Recommended Posts

The Article (Star Wars) is on the front page now.

Everyone is invited and the debate is simple, how is what happened good for the sport?

No hiding over in the Australian IRC Championship thread.

So no snipping from around corners or hiding with sock puppets, get up front and centre.

I have expressed my view!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Commodore Captain said:

The Article (Star Wars) is on the front page now.

Everyone is invited and the debate is simple, how is what happened good for the sport?

No hiding over in the Australian IRC Championship thread.

So no snipping from around corners or hiding with sock puppets, get up front and centre.

I have expressed my view!

 

Mr Sparrah is that you?

BWAHAHAHA,

Two threads and now the socks arrive.

Must be a big hole that needs filling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure he is a sock, far too clever to be from around here.

Writes well too which also rules him out.

Makes a serious point though which again rules him out a sock.

Beside there would not be 5 people on the entire site that could name the Angevin Kings.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some very serious points to be raised. Such as;

1- Had the competitor made repeated claims or implications that the club's protest committee and officials had been corrupt, dishonest or incompetent in the now-deleted "Queensland catamaran collision" thread on a well known sailing site?

2- If so, would that have been a breach of the RYA and AS Codes of Conduct for a sailing instructor?

3- Does a sporting body have a duty of care to protect their members and volunteers from public abuse and harassment?

4- If a competitor has publicly abused a protest committee, wouldn't it be unfair to expect another set of volunteers to act as a protest committee when that person was a competitor?

5- Wouldn't if be unfair to other competitors if they could come up in a hearing against someone who had publicly insulted and abused a protest committee of that club, and whose judgement could therefore be affected?

6- Can a private club stop someone from competing in a club race, subject to normal anti-discrimination laws? 

7- If someone has breached the rules of a private club, should that person expect that club and its volunteers to spend the time and hassle to let that person sail with them, knowing that he broke the club rules when he wanted and that they could cop vicious public abuse from them whenever he decided?

8- Is the abuse of sporting officials a known problem?

9 - Why should anyone give up their own time to help run a race for someone who has thrown shit at them in public?

10- Would other clubs and the RYA do anything about a competitor and instructor who abuses volunteers and breaches the RYA Code of Conduct?
 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do the "Flags" refer to themselves in their group reach around meetings as kings now? 

 

Oh the shame!!!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, lydia said:

Not sure he is a sock, far too clever to be from around here.

Writes well too which also rules him out.

Makes a serious point though which again rules him out a sock.

Beside there would not be 5 people on the entire site that could name the Angevin Kings.

Henry II, Richard I, John, Henry III - holy shit I actually remembered something from Ancient British History at school

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Turkey Slapper said:

Do the "Flags" refer to themselves in their group reach around meetings as kings now? 

 

Oh the shame!!!!!

TS it is clever reference to the fact as individual sailors we do not to vote for the board of Australian Sailing  just the peasants did not get to vote for John or Henry but from 1257 there was a parliament of sorts ( 3 from the church, 3 from the king and balance from the barons from memory) which morphed into a Westminster System.

As I said too clever to be a sock from around here.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nice CC.

As you quite rightly point out, the situation stinks, and has opened an enormous bucket of worms.

Will we soon see an OA exclude an out of town olympic hopeful competing against their own favourite from their regatta for spurious reasons?

What about the CYCA deciding they'd rather not have one of those competitive Frenchies in the Hobart race?

Will the legal shitfights get bigger?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, duncan (the other one) said:

Very nice CC.

As you quite rightly point out, the situation stinks, and has opened an enormous bucket of worms.

Will we soon see an OA exclude an out of town olympic hopeful competing against their own favourite from their regatta for spurious reasons?

What about the CYCA deciding they'd rather not have one of those competitive Frenchies in the Hobart race?

Will the legal shitfights get bigger?

Personally I would exclude every IRC boat with a French assessed hull factor from Hobart, but that is just me!

At least that is objective criteria though in terms of what the good Commodore wrote.

You can say as an objective fact the assessment is inconsistent with local assessment of HF

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote: "The alleged RRS 69.1 conduct appears to be that several weeks earlier, the competitor as a non-member of the organising authority had requested to sail as a crew member on another member’s vessel in an afternoon fun race and this request was refused.

Notwithstanding the refusal but without coming onto the premises of the organising authority, the competitor crewed on the member’s boat......"

