The Appeal by the convicted Cowan has been dismissed.

Link.

Next stop ~ the High Court.

And so it should be.

Next stop should be Bali... bang bang

Rider wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 4:52pm:

Next stop should be Bali... bang bang

not if aussie has his way....he likes this guy.

cods wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 5:31pm:

Rider wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 4:52pm: Next stop should be Bali... bang bang not if aussie has his way....he likes this guy.

Dunno anything about him, but I do like that he has legal rights, and I do not mind in the least that he is exercising them.

Do you mind, cods?

Aussie wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 5:38pm:

cods wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 5:31pm: Rider wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 4:52pm: Next stop should be Bali... bang bang not if aussie has his way....he likes this guy. Dunno anything about him, but I do like that he has legal rights, and I do not mind in the least that he is exercising them. Do you mind, cods?

If Cods is anything like the rest of us, she'd be bloody offended that this multi convicted child rapist and now convicted child murderer is allowed to keep accessing even MORE tax payer money in order to get himself out of jail sooner.

That Legal Aid money needs to be re allocated in the direction of his victims.

He's been convicted. He's not disputing that at all. He just wants out sooner.

And given THESE SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES, you SHOULD mind what this rapist/ murderer is trying to do.

He's lodged and failed in his despicable latest stunt....so he's going to keep going.

Just a waste of time and money. OUR TIME AND OUR MONEY.

For anyone interested in the Court transcript of today's decision......

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QCA/2015/87.html

Alinta wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 5:54pm:

For anyone interested in the Court transcript of today's decision...... http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QCA/2015/87.html

I read that transcript earlier, amongst other facts about this case and about the perpetrator's past offences and subsequent short term jail sentences which enabled this psychopath to get out and commit further and much more serious offences.

Some good reading material for you there Aussie.  Enjoy!

Alinta wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 5:54pm:

For anyone interested in the Court transcript of today's decision...... http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QCA/2015/87.html

For anyone interested in seeing where taxpayer's money ie our money ought to be going instead of financing this attention seeking piece of filth in his despicable series of attempts to get out of jail sooner.

http://www.danielmorcombe.com.au

RIP beautiful angel

Isn't this convicted Pedophile/Murderer getting Legal Aid? Meaning us Taxpayers are being charged for this?

I disagree with Capital Punishment but think that this bloke should be put into a Cell with the meanest, most cruelest of crims and have his eyes punched out ...

Did you "defend" criminals at Taxpayer's expense when you were a lawyer, Aussie?

That would possibly explain why you think Criminals need nurturing. Defence Lawyers tell lies to get the crim off, Prosecutors tell the truth to get them convicted.

Lisa Jones wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 6:19pm:

Alinta wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 5:54pm: For anyone interested in the Court transcript of today's decision...... http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QCA/2015/87.html I read that transcript earlier, amongst other facts about this case and about the perpetrator's past offences and subsequent short term jail sentences which enabled this psychopath to get out and commit further and much more serious offences. Some good reading material for you there Aussie.  Enjoy!

Gee, thanks Lisa.  It's not as though that is not linked in my Opening Post, at all.

Neferti wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 6:31pm:

Isn't this convicted Pedophile/Murderer getting Legal Aid? Meaning us Taxpayers are being charged for this? I disagree with Capital Punishment but think that this bloke should be put into a Cell with the meanest, most cruelest of crims and have his eyes punched out ... Did you "defend" criminals at Taxpayer's expense when you were a lawyer, Aussie? That would possibly explain why you think Criminals need nurturing. Defence Lawyers tell lies to get the crim off, Prosecutors tell the truth to get them convicted.

It was rare indeed for anyone charged with an indictable offence not to be legally aided.  In my day, the funding came from a mob called The Public Defender (Dan Hempenstall) and later from the Legal Aid Office (John Hodgins.)

The answer is...yes, almost all the time.

Alinta wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 5:54pm:

For anyone interested in the Court transcript of today's decision...... http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QCA/2015/87.html

I find it too harrowing to read some of the things this person got away with..

how many chances do we give people who flout every chance they are given????..

this boy would not be dead if this man was serving the time he deserved.. its that simple...

I am so sick of hearing time off for good behavior....

its a joke...all they have to do is stay out of fights and eat 3 meals a day.. and for doing that they get their term halved...I am over it..only people with a sentence like Milat will die in prison...

we have to bring back TOUGH sentencing...I dont care if it doesnt stop what is happening.. thats not the point.. it will keep someone like this Cowan in jail for his whole life where he couldnt harm another boy..

he is a coward and a sick one..never let him back on the streets.. his record proves he is rotten to the core.

Aussie wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 6:57pm:

Neferti wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 6:31pm: Isn't this convicted Pedophile/Murderer getting Legal Aid? Meaning us Taxpayers are being charged for this? I disagree with Capital Punishment but think that this bloke should be put into a Cell with the meanest, most cruelest of crims and have his eyes punched out ... Did you "defend" criminals at Taxpayer's expense when you were a lawyer, Aussie? That would possibly explain why you think Criminals need nurturing. Defence Lawyers tell lies to get the crim off, Prosecutors tell the truth to get them convicted. It was rare indeed for anyone charged with an indictable offence not to be legally aided.  In my day, the funding came from a mob called The Public Defender (Dan Hempenstall) and later from the Legal Aid Office (John Hodgins.) The answer is...yes, almost all the time.

As I thought.

DUI
Traffic violations
Domestic disturbances


No wonder you only relate to Queensland Laws. I recall you not understanding what a DECREE NISI was in a discussion you had with Black Orchid.

Hey Cods...One of the first things I learned as a Cop was that justice gets parked at the front door of the Courtroom.

From there on in its a game of high stakes Chess.

Neferti wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 7:11pm:

Aussie wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 6:57pm: Neferti wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 6:31pm: Isn't this convicted Pedophile/Murderer getting Legal Aid? Meaning us Taxpayers are being charged for this? I disagree with Capital Punishment but think that this bloke should be put into a Cell with the meanest, most cruelest of crims and have his eyes punched out ... Did you "defend" criminals at Taxpayer's expense when you were a lawyer, Aussie? That would possibly explain why you think Criminals need nurturing. Defence Lawyers tell lies to get the crim off, Prosecutors tell the truth to get them convicted. It was rare indeed for anyone charged with an indictable offence not to be legally aided.  In my day, the funding came from a mob called The Public Defender (Dan Hempenstall) and later from the Legal Aid Office (John Hodgins.) The answer is...yes, almost all the time. As I thought. DUI Traffic violations Domestic disturbances No wonder you only relate to Queensland Laws. I recall you not understanding what a DECREE NISI was in a discussion you had with Black Orchid.

Legal Aid was never available to defend those things.  Those charged with that crap had to pay from their own pocket.

Your recollection about Decree Nisi/Absolute issues will be wrong, as usual.

Neferti wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 6:31pm:

Isn't this convicted Pedophile/Murderer getting Legal Aid? Meaning us Taxpayers are being charged for this? I disagree with Capital Punishment but think that this bloke should be put into a Cell with the meanest, most cruelest of crims and have his eyes punched out ...

;D ;D ;D

So you don't agree with Capital Punishment because it's too cruel?

My question is this:

Is his guilt irrefutable?

If that is the case, then he deserves no appeal. So stop wasting our money.

If he is undeniably guilty of the charges, not only has he forfeited his right to appeal, he has also forfeited his right to exist. We already have enough monsters loose in society.

The mere cost and risk of allowing him to serve out a life sentence would argue for the death penalty. Not to mention that it could be considered a more humane option than spending the rest of his life in an isolation cage.

Capital punishment, in my view, should be considered along the same guidelines as euthanasia - there should be NO doubt.

DNA evidence is a marvelous thing. Why aren't we all now sampled at birth? It's a 'yea' or 'nay' thing in Court.

Aussie wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 6:52pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 6:19pm: Alinta wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 5:54pm: For anyone interested in the Court transcript of today's decision...... http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QCA/2015/87.html I read that transcript earlier, amongst other facts about this case and about the perpetrator's past offences and subsequent short term jail sentences which enabled this psychopath to get out and commit further and much more serious offences. Some good reading material for you there Aussie.  Enjoy! Gee, thanks Lisa.  It's not as though that is not linked in my Opening Post, at all.

Just to clarify.....I added the link to show the appeal was against conviction AND sentence........there seemed to be some misconception here that it was only against sentence.   

Lord Herbert wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 8:11pm:

Neferti wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 6:31pm: Isn't this convicted Pedophile/Murderer getting Legal Aid? Meaning us Taxpayers are being charged for this? I disagree with Capital Punishment but think that this bloke should be put into a Cell with the meanest, most cruelest of crims and have his eyes punched out ... ;D ;D ;D So you don't agree with Capital Punishment because it's too cruel?

That's not what I said. Read it again.  ::)

I was suggesting that one of his fellow criminals punches his eyes out and since the crim is already in gaol, I doubt he would face court for the "manslaughter". Problem solved.  8-)

Lionel Edriess wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 8:53pm:

My question is this: Is his guilt irrefutable? If that is the case, then he deserves no appeal. So stop wasting our money. If he is undeniably guilty of the charges, not only has he forfeited his right to appeal, he has also forfeited his right to exist. We already have enough monsters loose in society. The mere cost and risk of allowing him to serve out a life sentence would argue for the death penalty. Not to mention that it could be considered a more humane option than spending the rest of his life in an isolation cage. Capital punishment, in my view, should be considered along the same guidelines as euthanasia - there should be NO doubt. DNA evidence is a marvelous thing. Why aren't we all now sampled at birth? It's a 'yea' or 'nay' thing in Court.

Great post!

In this case, this animal is undeniably guilty. 

That's not at issue.

It's the time frame that's the real problem for this bastard. He feels it's unfair that he has been given a non parole period of 20yrs.

If I had been the judge I would have reminded this vile piece of filth that thanks to him...his victim got the death sentence and his victim's family each got a life term sentence.

Seriously,  given his serious past offences as well as the hell he put everyone through this dragged out murder investigation and court process...he has more than earned the "Never To Be Released" stamp on his file.

Soooo.....the concept of rehabilitation is just make believe garbage?

Aussie wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 11:04am:

Soooo.....the concept of rehabilitation is just make believe garbage?

What the hell are you on about now?

Remember...we are specifically talking about THIS particular longstanding perpetrator.

Lisa Jones wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 12:10pm:

Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:04am: Soooo.....the concept of rehabilitation is just make believe garbage? What the hell are you on about now? Remember...we are specifically talking about THIS particular longstanding perpetrator.

The concept of rehabilitation................you have heard of it, yeas?

