Pattinson suspended from first Test following 'serious slur'

You're right, no workplace harassment is acceptable, punishment should be meted out......sensibly. sadly CA, like most Aussie sporting organisations are not sensible administrators, they are hell bent on moralizing and social engineering. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds and that is no more evident than how they treated David and Candice Warner.

only mentioned that so you could get the discount of course ; )

Thanks for the tips Pierro! Have been a member for years :laughing: :thumbup:

Ok then depth it is.. a small step up sidewoods estate shiraz for 19 to 20 at dans (become a member)

Quaffer is my middle name but do prefer depth.

Something Donald Horne warned us about.

I wonder if we'll see CA officials mocking a touring team anytime in the next 647 years?

Now that pattinsons has his one match ban, and as your looking at a $10 special , Id suggest wynns siding cabernet ($12 to $14) if you feel like a quaffable wine (not to much depth but fruit forward) lol

Important yes Pierro. I may be in the “privileged majority” but I’m not wealthy. Would love too say it’s a ballsy grange from some back room of RA headquarters but I’ll have to say a $10 special from the same family.

The important question was what was the red?

Sometimes more often than not CA arent really transparent with their findings or they make general statements which just leave the public confsused or intensifying the band wagon more than it should be , in this case it seems clear enough that he said something he shouldn’t have by todays standards and it should be a quick suspension and move on really so it isn’t over intensified where we perhaps yet again don’t know all the facts between the two former team mates . its easy to get overblown if they are teammates and it was a heat of the moment thing and can appreciate the pendulum can swing a little to far forward carrying it out to the letter of the law or taking it further as we’ve seen recently with Smith in my opinion because the other view point is that, perhaps, things should be dealt with internally and quietly as the media and public berating of a player can be quite dangerous to their mental health or overblown. Some considerations either way actually. That said there are plenty of older values and standards of social norms that have detoriated and many around human rights that have improved because of highlighting such issues. We are probably getting to a tipping point where the pendulum can swing the other way and create too much focus and time delay if we don’t know all the facts and more importantly a media avalanche where it is over the top and divisive. Especially in cricket as opposed to the workor public settings. This is still entertainment we are dealing with to an extent. Cricket isn’t exactly the playing field where values need to improve much further as I think they have arrived at a pretty good place as they stand. CA probablybeing the most active on PC issues by some distance compared to ROW cricketing bodies (which actually can hurt Australias performance more recently compared to most other countries I’ve noticed) and most concerning the media now tends to sensationalize PC stories on sport probably more than community and everyday life to create division and commercialism on it. That said its good they have stepped up to stamp out poor vindictive social values that are outdated and dangerous examples to the public as long as it doesn’t turn in to the PC policing of normal banter and tough hard cricket which can include some mental sledging to get inside the heads of the opposition. Problem is the media are tigers which has never changed and sport controversy can get blown way out of proportion

Yeah because everyone is equal right? What a load of garbage! What’s a modern day society btw? I need a laugh

Do all you self righteous people practice what you preach? I get where you’re coming from but I’m most of Folau’s “list”, like most of you I guess. Just remember society takes time to adjust just like individuals. I’ve gotta go, my red wine needs topping up! :thumbup: :laughing:

That’s really not what happened. He was warning Jimmy (a bloke who’s never uttered a word out of order) to take care because Mitchell was bowling fast and if the ball him it would hurt. Seriously, he was letting Anderson know (actually reminding him, as he was certainly aware it was coming) he was in for some fast stuff at his body. Really not offensive or threatening. Worse is spoken every day in the Shield

No. That "quote" was more of a collation of combined sentiment. And yes agreed, it likely can "go too far the other way" (not a quote, just a sentiment on my part). But is that trade-off for a broader (better) overall outcome a bad thing thing? I view most things like this as a bit of a swinging pendulum; sometimes it pushes too far one way or the other, but most times it finds an appropriate middle ground, which represents where we want to be as a mature and just society. I guess where I am coming from is for all of the "over correctness", are we in a better place now in terms of the self worth, right to perform/function/exist, opportunities, for many members of our society - indigeneous, women, physically and mentally disabled, sexual orientation etc, than we were 40 years ago? And if we are, what has allowed us to move to that point? Even if the pendulum at times swings a little bit too hard one way?

Yes it’s ok!

Yes it is ok

I never intended by my my comment to infer "PC gone mad", just saying it does occasionally occur. And yes it does happen in my daughters work, she also was supposed to have a meeting with a Red Cross official on a Saturday a few months ago, and that was also cancelled for the similar reasons.

I’d hope we have moved beyond the need for those sort of protocols to be put in place to protect an individual’s rights, but to look at it another way – would a “one on one” between a male in a position of power and a female in a position of reduced individual power, have been open to abuse of power and achieving professionally-related merits-based outcomes in the 60s and 70s?

There were "good things" in the good old days too. But why does eliminating the "bad things", which were clearly prevalent, have to be a problem. Why does it have to be labelled as "PC gone mad". I can't comment on the specific situation you raised re the on-on-one, but as a CEO - albeit in the private sector, not Government - this has never be an issue for me nor raised with me as a "protocol" consideration.