Max is 1000% wrong Over and Over wrote:
==================================
>
> It is part of the common law of this country that a person's intention
> is part of the offence. The person has to have a 'guilty mind'.
>

** Only means you intended to do an * illegal * thing.
Plus " ignorance of the law is NO excuse. "
So you do not have to know you are breaking the law to be convicted.

> >> because she is an anti-vaxxer.

** Meaningless drivel.

Might as well be a Scientologist and believe in Thetans.

...... Phil

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Phil Allison wrote
>> Max wrote

>>>>>>> I said when the employee is NOT following orders and goes on a
>>>>>>> 'frolic
>>>>>>> on their own'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ** Define the words in quote marks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cos that did not fucking happen here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> 'In N v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police the High Court held that
>>>>> the Chief Constable was not vicariously liable for an assault carried
>>>>> out by a policeman employed by the Merseyside force. It was clear on
>>>>> the
>>>>> facts that the policeman had used his position as an opportunity to
>>>>> commit the assault and was "on a frolic of his own". As the police owe
>>>>> no specific duty of care to potential victims and the actions of the
>>>>> policeman were not closely connected to his employment, it was not
>>>>> fair
>>>>> or just to impose vicarious liability on his employer. Although this
>>>>> case relates specifically to the police, it applies general common law
>>>>> vicarious liability principles which are relevant for all employment
>>>>> relationships.'
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ** YOU fucking Google monkey moron !!!!!!!!!
>>>>
>>> You asked a question, I gave an answer.
>>
>> ** A fake one, from mindless Google monkeying.
>>
>>
>>> "on a frolic of his own" is a famous legal phrase which has been part of
>>> the law for a long time,
>>
>> ** No way it applies to this case.
>>
>> Read you own FUCKING cite - arsehole.
>> =================================
>>
>
> How about this one:
>
> "The employer of the nurse is vicariously liable for the actions of the
> nurse and the nurses are not personally responsible for negligent conduct.
> This is the case even if the nurses behaviour is what is considered
> grossly negligent.
>
> For a nurse to be personally liable for their conduct, the conduct would
> need to be almost criminal conduct; for example, deliberately causing harm
> to a patient."

Her's clearly is that.

And her employer's isn't given that he caught her doing the crime.

> https://www.andersons.com.au/lawtalk/2015/february/duty-of-care-of-nurses-to-patients/

> So the employer is not vicariously liable for criminal conduct of the
> nurse. There's no question the nurse as done criminal conduct - though
> it's not clear that the crime is fraud.

Corse it is under (d

> Therefore the employer is not vicariously liable. QED.

Correct, presumably by accident.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>> Phil Allison wrote
>>>>>> Max wrote
>>
>>>>>>>>> This is the definition of fraud in WA. You might think that 1(d)
>>>>>>>>> applies because it is about causing a detriment, but the woman did
>>>>>>>>> not believe she was causing a detriment because she is an
>>>>>>>>> anti-vaxxer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ** Total nonsense.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 409. Fraud
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (d) causes a detriment, pecuniary or otherwise, to anyperson; or
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ** Her employer suffered detriment as he would have to cover the
>>>>>>>> cost of doing another vaccination.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also it put him at risk of being sued for medical negligence if the
>>>>>>>> woman got ill from Covid.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every criminal offence requires a 'mens rea' or 'intention'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If she does not believe she is causing a detriment then she does not
>>>>>>> have the required intention.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ** Massive, stupid fallacy.
>>>>>> The correct & legal response to such belief is she to quits her job.
>>>>>> She well knew that her view was outside the law so cannot be
>>>>>> defended.
>>>>
>>>>> She might argue that she needed the income from job to support basic
>>>>> life needs such as food and shelter.
>>>>
>>>> Corse she couldn’t given that she could obviously get a job
>>>> that doesn’t involve doing vaccinations or even go on the dole.
>>
>>> She might not be able to get a job doing anything else.
>>
>> Bullshit with someone who obviously got qualified to be a nurse.

> You don't know that.

Corse we do.

> Maybe all the jobs are taken.

That’s nothing like the case in WA currently.

>>> The dole might not pay her rent.

>> More of your mindless pig ignorant bullshit given rent assistance.

