Fatty Gets Behind The Gays

www.samesame.com.au

About the Author

Christian Taylor

view my other 2138 articles

Wed 8th Jul, 2009 in Local News

113
8
1852

ACON’s This Is Oz campaign is still going strong and the latest celebrity to lend their voice to the effort is none other than The Footy Show’s Fatty Vautin.

“We’re delighted to have Fatty Vautin making a contribution to our This Is Oz campaign,” said Stevie Clayton, ACON’s CEO. “His endorsement will mean our campaign reaches an audience we may not have reached otherwise. Fatty publicly showing his support for GLBT rights will hopefully increase GLBT visibility and help change some attitudes amongst the people who watch his show, who maybe are not people who would be thinking about equality for GLBT people otherwise.”

Other big names have been penning signs and snapping pics for the campaign, including celebrity medico Dr Cindy Pan, All Saints star Virginia Gay and Home And Away favourites John Quong Tart and Lynne McGranger.

If you’re yet to upload your photos to ThisIsOz.com.au then hop to it.

Comments

www.samesame.com.au

arrow left

Add Another | View all the comments in forum »

10222

Barrin said on the 8th Jul, 2009

Elton John ( born Reginald Dwight) is British.
The Elton Johns character was an Australian child of a football-mad family.
The only reason the name was chosen because the dunderhead viewers immediately associate Elton John with homosexuality.

The only association the Elton Johns boy had with Elton John is his mum saying he's playing the piano live at the Oscars. The rest of the skit centred around the boy being a shameful, faulty fairy who needed to be exchanged for a straight kid - it didn't lampoon Elton John's musical talent.

Love to hear Piers response to that insight! :rolleyes:

Asherbella

Asherbella said on the 8th Jul, 2009

Fatty's smile in the photo is forced.
Note how much lip gloss and pancake foundation Fatty is wearing, too. lol
...and Channel Nine could have laid out some cash to produce a professional sign for him to hold up - not just a scrawled piece of handwriting on a cheap piece of particle paper written with an Artline marker pen at a moments' notice. I presume Channel Nine is serious about lending Fatty to this ACON initiative. If so, they can do better with the props they use in promotional photographs...

Asherbella

Asherbella said on the 8th Jul, 2009

Barrin said on the 8th Jul, 2009

You've got his address I believe.

Asherbella

Asherbella said on the 8th Jul, 2009

Yep. The Daily Telegraph prints all the letters I write countering Pier's views on homosexual issues. That's been my track record. Where did you read Ackerman's piece about the skit? Can you give me a link? I'll send in a letter about it if you give me a source. Cheers.:)

Barrin said on the 8th Jul, 2009

Oh? It was his July 1 article on Bruno, don't you remember?

Asherbella

Asherbella said on the 8th Jul, 2009

Hang on, I'll rummage through my recycle stash & see if I have a copy of that particular copy. I'll get back to you...

Asherbella

Asherbella said on the 8th Jul, 2009

Wasn't July 1 issue. Just read it. I'll check others. I think it would've been Thursday 2nd. I'll try again.

Barrin said on the 8th Jul, 2009

Maybe it wasn't published in the hard copy.

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/piersakerman/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/gay_lords_should_bite_the_bullet_on_bruno/

Asherbella

Asherbella said on the 8th Jul, 2009

Got it. Yes. '....lampooning Elton John...'
I know the Daily Telegraph. If I were to send in a letter they would not publish it, I think. I've waited too long to respond. Old news. Dunno.

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 8th Jul, 2009

http://shaynechesterstudios.webs.com/thisoz-logo2.png

A Con, "you do not speak for my community."

zebra-stripes said on the 8th Jul, 2009

actually the people in This Is Oz aren't telling us anything other than they're ok with us

it's not like they're telling us to dress and act like normal hetero people so we can blend in easily

Dion

Dion said on the 8th Jul, 2009

A while ago, I put up a photo with a sign, but it hasn't appeared. Maybe because This Is Oz is very picky, maybe because of being an unknown.
I had the photo taken in my Navy uniform,
So I've lost a bit of faith with This Is Oz.

Cheers,
Dion

Danny007

Danny007 said on the 8th Jul, 2009

A while ago, I put up a photo with a sign, but it hasn't appeared. Maybe because This Is Oz is very picky, maybe because of being an unknown.
I had the photo taken in my Navy uniform,
So I've lost a bit of faith with This Is Oz.

Cheers,
Dion
Hey Dion,
That wouldn't be you about 25 photos down on the gallery page is it? It says: "Dion, Adelaide" and your sign is "Serving our nation proudly"?

http://www.thisisoz.com.au/photo-gallery/

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 8th Jul, 2009

LOLZ Danny007, can ya put my pic up now please?

pioneer_to_the_falls

pioneer_to_the_falls said on the 8th Jul, 2009

ooooooh, just saw two of my friends on the front page. Nice :)

Meh to Fatty. Complete douche who's only participating to help The Footy Show's case...

Dion

Dion said on the 9th Jul, 2009

Danny,
yes it is. I couldn't find it previously to making that post last night.

