ya pays ya money , you take your chances. Just like any other business.

Quote:

Court rules against Queensland taxis on two grounds of compo claim

https://www.watoday.com.au/national/queensland/court-rules-against-queensland-taxis-on-two-grounds-of-compo-claim-20200501-p54p1n.html

I am on the side of taxi licence holders  this isnt right at all..

it most certainly isnt a level playing field... >:( >:(

The amount of money a taxi owner has to shell out just to have a license is ridiculous. The other services have no such outlay.

Spot

Surprise,  surprise.

The grubberment has been robbing taxis for years.
Ridiculous amounts of money to drive a legally registered car on the roads.

And now, they refuse to protect the industry that is paying thousands to them.

The grubberment is a slimy, conniving, lying, collection of criminal thieves.

MAY THEY ALL ROT IN HELL FOR ETERNITY.

Quote:

Standard taxi licenses in Brisbane were selling for an average of more than half a million dollars in 2014 but that price had dropped to $103,828 in 2018. In 2019, the average sale price for a standard license in the city was about $75,000.

Poor Aussie must have lost his arse out of this.
No wonder he drinks.

The real question is not why the government is letting uber take over, but why they let the situation with taxi licences get so distorted in the first place. It's like they hated taxi drivers.

cods wrote on May 2^nd, 2020 at 7:41am:

I am on the side of taxi licence holders  this isnt right at all.. it most certainly isnt a level playing field... >:( >:(

The cabbies got ripped off

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2020 at 9:44am:

The real question is not why the government is letting uber take over, but why they let the situation with taxi licences get so distorted in the first place. It's like they hated taxi drivers.

its no more no less than what the Chinese have done to our manufacturing......its destroying another industry unfairly

rhino wrote on May 2^nd, 2020 at 12:17am:

ya pays ya money , you take your chances. Just like any other business. Quote: Court rules against Queensland taxis on two grounds of compo claim https://www.watoday.com.au/national/queensland/court-rules-against-queensland-taxis-on-two-grounds-of-compo-claim-20200501-p54p1n.html

A third ground remains in place.  Obviously there is advice that we should appeal this decision.  I'll be waiting for the dust to settle first.

Quote:

A third ground remains in place.

Which is?

Shameful.  >:(

I have never used, nor will I ever use Uber.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2020 at 12:06pm:

Quote: A third ground remains in place. Which is?

bus?

Spot

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 2^nd, 2020 at 8:02am:

The amount of money a taxi owner has to shell out just to have a license is ridiculous. The other services have no such outlay. Spot

Just taking our rightful place as part of the Third World, in which anyone with a car can tout for fares without checks and balances.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2020 at 12:06pm:

Quote: A third ground remains in place. Which is?

"Leave was granted for the group to re-plead a claim for relief under the Australian Consumer Law within 28 days."

Aussie wrote on May 2^nd, 2020 at 12:50pm:

freediver wrote on May 2nd, 2020 at 12:06pm: Quote: A third ground remains in place. Which is? "Leave was granted for the group to re-plead a claim for relief under the Australian Consumer Law within 28 days."

dear Aussie,
join a class action and get your money back - it wasn't fair.

Bobby. wrote on May 2^nd, 2020 at 12:54pm:

Aussie wrote on May 2nd, 2020 at 12:50pm: freediver wrote on May 2nd, 2020 at 12:06pm: Quote: A third ground remains in place. Which is? "Leave was granted for the group to re-plead a claim for relief under the Australian Consumer Law within 28 days." dear Aussie, join a class action and get your money back - it wasn't fair.

What is about 1300 people you don't reckon was a 'class?'

Further, on an Australia wide basis, we have action in the Courts against Uber directly.

(This one was against the Qld Govt, and the Fat Lady has not yet sung.)

Aussie wrote on May 2^nd, 2020 at 1:02pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 2nd, 2020 at 12:54pm: Aussie wrote on May 2nd, 2020 at 12:50pm: freediver wrote on May 2nd, 2020 at 12:06pm: Quote: A third ground remains in place. Which is? "Leave was granted for the group to re-plead a claim for relief under the Australian Consumer Law within 28 days." dear Aussie, join a class action and get your money back - it wasn't fair. What is about 1300 people you don't reckon was a 'class?' Further, on an Australia wide basis, we have action in the Courts against Uber directly. (This one was against the Qld Govt, and the Fat Lady has not yet sung.)

dear Aussie,
I don't know what you're doing -
you might have told us but I didn't read it.

I believe you have a right to get every penny of your money back as

why should you have paid for a license when Uber
did the same work without a license?

Tell that to the Judge.  And......

I would have been taking the credit has those two dismissed parts of the Claim got through.  They were my idea (expressed at a meeting Owners had in Burpengary Qld about two years) with which the clever dick QCs and Lawyers in Victoria agreed, but they did not come up with those themselves.

The one that did get through, was not my idea but I agree with it.

So so far they have pursued your two ideas, been knocked back, and now have to pay the court costs, on top of their legal expenses?

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2020 at 1:55pm:

So so far they have pursued your two ideas, been knocked back, and now have to pay the court costs, on top of their legal expenses?

A good legal explanation as to why natural justice
was denied would be enlightening.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2020 at 1:55pm:

So so far they have pursued your two ideas, been knocked back, and now have to pay the court costs, on top of their legal expenses?

Yes, with the caveat that while I promoted those concepts as causes of action, the smart arse QCs and Lawyers in Victoria who drew the pleadings and have the running of the case, agreed with me, although they did not (in all their wonderfulness) come up with those possibilities themselves.

Yes, we pay the Government's costs of that application it made to strike us out because they got up on two out of the three issues.  That cost contingency was already catered for with in excess of $M2 in our Lawyer's Trust Account as a war chest.

Imagine this.

Someone comes up with a highly AI software that knows every single legal requirement in the world.

This software, is infallible,  never gets its wrong because it works on pure logic.

It even has been programmed to consider extenuating circumstances.

Now, this program could easily replace the corrupt magistrates and judges we currently have.
In fact it's faster, more honest, incorruptible and above all, not being paid ridiculious sums of money to pontificate and doesn't live the sound of it's own voice.

So, we decide to do away with corrupt judges, magistrates and give the world honest legal systems.

I wonder, how much woukd the judges, magistrates and legal profiteers protest about their lost income?

And if we went one step further and introduced the same into politics.

WE COULD SAVE THE WORLD

Valkie wrote on May 2^nd, 2020 at 2:53pm:

Imagine this. Someone comes up with a highly AI software that knows every single legal requirement in the world. This software, is infallible,  never gets its wrong because it works on pure logic. It even has been programmed to consider extenuating circumstances. Now, this program could easily replace the corrupt magistrates and judges we currently have. In fact it's faster, more honest, incorruptible and above all, not being paid ridiculious sums of money to pontificate and doesn't live the sound of it's own voice. So, we decide to do away with corrupt judges, magistrates and give the world honest legal systems. I wonder, how much woukd the judges, magistrates and legal profiteers protest about their lost income? And if we went one step further and introduced the same into politics. WE COULD SAVE THE WORLD

If it works on pure logic it is doomed in the legal system.

Aussie wrote on May 2^nd, 2020 at 2:24pm:

freediver wrote on May 2nd, 2020 at 1:55pm: So so far they have pursued your two ideas, been knocked back, and now have to pay the court costs, on top of their legal expenses? Yes, with the caveat that while I promoted those concepts as causes of action, the smart arse QCs and Lawyers in Victoria who drew the pleadings and have the running of the case, agreed with me, although they did not (in all their wonderfulness) come up with those possibilities themselves. Yes, we pay the Government's costs of that application it made to strike us out because they got up on two out of the three issues.  That cost contingency was already catered for with in excess of $M2 in our Lawyer's Trust Account as a war chest.

