Novak vs State

[Instinkt]

Ja kad bih nekoga hteo da kaznim, stavio bi ga u istu prostoriju sa tobom. Da vidiš kako bi se vakcinisao, i pitao jel može još.

[mare80]

58 minutes ago, Amigo said:

Novak Djokovic public enemy No1 u Australiji. Koliko je samo to besmisleno.

Mogu samo da se nadam da ce ova vlada da to plati na izborima, jer prvo izdati vizu, pa je ponistiti, pa onda sud ponisti sto je viza ponistena, onda ministar ponisti odluku suda, jer to kao od nacionalnog interesa  pa onda opet na sud itd.

Definitivno bi Australian Open trebao da im se oduzme i da se preseli npr u Kinu, China Open  pa neka onda Australia zivi mirno u svom svetu, bez neprijatelja.

 

Ovo definitivno ulazi u istoriju, kao i prica o Ned Keliju

 

 

 

 

[Kronostime]

24 minutes ago, berti said:

Nije valjda tolika budaletina da to uradi.

Takav zicer nece promasiti ovi politicari, sigurno.

[Wingwalker]

...

 

[alcesta]

 

[Mile1]

Pokenjam se na njihovu demokratiju gde odluku suda moze da preinaci jedan Vulin

[handys]

1 hour ago, alcesta said:

Dakle, ima da se radi po starom ili nikako. Takvi i ne moraju da budu antivakseri. To je ono "ja verujem samo našem Torlaku, e kakve su se vakcine nekad tamo pravile", i takve je isto strašno teško razuveriti.

 

Gledajuci blizu i dalju okolinu, stekao sam utisak da postoji vise vrsta ljudi - oni koji se plase da se vakcinisu, oni koji bi samo da sacekaju malo, ili da sacekaju mnogo, oni koji misle da su vakcine samo tu da farmakomafija profitira, oni koji misle da virusa nema pa da nema sta da se vakcinisu, oni koji se prosto plase igle, oni koji misle da njima to ne treba, dosta je da piju zelene sejkove i vitamin D, oni koji su na nagovor primili ali se neckaju oko trece doze, oni kojima je ok rus al ne bi fajzer zbog plodnosti, oni koji su se vakcinisali jer hoce da putuju, oni koji su se vakcinisali jer hoce da piju...

i svi su oni antivakseri.

[duško matić]

26 minutes ago, Devil In My Pants said:

Pickousti se sad setio...kakva je to zvala odvratna. Mislim, sta je po vama resenje da vlada donese za coveka koji je svesno prekrsio zakon?

 

Odluku koja je u skladu sa zakonom koju sud neće poništiti. 

Da je on prekršio zakon, davno bi bio vraćen pa sve i da su mu advokati najbolji na svetu

[berti]

40 minutes ago, Mile1 said:

Sad mi poslao drugar iz Australije kazu izuzetno postuju Teofila sve sto cini za njihov narod i kako se zalaze da deportuju Novaka

Šta je taj srao sad?

[Amigo]

27 minutes ago, mare80 said:

 

 

Ja nemam nista protiv Australije, tako da ti je ovaj odgovor nidje veze.

 

4 minutes ago, berti said:

Šta je taj srao sad?

 

Bolje da ne citam  ali mogu da kazem da iz prethodnog iskustva, vecina toga sto je pisao je kontraproduktvno 100%.

Kritika drustva treba da se pise na nacin da ima neki pozitivan rezultat od toga, i da ima cilj populaciju koja nije kao autor i koju treba edukovati, a ne ponizavati, jer cemu onda sve to, sto bi rekao Miki Jevremovic.

Na ovaj nacin se jos vise udaljava od te ciljne grupe, tako da sve sto pise ima smisla samo u tome, joj jesam ih razvalio. 

[Tunji Awojobi]

41 minutes ago, Wingwalker said:

Da li je današnja objava državnih instanci da je Novakov pozitivan test od 16.12. regularan i da ga je dobio istog dana dokaz da je Novak slagao da 17.12. nije znao da je pozitivan dok je deci delio priznanja ili sam nešto loše povezao ovde?

 

Edit; tačnije u izjavi je naveo da je 17.12. uradio brzi antigenski test koji je bio negativan a da je ,,obaveštenje o pozitivnom PCR testu dobio tek nakon tog dogadjaja...". Znači...dok je 17.12. čekao da dobije rezultat PCR testa, koji je već stigao juče, on radi brzi test bez da pre toga proveri mejl i sa njegovim negativnim rezultatom ide medj decu. Ok, to već drži vodu.