By your own admission there was no hearing for said rule 69 infringement yet you claim the competitors entry was rejected on the grounds of the competitor being in breach of rule 69....."Firstly, the competitor was in breach of RRS 69.1"

"No doubt sensing the possible fallout, Australian Sailing appointed what was essentially an Olympic regatta jury comprising well respected judges for a 10-boat regatta in the desert of Tatooine.".....What possible fallout are you referring to? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Curious said:

There are some very serious points to be raised. Such as;

1- Had the competitor made repeated claims or implications that the club's protest committee and officials had been corrupt, dishonest or incompetent in the now-deleted "Queensland catamaran collision" thread on a well known sailing site?

2- If so, would that have been a breach of the RYA and AS Codes of Conduct for a sailing instructor?

3- Does a sporting body have a duty of care to protect their members and volunteers from public abuse and harassment?

4- If a competitor has publicly abused a protest committee, wouldn't it be unfair to expect another set of volunteers to act as a protest committee when that person was a competitor?

5- Wouldn't if be unfair to other competitors if they could come up in a hearing against someone who had publicly insulted and abused a protest committee of that club, and whose judgement could therefore be affected?

6- Can a private club stop someone from competing in a club race, subject to normal anti-discrimination laws? 

7- If someone has breached the rules of a private club, should that person expect that club and its volunteers to spend the time and hassle to let that person sail with them, knowing that he broke the club rules when he wanted and that they could cop vicious public abuse from them whenever he decided?

8- Is the abuse of sporting officials a known problem?

9 - Why should anyone give up their own time to help run a race for someone who has thrown shit at them in public?

10- Would other clubs and the RYA do anything about a competitor and instructor who abuses volunteers and breaches the RYA Code of Conduct?
 

 

 

And what dog do you have in this fight? Stump up or fuck off

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Dark Cloud, just as a disclaimer, I have no dog in this fight and I'm not even a Queenslander.  However, I asked over in the IRC thread, and never got an answer from anyone.  Who was the OA?  The NOR stated that RQ, on behalf of AS, was the OA.  In my view, RQ could not nominate itself as OA for a state championship.  Therefore, the OA must have been AS, who delegated certain functions to RQ.

Is there any formal instrument of delegation?  Do we know what of the OA's functions were delegated to RQ?  All of them - including the appointment of a RC?  Who DID appoint the RC?  Captain Commodore says that the OA refused the entry, but several times he(?) conflates the OA and RQ.

Who, in what role, refused the entry?  RQ could for one of it's own events, but if they purport to do it for a state championship, for which the OA could only be AS, they would need to demonstrate that they had expressly been delegate the power to do so, because otherwise they don't have that power.

Clearly AS don't think they refused the entry.

Was the entry refused by the RC rather than the OA?  If so, who appointed the RC?  If RQ, again, they would need to be able to demonstrate that they had the express delegation from the ACTUAL OA - AS, to do so.

Can someone show us the paperwork?

Because unless this stuff is straightened out, the refusal WAS capricious at best and possibly vindictive or spiteful, and sets a dangerous precedent for sailing in Australia - are you listening AS?

Edited by Recidivist
added vindictive
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Recidivist said:

Dark Cloud, just as a disclaimer, I have no dog in this fight and I'm not even a Queenslander.  However, I asked over in the IRC thread, and never got an answer from anyone.  Who was the OA?  The NOR stated that RQ, on behalf of AS, was the OA.  In my view, RQ could not nominate itself as OA for a state championship.  Therefore, the OA must have been AS, who delegated certain functions to RQ.

Is there any formal instrument of delegation?  Do we know what of the OA's functions were delegated to RQ?  All of them - including the appointment of a RC?  Who DID appoint the RC?  Captain Commodore says that the OA refused the entry, but several times he(?) conflates the OA and RQ.

Who, in what role, refused the entry?  RQ could for one of it's own events, but if they purport to do it for a state championship, for which the OA could only be AS, they would need to demonstrate that they had expressly been delegate the power to do so, because otherwise they don't have that power.

Clearly AS don't think they refused the entry.

Was the entry refused by the RC rather than the OA?  If so, who appointed the RC?  If RQ, again, they would need to be able to demonstrate that they had the express delegation from the ACTUAL OA - AS, to do so.

Can someone show us the paperwork?

Because unless this stuff is straightened out, the refusal WAS capricious at best and possibly vindictive or spiteful, and sets a dangerous precedent for sailing in Australia - are you listening AS?

You make some good points, and ask some good questions.  As I understand it, the OA is the club running the event - SA is never an OA cos they don't run anything, so RQ must be the OA - for running state/nat champs, the club only needs for the event to be sanctioned (allowed) by SA.  I could of course be wrong.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the mythical front page.

