Greg
Is this you? Claim Profile »
3 months ago
in Since when do we trust Jurno’s before Jeff. on Molly's Monday Machination - An AFL Podcast
Perhaps we'll leave it at that.
1 reply
mollyfud
Cool
3 months ago
in Since when do we trust Jurno’s before Jeff. on Molly's Monday Machination - An AFL Podcast
True - I would sack them.
Of course, my "feelings" would be based on reason and evidence, not just a premonition or a bad dream or ingrained bigotry.
From your responses you seem to be saying that:
1) The Bonny Doon football club has no reasonable basis for its suspicions that there's an unacceptable risk in hiring a bi trainer. It's just pure bigotry.
2) However, having formed that (erroneous) view, they are required to sack him because they have a duty of care.
3) While this is discrimination, people who advocate or express this view shouldn't be criticised.
Is that pretty much it?
Of course, my "feelings" would be based on reason and evidence, not just a premonition or a bad dream or ingrained bigotry.
From your responses you seem to be saying that:
1) The Bonny Doon football club has no reasonable basis for its suspicions that there's an unacceptable risk in hiring a bi trainer. It's just pure bigotry.
2) However, having formed that (erroneous) view, they are required to sack him because they have a duty of care.
3) While this is discrimination, people who advocate or express this view shouldn't be criticised.
Is that pretty much it?
1 reply
mollyfud
Hmmm... No.
The first 2 points are pretty true. The 3rd isn't. They should be widely
slammed for their views and taken through the legal processes that are
appropriate. I have no defense for Boonie Doon in this but I agree that they
have to do what they "feel" is right as its their heads on the line.
Nothing to do with this situation or supporting Boonie Doon, but I am a
believer that if your in charge of something you should do it your way (to
as much as you have control over) as if it goes wrong you have no one to
blame but your self.
Now applying that thought to Boonie Doon, If they feel the risk they should
sack the guy but they should understand the legal trouble they are getting
themselves into and be prepared to where that for THEIR beliefs!
The first 2 points are pretty true. The 3rd isn't. They should be widely
slammed for their views and taken through the legal processes that are
appropriate. I have no defense for Boonie Doon in this but I agree that they
have to do what they "feel" is right as its their heads on the line.
Nothing to do with this situation or supporting Boonie Doon, but I am a
believer that if your in charge of something you should do it your way (to
as much as you have control over) as if it goes wrong you have no one to
blame but your self.
Now applying that thought to Boonie Doon, If they feel the risk they should
sack the guy but they should understand the legal trouble they are getting
themselves into and be prepared to where that for THEIR beliefs!
3 months ago
in Since when do we trust Jurno’s before Jeff. on Molly's Monday Machination - An AFL Podcast
Look, I don't hate Jeff. I made that clear early on. I am disappointed.
I don't think you're helping yourself by saying "lot's of people have this position, so it must be right". A hell of a lot more people barrack for Collingwood than Hawthorn - so why don't you join up? Or become a Hindu, for that matter. See, because it's stupid to base arguments on popularity.
Forget Kennett and the media, I'm interested in what you personally think about this.
Just mark a True or False next to these statements:
"There is no more or less risk of abuse or predatory behaviour hiring a bi trainer than a straight one."
"While the risk is higher, it's still acceptable."
"The risk is higher and unacceptable."
"The Bonny Doon Football club is required to sack the trainer once they form the view the risk is unacceptable."
"The club is allowed to sack the trainer once they form that view."
"If someone feels - rightly or wrongly - that Asians are too likely to steal, they don't have to employ them."
Nail your colours to the mast.
I don't think you're helping yourself by saying "lot's of people have this position, so it must be right". A hell of a lot more people barrack for Collingwood than Hawthorn - so why don't you join up? Or become a Hindu, for that matter. See, because it's stupid to base arguments on popularity.
Forget Kennett and the media, I'm interested in what you personally think about this.
Just mark a True or False next to these statements:
"There is no more or less risk of abuse or predatory behaviour hiring a bi trainer than a straight one."