Cheers,
Dion.

philly said on the 15th Jul, 2009

This is just a stunt. Clayton is dreaming when she says "his endorsement will mean our campaign reaches an audience we may not have reached otherwise". Um, what audience? Did he hold up this sign on The Footy Show? No! It's only viewable on the This Is Oz website and in the gay press. So how is it reaching an audience it wouldn't otherwise reach? This is just a dumb publicity stunt - Fatty wins because he can say, 'See, I'm not homophobic, this cancels out the anti-gay kit' and ACON wins because they can pretend they're doing something for the millions of taxpayer $$$ they get each year. In *reality*, it's just a dumb cardboard sign that will only ever be seen by 'the gays' so it makes no difference to anyone.

Urban

Urban said on the 15th Jul, 2009

Yeah, it’s just an extension of The Convicts/ACON’s attempt to shaft Gary Burns' ADB ccase against The Footy Show, nothing more than small town cut-throat politicking. As it is, the Ch 9 camp have - as Burns warned The Convicts would happen when asking them to wait for his case to get off the ground - now officially cited the Convicts' appearance on The Footy Show as Ch 9’s defence against Burns' gay vilification charges. It’s, as always, pointed but predictable which side ACON’s mouthpiece, the Star Observer has taken and what biased spin it has tied to throw on the issue - today’s Star Observer piece is, naturally, authored by an ex longstanding ACON board member. I expect SX will, as usual, be the paper to throw some balance on the coverage, as it is not so financially enmeshed: ACON = Convicts financial sponsor and the Star Observer's prime meal ticket. Jeez, this little gutter syndicate lives in its own self-delusional bubble, so so far removed from and out of touch with the actual community it purports to represent, and sillier still, it can't even see how obvious this is to us all).

zebra-stripes said on the 15th Jul, 2009

much ado about nothing

Urban

Urban said on the 15th Jul, 2009

About nothing? Not what Peter Hackney had to say in today's SX News:

And so much for Fatty "getting behind the gays".

And please excuse my observation that...The Convicts are sponsored by.... the same organisation that invited Fatty to "get behind the gays" (ACON - suprise suprise). Oh, but I'm sure this is all just a 'wild conspiracy theory'. :rolleyes:

zebra-stripes said on the 15th Jul, 2009

yeah but stuff like this is unsubstantiated paranoid much-ad0-about-nothing "ACON = Convicts financial sponsor and the Star Observer's prime meal ticket"

BTW, SX isn't always praising of Burns, either. Big deal. It's a free world.

Urban

Urban said on the 15th Jul, 2009

Um, are you attempting to deny that ACON is The Convicts' financial sponsor - or that the Star Obsever's article on the issue today (authored by, naturally, an ex longstanding ACON board member) attempts to smooth over and deny all of this by somehow trying to argue: ""It is not correct to suggest that by appearing on The Footy Show, the Convicts jeopardised Gary Burns’ proceedings against Channel Nine for anti-gay vilification" ?

(Or that the Star Observer has already appeared before the media tribunal on charges of baised pro-ACON coverage at the expense of the journalistic impartiality that that paper is ethically bound to follow?)

Seems, Zebra, that the whole of life is just "unsubstantiated paranoid much-ad0-about-nothing" (in your little mind).

Seems that one Peter J would agree with me by his comment on SX’s site today: “I suspect ACON (sponsors of The Convicts) has put them up to shaft Burns – that’s the sort of nonsense that happens to our HIV $$$. The Convicts should apologise formally and publicly.”

zebra-stripes said on the 15th Jul, 2009

Nobody is denying ACON is openly listed as a Convicts supporter. It's not a big deal.

SX gets ACON advertising dollars also. oooOOOOooooOOO!!!!

Urban

Urban said on the 15th Jul, 2009

But then SX has not systematically banned Burns' news coverage - which nearly every other national paper has used - or attempted to cover up and smooth over this whole ACON/Convicts Burns-shafting fiasco - which the Star Observer has. And the Star Observer has already appeared before the media tribunal on charges of baised pro-ACON coverage at the expense of the journalistic impartiality that that paper is ethically bound to follow

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 15th Jul, 2009

yeah but stuff like this is unsubstantiated paranoid much-ad0-about-nothing "ACON = Convicts financial sponsor and the Star Observer's prime meal ticket"

BTW, SX isn't always praising of Burns, either. Big deal. It's a free world.

Um, it's not hard to work out, zebra:

acon board member and solicitor, David Buchanan writes a feature in the SSO claiming, "It is not correct to suggest that by appearing on The Footy Show, the Convicts jeopardised Gary Burns’ proceedings against Channel Nine for anti-gay vilification."

That's obviously a lie because Nine's own Corporate Counsel, says: (the appearance of The Convicts) "reinforced Nine’s opposition to vilification or discrimination" and therefore... "Nine therefore submits that there is no legitimate basis upon which the [ADB] need pursue this investigation further”

The Star carries no story on the Convicts being used as a defence last Friday.

ACON has admitted they sponsors of The Convicts.

The Convicts knowingly shafted Burns.

A 3 yo could work it out. While there are so many questions, few answers seem to be forthcoming, leaving the community to put two and two together for itself - what were the Convicts paid to shaft Burns, why did they do it, why was recidivist homophobe Vautin in acon's campaign, etc etc...

