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

[Chief]

Well in 2024 people are often crying racist when there's nothing "race" based about what was said.

What was it that got you into trouble?

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Well in 2024 people are often crying racist when there's nothing "race" based about what was said.

And people are often crying DEI when there's nothing DEI-driven about a particular appointment.

Sometimes people just get jobs.

 

[Sainter3and7]

I lived in America around 9/11 and met people who were affected. I talked to one woman who'd walked over the rubble, and she was pretty sure that she heard groans and other noises from people about 5 or 10 feet under where she was walking. I thought the 9/11 reference (which most people tend to look over) was quite rank. But I suppose, it's stupid, offensive and not funny, but not something I'd expect someone to lose wages over. Lose respect, yeah. But not being able to work is about the most severe penalty you can get (outside of the criminal justice system). I thought that was extreme.

 

[Gethelred]

Drunk?
If they're drunk they fall under RSA and should have been cut off, yeah?

...

Do you have any idea how obviously drunk you have to be to get cut off these days?

 

[PenfoldsFan]

...

Do you have any idea how obviously drunk you have to be to get cut off these days?

That depends how you're acting and how tolerant management is.
I've seen it used to settle people, simply suggesting it can be enough to pull people up, and what are they going to say to counter it should it come to security or Police intervention?
"My portrayal of sexual abuse should be all good officer."

Please.

 

[Gethelred]

That depends how you're acting and how tolerant management is.
I've seen it used to settle people, simply suggesting it can be enough to pull people up, and what are they going to say to counter it should it come to security or Police intervention?
"My portrayal of sexual abuse should be all good officer."

Please.

My experience of RTA laws governing intoxication is that they are - in most venues - near completely non-existent. Venues make their money from alcohol sales; to cut someone off is to work against their business interests, regardless of what the law says.

I don't disagree with you about the skits.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

My experience of RTA laws governing intoxication is that they are - in most venues - near completely non-existent. Venues make their money from alcohol sales; to cut someone off is to work against their business interests, regardless of what the law says.

I don't disagree with you about the skits.

Then wouldnt you say, to favour business interest(takings) over decency and upholding minimum standards, is hipocritical, if you're then going to cry that you dont like what you've allowed by standing bye idly in the name of said business interest?

As I said before, happy to take their money and then whinge after the fact.

 

[Gethelred]

Then wouldnt you say, to favour business interest(takings) over decency and upholding minimum standards, is hipocritical, if you're then going to cry that you dont like what you've allowed by standing bye idly in the name of said business interest?

As I said before, happy to take their money and then whinge after the fact.

First of all, it's hypocritical.

Second, being hypocritical doesn't render one's argument incorrect: pointing out that hard enforcement by licenced venues of RSA cutoff law would result in much lower revenue - the degree of which would be unknown, but drunk people generally want to buy more and more expensive drinks - is just pointing out the facts. There's also a profound difficulty in enforcing these laws; about all you could do is have an external officer paid by someone else (government?) to attend these places and ensure that liquor licencing laws are upheld; you willing to pay more taxes to pay for someone whose job is literally being the fun police?

Secondly, a business has a right to enforce their own standards under law. They also have the right to decide what is permitted on their premises as the owners of property. If you wanted to have a bonfire in the middle of a private room to toast marshmellows you're going to find yourself getting escorted off premises, regardless of the level of preparation you have undertaken to prevent property damage.

It seems to me that what you're really taking issue with is property law. Every single stage of this is well within the business' rights to determine what conduct is permitted on their property. Pointing out that they might've been on the edge of being cut off is a) arguing about something not in evidence, b) even if it is assumed is something that is next to unavoidable within the context, and c) doesn't mean that the players aren't responsible for what they say.

At the bottom of this page is this phrase:

Think before you post.

You are the publisher of your words. You could be held personally liable for what you post here or on any other platform.

Do you think that your being inebriated means you are no longer personally liable for what you say on BF?

 

[PenfoldsFan]

First of all, it's hypocritical.

Second, being hypocritical doesn't render one's argument incorrect: pointing out that hard enforcement by licenced venues of RSA cutoff law would result in much lower revenue - the degree of which would be unknown, but drunk people generally want to buy more and more expensive drinks - is just pointing out the facts. There's also a profound difficulty in enforcing these laws; about all you could do is have an external officer paid by someone else (government?) to attend these places and ensure that liquor licencing laws are upheld; you willing to pay more taxes to pay for someone whose job is literally being the fun police?

Secondly, a business has a right to enforce their own standards under law. They also have the right to decide what is permitted on their premises as the owners of property. If you wanted to have a bonfire in the middle of a private room to toast marshmellows you're going to find yourself getting escorted off premises, regardless of the level of preparation you have undertaken to prevent property damage.

It seems to me that what you're really taking issue with is property law. Every single stage of this is well within the business' rights to determine what conduct is permitted on their property. Pointing out that they might've been on the edge of being cut off is a) arguing about something not in evidence, b) even if it is assumed is something that is next to unavoidable within the context, and c) doesn't mean that the players aren't responsible for what they say.

At the bottom of this page is this phrase:

Do you think that your being inebriated means you are no longer personally liable for what you say on BF?

Lol, completely missing the point.

You dont need to universally enforce RSA law or employ people to police it.
All they needed to do in THIS instance is have the Shift Manager have a quiet word in the ear of one of the senior patrons of the group and say, my staff and I aren't impressed with the topic/s being portrayed and feel that adults only conduct themselves like that, in their experience as licensed venue operators, when their judgement is clouded by excessive consumption of alcohol and may need to refuse service unless they clean it up.

The ball is then in the groups court, pull up or go without.
Should they question it, the Manager is well within their rights to request a Police presence at which point any benefit of the doubt for the patrons goes out the window when the nature of the conduct is exposed.
We both know it wouldn't get to that stage, so there is no lost revenue etc. as the group wouldnt want their 'private' gathering exposed.

Thats it, there is no AFL involvement, no need to be seen to be 'taking a stand', no additional people offended, no kids asking what its all about.

But you do you.