Peptides! The *Essendrug Dopers: come smell the bull****! -PART 2

[Argy]

I think it's simple.

If your beliefs aren't relevant to the position you're being employed to fill - for example, if you're a married gay maths teacher at a Catholic school - then you should be able to hold that position. One the other hand, if you want to be a priest and yet also want to be married to your gay partner, then you aren't fit for the job.

If Thorburn can't advocate for gay inclusion, etc., at EFC because his religious affiliation won't allow it, then he's not fit for the position.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

I think it's simple.

If your beliefs aren't relevant to the position you're being employed to fill - for example, if you're a married gay maths teacher at a Catholic school - then you should be able to hold that position. One the other hand, if you want to be a priest and yet also want to be married to your gay partner, then you aren't fit for the job.

If Thorburn can't advocate for gay inclusion, etc., at EFC because his religious affiliation won't allow it, then he's not fit for the position.

Funnily enough though the Catholic school can fire the married gay maths teacher without legal repercussions but Essendon are now walking a legal minefield. But it's the religious folk who need legislated protection apparently.

 

[Brishawk]

I think it's simple.

If your beliefs aren't relevant to the position you're being employed to fill - for example, if you're a married gay maths teacher at a Catholic school - then you should be able to hold that position. One the other hand, if you want to be a priest and yet also want to be married to your gay partner, then you aren't fit for the job.

If Thorburn can't advocate for gay inclusion, etc., at EFC because his religious affiliation won't allow it, then he's not fit for the position.

Yeah, being simultaneously the head of a ‘gay is ok’ organisation and a ‘gay is not ok’ organisation is problematic for both organisations, I would have thought. He had to choose, and he choose the church. That is a fair enough decision for him to make. Not sure he can’t make a claim of discrimination assuming he was given the choice to represent on organisation or the other, as has been reported.

 

[Brishawk]

Talk about posts that did not age well

 

[TylerDurden]

 

[Alite]

I think it's simple.

If your beliefs aren't relevant to the position you're being employed to fill - for example, if you're a married gay maths teacher at a Catholic school - then you should be able to hold that position. One the other hand, if you want to be a priest and yet also want to be married to your gay partner, then you aren't fit for the job.

If Thorburn can't advocate for gay inclusion, etc., at EFC because his religious affiliation won't allow it, then he's not fit for the position.

Said differently, if he cannot have Lgbitq people on his staff, or playing for him… and hold his churches beliefs…

He should be cancelled on the CEO job on the grounds of being a person who allows shat beliefs that hurt and cancel people for who they are.

no person who represents that Church could be anything other that against …. Liberal values…

I commend Andrew Thornton for stepping down … and choosing his church.

I hope he now gets a ticket to the game.

 

[TAITA]

Said differently, if he cannot have Lgbitq people on his staff, or playing for him… and hold his churches beliefs…

He should be cancelled on the CEO job on the grounds of being a person who allows shat beliefs that hurt and cancel people for who they are.

He should of never put himself up as the obvious candidate in the first place.

If you are on a steering or selection committee - self selection is not an option.

Why the * alarm bells weren't ringing then has me six ways rooted.

 

[Alite]

He should of never put himself up as the obvious candidate in the first place.

If you are on a steering or selection committee - self selection is not an option.

Why the * alarm bells weren't ringing then has me six ways rooted.

I added to my content… you were quick to reply

 

[Coach Killer]

He was employed for decades in senior leadership positions of organisations that hired and worked with every section of the community. He was sacked because of a sermon a priest gave 10 years ago that had nothing to do with him - his employer that sacked him openly admits to the same.

I’ve never heard of anything more pathetic and illegal. If I were him I’d commence legal action and rip the club to shreds.

 

[HedgeFund]

Sympathy? For what? I have no vested interest in the outcome and I’m an Atheist.

Back on topic, he wasn’t sacked because of any conflict of interest, they clearly stated why he was sacked, it’s not a secret, nice pivot though.

Ne was sacked because of his bigoted beliefs and views by a bigoted organisation. The bigger bigot won, whilst they both claim not to be bigots.

