So Chiefs players have been “exonerated” of claims alleged against them by their Mad Monday stripper that they licked, groped, touched, and threw alcohol at her. But while the Ruggy Union has exonerated the players of harassing her, they’re still giving them a “black mark” for “inappropriate behaviour.”
What a bunch of cringing fence-sitters.
There has been inappropriate behaviour here, most of it is from these fishheads and their weasel words. You’re either exonerated or you’re not. If your players are, then back them. If they’re not, then don’t. Instead, the boys in the blazers want to eat the players and have their cake too. Weasels.
I’d say they should harden up, but they’d probably whimper that was “inappropriate.”
A team has an end-of-year blowout after a hard season, and they’re exonerated of bad behaviour. (They should probably be damned for that.) So don’t give them a black mark as some kind of guilt trip, just say they did act appropriately for an end-of-season do, tell the wowsers it’s nobody else’s bloody business what they get up to, and then get out of their way.
And here’s the worst of it, about which I personally am http://valleywag.gawker.com/dear-dummies-learnings-is-not-a-word-1482696634offended. I turned on my radio this morning and without warning I heard Chiefs boss Andrew Flexman say, apparently in a prepared speech: "This has been an incredibly difficult exercise. We have to take on board these learnings and improve.”
FFS! What the fuck are “learnings”!? Is that even a word? No, it’s fucking not.
As someone once said, “If you feel compelled to call whatever workplace wisdom you've picked up ‘learnings,’ perhaps you didn't learn a damn thing.”
Damn right. The word you want, Mr Flexman, is “lessons.” And if the lesson you take on is that blokes shouldn’t have a decent drink and a floorshow after a difficult and teetotal season, then you need to learn more than just better grammar.
.
9 comments:
Well said sir...the poor woman at Gallaghers (the electric fence people) had it right until she was told to shut up: These are young fit men around a naked woman...why be surprised when some of them try to touch her? I am not for a moment saying that gives anyone a right to indecently assault her...but if I have understand the pussyfooting (pardon the pun) around, She was prepared to - and did - perform "indecencies" on indiviaual players - so long as they paid the approrpriate fee...the woman herself said that.
David
You need to understand the concept of rights, and by implication, of consent.
Just because a man is young and fit, and just because she was willing to do some things for money, does not provide that young man with any rights to her body whatsoever. The fact that by your implication her rights to her own body are suspended simply because of her profession tells me that you do not quite understand the concept of rights.
Now, these players have been cleared (although they were cleared by a lawyer employed by the NZRU, so there may be a conflict of interest there), but that does not for one moment excuse a director of a womens refuge for making a statement that womens' rights to their own bodies are dependent on their state of (un)dress.
Margaret Comer (at least google her name) deserves every piece of criticism thrown her way, and then some.
Also, and this will be news to you: touching somebodies' genitals without their consent is the literal, legal definition of Indecent Assault (Section 7 of the crimes amendment act). So if you're saying that she should not be surprised that somebody touched her(and you are), then you are indeed arguing that they had the right to indecently assault her.
PC:
What is your opinion on the fact that the police left the investigation to the NZRU? I think you and I both agree that one of the few valid funtions of a government is to protect the rights of individuals. Therefore a alleged breach of these rights would surely trigger a police investigation?
Simply because this might involve some high profile All Blacks does not give the NZRU the right to call it an "in house" issue, does it?
yeah jeez, good show, yous dont want to be getting offensive over nothink.
Well I see, favourite blogger thrashasin, the Islam. I had his own site on list for a while, but it blew up. Man this is some liberal site, Thrashasin is approved reading.
Yes, fair point Roedolf. But wouldn't that mean she needed to lay her complaint with the police, and not with the media and the Rugby Union.
The large number of Rugby club seem to get into trouble with their season end team bonding sessions.
Agreed, that was the big problem. The court of public opinion neither exonerates the accused nor vindicates the accuser.
I guess in an ideal world I would have preferred the NZRU to defer the investigation to the police, leaving it to the stripper to either file a complaint or stay quiet.
But once the media got involved there really was no winning options.
This is a crock of shit really as she has never gone to the police and doesn't want an independent investigation by them. People seeking attention of to make trouble need to be mindful that social media can be rough and swings both ways. Progressives laud the legalisation of sexual freedoms, prostitution and all that goes with that and then complain when someone hires someone who is engaged in a legal profession but is unprofessional and lets things get out of control. I find pissed people, strippers and hookers unappealing and boring personally and wouldn't have had a peek but if you want to go into the danger zone of human sexual behaviour you do it properly with a minder. I'm actually encouraged by the number of team members that weren't there.
3:16
Post a Comment