May I just point out that this is pretty confusing. I assume by "the competitor" you  mean "the non competitor".

........

The alleged RRS 69.1 conduct appears to be that several weeks earlier, the competitor as a non-member of the organising authority had requested to sail as a crew member on another member’s vessel in an afternoon fun race and this request was refused.

Notwithstanding the refusal but without coming onto the premises of the organising authority, the competitor crewed on the member’s boat. Subsequently, the competitor had sought to compete as crew member on a member’s vessel in the local ocean race. 

.........

Now thats as funny as f#KC.

Why should this newbe scribe :D go to such great pains, to point out that the Butthurt one sought permission to sail on a members boat in an afternoon fun race  FFS,  and note that they  didn't step foot on club property.

Was the Butthurt one already banned from the club?.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recidivist, allegedly there is a clause in the club constitution that the club, or anyone in a position can use it when their feelings are hurt, even from personality clashes, which they can exclude anyone from events or ban them from being a member which they have done by the sound of it a couple of times in the recent past event misshaps for different incidents, all without having to give any reason/explanation/hearing as to why, coincidentally one team has been involved in at least 2 of the recent incidents but have escaped any wrath of the constitution from what I'm led to believe, maybe this is causing a bit if confusion and rumors! Now from all info published so far of the latest one, these same club rules now with high end lawyer help can over ride YA rules and ij's, nj's, oj's and bj's! Where normally nothing beats a bj!!! Can someone correct me on this?

 

My concern, if all this is true, that we have a club that can flex this muscle for any reason, on any competitor, at any regatta it hosts, for no reason, and this could well be used for ones own trophy hunting social media fame at the detriment to not only fleet sizes, but competition levels! Now this was a state titles, so could happen at a national titles, or a world titles! Now I think this is a dangerous rule/precedent for invitation regattas of that magnitude!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dark Cloud said:

And what dog do you have in this fight? Stump up or fuck off

What dog do you have? What about CC?  What about LB15?

Why are people demanding some answers but not giving any answers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still no one will answer the simple question about whether the non-competitor was involved in the abuse of the same club’s officials and volunteers, and if so, why a club should cater for them 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LB 15 said:

Dear oh dear. You may as well have signed that post with your real name. The plot thickens... 

You must be feeling warm and safe hiding behind your little sock spreading lies and innuendo and making threats against a persons livelihood?  You are morally bankrupt as well.

 

What hypocrisy.  You spend hour after hour slinging shit and hate around here, much of it at RQYS, and then you whine and throw a tanty when people ask questions.

I made no threats. You on the other hand throw slurs and insults all the time but complain when any return fire comes your way.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Curious said:

Still no one will answer the simple question about whether the non-competitor was involved in the abuse of the same club’s officials and volunteers, and if so, why a club should cater for them 

There is a process.  That doesn't involve unsubstantiated allegations.  That process hasn't been followed.  If someone thinks there has been actionable conduct - take the appropriate action and if the complaint is upheld, there is justification for excluding the person responsible for the conduct.

Without a complaint, and a process that upholds the complaint, the exclusion is unjustifiable.  

What's so hard?

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, MRS OCTOPUS said:

 

Was the Butthurt one already banned from the club?.

 

 

 

Crickets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Recidivist said

 

Perhaps the "competitor" was actually excluded for complaining about the RQ restaurant on FaceBook or Tripadvisor. @Curious,Why are you so convinced it was for "abusing a volunteer"?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dark Cloud said:

As I understand it, the OA is the club running the event - SA is never an OA cos they don't run anything, so RQ must be the OA - for running state/nat champs, the club only needs for the event to be sanctioned (allowed) by SA.  I could of course be wrong.

I don't know for sure, and certainly no-one at AS is interested in clarifying, but in my view a host club cannot bestow on itself the power to be OA other than for it's own events.  The legal principle is that one cannot clothe oneself with authority - authority must be granted/bestowed by someone above who holds that authority.

A host club can be appointed by a class association that invites the host club to conduct a state/national/world championship on behalf of the class association, but in reality, the class association remains the OA. 

But for IRC there is no class association.  In AUS, IRC is "owned" by AS, so I expect they would be the OA for any IRC events above club racing level.  As you say, they don't run any events, so they presumably delegate the OA functions to the host club - in this case RQ.

