Athilnaur
Arch Winning (36)
So by your logic its free speech because he wasn't imprisoned?
The Israel Folau saga
- Thread starter The torpedo
- Start date
- Status
So by your logic its free speech because he wasn't imprisoned?
Kenny Powers
Ron Walden (29)
Tax planning and Rugby Australia then doesn’t have a responsibility for workers compensation insurance.
There would be a work cover investigation of every game and most training sessions if rugby players are bog standard employees.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
You know I don't think it really is, I think what actually offends some people is that the homosexual reference is included with behaviours that are still held in some disrepute by society and hence being associated with drunkards and adulterers is far worse than being threatened with a "hell" which is census is to be believed most Australians do not believe in anyway. I don't understand how someone can be offended by something they don't believe in. Oh that's right, 'don't include me in any group with those undesirables.'
louie
Desmond Connor (43)
For some people, due to the context and situation, this isn’t possible. When your at the top of the food chain this is really easy advice to give
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
The Standard contract is a employer/employee relationship with a fixed term. Payment includes a regular salary and superannuation.
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
WorkCover doesn't cover pro-sports! They have to arrange their own insurance
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Yeah i meant to say religious communication.
You can definitely be sacked for things that aren't 'an offence'. You know, for a breach of contract.
What you want is for RA to be forced to continue to employ a bigot they no longer wish to employ despite there being an absence of a right to say bigoted things. Pretty absurd.
How common the belief is, is completely irrelevant.
Kenny Powers
Ron Walden (29)
No not really because David Pocock already has a code of conduct breach.
He goes and gets himself arrested at an environmental protest a second time, are we all good with him having his contract terminated?
https://www.brumbies.com.au/news/2019/02/20/brumbies-statement-on-the-arrest-of-david-pocock
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Sure, if you can point to the minority he discriminated against i'm on board.
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
Yes?
Fortunately David's smart enough to realise this, and accept the warning he has been given so as not to put his employment at risk
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
I’m not sure how we’re 96 pages in and “free speech” keeps being rolled out?
half
Dick Tooth (41)
Many many many many moons ago AMP won a case I think a full high court decision and in winning lost what they were fighting for.
WE all know this is headed for the high court. IMO the high court will destroy rugby either by finding as I think they will in favour of the player or by winning the judgement will cripple rugby, as it could tight rugby in knots.
Now to the case. AMP back in the 80’s decided to replace full time employees with contractors. They sort the advise of two of Australia’s biggest legal firms and two of Australia’s biggest charted accounting firms.
It would work something like this, an employee forms a mum & dad company. The company signs a detailed contract with AMP. When the former employee and now contractor uses AMP premises their company pays rent for office space, for things like typing etc and all at commercial rates.
The ATO said it was a sham to reduce the tax paid by AMP employees.
AMP were certain of everything, i.e the right to form a company, the contracts were legal etc every single I dotted and every single t crossed. Win loss appeal on appeal until the high court.
Judgement day the court rules in favour of AMP, then the smack down, where such a company earns 80% of it income from one company or group, the company will be taxed as an individual.
Even through AMP won, the core of what they wanted to do was crushed by the decision.
WE all know this is headed for the high court. IMO the high court will destroy rugby either by finding as I think they will in favour of the player or by winning the judgement will cripple rugby, as it could tight rugby in knots.
Now to the case. AMP back in the 80’s decided to replace full time employees with contractors. They sort the advise of two of Australia’s biggest legal firms and two of Australia’s biggest charted accounting firms.
It would work something like this, an employee forms a mum & dad company. The company signs a detailed contract with AMP. When the former employee and now contractor uses AMP premises their company pays rent for office space, for things like typing etc and all at commercial rates.
The ATO said it was a sham to reduce the tax paid by AMP employees.
AMP were certain of everything, i.e the right to form a company, the contracts were legal etc every single I dotted and every single t crossed. Win loss appeal on appeal until the high court.
Judgement day the court rules in favour of AMP, then the smack down, where such a company earns 80% of it income from one company or group, the company will be taxed as an individual.
Even through AMP won, the core of what they wanted to do was crushed by the decision.
I like to watch
David Codey (61)
So Izzy can insult who he likes, risk losing multiple sponsors, snub his nose at his employers, with absolutely no censure.
Cos maybe in the unspecified future Pocock might do something no one expects him to do, and you suspect he might not be disciplined to your satisfaction?
Athilnaur
Arch Winning (36)
Yup. Some people seem to keep needing reminding.
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Why is it that this sort of nonsense only gets spouted by the most privileged demographic in our society, that have never faced any real form of bigotry or discrimination?
half
Dick Tooth (41)
Not sure to many are suggesting what he posted not have consequences. The response for me anyway is the punishment does not come within light years of the crime committed.
How anyone can seriously suggest, there where no other alternatives and that the call had to be made as soon as it was me thinks have not fully thought through the issues.
Just to bang on about another court case this one I was involved in. Issue I was involved introducing new systems to a factory, this was in the 70's to give it a timeline. Anywho the company was a government owned and in the process of being sold. The general manager believed we had acted outside our authority in the changes we where making and took us to court.
How his legal team let him on the stand I can only assume he insisted and overrode their advise. He gets on the stand with the companies procedure manual issued by the state government and says the procedure manual says this. The judge said but thats not a law and he kept arguing with the judge and had to be removed from the stand by court officials.
Somehow the GM believed the procedure manual which we found our latter was his baby was an enforceable document and got the shock of his life when an internal document does not have more force than the law.
My argument has always been about the degree of the punishment and that the degree of the punishment given it takes away your livelihood becomes then freedom of expression in your social life issue.
half
Dick Tooth (41)
I understand that, but your argument means he must take down what he said was a key part of what RA wanted.
In court it will not be we offered a lessor punishment if he did what we told him to do.
In court it will be has RA acted within Australian law with the punishment it gave and the decision it made. I would love to be on his legal team arguing his position within the law.
The court won't give a flying F === k about sponsors reactions etc it will simply be has Australian Law be applied with a fair and reasonable decision that is justifiable with Australian Law.
half
Dick Tooth (41)
Slim
This is a very poor example but I will use to show what I am talking about.
Young man goes into shop and is caught shop lifting a bottle of milk to feed his young baby as he has no work. Court gives him a general warning not to do it again.
Same young man goes into the same shop next month and is caught shoplifting a bottle of milk for the same reason. Judge says 60 years jail.
Its crazy to say he stole a bottle of milk a second time, and he was warned, so 60 years in jail.
I accept my example is over the top so no need to tell me, but thats how I see it BTW not a simple and a silly as my example but showing how the court would over turn the 60 years jail as excessive ... I see lost of career and income as excessive...
This is a very poor example but I will use to show what I am talking about.
Young man goes into shop and is caught shop lifting a bottle of milk to feed his young baby as he has no work. Court gives him a general warning not to do it again.
Same young man goes into the same shop next month and is caught shoplifting a bottle of milk for the same reason. Judge says 60 years jail.
Its crazy to say he stole a bottle of milk a second time, and he was warned, so 60 years in jail.
I accept my example is over the top so no need to tell me, but thats how I see it BTW not a simple and a silly as my example but showing how the court would over turn the 60 years jail as excessive ... I see lost of career and income as excessive...
- Status