 

39 minutes ago, Boxy said:

Dokaz njegove neodgovornosti, jer je imao rezultate testa koje nije pogledao, a znao je da sutra treba da ide i daje deci pehare.

 

Ne samo to. Nego s obzirom da zna da je bio u kontaktu sa zaraženim igračima Barselone (a to se saznalo čini mi se 15. ili 16.), svakako je morao da se izoluje i da ograniči kontakte u narednih par dana, nevezano za testove (zbog perioda latencije koji je kod prvih sojeva bio oko 3-5 dana). 

 

A on ne samo da nije uradio to, nego, ili nije ni pogledao rezultate testa ili, još gore, pogledao je i opet otišao u javnost, i to bez maske i bez distance, među decu. Nema opravdanja za ovo. Posebno u kombinaciji s tim da odbija da se vakciniše. 

 

Stvarno deluje da je pod jakim uticajem Nestorovića. 

[Zvezdinho]

Quote

Australijski stručnjak za pravo otkrio je zašto je Đokovićev advokatski tim pred jako teškim zadatkom.

https://mondo.rs/Sport/Tenis/a1583271/Australijski-profesor-prava-o-Novaku-Djokovicu.html

 

Da se ne nadate previse, a cak i ako ih dobije, opet mogu da mu ukinu vizu.

Edited January 14, 2022 by Zvezdinho

[alcesta]

Ma ja više neću ni da pokušavam da nešto tu razumem, koliko sam dosad shvatila on može da uloži još 10 žalbi, a oni i kad mu se žalbe usvoje opet mogu da ga deportuju. Ovo je sad već pitanje inata, o turniru nema više priče.

[Jurgen]

1 hour ago, Mile1 said:

Pokenjam se na njihovu demokratiju gde odluku suda moze da preinaci jedan Vulin

 

Pa niko i nije preinačio odluku suda. Sud je odlučio da je NAČIN na koji je Novaku viza poništena bio neispravan i vratio mu vizu. Zato mu je ministar sada vizu oduzeo na legalan način. Za sada je sve po pravilima. 

[Boxy]

 

[dekifisher]

Risk to civil order 🤣🤣🤣

 

[alcesta]

Nego pročitala sam sad temu od jutros i ne mogu da verujem koliko je vas pratilo uživo jedan sudski pretres, uz onih 40 ili koliko hiljada pride  ne mogu da shvatim šta je tu toliko zanimljivo, ja sam onaj prvi put pogledala možda dva minuta izlaganje njegovih advokata, ništa nisam razumela i batalila.

[Clash]

1 minute ago, alcesta said:

Nego pročitala sam sad temu od jutros i ne mogu da verujem koliko je vas pratilo uživo jedan sudski pretres, uz onih 40 ili koliko hiljada pride  ne mogu da shvatim šta je tu toliko zanimljivo, ja sam onaj prvi put pogledala možda dva minuta izlaganje njegovih advokata, ništa nisam razumela i batalila.

Pa kad se ne razumes u tenis.

[Jataganac]

Just now, alcesta said:

Nego pročitala sam sad temu od jutros i ne mogu da verujem koliko je vas pratilo uživo jedan sudski pretres, uz onih 40 ili koliko hiljada pride  ne mogu da shvatim šta je tu toliko zanimljivo, ja sam onaj prvi put pogledala možda dva minuta izlaganje njegovih advokata, ništa nisam razumela i batalila.

 

Ja sam lepo gledao "Bolji zivot", ali mi Zuti Bujke servirao sudjenje, sta da radim 😞

[ciao]

Sad ce advokati spisak svega sta je on uradio tj dao u dobrotvorne svrhe Australiji i uopste, ima tu lep spisak da se navede, takodje podrsku teniserima u teskim trenucima Peng, Osaka itd itd pa ako ga i izbace kao sto verovatno hoce neka se bar zna ovaj spisak njima na dusu, i PTPA da se pomene ima tu da se prica na tu temu - ako ih nije sramota neka ga izbace kao neposlusnog, nekako se oko toga vrti 

[Clash]

Treba pohvaliti Jelenu kako je iskulirala svu ovu porodicnu bunu protiv Australijskih dahija.