He resigned. That’s a fact.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Or, in interview, simply ask: "These are our values... please give examples of how these values resonate with you & when/how you've demonstrated these values in previous employment & in your current role?

Suppose he would have just answered referencing things from NAB and side step church.
On another note perhaps we should be thanking Essendon for getting our own issues off the front page

 

[Brishawk]

He was employed for decades in senior leadership positions of organisations that hired and worked with every section of the community. He was sacked because of a sermon a priest gave 10 years ago that had nothing to do with him - his employer that sacked him openly admits to the same.

I’ve never heard of anything more pathetic and illegal. If I were him I’d commence legal action and rip the club to shreds.

He has only being Chair of the Board since 2020, which is after he left NAB.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

He has only being Chair of the Board since 2020, which is after he left NAB.
View attachment 1528941

So Barham’s due diligence didn’t extend to Thorburn’s LinkedIn profile. Oy vey.

 

[Vanstead]

Pretty much sums it up:
God saved Essendon from Andrew Thorburn

Pick which quote you like from the Commission, such as:
Hayne found that “NAB also stands apart from the other three major banks. Having heard from both the CEO, Mr Thorburn, and the chair, Dr [Ken] Henry… I was not persuaded that NAB is willing to accept the necessary responsibility for deciding, for itself, what is the right thing to do, and then having its staff act accordingly … Overall, my fear – that there may be a wide gap between the public face NAB seeks to show and what it does in practice – remains.”

 

[TAITA]

Nonsense, the bank charged account keeping fees of deceased customers and subsequently credited all accounts affected. Commissions for lenders writing loans is standard practice by all banks. He didn’t steal a thing. The findings of the royal commission subsequently led to greater lending controls across the industry which adversely affected borrowers.

The Govt a year later was forced to intervene and pleaded with the banks to remove their strict lending criteria - funny that ey? He did the right thing by standing down regardless of whether he agreed with the commissions ridiculous findings.

Who the hell believes that a bank should know when a person is going to die and should stop charging account fees? Give it a rest fella. All banks credit accounts with any fees charged once they establish the account holder is deceased.

Now of course that doesn’t suit your narrative but that’s ok, you’re allowed to create one to suit yourself and your bigoted views.

Oh, I see - another wet behind the ears dimwit who thinks the banks purpose is to gain the most market share and return to the shareholder rather than prudent financial management. It is geniuses like you with your short term thinking that has led to the most overpriced housing market in the world, a market where the homeowner earns less than his house appreciates in value each year. It is not sustainable doofus and there is a world of pain coming.

 

[Coach Killer]

Oh, I see - another wet behind the ears dimwit who thinks the banks purpose is to gain the most market share and return to the shareholder rather than prudent financial management. It is geniuses like you with your short term thinking that has led to the most overpriced housing market in the world, a market where the homeowner earns less than his house appreciates in value each year. It is not sustainable doofus and there is a world of pain coming.

Nonsense, not sure which markets you’re talking about or where your Investments sit, good luck with that.

Maybe given your position and distaste of the banks you should consider taking whatever savings you have out of the bank and return the gains your superfund has earned from invetsments in bank stocks and sell your properties, there is a world of pain coming. Maybe for you there is, of course don’t take that as financial advice.

Yes, the banks are legally required to report to shareholders and ensure their investments are sound - that is prudent financial management. Maybe you can submit your definition to ASIC and the ASX and get them to redefine their rules.

Now none of this has anything to do with the topic of this thread but you can continue to derail it if you wish.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Nonsense, not sure which markets you’re talking about or where your Investments sit, good luck with that.

Maybe given your position and distaste of the banks you should consider taking whatever savings you have out of the bank and return the gains your superfund has earned from invetsments in bank stocks and sell your properties, there is a world of pain coming. Maybe for you there is, of course don’t take that as financial advice.

Yes, the banks are legally required to report to shareholders and ensure their investments are sound - that is prudent financial management. Maybe you can submit your definition to ASIC and the ASX and get them to redefine their rules.

Now none of this has anything to do with the topic of this thread but you can continue to derail it if you wish.

Banks are necessary evils and return good franked dividends therefore that absolves them of all the wrong they do is a real winning argument. So exactly what kind of returns does a company have to generate before it can completely abandon any semblance of ethics?

