Play Nice Random Chat Thread: Episode III

[Groin guru]

Wouldn’t be surprised if that car bombing in Athens was somehow involved too

God damn democrats!

 

[Val Keating]

The bombing in Athens is bikie gang related. This is a level beneath and not gang-affiliated.

What happened Friday night was basically a bunch of egotistical wannabes got together to watch some amateur boxing.
Basically Melbournes whose who of nobodys get together for some dick measuring contests so to speak. Mick was there, Toby was there. a real no frills event.

What occured was two tables of men known to eachother through no other affiliation but being involved in petty crime, etc got into argument and it escalated. Could have been over someones demeanor towards, a look, supporting a certain boxer on the card, who knows.

What happened next can be put down to nothing more than the most irrational escalations of a situation possible.
A fight broke out in the foyer of the venue (Melbourne Paviliion), on the street outside (Stubbs Rd) and then through no reasoning other than one bloke absolutely losing his mind, that Kiwi man gets shot in the face (he was a bystander trying to defuse the situation). His mate gets shot in the leg who was actually involved in the mindless dispute.
How it came to this just astounds me and without a doubt the shootings that have taken place in the days after are revenge attacks. Who knows when it will stop.

When your old man gave you advice about hanging round the wrong crowd and getting hurt - the above is exactly the risk of doing so.

To be honest I don’t know too much about it. Some of the Lebanese families are no joke though. I know a couple of blokes tied up with them and we have a don’t ask don’t tell policy.

The car bombing was a bit of a stretch. Not sure I’d label them as wannabe gangsters if they’re living the life...

 

[Tas]

Interesting in this interview that Pell reckons there’s people who can clear him. Why weren’t they included as witnesses for the defence? Wake up people ffs.

Probably because it is unlikely he could testify to the fact Pell didn't have the opportunity to be on his own for 5 minutes on a particular day 20 years ago he has likely no recollection of. Who knows though, we aren't privy to the details. He didn't even testify himself, which I find surprising. At the end of the day, he doesn't need to prove his innocence, the prosecution needs to be able to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and it is usually very difficult to prove guilt on an accusation alone, some would say that it is impossible to not have reasonable doubt when someone denies an accusation.

I am not sure what it serves the public to release these tidbits of information just from Pell's perspective if they are not going to make the whole case public, why can't they just strike out the victim's name/details to keep his anonymity or just stop trickling parts of the case out to the public, like we are meant to make any sense of anything that makes it out to the public.

I am not sure how they will handle the appeal, however, they can't introduce new evidence as part of the appeal process, they would have to try and get a request for a re-trial, which is very unlikely to be granted. They did ask for a re-trial but I would expect that to be denied.

 

[Only Forwards]

It has gotten to the stage where we need to have a serious discussion about the merit of legalising all drugs and bringing the drug trade under public control.

Control production.
Regulate it
Tax it.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Control production.
Regulate it
Tax it.

Drives down most forms of crime and frees up policing resources for other work.
A more pure product, thus less crappy chemicals added to it to dilute the process.
Closer access to health services.
Lessens homelessness to a degree.
Families can track down lost drug afflicted relatives.
Reinforces personal liberty.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Professional Virtue Signaler cracks up dark when force fed his own crap:



https://www.theage.com.au/national/...otographer-outside-court-20190304-p511ns.html

 

[Only Forwards]

Drives down most forms of crime and frees up policing resources for other work.
A more pure product, thus less crappy chemicals added to it to dilute the process.
Closer access to health services.
Lessens homelessness to a degree.
Families can track down lost drug afflicted relatives.
Reinforces personal liberty.

It'd cause less deaths.

It'd create more control.

However we live in such a wowser country that we have politicians who advocate against harm minimization practices in favor of black and white legalities in a sea of grey. We are a back water. New Zealand is more progressive than us.

 

[Val Keating]

Probably because it is unlikely he could testify to the fact Pell didn't have the opportunity to be on his own for 5 minutes on a particular day 20 years ago he has likely no recollection of. Who knows though, we aren't privy to the details. He didn't even testify himself, which I find surprising. At the end of the day, he doesn't need to prove his innocence, the prosecution needs to be able to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and it is usually very difficult to prove guilt on an accusation alone, some would say that it is impossible to not have reasonable doubt when someone denies an accusation.

I am not sure what it serves the public to release these tidbits of information just from Pell's perspective if they are not going to make the whole case public, why can't they just strike out the victim's name/details to keep his anonymity or just stop trickling parts of the case out to the public, like we are meant to make any sense of anything that makes it out to the public.

