Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 16-04-2019, 23:11   #1
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Boat: Island Packet 40
Posts: 2,443
Images: 7
Update on Ridd Case

Professor Ridd, formerly with a northern Australian university, was fired from his job because of his criticism of a large part of the Great Barrier Reef studies which were being published.

Ridd filed a case with the Federal Court of Australia for wrongful dismissal. The basis of his case was the inclusion of freedom of speech provisions in his work contract.

A judge of the federal court has found that Ridd was unlawfully dismissed and is now assessing damages.

Certain sections of the media appear amazingly reticent regarding the outcome of the case, which is basically about free speech, whilst a minority rejoice. Your guess as to which is which.
__________________

RaymondR is offline  
Old 16-04-2019, 23:47   #2
Senior Cruiser
 
StuM's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Port Moresby,Papua New Guinea
Boat: FP Belize Maestro 43
Posts: 8,377
Re: Update on Ridd Case

The Court ordered:
  1. The 17 findings made by the University, the two speech directions, the five confidentiality directions, the no satire direction, the censure and the final censure given by the University and the termination of employment of Professor Ridd by the University were all unlawful.
  2. The issue of the making of declarations and penalty are adjourned to a date to be fixed.
__________________

StuM is offline  
Old 17-04-2019, 03:02   #3
Senior Cruiser
 
GordMay's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario - 48-29N x 89-20W
Boat: (Cruiser Living On Dirt)
Posts: 34,595
Images: 240
Re: Update on Ridd Case

Handing down his decision today, judge Salvatore Vasta said that the 17 findings used by the university to justify the sacking were unlawful.

“The Court rules that the 17 findings made by the University, the two speech directions, the five confidentiality directions, the no satire direction, the censure and the final censure given by the University and the termination of employment of Professor Ridd by the University were all unlawful,” Judge Vasta said.

A penalty hearing will be set for a later date.

https://www.thegwpf.com/victory-for-...king-unlawful/
__________________
Gord May
"If you didn't have the time or money to do it right in the first place, when will you get the time/$ to fix it?"



GordMay is online now  
Old 17-04-2019, 06:33   #4
Senior Cruiser
 
StuM's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Port Moresby,Papua New Guinea
Boat: FP Belize Maestro 43
Posts: 8,377
Re: Update on Ridd Case

The full judgement makes interesting reading. A few scathing remarks about JCU's approach.


https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-conte...-fcca-997-.pdf


214. The attitude towards this litigation by the University can be encapsulated
by the manner in which it has made submissions in relation to this
finding.
...
218. Whilst none of this makes any difference at all to my ultimate decision,
the actions of the University in this respect are, quite frankly, appalling.
...
They have had no regard for the anguish that Professor Ridd felt between
24 August 2017 and 19 September 2017. There has not even been an
apology for what can only be seen as extremely callous behaviour. This
is inexcusable.
...

220. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. On one hand, the University is finding
that Professor Ridd has breached the Code of Conduct in that he has
made public a number of items to do with the disciplinary process. On
the other hand, he is accused of breaching the Code of Conduct in that
he has not referred to all of that material when he has made this particular
statement.
...

One could
be forgiven for thinking that the university was more concerned with the
splinter in the eye of Professor Ridd whilst ignoring the plank in their
own.

...

239. The fact that the University would not concede that this finding was
unjustified, yet made no submissions to allow me to even consider how
the finding was justified, is symptomatic of the way in which they have
conducted this litigation.

...

296. To use the vernacular, the University has “played the man and not the
ball”. Incredibly, the University has not understood the whole concept
Ridd v James Cook University [2019] FCCA 997 Reasons for Judgment: Page 72
of intellectual freedom.
...

298. The University have been at pains to say that it is not what Professor
Ridd has said, but rather the manner in which he has said it, that is the
underlying reason for the censure, the final censure and the termination.
But the University has consistently overlooked the whole of what has
been written. They have concentrated on small, almost incidental parts
of what has been said and then used the Code of Conduct to pass
judgement on those small parts, with the intention that the flow on effect
of that judgement would impugn the whole of what Professor Ridd has
written.
...
StuM is offline  
Old 17-04-2019, 09:41   #5
Senior Cruiser
 
GordMay's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario - 48-29N x 89-20W
Boat: (Cruiser Living On Dirt)
Posts: 34,595
Images: 240
Re: Update on Ridd Case

Statement by James Cook University Provost Professor Chris Cocklin regarding Dr Peter Ridd
https://www.jcu.edu.au/news/releases...ourt-judgement


From the ruling (Reasons):

"...

