Richmond players back Caro, boycott Triple M

How does it make it different though when she's obviously been targeted because of her professional relationship with Eddie? What it sounds like you are saying is that she deserves/ or needs special treatment or protection because of her gender. That goes against the very idea of equality in my mind, and undermines her strength of character to back up her own actions and her professional work. This is the part where we will have to agree to disagree. I believe people like me arguing these things want the same thing as those like you. We want equality, and equal opportunity for all. But we have vastly different Ideas on what that necessarily looks like or how to get there. IMO the path to equality is not paved with double standards or upfront assumptions on how people should be judged or treated based on whatever demographic they fall into, and that needs to apply to everybody for a society to work, not just who you think it needs to applied to. So yes violent language needs to be minded, domestic violence definitely so, but to think this situation has anything to do with that is ludicrous. "I think that you, Tricky, and the others criticising those who try to do the right thing, just want the fight." No I want rational reactions in proportion with the instigations that have caused those reactions. I don't want people reacting in emotional ways that cause overreactions to something they have only perceived to have happened, without analysing their own position. I try to apply this to myself about everything. Strawman time - 1.Endorsed was perhaps the wrong word, I meant in the way that he is trivialising the matter to a point where he is part of the cause of the problem, and therefore adding to issue of domestic violence. That is what the heart of the issue is about, that IS what a lot of people are saying, that his words somehow add to this serious issue. I believe that is a massively unfair stretch of what was said and I strongly disagree that those words have that effect on society and human interaction Strawman 2 - No I sincerely believe that these issues get dragged into media because they divide people between rationality and emotions and generate a lot of hits. I also believe a lot of people can rationally see the comments for what they, largely ineffectual. But vocal minorities get quotes, and that generates the attention form all sorts. Everyone sincerely believes they are on the right side. Sponsors like Holden can even get in on it by generating free press by saying LOOK AT US WE'RE DOING SOMETHING IN THE NAME OF A GOOD CAUSE, and if anyone dares take issue with this apparent self-righteous side - they are the devil and adding to the problem of sexism. Consider me completely sucked in. "Political correctness isn’t going mad, it’s just that a lot of people have a hard time adhering to that definition you’ve posted" - Uh, yes, exactly, they are stretching the definition PC or "Common Decency" to claim words, jokes and contexts that have no effect or reference to a marginalised group of people or a good social justice cause, as undermining towards said group or social justice cause. They are saying these words or jokes appear much more serious or effectual than they actually are. I think political correctness is important, I am aware of privilege and the attitude on those who have it, can affect those without. I am also aware that things can be taken to a very irrational extreme, this is case in point. Make no mistake, I don't believe anyone trying to vilify Eddie doesn't believe they are fighting for a good cause, I don't agree however with other principles they are disregarding to fight it. You could make much better progress in other ways rather than going on a witch hunt based on perceptions and feelings,

Didn't he issue an apology? Why would he do that? Wasn't he also fined $5k by his own club? It's unlikely just a bit of gossip gone astray if he apologizes.

Utter rubbish. Unless you can unequivocally say that Martin was guilty of some crime against the person involved, lack of evidence notwithstanding, that remains nothing but your opinion. Id prefer to go with the facts (as stated in earlier posts). You clearly fit into the category of believing him guilty regardless.

You don't see any hypocrisy and bewilderment between the Richmond players taking a stand on this issue versus turning a blind eye to the drunken, aggressive chopstick incident? I can't take them seriously when they're so selective. As for the MMM bullies, you're right. But Caro insults people on a weekly basis (and apparently that's okay, because she's a journalist just expressing her opinion) so she can hardly grizzle.

Milo, Miranda is right - the hypocrisy and lack of understanding by Richmond players of which issue is worse behavior (exponentially worse in my opinion), makes them look like confused fools.

That's your opinion however the fact is that Dustin still copped a massive whack publically for an extended period of time with a lot of should've known better journos and football commentators jumping on his case before the real facts came out. Clearly there are some including yourself who will always believe his guilt no matter what. So no regardless of the $5k suspended fine I don't think for one minute he got off scott free. It was a lesson hard earned by a usually reserved young man who clearly should lay off the grog and away from dubious characters. Eddie is also copping his right whack and will I hope learn from his experience again.

A suspended fine is meaningless in this case. "So long as you don't go drunk in public again, bashing walls and swearing at Women you don't know while pointing chopticks at their faces and you'll be right Dusty." There's a good boy... Oh, and don't go on Triple M either, because they don't respect Women over there.

