The Politics Thread 2018

Discuss all the events of the day

Moderator: GH Moderators

User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24374
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by Manbush » June 14, 2018, 6:50 pm

SA to make law mandatory reporting for child abuse, no more confession protection. :clap:

https://www.google.com.au/amp/amp.abc.n ... le/9868332
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24374
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by Manbush » June 16, 2018, 11:04 am

TR a legal/business question for you, are there any legal repercussions if a business publicly states they will break the law, a contempt of court type of thing, conspiring or criminal intent?
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Sossman
David Furner
Posts: 3540
Joined: August 28, 2006, 4:49 pm
Favourite Player: Jarrod Croker
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by Sossman » June 16, 2018, 11:58 am

*queue some rant about how governments and law just need to get out of the way of business*

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

4 Time Boogs Award Winner.

User avatar
gangrenous
Steve Walters
Posts: 7824
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by gangrenous » June 16, 2018, 12:15 pm

*cue

User avatar
Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 12604
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by Green eyed Mick » June 16, 2018, 4:10 pm

Manbush wrote:
June 16, 2018, 11:04 am
TR a legal/business question for you, are there any legal repercussions if a business publicly states they will break the law, a contempt of court type of thing, conspiring or criminal intent?
Probably depends on the law and the government of the time.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 14653
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by T_R » June 16, 2018, 4:30 pm

Much to general a question. In the most general possible sense though, expressing an intent to break a law wouldn't seem to be actionable in any case outside terrorism / violent crime.

Sent from my SM-G955F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 14653
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by T_R » June 16, 2018, 4:30 pm

Sossman wrote:*queue some rant about how governments and law just need to get out of the way of business*

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
**** off

Sent from my SM-G955F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
Sossman
David Furner
Posts: 3540
Joined: August 28, 2006, 4:49 pm
Favourite Player: Jarrod Croker
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by Sossman » June 16, 2018, 4:37 pm

True.
gangrenous wrote:*cue
Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

4 Time Boogs Award Winner.

User avatar
Sossman
David Furner
Posts: 3540
Joined: August 28, 2006, 4:49 pm
Favourite Player: Jarrod Croker
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by Sossman » June 16, 2018, 4:43 pm

T_R wrote:
Sossman wrote:*queue some rant about how governments and law just need to get out of the way of business*

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
**** off

Sent from my SM-G955F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
ImageImageImageImage.



Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk


4 Time Boogs Award Winner.

User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24374
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by Manbush » June 16, 2018, 8:02 pm

T_R wrote:
June 16, 2018, 4:30 pm
Much to general a question. In the most general possible sense though, expressing an intent to break a law wouldn't seem to be actionable in any case outside terrorism / violent crime.
Was in regards to mandatory reporting of child abuse.
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 14653
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by T_R » June 19, 2018, 9:48 am

Manbush wrote:
June 16, 2018, 8:02 pm
T_R wrote:
June 16, 2018, 4:30 pm
Much to general a question. In the most general possible sense though, expressing an intent to break a law wouldn't seem to be actionable in any case outside terrorism / violent crime.
Was in regards to mandatory reporting of child abuse.
How would that work? You've either witnessed it and are therefore breaking the law by not reporting, or you have not witnessed it and expect to do so??
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
gangrenous
Steve Walters
Posts: 7824
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

The Politics Thread 2018

Post by gangrenous » June 19, 2018, 12:46 pm

T_R wrote:
Manbush wrote:
June 16, 2018, 8:02 pm
T_R wrote:
June 16, 2018, 4:30 pm
Much to general a question. In the most general possible sense though, expressing an intent to break a law wouldn't seem to be actionable in any case outside terrorism / violent crime.
Was in regards to mandatory reporting of child abuse.
How would that work? You've either witnessed it and are therefore breaking the law by not reporting, or you have not witnessed it and expect to do so??
See his earlier post. It was about whether institutions stating they would break the law was itself breaking the law.

So presumably he’s wondering whether there are any legal ramifications if the Catholic Church made public comments suggesting they were unwilling to comply with confessional laws.

