News.com article saying Okunbor facing being sacked. CHN facing 8-12wk suspension.

[dogluva]

This outcome, if true, is consistent with what I said from the beginning - a violation of the Working with Children legislation from Okunbor.
Such matters are taken very seriously and the consensual sex and age of consent component of the whole story have very little do with it - except for the poor light in which it places the club / loss of sponsorship etc.
Hence why CHN may cop a heavy sanction, but may not lose his job.
We will see...

Basically what I said too. Even though it is speculation by the author of the article I reckon pretty close to the mark. It may be a moot point though if season is cancelled. Wonder if games already served are taken into account in CHN case. NRL is already floating the idea of a 17 round comp and gf in November with no tests at end of year. Not sure if SOO would be a casualty probably not because it brings in a lot of money.

 

[dogluva]

Again, who is punished from a 12 week paid suspension?

The player who gets to go to Bali, or the fans cooking losses and tuning out

Wouldn't be going to Bali Nasheed....

 

[DinkumDog]

Basically what I said too. Even though it is speculation by the author of the article I reckon pretty close to the mark. It may be a moot point though if season is cancelled. Wonder if games already served are taken into account in CHN case. NRL is already floating the idea of a 17 round comp and gf in November with no tests at end of year. Not sure if SOO would be a casualty probably not because it brings in a lot of money.

Agree - and could be that the outcome to the Port Mac mess isn’t disclosed until the broader implications are known ie: what’s happening with the rest of the season.

 

[Superuber]

As stated there is no criminal matter so why would the police be involved?
There’s no ‘prosecution’ as such, it’s a workplace matter.

That doesn’t mean other non-criminal violations have not been committed. I’m happy to be wrong about this but every time I’ve asked for specifics about where I get nothing back and that’s what I’m asking. Where specifically have I missed something or where am I wrong?

You keep referencing working with children in your statements as to the reason for the predicament they are in and how you have read this and that but then say it’s an IR issue. Seems like you need to be given a refreasher course.
If you read the Crimes Act in need relation to breaches of your duty of care when working with children in schools then you will understand that it’s criminal offence, to be only sanctioned by the club for failure to comply with their own code of conduct clearly indicates that no criminal behaviour was conducted. This has been mentioned so many times but you are not willing to accept that and continue with your slanderous statements about the players actions.
They breached the clubs instructions and the standards that they wish to uphold, what they did is not illegal but it’s not how the club and some in public would like them to conduct themselves.

 

[Natboy]

You keep referencing working with children in your statements as to the reason for the predicament they are in and how you have read this and that but then say it’s an IR issue. Seems like you need to be given a refreasher course.
If you read the Crimes Act in need relation to breaches of your duty of care when working with children in schools then you will understand that it’s criminal offence, to be only sanctioned by the club for failure to comply with the own code of conduct clearly indicates that no criminal behaviour was conducted. This has been mentioned so many times but you are not willing to accept that and continue with your slanderous statements about the players actions.
They breached the clubs instructions and the standards that they wish to uphold, what’s they did is not illegal but it’s not how the club and some in public would like them to conduct themselves.

The NRL who registered their contracts don’t seem too thrilled either and their punishments are going to be severe

 

[DinkumDog]

You keep referencing working with children in your statements as to the reason for the predicament they are in and how you have read this and that but then say it’s an IR issue. Seems like you need to be given a refreasher course.
If you read the Crimes Act in need relation to breaches of your duty of care when working with children in schools then you will understand that it’s criminal offence, to be only sanctioned by the club for failure to comply with the own code of conduct clearly indicates that no criminal behaviour was conducted. This has been mentioned so many times but you are not willing to accept that and continue with your slanderous statements about the players actions.
They breached the clubs instructions and the standards that they wish to uphold, what’s they did is not illegal but it’s not how the club and some in public would like them to conduct themselves.