2. Though many of those issues ((freedom of speech and intellectual freedom) were canvased and discussed throughout the hearing of this matter, this trial was about none of the above. Rather, this trial was purely and simply about the proper construction of a clause in an Enterprise Agreement. Whilst the Court acknowledges that there may be consequences that touch upon these other issues because of the Court’s construction of that clause, none of those consequences can play any part in the determination of the proper construction of that clause.

3.The clause in question is cl.14 of the James Cook University Enterprise Agreement. It is headed “Intellectual Freedom”. It, and it alone, is the focus of this judgement ..."


As I suspected it might be, earlier on (previous thread), this appears to be a "legalistic" decision (as one might expect from a court of law).
__________________
Gord May
"If you didn't have the time or money to do it right in the first place, when will you get the time/$ to fix it?"



GordMay is online now  
Old 17-04-2019, 11:08   #6
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 424
Re: Update on Ridd Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondR View Post
Professor Ridd, formerly with a northern Australian university, was fired from his job because of his criticism of a large part of the Great Barrier Reef studies which were being published.

Ridd filed a case with the Federal Court of Australia for wrongful dismissal. The basis of his case was the inclusion of freedom of speech provisions in his work contract.

A judge of the federal court has found that Ridd was unlawfully dismissed and is now assessing damages.

Certain sections of the media appear amazingly reticent regarding the outcome of the case, which is basically about free speech, whilst a minority rejoice. Your guess as to which is which.
Mel Brooks' perfect take on these events in world history. The plot is always the same: https://youtu.be/NUMkcBctE7c
Singularity is online now  
Old 17-04-2019, 11:10   #7
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Boat: Island Packet 40
Posts: 2,443
Images: 7
Re: Update on Ridd Case

Courts tend to be legalistic by necessity, it's sort of tied in with their responsibility to interpret the law.

Is it being implied that the systems of reasoning pursued by the courts are inferior to the emotive instincts of the mob?
RaymondR is offline  
Old 17-04-2019, 15:55   #8
Registered User
 
Alan Mighty's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Scarborough Boat Harbour, Moreton Bay
Boat: US$4,550 of lead under a GRP hull with cutter rig
Posts: 1,296
Re: Update on Ridd Case

For CF members outside Aus, may I point out that:

* you'll note above that Judge Vasta has cited no legal precedents in his finding. I reckon it's very liable to appeal, should JCU choose to so do (and I would so advise).

* Judge Vasta is regarded by many as Australia's worst judge. I enclose clips from one of the two national newspapers in Aus. That newspaper has its content behind a paywall, so I cannot post URLs meaningfully. I'll only leave the attachments on CF for a short time.
__________________
“Fools say that you can only gain experience at your own expense, but I have always contrived to gain my experience at the expense of others.” - Otto von Bismarck
Alan Mighty is offline  
Old 17-04-2019, 16:09   #9
Registered User
 
Group9's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,981
Images: 10
Re: Update on Ridd Case

What sacred ox did this poor guy gore?
__________________
Founding member of the controversial Calypso rock band, Guns & Anchors!
Group9 is offline  
Old 17-04-2019, 16:29   #10
Registered User
 
Reefmagnet's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: puɐןsuǝǝnb 'ʎɐʞɔɐɯ
Boat: Nantucket Island 33
Posts: 3,295
Re: Update on Ridd Case

Reeks of sore loser. If Ridd had his case thrown out, there'd be three times as many posts in this thread by now. Between this and walrus-gate, it hasn't been a good week for the doomsayers.
Reefmagnet is offline  
Old 18-04-2019, 05:51   #11
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Slidell, La.
Boat: Morgan Classic 33
Posts: 1,638
Re: Update on Ridd Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefmagnet View Post
Reeks of sore loser. If Ridd had his case thrown out, there'd be three times as many posts in this thread by now. Between this and walrus-gate, it hasn't been a good week for the doomsayers.
More like sore 'winners', but let me rectify the situation for you...

(though it's just one post, imagine I typed a response to each post individually...)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Group9 View Post
What sacred ox did this poor guy gore?
Basically, the 'don't be an ass' one. From JCU's response to the latest Vasta farce.


