Car Forum / Australian Car Forums / General Car Topics (Australian group) / May 2008
Paramedic rape case continues
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Bobman - 20 May 2008 05:46 GMT http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/paramedic-accused-of-ambulance-rape/2008/ 05/20/1211182749011.html
So that's the thanks she gives for being helped?
Drug f.cked bitch should have died. It's KNOWN that taking the drugs she took increases sexuality and I would not argue at all that she was "playing with herself" and behaving like a rat bag.
Drug f.cks.
 Signature Regards Bobby
Mot Adv - 20 May 2008 10:43 GMT > http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/paramedic-accused-of-ambulance-rape/2008/ 05/20/1211182749011.html
> So that's the thanks she gives for being helped? You watch, now it'll be video's in Ambulances.
atec77 - 20 May 2008 12:58 GMT >> http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/paramedic-accused-of-ambulance-rape/2008/ 05/20/1211182749011.html > >> So that's the thanks she gives for being helped? > > You watch, now it'll be video's in Ambulances. Shades of "Mother Juggs and Speed " Larry Hagmans character poked some bimbo in the back whilst saving her ( was it him) .
George W. Frost - 20 May 2008 14:40 GMT >> http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/paramedic-accused-of-ambulance-rape/2008/ 05/20/1211182749011.html > >> So that's the thanks she gives for being helped? > > You watch, now it'll be video's in Ambulances. they wont need them, they have it all on recording from the phone call
Lu R - 20 May 2008 18:24 GMT > http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/paramedic-accused-of-ambulance-rape/2008/ 05/20/1211182749011.html > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Drug f.cks. You seem to have taken a stand for the paramedic without hearing the case for and against. What IF she was masterbating after being doped?? Losing control of your senses isnt ones fault is it? That a reason to start up on her too is it fuckwit? How about they man ambulances with both male and female paramedics instead in future? Oh wait..then the female paramedic will scream rape.. lol..
Snapper - 25 May 2008 10:28 GMT "Lu R" <who me@hotmail.com> wrote...
> You seem to have taken a stand for the paramedic without hearing the case > for and against. What IF she was masterbating after being doped?? Losing > control of your senses isnt ones fault is it? That a reason to start up on Yep, if it's drug induced and you KNOW full well what happens to you when you take drugs, whether it be alcohol, speed or whatever.
The defence of "diminished responsibility" should be banned outright, if it already isn't.
When arseholes who know that they get violent when they get drunk start getting sentences commensurate with their crimes, then justice will be seen to be done.
John McKenzie - 22 May 2008 03:45 GMT > http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/paramedic-accused-of-ambulance-rape/2008/ 05/20/1211182749011.html > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Drug f.cks. I can tell you this, that club (bubble) is about as f.cked as one could imagine, the criminal and drug goings on there (and I've worked nightclubs on and off for f.cking years, so I do know some inside info) and I hate to say it, but you'd almost say case closed on account of the fact she was there at all.
I actually believe it's plausible - the speed increases the libido, but the ghb (and on a side note, that's an evil gutter drug, anyone dealing should be classed with the heroin dealers - probably 1/2 the total ambulance callouts to clubs from 2000-2004 that weren't violence related would have been ghb related) puts them in a (in overdose amounts, and it's a narrow window) semi sleep like state, so she would have potentially quite possibly masturbated and not realised she wasn't home alone in her bed.
there's also a select few c.nts out there who take a lot of drugs, and then when they f.ck up like this, daddy will get furious so they claim a drink was spiked, and that they were virgins etc etc.
Compare this with someone who works day in day out saving lives, but has no power to abuse (like some might accuse police of). I know where I'd put my faith without more evidence.
Actually I'd love to be a fly on the wall and see who the accuser was. I wouldn't be surprised at all to recognise them as troublemakers from other clubs I've worked.
