favor of the players is heart warming. Finally starting to see some push back from the majority. I hope people vote with their feet and hit the afl where it hurts. Fan boycott of round 1 would be a lot more $$$$ than the fines issued out. Where does that money go anyway? To the loudest complaining community group who were offended?

Or is it possible, like all of us, that your social media algorithms are having an echo chamber effect? I am seeing a lot of criticism of the players in addition to the posts of support.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

If it was private you wouldn’t know about it.

It was, by definition, not private.

Your logic (which understandably falters, given your opinons on this matter indicate you lack it) is backwards. By your definition of - the conduct was viewed, therefore it is not private, a peeping tom looking through the window at your bedroom antics would be "not private" because he "knew about it", the peeping tom observed you and by your definition what you were doing is therefore not private. Can you see the issue with that?

On the contrary, it was a private function, where the players had an expectation of privacy and certainly did not consent or anticipate that the pub's staff would raise issues with their conduct a day after the event after prying on their activity recorded through CCTV. As others have said, the appropriate course of action would have been to raise the issue on the day and remove them from the venue or ask them to stop, if it was an issue.

Your mind and your ability to think reasonably has clearly been corrupted by the media you consume, try and think a little harder before you post.

 

[Zacs_Magic_Tooth]

A lot of assumptions there. What if the CCTV checking was in response to investigating a complaint made by an employee? They have legal obligations to their own employees that supercedes more informal ethical concepts such as "don't be a nark."

Legal obligations to go to the AFL and media?

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Ever been to a comedy show?

You should get up and tell some rape jokes at your next work function.

When you get questioned over it, respond with “ever been to a comedy show!!??” and let us know how you get on

 

[kickazz]

How many weeks would you get these days for burning a dwarf do we recon?

 

[Tonythetiger]

Tbh I’m not the type who runs around giving bans or punishing people, I’m all about independence of thought and expression. But I will simply think you are a loser and have my own judgment of you as anyone does. Terrorism for me is off the table with the twin towers or hammas killing the babies. No go for me

If you don't mind answering, are there any topics that you feel are controversial that you have laughed at jokes/stand up comedy that have made light of them?

 

[Hollow Knight]

Legal obligations to go to the AFL and media?

Not the media, but do we know the specifics of the degrees of separation between the complainant and the media?

To the AFL? Yes, quite possibly. Again, we don't clearly know the sequencing of the complaints process. If GWS receive a complaint, they probably have to let the AFL Integrity Department know? Or maybe the complainant wasn't satisfied with GWS's initial response and then went up the chain to the organisation in charge of GWS's license (the AFL).

There is a lot of unknowns at this time, and people then tend to fill in the gaps with assumptions that match their ideological positions.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Your logic (which understandably falters, given your opinons on this matter indicate you lack it) is backwards. By your definition of - the conduct was viewed, therefore it is not private, a peeping tom looking through the window at your bedroom antics would be "not private" because he "knew about it", the peeping tom observed you and by your definition what you were doing is therefore not private. Can you see the issue with that?

On the contrary, it was a private function, where the players had an expectation of privacy and certainly did not consent or anticipate that the pub's staff would raise issues with their conduct a day after the event after prying on their activity recorded through CCTV. As others have said, the appropriate course of action would have been to raise the issue on the day and remove them from the venue or ask them to stop, if it was an issue.

Your mind and your ability to think reasonably has clearly been corrupted by the media you consume, try and think a little harder before you post.

Well, no… being the victim of a peeping tom in your bedroom is not like a hospitality venue which obviously has staff members and CCTV.

What a stupid comparison