Judiciary Happenings
-
@Snowy said in Judiciary Happenings:
@Stargazer Makes the whole thing a bit redundant.
"An appeal committee shall have to power to alter the decision as it shall think fit" would have done.
I wonder what someone got paid for that?
Six minute blocks mate! No use having a lawyer write something in five minutes that could take an hour and 30 seconds.
C***ts basically.
@Crucial said in Judiciary Happenings:
@Snowy said in Judiciary Happenings:
@Stargazer Makes the whole thing a bit redundant.
"An appeal committee shall have to power to alter the decision as it shall think fit" would have done.
I wonder what someone got paid for that?
Six minute blocks mate! No use having a lawyer write something in five minutes that could take an hour and 30 seconds.
C***ts basically.
Bollocks. Typical Fern reaction. :man_facepalming_light_skin_tone:
These things are normally written by an organisation's own legal staff, not by external lawyers on high wages. Legal staff are usually not on extraordinary wages at all; I know quite a few people who do that kind of work (for all sorts of organisations). And they're no cnuts, by the way.
I guess you guys have no legal background, but listing examples in phrases like that is very common and not confusing at all for those who have to apply these legal provisions. It's a legislative technique to steer the interpretation of a legal provision, without being overly restrictive. In a way, it limits the discretion that judicial officers/judicial committee's have in the application of these provisions, without excluding another (non-listed) interpretation completely.
-
@Crucial said in Judiciary Happenings:
@Snowy said in Judiciary Happenings:
@Stargazer Makes the whole thing a bit redundant.
"An appeal committee shall have to power to alter the decision as it shall think fit" would have done.
I wonder what someone got paid for that?
Six minute blocks mate! No use having a lawyer write something in five minutes that could take an hour and 30 seconds.
C***ts basically.
Bollocks. Typical Fern reaction. :man_facepalming_light_skin_tone:
These things are normally written by an organisation's own legal staff, not by external lawyers on high wages. Legal staff are usually not on extraordinary wages at all; I know quite a few people who do that kind of work (for all sorts of organisations). And they're no cnuts, by the way.
I guess you guys have no legal background, but listing examples in phrases like that is very common and not confusing at all for those who have to apply these legal provisions. It's a legislative technique to steer the interpretation of a legal provision, without being overly restrictive. In a way, it limits the discretion that judicial officers/judicial committee's have in the application of these provisions, without excluding another (non-listed) interpretation completely.
@Stargazer said in Judiciary Happenings:
Bollocks. Typical Fern reaction.
you know, sometimes i wonder why you are even here
-
@Crucial said in Judiciary Happenings:
@Snowy said in Judiciary Happenings:
@Stargazer Makes the whole thing a bit redundant.
"An appeal committee shall have to power to alter the decision as it shall think fit" would have done.
I wonder what someone got paid for that?
Six minute blocks mate! No use having a lawyer write something in five minutes that could take an hour and 30 seconds.
C***ts basically.
Bollocks. Typical Fern reaction. :man_facepalming_light_skin_tone:
These things are normally written by an organisation's own legal staff, not by external lawyers on high wages. Legal staff are usually not on extraordinary wages at all; I know quite a few people who do that kind of work (for all sorts of organisations). And they're no cnuts, by the way.
I guess you guys have no legal background, but listing examples in phrases like that is very common and not confusing at all for those who have to apply these legal provisions. It's a legislative technique to steer the interpretation of a legal provision, without being overly restrictive. In a way, it limits the discretion that judicial officers/judicial committee's have in the application of these provisions, without excluding another (non-listed) interpretation completely.
@Stargazer said in Judiciary Happenings:
@Crucial said in Judiciary Happenings:
@Snowy said in Judiciary Happenings:
@Stargazer Makes the whole thing a bit redundant.
"An appeal committee shall have to power to alter the decision as it shall think fit" would have done.
I wonder what someone got paid for that?
Six minute blocks mate! No use having a lawyer write something in five minutes that could take an hour and 30 seconds.
C***ts basically.
