Sharks fume as MP deserts project

[BunniesMan]

Some of you people are disgusting. And yes one day a FEMALE will pop out several mini BunniesMan. The world will be a better place when that happens.

 

[snoozer]

:lol::lol:

But seriously, thats f**ked up. Im picturing some fat dirty prick in a bunnies jersey on all fours screaming with half a baby covered in shit hanging out his ass.

that's taking it way tooooo far with the imagery!

 

[muzby]

Some of you people are disgusting. And yes one day a FEMALE will pop out several mini BunniesMan. The world will be a better place when that happens.

1. the plural of man is "men", so it would be "several mini bunniesmen"
2. we understand that if a baby is born, it comes from a female. no need to make it in captials
3. how much does it cost to rent a womb for 9 months?

 

[muzby]

lol@sharks. Just wait until global warming f**ks youse up. Sea levels to rise. Toyota park and any development (if it happens) drowns. Shouldn't build stuff so close to the water...

well, at least if global warming does it's bit, homebush really will be south sydney....

 

[runatme]

another thread of bunniesman getting owned business as usual on LU

 

[adamkungl]

trying not to burst into laughter at work

 

[muzby]

trying not to burst into laughter at work

then i strongly advise you do not press this button:

Spoiler: do not press this button

 

[jc155776]

trying not to burst into laughter at work

I did and covered it up with a coughing fit

 

[adamkungl]

but IT'S SO TEMPTING

 

[R2Coupe]

Economic impacts is different to increased competition you idiot.

Economic impacts can include the positives of increased work, more potential customers etc.

NEgatives do not include falling pattonage due to competition. That is against the law.

You also keep repeating this f**king flood issue when you are 100% wrong. Addressing something can be as simple as saying Not applicable! Brick wall stuff with you isn't it.

No doubt you are some kind of retired primary school teacher who thinks they know everything.

Have you heard of planning? Have you heard of a centres heirachy? Why do you think these retail proposals aren't being built all over Sydney or all over the Shire? Do some research for a change. What do you think the view of Westsfields will be?

I see someone at least checked Council's LEP 2006 and flood prone land off the website. Better still, why don't you call the OEH to find out what its view is on the land? Perhaps it may have had some input into the DGRs!

Better still, explain the remnant Swamp Oak Ploodplain Forest on the site.

And off course the contamination from the 1 and a bit metre of landfill which ensures carparking above ground

You are so dull you make others around you dull.

 

[R2Coupe]

How you get that from his post amazes me.

He is obviously saying they clearly organized their statements before making them. Reading them it's an absolute certainty. He said nothing about them not saying it just that they clearly teamed up.

And what is wrong with that?

A consistent statement not against the development but against its scale and size. That seems to be the middle ground and a reasonable approach.

At the same time and I think in a related argument, Irvine talks up the jobs to be created. A case of double standards?

 

[snoozer]

Have you heard planning? Have you heard of a centres heirachy? Why do you think these retail proposals aren't being built all over Sydney or all over the Shire? Do some research for a change. What do you think the view of Westsfields will be?

I see at least someone check Council's LEP 2006 and flood prone land off the website. Better still, why don't you call the OEH to find out what its view is on the land? Perhaps it may have had some input into the DGRs!
Better still, explain the remnant Swamp Oak Ploodplain Forest on the site.

And off course the contamination from the 1 and a bit metre of landfill which ensures carparking above ground

f**k me - you can't be on the piss this arvo.

get a life.

if that fails get your wife to explain it to you.

 

[R2Coupe]

f**k me - you can't be on the piss this arvo.

get a life.

if that fails get your wife to explain it to you.

Let me see, you said to your wife if we get a divorce will you still be my sister.

 

[snoozer]

Let me see, you said to your wife if we get a divorce will you still be my sister.

you can do better than that.

tell us about the floodplain.

 

[carcharias]

Have you heard of planning? Have you heard of a centres heirachy? Why do you think these retail proposals aren't being built all over Sydney or all over the Shire? Do some research for a change. What do you think the view of Westsfields will be?

I see someone at least checked Council's LEP 2006 and flood prone land off the website. Better still, why don't you call the OEH to find out what its view is on the land? Perhaps it may have had some input into the DGRs!

Better still, explain the remnant Swamp Oak Ploodplain Forest on the site.

And off course the contamination from the 1 and a bit metre of landfill which ensures carparking above ground

You are so dull you make others around you dull.

be a man ...just admit you got it wrong.

who really cares?

I had to do some research about this 6 months ago...so I always knew the club was never in the "Capsis floodzone"

so lets just wipe the slate clean.


anyhooo
say gday to the cheese and kisses for me..

 

[Ausguy]

And what is wrong with that?

A consistent statement not against the development but against its scale and size. That seems to be the middle ground and a reasonable approach.

At the same time and I think in a related argument, Irvine talks up the jobs to be created. A case of double standards?

Seems interesting dont you think...

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979 - SECT 23N

(3) A member of a council, or the general manager or other member of staff of a council, must not obstruct the Commission, a regional panel or a member of the Commission or a panel in the exercise of the Commission’s or panel’s functions under this Act.
Maximum penalty: 10 penalty units.

 

[snoozer]

owned r2, owned.

 

[rednblack]

Seems interesting dont you think...

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979 - SECT 23N

(3) A member of a council, or the general manager or other member of staff of a council, must not obstruct the Commission, a regional panel or a member of the Commission or a panel in the exercise of the Commission’s or panel’s functions under this Act.
Maximum penalty: 10 penalty units.

C'mon man, expressing an opinion is hardly on obstruction!
Can you imagine if it WAS considered so? Anyone arrested would be obstructing justice, just because they claimed their innocence!!
Legally, on obstruction would be very clearly defined by precedent, and an expression of opinion is not even close. Anyhow, how could a commission or a panel possibly hope to make a decision without having heard argument from both sides (for AND against). They can't make a fair decision unless ALL opinions are heard, including those of council staff. If they just listened to the other side of the argument, every development would go ahead because all developers would present their case in best-light terms.
I'm sorry, but expressing one's opinion is not, in itself, obstruction of a committee, commission or panel.

 

[roboshark]

nothing to worry about there coolum, unless some crazy medico manages to install a working uterus up some blokes arse.

:lol: what a fuggin muppet he is that clown ...he should do us all a favour and just piss off

nice post snoozer

 

[roofromoz]

C'mon man, expressing an opinion is hardly on obstruction!
Can you imagine if it WAS considered so? Anyone arrested would be obstructing justice, just because they claimed their innocence!!
Legally, on obstruction would be very clearly defined by precedent, and an expression of opinion is not even close. Anyhow, how could a commission or a panel possibly hope to make a decision without having heard argument from both sides (for AND against). They can't make a fair decision unless ALL opinions are heard, including those of council staff. If they just listened to the other side of the argument, every development would go ahead because all developers would present their case in best-light terms.
I'm sorry, but expressing one's opinion is not, in itself, obstruction of a committee, commission or panel.

I agree. It would need to be behaviour that is basically deemed unlawful, either in the eyes of a criminal court (e.g. threats or intimidation) or by the ICAC (e.g. bribery).

The particular clause would relate to Sutherland Shire Council only, given that because of the nature of the application they are not the consent authority on this proposal (it is the Department). If the Council are not supportive of the development, they have the opportunity to do so during the consultation process. As does the community in general, and also the local MP.

The local MP will have absolutely no influence whatsoever in the final outcome. The PAC was set up to primarily stop the planning minister from signing off certain major developments, and add some independence to the decision making process.