-
@crucial said in The Folau Factor:
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
@kiwiwomble said in The Folau Factor:
@nzzp I guess for me it came down to what was trying to be achieved with his post, his account was public and i always take that as you want everyone to know what youre posting, the modern equivalent to standing on a soap box
I really think there is a middle ground where he should be allowed to have his beliefs as million of others do in a personal sense
but when you post on Twitter and basically say you dont care if people are unhappy about it...you cant really be too annoyed if other people post on twitter that you should be fired...if that was their genuinely held belief.
That's fine, but there's a world of difference between randoms saying he should be fired (noise on the internet) and his employer sacking him for quoting the bible ffs. It was a mountain out of a molehill and everyone involved came off worse.
As lots of previous arguments have stated. This is a massive simplification of the situation and smacks of using an employer/employee dispute into a poster child for 'free speech'.
You may want to reread the statement of claim and ponder the outcome.
-
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
@crucial said in The Folau Factor:
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
@kiwiwomble said in The Folau Factor:
@nzzp I guess for me it came down to what was trying to be achieved with his post, his account was public and i always take that as you want everyone to know what youre posting, the modern equivalent to standing on a soap box
I really think there is a middle ground where he should be allowed to have his beliefs as million of others do in a personal sense
but when you post on Twitter and basically say you dont care if people are unhappy about it...you cant really be too annoyed if other people post on twitter that you should be fired...if that was their genuinely held belief.
That's fine, but there's a world of difference between randoms saying he should be fired (noise on the internet) and his employer sacking him for quoting the bible ffs. It was a mountain out of a molehill and everyone involved came off worse.
As lots of previous arguments have stated. This is a massive simplification of the situation and smacks of using an employer/employee dispute into a poster child for 'free speech'.
You may want to reread the statement of claim and ponder the outcome.
do you have a link to the statement of claim? Always keen on primary source
-
@nzzp said in The Folau Factor:
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
@crucial said in The Folau Factor:
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
@kiwiwomble said in The Folau Factor:
@nzzp I guess for me it came down to what was trying to be achieved with his post, his account was public and i always take that as you want everyone to know what youre posting, the modern equivalent to standing on a soap box
I really think there is a middle ground where he should be allowed to have his beliefs as million of others do in a personal sense
but when you post on Twitter and basically say you dont care if people are unhappy about it...you cant really be too annoyed if other people post on twitter that you should be fired...if that was their genuinely held belief.
That's fine, but there's a world of difference between randoms saying he should be fired (noise on the internet) and his employer sacking him for quoting the bible ffs. It was a mountain out of a molehill and everyone involved came off worse.
As lots of previous arguments have stated. This is a massive simplification of the situation and smacks of using an employer/employee dispute into a poster child for 'free speech'.
You may want to reread the statement of claim and ponder the outcome.
do you have a link to the statement of claim? Always keen on primary source
-
@nzzp said in The Folau Factor:
it is more complex than that though.
Stop talking about your religion in public is hard to enforceYes it is. I just thought that he might have more respect for them and desist. I wasn't talking about the legal side of things.
-
@kiwiwomble said in The Folau Factor:
@antipodean yeah, fair enough, but as i said, most people i talked to in real life felt it was justified so im not sure it was JUST a few loud people on the internet
Actions speak louder than words. He garnered vast sums of donations in 2 days! People's money vs their words. Worth noting
-
@nzzp said in The Folau Factor:
@snowy said in The Folau Factor:
I wonder which part of "don't do it again" he didn't understand (from his employer).
it is more complex than that though.