Burns will take the case on to the ADT now, the attempt to sabotage him has failed. The only losers are kids struggling with their sexuality, 2010 who have missed out on any compensation payment and, of course, this community is the less for being treated like garbage by those that seem to think they own it; AGAIN :(

zebra-stripes said on the 15th Jul, 2009

The convicts can do what they want.

There is no proof ACON financed their appearance on the Footy Show.

I doubt there was even money involved.

Ho hum.

Urban

Urban said on the 15th Jul, 2009

http://www.markstivers.com/cartoons/Cartoons%202006/Stivers-6-30-06-Denial-is-t.gif

zebra-stripes said on the 15th Jul, 2009

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 15th Jul, 2009

I think the truth is you don't care less about community, homophobia or gay youthg, zebra, you're onlyt interested in trying to defend the indefensible: acon and their stooges. Btw., where's samesame's story on the outcome of the ADB hearing, or the school newsletter calling for the eradication of homos?

zebra-stripes said on the 15th Jul, 2009

The truth is you're only on here to slag off people who don't fit your world view of "activism".

I'm only questioning your more scathing and irrational claims.

I'm allowed :)

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 15th Jul, 2009

The truth is you're only on here to slag off people who don't fit your world view of "activism".

I'm only questioning your more scathing and irrational claims.

I'm allowed :)

Your word for the day, zebra, is 'ratiocination.' From the Latin ratiocinatio, it means the process of logical reasoning. Given the known facts of this nasty little history, the only rational conclusions - as will have been drawn by 1000's of people in this community by now - do not represent my "world view of "activism"" or "scathing and irrational claims." Or to dumb it down for you: "it's bleeding obvious." So give it up zebby, the whitewash and spin doesn't work; acon, and their stooges, have been caught out again, if they had any honour they'd make an apology and amends to 2010. I won't be holding my breath.

Barrin said on the 15th Jul, 2009

This from someone who claims: "The relationship between the Footy Show vilification and Matthew Mitcham's achievements is that the former invalidates the latter."

Dare one ask if Matty had to go to Beijing and hand the gold medal back personally?

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 15th Jul, 2009

This from someone who claims: "The relationship between the Footy Show vilification and Matthew Mitcham's achievements is that the former invalidates the latter."

Dare one ask if Matty had to go to Beijing and hand the gold medal back personally?

Allow me to dumb it down for you too, Barrin. The sentence, "The relationship between the Footy Show vilification and Matthew Mitcham's achievements is that the former invalidates the latter," means that the vilification of homosexuals on The Footy Show invalidates (makes less worthy) the achievements of Mitcham. That is because the Footy Show portrayed gay youth as worthless and unable to play sport, despite and regardless of Mitcham's medal winning performance. That is why it was important to oppose the message broadcast by Nine. And why a 'remedy' for their offence would have been important.

I have no idea where your mind is going with " Matty had to go to Beijing and hand the gold medal back personally" but it sounds like you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Urban

Urban said on the 15th Jul, 2009

http://giovanniworld.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/morons20copy.jpg

zebra-stripes said on the 15th Jul, 2009

The Convicts went on the Footy Show and spoke out against that sketch. They spoke about suicide, equality, homophobic attitudes.

The Convicts just did something positive and some people can't handle it :)

Barrin said on the 15th Jul, 2009

Allow me to dumb it down for you too, Barrin. The sentence, "The relationship between the Footy Show vilification and Matthew Mitcham's achievements is that the former invalidates the latter," means that the vilification of homosexuals on The Footy Show invalidates (makes less worthy) the achievements of Mitcham. That is because the Footy Show portrayed gay youth as worthless and unable to play sport, despite and regardless of Mitcham's medal winning performance. That is why it was important to oppose the message broadcast by Nine. And why a 'remedy' for their offence would have been important.

I have no idea where your mind is going with " Matty had to go to Beijing and hand the gold medal back personally" but it sounds like you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

And the former is a contrived performance whereas Matthew Mitcham is a real sports champion who won a real gold medal. I'm sure most teenagers would spot the difference.

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 15th Jul, 2009

WHATEVER the Convicts said or did, zebra, whether they danced around backwards reciting the Gettysburg address with a peacock feather stuck up their fat arses; they provided a defence for Nine:

Nine's own Corporate Counsel, says: (the appearance of The Convicts "reinforced Nine’s opposition to vilification or discrimination" and therefore... "Nine therefore submits that there is no legitimate basis upon which the [ADB] need pursue this investigation further”

What don't you understand now?

This is exactly what we all said would happen. I told the Convicts they were being used, Ian Roberts told them they were being used, GB told them...they knew what they were doing and proceeded regardless.. Now, Nine is saying that they’ve remedied the vilification and that the complaint is no longer relevant.

They may as well have just bent over and taken it up the arse on behalf of all of us from Piggy Vautin, for chrissakes.

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 15th Jul, 2009

Barrin, you're an idiot. And I mean that in the nicest possible way. (Cue Little Timmy.)

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 15th Jul, 2009

Do you two retards also support an apology from the school in Albury as its endorsed the killing of all homosexuals because the newsletter was on its own letterhead? Or maybe you think we should send some bozo to appear at the school to prove they're not really homophobic. Maybe you'd like to see acon use George Pell on their farcical campaign now.