User avatar
reptar
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13696
Joined: January 25, 2005, 9:24 pm
Favourite Player: Josh Hodgson
Location: Brisbane

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by reptar » June 19, 2018, 1:05 pm

It's a conspiracy! Literally
Gina Riley: Oh, come on, John. That’s a bit old hat, the corrupt IOC delegate.
John Clarke: Old hat? Gina, in the scientific world when they see that something is happening again and again and again, repeatedly, they don’t call it old hat. They call it a pattern.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 14653
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by T_R » June 19, 2018, 2:25 pm

The institution isnt breaking the law, individual priests would be. But since we're talking about the confessional here and there are only two people present, it would pretty much take an admission to secure a conviction anyway.

Sent from my SM-G955F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
Sossman
David Furner
Posts: 3540
Joined: August 28, 2006, 4:49 pm
Favourite Player: Jarrod Croker
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by Sossman » June 19, 2018, 2:33 pm

All the more reason to have churches treated as corporations under the Corporations Act?

Fines? Director (archbishop?) Accountabilty?

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

4 Time Boogs Award Winner.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 14653
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by T_R » June 19, 2018, 5:48 pm

Sossman wrote:All the more reason to have churches treated as corporations under the Corporations Act?

Fines? Director (archbishop?) Accountabilty?

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
You'd have to demonstrate that the corporation reasonably could be expected to have knowledge of a private conversation between two people that took place in secrecy in a little two door box.

Good luck.

Sent from my SM-G955F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
gangrenous
Steve Walters
Posts: 7824
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

The Politics Thread 2018

Post by gangrenous » June 19, 2018, 5:54 pm

But that’s still not what Manbush is asking about (as I understand it).

I think he’s interested in public declarations by the church governance in defiance of the law. E.g. what would happen if the church issued a statement that they had advised their priests to act according to their conscience on confessional reporting?

Not that it would happen.

User avatar
Sossman
David Furner
Posts: 3540
Joined: August 28, 2006, 4:49 pm
Favourite Player: Jarrod Croker
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by Sossman » June 19, 2018, 7:12 pm

T_R wrote:
Sossman wrote:All the more reason to have churches treated as corporations under the Corporations Act?

Fines? Director (archbishop?) Accountabilty?

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
You'd have to demonstrate that the corporation reasonably could be expected to have knowledge of a private conversation between two people that took place in secrecy in a little two door box.

Good luck.

Sent from my SM-G955F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Right, ok.

So a corporation is not vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of their officers and agents unless they have express knowledge of the breach?



Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

4 Time Boogs Award Winner.

User avatar
Sossman
David Furner
Posts: 3540
Joined: August 28, 2006, 4:49 pm
Favourite Player: Jarrod Croker
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by Sossman » June 19, 2018, 7:15 pm

Sossman wrote:
T_R wrote:
Sossman wrote:All the more reason to have churches treated as corporations under the Corporations Act?

Fines? Director (archbishop?) Accountabilty?

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
You'd have to demonstrate that the corporation reasonably could be expected to have knowledge of a private conversation between two people that took place in secrecy in a little two door box.

Good luck.

Sent from my SM-G955F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Right, ok.

So a corporation is not vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of their officers and agents unless they have express knowledge of the breach?



Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
Wouldn't it be similar to OH&S law where directors can be personally accountable if found that there were inadequate policies, procedures, governance and enforcement in place to ensure compliance?

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

4 Time Boogs Award Winner.

User avatar
Sossman
David Furner
Posts: 3540
Joined: August 28, 2006, 4:49 pm
Favourite Player: Jarrod Croker
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by Sossman » June 19, 2018, 7:19 pm

Back to Manbush's question. I'm a long way past crim law now and haven't touched it in ages. But from what I remember, offences that were "attempted xyz" or "intent to xyz" or "conspiracy to commit xyz" had to themselves be specific offenses in the criminal code?




Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

4 Time Boogs Award Winner.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 14653
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by T_R » June 19, 2018, 7:20 pm

Sossman wrote:
T_R wrote:
Sossman wrote:All the more reason to have churches treated as corporations under the Corporations Act?

Fines? Director (archbishop?) Accountabilty?

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
You'd have to demonstrate that the corporation reasonably could be expected to have knowledge of a private conversation between two people that took place in secrecy in a little two door box.

Good luck.

Sent from my SM-G955F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Right, ok.

So a corporation is not vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of their officers and agents unless they have express knowledge of the breach?



Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
Would entirely depend on the situation

To clarify, I understand that the confessional specifically precludes the disclosure of information to the organisation.

