southerncross

Wanted Missing VOR Skipper

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, bigrpowr said:

obviously everything you just described , he knew was going to be broadcasted and he still signed the check. you probably shouldn't speak for people you don't know.

Witty signed the cheque. Will your buddy? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, southerncross said:

Time Person of the Year.  No political statement.  Just the temperature.

person-of-year-2017-time-magazine-cover1.jpg

Certainly the temperature Runkle.

For those a bit puzzled or living in North Korea, each of those women (some celebs some not) represent one of the "voices" that helped to launch the #MeToo social media movement, which went viral in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein revelations.

In Time's words, they are 'The Silence Breakers'.

Dawn probably thinks she is the elbow in the lower right-hand corner.

According to Time, that elbow belongs to an "anonymous young hospital worker from Texas" who is a victim of sexual harassment, but who fears disclosing her identity may negatively impact her family.

"Her appearance is an act of solidarity, representing all those who are not yet able to come forward and reveal their identities," Time said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, RKoch said:

I didn't make the posts you're quoting. Learn how to use the quote function, Willya?

Sorry Kochie..they were all axlelot's but the posting gremlin had you marked for the last two. I hope you not going to lodge a 69 complaint.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NORBowGirl said:

Bulgaria...let's just say they have some work to do.

 

Are they anything like the Kazakh?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Team_GBR said:

Unlike some, I think the basis of this hearing has validity and is needed

I agree we have all probably said or heard worse on boats we have raced, but that's not what is at stake. The difference between that and what we have here is that this was broadcast to many viewers and knowing that was going to happen, Witty deliberately set out to to cause offence

I think he was bored and tried some edgy humor.. nothing more... There is harmless fun and there's intentionally being offensive.... The vast majority here took it as harmless fun... So who makes the moral and ethical rules for us all..?     I sure hope it isn't Dawn or Random.... what a boring clinical world that would be ...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pil Unfortunately the left are the moral & ethical police now. The battle was lost years ago. 

 

(In Australia at least, I guess Trump gives USA some hope) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, SCANAS said:

Witty signed the cheque. Will your buddy? 

the guy with 40,000 employees that you referenced. try to keep up .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lee's eyes are now wide open. 

As he's Asian do his eyes .... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, PIL007 said:

. what a boring clinical world that would be ...  it is becoming

As Kirk Pengilly recently said, "'I miss the days you could slap a woman on the butt and it was taken as a compliment"

PC will be the death of us all.. a slow, dull, drowning in a morass of porridge.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, SCANAS said:

Pil Unfortunately the left are the moral & ethical police now. The battle was lost years ago. 

 

(In Australia at least, I guess Trump gives USA some hope) 

Really? The biggest asshole to hit the planet in a long time gives you hope?  So you think that the way things were before this year in many professional spheres for women were just fine. Here, let me take a bet with you. You have a Y chromosome.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gives the USA hope of not falling to the lefty PC culture. Yes. 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SCANAS said:

You answered your own statement. You don't have an OBR an audience of millions (lots who don't sail) sponsors, PR team, team owner who has 40,000 employees. Would you broadcast your weekend racing, including dirty jokes & f bomb's & send it to your opposition in business? I wouldn't. 

At least on the Pogo we have moved past the ball jokes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, southerncross said:

Time Person of the Year.  No political statement.  Just the temperature.

person-of-year-2017-time-magazine-cover1.jpg

This metoo thing is a disgraceful pile of bullshit.

It effectively equates someone who once had their arse grabbed at a concert or who was wolf whistled walking past a building site, to someone like my friend who was so brutally raped by her boss that doctors were not sure at first whether she would survive.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, duncan (the other one) said:

As Kirk Pengilly recently said, "'I miss the days you could slap a woman on the butt and it was taken as a compliment"

PC will be the death of us all.. a slow, dull, drowning in a morass of porridge.

No, that's fantasy. Nobody has ever taken getting slapped on the ass by a colleague as a compliment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

In case anyone didn't notice, someone on the inside sent Scot the video and he posted it again with his own commentary. 

 

http://sailinganarchy.com/2017/12/06/rule-69/

 

 

Hats off to Scott/you for putting Dawn Riley's role in this sorry affair out in the public domain where it belongs. Not just because that was needed, but also because I understand there was a legal stouch between Riley and you guys some time ago, so many in your position would have baulked at doing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Hats off to Scott/you for putting Dawn Riley's role in this sorry affair out in the public domain where it belongs. Not just because that was needed, but also because I understand there was a legal stouch between Riley and you guys some time ago, so many in your position would have baulked at doing that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, duncan (the other one) said:

Indeed.

