Jump to content
Melbourne Football

Unpopular Opinions That You Have.


xXJawsaXx
 Share

Recommended Posts

UOTYH: Farmers will complain regardless. The farmers that aren't in a drought, complain that they're in a green drought (Green paddocks but mostly weed). I've never seen a farmer admit to doing well while he drives his $80k Landcruiser through the paddocks like its an old Land Drover.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, mus-28 said:

UOTYH: Farmers will complain regardless. The farmers that aren't in a drought, complain that they're in a green drought (Green paddocks but mostly weed). I've never seen a farmer admit to doing well while he drives his $80k Landcruiser through the paddocks like its an old Land Drover.

Knew a guy whose family owned a huge farming property (edge of Melbourne), they reported no income so the kid was on the maximum amount of centrelink as a student. Was pretty obvious how much of a lie it was when the parents would visit him in new Mercs etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/10/2019 at 6:47 AM, haz said:

Knew a guy whose family owned a huge farming property (edge of Melbourne), they reported no income so the kid was on the maximum amount of centrelink as a student. Was pretty obvious how much of a lie it was when the parents would visit him in new Mercs etc.

You got their accountants number?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
1 hour ago, Shahanga said:

When the royals no longer want to be royals, maybe it’s time to revisit the republic.

They will trade on being "the royals who didn't want to be royals" for the rest of their lives, and still be the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.  Fucking hypocrites.

Edited by jw1739
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 11/10/2019 at 2:26 PM, cadete said:

Look I have been told by sources who work in these Jail and even a guy who got put in there.

They all say the worst cell is the youth one as its dominated now by Sudanese Kids who fight with the Aboriginal Prison who also have high representation.

We have known for a long time that doing jail time in some Aboriginal people has become so common place it has become an Indication Ceremony like for some people in Black and Latino Communities in America.

We need to act now and stop the same happening for Sudanese People. Also living in a Housing Flat itself is fucked. That coupled with being a migrant from brutal violence woukd effect anyone.

I agree the papers make thing sounds more sophisticated. At the same time they have a point that the Percentage of Sudanese People in jail rises at scary rates each year. Whilst alongside that our Juvenile Centre have become completely different and now the dangerous jails to work in...

But people not addressing the issue for what it is due to being scared to be called a Racist... is wasting precious time.

white man be gone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Given that the Corona virus is mainly lethal to the elderly, that is, the over 80s then this means that the concerns over the increasing costs of pensioners via wage subsidies, health care, aged care, etc will be resolved. There will be long term savings in hospital and medical care, including prosthesis, residential care, transport subsidies, franking credits, etc. Additionally, as they get knocked off their assets will come to market, social change will not be held back, and there will be less angry old men yelling at clouds.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, NewConvert said:

Given that the Corona virus is mainly lethal to the elderly, that is, the over 80s then this means that the concerns over the increasing costs of pensioners via wage subsidies, health care, aged care, etc will be resolved. There will be long term savings in hospital and medical care, including prosthesis, residential care, transport subsidies, franking credits, etc. Additionally, as they get knocked off their assets will come to market, social change will not be held back, and there will be less angry old men yelling at clouds.

Image result for speechless gif

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 06/03/2020 at 6:22 AM, NewConvert said:

Given that the Corona virus is mainly lethal to the elderly, that is, the over 80s then this means that the concerns over the increasing costs of pensioners via wage subsidies, health care, aged care, etc will be resolved. There will be long term savings in hospital and medical care, including prosthesis, residential care, transport subsidies, franking credits, etc. Additionally, as they get knocked off their assets will come to market, social change will not be held back, and there will be less angry old men yelling at clouds.

Charming 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/03/2020 at 3:22 PM, thisphantomfortress said:

China should be forced to pay reparations for Corona virua

My info suggests that both the Bubonic Plague and the Spanish Flu originated in China.

Perhaps they could use it in marketing?

”Welcome to China, home of global pandemics”

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, thisphantomfortress said:

I think Spanish flu was the yanks, but certainly enough evidence to suggest bubonic plague started there 

There are 3 thoughts about Spanish flu.

1 is the seppos, 1 is China 🇨🇳, 1 is somewhere else (can’t remember).  China is not the favourite theory but I* just think their population density and propensity to eat wild animals makes them a good suspect.

* I know fuck all in truth

Edited by Shahanga
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

 

9 hours ago, jw1739 said:

Justice at last for George Pell.

The case was never proven "beyond reasonable doubt."

You should need evidence to convict someone. This case was a disgrace. On a par with the Chamberlain conviction.

When a jurisdiction allows convictions like that every single person is just one accusation away from jail.

Edited by Shahanga
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I reckon I would've got Pell off in the first trial if I was his lawyer. My opening statement would've been:

"Good morning your honour and members of the jury. I'd like to start by coming forward as a victim of sexual abuse myself. I was raped at the age of 12 by none other than the lead prosecutor in this very case..."

Game over. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First up I don't think anyone on this forum was in the jury. So both the defence and prosecution presented their cases and the first jury was hung and the second jury convicted.

Having read the High Court Statement it is a crock of shit. The first paragraph stated that the jury behaved irrationally and that the jury ought to have entertained doubt. How the fuck would they have known that the jury did not entertain that Pell was innocent? The jury sat out for days considering the evidence in front of them and somehow the HC stated that the jury did not consider this? Their words were that any rational person would have said "innocent" so the inference is that the jury was irrational. Who are they to cast a slur on members of the jury? So are we now meant to bow to self proclaimed omniscient members of the HC?