"While the risk is higher, it's still acceptable."
"The risk is higher and unacceptable."
"The Bonny Doon Football club is required to sack the trainer once they form the view the risk is unacceptable."
"The club is allowed to sack the trainer once they form that view."
"If someone feels - rightly or wrongly - that Asians are too likely to steal, they don't have to employ them."
Nail your colours to the mast.
1 reply
mollyfud
Wow. Tough questions and I will have a go at answering them, as long as you
reply by answering them honestly.
"There is no more or less risk of abuse or predatory behavior hiring a bi
trainer than a straight one." True
"While the risk is higher, it's still acceptable." NA
"The risk is higher and unacceptable." NA
"The Bonny Doon Football club is required to sack the trainer once they form
the view the risk is unacceptable." True
"The club is allowed to sack the trainer once they form that view." False
"If someone feels - rightly or wrongly - that Asians are too likely to
steal, they don't have to employ them." False
Now I have answered them according to the words you used. For example the
second last question seems to ask me to comment on the legality of the
actions of the club. I think they're illegal/discriminatory (but the
law/appropriate authority will decide that). The last question again seems
like it has a legal aspect. If the only reason they aren't hiring them is
that they're Asian, then that would be discriminatory/illegal as well.
So how would you answer the questions. And let me add this statement:
"If I was hiring a house cleaner and I got the feeling that there was an
unacceptable risk of them stealing from my house, even if they had years of
good references, I wouldn't hire them"
Molly
PS. I am assuming your getting these comment replies via your email. Don't
you love this comment system?
reply by answering them honestly.
"There is no more or less risk of abuse or predatory behavior hiring a bi
trainer than a straight one." True
"While the risk is higher, it's still acceptable." NA
"The risk is higher and unacceptable." NA
"The Bonny Doon Football club is required to sack the trainer once they form
the view the risk is unacceptable." True
"The club is allowed to sack the trainer once they form that view." False
"If someone feels - rightly or wrongly - that Asians are too likely to
steal, they don't have to employ them." False
Now I have answered them according to the words you used. For example the
second last question seems to ask me to comment on the legality of the
actions of the club. I think they're illegal/discriminatory (but the
law/appropriate authority will decide that). The last question again seems
like it has a legal aspect. If the only reason they aren't hiring them is
that they're Asian, then that would be discriminatory/illegal as well.
So how would you answer the questions. And let me add this statement:
"If I was hiring a house cleaner and I got the feeling that there was an
unacceptable risk of them stealing from my house, even if they had years of
good references, I wouldn't hire them"
Molly
PS. I am assuming your getting these comment replies via your email. Don't
you love this comment system?
3 months ago
in Since when do we trust Jurno’s before Jeff. on Molly's Monday Machination - An AFL Podcast
It seems you're going with Option 4 - Kennett personally doesn't see any extra risk in having a trainer who is bi, but he respects the right of the Bonny Doon footy club to believe there is an elevated risk and that the club is therefore entirely justified in sacking him.
Well, that's a crock. If true, he should condemn the hicks publicly, and the club should be widely criticised and possibly sued for discrimination and unlawful dismissal. Sponsorship should be pulled and any government support or money removed from the club and any sponsors who fail to remove their support.
By your logic, if some racists somewhere reckon that Asians are more likely to steal, then they're acting on a "duty of care" to stop employing them. That is just wrong.
I note that you are the only person who is going "Nah, nah, that's not what Jeff really meant!" when everyone else is on the same page.
I note that you have refused to provide a plausible alternative interpretation for Kennett's remarks.
I also note that you have failed to give any possible "context" that could allow a reasonable person to re-interpret the facts.
Lastly, I see you've been spreading yourself around on the gay sites too:
http://mcv.e-p.net.au/news/no-apology-from-kenn...
When taken with your earlier defence of Buddy Franklin, it's clear you're hero worship of the Hawthorn Football Club has blinded you to common sense.
Thank god you don't barrack for Collingwood, otherwise you'd be combing the streets of Kew, day and night, looking for that possum and carrying on about whether or not the CIA has spy satellite footage of Didak getting into the car immediately after the crash.