 

if you read Part 5 - there's effectively three procedures: protest, redress, and rule 69 action.

Now go back and read ALL of rule 60.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive known Dawn for 30 years. We've sailed together, gotten hammered together. Know for a fact she's said worse shit than "scrotum". Fortunately not on video. I'm interested in her take, if indeed she was one of those who filed a complaint.

What I'm seeing here...if anyone on the boat was truly offended, that should have been handled internally. What makes it an issue is posting the video to VOR page, where even Witt acknowledges some viewers will get sand in their vaginas. That still seems like it should be an issue for VOR to handle with the team, not a 69 protest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, hoppy said:

This metoo thing is a disgraceful pile of bullshit.

It effectively equates someone who once had their arse grabbed at a concert or who was wolf whistled walking past a building site, to someone like my friend who was so brutally raped by her boss that doctors were not sure at first whether she would survive.

I think you miss the point. The MeToo women stepped out into the spotlight and doing so have lowered the bar on what has been seen as unacceptable behaviour and where prior to this the perpetrators have been getting away with it. It in no way diminishes the position of others caught up in far more brutal circumstances like your friend. 

More to the point what is the alternative???....there should have been no response to the Wienstein affair and therefore no moral outrage?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched the video again.. AB was totally in on the joke.

This has NOTHING to do with sexual harassment or mysogyny NOTHING!!!!!

Whether it was appropriate to be on the VOR official site, that's another matter.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RKoch said:

What I'm seeing here...if anyone on the boat was truly offended that should have been handled internally.

Kochie no one on the boat was offended. The 69er was launched before they hit CT and without their knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

I think you miss the point. The MeToo women stepped out into the spotlight and doing so have lowered the bar on what has been seen as unacceptable behaviour and where prior to this the perpetrators have been getting away with it. It in no way diminishes the position of others caught up in far more brutal circumstances like your friend. 

More to the point what is the alternative???....there should have been no response to the Wienstein affair and therefore no moral outrage?

The response to the Wienstein should have been that more of his victims come out and others like Burke get outed too, but the metoo hashtag shit should just not exist. Funnily enough the two women I know who have been raped, never wasted their time with the stupid hashtag shit. Posting hashtags is as stupid as planking and other social media fads

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, hoppy said:

Just watched the video again.. AB was totally in on the joke.

This has NOTHING to do with sexual harassment or mysogyny NOTHING!!!!!

Whether it was appropriate to be on the VOR official site, that's another matter.

Smartest thing you have said. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hoppy said:

The response to the Wienstein should have been that more of his victims come out and others like Burke get outed too, but the metoo hashtag shit should just not exist.

But that is the medium that encouraged victims to come out, and as it transpired, in their droves??? You have confused me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, RKoch said:

Ive known Dawn for 30 years. We've sailed together, gotten hammered together. Know for a fact she's said worse shit than "scrotum". Fortunately not on video. I'm interested in her take, if indeed she was one of those who filed a complaint.

What I'm seeing here...if anyone on the boat was truly offended, that should have been handled internally. What makes it an issue is posting the video to VOR page, where even Witt acknowledges some viewers will get sand in their vaginas. That still seems like it should be an issue for VOR to handle with the team, not a 69 protest. 

I think most are missing a key point here - the fundamental issue is that WS has changed 69 from "gross misconduct" to just "misconduct" and allowed virtually anyone to complain.  I said  when this change was in process that we'd end  up with the mortality police, and that is exactly what we have here.

There is also a lot going in behind the scenes, stuff that would not be evident to most.  The IOC is trying to mandate "gender equity" and that means mostly participation levels at the Olympics, but tangentially it ends up effecting the whole sport. I'm all for more women sailing, it's just that WS can fuck up a two car funeral.

Then there is the Coady v World Sailing suit.

So, what's WS going to do, waive this one off, and give Coady a lot of ammo in the various courts?  Or go tough, and bear the consequences of having to now set precedent for "misconduct".

The entire 69 rule and procedural is what everyone should really find offensive.  Yes, this sort of thing could happen to you, even at your 4 knot shit box level.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, southerncross said:

Time Person of the Year.  No political statement.  Just the temperature.

person-of-year-2017-time-magazine-cover1.jpg

sexistmagazine.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Mark Set (BIMBO Local 713) said:

No, that's fantasy. Nobody has ever taken getting slapped on the ass by a colleague as a compliment.

who said anything about colleagues?

Never shit where you eat.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, pudge said:

There’s a pretty simple way of avoiding a rule 69 protest: don’t be a fucking dueschbag. 

In fact being a fucking dueschbag has stopped you from getting a 69 of any kind.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, pudge said:

There’s a pretty simple way of avoiding a rule 69 protest: don’t be a fucking dueschbag. 

you have a fairly limited imagination, don't you.  Your statement above could well be interpreted as a 'breach of good manners'. 

