NRL Players and family members in hot water

[Foordy]

Actually, by the letter of workplace law, it is on jacks side, regardless of the case he lost to sue the NRL over the stand down policy.
If he is found not guilty, the NRL will have no chance if he decides to sue them.
It will be incredibly easy for him to sue for damages and win based on current workplace laws regardless of the NRLs stand down policy, that was only implemented after he was charged.

Remember, the stand down policy is the NRL stance, not workplace law, and Jack has been denied his right to work before going to trial.

A cashed up organization vs a player was never gonig to see Jack win the initial case while the matter was still in court, but be damn sure if he is found innocent, then it will be a bad day for the NRL's back account.
There is not a lawyer in the country that would lose that case, a retrospective rule brought in after the fact? Thats an easy win every day of the week and any lawyer worth his salt will make it look easy.

FFS, workplace law is 1000000% not on JDB's side

many organisations (especially high profile ones) suspend with pay, employee's who are facing criminal charges, especially ones as serious as what JDB is facing

JDB has zero chance of winning a law suit ... but if he is stupid enough to try, then i guarantee the NRL will be able to drag this out until JDB is bankrupt ... and the Federal Court ruling only serves to seriously strengthen the NRL's already strong case

 

[Midean]

FFS, workplace law is 1000000% not on JDB's side

many organisations (especially high profile ones) suspend with pay, employee's who are facing criminal charges, especially ones as serious as what JDB is facing

JDB has zero chance of winning a law suit ... but if he is stupid enough to try, then i guarantee the NRL will be able to drag this out until JDB is bankrupt ... and the Federal Court ruling only serves to seriously strengthen the NRL's already strong case

You obviously know nothing about workplace law Foordy. It is illegal to stand down an employee and deny them the right to earn a living if they are under investigation for committing a crime not related to their place of work.
This is one of the 5 basic laws in place to protect employees from discrimination and illegal termination of employment.
Now one could argue that Jacks case is unique in that he is in the public eye and this is the ONE AND ONLY reason the court upheld the NRL's stand down policy.
To not do so would have been disastrous for the NRL from a PR perspective.
The NRL have not followed workplace procedural law in Jacks case, and you better believe if he is found innocent they are in for a hell of a bad time.
If there was irrefutable evidence that Jack had committed a crime, then this would be a different conversation, but the fact he is not sitting in a jail cell right now awaiting trial is evident to the fact that he has not yet been found guilty.
Do a basic google search on workplace law and you can find all this out yourself.
This is an unprecedented case in that the rule was implemented retrospectively and it will be an easy win for any lawyer should Jack be found innocent.

Criminal offences outside of work: Can an employee be suspended? - Employee Rights/ Labour Relations - Employment and HR - Australia

Can an employer suspend an employee, charged with a serious criminal offence for conduct that occurred outside of work?

www.mondaq.com

Have a read Foordy.

 

[Kimlo]

Actually, by the letter of workplace law, it is on jacks side, regardless of the case he lost to sue the NRL over the stand down policy.
If he is found not guilty, the NRL will have no chance if he decides to sue them.
It will be incredibly easy for him to sue for damages and win based on current workplace laws regardless of the NRLs stand down policy, that was only implemented after he was charged.

Remember, the stand down policy is the NRL stance, not workplace law, and Jack has been denied his right to work before going to trial.

A cashed up organization vs a player was never gonig to see Jack win the initial case while the matter was still in court, but be damn sure if he is found innocent, then it will be a bad day for the NRL's back account.
There is not a lawyer in the country that would lose that case, a retrospective rule brought in after the fact? Thats an easy win every day of the week and any lawyer worth his salt will make it look easy.

He is still working with full pay though, he just has adjusted working conditions. His only argument is earning potential, he's getting his full salary through all this.

 

[Midean]

He is still working with full pay though, he just has adjusted working conditions. His only argument is earning potential, he's getting his full salary through all this.

This is what makes his case unique. The fact he has a limited window of earning potential.