Stop talking about your religion in public is hard to enforce
a little of an over simplification though
if all he said was "im a christian" then i dont think people would have had a problem, what he did was talk about other peoples religion or lack of it
@siam said in The Folau Factor:
@kiwiwomble said in The Folau Factor:
@antipodean yeah, fair enough, but as i said, most people i talked to in real life felt it was justified so im not sure it was JUST a few loud people on the internet
Actions speak louder than words. He garnered vast sums of donations in 2 days! People's money vs their words. Worth noting
of course, i did say not long ago there are millions that agree with him, but my personal experience was there are also lot of people that dont and so i think it is much more even than one side represents the majority
-
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
@crucial said in The Folau Factor:
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
@kiwiwomble said in The Folau Factor:
@nzzp I guess for me it came down to what was trying to be achieved with his post, his account was public and i always take that as you want everyone to know what youre posting, the modern equivalent to standing on a soap box
I really think there is a middle ground where he should be allowed to have his beliefs as million of others do in a personal sense
but when you post on Twitter and basically say you dont care if people are unhappy about it...you cant really be too annoyed if other people post on twitter that you should be fired...if that was their genuinely held belief.
That's fine, but there's a world of difference between randoms saying he should be fired (noise on the internet) and his employer sacking him for quoting the bible ffs. It was a mountain out of a molehill and everyone involved came off worse.
As lots of previous arguments have stated. This is a massive simplification of the situation and smacks of using an employer/employee dispute into a poster child for 'free speech'.
You may want to reread the statement of claim and ponder the outcome.
I will admit that I haven't read it word for word and nor am I a lawyer but that still reads to me as an employment dispute. RA believed he had breached the Code of Conduct and he believed that he didn't. All of the pages about his beliefs etc are there to justify his position.
At no point is it stated that RA cancelled his contract because of his beliefs. They did so because they had warned him that expressing those beliefs on SM put him in a position of breaching the Code of Conduct (in their opinion).What is more apparent is that RA did not follow procedure 100% correctly which, I understand, was the point at which they realised that the rest of the debate was a waste of time and payed him off.
-
@crucial said in The Folau Factor:
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
@crucial said in The Folau Factor:
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
@kiwiwomble said in The Folau Factor:
@nzzp I guess for me it came down to what was trying to be achieved with his post, his account was public and i always take that as you want everyone to know what youre posting, the modern equivalent to standing on a soap box
I really think there is a middle ground where he should be allowed to have his beliefs as million of others do in a personal sense
but when you post on Twitter and basically say you dont care if people are unhappy about it...you cant really be too annoyed if other people post on twitter that you should be fired...if that was their genuinely held belief.
That's fine, but there's a world of difference between randoms saying he should be fired (noise on the internet) and his employer sacking him for quoting the bible ffs. It was a mountain out of a molehill and everyone involved came off worse.
As lots of previous arguments have stated. This is a massive simplification of the situation and smacks of using an employer/employee dispute into a poster child for 'free speech'.
You may want to reread the statement of claim and ponder the outcome.
I will admit that I haven't read it word for word and nor am I a lawyer but that still reads to me as an employment dispute. RA believed he had breached the Code of Conduct and he believed that he didn't. All of the pages about his beliefs etc are there to justify his position.
At no point is it stated that RA cancelled his contract because of his beliefs. They did so because they had warned him that expressing those beliefs on SM put him in a position of breaching the Code of Conduct (in their opinion).What is more apparent is that RA did not follow procedure 100% correctly which, I understand, was the point at which they realised that the rest of the debate was a waste of time and payed him off.
Well there was the small matter that the part of the contract he was in breach of was changed/added without his consent. There was a reason they settled...
-
@crucial said in The Folau Factor:
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
@crucial said in The Folau Factor:
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
@kiwiwomble said in The Folau Factor:
@nzzp I guess for me it came down to what was trying to be achieved with his post, his account was public and i always take that as you want everyone to know what youre posting, the modern equivalent to standing on a soap box
I really think there is a middle ground where he should be allowed to have his beliefs as million of others do in a personal sense
but when you post on Twitter and basically say you dont care if people are unhappy about it...you cant really be too annoyed if other people post on twitter that you should be fired...if that was their genuinely held belief.
That's fine, but there's a world of difference between randoms saying he should be fired (noise on the internet) and his employer sacking him for quoting the bible ffs. It was a mountain out of a molehill and everyone involved came off worse.
