The Djokovic Case - Sports Talk - Racehorse TALK harm-plan harm-plan

Racehorse TALK



The Djokovic Case - Sports Talk - Racehorse TALK

Author Topic: The Djokovic Case  (Read 912 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18177
O.P. « 2022-Jan-11, 04:32 PM »
IN  THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT FAMILY COURT and OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE
 NOVAK DJOKOVIC Applicant MINISTER  FOR  HOME AFFAIRS Respondent BEFO (DIVISION  2) ORDER JUDGE  A KELLY DATE: MADE AT: APPEARANCES:   10  January  2022
MELBOURNE File  No:  MLG35/2022 Mr  P  Holdenson  QC,  Mr  N  Wood  QC,  Mr  J  Hartley  and  Mr  N  Dragojlovic  of  counsel  for the  Applicant,     Mr  C.  Tran  and  Ms  N  Wootton  of  counsel  for  the  Respondent,

 THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. 2. 3. The decision of the delegate to cancel the applicant’s  Temporary  Activity (subclass  408)  visa made on  6  January  2022  be quashed.
 
  The  Respondent pay the  Applicant’s costs  (including any reserved costs),  as agreed or assessed.

 The  Respondent forthwith take all necessary steps to cause: 3.1. the  Applicant  to  be  released  immediately  and  forthwith  from  immigration detention  and,  without  limitation  thereto,  such  release  must  occur  by  no later  than  30  minutes  after  the  making  of  this  Order;

 and Prepared in the  Melbourne  Registry Level  7,  Owen  Dixon  Law  Courts,  305  William  Street,  Telephone  1300  720  980 -  2  - 3.2. the  Applicant’s passport and all other personal effects to be returned to him as soon as reasonably practicable after the making of this  Order.

NOTATION: A. B. C. By the  Court The respondent concedes that the delegate’s decision to proceed with the interview and make a  decision to cancel the applicant’s visa pursuant to s  116  of the  Migration  Act  1958  (Cth)  was unreasonable in circumstances whe (1)   (2)   (3)   (4)   (5)   at 5:20 am on  6  January  2022  the applicant was told that he could have until 8.30 am to provide comments in response to a  notice of intention to consider cancellation under s  116  of the  Migration  Act 1958  (Cth); instead,  the applicant’s comments were then sought at about 6:14 am. the delegate’s decision to cancel the applicant’s visa was made at 7.42 am; the applicant was thus denied until 8.30 am to make comments; had the applicant been allowed until 8:30 am,  he could have consulted others and made further submissions to the delegate about why his visa should not be canceled.

 This  Order was pronounced orally in open court at  5:16  p.m. on  Monday, 10  January  2022.

The  Court was informed by the respondent,  through her counsel of his instructions,  that the  Minister for  Immigration,  Citizenship,  Migrant Services, and  Multicultural  Affairs may consider whether to exercise a personal power of cancellation pursuant to sub-section  133C(3)  of the Migration  Act  1958  (Cth).

 Prepared in the  Melbourne  Registry Level  7,  Owen  Dixon  Law  Courts,  305  William  Street,  Telephone  1300  720  980 -  3  - DATE ENTERED: 10  January  2022. Prepared  in  the  Melbourne  Registry Level  7,  Owen  Dixon  Law  Courts,  305  William  Street,  Telephone  1300  720  980

ENDS

All material filed is open on the Federal Circuit Court's website

The Guvment counsel agreed  he had not been given sufficient time to consult with his agent and legal representatives  thus he was denied procedural fairness and natural justice but there's more to come .