What happens when you say that to a competitor on the water in the heat of battle?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a higher probability that you will cop a 69 protest for smoking while racing, than dying from doing it on top of the gas/propane locker.

images (38).jpeg

images (40).jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, LB 15 said:

Yep - anyone who sees anything anywhere in the world they don't like associated with the sport can now try and bring a rule 69 against them. Randumb, old son, you should sell your shitbox and concentrate on gardening.

Yes, basically World Sailing has totally fuked this up...

Without setting a time / distance boundary, according to Rule 6 from world sailings Misconduct Guidance; particularly rule 6.4 means that "hypothetically" I could run into random or any of the other snowflakes here, refer to them as mincing scrotums, and as long as I'm wearing a t-shirt, hat, jacket, ANYTHING, that links me to a sailing event, however historical, I can be subject to a rule 69 hearing, for using a word (scrotum), that appears in dictionaries, medical texts, thesaurus, encyclopedia, wikipedia (don't google it in wiki, there are pictures that may cause snowflake indignation stress heart attacks), and its synonym testicles is found in legal and religious texts.

Brave new world indeed, let me know when the righteously indignant break out the matches and the book burning starts,  

 The extent of rule 69 jurisdiction (the time and location of misconduct)

6.1 The jurisdiction of the protest committee under rule 69 extends from the earlier of:

6.1.1 the time the competitor arrives at the venue for the purpose of the event; or

6.1.2 the time the competitor registers their intention to enter and be bound by the rules; and continues through till their departure from the venue after racing (but may extend beyond this time – see section 6.4).

6.2 If the competitor can readily be associated with the event, or if there is an incident in a public place between competitors, or if several competitors join together in bad behaviour, then the protest committee can take action.

6.3 The important question is whether the behaviour of the competitors can reasonably be said to be associated to the sport or to the event. For example, if a club or event receives a complaint from someone who is not associated with the event about the behaviour of one or more competitors, this indicates that a connection has already been made and the sport in general (and the event in particular) may have been brought into disrepute.

6.4 Misconduct occurring after the end of the event, possibly even away from the event location, could be considered under rule 69 if sufficient association to the event is established.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LB 15 said:

At least on the Pogo we have moved past the ball jokes.

Another good thing about the Pogo is you stand up a lot, so I can really go all French & put a lot of arm movement into my tall stories. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree Hilly VOR isn't the UN but they have to do something. Dawn obviously knew how to make it count. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think VOR are the guilty party here for posting the vid and then keeping on their website for long.  Sure Witt was the skipper that instigated it but one wonders how many other marginally offensive videos over the years have been sent back to the office but were not posted on the website.  Plenty I bet.

The always outraged snowflakes have created a PC world where they see life through very narrow view eyes.  The #metoo's who just pile on the bandwagon has gotten out of hand totally.  The females who used their sex to climb up the ladder, be it corporate or acting, are worse than the Weinsteins that are out there but you will not hear a word against them, there a plenty out there in good positions only because they took a step up by using someone of power sexually to do so.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, HILLY said:

Yes, basically World Sailing has totally fuked this up...

Without setting a time / distance boundary, according to Rule 6 from world sailings Misconduct Guidance; particularly rule 6.4 means that "hypothetically" I could run into random or any of the other snowflakes here, refer to them as mincing scrotums, and as long as I'm wearing a t-shirt, hat, jacket, ANYTHING, that links me to a sailing event, however historical, I can be subject to a rule 69 hearing, for using a word (scrotum), that appears in dictionaries, medical texts, thesaurus, encyclopedia, wikipedia (don't google it in wiki, there are pictures that may cause snowflake indignation stress heart attacks), and its synonym testicles is found in legal and religious texts.

That is total horseshit! You could not be brought up on a rule 69 charge for calling somebody a "mincing scrotum" or even for using the word "scrotum". I don't know where you got that from, but it is way off course. If you think Witty is being dragged before the IJ only for using that word, you haven't been paying attention.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is bizarre, people pay good money to go and see far ruder and cruder comedians. On the offensive scale  I wouldn't rate it a one out of ten. Theres worse on the tv.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, bigrpowr said:

Witt is a tard for sure , but if he truly offended AB or crossed the line, she wouldn't be on board for Leg 3 IMO

Seems you just don't understand the fundamentals.  I will speak slowly for you.

It's about what Witt did, not who was offended.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, trt131 said:

The females who used their sex to climb up the ladder, be it corporate or acting, are worse than the Weinsteins

Got some evidence for that?  We are all ears to any facts misogynists can supply.