> Might not be enough to pay rent to house her children.

Corse it is.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Mountain Magpie wrote
>>>> Max wrote
>>
>>>>>> The correct & legal response to such belief is she to quits her job.
>>>>>> She well knew that her view was outside the law so cannot be
>>>>>> defended.
>>>>>
>>>>> She might argue that she needed the income from job to support basic
>>>>> life needs such as food and shelter.
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant. No defence.
>>>>
>>>> She will never work again as a nurse.
>>>>
>>>> Good fucking riddance, IMO.
>>>>
>>>
>>> She wants to be a chiropractor. Will that profession let her be part
>>> of it?
>>
>> They get no say on that.
>
> The chiropractors board would get a say on who joins the profession.

Nope, all you have to do is show that you are qualified.

They get no say about your free speech,

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> > Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>> >> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> >>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>> >>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> >>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>> >>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> >>>>>>> Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote
>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Else wrote
>>>>> >
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-08/nurse-who-allegedly-faked-covid-vaccines-charged/100602566>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If this turns out to be true, then the teenager has a
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> cause
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> of action
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> against the nurse, and her employer via vicarious
>>>>> liability, for
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> assault. The police should also charge the nurse with
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> criminal assault.
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ** Huh ???
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This is because the teenager consented to have a
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> vaccination,
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> not to
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> have a needle stuck into her arm.
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ** ROTFL wot a hoot.
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The teen contracted to get a vaccine injected, but only got
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> half the deal.
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Contract not completed - one free vaccine jab required.
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> They are always free, fuckwit.
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I dare say the nurse will be struck off the register, and
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> never work as
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> a nurse again.
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Seen nurses doing a lot worse.
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yeah, deliberately killing people with lethal injections.
>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've heard they steal patients' pain-killers, just
>>>>> >>>>>>>> to shoot up with them (the pain killers that is).
>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>> Yeah, that certainly happens. Not clear why this one faked the
>>>>> >>>>>>> vaccination tho.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>> The woman has been charged with fraud,
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> Yes.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>> but the definition of fraud is gaining by dishonesty.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> That’s just one type of fraud.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>> That's the only thing fraud is.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> You are wrong, as always. Most obviously with what
>>>>> >>> that stupid cow did and pretending to be someone
>>>>> >>> else in usenet etc.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> It is not fraud to impersonate someone on usenet, if you don't gain
>>>>> >> anything of value by doing it.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > You are wrong, as always.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > And you always gain something by doing it
>>>>> > because otherwise you wouldn’t do it, fuckwit.
>>>>
>>>>> The law only recognises value in things that could be converted to
>>>>> dollar value.
>>>>
>>>> You are wrong, as always.
>>>>
>>>>> Personal gratification in doing something cannot be converted to
>>>>> dollar value.
>>>>
>>>> Doesn’t need to be to be fraud, as that stupid cow proves.
>>>>
>>>>> >> There are certain laws about impersonating a police officer etc,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > In fact quite specific ones in that case.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> but that is not 'fraud'.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > You are wrong, as always.
>>>>> > > And what that stupid cow did is fraud without
>>>>> > any personal reward for the stupid cow.
>>>>
>>>>> This is the definition of fraud in WA.
>>>>
>>>> You are wrong, as always.
>>
>>> Copied from the WA legislation website
>>
>> Which says nothing like what you stupidly claimed.
>>
>>>>> You might think that 1(d) applies because it is about causing a
>>>>> detriment, but the woman did not believe she was causing a detriment
>>>>> because she is an anti-vaxxer.
>>
>>>> But she obviously did cause detriment if she had not got caught,
>>>> fuckwit.
>>
>>> Not in her mind
>>
>> Her mind is completely irrelevant to what she actually did.
>>
>
> It is part of the common law of this country that a person's intention is
> part of the offence. The person has to have a 'guilty mind'.
>
>
>
>>> because she is an anti-vaxxer.
>>
>>>>> 409. Fraud
>>>>
>>>>> (1) Any person who, with intent to defraud, by deceit or any
>>>>> fraudulent means —
>>>>> (a) obtains property from any person; or
>>>>> (b) induces any person to deliver property to another person; or
>>>>> (c) gains a benefit, pecuniary or otherwise, for any person; or
>>
>>>> This one covers pretending to be someone else, fuckwit.
>>
>>> The benefit has to something of value.
>>
>> The legislation says nothing like that.
>>
>>> Personal gratification doesn't count.
>>
>> The legislation says nothing like that.
>>
>
> You don't get to decide what the legislation means. The courts do.
>
>
>
>>>>> (d) causes a detriment, pecuniary or otherwise,
>>
>>>> Pity about that. There you go, face down in the mud, as always.
>>
>>> There is no detriment in her mind
>>
>> Her mind is completely irrelevant to what she actually did.