ABC NEWS
Novak Djokovic live updates: Serbian still waiting for government decision on deportation as Australian Open looms
By Bridget Judd
Posted 8h ago8 hours ago, updated 3h ago3 hours ago
Share this article
abc.net.au/news/novak-djokovic-tennis-australia-immigration-border-force/100748954
COPY LINKSHARE
Novak Djokovic's ability to remain in the country for the Australian Open remains unclear, with Immigration Minister Alex Hawke yet to make a decision on whether the Serbian will be deported.
Djokovic was released from immigration detention in Melbourne yesterday after a judge overturned the cancellation of his visa.
Follow the latest updates as they happen with our live blog.
Updates are availableREFRESHPlease refresh the page to see updates to the live blog
Key events
•   1h ago1 hours agoQuestions raised over travel declaration Djokovic signed when entering Australia
•   1h ago1 hours agoAlex Hawke's office provides update, says Minister is 'thoroughly' considering the matter
•   2h ago2 hours agoNick Kyrgios 'quite embarrassed as an Australian athlete' over Djokovic saga
•   2h ago2 hours agoKey dates in the Djokovic saga
•   3h ago3 hours agoDjokovic's former coach says he expects the tennis star to come back 'even stronger'
•   3h ago3 hours agoSerbian PM emphasised importance of Djokovic's 'training and physical preparation' during call to Scott Morrison
•   4h ago4 hours agoScott Morrison speaks to Serbian PM
•   5h ago5 hours agoCzech tennis player Renata Voracova speaks out after her own visa was cancelled
•   6h ago6 hours agoDid Djokovic provide proof that he had contracted COVID?
•   6h ago6 hours agoThe moment Djokovic was informed his visa had been cancelled
•   7h ago7 hours agoWhy was Novak Djokovic's visa cancellation overturned?
•   7h ago7 hours agoVisa saga has been 'damaging on all fronts', ATP Tour says
•   7h ago7 hours agoDjokovic's family dodge questions over COVID-19 status
•   8h ago8 hours agoDjokovic determined to stay and compete

Some conjecture about allegedly filing a false declaration he answered NO to a question when the proper response was to tick YES

Minister still stuffing around will he or won't he cancel the Visa and send this arrogant prick back to where he came from .

Giddy Up :beer:








Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18177
« 2022-Jan-11, 06:00 PM Reply #1 »

The Sydney Morning Herald
Subscribe

    Federal
    NSW
    Victoria
    Queensland
    Western Australia

    PoliticsFederalAustralian Open

Djokovic gets another day in Australia but faces investigation over travel form
By Anthony Galloway and Paul Sakkal
Updated January 11, 2022 — 5.50pmfirst published at 2.52pm
106

View all comments

Novak Djokovic’s chances of defending his Australian Open tennis title are in limbo for at least another day with Immigration Minister Alex Hawke yet to make a decision on whether to cancel the world no.1’s visa after he won a court battle to stay in the country.

The saga will drag into its sixth day following revelations the federal government is looking into whether Djokovic lied on his travel entry form when he said he had not travelled in the previous 14 days.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison, left, will face criticism whichever way the decision over Novak Djokovic, centre, goes. Immigration Minister Alex Hawke, right, will make the final call.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison, left, will face criticism whichever way the decision over Novak Djokovic, centre, goes. Immigration Minister Alex Hawke, right, will make the final call.Credit:Alex Ellinghausen and AP

The Federal Circuit Court on Monday ordered, with the consent of both parties, that Djokovic’s visa should be reinstated because he was not given enough time to prove he had a valid exemption.

Mr Hawke could use his personal power under the Migration Act to cancel Djokovic’s visa on public health grounds, but his office on Tuesday afternoon confirmed the minister is still considering the matter.

A spokesperson for Mr Hawke said: “In line with due process, Minister Hawke will thoroughly consider the matter.”

”As the issue is ongoing, for legal reasons it is inappropriate to comment further.”

The federal government insists it was right to cancel Djokovic’s visa last week on the basis that a prior COVID-19 infection in the past six months is not a valid reason to have an exemption for being unvaccinated. The court never ruled on that question as the federal government conceded it did not provide Djokovic procedural fairness.

Former New Zealand immigration minister, Sir Kerry Burke, said Mr Hawke should cancel Djokovic’s visa.

“Federal Immigration Minister Alex Hawke has the power, under Australian law, to cancel Novak Djokovic’s visa. No amount of comment by Judge Anthony Kelly can deny the minister’s power,” he said.

