-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Justice?
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
Disco08 said:
You said it Disco, not me.
And don't even use Indymedia as part of your 'evidence'...they also claim Bryant is innocent...and this:
http://sydney.indymedia.org.au/node/13779
:rofl
I think I'll stick to my so-called "generalisations" thanks.
Disco08 said:
Sorry to answer your question with a question but does it have to be all over the media, when you have enough of other evidence to convict him 7 times over?
I think Disco, that while I admire your efforts in this....sometimes things are very simple.
Not everything is convoluted, manipulated, or a conspiracy.
For everything that ever happens...there is always a bunch of people who just go against the trend because they are naturally suspicious.
Look at 9/11....happens on worldwide TV, 4 airliners with passengers are smashed, yet people still come up with stories trying to debunk.
Crop circles, UFOs, man on the moon, the list goes on....and these are some of the major events in our history.
Let's say for a minute Milat is innocent then.
Why would the cops pick him out, while letting the real killer keep murdering people?
If Milat is innocent....yet he had an accomplice, or it was his brother that did it all along....why didn't Ivan dob on the real perpertrator?
This is my opinion...but there is too much hocus-pocus and not enough FACTS to sway me on this.
Six Pack said:
I like a latte now and then Sixpack, and I'm certainly not part of the loony left......so you aren't making a generalisation there, are you?
But thanks for the link....the world is made up of many different creatures.
Liverpool said:Disco08 said:
Sorry to answer your question with a question but does it have to be all over the media, when you have enough of other evidence to convict him 7 times over?
I think Disco, that while I admire your efforts in this....sometimes things are very simple.
Not everything is convoluted, manipulated, or a conspiracy.
For everything that ever happens...there is always a bunch of people who just go against the trend because they are naturally suspicious.
Look at 9/11....happens on worldwide TV, 4 airliners with passengers are smashed, yet people still come up with stories trying to debunk.
Crop circles, UFOs, man on the moon, the list goes on....and these are some of the major events in our history.
Let's say for a minute Milat is innocent then.
Why would the cops pick him out, while letting the real killer keep murdering people?
If Milat is innocent....yet he had an accomplice, or it was his brother that did it all along....why didn't Ivan dob on the real perpertrator?
This is my opinion...but there is too much hocus-pocus and not enough FACTS to sway me on this.
Six Pack said:
I like a latte now and then Sixpack, and I'm certainly not part of the loony left......so you aren't making a generalisation there, are you?
But thanks for the link....the world is made up of many different creatures.
Read it again; i wasn't saying u were a member, i was saying you use the generalisation. Read more carefully fella!
Liverpool said:
Because at the time he fitted the profile type (previous record, had been arrested for attempted rape in the area) and they were under tremendous pressure to make an arrest.
Liverpool said:
How can Milat be innocent and have an accomplice?
Why wouldn't police simply put him on a polygraph to determine these answers?
Liverpool said:
Of course it does. I'm not the only person who has doubts about Milat's guilt. There have been ongoing efforts by different groups to try and proclaim his innocence based on the evidence and demand his appeal be heard. If evidence suddenly emerged that Milat was guilty beyond doubt it would be huge.
Liverpool said:
I posted a couple of undisputed facts of the case on the thread SSS Tone kindly started. See if you can answer them logically.
Six Pack said:
Too little.
And should have faced jail time.
If directors and CEOs can face prosecution (and jail time) for breaches of the OH&S legislation then the same sort of penalty should be applied to blatant breaches of the Trade Practices Act.
I think it's been recorded that the $36m fine was equivalent to a $400 fine to an average wage-earner....so the fine won't hurt him personally.
What do you think Sixpack?
Liverpool said:
I'm surprised at you Livers. Judging by your general stance regarding consumer affairs, I would have thought you would have declared it "good business acumen" and therefore would have no case to answer.
Personally, I think all involved should face jail be fined the estimated profit made from this ($700M).
and businessmen openly flouting the law, as Visy/Amcor did.
So what is it exactly that Visy/Amcor have done that the major supermarkets, oil companies and Banks for instance haven't done?
In my opinion, the majority of major industries in this country are involved in price fixing schemes to some extent.
In my opinion, the majority of major industries in this country are involved in price fixing schemes to some extent.
1eyedtiger said:
The difference is about the level of interaction between the parties.
As Phantom has mentioned on the other thread, in this economy we have a number of legally sanctioned monopolies (i.e. the Wheat Board), legally sanctioned oligopolies (i.e. free to air TV networks), and market created oligopolies (i.e. the supermarkets). These are permitted to act with their greater than normal market power as long as their behavior remains competitive and "fair".
Three examples of Govt pulling the reins in are (1) the restrictions on Coles and Woolies taking over any more retailers, (2) AWB having their single desk rights revisited following the bribery events, and (3) the FTA networks being reminded of the option of a 5th network coming in if they continued to flout local content rules.
Amcor and Visy had oligopoly power, as they were effectively the only two providers of this product in the market. If they continued to compete with each other, this would have been fine. They crossed the line however by meeting to discuss who gets which customer, taking the price tension out of the tenders they participated in.
If they took this price tension out of the tenders by taking the punt that the other guy will not underbid, that is legal, but colluding to do this is very very naughty!
