The general media do not understand the true definition of "equality" either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Negative Police
Printable View
The general media do not understand the true definition of "equality" either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Negative Police
These are the men who will do anything for some pussyQuote:
Originally Posted by The Dunster
You don't sayQuote:
Originally Posted by Negative Police
Both the ABC and SBS have been over run by leftists so much that they don't even seem to care about being balanced
Q&A these days is just propaganda
geez louise for something called a 'settlement', it certainly seems like Rugby Australia bent over and got the stick shoved straight up its rear end.
The only thing i can see that maybe went in their favour was Folau didnt get much money at all. But it certainly seemed that money wasnt the biggest issue for Folau.
The fact that there was a settlement says that Rugby ****s were in the wrongQuote:
Originally Posted by plague
Didn't they pay him a pittance but had to apologize for any hurt caused to his brand. Cause that's a win for RA as far as I can see. If they don't have to pay his contract out then they've won.Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
He's only got his GoFundMe wage to live off after this...
This is some crazy Nazi shit going on in Canberra.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-...trial/11764676
The fact there was a settlement could say one of a thousand things.Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
Parting with a small amount of cash to save future hassle, distraction, money invested into court cases is a tiny trade-off in the grand scheme. Sometimes you need to pay to have your problems go away, even if you shouldn't need to.
Folau settling if anything says to me he knew his case wouldn't go the distance. At the end of the day, Folau has officially withdrawn his appeal. Using your own logic in regards to the Olyroos case mere weeks ago, the lady in question withdrew her complaint so you yourself even stated that she needs to be held accountable for her actions and that there was nothing wrong done by the players in question as officially there is/was no complaint at all. Folau withdrawing his appeal, by your logic, says that there was nothing to appeal and RA did nothing wrong and Folau should be held accountable for the absolute shitstorm he has created which has genuinely crippled the entire Rugby brand in Australia. Or do we flip this logic and the fact the Olyroos complaint being withdrawn proves the 4 players were in the wrong? This is one of those cases I struggle to find consistency in your arguments again, MFKFC.
At the end of all of this, RA are going to absolutely tighten up their contracts etc so hate-speech can't be tolerated in future without a doubt. And Folau becomes irrelevant. They are the two certainties here.
general consensus was that he got all his outstanding contract money (between $4-5m). That money he was always gonna get because RA didnt have a case for legally sacking him. The extra $10m in compensation and lost opportunities was always gonna be tough to prove because RA could always trot in sponsors etc to explain they wont support him because hes a bit of a bigot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frodo
He wanted his contract money and apology. he got both. the other stuff was just posturing.
RA got out of it cheaper and saved a bit of face by not being proven to be in the wrong, and got that weird apology from Folau even though im sure hed already publicly done the 'sorry if youre offended'/not sorry apology.
im no fan of his bullshit but its hard to see Folau as anything but the 'winner' in this.
now, as for his future. you just know some team is gonna go after him, maybe not here but OS there are plenty of places that wouldnt care one bit about his social media nonsense.
applying Member logic to the Member is not a great idea. Plus its now a couple hours since his post so im sure hes done a full 180 and headed off in another direction.Quote:
Originally Posted by pv4
as someone pointed out, its gonna be fun seeing the public support for the first sportsperson to declare jihad on social media.
its a wobbly old line thats now been drawn. good luck to everyone trying to navigate it.
Ok, I thought someone said they only paid him about $300k a year for the remainder of his contract length. 4 years or something? So $1.2 million.Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
But even at $4 million, they got rid of something that was gonna hurt their brand. They'll learn a lesson and tighten up their contracts from now on.
Also, he's only going to get a game over in the US or some European comp and be forgotten forever bar the odd meme.
absolutely, they were gonna pay that money anyway if he played or not, so they didnt really 'lose' anything there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frodo
And if im RA CEO right now im leaning on every single one of those 'woke' sponsors that threatened to walk away from them.
id be making sure the like of QANTAS starting writing them cheques to cover some of these costs. Otherwise id be straight to the media sobbing about corporate australia not wanting to support the team that fought bigotry. and you just know Alan Joyce doesnt want to be 'that guy'.
Rugby Australia are responsible for the shit storm they createdQuote:
Originally Posted by pv4
Folau paraphrased my book
So he ain't done a thing wrong at all and he is entitled to practice his religion
And employers are entitled to choose their employees.Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
Really don't see what the big deal is.
Then he shouldn't of signed a contract saying agreeing that he couldn't post that kinda hate speech onlineQuote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
Supposedly that may have been removed from his new contract.Quote:
Originally Posted by StannyCFCJET
But still, he clearly brought the game into disrepute, as would all religious people who post/say discriminatory things. I'd get sacked if I said the stuff that he did and my boss found out.
this is an interesting point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frodo
disrepute with whom? how do we determine the level at which he has 'damaged the brand'? there were clearly other players in the team who supported his beliefs. so where do they stand now? they can have those beliefs but not publicise them, can they vote no (or campaign to vote no) in the Marriage equality debate? can they say it but not use social media etc? its a weird place to try and police thats for sure.
im not arguing your point, as i believe the guy is a dope and a bigot. but i wonder where the line is drawn for how many people need to be offended for something to be offensive.
one thing is for sure, the Marriage equality vote a few years back at least gave people standing up to his behaviour a some data.
because previous, the retort always was 'only 5% of Australians are gay so they dont matter' and 'the majority of Australians believe in a God of some sort so he is supporting the majority opinion'.
the big deal all along was Folau being legally allowed to do this under his playing contract apparently. they sacked him for a rule that didnt exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macca
so they really did 'choose' a bigot and employed him.
once he had that contract then the law applied and RA were screwed.
future contracts have been amended, but his wasnt. and that was his point all along.