I strongly suspect that neither AS nor RQ have the faintest idea what I'm talking about, and there are no understood roles of governance - which is why we have this shitfight.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, stufishing said:

Perhaps the "competitor" was actually excluded for complaining about the RQ restaurant on FaceBook or Tripadvisor.

Apparently an equally likely scenario.  I once complained that the beer was warm - I might be banned for life!  Seems they don't think they have to give you any right of reply ...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, stufishing said:

What Recidivist said

 

Perhaps the "competitor" was actually excluded for complaining about the RQ restaurant on FaceBook or Tripadvisor. @Curious,Why are you so convinced it was for "abusing a volunteer"?

Because the competitor did it repeatedly here on SA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

9 minutes ago, Recidivist said:

I don't know for sure, and certainly no-one at AS is interested in clarifying, but in my view a host club cannot bestow on itself the power to be OA other than for it's own events.  The legal principle is that one cannot clothe oneself with authority - authority must be granted/bestowed by someone above who holds that authority.

A host club can be appointed by a class association that invites the host club to conduct a state/national/world championship on behalf of the class association, but in reality, the class association remains the OA. 

But for IRC there is no class association.  In AUS, IRC is "owned" by AS, so I expect they would be the OA for any IRC events above club racing level.  As you say, they don't run any events, so they presumably delegate the OA functions to the host club - in this case RQ.

I strongly suspect that neither AS nor RQ have the faintest idea what I'm talking about, and there are no understood roles of governance - which is why we have this shitfight.

You're over thinking it - any club can say, we propose to run a regatta next year, and call it the state/nat whatever champs - if it's IRC then AS must approve. Either way, the OA is the club issuing the NOR - it could be ORCV, CYCA, SYC or RQ

It may be more complicated than that, but as far as OA goes, I'll stand corrected

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Curious said:

What dog do you have? What about CC?  What about LB15?

Why are people demanding some answers but not giving any answers?

I have no dog - i'm in victoria where it's usually too fucking cold to run regattas.  Anyway, don't know who or what CC is, and I don't pretend to answer for LB. But you are the one demanding answers, thus my retort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Dark Cloud said:

 

You're over thinking it - any club can say, we propose to run a regatta next year, and call it the state/nat whatever champs - if it's IRC then AS must approve. Either way, the OA is the club issuing the NOR - it could be ORCV, CYCA, SYC or RQ

It may be more complicated than that, but as far as OA goes, I'll stand corrected

I think we are both happy to be corrected - but no-one is stepping up to do the correction!

Edit:  I now see you are in Victoria - you have my sympathies!  But there are (used to be anyway) some good, sensible people at YV or whatever it's called these days - perhaps you might have some success in getting enlightenment from them as to how they see the OA stuff.

Cheers

Edited by Recidivist
Later post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Recidivist said:

I think we are both happy to be corrected - but no-one is stepping up to do the correction!

i presume grs is lurking somewhere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dark Cloud said:

i presume grs is lurking somewhere

He will  admonish you for not capitalising "i" and not using a full stop!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Curious said:

Because the competitor did it repeatedly here on SA. 

So surely if the club decided to exclude someone based on some posts on an internet forum, then that information should form part of the evidence against said person in the hearing to decide whether there is a right to exclude? Or do we actually have a situation where it perfectly acceptable for a club to exclude a competitor from a regatta based on compromising rule 69.xxx because they complained the beer was hot at the briefing?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dunno stu, but i think you're getting warmer - some shit don't add up

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Recidivist said:

He will  admonish you for not capitalising "i" and not using a full stop!!

Fuck - I still have time to edit the post. I'll be right back.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Recidivist said:

There is a process.  That doesn't involve unsubstantiated allegations.  That process hasn't been followed.  If someone thinks there has been actionable conduct - take the appropriate action and if the complaint is upheld, there is justification for excluding the person responsible for the conduct.

Without a complaint, and a process that upholds the complaint, the exclusion is unjustifiable.  

What's so hard?

1-  What process is there that deals with someone making unsportsmanlike comments outside of competition?

2- if a club’s decision to ban you from club racing initially is the issue, then deal with that.  Do not do what the club tells you NOT to do and then complain when they take action because you chose to break their rules ? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But isn’t the point that there is no requirement or right to have a hearing.

An untested allegation is enough and not subject to review.

At least that is the position of the angevin kings at Australian Sailing which we don’t get to vote for so can’t change.

