Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  nodelist  faq  login

My nose feels like a bad Ronald Reagan movie ...


aus+uk / aus.legal / latest

Re: driving without licence on you (thread)

aus.cars

Posted: 14 Hours 28 Minutes ago by: Rod Speed

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote But you wouldn't be arrested and frog marched off to the cop shop unless it was a very serious driving offence that killed someone etc.

Re: driving without licence on you (thread)

aus.cars

Posted: 15 Hours 2 Minutes ago by: Max

If you committed a driving offence and you didn't have a licence, you would be in big trouble, and there is no way you would get away with it.

Re: driving without licence on you (thread)

aus.cars

Posted: 18 Hours 20 Minutes ago by: Rod Speed

Dunno, never tried that. That won't work at airports.

Re: driving without licence on you (thread)

aus.cars

Posted: 18 Hours 23 Minutes ago by: Peter Jason

Would a photocopy of the licence do? We're always advised to do this with a passport.

Re: driving without licence on you (thread)

aus.cars

Posted: 20 Hours 48 Minutes ago by: Rod Speed

Some donkey claiming to be Noddy <me@home.com> spewed the donkey shit that's all it can ever manage.

Re: driving without licence on you (thread)

aus.cars

Posted: 1 Day 3 Hours ago by: Xeno

Ah Darren, I don't come here to be *loved*. You, on the other hand, do and that's why you had to create a complete bullshit career in automotive. You crave the respect of your betters so you lie and lie and lie in order to gain their r

Re: driving without licence on you (thread)

aus.cars

Posted: 1 Day 4 Hours ago by: Noddy

Lol :) He just *can't* go a single day without talking about me. Even when he's away from here entertaining "friends" at home :) Poor sad cunt of a thing it is. It must really *kill* him that I don't love him :)

Re: driving without licence on you (thread)

aus.cars

Posted: 1 Day 5 Hours ago by: lindsay

And you're a lying flog.

Re: driving without licence on you (thread)

aus.cars

Posted: 1 Day 5 Hours ago by: Xeno

Flog he may be, liar you are!

Re: driving without licence on you (thread)

aus.cars

Posted: 1 Day 5 Hours ago by: Noddy

Then why the fuck did you? Jesus you're a flog.

Re: driving without licence on you (thread)

aus.cars

Posted: 1 Day 6 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Noddy <me@home.com> wrote Didn't need to, fuckwit. So you are mindlessly bullshitting, as always. I get real radical and what that reality TV series, fuckwit. Corse you never ever try that line, eh ? No point, you min

Re: driving without licence on you (thread)

aus.cars

Posted: 1 Day 6 Hours ago by: Noddy

No one mentioned a specific location, Dickfuckinghead. They wouldn't do it down here either, and I never said as much. If you have a point here, it's not clear how you came to it. How would you know? Got any stats? Who gives a tos

Re: driving without licence on you (thread)

aus.cars

Posted: 1 Day 8 Hours ago by: Daryl

That's the way it used to be in Vic, maybe still is but they do have computers in cop cars now so the procedure may have changed. Never found out because I always carry my license and the last time I was pulled over by the cops was so l

Re: driving without licence on you (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 1 Day 8 Hours ago by: Phil Allison

============> ** " This your car ? " " Errr no " "What's the owner's name ? "

Re: driving without licence on you (thread)

aus.cars

Posted: 1 Day 9 Hours ago by: John_H

Probably depends on where you are and your licence category. I always carry mine because I live a long way out of town but in Qld I have 48hrs to produce an open licence at a police station provided my residential address is in Qld. SA

Re: driving without licence on you (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 1 Day 9 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote No one said anything about a get out of jail free card. Plenty do it anyway and some have never had a license.

Re: driving without licence on you (thread)

aus.cars

Posted: 1 Day 9 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

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

Re: driving without licence on you (thread)

aus.cars

Posted: 1 Day 9 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Noddy <me@home.com> wrote They are both in NSW, fuckwit. No cops in NSW are actually stupid enough to frog march you off to the cop shop when they can check if you are licensed in their car. Same with NSW although the fine differ

Re: driving without licence on you (thread)

aus.cars

Posted: 1 Day 10 Hours ago by: Sylvia Else

If driving without any form of identification was a get-out-of-gaol free card for driving offences, then lots of people would be doing it. Sylvia.

Re: driving without licence on you (thread)

aus.cars

Posted: 1 Day 10 Hours ago by: Xeno

I was referring to Max specifically. Did you really need the smilie?

Re: driving without licence on you (thread)

aus.cars

Posted: 1 Day 10 Hours ago by: Noddy

Bullshit. What happens depends entirely on what part of the country you're in, and the attitude of the cop who pulls you over. In Victoria for example, it is a requirement to carry a valid licence at any time that you're behind the whe

Re: driving without licence on you (thread)

aus.cars

Posted: 1 Day 11 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote BULLSHIT. They don't even do that if you aren't licensed to drive. They only do that if you have arrest warrant outstanding.

Re: driving without licence on you (thread)

aus.cars

Posted: 1 Day 11 Hours ago by: Xeno

They will likely take you back to the station and lock you up.

