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

[Bostonian]

Especially when you tell certain posters of Aboriginal heritage, they should have their kids stolen from them and they dont even get a day off suspension

Well hypocrisy is a thing I guess.

 

[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.

 

[Muddiemoose]

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

Chief do mods count as employees?

(Asking for a mate who might need to delete some posting history of regular terrible takes)

 

[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.

 

[Bostonian]

No, scroll down. There is a Privacy policy.

Mods on here actively encourage people to PM them private information on a regular basis.

None of that relates to your privacy policy.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Mods on here actively encourage people to PM them private information on a regular basis.

None of that relates to your privacy policy.

That's weird. What does the P stand for?

 

[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]

That's weird. What does the P stand for?

But it's not private.

That info gets shared around. I know this because my mate was a mod on here for a few years.

So the P in PM doesn't get respected.

 

[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]

But it's not private.

That info gets shared around. I know this because my mate was a mod on here for a few years.

So the P in PM doesn't get respected.

Private doesn’t always mean lock and key your secrets are safe. It just means that the messages aren’t publicly broadcast. It doesn’t guarantee iron clad secrecy

 

[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.

 

[Bostonian]

Private doesn’t always mean lock and key your secrets are safe. It just means that the messages aren’t publicly broadcast. It doesn’t guarantee iron clad secrecy

If someone says to you I'm telling you this in privacy there's an unwritten and real expectation that a conversation goes no further.

If the person who is told that under that expectation goes off and blabs they are just untrustworthy scumbag.

 

[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?

 

[Bostonian]

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

No it's an argument that society doesn't have to tip toe around everything because of some individuals feelings or experiences.

Do you think someone who had a bad experience with a drunk person then gets to expect that nobody else can now get drunk around them because they might be traumatised by that?

 

[iameviljez]

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?

I know I am biased, so I will state upfront that I think the AFL and the club have handled this terribly. Apologies, donations, and some community service would have been far better.

The two major differences between the GWS event and the Bartel costume are:
1) Bartel didn’t do a skit re-enacting rape, which is key, and
and
2) It was in a different time.

Bartel probably couldn’t get away with it now. The world - and the sensitivity with which we handle sexual assault - has changed so much over the last few years, and largely for the better.

 

[Smart Fella]

The guys that did the Haynes stuff deserve bans. Just so wide of the mark of what's acceptable.

The rest of the bans are a genuine farce. I hope the people at AFL house don't go to the comedy festival because they'll be calling for most of the comedians to be deported.

You're highlighting the issue of picking and choosing what is okay from your morals. We elect a government to put laws in place to protect the majority. Not for individuals to decide.

Work places have rules in place to protect the employees and the organisation. So if the GWS boys thought it would be okay, then there is a disconnect between them and the AFL that needs to be sorted.

On motorola edge 30 pro using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[iameviljez]

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.

If you can’t apply basic consideration and kindness to others as a worthwhile concept in your life, then honestly, I have no words.

One of my best friends was adbucted and r*ped while on holidays and only escaped after sixteen hours having knocked out the assailant with a heavy pan. This was 15 years ago. She hasn’t had a boyfriend since, she still has traumatic flashbacks and, I suspect, nightmares. But, of course, your right to behave however you want without considering the welfare of others trumps that.

 

[iameviljez]

If someone says to you I'm telling you this in privacy there's an unwritten and real expectation that a conversation goes no further.

If the person who is told that under that expectation goes off and blabs they are just untrustworthy scumbag.

The other person has to agree before hearing it to keep it a secret.

 

[Underarm]

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.

So we shouldn't tip toe around anything?

No it's an argument that society doesn't have to tip toe around everything because of some individuals feelings or experiences.

Or do we just not have to tip toe around everything, implying that there are some things that we should consider the feelings of other people?

 

[Muddiemoose]

No it's an argument that society doesn't have to tip toe around everything because of some individuals feelings or experiences.

Do you think someone who had a bad experience with a drunk person then gets to expect that nobody else can now get drunk around them because they might be traumatised by that?

No one needs to tip toe around anything, just means that there might be consequences for actions that are in breach of agreements made between an employee and employer

 

[Romeoh1]

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.

Or maybe the footballers could have a bit of fun without being offensive. How hard is that?
The other clubs seemed to manage it. Most workplaces seem to succeed at that.

 

[Gough]

Or maybe the footballers could have a bit of fun without being offensive. How hard is that?
The other clubs seemed to manage it. Most workplaces seem to succeed at that.

Maybe they could have dressed up as Toby Greene and is his missus showing off their million dollar pad in the real estate section of the Telegraph.

 

[beside the seaside]

You're highlighting the issue of picking and choosing what is okay from your morals. We elect a government to put laws in place to protect the majority. Not for individuals to decide.

Work places have rules in place to protect the employees and the organisation. So if the GWS boys thought it would be okay, then there is a disconnect between them and the AFL that needs to be sorted.

On motorola edge 30 pro using BigFooty.com mobile app

It's not that simple, you can get sacked for breaching your work code of conduct. It's not as simple as just saying the law will look after it. Obviously this is my opinion, but I think the sexual assaukt jokes were waaay wide of what's acceptable and needed repercussions but the other stuff could have been let through to the keeper with a warning.

 

[iameviljez]

It's not that simple, you can get sacked for breaching your work code of conduct. It's not as simple as just saying the law will look after it. Obviously this is my opinion, but I think the sexual assaukt jokes were waaay wide of what's acceptable and needed repercussions but the other stuff could have been let through to the keeper with a warning.

And fining players for not doing anything is ridiculous