TTIM: Things That Irk Me

[KSK_47]

8 minutes ago, thisphantomfortress said:

So far as I understand they have a limit on paid days but not on unpaid days if a med cert is provided. Trust me they're trying to show the person the door it's just very difficult apparently 

Yeah. If you have a cert you can basically have as many unpaid as you want as far as i know. It takes a lot to fire someone usually.

[Tesla]

Just now, KSK_47 said:

Yeah. If you have a cert you can basically have as many unpaid as you want as far as i know. It takes a lot to fire someone usually.

I was going to say I'm pretty sure employers can't limit people taking unpaid days off with a medical certificate....

FWIW, I know of at least one job, and I imagine there are others, where you get unlimited paid sick days. The catch is that after a certain point, there is some sort of review or investigation into why the person is taking so many sick days basically to see if it's legit.

[Embee]

1 hour ago, thisphantomfortress said:

So far as I understand they have a limit on paid days but not on unpaid days if a med cert is provided. Trust me they're trying to show the person the door it's just very difficult apparently 

90 days in a calendar year in a call centre means they can start to reduce shifts, anything lower than that and you can't do shit as long as they bring the certs.

It's an absolute joke

[NewConvert]

1 hour ago, Tesla said:

I was going to say I'm pretty sure employers can't limit people taking unpaid days off with a medical certificate....

FWIW, I know of at least one job, and I imagine there are others, where you get unlimited paid sick days. The catch is that after a certain point, there is some sort of review or investigation into why the person is taking so many sick days basically to see if it's legit.

I hadn't realised that this had changed. I always thought that employees could be dismissed for missing out on work beyond a certain limit - it is cumbersome but not onerous. Three years ago a friend of mine who runs a small business had to dismiss an employee for the excessive amount of sick days the employee was taking. He had to note all the days the employee had taken off and the medical certificates provided; he then had to write a letter asking the employee to visit a specialist at the company's expense which was declined, three letters later the employee was dismissed. The reason for a the offer to visit a specialist was to ensure that there was no genuine underlying medical condition that may warrant some compassionate leave. When I first started working, a sparky tore his hammy playing footy which meant that he was off work for about three months - he first used all his sick leave, followed by annual leave and then on leave without pay but the company knew that this was a serious injury so there never was any intention to dismiss him. Similarly a couple of employers ago, a senior staff member was diagnosed with cancer (from which he eventually died) and so the company paid him all along as part of the compassionate leave.

However 93 days out of a possible 250 working days amounts to about 37% days off. This is unsustainable, specially if there is no genuine long term illness such as cancer. The call centre HR people should really have a good look at what steps to take to dismiss the employee unless they are suffering from cancer.

[hedaik]

I believe there are laws in place that make it easier for a small business to fire somebody than a larger business. From memory that was one of the Work Choices changes, where Howard wanted to increase the number of staff that a business had to have before it made it harder to sack people. 

Ive worked with enough shit cunts in my time to see how hard it is to fire somebody. You really need to do something almost criminal to get the sack. 

Edited June 14, 2016 by hedaik

[NewConvert]

33 minutes ago, hedaik said:

I believe there are laws in place that make it easier for a small business to fire somebody than a larger business. From memory that was one of the Work Choices changes, where Howard wanted to increase the number of staff that a business had to have before it made it harder to sack people. 

Ive worked with enough shit cunts in my time to see how hard it is to fire somebody. You really need to do something almost criminal to get the sack. 

The one occasion that sticks in my mind was a company a while back where the group manager took two years to sack a project manager. I was actually assigned to work with this project manager and after two weeks I told the group manager that I could not work with this guy (only time I have ever done that). I suspect I wasn't shown the door because by that stage the GM had enough of an inkling to know that things were not going to go well but none the less it was a bit of a career setback. The worst case I heard of was on the same project, staff started collecting money to have the site manager bumped and quite quickly collected several thousand dollars but not enough to hire someone. In any case the customer got pissed off with the site manager and that made the need to have him knocked off redundant. looking back on it now, they were interesting times.  