And you started the derailment by going on your completely incorrect tangent about the Royal Commission and what NAB had done wrong to come under scrutiny.

 

[HedgeFund]

Nonsense, the bank charged account keeping fees of deceased customers and subsequently credited all accounts affected. Commissions for lenders writing loans is standard practice by all banks. He didn’t steal a thing. The findings of the royal commission subsequently led to greater lending controls across the industry which adversely affected borrowers.

The Govt a year later was forced to intervene and pleaded with the banks to remove their strict lending criteria - funny that ey? He did the right thing by standing down regardless of whether he agreed with the commissions ridiculous findings.

Who the hell believes that a bank should know when a person is going to die and should stop charging account fees? Give it a rest fella. All banks credit accounts with any fees charged once they establish the account holder is deceased.

Now of course that doesn’t suit your narrative but that’s ok, you’re allowed to create one to suit yourself and your bigoted views.

That’s akin to saying - well I may have taken the Mars Bars which weren’t mine to begin with, but I returned them now, so there’s no need to charge me with theft now is there?

The reimbursement indicates remorse and acknowledgement of wrongdoing. It doesn’t change the offender’s moral culpability for the act itself.

 

[Coach Killer]

Banks are necessary evils and return good franked dividends therefore that absolves them of all the wrong they do is a real winning argument. So exactly what kind of returns does a company have to generate before it can completely abandon any semblance of ethics?

And you started the derailment by going on your completely incorrect tangent about the Royal Commission and what NAB had done wrong to come under scrutiny.

Track the conversation, I didn’t introduce his past employment into the thread.

My comments regarding the banking royal commission are factually accurate.

I made no mention or comments regarding absolving any rules set out by the ASX and ASIC for publicly listed companies.

The Governance and reporting obligations of Directors and senior executives of publicly listed entities are onerous. No claims or action has been taken by ASIC or the ASX regarding Thorburns tenure. These are the facts. The BigFooty royal commission into Thorburn's past employment is irrelevant and only serves to derail the thread.

The topic here is that he was sacked due to his beliefs AND due to comments made by a pastor 10 years ago during a sermon he had not attended or had any knowledge of - I think that’s outrageous.

 

[TylerDurden]

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Has worked for PwC and presently KPMG - this does not shock me at all. The amount of bafflingly stupid decisions I have seen come out of higher ups at the big 4 professional service firms is immense.

As a fun example - I was working on a project with one of them and they decided to crack the whip because cases weren't being closed in time (i.e. they couldn't milk the client for money because they weren't meeting their deliverables because ALL the processes they set up continued to fail). So they set consultants a target of 3 cases per day - when they were lucky to close 1 a week. Needless to say the consultants went ballistic. So the leaders on the project all sit down - at the end of the week get all the consultants together and one of these poor managers has to tell them that they realised the target was potentially unrealistic - so instead of a target of 3 cases a day, it was changing to....15 cases a week.

I know some good eggs go in and out of those firms - but I would be highly sceptical of anyone working at one on spec.

 

[Brishawk]

Hilarious.

 

[Dixie Flatline]

Take the discussions about the benefits or otherwise of the banking royal commission to the SRP board. Insulting other posters on this board is also out of order. Deleting posts.

 

[xmarksthespot]

Wow. Robbo's article is insane. Basically confirming that Barnham and Sheedy would pick the coach, recommendation of the coaching selection panel be damned.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/inside-the-bombers-blowup-mark-robinson-and-scott-gullan-reveal-the-behind-the-scenes-chaos-at-essendon/news-story/e2f5c20eed6d4d887d39dc737f022c8e

Looks like you were bang on SYL

 

[TylerDurden]

Wow. Robbo's article is insane. Basically confirming that Barnham and Sheedy would pick the coach, recommendation of the coaching selection panel be damned.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/inside-the-bombers-blowup-mark-robinson-and-scott-gullan-reveal-the-behind-the-scenes-chaos-at-essendon/news-story/e2f5c20eed6d4d887d39dc737f022c8e

Looks like you were bang on SYL

That's right. Was a sham.