Bevo unleashes on Tom Morris

[Guest]

1 hour ago, BDA said:

just listened to the audio. Paraphrasing here but he says Megan Barnard is hot, a good sort but a lesbian. I didn't hear him being derogatory about her sexuality. Have i missed something here? If he apologises to Megan and she accepts shouldn't that be the end of it?

The second audio is less clear. Towards the end he calls someone a C---. His speech is slurred so i couldn't make out who he was referring to. He mentions Asians and women earlier but i don't know the context or what he was implying. I didn't hear an overtly racist comment but happy to be corrected if i missed it. I'd like to hear him clarify his comments on this audio before passing judgment

The metric for racism and misogyny these days has changed significantly because the tactics bigots use to slur others has changed through necessity. 50 or more years ago, you could cut the euphemisms and obfuscation out and just get straight to the point of vilifying people using pejoratives that have been rightfully banned from decent society. These days, you have to be a bit more analytical and read the subtext to pick up when this is being used. (Fair to say though, that Morris was being far from subtle in these recordings).

I think the issue in case one is the objectification of Megan Barnard as a woman in that her worth in relation to him as a heterosexual man is contingent on her sexual availability and aesthetic beauty as defined by mainstream standards. Plus the tag he used at the end to describe could be considered derogatory if we were to consider other tags that are applied to gay men and women (and no, I won’t get into what those slurs are).

The issue with the second recording is that he says he is a white man and thus shouldn’t be persecuted. He makes a contrast in that he isn’t Asian, Black or a woman which would imply to me that he thinks those demographics are somehow worthy of discrimination in that sound byte. 

Personally, I’d hate to be judged by me at my absolute worst moment, nor would anyone. I also don’t like the idea of leakage of what once could have been considered private material.

However, I think with this recording, Morris answered a lot of questions about his character. Jesse Hogan called it years before, the MFC piddled him off for dodgy practices and this shows that he is truly a reprehensible character.

And I fully agree with @Lord NevWhile I don’t like how this was acquired, I’m not going to overlook what came out on those tapes or engage in verbal gymnastics to justify what happened.

There’s this idea doing the rounds in this thread that people who are offended ‘need to get out more’ and that everyone thinks like that but lacks the courage to admit it for fear of public censure. (I know this isn’t what you are trying to say @BDA).

I find that to be a ridiculously nihilistic view of human nature and one that is completely false in reality. Play that to any of my friends from any of those demographics, from outside them or from a different ideological perspective and they’d be horrified. It’s dehumanizing, disrespectful and prejudiced rubbish and shouldn’t be justified in any way.
 

Edited March 18, 2022 by Colin B. Flaubert

[Fork 'em 6,983]

1 hour ago, Fork 'em said:

Yeah well.
Apart from a few Jehovahs Witness family members just about everyone I know would've been cancelled by the holier than thou for something they said at one time or another.
And as DC just pointed out .... Including the women.
Some of the things I've heard them say .... Wow wee, golly gosh.

 

And the more I think about it.
The Joho's too ... Minus the salty language 😂 

[Dees2014 2,377]

23 minutes ago, Colin B. Flaubert said:

The metric for racism and misogyny these days has changed significantly because the tactics bigots use to slur others has changed through necessity. 50 or more years ago, you could cut the euphemisms and obfuscation out and just get to straight to the point of vilifying people using pejoratives that have been rightfully banned from decent society. These days, you have to be a bit more analytical and read the subtext to pick up when this is being used. (Fair to say though, that Morris was being far from subtle in these recordings).

I think the issue in case one is the objectification of Megan Barnard as a woman in that her worth in relation to him as a heterosexual man is contingent on her sexual availability and aesthetic beauty as defined by mainstream standards. Plus the tag he used at the end to describe could be considered derogatory if we were to consider other tags that are applied to gay men and women (and no, I won’t get into what those slurs are).

The issue with the second recording is that he says he is a white man and thus shouldn’t be persecuted. He makes a contrast in that he isn’t Asian, Black or a woman which would imply to me that he thinks those demographics are somehow worthy of discrimination in that sound byte. 

Personally, I’d hate to be judged by me at my absolute worst moment, nor would anyone. I also don’t like the idea of leakage of what once could have been considered private material.

However, I think with this recording, Morris answered a lot of questions about his character. Jesse Hogan called it years before, the MFC piddled him off for dodgy practices and this shows that he is truly a reprehensible character.

