CA crumbles, drops Howard nomination: Cricket Australia's misjudged power-play

[EnterTheVoid]

TBH he isnt as bad as he made to look. He by nature is very unapologetic ' date=' [b']he has refused to apologize for children overboard , stolen generations , Iraq war. sree, his problem was that he interfered in cricket when he shouldnt have and as a result he has only enemies and no friends , heck even Kiwis dont like him. He is racist because he doesnt agree that the Aussie Govt was wrong for the oppression of the aborigines and heck he doesnt even accept that what happened was completely wrong. I dont have much respect for him

An apology means admission of guilt - And when he makes that apology, he's speaking as a representative of the people's choice. Why should today's generation accept the guilt for someone else' crimes, crimes they didn't committ ?

[EnterTheVoid]

Like what circumstances? One being blacks getting discriminated against and the other being white being discriminated?? That can't be it. Even bush wouldn't do that. But he was applying for a job for which his entire career acts as a resume. If Mugabe was selected by Africa when their times comes to select, would we look past his decisions?

As the prime minister of Australia, his allegiance is to Australia, her people and her national interests, not to some mis guided moral ideology. If that means, backtracking on a decision he made, so be it.

[Desi Cartman]

An apology means admission of guilt - And when he makes that apology' date=' he's speaking as a representative of the people's choice. Why should today's generation accept the guilt for someone else' crimes, crimes they didn't committ ?[/quote'] He is supposed to apologize for the govt's decision to implement that policy. Pretty much like Rudd did and since then I havent seen millions of cases filed against the govt. It was still ok when he decided not to apologize but its called shamelessness when he didnt even attend the ceremony where PM Rudd apologized. who was going to sue Howard for attending ?

[EnterTheVoid]

He is supposed to apologize for the govt's decision to implement that policy. Pretty much like Rudd did and since then I havent seen millions of cases filed against the govt. It was still ok when he decided not to apologize but its called shamelessness when he didnt even attend the ceremony where PM Rudd apologized. who was going to sue Howard for attending ?

1. They passed a ruling not to allow compensation (Can't remember the specs, but defn know this) 2. Like you said, he's vey unapologetic by nature.

[yoda]

As the prime minister of Australia' date=' his allegiance is to Australia, her people and her national interests, not to some mis guided moral ideology. If that means, backtracking on a decision he made, so be it.[/quote'] Which is fine, just don't go crying like a biatch when the ICC says feck off. :hehe:

[Desi Cartman]

1. They passed a ruling not to allow compensation (Can't remember the specs' date= but defn know this)

of course they did & the primary goal was to apologize , wonder why howard couldnt think of a polite way to do it.

[EnterTheVoid]

of course they did & the primary goal was to apologize ' date=' wonder why howard couldnt think of a polite way to do it.[/quote'] His choice, for reasons wonly known to him.

[achilles]

To add another point, I think the Australian & New Zealand Prime Ministers (and/or Presidents) ended up with dirt on their clothes as, despite their "backing" of John Howard, CA's taken him off. They ended up looking pwned when they shouldn't have.