mus-28 Posted October 23, 2019 Report Share Posted October 23, 2019 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haz Posted October 23, 2019 Report Share Posted October 23, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattyh001 Posted October 31, 2019 Report Share Posted October 31, 2019 UOTYH: this bullshit with Uluru is a f@&king farce and those involved can go shove it up their clacker. Backwards thinking by those who have bitten their nose off in spite of their face. Just open the bloody thing to those who want to climb it 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeartFc Posted October 31, 2019 Report Share Posted October 31, 2019 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shahanga Posted January 19, 2020 Report Share Posted January 19, 2020 When the royals no longer want to be royals, maybe it’s time to revisit the republic. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw1739 Posted January 19, 2020 Report Share Posted January 19, 2020 (edited) 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 January 19, 2020 by jw1739 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strider Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewConvert Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 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. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bt50 Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 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. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Hack Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 And since over-population leads to climate change, it's really China's bit to reducing climate change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shahanga Posted March 9, 2020 Report Share Posted March 9, 2020 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 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewConvert Posted March 9, 2020 Report Share Posted March 9, 2020 1 hour ago, Shahanga said: Charming It is an UOTYH. Also as I discovered today, the public service are onto this already - I am not even original. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thisphantomfortress Posted March 10, 2020 Report Share Posted March 10, 2020 China should be forced to pay reparations for Corona virua 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malloy Posted March 10, 2020 Report Share Posted March 10, 2020 3 hours ago, thisphantomfortress said: China should be forced to pay reparations for Corona virua Bigot.. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw1739 Posted March 10, 2020 Report Share Posted March 10, 2020 7 hours ago, thisphantomfortress said: China should be forced to pay reparations for Corona virua Are you certain that it even originated there? I've read that the first case was reported in the USA last August.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haz Posted March 10, 2020 Report Share Posted March 10, 2020 17 hours ago, thisphantomfortress said: China should be forced to pay reparations for Corona virua Imagine being the dude who just wanted a nice bat soup one morning and instead fucked the global economy 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malloy Posted March 11, 2020 Report Share Posted March 11, 2020 14 hours ago, jw1739 said: Are you certain that it even originated there? I've read that the first case was reported in the USA last August.... That is CCP propaganda trying to push blame off themselves onto other countries. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bt50 Posted March 11, 2020 Report Share Posted March 11, 2020 Good interview about the origins, spread and threat of COVID19 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shahanga Posted March 12, 2020 Report Share Posted March 12, 2020 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” 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thisphantomfortress Posted March 12, 2020 Report Share Posted March 12, 2020 10 minutes ago, Shahanga said: 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” I think Spanish flu was the yanks, but certainly enough evidence to suggest bubonic plague started there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shahanga Posted March 12, 2020 Report Share Posted March 12, 2020 (edited) 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 March 12, 2020 by Shahanga 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeartFc Posted March 13, 2020 Report Share Posted March 13, 2020 China is now banning inbound flights from Italy. These cunts are pretending CoronaVirus came from Mozzarella cheese. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shahanga Posted March 15, 2020 Report Share Posted March 15, 2020 If the NRL are worried about their future, I can’t see how the A League can survive this crisis 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rayv36 Posted March 15, 2020 Report Share Posted March 15, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Shahanga said: If the NRL are worried about their future, I can’t see how the A League can survive this crisis Our season is almost over, NRL barely starting would be the major difference. Edited March 15, 2020 by rayv36 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shahanga Posted March 15, 2020 Report Share Posted March 15, 2020 40 minutes ago, rayv36 said: Our season is almost over, NRL barely starting would be the major difference. Yes, that’s the only possible saviour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Posted March 15, 2020 Report Share Posted March 15, 2020 But the A-League forgoing the revenue from the final rounds and more importantly the Finals Series would hurt. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw1739 Posted March 16, 2020 Report Share Posted March 16, 2020 29 minutes ago, Harrison said: But the A-League forgoing the revenue from the final rounds and more importantly the Finals Series would hurt. Do we know what % of revenue the gate money really is? My guess is that it's not that high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw1739 Posted April 7, 2020 Report Share Posted April 7, 2020 Justice at last for George Pell. The case was never proven "beyond reasonable doubt." 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marn11 Posted April 7, 2020 Report Share Posted April 7, 2020 2 minutes ago, jw1739 said: Justice at last for George Pell. The case was never proven "beyond reasonable doubt." He was absolutely stitched up. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thisphantomfortress Posted April 7, 2020 Report Share Posted April 7, 2020 Glad to see the courts working as intended. Never should have gotten to this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shahanga Posted April 7, 2020 Report Share Posted April 7, 2020 (edited) 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 April 7, 2020 by Shahanga 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeartFc Posted April 7, 2020 Report Share Posted April 7, 2020 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. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewConvert Posted April 7, 2020 Report Share Posted April 7, 2020 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? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malloy Posted April 7, 2020 Report Share Posted April 7, 2020 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 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewConvert Posted April 7, 2020 Report Share Posted April 7, 2020 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw1739 Posted April 8, 2020 Report Share Posted April 8, 2020 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." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moops Posted April 8, 2020 Report Share Posted April 8, 2020 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewConvert Posted April 9, 2020 Report Share Posted April 9, 2020 21 hours ago, moops said: He did get off on his first trial, he was found guilty in the second, now the high court was unanimous. He didn't get off on the first trial - deadlocked jury which led to the second trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw1739 Posted April 10, 2020 Report Share Posted April 10, 2020 I think the key thing in all of this is that the full bench of the High Court (7 judges) was unanimous in both granting him leave to appeal to that court and then acquitting him of the specific charges laid. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw1739 Posted June 7, 2020 Report Share Posted June 7, 2020 (edited) 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 June 7, 2020 by jw1739 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.