Non-AFL chat thread part 2

Remove this Banner Ad

is that why the saying is “I don’t think we are in Kansas anymore “ and not “ I don’t think we are in Arkansas anymore.” ?
Remember that Dorothy had hit her head and was possibly concussed. She might have even thought that she was in Richmond with all of them strange munchkin people around.

Can sus or R Can sus? I'm so confused now.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Surely we have some errrm ... brand rights here. I hope Gordon's drafting lawsuits as we speak. We could use the revenue.
Maybe give them the option of sponsorship by Uncle Sam rather than tedious legal exercises?
 
:p

Speaking of dust, over two years since we graced this wonderful thread!
I remember the dusty wickets post! It's on page 1 along with my non-existent Taylor Swift concert tickets post. :p
 
This sucks

Nearly threw a brick at the tv today when I saw that woman getting so much mileage out of this. Basically saying govt decisions shouldn't be made on popular opinions!! WTF?! Isn't that what voting for a party means? Besides that, the businesses that have won the money are multi millionaires - mainly up north wa/nt big outback stations. They're not your idea of struggling farmer. But that's how they're portraying it. A struggling farmer couldn't afford the legal case. I just hope they still keep the 3 monthly ban, but we'll probably lose that now too. The whole freakin cruel trade should be banned.

Sent from my SM-A505YN using Tapatalk
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

D Mitchell

Premiership Player
Jul 28, 2006
4,720
2,093
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Footscray Football Club
According to the attachment, the Federal Court found that Ludwig lacked power to be able to impose the ban. If that’s true then that’s an issue for the Government. It has an Attorney General’s Department, a Solicitor General, half of parliament are Lawyers and the PM was legally trained.. that’s a serious Governmental error. It’s 9 years ago. My recollection is that it happened very quickly after ‘ 60 Minutes, Governments have to comply with the Law.
 
According to the attachment, the Federal Court found that Ludwig lacked power to be able to impose the ban. If that’s true then that’s an issue for the Government. It has an Attorney General’s Department, a Solicitor General, half of parliament are Lawyers and the PM was legally trained.. that’s a serious Governmental error. It’s 9 years ago. My recollection is that it happened very quickly after ‘ 60 Minutes, Governments have to comply with the Law.
How about the laws against animal cruelty
 

D Mitchell

Premiership Player
Jul 28, 2006
4,720
2,093
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Footscray Football Club
How about the laws against animal cruelty

It there's a law against animal cruelty and it's broken within jurisdiction, the authorities should take action. What the Commonwealth did was to ban exports, crippling an industry. That's not enforcing a law. That is what the Federal Court apparently found.
 
It there's a law against animal cruelty and it's broken within jurisdiction, the authorities should take action. What the Commonwealth did was to ban exports, crippling an industry. That's not enforcing a law. That is what the Federal Court apparently found.
Right. So what is your solution to eliminate the horrendous cruelty involved with the live animal export industry.
 

D Mitchell

Premiership Player
Jul 28, 2006
4,720
2,093
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Footscray Football Club
Right. So what is your solution to eliminate the horrendous cruelty involved with the live animal export industry.

A lawful solution is to
(a) punish wrongdoers; and
(b) impose conditions on exports that prevent cruelty.

None of this is simple, if it was, it wouldn't have ended in the Federal Court. for all I know, the above solution might be beyond power, to what extent can governments impose conditions, that's an issue for the Attorney General and I'm not him/her. Transporting live animals has been going on forever. Cattle, sheep, rabbits, foxes, cane toads all got here by being transported live. Surely the trick is to impose conditions. My take on it is that the Government of the time over reacted to a sensationalist media, fanned by press reports of community outrage etc. Instead of investigating, prosecuting, enquiring, communicating with stakeholders etc, it took a sledgehammer to the walnut. The article suggests that at least Ludwig knew that it was beyond power. I think the Government was motivated by its desire to demonstrate its compassion and virtue to its supporters. It was a minority government, it had lost ground in the previous election.
 
Last edited:
A lawful solution is to
(a) punish wrongdoers; and
(b) impose conditions on exports that prevent cruelty.