Lionel Edriess wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 8:53pm:

Is his guilt irrefutable?

who decides that? the courtroom? and how many times have the courts found the evidence overwhelming only to have the finding overturned on appeal?

Our rights as individuals are what make our system so great .... sure, no one likes it when scum like this joker get the same rights, but removing those rights will eventually destroy our system.

I'd prefer that he be given every chance to prove he wasn't the culprit, and if at the end of every opportunity he was still found guilty, we then execute him.

Aussie wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 11:04am:

Soooo.....the concept of rehabilitation is just make believe garbage?

No. The sentence is reflective of the time it will take before this scum is rehabilitated. Decision made. Now run along and find somewhere else to stick your snout into.

I cannot fathom why your much touted high flying legal brain cannot work it out?

Rider wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 3:03pm:

Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:04am: Soooo.....the concept of rehabilitation is just make believe garbage? No. The sentence is reflective of the time it will take before this scum is rehabilitated. Decision made. Now run along and find somewhere else to stick your snout into. I cannot fathom why your much touted high flying legal brain cannot work it out?

(I do not 'tout' my back ground.  Others delight in doing that for me.)

Perhaps you can explain where the concept of rehabilitation may be found where someone is marked as 'never to be released?'

Aussie wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 3:06pm:

Rider wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 3:03pm: Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:04am: Soooo.....the concept of rehabilitation is just make believe garbage? No. The sentence is reflective of the time it will take before this scum is rehabilitated. Decision made. Now run along and find somewhere else to stick your snout into. I cannot fathom why your much touted high flying legal brain cannot work it out? (I do not 'tout' my back ground.  Others delight in doing that for me.) Perhaps you can explain where the concept of rehabilitation may be found where someone is marked as 'never to be released?'

Who said we had an obligation to rehabilitate?

Prison is punishment, not a self help drop in Centre. 

Where can I go to appeal his sentence?, I reckon he should have been sentenced to have his cock and balls fed through a meat grinder.

Aussie wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 11:04am:

Soooo.....the concept of rehabilitation is just make believe garbage?

how many times has he been jailed for the same type of crime.. little boys.... >:( >:( >:(

I just want them to throw away the key...


to me he has blown his chances. more than once.. they even had a young man who he touched and almost killled when he was 7.. and the young man is still a wreck.. do you think he wants this guy treated with kid gloves... so he can get time off for good behavior..???

because thats what most of them go through the process for... >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

cods wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 5:28pm:

Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:04am: Soooo.....the concept of rehabilitation is just make believe garbage? how many times has he been jailed for the same type of crime.. little boys.... >:( >:( >:( I just want them to throw away the key... to me he has blown his chances. more than once.. they even had a young man who he touched and almost killled when he was 7.. and the young man is still a wreck.. do you think he wants this guy treated with kid gloves... so he can get time off for good behavior..??? because thats what most of them go through the process for... >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

The trouble is with a lot of judges hearing these child abuse cases they are sitting their listening with a boner under their robes.

Rider wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 5:23pm:

Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 3:06pm: Rider wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 3:03pm: Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:04am: Soooo.....the concept of rehabilitation is just make believe garbage? No. The sentence is reflective of the time it will take before this scum is rehabilitated. Decision made. Now run along and find somewhere else to stick your snout into. I cannot fathom why your much touted high flying legal brain cannot work it out? (I do not 'tout' my back ground.  Others delight in doing that for me.) Perhaps you can explain where the concept of rehabilitation may be found where someone is marked as 'never to be released?' Who said we had an obligation to rehabilitate? Prison is punishment, not a self help drop in Centre.

It is one of the (well, it used to be) essential elements in considering sentence and particularly parole.

What is the point of keeping a person in prison (at considerable expense) if they have effectively been punished, if there has been sufficient deterrent, and if they have been rehabilitated?

Prison is not a place where you lock 'em up, feed 'em and forget about 'em.  We do have an obligation as a civilised society using the Westminster System and the Rule of Law, even to our convicts.  Even the original Australian British convicts enjoyed a system of benefit for better, reformed conduct and willingness to live by decent standards ~ rehabilitation.

innocentbystander. wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 5:32pm:

cods wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 5:28pm: Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:04am: Soooo.....the concept of rehabilitation is just make believe garbage? how many times has he been jailed for the same type of crime.. little boys.... >:( >:( >:( I just want them to throw away the key... to me he has blown his chances. more than once.. they even had a young man who he touched and almost killled when he was 7.. and the young man is still a wreck.. do you think he wants this guy treated with kid gloves... so he can get time off for good behavior..??? because thats what most of them go through the process for... >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( The trouble is with a lot of judges hearing these child abuse cases they are sitting their listening with a boner under their robes.

the trouble is.. they are not allowed to hear the past crimes of these criminals....its all as if this is a first and only...

our laws are all in favor of the criminal..these days...look at the way domestic violence is not reported and rape.. because the villains are shielded...and the person in the dock is the victim...

her past.. usually a female.. is thrown out there for all to hear about.

Aussie wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 5:33pm:

Rider wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 5:23pm: Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 3:06pm: Rider wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 3:03pm: Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:04am: Soooo.....the concept of rehabilitation is just make believe garbage? No. The sentence is reflective of the time it will take before this scum is rehabilitated. Decision made. Now run along and find somewhere else to stick your snout into. I cannot fathom why your much touted high flying legal brain cannot work it out? (I do not 'tout' my back ground.  Others delight in doing that for me.) Perhaps you can explain where the concept of rehabilitation may be found where someone is marked as 'never to be released?' Who said we had an obligation to rehabilitate? Prison is punishment, not a self help drop in Centre.  It is one of the (well, it used to be) essential elements in considering sentence and particularly parole. What is the point of keeping a person in prison (at considerable expense) if they have effectively been punished, if there has been sufficient deterrent, and if they have been rehabilitated? Prison is not a place where you lock 'em up, feed 'em and forget about 'em.  We do have an obligation as a civilised society using the Westminster System and the Rule of Law, even to our convicts.  Even the original Australian British convicts enjoyed a system of benefit for better, reformed conduct and willingness to live by decent standards ~ rehabilitation.

so how many paedophiles have you known... to not re offend after all the money that is heaped on them in jail????????????...

lets be honest its a soft approach to make us the public believe something can be done to stop these people re-offending...hahahahahahaha.. ask for the stats on re-offenders what chances of them returning ... after they have committed another crime against someone who didnt deserve..it..??? its pretty high I believe...

was Cowan ever in jail for paedophilla btw????>.

I wonder how many courses he did. in rehab... >:( >:(

cods wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 5:41pm:

Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 5:33pm: Rider wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 5:23pm: Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 3:06pm: Rider wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 3:03pm: Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:04am: Soooo.....the concept of rehabilitation is just make believe garbage? No. The sentence is reflective of the time it will take before this scum is rehabilitated. Decision made. Now run along and find somewhere else to stick your snout into. I cannot fathom why your much touted high flying legal brain cannot work it out? (I do not 'tout' my back ground.  Others delight in doing that for me.) Perhaps you can explain where the concept of rehabilitation may be found where someone is marked as 'never to be released?' Who said we had an obligation to rehabilitate? Prison is punishment, not a self help drop in Centre.  It is one of the (well, it used to be) essential elements in considering sentence and particularly parole. What is the point of keeping a person in prison (at considerable expense) if they have effectively been punished, if there has been sufficient deterrent, and if they have been rehabilitated? Prison is not a place where you lock 'em up, feed 'em and forget about 'em.  We do have an obligation as a civilised society using the Westminster System and the Rule of Law, even to our convicts.  Even the original Australian British convicts enjoyed a system of benefit for better, reformed conduct and willingness to live by decent standards ~ rehabilitation. so how many paedophiles have you known... to not re offend after all the money that is heaped on them in jail????????????... lets be honest its a soft approach to make us the public believe something can be done to stop these people re-offending...hahahahahahaha.. ask for the stats on re-offenders what chances of them returning ... after they have committed another crime against someone who didnt deserve..it..??? its pretty high I believe... was Cowan ever in jail for paedophilla btw????>. I wonder how many courses he did. in rehab... >:( >:(

You are asking the wrong bloke, cods.  I am not in the least bit interested in Cowan, the individual.  What I am interested in is the Law, and having that supported.  There are basic foundations, principles and processes ~ and if right wing nut jobs get to successfully chip away at them, you will end up with zero rights.  You will be at the mercy of tyranny.

Aussie wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 2:49pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 12:10pm: Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:04am: Soooo.....the concept of rehabilitation is just make believe garbage? What the hell are you on about now? Remember...we are specifically talking about THIS particular longstanding perpetrator. The concept of rehabilitation................you have heard of it, yeas?

Again ...we are specifically talking about THIS particular longstanding perpetrator.

Now....make your point regarding rehab.

Go on...off you go.

Aussie wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 5:38pm:

cods wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 5:31pm: Rider wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 4:52pm: Next stop should be Bali... bang bang not if aussie has his way....he likes this guy. Dunno anything about him, but I do like that he has legal rights, and I do not mind in the least that he is exercising them. Do you mind, cods?

yeah I do..

the dirty **** is using my taxes although he admitted to the crime...

anyone giving this maggot support is just as bad as far as im concerned..

I'd shoot this bastard before I'd shoot any of the bali 9 ...by a long shot..

Aussie wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 5:33pm:

Rider wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 5:23pm: Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 3:06pm: Rider wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 3:03pm: Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:04am: Soooo.....the concept of rehabilitation is just make believe garbage? No. The sentence is reflective of the time it will take before this scum is rehabilitated. Decision made. Now run along and find somewhere else to stick your snout into. I cannot fathom why your much touted high flying legal brain cannot work it out? (I do not 'tout' my back ground.  Others delight in doing that for me.) Perhaps you can explain where the concept of rehabilitation may be found where someone is marked as 'never to be released?' Who said we had an obligation to rehabilitate? Prison is punishment, not a self help drop in Centre.  It is one of the (well, it used to be) essential elements in considering sentence and particularly parole. What is the point of keeping a person in prison (at considerable expense) if they have effectively been punished, if there has been sufficient deterrent, and if they have been rehabilitated? Prison is not a place where you lock 'em up, feed 'em and forget about 'em.  We do have an obligation as a civilised society using the Westminster System and the Rule of Law, even to our convicts.  Even the original Australian British convicts enjoyed a system of benefit for better, reformed conduct and willingness to live by decent standards ~ rehabilitation.

Again I ask...make your point in relation to THIS LONGSTANDING PERPETRATOR AND MURDERER.

