Twist in Telstra sex romp case

[Ext User(Horry)]

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:47:55 +1100, Kwyjibo wrote:

> "Horry" <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:oxqg9wor51ah$.1vha758j847ii$.dlg@40tude.net.. .
>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:50:13 +1100, Kwyjibo wrote:
>>
>>> "Horry" <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1o3nff4hw9hes.lkr86ycwvhmw.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:56:06 GMT, Craig Welch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Alan Parkington" <alan.parkington@team.telstra.com> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>>From
>>>>>>http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23105142-5007132,00.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A TELSTRA worker, sacked for taking part in a sex romp at a Sydney
>>>>>>hotel
>>>>>>after a work Christmas party, has lost the right to receive
>>>>>>compensation
>>>>>>and
>>>>>>get her job back.
>>>>>
>>>>> Telstra's actions in this case were reprehensible.
>>>>
>>>> Why? Surely a company is allowed to set standards as to the moral
>>>> character of its employees?
>>>
>>> They probably are allowed, but as far as I am aware no such standards
>>> have
>>> been set or published. What is the employees moral standard to be
>>> measured
>>> against?
>>
>> Whatever moral standard Telstra wants to set for itself from time to time.
>
> Are you suggesting that people should be sacked based on a whim?

No. And no-one gets sacked on "whims". Only an insane employer would sack
an employee just for the hell of it.

I'm suggesting Telstra (or any other business) should be able to sack an
employee if that employee behaves in such a way which, in the company's
opinion, reflects badly on the company or might cause the company harm.

Furthermore, in some situations, a company must be seen to take
disciplinary action lest "doing nothing" be seen as tacit approval.


>> Are you suggesting that in order to apply a moral standard, a company (be
>> it Telstra, Woolworths, Adelaide City Coucil, or John Smith & Son
>> Stationery Supplies Pty Ltd) must first publish it?
>
> If people are to be measured against it, surely they must be notified as to
> what they are being measured against. Even more so given the grey nature of
> 'morals'.

What form of "notification" would you suggest (assuming you don't agree
that it always must be an after-hours moral free-for-all for all
employees)?


>> Unfortunately, it's nigh on impossible to codify morality (at least with
>> any specificity).
>
> It's not a 'standard' then, is it, and any attempt to measure someone
> against something that does not exist is nonsensical.

Yes it is. Everyone has moral standards. They're just impossible to write
down in a way that will prevent someone who wants to breach them.


> BTW - Most companies *do* codify their moral standards in a 'Code of
> Conduct" or similar statement.

And they're always expressed in airy-fairy language that's of no use when
an actual, but unusual, real life dispute about morality has arisen.

It's easy to cover the common ones (alcohol, drugs, criminality -- though
often these are included for reasons of safety rather than morality).

The problems arise when you get even slightly unusual behaviour.


> AFAIK, no "Code of Conduct" mentions people
> having sex outside of working hours.

No "Code of Conduct" mentions naked employees smearing animals turds over
their body while being photographed for magazines either.

[Ext User(Horry)]

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:31:20 GMT, Craig Welch wrote:

> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> said:
>
>>On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 03:21:41 GMT, Craig Welch wrote:
>>
>>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> said:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:56:06 GMT, Craig Welch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Alan Parkington" <alan.parkington@team.telstra.com> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>>From
>>>>>>http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23105142-5007132,00.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A TELSTRA worker, sacked for taking part in a sex romp at a Sydney hotel
>>>>>>after a work Christmas party, has lost the right to receive compensation and
>>>>>>get her job back.
>>>>>
>>>>> Telstra's actions in this case were reprehensible.
>>>>
>>>>Why? Surely a company is allowed to set standards as to the moral
>>>>character of its employees?
>>>
>>> Moral standards that might cause damage to the employer, such as
>>> dishonesty.
>>
>>Do you mean financial damage (e.g., an employee dishonestly claiming
>>overtime for work not performed), or public relations damage (e.g., an
>>employee dishonestly claiming 62 separate Centrelink pensions under 62
>>fraudulent identities while all the time working for the company)?
>>
>>Or both?
>
> The former.

Surely the latter could cause public relations damage to the employer?
Especially if the employee managed to avoid a gaol sentence and remained an
employee?

If you were CEO of a company, and one of your senior employees became
politically active on the single issue of lowering the age of consent for
male-male sexual activity to 8 years of age, would your position change?

It's not illegal to urge politicians to make such a legislative change
(indeed, it's arguable that the Constitution prohibits such speech from
being made illegal), but it's a moral position that the vast majority of
your customers would find abhorrent.

[Ext User(Horry)]

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:27:01 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>> dave wrote
>>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Craig Welch wrote
>>>>> Alan Parkington <alan.parkington@team.telstra.com> wrote
>
>>>>>> From
>>>>>> http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23105142-5007132,00.html
>
>>>>>> A TELSTRA worker, sacked for taking part in a sex romp
>>>>>> at a Sydney hotel after a work Christmas party, has lost
>>>>>> the right to receive compensation and get her job back.
>
>>>>> Telstra's actions in this case were reprehensible.
>
>>>> Why? Surely a company is allowed to set standards
>>>> as to the moral character of its employees?
>
>>> Why the hell should Telstra care what its employees do outside of work ?
>
>> Why should it care? Because after hours behaviour
>> by employees can reflect poorly on a company.
>
> Too bad. That does NOT give them the legal
> right to control what employees do in their own time.

We were discussing why Telstra should "care". Not the legal position.

But Telstra obviously did have the legal right, because the three of them
lost their jobs.


>> Why should Telstra be permitted to impose its moral
>> standards on its employees? Because it's paying them.
>
> Wrong. That does NOT give the employer the right to have any
> say whatever in what the employee does in their own time.