Well, that's a crock. If true, he should condemn the hicks publicly, and the club should be widely criticised and possibly sued for discrimination and unlawful dismissal. Sponsorship should be pulled and any government support or money removed from the club and any sponsors who fail to remove their support.
By your logic, if some racists somewhere reckon that Asians are more likely to steal, then they're acting on a "duty of care" to stop employing them. That is just wrong.
I note that you are the only person who is going "Nah, nah, that's not what Jeff really meant!" when everyone else is on the same page.
I note that you have refused to provide a plausible alternative interpretation for Kennett's remarks.
I also note that you have failed to give any possible "context" that could allow a reasonable person to re-interpret the facts.
Lastly, I see you've been spreading yourself around on the gay sites too:
http://mcv.e-p.net.au/news/no-apology-from-kenn...
When taken with your earlier defence of Buddy Franklin, it's clear you're hero worship of the Hawthorn Football Club has blinded you to common sense.
Thank god you don't barrack for Collingwood, otherwise you'd be combing the streets of Kew, day and night, looking for that possum and carrying on about whether or not the CIA has spy satellite footage of Didak getting into the car immediately after the crash.
1 reply
mollyfud
Good try dude.
If you want to hate on Jeff, thats your choice. If you found those sites,
you know its crap that I haven't explained the who situation and all the
issues. I am not going to go through it hear, because basically the court
of popular opinion agrees with me in there lack of interest on this issue!
I am moving on.
So who do you think is going to win this week, Saints or the Sinners
(Collingwood)?
If you want to hate on Jeff, thats your choice. If you found those sites,
you know its crap that I haven't explained the who situation and all the
issues. I am not going to go through it hear, because basically the court
of popular opinion agrees with me in there lack of interest on this issue!
I am moving on.
So who do you think is going to win this week, Saints or the Sinners
(Collingwood)?
3 months ago
in Since when do we trust Jurno’s before Jeff. on Molly's Monday Machination - An AFL Podcast
Where's the contradiction? Option 3 is that he perceives there to be an elevated, yet still acceptable risk, akin to taking a tandem skydiving jump. I was being generous in proposing Option 4 - which is the same as 3, except it's not his personal view, but that of the footy club. I think 4 is much less likely than 3 and it's only slightly better for Kennett. Both are incorrect and unsupported and he should be criticised for maintaining either of them.
You ask why Jeff would involve himself as mediator if he holds either view. I think it's because he a) thought he could help, b) likes playing that role and c) he likes the limelight. No further explanation warranted.
You ask why he would then try to reinstate the trainer even if he may think the risk is elevated. Well, it is perfectly reasonable to say something like "While I think Hyundais are more risky than Fords, I'd still drive a Hydundai because the risk is acceptable to me." So just because you see someone driving a Hyundai, it doesn't imply that they believe the risks are equal. It just means both risks are below some threshold. This could well be Kennet's view of queers and kids.
But, again, you keep talking about "duty of care" and the "gay/risk debate". What debate? What risk? These concepts are not just free-floating vague notions. You have to say risk of *what* happening. Eg parachute doesn't open, you crash the hang glider, the curry burns your arse off etc
This is the same problem Kennett is getting into. If he doesn't clarify what risks he had in mind when he said that then he is a coward and a fool: A coward because he lacks the guts to say what he really thinks, and a fool because he thinks that dropping hints like that will save him from criticism.
Molly, here's your opportunity to show you are neither: name the exact bad outcome of employing a bisexual footy trainer. Go on. I challenge you. Spell out in a few short simple sentences the behaviours, actions or events that would arise that are so terrible. If you just mumble something about "duty of care" or "think of the children" without specifying them, then you're no better than Kennett.
Lastly, give us a couple of examples of "context" that could possibly make Kennett's remarks reasonable and acceptable. Was it the punch line to an elaborate joke? Was he in fact quoting someone else? Was he rehearsing for a new play he's in? Was he temporarily stunned by a wayward frisbee? Was he holding up a giant "I'm just kidding" sign? What?