"It received little press last year when Dr Ridd was unsuccessful in his interim reinstatement application. Justice Jarrett of the Federal Circuit Court on 18 June 2018 found that Dr Ridd had a very weak case and made clear that he understood it was not what Dr Ridd was saying, but the manner of how he said it.

However, significantly, Justice Jarrett also outlined when refusing relief to Dr Ridd at the time, that the University was being taken to court, and had at all times acted reasonably.

While the University is considering its options on this matter, I would like to leave you with a quote from Justice Jarrett's decision last year which reflects the extent to which JCU has gone to attempt to be conciliatory and support proper interpretation and process, rather than publication of matters in the press. Dr Ridd refused these options, as reflected by the Judge in rejecting his interim reinstatement application:

The applicant would have maintained his employment; the University would have maintained what it saw as the integrity of its disciplinary processes, pending a determination about those issues from the Court. However, the applicant declined to enter into those undertakings and there was no alternative suggestion. The offer of the undertakings was repeated on 14 March, 2018 but, again, the applicant declined to give them.

Those matters are significant, in my view, because there was an opportunity for the applicant to avoid the very prejudice that he now says he is subjected by reason of the University’s conduct. He was given the opportunity, in a reasonable way in my view, to have the relevant matters adjudicated upon and, in the meantime, the status quo preserved."

https://www.jcu.edu.au/news/releases...ourt-judgement



Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mighty View Post
For CF members outside Aus, may I point out that:

* you'll note above that Judge Vasta has cited no legal precedents in his finding. I reckon it's very liable to appeal, should JCU choose to so do (and I would so advise).

* Judge Vasta is regarded by many as Australia's worst judge. I enclose clips from one of the two national newspapers in Aus. That newspaper has its content behind a paywall, so I cannot post URLs meaningfully. I'll only leave the attachments on CF for a short time.
Apparently the apple doesn't fall far from the tree...


"Angelo Vasta was a judge of the Supreme Court of Queensland. He took office on 13 February 1984. On 24 October 1988, Mr Vasta either stood down or was stood down as a Judge of the Supreme Court of Queensland after evidence of his friendship with the suspended Queensland Police Commissioner Terence Lewis was given at the Fitzgerald Inquiry a week earlier. [1]. He was formally removed from office on 8 June 1989 by an Act of the Queensland Parliament, the only occasion since Federation that any parliament in Australia has removed a Supreme Court judge. [2][3]"


"...son Sal Vasta, was appointed as judge of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia in December 2014 and commenced on 1 January 2015. [5]"

From the article above

"The head of both the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court, Chief Justice Will Alstergren, declined to comment on whether Judge Vasta would be counselled or referred for remedial judicial training."


Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondR View Post
Courts tend to be legalistic by necessity, it's sort of tied in with their responsibility to interpret the law.

Is it being implied that the systems of reasoning pursued by the courts are inferior to the emotive instincts of the mob?
Seems the opposite. The 'emotive instincts of the mob' are in certain cases being emulated by the courts. This behavior is not limited to seemingly small, undistinguished civil cases in sleepy Australia...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
Mel Brooks' perfect take on these events in world history. The plot is always the same: https://youtu.be/NUMkcBctE7c
Tis a common symptom of 'pseudo-skeptical fever'...

Quote:
Originally Posted by GordMay View Post
Statement by James Cook University Provost Professor Chris Cocklin regarding Dr Peter Ridd
https://www.jcu.edu.au/news/releases...ourt-judgement


From the ruling (Reasons):

"...

2. Though many of those issues ((freedom of speech and intellectual freedom) were canvased and discussed throughout the hearing of this matter, this trial was about none of the above. Rather, this trial was purely and simply about the proper construction of a clause in an Enterprise Agreement. Whilst the Court acknowledges that there may be consequences that touch upon these other issues because of the Court’s construction of that clause, none of those consequences can play any part in the determination of the proper construction of that clause.

3.The clause in question is cl.14 of the James Cook University Enterprise Agreement. It is headed “Intellectual Freedom”. It, and it alone, is the focus of this judgement ..."


