Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Football Thread XVII

[faible]

I never deleted anything, and as I said, my post was in response to what was public and private and why the "public indescency" in this case had nothing to do with what was public.

Also, this function was a privately held event on private land with an established guestlist, not open to the public. If the owner or the one on his/her behalf sees it and asks the person to leave and doesn't, they can then be banned, or, have the police called and trespassed/charged if they don't.

This is important to stipulate as it is to protect people who are naked on wilful terms while on someone's private property away from view of the public.

People seem weirdly defensive about allowing footyball players to get their dicks out.

A ‘private’ function with bar staff who almost certainly didn’t sign up for seeing some footy boys in the buff is definitely not the place to be getting your kit off.

 

[DERO]

a private function in a public place is still a public place

But is the function still private?

 

[ant555]

What we need now are some plausible facts

 

[Call Me Cake]

People seem weirdly defensive about allowing footyball players to get their dicks out.

A ‘private’ function with bar staff who almost certainly didn’t sign up for seeing some footy boys in the buff is definitely not the place to be getting your kit off.

It's not about allowing, it's about how it is handled thereof and the specific consequences in each scenario.

 

[faible]

It's not about allowing, it's about how it is handled thereof and the specific consequences in each scenario.

Hospitality venue with staff paid to be there; not a strip club; keep your gear on.

These aren’t children.

 

[Call Me Cake]

Hospitality venue with staff paid to be there; not a strip club; keep your gear on.

These aren’t children.

This might come as a shock to you but even on public grounds police will usually ask a person to cover themselves first (or a small fine) and judge their actions afterwards based on compliance (an arrest if refusing to cover themselves).

I'm not advocating for anything stating the facts, it is up to others to interpret how facts affects their perception.

 

[faible]

This might come as a shock to you but even on public grounds police will usually ask a person to cover themselves first (or a small fine) and judge their actions afterwards based on compliance (an arrest if refusing to cover themselves).

I'm not advocating for anything stating the facts, it is up to others to interpret how facts affects their perception.

If you need the police to tell you to keep your dick in your pants in public then I’d have concerns.

 

[Call Me Cake]

If you need the police to tell you to keep your dick in your pants in public then I’d have concerns.

I'm not interlacing my own opinion or advocacy here, all I am saying is "here is a situation that happens" and "here is how it may be handled". If you think it's a little too lax for public, and less for privately held events, then that's your perception. I'm just the messenger.

 

[Call Me Cake]

Who would you guys rather have from here, Walsh or Caldwell?

In my opinion I think Caldwell has gone past Walsh at this point in time.

 

[faible]

I'm not interlacing my own opinion or advocacy here, all I am saying is "here is a situation that happens" and "here is how it may be handled". If you think it's a little too lax for public, and less for privately held events, then that's your perception. I'm just the messenger.

We know how it’s been handled. The AFL has imposed sanctions upon the players on the basis that it’s not acceptable behaviour.

It’s pretty self evident I’d have thought, but a few posters in this thread seem to be arguing it’s a-ok and the boys are hard done by.

 

[Nifft]

This might come as a shock to you but even on public grounds police will usually ask a person to cover themselves first (or a small fine) and judge their actions afterwards based on compliance (an arrest if refusing to cover themselves).

I'm not going to ask how you know this....

 

[dank420_]

Who would you guys rather have from here, Walsh or Caldwell?

In my opinion I think Caldwell has gone past Walsh at this point in time.

Lol deflection

 

[yodellinhank]

This might come as a shock to you but even on public grounds police will usually ask a person to cover themselves first (or a small fine) and judge their actions afterwards based on compliance (an arrest if refusing to cover themselves).

I'm not advocating for anything stating the facts, it is up to others to interpret how facts affects their perception.

How much was the fine, Cake?

 

[Agronomus]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but the entire issue isn't being framed around the presence of bar staff. All statements from the AFL and journalists etc are very much passing moral judgement on the actions in and of themselves - to me that's what makes these very murky waters.

It appears to me (obviously an assumption but based on all statements I've read) that even if the event took place at a private house of a player with no outsiders present, if the details came to light the response/reaction would be the same.

It really raises interesting questions about the reach of the AFL/employer and morality judgements on players/employees. I mean the line exists somewhere, but it's an interesting question as to where that line is and who gets to decide what's 'appropriate' and what isn't.

Isn't this more about the socialist AFL wanting to control every part of these guys lives? If this was about "exposing their person" how come they haven't been charged by the police?