I don't think any such "context" could exist. Therefore, bleating on about the nature of the interview or what else was said is entirely irrelevant. He said it. He doesn't deny it. There's only one way you can take it. And that's wrong and offensive.
You ask why Jeff would involve himself as mediator if he holds either view. I think it's because he a) thought he could help, b) likes playing that role and c) he likes the limelight. No further explanation warranted.
You ask why he would then try to reinstate the trainer even if he may think the risk is elevated. Well, it is perfectly reasonable to say something like "While I think Hyundais are more risky than Fords, I'd still drive a Hydundai because the risk is acceptable to me." So just because you see someone driving a Hyundai, it doesn't imply that they believe the risks are equal. It just means both risks are below some threshold. This could well be Kennet's view of queers and kids.
But, again, you keep talking about "duty of care" and the "gay/risk debate". What debate? What risk? These concepts are not just free-floating vague notions. You have to say risk of *what* happening. Eg parachute doesn't open, you crash the hang glider, the curry burns your arse off etc
This is the same problem Kennett is getting into. If he doesn't clarify what risks he had in mind when he said that then he is a coward and a fool: A coward because he lacks the guts to say what he really thinks, and a fool because he thinks that dropping hints like that will save him from criticism.
Molly, here's your opportunity to show you are neither: name the exact bad outcome of employing a bisexual footy trainer. Go on. I challenge you. Spell out in a few short simple sentences the behaviours, actions or events that would arise that are so terrible. If you just mumble something about "duty of care" or "think of the children" without specifying them, then you're no better than Kennett.
Lastly, give us a couple of examples of "context" that could possibly make Kennett's remarks reasonable and acceptable. Was it the punch line to an elaborate joke? Was he in fact quoting someone else? Was he rehearsing for a new play he's in? Was he temporarily stunned by a wayward frisbee? Was he holding up a giant "I'm just kidding" sign? What?
I don't think any such "context" could exist. Therefore, bleating on about the nature of the interview or what else was said is entirely irrelevant. He said it. He doesn't deny it. There's only one way you can take it. And that's wrong and offensive.
1 reply
mollyfud
Thanks for the "opportunity" (one I have taken about 500 times before you
kindly offered it too me). You asked me what is the risk? I don't see any.
No one has asked Jeff the risk and he has never given his opinion on it
either. The only people that have given their opinion on if there is any
risk is those in charge of the Boonie Doon football club! So I suggest you
ask them what the risk was, because at this stage (in the main debate on
this issue) their the only ones to make any judgement on the trainer.
I personally think Hyundai are no more risky Fords or any other car, but if
you see a risk in them and you feel its an unacceptable risk I am not going
to force you to drive it, you have to look after your passengers, you have a
duty of care to them that if you think the risk is too great (even if I
think thats stupid or your slandering illegally Hyundai) to not put them in
that situation because in the unlikely event of something bad happening
(that I just can't see it happening) your passengers could be seen to say
"Hey you thou ght this was risky but you still drove the thing and still
offered me lifts!"
Yes I know, your not talking about cars, its an example, an analogy and I am
just explaining these points in this analogy. Jeff didn't comment on the
situation and in fact didn't sit around (as he could have! Limelight? Come
on! There's only "Limelight" because Jeff used a bad analogy).
On the context, as I mentioned earlier it appears this wasn't from a Press
Conference, it wasn't a writtern statement, so how would the Jurno of
contacted him? I think it safe to think to say it was probably a phone
interview. The jurno appears (a bit like yourself not that they are the
same) to have a barrow to push and was focusing on the issue from the gay
right issue. Jeff sets up early that he doesn't see it as a gay rights issue
as much as a issue of care. He actually says he disagrees with your point 3)
saying that if you see a risk (rightly or wrongly) with the amount of legal
action people take, you have to act on that risk to protect yourself (you
can look at the articles that I provided, as he says that, and apparently we
are taking everything he says as being true or at least no out of context).