“If the law requires everybody entering Australia to have two COVID-19 vaccinations, with appropriate time separation between the first and the second and, if Djokovic cannot meet this test, then his attempt to stay in Australia must fail. That will be minister Hawke’s call and it should be made.”

It also emerged on Tuesday that Djokovic’s lawyers, Hall & Wilcox, revealed they had to give him an exemption to attend their Melbourne office because it usually only allows in vaccinated people.

“The attendance was in accordance with our COVID-19 vaccination policy, under a medical exemption approved by our COVID officer and managing partner,” the law firm said.

Federal government sources also confirmed they were looking into a discrepancy on Djokovic’s Australia Travel Declaration.

On the form, Djokovic stated he had not travelled in 14 days prior to his January 6 arrival in Australia. Djokovic had in fact been in Belgrade on Christmas Day and then appeared in Marbella in Spain on January 2.

All travellers arriving in Australia are asked if they have “travelled or will travel in the 14 days prior to your flight to Australia”. They are also warned: “Giving false or misleading information is a serious offence. You may also be liable to a civil penalty for giving false or misleading information”, with the maximum penalty 12 months imprisonment.

However, Djokovic told border officials that Tennis Australia completed the Australian Travel Declaration on his behalf. It is not clear whether this could save him from falling further foul of border officials.

Questions about Djokovic’s travel declarations emerged on the same day his brother refused to answer questions about the player’s attendance at functions in the days after court documents state he tested positive.

His lawyers say he took a PCR test at 1pm on December 16 and received a positive result about 8pm that night.
Djokovic decision: the fallout

Djokovic decision: the fallout

2:07
Djokovic decision: the fallout

There's been a strong reaction to the Federal court's decision to overturn Novak Djokovic's visa cancellation as we wait to find out if the Immigration Minister will use his power to still send the tennis champion home.

On December 17, he attended an award ceremony with junior tennis players without a mask, photos of the event show.

French newspaper L’Equipe reported Djokovic was in a photo shoot with one of their photographers on 18 December.

Serbian regulations dictate a person must isolate for 14 days if they become infected, meaning his quarantine period would have ended on December 30.

Asked at a press conference on Tuesday morning whether Djokovic tested positive on December 16, the player’s brother, Djordje, said: “Yes, the whole process was public and all the documents that are public are legal.”

When asked a follow-up question about why Djokovic was at a public event the next day, the brother said the press conference was “adjourned” and family members stopped taking questions.

Djokovic’s lawyers claim the player tested negative on a PCR on December 22, six days after his positive result. Infected people can test positive on PCR tests, which are more sensitive than rapid tests, for weeks or months, raising questions about how Djokovic tested negative so soon.

Deakin University Associate Professor Hassan Vally and the same university’s chair in epidemiology, Catherine Bennett, said it may have been possible for him to test negative on December 22 if his first test on December 16 was taken towards the middle or end of his infection rather than the beginning.

Djokovic’s lawyers have said he had no symptoms before being tested, prompting Associate Professor Vally to ask why he got tested in the first place.“He could have been positive the whole week before [December 16], so the timeline might fit,” he said.
Related Article
Live
National News Live
Australia news LIVE: Novak Djokovic wins bid to play in 2022 Australian Open; COVID-19 cases continue to surge across the nation

“The variability, incubation period and how long people have virus in their system varies so immensely.”

Professor Bennett said some testing clinics used different sensitivity ranges for their PCR tests.

The less sensitive versions have lower cutoff levels for detection and can determine when somebody is no longer infectious, whereas the more sensitive tests can detect the virus for three months.

“For some people who get tested late in their infection and test positive, they could test negative the next day,” she said.
Related Article
Novak Djokovic is out of detention following a successful appeal in the federal court.
Updated
Australian Open
‘Damaging on all fronts’: ATP’s support for Djokovic over visa saga

Prime Minister Scott Morrison spoke with Serbian Prime Minister Ana Brnabić about the Djokovic saga on Tuesday morning.