I am not sure how they will handle the appeal, however, they can't introduce new evidence as part of the appeal process, they would have to try and get a request for a re-trial, which is very unlikely to be granted. They did ask for a re-trial but I would expect that to be denied.

Or those people don’t exist because he’s guilty of abusing 2 young boys.

Re the appeal,
Off the top of my head there were 3 reasons they applied for an appeal. One of them was a bias jury, from memory the hung jury was a 50/50 split male/female the jury that convicted him was something like 7/3 male/female. I posted a link to the podcast I listened to that had a summary of the case & findings. I listened to that the day after he was found guilty and it’s been a long week so my memory is scratchy at best.

 

[Twinkletoes]

Could be just some in-house family fueds

 

[big_e]

Or those people don’t exist because he’s guilty of abusing 2 young boys.

Re the appeal,
Off the top of my head there were 3 reasons they applied for an appeal. One of them was a bias jury, from memory the hung jury was a 50/50 split male/female the jury that convicted him was something like 7/3 male/female. I posted a link to the podcast I listened to that had a summary of the case & findings. I listened to that the day after he was found guilty and it’s been a long week so my memory is scratchy at best.

The summary I read on the weekend showed there was a bunch of church people - senior choristers, the master of ceremonies, and others - who said that the boys would not have been able to get away without being noticed, but there were times when it was possible. Or Pell would never be alone, except for the times when he was. Self-contradictory, in other words.

I think that's what Pell was relying on and it wasn't as tight as he was hoping.

 

[Tas]

Or those people don’t exist because he’s guilty of abusing 2 young boys.

I guess it is possible but he would know that would be something fairly trivial to prove/disprove and lying to the police while giving testimony wouldn't a ringing endorsement of your character.

Re the appeal,
Off the top of my head there were 3 reasons they applied for an appeal. One of them was a bias jury, from memory the hung jury was a 50/50 split male/female the jury that convicted him was something like 7/3 male/female. I posted a link to the podcast I listened to that had a summary of the case & findings. I listened to that the day after he was found guilty and it’s been a long week so my memory is scratchy at best.

My mum sat on a county court trial for a fairly serious crime where the perp was looking at a very long jail sentence if convicted, she told me there were a number of jurors who flipped and voted guilty because they didn't want to spend the weekend locked up in a hotel. Because he had tatts and wasn't your typical clean cut white collar type people were more than willing to judge him guilty based on looks/demeanor rather than the evidence.

My mum didn't think he was guilty but I know my mum, if it came down to just her she would have folded like a lawn chair rather than hold out, she is just extremely non-confrontational in that manner, it isn't within her to convince other people. That guy was lucky there was one guy who refused to budge and my mum supported him, they came close to being hung but in the end he was found not guilty. If it was just down to my mum he would have been ****ed.

It just doesn't instill much confidence in the process. This was tried twice, one was hung, this was guilty, who knows if it was re-tried again you might get a not guilty verdict. How can the same evidence be judged so differently from one set of jurors to another? If so much hinges on who is on the jury then our legal system is just Russian roulette. Just give him a gun with a bullet in it if we can't do better than random.

 

[big_e]

I guess it is possible but he would know that would be something fairly trivial to prove/disprove and lying to the police while giving testimony wouldn't a ringing endorsement of your character.



My mum sat on a county court trial for a fairly serious crime where the perp was looking at a very long jail sentence if convicted, she told me there were a number of jurors who flipped and voted guilty because they didn't want to spend the weekend locked up in a hotel. Because he had tatts and wasn't your typical clean cut white collar type people were more than willing to judge him guilty based on looks/demeanor rather than the evidence.

My mum didn't think he was guilty but I know my mum, if it came down to just her she would have folded like a lawn chair rather than hold out, she is just extremely non-confrontational in that manner, it isn't within her to convince other people. That guy was lucky there was one guy who refused to budge and my mum supported him, they came close to being hung but in the end he was found not guilty. If it was just down to my mum he would have been ******.

It just doesn't instill much confidence in the process. This was tried twice, one was hung, this was guilty, who knows if it was re-tried again you might get a not guilty verdict. How can the same evidence be judged so differently from one set of jurors to another? If so much hinges on who is on the jury then our legal system is just Russian roulette. Just give him a gun with a bullet in it if we can't do better than random.