Re: driving (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 1 Day 11 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote They will check that you have a license using the system in their car. In NSW they can fine you, but usually don't, just tell you that you need to have it with you when driving. Nope, just use the system in

Re: driving without licence on you (thread)

aus.cars

Posted: 1 Day 11 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote Bullshit. They just check the details you provide using the system in their car. Just like they do if you have your licence with you. They don't even take you to the cop shop if you have been

Re: driving without licence on you (thread)

aus.cars

Posted: 1 Day 13 Hours ago by: Pete

Last time it happened to me, they asked for my details and looked me up on their in-car data terminal. Peter

Re: driving without licence on you (thread)

aus.cars

Posted: 1 Day 13 Hours ago by: Sylvia Else

More than likely. Sylvia.

driving without licence on you

aus.cars

Posted: 1 Day 13 Hours ago by: Max

What is likely to happen if you get pulled over by the police? Will they take you back to the station for the purposes of ascertaining your identity?

driving

aus.legal

Posted: 1 Day 14 Hours ago by: Max

What is likely to happen if you get pulled over by a policeman? Will they take you back to the station for the purposes of ascertaining your identity?

Re: Pauline Hanson (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 1 Day 20 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote Yep. How many of you are there between those ears ? Which has had no real effect on his policy choices, fuckwit. You wouldn't know ahat real insanity was if bit you on your lard arse.

Re: Pauline Hanson (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 2 Days 5 Hours ago by: James Last

On Sat, 14 May 2022 19:36:17 +1000, Trevor Wilson posted:- Maybe you should be talking about the religious hypocrisy of KKK, Kristina "blow in" Dog'skennel"? Bags the Catholic church, then organises a photo op of her praying at a Catholi

Re: Pauline Hanson (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 2 Days 5 Hours ago by: Phil Allison

===============> ** The PM's nick is Scomo. Your's might easily be " scummo, audiophool scammer." Bet TW never does this: Post a convincing CASE, if you think you actually have one. Asking absurdly loaded, fake questions is the des

Re: Pauline Hanson (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 2 Days 6 Hours ago by: Trevor Wilson

**Really? Tell us, in as much detail as you feel necessary, how her alleged derangement compares to the religious nuttery practiced by Scummo, or the outright insanity displayed by Barnaby.

Re: Pauline Hanson (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 2 Days 6 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote That is precisely what she is. She still is. More fool you. They both need a bullet in the back of the neck.

Re: Pauline Hanson (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 2 Days 6 Hours ago by: Fran

Yep. When she was first elected, I was horrified but by the time she had to leave for the dual citizenship fiasco, I thought she had found her place and was a very good advocate for her state. The same thing applied to Ricky Muir an

Re: Pauline Hanson (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 2 Days 8 Hours ago by: Xeno

I thought that she was seriously deranged - at first. Now I think she's a good fit in the Senate, a far better fit than someone like Hanson.

Re: Pauline Hanson (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 2 Days 15 Hours ago by: Sylvia Else

We have no way of knowing whether the true facts differed from the alleged facts before the court. Even Hanson may have been mislead by her offspring. So we don't know whether there was anything there that needed fixing. Sylvia.

Re: Pauline Hanson (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 3 Days 14 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

No one has ever come up with any way of fixing that shambles. Not even not getting married in the first place fixes it, you are still stuck with that the legal system decides is what happens.

Re: Pauline Hanson (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 3 Days 14 Hours ago by: Fran

Why do you sound surprised? Rod Speed is weird but he's not even the weirdest poster here. He is one eyed about HIS view on politics that he will never accept that others make different (equally valid) choices as to what/who they sup

Re: Pauline Hanson (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 3 Days 14 Hours ago by: Peter Jason

Why waste good bullets? Why not have a Hanged parliament?

Re: Pauline Hanson (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 3 Days 14 Hours ago by: Max

So you are suggesting that Hanson, an elected member of the Australian parliament, be shot and killed?

Re: Pauline Hanson (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 3 Days 14 Hours ago by: Max

Is what happened to her adult child due to a problem with the family law system? If so, what can be done to fix it?

Re: I posted this before, but it disappeard. (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 4 Days 12 Hours ago by: Peter Jason

Thanks, he said he's getting legal advice, and I send him random details when I find them. I had roots from this tree years ago but when under floor work was done at that time I cut them all away (though I should have added poison as we

Re: I posted this before, but it disappeard. (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 4 Days 13 Hours ago by: Sylvia Else

I doubt you'll get far on the seed issue. Your neighbour would need to arrange some excavations to demonstrate the the damage is actually caused by the tree roots, and then present the evidence to the council. Sylvia.

Re: I posted this before, but it disappeard. (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 4 Days 15 Hours ago by: Peter Jason

Thank you all. My neighbor has been molested by a huge London-Plane tree for ages. It's on the footpath just outside my house, though the damage is under his house. His verandah is lifting and so is his kitchen at the far end of his

Re: I posted this before, but it disappeard. (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 4 Days 15 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

No it didnt, its still there, with 2 useful replys. Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote From Else From Philthy

I posted this before, but it disappeard.

aus.legal

Posted: 4 Days 15 Hours ago by: Peter Jason

https://postimg.cc/T5Gfx7zm Can anyone advise me where to get further and current details on this 2021 matter?

Re: Pauline Hanson (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 4 Days 16 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote That's bullshit and she isn't stupid enough to be into climate change crap. Nope, just stamps her foot. Ditto. She has never wavered in those actions.