Clever point to make.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Dark Cloud said:

I have no dog - i'm in victoria where it's usually too fucking cold to run regattas.  Anyway, don't know who or what CC is, and I don't pretend to answer for LB. But you are the one demanding answers, thus my retort

I think there were calls for open discussions and answers from AS and RQ in the other thread and the FP piece. The point is that If they have to give answers, then so should the other side. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, lydia said:

But isn’t the point that there is no requirement or right to have a hearing.

An untested allegation is enough and not subject to review.

At least that is the position of the angevin kings at Australian Sailing which we don’t get to vote for so can’t change.

Clever point to make.

And, while wandering well outside their remit (considering the articles of Constitution of RQ, for example), the PC decided that the exclusion was neither arbitrary or capricious, being content to take the allegations at face value without those allegations ever having been tested!  This is the very definition of a Kangaroo Court. 

One can almost forgive  RQ for holding that view - they are but simpleton Queenslanders living in the past Bjelke Petersen Days - "Don't you worry about that!".  But I think we have a right to expect better of IJs - I am very disappointed that the Jury didn't bring a little more intellectual rigour to the matter.

And this started because someone wanted to go on a fun sail with a mate - you've got to be fucking kidding me!  Oh well, RQ will probably get what they seem to desire - a total absence of masts within their marina - it's been on the program for yonks.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Curious said:

I think there were calls for open discussions and answers from AS and RQ in the other thread and the FP piece. The point is that If they have to give answers, then so should the other side. 

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but you seem pretty partisan in this matter.  I note that you aren't prepared to state your interest, but could you explain why you think the "other side" is obliged to provide explanations when RQ and AS don't appear willing to do the same?  Perhaps you are in a position to influence one of those parties to address the issues raised in this thread.

Please remember that, if proper process shows that the allegations are substantiated, your campaign for blood will be satisfied ... let's get on with the process!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“The other side” include people who are deeply involved in this. Because of SA rules we cannot say exactly what that involvement is.  In the other thread they have been talking about the issue, insulting people and demanding information - yet they won’t provide information themselves. 

In the RQ cat protest thread some of the same people made allegations that may well have been defamatory and breaches of R69 as well as Codes of Conduct. They did not follow due process there, so it is hypocritical of them to demand they receive due process in this matter.  

My bias is that one of them has behaved on SA in a vicious, bullying, dishonest and vile way, and I’m enjoying them get what they deserve. That’s all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Curious said:

1-  What process is there that deals with someone making unsportsmanlike comments outside of competition?

2- if a club’s decision to ban you from club racing initially is the issue, then deal with that.  Do not do what the club tells you NOT to do and then complain when they take action because you chose to break their rules ? 

1   Dude, even the illustrious jury addressed this.  Apparently, article 7 (IIRC) of RQ's constitution gives them the power to sanction people for conduct unbecoming - or whatever they call it.  Usually there's a right of reply in these things, but I'm no expert on RQ's constitution - are you a member?  Perhaps you could look it up.

2   Seriously - "do not do what the club tells you NOT to do" - aren't you the little good two-shoes.  When did you learn to be so compliant?  Did you live in China or something?  A wants to go for a fun sail with his mate B.  As A is apparently not a member of the club organising the event, they do the right thing and request permission (I am already throwing up in disgust at this point).  For whatever reason, the clubs denies permission ( a tad churlish, but we'll let that slide for now).  To avoid upsetting the club, A and B conjure a plan whereby A can join the boat without entering on the hallowed club grounds.  A and B have an enjoyable sail.  Club decides crucifixion is necessary and appropriate.  I am glad I am nota member of that club - can you not see that something's wrong with this scenario?

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Curious said:

“The other side” include people who are deeply involved in this. Because of SA rules we cannot say exactly what that involvement is.  In the other thread they have been talking about the issue, insulting people and demanding information - yet they won’t provide information themselves. 

In the RQ cat protest thread some of the same people made allegations that may well have been defamatory and breaches of R69 as well as Codes of Conduct. They did not follow due process there, so it is hypocritical of them to demand they receive due process in this matter.  

My bias is that one of them has behaved on SA in a vicious, bullying, dishonest and vile way, and I hope they get their due desserts. That’s all. 

OK, I deduce from your postings that you are what is called an "authoritarian" - unquestioning obeisance to someone in authority - often characterised by in inappropriate references to laws that don't exist or don't apply (SA rules, Codes of Conduct - which ones? - due process - only in one direction?). 

Even though you only see the world in black or white, there is always the chance that you are right - why not test that possibility by following the "due process"?  Unless, of course, you have a personal involvement that might give you something to lose - in which case why risk posting here unless to throw dirt?

