Speaker: What goes on tour
256 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 11 Newer→ Last
-
The way the players are treated?
Yup -- because, Lucy, I just don't believe that kind of behaviour just comes out of the ether. Look at it this way, I go to work and am expected to meet various standards of professional conduct, not least among them I don't harass, intimidate or assault my co-workers in any way, shape or form. Also, there's a pretty reasonable expectation that if I'm representing my employer in public one doesn't act like the world's biggest walking rectum.
What kind of corporate culture are fraking professional rugby players in? One where episodes of Mad Men are used as staff training, one suspects.
-
Yup -- because, Lucy, I just don't believe that kind of behaviour just comes out of the ether. Look at it this way, I go to work and am expected to meet various standards of professional conduct, not least among them I don't harass, intimidate or assault my co-workers in any way, shape or form. Also, there's a pretty reasonable expectation that if I'm representing my employer in public one doesn't act like the world's biggest walking rectum.
Fair enough. It was just a bit startling in an otherwise very sensible sentence when coming from the context of the other "our players are being attacked" comments. Your explanation makes somewhat more sense.
-
In fact the more I think about it what a fucking sick thing to say. No wonder the girl doesn't to come forward with a formal complaint can you imagine the shit she'd have to put up with in court?
Yes, but that's quite possibly the plan. It's the Mugabe Method: keep laying on the intimidation until finally the other party decides it's just not worth it.
How long before someone says 'I wish these allegations had bee brought before the court, because as things stand there's still a cloud hanging over some of our lads and that's not fair'.
-
A round of apologies seems in order.
Sue said:
Can i reccomend nobody read kiwiblog on this, i did after what paul said, and i pretty much threw up after reading the comments.
I should have said that myself, sorry. And sorry too, to Simon G.
Finally, Craig:
Paul: Can you please leave me out of that pathology? I sure wouldn't want to see Russell (who I also consider a friend and a honourable and decent man) judged by certain parties hereabouts.
I didn't in fact mean to tar everyone with that brush Craig. I should have said something more specific. I know you and Russell are friends with David. I don't know him but I have mixed feelings. I think he all too often sets up threads that lead to incredibly predictable commentary and I don't think he can avoid some responsibility for that.
-
'I wish these allegations had bee brought before the court, because as things stand there's still a cloud hanging over some of our lads and that's not fair'.
I will be... interested... to see if any of the English players break ranks and name names. There are five players, after all, who are implied in shagging on tour. Many of the touring party have wives and girlfriends, and are probably getting a grilling about who ended up in what bed; that's even without the allegations of rape.
It must be a powerful temptation to have a little word as an 'anonymous source' to clear your own name if you aren't one of those involved.
(Also, Tom Rees seems to be the only English player giving interviews or writing columns who isn't a complete dickhead, so I hope he wasn't one of the four.)
-
I think he all too often sets up threads that lead to incredibly predictable commentary and I don't think he can avoid some responsibility for that.
Paul: I've said myself that in Farrar's position, I'd just set comments to full moderation and tell about a dozen or so individuals
(including some incredibly persistent lefty flame-trolls) to piss off. But it's not my corner of the blogisphere, and I think the responsibility DPF had to take is the impact the wingnut population has on the credibility of Kiwiblog. (To be perfectly fair, I'd say the same thing about The Standard. There are some useful contributors and thoughtful commentators, and a lot of frankly hacky trolling that attracts the same old same old.) I can work that management model because I've a lot more spare time (and a shorter fuse) than either Russell or David. I do actually have some sympathy for people who have comments, and try to keep a middle ground between a lively forum and being a moderation Nazi.OTOH, there have been a few occasions recently where I've giving D4J some positive feedback when he's made non-frothy comments on Kiwiblog. Not that I necessarily agree with them, but you've got to work the carrot as well as the stick. Then, almost inevitably, one of the usual suspects comes along, he swallows a flame-baited hook and we're off again...
-
Craig, I think David's 'management model' is dependent upon throwing out the odd thread that's designed to create a swam of beligerants spewing abuse. I won't pretend to know why he does this, but it's pretty obvious.
Is he responsible for this level of intolerance; no. Should he enable it; no. I frequently wonder how his approach, in those specific threads, is any different from the tactic Winston uses to demonise Asians? He doesn't make the comments, but he must surely know they'll be made. Is it only a matter of degree?
-
How long before someone says 'I wish these allegations had bee brought before the court, because as things stand there's still a cloud hanging over some of our lads and that's not fair'.
sorry can't recall where I heard this over the weekend but (poss TV3) it mentioned that the guys in question were single without wives or girlfriends and that disquiet amongst the remaining players was surfacing as they wanted their names cleared for the benefit of family etc.
-
sorry can't recall where I heard this over the weekend but (poss TV3) it mentioned that the guys in question were single without wives or girlfriends and that disquiet amongst the remaining players was surfacing as they wanted their names cleared for the benefit of family etc.
The English Rugby Union has said they will name the four players involved so to clear the names of those who were not.
-
It was Mike Tindall (Zaras boyfriend) report to his club coach, sounded like Lana Cocroft denying drug use last year.
-
Craig, I think David's 'management model' is dependent upon throwing out the odd thread that's designed to create a swam of beligerants spewing abuse.
Paul: I think those people would go off if Farrar posted something as inoccuous as 'Flowers pretty, sun warm, me happy." Otherwise, I'm sure he and the Standard folks would say they post from a pretty upfront POV and if that offends your delicate sensibilities you should get lost. The downside to that 'tude is you may just find more people saying 'OK then..." than you'd like.
-
The downside to that 'tude is you may just find more people saying 'OK then..." than you'd like.