The Prime Minister’s office said the leaders had a “constructive call” and Mr Morrison explained Australia’s border policy was non-discriminatory and was crucial in protecting Australia during the pandemic.

“They both agreed to stay in contact on the issue, and to further strengthen the bilateral relationship,” a statement read
.


Giddy Up :beer:

Offline timw

  • Group3
  • User 2166
  • Posts: 814
« 2022-Jan-12, 04:45 PM Reply #2 »
This article appeared in today's Age and I thought it shed some useful light on the admin law issues.

There’s better use of ‘God Powers’ than on Djokovic

Sangeetha Pillai

Yesterday, lawyers for Novak Djokovic argued before the Federal Circuit Court that the Australian Border Force delegate who cancelled the tennis star’s visa acted outside the law. The case attracted intense public interest, with more than 20,000 people worldwide tuning in to the court’s livestream.

The hearing confirmed that Djokovic is unvaccinated and that he contracted COVID in mid-December. This recent infection was what led medical panels convened by Tennis Australia and Victoria to approve a medical exemption, based on ATAGI guidelines, clearing him to play in the Australian Open.

The Commonwealth, which controls entry to Australia, was not involved in this process. But Djokovic’s lawyers stressed that when he submitted his travel declaration he detailed the panel exemptions and received correspondence from the Department of Home Affairs saying he had met the requirements for entry. They argued Border Force should have factored this in before deciding to cancel Djokovic’s visa.

Ultimately, this question was left undecided. Late in the afternoon, the parties agreed that Djokovic should win on a different, procedural, ground. The Minister for Home Affairs, Karen Andrews, conceded that Border Force was unreasonable when it proceeded with cancelling Djokovic’s visa without allowing him time to contact Tennis Australia or his lawyers.

Following the parties’ agreement, Judge Kelly found that Border Force’s handling of the matter had been legally unreasonable and quashed the decision to cancel Djokovic’s visa. This reactivated the visa he had been granted pre-travel and allowed him to leave detention, seemingly with a path to the Open.

But if Djokovic had cause for celebration, it was short-lived. Within seconds, the Home Affairs Minister’s counsel advised that Immigration Minister Alex Hawke would consider using his personal power under s 133C(3) of the Migration Act to re-cancel the visa.

As Judge Kelly observed, this raises the stakes. Challenging an exercise of this personal power in court may raise complex questions, making litigation difficult in the short window before the Open. If Djokovic loses his visa again and is deported, he faces a three-year ban on travel to Australia, jeopardising his ability to compete in future Opens, though the minister could elect to waive the ban.

Even those with little love for Djokovic may find it harsh and surprising that the government, after overstepping legal bounds, simply gets another go. But this is commonplace in Migration Act matters. Decisions that are invalid due to defective process can be remade using a better process. Moreover, the Immigration and Home Affairs ministers have far more personal discretionary power than any other member of government – so much so that their discretions have been called ‘‘God Powers’’. This means that if one source of power fails, there is often another path to the same end.

Additionally, as many migration law matters are bipartisan, when the minister is found to lack power Parliament sometimes speedily creates one. In 2017, long-term resident Mehaka Te Puia had his visa cancelled. Te Puia was a member of a bikie club that was suspected of criminal links, but had a clean record himself. He never found out why he lost his visa – the minister relied on a provision that allowed that information to be kept secret. Te Puia went to the High Court. He argued, successfully, that the provision relied on was, in part, unconstitutional because it also required the critical information to be withheld from courts. The minister’s decision to cancel Te Puia’s visa was found invalid. But while the case was in progress, Parliament passed legislation retrospectively validating the cancellation decision. A week after his win, Te Puia was deported.

Parliaments and even immigration ministers have previously expressed unease about the ‘‘God Powers’’. It’s worth remembering that a key reason for including such powers in the first place was to facilitate humanitarian solutions for people who fell outside strict statutory criteria but nonetheless had particularly compelling circumstances.