> It is part of the common law of this country that a person's intention is
> part of the offence. The person has to have a 'guilty mind'.

She clearly does given that she faked the vaccination
and recorded someone else in that practice as having
done the vaccination.

>>> because she is an anti-vaxxer.
>>
>>>>> to anyperson; or
>>>>> (e) induces any person to do any act that the person is lawfully
>>>>> entitled to abstain from doing; or
>>
>>>> Also doesn’t say anything about dollar value.
>>
>>>>> (f) induces any person to abstain from doing any act that the person
>>>>> is lawfully entitled to do,
>>
>>>> Also doesn’t say anything about dollar value.
>>
>>> Doesn't have to say that. That is how the law works.
>>
>> More of your mindless pig ignorant shit.
>>
>>>>> is guilty of a crime
>>
>>>> So that stupid cow is guilty of criminal fraud, fuckwit.
>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>> So what did she gain by doing it?
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> That remains to be seen when she shows up in court.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>> And some are curt and rude.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>> Some are indeed.

On 13/11/2021 1:10 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>> Mountain Magpie wrote
>>>>> Max wrote
>>>
>>>>>>> The correct & legal response to such belief is she to quits her job.
>>>>>>> She well knew that her view was outside the law so cannot be
>>>>>>> defended.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> She might argue that she needed the income from job to support basic
>>>>>> life needs such as food and shelter.
>>>>>
>>>>> Irrelevant.  No defence.
>>>>>
>>>>> She will never work again as a nurse.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good fucking riddance, IMO.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> She wants to be a chiropractor. Will that profession let her be part
>>>> of it?
>>>
>>> They get no say on that.
>>
>> The chiropractors board would get a say on who joins the profession.
>
> Nope, all you have to do is show that you are qualified.
>
> They get no say about your free speech,

If the nurse is convicted of a crime then the board could refuse her
admission.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>> Mountain Magpie wrote
>>>>>> Max wrote

>>>>>>>> The correct & legal response to such belief is she to quits her
>>>>>>>> job.
>>>>>>>> She well knew that her view was outside the law so cannot be
>>>>>>>> defended.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> She might argue that she needed the income from job to support basic
>>>>>>> life needs such as food and shelter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Irrelevant. No defence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> She will never work again as a nurse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good fucking riddance, IMO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> She wants to be a chiropractor. Will that profession let her be part
>>>>> of it?
>>>>
>>>> They get no say on that.
>>>
>>> The chiropractors board would get a say on who joins the profession.
>>
>> Nope, all you have to do is show that you are qualified.
>>
>> They get no say about your free speech,
>
> If the nurse is convicted of a crime then the board could refuse her
> admission.

She wouldn’t have been convicted of a crime if she
had chosen to not get involved in vaccination.

On 8/11/2021 1:48 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
> <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-08/nurse-who-allegedly-faked-covid-vaccines-charged/100602566>
>
>
> If this turns out to be true, then the teenager has a cause of action
> against the nurse, and her employer via vicarious liability, for
> assault. The police should also charge the nurse with criminal assault.
>
> This is because the teenager consented to have a vaccination, not to
> have a needle stuck into her arm.
>
> Sadly, while the concern here is that the teenager did not get a
> vaccination, the assault consists of sticking a needle into someone with
> no more than short term consequences. Such an assault is at the low end
> of the scale, and the damages and punishment would presumably reflect that.
>

While technically there might be an assault, the police and prosecutors
have "prosecutorial discretion" and may just settle on a single other
charge that is more appropriate for this situation.