As I suspected it might be, earlier on (previous thread), this appears to be a "legalistic" decision (as one might expect from a court of law).
And, to some at least, not a very validly legalistic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StuM View Post
The full judgement makes interesting reading. A few scathing remarks about JCU's approach.


https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-conte...-fcca-997-.pdf


214. The attitude towards this litigation by the University can be encapsulated
by the manner in which it has made submissions in relation to this
finding.
...
218. Whilst none of this makes any difference at all to my ultimate decision,
the actions of the University in this respect are, quite frankly, appalling.
...
They have had no regard for the anguish that Professor Ridd felt between
24 August 2017 and 19 September 2017. There has not even been an
apology for what can only be seen as extremely callous behaviour. This
is inexcusable.
...

220. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. On one hand, the University is finding
that Professor Ridd has breached the Code of Conduct in that he has
made public a number of items to do with the disciplinary process. On
the other hand, he is accused of breaching the Code of Conduct in that
he has not referred to all of that material when he has made this particular
statement.
...

One could
be forgiven for thinking that the university was more concerned with the
splinter in the eye of Professor Ridd whilst ignoring the plank in their
own.

...

239. The fact that the University would not concede that this finding was
unjustified, yet made no submissions to allow me to even consider how
the finding was justified, is symptomatic of the way in which they have
conducted this litigation.

...

296. To use the vernacular, the University has “played the man and not the
ball”. Incredibly, the University has not understood the whole concept
Ridd v James Cook University [2019] FCCA 997 Reasons for Judgment: Page 72
of intellectual freedom.
...

298. The University have been at pains to say that it is not what Professor
Ridd has said, but rather the manner in which he has said it, that is the
underlying reason for the censure, the final censure and the termination.
But the University has consistently overlooked the whole of what has
been written. They have concentrated on small, almost incidental parts
of what has been said and then used the Code of Conduct to pass
judgement on those small parts, with the intention that the flow on effect
of that judgement would impugn the whole of what Professor Ridd has
written.
...
See my responses about the source of these opinions above. A link to the actual transcript would be nice rather than one to one of the most highly-biased pseudo-skeptical blogger sites...

Quote:
Originally Posted by GordMay View Post
Handing down his decision today, judge Salvatore Vasta said that the 17 findings used by the university to justify the sacking were unlawful.

“The Court rules that the 17 findings made by the University, the two speech directions, the five confidentiality directions, the no satire direction, the censure and the final censure given by the University and the termination of employment of Professor Ridd by the University were all unlawful,” Judge Vasta said.

A penalty hearing will be set for a later date.

https://www.thegwpf.com/victory-for-...king-unlawful/
Interesting how many of the deniers sites proclaim 'victory' so easily---and loudly. I guess they have to because they've been so 'silenced' for so long...

Quote:
Originally Posted by StuM View Post
The Court ordered:
  1. The 17 findings made by the University, the two speech directions, the five confidentiality directions, the no satire direction, the censure and the final censure given by the University and the termination of employment of Professor Ridd by the University were all unlawful.
  2. The issue of the making of declarations and penalty are adjourned to a date to be fixed.
Again, the full transcript would be nice, at least to verify if cherry-picking is on display here and if so how much...

Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondR View Post
Professor Ridd, formerly with a northern Australian university, was fired from his job because of his criticism of a large part of the Great Barrier Reef studies which were being published.

Ridd filed a case with the Federal Court of Australia for wrongful dismissal. The basis of his case was the inclusion of freedom of speech provisions in his work contract.

A judge of the federal court has found that Ridd was unlawfully dismissed and is now assessing damages.

Certain sections of the media appear amazingly reticent regarding the outcome of the case, which is basically about free speech, whilst a minority rejoice. Your guess as to which is which.
Doesn't seem to be much about free speech, certainly not as much as the 'wounded skepticians' would like to mis-portray it as...

I wonder what level of reporting would be necessary for this mostly non-event need to get to achieve it's appropriate level to the denial club? Would full front page devotion of the New York Times even be enough?
jimbunyard is offline  
Old 18-04-2019, 07:09   #12
Senior Cruiser
 
StuM's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Port Moresby,Papua New Guinea
Boat: FP Belize Maestro 43
Posts: 8,377
Re: Update on Ridd Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbunyard View Post
A link to the actual transcript would be nice rather than one to one of the most highly-biased pseudo-skeptical blogger sites...

You obviously didn't bother to follow the link, presumably because of your bias against the site hosting it.


It IS the actual full finding by the court. First page of the 79 page linked document attached.



