Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Djokovic

14445464850

Comments

  • Posts: 5,869 [Deleted User]


    In other words, the principle just embraced by the Australian government and upheld by its judicial system..... is that anyone who has ever expressed any scepticism over vaccines in general, or the COVID vaccine in particular, can and should be denied entrance to the country and be prevented from pursuing their livelihood.

    That is not a statement of fact. That is your own, selective, subjective reading of things, which also happens to be pure unadulterated bullshit. He was refused entry because of his actions, not because of his beliefs.

    You keep spouting this "the courts have agreed he's no danger to the public" rubbish like its some smoking gun. This is also not true. Just because they didn't come out and explicitly state that he WAS a danger to others, doesn't mean he ISN'T.

    The level of projection and cognitive dissonance is off the charts. Why are all the posters who were in his corner until very recently not around anymore? How come it's just you Bertie and Glasso fighting his battles at this stage? Because they've realised they were in the wrong and, rather than admit it, they've slunk off into the darkness until the next kneejerk situation arises.

    Bottom line is he tried to blag his way into the country, and he was caught out. So, no dice, Mr Djokovic, sling your hook. The ironic thing about the whole saga is, if he HAD been allowed in, the anti-vax mouth-breathers and knuckle-draggers would be touting it as some sort of supreme victory........"the hardest country in the world to get into has let the unvaxxed sports stars in, this is obviously a scamdemic, wake up sheeple" .

    Instead the usual suspects who were praising their government and judiciary 7 days ago now think the same government are the thought police. Change the fookin record, lads.



  • Posts: 5,869 [Deleted User]


    More fantasy.

    You've no idea why his visa was cancelled. You're assuming it's because of comments from 2020, while everyone else can see it's his actions since the middle of December that are the reasons behind it. You're trying to frame it as some sort of dystopian nightmare where anyone who says the wrong thing can be deported / jailed / imprisoned.

    When, in reality, he had numerous opportunities to do the right thing and chose not to.

    Answer me this, if he really did have covid and isolated as required, and there were no photos of him with the kids/journalists.......would he have been allowed stay in the country? Honestly, do you think he'd have 'gotten away with it'?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,945 ✭✭✭growleaves


    'Why are all the posters who were in his corner until very recently not around anymore?'

    I'm here.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    The cognitive dissonance is actually on your part and is very strong here. Mostly because almost everything you said in that post is empirically wrong not to mention the personal insults which have been thrown which is also an indication that you're losing the argument. The simple reality is that if you follow each of the points to their logical conclusion, the facts of the matter are that he entered the country legally based on a medical exemption reviewed by two medical boards, that a judge ruled in favour when he appealed the cancellation of his visa which was deemed to be unfair, that he was acknowledged not to be a threat to public health because of a negative test he had taken and was willing to participate in whatever testing regime the Australians wanted. The reason his visa was cancelled was because of opinions on vaccines he articulated in April 2020 (before a covid vaccine was available) which the Australian minster didn't agree with and deemed to be a threat to public order. When appealing that decision the panel of judges were at pains to state that there hands legally tied because of the absolute power of the minster.

    Those are all statements of fact. Nowhere in that process did the Australian government state anything about "lies", "mouth breathers", "blag" or whatever personal insult you want to throw in. Your arguments are based on pure emotion not on facts. I'm sorry but you're entitled to your feelings but not entitled to your own facts.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Anything I've said I'm willing to back up. I don't think you even know what your opinion is anymore since every point you've made has turned out to be factually incorrect so you've resorted to personal insults. Happy to engage with you on the facts but since none are forthcoming I can just point them out to you which are that two separate medical boards reviewed his application and concluded that he was eligible for the exemption under the law despite being unvaccinated. A judge ruled in Djokovic's favour in that the border patrol had been unreasonable, un-rational and unfair in the procedures they used to ban him entering the country. The immigration minister stated that the reason for his decision, which he was legally required to provide, was that he was being deported because of political opinions he made in April 2020 on a FB live feed (before a covid vaccine was even available) which may excite anti-vaccine sentiment i Australia. The judicial panel which reviewed the immigration ministers decision were at pains to say that their hands were tied due to the absolute power of the ministers decision.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,572 ✭✭✭✭mickdw


    It's a good job you mastered the cut and paste cause you would get tired typing out that 2 medical boards piece every 5 minutes.

    The minister looked at it and made the decision based on the specifics of the case and at a much later point in time where ALOT more information was available to him compared to your over quoted 2 medical boards.

    Anyone who behaved like him wouldn't be let into Australia, it's a simple fact and you should open your eyes and you would see that.



  • Posts: 5,869 [Deleted User]


    More projection. Accuse others of that which you yourself are guilty of.

