Dear Leo Lane,

Bloody hell mate, you're still alive? Well good on you.

So let's see what you have for us today.

“Reflux says:” No precedent whatsoever has been set and it is idiotic to claim otherwise.”
Wrong, Reflux !No legal precedent has been set, because there has been no hearing of the case.”

So you said I was wrong then proceeded to explain I was right.

Lol.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Apparently Leo Lane is or has been a lawyer and he claims there has been no precedent set. Perhaps you had better take it up with him.

Under the Fair Work commission rules; “The Fair Work Commission must determine if reinstatement is appropriate before considering any other remedy. It is not until the Commission is satisfied that reinstatement is inappropriate that compensation can be considered.”

Falou not only didn't get reinstated but was also required to give an apology for the 'hurt and harm' he may have caused.

Yet you are saying his is an overwhelming victory for him and that he is now “free to play for other teams overseas”. But there was nothing preventing him from doing so before.

All that seems to have happened is that he ended up basically getting his contract paid out just like our disgraced banking CEOs manage to do all the bloody time. Nothing spectacularly new and hardly a resounding victory.

Sorry to burst your bubble mate but facts can be inconvenient.

SR,

From several posts ago I said "Either way, I think a clear if not legal precedent has been set, and I would guess that Raelene Castle is on borrowed time."

To translate for your illiteracy:
- I never claimed that a legal precedent was set as this would have required a court case and judgement, However:
- As RA got hammered for > $4m for cancelling the contract of a player for religious reasons, any other employer considering the results will strongly consider the beating RA received.

From the Age Newspaper: "How can she sack a player on "principle", preach about the importance of “inclusiveness”, talk about her code “standing for something”, insist that RA has “a strong legal footing” … and then slither out the back door of mediation for the sake of “moving on”?"

Dear Shadow Minister,

Hell, I thought only the likes of Leo could tie himself in knots so blatantly.

“I think a clear if not legal precedent has been set” to “I never claimed that a legal precedent was set”, yet you don't see any contradiction at all?

Lol.

Amazing.

Have you lost your marbles to this degree or are you now just trolling?

Personally I see no winners in this case. It's a pity that rugby Australia has been taken over by ideologue's like the one of the abc's favourite sons Fitzsimons. He would come close to winning any virtue signalling contest. They are happy to allow rapist, bigots and every other deviant play rugby. Amazing how many organisations have been taken over by toxic feminist and emasculated males. Kind of like the woeful democrats in America. With the likes of Epstein and Weisten, Smollet, Warren and numerous deviant actors you would think they would stick to politics. No instead they push their transgender and other deviant woke issues.

Dear runner,

"They are happy to allow rapist, bigots and every other deviant" into the high offices of the various Christian faiths to rape and bugger their way through thousands of Aussie kids with the full knowledge of others within the organisation. Hillsong is a case in point.

Sorry mate, you and your ilk have lost any moral authority you once imagined you had and every bloody time you run this line I will hopefully be there to remind you of that fact.

SR

Clearly you are too dim to grasp the concept of "clear but not legal"

For example if Labor goes to the election with promises of new taxes, it loses the election badly. This sets a clear but not legal precedent that Labor would be stupid to repeat. Pretty much like RA having to fork out >$4m for cancelling a contract on legal grounds. There is no precedent, but any thinking employer would be cognisant of the possibility of a huge whack if they followed suit.