Guten Morgen , mein Freund

I chose German as they are quite a carnivorous lot I believe. Right up your ally!

Mate I will make a confession; I spent a large amount of my time in my youth, holidaying and living in Byron Bay. Yes back in days where the ‘Top Pub’ was actually called the Sea Breeze Hotel and at age 12 I would buy a carton of beer for $12 (for my step dad) from a side window. No questions asked! The stroll past The Big Ice Cream, which had its fair share of Pac-Man games and nefarious types loitering close by. I even worked at the Railway Hotel on and off over the years. Its a great part of the world and have made some great friends as a result.I lived in Paddington NSW for about 3 years and had a girlfriend who lived in Newtown for a period of time also. However I am not a vegan, hippy or Buddhist as a result.

Good Morning Scott and all,

You may well be right, however just some further points for consideration in relation to the criminal offence you have discussed. I think we would all be in agreement that for this matter to actually make it before a court firstly a criminal complaint would have to be made; an exhaustive objective investigation conducted, an analysis of the evidence lawfully obtained conducted and a determination if the evidence to be presented by the prosecution has a reasonable prospect of securing a conviction.

Essentially does the prosecution have a weight of evidence to prove the matter beyond a reasonable doubt? That is a fairly high burden of proof. Furthermore there are defenses afforded and it I would think the Commonwealth DPP can still make a determination any complaint may be vexatious and not proceed with a prosecution as it may not be in the public interest?

Under the Commonwealth Criminal Code there are fault elements for such offences which include intention; knowledge, recklessness and negligence. It would think it would also be incumbent upon the prosecution to consider Actus Reus and Mens Rea;

From Find Law – The General Principle of Criminal Law describes; “Actus reus The actus reus of a crime is made up of the conduct of the accused and the state of affairs which is the proscribed effect for that particular crime…,” and further “Conduct It is conduct (including omission) that is made punishable by our law – a guilty mind alone will not suffice. Conduct It is conduct (including omission) that is made punishable by our law – a guilty mind alone will not suffice.” and further “Causation and proscribed effect The conduct of the accused must, at least, substantially contribute to a state of affairs prohibited by the criminal law.”

In relation to Mens rea – “Mens rea The conduct of the accused which has the requisite causal connection must be accompanied by a guilty mind. The doctrine of mens rea requires that at the time of the relevant conduct the accused had a certain state of mind towards her or his own conduct and the forbidden state of affairs which resulted. Under modern law this state of mind may consist of intention, recklessness or, with some conceptual difficulty, negligence.” and further “The general question is whether the accused was aware of what he or she was doing and was also aware of what results would follow.”

In relation to intention; “Intention An accused acts intentionally with regard to a given consequence by desiring to bring about that consequence or by merely foreseeing (i.e., knowing) that it would come about as a result of her or his conduct.” Recklessness This question arises where there is no intention as defined above. The accused acts recklessly by consciously disregarding the existence of a relevant circumstance or the risk that the conduct may bring about a forbidden consequence.” and further “The risk must be substantial.” and further “Negligence The question here is whether an accused ought to have considered relevant circumstances or consequences.” and further “The test is objective – whether the conduct of the accused involves a great falling short of the standard of care which a reasonable person would have exercised: Nydam (1977) VR; Evgeniou (1964) CLR. Would a reasonable person have foreseen, and avoided, a certain consequence or have been aware of the existence of a particular circumstance and avoided acting in such a manner.” and further “It has been said that the degree of negligence must be of sufficient magnitude so as to merit criminal punishment (Nydam, op cit) or so as to amount to “wickedness” (Taktak (1988) NSWLR).”

There are further points made about these faults etc and so I am not accused of cherry picking I encourage all to read them and come to their own conclusions. I was wondering have you put any other person or entity involved in this saga through the legal filter?

It is my opinion this entire saga has been poorly managed.

Well mate you raise an interesting hypothetical; if Beale is cut and Folau pulls the pin as it has been speculated – then on whose watch did it occur? Bill and Ewen’s. The buck would have to stop somewhere? Of course let’s blame Quade 🙂

I respect your point of view; I also respect what Ewen Mckenzie has achieved as a player and as a coach. You don’t win world cups and Super Rugby titles by fluke.

However Ewen, in my opinion, does not appear presently to be able to command authority by himself. Bill Pulver and the playing group have had to go public with thier support. However the playing group are also backing KB. I suspect that would be a difficult line to walk and both stances may not be entirely congruent.

Elements of the ARU lack credibility in my opinion; I question their handling of the entire saga. If this were a public company would you invest? I wouldn’t.

The brand has been damaged, the market place fickle. The board should be asking itself “is this how we want our business to operate?” If yes, well enjoy the fruits of your choice. If no, what are they going to do?

Like you Outsider, I think this play has a few acts left in it.

May seem so – but I will still go to school games and some club games. What you do is a matter for yourself. Thanks for the chat.

Hi Mate,

“Sad that the media has ruined that for you.” – They haven’t mate.

