 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The Prototype 
Paint my face with a good-for-nothin smile.
Joined: 23 Apr 2003
Location: Hobart, Tasmania
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| David wrote: | | So, hang on, was that it? Or was there another incident? Please tell me there was, because if that's what he was sacked over... |
Well that woman was supposedly getting messages and such back in August, and it ended in November, so I guess there was that one and the recent one on Snapchat. I have no idea what 'Kik' is but apparently he met the 23 year old on there and was messaging her and wanting sex.
In the past he also told the Blues he was too sick to play but was posting pictures of him on the beach on instragram so it seems there was form there and the latest one was the one that helped get him sacked.
Now if the girl was underaged as the rumours around Facebook suggest and her parents dobbed her in that's fair enough, I would assume he was sacked not because of one issue but all of them.
_________________
Đavâgé
https://www.facebook.com/davehardingphotography
https://www.facebook.com/Davage |
|
|
|
 |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Granted on all the other stuff, but this was the trigger. After all the other incidents, he might have been rapped over the knuckles severely and he might have been skating on very thin ice, but he was still employed. The problem for me is that it was this that was the tipping point.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
The Prototype
Paint my face with a good-for-nothin smile.
Joined: 23 Apr 2003
Location: Hobart, Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I have to wonder if this was just an excuse for them to terminate him early, as they were going to do so at seasons end anyway. It didnt seem at all likely he was ever going to play again at the club, and seemed a weird bit of timing that after all the bad behaviour this was the final straw.
I guess when he "breaks his silence" we'll hear more of this bizarre story.
_________________
Đavâgé
https://www.facebook.com/davehardingphotography
https://www.facebook.com/Davage |
|
|
|
|
Culprit 
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Port Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| King Monkey wrote: | ^Can't believe you're the one to make the link!!  |
At the moment on one with half the team out injured we will take him. We just won't pay for his phone apps.  |
|
|
|
|
swoop42
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Location: The 18
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Granted on all the other stuff, but this was the trigger. After all the other incidents, he might have been rapped over the knuckles severely and he might have been skating on very thin ice, but he was still employed. The problem for me is that it was this that was the tipping point. |
So is this 23 year old the same female being identified as a teenager just days ago or is this a different incident altogether?
_________________
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD! |
|
|
|
|
1061
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Brenny wrote: | | David wrote: | | think positive wrote: | Well done stupied
The prosecution rests! |
Um, the prosecution rests because someone here read something posted by someone who claims to know someone? One hopes that the law of the land requires a little more in the way of evidence!
Though, if true, that story does seem to explain the decision by his management and AFLPA not to pursue the matter. That doesn't mean that they were totally in the right, however—there could still have been reasonable mitigating factors: did Bootsma know that she was underage? Was he in a position to know?
I know there are some here who think that the mere act of taking a photo of your penis and putting it online makes you a godforsaken pervert, and there'd be more than a few people with that mentality in the Carlton boardroom, so I can imagine those people will have already tuned out. Those with a modicum of interest in employee rights, on the other hand, might take a slightly more balanced approach to this.
Anyway, whether or not she was underage, I do want to see a time in the future when players' off-field actions are no longer considered aspects of their employment. If it's a matter for the law then the law can sort it out. These draconian "social media codes" laid out by employers are just totally unnecessary and—yes, Stui—more than a little fascist. |
David just in regards to the red bold (and the bold only).
Forget that he's a football player and lets call him a regular person.
Regardless of anything, the person in question (Bootsma) should have had enough common sense not to put himself in that position in the first place.
Snap chat or not, he should have had that bit of mind to say to himself 'this could get me in trouble'. Not necessarily with his employer, but with the law! |
Brenny that red bit you highlighted is Bullcrap!
If the girl was underage the Police would be involved as Carlton FC are mandated to report anything like that so Bootsma would loose his WWCC(working with childrens check). So please get down off your high moral ground and reassess your own thinking. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
David, you're so focused on saying that things that are, shouldn't be.
I strongly suggest you don't take the same stance with the law of gravity. It may not end well. 
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
King Monkey
Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Location: On a journey to seek the scriptures of enlightenment....