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 15th Jul, 2009

Oooh, do I sound like I'm getting pissed off?

Barrin said on the 15th Jul, 2009

Kinda. Like a two year old who doesn't get what it wants.

Urban

Urban said on the 15th Jul, 2009

No, the school in Albury is now eligible for ACON sponsorship.

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 15th Jul, 2009

LOLZ. Even the bigotted old Star had to run comments only from those pissed about the betrayal by the ACONvicts. And the ridiculous attempts at a cover up. The feature by acon board member David Buchanan is such a crock of lies, I think he'll have to go into hiding along with the Convicts.

I wonder if we can speculate that ACON will next sponsor the homophobes school in Albury..Then you two clowns can come here and bore us with your arguments for why that is a good idea too.

Barrin said on the 15th Jul, 2009

LOLZ. Even the bigotted old Star had to run comments only from those pissed about the betrayal by the ACONvicts. And the ridiculous attempts at a cover up. The feature by acon board member David Buchanan is such a crock of lies, I think he'll have to go into hiding along with the Convicts.

I wonder if we can speculate that ACON will next sponsor the homophobes school in Albury..Then you two clowns can come here and bore us with your arguments for why that is a good idea too.

'Cept it's not my ideas you really want.... It's your position you want (dare I say demand) others validate. I can't help you with that.

For the record, I'd be interested in what the students at Xavier had to say about the newsletter. But that's just me.

Urban

Urban said on the 15th Jul, 2009

Prove it. Tell us what they said.

zebra-stripes said on the 15th Jul, 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ro3RQ38sfj8

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 15th Jul, 2009

'Cept it's not my ideas you really want.... It's your position you want (dare I say demand) others validate. I can't help you with that.

For the record, I'd be interested in what the students at Xavier had to say about the newsletter. But that's just me.

I don't think there'll be much of a problem with 'validation,' sweetheart. Multiply my anger by about 50,000 and you'll have some idea why the Convicts, acon and their stooges like Buchanan, need to keep their heads down for a while.

Btw., I can only think of one reason why you two anons would come here to defend the indefensible. Say hi to Stevie, tell her she owes me an email and an apology.

Urban

Urban said on the 15th Jul, 2009

According to that clip they said bugger all except "Um, we kind of get the humour of the show" etc etc etc.

zebra-stripes said on the 15th Jul, 2009

HAHAHA....as always, you look for the more negative angle, that suits your needs, and ignore everything else. You really have a narrow view on the world.

"Because he [the Johns character] was gay was perceived to be hopeless at sport, and even worse than that he was ostracized by his family and seen as faulty by his father and those kind of stereotypes that are sometimes shown on here, and also in sporting teams, are one of the reason why the convicts exist"

"We understand the humor and get that kind of vibe, BUT the one a couple of weeks ago, especially as it was targeting a young gay kid growing up was particularly offensive to the community and even people in the wider community because it re-enforced the idea that you could be rejected by your father or coach or peers. So there are some serious issues."

Urban

Urban said on the 15th Jul, 2009

Woah, big words - infinitely more powerful, I'm sure you think, than the national ADB case they shafted, and of such help to 201o who Burns had chosen as the probable recipient of his erstwhile likely winnings.

zebra-stripes said on the 15th Jul, 2009

Haha, you're still very wrong regarding this.

Which just shows how unbalanced and narrow your views are.

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 15th Jul, 2009

In fact, the Convicts also said, "...I understand the humour and get that kind of vibe...." and "I think we're fine with the context..." They did not use the word, 'homophobia' at all. Have you seen the segment? While it's true that they did point out that the community found the Elton Johns sketch offensive, which of their words do you think Nine would come to quote if this case gets to a court of law?

Asherbella

Asherbella said on the 15th Jul, 2009

Legally speaking, can the Convicts appearance be perceived as a thinly-veiled attempt at damage control? Retrospective back-pedalling for the sake of PR? Surely a tribunal, magistrate or mediator could see that???

Asherbella

Asherbella said on the 15th Jul, 2009

Gary is the complainant. Not the Convicts. The onus lies with negotiating Gary's initial remedies, not what a gay footballer says on TV? How does the law view this? Channel 9 wants to use the Convicts 'I understand the context' remark as a defense, but aren't they answerable to Gary's argument, not a secondary opinion expressed by a person who is not the complainant?

Asherbella

Asherbella said on the 15th Jul, 2009

The President of the ADB gets to decide if Channel 9's defense is an adequate remedy, not Channel 9 or anyone else? That's how Gary explained it to me over the phone...

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 15th Jul, 2009

Indeed. Nine now have a 'remedy' which they have presented to the court. It was knowingly supplied by The Convicts.

If the President of The NSW Anti-Discrimination Board (ADB) does not refer Gary Burns' complaint to the Equal Opportunity Division (EOD) of The Administrative Decisions Tribunal (ADT) because of the 'remedy' supplied by The Convicts, Burns will have to seek leave to the NSW Supreme Court, the costs of which can be up to around $20k.

