ding

1 minute ago, rpfc said:

You know, I actually like you as a poster and your sense of humour is very similar to mine. I value your posts and I hope they aren’t deleted. 

But I can’t agree with you on this and certainly not where your brother is trying to define my argument for me.

You can understand and ‘pull the fat back on your ears’ if you want to, or you can just argue and dismiss.

We can leave it there if we are getting too odorous and repetitive but I will stand by my opinion that the AFL Integrity Unit needs to more reflective of the wider football community if it wants to earn the trust of those it protects and serves.

rpfc out/

RPFC, i absolutely agree with you on this point. My argument was the (imo fairly clear) insinuation that white ex-police couldnt give a fair hearing.

If that was not your point maybe a clarification might help.

1 minute ago, BoBo said:

@ding

 

Oh shoot, I misread for me to PM you the links, my apologies. Not on purpose. 

All good, no harm done. Happy to read your links.

(i will pm you my opinions when i have read them so you know i have not just paid lip-service to your links)

5 minutes ago, DubDee said:

Lol. You just described yourself

Thats your retort?... "I know you are but what am i"........

How childish.

2 minutes ago, DubDee said:

Give it a rest mate. You’ve tried and failed to make the same point 7 times

My point is lost on zealots. Welcome to the club.

2 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

This is the comment that you originally took umbrage with.

rpfc did not say that the outcome could not be fair. He merely said that having a panel made up entirely of white ex-cops was not the best idea. It's entirely possible that you assumed that he was meaning what you thought he meant but it's also entirely reasonable that he didn't mean it that way. 

But there is also no doubt that having a panel made up entirely of white ex-cops is not the best idea. 

Not a good idea for what reason?

They cant be unbiased?

They cant come to a balanced decision?

No, the insinuation was that it wasnt a good idea because they were white and ex-police.

Neither of those reasons ( your race or employment background) should have anyone quaking in their boots unless you make some fairly large generaliisations.

It is grosly unfair to those involved.

5 minutes ago, rpfc said:

So that’s one of my points; you accept there has been racism in the past but refuse to engage in a specific instance where racism, or even the perception thereof, may have played a negative factor.

A panel of white former cops is not going to engender confidence in indigenous footballers to engage with good faith with an investigation because they don’t think it will be reciprocated.

Its the most benign argument I have made on here since I argued last year that Weideman might be better in the ruck.

If you don’t see the point I am making and prefer to conflate it with some sort of ‘reverse racism’ that is your tactic of deflection to use. But don’t think we can’t see it as a tactic.

Gross generalisation that is straight-up racism.

1 minute ago, rpfc said:

I wasn’t deflecting, I was contextualising because you think that if you boil down someone’s alternate view to some horrible argument then you have won. But if you think that the horrible argument that me and many others are making is that we have historically racist institutions in this country…

lol 

Then you have just boiled it down to the truth. 

Welcome to reality! The toilets are to the right, the drinks are on the left, you can dance where you find room but avoid the buffet - it’s been out a long time because we’ve been here an egging long time!

Oh ffs, i did not at ANY stage deny that we have some historical racism. That is undeniable.

What i did take umbrage to is your insulting insinuation that because there was "white Ex-police" involved then the outcome could not have been fair.

That is complete garbage.

2 minutes ago, BoBo said:

Nup. That would be a dumb thing to say or to think I’m saying. 
 

I’m giving you statistical facts about how systemic racism exists and expresses itself in Australia which are a part of the reasons indigenous Australians to mistrust the police. 
 

Not an opinion either, it’s just very basic criminology which finds these disparities out. 
 

I can send you links to criminological papers on the issue which explains it all if you like?

Yep, PM me the link, i will be happy to read it.

BTW we were not talking about why Indigenous Aussies have a distrust of police, we were clearly discussing RPFC's suggestion that white Ex-Coppers couldnt possibly give them a fair hearing. Do you believe that is the case?

3 minutes ago, BoBo said:

 

489 indigenous deaths in custody since 1991 might be a reason? With 0 convictions?

Indigenous people composing 3% of the Australian population but comprising 28% of jail inmates?

 

Are you suggesting all of our prosecutors, judges and juries are racist too?.... ALL of them? 

This garbage needs to stop.

4 minutes ago, rpfc said:

I am always amazed by those that have a worldview that is constantly attacked by the facts on the ground. You can think what you want about me, but I worry for you and those you influence that cannot see what is right in front of you.

Is this news abhorrent?

Are those charged with assisting those impacted set up to help them? 

What would diminish reporting on things like this in real time? 

Unfortunately for some, these are questions that you don’t want asked because the answers only lead to conclusions you simply don’t want to acknowledge. 

