Porn-exposing lawyer also a steward and adjudicator with Racing Integrity Board

[hesi]

4 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

What was the indiscretion?

Who did he cover up to?

The indiscretion which was having porn on his computer that staff could see, but he has gone to great lengths to hide this to the RIB, by not raising it and continuing to try and get permanent name suppression.

Now that is fine when it comes to many avenues of employment, but TOTALLY unacceptable for someone working judging others integrity.

So not the indiscretion but that he tried to hide it, he never came clean

Now apologies to anyone with a sensitive demeanour, but there are 3 somewhat clever but inappropriate puns in the post above lol

[curious]

2 minutes ago, hesi said:

The indiscretion which was having porn on his computer that staff could see, but he has gone to great lengths to hide this to the RIB, by not raising it and continuing to try and get permanent name suppression.

Now that is fine when it comes to many avenues of employment, but TOTALLY unacceptable for someone working judging others integrity.

So not the indiscretion but that he tried to hide it, he never came clean

Now apologies to anyone with a sensitive demeanour, but there are 3 somewhat clever but inappropriate puns in the post above lol

I mostly agree but I don't think it is fine in any avenue of employment at all.

[hesi]

Just now, curious said:

I mostly agree but I don't think it is fine in any avenue of employment at all.

Managing a brothel?

[hesi]

4 hours ago, Newmarket said:

Who cares, its only porn. I bet Chief has even stroked the lizard at some time over the years….

Never heard it called a lizard before, maybe a chameleon lol

[curious]

5 minutes ago, hesi said:

Managing a brothel?

Fair point. I probably should have said that I don't think involuntary exposure such as this is fine in any avenue of employment.

[Chief Stipe]

2 hours ago, hesi said:

The indiscretion which was having porn on his computer that staff could see, but he has gone to great lengths to hide this to the RIB, by not raising it and continuing to try and get permanent name suppression.

Wrong on all counts.  You are as bad as @curious reading what you want to read as opposed to distilling the facts.

2 hours ago, hesi said:

So not the indiscretion but that he tried to hide it, he never came clean

You make the assumption he tried to hide it.  What if he wasn't asked?  

In any case what was he hiding?  That he watched porn on his office computer?

2 hours ago, hesi said:

Now apologies to anyone with a sensitive demeanour, but there are 3 somewhat clever but inappropriate puns in the post above lol

If you are talking about your post then not "clever" more salacious innuendo unbecoming of someone of intellect.

Given both you and @curious haven't yet identified the core issue with the case I can say that neither of you would meet your expectations of an RIB Stipe.  Now what does that highlight?

[Chief Stipe]

2 hours ago, curious said:

Fair point. I probably should have said that I don't think involuntary exposure such as this is fine in any avenue of employment.

You obvuously have no understamding of employment law.  

[Gammalite]

20 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

You obvuously have no understamding of employment law.  

what . There wouldn't be a paid job going where an employee could view pornography on work equipment. 

would be grounds for (summary) instant dismissal as is a case of serious misconduct. (yes the brothels get away with it I spose )  

Of course a 'dismissal procedure' must be followed to avoid any 'Unfair Dismissal ' claims by some gold seeking lawyer , just as in other serious misconduct issues under employment Law such as Theft, physical violence, Gross negligence or serious insubordination. they are not worthy of keeping on staff at any business .

unfortunately in this day and age the legal system  is full of claims of serious Sexual harassment. It seems to come in all shapes and forms these days that lead to all sorts of issues.

Staff seeing someone with pictures on a screen of a sexual nature,  is not only Very poor taste, terribly poor ethically, but also a type of harassment to those that know it's going on, and would effect productivity and co-operation in the workplace.  It is incredibly easy to prove from the hard drive.  Dismiss them instantly. 

[curious]

6 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

 Given both you and @curious haven't yet identified the core issue with the case I can say that neither of you would meet your expectations of an RIB Stipe.  Now what does that highlight?

Perhaps you would enlighten us then, as to what the core issue is that we are missing. From your headpost to this thread, I assumed you thought it was a history of exposing others (employees) to porn and then being employed as a stipe and adjudicator by the RIB? 

Edited 4 hours ago by curious

[curious]

6 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

You obvuously have no understamding of employment law.  

My opinion that you quoted didn't necessarily have anything to do with employment law. You seem to have drifted from supporting licensees with drug positives to now supporting those with a record of sexual abuse being employed in racing integrity. Not that it would be the first incidence of that.

Edited 4 hours ago by curious

[Freda]

9 hours ago, curious said:

Fair point. I probably should have said that I don't think involuntary exposure such as this is fine in any avenue of employment.

Involuntary being the operative word, I'm assuming. 

I was going to point out that viewing porn would be unnecessary in the brothel scenario...but I suppose that a new employee might be given some pointers.....and this is getting ridiculous.

Just get rid of the piece of shit.

[mikeynz]

Rather interesting, Pornhub is the 5th most visited website for January in NZ way more visits than Stuff and The Herald, so based on those figures how many publicly condemning someone accessing it when most likely they are doing same is hypocritical, so regarding the so called RIB, how many others are tuning in.

It's more about where you are accessing/watching, more than 90% of visits to the pornhub site is accessed  on smartphones, but accessing it on a work computer, that's where the issues, you would have to be a bit shortsighted to access a work computer, there is time and place for everything but passing judgement on some because they access porn, how many pass judgement on others when they are no different.

Now I see said lawyer is barred from refereeing rugby this year, is this a rugby union ruling, all of these issues are a bi  product of the infiltration the internet has on every access of our lives, it's endemic, it's a different world, it ain't better but the genie is out of the bottle now.