Since when do we trust Jurno’s before Jeff.

Jeff Kennett has found himself in the middle of a dispute relating to comments he made on the Duty of Care of a country footy club. He was asked to mediate and issue between a club and a trainer that they sacked after it got out in public that the trainer was bi-sexual. Instead of me going through the issue again here, I have decided that the easiest way to get the story on here, is to share some email communication I had with Patrick Smith of The Australian.

Links to the original articles in the Herald Suncan be found here and here. Patrick’s story can be found here. On with my emails, please read carefully:

fromPhillip Malone,
dateTue, Jul 29, 2008 at 8:33 AM
subjectJeff Kennetts comments and your comments on them
hide details Jul 29 (2 days ago)


I am suprised as a "leading" jorno that you suckered into this issue when you surely realise that the quotes WERE taken out of context.
Firstly if you read the first quote he made, he gives no personal opinion on the situation other to say that the club was trying to do the right thing (and in fact isn’t quoted as to if he thinks they do the right thing or not as far thinking a gay trainer is a risk). Here is that first quote again (,21985,24083078-661,00.html):
"The club felt that once this had been pointed out and you had this gentleman there who was obviously close to young men – massaging young men – it ran an unnecessary risk and that’s why it decided it was best that he not perform those duties again. So the club was trying to do the right thing," Mr Kennett said.
Why the comma at the end of the quote? Doesn’t it suggest that he went on to say more? You a Jorno, can you explain why this comma was left (and I don’t think its a typo as a similar comma is left in the follow up article).
He follows that quote up with another saying they have to be sure. So again remembering that his first quote never directly mentions gays/homosexuals but does talk about the club feeling its an "unacceptable risk" he mentions another sort of risk as a analogy:

"It’s the same if you have a pedophile there as a masseur, right?"

"And you might say the pedophile would do no damage, but once it was pointed out to you, you have a duty of care to those underage children not to put them in a situation of risk."

Notice I include both quotes but not the authors leading comments? WHy would I do that? Because if you read the one comment OUT OF CONTEXT, it sounds like he is comparing the actual man to a paedophile when he is comparing the perceived risk. If you read what he  is quoted as saying, he actually says that perhaps a paedophile wouldn’t do any damage, but you remove him for the RISK or perceived RISK.

Then the author of the article turns it to Hawthorn but if you read the quotes, it almost looks like Jeff is saying, "This isn’t about the man  being gay (or bi) its about the duty of care issue, why do you keep going on about gays" (this of course isn’t an actual quote, don’t want to misquote anyone, not like Darren Hinch!). His is the quote:
"I don’t know if we’ve got any.

"I’m just saying at the moment we have a duty of care to our players and staff and you have to make judgments on that. If you don’t do it you end up with potential legal liability."

Again talking about Duty of care and saying that you (or Boonie Doon) have to make judgements.

Now when discussing this with people, many have said what risk is there in having a gay trainer and I have thought about that and I put it to them as this: I don’t see any problem myself, we don’t know what possible risk Jeff might see because he is never asked or it is never reported (wouldn’t that be a question you would have asked if you felt he was linking gays to paedophiles? Would you have said something like do you think there is more of a chance of a gay man fiddling with the kids or something like that? Surely that would have moved the story to the frontpage) and the only people we know that actually saw this as a risk is Boonie Doon, you would have to ask them.
Now you mentioned that his comment that he was taken out of context won’t and shouldn’t help him but what if he is taken out of context? I mean, I am assuming you are pulling these quotes out of the HUN article and you didn’t hear them from the horses mouth (so to speak), right? So we have less then half an interview. Firstly we only have the quotes the Jurno choose to use from Jeff and then there is evidence to suggest not full quotes. Secondly we don’t have the other side of the interview, i.e. the questions asked of Jeff to get the responses that he did. Did you call the HUN jurno and ask for the full tape of the Interview (I believe it is common to record interviews like this to quote the guys correctly) so that you could have the context correct yourself (especially as one half of the interview said he was taken out of context and explains the correct context and it fits: I’m not interested in the sexuality of a particular person. "What I am talking about is duty of care and litigation so I have been completely taken out of context." Read the quote about what Hawthorn would do and this response further supports my suggestion that it was returned in a somewhat angry/frustrated matter after continued Homosexual based question).
Well I have gone on long enough. I hope you can have another look at the articles and your comments and admit you are/maybe wrong on this one, just as Jeff in the cold light of day would say that he wished he had of said axe murder and not paedophile.
Phillip Molly Malone
PS. I on the record on this issue

Then Patrick’s first Reply


Thanks for taking the time to write. And in such detail. I think it is necessary, however, to explain to you that every quote – be it in a paper, magazine, book or website – will end a quote with a comma than close the quotes thus -  ,”. For example if I was to quote your first line in an article it would read like this. 