The point is simple, against all other advice, from Burns, me, Ian Roberts etc., etc., the Convicts apparently took advice from acon and jeopardised Gary Burns’ proceedings against Channel Nine for anti-gay vilification, by appearing on The Footy Show.

zebra-stripes said on the 16th Jul, 2009

Yes. And anyone who has seen the segment would know they were talking about the show in general. And then they went on to talk about that sketch in particular.

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 16th Jul, 2009

here's a transcript, zebby:

Faulty Vartin: "The Footy Show's been accused of being homophobic...and all that sort of thing - do you take offence at the things we do?"

Matt Vagulans: "Um, I've been watching The Footy Show for years and I understand the humour and get that kind of vibe....but (the 'Elton' sketch) was particularly offensive to the community."

Faulty Vartin: "But in general you're fine with the show."

Matt Vagulans:"In general, I think we're fine with the context..and we've been having a good laugh tonight and enjoyed being here."

Vartin changes topic to take the piss out of Richard Reid being a poofter, yadayada, and ends with, "OK boys, thanks for coming on and lending us your support."

(thanks for your support, we'll see you in court.)

philly said on the 16th Jul, 2009

I'm sorry, I don't think the convicts appearance on the show helped anyone, it was all so forced and you have to ask what was the purpose? Was it a coincidence that they did this AFTER the gay skit? I don't think so. They would never have had the Convicts on if Gary Burns hadn't launched legal action, it was clearly in reaction to that, and now we know why - so they can say "See, we're not homophobic - and even if we were we've already remedied the gay skit by having the convicts on the show". The only reason Nine invited them on was to try and blow Gary Burn's case out of the water. It's so obvious. Nine is even naming the Convicts in their legal defence now.

zebra-stripes said on the 16th Jul, 2009

here's a transcript, zebby:

Faulty Vartin: "The Footy Show's been accused of being homophobic...and all that sort of thing - do you take offence at the things we do?"

Matt Vagulans: "Um, I've been watching The Footy Show for years and I understand the humour and get that kind of vibe....but (the 'Elton' sketch) was particularly offensive to the community."

Faulty Vartin: "But in general you're fine with the show."

Matt Vagulans:"In general, I think we're fine with the context..and we've been having a good laugh tonight and enjoyed being here."

Vartin changes topic to take the piss out of Richard Reid being a poofter, yadayada, and ends with, "OK boys, thanks for coming on and lending us your support."

(thanks for your support, we'll see you in court.)

there is nothing wrong with be fine with the show "in general", but singling out that sketch as "particularly offensive"....which they did

Urban

Urban said on the 16th Jul, 2009

If you're still into chasing your tail Zebra, then get a grip on it: How was making those token feeble comments, in a briefer than brief pasing late TV laugh-off, worth giving Ch9 a defence to use against the ADB charges? It clearly was NOT - they were asked to wait and refused - it was therefore vindictive and obstructive.

The result?

'Channel Nine has cited the appearance of the Sydney Convicts on The Footy Show in its legal defence against a complaint lodged by Gary Burns with the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board (ADB).

The network’s tactic is in response to Burns’ ADB complaint about a May 7 Footy Show skit that portrayed a gay character as ‘faulty’ and requiring hospitalisation.

A copy of Nine’s legal defences, obtained by SX, said in part: “Without admission we note that as an example of a more positive statement to the community, and one which reinforced Nine’s opposition to vilification or discrimination, on 11 June 2009 Nine broadcast on the program a segment featuring The Convicts – a gay rugby union team – who are positive role models and advocates for gay males.”

Kiah Wood, Nine’s Corporate Counsel, continued: “For the reasons listed above ... Nine therefore submits that there is no legitimate basis upon which the [ADB] need pursue this investigation further.”

Burns told SX: “This is exactly what I said would happen. I told the Convicts they were being used, Ian Roberts told them they were being used, but they wouldn’t listen. Now, Nine is saying that they’ve remedied the vilification and that my complaint is no longer relevant.

“If the Convicts’ participation has scuttled my case, Nine can continue to vilify gay people with impunity and keep perpetrating the gay hate and ridicule that begets gay youth suicide.

“I’m very angry with the Sydney Convicts,” he said. “What do they think they’ve achieved?”

Convicts President Andrew Purchas told SX: “The Sydney Convicts approached the Footy Show in order to provide a positive image to gay sportsmen in response to the skit.

“We support Gary's claim and believe our appearance in fact strengthened his claim.”

Burns, however, maintained: “[The Convicts have] meddled in a legal matter before it went to court or was conciliated, and it is vulnerable gay teenagers who stand to lose.” '

(Peter hackney, SX News)

Don't tell me Zebra: Now you think Peter Hackney is driven by 'conspiracy theories' that are 'unsubstantiated paranoid much-ad0-about-nothing' and he only covered that news ‘to slag off people who don't fit his world view of activism’ too, hmm?

Asherbella

Asherbella said on the 16th Jul, 2009

'...advocates for gay males...'
What does Channel 9 think we are?
Test subjects like lab rats with little beady red eyes?

