Geoff13

I played schoolboy Rugby League right up until I joined the Army. They never played League in the Army or in Victoria where I spent my first 4 years so I tried my hand at Union. I never really came to grips with Union so I decided to give Aussie Rules a go. Well to be quite honest the skill level of the players was way beyond anything that League had prepared me for I did however learn enough about the rules and tactics of the game to become an avid supporter. I think that once you understand it Aussie Rules is a far better spectator sport than any of the other codes that I have either watched or tried. As such I will be a lifetime follower.I am even like all Victorian supporter, I follow two teams. Firstly Geelong, everyone in my house follows Geelong. Even my dogs purr in their sleep. And of course like all good Aussie Rules fans, I follow anyone who is playing Collingwood.

As for tagging Danger, I just wouldn't bother, he will get 40 touches anyway so just let him go and worry about the rest of them.

As much as I hate to admit it my dislike for Hawthorne was emmbedded during the great rivalries of the 70s and 80s... My sentiments are Hawthorne are our greatest foes... but for some reason, they aren't the ones I hate... it is Collingwood I despise. Some of those games through the 70s and 80s were awesome, none better than the 89 grand final. One G Ablett Snr kicking 10 goals in a losing Grand Final. Dermott getting taken out in the most blatant on field assault of all time, then coming back with broken ribs and breaking Geelong. How could I not hate them Bastards. I was at that game and the on field rivalry was matched in the stands. And that me Hawthorne loving friend is the real reason I dislike them bugga's, I just do not like to admit it. :)

No envy mate just don't like Hawthorn. It is bred into a CATS DNA to dislike birds of all sorts, Hawks, Magpies, Crows, Eagles we hate them all equally. LOL. Should be a good one. Just out of curiosity where do you think they should start Dangerfield. I reckon they should start him a fullback, that stuff their tagging plans up. But then who do you tag when you have Ablett Dangerfield and Selwood 1 & 2 in the line up.

A good report Jerry even if you became a bit one eyed there in the middle when you were talking about them bloody chooks in the yellow and babyshit brown. As for the Son of GOD, he done good for a has been, 39 possessions, the same as an Injured Selwood. Parfit showed promise, but I can't wait till about round 3 or 4 when they get some miles in their legs and we have Selwood Dangerfield and Ablett running out of the middle. I know it's a bit of a cliché but I'd like to see that.

.[ATTACH]49249._xfImport[/ATTACH]

There would not be an ex Digger reading this that had not been sent to the Q'Store for a long wait. And normally they would get it.

Which they don't make and in fact are no longer even made out of Rabbit fur. And to top it off you no longer get a feather with your new Snowy River.

Queensland had many things before the rest of the Country. I know we laugh at ourselves about setting our clocks back to the last century, but when you look at history Qld led the way in many things. The Golden casket paid for free medical in Qld since before I was born. When Medibank, (the forrunner to medicare) came in I remember my fathers comment. Now I have to pay for my free medical. And he was not only serious but he was also correct.

Sorry for your loss Gareth. Everyone should be allowed to go with dignity. Surely if a concerted effort by a minority can get gay marriage through then we should as a nation be able to get something as humane as dying with dignity through.

I disagree, I think he wants it that bad he can taste it. I reckon if it goes on much longer he might try and get Mummsy committed or worse. Beside Camilla won't let him abdicate she probably wants it worse than him.

Ahh Grandkids, natures thanks for not castrating your teenagers.

Been there done that.

As I said there could be a lot of reasons for not reporting in a timely manner. That is why in Australia there is no Statute of Limitations for sexual assault. From the Sydney Lawyers page on Statute of Limitations on Child Sexual Assault "Sexual assault, including child sexual assault, is one area where there is often a significant delay in reporting. However, it is one category that often is tried a long time after the event because there may be good reasons for a victim to have kept silent. For example, they may be too scared, ashamed or embarrassed to tell anyone, or they may think no-one would believe them anyway. Sexual assault is often hard to prove or disprove at the best of times as there are usually no witnesses – so it often boils down to who is believed in court. Incidents of sexual assault can be difficult to detect and prosecute due to the vast inequality between the victim and the defendant and the lack of material evidence such as CCTV footage and eye-witness statements. It is no understatement to say that the effects of child sexual abuse can be life-long and scarring. Many victims who have spoken out during the Royal Commission into child abuse have told stories of the terrible acts inflicted on them as children. There has been a flood of new child abuse complaints during the Royal Commission into the data, many reaching back decades. If a statute of limitations applied to sexual assault cases, it may have prevented some complainants who spoke out during the current inquiry into the Catholic Church from ever getting their cases heard or receiving compensation. Legal reform and case-law have now removed the presumption that a failure to report immediately indicates a false allegation. However, victims of sexual assault who fail to speak up sooner can still face difficulties in getting their case heard." Full report here Child Sexual Assault and the Statute of Limitations in Australia We must be very careful in saying that they should have come out sooner. I as a Man would never profess to understand a woman so there is no way that I could understand the reasons for tardy reporting of offences. But because I do not understand it does not make those reasons invalid. Having said that, if down the track any of the reports prove to have no basis in fact and turn out to be malicious, then that should be treated as seriously as is possible.