Fuck, this is dragging out more Neanderthals out of the closet than a Trump election.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, bigrpowr said:

It really appears Dawn is crying out for some attention. I always thought she was cool and good for the sport , but this is just insane. Witt is a tard for sure , but if he truly offended AB or crossed the line, she wouldn't be on board for Leg 3 IMO . Hopefully she speaks up , her opinion is the most valid in this BS .

Sidenote- it's pretty cool Randumb couldn't keep his story streamlined  long enough to keep it a play for women's right's , instead has shown he has an axe to grind with witty . Randumb , i feel sorry for you, that's no way to go through life.

Random doesn’t particularly care about anything in an argument, he just picks the side that supplies the most trolling material for him to use, take a look at his previous history in PA, if you really want too?? 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Not smart to say anything public in advance of the hearing and particularly so where details of the protest itself has not been put into the public domain.

Completely agree jack, keep mum and only speak to your lawyer until in front of the jury is common sense.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Glenn McCarthy said:

All of this is utterly ridiculous.  What the hell were the rules writers thinking when the popped the door open on RRS 69?  The result is this?

I promise, I will not be a judge involved in any of this sort of RRS 69 puffery.  I'll tell any yacht club to go find someone else.

World Sailing really missed the target on this rule change.  The rule was just fine before.

That's a good call Glenn.  Only people capable of critical thinking should be judges on this sort of thing.

I take from your words that the rules should be returned to what they were when women knew that they should stay in the kitchen, except for when they bring you your slippers and a Cuban cigar.

  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice going Randumb, I have never been this close to fooling with the ignore button before, BTW watched the video that caused this shit storm for the 1st time, utterly gobsmacked that's what all the fuss is about.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, animeproblem said:

Nice going Randumb, I have never been this close to fooling with the ignore button before, BTW watched the video that caused this shit storm for the 1st time, utterly gobsmacked that's what all the fuss is about.

Yes I do feel a bit of ignore coming on. Not just yet but it's getting closer....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do it.  Don't just fucking talk about it like a bunch of fucking girl sailors!

Do it!

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, random said:

Do it.  Don't just fucking talk about it like a bunch of fucking girl sailors!

Do it!

Very well

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I write the WS Jury determining this Rule 69 incident is sitting down in Cape Town to collectively scratch their heads. Everyone is assuming this matter and Witt and Hayles as the recipients of these 69er proceeding are firstly going to be judged on just this one incident and secondly equally.

I throw up the possibility that is not the case based upon the following.

1. The public/third party complainant Dawn Riley (I'm ignoring the other anonymous HK complainant) has a long and respected "standing" with regard to gender equality in sailing. For instance just after lodging the complaint she Chaired a Workshop at the Yacht Racing Forum in Denmark that dealt with bringing and keeping more women in sailing and where she referenced this incident.

2. WS Guidelines for dealing with Rule 69 matters have a flavour that allows for leniency for a one-off infringement and obviously as it should be.

While nothing is prescribed for this incident of bringing the sport into disrepute, there is some guidance in that regard. For example where bad language is involved and the RO has not dealt with same in say SI's etc, then the Guidelines indicate such an infringement does not constitute the need for a Rule 69 hearing.

3. There is one(1) woman comprising seven(7) on the WS Jury for this protest. Her name is Sofia Truchanowicz. While being outnumbered 6:1, I would be very surprised if her “standing” in judging this incident, doesn’t measure as more than one voice in that room.   

So what does that all potentially mean?

Firstly I'm of the view that Witt and Hayles will be judged equally with regard to the Dr Clogs video, then obviously with regard to Witt, possibly a bit of extra Skipper pain. 

However I'm not convinced it will stop there for Witt. Having regard to the above three observations and in particular the first infringement aspect, I believe his "science experiment" video may come back to haunt him formaly today. Before anyone starts wailing, Rule 69 can capture incidents anywhere and both pre and post-race event. You then have a Jury with a lot of free rein and not constrained by any formal regulatory framework.

If someone is prosecuting this matter with a far larger agenda in mind, then I will not be surprised that while both maybe scapegoats for WS and the RO's administrative screw ups, Witt will bear the brunt of it. 

It might not translate into a penalty or penalty differential but he will exit there pretty pissed off and the one that has to express a more far reaching apology at best. 

The Sparrow 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with this is when Dr Clogs turns up to the jury she can go a number of ways which will depend on her view of the incident and any political statement she wishes to make. She can say she could not speak because she was so mortally offended and feared rape and any point by any member of the crew as Witty was running a management sponsored sex slave environment. Alternatively she could say she was unable to speak as she found if funny or somewhere in between. Having read the guidance notes on misconduct Witty could be guilty of breaching 10.2.3 which is Bullying, discrimatory behaviour and intimidation. Witty could also be guilty of 10.2.14 Foul or abusive language intended to offend depending upon Dr Clogs view of the situation. 