“I am suprised as a "leading" jorno that you suckered into this issue when you surely realise that the quotes WERE taken out of context,” Phillip Malone said yesterday. That is simply the correct grammar. As for your broader point, Kennett directly linked homosexuality to paedophilia which is offensive.

Thanks again

Patrick Smith

Strange comments about the comma. I almost failed Grade 5 English, but this didn’t wash with me so I went back:

Thanks for replying, I have two responses:

  1. If as you say "that every quote – be it in a paper, magazine, book or website – will end a quote with a comma than close the quotes thus -" why did you choose to end your quote from AD in your article with a full stop and not a comma (,25197,24092768-16957,00.html)?
    But it was comments made by Cappuccino on the weekend that have proved so offensive AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou was drawn to say: "Jeff Kennett does not speak for the AFL."
  2. How did he "directly" link "homosexuality to paedophilia" (am I meant to use commas on these quotes?) when he didn’t actually mention Homosexuality in the any of his comments? Do you actually mean that by bringing it up he INDIRECTLY linked it?

Be interested in your thoughts (and your teaching on the use of comma in quoting).

I think at this point Patirck was feeling cornered and like he didn’t have good answers, but answer he did:


Point one: Again it is a simple point of grammar. I’ll use your sentence again but introduce you first. Phillip Malone said yesterday: "I am suprised as a "leading" jorno that you suckered into this issue when you surely realise that the quotes WERE taken out of context."  In neither case – comma or full stop – have you been taken out of context. It is simply the correct grammatical use.

Point two: If Kennett was not talking about homosexual trainers why was he commenting on at all? He was commenting, of course, directly on the case of a trainer – homosexual – who is seeking action under anti-discrimination laws. The link is obvious but you appear to be deliberately avoiding it.



With this response, firstly he totally goes off the comma issue (I know its a bit boring but I feel something is hidden by that comma, but what?) and then accuses me of missing a link, but not offering hard proof. So I went back on this again to try and get an answer and to challenge Patrick to show some hard evidence by putting forward 3 challenges:

Point 1: Doesn’t a Comma normally mean like a short break but the sentence continues where a full stop is an end to a sentence (forgive the generalness of this comment, I almost got kept back in grade 5 due to bad English and it never has improved, but I believe I am basically right". Some times this Jurno uses a full stop and sometimes he uses a comma, isn’t it fair to think that he uses a full stop an the end of a sentence and a comma when more was said? I believe papers try to get punctionuation correct and don’t just accidental use one mark in one place and another in another, there is a reason and the logical one is more was said,  don’t you think? Assume I am right, aren’t you curious what that was and why it was left out?

Point 2: You know why he was commenting on this situation, he was asked to mediate it (as noted in the second story). You also know he wasn’t talking about homosexuals as he says that not once but twice (once in each article) he is talking about duty of care. I don’t deny that the link is obvious but you said there was a direct link and there isn’t a direct link. Even you have to admit that, right? The link isn’t obvious but you appear to be deliberately avoiding that fact (makes a better story for you). But then again, unfounded prejudice is hard to change!

I have some yes/no questions for you (you can give DIRECT not inferred evidence if you answer yes though):
1) In the first article does Jeff (Jeff not the Jurrno) ever mention gay or Homosexual?
2) In the first article does he ever give his opinion on if having a gay trainer is a risk (I am not asking if Jeff understood what the club did, but his thought on the danger/risk of a gay trainer)?
3) In the article, does he actually ever say that the Club is in the right (or does he actually just say that he understands)? 

Look forward to your response with an open mind.

Just got a response and not sure whether to reply. I think he is getting pissed of this now, but still he avoids the issue. Not sure why the level of professionalism goes down in this one, but its email so you get the point:


Sorry about the delay in getting back.