As I said “I have my own thoughts and opinions on the matters at hand”

Not a light decision – rugby is a game I played for over 20 years of my life. I am a 3rd generation player, my son a 4th. We have one international in the family and another on the cusp of a national development squad selection (not Australia). The game of rugby has a strong place in our way of life, but I have my principles. I would not let the ‘Media’ influence that.

Hi Mick,

Your renewing your Tah’s membership is a matter for yourself.

As I said “I have my own thoughts and opinions on the matters at hand”.

Fair enough?

Hi Mate,

I have my own thoughts and opinions on the matters at hand. All I will say is, as a Wallaby fan, I have gone from ‘rusted’ to ‘disgusted’. I am only a speck of sand on the beach of Australian Rugby but I will vote with my feet and wallet and simply will not renew any memberships or attend any Super Rugby games or Wallaby Tests. I wish the playing group well.

Good Morning Spiro and all,

Just having a look at the ARU Code of Conduct as I understand it to be. As the saga has rolled on I wonder if every personality or entity involved has adhered to certain sections of that Code. For the benefit of the readers;

3. Code of Conduct
All participants in the game are bound:

(o) not to conduct themselves in any manner, or engage in any activity, whether on or off the field, that
would impair public confidence in the honest and orderly conduct of matches and competitions or in
the integrity and good character of participants; and

(p) not to do anything which adversely affects or reflects on or discredits the game, ARU, any Member
Union or Affiliated Union of ARU, or any squad, team, competition, tournament, sponsor, official
supplier or licensee, including, but not limited to, any illegal act or any act of dishonesty or fraud.

furthermore

4. Officers of a Rugby Body
An officer must, in relation to the Rugby Body of which he or she is an officer:
(i) act in good faith and in the best interests of the Rugby Body;
(ii) avoid all conflicts of interest between:
(a) the interests of the Rugby Body; and
(b) his or her own interests or the interests of any other person, including another Rugby Body
(iii) not disclose to any person or use for his or her own purposes confidential information obtained as a
result of the officer’s relationship with the Rugby Body, including but not limited to deliberations of the
board of directors or other governing organ of the Rugby Body.

I don’t need to rehash what has occurred but I ask anyone interested to filter what is known, and objectively test how each person or entity in this entire saga stacks up against the Code.

Thanks Mick, but I obviously disagree.

Hi Scott,

I’ve been moderated but I don’t think I’ve posted anything untoward. Hopefully the reply should be up soon.

Cheers

Uncle.

At least some one got it. 🙂

They don’t speak jive to good know how!

Hi Scott,

sorry for my tardy reply but was in a meeting;

“Jamie Pandram says in his article it is “an alleged episode of verbal abuse by Beale towards a member of the Wallabies management staff” & “It is understood Beale subsequently attempted to apologise for the alleged incident.” & How do you know one version of the story is more accurate than the other?”

As requested “Verbal Abuse” as defined in Google – Verbal abuse
“Verbal abuse is the excessive use of language to undermine someone’s dignity and security through insults or humiliation, in a sudden or repeated manner.”

Yes I am confident that Jamie’s editors a quite sure what that terms means – just as much as Georgina’s are of the term “Slanging match.” In fact I would suggest Jamie’s story goes some way to corroborating Georgina’s. In considering the weight of the evidence thus far I am happy to infer that Kurtley Beale has been involved in an incident with Di Patston, both of whom are employed by the ARU. Furthermore I am of the opinion that despite who may be more responsible than the other ,as that is for Phil Thomspson and co to determine, both were involved in an incident that I would suggest it is an unwanted distraction if not an embarrassment to the ARU. Hardly what you want your employees doing!

“As I said, maybe you should wait for some facts before making inferences against either party.” Who is to say those will ever be released by the ARU? This is an opinion generated website and I am sharing my opinion on what is known as reported by professional journalists and drawing and inference.

Now the Australian is saying “McKenzie revealed “a number of people were involved” in the incident but it has become apparent that Beale and the female staffer were the main protagonists, although the fact that the troubled but talented backline utility was not sent home and indeed remained in the mix for selection in the Test side suggests it is not a cut-and-dried affair.”

Beale and the female staffer, not just Beale. This seems to corroborate Georgina. Mate you said “Just as we shouldn’t judge Beale until the facts are known I don’t think it’s appropriate to judge the lady involved and apportion part of the blame to her until the facts are known.” I agree – I said
“The ARU have two employees involved in a mid air spat culminating in one employee returning home of her own volition. Without apportioning any blame to either Beale or Patston, there is an old saying ‘It takes two to tango’. Both are employees of the ARU and both have the responsibility of representing the ARU professionally. On the face of it – this has not occurred.”

I have not judged her Scott, I have said she has a case to answer. Obviously her apportion of the blame for incident will be determined by the ARU. But, as she is employed by the ARU with some role in the disciplinary functions , she should excuse herself from this process as she is caught up in it, it would appear. If she were involved in the disciplinary process would that not be a conflict of interest? Now if Beale is entirely blameless then why is he offering an apology?