Where to begin... under what professional capacity did you supply this information? Are you a police officer? A teacher? something else related?
I'd suggest you're not part of the legal fraternity because you don't know the difference between slander and libel to start with. And you've falsely accused me of something right there.
What am I not willing to accept? I have NEVER said they committed a crime - so another fallacy. It's been stated it wasn't a criminal matter from the beginning and I've never said anything different - hence - not even close to being 'not willing to accept this' - in fact quite the opposite.
And hence no need to refer to the Crimes Act.
However there is another piece of legislation that clearly addresses many specifics in what at least Jayden allegedly did. This is where it is a workplace matter - because that legislation covers his capacity as a volunteer of his employer and possible outcomes of a breach.
And I've never said anything other than that, despite what you may like to interpret somehow.
We can park it there. You seem highly emotional and agitated about it for some reason - perhaps you have a personal connection to the issue. I was only interested in a professional discussion but it's gotten beyond that. Let's just wait for the outcome.

 

[Superuber]

Where to begin... under what professional capacity did you supply this information? Are you a police officer? A teacher? something else related?
I'd suggest you're not part of the legal fraternity because you don't know the difference between slander and libel to start with. And you've falsely accused me of something right there.
What am I not willing to accept? I have NEVER said they committed a crime - so another fallacy. It's been stated it wasn't a criminal matter from the beginning and I've never said anything different - hence - not even close to being 'not willing to accept this' - in fact quite the opposite.
And hence no need to refer to the Crimes Act.
However there is another piece of legislation that clearly addresses many specifics in what at least Jayden allegedly did. This is where it is a workplace matter - because that legislation covers his capacity as a volunteer of his employer and possible outcomes of a breach.
And I've never said anything other than that, despite what you may like to interpret somehow.
We can park it there. You seem highly emotional and agitated about it for some reason - perhaps you have a personal connection to the issue. I was only interested in a professional discussion but it's gotten beyond that. Let's just wait for the outcome.

so you Don’t think that accusing him of committing doing something wrong according to working with children legislation is not slanderous. The way you try to deflect this by way of assuming I’m emotional and agitated is weak,
Your technique to ridicule what I’m saying and your refusal to accept that you have been doing exactly the thing you deny is quite embarrassing.

 

[Superuber]

Where to begin... under what professional capacity did you supply this information? Are you a police officer? A teacher? something else related?
I'd suggest you're not part of the legal fraternity because you don't know the difference between slander and libel to start with. And you've falsely accused me of something right there.
What am I not willing to accept? I have NEVER said they committed a crime - so another fallacy. It's been stated it wasn't a criminal matter from the beginning and I've never said anything different - hence - not even close to being 'not willing to accept this' - in fact quite the opposite.
And hence no need to refer to the Crimes Act.
However there is another piece of legislation that clearly addresses many specifics in what at least Jayden allegedly did. This is where it is a workplace matter - because that legislation covers his capacity as a volunteer of his employer and possible outcomes of a breach.
And I've never said anything other than that, despite what you may like to interpret somehow.
We can park it there. You seem highly emotional and agitated about it for some reason - perhaps you have a personal connection to the issue. I was only interested in a professional discussion but it's gotten beyond that. Let's just wait for the outcome.

Are you able to supply us with more information on the other piece of legislation that clearly addresses what he diid and don’t reference any industrial relations laws as that is not what you keep alluded to when you mention their conduct.

 

[DinkumDog]

so you Don’t think that accusing him of committing doing something wrong according to working with children legislation is not slanderous. The way you try to deflect this by way of assuming I’m emotional and agitated is weak,
Your technique to ridicule what I’m saying and your refusal to accept that you have been doing exactly the thing you deny is quite embarrassing.

It's not slander. You need to get your facts right.
And now you're repeating a charge which clearly isn't true.
I'm not ridiculing you - but at the same time I won't tolerate being accused of things that are clearly not true and your definition of them is also wrong.
I have nothing to be embarrassed about.
I'm not deflecting anything. I was merely trying to have a discussion about under what grounds his employment might be terminated on.
There's been many opinions that because it wasn't a criminal act and 'only' a breach of Club/NRL Code of Conduct there's no grounds for dismissal and I'm saying there may well be - that's it - nothing more, nothing less.

 

[DinkumDog]

Are you able to supply us with more information on the other piece of legislation that clearly addresses what he diid and don’t reference any industrial relations laws as that is not what you keep alluded to when you mention their conduct.