Aussie wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 5:56pm:

cods wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 5:41pm: Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 5:33pm: Rider wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 5:23pm: Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 3:06pm: Rider wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 3:03pm: Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:04am: Soooo.....the concept of rehabilitation is just make believe garbage? No. The sentence is reflective of the time it will take before this scum is rehabilitated. Decision made. Now run along and find somewhere else to stick your snout into. I cannot fathom why your much touted high flying legal brain cannot work it out? (I do not 'tout' my back ground.  Others delight in doing that for me.) Perhaps you can explain where the concept of rehabilitation may be found where someone is marked as 'never to be released?' Who said we had an obligation to rehabilitate? Prison is punishment, not a self help drop in Centre.  It is one of the (well, it used to be) essential elements in considering sentence and particularly parole. What is the point of keeping a person in prison (at considerable expense) if they have effectively been punished, if there has been sufficient deterrent, and if they have been rehabilitated? Prison is not a place where you lock 'em up, feed 'em and forget about 'em.  We do have an obligation as a civilised society using the Westminster System and the Rule of Law, even to our convicts.  Even the original Australian British convicts enjoyed a system of benefit for better, reformed conduct and willingness to live by decent standards ~ rehabilitation. so how many paedophiles have you known... to not re offend after all the money that is heaped on them in jail????????????... lets be honest its a soft approach to make us the public believe something can be done to stop these people re-offending...hahahahahahaha.. ask for the stats on re-offenders what chances of them returning ... after they have committed another crime against someone who didnt deserve..it..??? its pretty high I believe... was Cowan ever in jail for paedophilla btw????>. I wonder how many courses he did. in rehab... >:( >:( You are asking the wrong bloke, cods.  I am not in the least bit interested in Cowan, the individual.  What I am interested in is the Law, and having that supported.  There are basic foundations, principles and processes ~ and if right wing nut jobs get to successfully chip away at them, you will end up with zero rights.  You will be at the mercy of tyranny.

This discussion has SFA to do with right wing nutjobs or boltjobs for that matter.

What worries me more than anything else is that you don't understand the basic criminal legal process.

Aussie, you were never a lawyer.

I'm really disgusted with you.

Why? You're a fraud.

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 6:18pm:

Aussie wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 5:38pm: cods wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 5:31pm: Rider wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 4:52pm: Next stop should be Bali... bang bang not if aussie has his way....he likes this guy. Dunno anything about him, but I do like that he has legal rights, and I do not mind in the least that he is exercising them. Do you mind, cods? yeah I do.. the dirty **** is using my taxes although he admitted to the crime... anyone giving this maggot support is just as bad as far as im concerned.. I'd shoot this bastard before I'd shoot any of the bali 9 ...by a long shot..

That is exactly the point of this entire effort.  It is fundamental to our system that a non voluntary or induced 'confession' may not be received into evidence.  Pretty obvious isn't it?  If you 'confess' under torture, what value does the 'confession' have?

Or....if you 'confess' on the basis ...... to 'dumb it down' .... on the basis of an inducement from a person in a position to apparently influence your future, that also contaminates any 'confession' made as a result of the inducement.

Simple example.....

Cop:  You confess to this one, and I'll forget about all the rest we reckon we can nail you on.

Dickhead:  Okay, I done this one.

This Cowan case is complex and involves many legal nuances which go directly to the admissibility of the very confession you refer to.  It will assist in the settling of Law if this matter is taken to the High Court.

Although I doubt you will immediately appreciate why, it is in the public interest that these questions (including the Canadian sting 'Mr Big' stuff....now rejected in Canada) are answered by the highest Court in Australia.  Hence, it is acceptable that your tax dollars support public interest.

Cowan/Morcombe just happen to be the bit players in a much larger and socially vital legal 'game.'

For Christ's sake...the fool confessed to an undercover cop and then led said cop to where the body of the child was .....in deep bushland area where he further fessed to chopping the child's body up so as to get rid of it easier in nearby water.

It was after this confession that police then searched the area which this piece of filth identified to them only to find a few bones belonging to Daniel.

My God, Aussie....seriously get your hand off it...and stop googling.

It's making you look desperate AND stupid.

Aussie wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 5:56pm:

You are asking the wrong bloke, cods.  I am not in the least bit interested in Cowan, the individual.  What I am interested in is the Law, and having that supported.  There are basic foundations, principles and processes ~ and if right wing nut jobs get to successfully chip away at them, you will end up with zero rights.  You will be at the mercy of tyranny.

as per usual you are strtching and weaving like you always do..

YOU DID SUPPORT this guy....who shouted the loudest with regards to his arrest...

who shouted the loudest when Justice Carmody was going to hear the appeal..

my god the man had had the audacity to send emails to BRAVEHEART..... yep that would really twist his verdict...judges lead such sheltered lives after all..

who has said over and over how the Morecombs suck...how they live off their sons murder....they use it to support their lifestyle..??

ok now say you didnt.. Mr innocent...

deny deny deny you do it all the time.. you are misunderstood all the time...

now its all about the rights of everyone....hahahaha..

everyone accept you accepts this rehab you are so much infavor of is just a GET OUT OF JAIL EARLY con...

if you wanted to change why the need for rehab... why not just get up and do it...for gods sake.

this a.hole had many chances to fix himself... he didnt want too...he took the life of a little boy whom he even tried to blaim for him killing him.. hes dirt hes a mongrel...

some LAWS are wrong....some dont WORK....

you have obviously lived a perfect life.. never been conned or robbed or bashed all your loved ones blessed as well..lets hope it stays that way...and you never have to face what the Morecombs have to face every time this bastards face is in the paper.

Quote:

as per usual you are strtching and weaving like you always do.. YOU DID SUPPORT this guy....who shouted the loudest with regards to his arrest...

I have never supported Cowan.  I am aware of the legal nuances relevant to the matter, and there is where my interest begins and ends.


Quote:

who shouted the loudest when Justice Carmody was going to hear the appeal..

Not me by a long shot.  His fellow Supreme Court Judges both past and present had the courage to lead that charge.


Quote:

my god the man had had the audacity to send emails to BRAVEHEART..... yep that would really twist his verdict...judges lead such sheltered lives after all..

Not only emails....a personal meeting in his Chambers.  Next time you are in Brisbane, cods, see how you go getting to manage that.  In fact, Judges are often criticised on the false basis that they live in ivory towers.  They don't.  But, they do live a privileged life and rarely, if ever, get down and dirty with the rest of us plebs.  They tend to live among their 'peers.'  That does not mean they are ignorant of how life really is ~ because they are confronted with it every day they go to work.  Just like Cabbies.....quite often they are interacting with the real grubs of suburbia.


Quote:

who has said over and over how the Morecombs suck...how they live off their sons murder....they use it to support their lifestyle..?? ok now say you didnt.. Mr innocent...

No way will I claim innocence of that.  That they pay their bills as a direct outcome of the death of their son is indisputable fact.  They have milked it as much as they can and they have been quite successful.  But.....if you lived up here and get as annoyed the majority are on the Sunshine Coast with Mr and Mrs Morcombe (still......more than ten years after their son was killed) happily sticking their faces in front of cameras for dollars, you too would be as critical as I am, and as many are up here.


Quote:

deny deny deny you do it all the time.. you are misunderstood all the time...

I doubt you will find any post made by me claiming I am misunderstood.  There are idiots who have no idea, who make stupid ignorant look at me comments, and almost invariably, I will ignore them as repeat offenders.


Quote:

now its all about the rights of everyone....hahahaha..

Indeed, it is.  That is the point.


Quote:

everyone accept you accepts this rehab you are so much infavor of is just a GET OUT OF JAIL EARLY con... if you wanted to change why the need for rehab... why not just get up and do it...for gods sake.

I cannot follow that.  Perhaps you could make that clearer?


Quote:

this a.hole had many chances to fix himself... he didnt want too...he took the life of a little boy whom he even tried to blaim for him killing him.. hes dirt hes a mongrel...

How many times must I say that I am not in the least bit interested in Cowan?


Quote:

some LAWS are wrong....some dont WORK....[/quote[ And that is exactly why the High Court ought be given the opportunity to sort these legal nuances, as they develop with different factual situations, out. [quote]you have obviously lived a perfect life.. never been conned or robbed or bashed all your loved ones blessed as well..lets hope it stays that way...and you never have to face what the Morecombs have to face every time this bastards face is in the paper.

What you clearly do not accept is that the Morcombes go out of their way (even now....at every opportunity) to be confronted by his face......and be photographed and made news items while they do so.

who pays for all this ?

it's just lawyers bignoting themselves and grabbing another $10K apiece

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 7:42pm:

who pays for all this ? it's just lawyers bignoting themselves and grabbing another $10K apiece

We are all paying.  And if you think it is just $10K apiece, you are sadly mistaken.

But....it is justifiable, as I have explained up there ^^^^^^^ as in the public interest.

Aussie wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 5:33pm:

Prison is not a place where you lock 'em up, feed 'em and forget about 'em.

and that's exactly what's wrong with this place ... it should be.

John Smith wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 7:47pm:

Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 5:33pm: Prison is not a place where you lock 'em up, feed 'em and forget about 'em. and that's exactly what's wrong with this place ... it should be.

Well...if ever you get your point accepted politically, you'll be a happy man.  Until then, maintain your rage.

Aussie wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 11:04am:

Soooo.....the concept of rehabilitation is just make believe garbage?

No such thing as rehab for pedophiles. They like kids for sex. I doubt I can rehab you to like men for sex?  :-*

skippy. wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 8:12pm:

Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:04am: Soooo.....the concept of rehabilitation is just make believe garbage? No such thing as rehab for pedophiles. They like kids for sex. I doubt I can rehab you to like men for sex?  :-*

I guess that is why we have Parole Boards who evaluate matters like rehabilitation, skippeeee.  It is for them to determine, not me....or you.

Aussie wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 8:18pm:

skippy. wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 8:12pm: Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:04am: Soooo.....the concept of rehabilitation is just make believe garbage? No such thing as rehab for pedophiles. They like kids for sex. I doubt I can rehab you to like men for sex?  :-* I guess that is why we have Parole Boards who evaluate matters like rehabilitation, skippeeee.  It is for them to determine, not me....or you.

Oh I see, according to you it's parole boards that can convince people to change their sexual preference.  :(

skippy. wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 8:33pm:

Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 8:18pm: skippy. wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 8:12pm: Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:04am: Soooo.....the concept of rehabilitation is just make believe garbage? No such thing as rehab for pedophiles. They like kids for sex. I doubt I can rehab you to like men for sex?  :-* I guess that is why we have Parole Boards who evaluate matters like rehabilitation, skippeeee.  It is for them to determine, not me....or you. Oh I see, according to you it's parole boards that can convince people to change their sexual preference.  :(

No.....it is Parole Boards who consider matters of rehabilitation.

