Vic Daniel Andrews and the Statue of Limitations

[FIGJAM]

cooker eh?

"Cookers" protest when they should stay home, piss on the Shrine, decry "Plandemic", worship David Icke and talk about Reptilian overlords.

Most of us in here challenging some of the restrictions, but mostly agreeing with the crux of the issues, don't exactly fit the "cooker" bill.

If there was a plus side of the main lockdown of 2021, it allowed plenty of time for some of us Pies fans (current President included) to fight to finally attain a meaningful vote for the members after years of Eddie autocracy. Gave us a new lease on life and we've benefited from that rough period ever since.

 

[FIGJAM]

A cooker shill.

I love that I live in your head rent free!

 

[FIGJAM]

Actually it can be in part. Quarantine is a federal government responsibility.

Yep! As conceded, the Feds were a part of the issue. Just nothing like the omnishambles of the Vic Gov though.

Out of interest, what was the end percentage of repatriated Australians who came back through the Kingsford Smith airport and the Berejiklian government's hotel quarantine?

 

[Bevoman]

cooker eh?

Sutton locked up the play grounds to stop people meeting there and sharing their thermo flasks

 

[Satan]

Sutton locked up the play grounds to stop people meeting there and sharing their thermo flasks

That was a farce , non related families met to have picnics .15 in a family hardly

 

[adogsfan5]

How on earth has that audio of the phone call come out?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

How on earth has that audio of the phone call come out?

Newscorp have prior convictions for that sort of thing, so would be a likely suspect.

 

[Satan]

Good on him.

Many middle aged women were devo when he stopped doing his pressers

 

[Festerz]

I love that I live in your head rent free!

Err, that's not the end of my body you reside. But I bet you love it nevertheless.

And just for the lols I'm gonna take off the 'ignore' tag on your posts for a while. Just so I can be reminded of the end line of one of the favourite novels from my youth...

'I've done you before haven't I?'

 

[eddiesmith]

How on earth has that audio of the phone call come out?

They are not a major secret, recordings can be obtained for any call through FOI

 

[Xtreme]

How on earth has that audio of the phone call come out?

Channel 9 will make a Warnie style tv biography. How to fail upwards: The Daniel Andrews story.

 

[Satan]

Mr Andrews and his wife Catherine, who was driving at the time, have consistently held that cyclist Ryan Meuleman was at fault, with Mr Andrews telling reporters in 2017 that the teen was “moving at speed’’ when he “absolutely T-boned the car”.

And in his statement to police signed on February 5, 2013 at Springvale police station, Mr Andrews said “I want to make it clear - the cyclist hit our vehicle”.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/police-courts-victoria/daniel-andrews-triple0-call-from-car-accident-involving-wife-and-ryan-meuleman-revealed/news-story/ba541a80d142f2661a56ef09938d55de?amp

Seems the audio may be different to the police statement

 

[FIGJAM]

And just for the lols I'm gonna take off the 'ignore' tag on your posts for a while.

Errrrrr, I'd have had to have been off ignore anyway for your to have read the posts that you've just quoted, as they weren't quoted by other posters.

 

[FIGJAM]

They are not a major secret, recordings can be obtained for any call through FOI

Was Catherine tending to the kid and calling 000 at the same time with an accurate address description after supposedly being the driver who hit the boy (or had the boy hit him) and potentially in some shock herself?

If so, what the hell was Dan doing and why did he double up on the call?

Or was there a mystery third-party witness?

 

[Festerz]

They are not a major secret, recordings can be obtained for any call through FOI

Err no.

Section 63 of the Triple Zero Victoria Act 2023 sets out clear restrictions on who can access those recordings - they are unable to be released without the express consent of any other relevant person(s) or organisation(s) identified in the call.

To request a triple zero call audio recording, you need to be:

• the person who made the call (or their legal guardian or agent), or
• the lawful guardian or next of kin of a person who made a call, who is either a child or is deceased, or
• a person who is a subject of the Triple Zero Victoria call where the caller has provided consent or cannot be identified.

There are obvious confidentiality reasons for these restrictions.

