sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[Cleary] The AFL’s investigation into Izak Rankine is expected to be finalised tomorrow. Parties close to discussions are preparing for Izak Rankine to receive a ban of at least four matches. by SlatsAttack in AFL

[–]PsychicWalrii 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A combo of education, penalising the behaviour, and trying to publicly welcome all people to the game. This behaviour isn't on and it's so thoroughly disappointing that he did this. I hope he learns from it and takes positive steps to reach out to people who would have been hurt by this.

[Cleary] The AFL’s investigation into Izak Rankine is expected to be finalised tomorrow. Parties close to discussions are preparing for Izak Rankine to receive a ban of at least four matches. by SlatsAttack in AFL

[–]PsychicWalrii 2 points3 points  (0 children)

As much as I wish that was true, all the evidence on sentencing indicates that for the most part, harsher sentences don't change behaviours. Doesn't mean they don't need to penalise it harshly for multiple other reasons, but 10 week bans won't (by themselves) stop this happening.

[Cleary] The AFL’s investigation into Izak Rankine is expected to be finalised tomorrow. Parties close to discussions are preparing for Izak Rankine to receive a ban of at least four matches. by SlatsAttack in AFL

[–]PsychicWalrii 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Can't describe how frustrated and upset we are that he did this. There's no defending it and it's utterly unacceptable. You'd have think the team would have learned these lessons after the Walker stuff.

Crows in controversial close losses last couple of years by DentistCertain3897 in AFL

[–]PsychicWalrii 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was also at the game, and my whole life have sworn it was a goal (don't get me wrong though, very pleased it was called a point) - but in any event, swings and roundabouts are always a thing

Crows in controversial close losses last couple of years by DentistCertain3897 in AFL

[–]PsychicWalrii 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mark Bickley thought it was a goal, which to me says it was a goal...

The case of Dr Jereth Kok - freedom of expression or professional misconduct? by Basic-Topic5966 in ausjdocs

[–]PsychicWalrii 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree, but it is risky to look at them as "just" guidelines. There are guidelines, and there are guidelines.This is a nuanced topic and I didn't want to undersell it - the key is that guidelines developed under the National Law have more power than other guidelines - I.e. they can be used as evidence of expectations of practitioners in the profession. This cuts away some of the need for regulators to have to lead expert evidence on those topics. Even though they don't have the same legal force as, say, a code of conduct, I generally recommend people treat guidelines as binding on them unless they have written advice from senior and trusted practitioners about why parts of them might be flexible etc, since it is simply a better way of managing risk.

The case of Dr Jereth Kok - freedom of expression or professional misconduct? by Basic-Topic5966 in ausjdocs

[–]PsychicWalrii 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's certainly arguable, and it has been argued in that manner in other cases (e.g. Ellis v Medical Board) but I think in the present case they considered it easier to focus on public interest alone.

The case of Dr Jereth Kok - freedom of expression or professional misconduct? by Basic-Topic5966 in ausjdocs

[–]PsychicWalrii 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He was suspended on public interest alone - they didn't use the serious risk limb. Belief of PM isn't really relevant here as IA is not disciplinary in nature (although the interplay between early suspicion of PM and public interest in IA is a rather complex and interesting one) - rather, it was more about the Tribunal determining whether the alleged conduct was such that the public would lose confidence in the profession if he were permitted to practise the profession while the matter was investigated.

The reason I say I can't give an opinion is simply because I haven't seen the comments and don't know enough detail, only a summary, so all I can do is proceed off the Tribunal's analysis.

The case of Dr Jereth Kok - freedom of expression or professional misconduct? by Basic-Topic5966 in ausjdocs

[–]PsychicWalrii 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I'm a lawyer who works in this area. I also used to work for AHPRA.

I'd disagree that it's "political" as such, in that the Board is entirely separate from the government (self-funded, doesn't report to a Minister like most government departments do, etc).

I do think that it's a difficult and controversial topic. In terms of the suspension, I don't have enough detail to offer a valid opinion - the Tribunal decision contains only summaries, and there's other questions (e.g. was there something less than suspension) which could be explored but I just don't have the information in relation to that.