[NewConvert]

On 03/06/2016 at 10:24 PM, Tesla said:

Anyone that thinks the current system isn't generous enough is clearly retarded. You have both a large subsidy on the fees and an interest free loan (which is also a subsidy). There is no need for the both of them. Should remove the fee subsidy and make students pay the full fee but keep the interest free loan to not make it unaffordable for those without rich parents.

Uni degrees are barely worth the paper they're written on in Australia since everyone has one, and those that don't earn more anyway as $140k a year entry level unskilled labourers. 

Whereas in the US a degree is useful and those with one earn substantially more, simply because less people have them (since they're not heavily subsidised).

Old topic but in the following The Age article:

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/elite-universities-break-away-by-calling-for-cap-on-student-places-20160615-gpjtry.html

An interesting claim from the Group of Eight Chair:

"We are on track of meeting the goal of 40 per cent of young people with an undergraduate degree by 2025."

An a statistic from the article:

"University enrolments have grown by 30 per cent since 2008"

So yes in the near future a lot of people will have tertiary qualifications.

[Tesla]

3 hours ago, NewConvert said:

Old topic but in the following The Age article:

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/elite-universities-break-away-by-calling-for-cap-on-student-places-20160615-gpjtry.html

An interesting claim from the Group of Eight Chair:

"We are on track of meeting the goal of 40 per cent of young people with an undergraduate degree by 2025."

An a statistic from the article:

"University enrolments have grown by 30 per cent since 2008"

So yes in the near future a lot of people will have tertiary qualifications.

Yes I saw this article yesterday, and it only furthers what I already thought.

What stands out to me is the obvious correlation between the uncapping of uni places, and the devaluation of university degrees. 2008 + a few years for people to graduate, so we're talking about the last 5 years or so, sounds about right to me.

I'm not saying university degrees should be done purely for vocational reasons, and I do recognise there is some benefit in having a more educated society where more people have gone to university, but at the same time we need people doing apprenticeships and learning other skills that our society needs.

FWIW, I actually think the high number of people doing university degrees is actually making university more about employment opportunities and less about knowledge, because a lot of the universities outside the G8 know their competing on their ability to get people into jobs (rather than reputation, research, quality of academics, quality of education, etc since they'll never be able to compete with G8 in those areas), and so the courses are a lot more practical and more likely to include work experience placements, and this focus on employment rather than knowledge will only increase as the oversupply of graduates grows and the non-G8 unis have to compete even more to tailor a course that is more likely to get people into jobs.

I support the Liberal's stance that we should let the market dictate university enrolments rather than having the number capped, but as I said in my previous post the subsidisation should decrease and that will decrease the inflated number of people going to uni.

In regard to university positions, I'm someone who was considered to be from a low socio-economic background, to the extent that I could have got in with a lower score than most (I had a high enough score anyway) and got a small scholarship from the university and I can honestly say that having to pay back the full cost of my tuition (or closer to full cost) wouldn't have impacted my ability to go to university since it's paid back when you're working full time anyway, So I don't buy the argument about people from low socio-economic backgrounds missing out if the level of subsidy was decreased. It's really the interest free loan that makes university accessible for all, the fee subsidy just means people will go to uni who shouldn't be there or aren't interested but do it since it's so cheap.

Unfortunately the article focuses on capping places vs having a demand driven model, with little mention of having a demand driven system with decreased subsidies (apart from perhaps the last few lines regarding youth allowance which is really another subsidy but I'm fine with that remaining as that is one that could impact on accessibility for people from low socio-economic backgrounds).

Edited June 16, 2016 by Tesla

[NewConvert]

1 hour ago, Tesla said:

Yes I saw this article yesterday, and it only furthers what I already thought.

What stands out to me is the obvious correlation between the uncapping of uni places, and the devaluation of university degrees. 2008 + a few years for people to graduate, so we're talking about the last 5 years or so, sounds about right to me.

I'm not saying university degrees should be done purely for vocational reasons, and I do recognise there is some benefit in having a more educated society where more people have gone to university, but at the same time we need people doing apprenticeships and learning other skills that our society needs.