For example, a politician using Parliamentary privilege to publicly release details of a 000 call for political reasons might reduce the chances of people in future calling the 000 number to report an accident, fire or crime knowing that their personal details and recording of the call could become front page news.

The question of how this particular recording was obtained by a politician and then read into Hansard and provided to particular news organisations (or maybe it happened the other way around as we have seen in this country before) seems to me to be a legitimate and important question.

 

[FIGJAM]

Would the recording have been made available to the late Dr Raymond Shuey's Expert Review that alleged alleges that authorities engaged in an “overt cover-up to avoid implicating a political figure in a life-threatening crash” and would the information be available via a FOI request for evidence that way?

 

[eddiesmith]

Err no.

Section 63 of the Triple Zero Victoria Act 2023 sets out clear restrictions on who can access those recordings - they are unable to be released without the express consent of any other relevant person(s) or organisation(s) identified in the call.

To request a triple zero call audio recording, you need to be:

• the person who made the call (or their legal guardian or agent), or
• the lawful guardian or next of kin of a person who made a call, who is either a child or is deceased, or
• a person who is a subject of the Triple Zero Victoria call where the caller has provided consent or cannot be identified.

There are obvious confidentiality reasons for these restrictions.

For example, a politician using Parliamentary privilege to publicly release details of a 000 call for political reasons might reduce the chances of people in future calling the 000 number to report an accident, fire or crime knowing that their personal details and recording of the call could become front page news.

The question of how this particular recording was obtained by a politician and then read into Hansard and provided to particular news organisations (or maybe it happened the other way around as we have seen in this country before) seems to me to be a legitimate and important question.

Yet I’ve completed FOI requests for them in the past…

But you’ll also hear them on TV shows

 

[eddiesmith]

Was Catherine tending to the kid and calling 000 at the same time with an accurate address description after supposedly being the driver who hit the boy (or had the boy hit him) and potentially in some shock herself?

If so, what the hell was Dan doing and why did he double up on the call?

Or was there a mystery third-party witness?

You’d hope someone was given it took Dan 8 minutes to call, obviously had some important stories to corroborate first…

 

[Festerz]

Yet I’ve completed FOI requests for them in the past…

But you’ll also hear them on TV shows

Triple Zero Victoria has Ministerial authorisation enabling it to release information under the FOI Act that would otherwise be confidential under the Triple Zero Act I quoted previously.

But those authorisations are within strict limitations and purposes, namely:

• educating the community or any section of the community about the role of and the services offered by the Authority
• promoting public health and safety
• responding to complaints, enquiries or compliments about or relating to the Authority, a Member of or acting Member of the Authority or an employee of the Authority
• support for the staff of the Authority, which may include commendations or other recognition
• responding to requests for access to records under the FOI Act so far as the exemptions contained in that Act (other than that contained in s 38 of that Act) do not apply to the information.

I don't see how releasing the Andrews accident 000 call meets those authorisations (maybe point 3 but that would require a public statement from the authority outlining the justification) but I freely admit I don't know the detail of its release.

I've also not seen a statement confirming how Libertarian MP David Limbrick came to hear the recording made by Andrews that he read into Hansard yesterday. His parliamentary statement yesterday calling for the recording to be publicly released suggests to me that it was not an FOI release but was accessed from other sources.

Can you confirm that this particular recording was released under FOI? And if so who made the FOI request and what were the reasons that deemed that release justified?

Because, outside of the obvious political interest, imho this information (how the recording was released for political gain and why) is more important to the public interest than the recording of call itself.

 

[Sttew]

Err no.

Section 63 of the Triple Zero Victoria Act 2023 sets out clear restrictions on who can access those recordings - they are unable to be released without the express consent of any other relevant person(s) or organisation(s) identified in the call.

To request a triple zero call audio recording, you need to be:

• the person who made the call (or their legal guardian or agent), or
• the lawful guardian or next of kin of a person who made a call, who is either a child or is deceased, or
• a person who is a subject of the Triple Zero Victoria call where the caller has provided consent or cannot be identified.

