Sally Rugg vs Monique Ryan

Remove this Banner Ad

Gethelred said:
How, specifically?

You've been running along gleefully relying on the notion of being the thread starter to allow you to attack/derail conversation whenever it begins. If you wish to be allowed to continue please provide a basis for the claim you're making and cease attacking other posters or Sally Rugg for the mere offense of opposing someone you like/support.
Click to expand...
Im not attacking anyone. Where are you getting that from? I'm the one getting attacked if you read the thread.
To answer your question refer to the Crikey article which opines the court case is detracting from Ryan's ability to promote her (science based ) climate policy.
Imo, any attack on the character of Monique Ryan undermines her, makes it more likely she loses her seat to the Liberals.
The court case diverts her miserly resources . The Teals were voted in because climate was there main priority. She's there to help fix our disgraceful climate policies.
 
Aristotle Pickett said:
Im not attacking anyone. Where are you getting that from? I'm the one getting attacked if you read the thread.
To answer your question refer to the Crikey article which opines the court case is detracting from Ryan's ability to promote her (science based ) climate policy.
Imo, any attack on the character of Monique Ryan undermines her, makes it more likely she loses her seat to the Liberals.
The court case diverts her miserly resources . The Teals were voted in because climate was there main priority. She's there to help fix our disgraceful climate policies.
Click to expand...
Have you considered maybe Monique Ryan should take some blame for bringing climate action into disrepute after providing an unhealthy work environment and detracting from the policies she was elected to deliver? Or is it only the little guy in this situation expected to shoulder the reputational damage at stake?
 
Aristotle Pickett said:
Im not attacking anyone. Where are you getting that from? I'm the one getting attacked if you read the thread.
To answer your question refer to the Crikey article which opines the court case is detracting from Ryan's ability to promote her (science based ) climate policy.
Imo, any attack on the character of Monique Ryan undermines her, makes it more likely she loses her seat to the Liberals.
The court case diverts her miserly resources . The Teals were voted in because climate was there main priority. She's there to help fix our disgraceful climate policies.
Click to expand...
What I asked for is how Sally Rugg is undermining the fight against climate change. That was what you claimed.

This post does not serve as an answer to mine. Post on topic from this point and/or post in response to the person talking with you, or you will be threadbanned from this thread.

You are derailing discussion. Allow conversation in this thread, or suffer the consequences.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Gethelred said:
What I asked for is how Sally Rugg is undermining the fight against climate change. That was what you claimed.

This post does not serve as an answer to mine. Post on topic from this point and/or post in response to the person talking with you, or you will be threadbanned from this thread.

You are derailing discussion. Allow conversation in this thread, or suffer the consequences.
Click to expand...
Geezuz mate, that is ridiculous. I explained why.
Rugg has every legal right to do what she is doing, but imo it is unnecessary and is besmirching Ryan's character, eg she said 'she wanted to be prime minister' which is totally irrelevent to any workplsce claim.
My point is Undermining Ryan= Undermining a climate action party = potential loss of seat= one less pro-climate MP in a parliament dominated by coal cheerleaders.
That is an answer. Just because I disagree with Getred dorsn't mean you have to have a go at me.
I'll take a day off from the thread if that makes you feel better.
Seeyou tomorow.
 
'Frydenberg will be focussed on whether the fight takes paint off Ryan.'


www.abc.net.au

As Monique Ryan and Sally Rugg face off, Josh Frydenberg is watching closely

As things stand now Peter Dutton's only route to victory requires the Albanese government to fail lamentably in the next two years. Among Dutton's problems is Dutton himself and that may put Josh Frydenberg back in the game, writes Michelle Grattan.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
 
Nuggs Bunny said:
Have you considered maybe Monique Ryan should take some blame for bringing climate action into disrepute after providing an unhealthy work environment and detracting from the policies she was elected to deliver? Or is it only the little guy in this situation expected to shoulder the reputational damage at stake?
Click to expand...

geez. replete with assumptions and inventions.
 
Gethelred said:
What I asked for is how Sally Rugg is undermining the fight against climate change. That was what you claimed.

This post does not serve as an answer to mine. Post on topic from this point and/or post in response to the person talking with you, or you will be threadbanned from this thread.

You are derailing discussion. Allow conversation in this thread, or suffer the consequences.
Click to expand...
love your work m8. but almost as far-fetched as the poster who conflated the workplace issue with climate change when critiquing monique. which you 'liked'
 
my guess is the ruggster won’t have much of the $100,000 left after paying her legal costs.

