David Warner's drunken tweeting

[Top_Cat]

In 2011 the 'Leveson Inquiry' began with the main catalyst being the murder of schoolgirl Milly Dowler and the subsequent 'tapping' of her family's phones by News Corp journalists. Thus far more than 140 criminal cases involving the News Corp management and the Metropolitan Police have been investigated with payouts currently exceeding $220 million. At the heart of the scandal are The Sun and The News of the World newspapers.

Crash Craddock and Malcolm Conn are both 'owned' by News Corp. and write for their newspapers. They are therefore fair-game to anyone who feels frustrated because they represent the lowest of the low, and the scummiest of the scum. Warner should not be condemned for more than second because he merely 'had a go' at nothing more than a couple of relative non-entities. GOOD ON HIM!

How is an inquiry before the courts regarding criminal behaviour by journos remotely related to Warner having a spit at these two jokers?

There are good and bad ways of doing things. If he disagrees with anything they've said, let's hear about it in an article of his own or an interview as to why (and it would have been so easy to pull apart that article too, even a good old-fashioned 'put up or shut up' would have been better). Instead, having a crack on Twitter is ****ing pointless, stupid and should put paid to any ambitions he has as captain or VC for the Test side. **** like what he did has landed people in front of a judge and CA, as one of his employers, would have to wear it too so of course they're going to punish him.

This isn't a freedom of speech issue.

(And now I feel dirty because I can't stand the work of either of these ****s but there you go).

 

[watson]

(And now I feel dirty because I can't stand the work of either of these ****s but there you go).

And that's pretty much the point. As News Corp hacks they don't deserve to be treated with any respect what-so-ever. And hence Warner was just doing what we should all do to News Corp hacks once in a while.

 

[Jono]

Warner is a ****ing idiot, and the immature way in which he tweeted his displeasure (as opposed to criticising the journos in general) was wrong. But I can't believe people are suggesting that because 3-4 cricketers deliberately disobeyed their coach and captain ON TOUR for their team, that Warner's tweets should also warrant a ban.

There is a clear difference.

 

[Spark]

In 2011 the 'Leveson Inquiry' began with the main catalyst being the murder of schoolgirl Milly Dowler and the subsequent 'tapping' of her family's phones by News Corp journalists. Thus far more than 140 criminal cases involving the News Corp management and the Metropolitan Police have been investigated with payouts currently exceeding $220 million. At the heart of the scandal are The Sun and The News of the World newspapers.

Crash Craddock and Malcolm Conn are both 'owned' by News Corp. and write for their newspapers. They are therefore fair-game to anyone who feels frustrated because they represent the lowest of the low, and the scummiest of the scum. Warner should not be condemned for more than second because he merely 'had a go' at nothing more than a couple of relative non-entities. GOOD ON HIM!

Haha wow this is the biggest straw man I've seen in months

 

[BoyBrumby]

Warner is a ****ing idiot, and the immature way in which he tweeted his displeasure (as opposed to criticising the journos in general) was wrong. But I can't believe people are suggesting that because 3-4 cricketers deliberately disobeyed their coach and captain ON TOUR for their team, that Warner's tweets should also warrant a ban.

There is a clear difference.

Well, as I said at the time, what if what the coach and/or captain is asking you to do is pointless and you see no worth in it?

I personally don't see blind loyalty as a virtue in itself.

However, as a general principle, not behaving like a spoilt **** with serious butthurt in public
is a decent one.

I thought Conn's comeback was pretty good too, ftr:

You lose 4-0 in India, don't make a run, and you want to be tickled on the tummy? Win the Ashes and get back to me

 

[Jono]

Yeah but Conn is a wanker, and if Warner called him and Craddock out properly without swearing and rambling he would not even have received a fine - he'd be well in his right to call out journalists.

Basically this is a debate between what is worse - a player swearing in public vs. a player deliberately disobeying team orders. Just can't agree that the former is worse.

 

[watson]

Haha wow this is the biggest straw man I've seen in months

No it's a coherent argument. Journalists who choose to work for an organisation that has fully demonstrated its contempt for society deserve to be treated with the same contempt. If Craddock and Conn were fair dinkum journalists then they would work for another company.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Personally I think Warner should be banned for at least 5 games for using the term 'champ' when referring to another person. Suggests he's a knob of the highest order, and thus at least 5 matches is required as punishment.

