Kurtley Beale

[Muglair]

Indeed TWAS things do not happen in a vacuum.

No one has defended Beale's actions in respect of either the text or his priors. In fact not even Beale has.

I object to the fact that a simplistic tale of one bad apple in a superbly functional workplace hangs one person unfairly out to dry and paints an ugly picture of the place of women in Australian rugby.

The press continue to consistently report that there is no such vacuum. A significant number of journalists reporting from a wide number of sources. There has been no reporting of information supporting the functional workplace theory apart from early statements from the ARU back when they thought they
knew something.

Unfounded speculation on this site is restricted to those who had made up their minds on Beale a long time ago.

 

[Gagger]

Absolutely correct, for something to constitute bullying or harassment, it has to involved repeated behaviour. If the behaviour is not repeated, it's not bullying or harassment.

What, you mean like standing up in a plane full of co-workers and the public and verbally abusing the same person? Would that then be repeated?

 

[Muglair]

Wouldn't that depend on whether the second text was sent before or after the plane incident?

 

[swingpass]

Wouldn't that depend on whether the second text was sent before or after the plane incident?

or at all ? (sent that is)

 

[Mr Doug]

I'm assuming this was the "Queenslander" comment.


As an aside I was about to post a picture of the ugliest naked person I could find and caption it Qwerty, to see the reaction. As soon as I googled that though I realised I was in over my head.

No probs, rugbysmartarse, post your picture, wasn't this post, it was one replying to a post by a member singing the praises of KB (Kurtley Beale). I called the poster a word that rhymes with "anchor"! I can handle Sully's adjudicating!

 

[louie]

Wouldn't that depend on whether the second text was sent before or after the plane incident?

No it wouldn't

 

[terry j]

Terry J this is taken from http://www.qld.gov.au/law/your-rights/workplace-rights/harassment-and-bullying/

Workplace harassment

Workplace Harassment is sometimes called bullying, but they are one and the same thing.
According to the Prevention of Workplace Harassment Code of Practice 2004 (PDF, 271 KB (Kurtley Beale)), workplace harassment is when someone repeatedly does or says something to you that:

• is unwelcome and is not invited
• offends, intimidates, humiliates or threatens you
• would offend, intimidate, humiliate or threaten most people if it happened to them.

You can be harassed by:

• your employer
• your co-worker
• a group of your co-workers
• someone who works for you
• a client or customer
• a member of the public.

Behaviours that may be a part of workplace harassment include where someone regularly:

• insults you loudly, especially when others are around to hear
• threatens to punish you for no reason
• emails you, leaves you messages by phone or other electronic means that are offensive or intimidating
• sabotages your work (e.g. by giving you wrong information on purpose)
• excludes you from workplace meetings or social get togethers
• spreads false rumours about you
• humiliates you through gestures, sarcasm, criticism and insults, especially in front of others.
  

I'm not saying KB (Kurtley Beale) should have been sacked by this, seeing as it was one off maybe he shouldn't have, But it was a form of Harassment.

Thanks louie (and yes I saw your later clarification).

My entire point is that IF it is true, and I don't know how it can be done never having owned a mobile ph, it was mistakenly sent to her then none of these definitions apply. Ie the INTENT.

He (then) never intended her to know any of this. So, for example, insults you loudly, especially when others are around to hear does not apply. (swap hearing for knowing).

Again, what if it was NOT kurtley that inadvertently sent the message to her but a recipient? How then could kurtley be shown to harass?

Yes, it turned out he sent it, but by mistake. The INTENT remains the same tho.

So this then (referring to your later post) still cannot be looked at as even a one-off.

What has to be realised is that this judgement is 'appropriate'. It fully fulfilled the brief given to the 'judges'.

People are up in arms for the completely wrong (yet correct depending on how you look at it) reasons, 'what about his prior history?'

THAT had absolutely nothing to do with it either from the narrow perspective of 'what was the brief?' (investigate THIS incident involving text messages) or the broader 'whether you have committed THIS 'crime' does NOT depend on any proven or unproven PRIOR crimes'.

Want him out of rugby due to the totality of his history? Fine, Call a hearing with exactly THAT brief.

Want him to stay due to his worth to the wallabies or australian rugby when weighed against his history? Fine, Call a hearing with exactly THAT brief.

Stop trying to hang him when judged by THIS hearing on THIS matter by using different criteria. By all means, if you want, push for a 'new hearing' but just make sure that the subject matter is well defined.

Pushing this concept to absurd (yet hopefully illustrative) limits, how would you feel if your job evaluation was influenced by something you did when you were fifteen and in reform? You would only want to be judged on that exact work question.

Which is precisely what has happened here.

 

[Gagger]

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...aru-text-scandal/story-e6freon6-1227102288122

This morning's article from Rebecca Wilson. Probably won't be read by anyone who feels what she has to say runs counter to their beliefs.

For those concerned about what might have happened she has dribbled out a few more clues. I think the good news is that if the ARU refuse to be transparent about this I think the papers will end up giving out enough hints for people to figure it out for themselves.

All reports continue to confirm to me that there has been no condoning of any sexual harassment by anyone at the ARU or within the Wallabies. Real supporters should not be perpetuating this crap. There is going to be enough pressure exerted on the game and on sponsors by the sexual harassment/workplace bullying industry who do not care about the facts or consequences, only about the tweet and headline.

You know, I actually went and read this drivel, thinking that maybe, just maybe there would be something in it.

And what do a I see, an article thats sole quoted source is Kurtley Beale himself with posed lifestyle shots together with his girlfriend. Having just been found guilty by a tribunal, according to the 'article' he is vindicated.