The coma is used at the end of the quote to indicate there is more in the sentence to come. EG: ,” said Phillip Malone. When there isn’t – in the instance when you are introduced first – the full point is used because that is the end of the sentence. A comma is only used to break a sentence up so that it reads more easily and clearly. EG: Phillip  Malone, who drives a BMW, supports Hawthorn.  A full point is used ion a quote to indicate more is said not a coma. For instance if I wanted to quote your first line but not use all of it then it would appear this way.  Phillip Malone said yesterday: "I am suprised as a "leading" jorno that you suckered into this issue…….” Or if I wanted to quote just parts of your sentence then it would appear this way.  Phillip Malone said yesterday: "I am suprised ……. when you surely realise that the quotes WERE taken out of context."   Hope that clarifies it.

Point 2: "The club felt that once this had been pointed out and you had this gentleman there who was obviously close to young men – massaging young men – it ran an unnecessary risk and that’s why it decided it was best that he not perform those duties again. So the club was trying to do the right thing," Mr Kennett said.  That quote clearly identifies Kennett talking about homosexuals when he says “this gentleman.”  The gentleman in question was gay otherwise there wd be no story. Phillip it is pointless and emphatically wrong to keep saying Kennett was no talking about a homosexual. The direct there is direct and undeniably so. I have no prejudice in this matter. I am simply reporting on what Kennett sd.

As for the rest: the article is all about homosexuality and the right of a gay person to work at a football club. It is madness to continue to mount an argument that Kennett was not talking about a homosexual man. Kennett equated being gay to being a paedophile. That is why he has been so roundly criticised.  He does give his opinion when he says: "And you might say the pedophile would do no damage, but once it was pointed out to you, you have a duty of care to those underage children not to put them in a situation of risk."



I agree the gentleman in question has said that he is Bi (no offense if you read this Ken) but gay/homosexual is pretty close but the real issue is, is the it’s referred to it’s = gay, or it’s = Duty of care when their is a Perceived risk, whether valid or not.

So I ask that you do a bit better then poor Patrick and try to look beyond the hysteria  of this issue and look what Jeff actually said, not what others claim he said.

And to all those calling for his head from Beyond Blue or the Hawks, get a life! He has done a great job with both and it would be ridiculous for him to move on from either over a silly misunderstanding. In saying this, I wish he had of used a different analogy (someone suggested the perceived risk of second hand smoke) and I hope (although he said he wouldn’t apologies for this misunderstanding to the gay community), that he did apologies to Ken.



  1. Incorrect: “The man went into the store.” said Bob.
    Correct: “The man went into the store,” said Bob.

    I’m afraid the journo is right on the comma issue. You only use a full stop if the end of the quote is the end of the whole sentence – e.g. Bob said, “The man went into the store.”

  2. mollyfud says:

    Thanks John. I can’t work it out but I don’t think it matters in the
    entirity now that I have had longer to look at it. There seems to be further
    things that point to it being a misunderstanding.

  3. Thanks for replying to me on the other side of the world. It shows we are a global village in many ways and it’s good to see that Schools OUT attracts interest worldwide.
    I inferred your reply to be ironic and read the background battle of words. Like you, I cannot fathom out the reasoning over the comma. If I were writing direct speech and the speaker came to the end of a sentence I would use a full-stop. As to your words, I presume the second “comment” in your reply should read “context” and is therefore a typo. If so, I fail to see how I have taken the comments further out of context than the original, since all I did was lift the quote and repeat the accompanying information.
    As to whether Mr Kennett was explicitly identifying bisexuality with paedophilia, or whether, as you assert, he was making an unfortunate analogy within a wider hypothesis; I don’t think it very important, since he has caused great offence either way. Only Mr Kennett himeslf knows the answer, and I eagerly await his reply.
    I am delighted that Mr Kennett has apologised to the victim in this case. Equally, however, I am disappointed that he has not seen fit to address the LGBT community.

  4. mollyfud says:

    Someone made a very good point on a forum that discussed this and that was
    people (generalisation, but a fair one IMHO) take any apology as admitting

  5. That’s because an apology carries with it the implication that a wrong has been done. Notwithstanding that, I did not say apology. I said ‘reply’, which could be an explanation or a qualification among other things.

  6. mollyfud says:

    Okay, I guess I fell for the same trick the GLBT community did. See in the
    proceeding line you mentioned apology and so I thought you were saying you
    were disappointed there was no apology. Its an easy mistake to make, right?