FWIW, I actually think the high number of people doing university degrees is actually making university more about employment opportunities and less about knowledge, because a lot of the universities outside the G8 know their competing on their ability to get people into jobs (rather than reputation, research, quality of academics, quality of education, etc since they'll never be able to compete with G8 in those areas), and so the courses are a lot more practical and more likely to include work experience placements, and this focus on employment rather than knowledge will only increase as the oversupply of graduates grows and the non-G8 unis have to compete even more to tailor a course that is more likely to get people into jobs.

I support the Liberal's stance that we should let the market dictate university enrolments rather than having the number capped, but as I said in my previous post the subsidisation should decrease and that will decrease the inflated number of people going to uni.

In regard to university positions, I'm someone who was considered to be from a low socio-economic background, to the extent that I could have got in with a lower score than most (I had a high enough score anyway) and got a small scholarship from the university and I can honestly say that having to pay back the full cost of my tuition (or closer to full cost) wouldn't have impacted my ability to go to university since it's paid back when you're working full time anyway, So I don't buy the argument about people from low socio-economic backgrounds missing out if the level of subsidy was decreased. It's really the interest free loan that makes university accessible for all, the fee subsidy just means people will go to uni who shouldn't be there or aren't interested but do it since it's so cheap.

Unfortunately the article focuses on capping places vs having a demand driven model, with little mention of having a demand driven system with decreased subsidies (apart from perhaps the last few lines regarding youth allowance which is really another subsidy but I'm fine with that remaining as that is one that could impact on accessibility for people from low socio-economic backgrounds).

My thinking is heading in this direction as well although far more radical than what the article is discussing. I think that universities should be split in two: standard and advanced. The idea of standard universities would be to produce graduates with Bachelors/Diplomas (I would move TAFE and trades education into this sector) with no capping and subsidisation, and the graduates would be employment ready (haven't worked out what this means for medicine). The advanced university can only take admissions from students that have completed the standard university with honours and are going to do research with capped numbers (I believe that they should be low)  and the subsidisation to be done through research grants. Students graduating from the advanced university sector would emerge with either a masters degree or a phd. Advanced universities would concentrate on doing R&D. Lecturers in the standard university would be employed on the basis that they can teach. Lecturers in the advanced university would be employed on the basis that they are smart researchers.

I am not fussed about the devaluation of a university degree because many people have them. What bothers me is that overseas students get a free pass academically because they bring in money. I am not convinced that universities should be a profit centre. This also has brought in managerialism and an entire bureaucracy to sustain it. A friend of mine who is a lecturer at melb uni keeps whingeing about the useless and unnecessary paperwork compared to when he first started.

Back when I was at year12 and university, the cost was a disincentive for people of low socio-economic background. This was also a disincentive for women who were under 30 and had a young family. And the cost of books was expensive then but a few months ago I had a reason to look at some academic books and these were now in the order of $300 which kind of left me stupefied.

[jw1739]

10 minutes ago, NewConvert said:

My thinking is heading in this direction as well although far more radical than what the article is discussing. I think that universities should be split in two: standard and advanced. The idea of standard universities would be to produce graduates with Bachelors/Diplomas (I would move TAFE and trades education into this sector) with no capping and subsidisation, and the graduates would be employment ready (haven't worked out what this means for medicine). The advanced university can only take admissions from students that have completed the standard university with honours and are going to do research with capped numbers (I believe that they should be low)  and the subsidisation to be done through research grants. Students graduating from the advanced university sector would emerge with either a masters degree or a phd. Advanced universities would concentrate on doing R&D. Lecturers in the standard university would be employed on the basis that they can teach. Lecturers in the advanced university would be employed on the basis that they are smart researchers.

I am not fussed about the devaluation of a university degree because many people have them. What bothers me is that overseas students get a free pass academically because they bring in money. I am not convinced that universities should be a profit centre. This also has brought in managerialism and an entire bureaucracy to sustain it. A friend of mine who is a lecturer at melb uni keeps whingeing about the useless and unnecessary paperwork compared to when he first started.