Re: Pauline Hanson (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 4 Days 16 Hours ago by: Trevor Wilson

**Lambie stands out as one of the small number of honest politicians in the Senate. Do I always agree with her? Nope. However, she has been straight with the electorate in that she acts for armed forces people and the people of Tasmani

Re: Pauline Hanson (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 4 Days 16 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote That's Lambie. Unfortunately we have been too hopeless to try it with anyone except Arfur Caldwell.

Re: Pauline Hanson (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 4 Days 16 Hours ago by: Peter Jason

Aye, and a fourth for that screaming harpy dyke in the Senate!

Re: Pauline Hanson (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 4 Days 17 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote True, and third one for the stupid Lambie cow.

Re: Pauline Hanson (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 4 Days 19 Hours ago by: Trevor Wilson

**Finally we agree on something. A second bullet for Palmer would be nice.

Re: Pauline Hanson (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 4 Days 23 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Daniel65 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote And well known slut. Nope.

Re: Pauline Hanson (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 5 Days 3 Hours ago by: Sylvia Else

I believe she's expressing concerns based on the experience of one of her adult children. It's not a statistically significant sample, of course. Sylvia.

Re: Pauline Hanson (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 5 Days 3 Hours ago by: Daniel65

Pauline is a divorced mother, isn't she?? Maybe she's acting from past experience!

Re: Pauline Hanson (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 5 Days 6 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote Just because some fool claims something... Nope, she needs fixing, with a bullet in the back of the neck.

Re: Pauline Hanson (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 5 Days 6 Hours ago by: Sylvia Else

She might be. It's hard to know. Her concerns appear to relate to fathers getting a raw deal, and mothers inventing allegations of domestic violence and abuse as a legal tactic. The difficulty is that we cannot know what proportion of

Pauline Hanson

aus.legal

Posted: 5 Days 7 Hours ago by: Max

I just saw a political message from Pauline Hanson on ABC-TV. She said that Family Law in this country is broken and needs fixing. Is she correct?

Re: Trees. (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 5 Days 12 Hours ago by: Sylvia Else

Judgement http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCC/2020/1775.html

Re: Trees. (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 5 Days 17 Hours ago by: Phil Allison

--------------------------------- https://www.countycourt.vic.gov.au/case-information

Trees.

aus.legal

Posted: 5 Days 18 Hours ago by: Peter Jason

I found this in the local paper..... https://postimg.cc/LJ0FVRDh Where can I get further info? Are these complaints public records accessible to all? Including reports from arborists etc? Can I track progress somehow?

Re: AEC get vid pulled by Facebook & Tik- Toke (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 6 Days 3 Hours ago by: Phil Allison

============= Hi, a recent Please Explain cartoon vid has been pulled off TikTok and Facebook. But not u-tube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-B___WPT33w Features Albo ( with the Wu Flu ) and Penny Wong with a bowl of bat soup.

Re: Request. (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 6 Days 11 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote Not going to happen. Not going to happen. No you don't.

Re: Request. (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 6 Days 11 Hours ago by: Petzl

Your gamble to take on bank crash, doubt if it will happen. https://www.abcbullion.com.au/store/gold

Re: Request. (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 6 Days 11 Hours ago by: Sylvia Else

Looks to me as if you'd have to split it between institutions, not just between accounts, because the protection relates to account holders, and you're one account holder regardless of how many accounts you have. https://www.apra.gov.a

Re: Request. (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 6 Days 11 Hours ago by: Max

"provides protection to depositors of up to $250,000 per account-holder per authorised deposit-taking institution (ADI) (bank, building society or credit union) in the event of the ADI failing" https://moneysmart.gov.au/glossary/austra

Request.

aus.legal

Posted: 6 Days 13 Hours ago by: Peter Jason

I have heard that the government will protect depositors' bank deposits up to a certain sum. What is this sum? Is it $250000? Where is this matter legislated? If $250000, can I just split a total larger sum into separate accounts all $250

Re: boris becker (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 6 Days 14 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote Wrong, as always. All you normally get is a fine, not YEARS IN JAIL.

Re: chance (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 6 Days 14 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote Nope, do a video call, show your face, then show the ID. Yep. They don't care, all they care about, at most, is that they did see the ID and that it is the individual who ordered the alcohol.

Re: boris becker (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 6 Days 15 Hours ago by: Max

In fact, it does what happen when it's in your name, even though you have no idea what is happening, and your advisers just told you to sign certain documents.

Re: chance (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 6 Days 15 Hours ago by: Max

You would then have to send a screenshot of your drivers licence to the delivery person's phone. You think BWS is going to accept that happening? How would they know whether you have fabricated the image? There are significant m

Re: chance (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 7 Days 9 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote Wrong, as always. I have done one lots of times to androids. Works fine. Dont need to but it is unlikely that the delivery monkey can't recieve any video call. You are completely pig ignorant, as alway

Re: boris becker (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 7 Days 9 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote That fool thought he would get away with it, fuckwit. Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something... You don't get YEARS in jail for that.