What he says is point 4 and he doesn't stand back and watch, after being
approached by the trainer, he tries to help, but the club and the trainer
wouldn't budge (doesn't say that he thought the trainer was wrong in not
budging by the way). So (if I am right) the Jurno keeps bringing up points
about gays and Jeff says (or tries badly), look its not about gays its about
duty of care. Now I don't know your feelings about Paedophiles, but rightly
or wrongly most people (I think) don't have a lot of time and if the trainer
HAD of been (WHICH HE ISN"T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) one, wider society
wouldn't have an issue with what the club did because the wider society
would see the risk. I agree that it would of been better if he has of said
something like axe murder but on the spot the paedophile analogy came out
and the jurno ran with it.
But if the jurno was going with the Jeff is homophobic, why didn't he ask
Jeff? I mean I think Jeff has been slandered in this and thats why I have
talked of the issue but its got basically no traction in the wider
community! It was a small issue for a day. It was in the paper 3 times, on
radio a couple of times, but thats it. Jeff is still the head of Beyond Blue
and the Hawks, so it hasn't harmed him (thank god, because he doesn't
deserve it).
And yes he did say it, and he stands by it! He stands by the fact that you
have to look after your staff and players and if YOU see a risk, you have to
act!
kindly offered it too me). You asked me what is the risk? I don't see any.
No one has asked Jeff the risk and he has never given his opinion on it
either. The only people that have given their opinion on if there is any
risk is those in charge of the Boonie Doon football club! So I suggest you
ask them what the risk was, because at this stage (in the main debate on
this issue) their the only ones to make any judgement on the trainer.
I personally think Hyundai are no more risky Fords or any other car, but if
you see a risk in them and you feel its an unacceptable risk I am not going
to force you to drive it, you have to look after your passengers, you have a
duty of care to them that if you think the risk is too great (even if I
think thats stupid or your slandering illegally Hyundai) to not put them in
that situation because in the unlikely event of something bad happening
(that I just can't see it happening) your passengers could be seen to say
"Hey you thou ght this was risky but you still drove the thing and still
offered me lifts!"
Yes I know, your not talking about cars, its an example, an analogy and I am
just explaining these points in this analogy. Jeff didn't comment on the
situation and in fact didn't sit around (as he could have! Limelight? Come
on! There's only "Limelight" because Jeff used a bad analogy).
On the context, as I mentioned earlier it appears this wasn't from a Press
Conference, it wasn't a writtern statement, so how would the Jurno of
contacted him? I think it safe to think to say it was probably a phone
interview. The jurno appears (a bit like yourself not that they are the
same) to have a barrow to push and was focusing on the issue from the gay
right issue. Jeff sets up early that he doesn't see it as a gay rights issue
as much as a issue of care. He actually says he disagrees with your point 3)
saying that if you see a risk (rightly or wrongly) with the amount of legal
action people take, you have to act on that risk to protect yourself (you
can look at the articles that I provided, as he says that, and apparently we
are taking everything he says as being true or at least no out of context).
What he says is point 4 and he doesn't stand back and watch, after being
approached by the trainer, he tries to help, but the club and the trainer
wouldn't budge (doesn't say that he thought the trainer was wrong in not
budging by the way). So (if I am right) the Jurno keeps bringing up points
about gays and Jeff says (or tries badly), look its not about gays its about
duty of care. Now I don't know your feelings about Paedophiles, but rightly
or wrongly most people (I think) don't have a lot of time and if the trainer
HAD of been (WHICH HE ISN"T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) one, wider society
wouldn't have an issue with what the club did because the wider society
would see the risk. I agree that it would of been better if he has of said
something like axe murder but on the spot the paedophile analogy came out
and the jurno ran with it.
But if the jurno was going with the Jeff is homophobic, why didn't he ask
Jeff? I mean I think Jeff has been slandered in this and thats why I have
talked of the issue but its got basically no traction in the wider
community! It was a small issue for a day. It was in the paper 3 times, on
radio a couple of times, but thats it. Jeff is still the head of Beyond Blue
and the Hawks, so it hasn't harmed him (thank god, because he doesn't
deserve it).