Back when I was at year12 and university, the cost was a disincentive for people of low socio-economic background. This was also a disincentive for women who were under 30 and had a young family. And the cost of books was expensive then but a few months ago I had a reason to look at some academic books and these were now in the order of $300 which kind of left me stupefied.

Isn't this essentially the same as the "old system" whereby a limited number of those people gaining lower degrees went on to do higher degrees - often at a different uni? I don't see the need to have two distinct sets of universities.

[NewConvert]

1 hour ago, jw1739 said:

Isn't this essentially the same as the "old system" whereby a limited number of those people gaining lower degrees went on to do higher degrees - often at a different uni? I don't see the need to have two distinct sets of universities.

Similar. The old system of Institutes of Technology and Colleges of Advanced education started awarding Bachelor degrees which originally they were not meant to do and then they moved in on masters, Phds and research. hence the mergers and conversions to full blown universities. However, I can't help but feel that the greater breadth of universities has diluted R&D, many graduates are not employment ready and staff are recruited for one purpose and end up doing the other.

The old universities were built on the model that students were there to do scholarly work but society were requiring them to provide ready to employ graduates in increasing numbers. The concept became diluted.

Separating the two functions will allow the universities to focus - hence my statement about the standard university hiring staff to teach rather than to do R&D, and specialist R&D staff. Now I realise that universities should be able to do this without having to split them but in practice this is not happening for a variety of reasons.

This problem is  not unique to Australia. I have become aware that British, European and American universities have the same problem. Only the very wealthy American universities have qualified R&D staff just to do R&D.

[thisphantomfortress]

TTIM; being a dumbass, getting drunk and smashing my already fucked phone. Nobody knows how to piss me off more than drunk me.

[bt50]

3 hours ago, thisphantomfortress said:

TTIM; being a dumbass, getting drunk and smashing my already fucked phone. Nobody knows how to piss me off more than drunk me.

I agree : there is nothing more annoying than a drunk you.

[thisphantomfortress]

TTIM; Eddie Maguire, the blokes called someone a cunt on tv, called Goodes an ape and now the whole Caro business amongst other things. Nobody else would be so protected from their own stupidity but Eddie.

TTIM; the SJW response to the latest incident. Why did it take over a week for everyone to get offended?

[NewConvert]

23 minutes ago, thisphantomfortress said:

TTIM; Eddie Maguire, the blokes called someone a cunt on tv, called Goodes an ape and now the whole Caro business amongst other things. Nobody else would be so protected from their own stupidity but Eddie.

TTIM; the SJW response to the latest incident. Why did it take over a week for everyone to get offended?

Well, I hadn't heard any of it until right now. Why? Well I don't listen to MMM, whenever Eddie appears on TV I changed channels. The only exception is when the Magpies are getting flogged and there is a camera shot to him just for the pleasure of seeing his red face ready to explode.

[Deviant]

41 minutes ago, thisphantomfortress said:

TTIM; Eddie Maguire, the blokes called someone a cunt on tv, called Goodes an ape and now the whole Caro business amongst other things. Nobody else would be so protected from their own stupidity but Eddie.

TTIM; the SJW response to the latest incident. Why did it take over a week for everyone to get offended?

Timing is impeccable. Slow news week. Needed a headline. 

I'm more interested in how she responds. I hope she doesn't play the gender card and hides behind it.

 

Taking nothing away from her, she's good at what she does. She backs herself with her stories. Good on her.

I see this as a test of character for her. She's again in the spotlight (after essendon's on-going saga), it's a matter of how she reacts to it. Brayshaw and McGuire should be held for ransom with 30K+ each for her to be involved in the MND dunking parade. Gill should match that too (60k).

She'll do good for the cause and prove that she's a bigger person. Don't make excuses as to why you can't participate. Get in, prove your worth, belittle the big guns and then write an article about how it changed your life and get hailed for it.

[thisphantomfortress]

16 minutes ago, Deviant said:

Timing is impeccable. Slow news week. Needed a headline.

I'm more interested in how she responds. I hope she doesn't play the gender card and hides behind it.

 

Taking nothing away from her, she's good at what she does. She backs herself with her stories. Good on her.