Re: chance (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 7 Days 11 Hours ago by: Max

It is not possible to do a video call unless it is iPhone to iPhone. What happens if one party has Android? You cannot expect the delivery driver to do a Skype or Whatsapp call. That is ridiculous. It is unlikely that large nation

Re: boris becker (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 7 Days 11 Hours ago by: Max

Makes no sense that he would do that knowingly if he knew he would go to jail for it. More likely he was convinced by his advisers that it was all legal and to just sign the papers. Therefore, it is likely that Becker's culpability is

Re: boris becker (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 7 Days 13 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote It was obvious that what was on the tax return was a pack of lies, fuckwit. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, fuckwit. And the tax return wasn't just minorly wrong, it was a complete pack of lies and Be

Re: chance (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 7 Days 13 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote So your original was just plain wrong, as always. Only with the first delivery and even with that one, it is perfectly possible to do that with a video call even if you are isolating, fuckwit. Happens all th

Re: boris becker (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 7 Days 13 Hours ago by: Max

They may not have told him that we have been breaking the law and just got him to sign documents. It wouldn't be fair in that case for Becker to be criminally liable.

Re: chance (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 7 Days 13 Hours ago by: Max

I just had a case of wine delivered by a bottle shop. They did not require signature or check of ID. BWS does require check of ID. This means the bottle shop is in breach of the rules. There is no way that BWS would not know the correc

Re: boris becker (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 8 Days 10 Hours ago by: Phil Allison

=============================> ** The time. ** Accountants and lawyers protect themselves from such events. That is why YOU have to *sign* tax returns before your accountant submits them. The fine print absolves the accountant.

Re: chance (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 8 Days 11 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote Nope, dope. When the delivery monkey knocks on the fucking door, you are free to make a video call to the delivery monkey, show them who you are, then show them the ID in the video call

Re: boris becker (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 8 Days 11 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote Corse it is, he did the crime, he gets to do the crime. Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something... He was free to tell his accountant and lawyer that he wasn't going to break the l

Re: chance (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 8 Days 13 Hours ago by: Max

Are you fucking kidding me? You think BWS is going to accept a photo sent to the delivery person's phone as an ID check? You are fucking dreaming. What if there is no peep hole on the door? Total bullshit that you could use the CC

boris becker

aus.legal

Posted: 8 Days 13 Hours ago by: Max

https://www.news.com.au/sport/sports-life/champions/martina-navratilova-boris-becker-made-bad-mistakes-that-led-to-jail/news-story/a974c5662115d188c88deca3b3641693 Is it OK that Boris Becker gets sent to jail, when it might have been his

Re: AEC get vid pulled by Facebook & Tik- Tok (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 9 Days 8 Hours ago by: Phil Allison

============== > ** Bugger - it was still visible yesterday. The AEC were pissed off cos the *cartoon* contained a caricature of Penny Wong showing Albo ways to vote in fake names. Then she supplies him with some soup and claim

Re: chance (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 9 Days 8 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote Wrong, as always. That has only ever happened just once with dozens of alcohol deliverys and has never happened in a store. I don't look anything even remotely like a child and haven't done for well ov

AEC get vid pulled by Facebook & Tik- Toke

aus.legal

Posted: 9 Days 9 Hours ago by: Phil Allison

Hi, A recent Please Explain cartoon vid has been pulled off TikTok and Facebook. But not u-tube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iN5-RgDlyc Features Albo ( with the Wu Flu ) and Penny Wong with a bowl of bat soup. Too funny.

Re: chance (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 9 Days 9 Hours ago by: Max

They will need to sight ID. Otherwise there would be kids ordering online all the time. There's no way they would let that happen. I rang BWS and they said on the first delivery they will need to sight ID. They said this can happen

Re: chance (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 9 Days 9 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote Irrelevant to what actually happens when it is actually delivered. No signature required with any alcohol I have had delivered since covid. Nope. Corse they can and do. Not a problem. Fraid so.

Re: chance (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 9 Days 10 Hours ago by: Max

When you try to order alcohol delivery through Woolworths, it doesn't let you choose Covid isolation when you order. They probably still have to sight your ID. They cannot just leave the alcohol at a closed door, which is what would

Re: chance (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 9 Days 10 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote Nope, not anymore due to covid. Nope. Wrong, as always.

Re: chance (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 9 Days 14 Hours ago by: Max

When you have alcohol delivered you need to sign for it, which would breach the Covid isolation rules. There is no way to get alcohol delivered if you are in Covid isolation.

Re: chance (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 10 Days 4 Hours ago by: Petzl

Neighbours know? Get it delivered?

chance

aus.legal

Posted: 10 Days 5 Hours ago by: Fred

If you test positive for Covid and are meant to isolate for 7 days, what are the chances of getting caught by going over the road to the bottle shop?

Re: Privacy getting out of hand. (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 11 Days 13 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote Neither are a bank, stupid. Me too, and my own facebook group too. I didn't. Try that again in english. How odd that facebook didnt do that with mine. Bullshit and trivial to work out which ones a

Re: Privacy getting out of hand. (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 11 Days 16 Hours ago by: Phil Allison

=============> ** And they can firmly tell you to NOT give it to THEM. It put them in a bad position if the private info gets out. Same happens when someone tells you a secret. It's a shitty thing to do.

Re: Privacy getting out of hand. (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 11 Days 16 Hours ago by: Petzl

I set-up a Facebook account and a Gmail account together using my real name As soon as I setup the Facebook account I stated getting Phishing spam look like Russian? Took ages of spam reporting and removing their scams from YouTube as we

contempt of court?

aus.legal

Posted: 12 Days 6 Hours ago by: Max

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/tv-host-andrew-okeefe-warned-by-magistrate-after-explosion-in-court/news-story/99a940b82b3f62da0dcad7428780bae2 Former TV game show host O'Keefe has been told there will be contempt of

Re: Privacy getting out of hand. (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 12 Days 6 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote Bullshit, her email address doesn't allow that. Much more likely some fool fucked up.