Jes da ce sad morati kad dodje kod Srkija na slavu da sedi na verandi al boze moj.

[ciao]

Moja mala interpretacija je da je ona ta koja je samoinicijativno stavila na Novakov instagram obavestenje da on dolazi zahvaljujuci izuzecu i da su je familija a i Novak posle toga izuzeli. To mi je stvarno misterija - Novak koji sve vreme insistira da nece nista da kaze o svom vakcinalnom statusu i pred polazak ono obavestenje, nema sanse po meni da je to njegova ideja - naravno mozda se varam, jednog dana kada budemo gledali netflix seriju saznacemo

Edited January 14, 2022 by ciao

[erwin]

Quote

Australia declares Djokovic a risk to civil order and public health

The Australian government says the presence of Novak Djokovic throughout the two weeks of the Australian Open may put lives and civil order at risk by increasing anti-vax sentiment and disregard for COVID-19 rules.

In a radical reframing of the case against the Serbian tennis star, Immigration Minister Alex Hawke concedes the unvaccinated Djokovic entered Australia with a valid medical exemption and poses a low risk of contracting the virus while in Australia and passing it on to others due to his recent infection.

The furious debate that had engulfed Djokovic for the past 10 days – whether a recent bout of COVID-19 provided him with a genuine exemption to travel to Australia without being vaccinated – has been abandoned by the government without Mr Hawke even reading Djokovic’s extension submissions on the question.

Instead, the case is now headed for a Federal Court showdown as early as Sunday on dramatically new grounds.

Mr Hawke’s detailed reasons for his decision to cancel Djokovic’s visa for a second time since his arrival in Australia late on January 5, revealed by this masthead, portray the nine-time Australian Open winner as a menace to both public health and public order.

The minister describes Djokovic as a “high profile un-vaccinated individual” who has publicly indicated his opposition to getting the jab and demonstrated an “apparent disregard” for basic COVID rules such as isolating after a positive test.

“Given Mr Djokovic’s high-profile status and position as a role model in the sporting and broader community, his ongoing presence in Australia may foster similar disregard for the precautionary requirements following receipt of a positive COVID-19 test in Australia,” Mr Hawke wrote.

“In particular, his behaviour may encourage or influence others to emulate his prior conduct and fail to comply with appropriate health measures following a positive COVID-19 test, which itself could lead to the transmission of the disease and serious risk to their health and others.″

Explaining how a 34-year-old visiting tennis player could be a risk to public order, Mr Hawke argues that when case numbers are rising in Australia due to the spread of the Omicron variant, influential persons and role models who show a disregard for public health measures have the potential to undermine the pandemic response of federal, state and territory governments.

Referring to Djokovic’s admission this week that he attended a media interview and photoshoot in Serbia on December 18, a day after he received confirmation of his positive COVID status, Mr Hawke said: “Mr Djokovic is such a person of influence and status. Having regard to the matters set out above regarding Mr Djokovic’s conduct after receiving a positive COVID-19 result, his publicly stated views, as well as his un-vaccinated status, I consider that his ongoing presence in Australia may encourage other people to disregard or act inconsistently with public health advice and polices in Australia.

“In addition, I consider that Mr Djokovic’s ongoing presence in Australia may lead to an increase in anti-vaccination sentiment generated in the Australian community, potentially leading to an increase in civil unrest of the kind previously experienced in Australia with rallies and protests which may themselves be a source of community transmission.”

The minister concluded: “These matters go to the very preservation of life and health of many members of the general community and further are crucial to the maintaining the health system in Australia, which is facing increasing strain in the current circumstances of the pandemic.”

To successfully defend his decision under the Migration Act, the minister doesn’t need to prove that any of this has or will occur, only that it may unless Djokovic is deported back to Serbia.

The broad charge is that Djokovic, so long as he remains in Melbourne, could become the pin-up boy for a hard-core anti-vax movement that has already staged mass rallies in capital cities and infiltrated the union movement and political parties on the fringe of national affairs. This in turn could lead to a breakdown in observance of public health rules and more illness from COVID, hospital admissions and ultimately, deaths.

Yet, in the same document, the minister acknowledged that Djokovic has not attempted to break any Australian laws and was a “person of good standing” known for his philanthropy.

Counsel for Djokovic, Nicholas Wood SC, during a preliminary hearing before Federal Circuit Court Judge Anthony Kelly late on Friday night, described the minister’s reasons as “starkly different” from those cited by border officials at Melbourne Airport when they initially cancelled Djokovic’s visa and placed him into immigration detention.

