Djokovic visa saga

[stui magpie]

Yep. Door.....arse....etc

[think positive]

....and just like that!!!!

brilliant, letting him play is unfair to every other player, and anyone else who wants to get here!

goodonya judge for having the balls!

[pietillidie]

Crikey, more twists and turns than a bad case of arthritis!

[KenH]

Finally the result that should have been arrived before he arrived here.

[Dark Beanie]

Can he take Craig Kelly with him?

[stui magpie]

Ehhhh, more information please?

[Dark Beanie]

The politician not the former Pie.

[stui magpie]

OK, cheers, no more info required.

Tool as he is, he's going to influence the next election.

[David]

It’s unbelievable that he and Palmer are still going around – most recently in one of their ten million YouTube ads – claiming that their party has previously held government (under Menzies and Lyons). This is precisely why the AEC should never have permitted them to take on a defunct party’s name; they were inevitably going to use it to manipulate the gullible (pretty much the only thing they’re good at).

[stui magpie]

Back to Novax DJoker, this sums it up for me.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/tennis/dear-novak-here-s-why-australians-are-really-glad-you-got-the-boot-20220117-p59ou5.html

[David]

I will say that, despite having little sympathy for Djokovic in all this, I do think the Government's arguments in the court case – that he needed to be deported lest he stir up anti-vaxx sentiment, despite obviously having no intention other than to play tennis – were pretty alarming.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/jan/17/djokovic-case-exposes-dysfunctional-and-dangerous-australian-visa-rules-experts-say

[Pies4shaw]

^ The Court’s powers in such matters enable it to supervise the correctness of the decision-making process, not the decision itself. The Court has no power to substitute its own decision. So, it can quash a decision to refuse a visa (as it did on the basis of a failure of procedural fairness in ND’s original case) but it can’t make a positive decision to grant one. This is a commonplace of judicial review of administrative action. There is a vast body of common law that reduces the necessary factual basis for a decision sufficient to survive a judicial review application to an extraordinarily low threshold of plausibility and logic. That is, there’s nothing about this that was unusual, in the legal sense - though that doesn’t mean you should like it.

[David]

That's my understanding too. My issue isn't with the court at all; it's with the amount of discretion that has been given to this minister (which we all already knew about, but is nonetheless disturbing) and specifically the reasoning they gave for why Djokovic should be booted.

I expect they could have made the case successfully through a far more mundane justification, but evidently thought this was the stronger/easier legal argument to make – which I think does say something in its own right.

[think positive]

[stui magpie]

Go Pies and Go Nick Kyrgios.

I don't watch a lot of tennis anymore, to0 many robotic self important cock smacks, but the Kyrgios Show is compulsory viewing.

He reminds me of some of the free spirited entertainers from the 70's and early 80's like Leconte and Nastase.