Nah. Your leftard attitude is out on this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frodo
RA stuffed it for siding with lgbti propaganda EG being hysterically offended when no others in the list were.
Hey everyone here, you will go to hell if....Anyone suffering pstd except frodo?
I mean, if you're going to try and insult me at least use coherent sentences so I can understand what you're trying to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by traffic light
I get the "Leftard" shot. Thats easy.
What was the rest meant to say?
Actually I worked out the second part also.Quote:
Originally Posted by traffic light
The RA didn't side with LGBTI, they sided with the majority of Australia. (i.e their fan base)
Just because the Membah comes on here rambling about his favourite novels doesn't mean any sane person agrees with him.
No such thing as hate speechQuote:
Originally Posted by StannyCFCJET
That just a term snowflakes use at speech they don't like
All speech is potentially offensive
Incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
There are laws relating to hate speech.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate...s_in_Australia
Just more BS from the leftist snowflake generation to pander towards their equality of outcome dream which they will never achieveQuote:
Originally Posted by pv4
Hate speech still doesn't exist and these laws are just tools for them to club those they disagree with
Pretty sure both sides agree hate speech exists but you keep living in fairy landQuote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
No anyone who believes in freedom of speech has no support for the concept of hate speechQuote:
Originally Posted by StannyCFCJET
They feel you are free to say whatever the **** you like whether they agree with you or not
Those who believe in Hate Speech support censorship and are happy to erode their own freedoms just so as to get their woke points up
We all know which camp you are in
to be fair, RA sided with the money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frodo
and thats how sport is run, so doing that shouldn't be seen as any sort of radical approach.
again, having data to point to in defence of their point is vital, as is public sentiment.
but RA only really cared when the money was in trouble.
yeah nah. thats not exactly how it works.Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
we have defamation laws. and they work.
Calls people who don't like things being said snowflakes whilst not liking something that's being said...Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
Therefore, Member is a snowflake.
Defamation only applies for false claimsQuote:
Originally Posted by plague
If the statement made is true you can say plenty of bad shit about someone that dafames them
nope. wrong again boss.Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/sarah-ha...eyonhjelm-case
read this and tell me where the lies are.
little buddy still had to pay out 120 large.
The article makes no reference to what he saidQuote:
Originally Posted by plague
The only comment he made in the article was made in parliament which he can't be sued for
As for whatever it was that cost him 120k there is no mention of it in the article
Be quiet you snowflake, Grown ups are talkingQuote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
See Stanny, when I said it there was some tact and guile to the comment. I bet the member had a little giggle at my sly little "sit down" retort.Quote:
Originally Posted by StannyCFCJET
This here is just childish. If YOU can't handle his comments, you should maybe leave while the adults talk.
That is what we call getting ownedQuote:
Originally Posted by Frodo
Can't handle it? His comments are just something to give me several laughs throughout the dayQuote:
Originally Posted by Frodo
he repeated and expanded the comments he made in Parliament on TV.Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
Quote:
“It was in a Motion to consider self-defence. There was a Motion calling on the Government to make it possible for women to protect themselves, thinking in terms of the Eurydice Dixon case or even the Jill Meagher case, and there was the Green’s Senator Janet Rice was making a one minute statement which suggested that it was all men and that men need to change their behaviour and so forth. Sarah called out, I don’t know the exact words because there was a lot of chatter going on, but it was to the effect of, ‘men should stop raping women’, the implication being all men are rapists. Now Sarah’s, this is not a criticism, but Sarah is known for liking men. The rumours about her in Parliament House are well known, so I just said ‘well stop shagging men then Sarah’. I mean it just doesn’t make any sense if you think they’re all rapists why would you shag them? So she took great offence at that which is her problem not my problem. In retrospect I, you know, um she um, she has a right to shag as many men as she likes I don’t care you know … but she took great offence, she came and called me a creep, I told her to … am I allowed to say the F word on TV?”
Quote:
“She is known for lots of relationships with men, she had a quite famous one with a, with a Liberal member of parliament a few years ago, Barry Haase, now there’s, I am not criticising her for that, she is perfectly entitled to do that, but the double standard”
heres the whole judgement if you want a read.
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.a...19/2019fca1981
also, you can absolutely be fined and jailed for saying shit under Parliamentary privilege.
It aint the free for all you assume it to be.
To be charged with defamation there needs to be an element of truth in what you say about someone. If someone says something that's 100% fabricated / untrue it's almost impossible to prove because once puffery comes into play the wheels of any defamation case tend to fall off.Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
That's very untrue. Like almost 100% false.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dunster
Defamation is any false statement that hurts you/your brand financially.
*puts postgraduate law hat on*Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
Truth is not an absolute defence to defamation in New South Wales.
It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that—
(a) the matter carried, in addition to the defamatory imputations of which the plaintiff complains, one or more other imputations (contextual imputations) that are substantially true, and
(b) the defamatory imputations do not further harm the reputation of the plaintiff because of the substantial truth of the contextual imputations.
Basically in layman's terms. To use truth as a defence the facts must be well known and not causing further harm to the plaintiff because everyone knows about it.
Secondly. If the publication was delivered with malicious intent. Just about forget about trying to use "truth" as a defence.