|
Does anyone actually give a poo poo about the Logies who isn't nominated for one? I feel like moving them to Queensland is a pretty big sign that nobody actually cares anymore (assuming they ever did).
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2018 13:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 11:21 |
|
|
JBP posted:I think people cared in the 70s and 80s before real choice was introduced. I also think Joey from Friends did us a big favour by demonstrating how bad the Logies are. Wait, did he just do a bit about them, or did Matt LeBlanc actually rock up to one? And if it's the second one, loving why?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2018 13:44
|
|
|
kirbysuperstar posted:The latter, because it was 1998 and alcohol was involved, IIRC. Okay yeah I was assuming the answer was "a shitload of drugs" but it's nice to have that confirmed. (I was four then.  )
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2018 13:54
|
|
|
Ahahahahaha holy poo poo Grant Denyer won gold.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2018 14:41
|
|
|
Re: SHY, has everyone forgotten that Australia Day press release recently? Because that's another example of why people dislike her. It was full of outrage and completely wrong on several important details, and I say this as someone who's on-board with changing the date and quietly removing statues, or else putting up more of other under-represented groups (particularly women and Indigenous Australians). Granted, she almost certainly didn't write it herself, but she probably read it before it went out (and if she didn't, that's an issue for a whole other bunch of reasons), and in any case, it went out under her name.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2018 22:54
|
|
|
JBP posted:I was under the impression that teacher rates of pay were ok these days, but the terms of employment were dogshit rolling contracts and that was making people toss their hands in the air. Nah, my understanding is the problem is they start out pretty high, but very quickly plateau compared to other industries. I mean there are other contractual issues as well but just regarding pay levels they're still pretty poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2018 04:56
|
|
|
Tl;dr: standing in court matters because of what it and the court represents, and having consequences for saying "gently caress you" to the court is good. Imo, standing in court matters because it is a mark of respect not just for the judge, but for the proceedings and (where applicable) the victims. Court proceedings are highly formalised matters for good reason - you're literally dealing with people's lives. Almost every element of a court proceeding is run by a process. Lawyers don't wear wigs (in some courts) and call each other "my learned friend" for funsies, it's because it reinforces the serious and mutually respectful nature of proceedings. In inherently hostile circumstances like a court case, things can very quickly devolve into explicit and unproductive hostilities if people are allowed to do whatever. Now, is anyone going to die if this woman doesn't stand for the judge? Of course not, nobody is suggesting this. The point is, if you go down the route of "well why should the lawyers stand for the judge? Or wear robes? Or sit in a court and not a park? Or listen to the judge at all? Or XYZ", you quickly start stripping back the elements of formality that reinforce the serious and respectful nature of proceedings, and veer into "why even have rules at all?" territory. Yeah, in the grand universal scheme of things it isn't a big deal, and it probably makes more sense to people who actually work or have experience in the legal profession than those who don't, but that doesn't mean it's a dumb rule for the context in which it operates and what the action represents. In this situation, where the person was explicitly doing it as a "gently caress you", I have absolutely no issue with them facing contempt of court consequences for an action that was explicitly intended to show their contempt for the court. Judges should still have discretion about enforcing the rule, but I don't think it's a bad rule, and contempt of court is a good charge to have in existence generally.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2018 09:11
|
|
|
CrazyTolradi posted:I love how the only people who think that it's incredibly vital to stand for a judge are the two rusted on ALP shills and also perfect examples of white middle-upper Australians, with all the detachment from social issues faced by marginalised peoples that such a class entails. I'm about two months off being admitted as lawyer and have spent the past five years volunteering at Legal Aid clinics. Edit: which is not to say that I know better, just that that's why I have the perspective I do, and I am fully capable of understanding why certain people take the actions that they do and still disagreeing with them anyway. This isn't a case where someone was unjustly persecuted because of their race or faith, in which case I might make an exception, and my position would be the same if the person was a white rich dude. Whitlam fucked around with this message at 09:51 on Jul 11, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2018 09:39
|
|
|
