daisycutter

i think it was a play on words 🤣

yes i agree that's a real possibility and no resolution could lead to all sorts of problems i don't want to speculate on

well, in the interests of justice for everyone i can't see how cross examination (of both accused and accuser) can be avoided, given very specific and serious accusations have been made. Unfortunately accusations can't just be left hanging in the air so to speak, they have to be tested rigorously in a fair legal process, uncomfortable or not.

think it's maybe a vape stick

heard it was not the existence of such clauses but the wording being too vague and open-ended they'll work it all out

nobody for the peptides?

well this season they wouldn't sell me my reserved seat (i've had for over 10 years) anymore without the extra gfg. coming off the flag and hoping for a 2peat i thought oh well, what the heck, why not

that's what the newspaper said, however i don't think that was his full-time job, but just rather a task assigned to him as an extra. either temporarily or for longer. But you'd have to ask hawthorn for further clarity. nevertheless a few months later they advertise a full time vacancy for welfare/development manager

we wish 🤣

i'm yet to find out if the gfg is still mandatory for all reserved seat options.....as it was last year i buy an extra 2 tickets for grandkids and i'll be [censored] if i will pay an extra $298 x 3 on top of a reserved seat charge the gfg doesn't even pay for a seat at the gf, just the option. i think the gfg is a bit of a rort for all the clubs. they have lots of other options to decide priority levels for members.

don't seem to have had a dedicated one early 2014 p.s. this was shortly after a certain player departed

how come tassie is not on the list 🤢

maybe they could add james hird to the panel then? lots of practical dealings with player welfare.

sorry, i didn't mean to imply that particular action would be a trick i could have worded that better.

once the lawyers get involved they will be making lots of demands on the panel. like for example insisting the complainants be re-questioned/interrogated in the lawyers presence with them able to ask questions in the interests of natural justice etc. and all the other tricks they are good at. i think it will be very difficult for the panel to wrap it up quickly unless any evidence unearthed is quite unequivocal we will just have to wait and see. i doubt though the panel will be giving any official blow by blow summaries along the way. the media of course will be digging furiously and i'd expect some leaks happening.

as the accusations are quite serious and the implications for the accused quite extensive, i'd expect there would be a lot of serious lawyering up. I don't think this will be resolved as quick as many think, assuming of course it is contested

of course, especially in a non court situation like this. but we are getting into too much speculation which i'm trying hard to avoid

yes, sometimes a second hand testimony may can carry some weight especially where it is close in time to the event it all depends, but it is not as good as first hand testimony. even first hand testimony is usually subject to corroboration and or interpretation

ok....then that would be a hearsay witness as distinct from a firsthand witness

you need to reword that, swyl. it's not clear what you mean

must seem a bit like a local derby, clint 😆

bad case of stage fright can understand how suns beat swans

link? or copy/paste

didn't expect to get a lesson on greek mythology on demonland 😂