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

[DinkumDog]

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.

OK, so it's clear in your continued false accusations of me that you're simply trying to antagonise.
Once again you've repeated things here that are false.
On that note - there's nothing to achieve so I'll leave it at that and we'll see what sanctions are handed down and any associated explanations.

 

[DinkumDog]

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.

No, that definition is defamation. It is not slander. And it's not what I did anyway.
Once again, I never accused them of an offence. Never. Why you're trying to make something out of nothing only you know.
Ha - they were 'advised' were they? Can you imagine if any footballers were simply only 'advised' not to bring women into their room?
Apart from that you've said nothing here that is not already widely known. But thanks anyway.

 

[Cappuccino]

Dont bother
When it happens to one of his younger female family member, and shes groomed and picked up & fucked by a fully grown male in a school setting i'm sure this bloke will change his tune

 

[DinkumDog]

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.

OK, so now you're resorting to personal insults. Good one.
I've made it very clear that guidelines pertaining to working with children have potentially been breached and under various pieces of legislation there are grounds for further action.
Never once have I accused them of a crime, never once have I slandered them.
But you seem to want to continue repeating fallacies and well - that's up to you.

 

[DinkumDog]

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?

No Steve, not the case. This fella seems hung up on me accusing them of committing an offence - a 'crime' of some description when I've done nothing of the sort.
In fact I've repeatedly acknowledged it's not a criminal matter.
He's dropped in out of nowhere - has no context from things I've been saying for days and is trying to shame me into some sort of admission with all sorts of repeated false accusations.
I'm happy to leave it there - it's clearly achieving nothing. Soon enough we'll know the outcome be done with it.

 

[DinkumDog]

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.

Steve you're much closer to the mark that our protagonist here - but be careful or you'll be accused of 'slander' .
More seriously - it's important to define what are 'laws' and 'guidelines'.
And yes, obviously only Australian definitions can be applied here, even if they have similarities to other parts of the world.
However, 'guidelines' (particularly where breaches occur) can then be pursued via specific acts of legislation.
Now, I'm not saying this is the case (never have) so hence have never 'accused them of committing a crime' as our protagonist likes to keep repeating.
As it was published from day one - neither of the girls or their parents have made a complaint. The police do not consider it a criminal matter. No charges have been laid.
Where our protagonist is wrong (apart from accusing me of saying they've committed a crime and of accusing me of slander, which in and of itself is wrong) - is that this is a workplace issue where breaches of guidelines may be used, even partially, to determine their fate in terms of dismissal or not.
And yes, assuming that they were made aware of their obligations prior.
Pretty simple really, yet our protagonist has decided to turn it into something it is not and keep repeating the same things over and over.

 

[Chris Harding]

How come when other players from other clubs play up the media always try find a link back to us ie Barba and also their sponsors never ditch them

We have been in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons, and for too many years.
We don't have TV hosts or media personalities who wear the club on the their sleeves, or newspapers that have a stake in the club.
Our image is the one that is flashed up every time there is a bad news story about the game - regardless of whether we are involved.

The theatre of rugby league needs a bad guy that everyone wants to see their team beat; so it is in the interest of the media to create one- and what could be better than a club from a part of Sydney that everyone associates with trouble makers and an ethnic area that people are allowed to be xenophobic against. It helps when they can stereotype our fans as thugs, from from that well known "terrorist hotbed" of Canterbury Bankstown.

 

[Chris Harding]

No matter the outcome it will not be what you are suggesting is the reason. It is not a violation of working with children

It is how it is seen that matters. The court of public opinion will force the NRL to make this a test case; and the fact that it's the Bulldogs, once again, involved in a "sex scandal" makes it mandatory that the game is "seen to be" squeaky clean.

We also cannot dismiss the pent up anger and frustration from some media personalities who went overboard in their attacks on the club over the Coffs Harbour issue, and didn't get the result they demanded when the case was dropped. This is payback for them. They have been waiting a long time for something like this so they can hang the club out to dry. And they will keep on looking until they see the club kicked out of the NRL. It has become a crusade.

 

[Superuber]

Dont bother
When it happens to one of his younger female family member, and shes groomed and picked up & fucked by a fully grown male in a school setting i'm sure this bloke will change his tune

Are you serious, of course I'll be doable if that happens but that's not what occurred on this occasion so please keep it in context.

You're understanding and reaction to what has ihappened is the very reason I'm commenting. It's not just against DinkumDog personally but everyone else who seems to be judge, jury and executionerwithout full knowledge of what occurred.

 

[Superuber]

OK, so now you're resorting to personal insults. Good one.
I've made it very clear that guidelines pertaining to working with children have potentially been breached and under various pieces of legislation there are grounds for further action.
Never once have I accused them of a crime, never once have I slandered them
But you seem to want to continue repeating fallacies and well - that's up to you.