None of this is simple, if it was, it wouldn't have ended in the Federal Court. for all I know, the above solution might be beyond power, to what extent can governments impose conditions, that's an issue for the Attorney General and I'm not him/her. Transporting live animals has been going on forever. Cattle, sheep, rabbits, foxes, cane toads all got here by being transported live. Surely the trick is to impose conditions. My take on it is that the Government of the time over reacted to a sensationalist media, fanned by press reports of community outrage etc. Instead of investigating, prosecuting, enquiring, communicating with stakeholders etc, it took a sledgehammer to the walnut. The article suggests that at least Ludwig knew that it was beyond power. I think the Government was motivated by its desire to demonstrate its compassion and virtue to its supporters. It was a minority government, it had lost ground in the previous election.
Whether it has been going on forever doesn't make it right.
What they did was act to correct something that was wrong.
I don't think the issue could have been exposed without being 'sensational' given how horrible the level of cruelty is to these animals. The community outrage was and is fully reasonable.
What if it was a company organising a cruise to another country where people on there would be subjected to cruelty when they arrived, would that be ok as it is outside our jurisdiction?
 

D Mitchell

Premiership Player
Jul 28, 2006
4,720
2,093
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Footscray Football Club
Whether it has been going on forever doesn't make it right.
What they did was act to correct something that was wrong.
I don't think the issue could have been exposed without being 'sensational' given how horrible the level of cruelty is to these animals. The community outrage was and is fully reasonable.
What if it was a company organising a cruise to another country where people on there would be subjected to cruelty when they arrived, would that be ok as it is outside our jurisdiction?

Transport of live animals isn't of itself cruel, or do you think it is ? It's the conditions under which the animals are transported that imports cruelty. If the Government did act to correct something that is wrong, then it had to do so within the law. Governments can't just do what they like, not here, anyway. Rule of Law. If it wanted to shut down the export of live animal industry, it should have enacted enabling legislation first. If it didn't want to do that then see post 918.
 

D Mitchell

Premiership Player
Jul 28, 2006
4,720
2,093
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Footscray Football Club
This forum has totally lost its point of existence. It’s a ******* footy forum.

Footy was not derived from either of Marngrook or Gaelic but from Cattleball, a game played by cattle being live transported from Britain in the early 19th Century. They practiced the defensive flood and zone in their pens, one-on-one wasn't introduced to the game until after disembarkation.

Footy content
 
A lawful solution is to
(a) punish wrongdoers; and
(b) impose conditions on exports that prevent cruelty.

None of this is simple, if it was, it wouldn't have ended in the Federal Court. for all I know, the above solution might be beyond power, to what extent can governments impose conditions, that's an issue for the Attorney General and I'm not him/her. Transporting live animals has been going on forever. Cattle, sheep, rabbits, foxes, cane toads all got here by being transported live. Surely the trick is to impose conditions. My take on it is that the Government of the time over reacted to a sensationalist media, fanned by press reports of community outrage etc. Instead of investigating, prosecuting, enquiring, communicating with stakeholders etc, it took a sledgehammer to the walnut. The article suggests that at least Ludwig knew that it was beyond power. I think the Government was motivated by its desire to demonstrate its compassion and virtue to its supporters. It was a minority government, it had lost ground in the previous election.

"Government was motivated by its desire to demonstrate its compassion and virtue to its supporters" - written like that's a bad thing. I shake my head.

"over reacted to a sensationalist media, fanned by press reports of community outrage etc." people have been protesting this for years now. I've been on the streets for it several times over the years. You want sensationalist media? I could post you videos & pics to see if you can stomach it (you DGAF so you probably could). So when it does get a bit of media rather than being shoved under the carpet like it has been for years (because there wasn't mobile phones with video in those days) you reakon it's sensationalist!!!!!! By God, go hide back in the comfort of your ignorant dreamworld.

You can't impose conditions and/or punish wrongdoers when the worst of it is the treatment they get is at the ports they arrive in - ie: other countries.

Then there's the horrific conditions on the ships. They haven't punished them either as the ships that have seen so much suffering of animals are still being allowed here to continue.

"Transporting live animals has been going on forever." OMG. Let's go back to slavery, hell, let's open up Port Arthur, shoot indigenous Australians when they piss us off, take the vote off women, enter your backward world retro ideas here ................

It is simple. BAN LIVE EXPORT. Give the jobs to people here and export frozen produce. Ask all the meat workers union people who were at all the protests.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back