the other thing is this acts actually a civil act and therefore as it stands currently it cannot result in convictions.You do know you can be found guilty with no conviction, yeah?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: St Kilda v Western Bulldogs - 7:30PM Thu
Squiggle tips Saints at 51% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
the other thing is this acts actually a civil act and therefore as it stands currently it cannot result in convictions.You do know you can be found guilty with no conviction, yeah?
Sure, you had a racist dude in Hitler that was taken out by the rest of the western world in the USA, Canada, England, Australia etc etc. I also see how you forgot to mention Japan in your whole WW2 rant. I guess the crimes committed by the Japanese were OK? The raping of Nanking thing wasn't such a big deal. And you forgot to mention the Chinese great revolution which ended up in how many dead? Or Pol Pot? Forgot about him eh? Edi Armin? How about the Turks and their genocide of the Armenians?Let’s talk about what the Europeans were doing from 1900-1945, two world wars ~100m dead about 3% of the planet’s population in WW2 alone, countless examples of war crimes. A couple of dudes called Hitler and Stalin running around.
Go on compare, tell me what “every group of people were doing at the same time”.
People are people, they all do crap things and they are all capable of amazing things regardless of race.
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
I'm keen to here the point of view of someone who thinks "white people" are responsible for everything good on the world.
left leaning loonies dont deal in facts.
You do know you can be found guilty with no conviction, yeah?
So, are you admitting now that you owe someone an apology?The NSW Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act allows criminal Courts in NSW to make a finding of guilt against someone, however not record a conviction. This means that in this situation you would be found guilty with no conviction recorded.
The Criminal Court that finds you guilty may make one of the following three Orders under Section 10 of the NSW Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act:
Directing that the charge against the person be dismissed (Section 10(1)(a)).
Discharging the person on the condition that that person enter into a good behaviour bond not exceeding two years (Section 10(1)(b)).
Discharging the person on the condition that that person enters into an agreement to participate in an intervention program and to comply with any intervention plan arising out of the program (Section 10(1)(c)).
The 3 Orders listed above provide the Criminal Court with alternatives to recording a conviction, including the option (1) to dismiss the finding of guilt outright.
Section 10(1)(b) allows the Court to dismiss the charge and not record a conviction, provided that you enter into a bond to be of good behaviour not exceeding two years. Whilst discharging you, the conviction remains temporarily on your record for the duration of the bond. Therefore if you are seeking employment or travelling, and require no convictions to be recorded, you will require a dismissal under Section 10(1)(a).
Section 10(1)(c) allows the Court to discharge you on the condition that you enter into an intervention program. Such programs are often drug, alcohol or anger management courses that assist you in dealing with issues which contributed to the offending behaviour.
Why?So, are you admitting now that you owe someone an apology?
You didn't show anything of the sort, you showed he was found guilty, not convicted.Why?
His contention is that dolt has never been convicted of racism
My contention is that he has - ive provided several sources that show that he has been convicted of breaching the racial discrimination act
Why am i apologising
Ok now i get where you are coming from.You didn't show anything of the sort, you showed he was found guilty, not convicted.
And you call people stupid, maybe you have stupid right, but just the wrong person.
Of course it doesn't change opinions, but like i said from the start, i wasn't arguing that.Ok now i get where you are coming from.
Fair play
He HAS been found guilty of BEING a racist- by virtue of his racist article.
But he hasnt been CONVICTED of racism.
I guess thats a very important semantic point to you and i apologise unreservedly for failing to take note of this. it completely changes everyones opinion of him....... or does it
I dont think so - unless as long as we can agree hes a racist pos but? Right? As he HAS been found guilty of that right?
So why are you arguing this?Of course it doesn't change opinions, but like i said from the start, i wasn't arguing that.
I don't think anyone can be convicted of racism as the law around racism (at least directly) is civil rather than criminal. But the semantics on this are, as you say irrelevant. Bolt was found guilty of a breach of the law involving racism. I would ordinarily say that I don't understand why someone would want to minimise this or to try to dance around this by being pedantic with wording. Having read through a decent proportion of this thread I am sorry to say I think I do understand why.So why are you arguing this?
Why does it even matter?
Its almost like you are trying to derail a thread with insignificant bumf.
Hes a convicted racist or has been found guilty of a racist act - what does that even matter?
Its almost like when someone has no argument instead of arguing the actual meat of a case they nibble round the edges looking for minor errors and grammatical points.
LMAO, looking for an out to your stupidity hey?So why are you arguing this?
Why does it even matter?
Its almost like you are trying to derail a thread with insignificant bumf.
Hes a convicted racist or has been found guilty of a racist act - what does that even matter?
Its almost like when someone has no argument instead of arguing the actual meat of a case they nibble round the edges looking for minor errors and grammatical points.
He is not a convicted racist.So why are you arguing this?
Why does it even matter?
Its almost like you are trying to derail a thread with insignificant bumf.
Hes a convicted racist or has been found guilty of a racist act - what does that even matter?
Its almost like when someone has no argument instead of arguing the actual meat of a case they nibble round the edges looking for minor errors and grammatical points.
But he is a racist, as determined by a court of law.He is not a convicted racist.
Hes clearly delighted with himself - that’ll show those libtardsBut he is a racist, as determined by a court of law.
You're playing semantics, and not that well.
Why not. Cassius Clay challenged the role his race was given. That is exactly what Goodes is doing. Different personalities but both made the predominant race uncomfortable but not accepting their assigned roleOh he ******* knew.
Cassius Clay of his day?
Give me a break.
Why not. Cassius Clay challenged the role his race was given. That is exactly what Goodes is doing. Different personalities but both made the predominant race uncomfortable but not accepting their assigned role
He made George Foreman very uncomfortable.Why not. Cassius Clay challenged the role his race was given. That is exactly what Goodes is doing. Different personalities but both made the predominant race uncomfortable but not accepting their assigned role
Grilled him iircHe made George Foreman very uncomfortable.
That person happened to be a 13 year old but he wasn’t to know that.
Adam Goodes said:... when I turned around and saw it was a young girl ... and I thought it (sic) was 14 ... that was my initial thoughts ...