Not IR legislation and never said it was. I said it was a workplace matter - as in, grounds on which your employer may be able to terminate your employment - which may not be a legislative matter, it may be a contractual matter. Note 'may' - I've never used the word 'would' or 'must'.
You can do your own research on the appropriate legislation.
Further - outside of actual legislation there are published guidelines for interaction with school students. Those guidelines are requirements for all volunteers to be educated on prior to any school visit / interaction with children (children as the legal definition of being under 18).
Those guidelines clearly reference sexual mis-conduct which may not necessarily be of a criminal nature along with social media engagement among other things that appear relevant here.
Now - is there a possibility some of this information was not adequately disclosed prior to the visit? Maybe - and maybe that can form part of a defence. I've never said black and white 'this happened and therefore this is the only outcome'.
What I HAVE said is there are provisions in working with children that may have been breached and hence may result in employment termination. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[bullanth]

So, you can deficate in a hotel while on team duty cop a $50,000 fine and move on.

Yet consentual sex with a legal teenager leads to getting sacked, and having your name dragged through the mud in a bid to be made an example of.

Right.....

That's right they are upholding the image of our club players,supporters,sponsors,and above all families,with teenage daughters,not to mention that they broke club protocol,,they should both be sacked.

 

[Bluebarry]

CHN has to go 2 asap as well , shit stains women hate a married father that cheats most blokes too and fuck that if he where's the blue and white our image won't be the fucking same till he goes

 

[Dogtime]

As Jacko and Tols have said, they are concerned at the mental state of the players. Sure theyve done wrong. Theres no denial there. Im concerned if the Dogs and the NRL deny either player natural justice. They are both entitled to earn a living. Consensual sex with a schoolgirl is not rape. Its not high range DUI endangering the lives or others. Neither beat anybody up. The girls pursued them so they cant be accused or grooming or predatorial behaviour.

Its not like the Dogs to eat one of our own. We dont do this. Ocky is a local junior for fucks sake...hes come through the grades. Yes, certainly fine him 50% of this years contract if need be but dont deny the kid the ability to make a living. I can only think the Board have made a call to say if we offer to sack Ocky then the NRL would (of course) accept that and would tend to go lighter on CHN - as we suggest is appropriate.

If DeBellin is not found guilty - despite the bruising and complaints of his accuser he will immediately rejoin St George. He hasnt lost any salary. Hes also training with the squad. Is this natural justice for DeBellin ?What about his accusers natural justice?

What about the punishment dished out to Tyrone Mays non consensual behaviour?

We are a Club that has been founded on Christian values. We practice forgiveness as a sign of Gods grace. I see our role is to discipline these players, educate them and assist them to make amends. Theres no victims here. Theres been no complaints.

A principle not a commandment has been broken. Tearing up their contract prevents them displaying remorse and is in contravention of natural justice.
Its time to support our players. Help them mend their ways. Not hang them out and stone them to death.
The world is not perfect. These young men have made a bad error of judgment and should be punished. But the punishment must fit the misdemeanour.

 

[Nasheed]

If it’s any consolation for homeboy Okenbur, he still has his health, and is pretty much immune to the Corona Virus. Guy can’t catch anything.

 

[Superuber]

Not IR legislation and never said it was. I said it was a workplace matter - as in, grounds on which your employer may be able to terminate your employment - which may not be a legislative matter, it may be a contractual matter. Note 'may' - I've never used the word 'would' or 'must'.
You can do your own research on the appropriate legislation.
Further - outside of actual legislation there are published guidelines for interaction with school students. Those guidelines are requirements for all volunteers to be educated on prior to any school visit / interaction with children (children as the legal definition of being under 18).
Those guidelines clearly reference sexual mis-conduct which may not necessarily be of a criminal nature along with social media engagement among other things that appear relevant here.
Now - is there a possibility some of this information was not adequately disclosed prior to the visit? Maybe - and maybe that can form part of a defence. I've never said black and white 'this happened and therefore this is the only outcome'.
What I HAVE said is there are provisions in working with children that may have been breached and hence may result in employment termination. Nothing more, nothing less.

