David EdwardsFatty Vautin and 'Security at the Caxton'
June 18th 2008 01:20
The recent comments of Paul "Fatty" Vautin regarding Greg Stacey, a sufferer of benign epilepsy, have caused a media sensation, and public appeals for Vautin to be sacked. Vautin's quote, specifically "What about security at the Caxton! That bloke was blind.." forced the family of Stacey to come forward in the Daily Telegraph and threaten the Footy Show host with legal action.
However this whole debarcle has been thrown into context, with Vautin pointing to his brother Geoffrey, who has Down Syndrome, as reason for why he would never deliberately make such a negative comment against disabled people. In the last few days, Geoffrey actually died, yet the Stacey family has stated that they still intend to pursue legal action. Peter Stacey, Greg's father, had the following comment to make:
"But it's done now," he said. "Our hearts go out to the family — particularly his mother — but that doesn't change what's happened to us and our son."
Seeing as this is centred around the issue of insensitivity to disabled people, you would think that Peter Stacey would exercise a little more sympathy and choice of words in the untimely death of Vautin's brother. "But it's done now", referring to the fact that he will continue his lawsuit, ignores the fact that it is probably not "done yet" for the Vautin family. I expect that the grieving period for the Vautin's did not end at the conclusion of Stacey's token phone call to the family upon hearing the news. For Stacey this is a chance to kick a man while he is down, to take advantage of the opportunistic media, who are keen to tie in the lawsuit with Vautin's own personal anguish. Why must the Stacey family play this out in front of the media, shamelessly exploiting typical public opinion and inciting the tall poppy syndome for which this country is so synonymous with?
This whole thing reeks of an orchestrated attempt to bring down a media personality by appealing to public opinion, therefore turning the whole thing into Vautin vs the State, rather than Vautin vs Stacey. Of course Beryl from Baulkham Hills is going to read the articles in the Telegraph and write a negative, spiteful Letter to the Editor, rambling on about how media personalities think they're larger than life, how they can say/do whatever they want, etc.
But let's reserve some judgement on this issue. The whole thing was not helped by Ray Hadley putting in his two cents and mentioning in the (you guessed it) Telegraph, that Footy Show producers used to tell the interviewers to seek out "nuffies" on the street, so as to get a laugh. Ray Hadley has been a spiteful adversary of the Footy Show and of Vautin since he was kicked off the show some years ago. Plus he works on talk-back radio. So forget i even mentioned him, he has zero credibility.
SportingMind has written in the past about Sam Newman, who is a completely different kettle of fish to Vautin. Newman actively courts controversy, and is unafraid and unrepentant when it comes to his skits. He is bullyish, abusive and mysogynist - and none of this can be disputed. Vautin however is the host of the Footy Show, and is expected to conduct the show with a semblance of political correctness. Whilst there is no doubting the low-brow nature of his character, Vautin is much more likeable, innocuous and friendlier, and does not have any hidden malice or agenda to speak of. He is very self-depreciating, whereas Newman honestly belives that he is God's gift.
What Vautin said was an honest mistake, and in this new context (death of Vautin's brother) the public should understand that the situation has changed, and the Stacey family should conduct their comments and legal procedings well away from the eye of the judgemental public. There is no way that the Stacey family will win an actual legal battle against Vautin, so they are trying to influence the outcome by keeping the story in the media spotlight, probably hoping for a cash settlement. Once we the public allow ourselves to not be influenced by the incessantly vicious Daily Telegraph headlines and understand the context in which the whole story has taken place, then it will become apparent that Vautin has nothing to answer for, and we can all get on with life.
God, whatever happened to making 'an honest mistake'? Sporting Mind can't believe how litigious society has become. One of the symptoms of benign epilepsy is "slurred speech", which is a common symptom of a drunk human. But Vautin doesn't have a doctorate of medicine, he is just an ex-league player. Give the guy a break!