  7. It is an easy mistake to make but it was not a “trick”. I wrote in plain English and there was no attempt to entrap you.

  8. mollyfud says:

    Jeff spoke “in plain English” but people were tricked. Plus trick in that
    context context doesn’t excuse you of entrapment. Its like a “trick for
    young players” its not that someone or something is trying to entrap the
    young players, its just that its an easy mistake to make. We all make
    mistakes (me more then most) and there is no same in that!

  9. mollyfud says:

    Jeff spoke “in plain English” but people were tricked. Plus trick in that
    context context doesn’t excuse you of entrapment. Its like a “trick for
    young players” its not that someone or something is trying to entrap the
    young players, its just that its an easy mistake to make. We all make
    mistakes (me more then most) and there is no same in that!

  10. Molly, I’ve got to say the journo is completely right on both points.

    The trailing comma in a quote is a standard part of editing, especially for newspapers. Check any style guides:

    Secondly, it’s very clear that he Kennett perceives homosexuality to be a risk akin to paedophilia (possibly one at a lower level). Of course, Jeff is entitled to his views. But this is bigoted, wrong and he should be roundly condemned. As he was. I think it’s cost him his chance of becoming Lord Mayor.

    I’m no fan of Kennett, but I recall when he was the only politician with a profile prepared to speak up against Pauline Hanson and had some begrudging respect for that. Now, I’m disappointed to find out that he has a 1950s attitude towards sexuality.

  11. mollyfud says:

    Greg, maybe you won’t dodge this question as others have. If he hs that
    opinion that you say that he has, why would he been involved in trying to
    get the trainer reinstated? Wouldn’t that be a bit strange?
    I take on board that I could be wrong on the comma, but they just seem that
    there was something not printed. As I say, I would love to have the audio of
    the interview.

  12. Yes, if what you’re saying is true then it would be strange. I can only attribute that to three possibilities:

    1) His reinstatement mission only came about after the gaffe.
    2) You’re incorrect when you assert Kennett was trying to reinstate the trainer whilst making those remarks.
    3) He perceives homosexuals to be a risky proposition but, unlike paedophiles, one that is worth taking, on balance.

    This last one is a little more nuanced, so I’ll elaborate. Perhaps (in Kennett’s mind) it’s like comparing doing a sky diving tandem jump while on holiday in NZ versus BASE jumping off the Rialto. Both are clearly on the risk spectrum, but one is an acceptable level of risk and one isn’t.

    If this is the case, then he’s still wrong and offensive. Being gay or bi does not put you on the same risk spectrum as being a paedophile. I’ve got no reason to think that being queer puts you at any more or less risk of being a kiddie fiddler than being straight. But, you know, I’m prepared to hear evidence against that.

    If Kennett has been selectively quoted, I expect he (or, more likely, a trusted supporter) would have pointed this out by now. Your conspiracy theory would have more legs if you found the same newspaper replete with examples of comma-less quotes. I’m pretty sure you won’t find that, but – again – I’m prepared to be proven wrong.

  13. mollyfud says:

    Its True my friend, not even challenged. From the paper the next day:

  14. Um – did something get clipped here? If not, what exactly is true? Reinstatement recommendation preceding gaffe? Well, that leaves option 3. Still a bad view and one that he must rescind.

    Geez, you’d think a man who’s been to private school, joined the army and worked as Arts Minister would have met a few queer people in his time and learnt to lighten up!

  15. mollyfud says:

    What evidence is their that he thinks that homosexuals are a risk? He never
    says that!

  16. Molly, what on Earth do you think he could be talking about when he refers to “risk” and “liability” and “duty of care”? Was the trainer mad keen on taking the boys hang gliding? Did he have an insatiable lust for tractor racing? A penchant for really, really, spicy curry?

    Why would Kennett use the (ahem) “analogy” of paedophiles to illustrate this unspecific perceived risk? He could have used, oh I dunno, say sky diving, like I did.

    But he didn’t. He mentioned paedophiles. And talked about non-specific “risks” and “liabilities” associated with the trainer, the only relevant characteristic under examination being his bisexuality.

    Come on. Get real and stop playing games, splitting hairs and concocting conspiracy theories about selective quoting.