They agreed to take your money off you Aussie. Nice of them to give you all the credit.

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 8:57am:

Aussie wrote on May 2nd, 2020 at 2:24pm: freediver wrote on May 2nd, 2020 at 1:55pm: So so far they have pursued your two ideas, been knocked back, and now have to pay the court costs, on top of their legal expenses? Yes, with the caveat that while I promoted those concepts as causes of action, the smart arse QCs and Lawyers in Victoria who drew the pleadings and have the running of the case, agreed with me, although they did not (in all their wonderfulness) come up with those possibilities themselves. Yes, we pay the Government's costs of that application it made to strike us out because they got up on two out of the three issues.  That cost contingency was already catered for with in excess of $M2 in our Lawyer's Trust Account as a war chest. They agreed to take your money off you Aussie. Nice of them to give you all the credit.

You want to translate that to cane toad speak, Effendi?

FreeDiver = Effendi
Aussie = Offender

Aussie wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 11:17am:

freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 8:57am: Aussie wrote on May 2nd, 2020 at 2:24pm: freediver wrote on May 2nd, 2020 at 1:55pm: So so far they have pursued your two ideas, been knocked back, and now have to pay the court costs, on top of their legal expenses? Yes, with the caveat that while I promoted those concepts as causes of action, the smart arse QCs and Lawyers in Victoria who drew the pleadings and have the running of the case, agreed with me, although they did not (in all their wonderfulness) come up with those possibilities themselves. Yes, we pay the Government's costs of that application it made to strike us out because they got up on two out of the three issues.  That cost contingency was already catered for with in excess of $M2 in our Lawyer's Trust Account as a war chest. They agreed to take your money off you Aussie. Nice of them to give you all the credit. You want to translate that to cane toad speak, Effendi?

They agreed that the customer is always right.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2020 at 1:55pm:

So so far they have pursued your two ideas, been knocked back, and now have to pay the court costs, on top of their legal expenses?

Aussie -
A good legal explanation as to why natural justice
was denied would be enlightening.

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 11:24am:

Aussie wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 11:17am: freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 8:57am: Aussie wrote on May 2nd, 2020 at 2:24pm: freediver wrote on May 2nd, 2020 at 1:55pm: So so far they have pursued your two ideas, been knocked back, and now have to pay the court costs, on top of their legal expenses? Yes, with the caveat that while I promoted those concepts as causes of action, the smart arse QCs and Lawyers in Victoria who drew the pleadings and have the running of the case, agreed with me, although they did not (in all their wonderfulness) come up with those possibilities themselves. Yes, we pay the Government's costs of that application it made to strike us out because they got up on two out of the three issues.  That cost contingency was already catered for with in excess of $M2 in our Lawyer's Trust Account as a war chest. They agreed to take your money off you Aussie. Nice of them to give you all the credit. You want to translate that to cane toad speak, Effendi? They agreed that the customer is always right.

That is not the way it works in Law.

Bobby. wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 11:27am:

freediver wrote on May 2nd, 2020 at 1:55pm: So so far they have pursued your two ideas, been knocked back, and now have to pay the court costs, on top of their legal expenses? Aussie - A good legal explanation as to why natural justice was denied would be enlightening.

It has SFA to do with 'natural justice.'

Aussie wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 11:56am:

freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 11:24am: Aussie wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 11:17am: freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 8:57am: Aussie wrote on May 2nd, 2020 at 2:24pm: freediver wrote on May 2nd, 2020 at 1:55pm: So so far they have pursued your two ideas, been knocked back, and now have to pay the court costs, on top of their legal expenses? Yes, with the caveat that while I promoted those concepts as causes of action, the smart arse QCs and Lawyers in Victoria who drew the pleadings and have the running of the case, agreed with me, although they did not (in all their wonderfulness) come up with those possibilities themselves. Yes, we pay the Government's costs of that application it made to strike us out because they got up on two out of the three issues.  That cost contingency was already catered for with in excess of $M2 in our Lawyer's Trust Account as a war chest. They agreed to take your money off you Aussie. Nice of them to give you all the credit. You want to translate that to cane toad speak, Effendi? They agreed that the customer is always right. That is not the way it works in Law.

But it is the way it works in reality. You present a good example.

Quote:

But it is the way it works in reality. You present a good example.

A good example is what you are Effendi....of how ignorant people are about the way Lawyers operate.

They operate by taking people's money off them.

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 12:01pm:

They operate by taking people's money off them.

Yes, they do not work for nothing, Effendi, and they do not put their careers on the line by chasing rabbits down holes.

Aussie wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 11:57am:

Bobby. wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 11:27am: freediver wrote on May 2nd, 2020 at 1:55pm: So so far they have pursued your two ideas, been knocked back, and now have to pay the court costs, on top of their legal expenses? Aussie - A good legal explanation as to why natural justice was denied would be enlightening. It has SFA to do with 'natural justice.'

Explain it then Aussie.

Sounds like a bunch of lawyers getting their clients to throw away good money after bad while handsomely lining their own pockets.

Gordon wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 12:14pm:

Sounds like a bunch of lawyers getting their clients to throw away good money after bad while handsomely lining their own pockets.

Why does justice cost so much? - greed?

It also means that only those with money receive justice.

Aussie wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 12:03pm:

freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 12:01pm: They operate by taking people's money off them. Yes, they do not work for nothing, Effendi, and they do not put their careers on the line by chasing rabbits down holes.

Like they did with your money?

If they can make it sound plausible, they will do it. Even better if they have a customer who wants to take credit for it.

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 12:27pm:

Aussie wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 12:03pm: freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 12:01pm: They operate by taking people's money off them. Yes, they do not work for nothing, Effendi, and they do not put their careers on the line by chasing rabbits down holes. Like they did with your money? If they can make it sound plausible, they will do it. Even better if they have a customer who wants to take credit for it.

You are simplifying a complex issue Effendi, and I see no benefit in taking this any further with you.

Bobby, the Judgement is over about 50 pages.  I have not yet read it to the extent I can nutshell it.  Maybe later.

Bobby. wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 12:16pm:

Gordon wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 12:14pm: Sounds like a bunch of lawyers getting their clients to throw away good money after bad while handsomely lining their own pockets. Why does justice cost so much? - greed? It also means that only those with money receive justice.

Even thats a maybe

Spot

Aussie wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 2:05pm:

Bobby, the Judgement is over about 50 pages.  I have not yet read it to the extent I can nutshell it.  Maybe later.

I await with bated breath.

Bobby. wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 2:37pm:

Aussie wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 2:05pm: Bobby, the Judgement is over about 50 pages.  I have not yet read it to the extent I can nutshell it.  Maybe later. I await with bated breath.

Get fukked then.

Aussie wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 2:40pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 2:37pm: Aussie wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 2:05pm: Bobby, the Judgement is over about 50 pages.  I have not yet read it to the extent I can nutshell it.  Maybe later. I await with bated breath. Get fukked then.

I could die of suffocation waiting for your learned appraisal.

Aussie wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 2:40pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 2:37pm: Aussie wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 2:05pm: Bobby, the Judgement is over about 50 pages.  I have not yet read it to the extent I can nutshell it.  Maybe later. I await with bated breath. Get fukked then.

Is that lawyer or taxi vernacular?

Gordon wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 2:49pm:

Aussie wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 2:40pm: Bobby. wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 2:37pm: Aussie wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 2:05pm: Bobby, the Judgement is over about 50 pages.  I have not yet read it to the extent I can nutshell it.  Maybe later. I await with bated breath. Get fukked then. Is that lawyer or taxi vernacular?