I've sat on a jury twice and had very good experiences both times. People taking it very seriously, people not considering remarks the judge said we had to discount ("Look at my record, I've never done anything like this before", for instance), no-one being put under any undue pressure, everyone having their fair say, even if they were in the minority. One of them was a child pr0n case so it was quite emotional for a lot of people but they put it to one side and judged it on the facts. The other we all agreed the guy did what he was accused of but couldn't be found guilty under the specifics of the charge (not going into any more detail there, even though it was almost 25 years ago). We asked the judge for clarification of things we weren't sure of and were determined to get the right answer. Point being that one bad experience from your mum doesn't mean that you shouldn't lack confidence in the system.

You often hear people say cases should be heard by judges alone, but what's to say judges don't get it wrong, or don't have the same prejudices as everyone else?

 

[RobZombie]

I've sat on a jury twice and had very good experiences both times. People taking it very seriously, people not considering remarks the judge said we had to discount ("Look at my record, I've never done anything like this before", for instance), no-one being put under any undue pressure, everyone having their fair say, even if they were in the minority. One of them was a child pr0n case so it was quite emotional for a lot of people but they put it to one side and judged it on the facts. The other we all agreed the guy did what he was accused of but couldn't be found guilty under the specifics of the charge (not going into any more detail there, even though it was almost 25 years ago). We asked the judge for clarification of things we weren't sure of and were determined to get the right answer. Point being that one bad experience from your mum doesn't mean that you shouldn't lack confidence in the system.

You often hear people say cases should be heard by judges alone, but what's to say judges don't get it wrong, or don't have the same prejudices as everyone else?

That's been my experience too. Juries (personal sample size: 1) take their job seriously. A good judge will make it clear to the jury what their obligations are as the arbiters of fact and provide useful guidance. I find it hard to believe that the one people are talking about lately would have been handled any differently.

 

[Munro_Mick]

just dusted off my old vintage lego collection recently, have to say iam surprised that i actually had the complete bricksets for quite a few packs,

The Yellow original castle is a classic - my wife is dirty that somehow her brother ended up with it. You had an interesting mix - a bit of city, a bit of classic space and the castle.....couldn't quite decide on one theme......it's a bit like like Star Wars, Star Trek AND Battlestar Gallactica!!!

 

[andana]

The price of Jenny Craig’s beachfront abode in Del Mar just got a bit thinner. After asking $39.5 million for the home five years ago, the weight-loss guru has trimmed it to $27.9 million.
Built in 1980, the tan-colored compound wraps around an interior courtyard with a swimming pool and spa. Out back, a patio descends to 82 feet of sandy beach.
The two-story floor plan covers 7,625 square feet, offering five bedrooms, 6.5 bathrooms and, unsurprisingly, two kitchens. White-painted beamed ceilings, walls of glass and a dual-sided fireplace touch up the main living area.

 

[Tas]

I've sat on a jury twice and had very good experiences both times. People taking it very seriously, people not considering remarks the judge said we had to discount ("Look at my record, I've never done anything like this before", for instance), no-one being put under any undue pressure, everyone having their fair say, even if they were in the minority. One of them was a child pr0n case so it was quite emotional for a lot of people but they put it to one side and judged it on the facts. The other we all agreed the guy did what he was accused of but couldn't be found guilty under the specifics of the charge (not going into any more detail there, even though it was almost 25 years ago). We asked the judge for clarification of things we weren't sure of and were determined to get the right answer. Point being that one bad experience from your mum doesn't mean that you shouldn't lack confidence in the system.

You often hear people say cases should be heard by judges alone, but what's to say judges don't get it wrong, or don't have the same prejudices as everyone else?

At the end of the day, the right verdict was reached in my mum's case (because there were enough people who didn't think he was guilty on the evidence), my concern would be if you ended up with a jury that was biased or lacked the type of people who would stick to what they believe was the right thing. Not suggesting that was the case in Pell's trial, I just don't have faith in the system in general.

I think there is too much reliance on the jury and in Australia we don't have the same scope of weeding out bad or prejudiced jurors like say in America.

Everyone is biased, including judges. I think it is fine for them to rule in matters that go before the high court where they need to make judgements about the law and it's interpretation. I wouldn't be opposed to creating a role where you educate and employ people to act as jurors, they could be given specialty training to have a wider understanding of the law, who's education process includes reviewing historical cases, including ones which come to a correct and incorrect outcomes and learning from mistakes, who are ultimately evaluated on their ability to get the right outcome for society. I would have a lot more faith in someone who was trained and experienced at what they were doing than just random people you just shout at in traffic or you think are morons in the office or in a work environment.