The minister could exercise a personal power to grant visas, on public interest grounds, to Nades, Priya, Kopika and Tharnicaa Murugappan, allowing them to return to the Biloela community, or to release the refugees who will remain detained in the Park Hotel long after Djokovic leaves and the world’s attention wanes. But that’s all a matter of discretion.

Sangeetha Pillai is a senior research associate at the Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, UNSW.

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 29515
« 2022-Jan-12, 05:37 PM Reply #3 »
Bottom line is he’s  no threat to anyone so get on with it

Online Jeunes

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 296
  • Posts: 7051
« 2022-Jan-12, 06:32 PM Reply #4 »
There are talks that a deal is being done with Novak. It will mean something significant for all parties but no one losing face too much.

He will not be banned for 3 years regardless what happens.

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18177
« 2022-Jan-14, 07:22 AM Reply #5 »
WHAT THE WORLD NO.1 IS ACCUSED OF


BREACHING ISOLATION

Djokovic tested positive to Covid- 19 in a PCR test in Serbia at 8.19pm on December 16.

He claims to have only found out on December 17, after he spent the day handing out trophies to children at his tennis centre.

Under Serbian regulations, a person who receives a positive test must isolate for 14-days.

But Djokovic admits he breached isolation for an interview and photoshoot with French magazine L’Equipe on December 18 when he knew he had the virus.

PENALTY FINE OR UP TO 3 YEARS PRISON (FAILURE TO ACT PURSUANT TO HEALTH REGULATIONS DURING EPIDEMIC, SERBIAN CRIMINAL CODE)

ENTERING SPAIN

Djokovic was seen training in Spain at the Soto Tennis Academy on December 31, following a negative PCR test in Serbia on December 22. But Spain requires unvaccinated entrants to have a special exemption.

No proof of such an exemption seems to exist.

Spanish authorities are investigating.
PENALTY UNKNOWN

AUSSIE

DECLARATION LIE

When Djokovic entered Australia in the early hours of January 6, he was required under new pandemic rules to fill out a travel declaration form.

On this form, Djokovic was asked if he had travelled within 14 days of flying to Australia.

He ticked, ‘no’. But in a bombshell statement on January 12, the Serbian admitted this wasn’t true – he’d travelled to Spain during that time – and blamed his agent.

“This was human error and certainly not deliberate,” he wrote.

PENALTY 12 MONTHS JAIL (BIOSECURITY ACT)

GIVING FALSE EVIDENCE

Djokovic gave evidence to a court that he tested positive to Covid- 19 on December 16.

But in the tennis star’s latest statement, he now claims to have only found out about his positive PCR test after he spent the day with children at his tennis centre on December 17.

Questions remain over the discrepancies between his affidavit to the Federal Circuit Court on January 10, and his public statement on January 12.

This could give rise to an offence of giving false evidence.

PENALTY FIVE YEARS JAIL (CRIMES ACT)

ENDS

It's an open and shut case why Minister Hawke can't  /won't make a decision is ridiculous

Giddy Up :beer:

Offline timw

  • Group3
  • User 2166
  • Posts: 814
« 2022-Jan-14, 09:26 AM Reply #6 »
Guessing here but I would not assume that just because one govt dept/minister has a report that report is quickly passed onto another govt dept/minister with documents.  I am guessing the second govt dept will have to independently verify the information held by the first govt dept and that may involve corresponding with novax lawyers and giving say 7 day response times and no doubt extensions to respond will be requested by novax lawyers.  In view of the high profile nature of the case the report will  need to pass through many hands for approval before it reaches the ministers office and in addition the minister / offsiders may have questions.  Even in a rush I would think 14 days would be unusally quick.  Note I have never dealt with these govt depts guess is based on other experiences.  Wouldn't be surprised if no decision made before novax has left the country.  Of course that does not mean something can't be done in a flash.

Cheers

Online Jeunes

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 296
  • Posts: 7051
« 2022-Jan-14, 11:03 AM Reply #7 »
There is still speculation that a deal is being thrashed out behind the scenes.