There are obvious confidentiality reasons for these restrictions.

For example, a politician using Parliamentary privilege to publicly release details of a 000 call for political reasons might reduce the chances of people in future calling the 000 number to report an accident, fire or crime knowing that their personal details and recording of the call could become front page news.

The question of how this particular recording was obtained by a politician and then read into Hansard and provided to particular news organisations (or maybe it happened the other way around as we have seen in this country before) seems to me to be a legitimate and important question.

Clearly someone at the 000 call repository doesn’t like Dan and has illegally shared the recording.

 

[Festerz]

Clearly someone at the 000 call repository doesn’t like Dan and has illegally shared the recording.

Possibly but that would not be my first guess.

There are many other individuals and organisations who may have had authorised access to that recording over the years, including VicPol and those associated with the Vic Supreme Court action that received considerable coverage in the Herald Sun last month.

 

[eddiesmith]

Triple Zero Victoria has Ministerial authorisation enabling it to release information under the FOI Act that would otherwise be confidential under the Triple Zero Act I quoted previously.

But those authorisations are within strict limitations and purposes, namely:

• educating the community or any section of the community about the role of and the services offered by the Authority
• promoting public health and safety
• responding to complaints, enquiries or compliments about or relating to the Authority, a Member of or acting Member of the Authority or an employee of the Authority
• support for the staff of the Authority, which may include commendations or other recognition
• responding to requests for access to records under the FOI Act so far as the exemptions contained in that Act (other than that contained in s 38 of that Act) do not apply to the information.

I don't see how releasing the Andrews accident 000 call meets those authorisations (maybe point 3 but that would require a public statement from the authority outlining the justification) but I freely admit I don't know the detail of its release.

I've also not seen a statement confirming how Libertarian MP David Limbrick came to hear the recording made by Andrews that he read into Hansard yesterday. His parliamentary statement yesterday calling for the recording to be publicly released suggests to me that it was not an FOI release but was accessed from other sources.

Can you confirm that this particular recording was released under FOI? And if so who made the FOI request and what were the reasons that deemed that release justified?

Because, outside of the obvious political interest, imho this information (how the recording was released for political gain and why) is more important to the public interest than the recording of call itself.

No I can’t confirm under what reasons this one was released, but it’s not that difficult if you have the right authority.

The family of the victim should be able to obtain it, especially in recent court proceedings. Plus once it’s out, it is often used in very public uses.

But this is the usual m.o when bad information is uncovered about your dear leader, go after the source and pretend that’s far worse than the actual information.

 

[Festerz]

But this is the usual m.o when bad information is uncovered about your dear leader, go after the source and pretend that’s far worse than the actual information.

LOL - I wasn't the one who raised the issue of the source of the 000 call. And it was you who made the assertion about the source being from FOI.

All I did was point out the facts around FOI access to 000 calls and why state actors breaching those legislated privacy provisions might be the bigger issue here - especially for those who make a claim to be libertarians demanding greater privacy and personal freedoms.

But rather than discussing the issue like an adult or admitting to your lack of knowledge - you pivot to parroting the empty and baseless personal political attack for someone daring to call you to account.

Why am I not surprised at your lack of self awareness here?

 

[JackFlash]

Dan the man should be in the slammer, not only for a cyclist accident, but for crimes against every Victorian..

 

[eddiesmith]

LOL - I wasn't the one who raised the issue of the source of the 000 call. And it was you who made the assertion about the source being from FOI.

All I did was point out the facts around FOI access to 000 calls and why state actors breaching those legislated privacy provisions might be the bigger issue here - especially for those who make a claim to be libertarians demanding greater privacy and personal freedoms.

But rather than discussing the issue like an adult or admitting to your lack of knowledge - you pivot to parroting the empty and baseless personal political attack for someone daring to call you to account.

Why am I not surprised at your lack of self awareness here?

lol, you’re the one who claimed that the person releasing the recording was far more interest to the public than the content as if some massive law was broken, bigger than cleaning up a cyclist and the police corruption that followed.

But I have far more knowledge of the releasing of these recordings than someone who read the 000VIC website…