When you think about it, your life is in the hands of people you wouldn't trust with your pet let alone your own.

We have used this archaic system because we had nothing better in the past. Surely we can do better.

 

[koshari]

The Yellow original castle is a classic - my wife is dirty that somehow her brother ended up with it. You had an interesting mix - a bit of city, a bit of classic space and the castle.....couldn't quite decide on one theme......it's a bit like like Star Wars, Star Trek AND Battlestar Gallactica!!!

the castle was my favorite as a kid, also had the joisting exhibition set, the snack bar is the oldest set i still have complete, i also had a earlier taxi set 368 that is about 90% complete, it had the microfigures that had static legs/arms. how did your missus's brother end up with it?

 

[Val Keating]

I guess it is possible but he would know that would be something fairly trivial to prove/disprove and lying to the police while giving testimony wouldn't a ringing endorsement of your character.



My mum sat on a county court trial for a fairly serious crime where the perp was looking at a very long jail sentence if convicted, she told me there were a number of jurors who flipped and voted guilty because they didn't want to spend the weekend locked up in a hotel. Because he had tatts and wasn't your typical clean cut white collar type people were more than willing to judge him guilty based on looks/demeanor rather than the evidence.

My mum didn't think he was guilty but I know my mum, if it came down to just her she would have folded like a lawn chair rather than hold out, she is just extremely non-confrontational in that manner, it isn't within her to convince other people. That guy was lucky there was one guy who refused to budge and my mum supported him, they came close to being hung but in the end he was found not guilty. If it was just down to my mum he would have been ******.

It just doesn't instill much confidence in the process. This was tried twice, one was hung, this was guilty, who knows if it was re-tried again you might get a not guilty verdict. How can the same evidence be judged so differently from one set of jurors to another? If so much hinges on who is on the jury then our legal system is just Russian roulette. Just give him a gun with a bullet in it if we can't do better than random.

Hard to argue with that Tas. When it’s a case of ‘he said-he said’ and no evidence, it just comes down to who gives the most convincing statement and is most believable under cross examination. The lawyers also play a massive role in cases like these, and as respected as the defence counsel is, seems he gambled and got it wrong. Because Pell didn’t give a statement and wasn’t cross examined (either he didn’t want to or was advised not to) the only statement the jury heard was that of the victim and that humanised him, Pell just sat there looking sour.

 

[Dan]

 

[Val Keating]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elderly-men-nursing-home-wacken-open-air-festival-itzehoe-heavy-metal/

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

NDS at Heidelberg Golf Club shooting golf commercials.

How the mighty have fallen.

 

[Newroooo]

Probably been brought up before, but just noticed that North has so many more threads on here
than all the other clubs (47K, next is Richmond with 30K)
This seems a very odd phenomenon considering the size of our supporter base (good though)

 

[LuvtheKangas]

^ You're right, it's been brought up here a few times over the years. The main reason is that most other clubs have their own football forums so lots of their supporters only post in those. In contrast, Bigfooty is the only forum for North fans.

 

[Munro_Mick]

the castle was my favorite as a kid, also had the joisting exhibition set, the snack bar is the oldest set i still have complete, i also had a earlier taxi set 368 that is about 90% complete, it had the microfigures that had static legs/arms. how did your missus's brother end up with it?

I gather it had been packed away for a while - after the 3 kids went off to Uni here there and everywhere - - and for some reason it was next seen resurfacing at his place. Oh but we've moved on (no....really.....we haven't!!!).

My wife has allowed herself to rekindle her affection for Lego - she's mainly gone down the Winter Village (Christmas) and some of the architecture (has to be a place she's been to). She's also got into the Light My Bricks light sets.

 

[tazaa]

^ You're right, it's been brought up here a few times over the years. The main reason is that most other clubs have their own football forums so lots of their supporters only post in those. In contrast, Bigfooty is the only forum for North fans.

Bigfooty can be split into two eras for me.
Pre June 2012 and Post June 2012.
The site was shut down for days as it went through a modern change up.
I also call it pre Euge and post Euge as it culminated in Eugene leaving the club before BF came back on and Buddy had just kicked 13 against us.

We had the largest post count by far before slowly, slowly, other fan bases caught onto the site and our own board probably regressed in numbers, and the Blues eventually took over followed by Adelaide.