Remove this Banner Ad

Vic Daniel Andrews and the Statue of Limitations

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

This is what happens when you vote back in a corrupt, sociopathic compulsive liar. And I look forward to Danfans defending his behaviour.

We now know it was the Andrews government, I.e., Dan, who insisted on the CGA exit deal being subject to a gag order. Why?

The Andrews government has also fought the release of secret documents on the $125bn Suburban Rail Loop project. Why?

The only plausible explanation is that Dan has lied and has something to hide. Why else would you not reveal how our money is being spent / wasted?

Staggering that this is even allowed.
 
Those who keep bringing up this s**t (bike crash) are only helping Dan because it distracts from real issues (like the transparency ones raised a couple of posts above by @Sstew)
i don't really pay any attention to Sttew as they post about the car crash themselves and seem to breathe murdoch conspiracies like oxygen
 
but I agree that the gotchas are a complete ****ing waste of time when there are plenty of legit issues to focus on

I think the main problem is they don't want to focus on those issues because if it wasn't Andrew's doing it they'd be defending the government
 
i don't really pay any attention to Sttew as they post about the car crash themselves and seem to breathe murdoch conspiracies like oxygen
I didn't raise it yesterday. I just commented on a post where it was raised. And I'm not the one who posted a photo taking up a full page. You're happy to give it oxygen when it suits your agenda.

Let's put that aside.

What's your take on the gag clause in the CGA exit, or the government fighting tooth and nail NOT to reveal anything about the SRL? Complete silence from all the watermelons?
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

I didn't raise it yesterday. I just commented on a post where it was raised. And I'm not the one who posted a photo taking up a full page. You're happy to give it oxygen when it suits your agenda.

Let's put that aside.

What's your take on the gag clause in the CGA exit, or the government fighting tooth and nail NOT to reveal anything about the SRL? Complete silence from all the watermelons?
you'll have to catch me up to where you're hearing about this stuff
 
The problem for the Libs is that they keep having their MPs turn up to this conspiracy nonsense, even though they don't understand it.

It just makes them look stupid. Do these nuffies not think that this story has been taken to 20 appropriately qualified people for a qualified opinion by the Herald Sun?

 
Dan has denied in Parliament today that his government requested the confidentiality clause in the exit agreement.

"[It] is a standard form provision for a commercial negotiation and settlement, nothing more, nothing less. The dollar value and all the other details are in the joint statement, which was provided very soon after – literally hours after – the deal was inked a couple of weeks ago."

Commonwealth Games officials deny they requested or needed a gag clause. So who said, "Let's insert a confidentiality clause"?

We are now in the absurd position that nobody requested the confidentiality agreement. Sound familiar?

While Dan says he didn't insist on a gag clause he has gone out of his way to remind everyone remotely involved in the Comm Games that they must abide by it and not answer any questions.

Even more absurd, we have Ernst Young, a consulting firm paid an undisclosed significant sum to run the numbers on Victoria hosting the Commonwealth Games, saying there is no need for them to review what they did, despite estimated costs blowing out by billions of dollars. "We stand by the work we did," says EY Partner, Dean Yates. I bet he regrets that statement.

If this was in a script for Utopia you'd say it's too farcical
 
Last edited:


surely this isn’t controversial, right?

its unlikely to actually do anything about the problem
but you can see from the replies and quotes the problem itself exists

Personally I'd be more excited about Poccum's Law being enacted by this government, something that would be good justice reform
 
its unlikely to actually do anything about the problem
but you can see from the replies and quotes the problem itself exists

Personally I'd be more excited about Poccum's Law being enacted by this government, something that would be good justice reform
absolutely wont do anything substantial but i think it’s pretty telling just how cooked some of the conservative population are just seeing the response to it
 

Remove this Banner Ad

absolutely wont do anything substantial but i think it’s pretty telling just how cooked some of the conservative population are just seeing the response to it
oh absolutely
 
absolutely wont do anything substantial but i think it’s pretty telling just how cooked some of the conservative population are just seeing the response to it
It's no coincidence that the rise in neo Nazism has come as the WWII generation is disappearing. Literally all my mates growing up had grandparents who were effected by the War and there was absolutely no false equivalence or both sidesing tolerated by them.
 
It's no coincidence that the rise in neo Nazism has come as the WWII generation is disappearing. Literally all my mates growing up had grandparents who were effected by the War and there was absolutely no false equivalence or both sidesing tolerated by them.
They should make going to the Holocaust Museum a compulsory part of education.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

It’s funny cos the YouTube footage of British nazi Moseley in the thirties and his marchers being escorted by police, but left wing onlookers are doing the nazi salute, mocking them.

It’s the intent not the actual act
 
i don't really pay any attention to Sttew as they post about the car crash themselves and seem to breathe murdoch conspiracies like oxygen
I choose to play the post not the poster myself
 
I choose to play the post not the poster myself
I choose to recognise the posters history and intent as opposed to pretending each post happens in a vacuum of neutrality but you do you
 
I choose to recognise the posters history and intent as opposed to pretending each post happens in a vacuum of neutrality but you do you
history is fair, intent is an interpretation which may not be
it is easier to take the neutral stance I find
 
Dan has denied in Parliament today that his government requested the confidentiality clause in the exit agreement.

"[It] is a standard form provision for a commercial negotiation and settlement, nothing more, nothing less. The dollar value and all the other details are in the joint statement, which was provided very soon after – literally hours after – the deal was inked a couple of weeks ago."

Commonwealth Games officials deny they requested or needed a gag clause. So who said, "Let's insert a confidentiality clause"?

We are now in the absurd position that nobody requested the confidentiality agreement. Sound familiar?

While Dan says he didn't insist on a gag clause he has gone out of his way to remind everyone remotely involved in the Comm Games that they must abide by it and not answer any questions.

Even more absurd, we have Ernst Young, a consulting firm paid an undisclosed significant sum to run the numbers on Victoria hosting the Commonwealth Games, saying there is no need for them to review what they did, despite estimated costs blowing out by billions of dollars. "We stand by the work we did," says EY Partner, Dean Yates. I bet he regrets that statement.

If this was in a script for Utopia you'd say it's too farcical


1/ The contract has all the terms Sttew, including the terms of any exit clauses.
2/ You can't unilaterally add terms to a contract years/months/days/hours/minutes/seconds after the contract has been signed.
3/ Let's for arguments sake say there was a new contract, the CG people say they didn't need a confidentiality clause. Which again leaves us with not being allowed to unilaterally add clauses to a contract...unless
4/ The clue is in the "standard form".
5/ Your powers of deduction should lead you to conclude that the 'standard form provision' was in the contract.
6/ Do you really think any govt would not have a confidentiality 'standard form provision' in contracts they enter to????
7/ The answer is, no govt would ever sign a contract that didn't have a confidentiality clause. 99.9999% of businesses would not sign a contract that didn't have a confidentiality clause.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Vic Daniel Andrews and the Statue of Limitations

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top