Non Footy Chat Thread II

[strider]

Djokovic an easy target in anti-vaxxer witch hunt

The outcome of the Federal Court case on Sunday has implications for Novak Djokovic. How about for the Australian Open?

www.smh.com.au

People are saying he is getting special treatment because he is Novak Djokovic, when in fact it’s the opposite, as now it’s only because he is a high-profile and “influential” person that he is facing deportation.

 

[Gronk]

Djokovic an easy target in anti-vaxxer witch hunt

The outcome of the Federal Court case on Sunday has implications for Novak Djokovic. How about for the Australian Open?

www.smh.com.au

Macca is a passionate tennis guy and hates politics mixing with sport. It is intriguing however that he knew the importance of being vaccinated, in the context of the AO in December. Now its a vax witch-hunt?

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

I think both parties should come to an agreement and have Nole make a statement that he will be happy to get the vaccine when they make one that is safe and effective.

 

[lingard]

Assessing it properly the first time around and avoiding an unneccessary, expensive court case and international embarrassment would have been a good start.

But what does "assessing it properly" mean?

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

 

[Gary Gutful]

But what does "assessing it properly" mean?

Well, you put your hands up
Upside your knees, then do the ostrich...
...and take this forward then step on your head

 

[lingard]

Well, you put your hands up
Upside your knees, then do the ostrich...
...and take this forward then step on your head

No, I'm serious. "The government should have assessed it properly". What do you mean by this?

 

[Incorrect]

These merkins will be pissed that they have to don wigs and capes on Sunday when they've probably got a tee time booked at Royal Canberra and a Sunday Arvo session planned for the clubhouse thereafter... Good luck Novax!!

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

These merkins will be pissed that they have to don wigs and capes on Sunday when they've probably got a tee time booked at Royal Canberra and a Sunday Arvo session planned for the clubhouse thereafter... Good luck Novax!!

Well that's what his team were after so must be strategy behind it.

 

[Gary Gutful]

No, I'm serious. "The government should have assessed it properly". What do you mean by this?

I think I mentioned it in another post but the roles and responsibilities between the State and Feds were unclear. Historically border issues have been dealt with by the Feds. The Feds have wanted nothing to do with in recent times and as a result the states have been assessing them. But in this instance they changes the rules and jumped in to shit all over the original decision. This created confusion.

I also think there was evidence that came to light suggesting some of the information from Novak might have been questionable. It didn't appear that this got picked up until later.

So thats what I meant, but I'm happy to concede that "should have assessed it properly" is probably a dumb way to describe it. Perhaps I assumed that it would be read after the earlier posts and didn't need previous context repeated.

Can I just check - did you read everything backwards? Based on your timeline in my feed it appears as though you did.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Well that's what his team were after so must be strategy behind it.

Judge: In the Case of Djokovic vs Scomo I rule that Djokovic can play. Now, where did I put my golf pants....

Djokovic Lawyer: Did you at least want to hear our case?

[Sound of Audi accelerating towards Yarralumla...]

 

[Gronk]

It’s important to understand the process of the court tomorrow.

Under judicial review of the Minister’s personal cancellation of a visa. courts are restricted to reviewing the lawfulness of an administrative decision, rather than considering whether it was the correct decision.

https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/5-can-person-seek-review-decision-under-section-501-refuse-or-cancel-visa

4) The rules of natural justice, and the code of procedure set out in Subdivision AB of Division 3 of Part 2, do not apply to a decision under subsection (3).

MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 501A Refusal or cancellation of visa--setting aside and substitution of non - adverse decision under subsection 501(1) or (2)

classic.austlii.edu.au

 

[hineyrulz]

This has been the biggest bed shitting i have since the Parra/Cows Major Semi final in 2005. Plop on every level.

 

[Gary Gutful]

This has been the biggest bed shitting i have since the Parra/Cows Major Semi final in 2005. Plop on every level.

We went through a Captain Snooze factory during the Cowboys game.

 

[IFR33K]

I dunno. I saw it written somewhere on the net one day and thought it sounded great.
You can claim it if you want though.

Plus it suits gronk

 

[Bandwagon]

They don't have to own every member of government though, as it is quite obviously a coalition. A marriage of convenience, if you will.

You're right, they don't, they can stand by "the big tent".

It's just a very problematic sell with Georgie boy if they're literally deporting a bloke on the same basis.

 

[lingard]

I think I mentioned it in another post but the roles and responsibilities between the State and Feds were unclear. Historically border issues have been dealt with by the Feds. The Feds have wanted nothing to do with in recent times and as a result the states have been assessing them. But in this instance they changes the rules and jumped in to shit all over the original decision. This created confusion.

I also think there was evidence that came to light suggesting some of the information from Novak might have been questionable. It didn't appear that this got picked up until later.

So thats what I meant, but I'm happy to concede that "should have assessed it properly" is probably a dumb way to describe it. Perhaps I assumed that it would be read after the earlier posts and didn't need previous context repeated.

Can I just check - did you read everything backwards? Based on your timeline in my feed it appears as though you did.

Well, if I'd read everything backwards it would have been: '?sdrawkcab gnihtyreve dear uoy did ...... etc. Which would have taken way too long. So I just read it forwards. Sorry.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Do you think that they have abandoned actions relating to inconsistencies in his visa application by necessity constitutes a concession, or perhaps maybe that it is an acknowledgement of the clusterf**k, and or is merely for political expediency.

None of these possibilities are mutually exclusive.

 

[lingard]

Also, I'm not a Liberal or Scomo supporter by any means, but I also don't espouse to the idea that every single solitary thing they do is wrong. In this case I think Tennis Australia made a mistake, and the Federal Government had no choice but to intervene. Novax should never have been told (if he was) that his 'medical exemption' meant that he could come here and play tennis. If you have a look at the medical exemption form, it says that exemptions are rarely given, and that having had a positive result is not a valid reason. They are the government's rules (whether we like them or not). So how exactly has the Federal Government funked up?

 

[Bandwagon]

None of these possibilities are mutually exclusive.

That's true.

Yet they are all possibilities that could stand alone.