Pocock Arrested

[Scrubber2050]

Sorry mate legally not wrong, just in that grey area. Trespass and chaining to equipment MAY get one charged, but often will result in arrest, removal from the scene and release. The biggest issue is that of the potential for injury to individuals by being in and around machinery and the liabilities for that.

Under our legal system and the inordinate power of the Corporation to out last the citizen in litigation has led to this sort of action being the only resort to stop, or at least highlight the activities of said corporations.

Long after Whitehaven Coal has divested itself of the shelf company it is using whatever shelf companies they have set up for the venture, the issues will remain for the residents and the community as a whole.

I come back to the individual all the time and the Law should be for the citizen first and foremost.

As for Pocock, I don't agree with many of his causes, but judge him in the manner of that great civil disobedience protester Martin Luther King who dreamed "judged by the content of his character" and he is showing plenty.

Fuck - he is no Martin Luther King.

Trespass is a criminal offence - has been for about 1000 years. Prior tto some hundreds of years ago would normally result in a gunshot or spear in the guts

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Fuck - he is no Martin Luther King.

Trespass is a criminal offence - has been for about 1000 years. Prior tto some hundreds of years ago would normally result in a gunshot or spear in the guts

he could also be sued in trespass: unlike most protestors he could be worth the effort

 

[Gnostic]

Fuck - he is no Martin Luther King.

Trespass is a criminal offence - has been for about 1000 years. Prior tto some hundreds of years ago would normally result in a gunshot or spear in the guts

1000 Years? Really. You need to look at the laws. At most about 400-500 years in England and then for a very select few. I didn't say he was King, I provided an example of somebody who is rightly revered who regularly engaged in peaceful non-violent civil disobedience. Ghandi is another. They were the figureheads of their movements but under them were thousands of Pocock's who stood by their convictions without the adulations of the masses that King et al received.

As for the Law being used as a blunt instrument in such cases, it hasn't been seen in Australia for a long time in such circumstances and is frowned upon by the courts. And yes I have been involved personally in such cases.

 

[Bobby Sands]

Probably the one David most looks up to is Desmond Tutu given his background.

 

[rugbysmartarse]

We also have a place for drunken, violent, misogynists.....

in the backline....

 

[Scrubber2050]

1000 Years? Really. You need to look at the laws. At most about 400-500 years in England and then for a very select few. I didn't say he was King, I provided an example of somebody who is rightly revered who regularly engaged in peaceful non-violent civil disobedience. Ghandi is another. They were the figureheads of their movements but under them were thousands of Pocock's who stood by their convictions without the adulations of the masses that King et al received.

As for the Law being used as a blunt instrument in such cases, it hasn't been seen in Australia for a long time in such circumstances and is frowned upon by the courts. And yes I have been involved personally in such cases.

AND so have I

 

[Scrubber2050]

Probably the one David most looks up to is Desmond Tutu given his background.

Ah, a true follower of the faith. History has been rather kind to Des

 

[notapatrioticboneinme]

Well done Mr Pocock, got his priorities spot on!, mark

 

[Ignoto]

I strongly believe in this so that's fair enough isn't it?

You're entitled to your opinion and to voice it (although not protected to voice it). If you're on my land, refused to move when requested you too can be arrested like Pocock. The extreme's you're going to like shooting someone doesn't prove the point you're trying to make. Everyone in this thread has pretty much accepted Pocock has done something illegal strictly speaking.

If it's a hindrance point you're trying to prove, speeding (albeit it trivial) breaks the law, yet I'm sure 99% of the people in here have been found guilty of it same with the owner of the property Pocock was on. I could go on about how speeding causes more of a impact on ones life to earn an income due to the traffic jams, but that'd be getting a bit too off topic.

 

[notapatrioticboneinme]

Can't believe anyone here thinks that being arrested is a positive example to set. Don't care what it's for, if you feel passionately about something there are numerous legal options to pursue to make your point without have to break the law (this is Australia and he isn't Aung San Suu Kyi).

Should be dealt with in the same way as any other ARU contracted players arrest.

On another note it is easy to take the moral high road on mining when living in a country, that quite frankly without mining would be broke, dark and with a considerably lower standard of living.

need to have a look at just how much it does bring in!

 

[Inside Shoulder]

If it's a hindrance point you're trying to prove, speeding (albeit it trivial) breaks the law, yet I'm sure 99% of the people in here have been found guilty of it same with the owner of the property Pocock was on. I could go on about how speeding causes more of a impact on ones life to earn an income due to the traffic jams, but that'd be getting a bit too off topic.