    You started your last post with "in other words.....". That is literally the dictionary definition of putting your own spin on things, you're using your own interpretation to come up with what you want it to say.

    the facts of the matter are that he entered the country legally based on a medical exemption reviewed by two medical boards

    Yep. And that exemption was subsequently found to not exist, so his visa was cancelled.

    that a judge ruled in favour when he appealed the cancellation of his visa which was deemed to be unfair,

    The judge didn't rule in favour of either side, one way or the other. The judge ruled that he had not been given ample time to fight the cancellation of the visa, so he was given ample time. A technicality, not a ruling on the merits of the case.

    that he was acknowledged not to be a threat to public health because of a negative test he had taken and was willing to participate in whatever testing regime the Australians wanted.

    Okay, I'll bite....where and when did they say he was no danger to public health and who, with any sort of authority on the matter, said it? Cos I've not seen anything of the sort.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,415 ✭✭✭Former Former Former


    The exemption he received was from Tennis Australia. They do not control the country's borders, unless there has been a recent coup that didn't make the news over here.

    My only regret is that they didn't give him a criminal conviction because that's absolutely what he deserves.

    He is scum.



  • Posts: 5,869 [Deleted User]


    Ah yes, growleaves. Of course.

    I'm trying to be polite here, but if I had you in my corner claiming that I was in the right, I'd know for a fact that I was in the wrong.

    You never replied to my early post about the debunking of the "1000s of athletes with heart troubles from the vaccines" article.

    Here's a recap:

    Poster posts article claiming hundreds / thousands of "athletes" (including an 86 year old caddy and a 13 year old who wasn't eligible for the vaccine when they died) died as a direct result of the vaccine.

    I post article debunking your one and another poster shows the stats, which show 2018 (pre-vaccine) had much more "athletes" dropping dead than either of the years since, so couldn't be vaccine related.

    You:...............


    Theres a reason I forgot you were still around.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,945 ✭✭✭growleaves


    'I'm trying to be polite here, but if I had you in my corner claiming that I was in the right, I'd know for a fact that I was in the wrong.'

    Lol I don't know if that's polite but its funny.

    'You never replied to my early post about the debunking of the "1000s of athletes with heart troubles from the vaccines" article.'

    I'm not an anti-vaccination activist. I said earlier in the thread that these issues shouldn't be partisanised yet here you are talking about 'sides'.

    I was willing to consider the thing about athlete heart trouble that the other poster led off with until you and others showed that its apparently inconclusive at best. Several posters stopped discussing it and the thread went to new places. What do you want?

    Anyway like I said here I am. So I didn't run away with my tail between my legs just cause Djokovic has been comprehensively defeated in his effort to enter Australia.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 98 ✭✭Saladin Ane


    Djerkovic! How his advisors put the series of excuses together is strange. Obviously not used to rigorous scrutiny.

    And the outburst of Serbian nationalism is a wee bit pedantic.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,364 ✭✭✭jj880


    Let it go lads.



  • Posts: 5,869 [Deleted User]


    First off, fair play for sticking around. Secondly, fair play for admitting you reconsidered your stance, we could do with more of that (on every side).

    Thirdly, you were holding debunking article to a higher standard than the original article making the claim. It was a case of you looking for proof for the debunking part, while not seeking similar on the "X number of deaths part". This carries all the hallmarks of the usual rabble on here who are, as you put, an anti-vaccination activist. If I'm mistaken, I apologise.

    I was merely looking for an acknowledgement of the disconnect between the two articles, and saw none forthcoming. If I missed it, I apologise for that also



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 95 ✭✭Mr.StRiPe


    The court documents are probably the best reference in terms of the Ministers position with regard to Djokovic.


    Okay, I'll bite....where and when did they say he was no danger to public health and who, with any sort of authority on the matter, said it? Cos I've not seen anything of the sort.

    The minister proceeded on the assumption in Djokovic's favour that be posed a negligible risk to public health based on advice from the Commonwealth Department of Health which was cleared by the CMO.


    Yep. And that exemption was subsequently found to not exist, so his visa was cancelled.


    Point 16 suggests not only did the medical exemption exist it was also weighted in the ministers discretion against cancellation however, he does mention that Mr. DJOKOVIC considered that he had a valid exemption which appears to question the validity at a federal level as it is clear from the exemption certificate issued to Djokovic it was endorsed at the Victorian State Govenment level.


    My understanding from reading the court documents is the reason his visa was cancelled was that his presense in Australia may foster anti-vaccination sentiment and not that he lied on his application form and/or did not have a medical exemption in fact it appears his visa application and medical exemption weighted in the ministers discretion against cancellation.