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | King Monkey wrote: | | The actions of young Bootsma have the potential to diminish those 2 sources of income. |
Bullshit. That's what Neil Mitchell and the tabloid newspapers that thrive on sensationalism and prying into people's private affairs want you to believe. The fact is that most football fans don't give a rat's what players get up to in their spare time and the vast majority of them would never let such trivialities affect their choice whether to renew or not.
Sponsors, admittedly, are a slightly different matter. Many aren't afraid to play the cynical game of taking the moral high ground—and, more importantly, getting a bit of free publicity—over some tabloid issue and then quietly crawling back a few weeks or months later once the scapegoat has been thrown under the bus. Even if they leave for good, there's always guaranteed to be someone there willing to take their place. Football clubs are lucrative that way.
But this all misses the point: clubs aren't just responsible for getting x amount of profits in a given financial year. They have—or, at least, should have—the responsibility to treat their employees with fairness and dignity, even if in some cases it might cost them a sponsor or a handful of self-righteous members.
Let me present you with the following analogy: a star Collingwood player comes out as gay. Let's say that it emerges that he goes to The Peel every weekend in the off-season and takes another gentleman home. Now, as I said, I don't really believe that fans tear up their memberships because of the actions of one player, but let's say your hypothesis were true and they actually do: there are plenty of homophobic football supporters out there who think that homosexuality is immoral and repugnant. Perhaps there might even be a homophobic sponsor, perhaps a Christian charity or some backwoods country timber company who have a lot of 'old-fashioned' customers and can't afford to be associated with homosexuality. Under your hypothesis, the club will actually lose money because of this revelation. Should they censure that player for his actions?
Now, you'll say that the difference here is that being a promiscuous gay man is not immoral but trying to cheat on your girlfriend is. But who ever set clubs up as moral arbiters over such things? Why should they have the right to be? This is Stui's cue to come in and remind us that employers are currently granted the ability to make demands on employees' private lives and that social media behaviour is covered by player contracts. We know all that. My argument is that they should not be able to do so. Carlton should not have had the right to sack Bootsma over this, and I really wish that the AFLPA would take a stronger line on these issues. Unfortunately, I think that they're too invested in player payments to make a serious commitment to civil liberties. |
Lovely to know that you're in the heads of most football supporters. 
I know it wouldn't affect my choice in regards to membership, but not everybody thinks like me. (And God help the world if there are many out there that think like you!! )
The person that is umming and ahhring about whether to fork out for a membership, you don't think the way the club handles something like this might sway them one way or the other?? Remember, not YOUR view, put yourself in the shoes of a mother with 2 impressionable daughters.
Your point is correct regarding the bit about sponsors manipulating situations to their advantage, they will always travel downwind.
But the fact is, that actually strengthens the side of the argument you're arguing against!!
If a company feels their support of something has the potential to bring scorn upon themselves, they have every right to question their sponsorship. And why on God's green earth, would a club thumb their nose at a sponsor's position (within reason) after working so hard to obtain them in the first place??
I think you're a little mistaken with the "lining up to sponsor" bit, it's not that easy getting a company to hand over up to and upwards of $1m per year.
And again, it IS NOT a PRIVATE matter.
He's put the pictures and words out there himself, he hasn't been secretly filmed or had his phone tapped or anything underhanded like that.
Also, that is one of the most ridiculous hypotheticals I've ever seen!!
Having nude pictures of yourself out in the public sphere off your own hand, whilst propositioning a girl young enough that she still lives with mum whilst your girlfriend's heavily pregnant; pretty repugnant by most people's standards................ picking up the gender of your choice at the nightspot of your choice, maybe giving the sh1ts to a few homophobes.
Yeah, I can see the correlation!!
Finally, yep, all employers including football clubs are required to treat their employees with respect and dignity.
I couldn't agree with that statement more.
But, David, is that only a one way street??
What to do when that's not reciprocated??...........
_________________
"I am a great sage, equal of heaven.
Grow stick, grow.
Fly cloud, fly.
