Jump to content

Mac Dude

Superherø
  • Content Count

    10,484
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    42

Mac Dude last won the day on October 9 2017

Mac Dude had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

326 Primarch

About Mac Dude

  • Rank
    Guru
  • Birthday November 27

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Melbourne
  • Interests
    Pina Coladas, getting caught in the rain.
    (actually I hate both)

Recent Profile Visitors

19,208 profile views
  1. Mac Dude

    Terror attack in NZ

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-18/christchurch-attacks-show-new-zealand-pm-a-leader-for-our-times/10912018 Looks like there are others who think so too...
  2. Mac Dude

    Terror attack in NZ

    When listening to Ardern, Morrison and Shorten respond to the attack, I couldn't help but be impressed, again and again by Ardern. Her comments and actions have been succinct, genuine and full of compassion for the victims and their families. Morrison and Shorten while offering their thoughts and prayers, always appear to be focused on the perpetrator. Of course the way I am interpreting their responses is tainted by years of political point scoring by Morrison and Shorten on terrorism, boarder protection and immigration. *sigh*
  3. Mac Dude

    Here's a thought

    Good luck.
  4. Mac Dude

    Confessional seal of silence.

    Yes, my grammar and punctuation are appalling.
  5. Mac Dude

    Confessional seal of silence.

    People witnessing Pell turning a blind eye should have no impact on a verdict for this case. At best its circumstantial. If you're interested in hearing from someone who sat in on the trial, there is an interesting Radio National podcast: https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lawreport/2019-02-26/10850390 Worth a listen. It's from Terry Laidler, ex-ABC broadcaster.
  6. Mac Dude

    Confessional seal of silence.

    Sorry, how is it not one person’s word against another? Isn’t it the victim’s word against Pell? As for me expecting the evidence to survive not my point. The point is how do you make the decision he is guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, without evidence or witnesses? That’s my question.
  7. Mac Dude

    Confessional seal of silence.

    There were journalists and members of the public who sat in on the whole trial but it’s only after the suppression order was lifted that anything about that trial could be published. The reports are consistent - there was no physical evidence or witnesses. It’s the word of one person against another. The only component of the trial that is held in secret is the testimony of the victim.
  8. Mac Dude

    how crap is this government ?

    From your link, it’s worth noting : Australia may have opted not to join the statement due to its broad language, which calls for access to abortion without specifying that this should apply where abortion is legal. Australia has previously signed on to a different UN document, the ICPD Program of Action, which is more specific in saying that “in circumstances where abortion is not against the law, such abortion should be safe”.
  9. Mac Dude

    Confessional seal of silence.

    Lol, my opinion isn't based on high up friends, it's based on evidence. Or lack thereof. Pell's conviction boils down to one person's word against another. There was zero material evidence of any crime and there was circumstantial evidence that no crime had been committed. So, how can he be convicted 'beyond reasonable doubt'? Well, he cant....
  10. Mac Dude

    Confessional seal of silence.

    My very limited legal knowledge has me thinking that his appeal will be successful and there will be a new trial.
  11. Mac Dude

    the atomican child of ravenclaw

    Hi Raven101! I was very pleased to meet you and your Atomican Mum & Dad today Now I’m sure your parents have read you the Atomic rules, but the important one is “Don’t feed the trolls”. welcome to Atomic... Hmmm, I seemed to have lost my Spongebob avatar. You will have to find a cool avatar Raven Enjoy the rest of your time in Mexico!
  12. Mac Dude

    Blade Runner 2049

    Not sure why you think that. You're wrong but entitled to your opinion of course. As for there being nothing in the movie, while I take reviews with a grain of salt there are many that disagree with you. While I believe enjoyment of a movie is very much a taste thing where everybody is equally entitled to enjoy a movie, or not, I think there is enough evidence to support my PoV on the substance.
  13. Mac Dude

    how crap is this government ?

    Given that the term 'dual citizen' is not mentioned in the law he could be right ;)
  14. Mac Dude

    how crap is this government ?

    Because when the law was written we were in no way as multi-cultural as we are now and Australian citizenship didn't exist. Most of the 'imported' population would have been British citizens at the time the law was written. Anyway, as Antony Green said, the constitutional issues involved are not entirely clear. I also think that in the none of the pollies in question are 'working for a foreign power', which is what the law was trying to prevent. Would their dual citizenship have had an impact on their election if it were public knowledge prior to the election? I doubt it. Anyway, we will soon get to see what the High Court decides and why...
  15. Mac Dude

    how crap is this government ?

    I don't think it is that simple. For a start, only one of the politicians(Roberts) in doubt signed anything stating that they were a citizen of another country so the 'if you sign a contract' argument doesn't stack up. 'Ignorance is no excuse', is a legal principle that is relevant and will be taken into consideration by the High Court. I think it's important to look at the intent of the law. When this law was written it was in a very different time. In fact at the time Australian citizenship didn't exist. Some of the politicians in question, if they had been challenged at the time the law was written, would have been ok because being a British citizen would not have breached the law. This is a case where a change in one aspect of the law, the creation of Australian citizenship, has an unforseen knock on effect. So we need to ask the question, in today's multicultural Australia does it make sense to disqualify people from being politicians not because they deliberately signed up to become citizens of another country, but because that other country changed their laws to include them as citizens? We shall see.
×