Bollocks. Typical Fern reaction. :man_facepalming_light_skin_tone:
These things are normally written by an organisation's own legal staff, not by external lawyers on high wages. Legal staff are usually not on extraordinary wages at all; I know quite a few people who do that kind of work (for all sorts of organisations). And they're no cnuts, by the way.
I guess you guys have no legal background, but listing examples in phrases like that is very common and not confusing at all for those who have to apply these legal provisions. It's a legislative technique to steer the interpretation of a legal provision, without being overly restrictive. In a way, it limits the discretion that judicial officers/judicial committee's have in the application of these provisions, without excluding another (non-listed) interpretation completely.
It's pretty obvious from the above that you have no legal background either.
-
@Stargazer said in Judiciary Happenings:
@Crucial said in Judiciary Happenings:
@Snowy said in Judiciary Happenings:
@Stargazer Makes the whole thing a bit redundant.
"An appeal committee shall have to power to alter the decision as it shall think fit" would have done.
I wonder what someone got paid for that?
Six minute blocks mate! No use having a lawyer write something in five minutes that could take an hour and 30 seconds.
C***ts basically.
Bollocks. Typical Fern reaction. :man_facepalming_light_skin_tone:
These things are normally written by an organisation's own legal staff, not by external lawyers on high wages. Legal staff are usually not on extraordinary wages at all; I know quite a few people who do that kind of work (for all sorts of organisations). And they're no cnuts, by the way.
I guess you guys have no legal background, but listing examples in phrases like that is very common and not confusing at all for those who have to apply these legal provisions. It's a legislative technique to steer the interpretation of a legal provision, without being overly restrictive. In a way, it limits the discretion that judicial officers/judicial committee's have in the application of these provisions, without excluding another (non-listed) interpretation completely.
It's pretty obvious from the above that you have no legal background either.
-
@Stargazer said in Judiciary Happenings:
Bollocks. Typical Fern reaction.
you know, sometimes i wonder why you are even here
@mariner4life said in Judiciary Happenings:
@Stargazer said in Judiciary Happenings:
Bollocks. Typical Fern reaction.
you know, sometimes i wonder why you are even here
Where else would I go to get 20 links a day to instagram and twitter stories that I don't read?
Except for twitter and instagram.
-
@Snowy The word "including" suggests that it's a non-exhaustive list of examples of what they can decide to do with the penalty. So IMO it suggests that an increase is possible. It's just odd that they've listed all the other options, but not the possibility to increase.
@Stargazer said in Judiciary Happenings:
@Snowy The word "including" suggests that it's a non-exhaustive list of examples of what they can decide to do with the penalty. So IMO it suggests that an increase is possible. It's just odd that they've listed all the other options, but not the possibility to increase.
That runs contrary to standard interpretation of the law. The section only provides for the decrease, so according to the principle of ejusdem generis, it is limited to the meaning of the specific words listed.
-
@Stargazer said in Judiciary Happenings:
@Snowy The word "including" suggests that it's a non-exhaustive list of examples of what they can decide to do with the penalty. So IMO it suggests that an increase is possible. It's just odd that they've listed all the other options, but not the possibility to increase.
That runs contrary to standard interpretation of the law. The section only provides for the decrease, so according to the principle of ejusdem generis, it is limited to the meaning of the specific words listed.
-
@SammyC And it's even more obvious that you don't know anything about me and are very wrong.
@Stargazer said in Judiciary Happenings:
@SammyC And it's even more obvious that you don't know anything about me and are very wrong.
Well in that case I'm glad you're not my lawyer.
-
@Stargazer said in Judiciary Happenings:
@SammyC And it's even more obvious that you don't know anything about me and are very wrong.
Well in that case I'm glad you're not my lawyer.
-
@Stargazer said in Judiciary Happenings:
@SammyC And it's even more obvious that you don't know anything about me and are very wrong.
Well in that case I'm glad you're not my lawyer.
@SammyC said in Judiciary Happenings:
@Stargazer said in Judiciary Happenings:
@SammyC And it's even more obvious that you don't know anything about me and are very wrong.
Well in that case I'm glad you're not my lawyer.
your honour, i point you to the highlighted Instagram post of September 26, 2019
-
@mariner4life said in Judiciary Happenings:
@antipodean said in Judiciary Happenings:
ejusdem generis
you just made that up you chancer!