“What the minister does is in substance to assume in Mr Djokovic’s favour every single fact that might have been an issue previously,” Mr Wood said. “The minister finds and assumes that Mr Djokovic has in respect complied with the law.”

Mr Wood said the flaw in the minister’s approach was that, in considering whether Djokovic’s ongoing presence in Melbourne will stir up anti-vax sentiment, he gave no consideration to what deporting Djokovic will do.

He submitted that the implications of deportation would be profound for Djokovic.

“Cancellation leads to the forcible, mandatory removal of this man of good standing who has a medical contraindication to a vaccine, who has complied with law, who poses a negligible risk to others, being forced out of Australia and being subjected to provisions in the act and regulation that would then preclude him from coming back to Australia for the next three years subject to the possibility of a waiver being exercised."

Counsel for the federal Immigration Department, Stephen Lloyd SC, agreed that the case Judge Kelly decided at the start of the week bore no relation to the matters now before the court.

The minister’s full reasons for moving against Djokovic remain tightly held. Once they become widely known, the reaction among his supporters both here and in Serbia is likely to be febrile.

Shortly after Djokovic was first taken into detention, his father Srdan declared: “Australia has become a dystopia, a mockery of the free world, they treat Novak Djokovic, my son, your world champion, as a political prisoner. As a terrorist in Guantanamo Bay.

“They deprive him of the right to play, to individuality, to freedom of opinion.”

What read like the ramblings of an irate father now seems faintly prescient. Djokovic, having committed no crime in Australia, faces deportation or what he might unintentionally inspire others he has never met to do. The case against Djokovic has swung from scrutinising his travel documents to declaring him persona non grata so long as the pandemic rages.

Who could have imagined the world’s best tennis player would end up here?

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/australia-declares-djokovic-a-risk-to-civil-order-and-public-health-20220114-p59oex.html

Edited January 14, 2022 by erwin

[Clash]

1 minute ago, ciao said:

Moja mala interpretacija je da je ona ta koja je samoinicijativno stavila na Novakov instagram obavestenje da on dolazi zahvaljujuci izuzecu i da su je familija a i Novak posle toga izuzeli. To mi je stvarno misterija - Novak koji sve vreme insistira da nece nista da kaze o svom vakcinalnom statusu i pred polazak ono obavestenje, nema sanse po meni da je to njegova ideja - naravno mozda se varam, jednog dana kada budemo gledali netflix seriju saznacemo

Vidis, moze i to biti pa je sad u kazni, uzeli joj telefon.

[Petar 91]

 

Meni ovaj njihov pristup u ovom drugom krugu obaranja vize jasno pokazuje da su sa namerom to uradili i prvi put. Pa posto nije proslo jer jelte izmislili su ta pravila oni sami onda su se uhvatili "public interest" argumenta.
A nije im lose da im igraci u sred meca izjavljuju da imaju koronu i da im nije dobro i da nema testiranja. I to sve dok omikron divlja Australijom.
Ja sam jos od jesenas kada su najavili ovu zbrku bio u fazonu da je bolje da pravilo bude samo vakcinisani igraju i to je to ili moze i nevakcinisan ali 10-15 dana karantin. Ovako su se sa ovim izuzecima i tom opcijom sami upleli i napravili sivu zonu.
Apsolutno ne podrzavam Djokovicevo neodgovorno ponasanje i onaj intervju sa LEqupom, ali isto tako ova hajka na njega od strane celnika cele drzave koji na ovaj nacin pokusavaju da sacuvaju svoje fotelje jos par godina tako sto ce sludjenom narodu koji je maltene 2 godine zakljucan pokazati da ista pravila vaze za Djokovica i njih je suluda.
Igrom slucaja radim sa ljudima i u Australiji i oni su ocajni najblaze receno odnosom vlasti i ovom prisilnom kontrolom nad njihovim kretanjem i zivotima koju su uspostavili.

Tako da je ovde Djokovic najmanji problem. Bitno je samo da je licnost dovoljno kontroverzna i visokoprofilna da bi dokazali neku svoju poentu. Naravno da nece igrati AO zato su i cekali ovoliko da ovo urade da bi se podigla sto veca prasina.


Boksi, nista upereno tebi samo sam odgovorio na tvit sto si okacila :D