> I dare say the nurse will be struck off the register, and never work as
> a nurse again.
>
> Sylvia.

Maxheadroom the IDIOT wrote:
-----------------------------------------
>
> While technically there might be an assault, the police and prosecutors
> have "prosecutorial discretion" and may just settle on a single other
> charge that is more appropriate for this situation.
>

** Bullshit.

A charge of assault requires the victim to complain to the police.

( long as that is possible )

...... Phil

On 14/11/2021 6:38 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
> Maxheadroom the IDIOT wrote:
> -----------------------------------------
>>
>> While technically there might be an assault, the police and prosecutors
>> have "prosecutorial discretion" and may just settle on a single other
>> charge that is more appropriate for this situation.
>>
>
> ** Bullshit.
>
> A charge of assault requires the victim to complain to the police.
>
> ( long as that is possible )
>

I don't think there is any doubt that the victim will complain to the
police about getting a blank vaccine.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Phil Allison wrote
>> Max wrote

>>> While technically there might be an assault, the police and prosecutors
>>> have "prosecutorial discretion" and may just settle on a single other
>>> charge that is more appropriate for this situation.

>> Bullshit.
>> A charge of assault requires the victim to complain to the police.

Wrong, as always.
>> ( long as that is possible )

> I don't think there is any doubt that the victim will
> complain to the police about getting a blank vaccine.

More fool you given that the stupid cow was caught and
he got a valid vaccination after the stupid cow was caught.

On 14/11/2021 7:05 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Phil Allison wrote
>>> Max wrote
>
>>>> While technically there might be an assault, the police and prosecutors
>>>> have "prosecutorial discretion" and may just settle on a single other
>>>> charge that is more appropriate for this situation.
>
>>> Bullshit.
>
>>> A charge of assault requires the victim to complain to the police.
>
> Wrong, as always.
>>> ( long as that is possible )
>
>> I don't think there is any doubt that the victim will complain to the
>> police about getting a blank vaccine.
>
> More fool you given that the stupid cow was caught and
> he got a valid vaccination after the stupid cow was caught.

All the police have to do is contact the victim and ask if he wants to
make a complaint.

Max Headroom the IDIOT wrote:
-----------------------------------------
>
> >
> > ** Bullshit.
> >
> > A charge of assault requires the victim to complain to the police.
> >
> > ( long as that is possible )
> >
> I don't think there is any doubt that the victim will complain to the
> police about getting a blank vaccine.

** You don't think - at all

Fucking MORON

Max wrote:
===========
>
> All the police have to do is contact the victim and ask if he wants to
> make a complaint.
>

** Not allowed to do that.

...... Phil

Rod Ex Speed Cop FUCKWIT vomited :
======================
>
> >> A charge of assault requires the victim to complain to the police.
>
> Wrong, as always.
>

** 100% correct as always.

Only exception is if police are witnesses to a domestic.
Even then it is a REALLY bad idea.

...... Phil

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Phil Allison wrote
>>>> Max wrote

>>>>> While technically there might be an assault, the police and
>>>>> prosecutors
>>>>> have "prosecutorial discretion" and may just settle on a single other
>>>>> charge that is more appropriate for this situation.

>>>> Bullshit.

>>>> A charge of assault requires the victim to complain to the police.

>> Wrong, as always.

>>>> ( long as that is possible )

>>> I don't think there is any doubt that the victim will complain to the
>>> police about getting a blank vaccine.

>> More fool you given that the stupid cow was caught and
>> he got a valid vaccination after the stupid cow was caught.

> All the police have to do is contact the victim and ask if he wants to
> make a complaint.

Unlikely that WA operates like that. NSW certainly doesn’t.

Bet WA didn’t with Cleo.

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote

>>> A charge of assault requires the victim to complain to the police.

>> Wrong, as always.

> Only exception is if police are witnesses to a domestic.

Wrong, as always.

I never got asked.