Re: Privacy getting out of hand. (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 12 Days 7 Hours ago by: Max

It would be a security measure. They are trying to prevent people from getting access to your account and transferring funds out of it.

Privacy getting out of hand.

aus.legal

Posted: 12 Days 9 Hours ago by: Sylvia Else

By way of a private Facebook message, I provided an email address by which Commonwealth Bank could contact me in respect if a query I'd raised. The response was a request that I not provide private information that they have not asked fo

Re: why is ID mandatory for historical title search????? (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 13 Days 10 Hours ago by: Max

Why not just hand over the ID? What are you worried about?

Re: why is ID mandatory for historical title search????? (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 14 Days 4 Hours ago by: Petzl

Current owner and status is given and if or not under bank loan given for $30, used to cost $10. <https://www.nswlrs.com.au/Titles-Dealings/Title-Information-(1)/Access-Titling-Information> https://tinyurl.com/y3bdv3hg

why is ID mandatory for historical title search?????

aus.legal

Posted: 14 Days 6 Hours ago by: Ozix

I went to the land titles office to do some research, to find out who owned a house in the 1930s. But they told me I need 100 points of ID before handing over the application form! I can understand if one wanted the current owner, maybe

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 14 Days 6 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 14 Days 9 Hours ago by: Phil Allison

==============================> ** ROTFLMFAO !!!!! The Rodbot retard just CANNOT follow a simple conversation any more. What a fucking hoot !!!!!!

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 14 Days 12 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote So there would be no strike if the employer didnt pay the journo's legal costs. Mulligan wasn't doing that with her twitter shit, fuckwit.

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 14 Days 12 Hours ago by: Phil Allison

============================> ** So not acting as an employee. ** Employee = WHEN acting as one in the particular matter. FUCKWIT !!

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 14 Days 14 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote Depends on how outrageous the defamation was when the defamation was not part of the journo's job like it wasn't with Mulligan. Bullshit with the most outrageous defamation that had nothing to

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 14 Days 15 Hours ago by: Phil Allison

Max the GOOGLE# MONSTER MORON wrote: =================================> >> ** It is 1000% FUCKING DRIVEL !! ** Not if they are employed by the publisher. ** Cater is not employed by Ch 9. ** Not if he or she is an employe

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 14 Days 15 Hours ago by: Phil Allison

=======================> > ** All hell would break loose if they did not cover the their employee. Every journo in the place would go on strike.

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 14 Days 15 Hours ago by: Phil Allison

=========================> ** Lawyers do not write *threatening* letters - that is highly illegal. The may send one demanding an apology and mention the possibility of defamation action. Mostly it is pure bluff.

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 15 Days 6 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote But do unless it is a flagrant misrepresentation or bare faced lie about what actually happened. The employer pays the costs anyway when it is an employee doing her job and even when it isnt doing her job

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 15 Days 6 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote That isnt suing for defamation, stupid. No way to know that in that situation, stupid. But if they had be TOLD by someone that that was what was said, they wouldn't be, stupid.

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 15 Days 7 Hours ago by: Max

It is not drivel. Journalists can and have been ordered to pay compensation for defamation actions. In regard to a 60 Mins episode, defamation was proved by the Wagner family, and *both* Channel Nine and a journalist were each require

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 15 Days 8 Hours ago by: Max

They don't have to pay her costs. The costs are her's because she his personally liable for defamation. There may be some situations where the publisher would decide not to pay the personal legal costs of an employee journalist.

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 15 Days 8 Hours ago by: Max

You wouldn't need a lot of money to pay a lawyer to write a threatening letter to a journalist. If the journalist has clearly made something up then they will be very scared by the letter.

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 16 Days 10 Hours ago by: Phil Allison

** So in reality a massive LIE . ** Drivel from a BULLSHIT source. A fucking finance writer. ** Where SHE publised the defamation herself. ** Nope, it was several posts of hers on *** Twitter***. Also, payment was by

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 16 Days 11 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote Irrelevant to what happens with JOURNOS, stupid. And even you should have noticed that that fool who shouted something during the anzac silence has no possibility of suing anyone for defamation because some od

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 16 Days 11 Hours ago by: Max

So if someone who works at the supermarket says something defamatory online, will the supermarket company pay for their legal costs?

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 16 Days 12 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote The reality is that no journo has enough money to matter and that their employer would pay the damages anyway. Of course they do, she's an employee, stupid.

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 16 Days 12 Hours ago by: Max

It is a well known fact that both the journalist and the publisher are separately liable for defamation. Of course, you wouldn't know that because you are an ignoramus. "Both the publisher and the writer can be liable for defamation."

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 17 Days 11 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote Because that was the reason he lost that job, stupid. And that cost him a significant chunk of a megabuck and that is why only the very well off can afford to do that and that is why it wouldnt happen in this

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 17 Days 12 Hours ago by: Phil Allison

Max the MONSTER MORON wrote: ============================>> ** No they are not. ** He sued the fucking ABC !! Milligan was the main originator but has NO liability since she is an employee. ** Major stories are vetted by o

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 17 Days 13 Hours ago by: Max

Yes they are. Former attorney-general Christian Porter sued ABC journalist Louise Milligan for defamation. https://theconversation.com/christian-porter-sues-abc-and-reporter-louise-milligan-for-defamation-157140

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 17 Days 13 Hours ago by: Max

So why then did former attorney-general Christian Porter sue ABC journalist Louise Milligan?