And I fully agree with @Lord NevWhile I don’t like how this was acquired, I’m not going to overlook what came out on those tapes or engage in verbal gymnastics to justify what happened.

There’s this idea doing the rounds in this thread that people who are offended ‘need to get out more’ and that everyone thinks like that but lacks the courage to admit it for fear of public censure. (I know this isn’t what you are trying to say @BDA).

I find that to be a ridiculously nihilistic view of human nature and one that is completely false in reality. Play that to any of my friends from any of those demographics, from outside them or from a different ideological perspective and they’d be horrified. It’s dehumanizing, disrespectful and prejudiced rubbish and shouldn’t be justified in any way.
 

Well said CBF: a perceptive post. There are always subtleties in these sorts of issues, but that does not excuse male chauvinist behaviour or continual expressions of male privilege, as Tom Morris is seen to do. As l said, there is no place for that in sports journalism.    

[Cranky Franky 2,050]

1 hour ago, BDA said:

just listened to the audio. Paraphrasing here but he says Megan Barnard is hot, a good sort but a lesbian. I didn't hear him being derogatory about her sexuality. Have i missed something here? If he apologises to Megan and she accepts shouldn't that be the end of it?

The second audio is less clear. Towards the end he calls someone a C---. His speech is slurred so i couldn't make out who he was referring to. He mentions Asians and women earlier but i don't know the context or what he was implying. I didn't hear an overtly racist comment but happy to be corrected if i missed it. I'd like to hear him clarify his comments on this audio before passing judgment

Exactly - The comments about Meghan are unremarkable. The other one is unclear. It could be racist or it could be harmless and unless you hear the full conversation its hard to judge.

The usual Demonland lynch mob is as usual out for blood. As soon as "male privilege" appears be very wary.

 

[At the break of Gawn 4,460]

1 hour ago, pitmaster said:

They are not disparaging remarks. He says that the work colleague is good to talk to and good company. But he then makes a comment about that individual's sexual orientation that is both needlessly explicit and inappropriate in a public setting. 

A further problem for Morris is that the person he was talking about may have kept their orientation a private matter.

Two points. It wasn’t a public setting - the leaker made it public.

The leaker was also the one who chose to make her orientation public. Tom was wrong to discuss with his friends private information about a colleague but he didn’t make them public.

[Fork 'em 6,983]

.

 

Edited March 18, 2022 by Fork 'em

[grazman 7,432]

I haven't read all 15 pages of the thread, so I'm not sure if it has been mentioned yet in relation to Morris being recorded without his knowledge or consent.  Each jurisdiction is different, but most require both parties to consent to a conversation being recorded unless there are very specific circumstances involved (threats etc).  I imagine the issue Foxtel will have if they want to dismiss Morris is whether they can use any of the information that has been publicly made available if it was obtained 'illegally' in the first place.   This is very different to people uploading inappropriate material to social media where there's a tacit permission to make that publicly available .

[Lord Nev 13,512]

1 minute ago, grazman said:

I haven't read all 15 pages of the thread, so I'm not sure if it has been mentioned yet in relation to Morris being recorded without his knowledge or consent.  Each jurisdiction is different, but most require both parties to consent to a conversation being recorded unless there are very specific circumstances involved (threats etc).  I imagine the issue Foxtel will have if they want to dismiss Morris is whether they can use any of the information that has been publicly made available if it was obtained 'illegally' in the first place.   This is very different to people uploading inappropriate material to social media where there's a tacit permission to make that publicly available .

The first was an audio message he sent.

The second was a video where he was basically talking into the camera (phone) making a video message.

It 100% wasn't without his knowledge or consent.

[binman 42,896]

8 minutes ago, At the break of Gawn said:

Two points. It wasn’t a public setting - the leaker made it public.

The leaker was also the one who chose to make her orientation public. Tom was wrong to discuss with his friends private information about a colleague but he didn’t make them public.

Discussing the sexuality of a colleague with your mates is not making it public? 

Of course it is.

For peta's sake it was on whats app group chat, with god knows how many members. And he couldn't even be bother typing his puerile rubbish - he recorded it.

Apart from anything else just so, so stupid, particularly for a peanut who trades in gossip and understands the power of audio and text to bolster a story and drive clicks. 

His 'mate' has just made it even more public - which is just one of the reasons why it is is completely inappropriate for him to have discussed it AT ALL, and why he is almost certainly in breach of his work place policies and procedures and you'd think likely to be sacked.  