I am not a conspiracy theorist but this is how it will go according to some as this drags on.

Sometime soon, the government will announce that Novak visa has been rescinded and he will be deported. He will appeal that and play in the Open. The case will be heard late next week but will be postponed to the week after which is the 2nd week of the Open. If Novak loses, he will leave. If Novak is still
In the hunt, there will be further delays and appeals from both sides. After the Open final or whenever Novak loses, Novak will leave and apologise for causing the fuss while Scotty and co will do some chest thumping and blame the legal system for not being done earlier.

Online fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 9308
« 2022-Jan-14, 11:08 AM Reply #8 »
Jeunes,

That ''deal'' is suggestive of multiple forms of corruption an abuse of the legal system......

Queue  jumping for the wealthy amongst them given that others have to wait so long....

Fours


Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 29515
« 2022-Jan-14, 04:08 PM Reply #9 »
Let it rip was the cry from the vaccinated. The genie is always let out of the bottle when self interest is at play

Offline Shogun Lodge

  • Group 1
  • User 352
  • Posts: 5041
« 2022-Jan-15, 06:30 AM Reply #10 »
Oh.Ooooh.
I missed that.
The only people who wanted society to reopen a bit, business to make money again, were the selfish vaccinated.
Sorry, I missed your calls for extended or more rigorous lockdowns pup, where are they?
Why would you be for that..after all it's nuttin, no threat yada yada?
I thought you reckon it's only a cold (that is killing near 2000 a day in USA).?
You are like some guy who runs across a freeway, nearly gets clipped by a red Gemini driven by a Chinese scientist, goes to the pub and shouts:'pedestrian crossings, who the  :censored:  needs em!'
You're the bloke who has ridiculed me for being vigilant and interested because my wife works intimately with 30 wonderful aged care residents and I give a shit as to whether they die early from a preventable bug.
Keep it up.
I couldn't give two hoots...Jeunes has it right probably, more drama.
Maybe he just chucks a shittypants and goes home.
Who cares.
« Last Edit: 2022-Jan-15, 06:33 AM by Shogun Lodge »

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 29515
« 2022-Jan-15, 11:21 AM Reply #11 »
Oh.Ooooh.
I missed that.
The only people who wanted society to reopen a bit, business to make money again, were the selfish vaccinated.
Sorry, I missed your calls for extended or more rigorous lockdowns pup, where are they?

Well, that’s because you’re  dishonest and cherry pick whatever you like to suit your demented approach to life. Or you have the comprehension skills of a 2yo  :biggrin:

Offline nemisis

  • Group 2
  • User 2461
  • Posts: 2045
« 2022-Jan-15, 11:42 AM Reply #12 »
Oh.Ooooh.
I missed that.
The only people who wanted society to reopen a bit, business to make money again, were the selfish vaccinated.
Sorry, I missed your calls for extended or more rigorous lockdowns pup, where are they?
Why would you be for that..after all it's nuttin, no threat yada yada?
I thought you reckon it's only a cold (that is killing near 2000 a day in USA).?
You are like some guy who runs across a freeway, nearly gets clipped by a red Gemini driven by a Chinese scientist, goes to the pub and shouts:'pedestrian crossings, who the  :censored:  needs em!'
You're the bloke who has ridiculed me for being vigilant and interested because my wife works intimately with 30 wonderful aged care residents and I give a shit as to whether they die early from a preventable bug.
Keep it up.
I couldn't give two hoots...Jeunes has it right probably, more drama.
Maybe he just chucks a shittypants and goes home.
Who cares.
I just showed my English teaching daughter this piece Shogun.

She gave it up the  thumbs up.
Pointed out how well crafted it is.

Congrats to you....I've always liked how you write.

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 29515
« 2022-Jan-15, 11:49 AM Reply #13 »
Nem, well written apart from the fact he lied his arse off  :lol:

Offline Gintara

  • Group 1
  • User 16
  • Posts: 13705
« 2022-Jan-15, 12:15 PM Reply #14 »
Bottom line is he’s  no threat to anyone so get on with it

Not the point Wily. There's public orders in place and bending the rules negates the public confidence .... "why him, why can't my family etc etc ......