 Signature John McKenzie
tosspam@aol.com abuse@yahoo.com abuse@hotmail.com abuse@earthlink.com abuse@aol.com vice.president@whitehouse.gov president@whitehouse.gov sweep.day@accc.gov.au uce@ftc.gov admin@loopback abuse@iprimus.com.au $LOGIN@localhost world's #1 sardine whisperer root@mailloop.com $USER@$HOST $LOGNAME@localhost -h1024@localhost abuse@msn.com abuse@federalpolice.gov.au fraudinfo@psinet.com abuse@asio.gov.au $USER@localhost abuse@sprint.com abuse@fbi.gov abuse@cia.gov
Athol - 22 May 2008 04:53 GMT > Actually I'd love to be a fly on the wall and see who the accuser was. I > wouldn't be surprised at all to recognise them as troublemakers from > other clubs I've worked. Offer yourself as a character witness for the defence?
 Signature Athol <http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000 I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.
John McKenzie - 23 May 2008 02:03 GMT > > Actually I'd love to be a fly on the wall and see who the accuser was. I > > wouldn't be surprised at all to recognise them as troublemakers from > > other clubs I've worked. > > Offer yourself as a character witness for the defence? I'm reminded of a mate who made/printed up a resume for another mate (early computer days relatively) and did a second one as a joke, with all sorts of allusions to alcoholism, parole conditions and other absurd stuff. To this day I don't know if he did it deliberately (such was his FTW mentality at times) or not, but the 'wrong' one was sent in to a prospective employer. He actually got an interview at one place as a result!
 Signature John McKenzie
tosspam@aol.com abuse@yahoo.com abuse@hotmail.com abuse@earthlink.com abuse@aol.com vice.president@whitehouse.gov president@whitehouse.gov sweep.day@accc.gov.au uce@ftc.gov admin@loopback abuse@iprimus.com.au $LOGIN@localhost world's #1 sardine whisperer root@mailloop.com $USER@$HOST $LOGNAME@localhost -h1024@localhost abuse@msn.com abuse@federalpolice.gov.au fraudinfo@psinet.com abuse@asio.gov.au $USER@localhost abuse@sprint.com abuse@fbi.gov abuse@cia.gov
Bobman - 23 May 2008 14:14 GMT > I'm reminded of a mate who made/printed up a resume for another mate > (early computer days relatively) and did a second one as a joke, with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > prospective employer. He actually got an interview at one place as a > result! John. Great post about the clubs in Melbourne. Couldn't agree more.
For the record. This guy was found not guilty and free of any charges.
She sure was full of drugs and lies.
 Signature Regards Bobby
Athol - 24 May 2008 01:10 GMT > For the record. This guy was found not guilty and free of any charges.
> She sure was full of drugs and lies. He still had to go through a trial because of her. I've recently been through a civil case that was similarly traumatic and I can understand what he would have gone through. It's got me considering how to propose some law reform to cut down on the number of blatantly false cases that go to court.
 Signature Athol <http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000 I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.
John McKenzie - 24 May 2008 22:46 GMT > > For the record. This guy was found not guilty and free of any charges. > > > She sure was full of drugs and lies. > > He still had to go through a trial because of her. Which suxs. Rape is no laughing matter, and anyone worth a damn would rightly judge someone truly guilty of it as being a low-life, but to have such a judgement cast apon them when it's unfounded - that's scary f-in territory to say the least.
I've recently been
> through a civil case that was similarly traumatic and I can understand > what he would have gone through. The main thing is that you are still with us, and prevailed. One could always reflect about the fact there was probably someone from Melbourne who would have come up and done some cleaning for the cost of the fuel there and back, and instead the fight was a kosher one.
> It's got me considering how to propose > some law reform to cut down on the number of blatantly false cases that > go to court. I'd be up for that, but one must remember people in the profession get paid whether or not they are fighting the good fight or defending tyranny.
 Signature John McKenzie
tosspam@aol.com abuse@yahoo.com abuse@hotmail.com abuse@earthlink.com abuse@aol.com vice.president@whitehouse.gov president@whitehouse.gov sweep.day@accc.gov.au uce@ftc.gov admin@loopback abuse@iprimus.com.au $LOGIN@localhost world's #1 sardine whisperer root@mailloop.com $USER@$HOST $LOGNAME@localhost -h1024@localhost abuse@msn.com abuse@federalpolice.gov.au fraudinfo@psinet.com abuse@asio.gov.au $USER@localhost abuse@sprint.com abuse@fbi.gov abuse@cia.gov
Athol - 25 May 2008 01:01 GMT > Which suxs. Rape is no laughing matter, and anyone worth a damn would > rightly judge someone truly guilty of it as being a low-life, but to > have such a judgement cast apon them when it's unfounded - that's scary > f-in territory to say the least. Indeed it is.