Huh? Employers do have rights over what employees do in their own time.


>> Companies regularly impose conditions on their
>> employees' behaviour outside working hours.
>
> Not with legal activity without paying them more so they are for example available etc.

You just contradicted yourself. Or are you making a legal/illegal
distinction?

Could an employer pay someone more to prevent them from wearing leather
shoes, even outside working hours?

(And why should they have to pay them more? Surely it could just be made
part of the normal conditions of employment?)

>> For example, requiring that they be contactable 24/7 and
>> remain able to come in to work any time at short notice.
>
> Different matter entirely.

Really?


>> Many companies have a "no drugs" policy.
>
> But cant legally have a no grog or no smoking policy.



>> Why shouldn't a company be able to do likewise respecting sexual behaviour?
>
> For the same reason they cant tell you you have to attend church etc.

Huh? Why not? They can make you attend Sunday morning "staff training"
sessions but not church?

(P.S. I said "should" not "can".)


> Or that you cant be in favor of a republic, or spruik for the labor party etc.

Different matters entirely. Those things are protected by IR legislation.
Fucking in bathtubs isn't.


>> After all, no-one in this country is forced to work for a particular employer.
>
> Irrelevant to whether the employer has any legal right
> to tell you what you can and cannot do in your own time.

You have the habit of responding to statements about what SHOULD be the
position as if they are statements about what LEGALLY IS the position.
I've used my words carefully and maintained a distinction throughout the
thread, but you've simply ignored that and treated the two things as one in
the same. And you've done it throughout your post.

(But they obviously DO have legal rights over what you can and cannot do in
your own time because the three employees no longer have jobs.)


>>> If they want to fuck around then that's their perogative.
>
>> I wonder how quickly you'd change your tune if you were a
>> service-oriented business owner whose employees got caught red-handed
>> by the Daily Telegraph after your work Christmas party engaging in
>> some engaging in some group scat-play using cow dung in the local paddock.
>
> Thats their problem legally.

No it's not.


>> Or if one of your employees became national spokesman for the
>> Australian equivalent of NAMBLA.
>
>> Or State President of Anal Gapers Anonymous.
>
> Or if you decide to advocate Greens policy without breaking the law.

Political association is protected by IR legislation.

Anal gaping is not even mentioned in IR legislation.


> The employer gets to like it or lump it, legally.

With the Greens example, sure.


>> You'd start "caring" what your employees were doing ourside of work quick smart.
>
> Wrong, as always

You're saying he wouldn't care?

> and whether he cares or not is completely irrelevant
> to what the law allows the employer to have any say what so ever on.

Which, of course, is completely irrelevant to the topic of this sub-thread.
("Why the hell should Telstra care what its employees do outside of work.")

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to killfile you now.

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
> Kwyjibo wrote
>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Kwyjibo wrote
>>>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Craig Welch wrote
>>>>>> Alan Parkington <alan.parkington@team.telstra.com> wrote

>>>>>>> From
>>>>>>> http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23105142-5007132,00.html

>>>>>>> A TELSTRA worker, sacked for taking part in a sex romp at a Sydney hotel
>>>>>>> after a work Christmas party, has lost the right to receive compensation
>>>>>>> and get her job back.

>>>>>> Telstra's actions in this case were reprehensible.

>>>>> Why? Surely a company is allowed to set standards as to the moral
>>>>> character of its employees?

>>>> They probably are allowed,

Nope, not with what the employees can get up to in their own time they arent.

>>>> but as far as I am aware no such standards have been set or published.
>>>> What is the employees moral standard to be measured against?

>>> Whatever moral standard Telstra wants to set for itself from time to time.

Telstra doesnt get to do that with what employees do in their own time.

>> Are you suggesting that people should be sacked based on a whim?

> No. And no-one gets sacked on "whims".

Plenty do.

> Only an insane employer would sack an employee just for the hell of it.

You dont have to be insane to do that. Plenty operate like that.

> I'm suggesting Telstra (or any other business) should be able to sack an
> employee if that employee behaves in such a way which, in the company's
> opinion, reflects badly on the company or might cause the company harm.

Welp, legally they cant. And its completely silly to claim that they should
be able to sack someone who doesnt say attend church or is into some
fruit loop cult as long as that doesnt interfere with their work etc.

> Furthermore, in some situations, a company must be seen to take
> disciplinary action lest "doing nothing" be seen as tacit approval.

Wrong with what is done in the employee's own time.

'tacit approval' isnt even relevant.

Telstra cant for example sack someone because they choose not to
bother with marraige or because they are a cricket tragic etc etc etc.

>>> Are you suggesting that in order to apply a moral standard, a
>>> company (be it Telstra, Woolworths, Adelaide City Coucil, or John
>>> Smith & Son Stationery Supplies Pty Ltd) must first publish it?

>> If people are to be measured against it, surely they must be notified as to what
>> they are being measured against. Even more so given the grey nature of 'morals'.

> What form of "notification" would you suggest (assuming you don't agree
> that it always must be an after-hours moral free-for-all for all employees)?

That last is precisely what it is, legally.

>>> Unfortunately, it's nigh on impossible to codify morality (at least with any specificity).

>> It's not a 'standard' then, is it, and any attempt to measure
>> someone against something that does not exist is nonsensical.

> Yes it is. Everyone has moral standards. They're just impossible to write
> down in a way that will prevent someone who wants to breach them.

And telstra gets no say what so ever on the moral standards of any employee outside the workplace.

>> BTW - Most companies *do* codify their moral standards in a 'Code of
>> Conduct" or similar statement.

> And they're always expressed in airy-fairy language that's of no use
> when an actual, but unusual, real life dispute about morality has arisen.

