If you want to talk about Ben Cousins, post it here (mega merged thread)

[Industrial Fan]

Phew, that is a relief.

I figured no pants on the outside, bufty on the inside.

But

I will take your expert advice.

Can you watch RPA for me ?

As i am thinking of having a vasectomy and want your advice.

I havent got around to watching RPA, but I think medical procedure is a bit over rated. I watched extreme makeover instead.

I think we should focus on making your balls bigger and more supple rather than going the snip. I would recommend lypo, plaster of paris injection, and then a course of remedial massage.

While I recommend that, I take no responsibility for the results - that would be unethical and go against industry standards.

[ROK Lobster]

I think the contract issue is still relevant. At what point does WC duty of care to Ben Cousins cease? Does it cease at the end or termination of a contract? Does it cease once he's re-employed? Does it cease once he is clean? To point the finger at WC and say you have a duty of care - they need to set the boundaries of when this applies. And what is an "appropriate level of support"? If this is the complicated expectation on a club towards a troubled and addicted employee, then Ben Cousins may be unemployable. What other club would knowingly accept an addicted Ben Cousins into their duty of care when that expectation extends well beyond his playing days?

Do you think the AFL have more common law duty of care? The league administrators were pressuring WC to take action against a wayward Ben Cousins by threatening penalties. And this is the result. Who has more duty of care?

The contract issue id not irrelvant in itself, it is irrelevant in terms of a common law duty of care (except maybe as a factual element establishing the proximity of the relationship). The duty of care never ends in a sense. WCE will always need to ensure that they dio not do anything that causes him harm, much like they owe crowds a duty of care. The law will not oblige them to do anything, it obliges them not to do things that reasonably could cause him harm. Thus, my argument was that if they sack him, they need to make sure that they do so in a way that will not be likely to cause him harm, such as provide counselling and support. WCE will not have breached their duty of care to Cousins simply because he goes and overdoses, but they may if a casual connection is found between an OD and a lack concern for his welfare. What I am suggesting is not scandalous - there are cases where people have been found negligent and to have breached their duty of care to people who have broken into their houses, or to people wearing steak as shoes after leaving a pub (I think).

[AnnieH]

And trade unions the world over shake their heads and cry.

Ah well, that's just the way it is these days.
Not even the BLF could help bad-boy benny.

[Layby]

The last train to transcentral would help anyone !

They are justified and ancient you know

[Industrial Fan]

uh huh.

[Wardy]

The last train to transcentral would help anyone !

They are justified and ancient you know

and they like to roam the land.................

[cruiser]

and they like to roam the land.................

Just as long as they didnt miss the train that left an hour ago.

Come to think of it, this site can feel a bit like Mu Mu Land during the off season.

[Jewels]

Just as long as they didnt miss the train that left an hour ago.

Come to think of it, this site can feel a bit like Mu Mu Land during the off season.

Or Nuff Nuff Land.....

[Cygnatius]

The contract issue id not irrelvant in itself, it is irrelevant in terms of a common law duty of care (except maybe as a factual element establishing the proximity of the relationship). The duty of care never ends in a sense. WCE will always need to ensure that they dio not do anything that causes him harm, much like they owe crowds a duty of care. The law will not oblige them to do anything, it obliges them not to do things that reasonably could cause him harm. Thus, my argument was that if they sack him, they need to make sure that they do so in a way that will not be likely to cause him harm, such as provide counselling and support. WCE will not have breached their duty of care to Cousins simply because he goes and overdoses, but they may if a casual connection is found between an OD and a lack concern for his welfare. What I am suggesting is not scandalous - there are cases where people have been found negligent and to have breached their duty of care to people who have broken into their houses, or to people wearing steak as shoes after leaving a pub (I think).

Sorry to be pedantic but should that read causal?

[ROK Lobster]

Sorry to be pedantic but should that read causal?

Yep

[cruiser]

Sorry to be pedantic but should that read causal?

Someone read all of it

[ScottH]

Someone read all of it

And paid attention to detail!

[reigning premier]

And paid attention to detail!

And wasted their time in responding to it!!!

[hammo]

Cuz heading to Sydney

... then on to the US

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/cousins-heads-to-sydney/2007/10/25/1192941219673.html

[Doctor J.]

Hammo you pr---!!!!!!

You nearly had me.