 

[Foordy]

You obviously know nothing about workplace law Foordy. It is illegal to stand down an employee and deny them the right to earn a living if they are under investigation for committing a crime not related to their place of work.
This is one of the 5 basic laws in place to protect employees from discrimination and illegal termination of employment.
Now one could argue that Jacks case is unique in that he is in the public eye and this is the ONE AND ONLY reason the court upheld the NRL's stand down policy.
To not do so would have been disastrous for the NRL from a PR perspective.
The NRL have not followed workplace procedural law in Jacks case, and you better believe if he is found innocent they are in for a hell of a bad time.
If there was irrefutable evidence that Jack had committed a crime, then this would be a different conversation, but the fact he is not sitting in a jail cell right now awaiting trial is evident to the fact that he has not yet been found guilty.
Do a basic google search on workplace law and you can find all this out yourself.
This is an unprecedented case in that the rule was implemented retrospectively and it will be an easy win for any lawyer should Jack be found innocent.

Criminal offences outside of work: Can an employee be suspended? - Employee Rights/ Labour Relations - Employment and HR - Australia

Can an employer suspend an employee, charged with a serious criminal offence for conduct that occurred outside of work?

www.mondaq.com

Have a read Foordy.

a) that is his opinion ... not the law. I know another lawyer that disagrees with his opinion

b) the Federal Court of Australia - the second highest court in this country has already ruled that what the NRL has done is LEGAL.

 

[Super Freak]

Well that’s great news. We can save millions and speed the whole justice system up by asking you to have a quick look around online and find out the truth.

That doesn't sound too bad. Does it come with pay?

Who said I was the one that did the digging? There are people out there that do a much better job. These aren't Government secrets we're talking about here.

 

[Super Freak]

That is what court is for.
very few women actually do those things you are saying. The percentage is negligible.

Go to court, clear your name. That’s all anybody wants here.

Or. Produce actual concrete evidence. I know it's such a crazy idea.

The idea of someone going to court without a single piece of concrete evidence against them is just fucking absurd. Too many innocent people have ended up jail over shit like this. Hell, too many innocent people have ended up in jail over going to court with no evidence against them.

Maybe he is guilty. Maybe he is innocent. Impossible to know. But they don't have anything concrete. So unless they can produce that evidence, then this case should be thrown out. There's too much doubt. Simple as that.

 

[broncos4life]

Or. Produce actual concrete evidence. I know it's such a crazy idea.

The idea of someone going to court without a single piece of concrete evidence against them is just fucking absurd. Too many innocent people have ended up jail over shit like this. Hell, too many innocent people have ended up in jail over going to court with no evidence against them.

Maybe he is guilty. Maybe he is innocent. Impossible to know. But they don't have anything concrete. So unless they can produce that evidence, then this case should be thrown out. There's too much doubt. Simple as that.

How would you have any idea what evidence they do or don’t have?

 

[john1420]

You obviously know nothing about workplace law Foordy. It is illegal to stand down an employee and deny them the right to earn a living if they are under investigation for committing a crime not related to their place of work.
This is one of the 5 basic laws in place to protect employees from discrimination and illegal termination of employment.
Now one could argue that Jacks case is unique in that he is in the public eye and this is the ONE AND ONLY reason the court upheld the NRL's stand down policy.
To not do so would have been disastrous for the NRL from a PR perspective.
The NRL have not followed workplace procedural law in Jacks case, and you better believe if he is found innocent they are in for a hell of a bad time.
If there was irrefutable evidence that Jack had committed a crime, then this would be a different conversation, but the fact he is not sitting in a jail cell right now awaiting trial is evident to the fact that he has not yet been found guilty.
Do a basic google search on workplace law and you can find all this out yourself.
This is an unprecedented case in that the rule was implemented retrospectively and it will be an easy win for any lawyer should Jack be found innocent.

Criminal offences outside of work: Can an employee be suspended? - Employee Rights/ Labour Relations - Employment and HR - Australia

Can an employer suspend an employee, charged with a serious criminal offence for conduct that occurred outside of work?

www.mondaq.com

Have a read Foordy.

Except that is NOT what is happening! JDB is being paid his full contract, so this point is totally moot.

The only think Jack could conceivably argue is that if he was playing he might have improved and thus potentially gained a new higher contract next time.

Good luck winning that argument in court Jack.

 

[Midean]

Except that is NOT what is happening! JDB is being paid his full contract, so this point is totally moot.

The only think Jack could conceivably argue is that if he was playing he might have improved and thus potentially gained a new higher contract next time.