And yes he did say it, and he stands by it! He stands by the fact that you
have to look after your staff and players and if YOU see a risk, you have to
act!
3 months ago
in Since when do we trust Jurno’s before Jeff. on Molly's Monday Machination - An AFL Podcast
Molly, what on Earth do you think he could be talking about when he refers to "risk" and "liability" and "duty of care"? Was the trainer mad keen on taking the boys hang gliding? Did he have an insatiable lust for tractor racing? A penchant for really, really, spicy curry?
Why would Kennett use the (ahem) "analogy" of paedophiles to illustrate this unspecific perceived risk? He could have used, oh I dunno, say sky diving, like I did.
But he didn't. He mentioned paedophiles. And talked about non-specific "risks" and "liabilities" associated with the trainer, the only relevant characteristic under examination being his bisexuality.
Come on. Get real and stop playing games, splitting hairs and concocting conspiracy theories about selective quoting.
Perhaps the most generous interpretation is that Kennett himself personally accepts the riskiness of bisexuals to be no more or less than the general community but that the bigoted hicks at the rural footy club PERCEIVE there to be an elevated risk. Well, if that's the case, he should call them on it in public and give those pitchfork-toting rednecks a damn good verbal thrashing. But he hasn't, has he?
No, I think Kennett has a view that there is an elevated risk, but that by dressing it up in legalistic language, being vague, dropping hints (ie happening to just chance upon the randomly selected example of a paedophile, wink wink) and talking to a football audience he could get away with it.
JMTC.
Why would Kennett use the (ahem) "analogy" of paedophiles to illustrate this unspecific perceived risk? He could have used, oh I dunno, say sky diving, like I did.
But he didn't. He mentioned paedophiles. And talked about non-specific "risks" and "liabilities" associated with the trainer, the only relevant characteristic under examination being his bisexuality.
Come on. Get real and stop playing games, splitting hairs and concocting conspiracy theories about selective quoting.
Perhaps the most generous interpretation is that Kennett himself personally accepts the riskiness of bisexuals to be no more or less than the general community but that the bigoted hicks at the rural footy club PERCEIVE there to be an elevated risk. Well, if that's the case, he should call them on it in public and give those pitchfork-toting rednecks a damn good verbal thrashing. But he hasn't, has he?
No, I think Kennett has a view that there is an elevated risk, but that by dressing it up in legalistic language, being vague, dropping hints (ie happening to just chance upon the randomly selected example of a paedophile, wink wink) and talking to a football audience he could get away with it.
JMTC.
1 reply
mollyfud
Then lets go back because you really are controdicting your self! How can
you claim that Jeff might have thought your option 3 when you claim,
"Kennett has a view that there is an elevated risk". You are claiming that
Kennett was happy to go against (what you perceive) to be his better
judgement and put a trainer back into a junor footy club or at least try
too? Why? Why when asked wouldn't he think to himself (if you are correct),
"Are they crazy?" and then make up an excuse? Too busy, prior engagements,
have to wash my hair? Why even get involved? He had no connection to the
trainer and he had no connection to the Footy club, and there was never any
glory to be taken out of the situation. So why twist yourself against the
beliefs (that you are putting to him) for nothing or worst yet, getting off
side "pitchfork-toting rednecks" (as you put it). Surely you see there is no
logic in that, and you yourself have shown with an earlier example that Jeff
doesn't go with the flow and follows his own beliefs!
Don't you think a more obvious answer (but one that doesn't sell as many
papers) is that Jeff was taken out of context in an interview that we have
no idea the setting (was it a phone interview, face-to-face, pre-arranged,
out of the blue). What were the questions, because I know you often try to
read the mood of the comments of people and the mood I get by the quotes
that Jeff makes after the Jurno puts it about if there are any homosexual
trainers at Hawthorn was that Jeff was not trying to enter the gay/risk
debate but stay on topic of duty of care.