I see this as a test of character for her. She's again in the spotlight (after essendon's on-going saga), it's a matter of how she reacts to it. Brayshaw and McGuire should be held for ransom with 30K+ each for her to be involved in the MND dunking parade. Gill should match that too (60k).

She'll do good for the cause and prove that she's a bigger person. Don't make excuses as to why you can't participate. Get in, prove your worth, belittle the big guns and then write an article about how it changed your life and get hailed for it.

Caro has played it smart. She hasn't said anything but all her mates at The Age have gone on the attack for her.

[Deviant]

3 minutes ago, thisphantomfortress said:

Caro has played it smart. She hasn't said anything but all her mates at The Age have gone on the attack for her.

I also have to point out that i can't stand jurno's. 

[Shahanga]

On 9 May 2016 at 8:54 AM, cadete said:

 

 

[Shahanga]

5 hours ago, thisphantomfortress said:

TTIM; Eddie Maguire, the blokes called someone a cunt on tv, called Goodes an ape and now the whole Caro business amongst other things. Nobody else would be so protected from their own stupidity but Eddie.

TTIM; the SJW response to the latest incident. Why did it take over a week for everyone to get offended?

At times Eddie shows his Broadmeadows side.

incidentally he once suggested when robbo was getting dental work that he could come down to the Holden centre and get it for free.

I guess he figures Wilson gives as good as she gets, maybe so , but the whole thing struct me as a pretty ordinary thing to say.

oh I agree that she has carried herself very well in this matter.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Shahanga

[Jimmy]

5 hours ago, thisphantomfortress said:

TTIM; Eddie Maguire, the blokes called someone a cunt on tv, called Goodes an ape and now the whole Caro business amongst other things. Nobody else would be so protected from their own stupidity but Eddie.

TTIM; the SJW response to the latest incident. Why did it take over a week for everyone to get offended?

As a pies fan I'm ready for someone different.

[Grimey]

5 hours ago, thisphantomfortress said:

called Goodes an ape

Merely referenced the incident. Not a fan of the bloke but he was unfairly thrown under the bus for that.

[Tesla]

Seriously how did this bloke ever become CEO of channel 9?

No surprise that didn't end well. 

Edited June 20, 2016 by Tesla

[cadete]

50 minutes ago, Shahanga said:

At times Eddie shows his Broadmeadows side.

incidentally he once suggested when robbo was getting dental work that he could come down to the Holden centre and get it for free.

I guess he figures Wilson gives as good as she gets, maybe so , but the whole thing struct me as a pretty ordinary thing to say.

oh I agree that she has carried herself very well in this matter.

When it suits him he certainly does go on about being a "Broady Boy"... and his Glaswegian Irish Catholic Background.

In reality he is a bloke from Toorak who sends his son's to Melbourne Grammar.

Also if he did not have his Huge Media Profile... this Buckley crap would have seen him gone as President by now.

[kingofhearts]

Usual overreaction as per usual because everyone is  SJW these days....

To think people could take these comments could be perceived "to promulgate domestic violence" is just amazing imo.

Was it a silly thing to say? Yes. Does it deserve the reaction its had? No. Get over it.

 

[jw1739]

5 minutes ago, kingofhearts said:

Usual overreaction as per usual because everyone is  SJW these days....

To think people could take these comments could be perceived "to promulgate domestic violence" is just amazing imo.

Was it a silly thing to say? Yes. Does it deserve the reaction its had? No. Get over it.

Absolutely. FFS the only drowning taking place is this country in Political Correctness.

I'm surprised that every organization in the country is not yet required to have a public policy on Gender Equality, Against Domestic Violence, LGBTIQ+ issues of every possible combination, Racism, Islam, Animal Rights, Refugees, A Treaty with Indigenous People, and I Don't Care What It Is But We're Against It (Or All For It Depending On Which Way The Wind Is Blowing).

I think it's the Thought Police breaking down my front door as I type...

[thisphantomfortress]

18 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

Absolutely. FFS the only drowning taking place is this country in Political Correctness.