 

[Furball]

No it's a coherent argument. Journalists who choose to work for an organisation that has fully demonstrated its contempt for society deserve to be treated with the same contempt. If Craddock and Conn were fair dinkum journalists then they would work for another company.

Is it **** a coherent argument.

 

[silentstriker]

Well, as I said at the time, what if what the coach and/or captain is asking you to do is pointless and you see no worth in it?

:

Then you tell them that in private. And if they still want you to do it, you suck it up and do it. That's part of your job. I cant refuse to do a project because I think its pointless. I can make my opinions known but then the decision is out of my hands. When you're the captain, then you can make those change.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Then you tell them that in private. And if they still want you to do it, you suck it up and do it. That's part of your job. I cant refuse to do a project because I think its pointless. I can make my opinions known but then the decision is out of my hands. When you're the captain, then you can make those change.

& if they don't do it should whatever reprimand be in priavte too?

Seems to me that doing it in public is just sabre rattling of the worst kind.

 

[silentstriker]

& if they don't do it should whatever reprimand be in priavte too?

Seems to me that doing it in public is just sabre rattling of the worst kind.

Depends. In another job, you'd get fired. That'd be kind of public. In a sport, most punishment - from docking pay to suspension to dropping players - are going to be public.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Depends. In another job, you'd get fired. That'd be kind of public. In a sport, most punishment - from docking pay to suspension to dropping players - are going to be public.

Maybe it's because I work in a unionised industry, but there's no way I'd be fired if I had a solid reason for not doing something I saw as pointless. I'm a little staggered people are so accepting of BS from managers.

But my point is really about the punishment fitting the crime; being banned for a game for not doing a piddling bit of homework that is completely incidental to their actual job (playing cricket) is not a proportionate response.

 

[Jono]

Was about to say your issue is the test banning (which is mine too). But the "public" argument doesn't fly really. The minute they have decided to ban them for a test, how on Earth can it not be made public?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Was about to say your issue is the test banning (which is mine too). But the "public" argument doesn't fly really. The minute they have decided to ban them for a test, how on Earth can it not be made public?

Well one leads from the other, doesn't it?

It shouldn't have been a test ban, IMHO. A fine could've been kept in house. CA have previous in that regard.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Basically this is a debate between what is worse - a player swearing in public vs. a player deliberately disobeying team orders. Just can't agree that the former is worse.

Thing is if you were one of the players that got banned then you would want some sort of action against Warner. CA need to handle this carefully or it could split the dressing room.

 

[Prince EWS]

Maybe it's because I work in a unionised industry, but there's no way I'd be fired if I had a solid reason for not doing something I saw as pointless. I'm a little staggered people are so accepting of BS from managers.

Nah that's ridiculous IMO. You can't be given a task by your employer or boss, make your own decision as to its worth and then just not do it

If you think a task is pointless then you should argue the instruction up front and give your reasons; not just decide you're not going to do it and stay silent on the matter until it's due. I don't care if it's public or not - you either raise the issue with whoever set the task or you just do it. "I didn't see the point" is not even close to being a good excuse.

 

[Jono]

Thing is if you were one of the players that got banned then you would want some sort of action against Warner. CA need to handle this carefully or it could split the dressing room.

All I am saying is that Warner swearing publicly on Twitter whilst in the IPL does not mean that he must miss an international cricket match simply because the others that deliberately didn't do what their captain and coach told them to do missed international cricket matches.

Warner should be punished, yes. But not to the equivalent of players who told their coach that they cbf.

In any case, its already being reported that Warner is having to front CA.

 

[howardj]

It was a good initial article from Craddock

Offered insight, and fresh info

 

[BoyBrumby]

Nah that's ridiculous IMO. You can't be given a task by your employer or boss, make your own decision as to its worth and then just not do it

If you think a task is pointless then you should argue the instruction up front and give your reasons; not just decide you're not going to do it and stay silent on the matter until it's due. I don't care if it's public or not - you either raise the issue with whoever set the task or you just do it. "I didn't see the point" is not even close to being a good excuse.

Nah, you're getting towards reductio ad absurdum there.

Obviously I wouldn't just not do something; I'd raise my objections and, if there were ignored, I'd probably go over my manager's head.