I'd love any of the above things to happen but the fact so little has been made in the media about it worries me. I just hope enough comes out of the senate inquiry to get something done..
I'd love any of the above things to happen but the fact so little has been made in the media about it worries me. I just hope enough comes out of the senate inquiry to get something done..
I would welcome all those things as well though I think few will be delivered, despite the evidence. I just hope we get enough to stop the ARU meddling in the IPRC. That would be a great boost for the competition.
Look at it this way, the media had a whole bunch of scoops but what exactly did it come to? The original course of cutting the Force.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jules
The fact the media know bugger all perhaps means that potentially this is going against the ARU's script.
Almost certainly given the way the ARU are in control of the media who actually write about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLR
Furthermore, It probably also means they don't really have any answers to refute what's coming out, they're just hoping that if they remain quiet enough that the whole story won't come out.
Interesting that the ARU hasn't responded to Mayor Welborn's comments about the ARU giving Twiggy a recipe and refusing to accept when he offered to cook it for them.
Also curious to know how closely the World Rugby (iRB) is following this
Well considering the ARU are the entity they have given charge of rugby in Australia you would hope if their representatives are widely despised Australia wide, going through legal proceedings, potential government sanctions that, World Rugby will sit up and tell them to sort it out. FIFA did it with Football Australia I believe?Quote:
Originally Posted by chibi
Guilt by association/silence if they do nothing right?
I would want to know what the purpose of the meeting was, and what relevance teh RWA writ had to any meeting between the ARU and the VRU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison
Also, it seems that these captains of industry can't remember who physically handed the AA over to Tim North, but does it matter- the ARU brought it to the meeting - and any one of them present could have said "Oy boys, this is not appropriate to share with the VRU " - instead, they stood around looking at a pile of papers on a table until Tim North got his assistant to photocopy them.
It's the assistants fault
What an absolutely ball tearer of a question!!! So obvious I would hope anyone who knows Senator Reynolds would pass on this question. In life....some times its the simple things.Quote:
Originally Posted by lou
I hate to state the obvious, but they brought the documents with them, so there was some anticipation that they would be referred to in the meeting, right?
\
and while I'm here, what is the thinking behind the change of venue? ARU goons too scared to come back to Perth or does it suit the Senators?
its probably both
A couple of reasons the Senate may be in session and to give the ARU a prime time hanging. Good entertainment for those in Perth who are driving home.Quote:
Originally Posted by jackster
Parliament starting another 2 week session (although Senate only 1 week).Quote:
Originally Posted by jackster
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...tting_Calendar
Change of venue is probably logistical. Not enough time to book a venue, rushed scheduling, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by jackster
Also, it saves costs to the taxpayer if it's held closer to the ERU. I assume a business class fare from Syd to Can is less than one from Syd to Per plus hotel accomm. I don't mind where it's held - Senator Reynolds is razor sharp wherever she is!
Another plus is that it will be on video stream is it's in Canberra. Outside the Berra it's only audio stream.
Yes. Most important thing is that this additional hearing is occurring!
I'd go with more the latter than the former.
BTW, the writ is a public document north said so in his testimony to prove why he had "innocently" asked to see the agreement, it appears he was just curious and it happened to be on the table..... In his chambers..... Put there by nobody (who wasn't at the meeting)
That was the clearest indicator of only one thing.
Nobody who has admitted to being in that room is a reliable witness... I'm Pretty sure that in court, if a witness is found to be unreliable then the testimony of the reliable witnesses is taken.
Did Sinders name Clarke as speculation, or did he provide a basis?
I think Sinders said something like "there were 2 people in the room who could have done it and Pulver said it wasn't him" Leaving us to surmise that it must have been Clarke.
North said there was another. Pulver Clyne and Hawkins have been named. In reality, that incident is one in a whole litany of shonky dealings, each of which should be investigated and prosecuted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison
Soooo....throwing Hawkins under the bus
Noyce