Everything posted by Redleg
- The No T$ No B$ Thread
- The No T$ No B$ Thread
- The No T$ No B$ Thread
- The No T$ No B$ Thread
- The No T$ No B$ Thread
- The No T$ No B$ Thread
-
Clarence Oliver
He is not only a clearance machine, he is tough both physically and mentally.
- The No T$ No B$ Thread
- The No T$ No B$ Thread
- The No T$ No B$ Thread
-
The No T$ No B$ Thread
I am back guys, from my short sojourn. Let the bananas be smooth and not split. Unluckiest person of her day was Marie Antoinette, who lost her head for allegedly saying about the poor, who were starving, let them eat cake. Actually she said let them eat banana bread and it was the media of the day who got her guillotined unfairly. She was not even allowed to appeal to the AFL tribunal.
- The No T$ No B$ Thread
-
THE BOMBERS' DOPING SAGA - THE FAT LADY SINGS
More's the pity.
-
THE BOMBERS' DOPING SAGA - THE FAT LADY SINGS
Surely this will be investigated by the AFL as it is miles worse than our tanking. If true they win a premiership while cheating the salary cap. Surely the premiership will now be given to the runner up. Who was that?
-
THE BOMBERS' DOPING SAGA - THE FAT LADY SINGS
As I said you have to have a winnable cause of action or you could get your claim summariably dismissed on an application to dismiss.
-
THE BOMBERS' DOPING SAGA - THE FAT LADY SINGS
If he cannot show a proper cause of action that is winnable, his case can be thrown out on a summary application to the Court. You can summons the Defendants to give evidence but if you do, unless you can get them declared hostile witnesses, you are restricted in the way you ask them questions. For example you lose the right to cross examine them and you can't ask leading questions. The Defendant's own Counsel can then cross examine his own client/witness and get far more evidence in than otherwise. The right to refuse questions that may self incriminate is in criminal cases. The Plaintiff must prove their case and if not you can submit at the end of their case that there is no case to answer. If the Court agrees it is over.
- The No T$ No B$ Thread
- The No T$ No B$ Thread
- The No T$ No B$ Thread
- The No T$ No B$ Thread
-
The No T$ No B$ Thread
Think I found something. The first time a good friend of mine saw âProfessorâ Stanley Unwinâ, the peerless purveyor of mangled mumbo-jumbo known as Unwinese, he was a little thrown. It was a quiet night in, just us two, the TV & a nice bag of magic mushrooms. Was this craziness his own psilocybin twisted perception orâŠwell, what was this ? Carl was born too late to have heard or seen Stanleyâs TV & radio appearances. He had missed out too on the long summer holiday of 1968 when our teenaged gang of four wondered at the circular sleeve (how mad was that !) and delighted in the Cockney Psychedelia of the Small Facesâ LP âOgdensâ Nut Gone Flakeâ. It was #1 on the charts for 6 weeks & Stanley Unwin was a pop star. So, âare you sitting comftybold two-square on your botty? Then weâll begin.â
-
The No T$ No B$ Thread
Speaking of bums. Can any of you guys recall where this silly saying came from, " are you all sitting two square on your botty"? It was either a TV show or radio show many years ago, when I was a kid. I think it was an Englishman that said it and it was repeated many times in the show.
- The No T$ No B$ Thread
- The No T$ No B$ Thread
-
Josh Kelly
And you watched every other player in the AFL as well?