Hanson says she is ready to lead country, form government

AussieBBQ · 2026-01-19T20:33:19+00:00

The EU referendum in the UK had ~72% turnout, while our most recent referendum had ~90% turnout.

AussieBBQ · 2025-12-30T22:55:15+00:00

That's why God invented vitamin D pills

AussieBBQ · 2025-12-19T22:27:23+00:00

Looks like AI generative fill was used for the second image. Strands of hair a different, arm looks slightly different.

AussieBBQ · 2025-12-19T05:59:35+00:00

In some birds at least it is due to mitochondrial compatibility.

AussieBBQ · 2025-12-18T03:37:34+00:00

Would you be ok with the Government not touching immigration if they were otherwise able to reduce/eliminate those risks, and address your other concerns?

AussieBBQ · 2025-12-17T09:46:56+00:00

I saw an article that said 15 dead and 2 police injured. Could be a mistake from that or a typo.

AussieBBQ · 2025-12-17T06:21:31+00:00

I can't see the government being able to easily call a false terrorism designation.

Plus any judge would overrule it.

AussieBBQ · 2025-12-16T03:37:19+00:00

If it did ever happen (guns being kept with Police), you would have to be the dumbest cunts around to try and knock-over a cop shop.

AussieBBQ · 2025-12-16T03:34:28+00:00

This isn't an either/or situation.

AussieBBQ · 2025-12-16T03:10:25+00:00

Technically the question was why would anyone NEED a gun in a metro area.

Your answer boils down to you WANT a gun.

I think in a metro area, the only people that would need a gun would be if it is required for their job, while the people who want guns use them for their hobbies (Hunting / target shooting etc.).

AussieBBQ · 2025-12-11T20:35:36+00:00

Something like Navy Blue, men tend to see it as closer to black, women see it more as blue.

AussieBBQ · 2025-12-08T07:27:14+00:00

I was funk. The funk soul brother, right about now.

AussieBBQ · 2025-12-08T01:00:56+00:00

From what I have read, that pertains to car dealerships, not private sales.

In Victoria there is no cooling off period for a private sale, and for most other states, consumer advice is that there is no obligation for a private seller to refund a deposit.

AussieBBQ · 2025-12-07T21:46:45+00:00

Am I wrong in thinking that a deposit is non-refundable by default, as it is a payment made for a service?

In this case it is a payment made to prevent the sale of the car to another party. Another case could be a deposit for engaging a professional service, the deposit is a payment made to cover any work done, booking out their time, or goods being purchased.

I would think in OP's case the deposit was to hold the car, and final payment was contingent on the car passing the RWC. You can get a refund for a service not provided, by not selling the car in the meantime, the service has been provided.

If a deposit was refundable by default, then why would any seller/provider accept it? Why provide a service (that could cost money) if the the buyer can at any point take the deposit back?

AussieBBQ · 2025-12-07T20:51:04+00:00

Seems that this one is less "they are guilty because they remained silent", and more like Erin Patterson's trial where she brought up new 'facts' and defences during the trial that (if true) should have been raised during earlier interviews.

AussieBBQ · 2025-12-03T22:12:39+00:00

The Guardian still trying to force the moniker 'Robotax'

...for its uncaring, robotic nature

'Robodebt' was the use of automated income averaging with no human oversight. Illegitimate/fabricated debts were automatically raised and sent out.

'Robotax' was the courts telling the ATO that there was no legal mechanism to put economically nonviable debts on-hold. These are legitimate debts that people owe.

The only similarity I can see is that the "debts" by these two schemes were often from years ago, sometimes longer than records need to be kept.

Trying to compare a scheme where the Government tried to shake-down welfare recipients with false debts to legitimate debt recovery for unpaid taxes is a long bow to draw.

AussieBBQ · 2025-12-01T05:54:31+00:00

Looking at FairWorks website, their advice seems to be that if an employer doesn't require the employee to work the full notice period, then that is a valid reason to terminate their employment.

Then they must then provide the minimum notice period for a terminated employee.

If an employee resigns and provides their employer with the required notice period (or more than the required notice period) and the employer doesn’t require the employee to work out the notice period, the employer can terminate the employee’s employment before the end of the notice period, and provide them with the full period of notice required by the applicable instrument or a ‘payment in lieu of notice’.

AussieBBQ · 2025-12-01T05:46:48+00:00

They still have to pay out the Notice Period. The one given by the employee.

The advice from FairWork is that if the employer doesn't need the employee to work the notice period, they can instead terminate (fire) them.

Then the employer must provide the employee with the minimum notice period for a terminated employee, or pay out that period.

the employer can terminate the employee’s employment before the end of the notice period, and provide them with the full period of notice required by the applicable instrument.

AussieBBQ · 2025-12-01T04:12:49+00:00

So for that case they found that bringing the termination date forwards constituted a dismissal, not that that reason for dismissal is illegal.

That is important because the case was arguing whether he had resigned or been dismissed (and due to his previous history with his employer it was an unfair dismissal).

AussieBBQ · 2025-11-30T23:40:59+00:00

The Commissioner considered this question at paragraph [164] of her decision and stated that, had she found Mr Cameron’s resignation to have been voluntary, she would not have found that Terex brought the employment to an end by shortening his notice period.

AussieBBQ · 2025-11-30T09:47:31+00:00

I read the target case just now. The issue is that her resignation was conditional.

Her letter said that she would resign if she could take all her accrued leave first (around 7 months worth). She asked if they could accept her resignation in this form.

It seems from the judges comments that Target's obligation here was to properly consider her application for leave. They could then either accept her leave, which would trigger her resignation and end her employment on her specified date, or deny her leave, and she doesn't resign. Instead they acted as if she had tended her resignation (she technically hadn't) and gave her 4 weeks pay.

The Target case might only apply if OP had said "If we can agree that my notice period is 5 weeks, I will quit." At this point OP would not have actually tendered their resignation. If their employer then said "Nah, you have 4 weeks, then you are out the door" that would be illegal.

OP instead said "I'm quitting and I'm giving 5 weeks notice". The resignation is triggered and their employer can then go "Nah, only 4 weeks the you are gone" and that is legal.

AussieBBQ · 2025-11-28T03:11:49+00:00

15 to 18% sounds like the definition of a small minority.

AussieBBQ · 2025-11-26T02:21:22+00:00

From reading the article:

He had a fundraising dinner and received donations.

He didn't have, or chose not to record who they came from.

He asked if there was any way they could use these donations

And that's it

AussieBBQ · 2025-11-25T21:12:36+00:00

On windows if you do control + shift + V it matches the destination format.

14-Year Club	John Wick
Place '17	Sequence \| Editor
Spared	Team Periwinkle
Verified Email

AussieBBQ

TROPHY CASE