The punch that cost the Sharks $20,000 - Zappia stands down

[Timmah]

The fact Ch 7 wanted this to be a beat-up against league is obvious from the fact they went to the trouble of creating a cheesy re-enactment.

 

[Timmah]

It's arguable as to what this recording is "reasonably necessary" for. It seems more to protect this woman's financial interests than her legal ones.

 

[Dogs Of War]

It's arguable as to what this recording is "reasonably necessary" for. It seems more to protect this woman's financial interests than her legal ones.

Your kidding aren't you? The whole conversation was about her protecting her rights. Zappia even went as far as saying any sick leave would be rejected, and any records pertaining to it would be destroyed. Thus suggesting she was right to protect her position.

 

[gaterooze]

And what is thier reason for not investigating the hundred thousand dollar hush money paid to a victim of an alleged AFL gang rape (by well-known "stars" no less)?

btw, I saw the "blurred" contents of the "pronographic" e-mail on the report - they were clearly NOT pornographic, you would see as much in Sports Illustrated.

 

[Coastbloke]

Any claim by the print and electronic media in so far that they are trying to flush out certain elements with certain attitudes in rugby league, for either the betterment of the game or that they think it's in the public interest to know that League has certain cultural attitudes, has been UTTERLY BLOWN out of the water by the minisicule coverage of a act of pedaphilia by a soccer player...

 

[Timmah]

Your kidding aren't you? The whole conversation was about her protecting her rights. Zappia even went as far as saying any sick leave would be rejected, and any records pertaining to it would be destroyed. Thus suggesting she was right to protect her position.

Then why did this tape get taken to the media instead of the police.

This reeks of a stitch up.

 

[Dogs Of War]

And what is thier reason for not investigating the hundred thousand dollar hush money paid to a victim of AFL gang rape (by well-known "stars" no less)?

btw, I saw the "blurred" contents of the "pronographic" e-mail on the report - they were clearly NOT pornographic, you would see as much in Sports Illustrated.

I'm sure if they could, they would. It is open season on these sorts of things now, though it wouldn't help any bargaining position they have on rights to broadcast the AFL on the next round of rights (though it may help devalue the rights somewhat).

I'm sure the girl involved as well wouldn't like the AFL supporters to drag her through the mud, similar to what the NRL supporters did to Clare.

 

[Brutus]

There is no way that email was pornographic.

Channel 7 is a disgrace.

 

[El Diablo]

Then why did this tape get taken to the media instead of the police.

This reeks of a stitch up.

and why did she refuse to talk to the NRL when they wanted to speak to her?

7 probably paid her not to

 

[Michaelson]

Anyone know if the tape is posted online somewhere?

 

[Frailty]

100% true. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/sda2007210/s7.html

(b) a principal party to the conversation consents to the listening device being so used and the recording of the conversation:

(i) is reasonably necessary for the protection of the lawful interests of that principal party, or
​

(ii) is not made for the purpose of communicating or publishing the conversation, or a report of the conversation, to persons who are not parties to the conversation


I'm sure Channel 7 said they would cover anything that comes out legal wise regarding the incident. Anything to paint AFL in a good light.


​

The wrong part was bolded. It is interesting that no one noted that these aren't supposed to be published or reported to parties who were not part of the conversation.

 

[Dogs Of War]

The wrong part was bolded. It is interesting that no one noted that these aren't supposed to be published or reported to parties who were not part of the conversation.

You didn't note the word OR. Thus one or the other applies. In this instance the first part applied.

 

[Timmah]

Anyone know if the tape is posted online somewhere?

Highly doubt it. Seven couldn't even play the whole thing in succession, instead chopping it up to create the most damning angle.

BTW, don't get me wrong - Zappia's a twit and should be punted, but deadset, Channel 7 is a bunch of f**king morons.

 

[Michaelson]

The wrong part was bolded. It is interesting that no one noted that these aren't supposed to be published or reported to parties who were not part of the conversation.

Don't people get recorded without their knowledge quite often by tv stations? Think Today Tonight style hidden camera 'stings'.

Can't really comment on the legalities, I think you'd have to look at case law to see how those two clauses are interpretted. Maybe if you tape someone for the purpose of protecting your legal interests it is then okay to disseminate it or something like that. I dunno.

 

[Timmah]

You didn't note the word OR. Thus one or the other applies. In this instance the first part applied.

It would seem the second is far more applicable than the first.

 

[Dogs Of War]

It would seem the second is far more applicable than the first.

Yes it may seem like that, but when she recorded it, she did it to satisfy the first part of the law, not the second part. I don't think there was any intention to do that until Channel 7 offered money for the tape and interview, and probably financial protection from any legal proceedings, though they did this knowing that Cronulla probably couldn't afford the bad press that would occur by taking it to court. It would be dragging out something they should just accept and move on with.

 

[El Diablo]

interesting reading Ritchie's blog. he's wondering why she refused to talk to the NRL but is happy to talk to channel $even http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...ts/should_tony_zappia_now_stand_down/desc/P0/

 

[Dogs Of War]

interesting reading Ritchie's blog. he's wondering why she refused to talk to the NRL but is happy to talk to channel $even http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...ts/should_tony_zappia_now_stand_down/desc/P0/

Easy, Channel 7 offered money to her, and protection from breaking her confidentiality agreement knowing that the Sharks couldn't afford the bad press from taking it to court. Nothing like a bit of cash to change your mind about things.

 

[Timmah]

I doubt the woman had the Listening Devices Act in the back of her mind when doing it.

 

[Dogs Of War]

I doubt the woman had the Listening Devices Act in the back of her mind when doing it.

No, she had her own interests at heart. Damn, if I thought I was going to be stuffed by my workplace, I would make sure I had evidence. Though I probably would have requested HR and my own witness attend the meeting.