I'm a pretty positive optimistic guy. (I suspect some think unrealistically optimistic) but Truslove leaves me for dead.
Not a weakness in sight.
https://www.carltonfc.com.au/news/2001317?fbclid=IwY2xjawRVJ4VleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFlMGZtdjFESGJLSFNzdEZqc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHjzEjMuUBvLEcWDxf8YXaq63mCESzI_FvAZERpGhBvrR3ZRpCneoyfDLLvDk_aem_d6wyusu71nn6hBcQb-8XBg
40. Hudson O’Keeffe
Seven disposals, 18 hitouts, one goal
‘Huddo’ was competitive in the air, he brought the ball to ground as a forward in aerial contests. He went in the ruck a little bit as well and his follow-up and intent to tackle around stoppages was good.
Chalmers buying votes by allowing workers to claim $1,000 in deductions without any receipts needed. Labor just cant stop spending and adding to inflation and high debt levels.True, but clinging onto that stuff when it's really just a drop in the ocean excuses the absence of any real opposition.
Economies work on 3 or even 4 orders of magnitude higher as the bare minimum.
A $1000 sounds great to those struggling, but it's not even covering the fuel rises for the average worker.
the game has evolved but Vossy hasn't.
It reeks of double standards to make excuses for Clarkson at North, but not Voss. If Vossy's first 3 seasons yielded a W/L of 3-10 (plus 10 straight losses under Ratts as fill-in), 3-20 and 5-1-17, folks on here would not give any coach the BOD, whatever their previous records says. They would be screaming blue murder.
Still like a bit unfair. What is he basing his opinion on when he says 'its more probable then not she is telling the truth' if there isn't the evidence to prove it? Is that just his opinion?
Sounds like the AFL finding Butters guilty cause the umpire say i heard him say it.
I'm all for tougher judges and sentencing but there needs to be the evidence first to find them guilty or all you have is a testamony which is just a person's version of events isn't it.
I may be missing something but i think he should not comment if the accused is found not guilty.
Yes it is the judge's opinion; his job is to form an opinion, based on the evidence presented, as to guilt or innocence. It was a trail by judge alone so he wasn't directing a jury but determing guilt. Part of that is assessing the truthfulness of each witness's testimony. Cable did not take the stand.
The judge has a responsibility to see that all parties are afforded justice ... within the rules. Commenting on the veracity or otherwise of witnesses, victims, defendants is standard practice.
Cable was found not guilty because of the requirement to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He lost another child abuse case in a civil action where the burden of proof is not so onerous. Other women gave evidence of the abuse they suffered as children so there was corroborating evidence, but of a general nature and not of the specific charges.
When did "inocent until proven guilty" become "innocent until proven guilty but your probably guilty anyway"
Gees that'd be nice but stuff like that doesn't happen to us