It's the drink.



https://d2lnr5mha7bycj.cloudfront.net/product-image/file/large_13f8af40-16f0-468c-83ef-da300c6aa9f1.JPG

Bobby. wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 2:52pm:

Gordon wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 2:49pm: Aussie wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 2:40pm: Bobby. wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 2:37pm: Aussie wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 2:05pm: Bobby, the Judgement is over about 50 pages.  I have not yet read it to the extent I can nutshell it.  Maybe later. I await with bated breath. Get fukked then. Is that lawyer or taxi vernacular? It's the drink. https://d2lnr5mha7bycj.cloudfront.net/product-image/file/large_13f8af40-16f0-468c-83ef-da300c6aa9f1.JPG

When the retard was pinned to a tree do you reckon he got a blast of booze breath?

Aussie wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 12:03pm:

freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 12:01pm: They operate by taking people's money off them. Yes, they do not work for nothing, Effendi, and they do not put their careers on the line by chasing rabbits down holes.

I agree a very self satisfying career..

Bobby. wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 2:48pm:

Aussie wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 2:40pm: Bobby. wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 2:37pm: Aussie wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 2:05pm: Bobby, the Judgement is over about 50 pages.  I have not yet read it to the extent I can nutshell it.  Maybe later. I await with bated breath. Get fukked then. I could die of suffocation waiting for your learned appraisal.

easy fixed ... just take your boy friends ball sack out of your mouth while waiting

Aussie wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 2:05pm:

freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 12:27pm: Aussie wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 12:03pm: freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 12:01pm: They operate by taking people's money off them. Yes, they do not work for nothing, Effendi, and they do not put their careers on the line by chasing rabbits down holes. Like they did with your money? If they can make it sound plausible, they will do it. Even better if they have a customer who wants to take credit for it. You are simplifying a complex issue Effendi, and I see no benefit in taking this any further with you. Bobby, the Judgement is over about 50 pages.  I have not yet read it to the extent I can nutshell it.  Maybe later.

The outcome was that you pushed two items that otherwise would not have been pursued, paid a lot of money for the privilege, lost, were forced to pay court costs, probably cost your friends in the industry a lot of money too.

And here you are bragging about it.

Oh, and the lawyers got rich.

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 5:57pm:

The outcome was that you pushed two items that otherwise would not have been pursued

pushed? where you there FD? :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 5:49pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 2:48pm: Aussie wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 2:40pm: Bobby. wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 2:37pm: Aussie wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 2:05pm: Bobby, the Judgement is over about 50 pages.  I have not yet read it to the extent I can nutshell it.  Maybe later. I await with bated breath. Get fukked then. I could die of suffocation waiting for your learned appraisal. easy fixed ... just take your boy friends ball sack out of your mouth while waiting

You must be a homo.

Go to Monk's fake PA,  gay forum.

John Smith wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 5:59pm:

freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 5:57pm: The outcome was that you pushed two items that otherwise would not have been pursued pushed? where you there FD? :D :D :D

Correct, Mr Smith.  This is how idiots take a simple comment and make it into something it never was.

At a meeting of Owners in Burpengarry, I spoke and said I thought we had an action based on contract and estoppel.  Not one of those Victorian Lawyers were at that meeting.  Fukked if I am going to give these stupid people any further oxygen, or detail.  Look at what you get around here.  You admit you had an idea which (at the moment) has been determined as wrong, and stupid dickheads pounce on that.

Aussie wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:10pm:

John Smith wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 5:59pm: freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 5:57pm: The outcome was that you pushed two items that otherwise would not have been pursued pushed? where you there FD? :D :D :D Correct, Mr Smith.  This is how idiots take a simple comment and make it into something it never was. At a meeting of Owners in Burpengarry, I spoke and said I thought we had an action based on contract and estoppel.  Not one of those Victorian Lawyers were at that meeting.  Fukked if I am going to give these stupid people any further oxygen, or detail.  Look at what you get around here.  You admit you had an idea which (at the moment) has been determined as wrong, and stupid dickheads pounce on that.

You certainly had a case for Promissory Estoppel.

Bobby. wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:08pm:

John Smith wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 5:49pm: Bobby. wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 2:48pm: Aussie wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 2:40pm: Bobby. wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 2:37pm: Aussie wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 2:05pm: Bobby, the Judgement is over about 50 pages.  I have not yet read it to the extent I can nutshell it.  Maybe later. I await with bated breath. Get fukked then. I could die of suffocation waiting for your learned appraisal. easy fixed ... just take your boy friends ball sack out of your mouth while waiting You must be a homo. Go to Monk's fake PA,  gay forum.

only time anyone mentions gays is when you're present. Be that here or at monks forum. What does that tell you? :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:19pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:08pm: John Smith wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 5:49pm: Bobby. wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 2:48pm: Aussie wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 2:40pm: Bobby. wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 2:37pm: Aussie wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 2:05pm: Bobby, the Judgement is over about 50 pages.  I have not yet read it to the extent I can nutshell it.  Maybe later. I await with bated breath. Get fukked then. I could die of suffocation waiting for your learned appraisal. easy fixed ... just take your boy friends ball sack out of your mouth while waiting You must be a homo. Go to Monk's fake PA,  gay forum. only time anyone mentions gays is when you're present. Be that here or at monks forum. What does that tell you? :D :D :D

Go away John,
Monk will be happy to do all the cock talk you want -
not here - this is a forum for real men.

Aussie wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:10pm:

John Smith wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 5:59pm: freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 5:57pm: The outcome was that you pushed two items that otherwise would not have been pursued pushed? where you there FD? :D :D :D Correct, Mr Smith.  This is how idiots take a simple comment and make it into something it never was. At a meeting of Owners in Burpengarry, I spoke and said I thought we had an action based on contract and estoppel.  Not one of those Victorian Lawyers were at that meeting.  Fukked if I am going to give these stupid people any further oxygen, or detail.  Look at what you get around here.  You admit you had an idea which (at the moment) has been determined as wrong, and stupid dickheads pounce on that.

You had an idea and a pile of money, and gave both to the lawyers.

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:23pm:

Aussie wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:10pm: John Smith wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 5:59pm: freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 5:57pm: The outcome was that you pushed two items that otherwise would not have been pursued pushed? where you there FD? :D :D :D Correct, Mr Smith.  This is how idiots take a simple comment and make it into something it never was. At a meeting of Owners in Burpengarry, I spoke and said I thought we had an action based on contract and estoppel.  Not one of those Victorian Lawyers were at that meeting.  Fukked if I am going to give these stupid people any further oxygen, or detail.  Look at what you get around here.  You admit you had an idea which (at the moment) has been determined as wrong, and stupid dickheads pounce on that. You had an idea and a pile of money, and gave both to the lawyers.

dear FD,
don't rub salt into the wound.
What happened to Aussie is not fair.

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:23pm:

Aussie wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:10pm: John Smith wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 5:59pm: freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 5:57pm: The outcome was that you pushed two items that otherwise would not have been pursued pushed? where you there FD? :D :D :D Correct, Mr Smith.  This is how idiots take a simple comment and make it into something it never was. At a meeting of Owners in Burpengarry, I spoke and said I thought we had an action based on contract and estoppel.  Not one of those Victorian Lawyers were at that meeting.  Fukked if I am going to give these stupid people any further oxygen, or detail.  Look at what you get around here.  You admit you had an idea which (at the moment) has been determined as wrong, and stupid dickheads pounce on that. You had an idea and a pile of money, and gave both to the lawyers.

the same applies to everyone suing someone else fd ... is there a point you're trying to make?

