In the interests of fairness, I shall republish this email response I got from Gary Johnston re: his stupid dumbass comments after I followed ihatedolphins.wordpress.com example and sent a complaining email to him about his clear and ridiculous misogyny.
However, I will make the following points.
1. The news crew from Channel 9 were just Doing Their Job. Being in a public place and filming/reporting is not illegal. Every first and second place team have their ‘mad monday’ bullshit covered by TV. So do other clubs. The Swans didn’t act like a bunch of dicks. The Bulldogs are used to media or should be. They get paid big bucks BECAUSE they are in the public eye, not in spite of it.
2. Arguing the technicalities of how/what/where/why the phrase “suck my dick you dumb dog”was directed at and reached a TV reporter is stupid and redundant. It was yelled out of an open window. By men who went on to piss on shit, dressed up like fucking idiots. Grown men. It happened. There were witnesses. Prevaricating on this matter makes you look even more of an asshole.
3. Sure, your comments were edited. But You Said Them. No matter which way you look at it, You said women shouldn’t go to those (any) bars unless they accepted and expected sexually explicit and violent language, ogling and objectification.
Also, I like this bit: “I personally don’t care whether you buy from us or not. I am financially independent. If you can’t see through a media beat up I don’t want you as a customer.” hehe. You’re still a dick. And also cos you got someone else to email this shite out for you.
Anyway, Gary, here’s your quite stupid, ranty, unhelpful say.
3:00 PM (5 hours ago)
I am sending this form letter to you because of criticism directed to me as a result of an incident at Belmore Oval on Monday Oct 1.
Whether your email to me was critical or supportive (thank you!) I am sending the same letter.
The incident was triggered because Channel 9 saw fit to monitor a private function for the bulldogs. They were not invited. (Neither was I). The front gate was closed and guarded.
Undeterred, they set themselves up in a public place across the road. Channel 7 were also there, along with others. Channel 9 also flew a helicopter over the site.
Given the limited access, I’m not sure what the media hoped to achieve.
At some point in the day a Channel 9 camera & sound recording device was pointed at an open window some 40-odd meters away. The sound recording device detected some conversation which when paired with the video of the window revealed no-one or no activity in the window. The audio quality of the sound was so poor that Channel 9 had to add subtitles to the audio to make it comprehensible.
As a person associated with the Bulldogs (peripherally) I was asked by a Sydney Morning Herald reporter to comment. An article appeared in the SMH on Tuesday morning. I was asked by staff from the Ben Fordham radio show to be interviewed by him on Tuesday afternoon. I reluctantly agreed.
At this stage Channel 9 had taken it upon themselves to ASSUME that the amplified conversation from the window was directed at them, specifically a female reporter, Jane Azzopardi.
The reason I decided to talk to Ben was that I thought it might be an opportunity to present to the public via 2GB an alternative hypothesis that indeed has more credibility than the conceited speculation of Channel 9. (Channel 7, with similar material, closed their site down & abandoned the exercise.)
It was apparent from my opening conversation with Ben (Ben also works for Channel 9) that he simply wanted to demonise the Canterburyplayers for making such foul remarks to a female.
I rather clumsily pointed out that there may have been an alternative explanation i.e. that the conversation was NOT directed out of the window, but to another party inside the complex. This does not make what was said acceptable – it is wrong & appalling. But it changes the complexion on the issue completely. Remember it is possible that the conversation may have been illegally obtained & that parties inside the building would have been unaware that they were being observed & their conversation recorded.
The rather ugly statements, when analysed could be interpreted as being partly directed to a male as well.
I then tried to communicate to Ben that if that was indeed the case, you can hear ugly statements like this directed at women in pubs all overSydney. I made it clear that I was as disgusted as anyone by this, but it is a fact of life. Ben skillfully interpreted this as a supporting statement for this behaviour.
A Canterbury official tried to calm the situation down by sending flowers to Azzopardi. This could be interpreted as an admission of guilt.
The fact that a Canterbury official had a “knee jerk” reaction to apologise to Channel 9 is irrelevant. They instinctively apologise to anyone who criticises them!
I am privy to an audit made by a security expert who has examined ALL of the Channel 9 footage and footage of internal video from the Belmore complex as well as other material. This report is to ultimately go to the NRL.
He has concluded that there is almost nothing to back up Channel 9’s assertion that conversation was directed to them. Indeed, there is no corroborating video to identify any party who may have made the comments. (The footballers only represented a fraction of people at the function.)
Canterbury RL Club are approaching Channel 9 to seek an apology for the way that Channel 9 has “conveniently” interpreted this matter. I for one will be surprised if the Dogs get a reply. I would also like to see the NSW Attorney Generals Dept look into breaches of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007, Section 4.
As a person who is distressed where I see an injustice, I attempted to help clear the air on this matter.
I have been abused, threatened & described as sexist dinosaur over this. Let me make this clear. I am abhorred by the immature thuggish behaviour that young men exhibit towards young women that routinely occurs in pubs & other places. Even Ben Fordham, acknowledged this (but the media selectively edit my comments)
A prominent female Channel 9 staffer has even come out on the web supporting my right to say it like it is.
Finally, some of you have threatened to withdraw your patronage of Jaycar stores. This will only hurt hard working staff who need their jobs.
I personally don’t care whether you buy from us or not. I am financially independent. If you can’t see through a media beat up I don’t want you as a customer.
I know that this letter will simply convince some of you that I am as bad as you feared. For those of you who now see that I was defending the rights of some young blokes to have a well earned day off without do-gooders sticking their noses in, I hope this explanation helps.
Thank you for your interest
P.S. If you see my point why don’t you write to the Attorney Generals’ Dept and ask them to investigate Channel 9? The more the merrier.