NEWS Plod Haas

[Clintos]

Please re-read what you just wrote. It's nonsensical.

If you think it's nonsensical then perhaps it is you who is the simpleton?

You brought law into a discussion about the public perception of words.

I'll make it really simple for you, okay?

Folau = bad words people don't like
Haas = bad words people don't like
Both bad.
Both deserve to have public upset with them.

 

[Kooly87]

Folau has been punished by the public.

He lost his job, and rightly sued.
He got another job in another country and the public was upset
He tried to get another job in his home country and the public outcry was bad enough for the club to terminate discussions.

I'm not sure what you're trying to even say now? The NRL owes him a job because he would like one? The public owes him acceptance of what he said because he'd like that?

The ARU was wrong to sack him. Not morally wrong perhaps, but almost certainly legally wrong. The fact they agreed to settle suggests they know this too. They made the business decision to part company with him, likely knowing it would cost them in legal proceedings, because that is probably cheaper than upsetting sponsors and risking alienating fans. Sacking him was almost certainly a dollars and cents call, not a moral one.

What Folau did was legal, but that doesn't exclude him from the consequences of his actions in the public space. He has to live with those consequences even if they are legal. If you say things that are offensive or hurtful to a large cross section of people you have to expect that this will limit how willing other people will be to become commercially involved with you. It's your choice as a free adult. The NRL can choose who it employs and Folau can choose how to conduct himself on social media. Neither party owes the other a thing.

It is not, however, your choice to verbally abuse (assault) a Police Officer. Under no circumstances is this acceptable and the public's opinion is irrelevant on this one because once you have broken the law you will be punished by the Court and once that has taken place just about every employment contract in existence has provisions for termination.

 

[Kooly87]

If you think it's nonsensical then perhaps it is you who is the simpleton?

You brought law into a discussion about the public perception of words.

I'll make it really simple for you, okay?

Folau = bad words people don't like
Haas = bad words people don't like
Both bad.
Both deserve to have public upset with them.

Dude, what has the public perception got to do with Payne Haas? He's broken the law, plain and simple. His NRL contract almost certainly stipulates that if he does this he's liable to be punished or even terminated.

How is an actual Adult not able to understand the difference?

 

[Brent81]

If you think it's nonsensical then perhaps it is you who is the simpleton?

You brought law into a discussion about the public perception of words.

I'll make it really simple for you, okay?

Folau = bad words people don't like
Haas = bad words people don't like
Both bad.
Both deserve to have public upset with them.

Folau = bad words people didn't like but no threat of violence
Haas = threatened a female police officer with actual violence

Remind me how the second one is equivalent to the first?

Respectfully, I'd suggest Haas' conduct is more like Matt Lodge's NY incident than it is Folau's.

I like Payne but he should be rubbed out for a long time.

 

[Kooly87]

Folau = bad words people didn't like but no threat of violence
Haas = threatened a female police officer with actual violence

Remind me how the second one is equivalent to the first?

Respectfully, I'd suggest Haas' conduct is more like Matt Lodge's NY incident than it is Folau's.

I like Payne but he should be rubbed out for a long time.

Yeah, but if you dumb it down into two lines and use 'equals' signs then both sentences vaguely look the same on paper and in a really simple mind that is as good as making them the same thing.

 

[McHunt]

Ranting and raving when you're worked up and angry is different to actually acting out what you're saying. (I've said some awful things I didn't mean in a rage).

And I'm the first to be up and arms and judgey about violence against women.

Side note: What is happening to Folau is a joke, there are way worse offenders in the NRL (oh hi Dylan Walker) and yet the cancel culture is so vitriolic that because he's a RWNJ he's the worst? Please.

----
I think the Broncos culture took a massive hit when the Alumbra incident happenned and it's all been downhill since then.

Yes, these two cases are not even remotely related.

Israel warned us fornicators, drunks and bum-jumpers that we'll go to Hell if we keep rooting, drinking and bumming. First you have to believe in Hell for that to work as a threat. Second that threat is not coming from Israel, he's merely issuing a warning. Because that's what his book has told him to do. It was a PSA. We all know the deal there. It's not exactly news. It's the opposite of news. It's very old hat. So old hat, we laugh it off. Usually. Until someone noticed the gay bit. He wasn't saying they should be put to death. But let's not bring the Old Testament/Islam into this.

Payne was being an overbearing dick according to every decent bloke, every woman who's not severely damaged plus all the other genders I can't think of at this time. And that's without bringing the law into it. Payne needs an older bloke he respects to be disappointed in him. Petero springs instantly to mind.

 

[McHunt]

I'm not sure what you're trying to even say now? The NRL owes him a job because he would like one? The public owes him acceptance of what he said because he'd like that?

The ARU was wrong to sack him. Not morally wrong perhaps, but almost certainly legally wrong. The fact they agreed to settle suggests they know this too. They made the business decision to part company with him, likely knowing it would cost them in legal proceedings, because that is probably cheaper than upsetting sponsors and risking alienating fans. Sacking him was almost certainly a dollars and cents call, not a moral one.

What Folau did was legal, but that doesn't exclude him from the consequences of his actions in the public space. He has to live with those consequences even if they are legal. If you say things that are offensive or hurtful to a large cross section of people you have to expect that this will limit how willing other people will be to become commercially involved with you. It's your choice as a free adult. The NRL can choose who it employs and Folau can choose how to conduct himself on social media. Neither party owes the other a thing.

It is not, however, your choice to verbally abuse (assault) a Police Officer. Under no circumstances is this acceptable and the public's opinion is irrelevant on this one because once you have broken the law you will be punished by the Court and once that has taken place just about every employment contract in existence has provisions for termination.