I have to say that going from gross misconduct to misconduct has lowered the bar significantly and allows all manner of challenges from the offended. I personally would be more interested in the jury talking to Dr Clogs and getting her take on events as if she is happy with it then I as a outside party would be happy. I am more interested in the rights of the participants than the viewers sense of offence. We as individuals did not have to watch the video in the same way that I do not have to watch a comedians video which I may or may not find funny. I am guessing the videos for the rest of the race are note going to get much better.  

On a different note if you imagine a scenario where a protested boat goes into a hearing and claims they did not hear protest or see a flag being displayed with the intent of getting the protest ruled invalid as has happened to me on a number of occasions to believe that this is now a standard defence. If you let them roll with this argument then provided video evidence of protest being hailed and the flag displayed then they would be guilty of infringing 10.2.12 Lying to a hearing. Maybe international juries at events should spend their time routing out deliberate cheating that blights most events I have sailed at in the last ten years until competitors get with the programme that you can't just lie your way through hearings left right and centre.

SB20 worlds in the Solent this year with 80 boats and an international jury. They received 2 protests the whole week and rampant cheating was all around to the point that the second protest was the mark layers getting so pissed of with it that they ended up protesting a boat. Rule observance in the sport is in a bad place over the last ten years and the above PC action in the Volvo really is irrelevant to most sailors experience of the sport. This is because we don't go after the deliberate and calculated lying that is rampant. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 minutes ago, bdu98252 said:

I personally would be more interested in the jury talking to Dr Clogs and getting her take on events as if she is happy with it then I as a outside party would be happy.

Of course.  The answer is to ask the women whose current job and potentially all future employment in ocean racing depends on what she says.  Good idea.

This entire issue has fuck all to do with how that women 'feels'.  That's like Trump grabbing a women by the pussy, then claiming it was all ok because she did not complain.

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

It might not translate into a penalty or penalty differential but he will exit there pretty pissed off and the one that has to express a more far reaching apology at best. 

The Sparrow 

Jack, I have no idea why they just don't get you in to sort this shit out.  Awesome mate.

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bdu98252 said:

The problem with this is when Dr Clogs turns up to the jury she can go a number of ways which will depend on her view of the incident and any political statement she wishes to make.

On what basis makes you think she is going to either volunteer or be called as a witness? Her personel views are irrelevant and the incident is a video recording.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, LionessRacing said:

Creeping "Male Feminism" is worse that I had thought, it's gone beyond most of Europe and the US lefties and has spread into yachting. Much like the scourge of socialism to economic vigor,  demanding "equal outcomes" and thus the special accommodation to attain them will quash the spirit of sports. The only defense will be to leap ahead and have the requisite number of athletes "identify" as female, and thus finesse the PC crowd with their own ideological rubric. I am truly surprised that it has not happened already. Given that "lauren" is from Kiwiland, (s)he might even be a sailor... 

 

Expectations change. Fellas don't hand their daughters over to there wives to be bought up as fodder for cretins anymore.

And in terms of performance remind me where the white night of laddism finished up this last leg?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

On what basis makes you think she is going to either volunteer or be called as a witness? Her personel views are irrelevant and the incident is a video recording.

It should depend on the complaint. If they are purely judging the video on it's NSFW content regardless of whether Dr Clogs was a woman or man, then AB doesn't matter.

If there is even the slightest hint that the complaint is a SH matter, then AB must give her side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Team_GBR said:

That is total horseshit! You could not be brought up on a rule 69 charge for calling somebody a "mincing scrotum" or even for using the word "scrotum". I don't know where you got that from, but it is way off course. If you think Witty is being dragged before the IJ only for using that word, you haven't been paying attention.

Is it really total horseshit??

Remember, its not so much what was said, but who heard it, HUGE can of worms there. I could say it under my breath and nobody hears me, no harm no foul.

Read rule 12 as to who can make a complaint, spectators, passing cruising boats, local residents.. It only takes 1 person to find that language offensive, and judging from this thread, that 1 person may not be too hard to find. Does "spectators" only mean real life,  or do internet views of videos count?

I could shout it at someone, or repeatedly scream it at someone, and all of a sudden I fall under the following rules;

7.1; 9.1.1; 9.1.2, 10.2.2; 10.2.3, 10.2.14, pretty much all of 11, except 11.4. 45.2; 45.3; 45.13; 45.14; 49.4; 56.1.1; 56.1.2; 57.1.2

I would then be at the mercy of the officials, hope they are thick skinned and favorably  interpret rule 19, and rule 39.3.1; 39.3.2; 39.3.3 

The way it is presented, even the legendary Dennis Denuto could get a successful prosecution...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has it been confirmed there is a "corncerned Hong Kong sailor" ?