I've highlighted what you have written and you claim I'm repeating fallacies.

. Below is what you have just written

'I've made it very clear that guidelines pertaining to working with children have potentially been breached and under various pieces of legislation there are grounds for further action'.

How is that not slanderous?

You have no credabilty with the hypocracy you're displaying

 

[wendog33]

I think this sentiment is correct.

We need to keep to that facts, as we know them, and stop adding in tidbits of opinions at law, whilst we clearly don't know all of the facts.

One thing I do feel confident of...and that is, if there was even the skinniest of evidence, that our players could be caught up in any illegality re breaking of child laws, then Murdoch's media would be continuously, and relentlessly, blasting that aspect all over the front pages and Fox sports.

What's more they would have their legal department strenuously investigating any laws where the players, and club, could be nailed further.

We will have to wait for the outcome, de-registrations, bans and fines imposed on the club and/or players ...and if all the repercussions are fair and just in the court of publuc opinion, legally, and in line with previous, and current, standards of the NRLol.

Anyone have any confidence in that process?

Are you serious, of course I'll be doable if that happens but that's not what occurred on this occasion so please keep it in context.

You're understanding and reaction to what has ihappened is the very reason I'm commenting. It's not just against DinkumDog personally but everyone else who seems to be judge, jury and executionerwithout full knowledge of what occurred.

 

[mikey]

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...

Both players forgot one thing
Club first!
Team second!
Individual third!

 

[DogsOfWar1704]

People calling him a full grown man is abit stretched. He’s 22 she’s 17 not much between the pair tbh. Consensual sex no big deal. Only thing they done wrong was to take them back to the motel.
She wasn’t groomed at the school or during school hours. It was on Instagram..
Chn is copping it aswell, he wasn’t even at the school, he met her on tinder and her workplace. They were just doing what most kids from 17-25 do..
No laws were broken, don’t see why they should be sacked. They have already been shamed on every news paper front and back page. A fine should do it..

 

[youoboys]

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.

Bulldogs fan here: I agree with us. CHN should wear a cape!! He is a super hero

 

[Cappuccino]

Are you serious, of course I'll be doable if that happens but that's not what occurred on this occasion so please keep it in context.

You're understanding and reaction to what has ihappened is the very reason I'm commenting. It's not just against DinkumDog personally but everyone else who seems to be judge, jury and executionerwithout full knowledge of what occurred.

So Jayden didn't visit a school and fuck a school girl?
Righto ****

 

[Cappuccino]

So Jayden didn't visit a school and fuck a school girl?
Righto c***

WHAT THE FUCK SWEAR FILTER

 

[DinkumDog]

I've highlighted what you have written and you claim I'm repeating fallacies.

. Below is what you have just written

'I've made it very clear that guidelines pertaining to working with children have potentially been breached and under various pieces of legislation there are grounds for further action'.

How is that not slanderous?

You have no credabilty with the hypocracy you're displaying

We could keep this going but there’s no point - I have no wish to engage with someone who cannot keep their emotions in check and chose to lower the bar as you did - resorting to personal insults and ridiculous comments such as anyone who had sex with me would be charged with child sex offences.
And you question my credibility - thanks for the laugh.

I’ll await the outcome and may or may not comment further then. We clearly strongly disagree - but you can point your guns elsewhere - I have no interest in any further dialogue with you - call that what you will, I genuinely don’t care.

 

[DinkumDog]

I think this sentiment is correct.

We need to keep to that facts, as we know them, and stop adding in tidbits of opinions at law, whilst we clearly don't know all of the facts.

One thing I do feel confident of...and that is, if there was even the skinniest of evidence, that our players could be caught up in any illegality re breaking of child laws, then Murdoch's media would be continuously, and relentlessly, blasting that aspect all over the front pages and Fox sports.

What's more they would have their legal department strenuously investigating any laws where the players, and club, could be nailed further.

We will have to wait for the outcome, de-registrations, bans and fines imposed on the club and/or players ...and if all the repercussions are fair and just in the court of publuc opinion, legally, and in line with previous, and current, standards of the NRLol.

Anyone have any confidence in that process?

No Wendog that’s not correct because no-one is being accused of breaking any laws but unfortunately some got their knickers in a twist over allegations which were never made.

I do agree with awaiting the outcome and have withdrawn from the conversation - in particular because some posters can’t refrain from turning it personal. Cheers.

 

[Bulldogs09]

They just got an extension granted till next Tuesday to respond to notice

 

[Superuber]

So Jayden didn't visit a school and fuck a school girl?
Righto c***

You are right in that did occur and not disputed but your language is not warranted however I'll forgive you for your behaviour this time because that is the Christian thing to do.