Broncos Player Movement and Rumours 2020

[ostin86]

Well why don't we go back to the days where you can call black people offensive names and tell them they are going to hell? They should just choose not to let them affect them right?

Modern western society is actually obsessed with African American culture. I doubt we would ever end up like that again.
[automerge]1569291469[/automerge]

what would you call tell people they are going to hell ... love speech?

I would call it being stupid enough to express his backwards opinions on social media.....and nothing more.

The term 'Hate speech' is actually dangerous imo. And I worry about how people could be unfairly persecuted in future for what may fall under it's umbrella.

 

[broncos4life]

Modern western society is actually obsessed with African American culture. I doubt we would ever end up like that again.
[automerge]1569291469[/automerge]

Was not the point at all.

 

[Bronco bob]

what would you call tell people they are going to hell ... love speech?

@Foordy If you read what I wrote carefully, you would see that I wasn't arguing that what Folau said was or wasn't hate speech. I was using that as an example to explain to @Bronco4life that we don't have free speech in Australia. Furthermore, the legal definition for 'Hate Speech' in Australia is only related to racial and religious vilification, not gender, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity. So to answer your question @Foordy, telling people that they will go to hell because of their sexuality is not hate speech.

 

[Bronco bob]

Well why don't we go back to the days where you can call black people offensive names and tell them they are going to hell? They should just choose not to let them affect them right?

I agree we shouldn't go back to these times but this example is different and not relevant. First, it is legally classed as hate speech. Secondly, it is not in his religion that black people will go to hell so it is not his religious beliefs.

 

[Sproj]

Flanagan?

I'm fairly sure you know the answer to this question but if you honestly don't:

- Presided over a drug saga
- Presided over salary cap shenanigans
- Did not abide by the rules of a ban for previous actions - this is the key one here, not the two above

It does not matter whether you or anyone feels these are significant or insignificant, that is absolutely not the point.

The point is he was banned, didn't even abide by the ban and is now back in the game. It is impossible to say Folau won't be back again for sure, regardless of whether this is fair or not.

 

[Bongo]

Lol he hasn't abused anyone. He isint exactly hiding behind his faith, if anything he is doing the opposite. And have you ever considered that you are actually discriminating him in saying that he should not be able to express his beliefs?

Folau has not had his freedom off speech denied. He expressed his personal views and these views differed from the organisation he worked for. Did he breach their policy or what he had agreed to do as part of his employment? Well, there is a current legal process to determine that question. At the end of the day the organisation decided that his views did not align with theirs and he is a public figure. There is an argument of "disrepute" once again a legal question (i.e Todd Carney).

In my view Folau and the ARU both handled the situation badly to the detriment of everyone. If they had taken a different approach early on it could have resulted in an inclusive outcome rather than an ongoing divisive debate. Maybe Izzy was unwilling to acknowledge he could have represented his view better. Maybe ARU did not make it clear enough what his responsibilities were about his social media posts or showed little understanding about his beliefs. Its hard to know what happened behind the scenes and conclusively determine the events.

My personal view is that the Izzy's opinions about homosexuality do not align with my views. I think they do cause harm. However, even more harm will be caused by the ongoing polarising views on both sides of the debate.

The question is, is it fair to exclude him from sport for this when others have committed violent crimes and been allowed to return. There is no easy answer here. Also, other sportsman have expressed hateful views and have not been excluded. Darren Lehmann called a Sri Lankan player a racist name and went on to coach the national team. Bryan Fletcher did the same and now is a Rugby league personality with a broadcaster. But there are some factual differences in those cases that may not make them comparable.

In any case, Rugby league has the right to decide whether he can come back within the scope of the law. They may choose to exercise that discretion on the condition it is lawful.

 

[Huge]

I'm fairly sure you know the answer to this question but if you honestly don't:

- Presided over a drug saga
- Presided over salary cap shenanigans
- Did not abide by the rules of a ban for previous actions - this is the key one here, not the two above

It does not matter whether you or anyone feels these are significant or insignificant, that is absolutely not the point.