John Smith wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:26pm:

freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:23pm: Aussie wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:10pm: John Smith wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 5:59pm: freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 5:57pm: The outcome was that you pushed two items that otherwise would not have been pursued pushed? where you there FD? :D :D :D Correct, Mr Smith.  This is how idiots take a simple comment and make it into something it never was. At a meeting of Owners in Burpengarry, I spoke and said I thought we had an action based on contract and estoppel.  Not one of those Victorian Lawyers were at that meeting.  Fukked if I am going to give these stupid people any further oxygen, or detail.  Look at what you get around here.  You admit you had an idea which (at the moment) has been determined as wrong, and stupid dickheads pounce on that. You had an idea and a pile of money, and gave both to the lawyers. the same applies to everyone suing someone else fd ... is there a point you're trying to make?

Just trying to figure out what Aussie is bragging about.

Not everyone suing someone gives their lawyers bright ideas on how to take their money.

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:29pm:

Just trying to figure out what Aussie is bragging about

how is it bragging? :D :D


freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:29pm:

Not everyone suing someone gives their lawyers bright ideas on how to take their money.

it was a meeting of owners. :D :D :D :D

Aussie went to great pains to point out that it was his idea and the bigshot lawyers agreed with him and said they would have never thought of it themselves.

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:35pm:

Aussie went to great pains to point out that it was his idea and the bigshot lawyers agreed with him and said they would have never thought of it themselves.

Is there some kind of a conflict of interest there?

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:35pm:

Aussie went to great pains to point out that it was his idea and the bigshot lawyers agreed with him and said they would have never thought of it themselves.

you're going to great pains to pretend aussie said something other than what he said

does that mean you're bragging now? :D :D

John Smith wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:36pm:

freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:35pm: Aussie went to great pains to point out that it was his idea and the bigshot lawyers agreed with him and said they would have never thought of it themselves. you're going to great pains to pretend aussie said something other than what he said does that mean you're bragging now? :D :D

hu hum'



he did say that ::)

Re: Court rules against Queensland taxis
Reply #17 - May 2nd, 2020 at 1:13pmQuote Tell that to the Judge.  And......

I would have been taking the credit has those two dismissed parts of the Claim got through.  They were my idea (expressed at a meeting Owners had in Burpengary Qld about two years) with which the clever dick QCs and Lawyers in Victoria agreed, but they did not come up with those themselves.

The one that did get through, was not my idea but I agree with it.

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:23pm:

Aussie wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:10pm: John Smith wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 5:59pm: freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 5:57pm: The outcome was that you pushed two items that otherwise would not have been pursued pushed? where you there FD? :D :D :D Correct, Mr Smith.  This is how idiots take a simple comment and make it into something it never was. At a meeting of Owners in Burpengarry, I spoke and said I thought we had an action based on contract and estoppel.  Not one of those Victorian Lawyers were at that meeting.  Fukked if I am going to give these stupid people any further oxygen, or detail.  Look at what you get around here.  You admit you had an idea which (at the moment) has been determined as wrong, and stupid dickheads pounce on that. You had an idea and a pile of money, and gave both to the lawyers.

I told Arsie to sell his taxi plates years ago while they were still worth something.

Now his plates have lost heaps of value and he has to pay his lawyer and the government lawyers.

;D ;D ;D

Baronvonrort wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:43pm:

freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:23pm: Aussie wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:10pm: John Smith wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 5:59pm: freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 5:57pm: The outcome was that you pushed two items that otherwise would not have been pursued pushed? where you there FD? :D :D :D Correct, Mr Smith.  This is how idiots take a simple comment and make it into something it never was. At a meeting of Owners in Burpengarry, I spoke and said I thought we had an action based on contract and estoppel.  Not one of those Victorian Lawyers were at that meeting.  Fukked if I am going to give these stupid people any further oxygen, or detail.  Look at what you get around here.  You admit you had an idea which (at the moment) has been determined as wrong, and stupid dickheads pounce on that. You had an idea and a pile of money, and gave both to the lawyers. I told Arsie to sell his taxi plates years ago while they were still worth something. Now his plates have lost heaps of value and he has to pay his lawyer and the government lawyers. ;D ;D ;D

it isnt the fact they have lost value   every businessman takes that risk..

its the fact the opposition doesnt play by the same rules as taxi owners play by...

if you owned a pub and someone opened another pub opposite you.. they would have to pay the same licence fees...and play by the same rules as you..

not so in this case.. and that imo is unfair..

John why are you so eager to validate Aussie's efforts to get himself and his friends fleeced by lawyers?

cods wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:45pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:43pm: freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:23pm: Aussie wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:10pm: John Smith wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 5:59pm: freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 5:57pm: The outcome was that you pushed two items that otherwise would not have been pursued pushed? where you there FD? :D :D :D Correct, Mr Smith.  This is how idiots take a simple comment and make it into something it never was. At a meeting of Owners in Burpengarry, I spoke and said I thought we had an action based on contract and estoppel.  Not one of those Victorian Lawyers were at that meeting.  Fukked if I am going to give these stupid people any further oxygen, or detail.  Look at what you get around here.  You admit you had an idea which (at the moment) has been determined as wrong, and stupid dickheads pounce on that. You had an idea and a pile of money, and gave both to the lawyers. I told Arsie to sell his taxi plates years ago while they were still worth something. Now his plates have lost heaps of value and he has to pay his lawyer and the government lawyers. ;D ;D ;D it isnt the fact they have lost value   every businessman takes that risk.. its the fact the opposition doesnt play by the same rules as taxi owners play by... if you owned a pub and someone opened another pub opposite you.. they would have to pay the same licence fees...and play by the same rules as you.. not so in this case.. and that imo is unfair..

True - Aussie has been shafted by The Govt.

cods wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:45pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:43pm: freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:23pm: Aussie wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:10pm: John Smith wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 5:59pm: freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 5:57pm: The outcome was that you pushed two items that otherwise would not have been pursued pushed? where you there FD? :D :D :D Correct, Mr Smith.  This is how idiots take a simple comment and make it into something it never was. At a meeting of Owners in Burpengarry, I spoke and said I thought we had an action based on contract and estoppel.  Not one of those Victorian Lawyers were at that meeting.  Fukked if I am going to give these stupid people any further oxygen, or detail.  Look at what you get around here.  You admit you had an idea which (at the moment) has been determined as wrong, and stupid dickheads pounce on that. You had an idea and a pile of money, and gave both to the lawyers. I told Arsie to sell his taxi plates years ago while they were still worth something. Now his plates have lost heaps of value and he has to pay his lawyer and the government lawyers. ;D ;D ;D it isnt the fact they have lost value   every businessman takes that risk.. its the fact the opposition doesnt play by the same rules as taxi owners play by... if you owned a pub and someone opened another pub opposite you.. they would have to pay the same licence fees...and play by the same rules as you.. not so in this case.. and that imo is unfair..

If taxis were good value there is no way companies like Uber would have been a threat.

Times change and so do the rules many people have lost money in the past by not adapting to newer times with different rules.

If I was stupid enough to invest in taxi plate I would have sold it when Uber started when the plate still had some value.

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:49pm:

John why are you so eager to validate Aussie's efforts to get himself and his friends fleeced by lawyers?

gawd your a stirrer fd......what does js or you for that matter know about legal issues.... ::) ::)..

we need to await aussies explanation why they were thrown out....