Aussie wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 8:41pm:

skippy. wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 8:33pm: Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 8:18pm: skippy. wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 8:12pm: Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:04am: Soooo.....the concept of rehabilitation is just make believe garbage? No such thing as rehab for pedophiles. They like kids for sex. I doubt I can rehab you to like men for sex?  :-* I guess that is why we have Parole Boards who evaluate matters like rehabilitation, skippeeee.  It is for them to determine, not me....or you. Oh I see, according to you it's parole boards that can convince people to change their sexual preference.  :( No.....it is Parole Boards who consider matters of rehabilitation.

Glad to see you've worked it out. Now lock him up and the parole board can have a chat to him in 20 years time.

Aussie wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 8:41pm:

skippy. wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 8:33pm: Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 8:18pm: skippy. wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 8:12pm: Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:04am: Soooo.....the concept of rehabilitation is just make believe garbage? No such thing as rehab for pedophiles. They like kids for sex. I doubt I can rehab you to like men for sex?  :-* I guess that is why we have Parole Boards who evaluate matters like rehabilitation, skippeeee.  It is for them to determine, not me....or you. Oh I see, according to you it's parole boards that can convince people to change their sexual preference.  :( No.....it is Parole Boards who consider matters of rehabilitation.

Is it?

You sure about that?

Aussie wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 8:18pm:

skippy. wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 8:12pm: Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:04am: Soooo.....the concept of rehabilitation is just make believe garbage? No such thing as rehab for pedophiles. They like kids for sex. I doubt I can rehab you to like men for sex?  :-* I guess that is why we have Parole Boards who evaluate matters like rehabilitation, skippeeee.  It is for them to determine, not me....or you.

Wrong...yet again.

Aussie wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 7:45pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 7:42pm: who pays for all this ? it's just lawyers bignoting themselves and grabbing another $10K apiece We are all paying.  And if you think it is just $10K apiece, you are sadly mistaken. But....it is justifiable, as I have explained up there ^^^^^^^ as in the public interest.

if cowan wants to appeal, cowan should pay

Lisa Jones wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 10:07pm:

Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 8:41pm: skippy. wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 8:33pm: Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 8:18pm: skippy. wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 8:12pm: Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:04am: Soooo.....the concept of rehabilitation is just make believe garbage? No such thing as rehab for pedophiles. They like kids for sex. I doubt I can rehab you to like men for sex?  :-* I guess that is why we have Parole Boards who evaluate matters like rehabilitation, skippeeee.  It is for them to determine, not me....or you. Oh I see, according to you it's parole boards that can convince people to change their sexual preference.  :( No.....it is Parole Boards who consider matters of rehabilitation. Is it? You sure about that?

I am.

The Judge sets a non parole period taking into account prospects of rehabilitation, antecedents, etc (refer to Penalties & Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) that cover the etc).

Following expiry of the non parole period and a parole application is made, the Parole Board assesses whether or not the prisoner has fulfilled rehabilitation and any other relevant matters and hands down its decision to grant or refuse parole. Such assessment can be far reaching with much additional information sought for consideration prior to making the decision. 

You beg to differ?????

Aussie wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 8:18pm:

skippy. wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 8:12pm: Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:04am: Soooo.....the concept of rehabilitation is just make believe garbage? No such thing as rehab for pedophiles. They like kids for sex. I doubt I can rehab you to like men for sex?  :-* I guess that is why we have Parole Boards who evaluate matters like rehabilitation, skippeeee.  It is for them to determine, not me....or you.

and I guess you will now say.. PAROLE BOARDS NEVER GET IT WRONG>>>>but thats ok aussie and his family are never directly affected by them so I can afford to say

yep PAROLE BOARDS will save us from ALL THAT IS EVIL>. >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(



Quote:

What you clearly do not accept is that the Morcombes go out of their way (even now....at every opportunity) to be confronted by his face......and be photographed and made news items while they do so.

by aussie...

I cant be bothered answering  your usual long denial of everything...accept this little gem at the bottom...



you are so good at links... can you show us all where this family have had pictures taken with this monster?????.. do they turn up to his court appearances.???? well I know I would if it was me...

I would like to see if this monster could look me in the eyes and say if Danial hadnt tried to run away I wouldnt have killed him.... >:( >:( >:(

of course the Morecombs are the only ones that have ever turned up to a murderers court appearances... ???????????? thats true isnt it aussie....must be as I dont recall you making these dreadful accusations about the  Anita Cobby family...

you are amazing the way you find every excuse under the sun to justify what you believe in...

you even claim the parole board gets it right.....what a joke..you do realise this creep will also get his chance to go before a parole board...and should the Morecombs protest you will come out and tell them they are doing it for the money wont you????? >:( >:( >:(

Aussie wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 7:49pm:

John Smith wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 7:47pm: Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 5:33pm: Prison is not a place where you lock 'em up, feed 'em and forget about 'em. and that's exactly what's wrong with this place ... it should be. Well...if ever you get your point accepted politically, you'll be a happy man.  Until then, maintain your rage.

what rage? are you stupid or something?  ohh wait! don't bother answering that.

Lisa Jones wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 10:10pm:

Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 8:18pm: skippy. wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 8:12pm: Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:04am: Soooo.....the concept of rehabilitation is just make believe garbage? No such thing as rehab for pedophiles. They like kids for sex. I doubt I can rehab you to like men for sex?  :-* I guess that is why we have Parole Boards who evaluate matters like rehabilitation, skippeeee.  It is for them to determine, not me....or you. Wrong...yet again.

aussie agrees its their right to have this tax funded..

what about the victims family.. what rights do they have???


do they have the right to claim his sentence isnt long enough???? can they go to the HIGH COURT and demand a longer sentence..???????


NO THEY CANT...

it is up to the DPP to do that... if they decide its ok then nothing the family can do about it...

yet these monsters can go on and on .. like Ivan Milat...get all the attention they dont deserve..

Alinta wrote on May 23^rd, 2015 at 9:17am:

Lisa Jones wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 10:07pm: Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 8:41pm: skippy. wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 8:33pm: Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 8:18pm: skippy. wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 8:12pm: Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:04am: Soooo.....the concept of rehabilitation is just make believe garbage? No such thing as rehab for pedophiles. They like kids for sex. I doubt I can rehab you to like men for sex?  :-* I guess that is why we have Parole Boards who evaluate matters like rehabilitation, skippeeee.  It is for them to determine, not me....or you. Oh I see, according to you it's parole boards that can convince people to change their sexual preference.  :( No.....it is Parole Boards who consider matters of rehabilitation. Is it? You sure about that? I am. The Judge sets a non parole period taking into account prospects of rehabilitation, antecedents, etc (refer to Penalties & Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) that cover the etc). Following expiry of the non parole period and a parole application is made, the Parole Board assesses whether or not the prisoner has fulfilled rehabilitation and any other relevant matters and hands down its decision to grant or refuse parole. Such assessment can be far reaching with much additional information sought for consideration prior to making the decision.  You beg to differ?????

Yep....actually I do.

Why?

You see, unlike you and Aussie, I don't need to google my way around this area and produce out of context slabs of info.

I actually KNOW the legal processes involved....because I've gone to uni and studied law. Both you and Aussie have not. And it's bloody obvious.

Rider wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 9:10pm:

Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 8:41pm: skippy. wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 8:33pm: Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 8:18pm: skippy. wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 8:12pm: Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:04am: Soooo.....the concept of rehabilitation is just make believe garbage? No such thing as rehab for pedophiles. They like kids for sex. I doubt I can rehab you to like men for sex?  :-* I guess that is why we have Parole Boards who evaluate matters like rehabilitation, skippeeee.  It is for them to determine, not me....or you. Oh I see, according to you it's parole boards that can convince people to change their sexual preference.  :( No.....it is Parole Boards who consider matters of rehabilitation. Glad to see you've worked it out. Now lock him up and the parole board can have a chat to him in 20 years time.

thats right in 20 years this will have all quietened down well for the public at least.....and he will have joined some rehab group to make it all look good...its amazing what time will do...... ::)

would we keep a wild animal in a cage for 20 years then just open the gates and let them go???? ::) ::)

Lisa Jones wrote on May 23^rd, 2015 at 9:45am:

Alinta wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 9:17am: Lisa Jones wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 10:07pm: Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 8:41pm: skippy. wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 8:33pm: Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 8:18pm: skippy. wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 8:12pm: Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:04am: Soooo.....the concept of rehabilitation is just make believe garbage? No such thing as rehab for pedophiles. They like kids for sex. I doubt I can rehab you to like men for sex?  :-* I guess that is why we have Parole Boards who evaluate matters like rehabilitation, skippeeee.  It is for them to determine, not me....or you. Oh I see, according to you it's parole boards that can convince people to change their sexual preference.  :( No.....it is Parole Boards who consider matters of rehabilitation. Is it? You sure about that? I am. The Judge sets a non parole period taking into account prospects of rehabilitation, antecedents, etc (refer to Penalties & Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) that cover the etc). Following expiry of the non parole period and a parole application is made, the Parole Board assesses whether or not the prisoner has fulfilled rehabilitation and any other relevant matters and hands down its decision to grant or refuse parole. Such assessment can be far reaching with much additional information sought for consideration prior to making the decision.  You beg to differ????? Yep....actually I do. Why? You see, unlike you and Aussie, I don't need to google my way around this area and produce out of context slabs of info. I actually KNOW the legal processes involved....because I've gone to uni and studied law. Both you and Aussie have not. And it's bloody obvious.

FYI Lisa, only googled the Qld Sentencing Act to clarify its similarity with the comparable Act in my home state of Victoria.

I'm not interested in either slinging insults, or discussing my credentials here, however I am genuinely interested in hearing how you believe the matter of rehabilitation is addressed and by whom.