And they cant even do that with what individuals do in their own time anyway.

> It's easy to cover the common ones (alcohol, drugs, criminality -- though
> often these are included for reasons of safety rather than morality).

> The problems arise when you get even slightly unusual behaviour.

And telstra gets no say what so ever about what any employee does in that
regard in their own time, whether thats taking part in the Mardi Gras parade,
or being stupid enough to bother to listen to the dud waffling on Aust Day etc.

>> AFAIK, no "Code of Conduct" mentions people having sex outside of working hours.

> No "Code of Conduct" mentions naked employees smearing animals
> turds over their body while being photographed for magazines either.

And telstra gets no say what so ever on an employee of theirs doing that in their own time.

Or attending the cricket either.

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:31:20 GMT, Craig Welch wrote:
>
>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 03:21:41 GMT, Craig Welch wrote:
>>>
>>>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> said:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:56:06 GMT, Craig Welch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Alan Parkington" <alan.parkington@team.telstra.com> said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From
>>>>>>> http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23105142-5007132,00.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A TELSTRA worker, sacked for taking part in a sex romp at a
>>>>>>> Sydney hotel after a work Christmas party, has lost the right
>>>>>>> to receive compensation and get her job back.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Telstra's actions in this case were reprehensible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why? Surely a company is allowed to set standards as to the moral
>>>>> character of its employees?
>>>>
>>>> Moral standards that might cause damage to the employer, such as
>>>> dishonesty.
>>>
>>> Do you mean financial damage (e.g., an employee dishonestly claiming
>>> overtime for work not performed), or public relations damage (e.g.,
>>> an employee dishonestly claiming 62 separate Centrelink pensions
>>> under 62 fraudulent identities while all the time working for the
>>> company)?
>>>
>>> Or both?
>>
>> The former.
>
> Surely the latter could cause public relations damage to the employer?

> Especially if the employee managed to avoid a gaol sentence and
> remained an employee?
>
> If you were CEO of a company, and one of your senior employees became
> politically active on the single issue of lowering the age of consent for
> male-male sexual activity to 8 years of age, would your position change?

> It's not illegal to urge politicians to make such a legislative change
> (indeed, it's arguable that the Constitution prohibits such speech
> from being made illegal), but it's a moral position that the vast
> majority of your customers would find abhorrent.

Maybe, but just like with advocating a republic, telstra gets to like it or lump
it as long as what the employee does is legal and done in their own time.

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>>> dave wrote
>>>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Craig Welch wrote
>>>>>> Alan Parkington <alan.parkington@team.telstra.com> wrote

>>>>>>> From
>>>>>>> http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23105142-5007132,00.html

>>>>>>> A TELSTRA worker, sacked for taking part in a sex romp
>>>>>>> at a Sydney hotel after a work Christmas party, has lost
>>>>>>> the right to receive compensation and get her job back.

>>>>>> Telstra's actions in this case were reprehensible.

>>>>> Why? Surely a company is allowed to set standards
>>>>> as to the moral character of its employees?

>>>> Why the hell should Telstra care what its employees do outside of work ?

>>> Why should it care? Because after hours behaviour
>>> by employees can reflect poorly on a company.

>> Too bad. That does NOT give them the legal
>> right to control what employees do in their own time.

> We were discussing why Telstra should "care". Not the legal position.

We were clearly discussing whether telstra can legally sack
individuals for doing what they dont like to see in their own time.

> But Telstra obviously did have the legal right,
> because the three of them lost their jobs.

Mindlessly silly. Thats what is being legally disputed, whether telstra does have that legal right.

>>> Why should Telstra be permitted to impose its moral
>>> standards on its employees? Because it's paying them.

>> Wrong. That does NOT give the employer the right to have any
>> say whatever in what the employee does in their own time.

> Huh? Employers do have rights over what employees do in their own time.

No they dont with that sort of moral issue.

>>> Companies regularly impose conditions on their
>>> employees' behaviour outside working hours.

>> Not with legal activity without paying them more so they are for example available etc.

> You just contradicted yourself.

Nope.

> Or are you making a legal/illegal distinction?

I'm saying that on stuff like availability to work, they can choose to pay
them more so they can call them in at short notice if required, but they
cant legally tell you that you have to attend church, or get married if
you choose not to bother, or that you cant be a cricket tragic etc etc etc.

> Could an employer pay someone more to prevent them
> from wearing leather shoes, even outside working hours?

Irrelevant to whether they get any say on that if the
employee chooses to do what it wants shoes wise.

> (And why should they have to pay them more? Surely it could
> just be made part of the normal conditions of employment?)

Nope, the employer cant for example require that
you only ever fuck the individual you are married to.

>>> For example, requiring that they be contactable 24/7 and
>>> remain able to come in to work any time at short notice.

>> Different matter entirely.

> Really?

Yep.

>>> Many companies have a "no drugs" policy.

>> But cant legally have a no grog or no smoking policy.

>>> Why shouldn't a company be able to do likewise respecting sexual behaviour?

>> For the same reason they cant tell you you have to attend church etc.

> Huh? Why not?

Because no employer gets any say what so ever on that sort of thing in your own time.

> They can make you attend Sunday morning "staff training" sessions

Only if they pay you to work those hours.

> but not church?

Nope, because thats your own time, not theirs.

> (P.S. I said "should" not "can".)

More fool you.

>> Or that you cant be in favor of a republic, or spruik for the labor party etc.

> Different matters entirely.

Nope.

> Those things are protected by IR legislation. Fucking in bathtubs isn't.

What shoes you choose to wear in your own time isnt covered by any IR legislation.

Neither is church attendence in your own time either.

Or what you choose to watch sport wise either.

