S
sidelineview
Guest
Curious why you (and Folau) chose to leave out the last bit.
I quoted what Folau posted.
I could go on and on and on ... but I'm not a theologian; just someone who is familiar with the Christian faith.
Curious why you (and Folau) chose to leave out the last bit.
I read that Anthony Mundine piece. And I think he is a complete Muppet. But he did make the point that Israel was quoting the bible. And it was the Bible that was offensive and is what should be banned not Izzy.
Bit of don't shoot the messenger,
Why then can churches, book shops and printers continue to distribute this hate?
I think it's time for a heavily censored version to be written and endorsed by the Government. There should be a bible buy back or amnesty to rid the world of the old offensive scripts. Or perhaps religion should be outlawed.
I think I will read Animal Farm again.
Especially after listening to Turinui, this is why I think the best course of action is to give him a big fine (he said he thought the max was $200K), and then simply just not pick him for the Tahs (and Wallabies for now). There is no need to insert a social media clause because he will be on a final warning. He'll lose all his endorsements, Asics already gone, and he'll either get the shits and seek a mutual release, or he'll re-offend and get sacked without a payout, or he may actually learn from his errors and make himself earn selection again.
However, I'm not placing a lot of faith in RA making the most sensible decision, history says they will probably make the worst one.
However, if the matter progresses as you suggest, then if there is another issue, under the current EBA arrangements I'd suggest RA still could not terminate the contract without another CoC inquiry.
So, once again on the same merry-go-round. I think the whole EBA arrangement has to be scrapped. Is there any other large organisation (including Public Service organisations) that cede the right to fire to an "independent" committee? My understanding is that the employer retains that right and that it is subject then to appeal to various independent bodies (eg the Merit Protection Review Agency in the APS) or the courts. The reason the ARU (then) and RA (now) are in such turmoil with both the Beale and the Folau incidents is that they are unable to exercise their rights as employers but are shackled with a process that in effect takes the right to fire away from them.
IMo it is time for the Players Association to back off, and allow RA to regain their rights as employers and allow the various appeal mechanisms to run their course.
KOB, I have stayed away from making comments on this matter mainly because I'm not sure in my own mind how I think it should play out. On the one hand I can't understand how anybody these days can be offended by calls to an imaginary supernatural being, while otherwise I do see there is an employer/employee issue also at stake.
However, if the matter progresses as you suggest, then if there is another issue, under the current EBA arrangements I'd suggest RA still could not terminate the contract without another CoC inquiry.
So, once again on the same merry-go-round. I think the whole EBA arrangement has to be scrapped. Is there any other large organisation (including Public Service organisations) that cede the right to fire to an "independent" committee? My understanding is that the employer retains that right and that it is subject then to appeal to various independent bodies (eg the Merit Protection Review Agency in the APS) or the courts. The reason the ARU (then) and RA (now) are in such turmoil with both the Beale and the Folau incidents is that they are unable to exercise their rights as employers but are shackled with a process that in effect takes the right to fire away from them.
IMo it is time for the Players Association to back off, and allow RA to regain their rights as employers and allow the various appeal mechanisms to run their course.
Smith and Warner chose not to contest the charge or the sanction which came out of the initial review by the Head of Integrity, which is a bit different to RA. If either wanted to challenge they could have requested a hearing (in front of 1 independent commissioner not RA's 3). They then can appeal the findings of the hearing as wellBH, isn't the Smith/Warner situation just what I'm suggesting should happen. CA makes a decision (in this case the suspensions) and Smith and Warner had rights to appeal? Or am I missing something?
Smith and Warner chose not to contest the charge or the sanction which came out of the initial review by the Head of Integrity, which is a bit different to RA. If either wanted to challenge they could have requested a hearing (in front of 1 independent commissioner not RA's 3). They then can appeal the findings of the hearing as well
Actually, yes.
Learn some history.
BH, isn't the Smith/Warner situation just what I'm suggesting should happen. CA makes a decision (in this case the suspensions) and Smith and Warner had rights to appeal? Or am I missing something?
See you there.I'm on the list. See you all in hell. Bring a flask will ya?
CA Head of Integrity undertakes a review and makes recommendations which for the cricketers was made public. They then choose not to go through the COC panel - in effect pleaded guilty and threw themselves at the mercy of CA's head of integrity.Strewth, am I wrong though in assuming that the original decision to apply suspensions was taken by CA and the various avenues afterwards are part of the review/appeal process? In RA's case, it appears (at least to me) that RA doesn't now have the power to make the original decision. That has been ceded to the CoC panel.
Strewth, am I wrong though in assuming that the original decision to apply suspensions was taken by CA and the various avenues afterwards are part of the review/appeal process? In RA's case, it appears (at least to me) that RA doesn't now have the power to make the original decision. That has been ceded to the CoC panel.
No, nope, no no no nooooooooooo..... I'm not going to engage with the off-topic, loony far-right conspiracies.
Its a made up bullshit title that doesn't serve any purpose but to pigeon hole people and set them against each other.Far right?
Geez, thats become a popular label.
Are Mark Latham and Alan Jones members of the far right?
By the way, it was interesting to hear Nick Farr-Jones throw his two bobs worth in.
By the way, it was interesting to hear Nick Farr-Jones throw his two bobs worth in.
“He was basically told do it in a non offensive way. You can continue to communicate like this and communicate your faith, just do it in a respectful way."
Folau was advised to express his beliefs in a respectful, non-offensive way
“She proposed to him, say something like ‘heaven awaits those who repent from their sins.'
"But he’s saying he was never instructed that way."
Honestly, I think Farr-Jones's comments show how little intelligence and maturity Folau has.
You might be right but it'll all come out in the wash about how clear his instructions were.
I dont know so I cant comment.