OK, calling this quits for now - on the verge of PUI.  Hopefully the morn will bring some enlightenment.

Cheers

 

R

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it’s easy to look up.  The rules give unfettered discretion to refuse or revoke visitors, without giving a reason. There’s also rules about sailing as a guest.  

You are assuming that the club’s reasons are churlish. They could also have had little legal or ethical option....

People could have asked the club to change their mind. They could have sailed elsewhere.  Instead they broke the rules. If they broke the rules then it is hypocritical to whine about the actions of the club or AS. The club and AS followed the rules. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MRS OCTOPUS said:

JEESUS,

Recidivist, catch up.

Why do you think permission was necessary for this individual, to sail  as crew in a club organised FUN event.

Why do you think this crew who appears to work right next to the the club was no longer a  member.

 

 

Again NFI. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Recidivist said:

OK, I deduce from your postings that you are what is called an "authoritarian" - unquestioning obeisance to someone in authority - often characterised by in inappropriate references to laws that don't exist or don't apply (SA rules, Codes of Conduct - which ones? - due process - only in one direction?). 

Even though you only see the world in black or white, there is always the chance that you are right - why not test that possibility by following the "due process"?  Unless, of course, you have a personal involvement that might give you something to lose - in which case why risk posting here unless to throw dirt?

OK, calling this quits for now - on the verge of PUI.  Hopefully the morn will bring some enlightenment.

Cheers

 

R

Nope, I’m not an authoritarian at all, and I see many shades. The SA rule I referred to is the one against outing posters.  The Code of Conduct is one I can’t give more information about without breaking the SA rule and getting a lifetime ban.

I don’t know why you’re assuming due process hasn’t been followed.  The two main strands seem to have been satisfied. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck it - one more point while I'm lubed up!

If a club tried to tell me who I can or cannot have on my boat - I would tell them to fuck off.  My friends are not something over which they do, or should, have any control.

This happened a few years back in Darwin - a bloke got time out from the club for getting pissed and untidy.  He was regular crew for "the Doc" who ran the only serious blue water program in Darwin in those days.  Bung was a pisshead and not even good on a boat, but the Doc liked him.  Even though Bung was disqualified from taking part in club events, the Doc took him as crew.  The Club blustered, but the Doc was patron of the club, loved by all, and ran the only serious program - the club was forced to back down.  Bung stayed away from the bar for the timeout period, and kept sailing with the Doc. 

A proper outcome, I say.  The club went past the line when they purported to tell someone who they could have on their boat.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MRS OCTOPUS said:

 

 

 

 

???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, MRS OCTOPUS said:

JEESUS,

Recidivist, catch up.

Why do you think permission was necessary for this individual, to sail  as crew in a club organised FUN event.

Why do you think this crew who appears to work right next to the the club was no longer a  member.

 

 

He resigned. Never been banned. Never been found guilty of anything under the club rules or the RRS. The findings in the redress hearing clearly stated that. 

But you keep up the good work slinging complete lies from behind your little sock puppet. Again what is your involvement?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MRS OCTOPUS said:

Crickets

No he was not, according to the Squadron General Manager. 

2 hours ago, Recidivist said:

There is a process.  That doesn't involve unsubstantiated allegations.

That's why. 

Which I am respecting.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Curious said:

What dog do you have? What about CC?  What about LB15?

Why are people demanding some answers but not giving any answers?

You are the one doing all the accusing dip shit. Are you getting the feeling people are working this out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im almost convinced curious is chinese

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Curious said:

My bias is that one of them has behaved on SA in a vicious, bullying, dishonest and vile way

You’re kidding, right? Have you ever read any of the forum threads in this place? 99.9% of the posters here have some form of mental instability. Myself included.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Jason AUS said:

You’re kidding, right? Have you ever read any of the forum threads in this place? 99.9% of the posters here have some form of mental instability. Myself included.

thats why we should allow open carry at regattas and especially into protest hearings..lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Curious said:

“The other side” include people who are deeply involved in this. Because of SA rules we cannot say exactly what that involvement is.  In the other thread they have been talking about the issue, insulting people and demanding information - yet they won’t provide information themselves. 

In the RQ cat protest thread some of the same people made allegations that may well have been defamatory and breaches of R69 as well as Codes of Conduct. They did not follow due process there, so it is hypocritical of them to demand they receive due process in this matter.  

My bias is that one of them has behaved on SA in a vicious, bullying, dishonest and vile way, and I’m enjoying them get what they deserve. That’s all. 

Who was insulted in the other thread, you? 