Yes I agree, that if Jeff was writing the piece himself, I don't think you
would see the peadophile analogy. In the fact the one I use is mobiles on a
plane. I don't think there is any risk and my understanding is that their
isn't a lot of evidence to say there is a risk but the airlines think there
is and so I respect there right to stop people using a mobile on a plane,
even though I don't believe there is a risk. So the airline "was trying to
do the right thing".
you claim that Jeff might have thought your option 3 when you claim,
"Kennett has a view that there is an elevated risk". You are claiming that
Kennett was happy to go against (what you perceive) to be his better
judgement and put a trainer back into a junor footy club or at least try
too? Why? Why when asked wouldn't he think to himself (if you are correct),
"Are they crazy?" and then make up an excuse? Too busy, prior engagements,
have to wash my hair? Why even get involved? He had no connection to the
trainer and he had no connection to the Footy club, and there was never any
glory to be taken out of the situation. So why twist yourself against the
beliefs (that you are putting to him) for nothing or worst yet, getting off
side "pitchfork-toting rednecks" (as you put it). Surely you see there is no
logic in that, and you yourself have shown with an earlier example that Jeff
doesn't go with the flow and follows his own beliefs!
Don't you think a more obvious answer (but one that doesn't sell as many
papers) is that Jeff was taken out of context in an interview that we have
no idea the setting (was it a phone interview, face-to-face, pre-arranged,
out of the blue). What were the questions, because I know you often try to
read the mood of the comments of people and the mood I get by the quotes
that Jeff makes after the Jurno puts it about if there are any homosexual
trainers at Hawthorn was that Jeff was not trying to enter the gay/risk
debate but stay on topic of duty of care.
Yes I agree, that if Jeff was writing the piece himself, I don't think you
would see the peadophile analogy. In the fact the one I use is mobiles on a
plane. I don't think there is any risk and my understanding is that their
isn't a lot of evidence to say there is a risk but the airlines think there
is and so I respect there right to stop people using a mobile on a plane,
even though I don't believe there is a risk. So the airline "was trying to
do the right thing".
3 months ago
in Since when do we trust Jurno’s before Jeff. on Molly's Monday Machination - An AFL Podcast
Um - did something get clipped here? If not, what exactly is true? Reinstatement recommendation preceding gaffe? Well, that leaves option 3. Still a bad view and one that he must rescind.
Geez, you'd think a man who's been to private school, joined the army and worked as Arts Minister would have met a few queer people in his time and learnt to lighten up!
Geez, you'd think a man who's been to private school, joined the army and worked as Arts Minister would have met a few queer people in his time and learnt to lighten up!
1 reply
mollyfud
What evidence is their that he thinks that homosexuals are a risk? He never
says that!
says that!
3 months ago
in Since when do we trust Jurno’s before Jeff. on Molly's Monday Machination - An AFL Podcast
Yes, if what you're saying is true then it would be strange. I can only attribute that to three possibilities:
1) His reinstatement mission only came about after the gaffe.
2) You're incorrect when you assert Kennett was trying to reinstate the trainer whilst making those remarks.
3) He perceives homosexuals to be a risky proposition but, unlike paedophiles, one that is worth taking, on balance.
This last one is a little more nuanced, so I'll elaborate. Perhaps (in Kennett's mind) it's like comparing doing a sky diving tandem jump while on holiday in NZ versus BASE jumping off the Rialto. Both are clearly on the risk spectrum, but one is an acceptable level of risk and one isn't.
If this is the case, then he's still wrong and offensive. Being gay or bi does not put you on the same risk spectrum as being a paedophile. I've got no reason to think that being queer puts you at any more or less risk of being a kiddie fiddler than being straight. But, you know, I'm prepared to hear evidence against that.
If Kennett has been selectively quoted, I expect he (or, more likely, a trusted supporter) would have pointed this out by now. Your conspiracy theory would have more legs if you found the same newspaper replete with examples of comma-less quotes. I'm pretty sure you won't find that, but - again - I'm prepared to be proven wrong.
1) His reinstatement mission only came about after the gaffe.
2) You're incorrect when you assert Kennett was trying to reinstate the trainer whilst making those remarks.