I am actually sick of hearing people trying to justify the actions of some of these men. In most cases these men are the senior person in the work place. In many cases the women were junior at the time of the incident. Even on this forum of supposedly mature intelligent people it appears that the women do not have the right to complain. Women do not come forward immediately about sexual assault for many reasons which to them always seem valid at the time. (And lets be honest, sticking your hand down some young ladies pants is sexual assault no matter what the justification. If it was my daughter he would probably only have one hand left.) Even though we mere males might not understand it, that does not mean that their reasons for delay are invalid. We must respect their right to do that as we must respect their right to come forward when they feel comfortable doing so. As we see in so many places people feel safer in numbers so it is obvious to me that if a few people come forward then that could in the case of multiple offences encourage other women to follow suit and speak up. We saw people coming to the Royal Commission into sexual abuse of minors by the churches 30 and 40 years after the event. These Men have not been ridiculed the way these poor women have after 3 years. Yes the alleged offender has a right to a fair trial, but the aggrieved women also have a right to have their stories heard as well. I am not sure that there is an easy way to achieve both but we need to find one if possible because if these women's stories are proven then they deserve their day in court and they deserve to see their abusers punished.

I was in Berlin when Rudolf Hess died. Spandau prison was demolished overnight, in fact within 12 hours of his death it was just a pile of rubble in the corner of a big open square. (Of that much I am certain.) The following reason was what circulated around the units within Berlin at the time. I am not certain of the facts as I was not party to the decision making I do however tend to believe it. The reason being that the British, the Americans and the Russians took turns of guarding him for 2 weeks at a time. It was the only time that Russians were allowed to carry weapons in the West. Hess died on the last night of the British Guard and they were due to change over at 0800 next morning. The Brits demolished the prison so that the Russians would have no reason to come in. The replacement guard was turned around at checkpoint Charlie.

I like the Bobby standing to attention ANPRC25 set ( or something that looks just like one) strapped to his back LOL.

Another from Slim. This one is close to my heart. I have many mates with their names upon the wall. I am lucky that mine is not there having survived an off that could have easily had a far worse result for me.

You are supposed to wear socks?

Where do I apply for that job?

Just a slight correction there mate. If it happened at Dubbo then you taste tested the Newell Highway insects not the Hume. They are much bigger and tastier out that way, the grashoppers especially. They have been fattened up on all the grain.

Harleys are ok in an agricultural sort of way. As for the clothes I do not know anyone skinny enough to fit any of their gear.

We have his and hers crappers at our place. She was out the other day and I was up that end of the house so I used hers. Buggered if she didn't have the softest multiply sh!t paper money could buy, compared to the sand paper she buys for my throne room. Well I swapped it over after she went to bed last night and you should have heard the squeal at 0130 this morning. PS. It is not so bad out here, I have convinced the dog to move over a bit and give me some more room.

My daughter eloped last week, came and told me for fathers day that she was no longer my problem as she had a husband to annoy now and look how much she saved me. Best Fathers Day gift ever. She was very worried about how I would feel about it all and was so happy when I smiled gave her a hug and said how proud I was of her for making her own decisions and doing what was right for her. So I didn't get to walk her down the aisle but weddings are for the two people being married and they should do what they want how they want and when they want.

That is part of my problem with the whole thing. They didn't ask us if they should put those words in did they. So why ask now if they should be removed. Just stand up do what you are getting paid for and make a decision. Allow a conscience vote, give the pollies time to go talk to their electorates and then vote on it. Why the hell are we going on about it, the vote should have been had years ago and it would be over. The reason those words were inserted was to stop gay couples marrying, so until 20 years ago it was legal just had never been challenged. Like I say they didn't ask to change it before, so why ask now?