Alinta wrote on May 23^rd, 2015 at 11:11am:

Lisa Jones wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 9:45am: Alinta wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 9:17am: Lisa Jones wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 10:07pm: Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 8:41pm: skippy. wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 8:33pm: Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 8:18pm: skippy. wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 8:12pm: Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:04am: Soooo.....the concept of rehabilitation is just make believe garbage? No such thing as rehab for pedophiles. They like kids for sex. I doubt I can rehab you to like men for sex?  :-* I guess that is why we have Parole Boards who evaluate matters like rehabilitation, skippeeee.  It is for them to determine, not me....or you. Oh I see, according to you it's parole boards that can convince people to change their sexual preference.  :( No.....it is Parole Boards who consider matters of rehabilitation. Is it? You sure about that? I am. The Judge sets a non parole period taking into account prospects of rehabilitation, antecedents, etc (refer to Penalties & Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) that cover the etc). Following expiry of the non parole period and a parole application is made, the Parole Board assesses whether or not the prisoner has fulfilled rehabilitation and any other relevant matters and hands down its decision to grant or refuse parole. Such assessment can be far reaching with much additional information sought for consideration prior to making the decision.  You beg to differ????? Yep....actually I do. Why? You see, unlike you and Aussie, I don't need to google my way around this area and produce out of context slabs of info. I actually KNOW the legal processes involved....because I've gone to uni and studied law. Both you and Aussie have not. And it's bloody obvious. FYI Lisa, only googled the Qld Sentencing Act to clarify its similarity with the comparable Act in my home state of Victoria. I'm not interested in either slinging insults, or discussing my credentials here, however I am genuinely interested in hearing how you believe the matter of rehabilitation is addressed and by whom.

you do realise lisa has a uni degree in LAW dont you ???therefore you know nothing....

aussie also claims to be a renown  solicitor of great worth..and who dares to argue!!!!!! dares alone.. something like that...

you will never win the battle its been tried by the best on here..and you will never get an answer.. one of the escape clauses.. ::) ::)

Quote:

aussie also claims to be a renown  solicitor of great worth..and who dares to argue!!!!!! dares alone.. something like that...

Not once have I made such a claim or even implied such a thing.


Quote:

however I am genuinely interested in hearing how you believe the matter of rehabilitation is addressed and by whom.

Lisa?

Aussie wrote on May 23^rd, 2015 at 2:08pm:

Quote: aussie also claims to be a renown  solicitor of great worth..and who dares to argue!!!!!! dares alone.. something like that... Not once have I made such a claim or even implied such a thing. you never deny it either.... ::) ::) you have made a few claims over the years aussie.. cant deny that..some of us do have memories left still...like you have mentioned you are an owner.taxi driver... ::) ::) [quote]however I am genuinely interested in hearing how you believe the matter of rehabilitation is addressed and by whom.

Lisa?

[/quote]


what you do say that annoys me.. is that the LAW is right.... and we all know it is very fragile and NOT always right.. otherwise there would be no need to correct it all the time..

you claim this person this thread happens to be about should have as much money spent on him as he wishes.. I mean we all know it wont stop at the High Court...if the money is endless..... the bigger the mongrels are.. the more they use the system.

The best method of rehabilitating a pedophile/murderer ever devised.......within seven days of conviction.....gives the family some closure and saves the taxpayer a fortune, not to mention the deterrence value.

http://s25.postimg.org/49mpdcpdr/image.jpg

Quote:

you never deny it either....

Cods, if people want to exaggerate what I have actually posted about my background, that is their delusion, and I'm not willing to amuse the delusional.  I just ignore it, but I am not willing to allow incorrect claims like the one you posted stand without correction.


Quote:

you have made a few claims over the years aussie.. cant deny that..some of us do have memories left still...like you have mentioned you are an owner.taxi driver...

I am a retired Lawyer, and (Cab wise) I now own, operate and occasionally drive.  All true.



Quote:

what you do say that annoys me.. is that the LAW is right.... and we all know it is very fragile and NOT always right.. otherwise there would be no need to correct it all the time..

The Law is forever evolving cods, as different factual scenarious arise which test existing legal principles, as has happened in the Cowan/Morcombe case.  The 'Mr Big sting' is controversial, began its life in Canada and, while it had judicial approval there when Cowan was stung, since then, it has now been rejected by the highest Court Canada has.


Quote:

you claim this person this thread happens to be about should have as much money spent on him as he wishes..

No, I don't so claim.  What I do say is that the issues raised in the Cowan Trial are of sufficient public interest as warrants funding by legal aid (the taxpayer.)


Quote:

I mean we all know it wont stop at the High Court...if the money is endless..... the bigger the mongrels are.. the more they use the system.

cods, humour me.  Where will it go after the High Court makes a determination?

And....for Lisa ~ as I don't want the point Alinta made to be drowned out ~


Quote:

however I am genuinely interested in hearing how you believe the matter of rehabilitation is addressed and by whom.

Lisa?

Yeas..."we know".........one way or another you've reminded us in almost every post you make....

BUT........that sure as hell doesn't make it true!

Aussie wrote on May 23^rd, 2015 at 2:35pm:

Quote: you never deny it either.... Cods, if people want to exaggerate what I have actually posted about my background, that is their delusion, and I'm not willing to amuse the delusional.  I just ignore it, but I am not willing to allow incorrect claims like the one you posted stand without correction. [quote]you have made a few claims over the years aussie.. cant deny that..some of us do have memories left still...like you have mentioned you are an owner.taxi driver...

I am a retired Lawyer, and (Cab wise) I now own, operate and occasionally drive.  All true.



Quote:

what you do say that annoys me.. is that the LAW is right.... and we all know it is very fragile and NOT always right.. otherwise there would be no need to correct it all the time..

The Law is forever evolving cods, as different factual scenarious arise which test existing legal principles, as has happened in the Cowan/Morcombe case.  The 'Mr Big sting' is controversial, began its life in Canada and, while it had judicial approval there when Cowan was stung, since then, it has now been rejected by the highest Court Canada has.


Quote:

you claim this person this thread happens to be about should have as much money spent on him as he wishes..

No, I don't so claim.  What I do say is that the issues raised in the Cowan Trial are of sufficient public interest as warrants funding by legal aid (the taxpayer.)


Quote:

I mean we all know it wont stop at the High Court...if the money is endless..... the bigger the mongrels are.. the more they use the system.

cods, humour me.  Where will it go after the High Court makes a determination?

And....for Lisa ~ as I don't want the point Alinta made to be drowned out ~


Quote:

however I am genuinely interested in hearing how you believe the matter of rehabilitation is addressed and by whom.

Lisa? [/quote]

Where are you Lisa??

Resolute wrote on May 23^rd, 2015 at 2:17pm:

The best method of rehabilitating a pedophile/murderer ever devised.......within seven days of conviction.....gives the family some closure and saves the taxpayer a fortune, not to mention the deterrence value. http://s25.postimg.org/49mpdcpdr/image.jpg

there is another way to rehabilitate pedo's

https://s3.amazonaws.com/lowres.cartoonstock.com/law-order-torturing-castrated-torture-punishments-punishing-jdo0467_low.jpg

goodness me aussie ??


Aussie wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 10:09am:

Cods, if people want to exaggerate what I have actually posted about my background, that is their delusion, and I'm not willing to amuse the delusional.  I just ignore it, but I am not willing to allow incorrect claims like the one you posted stand without correction.

hilarious...you forget PA you go back years and people dont forget.[/highlight]




Aussie wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 10:09am:

I am a retired Lawyer, and (Cab wise) I now own, operate and occasionally drive.  All true.

[highlight]solicitor or lawyer... there is a difference....of course you can claim anything... when you are not ignoring those claims of course.. ::) ::)


Aussie wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 10:09am:

No, I don't so claim.  What I do say is that the issues raised in the Cowan Trial are of sufficient public interest as warrants funding by legal aid (the taxpayer.)

and most say otherwise..

you are pretty much on  your pat malone on this one




Aussie wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 10:09am:

cods, humour me.  Where will it go after the High Court makes a determination?

[highlight] theres the WORLD COURT...the one all wankers like this use...if they can...

as long as its funded by the PUBLIC of course..

I never blew my trumpet at PA about my background whatsoever.  In fact, you will find far, far, far more posts there made by me about Cabs than lawyers.

Cods.....for your information.....there is no 'World Court' to which Cowan or the Crown can turn after the High Court.  There used to be the Privy Council (London) but appeals to that from Australia were abolished decades ago.

In matters like this, the High Court is the end of the line.

Further, 'lawyers' is an American term which has made its way here and includes barristers and solicitors.

Where are you Lisa?

Aussie wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 11:16am:

I never blew my trumpet at PA about my background whatsoever.  In fact, you will find far, far, far more posts there made by me about Cabs than lawyers. Cods.....for your information.....there is no 'World Court' to which Cowan or the Crown can turn after the High Court.  There used to be the Privy Council (London) but appeals to that from Australia were abolished decades ago. In matters like this, the High Court is the end of the line. Further, 'lawyers' is an American term which has made its way here and includes barristers and solicitors. Where are you Lisa?

Yes my sweet darling.... I'm here.

Was just hanging out a load of washing.

Here's your cuppa and slippers.

Will that be all?

Or would you prefer some discourse on the Australia Act (1986)?

Lisa Jones wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 11:33am:

Aussie wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 11:16am: I never blew my trumpet at PA about my background whatsoever.  In fact, you will find far, far, far more posts there made by me about Cabs than lawyers. Cods.....for your information.....there is no 'World Court' to which Cowan or the Crown can turn after the High Court.  There used to be the Privy Council (London) but appeals to that from Australia were abolished decades ago. In matters like this, the High Court is the end of the line. Further, 'lawyers' is an American term which has made its way here and includes barristers and solicitors. Where are you Lisa? Yes my sweet darling.... I'm here. Was just hanging out a load of washing. Here's your cuppa and slippers. Will that be all? Or would you prefer some discourse on the Australia Act (1986)?

No.  Alinta asked, and you have avoided:


Quote:

I'm not interested in either slinging insults, or discussing my credentials here, however I am genuinely interested in hearing how you believe the matter of rehabilitation is addressed and by whom.

Aussie wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 12:01pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 11:33am: Aussie wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 11:16am: I never blew my trumpet at PA about my background whatsoever.  In fact, you will find far, far, far more posts there made by me about Cabs than lawyers. Cods.....for your information.....there is no 'World Court' to which Cowan or the Crown can turn after the High Court.  There used to be the Privy Council (London) but appeals to that from Australia were abolished decades ago. In matters like this, the High Court is the end of the line. Further, 'lawyers' is an American term which has made its way here and includes barristers and solicitors. Where are you Lisa? Yes my sweet darling.... I'm here. Was just hanging out a load of washing. Here's your cuppa and slippers. Will that be all? Or would you prefer some discourse on the Australia Act (1986)? No.  Alinta asked, and you have avoided: Quote: I'm not interested in either slinging insults, or discussing my credentials here, however I am genuinely interested in hearing how you believe the matter of rehabilitation is addressed and by whom.

Alinta can ask me again if she wants an answer.

Or does she need you to ask for her?

Aussie wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 11:16am:

I never blew my trumpet at PA about my background whatsoever.

Ahem...might be a good idea for you to edit the above lie.