Yes, you are free to speak, but we are also free to judge you by your words. Or so the theory goes. In practice, we are not free to speak. But that's a whole different topic.

Bottom line is "anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law." Israel's implied threat - that God would send people to Hell - wouldn't last a second in court.

 

[pagey]

Abdo basically saying he is going to be suspended for games.

Lumby’s comments probably didn’t help his cause either.

Of cause he will he's a bronco , they'll make an example out of him

 

[Clintos]

Dude, what has the public perception got to do with Payne Haas? He's broken the law, plain and simple. His NRL contract almost certainly stipulates that if he does this he's liable to be punished or even terminated.

How is an actual Adult not able to understand the difference?

**** me dead. This is why I stopped posting on BHQ. People just infer things that were never said and get in arguments when we are saying the same fucking thing.

Please point out in any of my posts where I compared the two things directly?
I said multiple times I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy that people are prepared to allow Payne to play on, but yell and scream about how Folau shouldn't be allowed back into the NRL.

I'm not defending Payne. I'm not defending Folau.
I am pointing out that people are rightly upset about BOTH scenarios.

Go back and read my initial post and the post I quoted.
It was in response to another poster saying people were overreacting to what Payne did in threatening to sit him down for the year.
My initial post was simply pointing out that I am not surprised people are reacting in the way that they have based on the way people reacted to news Folau was potentially coming back.
YOU brought up that conflation when it was never present.

I bring up freedom of speech and you made the correlation to the law, when I specifically mention that people need to accept the punishments of cancel culture. You are reading into things that are not there.

The entire point was that Payne did worse, and will likely cop a lesser punishment.

 

[pagey]

So you can use cocain and test positive and get 4 weeks suspension plus $5000 fine , yet still be sweet to play round 1.
But abuse the cops get no conviction and probably end up with a $30k fine and 10 week suspension.

 

[Midean]

So you can use cocain and test positive and get 4 weeks suspension plus $5000 fine , yet still be sweet to play round 1.
But abuse the cops get no conviction and probably end up with a $30k fine and 10 week suspension.

Exactly this.

Its a fucking joke of the highest order.
No one is condoning Haas behavior, he acted like a tool, and will pay the price, but the penalty has to fit the crime, and what he did would usually end up with a night in the drunk tank and slap on the wrist in the morning.

This is getting silly. Fine him, Send him to a counselor and give him 100 hours community service with the cops.

 

[pagey]

Exactly this.

Its a fucking joke of the highest order.
No one is condoning Haas behavior, he acted like a tool, and will pay the price, but the penalty has to fit the crime, and what he did would usually end up with a night in the drunk tank and slap on the wrist in the morning.

This is getting silly. Fine him, Send him to a counselor and give him 100 hours community service with the cops.

Exactly, sitting him out is just hurting the club not the player.

 

[Kooly87]

Exactly this.

Its a fucking joke of the highest order.
No one is condoning Haas behavior, he acted like a tool, and will pay the price, but the penalty has to fit the crime, and what he did would usually end up with a night in the drunk tank and slap on the wrist in the morning.

This is getting silly. Fine him, Send him to a counselor and give him 100 hours community service with the cops.

He literally got less punishment than that. What part of this are you not comprehending?

 

[Kooly87]

So you can use cocain and test positive and get 4 weeks suspension plus $5000 fine , yet still be sweet to play round 1.
But abuse the cops get no conviction and probably end up with a $30k fine and 10 week suspension.

That's a case of the drug punishment probably being too light, not the Police punishment being way too heavy. I'm not sure 10 weeks would be fair, but a slap on the wrist hardly seems reasonable punishment either for what is a fairly serious offence.

Even still, I'd suggest the Drug infraction is essentially only harmful to yourself and probably not as serious as threatening to assault a Police Officer in most reasonable people's eyes.

 

[Midean]

He literally got less punishment than that. What part of this are you not comprehending?

And rightfully so, have you not been reading this thread and people calling for him to be rubbed out for the season?
Its a massive overreaction.

 

[pagey]

That's a case of the drug punishment probably being too light, not the Police punishment being way too heavy. I'm not sure 10 weeks would be fair, but a slap on the wrist hardly seems reasonable punishment either for what is a fairly serious offence.

Even still, I'd suggest the Drug infraction is essentially only harmful to yourself and probably not as serious as threatening to assault a Police Officer in most reasonable people's eyes.

Well thats all a matter of opinion, being drugged up puts people around you in danger not just yourself. What's a drunken threat to assault someone without actually laying a hand on them ?
My preference is to slap him with a fine and working with police aswell as counseling in some capacity, it's about making them a better equipped for this type of situation.

 

[BroncsFan]

So you can use cocain and test positive and get 4 weeks suspension plus $5000 fine , yet still be sweet to play round 1.
But abuse the cops get no conviction and probably end up with a $30k fine and 10 week suspension.

Do coke your whole career and you might even become an immortal

 

[Kooly87]

Well thats all a matter of opinion, being drugged up puts people around you in danger not just yourself. What's a drunken threat to assault someone without actually laying a hand on them ?
My preference is to slap him with a fine and working with police aswell as counseling in some capacity, it's about making them a better equipped for this type of situation.

I'd accept that as a fair argument in terms of drugs vs verbal assault. I might not agree entirely, but I'm sure that plenty of people would, so I accept that you might be right. As I said, I'm inclined to say the drug penalty was probably too light, not the assault penalty was way too harsh.

I think maybe a month on the sidelines and a hefty fine with maybe half of it suspended seems around about right. That's pretty fair incentive not to make that mistake again considering you know it'll cost you both a new fine next time plus half of this fine that was suspended.

As for the counselling, well that goes without saying and should have been in place long before things ever escalated to this point.