As lots of previous arguments have stated. This is a massive simplification of the situation and smacks of using an employer/employee dispute into a poster child for 'free speech'.
You may want to reread the statement of claim and ponder the outcome.
I will admit that I haven't read it word for word and nor am I a lawyer but that still reads to me as an employment dispute. RA believed he had breached the Code of Conduct and he believed that he didn't. All of the pages about his beliefs etc are there to justify his position.
At no point is it stated that RA cancelled his contract because of his beliefs. They did so because they had warned him that expressing those beliefs on SM put him in a position of breaching the Code of Conduct (in their opinion).This is the problem with not being educated in the area and not reading the document, but still feeling qualified to not only offer an opinion, but correcting others.
-
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
@crucial said in The Folau Factor:
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
@crucial said in The Folau Factor:
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
@kiwiwomble said in The Folau Factor:
@nzzp I guess for me it came down to what was trying to be achieved with his post, his account was public and i always take that as you want everyone to know what youre posting, the modern equivalent to standing on a soap box
I really think there is a middle ground where he should be allowed to have his beliefs as million of others do in a personal sense
but when you post on Twitter and basically say you dont care if people are unhappy about it...you cant really be too annoyed if other people post on twitter that you should be fired...if that was their genuinely held belief.
That's fine, but there's a world of difference between randoms saying he should be fired (noise on the internet) and his employer sacking him for quoting the bible ffs. It was a mountain out of a molehill and everyone involved came off worse.
As lots of previous arguments have stated. This is a massive simplification of the situation and smacks of using an employer/employee dispute into a poster child for 'free speech'.
You may want to reread the statement of claim and ponder the outcome.
I will admit that I haven't read it word for word and nor am I a lawyer but that still reads to me as an employment dispute. RA believed he had breached the Code of Conduct and he believed that he didn't. All of the pages about his beliefs etc are there to justify his position.
At no point is it stated that RA cancelled his contract because of his beliefs. They did so because they had warned him that expressing those beliefs on SM put him in a position of breaching the Code of Conduct (in their opinion).This is the problem with not being educated in the area and not reading the document, but still feeling qualified to not only offer an opinion, but correcting others.
This is the Fern, that is a god given right!!
-
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
@crucial said in The Folau Factor:
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
@crucial said in The Folau Factor:
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
@kiwiwomble said in The Folau Factor:
@nzzp I guess for me it came down to what was trying to be achieved with his post, his account was public and i always take that as you want everyone to know what youre posting, the modern equivalent to standing on a soap box
I really think there is a middle ground where he should be allowed to have his beliefs as million of others do in a personal sense
but when you post on Twitter and basically say you dont care if people are unhappy about it...you cant really be too annoyed if other people post on twitter that you should be fired...if that was their genuinely held belief.
That's fine, but there's a world of difference between randoms saying he should be fired (noise on the internet) and his employer sacking him for quoting the bible ffs. It was a mountain out of a molehill and everyone involved came off worse.
As lots of previous arguments have stated. This is a massive simplification of the situation and smacks of using an employer/employee dispute into a poster child for 'free speech'.
You may want to reread the statement of claim and ponder the outcome.
I will admit that I haven't read it word for word and nor am I a lawyer but that still reads to me as an employment dispute. RA believed he had breached the Code of Conduct and he believed that he didn't. All of the pages about his beliefs etc are there to justify his position.
At no point is it stated that RA cancelled his contract because of his beliefs. They did so because they had warned him that expressing those beliefs on SM put him in a position of breaching the Code of Conduct (in their opinion).This is the problem with not being educated in the area and not reading the document, but still feeling qualified to not only offer an opinion, but correcting others.
I'm not with you.
My original comment was that "his employer sacking him for quoting the bible" is an oversimplification. The document endorses that comment because the crux of the matter is whether the agreed employment procedure was followed correctly and has basis NOT whether his employer simply disallowed him to 'quote the bible' (which in itself is a stupid term. Which version? Which translation? Who says it has veracity?).If anything your original comment is the one that doesn't align with the document.
