Jump to content

goughy

Moderator
  • Content Count

    17,230
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    71

goughy last won the day on November 15

goughy had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,627 Excellent

About goughy

  • Rank
    Transitions Legend!
  • Birthday 09/09/1971

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Location
    3 hours ago Cottoneyes said "I'd seriously recommend going with the wisdom of Goughy"

Previous Fields

  • Year of first Tri race?
    2009

Recent Profile Visitors

2,049 profile views
  1. The have Stex s25ex elliptical trainers at my gym. I think I've worked out one of the reasons they feel weird; I kinda crossover when running, or like run on a line, and these things don't 😉
  2. goughy

    Israel Folau

    Sadly, I agree with you😢 See, we can agree sometimes!
  3. goughy

    Israel Folau

    Came wait to see what happens with the Pell appeal!
  4. goughy

    Israel Folau

    I really don't know what you want me to say? Do you just want me to agree with you, that maybe his tribunal was biased by one member? Is it easier if I just agree with you? I don't. I'm sorry that you have a problem with me not being able to agree with your point of view. I understand what you are saying, and I'm sure plenty will agree with you. I'm not one. The whole point of our argument seems to have stemmed from AJ's comment (yeah, thanks for that AJ ) about whether the independent tribunal was biased or not. Not perceived bias, but bias. So what exactly are we arguing about? Do you think she was biased within the tribunal, or do you purely think she should have stood down because she supports the LGBTQ community, and whether she was biased or not there would be an inference that she was biased? Well, what if any of the panel were christian?
  5. goughy

    Israel Folau

    And maybe she felt she would have no bias in this matter, and that she could treat it impartially. And that the body representing Folau could have excluded her, but didn't. You are automatically assuming that her belief system absolutely affected the final decision of the tribunal, of which two other people were are part of. AJ made the point that there was near no chance of having unbiased people part of the tribunal. So then why bother having one? What was the tribunal there to judge? Was it that he said something against a section of the community? Or was it that he said something that breached his contact? Lawyers out there defend people who are as guilty as sin! They can be appalled at what they do, but still fight for them.
  6. goughy

    Israel Folau

    So you're comparing a lawyer who does support the LGBTQ to a racist? The panel was agreed upon by RA and the players association, who represent Dizzy. All members had to be agreed upon at the time, which they were. If there was a problem with her being chosen, Dizzy's representative, the players association, should have excluded her. As far as the panel being free from bias, AJ asserted above that finding three people without bias one way or the other would be near impossible! So what's the point of tribunals then? Did Kate make the decision and the other two have no input?
  7. goughy

    Israel Folau

    Because Kate Eastman was the only member of the tribunal, and there weren't two others? So I'm assuming at least two had to find he was in breach, or did all 3 find that was the case?
  8. goughy

    Israel Folau

    It certainly may have been a problem if you, me, and say More, were sitting on the tribunal. But we weren't. I'm assuming they were experienced people, who I guess have a background in dealing with this sort of stuff. And I'm guessing that RA didn't pick all the members themselves? The way your explaining the problem with bias, will why have any court system, or any sort of spring tribunal.
  9. goughy

    Israel Folau

    When I say came out on top, I'm taking about in this dispute! I agree, and would have liked to see them take it to court, and hand his arse to him in a way that he couldn't spin it as a win. But the reality is, isn't this how a good many civil court cases are solved, isn't it? Like it or not. Let's also not forget that an independent tribunal looked at all this in the first place, and decided that a serious beach was made. That seems to get lost in all the mud. Wasn't that the right thing to do?
  10. goughy

    Israel Folau

    So, after a day or chatter between us all, this is what we can take away from it all. None of us actually have a single clue what came out of this all! Not a clue.
  11. goughy

    Israel Folau

    If Castle doesn't lose her job over this, I'd say RA came out on top. If she does, Dizzy did. Anything from a mil down I'd think was an RA win. Up to around 2mil, probably 50/50. Over is a Dizzy win. I know there's the chatter of why settle if they felt they were in a winning position, but tonnes of cases settle, even if someone felt they could win. There's the whole moving on thing, there's the costs of continuing it all, financially and publically. With the settlement private, I have no doubt Dizzy would come out bleating like he has. And we already have RA qualifying that the apology wasn't about the banking itself, which is kinda the way Dizzy spun it. That they unreservedly apologised for everything, where is it was supposedly a joint apology to reach other.
  12. goughy

    Israel Folau

    So, the reality is no one other than those in the room actually know?
  13. goughy

    Israel Folau

    I'd love him to be right. But surely not.
×
×
  • Create New...