Good luck winning that argument in court Jack.

Who's Jack? Also i am not going to explain yet again a simple concept many seem to lack the ability to grasp.
Limited. Window. Opportunity.

 

[Kimlo]

Or. Produce actual concrete evidence. I know it's such a crazy idea.

The idea of someone going to court without a single piece of concrete evidence against them is just fucking absurd. Too many innocent people have ended up jail over shit like this. Hell, too many innocent people have ended up in jail over going to court with no evidence against them.

Maybe he is guilty. Maybe he is innocent. Impossible to know. But they don't have anything concrete. So unless they can produce that evidence, then this case should be thrown out. There's too much doubt. Simple as that.

There's not going to be concrete evidence for cases like this. You have to rely on testimonies and convince an impartial jury of 12 unanimously. The court system accounts for lack of evidence by having a jury. When 12 impartial randomly selected people are convinced beyond reasonable doubt, that's good enough.

If you know of a better system feel free to share it. Otherwise every rapist and kiddy fiddler can walk free because there's almost never concrete evidence in these cases.

 

[ChewThePhatt]

Apparently Twitter is FOS. The pre-trial arguments for JDB are meant to last a week.

FOS?
I'm a proud old noob
[automerge]1593916496[/automerge]
Oh! Full of shit. Got it

 

[Nashy]

FOS?
I'm a proud old noob
[automerge]1593916496[/automerge]
Oh! Full of shit. Got it

Full of shit.

 

[Foordy]

Who's Jack? Also i am not going to explain yet again a simple concept many seem to lack the ability to grasp.
Limited. Window. Opportunity.

the courts won't grant him special treatment because he is a footy player.

besides he had the opportunity to be playing right now ... but he chose not to appeal the federal courts ruling ... maybe because he was worried the high court would uphold the original ruling

 

[john1420]

Who's Jack? Also i am not going to explain yet again a simple concept many seem to lack the ability to grasp.
Limited. Window. Opportunity.

Who's Jack?
The chap we are talking about - Jack DeBelin :)
And as for limited window......nobody is failing to grasp it, it's simply that may of us don't agree with you.
The key is in the fact that Jack is being paid in full and anything he is missing out on, is speculation and possibilities, not fact. Makes it much harder to win a lawsuit.
See now, I think that is a simple concept, but we all see things differently, and that's OK :)

 

[Midean]

Who's Jack?
The chap we are talking about - Jack DeBelin :)
And as for limited window......nobody is failing to grasp it, it's simply that may of us don't agree with you.
The key is in the fact that Jack is being paid in full and anything he is missing out on, is speculation and possibilities, not fact. Makes it much harder to win a lawsuit.
See now, I think that is a simple concept, but we all see things differently, and that's OK :)

Agreed. Its just undeniable that certain professions have a limited window to perform to your peak, thus increases your value.
If you are sat out during that optimal window, it is far more detrimental than say, when you are at the end of your career and past your prime.
This has to factor into it.
Agree or disagree doesn't change the fact that if a person at the end of their career is in the same situation, it is far less of a punishment to them, than the person in their prime.

edit: no kidding i forgot his name was Jack, as i have called him De'Belin for so long haha.

 

[Sirlee oldman]

Agreed. Its just undeniable that certain professions have a limited window to perform to your peak, thus increases your value.
If you are sat out during that optimal window, it is far more detrimental than say, when you are at the end of your career and past your prime.
This has to factor into it.
Agree or disagree doesn't change the fact that if a person at the end of their career is in the same situation, it is far less of a punishment to them, than the person in their prime.

edit: no kidding i forgot his name was Jack, as i have called him De'Belin for so long haha.

It could also be argued that while he isn’t playing he’s not accumulating injuries or having to maintain the form he was showing before he was arrested. It’s not a slam dunk that he would still be playing so well.

 

[roo-ted]

Has anyone seen where Addin Fonua-Blake called the Ref a f’ing retard ?.
I find it ironic that he came out and called Erin a gronk for making fun of islander names but two weeks later gets caught on the mic using words like “retard”

Seems that he cares about the feelings of 100kg+ football players then he dose of people with disabilities.

Makes me wonder if the consequences would have been greater if he used a gay or racial slur