>>> After all, no-one in this country is forced to work for a particular employer.

>> Irrelevant to whether the employer has any legal right
>> to tell you what you can and cannot do in your own time.

> You have the habit of responding to statements about what SHOULD be
> the position as if they are statements about what LEGALLY IS the position.

You stupidly rabbit on about what SHOULD be the position
when the thread is clearly about what LEGALLY IS the position.

> I've used my words carefully and maintained a distinction throughout the thread,

And that is stupid when clearly what was being discussed was whether telstra has
the legal right to sack that individual when it didnt like what it got up to in its own time.

> but you've simply ignored that and treated the two things as
> one in the same. And you've done it throughout your post.

Because your mindless rabitting on about SHOULD
is completely irrelevant to what was being discussed.

> (But they obviously DO have legal rights over what you can and cannot
> do in your own time because the three employees no longer have jobs.)

Thats what is being legally challenged, stupid.

>>>> If they want to fuck around then that's their perogative.

>>> I wonder how quickly you'd change your tune if you were a service-oriented
>>> business owner whose employees got caught red-handed by the Daily
>>> Telegraph after your work Christmas party engaging in some engaging
>>> in some group scat-play using cow dung in the local paddock.

>> Thats their problem legally.

> No it's not.

Yes it is.

>>> Or if one of your employees became national spokesman for the
>>> Australian equivalent of NAMBLA.

>>> Or State President of Anal Gapers Anonymous.

>> Or if you decide to advocate Greens policy without breaking the law.

> Political association is protected by IR legislation.

What shoes you wear in your own time isnt. The employer doesnt get to decide
that those who wear thongs in their own time make the employer look bad either.

> Anal gaping is not even mentioned in IR legislation.

Neither is thong wearing.

>> The employer gets to like it or lump it, legally.

> With the Greens example, sure.

And with the thongs and what you do with cow shit too.

>>> You'd start "caring" what your employees were doing ourside of work quick smart.

>> Wrong, as always

> You're saying he wouldn't care?

I'm saying he gets to like it or lump it, legally.

>> and whether he cares or not is completely irrelevant to what
>> the law allows the employer to have any say what so ever on.

> Which, of course, is completely irrelevant to the topic of this sub-thread.

Nope.

> ("Why the hell should Telstra care what its employees do outside of work.")

You dont get any say what so ever on what is the topic of this sub thread, ever.

> I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to killfile you now.

Wota fucking wanker.

[Ext User(Snapper)]

dave wrote...

>Why the hell should Telstra care what its employees do outside of work

If these guys come across as Telstra representatives there can be issues
about misrepresenting the company, particularly in "Michael's" case where
he can be abusive and offensive.

Not exactly a good look for a Telstra employee, is it?

Ask Tony Smith, aka Blue Healer and his mate Dave Canole (sp?) about using
work provided internet services and the consquences. While "Michael" may
not be using a work provided internet service to make his posts, if people
think that he's pushing the official Telstra line and his employer gets
wind of it, he and Dave C could end up chatting about how great Usenet is
while waiting for the Work for the Dole forms are processed...



--
A little knowledge is dangerous. So is a lot.

[Ext User(Snapper)]

Horry wrote...

>You'd start "caring" what your employees were doing ourside of work quick
>smart.

A similar thing with where I work. Xmas breakup. Two of the lads were at a
contractor's pissup. They left said pissup and went to a local pub with
some of the contractor's employees. A fight broke out in the pub and the
mates got caught up in it.

It got back to the contractor that our boys and its fellows were involved
in a post-pissup scuffle. Management heard about this and the two chaps
were disciplined for "bringing the company into disrepute".

Where I live and work the community isn't that big (around 100,000 across
the region) and there are one or two major industries that the labor
market intersects. So, yeah, our bosses DID give a shit about what the
lads were doing after hours, given that they were invited to the pissup
because of the relationship between the contractor and our company.

Maybe if Fred's Machining and Engineering in East Hawthorn got into a
shitfight with the lads from Dave's Electrical Services from West
Footscray, no-one would probably give a shit because of the remoteness of
each company and the size of the population of Melbourne. But that's not
always the case.

And when it comes to sexual harrassment the law is quite clear on this -
you can be done for touching up the boss's secretary at the local Irish
Bar if you are there having after work drinks. It probably extends to a
random meeting at a nightclub too.


--
A little knowledge is dangerous. So is a lot.

[Ext User(Magilla)]

"Kwyjibo" <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote in message news:13pig2qo2ins96a@corp.supernews.com...
> "Horry" wrote ...
>> Craig Welch wrote:
>>> "Alan Parkington" said:

>>>>From
>>>>http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23105142-5007132,00.html

>>>> A TELSTRA worker, sacked for taking part in a sex romp at a Sydney
>>>> hotel after a work Christmas party, has lost the right to receive
>>>> compensation and get her job back.

>>> Telstra's actions in this case were reprehensible.

>> Why? Surely a company is allowed to set standards as to the moral
>> character of its employees?

> They probably are allowed, but as far as I am aware no such standards
> have been set or published. What is the employees moral standard to
> be measured against?

http://telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/investor/docs/pers_responsibility.pdf

Part A: General Code of Conduct principles

The Basic Principles of Telstra’s Code of Conduct are ....
Ensure our personal business, financial and other outside interests
do not conflict with our duty to Telstra.

[snip]

Dealing with the ‘grey’ issues
If you are confronted with a situation or are considering behaviour
and are still unsure of its appropriateness ask yourself these
questions :

Would this look OK on the evening news or on the front page of a
newspaper?

Am I wrong in assuming that, if you end-up in the news not looking
your best, you're contravening the Code of Conduct?