What the HC has done is attempt to subvert and destroy teh jury system.

I have known four individuals who have had to serve on jury duty. Three of those would run rings around most of the population and somehow in this court case they ended up with morons?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NewConvert said:

First up I don't think anyone on this forum was in the jury. So both the defence and prosecution presented their cases and the first jury was hung and the second jury convicted.

Having read the High Court Statement it is a crock of shit. The first paragraph stated that the jury behaved irrationally and that the jury ought to have entertained doubt. How the fuck would they have known that the jury did not entertain that Pell was innocent? The jury sat out for days considering the evidence in front of them and somehow the HC stated that the jury did not consider this? Their words were that any rational person would have said "innocent" so the inference is that the jury was irrational. Who are they to cast a slur on members of the jury? So are we now meant to bow to self proclaimed omniscient members of the HC?

What the HC has done is attempt to subvert and destroy teh jury system.

I have known four individuals who have had to serve on jury duty. Three of those would run rings around most of the population and somehow in this court case they ended up with morons?

I am not defending Pell in any way shape or form (nor do I want to be seen to be), but I think you are inferring things from the summary statement that it is not implying.

The summary didn't say that a jury would have come to the conclusion that he was innocent, it said that a jury should have come to the conclusion that there was a possibility he was innocrnt and therefore the required burden of proof was not met (in the eyes of all seven high court judges).

There is, in my opinion at least, a distinction between saying someone is innocrnt and saying there is insufficient evidence for a finding of guilt. 

I also think you are reading too much into the term 'rational jury', which is the term used in a significant number of criminal trials when referring to decisions of juries (there is probably some precedential case back in the 1400s that initially uses the term and has probably been used ever since).

It is probably quite important that the required burden of proof in criminal trials is not reduced as the ramifications of such an outcome go well beyond the current case. Notwithstanding that many people believe a guilty finding was the 'equitable' outcome of this case (myself included).

Anyway, the full ruling along with all written submissions are available at the below link if you want to sift through them all.

https://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/case_m112-2019

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, malloy said:

I am not defending Pell in any way shape or form (nor do I want to be seen to be), but I think you are inferring things from the summary statement that it is not implying.

The summary didn't say that a jury would have come to the conclusion that he was innocent, it said that a jury should have come to the conclusion that there was a possibility he was innocrnt and therefore the required burden of proof was not met (in the eyes of all seven high court judges).

There is, in my opinion at least, a distinction between saying someone is innocrnt and saying there is insufficient evidence for a finding of guilt. 

I also think you are reading too much into the term 'rational jury', which is the term used in a significant number of criminal trials when referring to decisions of juries (there is probably some precedential case back in the 1400s that initially uses the term and has probably been used ever since).

It is probably quite important that the required burden of proof in criminal trials is not reduced as the ramifications of such an outcome go well beyond the current case. Notwithstanding that many people believe a guilty finding was the 'equitable' outcome of this case (myself included).

Anyway, the full ruling along with all written submissions are available at the below link if you want to sift through them all.

https://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/case_m112-2019

 

Jon Faine the former broadcaster has also a piece in The Age that came to the same conclusion, although his is longer. And my problem is that the HC is saying that the jury did not consider that Pell was innocent and that they ignored the burden of proof. The HC has no evidence of this. And if the HC wants to cast aspersions/inferences then teh public is entitled to do the same with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, malloy said:

I am not defending Pell in any way shape or form (nor do I want to be seen to be), but I think you are inferring things from the summary statement that it is not implying.

The summary didn't say that a jury would have come to the conclusion that he was innocent, it said that a jury should have come to the conclusion that there was a possibility he was innocrnt and therefore the required burden of proof was not met (in the eyes of all seven high court judges).

There is, in my opinion at least, a distinction between saying someone is innocrnt and saying there is insufficient evidence for a finding of guilt. 

I also think you are reading too much into the term 'rational jury', which is the term used in a significant number of criminal trials when referring to decisions of juries (there is probably some precedential case back in the 1400s that initially uses the term and has probably been used ever since).

It is probably quite important that the required burden of proof in criminal trials is not reduced as the ramifications of such an outcome go well beyond the current case. Notwithstanding that many people believe a guilty finding was the 'equitable' outcome of this case (myself included).

Anyway, the full ruling along with all written submissions are available at the below link if you want to sift through them all.

https://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/case_m112-2019

 

I've highlighted one sentence - I understand that in Scotland such an outcome is recorded as "not proven."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/04/2020 at 8:42 PM, HeartFc said:

I reckon I would've got Pell off in the first trial if I was his lawyer. My opening statement would've been:

"Good morning your honour and members of the jury. I'd like to start by coming forward as a victim of sexual abuse myself. I was raped at the age of 12 by none other than the lead prosecutor in this very case..."

Game over. 

He did get off on his first trial, he was found guilty in the second, now the high court was unanimous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

UOTYH: I don't believe these "protests" have any material effect on relationships between authorities and indigenous people, or indeed all people. Relationships will only change from the top down, and while wrongdoers in these authorities remain unpunished or inadequately punished abuse will continue.

Edited by jw1739
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...