The anticlimactic end to a lawsuit launched three months ago in a blaze of publicity was reached on April 28, with Rugg accepting an offer of about $100,000 to abandon her claim. All sides have agreed to pay their legal costs, sources with knowledge of the settlement negotiations confirmed.
Click to expand...

www.theage.com.au

Launched in a blaze of publicity, Ryan v Rugg settles in a whimper

A lawsuit billed as a test case for overworked political staffers fizzled into a modest settlement, with no admission of fault and taxpayers picking up part of the bill.
www.theage.com.au www.theage.com.au
 
So Sally gets the 100k. No fault admission. And the work requirements don't get tested in court.

I thought that this case was going to change the workplace requirements for MP staffers.

To me this really screams of cutting and running. Would have like the arguments tested in court. But no changing that now.
 
Saint Shags said:
So Sally gets the 100k. No fault admission. And the work requirements don't get tested in court.

I thought that this case was going to change the workplace requirements for MP staffers.

To me this really screams of cutting and running. Would have like the arguments tested in court. But no changing that now.
Click to expand...
Goes to show the insincere claim from Rugg.
 
Gralin said:
Obsessed
Click to expand...

To be honest there were people on both sides of the argument online that were so fervent in their opinion that either:

A. Rugg was after a quick dollar

Or

B. That there was so much evidence that the courts would rule in Ruggs favour and that would impact all staffers employed for MPs.

I would have like the case tested and for the courts to rule. I think that talk of improving work place conditions is an important thing. And this could have occurred.

Unfortunately that is not the case. Which is unfortunate because I got the impression that Rugg was invested in workers rights. But like all people ended up being human.
Not many of us going to sneeze at 100k.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

My main points were if you want to test workplace laws don't do it at the expense of a climate change activist MP who is overworked herself.
Don't take the job and undermine a medical specialist forced to leave her profession to get reasonable climate action, if you know you can't handle it .
If you want to take on workplace laws go back to Get Up, do interviews, and lobby .

The 'Payment to former chief of staff involves no admission of fault by member for Kooyong.'
 
Aristotle Pickett said:
My main points were if you want to test workplace laws don't do it at the expense of a climate change activist MP who is overworked herself.
Don't take the job and undermine a medical specialist forced to leave her profession to get reasonable climate action, if you know you can't handle it .
If you want to take on workplace laws go back to Get Up, do interviews, and lobby .

The 'Payment to former chief of staff involves no admission of fault by member for Kooyong.'
Click to expand...
I'm going to write a "sustainability and climate change" policy for my workplace so I can start exploiting and abusing my employees 🤣🤣🤣
 
Aristotle Pickett said:
I think all the chief of staffs are expolited, it's just not only Rugg.
Click to expand...
Oh good point. Because someone else is being exploited, you should accept being exploited to.

Honest question Aristotle. If you found out that Monique Ryan was committing fraud of public funds, would you report her or sweep it under the rug in the name of climate change?
 
Big Papa Ted said:
Oh good point. Because someone else is being exploited, you should accept being exploited to.

Honest question Aristotle. If you found out that Monique Ryan was committing fraud of public funds, would you report her or sweep it under the rug in the name of climate change?
Click to expand...
She's a neurologist, check the Lib amd One Nation candidates first.
I put climate change in front of chief of staff wages/cknditions that's for sure.
You can fight for chief of staff conditions and I'll fight for climate action and we'll see history judges us.
 
Aristotle Pickett said:
She's a neurologist, check the Lib amd One Nation candidates first.
I put climate change in front of chief of staff wages/cknditions that's for sure.
You can fight for chief of staff conditions and I'll fight for climate action and we'll see history judges us.
Click to expand...
Don't dodge the question. If you caught her frauding public money, would you report her or sweep it under the rug?
 
Big Papa Ted said:
Don't dodge the question. If you caught her frauding public money, would you report her or sweep it under the rug?
Click to expand...
She wouldn't do that. Are you calling her a crim? If it was going to make the climate crisis worst I would do the moral thing and not report it but tell her to pay it back.
The problem is the lack of importance you put on the climate crisis.
 
Aristotle Pickett said:
She wouldn't do that. Are you calling her a crim? If it was going to make the climate crisis worst I would do the moral thing and not report it but tell her to pay it back.
The problem is the lack of importance you put on the climate crisis.
Click to expand...
Jesus christ mate
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top