The fact that "everyone does it" may be a good reason for prominent people not to break frequently flouted rules of society.


The points I have been trying to make are:

• not liking something does not give you the right to break the law - civil or criminal
• being a public part of a public organisation involves the intersection of private rights and the obligations you owe to the organisation of which you are a member
• the merits of your cause do not detract from either of these propositions
• if you don't like the burdens that come with 1 and 2 you need to review your position

I invoke rule 10(?) on myself.

 

[Sully]

I invoke rule 10(?) on myself.

Thank you. Could a few more of you follow suit please.

 

[Sully]

I invoke rule 10(?) on myself.

Thank you. Could a few more of you follow suit please.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

If another poster does not understand or agree with your point after 3 or 4 attempts, LET IT GO, WALK AWAY. It is very boring for other posters when the thread gets hijacked by two people having an argument.

Above is Rule 10 on the main Rugby Forums, but it is Rule 9 for the Schoolboy Rugby Forum.

 

[Braveheart81]

Here's the ARU statement.

The Australian Rugby Union has issued a formal written warning to David Pocock following his arrest yesterday.

While we appreciate David has personal views on a range of matters, we’ve made it clear that we expect his priority to be ensuring he can fulfil his role as a high-performance athlete.

The matter is now subject to legal proceedings and we will now let the legal process take its course.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Can they go straight to formal written warning without invoking the RUPA independent investigation clauses, or is the latter course of action to be followed only when there is a potential sacking?

Without trying to compare the nature of the recent events: KB (Kurtley Beale) breach of Code of Conduct, the Dublin drinking session breach of unwritten "expectations" and this breach of Code of Conduct, at what point do the RUPA amendments kick in, and who decides when these get invoked?

I think that there is very little else that the ARU could have done apart from issuing the statement earlier, although they may have had to wait for the written warning to be drafted and issued first before making their statement to the Media.

 

[Quick Hands]

Are you actually suggesting Pocock should be punished for peaceful activism on environmental issues? It is this attitude that has characterised Australia's now world famous apathy in this area.

I mean we'd all rather he become a mouthpiece for CSG, shack up with Alan Jones, and sell his soul to the highest bidder but some people just aren't built that way. A crying shame.

No, I'm suggesting that you can't just pick and choose which laws you like and will therefore obey and which laws you don't like and therefore feel justified to break, if you want to represent your country. Breaking laws have a consequence - some penalties are more serious that others, because the offence is greater.

 

[Braveheart81]

No, I'm suggesting that you can't just pick and choose which laws you like and will therefore obey and which laws you don't like and therefore feel justified to break, if you want to represent your country. Breaking laws have a consequence - some penalties are more serious that others, because the offence is greater.

Agreed.

I also think the ARU's response is pretty good. Clearly they had to make one.

It needs to be considered that the ARU is acting because Pocock was arrested and charged with a criminal offence. Not because he was making an environmental protest.

 

[Quick Hands]

1000 Years? Really. You need to look at the laws. At most about 400-500 years in England and then for a very select few. I didn't say he was King, I provided an example of somebody who is rightly revered who regularly engaged in peaceful non-violent civil disobedience. Ghandi is another. They were the figureheads of their movements but under them were thousands of Pocock's who stood by their convictions without the adulations of the masses that King et al received.

As for the Law being used as a blunt instrument in such cases, it hasn't been seen in Australia for a long time in such circumstances and is frowned upon by the courts. And yes I have been involved personally in such cases.

Well, at least 800 years then.

Trespass is one of the ancient Forms of Action that arose under the Common Law of England as early as the thirteenth century. It was considered a breach of the king's peace for which the wrongdoer might be summoned before theking's court to respond in a civil proceeding for the harm caused. Because the king's courts were primarily interested in land ownership disputes, the more personal action of trespass developed slowly at first.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/trespass

 

[TOCC]

Im more of a fan of Pocock then ever, not because of my beliefs in the issue he is fighting for, rather that he is willing to risk his professional rugby union career to stand up for something he believes in.

For people arguing that this isn't a positive example, well you are entitled to you opinion but i believe that standing up for ones beliefs in a passive protest is a positive example and kids could do far worse then having someone like David Pocock as an athlete to aspire to.

Call me crazy but this is about the most positive news to comes out of the ARU in the past month.


As for those arguing against it, i understand and respect your opinion and hope that you respect mine.