Would PANTS get in the Hall of Fame...

[Hoola Hoops]

So the selction panel is a better moral judge than a cout of law? QUOTE]

Maybe it is because a Court of Law is not there to make moral judgements.

Moral is ones values. Valuees differ from person to person. How can this be a criteria when we all have different values.

 

[FuManchu]

So if he happened to kill your parents while drink driving who'd welcome him into the Hall of Fame....

Or maybe if he contributed to the death of your daughter.....would you feel the same....

I know this is a difficult subject.....but it is a debate worth having!

I'd excuse myself from the debate if he did that to me. I'd hate him of course. But I'm one person, I cannot deny his ability in one sphere in life that this institution is meant to recognise. And I could not stop the momentum that exists in the footballing world that says he was a champion footballer

 

[tdubfleet]

Are you perfect? If not then STFU.

No I'm not, but I've never given heroin to a girl 17 years my juniors and left her to die.

I also take responsilility for my actions instead of hiding behind a screen of lawyers and the bible.

 

[Ipaidmy200in89]

Look at John Nicholls.

He actually has a criminal conviction, yet no-one at all is doubting his place in the hall of fame are they?

Look at the criteria. It says a person nominated has to have integrity. There aren't too many players who own up to reportable incidents at the tribunal. Ablett did.

As for Millane, well in terms of ability, he was special. Shame he didn't really play enough games in his career or was dominant enough in the majority of the games he played.

For me, I'd love to see 300-gamer Garry Foulds get a nomination. Takes a lot to play 300 games. He may not have set the world on fire, but, he kept playing and has since given back a lot to the game, with his local footy coaching roles.

Big Nick had 20 odd years pass........but he is a shifty guy and isn't of good character or intergity.....

 

[Hoola Hoops]

You need to pull your head in.....

One more STFU and I will be asking for you to be suspended....

Ask away lala.

 

[Hoola Hoops]

Big Nick had 20 odd years pass........but he is a shifty guy and isn't of good character or intergity.....

So dump the character and integrity criteria, and replace with 'does not bring the game into disrepute'

Simple

 

[FuManchu]

Moral is ones values. Valuees differ from person to person. How can this be a criteria when we all have different values.

exactly

what if he was a philanderer, a swinger, supported abortion, etc etc.???

Then he would surely upset some moral crusaders and they'd seek to have him excluded because it offended their sensibilities. Who says we can judge someone that the law refuses to judge?

 

[Ipaidmy200in89]

Ask away lala.

you are a hero.....hiding behind the screen and keyboard!

 

[marcuz]

The finding from the case had nothing to do with morals, just facts. The outcome from memory was that Ablett didn't kill her as such, he was just to bombed out to save her life.

If that doesn't bring a persons character into question I do not know what would.

Fair enough. I dont think anybody could argue the guy doesnt have problems. But the many great footballers have got into trouble and have been inducted.

The sticking point is the girls death and lets not forget that she had a shadier drug history than gary and also contributed to her own death. These calls that Gary is totally responsible is rubbish and the court agrees. Would we be having this conversation if Gary was the one that died and the young girl lived?

You can make arguments on both sides and this is where the criteria is too black and white in a world of grey.

 

[Hoola Hoops]

exactly

what if he was a philanderer, a swinger, supported abortion, etc etc.???

Then he would surely upset some moral crusaders and they'd seek to have him excluded because it offended their sensibilities. Who says we can judge someone that the law refuses to judge?

Totally agreed.

Remove those criteria from the eligibility and replace with 'does not bring the game into disreoute'.

Simple

 

[crackers57]

Moral is ones values. Valuees differ from person to person. How can this be a criteria when we all have different values.

My point wasn't about who can make the best moral judgements it was more about Courts of Law not being required to make moral judgements only legal ones

 

[tdubfleet]

exactly

what if he was a philanderer, a swinger, supported abortion, etc etc.???

Then he would surely upset some moral crusaders and they'd seek to have him excluded because it offended their sensibilities. Who says we can judge someone that the law refuses to judge?

