Jump to content

Zhou Xuanyao

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender

Extra Info

  • Location
  1. Sounds like momentum is building for a challenge; the ban may yet be overturned. I can't accept that a whole industry is shut down simply because Baird says so
  2. I don't really know what's going on elsewhere but here in NSW, in the council areas I have had experience with throughout Sydney and regional areas nobody seems to me to take any interest in 'restricted breeds' anymore... I think the days of BSL are numbered.
  3. I emailed him, basically said what I just said here, and he wants to have coffee and discuss it face to face. Bit better than the usual platitudes we're used to when sending feedback to these companies
  4. Well that defeats the purpose of the reason they introduced it in the first place. Who's going to carry a muzzle around in the car for their dog just in case they stop in at Bunnings?
  5. This is not a good reason for it to be 'ruined for everyone'-- that old line. If the rule were to be repealed, It's not the dog owners fault, that would be Bunnings choice. Cultural change takes time; it takes time to adjust, and there are always bumps and bruises along the way. As others have noted, there's a novelty value to factor in at the moment. That combined with a certain foolhardiness by owners taking unsuitable dogs, kids not being used to it and being nuisances etc. It'll take years, but we have to start somewhere, or the culture of dogs not being allowed anywhere will continue indefinitely.
  6. You gotta do what you gotta do when you're an Indian, when you become a chief you can choose your work.
  7. Hang on, are you a prosecutor? I will ROFL if you are, but then a few things will make sense, I know you're in the legal field in some capacity
  8. It's a difference in values, as I mentioned before. I don't think you're 'wrong', it's a subjective matter, I just don't like your opinion. You say you'll usually side with law enforcement, whereas in my case, I will defend the rights of the accused in the face of government abuses, often but not necessarily for their sake, but for the sake of upholding the values I believe in for society as a whole--just as courts do. Maybe I should have been a defence lawyer. To me, all individuals have certain rights in this country. This is not a lawless society of corruption and impunity where jackboots rule and do as they wish even though they too often do, so for the sake of a civilized society where life, liberty and peoples rights are respected there can be no exceptions and no excuses for government abuse of citizens. Obviously now we are going into it a bit more than might be necessary, but suffice to say we disagree and I sympathise with abusive law enforcement about as much as you do with the accused.
  9. No, his refusal, if that's what happened, didn't cause it. They caused it when they assaulted him. It was their choice to react that way, their actions, their choice, their responsibility. Each individual is the cause of their own behaviour, no-one else is responsible. The best way to avoid heavy handed law enforcement is to force them not to be heavy handed by creating a society that doesn't accept it and a culture that will ensure that they end up charged and in jail when they overstep the mark. One man is out of a job because he assaulted a citizen on the beach, and rate payers are shelling out cash for a new ute because the morons are not capable of driving responsibly on a beach.
  10. Then he doesn't need to take responsibility because he's not responsible. The leash issue is a minor by-law and whether or not he should have obeyed it is another discussion not relevant to this one. Earlier you said that he created the situation and that had the dog bitten his attackers and been subsequently put down that would have been his fault as-well, would you like me to quote you? Nice logic there. Like I said at the end of the day nothing you say is really 'wrong', it's just a differing, albeit distasteful opinion in my view--differing values. I think you've drawn a few parallels in your own mind as this discussion has progressed and realized the same thing but still want to hang on to a thread of 'blaming him' in some way so you don't let him off scot-free for breaking the leash law
  11. No he doesn't need to take any responsibility for the assault whatsoever. The issue of the dog being off the lead and the assault are completely separate, the former does not justify the latter in even the smallest degree.
  12. How would you know? If he'd done that when asked then what? So if he refuses then that gives them a right to beat him up? Maybe that's cool by your world view and you're entitled to your opinion, but it isn't cool by mine, it's starting to sound like it isn't cool by the police's either, and it won't be cool by their cell mates, so this incident is starting to look up--could turn out to be a nice little warning to the other tough guys to pull their heads in.
  13. Interviewing the bloke, he says he has an ongiong neck injury (obviously, given the hold) and that they were also punching him repeatedly on the side of the head and neck. Police are saying that they're still investigating but charges are likely, and that the young guy is no longer with the council. A Coffs Councillor has also spoken out in support of the victim.
  14. Bastards. Sounds like the cops are going to nail them for it after all... and then they're going to get a pounding if they end up in Grafton, see how good his Karate does him then
  • Create New...