Lisa Jones wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 12:04pm:

Aussie wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:01pm: Lisa Jones wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 11:33am: Aussie wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 11:16am: I never blew my trumpet at PA about my background whatsoever.  In fact, you will find far, far, far more posts there made by me about Cabs than lawyers. Cods.....for your information.....there is no 'World Court' to which Cowan or the Crown can turn after the High Court.  There used to be the Privy Council (London) but appeals to that from Australia were abolished decades ago. In matters like this, the High Court is the end of the line. Further, 'lawyers' is an American term which has made its way here and includes barristers and solicitors. Where are you Lisa? Yes my sweet darling.... I'm here. Was just hanging out a load of washing. Here's your cuppa and slippers. Will that be all? Or would you prefer some discourse on the Australia Act (1986)? No.  Alinta asked, and you have avoided: Quote: I'm not interested in either slinging insults, or discussing my credentials here, however I am genuinely interested in hearing how you believe the matter of rehabilitation is addressed and by whom. Alinta can ask me again if she wants an answer. Or does she need you to ask for her?

Why do you need to be asked twice?

Lisa Jones wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 12:07pm:

Aussie wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 11:16am: I never blew my trumpet at PA about my background whatsoever. Ahem...might be a good idea for you to edit the above lie.

Ahem!

Aussie wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 12:22pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:04pm: Aussie wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:01pm: Lisa Jones wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 11:33am: Aussie wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 11:16am: I never blew my trumpet at PA about my background whatsoever.  In fact, you will find far, far, far more posts there made by me about Cabs than lawyers. Cods.....for your information.....there is no 'World Court' to which Cowan or the Crown can turn after the High Court.  There used to be the Privy Council (London) but appeals to that from Australia were abolished decades ago. In matters like this, the High Court is the end of the line. Further, 'lawyers' is an American term which has made its way here and includes barristers and solicitors. Where are you Lisa? Yes my sweet darling.... I'm here. Was just hanging out a load of washing. Here's your cuppa and slippers. Will that be all? Or would you prefer some discourse on the Australia Act (1986)? No.  Alinta asked, and you have avoided: Quote: I'm not interested in either slinging insults, or discussing my credentials here, however I am genuinely interested in hearing how you believe the matter of rehabilitation is addressed and by whom. Alinta can ask me again if she wants an answer. Or does she need you to ask for her? Why do you need to be asked twice?

The intent of "I'm genuinely interested in hearing......." as per my comment was to elicit your answer, so I'm now asking directly, may I have it?   

Alinta wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 12:32pm:

Aussie wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:22pm: Lisa Jones wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:04pm: Aussie wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:01pm: Lisa Jones wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 11:33am: Aussie wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 11:16am: I never blew my trumpet at PA about my background whatsoever.  In fact, you will find far, far, far more posts there made by me about Cabs than lawyers. Cods.....for your information.....there is no 'World Court' to which Cowan or the Crown can turn after the High Court.  There used to be the Privy Council (London) but appeals to that from Australia were abolished decades ago. In matters like this, the High Court is the end of the line. Further, 'lawyers' is an American term which has made its way here and includes barristers and solicitors. Where are you Lisa? Yes my sweet darling.... I'm here. Was just hanging out a load of washing. Here's your cuppa and slippers. Will that be all? Or would you prefer some discourse on the Australia Act (1986)? No.  Alinta asked, and you have avoided: Quote: I'm not interested in either slinging insults, or discussing my credentials here, however I am genuinely interested in hearing how you believe the matter of rehabilitation is addressed and by whom. Alinta can ask me again if she wants an answer. Or does she need you to ask for her? Why do you need to be asked twice? The intent of "I'm genuinely interested in hearing......." as per my comment was to elicit your answer, so I'm now asking directly, may I have it?

Oh look ....speak of the devil.

You were here all along...just a nic away in fact. Nothing's changed with you, has it?

You're interested .....supposedly GENUINELY interested even..in my belief/s?

Well here's your answer.

My belief/s has/have S F A to do with the question you've asked me.

One other thing before you log off with that nic.... consider yourself very lucky that I've even acknowledged your dribble this time.

Next time you wish to 'genuinely' ask me a question...use your regular nic.

Have a lovely day.  I 'genuinely' mean that.  :)

Lisa Jones wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 12:48pm:

Alinta wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:32pm: Aussie wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:22pm: Lisa Jones wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:04pm: Aussie wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:01pm: Lisa Jones wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 11:33am: Aussie wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 11:16am: I never blew my trumpet at PA about my background whatsoever.  In fact, you will find far, far, far more posts there made by me about Cabs than lawyers. Cods.....for your information.....there is no 'World Court' to which Cowan or the Crown can turn after the High Court.  There used to be the Privy Council (London) but appeals to that from Australia were abolished decades ago. In matters like this, the High Court is the end of the line. Further, 'lawyers' is an American term which has made its way here and includes barristers and solicitors. Where are you Lisa? Yes my sweet darling.... I'm here. Was just hanging out a load of washing. Here's your cuppa and slippers. Will that be all? Or would you prefer some discourse on the Australia Act (1986)? No.  Alinta asked, and you have avoided: Quote: I'm not interested in either slinging insults, or discussing my credentials here, however I am genuinely interested in hearing how you believe the matter of rehabilitation is addressed and by whom. Alinta can ask me again if she wants an answer. Or does she need you to ask for her? Why do you need to be asked twice? The intent of "I'm genuinely interested in hearing......." as per my comment was to elicit your answer, so I'm now asking directly, may I have it?    Oh look ....speak of the devil. You were here all along...just a nic away in fact. Nothing's changed with you, has it? You're interested .....supposedly GENUINELY interested even..in my belief/s? Well here's your answer. My belief/s has/have S F A to do with the question you've asked me. One other thing before you log off with that nic.... consider yourself very lucky that I've even acknowledged your dribble this time. Next time you wish to 'genuinely' ask me a question...use your regular nic. Have a lovely day.  I 'genuinely' mean that.  :)

Splendid avoidance.......it would seem you know as much about the parole system as you do about my nic.

Now..back to the topic.

cods wrote on May 23^rd, 2015 at 9:43am:

Lisa Jones wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 10:10pm: Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 8:18pm: skippy. wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 8:12pm: Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:04am: Soooo.....the concept of rehabilitation is just make believe garbage? No such thing as rehab for pedophiles. They like kids for sex. I doubt I can rehab you to like men for sex?  :-* I guess that is why we have Parole Boards who evaluate matters like rehabilitation, skippeeee.  It is for them to determine, not me....or you. Wrong...yet again. aussie agrees its their right to have this tax funded.. what about the victims family.. what rights do they have??? do they have the right to claim his sentence isnt long enough???? can they go to the HIGH COURT and demand a longer sentence..??????? NO THEY CANT... it is up to the DPP to do that... if they decide its ok then nothing the family can do about it... yet these monsters can go on and on .. like Ivan Milat...get all the attention they dont deserve..

It really matters not what Aussie thinks.

He is a qualified Googler. That is all.

It matters not what anyone says or thinks at this stage of the criminal legal process....except for 2 people.

And these 2 people will make sure this multi child rapist and pedophile stays in jail for a non parole period of 20 yrs.

Now...I've left enough clues in this post for wannabe lawyer Aussie and the 'Alinta' id to get googling.

Lovely day out there.

Bbq time here with the family.

Bye.

Doing the best I can to follow this, the Topic has arrived at this
point.  "Lisa, I am genuinely interested in hearing how you believe the matter of rehabilitation is addressed and by whom."

:)

I posted:


Quote:

No.....it is Parole Boards who consider matters of rehabilitation.

Response:



Quote:

Is it? You sure about that?

I posted:


Quote:

I guess that is why we have Parole Boards who evaluate matters like rehabilitation, skippeeee.  It is for them to determine, not me....or you.

Response:


Quote:

Wrong...yet again.

Lisa posted (as above):


Quote:

You sure about that?

Alinta:



Quote:

I am. The Judge sets a non parole period taking into account prospects of rehabilitation, antecedents, etc (refer to Penalties & Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) that cover the etc). Following expiry of the non parole period and a parole application is made, the Parole Board assesses whether or not the prisoner has fulfilled rehabilitation and any other relevant matters and hands down its decision to grant or refuse parole. Such assessment can be far reaching with much additional information sought for consideration prior to making the decision.  You beg to differ?????

Lisa:


Quote:

Yep....actually I do. Why? You see, unlike you and Aussie, I don't need to google my way around this area and produce out of context slabs of info. I actually KNOW the legal processes involved....because I've gone to uni and studied law. Both you and Aussie have not. And it's bloody obvious.

Pretty clear.   Lisa claims she knows the processes because she studied Law at University.

Alinta ~ politely:


Quote:

FYI Lisa, only googled the Qld Sentencing Act to clarify its similarity with the comparable Act in my home state of Victoria. I'm not interested in either slinging insults, or discussing my credentials here, however I am genuinely interested in hearing how you believe the matter of rehabilitation is addressed and by whom.

I make several posts attempting to get Lisa to respond and then, almost 24 hours after Alinta’s polite enquiry, I posted:


Quote:

Where are you Lisa?

17 minutes later, Lisa replied with:

Quote:

Yes my sweet darling.... I'm here. Was just hanging out a load of washing. Here's your cuppa and slippers. Will that be all? Or would you prefer some discourse on the Australia Act (1986)?

I reply:


Quote:

No.  Alinta asked, and you have avoided: “I'm not interested in either slinging insults, or discussing my credentials here, however I am genuinely interested in hearing how you believe the matter of rehabilitation is addressed and by whom. “

Lisa:


Quote:

Alinta can ask me again if she wants an answer. Or does she need you to ask for her?

Me:


Quote:

Why do you need to be asked twice?

Alinta, again, politely:


Quote:

The intent of "I'm genuinely interested in hearing......." as per my comment was to elicit your answer, so I'm now asking directly, may I have it?

Lisa:


Quote:

Oh look ....speak of the devil. You were here all along...just a nic away in fact. Nothing's changed with you, has it? You're interested .....supposedly GENUINELY interested even..in my belief/s? Well here's your answer. My belief/s has/have S F A to do with the question you've asked me. One other thing before you log off with that nic.... consider yourself very lucky that I've even acknowledged your dribble this time. Next time you wish to 'genuinely' ask me a question...use your regular nic. Have a lovely day.  I 'genuinely' mean that.

Alinta:


Quote:

Splendid avoidance.......it would seem you know as much about the parole system as you do about my nic.

Lisa:


Quote:

Now..back to the topic.