Will we get to know their identity through the 69 process or would that be kept secret? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

On what basis makes you think she is going to either volunteer or be called as a witness? Her personel views are irrelevant and the incident is a video recording.

Breaking SA News, you read it here first !

Just now, Annemock Bes, aka Dr. Clogs, the victim, was called before the Grand Vulva Jury, and was asked how indeed she would have applied the Suckocrem, if Captain Witty, the accused, would have insisted that this question was not a joke. And believe it or not, she again started grimacing and clearly showed her medically approved method. 

Picture or it is not true :

5a29160cd8f26_IMG_20171207_224958_781AB.thumb.jpg.5c13ae607a8d4f156c41ba894811437a.jpg   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

On what basis makes you think she is going to either volunteer or be called as a witness? Her personel views are irrelevant and the incident is a video recording.

If you want to charge Witty with 10.2.3 then you would need some evidence from her. Is her silence because she finds it funny, she chooses to ignore the behaviour or is truly dumbstruck by the behaviour to the point that she cannot speak or maybe she is mute as Witty claims and has a genuine disability. I don't know and watching the video does not tell me either way so if this is all that is available to the Jury then good luck making that call. You should also note that this is a level 3-5 infringement with boat or competitor disqualification for a number of race(s) and removal or privileges or benefits as the lowest sanction. If they want to pursue 10.2.14 then by all means but was the language foul or abusive to warrant sanction under rule 69. This is a 0-3 level infringement so a bit more leeway here could be given. As there have been prior videos on the VOR race that have shown people swearing then it could be argued that whilst not pretty is not of the misconduct standard, see section 11 of the guidance. I personally don't like the video or find it funny particularly the mute aspects which could be related to a disability however in my sailing experience the above is not the biggest issue facing the sport in terms of rules adherence. 

If you were really taking this seriously then all those on deck with the exception of Dr Clogs could be called under 45.10 for failing to act to prevent your boat or your team breaking a rule when you are aware of that breach as if Witty is breaking the rules then they should have stepped up and prevented it. As all those are on the boat and have seen this heinous toxic culture up close as some would claim then they are fully culpable for not stepping up and doing anything about it. See what happens when you claim foul from a single video. This is the problem in that people appear to wish to pursue a workplace incidence of potential bullying or harassment into a sailing rules issue under broad misconduct rules. We don't know if there is a problem on this boat based on 1 video and to know Dr Clogs unfortunately would be required to put her head above the parapet. If she choses not to do so then it is for her to rationalise her decision just as all those before her that may or may not be suffering injustice at the hands of those in power/Witty. All those calls comparing this to Trump is frankly ludicrous as in his video he is claiming that he can just walk up to women and commit a sexual assault and has in fact done so prior.

   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, looks like this is a matter of male supremacy Vs the new world.

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeez some people need to get over themsleves.  As a dinky die Aussie import  (Immigrant/Citizen) I see that as nothing more than a group of people having a bit of fun.  Those who think they are so policitally correct STFU.  Australian yachties have never and will never be anything other than bogans having a good time.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, basildog said:

 Australian yachties have never and will never be anything other than bogans having a good time.

Oh how true. Even those who have been knighted (Sir James).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Fiji Bitter said:

Breaking SA News, you read it here first !

Just now, Annemock Bes, aka Dr. Clogs, the victim, was called before the Grand Vulva Jury, and was asked how indeed she would have applied the Suckocrem, if Captain Witty, the accused, would have insisted that this question was not a joke. And believe it or not, she again started grimacing and clearly showed her medically approved method. 

Picture or it is not true :

 

That's very fucked up mate.  You are not, that post was not funny.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, random said:

 

Of course.  The answer is to ask the women whose current job and potentially all future employment in ocean racing depends on what she says.  Good idea.

This entire issue has fuck all to do with how that women 'feels'.  That's like Trump grabbing a women by the pussy, then claiming it was all ok because she did not complain.

Ah the simplistic internet forum argument. I will give you a couple of scenarios albeit all of them pretty gross.

1. Trump is having consensual foreplay with Melania and touches her vagina. I know it is hard to believe but it could happen.

2. Trump is using his power to molest females that happen to have the misfortune to be in a room with him and post or during molest recoil in horror at this individual to indicate that they have no desire to be treated in this manner.

