Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index
 The RulesThe Rules FAQFAQ
   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch 
Log inLog in RegisterRegister
 
Remember this loser...

Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern
 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Pies4shaw 

"Phil had more talent in his little finger than both Abletts combined displayed in their entire careers"


Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 7:40 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Ooops - twice.

Last edited by Pies4shaw on Fri Feb 23, 2018 7:41 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pies4shaw 

"Phil had more talent in his little finger than both Abletts combined displayed in their entire careers"


Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 7:41 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Skids wrote:
Pies4shaw wrote:
Let me get this straight. This lad has brought a proceeding alleging unlawful imprisonment, the NT Government has allegedly agreed to settle it (on legal advice, of course) and you think what exactly about that? Whatever has happened, the Government will have settled on terms favourable to it (it certainly wonít have paid ďoversĒ).

People who are unlawfully imprisoned or tortured (or both) are entitled to be compensated for the wrongs done to them. The alternative to accepting an entitlement of prisoners and administrative detainees to be compensated (see Attorney-General and Hague in the House of Lords and Behrooz in our High Court) is to accept that people have an entitlement to flee their unlawful detention. I know which bus Iím on. Sorry Iím not giving you full citations - Iím referring to those cases off the top of my head.


You rave on about how he has nothing and is so hard done by.... after committing over 50 acts of violent and unsocial behaviour, the poor little fella had to endure a few consequences for his heinous actions and is awarded more money than 99% of teenagers who work for a living, will ever see in their bank account and... what does he do?

Goes out on the piss, no doubt flash with cash with all the other pathetic crew he hangs with.... and cause mayhem!

what the hell are we supposed to do with these oxygen thieves?? Please, enlighten me with your world of knowledge!

I don't take any of the positions you have attributed to me in this post. I don't know how I'm to respond to this, other than to suggest that you might want to re-read my posts. Also, generally speaking, I don't "rave on" about anything (except music - and I generally do that in other threads).

In the meantime, you might want to consider the point I was making: according to British and Australian law, a person who is unlawfully dealt with by conditions in prison or administrative detention is entitled to claim damages for the unlawful dealing. That's the quid pro quo, in substance, for the legal position that it doesn't matter how harsh the conditions are, there is no possible legal right to escape from "harsh" conditions. Do you agree with that position, or would you prefer that people such as this be authorised to break out from unlawfully harsh conditions in detention? It isn't possible, in our system, to say "neither" because that would render actual acts of torture beyond all legal redress, which is - I hope we all agree - quite impermissible in civilised society.

Otherwise, I suppose it may be worth observing that our law is full of situations where relatively undeserving people become entitled to large sums of compensation to redress a particular legal wrong when other decent, law-abiding folk work hard all their lives for little reward and don't get a leg up from the legal system because the things that kept them down aren't legal wrongs that give them a right of compensation. There's nothing much new in you seeing that problem in this case. What is new (or, at least, extraordinarily surprising) is your suggestion that "enduring a few consequences" for one's actions might include a licence for government to allow its agencies to act contrary to its own laws. How - for the rest of us (including, eg, you and me) who try to do the right thing by others - could that possibly be a net social good? If, eg, I were in charge and decided that people who didn't like Muslims were the worst thing in the world and that my government was free to incarcerate you and torture you because you had to "endure a few consequences" would that be OK? No, of course it wouldn't. You and I are both better than that.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern All times are GMT + 10 Hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4   

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum



Privacy Policy

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group