--
Magilla

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

Magilla <magilla@DELETETHISstupidmonkey.org> wrote:
> "Kwyjibo" <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote in message
> news:13pig2qo2ins96a@corp.supernews.com...
>> "Horry" wrote ...
>>> Craig Welch wrote:
>>>> "Alan Parkington" said:
>
>>>>> From
>>>>> http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23105142-5007132,00.html
>
>>>>> A TELSTRA worker, sacked for taking part in a sex romp at a Sydney
>>>>> hotel after a work Christmas party, has lost the right to receive
>>>>> compensation and get her job back.
>
>>>> Telstra's actions in this case were reprehensible.
>
>>> Why? Surely a company is allowed to set standards as to the moral
>>> character of its employees?
>
>> They probably are allowed, but as far as I am aware no such standards
>> have been set or published. What is the employees moral standard to
>> be measured against?
>
> http://telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/investor/docs/pers_responsibility.pdf
>
> Part A: General Code of Conduct principles
>
> The Basic Principles of Telstra’s Code of Conduct are ....
> Ensure our personal business, financial and other outside interests
> do not conflict with our duty to Telstra.
>
> [snip]
>
> Dealing with the ‘grey’ issues
> If you are confronted with a situation or are considering behaviour
> and are still unsure of its appropriateness ask yourself these
> questions :
>
> Would this look OK on the evening news or on the front page of a
> newspaper?

> Am I wrong in assuming that, if you end-up in the news not looking your best, you're contravening the Code of Conduct?

Yes, you are wrong.

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

Snapper <snapper_won@yahoo.com.au> wrote
> dave wrote

>> Why the hell should Telstra care what its employees do outside of work

> If these guys come across as Telstra representatives
> there can be issues about misrepresenting the company,

Not when fucking voluntarily.

> particularly in "Michael's" case where he can be abusive and offensive.

But has never ever said that he represents telstra.

> Not exactly a good look for a Telstra employee, is it?

Maybe not, but telstra gets to like it or lump it.

> Ask Tony Smith, aka Blue Healer and his mate Dave Canole (sp?)
> about using work provided internet services and the consquences.

Irrevant to whats fine using internet services you pay for at home.

> While "Michael" may not be using a work provided internet
> service to make his posts, if people think that he's pushing
> the official Telstra line and his employer gets wind of it, he
> and Dave C could end up chatting about how great Usenet is
> while waiting for the Work for the Dole forms are processed...

Or whoever is stupid enough to try that could well end up with its arse in a sling instead.

[Ext User(Horry)]

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:23:11 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

> Magilla <magilla@DELETETHISstupidmonkey.org> wrote:
>> "Kwyjibo" <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote in message
>> news:13pig2qo2ins96a@corp.supernews.com...
>>> "Horry" wrote ...
>>>> Craig Welch wrote:
>>>>> "Alan Parkington" said:
>>
>>>>>> From
>>>>>> http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23105142-5007132,00.html
>>
>>>>>> A TELSTRA worker, sacked for taking part in a sex romp at a Sydney
>>>>>> hotel after a work Christmas party, has lost the right to receive
>>>>>> compensation and get her job back.
>>
>>>>> Telstra's actions in this case were reprehensible.
>>
>>>> Why? Surely a company is allowed to set standards as to the moral
>>>> character of its employees?
>>
>>> They probably are allowed, but as far as I am aware no such standards
>>> have been set or published. What is the employees moral standard to
>>> be measured against?
>>
>> http://telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/investor/docs/pers_responsibility.pdf
>>
>> Part A: General Code of Conduct principles
>>
>> The Basic Principles of Telstra’s Code of Conduct are ....
>> Ensure our personal business, financial and other outside interests
>> do not conflict with our duty to Telstra.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Dealing with the ‘grey’ issues
>> If you are confronted with a situation or are considering behaviour
>> and are still unsure of its appropriateness ask yourself these
>> questions :
>>
>> Would this look OK on the evening news or on the front page of a
>> newspaper?
>
>> Am I wrong in assuming that, if you end-up in the news not looking your best, you're contravening the Code of Conduct?
>
> Yes, you are wrong.

That's up to Telstra.

Surely YOU think the entire Code of Conduct (or at least the bit about
"outside interests") is unenforceable, don't you?

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:23:11 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> Magilla <magilla@DELETETHISstupidmonkey.org> wrote:
>>> "Kwyjibo" <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote in message
>>> news:13pig2qo2ins96a@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> "Horry" wrote ...
>>>>> Craig Welch wrote:
>>>>>> "Alan Parkington" said:
>>>
>>>>>>> From
>>>>>>> http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23105142-5007132,00.html
>>>
>>>>>>> A TELSTRA worker, sacked for taking part in a sex romp at a
>>>>>>> Sydney hotel after a work Christmas party, has lost the right
>>>>>>> to receive compensation and get her job back.
>>>
>>>>>> Telstra's actions in this case were reprehensible.
>>>
>>>>> Why? Surely a company is allowed to set standards as to the moral
>>>>> character of its employees?
>>>
>>>> They probably are allowed, but as far as I am aware no such
>>>> standards have been set or published. What is the employees moral
>>>> standard to be measured against?
>>>
>>> http://telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/investor/docs/pers_responsibility.pdf
>>>
>>> Part A: General Code of Conduct principles
>>>
>>> The Basic Principles of Telstra's Code of Conduct are ....
>>> Ensure our personal business, financial and other outside
>>> interests do not conflict with our duty to Telstra.
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Dealing with the 'grey' issues
>>> If you are confronted with a situation or are considering
>>> behaviour and are still unsure of its appropriateness ask
>>> yourself these questions :
>>>
>>> Would this look OK on the evening news or on the front page of a
>>> newspaper?
>>
>>> Am I wrong in assuming that, if you end-up in the news not looking
>>> your best, you're contravening the Code of Conduct?
>>
>> Yes, you are wrong.