Exactly what I've done. David posts some stuff that I find interesting however. He's clearly well informed and comes from a different perspective which makes some of blog interesting. What's frustrating however, is how quickly they degenerate. The half-life seems less than a dozen comments. I could contribute, and occassionally do, but there's often little point.
Anyway, I didn't mean to turn this thread into a criticism of kiwiblog, I just noted how different the tone was their compared with PAS.
-
The names of the four players are now public though the matter remains confused. Jackie's comment up thread are scarely prescient.
-
The names of the four players are now public though the matter remains confused.
And the Sun keeps it classy as always by describing them as being at the centre of "sex allegations", and consistently referring to the girl by her profession. Charming.
-
And the Sun keeps it classy as always by describing them as being at the centre of "sex allegations", and consistently referring to the girl by her profession. Charming.
Yeah I noticed that too. From the Sun:
The players involved feel under pressure and angry. They are single guys who said they did nothing wrong.
Apparently though they are angry at management for "gagging" them so they can't claim their innocence. I'm thinking "bullshit" but I don't know if I'm ready to call it yet.
-
Billy Bragg does come to mind here when 'reading' the Sun.
Where they offer you a feature
On stockings and suspenders
Next to a call for stiffer penalties for sex offendershttp://www.billybragg.co.uk/releases/singles/between_wars/between4.html
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1331738.ece
-
And the Sun keeps it classy as always by describing them as being at the centre of "sex allegations", and consistently referring to the girl by her profession.
Just to be devils advocate here,Lucy, What would the Sun call her. You don't know her name ,do you?And I'm sorry but that is all it is so far, a Sex allegation.The players claim innocence, want it out in the open. It is being reported that which happened was threesome and a couple watching,with her being aware and agreeable.All we have from her is,well , nothing but what someone heard,and mentioned to one of our not so accurate papers.If the police are investigating , they should come out and say, if it takes time to press charges or not ,the police should come out and say.Either way,without information that is accurate,it is just speculation.I am thinking of the Tea Ropati case when the lady couldn't remember fully what happened.The police went ahead and possibly you remember the outcome.What was a fact was she was a bit wasted,that was all they could prove so consequently he got off the charge.This should be non judgemental until the police say what they are doing, not gossip for newspapers and the like.I think everyone is very quick to assume because you know someone, some incident or ,happened to me ,so perhaps to be fair to everyone, innocent until proven guilty.Men included.
-
Just to be devils advocate here,Lucy, What would the Sun call her. You don't know her name ,do you?And I'm sorry but that is all it is so far, a Sex allegation.
You can be damn sure that if she was an accountant or a factory worker that wouldn't be mentioned. It would be perfectly acceptable to refer to her as a woman, teenager, girl - but, no, it's lapdancer all the way.
It's a rape allegation, which is somewhat different from a sex allegation. Making no judgements on the veracity thereof, to refer to it as a "sex allegation" is incorrect. That's not what has been alleged. And using the two phrases interchangeably conflates sex and rape in a way that they shouldn't be conflated.
The thing is, by making language changes like this the Sun creates an aura of saucy titillation around the whole thing - sex allegations! with a lapdancer! oooh! - which is totally inappropriate to the actual investigation. I don't think anyone here is willing to judge guilt or innocence based on what we know, because we don't know anything substantive. Or anything at all, really. But that doesn't mean we can't critique the media representation of the case.
-
i'd second that lucy. they could have said "alleged victim", "complainant", "young woman" etc. her profession has no relevance here. rape is rape, no matter who it is done to. and as i said on my first comment on this thread, she deserves as much benefit of the doubt as the players ie "we don't know what happened" includes the notion that she has potentially told the truth.
my concern is that by using the language they have and reporting it in the way they have, the paper makes it harder for the young woman to press charges if what she has alleged was true. it intimidates her, because she knows that if she goes further, the language and the vilification will only intensify.
as for police, they have said they are conducting an investigation. until they have results from said investigation, why would they be saying anything more?
-
We dont have many facts to go on, but some things that are public are already contradictory....
One of the named four, is also the one that 'Angel' has named and said could not be involved....
I see many possibilities...
1) Newspaper has made a mistake, or is reporting false rumors.
2) Newspaper has used "sex allegations" on purpose so they can include 1 rape allegation and 1 seemingly consented to and mutually satisfying act into one story.
3) 'Angel' is not aware of all facts and is mistakenly providing alibi in good conscience.
4) "Angel' is aware of facts and is lying.There may well be other possibilities that hadnt occured to me?
-
Last night this topic came up at pre-pub-quiz dinner. One person was surprised to learn that the alleged rape victim and "Angel" were two different people. He thought it was a bit strange that this woman would claim rape and sell her sex story to the tabs.
I wonder how many others have got the two mixed up?
-
Robyn that begs the question - how did he go in the Pub Quiz?
-
no shep, i wouldn't blame him. the front page article on ms lewis ("angel") in the waikato times made no mention of the fact that the alleged victim was in fact a person other than ms lewis. from reading that piece, we found out that ms lewis couldn't understand where the rape allegations came from given she had had great sex with one of the players and they all seemed like really nice guys. once could easily conclude that the allegations had been made on her behalf and she had no idea why. i'm sure the times wasn't the only paper to do this, and in fact craig made the same mistake way up-thread. i certainly wouldn't suspect his quiz-winning abilities because of it!
-
True point, but I'm still interested.
On naming & shaming, by way of occupation.
Anyone else notice the victim stated as a lapdancer & Sophie Lewis aka Angel Barbie, but named as Angel by the Sun is a model. -
Actually, the newspaper did not say she was a model, but instead a 'model'.
They made a point of using quote marks each time they said it.
I suspect they were trying to imply something...
Post your response…
This topic is closed.