Baronvonrort wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:52pm:

cods wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:45pm: Baronvonrort wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:43pm: freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:23pm: Aussie wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:10pm: John Smith wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 5:59pm: freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 5:57pm: The outcome was that you pushed two items that otherwise would not have been pursued pushed? where you there FD? :D :D :D Correct, Mr Smith.  This is how idiots take a simple comment and make it into something it never was. At a meeting of Owners in Burpengarry, I spoke and said I thought we had an action based on contract and estoppel.  Not one of those Victorian Lawyers were at that meeting.  Fukked if I am going to give these stupid people any further oxygen, or detail.  Look at what you get around here.  You admit you had an idea which (at the moment) has been determined as wrong, and stupid dickheads pounce on that. You had an idea and a pile of money, and gave both to the lawyers. I told Arsie to sell his taxi plates years ago while they were still worth something. Now his plates have lost heaps of value and he has to pay his lawyer and the government lawyers. ;D ;D ;D it isnt the fact they have lost value   every businessman takes that risk.. its the fact the opposition doesnt play by the same rules as taxi owners play by... if you owned a pub and someone opened another pub opposite you.. they would have to pay the same licence fees...and play by the same rules as you.. not so in this case.. and that imo is unfair.. If taxis were good value there is no way companies like Uber would have been a threat. Times change and so do the rules many people have lost money in the past by not adapting to newer times with different rules. If I was stupid enough to invest in taxi plate I would have sold it when Uber started when the plate still had some value.

well we can all think like that  others would be hoping UBER would flop and disappear all together..

all I say is...   it should be a level playing field.....you cant stop competition  ... but UBER is getting away with murder.. in fact its a bloody joke....one rule for them and one rule for cabbies.......nah it stinks. 

Baronvonrort wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:52pm:

cods wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:45pm: Baronvonrort wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:43pm: freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:23pm: Aussie wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:10pm: John Smith wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 5:59pm: freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 5:57pm: The outcome was that you pushed two items that otherwise would not have been pursued pushed? where you there FD? :D :D :D Correct, Mr Smith.  This is how idiots take a simple comment and make it into something it never was. At a meeting of Owners in Burpengarry, I spoke and said I thought we had an action based on contract and estoppel.  Not one of those Victorian Lawyers were at that meeting.  Fukked if I am going to give these stupid people any further oxygen, or detail.  Look at what you get around here.  You admit you had an idea which (at the moment) has been determined as wrong, and stupid dickheads pounce on that. You had an idea and a pile of money, and gave both to the lawyers. I told Arsie to sell his taxi plates years ago while they were still worth something. Now his plates have lost heaps of value and he has to pay his lawyer and the government lawyers. ;D ;D ;D it isnt the fact they have lost value   every businessman takes that risk.. its the fact the opposition doesnt play by the same rules as taxi owners play by... if you owned a pub and someone opened another pub opposite you.. they would have to pay the same licence fees...and play by the same rules as you.. not so in this case.. and that imo is unfair.. If taxis were good value there is no way companies like Uber would have been a threat. Times change and so do the rules many people have lost money in the past by not adapting to newer times with different rules. If I was stupid enough to invest in taxi plate I would have sold it when Uber started when the plate still had some value.

All taxis needed to do was improve their product.
Clean cabs, knowledge polite drivers, arrive on time, did I say clean cabs? Even today your average Sydney cab stinks.

No sympathy for a business that can't adapt.

cods wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:58pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:52pm: cods wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:45pm: Baronvonrort wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:43pm: freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:23pm: Aussie wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:10pm: John Smith wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 5:59pm: freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 5:57pm: The outcome was that you pushed two items that otherwise would not have been pursued pushed? where you there FD? :D :D :D Correct, Mr Smith.  This is how idiots take a simple comment and make it into something it never was. At a meeting of Owners in Burpengarry, I spoke and said I thought we had an action based on contract and estoppel.  Not one of those Victorian Lawyers were at that meeting.  Fukked if I am going to give these stupid people any further oxygen, or detail.  Look at what you get around here.  You admit you had an idea which (at the moment) has been determined as wrong, and stupid dickheads pounce on that. You had an idea and a pile of money, and gave both to the lawyers. I told Arsie to sell his taxi plates years ago while they were still worth something. Now his plates have lost heaps of value and he has to pay his lawyer and the government lawyers. ;D ;D ;D it isnt the fact they have lost value   every businessman takes that risk.. its the fact the opposition doesnt play by the same rules as taxi owners play by... if you owned a pub and someone opened another pub opposite you.. they would have to pay the same licence fees...and play by the same rules as you.. not so in this case.. and that imo is unfair.. If taxis were good value there is no way companies like Uber would have been a threat. Times change and so do the rules many people have lost money in the past by not adapting to newer times with different rules. If I was stupid enough to invest in taxi plate I would have sold it when Uber started when the plate still had some value. well we can all think like that  others would be hoping UBER would flop and disappear all together.. all I say is...   it should be a level playing field.....you cant stop competition  ... but UBER is getting away with murder.. in fact its a bloody joke....one rule for them and one rule for cabbies.......nah it stinks.

Uber can't line up at taxi ranks or pick up flag calls.
They still have protection.

Gordon wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 7:00pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:52pm: cods wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:45pm: Baronvonrort wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:43pm: freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:23pm: Aussie wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:10pm: John Smith wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 5:59pm: freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 5:57pm: The outcome was that you pushed two items that otherwise would not have been pursued pushed? where you there FD? :D :D :D Correct, Mr Smith.  This is how idiots take a simple comment and make it into something it never was. At a meeting of Owners in Burpengarry, I spoke and said I thought we had an action based on contract and estoppel.  Not one of those Victorian Lawyers were at that meeting.  Fukked if I am going to give these stupid people any further oxygen, or detail.  Look at what you get around here.  You admit you had an idea which (at the moment) has been determined as wrong, and stupid dickheads pounce on that. You had an idea and a pile of money, and gave both to the lawyers. I told Arsie to sell his taxi plates years ago while they were still worth something. Now his plates have lost heaps of value and he has to pay his lawyer and the government lawyers. ;D ;D ;D it isnt the fact they have lost value   every businessman takes that risk.. its the fact the opposition doesnt play by the same rules as taxi owners play by... if you owned a pub and someone opened another pub opposite you.. they would have to pay the same licence fees...and play by the same rules as you.. not so in this case.. and that imo is unfair.. If taxis were good value there is no way companies like Uber would have been a threat. Times change and so do the rules many people have lost money in the past by not adapting to newer times with different rules. If I was stupid enough to invest in taxi plate I would have sold it when Uber started when the plate still had some value. All taxis needed to do was improve their product. Clean cabs, knowledge polite drivers, arrive on time, did I say clean cabs? Even today your average Sydney cab stinks. No sympathy for a business that can't adapt.

not all ... come on gordy  if you had a bad experience  you can report it....in my experience never had a dirty ride...... maybe look at the driver....oopps  then again maybe not... :-/
Gordon wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 7:02pm:

Uber can't line up at taxi ranks or pick up flag calls. They still have protection

for NOW....still not a level playing field though is it???

and isnt UBER foreign owned.

cods wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 7:10pm:

Gordon wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 7:00pm: Baronvonrort wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:52pm: cods wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:45pm: Baronvonrort wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:43pm: freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:23pm: Aussie wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:10pm: John Smith wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 5:59pm: freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 5:57pm: The outcome was that you pushed two items that otherwise would not have been pursued pushed? where you there FD? :D :D :D Correct, Mr Smith.  This is how idiots take a simple comment and make it into something it never was. At a meeting of Owners in Burpengarry, I spoke and said I thought we had an action based on contract and estoppel.  Not one of those Victorian Lawyers were at that meeting.  Fukked if I am going to give these stupid people any further oxygen, or detail.  Look at what you get around here.  You admit you had an idea which (at the moment) has been determined as wrong, and stupid dickheads pounce on that. You had an idea and a pile of money, and gave both to the lawyers. I told Arsie to sell his taxi plates years ago while they were still worth something. Now his plates have lost heaps of value and he has to pay his lawyer and the government lawyers. ;D ;D ;D it isnt the fact they have lost value   every businessman takes that risk.. its the fact the opposition doesnt play by the same rules as taxi owners play by... if you owned a pub and someone opened another pub opposite you.. they would have to pay the same licence fees...and play by the same rules as you.. not so in this case.. and that imo is unfair.. If taxis were good value there is no way companies like Uber would have been a threat. Times change and so do the rules many people have lost money in the past by not adapting to newer times with different rules. If I was stupid enough to invest in taxi plate I would have sold it when Uber started when the plate still had some value. All taxis needed to do was improve their product. Clean cabs, knowledge polite drivers, arrive on time, did I say clean cabs? Even today your average Sydney cab stinks. No sympathy for a business that can't adapt. not all ... come on gordy  if you had a bad experience  you can report it....in my experience never had a dirty ride...... maybe look at the driver....oopps  then again maybe not... :-/ Gordon wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 7:02pm: Uber can't line up at taxi ranks or pick up flag calls. They still have protection for NOW....still not a level playing field though is it??? and isnt UBER foreign owned.

Cods, taxis in Sydney have always been a schitshow, it's no wonder people love Uber.

cods wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:53pm:

freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:49pm: John why are you so eager to validate Aussie's efforts to get himself and his friends fleeced by lawyers? gawd your a stirrer fd......what does js or you for that matter know about legal issues.... ::) ::).. we need to await aussies explanation why they were thrown out....

Apparently the explanation is 50 pages long of OMG why did you lawyers bother with this nonsense. Oh, hi Aussie.

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 7:16pm:

cods wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:53pm: freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:49pm: John why are you so eager to validate Aussie's efforts to get himself and his friends fleeced by lawyers? gawd your a stirrer fd......what does js or you for that matter know about legal issues.... ::) ::).. we need to await aussies explanation why they were thrown out.... Apparently the explanation is 50 pages long of OMG why did you lawyers bother with this nonsense. Oh, hi Aussie.

Aussie wants to reach 50 pages in a Topic - 'grinding' page after page of sledging with someone about the difference between a brass clip and a stainless steel clip.

cods wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:42pm:

John Smith wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:36pm: freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:35pm: Aussie went to great pains to point out that it was his idea and the bigshot lawyers agreed with him and said they would have never thought of it themselves. you're going to great pains to pretend aussie said something other than what he said does that mean you're bragging now? :D :D hu hum' he did say that ::) Re: Court rules against Queensland taxis Reply #17 - May 2nd, 2020 at 1:13pmQuote Tell that to the Judge.  And...... I would have been taking the credit has those two dismissed parts of the Claim got through.  They were my idea (expressed at a meeting Owners had in Burpengary Qld about two years) with which the clever dick QCs and Lawyers in Victoria agreed, but they did not come up with those themselves. The one that did get through, was not my idea but I agree with it.

no, he did not. When you learn to read English you might understand why

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:49pm:

John why are you so eager to validate Aussie's efforts to get himself and his friends fleeced by lawyers?

Nothing to do with validating Aussie. More to do with your pathetic attempts to lie.

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:29pm:

John Smith wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:26pm: freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:23pm: Aussie wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:10pm: John Smith wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 5:59pm: freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 5:57pm: The outcome was that you pushed two items that otherwise would not have been pursued pushed? where you there FD? :D :D :D Correct, Mr Smith.  This is how idiots take a simple comment and make it into something it never was. At a meeting of Owners in Burpengarry, I spoke and said I thought we had an action based on contract and estoppel.  Not one of those Victorian Lawyers were at that meeting.  Fukked if I am going to give these stupid people any further oxygen, or detail.  Look at what you get around here.  You admit you had an idea which (at the moment) has been determined as wrong, and stupid dickheads pounce on that. You had an idea and a pile of money, and gave both to the lawyers. the same applies to everyone suing someone else fd ... is there a point you're trying to make? Just trying to figure out what Aussie is bragging about. Not everyone suing someone gives their lawyers bright ideas on how to take their money.

I am not 'bragging' about anytging.  If anything, I am openly admitting I was found to be wrong in Law.

I'm not sure FD knows what bragging means

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:35pm:

Aussie went to great pains to point out that it was his idea and the bigshot lawyers agreed with him and said they would have never thought of it themselves.

No, I did not.  I said that they had not considered the two concepts, which is entirely different from they 'would have never thought of it themselves.'

John Smith wrote on May 5^th, 2020 at 9:02am:

cods wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:42pm: John Smith wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:36pm: freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:35pm: Aussie went to great pains to point out that it was his idea and the bigshot lawyers agreed with him and said they would have never thought of it themselves. you're going to great pains to pretend aussie said something other than what he said does that mean you're bragging now? :D :D hu hum' he did say that ::) Re: Court rules against Queensland taxis Reply #17 - May 2nd, 2020 at 1:13pmQuote Tell that to the Judge.  And...... I would have been taking the credit has those two dismissed parts of the Claim got through.  They were my idea (expressed at a meeting Owners had in Burpengary Qld about two years) with which the clever dick QCs and Lawyers in Victoria agreed, but they did not come up with those themselves. The one that did get through, was not my idea but I agree with it. no, he did not. When you learn to read English you might understand why

so you disagree with him as well...good to know.


Quote:

I am not 'bragging' about anytging.  If anything, I am openly admitting I was found to be wrong in Law.

he did suggest terms that cost them money... ::) ::)

his two suggestions got tossed out..

Actually a very sad thing - on the one hand a government demands excessive payments from someone to get into a business - then they utterly fail to protect that business.

I'm not convinced that Uber etc are a good thing.. not enough safeguards etc, and reminiscent of The Third World, where a very few dollars will buy you a transport service.  When ten dollars Oz is considered good biccies ....

https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/rickshaw-man-pulls-customer-kolkata-streets-november-india-city-india-still-having-83365477.jpg

Aussie wrote on May 5^th, 2020 at 9:12am:

freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:35pm: Aussie went to great pains to point out that it was his idea and the bigshot lawyers agreed with him and said they would have never thought of it themselves. No, I did not.  I said that they had not considered the two concepts, which is entirely different from they 'would have never thought of it themselves.'

here we go...   ;D ;D ;D

so you didnt give them an idea....which they the clever dicks took up...which ended up tossed out?    

cods wrote on May 5^th, 2020 at 10:14am:

Aussie wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 9:12am: freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:35pm: Aussie went to great pains to point out that it was his idea and the bigshot lawyers agreed with him and said they would have never thought of it themselves. No, I did not.  I said that they had not considered the two concepts, which is entirely different from they 'would have never thought of it themselves.' here we go...   ;D ;D ;D so you didnt give them an idea....which they the clever dicks took up...which ended up tossed out?

Yes.

Aussie wrote on May 5^th, 2020 at 10:22am:

cods wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 10:14am: Aussie wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 9:12am: freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:35pm: Aussie went to great pains to point out that it was his idea and the bigshot lawyers agreed with him and said they would have never thought of it themselves. No, I did not.  I said that they had not considered the two concepts, which is entirely different from they 'would have never thought of it themselves.' here we go...   ;D ;D ;D so you didnt give them an idea....which they the clever dicks took up...which ended up tossed out?     Yes.

confusing what.. :-/ so you didnt come up with those ideas..

cods wrote on May 5^th, 2020 at 10:04am:

he did suggest terms that cost them money.

I've yet to see a law suit that didn't cost money. Win lose or draw, lawyers want to get paid. Only a fool goes in thinking a win is guaranteed

Perhaps Aussie is saying they would have obviously thought of the idea, but not given it any serious consideration given how bad the idea was - that is, until Aussie came along and pestered them to pursue it, offering them a pile of his friend's money.

freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2020 at 11:17am:

Perhaps Aussie is saying they would have obviously thought of the idea, but not given it any serious consideration given how bad the idea was - that is, until Aussie came along and pestered them to pursue it, offering them a pile of his friend's money.

pestered them to pursue it?

;D ;D ;D

you really are getting pathetic fd

freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2020 at 11:17am:

Perhaps Aussie is saying they would have obviously thought of the idea, but not given it any serious consideration given how bad the idea was - that is, until Aussie came along and pestered them to pursue it, offering them a pile of his friend's money.

More lies.  Or, perhaps you actually did mean perhaps and are just musing out loud for the Hell of it.  I pestered no-one to pursue anything.

John Smith wrote on May 5^th, 2020 at 11:15am:

cods wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 10:04am: he did suggest terms that cost them money. I've yet to see a law suit that didn't cost money. Win lose or draw, lawyers want to get paid. Only a fool goes in thinking a win is guaranteed

mmmm so its best to think you will lose then you wont be disappointed...

are you readin that Ozzie?

cods wrote on May 5^th, 2020 at 11:32am:

John Smith wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 11:15am: cods wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 10:04am: he did suggest terms that cost them money. I've yet to see a law suit that didn't cost money. Win lose or draw, lawyers want to get paid. Only a fool goes in thinking a win is guaranteed mmmm so its best to think you will lose then you wont be disappointed... are you readin that Ozzie?

It's a bit like Pell, cods.  You have not lost the War after merely losing the opening skirmish.  Of course, it would have been better for the Cabbies if we had won that skirmish, but fact is, we didn't.

Aussie wrote on May 5^th, 2020 at 11:43am:

cods wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 11:32am: John Smith wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 11:15am: cods wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 10:04am: he did suggest terms that cost them money. I've yet to see a law suit that didn't cost money. Win lose or draw, lawyers want to get paid. Only a fool goes in thinking a win is guaranteed mmmm so its best to think you will lose then you wont be disappointed... are you readin that Ozzie? It's a bit like Pell, cods.  You have not lost the War after merely losing the opening skirmish.  Of course, it would have been better for the Cabbies if we had won that skirmish, but fact is, we didn't.

yes I get that aussie   and I am with you on this one....I will be interested to know why they got thrown out.....

I presume as you are part of the skirmish you will know why.......let face it   for it to go further it will end up costing more if your lose the next round ...I wish all you cabbies luck...you being aware of how fickle the law can be....I guess you will need it.

When I have read the 50 pages of complexities and understood them, I shall attempt to nutshell it here, but I am not convinced it will do anything other than give the 'Effendis' of this World more ammo to be ignorant Monday quarterbacks.

cods wrote on May 5^th, 2020 at 11:32am:

John Smith wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 11:15am: cods wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 10:04am: he did suggest terms that cost them money. I've yet to see a law suit that didn't cost money. Win lose or draw, lawyers want to get paid. Only a fool goes in thinking a win is guaranteed mmmm so its best to think you will lose then you wont be disappointed... are you readin that Ozzie?

The lawyers will typically advise you on what what they think your chances are cods. I don't know about this case in particular because Aussie hasn't said, but these sorts of cases are often taken on a 'no win, no pay' type policy. Lawyers won't even take the case if they don't think it will win. If they win they take a percentage of the win. That still doesn't guarantee you a win just because they've taken a case.

One thing you can bet is that in the meeting of owners, many options would have been thrown in the ring, by many owners, not just by Aussie. It's then up to the lawyers to advise on what path they think will have the best chance. I suspect that if the lawyers had said Aussies suggestions were unlikely to succeed, none of the other owners would have voted to go down that path. Contrary to FD's stupidity, people don't often throw good money after bad. Aussie would have been one vote amongst many.

Aussie wrote on May 5^th, 2020 at 11:19am:

freediver wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 11:17am: Perhaps Aussie is saying they would have obviously thought of the idea, but not given it any serious consideration given how bad the idea was - that is, until Aussie came along and pestered them to pursue it, offering them a pile of his friend's money. More lies.  Or, perhaps you actually did mean perhaps and are just musing out loud for the Hell of it.  I pestered no-one to pursue anything.

I am musing because we are attempting to make sense of what you said - that the real lawyers would have thought of it on their own, but not considered it.

freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2020 at 1:12pm:

because we are attemptin

who's we?

I reckon you could figure that one out for yourself John.

freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2020 at 1:24pm:

I reckon you could figure that one out for yourself John.

Yes, and I say the answer is.... ~ This 'we' is just you Effendi, ~ you grandstanding when my sole point was that an idea I had about the legal situation was (right now) found to be wrong.

Quote:

We have received numerous telephone calls and emails from various member of our plaintiffs’ group regarding the decision of the Court on 1 May 2020 in which the Court gave judgment in favour of the defendant State in relation to the claims for equitable relief and breach of contract, and in which the Court granted leave for the plaintiffs to replead and thereby clarify the claim in those paragraphs relating to the Australian Consumer Law issues You will recall that we said at the outset that this claim was somewhat novel, albeit the principles of law are relatively established ( save that the law relating to Estoppel/ equitable relief is not totally settled), and that it was likely that we would suffer a setback or two in the Queensland Supreme Court. Our preliminary reading of the judgment made by his Honour Justice Bradley on 1 May 2020 is that it lengthy and detailed but on my reading of the judgment, it appears to be replete with contradictions, errors and misstatement of law, and accordingly it should be appealed. It is my experience that the views expressed by one judge can often differ from the views and opinions of the judges in a Court of Appeal. If a Court of Appeal considers the judgment to be in error and accordingly is unsafe and/or wrong, it can set the judgment aside. For the above reasons, we are examining the judgment in detail with view to filing a Notice of Appeal against that part of the judgment concerning the equitable relief and contract issues. Equitable relief is the Estoppel issue, and is concerned with fairness and justice, as distinct from “black letter law” ( such as is the case with contract). It is one thing to find fault and errors in a judgment. It is quite another thing to draft a Notice of Appeal, which must be confined to errors of law, and must be accurately pleaded and argued. For the above reason we will not be in a position to provide you with a further, detailed analysis and grounds for appeal at this time, however, we have 28 days from the date of the judgment within which to file an serve any notice of appeal. We will update you all through the website with developments and when the issues concerning the proposed appeal become more apparent. Meantime: "Nil bastardum carborundum ! “ Thanks and kind regards,

This is of no surprise, and it will be of no surprise to the Qld Government, so I am happy to post it.

I suppose this is not as bad as when Aussie forgets what he has just said.


cods wrote on May 5^th, 2020 at 10:24am:

confusing what.. :-/ so you didnt come up with those ideas..

freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2020 at 1:24pm:

I reckon you could figure that one out for yourself John.

What sound does a jellyfish make FD?

John Smith wrote on May 5^th, 2020 at 1:00pm:

cods wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 11:32am: John Smith wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 11:15am: cods wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 10:04am: he did suggest terms that cost them money. I've yet to see a law suit that didn't cost money. Win lose or draw, lawyers want to get paid. Only a fool goes in thinking a win is guaranteed mmmm so its best to think you will lose then you wont be disappointed... are you readin that Ozzie? The lawyers will typically advise you on what what they think your chances are cods. I don't know about this case in particular because Aussie hasn't said, but these sorts of cases are often taken on a 'no win, no pay' type policy. Lawyers won't even take the case if they don't think it will win. If they win they take a percentage of the win. That still doesn't guarantee you a win just because they've taken a case. One thing you can bet is that in the meeting of owners, many options would have been thrown in the ring, by many owners, not just by Aussie. It's then up to the lawyers to advise on what path they think will have the best chance. I suspect that if the lawyers had said Aussies suggestions were unlikely to succeed, none of the other owners would have voted to go down that path. Contrary to FD's stupidity, people don't often throw good money after bad. Aussie would have been one vote amongst many.

