Kurtley Beale

[Train Without a Station]

Even if the motive of keeping the text messages secret in June was entirely altruistic, we're seeing very starkly how doing someone a favour is not necessarily for the best.

If this situation had come to light in June, Beale would have almost certainly been fired and everyone else would have moved on.

Well it probably wouldn't have been the best for the person she was trying to do a favor for.

 

[Train Without a Station]

And I agree with the comment regarding the notion, of holding something over a person.

But fuck me if there's anybody in Australian rugby that needs something held over them that could get them sacked, to encourage them to stay in line, it's fucking Beale.

 

[Pfitzy]

But you are saying potentially that Patson had unethical motives. What exactly would she gain from holding something like this over a player?

No, I'm not saying that at all. My two examples of holding dirt on another employee were unethical examples, but the demonstrate the same thing - potentially damaging information needs to be brought to light ASAP. Preferably by the party responsible.

I'm saying she had poor judgement. She had nothing to gain by holding the information as you say. I'm sure she had the best of intentions by trying to maintain the harmony of the team, but in effect, all she did was delay the judgement on Beale - and create further controversy by doing so.

THIS is why companies have a policy of reporting harassment as soon as it happens to an appropriate authority: the longer it festers, the worse it gets.

There is no "doing a favour" in this situation. All it has created is a situation where proper resolution via defined process cannot be reached.

 

[Braveheart81]

If someone grossly fucks up, and you say "you're not boned, but don't do that again", the first incident is not expunged from history. It happened and should be able to be revisited (especially within just 4 months) as it clearly proves repeat behaviour.

That's a big part of the problem now though.

The issue isn't being revisited now. It's being visited officially for the first time because someone who wasn't entitled to make the decision decided that the gross fuck up in June wasn't going to be officially dealt with at the time.

The whole Dublin 6 fiasco led to the Integrity Unit and clearer guidelines on how things need to be dealt with in terms of player discipline. McKenzie isn't even allowed to decide punishments for players let alone the business manager.

There is obviously an additional level of complexity because there's a clear and understandable motive for Patston not wanting to make the situation public in June because it was humiliating for her.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Perhaps she had an error in judgement. But at the same time, imagine the embarrassment she would suffer by escalating it and it being played out, like it is now. I'm sure she probably wanted to avoid that just as much as Beale.

It's all well and good for us to sit here from the outside and say what others who were victimized, under pressure, etc. should and shouldn't have done. But I think we should be careful before painting the victim as anything more than that, when all they did was attempted to minimized the matter, at the time to the benefit of both themselves and the perpetrator.

She's brings it up, and it leads to a popular member of the playing group (who the players still support according to the captain) being terminated. That's not going to be very good for her relationship with the players, is it?

 

[Braveheart81]

So how do you feel about suspended sentences then?

Because what Patston did basically amounts to a suspended sentence.

I think we should all have a problem with a suspended sentence though if it is handed down by someone other than a judge/magistrate in a proper court proceeding which is essentially what happened here.

And who's fault is it BH that it's come out, just now?

It's entirely Kurtley Beale's fault.

Look at the collateral damage now though compared to what would have probably happened if it had been correctly and officially dealt with in June.

Part of the problem here is a mentality that something could be swept under the rug and the problem would go away. People should realise by now that once something like this exists somewhere and there are witnesses to it, it's going to come out eventually.

The problem hasn't gone away and the fallout is worse.

 

[blues recovery]

Your absolutely spot on TWAS

 

[Pfitzy]

So how do you feel about suspended sentences then?

Because what Patston did basically amounts to a suspended sentence.

They fucking suck. If you did the crime then do the time.

Drink drivers who get suspended sentences for showing remorse? Fuck 'em - they knew the rules. Of course they're going to show remorse when they think about jail time or some kid they killed in an accident.

Maybe if the ARU gave less chances, we'd have less issues.

Granted Patson didn't follow the right procedures, but given Beale likely would have been terminated on the spot, did she really have a choice if she thought he deserved a second chance?

That is not, in ANY way, her call. Senior people in the ARU are responsible for giving chances. She isn't HR - and if, as Ash says above, she was using this as a suspended sentence of some kind, then again, that is not under her mandate.

And you ALWAYS have a choice, even after the event.

Clearly she was upset at the time, and that may have affected her decision in the moment.

Maybe once he apologised and she accepted it, she felt like she couldn't act anyway.

But you can't write policies that take emotion into account.

If she accepted the apology, and then a couple of days later said "look, I think its best if we have a quiet word with Ewen to explain what has happened" then we'd be talking about things differently.

I know if I'm running a project and don't alert the boss as soon as something looks a bit off kilter, I'll cop shit for it.

Forewarned is forearmed.

 

[Train Without a Station]

We can't sit here and say victims need to take the emotion out of emotional matters.

We aren't talking about running a project. We are talking about a victim of workplace bullying & sexual harassment. Who are to say how she should handle it (not procedurally , emotionally)?

 

[Gagger]

I can go with the fact that in retrospect KB (Kurtley Beale) should have been binned 4 months ago.

