Yes ttbn, I think he might have been Examinator in a previous life. If not there is another buffoon with an unjustifiably opinion of themselves.

The SJW's response to the court ruling is interesting. Thanks to Ridd for presenting the data. It's sad to see the proud name of James Cook related to this university. Though not an expert I'm still concerned about "the reef"- the star fish, the bleaching, the level of human activity around it, the runoff.

Hasbeen,

Where most people are prepared to put their opinions and arguments, accepting that they will get agreement, disagreement and sometimes even a bit of respect, SR is one of the three posters notorious for their insistence on having the last word. They are trolls who just like to argue about anything. There is no point in getting involved with them. I won't name the others and give them an excuse to start chuntering, but you know who they are.

It appears that opinions that don't agree with
theirs are simply unacceptable to certain posters.
And these are the very posters who will
get down to personal attacks.
There's words for people like that - hypocrites
comes to mind.

As far as Peter Ridd is concerned - the university
has explained why the man was fired. It wasn't his
views - it was the way he denigrated both the
university and his colleagues.

In any case - penalty hearings are continuing -
the end results are yet to come. We shall have to
wait and see if the man is re-instated.

Dear Hasbeen,

You write; “there is another buffoon with an unjustifiably opinion of themselves”

Yup we really are peas in a pod aren't we.

Anyway shall we move past the typical kneejerk claptrap of you and your cohort and discuss the judgement.

This case is turning out to be a cracker. It appears that the judge sees the Academic Freedom provisions in James Cook's Enterprise Bargaining Agreement 2016 as overriding the requirements for confidentiality (which Ridd admitted breaking) contained within the same agreement.

http://www.jcu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/123472/James-Cook-University-Enterprise-Agreement-2016.pdf

The University's response is also worth a read.

http://www.jcu.edu.au/news/releases/2019/april/response-to-federal-circuit-court-judgement

If the judge's decision is to be upheld then it will be a fun time for university administrators as any staff member will be able to slag off about another and publish confidential information and call it academic freedom. It might be considered over reach but time will tell how much it is abused.

However it should be noted that it has been the unions forcing inclusion of the academic freedom clause within enterprise agreements which has allowed for this determination.

Quote

The National Tertiary Education Union campaigns for academic freedom clauses in Enterprise Agreements rather than in university policies. National President Alison Barnes explains why; “the most important implication of this judgement is that the only real protections for academic freedom in Australia are in the enterprise agreements negotiated by the NTEU. Most universities have policies on academic freedom, but they are completely unenforceable and therefore of very limited value.”
“Professor Ridd’s views on climate change would be at odds with the strongly held opinions of many NTEU members. However, that is not the point. The right to speak freely about academic matters needs to be especially protected when views are unpopular or controversial. It is greatly to the credit of his colleagues, many of whom disagree with his views, that they did not support the heavy-handed approach of the university management in this case,” Dr Barnes says.

End quote
http://campusmorningmail.com.au/news/why-peter-ridd-won-his-case-against-james-cook-u/

A victory for the unions in a number of ways it would seem.

For those interested here is a link to the judgement itself.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCCA/2019/997.html?context=1;query=Peter%20Ridd;mask_path=

The introduction reads in part;

Quote

1 .Some have thought that this trial was about freedom of speech and intellectual freedom. Others have thought that this trial was about the manner in which academics should conduct themselves. Some observers may have thought that this trial was about the use of non-offensive words when promulgating scientific ideas. Media reports have considered that this trial was about silencing persons with controversial or unpopular views.

2. Though many of those issues were canvased and discussed throughout the hearing of this matter, this trial was about none of the above. Rather, this trial was purely and simply about the proper construction of a clause in an Enterprise Agreement. Whilst the Court acknowledges that there may be consequences that touch upon these other issues because of the Court’s construction of that clause, none of those consequences can play any part in the determination of the proper construction of that clause.

3. The clause in question is cl.14 of the James Cook University Enterprise Agreement. It is headed “Intellectual Freedom”. It, and it alone, is the focus of this judgement.

End quote.

I haven't had a chance to read it properly yet.

Just a note there must be a later Enterprise Agreement than the one I posted before as in that one the Academic Freedom section is Clause 10 rather than 14. When I get a moment I will see if I can find the more recent version.