WUWT is the only place I have found that has made the full finding available (I wonder why no alarmist sites seems to have seen fit to do do). If you can find another link to it from a more "acceptable to you" site, please post it.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Ridd.gif
Views:	51
Size:	35.8 KB
ID:	190257  
StuM is offline  
Old 18-04-2019, 07:23   #13
Senior Cruiser
 
StuM's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Port Moresby,Papua New Guinea
Boat: FP Belize Maestro 43
Posts: 8,377
Re: Update on Ridd Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbunyard View Post
Again, the full transcript would be nice, at least to verify if cherry-picking is on display here and if so how much...

That is the complete wording of the actual Orders of the Court- as stated on page 3 of the document linked above. (The remaining 76 pages are the Judge's explanatory "REASONS FOR THE JUDGEMENT")


Like JCU, you really have “played the man and not the ball”, haven't you.
StuM is offline  
Old 18-04-2019, 12:01   #14
Registered User
 
SailOar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 465
Re: Update on Ridd Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by StuM View Post
That is the complete wording of the actual Orders of the Court- as stated on page 3 of the document linked above. (The remaining 76 pages are the Judge's explanatory "REASONS FOR THE JUDGEMENT")


Like JCU, you really have “played the man and not the ball”, haven't you.
You deniers are gloating about minutia, while conveniently ignoring the elephants and gorillas in the room:

Satellite confirms key NASA temperature data: The planet is warming — and fast
Quote:
A high-profile NASA temperature data set, which has pronounced the last five years the hottest on record and the globe a full degree Celsius warmer than in the late 1800s, has found new backing from independent satellite records — suggesting the findings are on a sound footing, scientists reported Tuesday.

If anything, the researchers found, the pace of climate change could be somewhat more severe than previously acknowledged, at least in the fastest warming part of the world — its highest latitudes....

“What you end up with is a really impressive correspondence between the trends that you’re seeing in this satellite product, which is totally independent of the surface temperatures, and the interpretations of the weather stations,” said Schmidt, one of Susskind’s three co-authors....

Notably, AIRS sometimes shows more warming than the NASA data set, and especially does so in the Arctic, a region where measurements are scarce and warming is fastest. Shockingly, it even finds that over the Barents and Kara seas in the Arctic, the warming trend is at a rate of 2.5 degrees Celsius — or 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit — per decade.

This suggests that, if anything, Earth as a whole may be warming faster than NASA has until now claimed — not more slowly.

“These findings should help put to rest any lingering concerns that modern warming is somehow due to the location of sensors in urban heat islands or other measurement errors at the surface,” said Zeke Hausfather, a researcher at the University of California at Berkeley who works on another of the temperature data sets — called Berkeley Earth — and commented on the new study, with which he was not involved.....

__________________
The greatest deception men suffer is their own opinions.
-Leonardo da Vinci
SailOar is offline  
Old 18-04-2019, 12:50   #15
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Boat: Island Packet 40
Posts: 2,443
Images: 7
Re: Update on Ridd Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbunyard View Post
More like sore 'winners', but let me rectify the situation for you...



I wonder what level of reporting would be necessary for this mostly non-event need to get to achieve it's appropriate level to the denial club? Would full front page devotion of the New York Times even be enough?
Whilst it may not have made the front page of the New York Times it has been given a full page treatment in the Thursday April 18 The Australian under the heading FREE TO DEFY ORTHODOXY.

The Ridd case is not about AGW/Climate Change, it is about the rights of a practitioner of science to challenge the integrity of alarmist studies into it's effects.

Ridd's case is important in that it defends a challenger of the orthodoxy generated by a massive, world wide propaganda effort reminiscent of those employed by the old Soviet Union in defense of it's failed system of government.

Can we expect to see attempts to have Ridd consigned to a psychiatric ward if the justice system continues to find for his side of the case.
__________________

RaymondR is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Civil Asset Forfeiture -- Kazazi Case Update Dockhead Rules of the Road, Regulations & Red Tape 42 24-02-2019 12:17
For Sale: Dry Case Waterproof Phone, Camera & MP3 Case - NEW off-the-grid Classifieds Archive 2 11-07-2012 14:58
Falling over board (Case Histories) - Sobering David_Old_Jersey Health, Safety & Related Gear 99 10-12-2007 00:29
GPS tracking in case of theft SVLiv Marine Electronics 18 28-09-2007 11:27
Liferafts - Soft Pack or Hard Case? tianti Health, Safety & Related Gear 2 06-04-2006 21:55



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 14:37.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.