Club Mgmt. Board of Directors as led by President Dave Barham

Remove this Banner Ad

 
Last edited:
If he'd chaird a white supremecy organisation would we be as casual about his appointment?

To many the views his chosen organisation supports are, whilst socially allowable, in conflict with the clubs views on inclusion. in terms of him leading the club and all its employees this should be a real consideration. Its not hard to project the women's side taking issue much of this for starters.

I agree with others he should publicly explain his opinion on women's right to decide and also homosexuality - just as a CEO would need to explain their view on race had they supported an organisation with strong views on race that were in conflict with those of the club. .

Well I guess my days on here are numbered if this is the view of posters.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

It feels a lot like you want to hang the guy for - potentially - not sharing the same views you share, despite no public statements, actions, or measures indicating he is anything other than an inclusive person in a professional setting.
He's the head of a homophobic organisation, that's an action and a statement. When asked, his answers were not "I don't believe that" it was
"i haven't heard that since I've been here"
"some people have different views".

It would have taken two seconds for him to say "I don't hold those views". But he didn't. That omission says plenty to me.

It could be over in 2 seconds. And no, I don't want somebody with those beliefs leading my club.

If he was advocating wife beating or slavery (also literal interpretations of the bible) or stoning adulterers would we be having this conversation?

Society has moved on from tolerating certain types of poor behaviour. It sounds like you've just drawn the line in a different place than I have. Don't pretend your morals don't have any impact on the way you view people.
 
He's the head of a homophobic organisation, that's an action and a statement. When asked, his answers were not "I don't believe that" it was
"i haven't heard that since I've been here"
"some people have different views".

It would have taken two seconds for him to say "I don't hold those views". But he didn't. That omission says plenty to me.

It could be over in 2 seconds. And no, I don't want somebody with those beliefs leading my club.

If he was advocating wife beating or slavery (also literal interpretations of the bible) or stoning adulterers would we be having this conversation?

Society has moved on from tolerating certain types of poor behaviour. It sounds like you've just drawn the line in a different place than I have. Don't pretend your morals don't have any impact on the way you view people.
This and appropriate username too
 
I think we should move the witch hunt to the cause of all the problems at Essendon.

dodoro GIF by AFL


crowd riot GIF
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

It’s very clear no, or at least insufficient, due diligence was done here. Nobody with any sense of society today would have failed to anticipate what has now transpired had it been a known issue.

It strongly suggests the appointment did not follow the process and was made with little rigour. Barham will struggle to survive this.

The good news is that I am unsure we can bottom out further than this.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top