Well I would have to disagree Scott. I think it sound to base a view that a professional journalist has used the term “slanging match” correctly. I would think her editors would have thought so to? The Macmillan Dictionary defines it as “an argument in which people (not a person) insult each other.” and Google ” a prolonged exchange of insults.” I am quite happy with the justification on which my inference has been drawn.

Hey mate,

“And Uncle, how do you know that her involvement was not passive?” The answer is I don’t know, but in reading Georgina Robinson’s article she states “An in-flight slanging match” I think you could reasonably draw an inference that one party did not berate another whilst the other was passive.

The Cambridge on line dictionary defines a slanging match as “an argument in which both people use angry uncontrolled language and insult each other” if Georgina is right in using the term correctly then I think both parties on the face of it have a case to answer.

Vive le revolution!

What is the name of that coffee shoppe in Agen? 🙂

Kev,

I love my morning coffee nearly as much as I have enjoyed some of your inputs over the years. You are a breath of direct fresh air. Would you add rugby league player managers to that list? You may well be right but mate you don’t professionally manage work place conflict by becoming a participant in it. On the face of it, both could have handled the incident better but lets not blow this out of proportion. Its a verbal stoush – i don’t think contracts need to be ripped up – but some managerial guidance perhaps for both.

Hey mate,

without psycho-analyzing the language to the endth degree and stating the obvious this really is not what the Wallabies need, nor the ARU. However Ewen could now find his own ‘credibility’ in a precarious position if he does not tow the ‘Wallaby Contract’ line he espouses. He can’t apply rules for one and not another. I would think on what we have read from the Robinson article there is a prima facie case for Beale to not be selected for this test. But that could have long term ramifications for the future of Beale as an employee of the ARU.

As we all now Beale wants to play a bigger role with the Wallabies and understandably wants a bigger pay check too. There is nothing wrong with that, after all he is a professional rugby player. But I have no doubt he would walk away if he perceived that he was harshly done by in this situation and take an offer from the NRL or an overseas club.

Ewen and Kurtley go way back and I think Ewen has to balance what is best for the team and what is best for Beale – in this case some penance for Beale would be running the water this weekend, assigning him the task of focusing for Bledisloe 3 and setting himself up for a big NH tour. I think that would benefit the team, the player and hopefully the ARU.

Good Morning AD and all,

This is the most detailed account of the incident that I have read, some points;

1. The ARU have two employees involved in a mid air spat culminating in one employee returning home of her own volition. Without apportioning any blame to either Beale or Patston, there is an old saying ‘It takes two to tango’. Both are employees of the ARU and both have the responsibility of representing the ARU professionally. On the face of it – this has not occurred.

2. I see that one of Patston’s responsibilities according to her Linked In profile is ‘ Manage and oversee individual player & full squad HR & Disciplinary matters’. I think she may have to excuse herself from the management & overseeing of this particular incident.I would suggest it does not present well for the ARU when a 47 test Wallaby who has a history of errant behavior and an official who is paid to manage disciplinary matters become the persons of interest in one.

I wonder if both had the fish for diner……?

Too early to call for me – but he obviously has potential.

I think if he plays in a RWC it will be 2019.

I like Mitch Inman, Tom English also.

Cheers Mate.

Cliff Palu could 🙂

JOC could fill that #12 spot. Hunt is not conditioned enough yet and needs to get a rugby body back, not an AFL one but in 6 months or so – perhaps.

AAC or Slipper to skipper.

Good Morning Scott and all,

For Argentina I would go with a 6-2 forward back split bench – agree or disagree?

One of those backs would be Will Genia, and I would look to give him about 25 minutes with a view of getting him some game time before Bledisloe 3 in Brisbane – agree or disagree?

I agree with you in the selection of Lealiifano at #12 for the Wallabies this weekend with Beale to join Genia on the pine. However looking forward to Bledisloe 3 and beyond do you still advocate the dual play maker role for the Wallabies? Do you think there is any merit is looking to develop a a bigger more abrasive #12 perhaps some one in the Mitch Inman, Samu Kerevi or potentially Karmichael Hunt build.

I accept there would be some shifting in what the Wallabies do, and I concur with Spiro that the Wallabies require some change of cattle and I also suggested to the current game plan. The conditions and ref were there for the Wallabies at Cape Town to excel, but either the execution of the game plan was poor, or the tactics were poor – perhaps both? Graham Richardson has a saying “The mob will eventually figure you out” I fear that relentlessly relying on Tevita Kurindrani to give the Wallabies their go forward out wide is all too predictable. Sure if you do it well you will have your wins – but good sides like New Zealand, South Africa and England will plan for this. Where is the variety in what the Wallabies do? Its good to have a staple diet game plan that the team understands and can revert to, but I submit there also needs to be some other avenues explored, otherwise we are just too predictable and therefore vulnerable. Any thoughts?

Finally – Hooper – should he skipper the NH tour?

You should get the IP on the t-shirt and bumper sticker for that 😉