> That's up to Telstra.

Nope. Its up to the law.

> Surely YOU think the entire Code of Conduct (or at least the
> bit about "outside interests") is unenforceable, don't you?

Irrelevant to his question.

[Ext User(Magilla)]

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message news:6056k0F1osua4U1@mid.individual.net...
> Horry wrote:
>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>> Magilla wrote:
>>>> "Kwyjibo" wrote...
>>>>> "Horry" wrote ...
>>>>>> Craig Welch wrote:
>>>>>>> "Alan Parkington" said:

>>>>>>>> From
>>>>>>>> http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23105142-5007132,00.html

>>>>>>>> A TELSTRA worker, sacked for taking part in a sex romp at a
>>>>>>>> Sydney hotel after a work Christmas party, has lost the right
>>>>>>>> to receive compensation and get her job back.

>>>>>>> Telstra's actions in this case were reprehensible.

>>>>>> Why? Surely a company is allowed to set standards as to the moral
>>>>>> character of its employees?

>>>>> They probably are allowed, but as far as I am aware no such
>>>>> standards have been set or published. What is the employees moral
>>>>> standard to be measured against?

>>>> http://telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/investor/docs/pers_responsibility.pdf

>>>> Part A: General Code of Conduct principles

>>>> The Basic Principles of Telstra's Code of Conduct are ....
>>>> Ensure our personal business, financial and other outside
>>>> interests do not conflict with our duty to Telstra.

>>>> [snip]

>>>> Dealing with the 'grey' issues
>>>> If you are confronted with a situation or are considering
>>>> behaviour and are still unsure of its appropriateness ask
>>>> yourself these questions :

>>>> Would this look OK on the evening news or on the front page of a
>>>> newspaper?

>>>> Am I wrong in assuming that, if you end-up in the news not looking
>>>> your best, you're contravening the Code of Conduct?

>>> Yes, you are wrong.

>> That's up to Telstra.

> Nope. Its up to the law.

There's a Code of Conduct law?

>> Surely YOU think the entire Code of Conduct (or at least the
>> bit about "outside interests") is unenforceable, don't you?

> Irrelevant to his question.


--
Magilla

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

Magilla <magilla@DELETETHISstupidmonkey.org> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Horry wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Magilla wrote
>>>>> Kwyjibo wrote
>>>>>> Horry wrote
>>>>>>> Craig Welch wrote
>>>>>>>> Alan Parkington wrote

>>>>>>>>> From
>>>>>>>>> http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23105142-5007132,00.html

>>>>>>>>> A TELSTRA worker, sacked for taking part in a sex romp at a
>>>>>>>>> Sydney hotel after a work Christmas party, has lost the right
>>>>>>>>> to receive compensation and get her job back.

>>>>>>>> Telstra's actions in this case were reprehensible.

>>>>>>> Why? Surely a company is allowed to set standards as to the moral character of its employees?

>>>>>> They probably are allowed, but as far as I am aware no such
>>>>>> standards have been set or published. What is the employees moral
>>>>>> standard to be measured against?

>>>>> http://telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/investor/docs/pers_responsibility.pdf

>>>>> Part A: General Code of Conduct principles

>>>>> The Basic Principles of Telstra's Code of Conduct are ....
>>>>> Ensure our personal business, financial and other outside
>>>>> interests do not conflict with our duty to Telstra.

>>>>> [snip]

>>>>> Dealing with the 'grey' issues
>>>>> If you are confronted with a situation or are considering
>>>>> behaviour and are still unsure of its appropriateness ask
>>>>> yourself these questions :

>>>>> Would this look OK on the evening news or on the front page of a newspaper?

>>>>> Am I wrong in assuming that, if you end-up in the news not looking
>>>>> your best, you're contravening the Code of Conduct?

>>>> Yes, you are wrong.

>>> That's up to Telstra.

>> Nope. Its up to the law.

> There's a Code of Conduct law?

There is plenty of law that applys to employment, stupid.

>>> Surely YOU think the entire Code of Conduct (or at least the
>>> bit about "outside interests") is unenforceable, don't you?

>> Irrelevant to his question.

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:13:34 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:23:11 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>
>>>> Magilla <magilla@DELETETHISstupidmonkey.org> wrote:
>>>>> "Kwyjibo" <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:13pig2qo2ins96a@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>>> "Horry" wrote ...
>>>>>>> Craig Welch wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Alan Parkington" said:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From
>>>>>>>>> http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23105142-5007132,00.html
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A TELSTRA worker, sacked for taking part in a sex romp at a
>>>>>>>>> Sydney hotel after a work Christmas party, has lost the right
>>>>>>>>> to receive compensation and get her job back.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Telstra's actions in this case were reprehensible.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why? Surely a company is allowed to set standards as to the
>>>>>>> moral character of its employees?
>>>>>
>>>>>> They probably are allowed, but as far as I am aware no such
>>>>>> standards have been set or published. What is the employees moral
>>>>>> standard to be measured against?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/investor/docs/pers_responsibility.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> Part A: General Code of Conduct principles
>>>>>
>>>>> The Basic Principles of Telstra's Code of Conduct are ....
>>>>> Ensure our personal business, financial and other outside
>>>>> interests do not conflict with our duty to Telstra.
>>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>> Dealing with the 'grey' issues
>>>>> If you are confronted with a situation or are considering
>>>>> behaviour and are still unsure of its appropriateness ask
>>>>> yourself these questions :
>>>>>
>>>>> Would this look OK on the evening news or on the front page of a
>>>>> newspaper?
>>>>
>>>>> Am I wrong in assuming that, if you end-up in the news not looking
>>>>> your best, you're contravening the Code of Conduct?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you are wrong.
>>
>>> That's up to Telstra.