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 18 Days 4 Hours ago by: Phil Allison

============================ ** Journos are never liable for defamation. Only the publisher and the originator are involved. In any case, only the most well healed can afford to sue a news service. Plus they carry insurance against t

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 18 Days 4 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Wrong, as always. No journo has any other source of info, fuckwit. And they do, and don't get sued for defamation, fuckwit.

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 18 Days 7 Hours ago by: Max

Being told something doesn't excuse a journalist from defamation. Otherwise all journalists would say that.

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 18 Days 14 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage and that's saying something. All the journo has to say is that that is what he was told. Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage a

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 18 Days 16 Hours ago by: Max

The journalist would be liable for defamation if he claimed that the man said something that he didn't. So therefore it is highly likely that that is what the man said.

Re: Floating Petri Dishes return (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 20 Days 8 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote In fact its much worse with international airline flights because you sit much closer to other people and it isnt possible to test if anyone got infected during the flight.

Re: Floating Petri Dishes return (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 20 Days 10 Hours ago by: Phil Allison

=====================> ** ROTFLMAO

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 20 Days 13 Hours ago by: Sylvia Else

One element of the offence is that the activity was not consensual. This might be inferred if any significant damage was done to the victim, but that does not appear to be the case. Absent a complaint from the victim, proving that this

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 20 Days 13 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote Irrelevant to your mindless shit about pressing charges. There was no crime and the fool that got punched did get punished with a fine. Or had enough of a clue tp realise that the last thing he needed was

Re: Floating Petri Dishes return (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 20 Days 13 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote No more than with aircraft, fuckwit. Nope.

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 20 Days 14 Hours ago by: Max

It was reported that no complaints were made. That was the point of my post - that a potential crime will go unpunished because a victim is too scared or stupid to make a complaint. Maybe the victim was scared of the assailant finding

Re: Floating Petri Dishes return (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 20 Days 16 Hours ago by: Phil Allison

=====================> ** Course - it's a boutique Australian coastal " eco tourist" ship, not an international cruise liner. Nevertheless , the petri-dish effect applies. ** Separate issue.

Re: Floating Petri Dishes return (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 20 Days 17 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote Best slash your wrists, boy. That one isn't delivering the latest covid variant. FAR more are flying in with that, stupid.

Re: Floating Petri Dishes return (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 20 Days 17 Hours ago by: Phil Allison

===============> great news, cruise liners are welcome to call here again in May. ** See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysC4TLIaoS8 It's started already, one floating petri-dish at a time.

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 21 Days 4 Hours ago by: Phil Allison

============ ** A silent, edited video. Not worth a pinch of shit. ** More likely he was told "fuck off" and replied " make me". ** Yes it IS. ** Obviously his only weak spot. ROTFLMAFAO !!!!!!

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 21 Days 4 Hours ago by: Phil Allison

============= > ** Likely took his details for their records.

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 21 Days 4 Hours ago by: Phil Allison

Maximum Idiot wrote: ================> ** ROTFL - wot a fucking macaroon !!!! ** Lies, lies, lies, lies, lie, lies ** The drunk idiot was the criminal - you stinking moron. Right in front of them. " Drunk and disorder

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 21 Days 5 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote But you have no fucking idea what he shouted out or why the cops chucked him out. Pathetic.

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 21 Days 6 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote That's not pressing charges. No they would not given that video footage is available. And you have no fucking idea if the one who got punched did make a complaint. Cops don't "press charges". the DPP de

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 21 Days 6 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote We'll see... Not because he was the victim of the assault, fuckwit. He isnt the perp. And you don't even know that the cops even know who he is now.

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 21 Days 6 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote Bullshit it is. That's nothing like your stupid original.

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 21 Days 6 Hours ago by: Max

From the video evidence I have seen the punching seems unjustified but the puncher remains innocent until proven guilty in court.

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 21 Days 7 Hours ago by: Max

Correction: alleged assault

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 21 Days 7 Hours ago by: Max

If the man who as punched wanted to make a complaint, the police would have to investigate and press charges if an offence has happened. It seems from the video that the perp just decided to punch the man who shouted out something duri

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 21 Days 7 Hours ago by: Max

What a travesty of justice. The victim in the assault gets fined, and the perp gets off scot free.

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 21 Days 7 Hours ago by: Max

Yes it is. How else are they going to remove the men without taking them away out of the area?

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 21 Days 12 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote We'll see... That isn't TAKEN AWAY. But you have no fucking idea what he was charged with. Just because some fool journo claims something...

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 21 Days 12 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote You have been watching too much TV, We don't get any say on who gets charged.