> I've recently been >> through a civil case that was similarly traumatic and I can understand >> what he would have gone through.
> The main thing is that you are still with us, and prevailed. The still with us part is very much only just. I was close to suicidal on good friday. The closest I've been in about 10 years.
> One could > always reflect about the fact there was probably someone from Melbourne > who would have come up and done some cleaning for the cost of the fuel > there and back, and instead the fight was a kosher one. Imagine a plaintiff admitting under oath in court that he had smoked a cone that morning before travelling to court...
>> It's got me considering how to propose >> some law reform to cut down on the number of blatantly false cases that >> go to court.
> I'd be up for that, but one must remember people in the profession get > paid whether or not they are fighting the good fight or defending > tyranny. The problem is that you have to be able to differentiate between real valid cases and blatant lies. There doesn't seem to be a way of having an input filter on court cases...
 Signature Athol <http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000 I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.
John McKenzie - 25 May 2008 06:04 GMT > > Which suxs. Rape is no laughing matter, and anyone worth a damn would > > rightly judge someone truly guilty of it as being a low-life, but to [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Imagine a plaintiff admitting under oath in court that he had smoked a > cone that morning before travelling to court... seriously? I'm not sure which i find the most ridiculous - admitting to it (not that I condone perjury) or _actually doing it_ on the morning before a court appearance.
> >> It's got me considering how to propose > >> some law reform to cut down on the number of blatantly false cases that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > valid cases and blatant lies. There doesn't seem to be a way of having > an input filter on court cases... One might suggest that teh biggest problem is that the system is adversarial inherently, and not a search for the truth - and it applies to a hell of a lot. I know it won't happen after one incident - but do you not have legislation up north with respect to vexacious litigants? We do but the only time I can recall it ever being done was in response to Julian Knight, and specifically due to the fact that govco was footing the entire bill irrespective of outcome for each and every action, being that he's a prisoner.
What disturbs me the most is that somehow we've gotten to a point whereby people treat the truth as an abstract, and would have no reservation whatsoever about f.cking over another person, completely fraudulently - if they could get away with it. Right and wrong, truth, ethics, all irrelevant.
 Signature John McKenzie
tosspam@aol.com abuse@yahoo.com abuse@hotmail.com abuse@earthlink.com abuse@aol.com vice.president@whitehouse.gov president@whitehouse.gov sweep.day@accc.gov.au uce@ftc.gov admin@loopback abuse@iprimus.com.au $LOGIN@localhost world's #1 sardine whisperer root@mailloop.com $USER@$HOST $LOGNAME@localhost -h1024@localhost abuse@msn.com abuse@federalpolice.gov.au fraudinfo@psinet.com abuse@asio.gov.au $USER@localhost abuse@sprint.com abuse@fbi.gov abuse@cia.gov
Athol - 25 May 2008 08:13 GMT >> Imagine a plaintiff admitting under oath in court that he had smoked a >> cone that morning before travelling to court...
> seriously? I'm not sure which i find the most ridiculous - admitting to > it (not that I condone perjury) or _actually doing it_ on the morning > before a court appearance. Seriously. I thought that the case would just stop and be thrown out at that point but it didn't and wasn't.
>> The problem is that you have to be able to differentiate between real >> valid cases and blatant lies. There doesn't seem to be a way of having >> an input filter on court cases...
> One might suggest that teh biggest problem is that the system is > adversarial inherently, and not a search for the truth - and it applies > to a hell of a lot. I know it won't happen after one incident - but do > you not have legislation up north with respect to vexacious litigants? Dunno. I've always stayed away from such stuff as much as possible.
> We do but the only time I can recall it ever being done was in response > to Julian Knight, and specifically due to the fact that govco was > footing the entire bill irrespective of outcome for each and every > action, being that he's a prisoner. Yuck.