I'm surprised that every organization in the country is not yet required to have a public policy on Gender Equality, Against Domestic Violence, LGBTIQ+ issues of every possible combination, Racism, Islam, Animal Rights, Refugees, A Treaty with Indigenous People, and I Don't Care What It Is But We're Against It (Or All For It Depending On Which Way The Wind Is Blowing).

I think it's the Thought Police breaking down my front door as I type...

The comments were distasteful and in line with the lowest common denomenator media approach the mainstream takes hence my objection to Maguire as well as the SJW reaction to it.

[bt50]

4 minutes ago, thisphantomfortress said:

The comments were distasteful and in line with the lowest common denomenator media approach the mainstream takes hence my objection to Maguire as well as the SJW reaction to it.

Meh its no different to what any of us would say to one another. It's clearly a bit of a joke about someone they dont like.

FWIW Caro has certainly ran an agenda against James Brayshaw in the past (in the 07-11 relocation era) and IMO its very understandable that those two dont get along.

[Embee]

3 minutes ago, bt50 said:

Meh its no different to what any of us would say to one another. It's clearly a bit of a joke about someone they dont like.

FWIW Caro has certainly ran an agenda against James Brayshaw in the past (in the 07-11 relocation era) and IMO its very understandable that those two dont get along.

Oh Caro's got an agenda against JB, oh the Umpires have an agenda against Lindsay, oh why won't they close the roof?

Always the victim 

[thisphantomfortress]

6 minutes ago, bt50 said:

Meh its no different to what any of us would say to one another. It's clearly a bit of a joke about someone they dont like.

FWIW Caro has certainly ran an agenda against James Brayshaw in the past (in the 07-11 relocation era) and IMO its very understandable that those two dont get along.

My concern though is that things are being pulled to both extremes

On one hand you can't say anything for fear of being un-PC

But at the other end you get accused of PC gone mad for calling out something even if it is in bad taste.

[bt50]

1 minute ago, thisphantomfortress said:

My concern though is that things are being pulled to both extremes

On one hand you can't say anything for fear of being un-PC

But at the other end you get accused of PC gone mad for calling out something even if it is in bad taste.

Welcome to 2016 Australia; where the world is completely fucked by racists and social justice warriors. Apocalypse Now.

[thisphantomfortress]

2 minutes ago, bt50 said:

Welcome to 2016 Australia; where the world is completely fucked by racists and social justice warriors. Apocalypse Now.

Our entire nation has been hijacked by UPF and antifa in @bt50's mind

[bt50]

1 minute ago, thisphantomfortress said:

Our entire nation has been hijacked by UPF and antifa in @bt50's mind

Don't forget Horda. 

[kingofhearts]

32 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

Absolutely. FFS the only drowning taking place is this country in Political Correctness.

I'm surprised that every organization in the country is not yet required to have a public policy on Gender Equality, Against Domestic Violence, LGBTIQ+ issues of every possible combination, Racism, Islam, Animal Rights, Refugees, A Treaty with Indigenous People, and I Don't Care What It Is But We're Against It (Or All For It Depending On Which Way The Wind Is Blowing).

I think it's the Thought Police breaking down my front door as I type...

Worst thing is now we have to listen to such great jornos like Susie o brien talking about how the AFL should've come down harder on Eddie otherwise "their rhetoric on ending violence against women is just empty words" (because theirs a correlation between punishing afl people and a decrease in domestic violence??) or i remember reading one article about comparing their comments to casual racism ffs! http://www.northernstar.com.au/news/rosie-batty-says-eddie-mcguire-demean-and-victimis/3048355/

Their should've simply been an apology and everyone should've just moved on.Instead we have to hear from every man and his dog how this is contributing to the downfall of society and how these three are the new pioneers of domestic violence against women. How about instead of jumping to conclusions so quickly we let the perpetrators speak first before we rip them to shreds?

10 minutes ago, thisphantomfortress said:

My concern though is that things are being pulled to both extremes

On one hand you can't say anything for fear of being un-PC

But at the other end you get accused of PC gone mad for calling out something even if it is in bad taste.