You keep saying that there are provisions in working with children that may have been breached as the reason for dismissal, which isn't the case here, then deny that you are accusing them of a criminal act. What is it you don't understand that your denials of what you are saying is hypocritical. This is completely a workplace issue and the club can act how they see fit within the guidelines of the policy they have set regarding player behaviour, as long as it has been communicated and acknowledged by affected parties. If they haven't then JO and CHN can challenge any actions against them with the Fair Work Commission.
I have no issue with the club taking this stance and any action regarding this but everyone who thinks this is anything to do with an offence against children needs to stop.

 

[Tassie Devil]

Not IR legislation and never said it was. I said it was a workplace matter - as in, grounds on which your employer may be able to terminate your employment - which may not be a legislative matter, it may be a contractual matter. Note 'may' - I've never used the word 'would' or 'must'.
You can do your own research on the appropriate legislation.
Further - outside of actual legislation there are published guidelines for interaction with school students. Those guidelines are requirements for all volunteers to be educated on prior to any school visit / interaction with children (children as the legal definition of being under 18).
Those guidelines clearly reference sexual mis-conduct which may not necessarily be of a criminal nature along with social media engagement among other things that appear relevant here.
Now - is there a possibility some of this information was not adequately disclosed prior to the visit? Maybe - and maybe that can form part of a defence. I've never said black and white 'this happened and therefore this is the only outcome'.
What I HAVE said is there are provisions in working with children that may have been breached and hence may result in employment termination. Nothing more, nothing less.

Looking from afar I think you both have points to different degrees.

It was immediately apparent that the boys didn't break any laws as it was in the opening statement from the club, though being honest it still surprises me that they got around the child supervision laws. But what do I know?

Personally I find it all quite confusing and would love to know more about the child supervision laws in Australia. I run kids' camps in Slovenia and try to adhere to the stricter child supervision laws from the US simply because they're about as tough as you can get. Based on these laws this situation would clearly be breaking the law even without a formal complaint as this student was under his supervision. However, I don't know how it is in Australia.

Who would be to blame entirely depends on whether Okunbor received the correct training, that his participation and knowledge of the supervision guidelines were documented, that he had appropriate support & guidance before and during the sessions etc. etc. If he did then he'd solely be responsible, but if not then it'd be on the club.

Based on American law the club would've literally had to list such things as:

• places where the players can touch on a child's body
• what type of physical contact they can have with a child
• child abuse, and what pertains to it
• topics they can discuss and not.
• things they can't do at any cost which includes discussing anything sexual, connecting with a student via social media, being alone with a child etc.

Judging by what Greenburg stated, all of these guidelines were followed which means it's on the player to answer the charges. Just because it's no a criminal act, doesn't mean it's not a violation of working with children. Again, I don't know what it's like in Australia but perhaps this is the basis of what the club has against Okunbor which makes it fully justifiable to sack them. It depends on the contract they have with the players, but in his case I just can't see how there's any real reason for them NOT to sack him.

 

[Superuber]

It's not slander. You need to get your facts right.
And now you're repeating a charge which clearly isn't true.
I'm not ridiculing you - but at the same time I won't tolerate being accused of things that are clearly not true and your definition of them is also wrong.
I have nothing to be embarrassed about.
I'm not deflecting anything. I was merely trying to have a discussion about under what grounds his employment might be terminated on.
There's been many opinions that because it wasn't a criminal act and 'only' a breach of Club/NRL Code of Conduct there's no grounds for dismissal and I'm saying there may well be - that's it - nothing more, nothing less.

Just confirming the meaning of slander.
Oral or written defamation, Slander is the legal term for the act of harming a person's reputation by telling one or more other people something that is untrue and damaging about that person.

So accusing or suggesting that they were involved with committing an offence against a child and that is the basis of the actions taken against them is untrue.
They have got themselves in trouble for not abiding to the behavioural standards and guidelines set out by the employer.

So had they had sex with a 17yo schoolgirl who travelled from Perth to hook up with them, whilst they are not on a trip away with the team, the club would have no issue. The problem is that they have been advised to not bring any female back to thier room and with them also being from a school they just visited made thier infraction inexcusable.

