Non Footy Chat Thread II

[Noise]

This section is applicable when they are at immigration in no man’s land when they arrive. We have gone past this point. And the section you quoted talks about risk something that I have kept arguing about and you put shit on me saying that I’m stupid and that it’s irrelevant.

It’s all about risk. It’s not about ticking the wrong box or dancing shirtless in Serbia.

Where does it say it’s only at immigration? It just says the minister has power to cancel a visa. And the ‘risk’ section only relates to section E.
Sections A and B are the areas that Novak look to have failed.

 

[hineyrulz]

Our leaders have f**ked this one up like they always do, but from what I can see Team Novak hasn't really excelled either.

At this stage I couldn't give a shit whether he plays or not, but I'm not buying the narrative that he is a poor, hard done by victim just trying to do the right thing. His story doesn't really stack up and I personally believe he hasn't been truthful. Just my opinion of course, an opinion I have formed by looking at everything - not just the 'biased media' which has supposedly brain washed me.

And lets not forget Tennis Australia...what a pack of absolute amateurs. Last year was a debacle as well. If I was the ATP, I'd relegate the Aus Open to a Challenger Tour event.

Everyone is plop, let’s send the plop home so he can plop over there. Plop Aus has been plop as well. So in conclusion plop.

 

[Avenger]

Where does it say it’s only at immigration? It just says the minister has power to cancel a visa. And the ‘risk’ section only relates to section E.
Sections A and B are the areas that Novak look to have failed.

How has he failed? How is he a risk to the community. No chance you can deport him under part B of section 133 subsection 3. The public interest criterion part.

 

[Avenger]

And if it is so clear then why hasn’t he been deported yet? Are they waiting for the weekend so that Novak can’t get an injunction and take it to court and go up two sets to none?

 

[Gronk]

 

[Gronk]

 

[Avenger]

@Gronk you wouldn’t have an original thought without relying on rhetoric and Twitter.

Anyway. I hope they take him on and he challenges the decision in court and wins again. That would be gold and Novak would be up two sets against this biased, incompetent government.

 

[Gronk]

How has he failed? How is he a risk to the community. No chance you can deport him under part B of section 133 subsection 3. The public interest criterion part.

Once again I am sitting back eating popcorn, because (yes) in the scheme of things, his poses little risk as omicron is rampant anyway. However Scotty is the tough borders guy. He doesn’t make exceptions.

 

[Gronk]

@Gronk you wouldn’t have an original thought without relying on rhetoric and Twitter.

Anyway. I hope they take him on and he challenges the decision in court and wins again. That would be gold and Novak would be up two sets against this biased, incompetent government.

Don’t go there merkin. “I’m smarter than you” is an embarrassing position. You’re better than that.

 

[Avenger]

Don’t go there merkin. “I’m smarter than you” is an embarrassing position. You’re better than that.

I’m not saying I’m smarter than you. I’m saying that you should argue your own shit and not rely on the overwhelming public opinion against Novak with memes and tweets from agenda driven garbage.

 

[hineyrulz]

Honest question for my good and positive friend @Avenger.

Would he still feel the same if it was Nadal or Fed trying to pull the same BS as Joker is??? I seriously doubt it.

 

[Avenger]

Honest question for my good and positive friend @Avenger.

Would he still feel the same if it was Nadal or Fed trying to pull the same BS as Joker is??? I seriously doubt it.

Probably not. However would the government have treated the situation differently if it was Federer or Nadal?

 

[Gary Gutful]

This section is applicable when they are at immigration in no man’s land when they arrive. We have gone past this point. And the section you quoted talks about risk something that I have kept arguing about and you put shit on me saying that I’m stupid and that it’s irrelevant.

It’s all about risk. It’s not about ticking the wrong box or dancing shirtless in Serbia.

I don’t think it’s just about risk. Otherwise everyone could just blame ‘the pandemic’ for ‘innocently ticking the wrong box’ and then just say ‘relax, everyone where’s the risk?’.

 

[Avenger]

I don’t think it’s just about risk. Otherwise everyone could just blame ‘the pandemic’ for ‘innocently ticking the wrong box’ and then just say ‘relax, everyone where’s the risk?’.

The risk is not that broad. It’s specifically defined.

At least now you are accepting it’s about risk, and not calling me stupid.

 

[hineyrulz]

Probably not. However would the government have treated the situation differently if it was Federer or Nadal?

They probably might have we will never know, but Novak has made himself an easy target.

No one comes out of this with clean hands. The federal government thought they had an easy target to deflect away from the appalling job they are doing with the pandemic and RAT tests. The Vic government who seem incompetent to the extreme, TA and Craig Tilley who seemed to only care about having the best player in the world at their tournament no matter what the cost and last not least Novak who seems to have no regard for the rules or anyone else around him. Merkins the lot of them.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Everyone is plop, let’s send the plop home so he can plop over there. Plop Aus has been plop as well. So in conclusion plop.

+1

 

[Gary Gutful]

Probably not. However would the government have treated the situation differently if it was Federer or Nadal?

Sadly, we’ll never know because Nadal and Federer are all round nice guys who never break any rules.

 

[Noise]

How has he failed? How is he a risk to the community. No chance you can deport him under part B of section 133 subsection 3. The public interest criterion part.

In 116 section A:
(a) the decision to grant the visa was based, wholly or partly, on a particular fact or circumstance that is no longer the case or that no longer exists; or

(aa) the decision to grant the visa was based, wholly or partly, on the existence of a particular fact or circumstance, and that fact or circumstance did not exist; or

He lied about not traveling 14 days prior. That’s a fact that did not exist. He was traveling to Spain

 

[Gary Gutful]

Definitely appears to be some anomalies. No wonder his camp doesn’t want to discuss.

 

[Gary Gutful]

In 116 section A:
(a) the decision to grant the visa was based, wholly or partly, on a particular fact or circumstance that is no longer the case or that no longer exists; or

(aa) the decision to grant the visa was based, wholly or partly, on the existence of a particular fact or circumstance, and that fact or circumstance did not exist; or

He lied about not traveling 14 days prior. That’s a fact that did not exist. He was traveling to Spain

Gold star to Noise for taking the time to properly read it.