I agree its a fine line, but if any of the people who were reporting about this were actually listening to the broadcast on the day, they would've been able to tell the difference between a few blokes making a joke they probably shouldn't have compared to three sexist men contributing to the rising rates of domestic violence against women.

It's a situation by situation thing imo but in this case, complete overreaction.

[hedaik]

Not that I think it deserves the attention it received (I do think they crossed the line for what should be said on public radio), but Frawleys comment was way worse than what McGuire said. 

[cadete]

41 minutes ago, Embee said:

Oh Caro's got an agenda against JB, oh the Umpires have an agenda against Lindsay, oh why won't they close the roof?

Always the victim 

Don't also forget...

1. We invented Friday Night Football and now we never get hardly any games on Friday's anymore.  

2. Our fixture is crap for this season... like last season and next season.  

3. And my personal favourite from the only bunch of AFL supporters whose shit doesn't stink being  from off here a couple years back from @FB.that Lindsay is a fair player and that Jimmy Bartel is not a fair player and the biggest ducker in the league.

[HeartFc]

Standard response from the SJW's and femanazi's, what a bunch of cancerous miserable cunts. 

BTW the AFL is a man's world, Caro was welcomed with open arms, she gives banter and gets banter back. Eddie was only treating her like he would any other person he didn't like... Ergo, if you don't think Caro can take it, you're sexiest!

See how easily extreme leftist ideology contradicts itself, it truly is a new religion for losers and retards. 

[cadete]

7 hours ago, HeartFc said:

Standard response from the SJW's and femanazi's, what a bunch of cancerous miserable cunts. 

BTW the AFL is a man's world, Caro was welcomed with open arms, she gives banter and gets banter back. Eddie was only treating her like he would any other person he didn't like... Ergo, if you don't think Caro can take it, you're sexiest!

See how easily extreme leftist ideology contradicts itself, it truly is a new religion for losers and retards. 

You have a point... I remember cheering when a Brisbane W-League Player missed in the penalty shoot out in the Semi Final last Season prior to the Men's game and a number of PPL (Mainly Women) looked at me like I was bloody Lucifer.

I mean FFS this is exactly what these female players want and had been campaigning all year for at the time... that there version of the sport to be cared about and taken as seriously as the men's match straight afterwards.

FWIW I reckon the Brisbane Player herself who missed would have been delighted with me reacting they way everyone in the Stadium including the women would have if the same thing happened an hour later in the Men's game.

Edited June 20, 2016 by cadete

[Jovan]

1 hour ago, cadete said:

You have a point... I remember cheering when a Brisbane W-League Player missed in the penalty shoot out in the Semi Final last Season prior to the Men's game and a number of PPL (Mainly Women) looked at me like I was bloody Lucifer.

I mean FFS this is exactly what these female players want and had been campaigning all year for at the time... that there version of the sport to be cared about and taken as seriously as the men's match straight afterwards.

FWIW I reckon the Brisbane Player herself who missed would have been delighted with me reacting they way everyone in the Stadium including the women would have if the same thing happened an hour later in the Men's game.

Imagine you added an insult with that. You may have been arrested.

I always wonder what the standards will be in future because at the moment things have pretty much turned to shit and it's hard to see anything changing.

[cadete]

1 hour ago, Jovan said:

Imagine you added an insult with that. You may have been arrested.

I always wonder what the standards will be in future because at the moment things have pretty much turned to shit and it's hard to see anything changing.

What annoys me is why is Discrimination against some groups in society so bad and not so with others?

I read everyday on Social Media the same PPL who are so outraged when others are not completely PC in regards towards certain groups in society freely mislabel other members of society with so much ease.

A good example is Tony Abbott and other Coalition MP's being labeled as Fascists'... this being a group of PPL who form a Political Party whose foundations lie in supporting the foundations of Liberal Democracy in that of the Rule of Law and Regular Elections.

They also are against The Death Penalty, and even though they may want to weaken such institutions they also still support strongly the principles of Centrelink and Medicare. Fascists? Give us a fucken break these blokes are as Socialist as your beloved Bernie Sanders ya duds.