Thanks for the Orgasm

[beave]

Responsible Servature (if that is a word) of Alcohol.

There's a gambling equivalent as well, u can't work in a bar in NSW without them (if they have pokies as well.)

 

[Frailty]

The gambling equivalent is the Responsible Conduct of Gaming (RCG)...

And jatz cracker, I'm glad you just decided to quote me out of context... I said the evidence that was "thanks for the orgasm" (which you correctly suggest needs to be proven it was him - i was assuming IF it was him) only used if Laffranchi tried to argue that he himself was significantly intoxicated and thus could not give consent himself (sec. 61 NSW Crimes Act 1990).

And I disagree in regards to the innocent until proven guilty... Because it is just rhetoric in a number of areas, including in sexual assault cases and drug crimes. It is up to the defendent to provide evidence of consent. Sounds stupid, I agree, but thats the way law has been interpreted. With drugs offences you must provide evidence that a drug is not yours because possession is just assumed guilt.

 

[Frailty]

Beave, its just Responsible Service of Alcohol

 

[nqboy]

Beave, its just Responsible Service of Alcohol

Thanks, I've seen the signs on pub walls and how stringently they're applied. I can just imagine how tough the tests are :sarcasm:

 

[Jatz Crackers]

The gambling equivalent is the Responsible Conduct of Gaming (RCG)...

And jatz cracker, I'm glad you just decided to quote me out of context... I said the evidence that was "thanks for the orgasm" (which you correctly suggest needs to be proven it was him - i was assuming IF it was him) only used if Laffranchi tried to argue that he himself was significantly intoxicated and thus could not give consent himself (sec. 61 NSW Crimes Act 1990).
Yep, I just re-read that paragraph & came up with 2 different interpretations. Its a bit wordy. But I see what you have meant with it. And no, i did not choose to take you out of context. It was an interpretation only.

And I disagree in regards to the innocent until proven guilty... Because it is just rhetoric in a number of areas, including in sexual assault cases and drug crimes. It is up to the defendent to provide evidence of consent. Sounds stupid, I agree, but thats the way law has been interpreted. With drugs offences you must provide evidence that a drug is not yours because possession is just assumed guilt.
I am well aware of the law. My point from the outset here has been to reinforce the principal of innocence until proven guilty (IPG) with those who pass premature judgement on Laffranchi (especially since the case is as flimsy as can be on the evidence available to us at present)

While those specific practical applications of the law you have mentioned (many more examples in administrative law) may provide opposing examples of IPG I dont believe it in any way diminishes the necessity for the principal to be generally applied in law.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

Sure I'll return tomorrow night

:^o

 

[[furrycat]]

:^o

:lol: Pity I was at work hey