tithin posted:I believe belljar is correct - I can understand the rationale behind standing to show respect to the court and what it represents, but simultaneously what impact does not standing have? JBP posted:None if you have a broken leg. Loads if you're doing it as a statement that your ideology is above the rule of law. Particularly galling when your husband is on trial for facilitating the grooming of minors into radical ideology and down-low deployment of Australians to a theatre of war. This, plus again, it's about respect for the proceedings and the court's authority. That's literally why we have contempt of court as a charge. Because we acknowledge that within a society, the court is the ultimate arbiter of the rule of law, and that has to be acknowledged. Again, on a cosmic level, no it doesn't make that much difference if someone sits or stands, but that's not the point. To give a personal example, a friend of mine is currently going through proceedings taking out an AVO against an abusive ex-partner of hers. Last court date, the magistrate was a dick and tried to talk her out of proceeding for reasons that didn't relate to the merits of her case. She still stood for him, because the point is that it isn't about the individual, it's about respect for the institution and what it represents, rather than if you personally feel like standing or not. As I say, judges should have discretion - if someone doesn't know that they're meant to stand,* then of course that discretion should be used appropriately. In this case, the person knew full-well what the rules are and chose to not comply in a deliberate show of disdain, so people going into hypotheticals about poor people who are just too stupid and non-white to understand are missing the point. Contempt of court is contempt of court. The reason we punish people for it is because if we don't punish people for it, then people very quickly start to question why we should listen to the courts at all, and don't comply with court orders or other rules. You want people to take court proceedings seriously? Then you have to treat them like the serious matters that they are. *This will never happen, all lawyers will explain to their clients about standing when the magistrate/judge enters the court.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2018 10:54
|
|
|
Birdstrike posted:I honestly can’t fathom having any significant contact with the court system and then thinking “this is so great disrespecting it should be criminalised” as opposed to demolishing it and starting over I don't think it's great, I just think you have to respect the institution and the rules. If we razed it to the ground and implemented a better system, I'd still say contempt of court and procedural rules are good and we should respect whatever new rules were in place too.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2018 13:55
|
|
|
JBP posted:If I had it my way we'd never go to jail and eat ice cream together happily forever I look forward to the inevitable 7 page flame war about what the best flavour for peace ice cream is.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2018 15:02
|
|
|
Urcher posted:Only for human consumption. You can sell them as "beauty products" wink wink nudge nudge. From memory it's meant to have some chemical added to it that makes it taste foul, but no idea if/how often that actually happens.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2018 07:14
|
|
|
JBP posted:Why are people so unkind? Forget it, JBP. It's AusPol.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2018 05:02
|
|
|
G-Spot Run posted:Just because they have to do the ultrasound I don't think the law is specific about showing it. I suppose most people would feel a curiousity but if you just think it's part of the clinical process (working out where to jab the vacuum) you might not notice. No it really is incredibly hosed up, and is another step aimed at guilting and emotionally manipulating pregnant women into not aborting. There's no real medical reason to do it to my understanding (healthcare professionals please correct me if I'm wrong), and it's solely designed to reinforce the message of "this is a living thing inside you". There's no way to do it with the woman "thinking it's part of the clinical process". It'd be literally impossible to do it without the woman knowing it was happening (as the ultrasound tech necessarily has to be in the same room as the woman and the monitor). If you do a standard external ultrasound (i.e. on the belly), nobody's going to be so dumb as to think it's part of the process "to figure out where to jab the vacuum". If you do a transvaginal (i.e. internal) ultrasound, that's literally rape if they don't consent yet it's a legal requirement. If your* justification for why it isn't so bad really relies on uninformed consent (or, as it's also known, lying to patients about medical procedures that are being done to them), you done hosed up. *Not you specifically G-Spot, general third person you. Whitlam fucked around with this message at 13:23 on Jul 19, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2018 13:20
|
|
|
G-Spot Run posted:I mean, it depends, if they're proselytizing at me about my precious gift then probably not but if it's a quick swipe before going into the surgery y'know maybe someone could be that dumb. Still relies on the professional lying to/misleading the patient though. (I realise you're being tongue in cheek and not seriously advocating this, but there are people who genuinely believe it.)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2018 14:18
|
|
|
Anidav posted:ABC has an article up saying how Tradesmen need to stop handshake contracts where no written contract for a job exists and they just assume they will get paid for the job via a handshake and what happens is the client just disappears and pays the tradies nothing and they can't do anything about it because no contract actually exists. Strictly speaking the bolded part isn't entirely true, it's just often so much time and expense to prove there is one and what it was that that it's frequently cheaper to let it go than it is to go through the courts. As to the second part, never underestimate it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2018 04:32