Bottom line if he didn't make it public in the first instance then it wouldn't have ever have become more widely distributed. Once he put it out there he lost control of the information.

Talking to his mates in that way, whether that was widely know or not, is a complete breach of trust and no doubt a breach of his employment conditions. 

And in any case do you think his colleague would be ok with Morris discussing her sexuality with his mates, or rating her 'hotness' for that matter?

He deserves every single thing coming his way. 

[MrFreeze 1,963]

None of this [censored] slinging will sort out the real issues with AFL journalism that Bevo did highlight 

He just did it in such an unprofessional way that it was completely glazed over 

 

AFL journalism has cost the mental health of so many players - Watts and Tom Boyd come to mind. Goodwin was luckily in a position to be resistant to it.

It continues to be the arm pit of the AFL and demonstrated by the trashy tabloid journos like Morris. No surprise he is of low character himself. 

[At the break of Gawn 4,460]

10 minutes ago, binman said:

Discussing the sexuality of a colleague with your mates is not making it public? 

Of course it is.

For peta's sake it was on whats app group chat, with god knows how many members. And he couldn't even be bother typing his puerile rubbish - he recorded it.

Apart from anything else just so, so stupid, particularly for a peanut who trades in gossip and understands the power of audio and text to bolster a story and drive clicks. 

His 'mate' has just made it even more public - which is just one of the reasons why it is is completely inappropriate for him to have discussed it AT ALL, and why he is almost certainly in breach of his work place policies and procedures and you'd think likely to be sacked.  

Bottom line if he didn't make it public in the first instance then it wouldn't have ever have become more widely distributed. Once he put it out there he lost control of the information.

Talking to his mates in that way, whether that was widely know or not, is a complete breach of trust and no doubt a breach of his employment conditions. 

And in any case do you think his colleague would be ok with Morris discussing her sexuality with his mates, or rating her 'hotness' for that matter?

He deserves every single thing coming his way. 

Our views on what is considered public are very different. So if you sent a whatsapp msg to your partner who then screenshot it and sent it to another friend, who made it public? Was it you or was it your partner’s friend that made it “more public” as you put it?

Note, WhatsApp is an E2E encryption messaging app, which is used as a substitute for txt msging. It’s not Twitter.

Edited March 18, 2022 by At the break of Gawn

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, binman said:

Discussing the sexuality of a colleague with your mates is not making it public? 

Of course it is.

For peta's sake it was on whats app group chat, with god knows how many members. And he couldn't even be bother typing his puerile rubbish - he recorded it.

Apart from anything else just so, so stupid, particularly for a peanut who trades in gossip and understands the power of audio and text to bolster a story and drive clicks. 

His 'mate' has just made it even more public - which is just one of the reasons why it is is completely inappropriate for him to have discussed it AT ALL, and why he is almost certainly in breach of his work place policies and procedures and you'd think likely to be sacked.  

Bottom line if he didn't make it public in the first instance then it wouldn't have ever have become more widely distributed. Once he put it out there he lost control of the information.

Talking to his mates in that way, whether that was widely know or not, is a complete breach of trust and no doubt a breach of his employment conditions. 

And in any case do you think his colleague would be ok with Morris discussing her sexuality with his mates, or rating her 'hotness' for that matter?

He deserves every single thing coming his way. 

I had heard the recordings, but didn't know the context they were produced in. Hence, my slight misgivings about how I presumed this info was attained.

I assumed someone must have had a tape recorder running in the Fox commentary box or they were taken from DMs that his mate and he had sent to each other. If that had indeed happened, I would have maintained my previous stance. 

If this boofhead put them on a semi closed forum and actively recorded himself spouting this drivel (thus taking any plausible deniability out of the equation), then he should also be sacked for being an [censored] as well.

No sympathy for him in any, way shape or form for him if this is the case.

 

Edited March 18, 2022 by Colin B. Flaubert

[Fork 'em 6,983]

Ahh the usual suspects preaching their sermons to the heathens.
Never did or said anything wrong in their lives.
Casting their stones.

Burn him .... BURN HIM they cry.