You can live in that alternate universe, but don’t expect my silence when it comes up in actual reality.

You pushed a racist trope. One that says white police cant be fair to indigenous Australians.

They are your words and you need to own them. Deflecting and obfuscating wont change the meaning of what you said.

It is both wrong and racist.

Own your words.

6 minutes ago, rpfc said:

I said that? Every white cop is racist? I intimated that a unit with that make up is not ideal to manage, not encourage,  accusations made by indigenous Australians in their workplace.

Talking about attitudinal issues, go stare at yourself in the mirror and say that the biases and preconceptions of 5 white former cops is a healthy place for indigenous people to receive their ‘natural justice.’ If you can do that, you would be looking at a deluded individual.

And you just double down on your anti white-police racism.

You should be ashamed of yourself, but im sure you wont.

1 hour ago, rpfc said:

@ding and @faultydet you can throw up all you like but what biases and preconceptions do you think that unit takes into its investigations and reports?

Like FMD, there is a massive segment of Australian society who will admit there are issues but not admit the underlying causes, effects or impacts, or any remedies.

Just a message of “why are you making a thing of it?” and excuses or portrayed grievance and victimisation. 

Yeah, they are white so they MUST be racist.

Like FMD every white copper is racist.

Yeah, sure.

Attitudes like yours are a part of the problem.

Another post from Bigfooty from someone pretending to be in the know about Grundy....

"His management has been shopping him around and feeding the media whatever it takes to twist the narrative towards their client and force the clubs hands to trade him to suit him

They have recently presented the club a offer (club unknown) of 1 x 1st round pick and a future 2nd round pick but the caveat was they wanted the club to tip in $400k salary for Grundy at his new club
Wright immediately said no way and has told them we will not tip in more than $100k and the 1st round pick must be a top 10 pick plus later picks"

The difference between what the 2 supporter groups think is a fair price is as wide as the Valles Marineris. 

We want a pay a second rounder and have 300k plus of his contract paid.

They want 2 x picks (including a top 10) with little of his salary paid.

Surely the end result is something between the 2.

Either way, prepare to be disappointed if we do trade for him.

The umpires are the worst possible judges for awards like this.

Round 23, Brisbane Verses Melbourne............................................Melbourne,..........C............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................Oliver........... 3 VOTES.

*Classic Gil.

2 hours ago, rpfc said:

Spargo is a big conundrum for me as I really struggle with whether he is ‘too slow mid’ out of position, or can actually find footy at the contest in the F50. He gets a great deal on the overlap and maybe he should be competing with ANB for the non-Ed wing…

If you could have Spargo anywhere on the ground you would want thim to be the last posession going inside 50. His delivery is great. The problem with him being on a wing is his lack of speed and penetration with his kick. A lovely short pass he has, but struggles to kick over 40m. 

If we had a second winger like Ed, added to a fit Grundy, instantly both sides of the ground open up for us.

Im sick of our complete lack of unpredictability from defence.

36 minutes ago, Macca said:

If Port offer Kossie a big enough deal then he and his manager would have to at least consider what's on offer

From there, who knows?  We might have to come to the party with a decent contract offer and/or entertain the thought of trading him

We could do nothing and make him play out his final year of his contract but eventually, we're going to have to pay him a decent amount to keep him

It might come down to Kossie accepting unders with us (in relation to being paid overs at Port)  Or go for the overs

Way different circumstances but Gysberts, Martin & Morton were all traded despite all 3 players having a year left on their contracts

So contracts are binding to a point

If a player wants out (like LJ) what does a club do?  Kossie or his manager haven't made any demands or asked for a trade but you'd imagine that we would have tried to extend his contract.  And there's one year left on the existing contract

Those 3 were all potatoes who we were happy to trade away.

Losing Kossie would be horrific.

I think a permanent home might help a bit.

This nomad [censored] is just wrong.

At least if we get Grundy that will give us choice of either forward pocket to bomb it long too.

You know, make us unpredictable.

Terrible rumors thread.

2 hours ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

But I actually DO have a giant head… it houses my giant brain. 😝

My neuropsychiatrist said i have "A nice big brain"

*Tic

*Tic Tic......

Whats this [censored] about Kossie possibly wanting a trade?

I NEED TO BREAK SOMETHING !!!!

Its gonna be a LOOOOOOOOOOONG summer.....

3 minutes ago, cookieboc said:

In my seat. 4 pints down, 2 cans in hand. Feeling a bit of a buzz. Here by myself, gonna make son [censored] noise! Feel like starting a chant with m? 

More beer, more beer

More Beer, more beer

More beer, more Beer more BEEER......

3 minutes ago, Demonland said:

What’s with the Dockers lighting around the G?

Its purple in honour of the Queens passing.