    The same reason is reiterated in the Risk to good order section

    The same reason is also reiterated in the public intrest section




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,860 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    Ok, that about wraps it up, put the kettle on lads, we’ll have a cup of tea.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,275 ✭✭✭✭josip


    Final plot twist. It seems that Tennis Australia believed so strongly that Djokovic should play in the AO, that they will cover the costs for the 2nd case. Australian taxpayers will foot the bill for both legal teams in both proceedings. So anybody who claimed "there are no winners here" were wrong. There was one, old reliable winner who never seems to lose.



  • Posts: 5,869 [Deleted User]


    Thanks for that. Though I'm not quite sure it means what the other poster claims it means.

    The minister proceeded on the assumption in Djokovic's favour that be posed a negligible risk to public health based on advice from the Commonwealth Department of Health which was cleared by the CMO.

    The previous poster has been running around shouting from the rooftops that it was acknowledged he posed no danger to the public. Those documents do not support that assertion. In fact, they outright contradict it. The CMO advised that he was a low risk (not 'no risk', but a 'low risk'). ND claimed the risk was negligible. The minister proceeds on the assumption that he was negligible. Again, this is not an acknowledgment of him posing no risk (which is the claim being made). There is a significant difference between "This guy poses a negligible risk" and "I'm going to assume this guy poses no risk".

    Note also the beginning of that sentence "If there is a difference between.....". The advice given was that he was a low risk (but still a risk), and ND's claim is that it was so low it was negligible. My understanding of that sentence is that, for the purposes of his determination, the author doesn't see the difference between low and negligible, so will just assume that it's negligible for the sake of brevity or whatever. This, again, is not a tacit admission that he posed no danger to the public.

    HOWEVER.........point 17 then blows that out of the water, where he does accept it, so I stand corrected.

    Thanks again, I wasn't aware the court docs were available so quickly.

    Point 16 suggests not only did the medical exemption exist it was also weighted in the ministers discretion against cancellation however, he does mention that Mr. DJOKOVIC considered that he had a valid exemption which appears to question the validity at a federal level as it is clear from the exemption certificate issued to Djokovic it was endorsed at the Victorian State Govenment level.


    I should have been clearer with my words. I never meant to suggest that it NEVER existed, I meant that it NO LONGER existed once it was cleared up what the exemption was (or should have been) all about. Point 16 states that ND himself considered that his exemption was valid, and that's why he traveled, which is fair enough. When he landed, it turns out that it wasn't valid, so his Visa was revoked. It is my understanding that he was told he was exempt, by the VIC authorities, but then found out he wasn't, according to Federal ones.

    I mean, I have a helicopter's pilot's licence. It's written in crayon on the back of a corn flakes box, but I consider it valid. I can't show up at Baldonnel aerodrome and demand to be allowed fly one though, without it being checked for veracity/validity etc, at which point it turns out that it was never really valid in the first instance. This is similar circumstances here, AFAIK. He was told it was valid by authority A, but the validity was questioned by Authority B and rejected. Once B outranks A, he's SOL.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,573 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    The lawyers were always going to be paid. why would they not be?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,860 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    There was a winner…… The Australian Public, who after two years of hell and lockdowns put a flip-flop firmly under the arse of a chancer who thought he could do a quick ‘in an out’ with 2.5 mil in his arse pocket potentially.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,275 ✭✭✭✭josip


    if the situation had never arisen, which it shouldn't have.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,573 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail




  • Posts: 18,962 [Deleted User]


    The point is that Tennis Australia are covering the legal costs of Djokovic for the second appeal so Djokovic will not have to pay those.

    Because he could easily sue that organisation if he desired.

    @josip post did not say anything about legal costs not being paid, in fact he implied the exact opposite of that.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,860 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    The average digger gave this lad a shoe up the hole.

    Thats good enough for most Aussies who dislike churns treating them like rubbish.

    Lookit, lad is back in wherever he lives and no problem.

    Thats fair enough…… just don’t try to pull a fast one Down Under buddy



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,275 ✭✭✭✭josip


    Go over to the "Australian Response" thread in the Coronavirus forum. Over there, before the Djokovic debacle, you'll find that every Aus-based poster were saying that compared to the rest of the world Australia have had it great during Covid. Yes Melbourne was locked down "for a bit" but the rest of Australia were able to live their lives as normal, meet up, go to Concerts, full attendance at sporting events. The economy hasn't suffered at all and has improved during the Covid years. Not a single one of them ever referred to "two years of hell". Years of "hell" for the Australian public, is a complete fabrication.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,908 ✭✭✭zom


    "The Australian Public, who after two years of hell and lockdowns put a flip-flop firmly under the arse of a chancer who thought he could do a quick ‘in an out’ with 2.5 mil in his arse pocket potentially."