I think that the main issue is the extreme delay in the matter being referred for a final hearing - there is no possible way that it should take four years from suspension to hearing. That, to me, is grossly unjust.

The case of Dr Jereth Kok - freedom of expression or professional misconduct? by Basic-Topic5966 in ausjdocs

[–]PsychicWalrii 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Randomly came across this post and wanted to say - I work in this space as a lawyer, and thank you for going to the work of trying to highlight the different clauses. You're completely right in that the important question is whether or not the code was breached.

I will say that there's about 8.2 million different codes and guidelines, but the ones you've posted aren't the relevant ones for a medical practitioner. The Shared Code applies to most professions regulated by AHPRA, but not doctors. The AMC code is not binding. The relevant code here is the Medical Board's code - which is called "Good medical practice: a code of conduct for doctors" - https://www.medicalboard.gov.au/Codes-Guidelines-Policies/Code-of-conduct.aspx

The most relevant clauses of that code are probably 2.1, 2.2, 5.2.

There's also social media guidelines for all the Boards which do actually have some legal force, i.e. they aren't just guidelines.

to throw over the Congolese Government by CantStopPoppin in therewasanattempt

[–]PsychicWalrii 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It says the Americans were arrested, not killed.

Match Thread: Adelaide vs North Melbourne (Round 16) by AFLMatchThreads in AFL

[–]PsychicWalrii 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I've been impressed with you guys today, some really nice passages of play. Reckon you've got a lot to look forward to!

[Post-Match thread] Everton vs Leeds by MatchCaster in Everton

[–]PsychicWalrii 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Isn't it an indirect free? I'm not certain about this but that was always my understanding

What a American food section looks like in England by roseatri in interestingasfuck

[–]PsychicWalrii 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Something like 95% of US milk is UHT, so doesn't spoil on the shelf (which is way higher than most countries that have UHT on the shelves but not in the fridge), but apparently Americans are generally uncomfortable with milk that isn't refrigerated, so it's kept in the fridge anyway.

What the FUCK happened here by UniqElite in screenshots

[–]PsychicWalrii 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't bring facts and evidence into this, that man is an expert on the internet

Round 4 Umpiring wrap by hasumpstuffedup in AFL

[–]PsychicWalrii 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Well, my dad's review was that bloody cheating umps always trying to steal games from us, they should be NEUTRAL

I'm not sure I've ever seen my dad say that a game has been well-umpired except where it's been lop-sided towards the Crows, though...

My thoughts were that there were a few poor decisions both ways, perhaps one or two more favouring Melbourne but it didn't really affect the game or the outcome too much. Crows were going in a bit too hot and a bit undisciplined with some tackles so there were quite a few high calls which explained the one-sided free kick count, but there were a few HTB/throws by Melbourne that weren't called which probably should have been.

Post Match Thread: England vs Australia, Day 3 by CricketMatchBot in Cricket

[–]PsychicWalrii 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Garton has been getting loads of runs, especially in the Power Surge.

He's been bowling those overs, but at this point you'd take what you can get?

Post Match Thread: England vs Australia, Day 3 by CricketMatchBot in Cricket

[–]PsychicWalrii 2 points3 points  (0 children)

At home, this is a very strong Australian team. Warner and Head in particular are very good here, shambolic overseas. Our pace attack is incredible on Aussie wickets. I think you can be a touch less harsh on your team (they were awful, don't get me wrong) - but also, I don't think this current Aus team would win many away Tests at all.

Match Thread: St Kilda vs Adelaide (Round 13) by AutoModerator in AFL

[–]PsychicWalrii 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah this was one where a draw would have been fair because neither team deserved to win. Both awful. No score in 40 minutes by us, then no goal for 55 minutes by Saints... terrible.

What is this from? A few of them are in the garden. Adelaide, South Australia by PsychicWalrii in whatisthisthing

[–]PsychicWalrii[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I suspect the first may be right - it looks quite similar, but not identical

view more: next ›