- Sep 23, 2008
- 7,283
- 4,944
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Man City
Cheers, didn't think that you'd worked in juvie detention
It was the wording of your question. I've discussed how this kinda behaviour is dealt with in previous posts
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.
AFLW 2024 - Round 6 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Cheers, didn't think that you'd worked in juvie detention
What a terrible appointment. Cory Bernardi is 100% correct.https://www.theguardian.com/austral...s-mick-goodas-appointment-to-royal-commission
Ah Cory, please dont change.
I'm still not sure how he would like people treated that were spitting on guards?He would expect YOU to accept it as long as it's not happening to him.
LOL.i said that last Wednesday
What a terrible appointment. Cory Bernardi is 100% correct.
Anyone in charge of a Royal Commission MUST be impartial and be seen to be impartial. Whether he can control his preconceived opinions is irrelevant. His previous position and his previous comments means that he should automatically be disqualified from the position. How can anyone deny that this should be the case?
So what you're saying is that you agree that Mr. Gooda shouldn't be in charge of the Royal Commission which is what we and probably most people agree on. But you disagree that Cory Bernardi should be the one pointing it out? Why does it matter who points it out if they are correct?Oh Lakeside- Im not denying its the case that people in charge of this case should be perceived to be impartial. As such Im not a huge fan of Mr Gooda as he has made his feelings quite public, which given the previous judge was turfed due to concerns over impartiality, why would we put Mr Gooda in except for nothing other than a massaging and stroking of egos, and a perception of appeasement.
i just dont believe that Cory is the guy who should be the one persecuting the requests for impartiality, as his well known partiality towards the Conservative side of life creates a negative perception of anything that he tries to say from the silent majority.
It's a straw man.No idea? Yep, that's what I thought.
It's the same argument with refugees; apparently you can either hold them in concentration camps or let hordes run in unchecked. There's just no other options.Wow.
It's either put a bag over their head or... Nothing ? You think that is what people really want?
That Morrison and Turnbull could not see this is testimony to their removal from normality.What a terrible appointment. Cory Bernardi is 100% correct.
Anyone in charge of a Royal Commission MUST be impartial and be seen to be impartial. Whether he can control his preconceived opinions is irrelevant. His previous position and his previous comments means that he should automatically be disqualified from the position. How can anyone deny that this should be the case?
I suspect that Morrison had little to do with it. Turnbull has a history of making quick decisions without consulting his peers (almost as bad as Rudd). That can work in business but not when you're part of a team.That Morrison and Turnbull could not see this is testimony to their removal from normality.
People so cut off from social norms have no right to lead.
You're basically trying to dig out a false dichotomy. "Oh! You think THAT is the answer? PFFT!"You still haven't answered my question. Geez, it's like talking to a child. What is your suggested alternative?
What method did you use then to stop people from spitting on you?
You're basically trying to dig out a false dichotomy. "Oh! You think THAT is the answer? PFFT!"
What methods do they use in other states? Where in other states is it acceptable - or even legal - to strap a minor down with a bag over their head for two hours?
Anyone with a shred of human decency can point out that what happened was wrong. In fact, people in the field in other jurisdictions agree it is wrong.
CLUBMEDhurst might be the one to discuss alternatives.
I have personally found that pulling their shirt over their head is the first step to nullifying the situation/threat.When I got spat on, all the crook's mates would laugh. I would give the offender a pat down and whilst doing it, would wipe all his slag back on him.
Usually got even louder laughter from his mates, a mumbled, '******* dog campaigner', then they'd continue on with their business. The individual wouldn't do it again.
It's a straw man.
"With us or against us!"
"Hoods and straps or nothing!"
And your insinuation that you cannot point out a problem without a comprehensive solution is a debating trap.
It's obvious that strapping a kid down for two hours with a bag over his head isn't acceptable.
Consider me chastised.It took me less than 10 seconds to find an answer to Lakeside Swan's question. I simply entered "are spit hoods used in NSW" into Google and this was the first link: http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-27/use-of-spit-hoods-at-wa-juvenile-jail-under-review/7665106
In NSW, JJ staff wear a face mask and spit hoods are illegal.
Rather than having this petty argument, couldn't one (or preferably both) of you taken this small amount of time to actually find out? Both of you have SOME validity to your argument (on one hand, staff DO need to be protected and on the other, whether spit hoods are legal or not, leaving a young person in a spit hood and restraint chair for almost 2 hours is reprehensible), but you were just yelling past one another and not actually having any sort of constructive discussion.
Your selective listening has caused a failure in your comprehension of the program, assuming you've seen it at all.But I really doubt that I'm going to see professional fighters beating up kids, as some have stated happened, in this thread.
I mentioned twice in my post that I haven't seen it all yet.Your selective listening has caused a failure in your comprehension of the program, assuming you've seen it at all.
While I'm not getting my jollies off to a bunch of kids being punished, like some of the posters in this thread.
I do still think what I've seen so far is a beat up. Lawyers trying to make names for themselves, and money, while 'Making a Murderer' is currently so popular.
I've watched up to the interview with Colin Rogan.
I know this man, and I know the son. If anyone wants some 'hearsay' details send me a message.
There is a reason that Kenny went from foster home to foster home.
I'll watch the rest of it later, when I have time.
I'm not defending anything about this, yet. I know that the entire system was stuffed and just getting worse.
But I really doubt that I'm going to see professional fighters beating up kids, as some have stated happened, in this thread.