On 14/11/2021 8:34 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>> Phil Allison wrote
>>>>> Max wrote
>
>>>>>> While technically there might be an assault, the police and
>>>>>> prosecutors
>>>>>> have "prosecutorial discretion" and may just settle on a single other
>>>>>> charge that is more appropriate for this situation.
>
>>>>> Bullshit.
>
>>>>> A charge of assault requires the victim to complain to the police.
>
>>> Wrong, as always.
>
>>>>> ( long as that is possible )
>
>>>> I don't think there is any doubt that the victim will complain to
>>>> the police about getting a blank vaccine.
>
>>> More fool you given that the stupid cow was caught and
>>> he got a valid vaccination after the stupid cow was caught.
>
>> All the police have to do is contact the victim and ask if he wants to
>> make a complaint.
>
> Unlikely that WA operates like that. NSW certainly doesn’t.
>
> Bet WA didn’t with Cleo.

So they don't need a complaint from the victim. They can just charge.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>> Phil Allison wrote
>>>>>> Max wrote
>>
>>>>>>> While technically there might be an assault, the police and
>>>>>>> prosecutors
>>>>>>> have "prosecutorial discretion" and may just settle on a single
>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>> charge that is more appropriate for this situation.
>>
>>>>>> Bullshit.
>>
>>>>>> A charge of assault requires the victim to complain to the police.
>>
>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>
>>>>>> ( long as that is possible )
>>
>>>>> I don't think there is any doubt that the victim will complain to the
>>>>> police about getting a blank vaccine.
>>
>>>> More fool you given that the stupid cow was caught and
>>>> he got a valid vaccination after the stupid cow was caught.
>>
>>> All the police have to do is contact the victim and ask if he wants to
>>> make a complaint.
>>
>> Unlikely that WA operates like that. NSW certainly doesn’t.
>>
>> Bet WA didn’t with Cleo.
>
> So they don't need a complaint from the victim. They can just charge.

Yep, you were wrong, as always.

Max wrote:
========>
> > Bet WA didn’t with Cleo.
> So they don't need a complaint from the victim. They can just charge.
>

** FFS police were eye witnesses to the kidnapping of Cleo and the complaint came from her parents.
Murder victims don't complain, the dead body becomes the primary evidence.

But an adult assault victim must make a complaint and be a witness to the event.
The fake covid jab was no assault.

...... Phil

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
> Max wrote

>>> Bet WA didn’t with Cleo.

>> So they don't need a complaint from
>> the victim. They can just charge.

> FFS police were eye witnesses to the kidnapping of Cleo

Bullshit they were.

> and the complaint came from her parents.

> Murder victims don't complain, the dead
> body becomes the primary evidence.

And plenty of assaults are charged and convicted
even if the victim chooses not to complain.

> But an adult assault victim must make a complaint

Wrong, as always, most obviously with domestic violence.

> and be a witness to the event.

Ditto.

> The fake covid jab was no assault.

Wrong, as always when there was no vaccination, just a jab which had no
purpose.

Rod Speed LYING PIG wrote:
---------------------------------------
>
> >>> Bet WA didn’t with Cleo.
>
> >> So they don't need a complaint from
> >> the victim. They can just charge.
> > FFS police were eye witnesses to the kidnapping of Cleo
> Bullshit they were.

** ROTFLMAO - wot a fucking nut case

> And plenty of assaults are charged and convicted
> even if the victim chooses not to complain.

** Already mentioned re domestics.

> > But an adult assault victim must make a complaint
> Wrong, as always, most obviously with domestic violence.

** Already mentioned * BY ME * re domestics.

> > The fake covid jab was no assault.
>
> Wrong, as always when there was no vaccination, just a jab which had no
> purpose.

** Irrelevant.

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>>>>> Bet WA didn’t with Cleo.

>>>> So they don't need a complaint from
>>>> the victim. They can just charge.

>>> FFS police were eye witnesses to the kidnapping of Cleo

>> Bullshit they were.

>> And plenty of assaults are charged and convicted
>> even if the victim chooses not to complain.

> Already mentioned re domestics.

It isn't just domestics, fuckwit.

>>> But an adult assault victim must make a complaint

>> Wrong, as always, most obviously with domestic violence.

> Already mentioned * BY ME * re domestics.

It isn't just domestics, fuckwit.

>> > The fake covid jab was no assault.

>> Wrong, as always when there was no vaccination,
>> just a jab which had no purpose.

> Irrelevant.

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

That’s why you have always been a completely unemployable dole bludger.