What fucking planet are you on Muglair to even try and pretend that this clearly constructed PR event is in anyway informative?

You are either naive/fool enough to think this Rebecca Wilson mouthpiece of Beale's management is actually a source of real information, or something far more deliberately sinister. I'd actually prefer it if you were the former.

 

[Muglair]

Thanks Gagger.

Let's visit the definition of naivety and foolishness once all of the horses have finished running.

In the meantime you should have a deeper think about what has been reported by the news outlets over the last three weeks. They are either all full of shit or there is one coherent story that fits the reports.

As for you imagining that there is something sinister about my post I can only hope you stay away from my planet.

 

[Muglair]

BTW you misrepresent the article. It does not vindicate his actions. The point was he felt that the outcome vindicated his position that some of the things he had been publicly accused of were not true. He fully takes responsibility for his original text.

 

[louie]

So Terry J, What your saying is as long a he never intended for her to found out he did nothing wrong?

So does explain why every-time Sir Richie enters the ruck incorrectly he doesn't get penalized? because he never intended for the ref to see it?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Mention of Viscount Richie makes me think that godwin's law is now in control of this thread (or these threads collected under one title).

 

[Sully]

And I thought this was slowing up. Looks like it's not really over no matter how much Beale and the ARU want it to be.

Who thinks Beales contract upgrade offer should be renegotiated? Should he get a top up at all?

 

[louie]

Saw that on twitter between you and WJ. I think he should get $0.00

 

[Slim 293]

Definitely no top up.

There are plenty of other players more deserving, and it would be a risky investment from the ARU considering his form both on and off the field.

 

[Train Without a Station]

On form alone, how could he justify a top up?

 

[Sully]

Saw that on twitter between you and WJ. I think he should get $0.00

That was a lot of fun. You know his position on anything before he even opens his mouth!

 

[Muglair]

I always thought he would be lucky to be able to play at the Tahs on what they could manage to pay.

With the outcome of the hearing he can now also play for the Wallabies and receive match payments too.

Hard to imagine a top up contract under any circumstances but given the size of the hole the ARU has dug for themselves they might be amenable to some greater incentives.

Looking at his comments where he was quoted I just think it unlikely he really wants to play anywhere else but the Waratahs next year. Sorry to be the one breaking the bad news.

 

[terry j]

So Terry J, What your saying is as long a he never intended for her to found out he did nothing wrong?

So does explain why every-time Sir Richie enters the ruck incorrectly he doesn't get penalized? because he never intended for the ref to see it?

I understand the humour behind the richie remark, and yes it is good to defuse it a bit whilst still being able to rationally discuss it, so thanks.

What I AM saying, and not sure how to say it any more clearly, is for harressment, sexual or otherwise, to be 'proven' is that it was intended to harrass. (fuck me, what spelling IS it! Every permutation comes up spellchecked! It's driving me mad haha)

Me saying at work, to your face in front of the boss and co-workers 'Man you are so damned incompetent louie you could not get a organising a piss up at a brewery' could then be construed as workplace harrasment if you wish.

Me saying it to co-workers in private would just be workplace dramas, bitchiness, something we ALL have done in our past.

So to that degree, he did nothing 'wrong'. Yes, it might show he is an arsehole, that is for each to decide. We have ALL done it, and no doubt will do so in the future.

But, you are hanging him for the 'crime' of being an arsehole. NOT for harrassment, he was found not guilty (or the scottish 'unproven') on that count.

Alternatively, you CAN say he did something wrong 'for being an arsehole for even ending a text like that to workmates'. However, as he never intended for her to know he CANNOT be simultaneously found guilty of harrasment.

IF she had never had it sent to her would this question have come up? Of course not.

Now, he COULD be lying and he did deliberately send it to her. Then yes, it would meet all of my criteria of deliberate harrassment. I can't answer to that, and no-one else here can either if we are honest.

BUT, when viewed that he only sent that one text to mates, did not mean to send it to her (and accepting that he sent no other text at all) then it all rings very true to me.

I can well imagine the 'horror' when venting that she found out, can then imagine how much regret i would have and the apology 'look, it was nasty, but am truly sorry you got the message as that was NOT intended'.

Anyway, that's enough from me on it. I just see this as all too horribly human and common.

 

[BDA]

I'm still very confused about what actually happened to cause this whole Link/Di/Beale saga and it seems like the full truth isn't going to come out, which is frustrating. I respect the tribunal's findings which seemed to be at least partially in Beale's favour, although having a legal background I'm also aware that the findings were most likely a result of a lack of evidence against him.

In terms of whether he should get a top up, I tend to think he shouldn't merely based on what he brings to the wallabies, which clearly is not much. He's a bench player at best next year. When you look at the types of backs that might be vying for 1 or 2 bench spots next year (JOC (James O'Connor), AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper), Tomane, Horne, Godwin, Lilo, Hunt, Foley, Cooper etc) you have to ask yourself if Beale is really needed. His performances for the wallabies are inconsistent at best. Lilo's game last week was better than Beale's played for the wallabies this year. When you add the texting saga the ARU MUST SURELY come to the conclusion that he is not worth a top up.

The two things that will counter that, have really nothing to do with the national team, namely 1) marketability; and 2) the Waratahs. If this whole saga has taught me anything its that NSW still rules rugby with a iron fist. The NSW powerbrokers and sydney media have major influence and what's best for the tahs is best for oz rugby. Both will put major pressure on the ARU to resign the star tah player and will crucify the ARU if it doesnt throw a bag of money at him.