No announcement yet.

Opinions from real people/common folk about the Djokovic scandal

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by AdrianN View Post

    Adrian in Australia (and many parts of the world) we get the quality of journalism we are prepared to pay for. For most that is nothing. Papers are rarely bought and are read online, often for free - and without generating the advertising they did as a paper. TV stations are under pressure from new media as well. There are many competing elements, which is great for diversity of opinions but means there is less funding for investigative journalism. When a newspaper editor can track clicks and sees that a story which took weeks to research only gets the same amount of clicks as a pr release from an up and coming actress complaining she can't but large enough bras (with salacious photos attached) you can see he will only back high interest stories.

    Also many readers of alternative media don't question the source or slant of the writer or organisation. So the quality of journalism is often exactly what we pay for it. Unfortunate situation.
    Unfortunately this is correct and the relation between the press and the public is on a downward spiral in Europe as well. Less revenues mean less money to keep competent, experienced journalists, this translates to lower quality journalism, which means losing the reputation and the status as the 4th power etc. It takes many years for a journalist to build a network of personal contacts in his particular field of activity (ranging from politics all the way to sports). You cannot take down a corrupt PM if all you have in your phonebook are phone numbers or Instagram handles of starlets with G and above cup size...


    • #62
      Originally posted by Caffeinator View Post

      Here's an indication of his real support in Australia before rent-a-crowd arrived for him on Monday.
      From what I saw the crowd that came for Djokovic looked like Serbian-Australian (plus a few Greek-Australian) rather then a rental. It seems a bit unfair to present them this way.


      • Caffeinator
        Caffeinator commented
        Editing a comment
        Oh. Clearly you didn't like an actual photo by a real person? Media hype preferred hey?

      • AdrianN
        AdrianN commented
        Editing a comment
        Wait, what? No problem whatsoever with your photo, it's just a different moment. What bothered me is the "rent-a-crowd" bit. The Guardian video makes it abundantly clear that we're not talking about a rented crowd.

    • #63
      Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_1046.jpg
Views:	283
Size:	62.9 KB
ID:	897014


      • #64
        That's a good one, Craig Tiley would probably do this in a hear tbeat.

        Interesting read here


        • #65
          What's interesting about it?

          Djokovic has had ample access to vaccines.
          No matter what you think of WHO, they are not in a position to determine any country's policy and reading between the lines
          they seem to be aiming their comment at underprivileged people from countries with low access to vaccines, not people like Djokovic.

          That's a 'nothing to see here article'.


          • allinone
            allinone commented
            Editing a comment
            Well I thought the bit on the Indian player who is under 18 and the fact that India does not vaccinate people under 18 so was/did not come was an interesting point and was denied an exemption.

            That is a bit tough and a double standard according to the article (!

        • #66
          You missed the first part apparently:

          Dr Mike Ryan, executive director of WHO’s Health Emergencies Program, said vaccine mandates should be used with caution and only when a government facing a severe outbreak has failed to persuade its population to get jabbed.

          We see mandates as a last resort ... in the face of a large epidemic,” he said.

          “So yes, there are circumstances in which vaccine mandates are supported by WHO but, again, it is subjected to the basic principle that the best way to get people vaccinated is to inform them, to educate, to have a dialogue and to address people’s genuine concerns.

          We always ask that those mandates be clear, be explicit, be time-limited and at the same time ... governments continue to explain to people why they’re doing things and continue to try and convince people of the benefits of vaccine rather than reverting to mandates as a single approach.”
          OK, from a constitutional standpoint it's obvious that WHO cannot impose anything to any country. But on the other hand one cannot really be a member at the UN, WHO etc and cherry-pick when to pay attention and when to play the "our country first" tune. (unless they sit on a pile of nukes, of course )


          • #67
            You have quite the habit of contradicting yourself, not to speak of the asinine red herring topics you've brought into your argument
            and no, I didn't miss anything, you asked for our opinions. I'll just order some more popcorn and wait to see what the decision is.


            • #68
              Originally posted by AdrianN View Post
              So if you feel like it please share your opinion!
              I signed this so your may get my opinion on this topic see:


              • #69
                There it is. Australia on for the second set


                • #70
                  The whole planet risks to get fat on popcorn on this one. A small quote from the Guardian's reporting of the court hearing:

                  Wood reveals Djokovic’s material included scholarly articles about natural immunity, and reveals that Hawke’s decision said he hadn’t read them! Well this is going swimmingly.
                  Probably the worst imaginable outcome is to have the visa cancellation decision reversed a second time on technicalities.