>> Nope. Its up to the law.

> WTF? You're not making sense.

Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

> First you argued that an employer has no legal right to regulate the
> after-hours behaviour of an employee by means of a code of conduct.

Didnt do anything like that.

> Now you seem to be saying that if an employer decides to go ahead
> anyway and draw up an after-hours Code of Conduct (which, according
> to your first argument, would be unforceable and worthless) the law
> would govern its interpretation?

Nope, not saying anything like that.

>>> Surely YOU think the entire Code of Conduct (or at least the
>>> bit about "outside interests") is unenforceable, don't you?

>> Irrelevant to his question.

> It's centrally important.

Wrong, as always.

> Unless you're suggesting that the law governs the interpretation
> of "Codes of Conduct" even when they have no legal effect.

Nope.

> (Which is what you seem to be doing.)

Guess who need to get its seems machinery seen to ?

[Ext User(Magilla)]

X-post added

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message news:605jo0F1027e5U1@mid.individual.net...
> Magilla wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Horry wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Magilla wrote
>>>>>> Kwyjibo wrote
>>>>>>> Horry wrote
>>>>>>>> Craig Welch wrote
>>>>>>>>> Alan Parkington wrote

>>>>>>>>>> From
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23105142-5007132,00.html

>>>>>>>>>> A TELSTRA worker, sacked for taking part in a sex romp at a
>>>>>>>>>> Sydney hotel after a work Christmas party, has lost the right
>>>>>>>>>> to receive compensation and get her job back.

>>>>>>>>> Telstra's actions in this case were reprehensible.

>>>>>>>> Why? Surely a company is allowed to set standards as to the
>>>>>>>> moral character of its employees?

>>>>>>> They probably are allowed, but as far as I am aware no such
>>>>>>> standards have been set or published. What is the employees
>>>>>>> moral standard to be measured against?

>>>>>> http://telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/investor/docs/pers_responsibility.pdf

>>>>>> Part A: General Code of Conduct principles

>>>>>> The Basic Principles of Telstra's Code of Conduct are ....
>>>>>> Ensure our personal business, financial and other outside
>>>>>> interests do not conflict with our duty to Telstra.

>>>>>> [snip]

>>>>>> Dealing with the 'grey' issues
>>>>>> If you are confronted with a situation or are considering
>>>>>> behaviour and are still unsure of its appropriateness ask
>>>>>> yourself these questions :

>>>>>> Would this look OK on the evening news or on the front page
>>>>>> of a newspaper?

>>>>>> Am I wrong in assuming that, if you end-up in the news not
>>>>>> looking your best, you're contravening the Code of Conduct?

>>>>> Yes, you are wrong.

>>>> That's up to Telstra.

>>> Nope. Its up to the law.

>> There's a Code of Conduct law?

> There is plenty of law that applys to employment, stupid.

But nothing *specifically* about Codes of Conduct and the
contents thereof?

>>>> Surely YOU think the entire Code of Conduct (or at least the
>>>> bit about "outside interests") is unenforceable, don't you?

>>> Irrelevant to his question.


--
Magilla

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

Magilla <magilla@DELETETHISstupidmonkey.org> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Magilla wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Horry wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Magilla wrote
>>>>>>> Kwyjibo wrote
>>>>>>>> Horry wrote
>>>>>>>>> Craig Welch wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Alan Parkington wrote

>>>>>>>>>>> From
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23105142-5007132,00.html

>>>>>>>>>>> A TELSTRA worker, sacked for taking part in a sex romp at a
>>>>>>>>>>> Sydney hotel after a work Christmas party, has lost the
>>>>>>>>>>> right to receive compensation and get her job back.

>>>>>>>>>> Telstra's actions in this case were reprehensible.

>>>>>>>>> Why? Surely a company is allowed to set standards as to the
>>>>>>>>> moral character of its employees?

>>>>>>>> They probably are allowed, but as far as I am aware no such
>>>>>>>> standards have been set or published. What is the employees
>>>>>>>> moral standard to be measured against?

>>>>>>> http://telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/investor/docs/pers_responsibility.pdf

>>>>>>> Part A: General Code of Conduct principles

>>>>>>> The Basic Principles of Telstra's Code of Conduct are ....
>>>>>>> Ensure our personal business, financial and other outside
>>>>>>> interests do not conflict with our duty to Telstra.

>>>>>>> [snip]

>>>>>>> Dealing with the 'grey' issues
>>>>>>> If you are confronted with a situation or are considering
>>>>>>> behaviour and are still unsure of its appropriateness ask
>>>>>>> yourself these questions :

>>>>>>> Would this look OK on the evening news or on the front page of a newspaper?

>>>>>>> Am I wrong in assuming that, if you end-up in the news not
>>>>>>> looking your best, you're contravening the Code of Conduct?

>>>>>> Yes, you are wrong.

>>>>> That's up to Telstra.

>>>> Nope. Its up to the law.

>>> There's a Code of Conduct law?

>> There is plenty of law that applys to employment, stupid.

> But nothing *specifically* about Codes of Conduct and the contents thereof?

Wrong, as always.

And it aint just black letter law that matters anyway.

>>>>> Surely YOU think the entire Code of Conduct (or at least the
>>>>> bit about "outside interests") is unenforceable, don't you?

>>>> Irrelevant to his question.