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 16th Jul, 2009

hmmm....speaking of advocates, what is up with the feature run by the star, written by ex-acon board member, that the convicts would not be used by Nine? It's such an obvious lie, why say it, and why print it? NOT that I am suggesting any Star-acon-Convicts conspiracy, of course, but by contrast, SX at least seems willing to give an honest and balanced coverage. I wonder if SX was also approached to run that misleading article and refused?

zebra-stripes said on the 16th Jul, 2009

If you're still into chasing your tail Zebra, then get a grip on it: How was making those token feeble comments, in a briefer than brief pasing late TV laugh-off, worth giving Ch9 a defence to use against the ADB charges? It clearly was NOT - they were asked to wait and refused - it was therefore vindictive and obstructive.

The result?

'Channel Nine has cited the appearance of the Sydney Convicts on The Footy Show in its legal defence against a complaint lodged by Gary Burns with the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board (ADB).

The network’s tactic is in response to Burns’ ADB complaint about a May 7 Footy Show skit that portrayed a gay character as ‘faulty’ and requiring hospitalisation.

A copy of Nine’s legal defences, obtained by SX, said in part: “Without admission we note that as an example of a more positive statement to the community, and one which reinforced Nine’s opposition to vilification or discrimination, on 11 June 2009 Nine broadcast on the program a segment featuring The Convicts – a gay rugby union team – who are positive role models and advocates for gay males.”

Kiah Wood, Nine’s Corporate Counsel, continued: “For the reasons listed above ... Nine therefore submits that there is no legitimate basis upon which the [ADB] need pursue this investigation further.”

Burns told SX: “This is exactly what I said would happen. I told the Convicts they were being used, Ian Roberts told them they were being used, but they wouldn’t listen. Now, Nine is saying that they’ve remedied the vilification and that my complaint is no longer relevant.

“If the Convicts’ participation has scuttled my case, Nine can continue to vilify gay people with impunity and keep perpetrating the gay hate and ridicule that begets gay youth suicide.

“I’m very angry with the Sydney Convicts,” he said. “What do they think they’ve achieved?”

Convicts President Andrew Purchas told SX: “The Sydney Convicts approached the Footy Show in order to provide a positive image to gay sportsmen in response to the skit.

“We support Gary's claim and believe our appearance in fact strengthened his claim.”

Burns, however, maintained: “[The Convicts have] meddled in a legal matter before it went to court or was conciliated, and it is vulnerable gay teenagers who stand to lose.” '

(Peter hackney, SX News)

Don't tell me Zebra: Now you think Peter Hackney is driven by 'conspiracy theories' that are 'unsubstantiated paranoid much-ad0-about-nothing' and he only covered that news ‘to slag off people who don't fit his world view of activism’ too, hmm?

Andrew Purchas has made a fair comment and I agree with him.

Urban

Urban said on the 16th Jul, 2009

You're again strying to skip the point to chase your tail. My comment was in resonse to your praise of their comments on the show. So again: How was making those token feeble comments, in a briefer than brief pasing late TV laugh-off, worth giving Ch9 a defence to use against the ADB charges? It clearly was NOT - they were asked to wait and refused - it was therefore vindictive and obstructive.

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 16th Jul, 2009

zebra, you'd try and defend Hitler to the Jews. You don't really care about any of these issues, you're home alone, bored and looking for a bitch with anyone who's interested. :)

zebra-stripes said on the 16th Jul, 2009

- Why say "feeble"? . Ridiculous.
- Convicts can do what they want, unless Burns sees himself as a community controller.
- There is nothing to say this "defense" actually means anything.
- Purchas' comments show it wasn't vindictive. I'm not paranoid and I have no reason to not to believe him.

Urban

Urban said on the 16th Jul, 2009

Because compared with the impact of the national ADB mitigation suit they weakened, the comments ARE feeble. How was making those token feeble comments, in a briefer than brief pasing late TV laugh-off, worth giving Ch9 a defence to use against the ADB charges? It clearly was NOT - they were asked to wait and refused - it was therefore vindictive and obstructive. Shayne is correct: You don't really care about any of these issues, you're home alone, bored and looking for a bitch with anyone who's interested.

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 16th Jul, 2009

SX is just hitting the streets. Shit >>>> fan >>>>SPLAAT. acon is 'closed for training' and the convicts have gone to ground. :)

zebra-stripes said on the 16th Jul, 2009

No. I'm not the one attacking people. And I'm not unemployed.. you?

Urban

Urban said on the 16th Jul, 2009

Neither is anyone else 'attacking' anyone - it's perfectly pertinent to point out that The Convicts did the wrong thing and owe and apology to Burns and the community. But as usual, your only way of arguing on this is to skip in circles evading every point put to you (classic ACON strategy).

I'm sure you're not unemployed - ACON staff more often than not clock up their hours at home.

http://www.decorativepackagingblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/sock-puppet_medium.jpg

Yeah, both ACON and The Convicts could use some better sock puppets than these 2.

zebra-stripes said on the 16th Jul, 2009

More lies and slurs. Keep it coming.

zebra-stripes said on the 16th Jul, 2009

Yep. The reason I said that is because he chose to use it as a divisive thing.

Urban

Urban said on the 16th Jul, 2009

The only divisive thing done here was by the Convicts (and/or their financial sponor) who set one part of this community against the other.

zebra-stripes said on the 16th Jul, 2009

Again. Saying ACON funded the Convicts to be saboteurs is just an outright, baseless lie.