3) He perceives homosexuals to be a risky proposition but, unlike paedophiles, one that is worth taking, on balance.
This last one is a little more nuanced, so I'll elaborate. Perhaps (in Kennett's mind) it's like comparing doing a sky diving tandem jump while on holiday in NZ versus BASE jumping off the Rialto. Both are clearly on the risk spectrum, but one is an acceptable level of risk and one isn't.
If this is the case, then he's still wrong and offensive. Being gay or bi does not put you on the same risk spectrum as being a paedophile. I've got no reason to think that being queer puts you at any more or less risk of being a kiddie fiddler than being straight. But, you know, I'm prepared to hear evidence against that.
If Kennett has been selectively quoted, I expect he (or, more likely, a trusted supporter) would have pointed this out by now. Your conspiracy theory would have more legs if you found the same newspaper replete with examples of comma-less quotes. I'm pretty sure you won't find that, but - again - I'm prepared to be proven wrong.
1 reply
mollyfud
Its True my friend, not even challenged. From the paper the next day:
3 months ago
in Since when do we trust Jurno’s before Jeff. on Molly's Monday Machination - An AFL Podcast
Molly, I've got to say the journo is completely right on both points.
The trailing comma in a quote is a standard part of editing, especially for newspapers. Check any style guides:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=200...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_o...
Secondly, it's very clear that he Kennett perceives homosexuality to be a risk akin to paedophilia (possibly one at a lower level). Of course, Jeff is entitled to his views. But this is bigoted, wrong and he should be roundly condemned. As he was. I think it's cost him his chance of becoming Lord Mayor.
I'm no fan of Kennett, but I recall when he was the only politician with a profile prepared to speak up against Pauline Hanson and had some begrudging respect for that. Now, I'm disappointed to find out that he has a 1950s attitude towards sexuality.
The trailing comma in a quote is a standard part of editing, especially for newspapers. Check any style guides:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=200...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_o...
Secondly, it's very clear that he Kennett perceives homosexuality to be a risk akin to paedophilia (possibly one at a lower level). Of course, Jeff is entitled to his views. But this is bigoted, wrong and he should be roundly condemned. As he was. I think it's cost him his chance of becoming Lord Mayor.
I'm no fan of Kennett, but I recall when he was the only politician with a profile prepared to speak up against Pauline Hanson and had some begrudging respect for that. Now, I'm disappointed to find out that he has a 1950s attitude towards sexuality.
1 reply
mollyfud
Greg, maybe you won't dodge this question as others have. If he hs that
opinion that you say that he has, why would he been involved in trying to
get the trainer reinstated? Wouldn't that be a bit strange?
I take on board that I could be wrong on the comma, but they just seem that
there was something not printed. As I say, I would love to have the audio of
the interview.
opinion that you say that he has, why would he been involved in trying to
get the trainer reinstated? Wouldn't that be a bit strange?
I take on board that I could be wrong on the comma, but they just seem that
there was something not printed. As I say, I would love to have the audio of
the interview.
5 months ago
in Buddy off with a reprimand on Molly's Monday Machination - An AFL Podcast
Hey Molly - it's off-topic I know, but did you get one of those NAB SMS Banking comment spams? You know, free tickets to the game on Sunday etc.
Here's an example:
http://the-speccy.blogspot.com/2008/05/sam-newm...
It got a write-up on Crikey:
http://www.crikey.com.au/Business/20080616-NAB-...
-Greg.
Here's an example:
http://the-speccy.blogspot.com/2008/05/sam-newm...
It got a write-up on Crikey:
http://www.crikey.com.au/Business/20080616-NAB-...
-Greg.
1 reply
mollyfud
Don't think so. I will check though. I have a new comments system and it
might have selved it before I got it.
Molly
PS. Good to hear from you, you have been very quite of late. I figure you
must have solved the AFL Players problems (that or one of them got to you!)
;-)
might have selved it before I got it.
Molly
PS. Good to hear from you, you have been very quite of late. I figure you
must have solved the AFL Players problems (that or one of them got to you!)
;-)