                  • #71
                    I think everyone stopped caring, some just took longer than others. I’m a bit surprised it took 110 posts, but I guess the majority of them were by the OP. The popcorn won’t be getting eaten cause everyone’s fallen asleep on the couch.


                    • chokkidog
                      chokkidog commented
                      Editing a comment
                      You bet, it's dry and tasteless anyway. I've moved on to champagne.

                  • #72
                    The full context of the Minister’s statement about not having read the voluminous medical material provided by Djokovic. “13. I have not sought or read the actual medical material that Mr DJOKOVIC provided to me which underpinned his contentions, because I am not medically trained. Nor am I sure if the Health Advice from the Commonwealth Department of Health and the Chief Medical Officer was given aware of the various medical material relied on by Mr DJOKOVIC. If there is a difference between the Health Advice in referring to a 'low' risk and a 'very low' risk and Mr DJOKOVIC's contention that he poses a 'negligible' risk, I will therefore proceed on the assumption in his favour that he poses a 'negligible' risk. 14. I have also not sought or read the extensive factual materials which Mr DJOKOVIC has provided on whether recent infection with COVID-19 is a medical contraindication against vaccination because l am willing to assume, in the time available, that Mr DJOKOVIC has a medical reason for not being vaccinated.


                    • #73
                      General conclusion even before sentence is passed: Australia's judges and courts performed exceptionally, giving Djokovic a chance to have his case sorted out in a legal and respectable manner. Documents were made public, hearings were broadcasted and most important the terms were set so justice can be done before the start of the tournament. I don't see what can be asked more from the courts in any country.
                      However the government appears to be ran by vindictive morons with utter disrespect for the rule of law and due process. Everything the federal government did in this case reeks of banana country mentality and screams "abuse". At the end of the day, cancelling the visa a second time (on a Friday evening, after waiting 4 days to make the call and with the tournament due to start on Monday!!!) on totally unsubstantiated claims that Djokovic’s presence in Australia may “foster anti-vaccination sentiment' only opened the way for the decision to be overturned a second time in court.

                      We will see what happens, but to me the quality difference between the courts and the federal government was absolutely flabbergasting. I'd say you should try to get a government matching the quality of your courts or at least make sure it doesn't go the other way around...

                      P.S. Anyone who disagrees on the bit about current the federal government should read carefully what happened to Voracova (the Czech player who entered the country on an exemption). She hadn't messed up her declaration, hadn't meet people after testing positive, yet
                      she was made to undress during questioning, before being kicked out of the country despite having followed all the rules


                      • AdrianN
                        AdrianN commented
                        Editing a comment
                        They did from start to finish. Today's ruling was perfectly normal, as the court deliberated on the legality of using the minister's power, not about the merits of the decision. Since the Australian law still grants such (essentially royal) power to a minister it was game over for Djokovic unless his lawyers could somehow prove the power was used illegally. However you fail to understand that the stellar performance of the courts trough the entire week consisted on 1. offering reasonable terms so the matter could be judged before the start of the tournament and therefore not allowing the government to simply win by lack of time 2. making the debates and the relevant documents public to end speculation.
                        You appear to be inclined to assess the performance of a court of law based on the sentence being similar to your opinions. I won't bother to explain you how wrong is that.

                      • topshot
                        topshot commented
                        Editing a comment
                        You actually have no idea what my opinion is and it is considered rude to assume someones opinion.
                        Unlike you, I actually know the laws and rules of traveling to Australia, which were in fact broken.
                        End of argument!

                      • AdrianN
                        AdrianN commented
                        Editing a comment
                        Sorry you still don't get it. The minister's lawyer conceded that the second cancellation of the visa was NOT related to rules violation. You simply don't know or misrepresent what was put on trial. Hence my previous reply.

                    • #74
                      To quote: "Spiritual teacher Eckhart Tolle goes as far as to describe the need to be right as a form of violence. At its mildest, it is inflexibility. At its height, it manifests as dominance. The compulsion to inflict our opinions of the world on another originates in fear. Its opposites are humility and compassion. Even the golden rule tells us to treat others in a way we would like to be treated. If you just keep banging away at someone until they flinch and accept your point of view, you're probably not very happy with the state of your current relationships—or secretly need that validation to feel good about yourself." Roger Landry, Mind Body Green


                      • #75
                        Good thing Galileo wasn't a "spiritual teacher"...