Urban

Urban said on the 16th Jul, 2009

No it’s the most logical conclusion, considering the context and history - because ACON then took the nastiness one step further by inviting Fatty into its campaign. (Pft. Next they'll be asking this homophobic school that’s hit the news to participate in its campaign and offering it sponsorship) and then, characteristically grappled to justify it all by getting its longstanding board member David Buchanan to write a load of unfounded spin in this week’s Star Observer - which continues to ban all Burns news and comments of support whilst allowing snipes and stabs at him. And ACON has a history of doing this to grass roots initiatives, just as it did with the community vigil.

zebra-stripes said on the 16th Jul, 2009

What a sad, negative outlook.

You were questioning my job... what do you do for a job, then?

Urban

Urban said on the 16th Jul, 2009

Why on earth would I feed personal data about myself to some ACON sock puppet?

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 16th Jul, 2009

Perhaps, zebra, you can explain the feature run by the Star, written by ex-acon board member, that the convicts would not be used by Nine? It's such an obvious lie, why say it, and why print it?

I think the problem with Gary Burns for some people in this community is that he takes a stand while those that see themselves as some sort of 'gay government' do nothing. He embarrasses them. They view Burns as uppity, an interloper, and someone who had to be brought down. And so they ignore him in their papers, for example the Star does not run the school story while even mainstream papers like the [URL="http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=15176"]CathNews and the Tele have picked it up.

But GLBQT have a long history of fighting for themselves, regardless of the meddling of those advocates who are well funded to do that job. Good on Gary, this community is behind you, and maybe sometimes, even alongside you, in all your battles. We all have the right to live with respect and in peace.

zebra-stripes said on the 16th Jul, 2009

I do, nevertheless, have work commitments now, so before you reach for the Tim Tams and settle by the screen for another day's bitching at anyonewho DARES criticise ACON or those acting under its directives, let me just say...

Actually I'm not criticizing anyone, just questioning stupid lies like ACON funding sabotage, ACON wanting aids to spread, SSO profiting from ACON (when SX doesn't?), that the convicts are cowards, etc.

I never call people c*nts. I simply questions your lies.

Urban

Urban said on the 16th Jul, 2009

You spend your entire life on here following anyone who has ever criticised ACON from forum to forum.

http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00036/WEB_Stalkers_36520g.jpg

And you DID argue blue in the face against the idea of the Elton John skit facing antivilifaction action, calling it 'censorship'. (Very confused little mind).

As for your calling thing 'lies': You think everything in the world is a lie. A prime example is your comment on this Shaynesydney thread:

All expressed compassion and then you said:

...And I always think there’s something about those who think everything is a lie:

They’re guilty of being major liars themselves. Like the obsessive need you exhibit to discredit any criticism of ACON and those acting for ACON, while insisting you aren’t connected with the place, yet arguing point for point as if underhandedly boasting a virtual encyclopaedic knowledge of ACON policy and ACON workshops and services and ACON funding directives.

zebra-stripes said on the 16th Jul, 2009

I was questioning what people you actually asking for. Seeing as that kind of humor exists everywhere.

Urban

Urban said on the 16th Jul, 2009

So what do you call this 24/7 stalking of people from forum to forum, like some psycho, with these kind of remarks?

etc etc etc

Your entire life is just that.

zebra-stripes said on the 16th Jul, 2009

Yes it's just me.

Difference is, I'm not attacking people. I'm questioning the attacks.

Is all.

Urban

Urban said on the 16th Jul, 2009

No, you're on the attack 24/7 like some psycho - always those who have dared criticise ACON, and attacking them in any small way you can find. It's pretty obvious what you're about. You even talk in ACON lingo.

You alsow limit your comments to 'slagging people off' as in

etc etc etc

So you're in no position to be talking about others 'slagging people off' - my points about ACON and The Convicts are not only perfectly valid, they are also shared by a significant proprtion of the community, as is evident on here and other media. I doubt you'll get very far chasing around after each and every person in town awake to the Convicts, trying to quash each and everyone one of their opinions from the freedom of expression due to us all. You're pissing into the wind, dearie. I'd have alye down if Iwere you. :D

zebra-stripes said on the 16th Jul, 2009

Haven't done anything other than question your paranoid slandering.

If you're expecting to slag people off unquestioned, then that's just bad luck.

maxheadroom

maxheadroom said on the 16th Jul, 2009

Actually Zebra I have to agree with Urban, you do seem to devote your life to bitching out anyone daring to speak out against this mob – people on the strip last night were talking about you and taking bets on how many overseas Acon-financed gabfests Stevie pays you in.

These guys are not 'paranoid' nor 'slandering', they're telling it like it is -good for them, at least someone in this town is still willing to put themselves on the line and mention the unmentionable.

Christ, you even argue like a girl - are you actually Heather (sorry 'Stevie') Clayton?

As for the topic, I reckon The Convicts are way out of line here and need to stand up and admit their wrongdoing.