 

Edited March 18, 2022 by Fork 'em

[binman 42,896]

Let's play bingo:

Points awarded for the following comments and phrases:

• Cancel culture
• Cancel culture gone mad
• Wokeness 
• Morris is the real victim here
• What about.....
• What if.....
• Political correctness
• Left wing nut job
• MSM
• Court of public opinion 
• In my day....
• I've said a million times worse....
• I don't see the problem 
• That's not racist...
• It's all part of a feminist agenda....
• Have you ever heard chick's talk about blokes....
• Glass houses
• The mob
• Mob mentality 
• Hand wringing
• Pearl clutches 
• No justice
• Not a hanging offence
• Blokes being blokes
• Sanctimonious
• Next they'll ban all jokes
• Better not to speak at all
• Bent over 

 

Edited March 18, 2022 by binman

[Fork 'em 6,983]

All these short and punchy posts of yours 😅

[Guest]

Just now, binman said:

Let's play bingo:

Points awarded for the following comments and phrases:

Cancel culture

Cancel culture gone mad

Wokeness 

Morris is the real victim here

What about.....

What if.....

Political correctness

Left wing nut job

MSM

Court of public opinion 

In my day....

I've said a million times worse....

I don't see the problem 

That's not racist...

It's all part of a feminist agenda....

Have you ever heard chick's talk about blokes....

Glass houses

 

There is a subsection on here who if they had witnessed a Klan rally at the end of October in their neighborhood would insist that the participants were only dressed up that way to get into the spirit of Halloween and that the burning cross was merely a means of keeping warm. 😏

[binman 42,896]

45 minutes ago, At the break of Gawn said:

Our views on what is considered public are very different. So if you sent a whatsapp msg to your partner who then screenshot it and sent it to another friend, who made it public? Was it you or was it your partner’s friend that made it “more public” as you put it?

Note, WhatsApp is an E2E encryption messaging app, which is used as a substitute for txt msging. It’s not Twitter.

I would consider a what's app message to my partner is private.

If that message was inappropriate (for example it made a racist comment about a colleague) and my partner shared it and it then became public I would expect to be held to account. 

A what's app message to a group of mates (I have such a group, but it's on signal)? 100% public.

Which is why the cops who shared photos of Laidley in a what's app group got rightly carpeted.

The issue wasn't that the photos (and disgusting comments) became MORE public.

It was, one they were taken at all and two because rheid were made public by sharing with others in the what's app group.

 

Edited March 18, 2022 by binman

[Fork 'em 6,983]

12 minutes ago, Colin B. Flaubert said:

There is a subsection on here who if they had witnessed a Klan rally at the end of October in their neighborhood would insist that the participants were only dressed up that way to get into the spirit of Halloween and that the burning cross was merely a means of keeping warm. 😏

And another mob madly stoning blasphemers.

Edited March 18, 2022 by Fork 'em

[Demonland 72,155]

He’s now been sacked. 

 

[daisycutter 29,613]

Quote

About

I’ve been a sports journalist covering cricket and Australian Football since late 2015. In that time I’ve worked at Fox Sports, 3AW and SEN.

Before then I cut my teeth at St Kilda FC, running the website and assisting with all digital content just as the emphasis on social media was beginning to boom.

It is a privilege to do something I enjoy and I will never take it for granted.

 

Edited March 18, 2022 by daisycutter

[Jaded No More 68,903]

One asshat does not cancel the other.

Both Bevo and Morris were wrong for different reasons. Both behaved like utter brainless buffoons. Both have caused themselves and their work place damage. 

Adios to Morris and good luck to Bevo.

 

[Ethan Tremblay 30,856]

Any male (also heard plenty of females talk similar smack) who gets on there holier than thou, virtue signalling soapbox is full of [censored]. You’ve all made similar comments, whether it was yesterday or decades ago.. it was dumb to record and distasteful and all of that stuff, but don’t pretend you’ve never made similar comments, you’re just lucky enough to not have a public profile and have had your private conversation recorded. 

Edited March 18, 2022 by Ethan Tremblay

[tiers 2,833]

Let's be careful where this might end.

[Rocknroll 1,002]

Win for football. 

[titan_uranus 25,000]

1 minute ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Any male (also heard plenty of females talk similar smack) who gets on there holier than thou, virtue signalling soapbox is full of [censored]. You’ve all made similar comments, whether it was yesterday or decades ago.. it was dumb to record and distasteful and all of that stuff, but don’t pretend you’ve never made similar comments, you’re just lucky enough to not have a public profile and had them recorded. 

Assuming this is true, which it isn't, it doesn't mean we should all just say "well everyone does it so spare Tom Morris".

Changing ingrained cultural sexism, racism and homophobia means changing these sorts of behaviours.