I have been in litigation js so your not telling me what I dont know...

as for that NO WIN NO PAY  advertising its as crooked as it sounds.. and should not be allowed..

if you dont WIN  then you

LOSE.. and the costs go against you....so YES YOU BLOODY DO PAY..

it is so typical of legal speak....misleading and untruthful.



as it is I wish aussie good luck...I dont like to see anyone ripped off and this is what I see as a rip off...

aussie might know is this only  happening in Qld...where cabbies not only lose business they lose their equity


or are all States being taken to task....

if your claim is "somewhat novel"  other States could be waiting the verdict before going ahead....as your leal has pointed out    no two judges think alike.. >:(...no wonder its so painful.

cods wrote on May 5^th, 2020 at 5:29pm:

as for that NO WIN NO PAY  advertising its as crooked as it sounds.. and should not be allowed.. if you dont WIN  then you LOSE.. and the costs go against you....so YES YOU BLOODY DO PAY..

no win no pay is about your lawyers fee's ... not the other guys. If you lose and the judge orders you pay the other parties legal fee's, that's got nothing to do with your lawyers fees.

And yes, I am aware that in many cases of 'no win no pay', you do still pay some administrative costs.

Aussie wrote on May 5^th, 2020 at 12:11pm:

When I have read the 50 pages of complexities and understood them, I shall attempt to nutshell it here, but I am not convinced it will do anything other than give the 'Effendis' of this World more ammo to be ignorant Monday quarterbacks.

Also shows how full the 'legal system' and jurisprudence are both full of holes that are open to pretty much anything, as long as the judge(s) can find the hole they wish to step through ....

Hold the legislators responsible..... for far too long the judiciary have been skirting the edges and essentially making up their own decisions based on anything they like or don't like.... take your average country magistrate, for example - 100% strike rate for coppers - NOBODY is that good!  NOBODY!!

Failing to hold accusers to the full demands of the law for proof positive is accepting the Queen's shilling under false pretences, and is worthy of the rack....

However, this is a civil matter - and should be handled under  the lesser standard of 'balance of probabilities' (even worse situation for anyone accused), so what must be taken into question?

Monetary loss?  Surely a government permitting a long established business to be undermined by lesser standard competitors not abiding by the full set of rules requires monetary compensation for loss - at the very least.

We saw that in NSW when I was a Union delegate - established companies playing by the rules being savagely undercut by small time vultures - not just sole operators who take a loss and whose vehicles suffer as a result and many of those end up broke - but also small companies, often run by The Usual Suspects, who will savagely undercut while paying their operators a pittance insufficient to maintain their vehicle fully insured and up to standard mechanically, thus leading to multiple economic and traffic disasters.

One rule for all in the same business, then the only undercutting going on should be coming out of the boss' pockets and that of shareholders.

There is one simple and factual rule of the legal system.

The one with the most money wins.

Valkie wrote on May 6^th, 2020 at 5:50am:

There is one simple and factual rule of the legal system. The one with the most money wins.

Justice is only for the rich.

Only the lawyers win.

freediver wrote on May 6^th, 2020 at 7:45am:

Only the lawyers win.

I know of so many injustices where the lawyers fee
takes most of the compensation that people receive
in court cases.
It's theft on a grand scale with lawyers making money
out of other people's misery.
They are worse than heroin dealers.

I understand now why Australian law has no provision for a self defence clause.

This would undermine the legal systems ability to fleece people for more money.

And vigilantism is seen by the grubberment and legal systems alike as a threat to their very lucrative protectionist (of their income) game.

Many years ago, my father explained to me.
That the bigger and more ornate the public building
The less benifit to society does from inside said building.

I have found this is fact, every time
Court houses are generally huge, ornate and furnished with the most expensive of accoutrements.
Parliament house is another clear example.

The only true ad constant winners from the legal system are
Lawyers, judges and the grubberment.
Billions flow fro one slimy creature to another every week for no real benifit to the ordinary man.

Insane and inane rulings are passed down by judges and magistrates that have no roots in common sense, let alone justice, honesty or morality.

But one thing I have noted more and more.
Criminals are being let off more, simply to save money from not putting them away.
People who dare to steal from the grubberment are punished more harshly than any.
Fines are pursued with the highest priority, with draconian punishments for not bowing down to the grubberment.
Laws are being twisted to the grubberments end.
Being innocent until proven guilty does not exist in Australia.
If your car is photographed going too fast.
You are required to prove your innocence, rather than the law proving that it was you driving the car.

The law is beholden to the grubberment

The grubberment wants your money.

QED the grubberment will use the law to get your money.

Justice, morality, honesty are all cast to the winds in the pursuit of the grubberments end game.

MAY THEY ALL ROT IN HELL FOR ETERNITY.

That's true Valkie.
Look at Cardinal Pell.
Anyone else would have been locked up forever
but his million dollar backing let him beat the charges in the High Court.

Bobby. wrote on May 7^th, 2020 at 6:44am:

That's true Valkie. Look at Cardinal Pell. Anyone else would have been locked up forever but his million dollar backing let him beat the charges in the High Court.

no bobby  they are not locked up forever.... >:( >:(
ORKOPOULOS is one..that comes to mind..


you are suggesting our Courts are frauds and can be bought by the rich... a bit of a stretch

and definitely not true... >:(

do I agree with every judgement definitely not   but then I dont understand the LAW as a whole...and I suggest neither do you...we are lucky to have a system like we have   as frustrating as it can be at times.....I think I prefer it to Sharia law any time....


as for Pell the royals findings are handed down today...
lets wait and see shall we>

I dont think there is much more we can do to this man to be honest....

Baronvonrort wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:52pm:

cods wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:45pm: Baronvonrort wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:43pm: freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:23pm: Aussie wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 6:10pm: John Smith wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 5:59pm: freediver wrote on May 4th, 2020 at 5:57pm: The outcome was that you pushed two items that otherwise would not have been pursued pushed? where you there FD? :D :D :D Correct, Mr Smith.  This is how idiots take a simple comment and make it into something it never was. At a meeting of Owners in Burpengarry, I spoke and said I thought we had an action based on contract and estoppel.  Not one of those Victorian Lawyers were at that meeting.  Fukked if I am going to give these stupid people any further oxygen, or detail.  Look at what you get around here.  You admit you had an idea which (at the moment) has been determined as wrong, and stupid dickheads pounce on that. You had an idea and a pile of money, and gave both to the lawyers. I told Arsie to sell his taxi plates years ago while they were still worth something. Now his plates have lost heaps of value and he has to pay his lawyer and the government lawyers. ;D ;D ;D it isnt the fact they have lost value   every businessman takes that risk.. its the fact the opposition doesnt play by the same rules as taxi owners play by... if you owned a pub and someone opened another pub opposite you.. they would have to pay the same licence fees...and play by the same rules as you.. not so in this case.. and that imo is unfair.. If taxis were good value there is no way companies like Uber would have been a threat. Times change and so do the rules many people have lost money in the past by not adapting to newer times with different rules. If I was stupid enough to invest in taxi plate I would have sold it when Uber started when the plate still had some value.

You "would have".... ;D

Hindsight is a marvelous thing ey?

Bottom line is ... the whole heavily regulated Taxi Industry across Australia has been sold down the drain by by State & Federal Govts of both sides of Politics.

IMO what has happened is contrary to Fair Trade & Competition regulations ..... because the heavy costs of license & vehicle & driver regulation still applies to taxis ....

but does not apply to Uber ...... & does not apply to a 3rd party ride share company OLA that has now entered the fray.

It was not from the start & is still not a level playing field .......

and Taxi owners justifiably should be compensated ......

if they are Aussie or any other Tom, Dick or Harry taxi owner.

They have been shafted by govt.