• Keep up to date with Ausbb via Twitter and Facebook. Please add us!
  • Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

    The Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Ausbb- Australian Bodybuilding Forum stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.

    Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.

The plot to behead on our streets

Jungnaut said:
Sounds just like how Bali works.. we catch you with pinga, you die! No exceptions (unless you happen to be a gorgeous model who can appease the judge and go full hoodini for the camera)
Click to expand...
Not good enough for my liking. They had way too much time before they were executed...6 years to be exact, from 2002 until 2008...why? If I admit to a wrong doing (murder of innocent people) irrespective of my justification for it, why the time wasting of everyone else? Execute the next day, goodbye and good riddance!
 
Last edited:
Fadi said:
If I admit to a wrong doing (murder of innocent people) irrespective of my justification for it, why the time wasting of everyone else? Execute the next day, goodbye and good riddance!
Click to expand...
I wish the justice system was as efficient as that. Why isn't it? Can we blame the political agendas (and calendars) of those who call the shots -so to speak- for not acting swiftly but rather cover the system with layer upon layer of environmentally unfriendly bureaucratic tape??
 
To disallow even a blatant killer a defence is a dangerous move. Bryant and that dickhead Julian Knight both were caught red handed murdering people. However, even then they not only have the right of a vigorous defence, but they need to have that process applied, even though our emotions may want us to just put a bullet in their head.

If we start altering our justice system so that not everyone has a fair defence, then we start to get situations like the trial in Egypt with Peter Greste being considered guilty by the government and court and all contrary evidence ignored or rejected. Keep going along those lines and then individuals will start acting as judge and jury.

Next thing you know you have dickheads with machetes hacking off peoples heads because they are enemies of Allah and deserve to die. See how it works?

So the two that were just arrested need a good vigorous defence. Then if they are found guilty (based on the evidence presented in court) let the full weight of the law fall upon them.
 
OK, a little lesson in the Legal System seems to be needed here.

There are generally two legal systems, the Adversarial system and the Inquisitorial system. We in Australia have an Adversarial system. In the Adversarial system two opposing grubs (Lawyers) present their differing bullshit cases. It is a COMPETITION. These two opposing grubs (Lawyers) are not presenting the truth, they are just trying to win. The principle is that when you have two opposing cases, the truth will eventually become evident.

Because the Adversarial system encourages this grubby/lying/manipulating behavior by Lawyers, whether they be the Prosecution or the Defence, both the Prosecution and the Defence must be present otherwise only one point of view/(bullshit) case is presented making the truth very unlikely to become evident.

In our Adversarial system EVERYONE needs legal representation otherwise the truth and facts are very unlikely to become evident.



Adversarial systems breed Lawyers who are absolute grubs.
 
I like the sound of a suppository system myself... Everyone gets buggered. Innocent or guilty. That'll fix 'em
 
Jungnaut said:
maybe we should go for the Inquisitorial system then?
Click to expand...

Ain't gonna happen Juggs!

1. We are a Capitalist society.
2. Certainly won't happen under Liberal/Conservative Governments. Why, because Liberal/Conservative Parties are backed/financed by the rich. Therefore they seek to "champion" the rich peoples interests. Who does an Adversarial system favour the most? The rich. Why? Because the rich can hire the best Lawyers therefore having an advantage in Legal matters.
3. Most of our most prominent Politicians are Lawyers (Solicitors or Barristers).
 
stiffy, don't be so pessimistic.

I am looking forward to slaying a QC; I have been told that they will probably hire one if my matter goes to court.

It don't get better than liberal democracy; you just need to know how to use system and make sure you are up to the battle.

We Spartans don't give up today, unless weapons are involved.
 

I hear you brother I hear you.

I once got the shits with a Government Department and took them to Court, the Supreme Court, a Civil matter. The bastards (Crown Law) just stalled and stalled until winning my case no longer became advantageous for me. And Crown Law are supposed to set an example for all other Law Firms to follow


Best of luck with your case mate. If you get the chance for a cheap shot on this QC kunce take it. He has in all likelihood screwed over thousands of people himself.
 
A bit of motivation for you [MENTION=6618]spartacus[/MENTION];




Its the vibe!
 
last hearing (oct 2014), I started off by telling deputy president that I was so nervous, could I sit down when I spoke.
four hours later, after hearing adjourned (now 15 weeks), I looked over at lawyer and ... next to him, and there faces looked like someone had died.

Another court case, I thought I would sus out what barrister was like. Told him, look I cant even hold this glass, my hand was shaking.

He responded by filling a glass and sculling it in front of me.

At end of civil trial, he turned to me, and said well done. I won, proving a breach of a verbal contract.


Before that trial, judge looked at me and kept looking back at my statement of claim. He said 'you did this', he turned to my opponent and said this guy knows what he is doing.

When I first went to magistrates court, clerk thought I was dipstick. Six weeks later, when I came in, he called out his staff in front o the lawyers lined up, and said this guy knows more about legal procedure than all present.

They were probably only junior lawyers, but point is all you need is confidence, passion, and a bit of study in the state library, and then you are ready to go.

The truth should always prevail, and evidenced is key.
 
spartacus said:
They were probably only junior lawyers, but point is all you need is confidence, passion, and a bit of study in the state library, and then you are ready to go.

The truth should always prevail, and evidenced is key.
Click to expand...

Excellent post mate. I agree 100%.
 
This hasty attitude will get alot of innocent people murdered for crimes they did not commit
 
fadi, you are a smart guy, not hard to find replay of ABC tv shows.

well, for one, the son of his good mate who held cut off heads before camera.

of course, the extremists want this gutsy and wise man on ABC show dead too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register