Lisa:


Quote:

It really matters not what Aussie thinks. He is a qualified Googler. That is all. It matters not what anyone says or thinks at this stage of the criminal legal process....except for 2 people. And these 2 people will make sure this multi child rapist and pedophile stays in jail for a non parole period of 20 yrs. Now...I've left enough clues in this post for wannabe lawyer Aussie and the 'Alinta' id to get googling. Lovely day out there. Bbq time here with the family. Bye.

Oliver Klozoff:


Quote:

Doing the best I can to follow this, the Topic has arrived at this point.  "Lisa, I am genuinely interested in hearing how you believe the matter of rehabilitation is addressed and by whom."

And………then  we have deathly silence from Lisa, she who has studied Law at University .

Lisa, just answer the very simple question posed as an obvious consequence of your own words ~ the question being:

How do you believe the matter of rehabilitation is addressed and by whom.

In short, you STILL haven't any idea about this criminal legal process despite being spoon fed by me.

Good.

Thank you for confirming that you are a fraud.

Lisa Jones wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 6:44pm:

In short, you STILL haven't any idea about this criminal legal process despite being spoon fed by me. Good. Thank you for confirming that you are a fraud.

Yes, yes, yes Lisa.  Awesome and ...... hmmmm....interesting. 

Now back on topic.


Quote:

How do you believe the matter of rehabilitation is addressed and by whom.

[quote author=Aussie link=1432186556/71#71 date=1432430189]I never blew my trumpet at PA about my background whatsoever.  In fact, you will find far, far, far more posts there made by me about Cabs than lawyers.


NOT WHAT I HAVE BEEN TOLD...


Cods.....for your information.....there is no 'World Court' to which Cowan or the Crown can turn after the High Court.  There used to be the Privy Council (London) but appeals to that from Australia were abolished decades ago.

In matters like this, the High Court is the end of the line.


there is so a world court just google it.. and if this bastard hears about it he would use it...he is the scum of the earth.




Further, 'lawyers' is an American term which has made its way here and includes barristers and solicitors.

Where are you Lisa?[/quote]


we are not IN AMERICA....here a solicitor is NOT a Lawyer..

unless of course you got you degree from America in 7 days... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

hey and how about lobbying your girlfriend on her own  post...  you are bound to get a reaction that way

Lisa Jones wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 12:48pm:

Alinta wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:32pm: Aussie wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:22pm: Lisa Jones wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:04pm: Aussie wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:01pm: Lisa Jones wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 11:33am: Aussie wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 11:16am: I never blew my trumpet at PA about my background whatsoever.  In fact, you will find far, far, far more posts there made by me about Cabs than lawyers. Cods.....for your information.....there is no 'World Court' to which Cowan or the Crown can turn after the High Court.  There used to be the Privy Council (London) but appeals to that from Australia were abolished decades ago. In matters like this, the High Court is the end of the line. Further, 'lawyers' is an American term which has made its way here and includes barristers and solicitors. Where are you Lisa? Yes my sweet darling.... I'm here. Was just hanging out a load of washing. Here's your cuppa and slippers. Will that be all? Or would you prefer some discourse on the Australia Act (1986)? No.  Alinta asked, and you have avoided: Quote: I'm not interested in either slinging insults, or discussing my credentials here, however I am genuinely interested in hearing how you believe the matter of rehabilitation is addressed and by whom. Alinta can ask me again if she wants an answer. Or does she need you to ask for her? Why do you need to be asked twice? The intent of "I'm genuinely interested in hearing......." as per my comment was to elicit your answer, so I'm now asking directly, may I have it?    Oh look ....speak of the devil. You were here all along...just a nic away in fact. Nothing's changed with you, has it? You're interested .....supposedly GENUINELY interested even..in my belief/s? Well here's your answer. My belief/s has/have S F A to do with the question you've asked me. One other thing before you log off with that nic.... consider yourself very lucky that I've even acknowledged your dribble this time. Next time you wish to 'genuinely' ask me a question...use your regular nic. Have a lovely day.  I 'genuinely' mean that.  :)

Why do you always do this Lisa?

You know as well as i do the Alinta was never anything close to a troll. She was one of the most respected ID's on Yahoo because when she DID venture to speak, what she said was always very measured and reasonable.

Her knowledge of the legal world is actually very good. And her research skills are excellent. I would place strong consideration on anything she said on the topic.

Your habit of calling anyone a 'multu ID troll' who asks you to qualify yourself for your eternal claims of superior knowledge is tiresome Lisa. It's just tiresome.

lisa please answer aussie and now alinta... as the posts are getting massively long and it wont be long at this rate it will be 1 to a page....

aussie has a habit of reissuing every line over and over...

someone make lisa answer a reasonable question...

if she doesnt then she should be banned from said thread for making outlandish comments... and telling others they dont know nuffink...

dont you get fed up with people when they are backed into a corner.. they ping off... or change the topic... ::) ::)

come on lisa tell the world what your Uni Law Professor   taught you about rehabilitation.?????

we are busting to know..

cods wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 7:10pm:

[quote author=Aussie link=1432186556/71#71 date=1432430189]I never blew my trumpet at PA about my background whatsoever.  In fact, you will find far, far, far more posts there made by me about Cabs than lawyers. NOT WHAT I HAVE BEEN TOLD... Cods.....for your information.....there is no 'World Court' to which Cowan or the Crown can turn after the High Court.  There used to be the Privy Council (London) but appeals to that from Australia were abolished decades ago. In matters like this, the High Court is the end of the line. there is so a world court just google it.. and if this bastard hears about it he would use it...he is the scum of the earth. Further, 'lawyers' is an American term which has made its way here and includes barristers and solicitors. Where are you Lisa?[/quote] we are not IN AMERICA....here a solicitor is NOT a Lawyer.. unless of course you got you degree from America in 7 days... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D hey and how about lobbying your girlfriend on her own  post...  you are bound to get a reaction that way

I don't care what you have been told.  I never blew any legal trumpet at PA, just like I don't here.  The matter only ever arose or arises when others bring it up.

As for the 'lawyer' thing.

Link.

Finally.....Cowan cannot go beyond the High Court of Australia.

Alinta, I've always found your posts informative and your responses measured.

This was an interesting thread, but once again has unfortunately become more about certain posters than the topic.

Lisa Jones wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 6:44pm:

despite being spoon fed by me.

I must have missed that bit .... care to repeat it?

Well Cods. i'm not informed by a University Law Professor Like Lisa but i know enough about the law to know that a parole board assesses the status of rehabilitation.

Who else? Curious.

mothra wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 7:31pm:

Well Cods. i'm not informed by a University Law Professor Like Lisa but i know enough about the law to know that a parole board assesses the status of rehabilitation. Who else? Curious.

Is that what you think this is about?

;D ;D ;D

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 7:28pm:

Alinta, I've always found your posts informative and your responses measured. This was an interesting thread, but once again has unfortunately become more about certain posters than the topic.

Alinta's great. Really knows her stuff.

Lisa Jones wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 7:33pm:

mothra wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 7:31pm: Well Cods. i'm not informed by a University Law Professor Like Lisa but i know enough about the law to know that a parole board assesses the status of rehabilitation. Who else? Curious. Is that what you think this is about? ;D ;D ;D

That seems to be the question being put to you Lisa.

Lisa Jones wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 5:48pm:

Aussie wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 5:38pm: cods wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 5:31pm: Rider wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 4:52pm: Next stop should be Bali... bang bang not if aussie has his way....he likes this guy. Dunno anything about him, but I do like that he has legal rights, and I do not mind in the least that he is exercising them. Do you mind, cods? If Cods is anything like the rest of us, she'd be bloody offended that this multi convicted child rapist and now convicted child murderer is allowed to keep accessing even MORE tax payer money in order to get himself out of jail sooner. That Legal Aid money needs to be re allocated in the direction of his victims. He's been convicted. He's not disputing that at all. He just wants out sooner. And given THESE SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES, you SHOULD mind what this rapist/ murderer is trying to do. He's lodged and failed in his despicable latest stunt....so he's going to keep going. Just a waste of time and money. OUR TIME AND OUR MONEY.

Up!

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 7:28pm:

Alinta, I've always found your posts informative and your responses measured. This was an interesting thread, but once again has unfortunately become more about certain posters than the topic.

Indeed it is and it will get all the more interesting when Lisa addresses this question.


Quote:

Lisa, how do you believe the matter of rehabilitation is addressed and by whom.

mothra wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 7:34pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 7:33pm: mothra wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 7:31pm: Well Cods. i'm not informed by a University Law Professor Like Lisa but i know enough about the law to know that a parole board assesses the status of rehabilitation. Who else? Curious. Is that what you think this is about? ;D ;D ;D That seems to be the question being put to you Lisa.

Is that right?

Read the topic then.

Well folks, we've reached the part of the proceedings in which Lisa reposts all of her own comments that are designed to both deflect and bury.

Nice work Lisa.

Lisa, how do you believe the matter of rehabilitation is addressed and by whom?

Lisa Jones wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 7:37pm:

mothra wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 7:34pm: Lisa Jones wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 7:33pm: mothra wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 7:31pm: Well Cods. i'm not informed by a University Law Professor Like Lisa but i know enough about the law to know that a parole board assesses the status of rehabilitation. Who else? Curious. Is that what you think this is about? ;D ;D ;D That seems to be the question being put to you Lisa. Is that right? Read the topic then.

Why won't you answer the question Lisa? Then we cn all move along.

Be nice if you retracted your little spray on Alinta too. She doesn't deserve that.

mothra wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 7:16pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:48pm: Alinta wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:32pm: Aussie wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:22pm: Lisa Jones wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:04pm: Aussie wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 12:01pm: Lisa Jones wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 11:33am: Aussie wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 11:16am: I never blew my trumpet at PA about my background whatsoever.  In fact, you will find far, far, far more posts there made by me about Cabs than lawyers. Cods.....for your information.....there is no 'World Court' to which Cowan or the Crown can turn after the High Court.  There used to be the Privy Council (London) but appeals to that from Australia were abolished decades ago. In matters like this, the High Court is the end of the line. Further, 'lawyers' is an American term which has made its way here and includes barristers and solicitors. Where are you Lisa? Yes my sweet darling.... I'm here. Was just hanging out a load of washing. Here's your cuppa and slippers. Will that be all? Or would you prefer some discourse on the Australia Act (1986)? No.  Alinta asked, and you have avoided: Quote: I'm not interested in either slinging insults, or discussing my credentials here, however I am genuinely interested in hearing how you believe the matter of rehabilitation is addressed and by whom. Alinta can ask me again if she wants an answer. Or does she need you to ask for her? Why do you need to be asked twice? The intent of "I'm genuinely interested in hearing......." as per my comment was to elicit your answer, so I'm now asking directly, may I have it?    Oh look ....speak of the devil. You were here all along...just a nic away in fact. Nothing's changed with you, has it? You're interested .....supposedly GENUINELY interested even..in my belief/s? Well here's your answer. My belief/s has/have S F A to do with the question you've asked me. One other thing before you log off with that nic.... consider yourself very lucky that I've even acknowledged your dribble this time. Next time you wish to 'genuinely' ask me a question...use your regular nic. Have a lovely day.  I 'genuinely' mean that.  :) Why do you always do this Lisa? You know as well as i do the Alinta was never anything close to a troll. She was one of the most respected ID's on Yahoo because when she DID venture to speak, what she said was always very measured and reasonable. Her knowledge of the legal world is actually very good. And her research skills are excellent. I would place strong consideration on anything she said on the topic. Your habit of calling anyone a 'multu ID troll' who asks you to qualify yourself for your eternal claims of superior knowledge is tiresome Lisa. It's just tiresome.