How would outing anybody change the publicly available facts. 

Do you support a SAILING club rejecting entries for a SAILING event & then hiring a legal team to attend the redress? Seems questionable to me! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jason AUS said:

You’re kidding, right? Have you ever read any of the forum threads in this place? 99.9% of the posters here have some form of mental instability. Myself included.

I thought that was a legal requirement of posting on SA; I'm sure that I ticked a box to say I was mentally unstable before I signed up

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MRS OCTOPUS said:

 

I'm guessing things are coming to light that some hoped would never see the light of day.

Nice little edit you just did. The lawyers ring you did they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Curious said:

They did not follow due process there, so it is hypocritical of them to demand they receive due process in this matter.  

That's not how it works.  'but he did it first'  is not a process.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Curious said:

There are some very serious points to be raised. Such as;

1- Had the competitor made repeated claims or implications that the club's protest committee and officials had been corrupt, dishonest or incompetent in the now-deleted "Queensland catamaran collision" thread on a well known sailing site?

2- If so, would that have been a breach of the RYA and AS Codes of Conduct for a sailing instructor?

3- Does a sporting body have a duty of care to protect their members and volunteers from public abuse and harassment?

4- If a competitor has publicly abused a protest committee, wouldn't it be unfair to expect another set of volunteers to act as a protest committee when that person was a competitor?

5- Wouldn't if be unfair to other competitors if they could come up in a hearing against someone who had publicly insulted and abused a protest committee of that club, and whose judgement could therefore be affected?

6- Can a private club stop someone from competing in a club race, subject to normal anti-discrimination laws? 

7- If someone has breached the rules of a private club, should that person expect that club and its volunteers to spend the time and hassle to let that person sail with them, knowing that he broke the club rules when he wanted and that they could cop vicious public abuse from them whenever he decided?

8- Is the abuse of sporting officials a known problem?

9 - Why should anyone give up their own time to help run a race for someone who has thrown shit at them in public?

10- Would other clubs and the RYA do anything about a competitor and instructor who abuses volunteers and breaches the RYA Code of Conduct?
 

 

 

These are very serious accusations you make. Did you make a complaint? What action was taken? Did the juror in question state their conflict of interest and recluse themselves from hearing related matters? Did you report the person to AS? What about the RYA? What do they have do do with this? If you feel that strongly about this you should make a complaint. Of course no creditable organisation will action an anonymous complaint so you would have to use your real name. And we know you won’t  crawl out from under your rock to do that. 

You are a spineless toad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SCANAS said:

Who was insulted in the other thread, you? 

How would outing anybody change the publicly available facts. 

Do you support a SAILING club rejecting entries for a SAILING event & then hiring a legal team to attend the redress? Seems questionable to me! 

Volunteers on the protest committee were abused. If someone is going to do that then their entry should be rejected as it would be in other sports

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, duncan (the other one) said:

That's not how it works.  'but he did it first'  is not a process.

His idea of due process is flinging lies from behind his sock puppet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LB 15 said:

These are very serious accusations you make. Did you make a complaint? What action was taken? Did the juror in question state their conflict of interest and recluse themselves from hearing related matters? Did you report the person to AS? What about the RYA? What do they have do do with this? If you feel that strongly about this you should make a complaint. Of course no creditable organisation will action an anonymous complaint so you would have to use your real name. And we know you won’t  crawl out from under your rock to do that. 

You are a spineless toad. 

Oh you hypocrite.  You spill abuse here and then whine when any comes your way. 

You made no official reports about the things you whine about here. For you to say I should is just one more example of your hypocrisy 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Curious said:

Oh you hypocrite.  You spill abuse here and then whine when any comes your way. 

You made no official reports about the things you whine about here. For you to say I should is just one more example of your hypocrisy 

So the answer would be no then. No one made any complaint about anything you claim happened. You seem very upset about this princess. So come on ‘fess up. Tell everyone what your involvement is...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, duncan (the other one) said:

That's not how it works.  'but he did it first'  is not a process.

“Due process” is not always required.  In this case I think you’ll find the club rules specifically say there is unlimited discretion when it comes to day membership etc 

Due process is vital in some areas of life, but it can be unnecessary and unworkable in others 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rules also say they should act in the best interest of the members. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Curious said:

“Due process” is not always required.  In this case I think you’ll find the club rules specifically say there is unlimited discretion when it comes to day membership etc 

Due process is vital in some areas of life, but it can be unnecessary and unworkable in others 

You seem to know a lot about what goes on there...so what you are saying is that no due process is required? Surly if what you claim is true there would have been a formal complaint? No? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

 So come on ‘fess up. Tell everyone what your involvement is...

