Bearfax
Grizzly old fart
That is not the crux. Ask Pearce Carney Barber all suspended with no criminal charge.
You keep mixing the issue Bear. People get suspended / pay with leave / sacked all the time over non criminal indiscretions. God help us all if it requires a criminal conviction to get rid of a person from any workplace for a while or for good, let alone a rugby league workplace !
This right to innocence until proven guilty has ZERO to do with workplace law. It applies to the CRIMINAL TRIAL at hand and that’s it .Not sure why that’s so difficult to understand. To suggest otherwise is totally false. An employer does not require a criminal conviction to sanction an employee.Ramifications in the workplace are determined by the employment contract.Tbis is what they are arguing about. Whether Todd’s law is legally part of that employment contract. His presumption of innocence regarding the sexual assault trial has never been forfeited.
Today’s rule just confused a simple issue. If he simply suspended him for being a goose this goes away.
All those matters were 'proven' on video and put out for the public to see. There was no disputing the evidence which was put over the net and which the players admitted to. The League in those cases did have substantive evidence to take action against all three given the physical evidence it portrayed to the public. Its not so much about whether its a criminal act, its whether an allegation can be proven. In those instances it was..
The matters with DeBellin and Walker are allegations with only witness statements. Big difference when you can view something that the public sees and that which is just alleged. As has been constantly raised, the Stewart issue which so many were convinced he had committed the alleged offence, shows why the League must not assume guilt. So Sue, no I know exactly what I am saying and 34 years as a parole officer working in the courts and gaols gives me some experience at knowing the difference