    A fas as I know there was number of players with medical exemptions but how would you know about it? You only know what They want you to know and feel what They wan you to feel...



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,846 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    While Tennis Australia does receive some grants for specific activities or projects, these amount to less than 5% of its income. It's not basically a taxpayer-funded body, and I doubt that its legal costs in the Djokovic affair will be borne by taxpayers. It turns over about $380 million per year, and it earns most of that commercially, from sponsorship and from running tournaments.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,037 ✭✭✭Slideways


    And once again Josip has e-egg all over his face.


    Should live by the moniker, better be silent and thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt



  • Registered Users Posts: 84 ✭✭doxy79


    I hear he's after buying a majority stake in a company developing a covid cure now.

    Not exactly a great endorsement of the science behind that cure. Djockovic is more likely to place faith in a cure based on sound vibrations from pixie farts than one based on solid science.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,725 ✭✭✭wassie


    He's in esteemed company now going by this list of "a small and ignominious group of people who have either had their visas refused before they arrived, or have been removed from the country over their controversial views or actions" published by the Age:




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,573 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    it was an anti-lawyer rant, nothing else. and incorrect to boot.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,573 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    maybe it involves sticking a slice of Mr Brennans under your arm?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,275 ✭✭✭✭josip




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,573 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    you said the taxpayers would be paying for Djokovics lawyers as Tennis Australia are picking up his bill. As somebody else posted Tennis Australia only receive a tiny proportion of their income from the government.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,275 ✭✭✭✭josip


    And when TA is loss making, who makes up the shortfall?

    Last year they lost $140m hosting the tournament at 50% capacity and had to take out a loan from the Victorian government to cover a $60m shortfall in their funds, with some funding from the private sector. Perhaps the costs of hosting this year are less, and the attendances are the same so let's say its a $70m shortfall. Where will the money for that come from this year? It will be more loans, which will eventually have to be written off at the taxpayer's expense.

    And if Djokovic had no justification to be in Australia as many here say, why would TA cover his legal costs?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,573 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    have they been written off? no they haven't so to say that the taxpayer paid Djokovics legal bill is just wrong. and it was a rant aimed at lawyers. why else would you say this

    So anybody who claimed "there are no winners here" were wrong. There was one, old reliable winner who never seems to lose.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,275 ✭✭✭✭josip


    They are actually being paid by the tax payer because of the previous loan from the Victorian government. Because it's a loan, they expect to be repaid, but that's never going to happen, TA is no longer a financially viable organisation.

    And that's not a rant, it's a comment. To rant is, "speak or shout at length in an angry, impassioned way"

    Any particular reason why you're upset by the legal team getting paid comment? I would have thought the more significant part was why TA would pay for Djokovic's costs if he shouldn't have been there in the first place?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,710 ✭✭✭✭extra gravy




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,573 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,049 ✭✭✭Mecanudo


    Aussie immigration rules and controls are fairly notorious tbf. Its marching orders if you don't have all your paperwork right and your boxes ticked. They don't generally listen to sob stories either.



  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,053 Mod ✭✭✭✭whiterebel


    Because Tennis Australia cocked it up from the start.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 9,328 CMod ✭✭✭✭Fathom


    CNN Jan 20: Three judges ruled that it was not irrational for the immigration minister to ban entry to someone who was not vaccinated. He could pose a risk to public health. Furthermore his celebrity status could encourage anti-vaccination behavior during a pandemic.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,554 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    Just wait for people who don't give a FK about tennis suddenly telling everyone what cnts and cheats Nadal and Federer are for the rest of the year.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]




  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 9,328 CMod ✭✭✭✭Fathom


    Cannot be worse than Trump’s Fox and Friends.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 9,328 CMod ✭✭✭✭Fathom


    Yes, the Australian tennis authorities messed up. As did the contradictions between federal and local government. Hence the scandal. But it should be remembered this whole mess started with a celebrity tennis player who refused to get vaccinated. Why not?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,275 ✭✭✭✭josip


    What's a 'celebrity' tennis player? Are they different to normal tennis players?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,725 ✭✭✭wassie




  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]




  • Posts: 13,688 ✭✭✭✭ Lexie Rapid Suit


    Yes, his choice not to get vaccinated and Australia's choice not to let him in.

    Choice is alive and well in 2022.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]



    CNN and MSNBC are exactly what they claim Fox is -- exactly -- and viewers of those outlets are exactly what they claim Fox viewers are. By far the greatest amount of disinformation and Fake News comes not from FB or random YouTubers and social media users but the largest media corporations.



Advertisement