You first.

BWAHAHAHA

 

Jeesus

LB you can whine

Anyway,

I'm off racing today,

 

And you.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Curious said:

Due process is vital in some areas of life, but it can be unnecessary and unworkable in others 

I guess we are lucky to have you, in your great and unmatched wisdom, to decide when due process is vital and when it can be dispensed with, and who is entitled to due process and who can just be shat upon with no remedy.

That's the point Commodore Captain was making about AS - did you miss that bit?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, MRS OCTOPUS said:

I'm off racing today,

Racing what? Model cars? We all know you haven’t sailed in years- ever since you chartered that boat a few years back and got sued by the owner for all the damage you did. You were Bankrupt at the time IIRC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

Racing what? Model cars? We all know you haven’t sailed in years- ever since you chartered that boat a few years back and got sued by the owner for all the damage you did. You were Bankrupt at the time IIRC.

BWAHAHAHA,

YCMTSU

Its like pin the tail on the donkey.

Keep trying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, SCANAS said:

The rules also say they should act in the best interest of the members. 

Yes, they did that.

Note the word "MEMBERS"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, MRS OCTOPUS said:

BWAHAHAHA,

YCMTSU

Its like pin the tail on the donkey.

Keep trying.

Pin the mustache on the walrus is a much more nautical term

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, MRS OCTOPUS said:

Yes, they did that.

Note the word "MEMBERS"

Many members disagree. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, SCANAS said:

Many members disagree. 

The Tribe has spoken.

Time to stop whining.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MRS OCTOPUS said:

The Tribe has spoken.

Time to stop whining.

Wit and philosophy in one post!  This thread has legs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, MRS OCTOPUS said:

The Tribe has spoken.

Time to stop whining.

 

Yeah? Didn’t see RQYS putting a post on the front page! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MRS OCTOPUS said:

image.png.64fd6c827e610317f861022a879ffa74.png

Delayed Start? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

3 minutes ago, MRS OCTOPUS said:

image.png.64fd6c827e610317f861022a879ffa74.png

Dry your eyes princess. Haven’t seen you out walking in the mornings lately. You avoiding someone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, you liked a post that wasn't intended to flatter you, so it seems you have a sense of humour.  We should be able to have a sensible discussion.

I get that you dislike the person at the centre of this bunfight, and think that he is getting his just desserts.  But that shouldn't close your mind to the principles arising.  As I've said before to "Curious", if the process is followed, and the conduct of which you disapprove is found to warrant the outcome that has occurred, your position will be vindicated.  

So it seems the only reason for not wanting to follow the appropriate process is a fear that the outcome could be found to be disproportionate, and that the guilty party will "get away with it".  Seriously, any adult is able to deal with that degree of disappointment - if that's the worst thing that has happened to you or others who share your views on this, you've had a very lucky life.

What has happened is NOT GOOD FOR THE SPORT.  Some leadership is required and I despair of seeing that from AS  - or, apparently, RQ.  Who is left?  Do we really want to drag the sport (and RQ) through the civil courts?  How does that assist anyone?  RQ members will pick up a hefty bill, a couple of QC's will buy larger (power) yachts, and those on the far side of the chain mesh fence will continue to snub their noses and poke fun at those inside.  Is that counted as a win?

I think this is an excellent opportunity for alternative dispute resolution - a negotiated outcome where both parties give a bit and in turn get a bit.  It's the grown-up way to put the whole thing behind and move on for the good of the sport.

Seriously.  But it's not my call - over to you guys.

Cheers

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, MRS OCTOPUS said:

The Tribe has spoken.

Time to stop whining.

 

I thought you were going racing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TheUltimateSockPuppet said:

Like lemmings to a cliff

Sorry?  A bit deep for a simple person like me ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Recidivist said:

 so it seems you have a sense of humour. 

Cheers

 

Hasn't everyone here .

This thread was started for our entertainment, right?

 

9 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

 

 

 Haven’t seen you out walking in the mornings lately. You avoiding someone?

C'mon LB lift your game , that mustache is never going to find a Walrus

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Recidivist said:

Sorry?  A bit deep for a simple person like me ...

AS providing leadership is like lemmings following each other off a cliff

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, TheUltimateSockPuppet said:

AS providing leadership is like lemmings following each other off a cliff

Unproven premise - they have never done so, therefore it's impossible to say.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites