Freedom of speech on this forum

[Dazz]

But this incident

As I just wrote to the moderators, and having read the court manuscripts, I'm not quite sure that the massive number of women permanently and systematically damaged over such a lengthy period - more than a decade - can be reduced to a mere "incident" Simon.

"Incident" normally implies one occurrence and usually not intentionally done....like a car accident.

A demolition derby deliberately and systematically smashing boat loads of cars over a decade cannot possibly be described as a mere "incident".

I agree with the administrator Sim's comments made on this forum. It is important to know whom you are dealing with if you are going to transact a property deal with a person, especially if it's on the public record.

The man himself even fully encourages everyone to do a full check of the facts before deciding to inter-act, including doing a property deal, with him.

Why would anyone wish to stifle that ?? Information derived from court manuscripts must be considered reliable, especially when the offender admits it.

No doubt the facts will be deemed "inappropriate" as well.

 

[our obsession]

Simon:

But this incident ?was certainly long enough ago that he doesn't deserve it to be aired worldwide. Especially as it never had anything to do with finance, investment or anything to worry people here.

Simon, how would you know that?

How would you know if someone here was not on the end of this crime, or family of someone to suffer, or oh! gee! how about as a human being I have compassion for the people affected, lives affected, families affected...

Just how would you know Simon?

Making some sweeping generalisations mate.

 

[Simon]

Simon:

Simon, how would you know that?

How would you know if someone here was not on the end of this crime, or family of someone to suffer, or oh! gee! how about as a human being I have compassion for the people affected, lives affected, families affected...

Just how would you know Simon?

Making some sweeping generalisations mate.

Righto.

I won't comment further on what I believe.

Leave it to you experts.

 

[csc2]

On a lighter note some may have missed regarding the other thread being discussed, I noted this from the mod:

This message has been deleted by Dazz. Reason: Too appropriate

I thought that was the deletion reason of the year.....I had a great chuckle, made my evening.

5 Stars that one.....;-)

There were several posts in that thread by myself that were deleted...they were in fact deleted because i was off topic, the mod on this occasion was correct...i was in fairyland talking about western Sydney, totally irrelevant to the topic being discussed.

If forums posters agreed on everything wouldn't this forum be a boaring place to visit....

Cheers big ears!

 

[Piston Broke]

1) this forum is protected under the american constitution, not the australian consitution. the dotcom domain allows this forum protection under the fifth amendment.

BS it is subject to Australian defamation laws, ACCC, ASIC, Contempt of court and any Australian laws as those who run it a clearly identified as being Australian and residing in Australia.
Domain name does not determine jurisdiction.
Maybe you watch too much tV.

Just who are you, Ausprop and P&B trying to defend?

I believe this is a forum about property, as it's clearly spelled top right.
Anything else is out of the scope of this forum. Not a mud slinging forum.

As I just wrote to the moderators, and having read the court manuscripts, I'm not quite sure that the massive number of women permanently and systematically damaged over such a lengthy period - more than a decade - can be reduced to a mere "incident" Simon.

So are you (or INVSTOR) married? Been to church?
Then why should I not doubt your ethics since you attend and had your marital union blessed by an institution that harbors child molesters.
Did you donate to an organization that abused kids and covered it for centuries?
Have you supported and aided child abusers?
Are those facts appropriate?

My point is that this is an RE discussion forum, and so RE should be discussed.
Not for people to cast judgements based on their own moralities.
Judges judge, that's why there's a legal system.
This is an RE discussion forum, and so RE should be discussed.
I certainly don't condone any illegal acts, but I do not believe this is the place to discuss such views.
Regardless of who it is.

 

[INVSTOR]

Obviously I don't support churches or child abusers.

If I want a career in RE or investing, I don't think it would hurt to look at posts that relate to my future chosen career.

 

[csc2]

trouble is, no one will know your nic if they search your name..

better add it to your cv.

try adding lights to the post, that may work! ;-)

churches and tamperers...umm!` why does that seem to go hand in hand......bloody catholics! i was one once (a catholic that is)...now atheist as...and happy to remain that way!

ive seen the light allright!

good luck with your job hunting....

 

[Piston Broke]

Obviously I don't support churches or child abusers.
If I want a career in RE or investing, I don't think it would hurt to look at posts that relate to my future chosen career.

But my morality and ethics say that if you got believe in, got married and attend the institution that did that, you are part of them and supporting them.
You know, like the ones that kicked out Mckillop & mother teresa and now call her their own.
The ones that burned, tortured, stoned innocent people as witches.
Do you not denouce that organization?
How can I believe the honesty and integrity of anyone who is a member, donates and consider such an organisation to be sacred?

See, I can also cast judgement and force my moralities on you.
Or do we leave the judging to the justice system, and stick to the scope of this forum that is Property Investors Forum?

btw not just catholic csc2.

 

[INVSTOR]

Judge away - I don't care - I'm not part of them anyway??

Fair enough my post in another thread got deleted, it was definately off topic.

 

[HiEquity]

Are those facts appropriate?

Yes. Pointing out to people past convictions against churches is highly relevant to those considering "joining up". I would appreciate someone doing that for me if I was unaware of the past of any organisation and considering supporting them.

Judges judge, that's why there's a legal system.

My understanding is in this case a judge has judged and some are merely making others aware of a matter that is already on the public record. No judgments are taking place - that happened way back.

People considering the use of a person's services should be made aware of criminal matters on the public record regarding the conduct of that person. That way they can make up their own mind as to whether the matter is "ancient irrelevant history"... or not.