> What disturbs me the most is that somehow we've gotten to a point > whereby people treat the truth as an abstract, and would have no > reservation whatsoever about f.cking over another person, completely > fraudulently - if they could get away with it. Right and wrong, truth, > ethics, all irrelevant. It certainly seems that way.
 Signature Athol <http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000 I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.
Kwyjibo - 25 May 2008 03:07 GMT >> For the record. This guy was found not guilty and free of any charges. > >> She sure was full of drugs and lies. > > He still had to go through a trial because of her. Yep. And even though he received a verdict of not guilty, he still hasn't got his job back..........
 Signature Kwyj.
Snapper - 25 May 2008 10:28 GMT Bobman wrote...
> Drug f.cked bitch should have died. It's KNOWN that taking the drugs she > took increases sexuality and I would not argue at all that she was "playing > with herself" and behaving like a rat bag. Yep.
When I'm elected dictator of Oz, two things that I'll definately introduce are no hospital treatment for drug or alchohol related injuries. Ambos to cover geniune medical emergencies. You get in a fight in a nightclub, you get to deal with the consequences. Same for druggies who OD.
f.ck 'em.
As for MAS, what a bunch of dead c.nts that are running it. I can only pray that the union that covers the MAS ambos formerly withdraw all financial support to the ALP and that other unions back this up.
That'll get the responsible minister and his sycophantic droids off their fat arses and to allow the poor ambo some natural justice, particularly so if the fucknuckles who made the decision to sack the guy are also given their marching orders.
Kwyjibo - 25 May 2008 11:18 GMT > Bobman wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > When I'm elected dictator of Oz, You don't 'elect' dictators, stupid.
 Signature Kwyj.
Knobdoodle - 25 May 2008 13:43 GMT >> When I'm elected dictator of Oz, > > You don't 'elect' dictators, stupid. Saddam Hussein was elected. Mugabe too!
 Signature Knob
Kwyjibo - 25 May 2008 14:09 GMT >>> When I'm elected dictator of Oz, >> >> You don't 'elect' dictators, stupid. >> > Saddam Hussein was elected. He wasn't elected as a 'dictator'. He may have become one later on, but not when he was standing for election.
> Mugabe too! Same thing.
 Signature Kwyj.
Knobdoodle - 27 May 2008 12:04 GMT >>>> When I'm elected dictator of Oz, >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Same thing. Iraq had an election just a year or two before the Yanks invaded. Saddam Hussein won unopposed. He was dictator before and after the election so I don't know why you say "He wasn't elected as a 'dictator'".
Robert Mugabe has won elections in 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2002 & 2005 (and even 2008 if you believe him!) Which of these do you think he "wasn't dictator" for?
 Signature Knob
Kwyjibo - 27 May 2008 12:21 GMT >>>>> When I'm elected dictator of Oz, >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > He was dictator before and after the election so I don't know why you say > "He wasn't elected as a 'dictator'". Unopposed? There's your answer right there, stupid. If there is no opposition, it's not an 'election'.
> Robert Mugabe has won elections in 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 1996, 2000, > 2002 & 2005 (and even 2008 if you believe him!) And all of those 'elections' were claimed to have been rigged by the UN.
> Which of these do you think he "wasn't dictator" for? He wasn't 'elected' in any fair sense of the word.
 Signature Kwyj.
Knobdoodle - 27 May 2008 12:34 GMT >> Iraq had an election just a year or two before the Yanks invaded. >> Saddam Hussein won unopposed. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > He wasn't 'elected' in any fair sense of the word. So you admit you were wrong when you said they weren't elected and now want to qualify it with "elected FAIRLY" do you?
 Signature Knob
Kwyjibo - 27 May 2008 13:49 GMT >>> Iraq had an election just a year or two before the Yanks invaded. >>> Saddam Hussein won unopposed. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> > So you admit you were wrong when you said they weren't elected Not at all.
> and now want to qualify it with "elected FAIRLY" do you? If it's not conducted fairly the result is invalid. Too hard for your puny mind to comprehend?
 Signature Kwyj.