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 21 Days 12 Hours ago by: Phil Allison

Maximum Idiot wrote: =================> > ** LIAR. ** Nothing like the crap you posted - fuckwit. ** Yep - the *drunk idiot* who got punched. Seems he gave the cops a hard time too. Drunk and disorderly and refusi

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 21 Days 12 Hours ago by: Max

If I were the man who was repeatedly punched, I would be making a complaint to the police and pressing charges. While it was disrespectful for the man to shout out during the Anzac Day silence, it is totally unacceptable for him to be

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 21 Days 13 Hours ago by: Max

I did not, fuckhead. "Queensland Police reportedly removed the main two men in the video from Suncorp following the incident but have now also fined the fan at the centre of it all." https://www.sportingnews.com/au/rugby-league/news/n

R.N.Z.I._—_Wellington_N.Z._◄——_E

aus.legal

Posted: 22 Days 2 Hours ago by: Ras Tafarian

R.N.Z.I. — Wellington N.Z. ◄—— ENGINEERING STAFF BLUNDERING ON PURPOSE —————————————————————————————————————— RADIO NEW ZEALAND INTERNATIONAL HAS RECEN

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 22 Days 2 Hours ago by: Phil Allison

========== ** You made that shit up. ** Begs the question. ** There is no " victim " until a charge is laid and proven. ** Begs the question again. Silent *edited* video is extraordinarily misleading.

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 22 Days 6 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote Doesn't mean that they identified either of them. Doesn't work like that in this country. You don't know that there was a crime. It isnt a crime to have a punchup.

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 22 Days 8 Hours ago by: Max

Both perp and victim were taken away by police at the time. Apparently it is because the victim did not want to make a complaint that there are no charges. So a crime goes unpunished.

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 22 Days 12 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote And not easy to identify the perp, stupid. And not worth pissing lots of resources against wall having lots of cops attend future matches hoping to find the perp only to have the magistrate swot

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 22 Days 23 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote Yes, but the cops have a tendency to not do anything in that situation.

Re: no complaint (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 23 Days 4 Hours ago by: Phil Allison

-------------------------------------------------- ** Once again, using the term "clearly " means you are making shit up. ** The parties very likely did not know each other at all. With no complaint, the cops cannot identify the

no complaint

aus.legal

Posted: 23 Days 7 Hours ago by: Max

https://7news.com.au/sport/rugby-league/nrl-crowd-brawl-breaks-out-during-broncos-bulldogs-match-c-6548870 There was a fight at a rugby league match. As can be seen there were clearly punches thrown by one man, which is arguably assault.

Re: Floating Petri Dishes return (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 25 Days 4 Hours ago by: Phil Allison

=========================>> >>> ** ROTFL - thing is Maxxie boy , it's not one TINY FUCKING BIT relevant.

Re: Floating Petri Dishes return (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 25 Days 4 Hours ago by: Phil Allison

============== ** Way 2 crazy 4 me.

Re: Floating Petri Dishes return (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 25 Days 5 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote Often due to the weather at one of the itinerary ports. Yep. And avoiding a port where the weather is fucked and wouldnt be any fun wandering around that particular stop. The pax and crew who organise the

Re: Floating Petri Dishes return (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 25 Days 5 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote Just like a little kid. Filthyshit flushed where it belongs. Just like a little kid. Filthyshit flushed where it belongs. > Just like a little kid. Filthyshit flushed where it belongs. Jus

Re: Floating Petri Dishes return (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 25 Days 6 Hours ago by: Max

It is quite possible that a cruise ship while change its itinerary. It's all part of the enjoyment of being on a cruise. The captain will inform passengers of the change in plans, and it's all part of the fun of it - that you are on a

Re: Floating Petri Dishes return (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 25 Days 8 Hours ago by: Phil Allison

========================================> ** ROTFL - no utter absurdity is beyond this fucked up imbecile. ** ROTFL - no utter absurdity is beyond this fucked up imbecile. ** ROTFLMAO, YOU said so, right above -

Re: Floating Petri Dishes return (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 25 Days 9 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote Wrong when the ship docks in a port not on its itinerary. Also wrong, if they show up on the ship, they will be crew, stupid. And the pax who only come off the ship for a look around the port a

Re: Floating Petri Dishes return (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 25 Days 11 Hours ago by: Phil Allison

==============================================> Quote: " ** All ships crew need visas to come here by sea. Plus good proof of being a crew member to get that visa. " ============================================= ** Correct. ** NO

Re: Floating Petri Dishes return (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 25 Days 11 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote Nothing like your original pig ignorant shit and you are still flagrantly mis representing what crew who show up in a particular port on a ship need to have, particularly when it is an unexpected

Re: Floating Petri Dishes return (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 25 Days 14 Hours ago by: Phil Allison

Raving LUNATIC CRIMINAL Rodbot Ex Cop Speedbot ====================================> Just like you did with visas for crew members. ** Class 988 Maritime Crew Visas are essential for each crew member and any family travelling with them

Re: Floating Petri Dishes return (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 25 Days 15 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote Just like you did with visas for crew members. Nothing unusual about a new cruise liner coming back into service. Bullshit.

Re: Floating Petri Dishes return (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 25 Days 16 Hours ago by: Phil Allison

Max the Wog Fuckwit & congenital LAIR wrote: =================================> >> ** But made shit up missed out all the facts applying in this unusual case and the circumstances at this time.

Re: Floating Petri Dishes return (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 25 Days 16 Hours ago by: Max

There was not meant to be a question. I was rebutting your claim that people are unlikely to arrive by air to take up a crew position.

Re: Floating Petri Dishes return (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 26 Days 5 Hours ago by: Phil Allison

=================================>> ** There is no question in your pile of verbal drivel. Don't you ever learn ??? FOAD wog POS ,

Re: Floating Petri Dishes return (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 26 Days 6 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote It doesn't work that way. The world has been dealing with ship's crew for centurys now and the detail with visas haven't changed. Same with aircraft crew and those can't just be forced to stay on the plane.