"What could he do that would make people scared of him" Use his 101 different media shows to bag the cr@p out of them. And get all of his boys club to do the same.

TWAS, can I ask who you barrack for?

Being intoxicated and using offensive language was clearly not acceptable hence the $5k suspended fine. Eddie hasn't been given any official penalty (which is fine by me), but he's been through the public wringer and has hopefully learnt another lesson. Again.

Intoxicated and guity of using offensive language (Brendan Gale's words in the statement describing the incident) apparently is completely acceptable and all part of a good "night out". But having a joke on the radio is not. Do you seriously consider that Mcguire's behavior was the worse of these two incidents?

A channel 7 employee voluntarily approached a clearly intoxicated Martin to get a rise out of him. Then proceeded to tell the world how drunk and abusive he was because he told her where to go. Some may call this media opportunism. I will leave that to others to judge. However factually, there was no prosecution because there was no evidence of assault (verbal or physical) despite a restaurant full of people the majority of whom you can safely assume had mobile phones - with one actually filming the so called incident. Factually Martin was fined A$5k (suspended) by RFC for being drunk when he shouldn't have been. Being naïve and expecting to be able to have a night out after a concert was his sin and for that hopefully he will learn that he is no longer part of Joe Public and cannot put himself in other gullible positions.

Police deciding not to prosecute over what by then was a historical event does not equate to cleared. If Martin had done nothing wrong, there would have been no need for his apology, nor his Club's $5000 suspended fine. One event being considered here was an innocuous jibe at another individual known to the subject. The other was a violent, drunken outburst directed at a complete stranger. For the RFC to take a moral stand given the disparity between these two incidents only highlights their hipocrisy.

No, it doesn't actually. Sorry.

Excellent comment.

It does make a difference that Caroline Wilson is a woman! This is the baffling thing about the defenders of these comments. In everyday life, in every circumstance that I can think of, we understand that using violent language about women is just not on. We (hopefully) don't have a lot of tolerance for joking about assaulting someone in any context, but we have even less when the subject is a woman. And yet discussions like this one are stacked with people telling me its the same thing. I doubt the defenders of the comments, like yourself Stripes, really believe that. I doubt they apply the principle in their day to day lives that the same language applies to men as to women. If they do, then that's a whole other problem. I think that you, Tricky, and the others criticising those who try to do the right thing, just want the fight. Political correctness isn't going mad, it's just that a lot of people have a hard time adhering to that definition you've posted, which frankly seems to be just basic decency. Basic decency gone mad! I haven't heard anyone argue that McGuire endorsed domestic violence or sexism. That's just a strawman you've created to give you something to argue against. But the consensus has been he should have thought about not using such a metaphor about a woman, in the same way we're all expected to spend a fraction of a second thinking about what we say before we say it, and whether it's offensive in context. The reason this became a story, before the media got involved so 'selling papers' is yet another strawman, is because people heard the comments through social media and were appalled by it. And that is a perfectly normal reaction. That reaction is one of the few good things to come out of this. So three cheers for basic decency, by whatever name you choose to call it.

Because that's exactly what many of us are seeing. The implication that Eddie somehow endorsed sexism or domestic violence in his comments is absurd, illogical. They are feeling first and thinking a distant 2nd and people are choosing that rationality has no place in determining whether the comments are in linked to a very serious issue. I can understand issues with the bullying nature of it, if people wanted to have a go that his jokes were too distasteful/violent/graphic and were obviously down to his true feelings towards the journalist it would be much more understandable. But instead the fact the journalist was a woman somehow changes the scenario in a lot of peoples mind. Do we have any reason to believe he would not have made that joke if a male journalist had the same history with Eddie was in that situation? In what part did he give any indication he said what he did because she is a woman? In what part of what he said was there any reference to domestic violence? It is a massive stretch in many eyes that his comments can be linked to sexism or domestic violence without any proof except how over-sensitive people might be able to interpret them. The definition of Political Correctness - 1.the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against. This is exactly what people are accusing him of doing, marginalising women or trivialising domestic violence, when absolutely no indication of the sought is in what he said - the idea of them being interpreted in such a way is a massive stretch - so YES, PC going a bit mad. I've got no love for Eddie, but I am against people being able to stretch the rational interpretation of comments or jokes in the name of a serious issue to attain a moral high ground, and to create controversy and sell papers.

Cleared of what he apologised for doing?

Im sure they are losing lots of sleep over that as well. Fact you like triple m music sums you up.

Yeah it does