[Ext User(Horry)]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 06:14:06 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

> Magilla <magilla@DELETETHISstupidmonkey.org> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Magilla wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Horry wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> Magilla wrote
>>>>>>>> Kwyjibo wrote
>>>>>>>>> Horry wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Craig Welch wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Alan Parkington wrote
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> From
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23105142-5007132,00.html
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A TELSTRA worker, sacked for taking part in a sex romp at a
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sydney hotel after a work Christmas party, has lost the
>>>>>>>>>>>> right to receive compensation and get her job back.
>
>>>>>>>>>>> Telstra's actions in this case were reprehensible.
>
>>>>>>>>>> Why? Surely a company is allowed to set standards as to the
>>>>>>>>>> moral character of its employees?
>
>>>>>>>>> They probably are allowed, but as far as I am aware no such
>>>>>>>>> standards have been set or published. What is the employees
>>>>>>>>> moral standard to be measured against?
>
>>>>>>>> http://telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/investor/docs/pers_responsibility.pdf
>
>>>>>>>> Part A: General Code of Conduct principles
>
>>>>>>>> The Basic Principles of Telstra's Code of Conduct are ....
>>>>>>>> Ensure our personal business, financial and other outside
>>>>>>>> interests do not conflict with our duty to Telstra.
>
>>>>>>>> [snip]
>
>>>>>>>> Dealing with the 'grey' issues
>>>>>>>> If you are confronted with a situation or are considering
>>>>>>>> behaviour and are still unsure of its appropriateness ask
>>>>>>>> yourself these questions :
>
>>>>>>>> Would this look OK on the evening news or on the front page of a newspaper?
>
>>>>>>>> Am I wrong in assuming that, if you end-up in the news not
>>>>>>>> looking your best, you're contravening the Code of Conduct?
>
>>>>>>> Yes, you are wrong.
>
>>>>>> That's up to Telstra.
>
>>>>> Nope. Its up to the law.
>
>>>> There's a Code of Conduct law?
>
>>> There is plenty of law that applys to employment, stupid.
>
>> But nothing *specifically* about Codes of Conduct and the contents thereof?
>
> Wrong, as always.

What law specifically deals with Codes of Conduct?


> And it aint just black letter law that matters anyway.

How would an Code of Conduct, for argument's sake unenforceable, come
before a court and be interpreted by the court? In that case the court
would completely ignore the Code of Conduct and apply and interpret the
law.

You can't rationally argue that a Code of Conduct is both a legal
irrelevancy AND subject judicial interpretation.

If I drew up a "Rod Speed Usenet Code of Conduct" and then, alleging a
breach of the Code, took possession of your car as disciplinary action, the
court would interpret and apply NSW law -- I'd be punished and you'd get
your car back.

The court wouldn't interpret the "Rod Speed Usenet Code of Conduct".

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Magilla <magilla@DELETETHISstupidmonkey.org> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Magilla wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Horry wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>> Magilla wrote
>>>>>>>>> Kwyjibo wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Horry wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Craig Welch wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan Parkington wrote

>>>>>>>>>>>>> From
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23105142-5007132,00.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>> A TELSTRA worker, sacked for taking part in a sex romp
>>>>>>>>>>>>> at a Sydney hotel after a work Christmas party, has lost
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the right to receive compensation and get her job back.

>>>>>>>>>>>> Telstra's actions in this case were reprehensible.

>>>>>>>>>>> Why? Surely a company is allowed to set standards
>>>>>>>>>>> as to the moral character of its employees?

>>>>>>>>>> They probably are allowed, but as far as I am aware no
>>>>>>>>>> such standards have been set or published. What is the
>>>>>>>>>> employees moral standard to be measured against?

>>>>>>>>> http://telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/investor/docs/pers_responsibility.pdf

>>>>>>>>> Part A: General Code of Conduct principles

>>>>>>>>> The Basic Principles of Telstra's Code of Conduct are ....
>>>>>>>>> Ensure our personal business, financial and other outside
>>>>>>>>> interests do not conflict with our duty to Telstra.

>>>>>>>>> [snip]

>>>>>>>>> Dealing with the 'grey' issues
>>>>>>>>> If you are confronted with a situation or are considering
>>>>>>>>> behaviour and are still unsure of its appropriateness ask
>>>>>>>>> yourself these questions :

>>>>>>>>> Would this look OK on the evening news or on the front page of a newspaper?

>>>>>>>>> Am I wrong in assuming that, if you end-up in the news not
>>>>>>>>> looking your best, you're contravening the Code of Conduct?

>>>>>>>> Yes, you are wrong.

>>>>>>> That's up to Telstra.

>>>>>> Nope. Its up to the law.

>>>>> There's a Code of Conduct law?

>>>> There is plenty of law that applys to employment, stupid.

>>> But nothing *specifically* about Codes of Conduct and the contents thereof?

>> Wrong, as always.

> What law specifically deals with Codes of Conduct?

Like I said, there is more than just black letter law involved.

>> And it aint just black letter law that matters anyway.

> How would an Code of Conduct, for argument's sake unenforceable,
> come before a court and be interpreted by the court?

Try that question again in english next time.

> In that case the court would completely ignore the
> Code of Conduct and apply and interpret the law.

But if someone was sacked because of an alleged breach of a
purported code of conduct, that isnt necessarily what would happen.

> You can't rationally argue that a Code of Conduct is both
> a legal irrelevancy AND subject judicial interpretation.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

> If I drew up a "Rod Speed Usenet Code of Conduct" and then,
> alleging a breach of the Code, took possession of your car as
> disciplinary action, the court would interpret and apply NSW
> law -- I'd be punished and you'd get your car back.

Irrelevant to what can happen in other circumstances.

> The court wouldn't interpret the "Rod Speed Usenet Code of Conduct".

Irrelevant to what can happen in other circumstances.

And I didnt say anything about any court interpreting any code of conduct anyway.