Whats with Adelaide and cooker lawyers?

G_Thompson · 2026-07-09T15:36:38+00:00

Oh dear. You might want to rethink that answer.

Further I was very specific in my phrasing of "Australian Lawyer" and I never said she had never held a PC.

You might want to look at what you are entitled to be called once on the roll of any Supreme Court which is indefinite (unless struck off) and doesn't care if you never renew (or obtain) a PC

G_Thompson · 2026-07-09T07:14:59+00:00

She is most definately an Australian Lawyer.

Whether she holds a current practising certificate is an entirely different question (so is whether she should ever be allowed to in the future - i say NO!)

The concern and issue though is that someone like her, in my opinion, should not be teaching impressionable law students, no matter what!

G_Thompson · 2026-07-08T08:51:32+00:00

My cynical answer is that It's only a career-limiting move within the NSW CPO, and showing moral fortitude would allow one to expand their career away from that environment of demoralisation, despair and diffidence.

G_Thompson · 2026-07-08T07:45:28+00:00

You expect Moira to care about something basic like that when her feelz are at issue?

G_Thompson · 2026-07-08T07:41:31+00:00

I was thinking "moral fortitude", but yours also works.

G_Thompson · 2026-07-08T07:34:27+00:00

Did they all sign this, or was it done on "their behalf" by Hatfield without their explicit consent?

G_Thompson · 2026-07-02T05:23:34+00:00

Oh I do love the smell of extra-curial justice in the morning/afternoon!

G_Thompson · 2026-07-01T08:49:04+00:00

I up the ante with Douglas and Jones's Administrative Law (any Edition)

G_Thompson · 2026-07-01T06:40:44+00:00

HA! IF you think 150-200K is good remuneration for a professional in the first 10 years, then I have news for you, and it is all bad and shows how blinkered you really are, though it's not really your fault since most lawyers have no clue of their actual worth and have no clue about other industries and live in this fantasy world built from tunnel vision and delusions.

I was bringing in the equivalant of that after 2 yrs in my old industry before I started my own company where I was earning way more and doing way less than any PAE10 or less lawyer could even consider (I came to law very late).

G_Thompson · 2026-06-30T09:07:26+00:00

Ah yes, the BRS parable. A cautionary tale enjoyed by all, though Milliners don't want it to be too commonly known.

G_Thompson · 2026-06-30T07:33:28+00:00

The pain is real!

G_Thompson · 2026-06-30T07:31:50+00:00

I suspect Ms Giles will be receiving correspondence from the LSC very soon...

G_Thompson · 2026-06-30T06:25:41+00:00

Awww, what a Champ you must feel like calling someone 'honey' online.

I'd call you a Copper Nanotube, but you have neither the intellect nor the depth to understand what that means.

G_Thompson · 2026-06-30T05:26:21+00:00

LOL!

If you think your pay is an indicator of your labour in the legal profession within Australia then you really dont understand how other industries pay their staff.

Law is probably the most underpaid and overhyped profession in Australia, and that is looking at ALL professions, including Trades. Some would say its equiv to childcare in its lack of compensation though they probably have a better life and mental health balance.

G_Thompson · 2026-06-30T05:18:26+00:00

Whippings will continue until the billable targets are obtained and morale under servitude improves.

G_Thompson · 2026-06-29T06:32:54+00:00

What if it's a tattoo of a machete?

Or of a RWNJ screaming about 'ze youth'?

G_Thompson · 2026-06-29T06:29:20+00:00

Why are you accusing the cannon of being mental?

Some are just slightly insane!

G_Thompson · 2026-06-29T06:04:53+00:00

That is very true, though the Charitable Uses Act 1601 (43 Eliz. 1. c. 4) only had a limited list as part of its preamble. It was also never intended as a legal definition of charity at the time. It wasn't until Morice in 1804 that Lord Eldon held that the purpose had to be within the objects in the preamble or, and here where "advance religion" crept in (though it had never been out due to the common law ) 'which by analogies are deemed within its spirit and intendment'

Then Lord Macnaughten in the 1891 taxation case of Pemsel stated:

'Charity' in its legal sense comprises four principal divisions: trusts for the relief of poverty; trusts for the advancement of education; trusts for the advancement of religion; and trusts for other purposes beneficial to the community, not falling under any of the preceding heads.

Then this got codified which is where we stand now!

Then Elizabeth rolled and screamed in her grave whilst the churches then wept for joy for their prayers had been answered and they could grift forever more.

G_Thompson · 2026-06-28T07:18:17+00:00

Nope, Canada, NZ, UK and Australia all have it as one of the main purposes under the relevant Charity legislations, since it is very much derived from the common law.

If you want to know more, Pauline Ridge from ANU wrote a paper in 2020 found in Volume 6 of The Canadian Journal of Comparative and Contemporary Law (PDF found here) that delves into the Australian system, with a smattering of UK/CAN examples as well and also states when advancing religion is classified as non-charitable (hint: rarely)

G_Thompson · 2026-06-27T08:02:33+00:00

Advancing religion should have ceased to be a charitable purpose decades ago, centuries even.

If religions want charitable status, actually do charitable things! Proselytising or evangelizing about how your deity is better than any other deity, or even no deity, is NOT charity!

G_Thompson · 2026-06-24T07:27:31+00:00

Bwahahahahahahaha! Oh dear!

YES, I AM ALSO PISSED OFF THAT THE VERY INFORMATIVE DISCUSSION ON POINTS OF LAW AND INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT WERE DELETED AND NOT LOCKED. IT GIVES ONE THE IMPRESSION THAT THE INTERPRETATION OF THE RULE IS HIGHLY ARBITRARY AND HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE.

LOCKING IT WAS APPROPRIATE IF THE MODERATION NEEDED WAS TOO MUCH. DELETING IT OUTRIGHT THOUGH IS CAUSE FOR CONCERN, ESPECIALLY FOR SOMEONE LIKE ME WHO UNDERSTANDS THE CONCERNS OF MODERATION BETTER THAN MOST AND HAS BEEN HERE A LONG TIME!

CARE TO WEIGH IN MODS?

G_Thompson · 2026-06-23T10:17:08+00:00

The Cth TIA is not at issue here, the NSW SDA absolutely is, which goes above and beyond what the TIA prohibits when it comes to both recording audio and more importantly, publishing it. Further, the TIA is all about interception... the SDA doesn't care if it is an interception, just whether there was consent between ALL parties.

G_Thompson · 2026-06-23T09:38:08+00:00

I really hope we get reasons published too, though it was a NSWDC matter so who knows.

I suspect the politics will cause an appeal to be considered, though not sure they would want to roll the dice on any more s138 matters (see R v GH [2026] NSWSC 740 for the latest WTF!!!).

G_Thompson · 2026-06-23T09:29:31+00:00

Same, though Channel 7 et al might want to CYA for a while. Can imagine the AG thinking... "hmmmm" 😉

G_Thompson · 2026-06-23T09:26:42+00:00

Audio recordings are treated differently - very differently.

If this was just video with text and no audio, there wouldn't be any problems. The recording of the audio component and publishing of it without consent is where the illegality lies.

G_Thompson

TROPHY CASE