Oh you are a dee-mon, I love to fiiight." |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Goddamn KM, No wonder your wife can't tell us apart, we really do think the same.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
partypie
Joined: 01 Oct 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Scuse me, but shouldn't he be sacked on the basis of bad taste? |
|
|
|
|
King Monkey
Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Location: On a journey to seek the scriptures of enlightenment....
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | Goddamn KM, No wonder your wife can't tell us apart, we really do think the same. |
You can av her........... 
_________________
"I am a great sage, equal of heaven.
Grow stick, grow.
Fly cloud, fly.
Oh you are a dee-mon, I love to fiiight." |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
No, I honestly don't believe that more than an insignificant few would cancel their membership over something like this. Takes all kinds, of course, but membership is mostly either a self-interested choice (i.e. "is it a good deal for me?") and/or an attachment to the prestige of supporting a football club. The Carlton Football Club is much, much bigger than a single player at a single moment in history who couldn't even get a game in the seniors anyway. Bootsma was not "Carlton" any more than Aaron James was "Collingwood" back in the mid-'90s.
Perhaps to get out of the realm of the hypothetical, ask yourself this: how many Collingwood members do you know who tore up their memberships—who even considered tearing up their memberships—over what Marley Williams did? Anyone? And if you think deliberately breaking a man's jaw is not as bad as sending a nude picture, well, that's kind of weird.
| King Monkey wrote: | And again, it IS NOT a PRIVATE matter.
He's put the pictures and words out there himself, he hasn't been secretly filmed or had his phone tapped or anything underhanded like that.
Also, that is one of the most ridiculous hypotheticals I've ever seen!!
Having nude pictures of yourself out in the public sphere off your own hand, whilst propositioning a girl young enough that she still lives with mum whilst your girlfriend's heavily pregnant; pretty repugnant by most people's standards................ picking up the gender of your choice at the nightspot of your choice, maybe giving the sh1ts to a few homophobes.
Yeah, I can see the correlation!! |
Snapchat—if it was, as reported, the medium used—is by its very definition a private service. About as non-public as you can get. Snapchats can only be seen by the individual you send them to and, I believe, autodestruct after 10 seconds or something. It is possible to take a screenshot, however, which seems to be what has happened here.
I know people in their 30s who still live with their parents, so I'm not sure what that's got to do with anything. Apart from some random Bigfooty post by someone who claims to know somebody, we still don't know that she was underage.
I know neither you nor your six foot eight, formerly mulleted alter ego () are fond of hypothetical analogies, but this one's quite valid: it's about "giving the shits to a few homophobes" or "giving the shits to a few of society's moral guardians". I reckon we're talking a similar population there (and dare I say more than a little crossover). We're talking about money, sponsors and public reaction. It's not exactly a quantum leap.
| King Monkey wrote: | Finally, yep, all employers including football clubs are required to treat their employees with respect and dignity.
I couldn't agree with that statement more.
But, David, is that only a one way street??
What to do when that's not reciprocated??........... |
Completely agree that it has to be mutual. By allegedly wagging training, it sounds like Bootsma wasn't upholding his part of the deal. But I don't consider conducting extramarital affairs, sending nude pictures, having a wank, wearing mismatching socks or whatever constitutes an act of disrespect against your employer—even if it is explicitly (and unreasonably) against their code of conduct. Do you usually think of your employer when you send dirty text messages to your lover? I know I don't!
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I'm 6'3" and a bit. i only look like 6'8" to munchkins
There's a Nancy Sinatra song that could be very easily corrupted in several ways to suit this situation.
Bring it on, someone.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
1061
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: |
Snapchat—if it was, as reported, the medium used—is by its very definition a private service. About as non-public as you can get. Snapchats can only be seen by the individual you send them to and, I believe, autodestruct after 10 seconds or something. It is possible to take a screenshot, however, which seems to be what has happened here. |
A point I was trying to get across yesterday although apparently there is an app that can record snapchat without the other person knowing.
| David wrote: | | I know people in their 30s who still live with their parents, so I'm not sure what that's got to do with anything. Apart from some random Bigfooty post by someone who claims to know somebody, we still don't know that she was underage. |
I think we do know as there is no Police Involvement. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