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 16th Jul, 2009

Like it or not, there is still an awful lot of ignorance and hatred out there. Comments in the CathNews
http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=15176
by Fr Mick Mac Andrew Bombala-Delegate NSW are fairly typical: "...young men who have now matured and are able to break free from the immature understanding of sexuality that is promoted by such publications as the one trumpeting the gay activist's outrage in this matter." and "We need more young people to speak up and demand, not license to live an immature understanding of sexuality, but good education about sexuality which would help all the young to live "the Truth will set you free.""

So whatever your personal problems with Gary Burns thank gawd there are people like him with the balls to stand up and take the homophobes on each and every time, even when it costs him financially and he spends years in court. And shame on those creeps, whether anonymous trolls, newspaper publishers, acon stooges like Buchanan or wannabe footy heroes, who want to bring him down, or use his battles against homophobes as a platform to air their own petty resentments.

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 16th Jul, 2009

Clayton resigns

I am wetting myself.

Urban

Urban said on the 16th Jul, 2009

Clayton resigns

I am wetting myself.

http://www.wendyswizardofoz.com/dotglin3.jpg

http://lucytheblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/wicked_witch.jpg

Well hold your bladder, [URL="http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/2009/07/16/clayton-resigns/14515#comment-14720"]she's not gone yet

Bit soon to sing:

http://www.musicnotes.com/images/productimages/mtd/MN0018238.gif

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 16th Jul, 2009

After nagging Christian at samesame for eight months to follow up on the questions we wanted answered by Clayton and the inadequate responses that made him go back for a follow up...the questions sent to Della Costa, Clover and others also to have been asked of Clayton ...and then there are the Convicts, up shit creek and taking Clayton with them....add the lies printed by the Star and told by Buchanan, the pressure on Mark Orr, Burns subpoenaeing them all to testify in court, and the mainstream media all over Burns to know what the aconvicts story is all about....The timing of Clayton's resignation is all a bit of a CONIKYDINK isn't it? It's very sudden. We also know from Orr that they follow what we are saying on samesame....

Anyway, bless her, my guess is she's off to join Stacey Farrar on the fish farm.

Meanwhile, back in the real community, GB is going ahead in leaps and bounds:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/838308/school-published-gay-massacre-demand-letter

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 16th Jul, 2009

p.s...."...AND ya little doggy."

Urban

Urban said on the 16th Jul, 2009

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_kDoyvibiZag/R_QNGus1YsI/AAAAAAAABb0/oymDMvk6RZE/s320/photo7.jpg

Urban

Urban said on the 16th Jul, 2009

And what a CONIKYDINK that SameSame has resisted reporting Clayton's sudden resignation. ;)

Dsquare

Dsquare said on the 16th Jul, 2009

http://www.samesame.com.au/news/local/4288/ACON-CEO-Steps-Down.htm ;)

Urban

Urban said on the 16th Jul, 2009

Nevertheless they were slow off the mark.

gandolf69 said on the 16th Jul, 2009

I've just that article via the link provided by Shayne and Gary has my support as those comments are just terrible and demeaning to all of us, it's 2009 and people still have those thoughts, what a concern this is?Are these people for real or just some cheap grabbing comments searching for headlines?

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 16th Jul, 2009

"I swear the earth shall surely be complete to him or her who shall be complete!
I swear the earth remains jagged and broken only to him or her who remains jagged and
broken! " Walt Whitman - Carol of Words.

I think the job is done, time to relax now. :)

Bren

Bren said on the 31st Jul, 2009

So you claim. Based on what? Other than your opinion, I mean. Is that a legal view informed by a proper understanding of the ADB process?

Exactly how in fact is 'Nine' supposedly going to "get out of jail free" as a result of ACON?

The NSW ADB is a state entity. Not national.

The NSW ADB hears complaints. Not suits.

Your use of 'mitigation' in this context makes no sense.

Seems rather brazen to quote what is obviously your own nom de plume, Peter / PeteJ / Peter J.

Yes, I would agree with Buchanan's quote. On what legal basis is it not correct?

But Shayne... you recently said elsewhere that sock puppet claims are inherently "meaningless, [...] a defamatory and cowardly charge to make as it can neither be proved not disproved [...] the last refuge of one scraping the dregs of the bottom of the barrel for an argument". Surely, you weren't being a hypocrite while I wasn't looking..

As for that "one reason" you can "only" think of, Shayne: it underscores the limitations of your thinking. No wonder that, like a broken record, the usual tactic of labelling anyone with a contrary opinion as an ACON stooge is a favourite defensive tactic of the Chester cabal.

Oh, SameSame are just evil, aren't they. For there must surely be some nefarious reason behind their slowness. Or if not, you must at least be able to concoct some sophist piece of drivel to that effect. It would be a shame to let down the fans, after all.

Are you hearing 50,000 voices in your head? Would certainly explain a lot.

Actually, your comment sounds intimidatory, even threatening. Quite at odds with [URL="http://www.samesame.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=9871"]this.

Clayton resigns

I am wetting myself.

Yet Shayne quoth elsewhere, of ACON and Clayton, "Truth is, I'm ambivalent".

Yes, ambivalent. Sure he is - he said so. :)

Well, either he's a brilliant satirist or what he says is simply laughable. :D

Yes, indeedy. Mission accomplished. I don't doubt it.

There are 12 more comments. View them all