spacesailor Posted October 13 Posted October 13 They Were solvent to the point they were waiting on their customers payment , In their bank account being processed. The bank took to long , and the doors had padlocks on them .stock taken for assets Not even a 24 hour delay was tolerated, in their ' tax payment '. spacesailor 1
Jerry_Atrick Posted October 13 Posted October 13 (edited) A quick call to Business Angels (https://yourbusinessangels.com.au/) probably would have sorted that out. Edited October 13 by Jerry_Atrick 1
red750 Posted November 4 Posted November 4 Harking back to the previous page.I saw a photo of a supermarket biscuit shelf showing biscuits that look very similar to Tim Tams, but look closely and you will notice they are in fact Tim & Tom. 1
old man emu Posted November 4 Posted November 4 They aren't copies of Tim Tams. More like a Kit Kat - several wafer layers with a filling and the lot coated with chocolate. 1
Jerry_Atrick Posted November 4 Posted November 4 Indeed.. I am surprised Arnott's haven't lodged a court action.. They did against Dick Smith's brand, Temp-tins, or somethign like it. They lost that one, but that was really never going to win.. While the packaging was similar coloured, shaped and sized, the name was too easy to distinguish from Tim Tams.. That looks a lot closer to Tim Tams.. I am not sure the basis of the Temp-tins' ruling though. 1
onetrack Posted November 5 Posted November 5 That's because you've got to be a real dickhead to play with matches!
facthunter Posted November 5 Posted November 5 The CASA publication when Dick first took over the show Was "DICK SMITH Your new HEAD" on the cover. Pretty RUDE I thought at the time.. Nev 1 1
red750 Posted November 6 Posted November 6 Bloody High Court are as useless as flyscreen on a submarine, Ruled that the ankle bracelets and curfews on the illegal imigrants who have committed all manner of crimes are illegal. Might as well throw the gaols open and let all crims out.
spacesailor Posted November 6 Posted November 6 (edited) How about ( the cheapest option ) sending all longterm Prisoners, to a third world country to serve their term there . Australia pay's a good ( by their standards ) payment for the length of the prisoners term . If the prisoner dies , no more payments . It's the same as now ,' contracted ' prisons . spacesailor PS. : long term prisoners are sometimes deported after Their time served . So no rehabilitation. Edited November 6 by spacesailor PS added
spacesailor Posted November 6 Posted November 6 Economically. ! . It makes sense to stop the reoffending . this present system has great cost & isn't working . Can you see a better way of rehabilitation. At lower cost to the taxpayer . spacesailor
old man emu Posted November 6 Posted November 6 22 minutes ago, spacesailor said: Economically. ! .It makes sense to stop the reoffending .this present system has great cost & isn't working . Can you see a better way of rehabilitation. At lower cost to the taxpayer .spacesailor Economically ??????? Have you seen how much we have been ripped off by the operators of detentions centres both here and offshore? But of course, the electorate will never gain access to the contents of the contracts for those detention centres. Also, we'll never know if politicians got a slice of the contract pie. Rehabilitation ???? I dare say that the crimes these detainees have committed are mostly sexual, and committed against strangers. A person whose psyche leads them to do such things is not going to be rehabilitated. Even castration would not prevent future attacks. The urge would be expressed in other forms of sexual violence. 1 1
spacesailor Posted November 6 Posted November 6 But Jakarta , would love the chance of housing paying guests . Look at the upgrade to 'it's' prison system if they could get one of those fat contracts. spacesailor 1
Jerry_Atrick Posted November 6 Posted November 6 (edited) I shouldn't have laughed, but it did make me giggle.. I haven't followed these cases, but I would suggest you read the court reports if you want the facts. There is a well established rule that when one has paid the price for their crime, they generally can't be locked up anymore. That applies equally to Aussies as the refugees/asylum seekers. The press forget to report these facts. How many times have you read in the news the courts, usually on appeal, have thrown out some case because of a point of law. The press whip it up into a frenzy especially, when in the usually rare occurrence, the accused repeats the offence. And how may times have you read that an ex-crim that has been released (the are ex-crims at that point) go on to reoffend? There was a famous case in NSW that I can't recall the name of and google just gives me the recent immigration cases, where the state government passed an act to indefinitely detain someone (a born and bred Aussie) because they were likely to commit the crime again. It went to the High Court, and the high court ruled that it was invalid legislation because it was too vague and they couldn't specify the offence that was likely to be committed (or some such thing). However, QLD and SA passed legislation that tightened the requirements and the High Court ruled it was OK (which was actually anathema to the general legal principle, but as Australia doesn't have a human rights charter, it was deemed lawful). So, my guess is, they fell foul of the NSW approach and of they tightened it up, it would have been legal. The press don't report all of the facts, not the context, nor the law... Don't get overworked. The High Court are normally as conservative as Justice Clarence. Edited November 6 by Jerry_Atrick 1
nomadpete Posted November 6 Posted November 6 54 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said: And how may times have you read that an ex-crim that has been released (the are ex-crims at that point) go on to reoffend? Totally agree with everything about media reporting. I cant question the legal issues (I've no law training) but it makes sense to me. The only BUT that I can see is the issue of repeat criminal acts. Counter to the comment quoted above, I ask:- How many incarcerated individuals are first time offenders? I don't know for sure but I suspect that our jails have quite a high percentage of inmates who have been in for prior offenses. Rehabilitation is not a fantastic success story in the history of jails. Personally I consider that ankle monitoring should be compulsory for at least a period of time after release - where there is any doubt about that person's behaviour. 1
facthunter Posted November 6 Posted November 6 Just been ruled out by the High Court of Australia. Most of our jails are privately run. Rehabilitation reduces the number of "customers". Nev 1
old man emu Posted November 6 Posted November 6 Except for very serious offences, causing death or commercial drug importation, there is a system of escalation of punishments which begins with a good behaviour bond and move through fines to short "weekend" detention to full time incarceration. So those you might call "petty criminals" who end up in prison have developed a criminal persona that is pretty much set in concrete. Basically it's a case of not being able to teach an old dog new tricks. The problem Australia has is that we are signatories to international charters dealing with refugees. That means that once people seek asylum, and it is granted, we can't move them on. 1 1
spacesailor Posted November 7 Posted November 7 How about ! . Refusing to tell the judge, who fired the gun . five years imprisonment . Then deportation . true story . Today it doesn't make Google. spacesailor
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now