|
|
|
Bring back drongo imo.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2018 01:54
|
|
|
froglet posted:Cynical/depressing answer: the Greens candidate for Freo was an Aboriginal woman (Dorinda Cox) and West Australians aren't exactly known for their acceptance of women or aboriginal people. This is true to a point, but I think it's a bit of a simplistic answer that ultimately encourages marginalising other groups at the expense of "safe" straight white male candidates (which I know you're not doing froglet, and I'm not having a go at you specifically, just talking about when it happens generally. I think WA has actually gotten more racist over the last decade, which is lovely to go home to). Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that was a factor for some people, but I think saying "people didn't vote for candidate X because of their gender/race/orientation/surname/whatever" is a bit of a simplistic view that overlooks deeper analysis. In instances where parties are seeing statistically significant swings against them, I think it's important to do a detailed analysis of why that has happened. In some cases it absolutely may be personal against the candidate (not that I have any sympathy, but Georgina Downer and Big Trev whatever his name is definitely experienced a bit of this). In many cases it might actually concern the policies. To use a recent example, in Batman/Cooper I think the backlash against the Greens didn't solely come from the internal bullying reports (although again, couldn't have helped) as much as the fact the policies that were being emphasised weren't right for the area. That's not saying the Greens had no policies for the area, but they absolutely took a second place to Adani, which didn't really matter that much to a lot of people as it was ultimately a Queensland state issue in a Victorian federal by-election. It's absolutely important to keep in mind the demographics of an area and the personal pros and cons of an individual candidate, but I think any analysis of an election loss is incomplete if it doesn't consider policies at all (again, not accusing anyone ITT of doing this).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2018 08:03
|
|
|
froglet posted:So yeah. Australia has a problem with men, so we should put them all on a rocket into the sun. Fixed.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2018 08:23
|
|
|
ewe2 posted:I hope her preferences didn't go to the ALP (of course they did) Genuine question: if not the ALP, where should they have gone?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2018 11:39
|
|
And this goes completely unreported in the national media, because why would they, it's just business as usual.
|
Don Dongington posted:I agree that it's not fair that the ALP get to slander us with impunity and still get our preferences; but the alternative is to risk them filtering through to the libs, or some kind of pro-rape brony party. Or worse, the Libdems. Ugh. I agree with you post, but holy loving lol at the bolded part if you think that doesn't go both/all ways in politics. But yeah your response is essentially the point of my question - the way I see it is that it's more an issue with a lack of real leftist options. Those other minor parties that ewe2 is referring to, at least in Perth, included (off the top of my head) the Lib Dems, the Animal Justice Party, and the Australian Christians. Being the best of a heap of bad options doesn't necessarily make the ALP a great choice for first preferences for the Greens, but realistically, what other is there? Here's my hot take prediction: I could honestly envisage the Greens going the way of the Australian Democrats within the next 30 years, especially if either some new leftwing party came about, or existing members can't be retained and new ones can't be recruited. I guess it's a bit of a damned if you do, damned if you don't in some ways - if the party stays or becomes more centrist, the existing membership is going to be pissed off and leave. If it goes more left, a whole heap of people won't even realistically consider voting Greens in the first place. Imo one of the biggest problems for the Greens is a rise in challenger third parties, like One Nation. For a while the Greens have been able to hold their place pretty solidly as the majority on the cross bench and just use numbers to refuse to negotiate, thus enabling them to get better policy or legislation. That's a good tactic when you are the majority and have the numbers to hold out, but refusing to deal on principle is going to start costing when other parties and independents also have the numbers but not the same principles (which has arguably already happened). You can either nobly refuse to deal and wind up with a poo poo result, or pragmatically agree in the hopes of getting a less-than poo poo result.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2018 00:52
|
|
|
I think asio has been very right with everything they have posted over the last couple of pages. That is all.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2018 03:08
|
|
|
Beetphyxious posted:hasn't the ETU in vic been continually supporting the greens? Yep. The Greens candidate for Footscray is an ETU member.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2018 04:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 11:21 |
|
|
Beetphyxious posted:angus mcalpine the plumber? Whoops, my bad. I meant PTEU. That's what I get for exam revision posting.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2018 04:10
|
|