    Perhaps the most generous interpretation is that Kennett himself personally accepts the riskiness of bisexuals to be no more or less than the general community but that the bigoted hicks at the rural footy club PERCEIVE there to be an elevated risk. Well, if that’s the case, he should call them on it in public and give those pitchfork-toting rednecks a damn good verbal thrashing. But he hasn’t, has he?

    No, I think Kennett has a view that there is an elevated risk, but that by dressing it up in legalistic language, being vague, dropping hints (ie happening to just chance upon the randomly selected example of a paedophile, wink wink) and talking to a football audience he could get away with it.


  17. mollyfud says:

    Then lets go back because you really are controdicting your self! How can
    you claim that Jeff might have thought your option 3 when you claim,
    “Kennett has a view that there is an elevated risk”. You are claiming that
    Kennett was happy to go against (what you perceive) to be his better
    judgement and put a trainer back into a junor footy club or at least try
    too? Why? Why when asked wouldn’t he think to himself (if you are correct),
    “Are they crazy?” and then make up an excuse? Too busy, prior engagements,
    have to wash my hair? Why even get involved? He had no connection to the
    trainer and he had no connection to the Footy club, and there was never any
    glory to be taken out of the situation. So why twist yourself against the
    beliefs (that you are putting to him) for nothing or worst yet, getting off
    side “pitchfork-toting rednecks” (as you put it). Surely you see there is no
    logic in that, and you yourself have shown with an earlier example that Jeff
    doesn’t go with the flow and follows his own beliefs!
    Don’t you think a more obvious answer (but one that doesn’t sell as many
    papers) is that Jeff was taken out of context in an interview that we have
    no idea the setting (was it a phone interview, face-to-face, pre-arranged,
    out of the blue). What were the questions, because I know you often try to
    read the mood of the comments of people and the mood I get by the quotes
    that Jeff makes after the Jurno puts it about if there are any homosexual
    trainers at Hawthorn was that Jeff was not trying to enter the gay/risk
    debate but stay on topic of duty of care.

    Yes I agree, that if Jeff was writing the piece himself, I don’t think you
    would see the peadophile analogy. In the fact the one I use is mobiles on a
    plane. I don’t think there is any risk and my understanding is that their
    isn’t a lot of evidence to say there is a risk but the airlines think there
    is and so I respect there right to stop people using a mobile on a plane,
    even though I don’t believe there is a risk. So the airline “was trying to
    do the right thing”.

  18. Where’s the contradiction? Option 3 is that he perceives there to be an elevated, yet still acceptable risk, akin to taking a tandem skydiving jump. I was being generous in proposing Option 4 – which is the same as 3, except it’s not his personal view, but that of the footy club. I think 4 is much less likely than 3 and it’s only slightly better for Kennett. Both are incorrect and unsupported and he should be criticised for maintaining either of them.

    You ask why Jeff would involve himself as mediator if he holds either view. I think it’s because he a) thought he could help, b) likes playing that role and c) he likes the limelight. No further explanation warranted.

    You ask why he would then try to reinstate the trainer even if he may think the risk is elevated. Well, it is perfectly reasonable to say something like “While I think Hyundais are more risky than Fords, I’d still drive a Hydundai because the risk is acceptable to me.” So just because you see someone driving a Hyundai, it doesn’t imply that they believe the risks are equal. It just means both risks are below some threshold. This could well be Kennet’s view of queers and kids.

    But, again, you keep talking about “duty of care” and the “gay/risk debate”. What debate? What risk? These concepts are not just free-floating vague notions. You have to say risk of *what* happening. Eg parachute doesn’t open, you crash the hang glider, the curry burns your arse off etc

    This is the same problem Kennett is getting into. If he doesn’t clarify what risks he had in mind when he said that then he is a coward and a fool: A coward because he lacks the guts to say what he really thinks, and a fool because he thinks that dropping hints like that will save him from criticism.

    Molly, here’s your opportunity to show you are neither: name the exact bad outcome of employing a bisexual footy trainer. Go on. I challenge you. Spell out in a few short simple sentences the behaviours, actions or events that would arise that are so terrible. If you just mumble something about “duty of care” or “think of the children” without specifying them, then you’re no better than Kennett.

    Lastly, give us a couple of examples of “context” that could possibly make Kennett’s remarks reasonable and acceptable. Was it the punch line to an elaborate joke? Was he in fact quoting someone else? Was he rehearsing for a new play he’s in? Was he temporarily stunned by a wayward frisbee? Was he holding up a giant “I’m just kidding” sign? What?