What have you against swingers

 

[Hoola Hoops]

you are a hero.....hiding behind the screen and keyboard!

you are one very angry person. Don't get grumpy coz i disagree with you at times. Take it that not everyone believes your almighty opinion, as not everyone agrees with mine. Take a chill pill and relax.

 

[FuManchu]

My point wasn't about who can make the best moral judgements it was more about Courts of Law not being required to make moral judgements only legal ones

Our courts are supposed to uphold the standards of behaviour in our society, which is the only measure that we nearly all universally agree to.

 

[FuManchu]

What have you against swingers

nothing

 

[Ipaidmy200in89]

you are one very angry person. Don't get grumpy coz i disagree with you at times. Take it that not everyone believes your almighty opinion, as not everyone agrees with mine. Take a chill pill and relax.

You keep telling people to STFU.....I am not anger, you are!
My view is shared by most. Ablett the footy player....is a legend.

The bloke is a scumbag! He let her die.....understand it.....it could have been your sister, daugther.......granddaughter....

 

[crackers57]

Our courts are supposed to uphold the standards of behaviour in our society, which is the only measure that we nearly all universally agree to.

We all know that's what the idea is but we are also fully aware that they are now so bogged down by legal flim-flammery that the best they can hope to do is stick to the letter of the law.

 

[skipper kelly]

Yes, I was wondering if you had.......

Integrity he misses......

Character he also misses.

Please show me where it states that a person being considered must satisfy all these, or as DB said tick each box. They are only things that the selection panel may consider.

 

[FuManchu]

The bloke is a scumbag! He let her die.....understand it.....it could have been your sister, daugther.......granddaughter....

was that his intent? And if he was wasted as it was claimed, then does he have diminished responsibility?

And if he has diminished responsibility, does this lesson the moral outrage?

And what if he didnt administer the drugs?

These, and lots more questions that need to be asked, which I suspect are relevant to assessing integrity

 

[Ipaidmy200in89]

Please show me where it states that a person being considered must satisfy all these, or as DB said tick each box. They are only things that the selection panel may consider.

So you think a person of integrity and character would allow a girl to die.

He was so bombed out he couldn't help her!!

Great character......they might have wanted to consider that!

 

[Ipaidmy200in89]

was that his intent? And if he was wasted as it was claimed, then does he have diminished responsibility?

And if he has diminished responsibility, does this lesson the moral outrage?

And what if he didnt administer the drugs?

These, and lots more questions that need to be asked, which I suspect are relevant to assessing integrity

Maybe the fact you have just asked all those question raises enough doubts? Maybe he should have given evidence......we would all know the answers.....

 

[marcuz]

So you think a person of integrity and character would allow a girl to die.

He was so bombed out he couldn't help her!!

Great character......they might have wanted to consider that!

Would a person with half a brain get that far gone in the first place? If he was sober would he have helped her?.....He was guilty of being stupid. People do many stupid things under the influence that they normally would not do.

 

[crackers57]

And if he was wasted as it was claimed, then does he have diminished responsibility?

Diminished responsibility is a load of hot c***
FFS you get jailed for driving a car drunk or stoned - they don't let you off through diminished resposibility.
You apparently can only use that excuse for more horrendous crimes

 

[FuManchu]

We all know that's what the idea is but we are also fully aware that they are now so bogged down by legal flim-flammery that the best they can hope to do is stick to the letter of the law.

Then that is still the only legitimate measure of behaviour. I'm certainly not going to let my behaviour be judged by such institutions as the churches given their past histories, or by people that think their values are better than mine. If Ablett set out to intentionally harm that girl, then by all means hold him up to ridicule. But I suspect that it was something that went wrong, due to circumstance, of which she must also bear some responsibility

And if you are not happy with the legal system judging our behaviour, what is the next option? And if the next option is as haphazard as I suspect it will be, then I'll stick to the universal measure then

 

[FuManchu]

Diminished responsibility is a load of hot c***
FFS you get jailed for driving a car drunk or stoned - they don't let you off through diminished resposibility.
You apparently can only use that excuse for more horrendous crimes

questions not statements, learn the difference