 

[Piston Broke]

The comment deleted was not just merely "making aware", for those who read it. It was out of order ie clearly defamatory.
Even for me.
The fact that it's public means its there for anyone to see and make their own choice, judgement, decision.
FTR I've never been in trouble with police, never done drugs and hardly even drink alcohol.
That dont mean I can come here and post "why should I place any value in the opinion of a stoned pi$$head", of which I'm sure there are some here, with the justification that I'm pointing out facts, and making others aware.

But I am also always up to take on the mods because I cant even mention a name, let alone facts, because to many people round here have vested interests. And that is strictly about investing.
So they take it to delete posts claiming "defamation liability" and issue infractions.
Fair enough it's their forum, so my only recourse is lodging a report with ASIC.
They are happy to discuss it with me.

 

[Bill.L]

Hi all,

I think we need to get away from the idea that just because the discussion was off topic was in of itself a good enough reason to delete. There are many threads where the discussion goes way off topic, yet are allowed to remain because they are benign subjects discussed.

It is one of my pet peeves that a serious topic is often derailed by some off topic discussion that ends up leaving threads disjointed and eventually abandoned. Often nothing happens from the moderation side of things, which is why it is a bit rich to use the excuse of 'off topic' as a reason for deleting some parts of controversial discussion.

bye

 

[Aaron Sice]

BS it is subject to Australian defamation laws, ACCC, ASIC, Contempt of court and any Australian laws as those who run it a clearly identified as being Australian and residing in Australia.
Domain name does not determine jurisdiction.
Maybe you watch too much tV.

....and your organ is turned up a bit too loud.

i watched this unfold and speak from experience.

OZRodders Forum

operating under a dotcom domain name means all content is protected under the american fifth amendment, as precedent clearly shows.

period.

 

[Mr. Fabulous]

operating under a dotcom domain name means all content is protected under the american fifth amendment, as precedent clearly shows.

period.

So does this mean we can talk all we want about a certain bloke whose name starts with 'J' and ends with 'enman'?

Long time readers will know what I'm talking about. While we're on the subject... that Aaron Sice guy, he's a bit of a shady character, I heard *wink*.

So we can all basically go hammer and tongs on each other? Anyone complains? 'Fifth Amendment!'

 

[skater]

As I just wrote to the moderators, and having read the court manuscripts, I'm not quite sure that the massive number of women permanently and systematically damaged over such a lengthy period - more than a decade - can be reduced to a mere "incident" Simon.

I may be speaking out of turn here, and please correct me if I am wrong. Despite being a part of this forum since 2001 I did not see anything at all mentioning the "incidents" that are being discussed here.

What my question is, is how on earth can a person who has been convicted of a serious crime (I am supposing it WAS a serious crime, based on what Dazz has posted above) in recent history, be still walking amoung us and not locked up? Now, one of the articles referred to in the original post (and since is not available anymore to read for clarification) was dated 1999. As I said earlier, I have been around here since 2001 and the said person has been running his Business all this time. Did he NOT get locked up? And if not, why not?

Now, he may be a different person today, than he was then. He may have sought professional help and worked through his issues and if he has, kudos for him. Even so, I still would feel uncomfortable being in a room alone with such a person. Imagine how distraught the victims of this crime would feel knowing full well that he has not been locked away and has been running a successful Business fuelled (at first) through his income as a Doctor.

 

[Luv2Travel]

I'm not quite sure that the massive number of women permanently and systematically damaged over such a lengthy period - more than a decade - can be reduced to a mere "incident" Simon.

I agree. If it was a one off mistake, maybe the person is sorry and has changed. The fact it occurred over 10 years with many different victims, to me that just says the person is more sorry they got caught and ruined their own life rather than that of the victims.

Skater
Even so, I still would feel uncomfortable being in a room alone with such a person.

Agree completely!

 

[sfulop]

I agree. If it was a one off mistake, maybe the person is sorry and has changed. The fact it occurred over 10 years with many different victims, to me that just says the person is more sorry they got caught and ruined their own life rather than that of the victims.

+1. I agree 100% agree with this.

 

[FormerLurker]

So does this mean we can talk all we want about a certain bloke whose name starts with 'J' and ends with 'enman'?

Long time readers will know what I'm talking about. While we're on the subject... that Aaron Sice guy, he's a bit of a shady character, I heard *wink*.

So we can all basically go hammer and tongs on each other? Anyone complains? 'Fifth Amendment!'

I wouldn't say we can go hammer and tongs at each other especially on issues not proven (slander and defemation issues) but if somethings is a matter of public record then I have no issues and indeed encourage that information being shared on here.

The more information out there the better IMO to assist people in their decision making - alot of people sadly don't do their due dilligence to a high standard..... just look at all the poor saps on ebay buying "german silver" or HGE gold coins these things are fake but because they havn't done DD they pay spot prices for the real thing.

Some people would say thats their tough luck but I find it sad and wish more information was out there so this sort of thing doesn't happen.

my $0.02

 

[VYBerlinaV8]

Wow - I just read through all this, and did some googling, and have to say this whole thing is pretty awful.

Ultimately, its up to an individual to decide whether to take advice they're given.

 

[jaycee]

So does this mean we can talk all we want about a certain bloke whose name starts with 'J' and ends with 'enman'?

Long time readers will know what I'm talking about. While we're on the subject... that Aaron Sice guy, he's a bit of a shady character, I heard *wink*.

So we can all basically go hammer and tongs on each other? Anyone complains? 'Fifth Amendment!'

Amazing how it seems that people actually belive that