In both cases how the woman feels it pretty important actually as otherwise you would be getting jailed every time you went near a female with a sexual motive regardless of circumstance. I could walk in on situation 2 and remove the lady and report the matter to the police but the person being sexually assaulted would have to make the charge and cooperate with the authorities. I could report all sorts of things but if the alleged victim does not see it my way then good luck pursuing this legally. Victims have a duty to stand up and be counted. If Dr Clogs is a victim and this will be from her perspective then she needs to make that difficult choice. Do nothing or do something. Alternatively she may not see herself as a victim other than being paid to sail on a poorly performing boat. How damaging will sailing on a boat finishing as a back marker be for her career.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, basildog said:

 Australian yachties have never and will never be anything other than bogans having a good time.

2 minutes ago, DtM said:

Oh how true. Even those who have been knighted (Sir James).

Gentleman Jim, a bogan ?  Really ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bdu98252 said:

Ah the simplistic internet forum argument. I will give you a couple of scenarios albeit all of them pretty gross.

1. Trump is having consensual foreplay with Melania and touches her vagina. I know it is hard to believe but it could happen.

2. Trump is using his power to molest females that happen to have the misfortune to be in a room with him and post or during molest recoil in horror at this individual to indicate that they have no desire to be treated in this manner.

In both cases how the woman feels it pretty important actually as otherwise you would be getting jailed every time you went near a female with a sexual motive regardless of circumstance. I could walk in on situation 2 and remove the lady and report the matter to the police but the person being sexually assaulted would have to make the charge and cooperate with the authorities. I could report all sorts of things but if the alleged victim does not see it my way then good luck pursuing this legally. Victims have a duty to stand up and be counted. If Dr Clogs is a victim and this will be from her perspective then she needs to make that difficult choice. Do nothing or do something. Alternatively she may not see herself as a victim other than being paid to sail on a poorly performing boat. How damaging will sailing on a boat finishing as a back marker be for her career.  

Seems like you are not familiar with Rule 69.  Your ignorance is showing.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SW team would have had advice from people in their corner. She could read a statement something like  ... 

In the video you witnessed sailors midway through a gruelling battle with the elements. We were all sleep deprived & fatigued, David was trying to keep the morale up, which we all know is important. I wasn't offended & in the context it was somewhat funny & lifted our spirits at the time. What we thought was a private moment between a tight team was regrettably taken out of context & published, I now understand some people were offended. I know David & the rest of the crew regret the upset it has caused. We certainly didn't mean any offence & we are looking forward to hitting the water next leg & hopefully coming home with a podium for our supporters & sponsors.

Or she could throw some people under the bus :-) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, basildog said:

Jeez some people need to get over themsleves.  As a dinky die Aussie import  (Immigrant/Citizen) I see that as nothing more than a group of people having a bit of fun.  Those who think they are so policitally correct STFU.  Australian yachties have never and will never be anything other than bogans having a good time.

You see, that's what people like Witt do.  Then to connect the dots, we need people on the other side who can only think in stereotypes.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, SCANAS said:

SW team would have had advice from people in their corner. She could read a statement something like  ... 

In the video you witnessed sailors midway through a gruelling battle with the elements. We were all sleep deprived & fatigued, David was trying to keep the morale up, which we all know is important. I wasn't offended & in the context it was somewhat funny & lifted our spirits at the time. What we thought was a private moment between a tight team was regrettably taken out of context & published, I now understand some people were offended. I know David & the rest of the crew regret the upset it has caused. We certainly didn't mean any offence & we are looking forward to hitting the water next leg & hopefully coming home with a podium for our supporters & sponsors.

that's the best approach -- but then there'd be questions about her being pressured to say that.  I reckon its lose lose.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, random said:

This entire issue has fuck all to do with how that women 'feels'.  

1idb4j.jpg

  • Like 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, duncan (the other one) said:

that's the best approach -- but then there'd be questions about her being pressured to say that.  I reckon its lose lose.

based on her reaction in the video, she was probably fine with the joke, so no pressure would be needed. Of course some idiots who cannot believe a woman could possibly be ok with that humour would cry conspiracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hoppy said:

based on her reaction in the video, she was probably fine with the joke, so no pressure would be needed. Of course some idiots who cannot believe a woman could possibly be ok with that humour would cry conspiracy.

Fuck mate, it's about Witty's actions, nothing to do with whether AB felt threatened. 

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, hoppy said:

based on her reaction in the video, she was probably fine with the joke, so no pressure would be needed.

Maybe if he had just grabbed her by the pussy she would have been ok too?  No pressure.  Not like her job and career depended on it!

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bdu98252 said:

The problem with this is when Dr Clogs turns up to the jury she can go a number of ways which will depend on her view of the incident and any political statement she wishes to make.