    I don’t think any such “context” could exist. Therefore, bleating on about the nature of the interview or what else was said is entirely irrelevant. He said it. He doesn’t deny it. There’s only one way you can take it. And that’s wrong and offensive.

  19. mollyfud says:

    Thanks for the “opportunity” (one I have taken about 500 times before you
    kindly offered it too me). You asked me what is the risk? I don’t see any.
    No one has asked Jeff the risk and he has never given his opinion on it
    either. The only people that have given their opinion on if there is any
    risk is those in charge of the Boonie Doon football club! So I suggest you
    ask them what the risk was, because at this stage (in the main debate on
    this issue) their the only ones to make any judgement on the trainer.

    I personally think Hyundai are no more risky Fords or any other car, but if
    you see a risk in them and you feel its an unacceptable risk I am not going
    to force you to drive it, you have to look after your passengers, you have a
    duty of care to them that if you think the risk is too great (even if I
    think thats stupid or your slandering illegally Hyundai) to not put them in
    that situation because in the unlikely event of something bad happening
    (that I just can’t see it happening) your passengers could be seen to say
    “Hey you thou ght this was risky but you still drove the thing and still
    offered me lifts!”

    Yes I know, your not talking about cars, its an example, an analogy and I am
    just explaining these points in this analogy. Jeff didn’t comment on the
    situation and in fact didn’t sit around (as he could have! Limelight? Come
    on! There’s only “Limelight” because Jeff used a bad analogy).

    On the context, as I mentioned earlier it appears this wasn’t from a Press
    Conference, it wasn’t a writtern statement, so how would the Jurno of
    contacted him? I think it safe to think to say it was probably a phone
    interview. The jurno appears (a bit like yourself not that they are the
    same) to have a barrow to push and was focusing on the issue from the gay
    right issue. Jeff sets up early that he doesn’t see it as a gay rights issue
    as much as a issue of care. He actually says he disagrees with your point 3)
    saying that if you see a risk (rightly or wrongly) with the amount of legal
    action people take, you have to act on that risk to protect yourself (you
    can look at the articles that I provided, as he says that, and apparently we
    are taking everything he says as being true or at least no out of context).
    What he says is point 4 and he doesn’t stand back and watch, after being
    approached by the trainer, he tries to help, but the club and the trainer
    wouldn’t budge (doesn’t say that he thought the trainer was wrong in not
    budging by the way). So (if I am right) the Jurno keeps bringing up points
    about gays and Jeff says (or tries badly), look its not about gays its about
    duty of care. Now I don’t know your feelings about Paedophiles, but rightly
    or wrongly most people (I think) don’t have a lot of time and if the trainer
    HAD of been (WHICH HE ISN”T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) one, wider society
    wouldn’t have an issue with what the club did because the wider society
    would see the risk. I agree that it would of been better if he has of said
    something like axe murder but on the spot the paedophile analogy came out
    and the jurno ran with it.

    But if the jurno was going with the Jeff is homophobic, why didn’t he ask
    Jeff? I mean I think Jeff has been slandered in this and thats why I have
    talked of the issue but its got basically no traction in the wider
    community! It was a small issue for a day. It was in the paper 3 times, on
    radio a couple of times, but thats it. Jeff is still the head of Beyond Blue
    and the Hawks, so it hasn’t harmed him (thank god, because he doesn’t
    deserve it).

    And yes he did say it, and he stands by it! He stands by the fact that you
    have to look after your staff and players and if YOU see a risk, you have to

  20. It seems you’re going with Option 4 – Kennett personally doesn’t see any extra risk in having a trainer who is bi, but he respects the right of the Bonny Doon footy club to believe there is an elevated risk and that the club is therefore entirely justified in sacking him.

    Well, that’s a crock. If true, he should condemn the hicks publicly, and the club should be widely criticised and possibly sued for discrimination and unlawful dismissal. Sponsorship should be pulled and any government support or money removed from the club and any sponsors who fail to remove their support.

    By your logic, if some racists somewhere reckon that Asians are more likely to steal, then they’re acting on a “duty of care” to stop employing them. That is just wrong.

    I note that you are the only person who is going “Nah, nah, that’s not what Jeff really meant!” when everyone else is on the same page.

    I note that you have refused to provide a plausible alternative interpretation for Kennett’s remarks.