Hence a reasonable person test.

Sent from my SM-G955F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk


Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
Sossman
David Furner
Posts: 3540
Joined: August 28, 2006, 4:49 pm
Favourite Player: Jarrod Croker
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by Sossman » June 19, 2018, 7:23 pm

T_R wrote:
Sossman wrote:
T_R wrote:
Sossman wrote:All the more reason to have churches treated as corporations under the Corporations Act?

Fines? Director (archbishop?) Accountabilty?

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
You'd have to demonstrate that the corporation reasonably could be expected to have knowledge of a private conversation between two people that took place in secrecy in a little two door box.

Good luck.

Sent from my SM-G955F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Right, ok.

So a corporation is not vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of their officers and agents unless they have express knowledge of the breach?



Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
Would entirely depend on the situation

Sent from my SM-G955F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
For sure.

If an employee was acting outside of company policy and their own authority having had adequate training... probably not.

If the company is definantly and publically stating it will not comply with a law... and directing its people to implement that stance... oooooofff errrrbody getting fisted.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

4 Time Boogs Award Winner.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 14653
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by T_R » June 19, 2018, 7:25 pm

Sossman wrote:
Sossman wrote:
T_R wrote:
Sossman wrote:All the more reason to have churches treated as corporations under the Corporations Act?

Fines? Director (archbishop?) Accountabilty?

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
You'd have to demonstrate that the corporation reasonably could be expected to have knowledge of a private conversation between two people that took place in secrecy in a little two door box.

Good luck.

Sent from my SM-G955F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Right, ok.

So a corporation is not vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of their officers and agents unless they have express knowledge of the breach?



Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
Wouldn't it be similar to OH&S law where directors can be personally accountable if found that there were inadequate policies, procedures, governance and enforcement in place to ensure compliance?

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
That legislation is unique to OHS, I believe. It provides for an absolute responsibilty to be held by Directors. It's actually quite alarming, though courts have applied a very loose definition.

Sent from my SM-G955F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
Sossman
David Furner
Posts: 3540
Joined: August 28, 2006, 4:49 pm
Favourite Player: Jarrod Croker
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by Sossman » June 19, 2018, 7:27 pm


T_R wrote:
Sossman wrote:
T_R wrote:
Sossman wrote:All the more reason to have churches treated as corporations under the Corporations Act?

Fines? Director (archbishop?) Accountabilty?

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
You'd have to demonstrate that the corporation reasonably could be expected to have knowledge of a private conversation between two people that took place in secrecy in a little two door box.

Good luck.

Sent from my SM-G955F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Right, ok.

So a corporation is not vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of their officers and agents unless they have express knowledge of the breach?



Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
Would entirely depend on the situation

To clarify, I understand that the confessional specifically precludes the disclosure of information to the organisation.

Hence a reasonable person test.

Sent from my SM-G955F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Ok good point.

How's this one. One priest confesses to another in the box that he's been offending.

The other priest, while not breaching the confidentiality, actively lobbies within the church to have the confessing priest moved from parish to parish.

Now. Senior church figures see this pattern of parish mobility, yet choose to keep quiet.

Was it a rogue element, or is that institutional?

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

4 Time Boogs Award Winner.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 14653
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by T_R » June 19, 2018, 7:31 pm

Anyone worth a damn would argue that employees are moved within divisions of an institution all the time for a myriad of reasons, and that no assumptions could be made from that.

Sent from my SM-G955F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
Sossman
David Furner
Posts: 3540
Joined: August 28, 2006, 4:49 pm
Favourite Player: Jarrod Croker
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by Sossman » June 19, 2018, 8:14 pm

T_R wrote:Anyone worth a damn would argue that employees are moved within divisions of an institution all the time for a myriad of reasons, and that no assumptions could be made from that.

Sent from my SM-G955F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Yes the very terse thin lipped legal eagle the company brings in to defend them would run that line immediately.

Is that right though? Should laws around director and board accountability reward those that value plausible deniability over proper governance and assurance?

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

4 Time Boogs Award Winner.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 14653
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by T_R » June 19, 2018, 8:20 pm

No, in this case it's obviously pretty **** far from right.

But that doesn't change the need to ultimately build a case beyond reasonable doubt.

Sent from my SM-G955F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

Post Reply