- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 12,859
- Location
- North Oxfordshire
- Car
- His - Denim Blue A220 AMG Line Premium / Hers - Obsidian Black R172 SLK55
Correct. It was about politics.but this was never about reputation in the first place
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Correct. It was about politics.but this was never about reputation in the first place
Nothing absurd buddy. Simple facts as to why women and children were being imprisoned and deported by the government of the time.It's was absurd for you to write that "A lot of this happened during the industrial revolution which put people out of jobs and who were starving as a result and stealing to stay alive."
The industrial revolution put people into jobs, put food into people's hands, and took them out of an agricultural living which did routinely starve them because of their dependency on the seasons and crops.
Why were people deported? Because they had the tech and destination to do so.
What happened to thieves previously? They were killed by the people around them, or sentenced to death, or died while imprisoned in far more appalling conditions of poverty, squalor and violence than any 21st century mind can countenance.
Really?Wrong, it was about rules, then turned into politics
One set of rules. How there applied is another storyState vs Federal
This may well have something to do with it. A hard politically based upcoming voting calculation will have been made? win some lose someHas anyone come out of this utter shambles well?
Hole in one (imo).This may well have something to do with it. A hard politically based upcoming voting calculation will have been made?
Whether Australia should or shouldn't have let Djokovic in, it seems to me that they should have chosen one or the other before he travelled. After all, he was happy to quarantine for 14 days - in an official facility - on arrival in Australia prior to the 2021 Open so, presumably, he would have been happy to do so again if that had been a pre-condition of entry? Likewise, if he had been told categorically that unless he could provide an acceptable immunisation record he would be denied a visa then he would have had the choice not to travel.There has been disingenuousness by all players in this farce; Federal, State, tennis authority and team Djokovic.
The final decision was in accordance with Australian immigration laws, not 'titular power', and public opinion had nothing to do with it; no 'elites' learned anything (unless you regard Djokovic, or the Australian tennis authorities, as 'elites'), and irrespective of what 'the masses' thought, the judges would reach their decision on the law.There has been disingenuousness by all players in this farce; Federal, State, tennis authority and team Djokovic. The"winners", if there is such a thing in this whole debacle, has been the average Aussie who made it very clear they thought the "elite" of various ilks were talking the proverbial out of them. In the end all the elites learned they only have their titular power with the consent of the masses who in this case were clear very anti Djokovic and the Federal government bent to their will.... Perhaps we need some of that over here so all the Mickey taking rule makers understand they only have power whilst we allow it (no, I won't hold my breath).
There has been disingenuousness by all players in this farce;
Don't disagree. As I mention in an earlier post. Federal Australian government should have made it crystal clear beforehand. Fully jabbed or no entry.Whether Australia should or shouldn't have let Djokovic in, it seems to me that they should have chosen one or the other before he travelled. After all, he was happy to quarantine for 14 days - in an official facility - on arrival in Australia prior to the 2021 Open so, presumably, he would have been happy to do so again if that had been a pre-condition of entry? Likewise, if he had been told categorically that unless he could provide an acceptable immunisation record he would be denied a visa then he would have had the choice not to travel.
I don't subscribe to the view that the "great and good" should be exempt from entry restrictions (good examples in the UK that rankle with me include the G7 Summit, FIFA, and COP26), but if I had been awarded an entry visa and been given an assurance that I would be permitted entry, I'd be pretty irritated if that was then rescinded once I arrived.
I disagree. Public opinion and getting re-elected had everything to do with the Federal stance. The immigration minister exercised powers that he did not need to exercise. He could have hidden behind the first court ruling but, having seen how it was playing with the voting public, decided to act. I agree that Djokovic was unlikely to win the 2nd court appearance as the situation was obviously inflaming passions on both sides of the divide and the answer was clearly to starve the fire of fuel (Djokovic).. . Which is what has happenedThe final decision was in accordance with Australian immigration laws, not 'titular power', and public opinion had nothing to do with it; no 'elites' learned anything (unless you regard Djokovic, or the Australian tennis authorities, as 'elites'), and irrespective of what 'the masses' thought, the judges would reach their decision on the law.
That law is clear; you are either vaccinated, or you isolate for fourteen days. The tennis authorities and the State government tried to get round Federal law, and failed. The Immigration Minister simply upheld Federal law.
The Australian tennis authorities have no power to change the law, and Federal authority, and legislation, is superior to State authority and legislation. Djokovic never had a chance of success with his application for Judicial Review (not an appeal), because the Minister had exercised his legally-held powers in accordance with the law.
I disagree. Public opinion and getting re-elected had everything to do with the Federal stance. The immigration minister exercised powers that he did not need to exercise. He could have hidden behind the first court ruling but, having seen how it was playing with the voting public, decided to act. I agree that Djokovic was unlikely to win the 2nd court appearance as the situation was obviously inflaming passions on both sides of the divide and the answer was clearly to starve the fire of fuel (Djokovic).. . Which is what has happened
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.