    I also note that you have failed to give any possible “context” that could allow a reasonable person to re-interpret the facts.

    Lastly, I see you’ve been spreading yourself around on the gay sites too:

    When taken with your earlier defence of Buddy Franklin, it’s clear you’re hero worship of the Hawthorn Football Club has blinded you to common sense.

    Thank god you don’t barrack for Collingwood, otherwise you’d be combing the streets of Kew, day and night, looking for that possum and carrying on about whether or not the CIA has spy satellite footage of Didak getting into the car immediately after the crash.

  21. Good try dude.
    If you want to hate on Jeff, thats your choice. If you found those sites,
    you know its crap that I haven’t explained the who situation and all the
    issues. I am not going to go through it hear, because basically the court
    of popular opinion agrees with me in there lack of interest on this issue!
    I am moving on.
    So who do you think is going to win this week, Saints or the Sinners

  22. Look, I don’t hate Jeff. I made that clear early on. I am disappointed.

    I don’t think you’re helping yourself by saying “lot’s of people have this position, so it must be right”. A hell of a lot more people barrack for Collingwood than Hawthorn – so why don’t you join up? Or become a Hindu, for that matter. See, because it’s stupid to base arguments on popularity.

    Forget Kennett and the media, I’m interested in what you personally think about this.

    Just mark a True or False next to these statements:

    “There is no more or less risk of abuse or predatory behaviour hiring a bi trainer than a straight one.”

    “While the risk is higher, it’s still acceptable.”

    “The risk is higher and unacceptable.”

    “The Bonny Doon Football club is required to sack the trainer once they form the view the risk is unacceptable.”

    “The club is allowed to sack the trainer once they form that view.”

    “If someone feels – rightly or wrongly – that Asians are too likely to steal, they don’t have to employ them.”

    Nail your colours to the mast.

  23. Wow. Tough questions and I will have a go at answering them, as long as you
    reply by answering them honestly.
    “There is no more or less risk of abuse or predatory behavior hiring a bi
    trainer than a straight one.” True

    “While the risk is higher, it’s still acceptable.” NA

    “The risk is higher and unacceptable.” NA

    “The Bonny Doon Football club is required to sack the trainer once they form
    the view the risk is unacceptable.” True

    “The club is allowed to sack the trainer once they form that view.” False

    “If someone feels – rightly or wrongly – that Asians are too likely to
    steal, they don’t have to employ them.” False

    Now I have answered them according to the words you used. For example the
    second last question seems to ask me to comment on the legality of the
    actions of the club. I think they’re illegal/discriminatory (but the
    law/appropriate authority will decide that). The last question again seems
    like it has a legal aspect. If the only reason they aren’t hiring them is
    that they’re Asian, then that would be discriminatory/illegal as well.

    So how would you answer the questions. And let me add this statement:

    “If I was hiring a house cleaner and I got the feeling that there was an
    unacceptable risk of them stealing from my house, even if they had years of
    good references, I wouldn’t hire them”

    PS. I am assuming your getting these comment replies via your email. Don’t
    you love this comment system?

  24. True – I would sack them.

    Of course, my “feelings” would be based on reason and evidence, not just a premonition or a bad dream or ingrained bigotry.

    From your responses you seem to be saying that:

    1) The Bonny Doon football club has no reasonable basis for its suspicions that there’s an unacceptable risk in hiring a bi trainer. It’s just pure bigotry.

    2) However, having formed that (erroneous) view, they are required to sack him because they have a duty of care.

    3) While this is discrimination, people who advocate or express this view shouldn’t be criticised.

    Is that pretty much it?

  25. Hmmm… No.
    The first 2 points are pretty true. The 3rd isn’t. They should be widely
    slammed for their views and taken through the legal processes that are
    appropriate. I have no defense for Boonie Doon in this but I agree that they
    have to do what they “feel” is right as its their heads on the line.

    Nothing to do with this situation or supporting Boonie Doon, but I am a
    believer that if your in charge of something you should do it your way (to
    as much as you have control over) as if it goes wrong you have no one to
    blame but your self.

    Now applying that thought to Boonie Doon, If they feel the risk they should
    sack the guy but they should understand the legal trouble they are getting
    themselves into and be prepared to where that for THEIR beliefs!

  26. Perhaps we’ll leave it at that.

  27. mollyfud says:


Speak Your Mind