 

[Tassie Devil]

Just confirming the meaning of slander.
Oral or written defamation, Slander is the legal term for the act of harming a person's reputation by telling one or more other people something that is untrue and damaging about that person.

So accusing or suggesting that they were involved with committing an offence against a child and that is the basis of the actions taken against them is untrue.
They have got themselves in trouble for not abiding to the behavioural standards and guidelines set out by the employer.

So had they had sex with a 17yo schoolgirl who travelled from Perth to hook up with them, whilst they are not on a trip away with the team, the club would have no issue. The problem is that they have been advised to not bring any female back to thier room and with them also being from a school they just visited made thier infraction inexcusable.

So if I understand ... you guys are arguing about whether he's committed an offence against a child or it's 'simply' not abiding by the behavioural standard and guidelines set by the club?

 

[Superuber]

Looking from afar I think you both have points to different degrees.

It was immediately apparent that the boys didn't break any laws as it was in the opening statement from the club, though being honest it still surprises me that they got around the child supervision laws. But what do I know?

Personally I find it all quite confusing and would love to know more about the child supervision laws in Australia. I run kids' camps in Slovenia and try to adhere to the stricter child supervision laws from the US simply because they're about as tough as you can get. Based on these laws this situation would clearly be breaking the law even without a formal complaint as this student was under his supervision. However, I don't know how it is in Australia.

Who would be to blame entirely depends on whether Okunbor received the correct training, that his participation and knowledge of the supervision guidelines were documented, that he had appropriate support & guidance before and during the sessions etc. etc. If he did then he'd solely be responsible, but if not then it'd be on the club.

Based on American law the club would've literally had to list such things as:

• places where the players can touch on a child's body
• what type of physical contact they can have with a child
• child abuse, and what pertains to it
• topics they can discuss and not.
• things they can't do at any cost which includes discussing anything sexual, connecting with a student via social media, being alone with a child etc.

Judging by what Greenburg stated, all of these guidelines were followed which means it's on the player to answer the charges. Just because it's no a criminal act, doesn't mean it's not a violation of working with children. Again, I don't know what it's like in Australia but perhaps this is the basis of what the club has against Okunbor which makes it fully justifiable to sack them. It depends on the contract they have with the players, but in his case I just can't see how there's any real reason for them NOT to sack him.

First she isn't a child and he had no supervision of such. Okunbur had no such obligations and the situation he finds himself doesnt fall under any category of abuse or criminal behaviour.
You can't say it's not a criminal act but I could fall under a violation of working with children because here in Australia that is defined as a criminal act. There is no differentiation between them.
He did nothing illegal at all, this is wholly a workplace conduct issue. People might have differing morals and standards but we need to stop damaging his reputation.

 

[Superuber]

Not IR legislation and never said it was. I said it was a workplace matter - as in, grounds on which your employer may be able to terminate your employment - which may not be a legislative matter, it may be a contractual matter. Note 'may' - I've never used the word 'would' or 'must'.
You can do your own research on the appropriate legislation.
Further - outside of actual legislation there are published guidelines for interaction with school students. Those guidelines are requirements for all volunteers to be educated on prior to any school visit / interaction with children (children as the legal definition of being under 18).
Those guidelines clearly reference sexual mis-conduct which may not necessarily be of a criminal nature along with social media engagement among other things that appear relevant here.
Now - is there a possibility some of this information was not adequately disclosed prior to the visit? Maybe - and maybe that can form part of a defence. I've never said black and white 'this happened and therefore this is the only outcome'.
What I HAVE said is there are provisions in working with children that may have been breached and hence may result in employment termination. Nothing more, nothing less.

Not IR legislation and never said it was. I said it was a workplace matter - as in, grounds on which your employer may be able to terminate your employment.

What I HAVE said is there are provisions in working with children that may have been breached and hence may result in employment termination.

Are you aware that IR legislation deals with workplace matters amongst many things including unfair dismissal.
You say it's a workplace matter and then finish off with some kind of violation of working with children, seriously which is it?

This is why you need help.