The point is he was banned, didn't even abide by the ban and is now back in the game. It is impossible to say Folau won't be back again for sure, regardless of whether this is fair or not.

Yes, there once was a footballer back in 60s who got blind drunk at the awards night and said something inappropriate to the club chairmans wife. There's no end to the list of bad things is there? That terrible night scarred me forever not to mention the psychological trauma the poor woman felt for decades after.

Spare me! Flanagan got some shit wrong but it was hardly what you made it out to be. Presided !! Ha ha. He was the head coach. He is not ultimately responsible but does bear some responsibility. He also isn't in charge of the salary cap. You see, head coach is not one of the top three or four positions. He's an employee down the food chain but a fair way from the bottom. It's true he sent an email or two but **** me, it's not Watergate!

 

[Dazza 92]

also the GM at Cronulla at the time was a utter Muppet too. (cant recall his name..?)

 

[Jedhead]

also the GM at Cronulla at the time was a utter Muppet too. (cant recall his name..?)

Kermit?

 

[john1420]

I don't give 2 hoots what Izzy posted on Insta
I don't want him in Bronco colours simply because he is not what this team needs
He would command a lot of money (probably) and he hasn't played the game in years
And where do you put him? Wing? Centre?
That's about it, certainly not fullback or the halves, the 2 spots we actually need someone

 

[Bongo]

I don't give 2 hoots what Izzy posted on Insta
I don't want him in Bronco colours simply because he is not what this team needs
He would command a lot of money (probably) and he hasn't played the game in years
And where do you put him? Wing? Centre?
That's about it, certainly not fullback or the halves, the 2 spots we actually need someone

I agree, putting aside the ethical discussion, I do not think he is worth signing.

 

[Socnorb]

I can't believe some people are still having problems with the Folau situation.
The only reason he get clicks is because of his standing in the ARU. If the ARU did nothing to censure him they would be seen to be endorsing his comments. If he wasn't the Australian fullback he would have been seen as another crazy hate filled preacher, and no one would've cared. Make no mistake ,this was a political statement from Folau and his handlers.
Sorry Izzy. the world has moved on, perhaps not for all.

 

[Aldo]

So how about all those Broncos player signings.........

 

[the_next]

Glenn to the panthers. Could be a massive lose for us. Not sure it’s the greatest decision if we let him walk.
we are struggling for leadership as it is.

 

[Sproj]

Yes, there once was a footballer back in 60s who got blind drunk at the awards night and said something inappropriate to the club chairmans wife. There's no end to the list of bad things is there? That terrible night scarred me forever not to mention the psychological trauma the poor woman felt for decades after.

Spare me! Flanagan got some shit wrong but it was hardly what you made it out to be. Presided !! Ha ha. He was the head coach. He is not ultimately responsible but does bear some responsibility. He also isn't in charge of the salary cap. You see, head coach is not one of the top three or four positions. He's an employee down the food chain but a fair way from the bottom. It's true he sent an email or two but **** me, it's not Watergate!

Yep as expected, point totally missed.

 

[Super Freak]

I have never heard of such a strict social media policy and I work in a relatively senior corporate role.

Really? You've never heard of such social media policies despite working in a relatively senior corporate role?

I work as a cleaner and even we have a strict social media policy. If I said that kind of shit then I would be called into the office the next day and sacked on the spot.

 

[theshed]

Glenn to the panthers. Could be a massive lose for us. Not sure it’s the greatest decision if we let him walk.
we are struggling for leadership as it is.

Is there any reason to think there’s anything to this rumour ?

 

[broncos4life]

Really? You've never heard of such social media policies despite working in a relatively senior corporate role?

I work as a cleaner and even we have a strict social media policy. If I said that kind of shit then I would be called into the office the next day and sacked on the spot.

Probably different for relatively senior corporate types, no social media policies for them.