I thought I might add some actual legal knowledge to the discussion.
I understand that the provision of facts is a one day ban for the first offence around here?
-
@mariner4life said in Judiciary Happenings:
@antipodean said in Judiciary Happenings:
ejusdem generis
you just made that up you chancer!
I thought I might add some actual legal knowledge to the discussion.
I understand that the provision of facts is a one day ban for the first offence around here?
@antipodean said in Judiciary Happenings:
@mariner4life said in Judiciary Happenings:
@antipodean said in Judiciary Happenings:
ejusdem generis
you just made that up you chancer!
I thought I might add some actual legal knowledge to the discussion.
I understand that the provision of facts is a one day ban for the first offence around here?
ah, Waratahs fan, of course you are a lawyer. My bad.
-
@Stargazer said in Judiciary Happenings:
Bollocks. Typical Fern reaction.
you know, sometimes i wonder why you are even here
@mariner4life said in Judiciary Happenings:
you know, sometimes i wonder why you are even here
I am amazed that anyone can take this place so seriously. Makes me laugh.
TBF @Stargazer does post some interesting stuff (but lighten up dude).I will wait for the official announcement before commenting though, and hopefully this post is in the correct thread, or I will have to contact my lawyer to defend myself.
-
@mariner4life said in Judiciary Happenings:
you know, sometimes i wonder why you are even here
I am amazed that anyone can take this place so seriously. Makes me laugh.
TBF @Stargazer does post some interesting stuff (but lighten up dude).I will wait for the official announcement before commenting though, and hopefully this post is in the correct thread, or I will have to contact my lawyer to defend myself.
-
@mariner4life said in Judiciary Happenings:
you know, sometimes i wonder why you are even here
I am amazed that anyone can take this place so seriously. Makes me laugh.
TBF @Stargazer does post some interesting stuff (but lighten up dude).I will wait for the official announcement before commenting though, and hopefully this post is in the correct thread, or I will have to contact my lawyer to defend myself.
-
also, to divert this thread to the actual topic, that Uruaguan getting 3 weeks is fucking bullshit. No Starry, i don't care about the protocols the judiciary had to work with, i care about the vibe, about the mabo.
The poor loke stood there, on his line, and a guy got tackled in to his shoulder. He got sent off, and suspended for the rest of the cup.
Also, what the fuck is a 6 week entry point that you instantly halve?
-
also, to divert this thread to the actual topic, that Uruaguan getting 3 weeks is fucking bullshit. No Starry, i don't care about the protocols the judiciary had to work with, i care about the vibe, about the mabo.
The poor loke stood there, on his line, and a guy got tackled in to his shoulder. He got sent off, and suspended for the rest of the cup.
Also, what the fuck is a 6 week entry point that you instantly halve?
@mariner4life said in Judiciary Happenings:
Also, what the fuck is a 6 week entry point that you instantly halve?
Bullshit. That's what it is. Complete, utter, bullshit.
I agree - if Piers Francis gets a yellow card for THAT hit on the Seppo, then the Uruguayan bloke should get downgraded as well. Problem is, the impertinent little South American asked for it to be downgraded, and of course the judiciary don't like Tier 2 nations asking for anything.
-
This is the problem with lawyers, spit, being involved. They act like they're actually in a court of law.
The whole process is ruined by not acknowledging the parameters in which referees and their assistants have to operate.
-
This is the problem with lawyers, spit, being involved. They act like they're actually in a court of law.
The whole process is ruined by not acknowledging the parameters in which referees and their assistants have to operate.
@antipodean said in Judiciary Happenings:
This is the problem with lawyers, spit, being involved. They act like they're actually in a court of law.
The whole process is ruined by not acknowledging the parameters in which referees and their assistants have to operate.
rugby loves to double up its sanctions
Penalty try? then i have to yellow card you
Red card? You have to have 3 weeks. -
Ouch - sorry gentlemen. Seems I precipitated a minor storm in a teacup with my question about raising the sanction on appeal. It stems from my (clearly mistaken) belief that this was a kind of cautionary provision in place to avoid spurious appeals.