Mothra, Mothra, Mothra...don't bother trying to bait me.

Not interested to be honest.

Why?

It's just tiresome Mothra. It's just tiresome.

Lisa, you chose to take me on.....I will not go away.

How do you believe the matter of rehabilitation is addressed and by whom?

Aussie wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 7:41pm:

Lisa, you chose to take me on.....I will not go away. How do you believe the matter of rehabilitation is addressed and by whom?

ah...  aussie the fake or disbarred lawyer with compassion for... no one.

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 7:28pm:

Alinta, I've always found your posts informative and your responses measured. This was an interesting thread, but once again has unfortunately become more about certain posters than the topic.

Yep and that's because I'm pi$$ed off with Aussie and he's pi$$ed off with me.

Big deal.

Believe you me...I'm not the 1st to be pi$$ed off with him....and I won't be the last.

Anyway....

Aussie wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 7:41pm:

Lisa, you chose to take me on.....I will not go away. How do you believe the matter of rehabilitation is addressed and by whom?

Aussie, she will never answer. She bit off more than she could chew when she was spinning her fantasies and she'e trying to bury it.

It will never end. Best we just accept that it is obvious she doesn't know what she is talking about, because it most certainly is, and maybe we can save this thread from becoming another Lisa Jones show.

longweekend58 wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 7:45pm:

Aussie wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 7:41pm: Lisa, you chose to take me on.....I will not go away. How do you believe the matter of rehabilitation is addressed and by whom? ah...  aussie the fake or disbarred lawyer with compassion for... no one.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but were you originally a teacher in SA before you became a water boy ?


(I could be confusing you with someone else from the yahoo days)

Lisa Jones wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 7:46pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 7:28pm: Alinta, I've always found your posts informative and your responses measured. This was an interesting thread, but once again has unfortunately become more about certain posters than the topic. Yep and that's because I'm pi$$ed off with Aussie and he's pi$$ed off with me. Big deal. Believe you me...I'm not the 1st to be pi$$ed off with him....and I won't be the last. Anyway....

I'm sure if I really, really tried I could possibly care a little bit less.

This same dramatic scenario has played itself out so often that I'm sure most of us could recite your scripts for you. And by "you", I don't mean you alone. Those who bait you or bite back are just as culpable in this mess.

longweekend58 wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 7:45pm:

Aussie wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 7:41pm: Lisa, you chose to take me on.....I will not go away. How do you believe the matter of rehabilitation is addressed and by whom? ah...  aussie the fake or disbarred lawyer with compassion for... no one.

Neither fake nor disbarred, and you are right about my lack of compassion for one three legged dog I once used to be very neutral about.


Quote:

Lisa, how do you believe the matter of rehabilitation is addressed and by whom?

Two ways out Lisa.  You would surely know this already having studied Law at University.

1.  Retract your crap about Members who have made bona fide and genuine statements concerning the Law on this matter, or

2.  Answer ~ How do you believe the matter of rehabilitation is addressed and by whom? 

longweekend58 wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 7:45pm:

Aussie wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 7:41pm: Lisa, you chose to take me on.....I will not go away. How do you believe the matter of rehabilitation is addressed and by whom? ah...  aussie the fake or disbarred lawyer with compassion for... no one.

He's been googling his way around the legal profession for some time but given the question he is asking me IN RELATION TO THIS CASE ....and where it is atm...I know that he hasn't a clue about the legal process in relation to criminal cases (his supposed specialized area).

And that's given me the $hits big time here.

longweekend58 wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 7:45pm:

Aussie wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 7:41pm: Lisa, you chose to take me on.....I will not go away. How do you believe the matter of rehabilitation is addressed and by whom? ah...  aussie the fake or disbarred lawyer with compassion for... no one.

No self respect you mean.

Aussie wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 7:52pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 7:45pm: Aussie wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 7:41pm: Lisa, you chose to take me on.....I will not go away. How do you believe the matter of rehabilitation is addressed and by whom? ah...  aussie the fake or disbarred lawyer with compassion for... no one. Neither fake nor disbarred, and you are right about my lack of compassion for one three legged dog I once used to be very neutral about. Quote: Lisa, how do you believe the matter of rehabilitation is addressed and by whom? Two ways out Lisa.  You would surely know this already having studied Law at University. 1.  Retract your crap about Members who have made bona fide and genuine statements concerning the Law on this matter, or 2.  Answer ~ How do you believe the matter of rehabilitation is addressed and by whom?

Do not go there.

This is not Relationships.

Lisa Jones wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 7:37pm:

mothra wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 7:34pm: Lisa Jones wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 7:33pm: mothra wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 7:31pm: Well Cods. i'm not informed by a University Law Professor Like Lisa but i know enough about the law to know that a parole board assesses the status of rehabilitation. Who else? Curious. Is that what you think this is about? ;D ;D ;D That seems to be the question being put to you Lisa. Is that right? Read the topic then.

The discussion re rehabilitation became part of the topic following your comment that Cowan's papers should read never to be released.

Aussie commented on aspects of rehabilitation and the parole board and it went from there.

So yes, the question I have asked you IS on topic.

mothra wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 7:46pm:

Aussie wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 7:41pm: Lisa, you chose to take me on.....I will not go away. How do you believe the matter of rehabilitation is addressed and by whom? Aussie, she will never answer. She bit off more than she could chew when she was spinning her fantasies and she'e trying to bury it. It will never end. Best we just accept that it is obvious she doesn't know what she is talking about, because it most certainly is, and maybe we can save this thread from becoming another Lisa Jones show.

I've caught Aussie out on a lie.

Deal with it!

mothra wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 7:46pm:

Aussie wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 7:41pm: Lisa, you chose to take me on.....I will not go away. How do you believe the matter of rehabilitation is addressed and by whom? Aussie, she will never answer. She bit off more than she could chew when she was spinning her fantasies and she'e trying to bury it. It will never end. Best we just accept that it is obvious she doesn't know what she is talking about, because it most certainly is, and maybe we can save this thread from becoming another Lisa Jones show.

When the humiliation is complete does Aussie provide the answer?  Or are there two spinning orbits both frantically googling?

Alinta wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 7:56pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 7:37pm: mothra wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 7:34pm: Lisa Jones wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 7:33pm: mothra wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 7:31pm: Well Cods. i'm not informed by a University Law Professor Like Lisa but i know enough about the law to know that a parole board assesses the status of rehabilitation. Who else? Curious. Is that what you think this is about? ;D ;D ;D That seems to be the question being put to you Lisa. Is that right? Read the topic then. The discussion re rehabilitation became part of the topic following your comment that Cowan's papers should read never to be released. Aussie commented on aspects of rehabilitation and the parole board. So yes, the question I have asked you IS on topic.

Aussie's comments on aspects of rehab regarding THIS PARTICULAR CASE are at issue. That is where this topic is at.

But you haven't worked that out yet..because just like him, you barged in with Prof Google as your side kick.

Anyway....

Secret Wars wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 7:59pm:

mothra wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 7:46pm: Aussie wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 7:41pm: Lisa, you chose to take me on.....I will not go away. How do you believe the matter of rehabilitation is addressed and by whom? Aussie, she will never answer. She bit off more than she could chew when she was spinning her fantasies and she'e trying to bury it. It will never end. Best we just accept that it is obvious she doesn't know what she is talking about, because it most certainly is, and maybe we can save this thread from becoming another Lisa Jones show. When the humiliation is complete does Aussie provide the answer?  Or are there two spinning orbits both frantically googling?

Oh sigh.

More multis are coming out tonight.

Gawd I'm seriously over all this $hyte.

Hasn't anyone here gone to uni? A real uni...not just the University of Google?

"Anyway" Lisa...just answer this simple question:

How do you believe the matter of rehabilitation is addressed and by whom?

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/51877331.jpg

Lisa Jones wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 8:09pm:

Secret Wars wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 7:59pm: mothra wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 7:46pm: Aussie wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 7:41pm: Lisa, you chose to take me on.....I will not go away. How do you believe the matter of rehabilitation is addressed and by whom? Aussie, she will never answer. She bit off more than she could chew when she was spinning her fantasies and she'e trying to bury it. It will never end. Best we just accept that it is obvious she doesn't know what she is talking about, because it most certainly is, and maybe we can save this thread from becoming another Lisa Jones show. When the humiliation is complete does Aussie provide the answer?  Or are there two spinning orbits both frantically googling? Oh sigh. More multis are coming out tonight. Gawd I'm seriously over all this $hyte. Hasn't anyone here gone to uni? A real uni...not just the University of Google?

Instead of bragging about uni why not have a crack at the answer? 

On the internets you don't get credit for say so, anyone can say so, you have to demonstrate so. 

He is referring to your answer to this question, Lisa:

How do you believe the matter of rehabilitation is addressed and by whom? 

Aussie wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 8:38pm:

He is referring to your answer to this question, Lisa: How do you believe the matter of rehabilitation is addressed and by whom?

You have to provide an answer as well at some stage.  Otherwise you both look like you don't have a clue. 

Secret Wars wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 8:43pm:

Aussie wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 8:38pm: He is referring to your answer to this question, Lisa: How do you believe the matter of rehabilitation is addressed and by whom?  You have to provide an answer as well at some stage.  Otherwise you both look like you don't have a clue.

Have you read the Thread?  I have already provided the answer, and that is exactly how this rubbish was ignited by Lisa.

The Parole Board does.....but Lisa is emphatic I am wrong, so I must be because she knows the process, went to University and studied Law.

Mr Hicks will be along soon to ban me.

I see Lisa is back after being away for a day or so.  Lisa.....you have some outstanding issues to deal with here.  They will not just go away.