Knobdoodle - 27 May 2008 13:59 GMT "Kwyjibo" <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote :
>> So you admit you were wrong when you said they weren't elected > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If it's not conducted fairly the result is invalid. > Too hard for your puny mind to comprehend? So now you want to add "invalid" as well as "fairly" to your original assertion that they weren't elected? Fark you must've been seriously wrong that first post 'eh?
 Signature Knob
Kwyjibo - 27 May 2008 14:09 GMT > "Kwyjibo" <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote : >>> So you admit you were wrong when you said they weren't elected [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > So now you want to add "invalid" as well as "fairly" to your original > assertion that they weren't elected? I didn't 'add' anything you illiterate fuckwit. I simply explained that an unfair election is not valid, as you clearly don't have the ability to figure that out for yourself.
> Fark you must've been seriously wrong that first post 'eh? In a way, yes. I was wrong in thinking that I could possibly get you to grasp a concept so simple, when it's clear that the only thing you are good at grasping is your knob.
Thanks for playing though.
 Signature Kwyj.
Knobdoodle - 27 May 2008 14:27 GMT >> Fark you must've been seriously wrong that first post 'eh? > > In a way, yes. I was wrong in thinking that I could possibly get you to > grasp a concept so simple, when it's clear that the only thing you are > good at grasping is your knob. [guffaw] Are you GENUINELY so astoundingly stupid you didn't understand the original "Saddam Hussein was elected. Mugabe too!" post?!!? Fark me; the gate must've been left open at dumbarse-ville tonight!
 Signature Knob
Snapper - 29 May 2008 06:13 GMT Knobdoodle wrote...
> > He wasn't 'elected' in any fair sense of the word. > > > So you admit you were wrong when you said they weren't elected and now want > to qualify it with "elected FAIRLY" do you? Amazing how a play on words can go way off track from the original topic, huh?
Knobdoodle - 29 May 2008 11:09 GMT > Knobdoodle wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Amazing how a play on words can go way off track from the original topic, > huh? [shrug] Since when are week-old newsgroup threads still on the original topic?
Besides I didn't change the topic to "Dictators"; I just offered some guidance when an incorrect assertion about them was made.
Are you the new 'net Policeman?
 Signature Knob
Snapper - 30 May 2008 04:18 GMT Knobdoodle wrote...
> Are you the new 'net Policeman? No. Just making the comment about how that other guy took my "when I'm elected dictator" line out of context and turned it into a thing about how dictators aren't elected, while others said, "yes they are" and used Mugabe, Hussein, etc as examples.
Next time I use that line I'll put "T-I-C" next to it, so it's made patently clear that it's not REALLY about getting elected as a dictator...
Anyway, down here in Victoria we had our own version of one who is now the current elected dictator of the Hawthorn Football Club...
(oh, T-I-C)
But I must be grateful for the guy did help return the AGP to PI where it belongs...
Knobdoodle - 30 May 2008 11:38 GMT > Knobdoodle wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > But I must be grateful for the guy did help return the AGP to PI where it > belongs... OK; I have no idea what TIC means. (do you mean "sic" like "I've written it as the quoted post wrote it"?).
Gotta agree about the AGP. I attended one GP at Eastern Creek and while it's a good track, a great facility and they got good crowds (and it's about 900km closer to my house!) it doesn't have the magic that Phillip Island has.
 Signature Knob
Kwyjibo - 30 May 2008 12:55 GMT >> Knobdoodle wrote... >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> > OK; I have no idea what TIC means. Tongue in cheek
 Signature Kwyj.
Knobdoodle - 30 May 2008 13:04 GMT >> OK; I have no idea what TIC means. > > Tongue in cheek Ahh! Thank you.
 Signature Knob
Snapper - 31 May 2008 03:09 GMT Knobdoodle wrote...
> OK; I have no idea what TIC means. (do you mean "sic" like "I've written it > as the quoted post wrote it"?). TIC, Tongue in Cheek...
Snapper - 26 May 2008 10:04 GMT Kwyjibo wrote...
> > When I'm elected dictator of Oz, > > You don't 'elect' dictators, stupid. Whoosh....
|
|
|