-
@crucial said in The Folau Factor:
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
@crucial said in The Folau Factor:
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
@crucial said in The Folau Factor:
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
@kiwiwomble said in The Folau Factor:
@nzzp I guess for me it came down to what was trying to be achieved with his post, his account was public and i always take that as you want everyone to know what youre posting, the modern equivalent to standing on a soap box
I really think there is a middle ground where he should be allowed to have his beliefs as million of others do in a personal sense
but when you post on Twitter and basically say you dont care if people are unhappy about it...you cant really be too annoyed if other people post on twitter that you should be fired...if that was their genuinely held belief.
That's fine, but there's a world of difference between randoms saying he should be fired (noise on the internet) and his employer sacking him for quoting the bible ffs. It was a mountain out of a molehill and everyone involved came off worse.
As lots of previous arguments have stated. This is a massive simplification of the situation and smacks of using an employer/employee dispute into a poster child for 'free speech'.
You may want to reread the statement of claim and ponder the outcome.
I will admit that I haven't read it word for word and nor am I a lawyer but that still reads to me as an employment dispute. RA believed he had breached the Code of Conduct and he believed that he didn't. All of the pages about his beliefs etc are there to justify his position.
At no point is it stated that RA cancelled his contract because of his beliefs. They did so because they had warned him that expressing those beliefs on SM put him in a position of breaching the Code of Conduct (in their opinion).This is the problem with not being educated in the area and not reading the document, but still feeling qualified to not only offer an opinion, but correcting others.
I'm not with you.
My original comment was that "his employer sacking him for quoting the bible" is an oversimplification.Astonishing insight that @antipodean managed to reduce the 24 page statement of claim and the ARU's response to eight words. Particularly after I said 'Or you could accept that the fight with the ARU is done and dusted, and move on with your life.'
The document endorses that comment because the crux of the matter is whether the agreed employment procedure was followed correctly and has basis NOT whether his employer simply disallowed him to 'quote the bible' (which in itself is a stupid term. Which version? Which translation? Who says it has veracity?).
If anything your original comment is the one that doesn't align with the document.
Sure, if we pretend that the breach notice wasn't as a result of his social media post. The very precondition upon which the termination of his contract arose and was unlawful under s772 1(f)
For those so interested, all relevant documentation (including response and amended statement of claim) can be found here http://www.federalcircuitcourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/fccweb/about/media/pic/folau
-
@kiwiwomble said in The Folau Factor:
@kirwan i hadn't heard it was done without his consent, surely he had the version he signed without the changes?
Like I said, there is a reason RA settled out of court.
-
Why are we doing this all again? It's just the same people saying the same things as they did before. We're all just wasting our time here, nobody is changing their mind. Much like the saga itself, as @Siam accurately said - there are no winners here.
Even by Fern standards this is all a bit much...
-
@barbarian said in The Folau Factor:
Why are we doing this all again? It's just the same people saying the same things as they did before. We're all just wasting our time here, nobody is changing their mind.
Even by Fern standards this is all a bit much...
Slow angst week
-
@barbarian said in The Folau Factor:
Why are we doing this all again? It's just the same people saying the same things as they did before. We're all just wasting our time here, nobody is changing their mind. Much like the saga itself, as @Siam accurately said - there are no winners here.
Even by Fern standards this is all a bit much...
I almost resumed posting... then remembered that I'd said anything remotely useful that I had to add on the topic back on page 14 two years ago
-
@siam said in The Folau Factor:
@kiwiwomble said in The Folau Factor:
@antipodean yeah, fair enough, but as i said, most people i talked to in real life felt it was justified so im not sure it was JUST a few loud people on the internet
Actions speak louder than words. He garnered vast sums of donations in 2 days! People's money vs their words. Worth noting
Though I can't resist adding - those donations should surprise no-one, and may or may not prove wide ranging support - given his particular core support base makes a habit of tithing at least 10% of their income every week.
Sports requiring athletes to support cultural positions