If we don't have laws, we have anarchy.

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 29515
« 2022-Jan-15, 12:53 PM Reply #15 »
Not the point Wily. There's public orders in place and bending the rules negates the public confidence .... "why him, why can't my family etc etc ......

If we don't have laws, we have anarchy.

Many layers to the issue mate and the law and the way it’s enforced is one of them. I agree

In saying that I’m sure we can all agree, except for the lying Shogie, that just about everyone has broken the laws around lockdown etc in the past 2 years, to some degree.

 My only comment is 5hat, from a health perspective, Novak is not a threat to anyone and anyone who thinks he is is not very smart Or honest

Offline Gintara

  • Group 1
  • User 16
  • Posts: 13705
« 2022-Jan-15, 01:03 PM Reply #16 »
It's not what you or I think though.

We've all ticked those boxes on the silly little bits of card and I'm sure we've all been scrutinized too at some point - too many ciggies, over the alcohol limit, no sir I haven't been on a farm, the wood is treated, the carpet is brand new, walked through the green line with nothing to declare etc etc

His story keeps changing (lying) why should he be allowed to flout the laws just because he can play tennis.  :shrug:

Online Jeunes

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 296
  • Posts: 7051
« 2022-Jan-15, 01:16 PM Reply #17 »
I don’t agree with Novak’s stance but this is becoming a farce as they are exactly doing what they accuse Novak of. Don’t forget Libs and Nationals allow pollies from their own party to go against their vaccination policy with no censure. However Novak is a good example for them to attack as he is a foreigner and high profile plus by focusing on them, they hope the general population ignore all the other celebrities and rich people they let in previously.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-15/novak-djokovic-visa-cancelled-court-documents-anti-vaccination/100758494

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 29515
« 2022-Jan-15, 02:00 PM Reply #18 »
I don’t agree with Novak’s stance but this is becoming a farce as they are exactly doing what they accuse Novak of. Don’t forget Libs and Nationals allow pollies from their own party to go against their vaccination policy with no censure. However Novak is a good example for them to attack as he is a foreigner and high profile plus by focusing on them, they hope the general population ignore all the other celebrities and rich people they let in previously.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-15/novak-djokovic-visa-cancelled-court-documents-anti-vaccination/100758494

Rest assured that most of those slagging off Novak haven’t liked him previously. If it was “Our Ash💖💖💖”  it would be a different story

It’s hilarious hearing people stand in support of Nadal who’s demanding that “ Novak should just get the jab”  :lol:

They totally ignore Nadals decisions to jab himself with all sorts of stuff   :lol:



Online JWesleyHarding

  • Group 1
  • User 231
  • Posts: 22012
« 2022-Jan-15, 03:08 PM Reply #19 »
On my favourite list of the top 3 Roger was No 1 Novak No 2 Nadal No3

Now the stupidity and selfishness of Novak, not giving a shit about his fellow humans by not taking the jab, has him off the list.

Online Jeunes

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 296
  • Posts: 7051

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 29515
« 2022-Jan-15, 04:05 PM Reply #21 »
On my favourite list of the top 3 Roger was No 1 Novak No 2 Nadal No3

Now the stupidity and selfishness of Novak, not giving a shit about his fellow humans by not taking the jab, has him off the list.

I’ll let him know  :lol:

Online firezuki

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 259
  • Posts: 23690
« 2022-Jan-17, 07:17 PM Reply #22 »
Because if he took the jab he then couldn't infect anyone Cocky?


You're a bit behind the times.


And if that moron Nemisis' English teacher gave Shogun the thumbs up, no wonder we're 9 billionth in literacy. 

Online Jeunes

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 296
  • Posts: 7051

Online Jeunes

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 296
  • Posts: 7051
« 2022-Jan-17, 09:44 PM Reply #24 »


BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap