We are well past it will seem.
That is being remarkably generous, Ali. I think it far more likely that he is engaging in a well established political/management practice, carefully wording a true thing to tell a lie. Then if called on it, they simply claim to have been misinterpreted.
"No sponsor has indicated they would be willing to be associated with social media posts of that sort" is almost meaningless, yet unqueried by a supposed journalist. Was it because none has been asked, or did they just say they couldn't care less, or is he only saying that they haven't had any specific approach from a sponsor wanting to sponsor that content? It could be any of those, or almost anything else, but it clearly doesn't mean "sponsors indicated they won't be willing to be associated with social media posts of that sort". That would be plain English, and would seem to be the impression they want to give, but they've specifically said it is nonsense to suggest a sponsor said that. So "no sponsor has indicated they would be willing", and also none has said they wouldn't, so naturally he had to be summarily sacked...!
All I know is that someone in the playground didn’t punch Clyne junior in the nose hard enough. God knows his smarmy face is begging for it.
I happened to be in Canberra during the hearings, and I went to Parliament House when he was questioned. I was the only person there, apart from the Hearing staff and of course Clyne. He was squirming in his seat for the entire hearing. But he was, as I'm sure you're not surprised, the consummate professional in responding to these hearings; obfuscating, misdirecting, and flat out not answering the questions. A true master at work - and I don't mean that in a complimentary sense!!! He would say and do anything to justify his position.
Hopefully he will get a bollocking under oath in Izzy’s court case. Someone posted on Twitter saying he will be the first to testify for the applicant and the defendant.
Clyne is going to hell
The body language you observed came thru almost as clearly in the net cast. His repeated "y'ow" (you know) every two seconds was a dead give away. "Did the board specifically discuss axing the Western Force long before (insert date I can't recall), Mr Clyne?" ...."Well y'ow....as a board...y'ow... we are always...y'ow... running thru... y'ow.... all sorts....of strategic...y'ow....scenarios."
He pretty much got away with that type of obfuscation all through. A judge in the Federal Court is a different proposition to three senators, only one of whom was informed and on the ball. He/she will compel Clyne to answer directly and threaten him with contempt if he tries that shit.
My thumbs-up was for the Blackadder quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melchett
EXCLUSIVE
JANET ALBRECHTSEN
COLUMNIST
EMILY RITCHIE
REPORTER
12:00AM JULY 1, 2019365 COMMENTS
Rugby Australia may have inadvertently opened another legal avenue for Israel Folau to pursue following suggestions that sponsors were threatening to withdraw support if the former Wallaby player wasn’t sacked.
Senior legal figures have said that, if true, the comments made by Rugby Australia chairman Cameron Clyne give rise to not only a common law claim of *interference with contractual *relations, but also to a potential breach of competition law.
After Rugby Australia and Folau failed to reach agreement through a Fair Work Commission conciliation hearing on Friday, Mr Clyne said the sport’s governing body had no option but to sack the 30-year-old.
“(The alternative] would be that we’d have no sponsors at all because no sponsor has indicated they would be willing to be *associated with social media posts of that sort, and that *includes government, because we’ve also heard from them,” he said. “We would also potentially be in litigation with employees who are gay and who would say we’re not providing a workplace that is safe or respectful.”
Sydney barrister Jeffrey Phillips SC, who specialises in *employment law, told The Australian that, having read Mr Clyne’s comments, there was a real possibility of another legal avenue for Folau’s team. He suggested that if Rugby Australia breached its contract with Folau by sacking him, then sponsors induced that breach of contract.
“If it be the case that sponsors, or even the government, has placed any pressure on Rugby Australia to terminate his contract, then that raises prospects of interference with contractual relations and aspects of Australian competition and consumer law, in particular, section 45D dealing with secondary boycotts,” he said. “For example, if Party A places pressure on Party B to stop Party C providing services to Party D, that is a secondary boycott. This is not too dissimilar to when renegade trade unions like the CFMEU placed pressure on employers not to engage with contractors who have non-union labour.”
Mr Clyne did, however, rubbish suggestions Rugby Australia had been dictated to by main sponsor Qantas in the lead-up to Folau’s termination. “That’s simply wrong,” he said. “Sponsors have a right to associate themselves with a game they feel best represents their values, but it is absolute nonsense to suggest it was done at the behest of a sponsor. Having said that, I haven’t had any sponsor come forward and say they were happy with the post or happy to be associated with it.”
Folau had his $4 million contract terminated in May over his Instagram posts, including one proclaiming hell awaits “drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolaters”.
A panel ruled that Folau was guilty of a “high-level breach” of the players’ code of conduct.
Folau, who has since used *social media sparingly, yesterday took to Twitter to defend gay rights activist and actor Magda Szubanski. “I totally agree with @bairdjulia — please stop the anonymous online attacks on @MagdaSzubanski who has entered this debate very respectfully,” he wrote. “
She is entitled to express her views — let’s all have this important discussion with love in our hearts.” Folau referenced journalist Julia Baird, who was calling out the “ugly hate campaign” against Szubanski after she announced a rival GoFundMe page called For Love.
LINK HERE