Re: Floating Petri Dishes return (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 26 Days 6 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

And given that they are mostly Philipinos, they are unlikely to live there given that most cruises dont bother to stop in the philipines.

Re: Floating Petri Dishes return (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 26 Days 8 Hours ago by: Max

They may not be able to disembark the ship though if they don't have a visa for that country. Whether border force will storm the ship is another matter.

Re: Floating Petri Dishes return (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 26 Days 8 Hours ago by: Max

At some point the crew have to board the ship. It could be any port they board at, since the ship is always at seas going from port to port. Therefore, crew will inevetably have to go to one of the cities where the ship has docked, in

Re: Floating Petri Dishes return (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 26 Days 21 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote Wrong, as always, most obviously when a ship suffers a serious problem and needs to show up at a port that that it wasnt scheduled to stop at. That's trivial when you show up in a ship, fuckwit

Re: Floating Petri Dishes return (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 26 Days 21 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote Essentially because that would be too much farting around. The pax don't for every port they stop at during the cruise either. And don't all get jailed if the ship does an unexpected stop in an unscheduled port

Re: Floating Petri Dishes return (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 27 Days 5 Hours ago by: Phil Allison

Max asks the Rodbot the bleeding obvious: ==============================> ** All ships crew need visas to come here by sea. Plus good proof of being a crew member to get that visa. Arriving by air to take up a crew position on

Re: Floating Petri Dishes return (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 27 Days 5 Hours ago by: Max

Why don't the ship crew need visas?

Re: Floating Petri Dishes return (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 27 Days 7 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote Wrong with ship crew, fuckwit.

Re: Floating Petri Dishes return (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 27 Days 8 Hours ago by: Phil Allison

============================= ** Fact, you lying pig. ** They need visas to get on plane to Australia. You LYING PIG ** The normal crew compliment is 924. The figure is there in the liners wiki. https://en.wikipe

Re: Floating Petri Dishes return (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 27 Days 10 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote Bullshit, they wouldnt be doing the job if they didn't. They need the passports to work on a cruise ship and don't need visas to show up here as crew on a cruise ship, fuckwit. Nope, happ

Re: Floating Petri Dishes return (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 27 Days 10 Hours ago by: Phil Allison

===========================> > ** They hardly get any wages you fucking MORON. ** Shame about needing visas and passports to fly into Australia. Big issues with that mad idea. ** Who are simply not crew. FOAD yo

Re: Floating Petri Dishes return (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 27 Days 10 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote And they would have had to be flown in from somewhere, they wouldn't have been staying where the ship had been lying idle for 3 years, so might as well fly them to where the first of the pax were

Re: Floating Petri Dishes return (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 27 Days 11 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote Bullshit it would than paying their wages for the much slower trip. More mindless bullshit given that the airline traffic is now available. That isnt completely true either, most obviously w

Re: Floating Petri Dishes return (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 27 Days 11 Hours ago by: Phil Allison

TOTALLY INSANE IDIOT Rod Speed bullshitted ============================================================================ ** Insane crapology. ** No that would be way more expensive and difficult. Cruises liners employ experie

Re: Floating Petri Dishes return (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 27 Days 12 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote So no point in having a full crew UNTIL they have picke up pax, fuckwit. Much cheaper to fly in crew when you actually need them or recruit some locals, fuckwit. Irrelevant, fuckwit.

Re: Floating Petri Dishes return (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 27 Days 14 Hours ago by: Phil Allison

================================> ** Not yet. ** Totally false. So far, no refugees have been sent to NZ from Aussie. The was a deal for few hundreds but never acted on. OTOH millions of NZ " refugees " have been arriving dai

Re: Floating Petri Dishes return (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 27 Days 15 Hours ago by: Peter Jason

Assuage your angst. Mother Britain is adopting some of Oz's boat-people solutions and sending their free-loaders off to Rwanda. Of course we have been using NZ as a gypsy dump for a long time where all there deserve each other.

Re: Floating Petri Dishes return (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 27 Days 15 Hours ago by: Phil Allison

FUCKING MORON & LIAR Rod Speed wrote ============================ ** The ship was here to pick up pax - FUCKWIT !! All of them with bookings.

Re: Floating Petri Dishes return (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 27 Days 16 Hours ago by: Rod Speed

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote But when COMING HERE there are no pax, fuckwit. More likely that they noticed that they didnt need a full crew WITH NO PAX AT ALL, fuckwit.

Re: Floating Petri Dishes return (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 27 Days 17 Hours ago by: Phil Allison

============================>> ** A full crew is needed to cater for 2000 pax. So maybe that are not expecting that sort of number.

Re: Floating Petri Dishes return (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 28 Days ago by: Rod Speed

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote It would be a fucking sight more surprising if they has a full crew with no pax, stupid. Not the first in europe.

Re: Floating Petri Dishes return (thread)

aus.legal

Posted: 28 Days 3 Hours ago by: Phil Allison

=============> ** The first " petri dish " has arrived in Sydney Harbour: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-18/first-cruise-ship-for-two-years-docks-in-sydney/100996860 The Pacific Explorer, missing almost 3/4 of it's usual crew a

203 recent articles found.

rocksolid light 0.7.2
clearneti2ptor