-SportingMind
However this whole debarcle has been thrown into context, with Vautin pointing to his brother Geoffrey, who has Down Syndrome, as reason for why he would never deliberately make such a negative comment against disabled people. In the last few days, Geoffrey actually died, yet the Stacey family has stated that they still intend to pursue legal action. Peter Stacey, Greg's father, had the following comment to make:
"But it's done now," he said. "Our hearts go out to the family — particularly his mother — but that doesn't change what's happened to us and our son."
Seeing as this is centred around the issue of insensitivity to disabled people, you would think that Peter Stacey would exercise a little more sympathy and choice of words in the untimely death of Vautin's brother. "But it's done now", referring to the fact that he will continue his lawsuit, ignores the fact that it is probably not "done yet" for the Vautin family. I expect that the grieving period for the Vautin's did not end at the conclusion of Stacey's token phone call to the family upon hearing the news. For Stacey this is a chance to kick a man while he is down, to take advantage of the opportunistic media, who are keen to tie in the lawsuit with Vautin's own personal anguish. Why must the Stacey family play this out in front of the media, shamelessly exploiting typical public opinion and inciting the tall poppy syndome for which this country is so synonymous with?
This whole thing reeks of an orchestrated attempt to bring down a media personality by appealing to public opinion, therefore turning the whole thing into Vautin vs the State, rather than Vautin vs Stacey. Of course Beryl from Baulkham Hills is going to read the articles in the Telegraph and write a negative, spiteful Letter to the Editor, rambling on about how media personalities think they're larger than life, how they can say/do whatever they want, etc.
But let's reserve some judgement on this issue. The whole thing was not helped by Ray Hadley putting in his two cents and mentioning in the (you guessed it) Telegraph, that Footy Show producers used to tell the interviewers to seek out "nuffies" on the street, so as to get a laugh. Ray Hadley has been a spiteful adversary of the Footy Show and of Vautin since he was kicked off the show some years ago. Plus he works on talk-back radio. So forget i even mentioned him, he has zero credibility.
SportingMind has written in the past about Sam Newman, who is a completely different kettle of fish to Vautin. Newman actively courts controversy, and is unafraid and unrepentant when it comes to his skits. He is bullyish, abusive and mysogynist - and none of this can be disputed. Vautin however is the host of the Footy Show, and is expected to conduct the show with a semblance of political correctness. Whilst there is no doubting the low-brow nature of his character, Vautin is much more likeable, innocuous and friendlier, and does not have any hidden malice or agenda to speak of. He is very self-depreciating, whereas Newman honestly belives that he is God's gift.
What Vautin said was an honest mistake, and in this new context (death of Vautin's brother) the public should understand that the situation has changed, and the Stacey family should conduct their comments and legal procedings well away from the eye of the judgemental public. There is no way that the Stacey family will win an actual legal battle against Vautin, so they are trying to influence the outcome by keeping the story in the media spotlight, probably hoping for a cash settlement. Once we the public allow ourselves to not be influenced by the incessantly vicious Daily Telegraph headlines and understand the context in which the whole story has taken place, then it will become apparent that Vautin has nothing to answer for, and we can all get on with life.
God, whatever happened to making 'an honest mistake'? Sporting Mind can't believe how litigious society has become. One of the symptoms of benign epilepsy is "slurred speech", which is a common symptom of a drunk human. But Vautin doesn't have a doctorate of medicine, he is just an ex-league player. Give the guy a break!
-SportingMind
| 59 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by ChrisC
The Dissector
ps...did you read in the SMH how Benjy Marshall may well have been set up by a couple of punks in the Cross the other night? They simply wanted to make money and so abused and taunted him to the point where he responded, then took the photo and sold it to...The Daily Telegraph...
Comment by David Edwards
Sporting Mind
Comment by Anonymous
"I'm not a famous athlete but you don't need to be to realise that the Cross has the same gravitational pull for pissed fuckwits that the Moon has to the Earth."
Keep it coming.