As the original victim of the abuse however, Patston had more right than anyone else to decide what action to take.

To be clear - she knew that by reporting it, Beale would be canned and her role would become untenable, as is being proved right now by the current player and press reaction.

In effect Beale would take her down with him - he gets to injure her a second time with the same act. She used the only power available to her to manage that.

 

[vidiot]

The contrast between this crap taking place with the complicity and the inane approval of some of the playing group, and the standards the all blacks set themselves, or players like Pocock set themselves, is insane.

Being the best requires absolute commitment. It requires setting standards and exceeding them. Does it surprise that when things get tough on the field these players screw the pooch? They're so busy making excuses for each other so they can be defeated as a tight knit playing group....

 

[Thinker]

Amazing. The victim in all this is at fault.

Patston did nothing wrong by not reporting it at the time. She didn't have to report it. It's not 'holding dirt' or anything.

As the only female staffer in a new unforgiving environment, as TWAS mentioned there would be issue for her for reporting it.

The HRC even uses the example that a person doesn't need to report it at the time.

We don't know how many jokes or comments were made or how many other incidents there would have been between the message and the plane, but people could probably make a guess. We only know about the texts because there is evidence.

You don't think think there was an environment that created a pressure to remain quiet on this? Last night the CAPTAIN OF THE WALLABIES was on TV saying Beale shouldn't be sacked.

Despite breaking the law, despite breaking ARU's harassment policy, despite possibly opening up a number of other players to sanctions and despite his track record, the captain of the Wallabies said 'no'. He didn't defer the question, he didn't say "I don't have enough info" or "let's see what the review finds", he said "no".

So tell me, how does it play out when the only female staff member raises the issue against a player?

 

[Thinker]

As the original victim of the abuse however, Patston had more right than anyone else to decide what action to take.

The most intelligent sentence in almost 2,000 posts.

 

[Chris McCracken]

Are you aware of the general policies companies have of reporting discriminatory or offensive material to HR representatives or managers as soon as practicable?

Because Patston apparently skipped this bit "as a favour".

Remember that, in fact, Patston had at least some capacity as an "HR Manager". It may have been well within her remit to take the action shoe took.

 

[Pfitzy]

As the original victim of the abuse however, Patston had more right than anyone else to decide what action to take.

Actually, her options are limited to 2: report it, or don't.

And in fact, under the terms of her employment as part of the ARU, she really had one option when it comes right down to it - I refer you to the MPP:

7.3 Anti-Discrimination and Harassment Policy

........

If any person feels they are being harassed or discriminated against or bullied by a person or organisation bound by this Policy they should approach the MPC.

To be clear - she knew that by reporting it, Beale would be canned and her role would become untenable, as is being proved right now by the current player and press reaction.

No, actually she didn't know that. She may have entertained or suspected it, but no-one actually KNOWS what would have happened.

You are applying the events precipitated in October to the situation that started in June.

We actually don't know how these events would have changed if they were applied to a different timeline. There are so many variables that it boggles the mind, but I think the controversy would be less if they struck while the iron was hot.

What if Beale and Patston went to Link together, and reached a resolution? There are fines, removal from the French Test series for Beale, and an agreement to delete everything on their devices relating to it, or anyone it was sent to.

Pulver is told what happened, and gives Beale a dressing down. The ARU releases statements, and journalists are given notification in vague terms that stink of cover up, but the evidence is gone, and only the hearsay remains.

Maybe he'd still end up getting fired, but maybe Australian Rugby wouldn't be accused of imploding too. Maybe she wouldn't have been forced to quit.

The reaction of the other guys on the team would have varied a fair bit I'd imagine in the event Kurtley got sacked, but if it was done then, I'd say the resentment levels would be lower than the apology-that-wasn't.

If its not, then those players need to look at themselves long and hard.

 

[maxdacat]

To be clear - she knew that by reporting it, Beale would be canned and her role would become untenable, as is being proved right now by the current player and press reaction.

Pure speculation on your part

 

[Pfitzy]

Remember that, in fact, Patston had at least some capacity as an "HR Manager". It may have been well within her remit to take the action shoe took.

But as a party to the incident, she cannot preside over any action taken, because there is a conflict of interest.

I might just be a logical IT guy who finds fluffy employee stuff utter bullshit at times, but my wife deals with this shit all the time in a state health role. I have to listen to her frustrations on this shit all day.

 

[maxdacat]

Amid speculation over the future of Ewen McKenzie as Wallabies coach, the biggest sign that the playing group is starting to take control of affairs emerged on Sunday when captain Michael Hooper said they planned to hold a truth session

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/disjointed-wallabies-set-to-tell-the-truth-20141012-114yki.html#ixzz3FzfzfXJP

Is there going to be a talking stick at this "truth session"?

 

[Godfrey]

I might just be a logical IT guy who finds fluffy employee stuff utter bullshit at times, but my wife deals with this shit all the time in a state health role. I have to listen to her frustrations on this shit all day.

I thought you sounded familiar.

 

[Slim 293]

Is there going to be a talking stick at this "truth session"?

Hopefully someone will be there to beat them over the head with said stick..........