 

2 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

On what basis makes you think she is going to either volunteer or be called as a witness? Her personel views are irrelevant and the incident is a video recording.

 

1 hour ago, bdu98252 said:

If you want to charge Witty with 10.2.3 then you would need some evidence from her.

Mate you are both not a great listener and a shit driver. Pull over because you are both on the wrong road and your street directory is either out of date and or your on the wrong page.

When you have had a rest start with who made the complaint and under what provision were they relying on to have it acted upon, against who and what medium did they observe the incident behind the complaint. Hint...bringing the sport into disrepute is a 1 - 5 level infringement not a 0 - 3 for what ever your banging on about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

When you have had a rest start with who made the complaint and under what provision were they relying on to have it acted upon and what medium did they observe the incident behind the complaint.

First you recognise that a cunt act had been perpetuated, then you work out how to nail the prick that did it.

That's how it works.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, random said:

First you recognise that a cunt act had been perpetuated, then you work out how to nail the prick that did it.

That's how it works.

Classy!:wacko:

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, duncan (the other one) said:

that's the best approach -- but then there'd be questions about her being pressured to say that.  I reckon its lose lose.

I wonder if she has her own agent / manager. 

I'd go with prepared speech, avoid too much eye contact, answer all their questions with a variation of the prepared / company line & jury hopefully realise she's polished & move on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mad said:

Classy!:wacko:

That's what they are called in this part of the planet.  It's like beauty, you know one when you see one.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, random said:

Maybe if he had just grabbed her by the pussy she would have been ok too?  No pressure.  Not like her job and career depended on it!

There is a massive difference between a crude joke told in someones presence and an actual sexual assault.

34 minutes ago, random said:

Fuck mate, it's about Witty's actions, nothing to do with whether AB felt threatened. 

So SH should be crying sexual assault.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hoppy said:
12 minutes ago, random said:

 

There is a massive difference between a crude joke told in someones presence and an actual sexual assault.

I'm sure there are plenty of women who may not see it so clear cut.

But If I hear you correctly, you are saying that your President sexually assaults women?  And he is still not in prison?   How does that work?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, random said:

I'm sure there are plenty of women who may not see it so clear cut.

But If I hear you correctly, you are saying that your President sexually assaults women?  And he is still not in prison?   How does that work?

Who cars about what plenty of women think about the video. the only woman that matters is AB.

That idiot is not my president. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hoppy said:

Who cars about what plenty of women think about the video. the only woman that matters is AB.

That idiot is not my president. 

No, it does not matter what AB thinks at all.  If she said "nah mate it's all a beat up, it was all in good fun!" ... that that would make a difference?

I do not think so.

What matters is the opinion of the women who made the complaint, you are very confused.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, hoppy said:

That idiot is not my president. 

Yep. he is.  Just googled it.

Edit: Ok so you are not American.  Odd, you have so much in common with the pussy grabber.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evidence of abusive behavior is Witt smooshing his hand around Hayles's crotch getting a good coating of mid-Atlantic man-funk, then sniffing it like a stud sniffs a mare in heat.

In the first picture he is rubbing crotch, immediately the hand goes to his nose, then the satisfied reaction. Clever how he set it all up so he could get his hands stinking with funk.

What a letch.

Also note the weather helm and the boat being driven...Hayles never drops a hand from the wheel and maintains two hands...focused doing his job as the nutbag skipper gropes him. 

5a292e46b59a3_Screenshotfrom2017-12-0614-55-39.png.106f26b198237cc4b96f87ab67686ab0.png5a292e451077a_Screenshotfrom2017-12-0614-56-16.png.c2b5b1d724a0bcf0ee586a01d404cb45.png5a292e435196f_Screenshotfrom2017-12-0614-56-45.png.0e406f3c3aa8e61913a7b4685e98508d.png

Edited by EvaOdland
Additional info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, EvaOdland said:

Evidence of abusive behavior is Witt smooshing his hand around Hayles's crotch getting a good coating of mid-Atlantic man-funk, then sniffing it like a stud sniffs a mare in heat.

In the first picture he is rubbing crotch, immediately the hand goes to his nose, then the satisfied reaction. Clever how he set it all up so he could get his hands stinking with funk.

What a letch.

 

Maybe he set it up as an excuse to ... ah never mind.

Seriously though, weren't they were supposed to be racing?  Then he complains about being at the back of the fleet.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be wrong but I think it goes to the "offended", the person who brought the case, to prove that this merits a breach of of the rule.  This was an offense and here's why.  

AB's opinion, though not relative to this case, could be used as evidence by the "offended" or in defense of the accused but at each parties discretion.  It was not AB that invoked the rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites