I’m sure most of us have seen the video on mainstream news .
This person makes my blood boil.
Apparently she is a member of some sort of “sceptics” organization who believe covid19 is a hoax etc ( Insert usual standard conspiracy shit here)
I thought attention seeking seeking behaviour was for children but it seems not to be the case.

for those of us who aren’t up on popular culture, ref¿

I tell you who I feel sorry for, people who are actually named Karen…

furious said:

I tell you who I feel sorry for, people who are actually named Karen…

There are lots of karen’s out there.

Sadly its not pop culture, Will look for a link

On second thoughts , cant be fucked, too many refs. Google it yourself.

Conspiracy theorists gather in Melbourne

Even if they don’t believe in coranavirus, you think with that much room they could have spread out a little…

She’s just another activist making a fuss in public to draw attention to her cause.

Peak Warming Man said:

She’s just another activist making a fuss in public to draw attention to her cause.

So that would be the “i’m an idiot movement”?

furious said:

I tell you who I feel sorry for, people who are actually named Karen…

I imagine a lot of them have changed their names recently.

Bubblecar said:

furious said:

I tell you who I feel sorry for, people who are actually named Karen…

I imagine a lot of them have changed their names recently.

Its their own fault for being “Karens”

Maybe we could reintroduce some sort of feudal system, where those deemed unfit to cope in the real world can be assigned to a village and have a lord to make important decisions for them.

party_pants said:

Maybe we could reintroduce some sort of feudal system, where those deemed unfit to cope in the real world can be assigned to a village and have a lord to make important decisions for them.

But that would violate their human rights to be a stupid person.

damn people named Ang’lo

gaghalfrunt said:

party_pants said:

Maybe we could reintroduce some sort of feudal system, where those deemed unfit to cope in the real world can be assigned to a village and have a lord to make important decisions for them.

But that would violate their human rights to be a stupid person.

They could still be the village idiot.

Mr buffy just played the video. I wonder if a counter campaign of silent pointing by the public would have any effect. Or even many people pointing and announcing “Person with no mask!” People wearing masks are semi anonymous anyway. And it seems fine to warn other people in the vicinity of someone needing a wide berth.

furious said:

I tell you who I feel sorry for, people who are actually named Karen…

I know two Karens, and I’m not sure the name choice for this meme was a flippant decision…

I understand this Karen is likely to be an QAnon adherent…

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/06/qanon-nothing-can-stop-what-is-coming/610567/

But you are hard to identify just from the way you look—which is good, because someday soon dark forces may try to track you down. You understand this sounds crazy, but you don’t care. You know that a small group of manipulators, operating in the shadows, pull the planet’s strings. You know that they are powerful enough to abuse children without fear of retribution. You know that the mainstream media are their handmaidens, in partnership with Hillary Clinton and the secretive denizens of the deep state. You know that only Donald Trump stands between you and a damned and ravaged world. You see plague and pestilence sweeping the planet, and understand that they are part of the plan. You know that a clash between good and evil cannot be avoided, and you yearn for the Great Awakening that is coming. And so you must be on guard at all times. You must shield your ears from the scorn of the ignorant. You must find those who are like you. And you must be prepared to fight.

Ian said:

I understand this Karen is likely to be an QAnon adherent…

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/06/qanon-nothing-can-stop-what-is-coming/610567/

But you are hard to identify just from the way you look—which is good, because someday soon dark forces may try to track you down. You understand this sounds crazy, but you don’t care. You know that a small group of manipulators, operating in the shadows, pull the planet’s strings. You know that they are powerful enough to abuse children without fear of retribution. You know that the mainstream media are their handmaidens, in partnership with Hillary Clinton and the secretive denizens of the deep state. You know that only Donald Trump stands between you and a damned and ravaged world. You see plague and pestilence sweeping the planet, and understand that they are part of the plan. You know that a clash between good and evil cannot be avoided, and you yearn for the Great Awakening that is coming. And so you must be on guard at all times. You must shield your ears from the scorn of the ignorant. You must find those who are like you. And you must be prepared to fight.

sigh

Karens have ‘had enough’ of their name being used to describe white entitlement

A growing number of women named Karen are taking issue with their name being used as a moniker for racism and entitlement in white women, with a series of petitions popping up across social media.

One petition, started by a woman named Karen Button, is demanding that British tabloids stop using the term ‘Karen’ altogether.

“My name is Karen, and I’ve had enough of my name and my Karen friends being used to describe racist women in the tabloids,” Button wrote in the description for her change.org petition, which has under 200 signatures.

https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/voices/culture/article/2020/07/27/karens-have-had-enough-their-name-being-used-describe-white-entitlement

Bubblecar said:

Karens have ‘had enough’ of their name being used to describe white entitlement

A growing number of women named Karen are taking issue with their name being used as a moniker for racism and entitlement in white women, with a series of petitions popping up across social media.

One petition, started by a woman named Karen Button, is demanding that British tabloids stop using the term ‘Karen’ altogether.

“My name is Karen, and I’ve had enough of my name and my Karen friends being used to describe racist women in the tabloids,” Button wrote in the description for her change.org petition, which has under 200 signatures.

https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/voices/culture/article/2020/07/27/karens-have-had-enough-their-name-being-used-describe-white-entitlement

she wants to speak to the manager.

Bubblecar said:

Karens have ‘had enough’ of their name being used to describe white entitlement

A growing number of women named Karen are taking issue with their name being used as a moniker for racism and entitlement in white women, with a series of petitions popping up across social media.

One petition, started by a woman named Karen Button, is demanding that British tabloids stop using the term ‘Karen’ altogether.

“My name is Karen, and I’ve had enough of my name and my Karen friends being used to describe racist women in the tabloids,” Button wrote in the description for her change.org petition, which has under 200 signatures.

https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/voices/culture/article/2020/07/27/karens-have-had-enough-their-name-being-used-describe-white-entitlement

They probably just need to start abducting and murdering a few journos and editors that overdo it. The rest will soon catch on.

Watching the response to Karen from Bunnings has reminded me how Dutton, and many of his far right wing cronies and their law enforcement sympathisers, view the rest of us.

Maybe Jackass from Bunnings might be better.

I do think using a widely used personal name to indicate something wrong or nasty or stupid is not particularly nice.

Michael V said:

Maybe Jackass from Bunnings might be better.

I do think using a widely used personal name to indicate something wrong or nasty or stupid is not particularly nice.

Me too.

But I wouldn’t be surprised if Karen is not on the top baby names list this/next year.

Rule 303 said:

Watching the response to Karen from Bunnings has reminded me how Dutton, and many of his far right wing cronies and their law enforcement sympathisers, view the rest of us.

Dutton is a white collar criminal

dv said:

Rule 303 said:

Watching the response to Karen from Bunnings has reminded me how Dutton, and many of his far right wing cronies and their law enforcement sympathisers, view the rest of us.

Dutton is a white collar criminal

I believe the rumours that he was awful to aborigines when he was a policeman.

dv said:

Rule 303 said:

Watching the response to Karen from Bunnings has reminded me how Dutton, and many of his far right wing cronies and their law enforcement sympathisers, view the rest of us.

Dutton is a white collar criminal

And a fascist.

FWIW this is Bunnings Karen’s Facepalm page. It’s terrifying.

Spiny Norman said:

dv said:

Rule 303 said:

Watching the response to Karen from Bunnings has reminded me how Dutton, and many of his far right wing cronies and their law enforcement sympathisers, view the rest of us.

Dutton is a white collar criminal

And a fascist.

FWIW this is Bunnings Karen’s Facepalm page. It’s terrifying.

Brain damage.

Spiny Norman said:

dv said:

Rule 303 said:

Watching the response to Karen from Bunnings has reminded me how Dutton, and many of his far right wing cronies and their law enforcement sympathisers, view the rest of us.

Dutton is a white collar criminal

And a fascist.

FWIW this is Bunnings Karen’s Facepalm page. It’s terrifying.

“Forced muzzling” lol

Bubblecar said:

Spiny Norman said:

dv said:

Dutton is a white collar criminal

And a fascist.

FWIW this is Bunnings Karen’s Facepalm page. It’s terrifying.

Brain damage.

Oh, you’re being far too kind.

anyway, apparently all of this is fallacious and the correct Australian term is Kerry, not Karen, so gtfooh all you racists

dv said:

Rule 303 said:

Watching the response to Karen from Bunnings has reminded me how Dutton, and many of his far right wing cronies and their law enforcement sympathisers, view the rest of us.

Dutton is a white collar criminal

He beat the cripple fair and square though.

SCIENCE said:

anyway, apparently all of this is fallacious and the correct Australian term is Kerry, not Karen, so gtfooh all you racists

bullshit

the popularity of the name Karen has taken a dive in the last ten years

Arts said:

SCIENCE said:

anyway, apparently all of this is fallacious and the correct Australian term is Kerry, not Karen, so gtfooh all you racists

bullshit

we read it on SMH it must be true

https://www.smh.com.au/national/human-rights-abuses-in-the-paint-aisle-at-bunnings-yeah-right-20200727-p55fur.html

SCIENCE said:

Arts said:

SCIENCE said:

anyway, apparently all of this is fallacious and the correct Australian term is Kerry, not Karen, so gtfooh all you racists

bullshit

we read it on SMH it must be true

https://www.smh.com.au/national/human-rights-abuses-in-the-paint-aisle-at-bunnings-yeah-right-20200727-p55fur.html

WGAS?

SCIENCE said:

Arts said:

SCIENCE said:

anyway, apparently all of this is fallacious and the correct Australian term is Kerry, not Karen, so gtfooh all you racists

bullshit

we read it on SMH it must be true

https://www.smh.com.au/national/human-rights-abuses-in-the-paint-aisle-at-bunnings-yeah-right-20200727-p55fur.html

pish posh, it doesn’t matter what the real name is when you get to call someone a Karen… :)

Arts said:

SCIENCE said:

Arts said:

bullshit

we read it on SMH it must be true

https://www.smh.com.au/national/human-rights-abuses-in-the-paint-aisle-at-bunnings-yeah-right-20200727-p55fur.html

pish posh, it doesn’t matter what the real name is when you get to call someone a Karen… :)

I’ve only ever known one Karen. She was really good around the house. Quite a busy person and knock her over backwards and she’d bounce back up with a smile and get on with it.

gaghalfrunt said:

I’m sure most of us have seen the video on mainstream news .
This person makes my blood boil.
Apparently she is a member of some sort of “sceptics” organization who believe covid19 is a hoax etc ( Insert usual standard conspiracy shit here)
I thought attention seeking seeking behaviour was for children but it seems not to be the case.

Some questions.

Does Karen work at Bunnings?

Have Bunnings distanced themselves from Karen?

Does Karen have permission from Bunnings to use Bunnings in her name?

Will Bunnings take legal action against Karen?

Tau.Neutrino said:

gaghalfrunt said:

I’m sure most of us have seen the video on mainstream news .
This person makes my blood boil.
Apparently she is a member of some sort of “sceptics” organization who believe covid19 is a hoax etc ( Insert usual standard conspiracy shit here)
I thought attention seeking seeking behaviour was for children but it seems not to be the case.

Some questions.

Does Karen work at Bunnings?

Have Bunnings distanced themselves from Karen?

Does Karen have permission from Bunnings to use Bunnings in her name?

Will Bunnings take legal action against Karen?

I am afraid that I have still not seen the video.

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

gaghalfrunt said:

I’m sure most of us have seen the video on mainstream news .
This person makes my blood boil.
Apparently she is a member of some sort of “sceptics” organization who believe covid19 is a hoax etc ( Insert usual standard conspiracy shit here)
I thought attention seeking seeking behaviour was for children but it seems not to be the case.

Some questions.

Does Karen work at Bunnings?

Have Bunnings distanced themselves from Karen?

Does Karen have permission from Bunnings to use Bunnings in her name?

Will Bunnings take legal action against Karen?

I am afraid that I have still not seen the video.

O shit. and this woman is a mother?

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

gaghalfrunt said:

I’m sure most of us have seen the video on mainstream news .
This person makes my blood boil.
Apparently she is a member of some sort of “sceptics” organization who believe covid19 is a hoax etc ( Insert usual standard conspiracy shit here)
I thought attention seeking seeking behaviour was for children but it seems not to be the case.

Some questions.

Does Karen work at Bunnings?

Have Bunnings distanced themselves from Karen?

Does Karen have permission from Bunnings to use Bunnings in her name?

Will Bunnings take legal action against Karen?

I am afraid that I have still not seen the video.

please don’t be afraid.

sarahs mum said:

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Some questions.

Does Karen work at Bunnings?

Have Bunnings distanced themselves from Karen?

Does Karen have permission from Bunnings to use Bunnings in her name?

Will Bunnings take legal action against Karen?

I am afraid that I have still not seen the video.

please don’t be afraid.

I had to walk away from watching it.

roughbarked said:

sarahs mum said:

roughbarked said:

I am afraid that I have still not seen the video.

please don’t be afraid.

I had to walk away from watching it.

I too have decided not to bother watching it. I just can’t be arsed giving the attention seeking silly erson the attention of watching the clip.

roughbarked said:

sarahs mum said:

roughbarked said:

I am afraid that I have still not seen the video.

please don’t be afraid.

I had to walk away from watching it.

I read the facebook comments under the story about the book by Trumps niece. So many comments supporting Trump. And they didn’t seem to be bots. These were real australians that were completely off their tree.
I had to walk away,

roughbarked said:

sarahs mum said:

roughbarked said:

I am afraid that I have still not seen the video.

please don’t be afraid.

I had to walk away from watching it.

All she had to say was why she had an exemption from the government.

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

sarahs mum said:

please don’t be afraid.

I had to walk away from watching it.

All she had to say was why she had an exemption from the government.

I’ve forced myself to listen t the whole thing and she is deliberately grandstanding.

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

I had to walk away from watching it.

All she had to say was why she had an exemption from the government.

I’ve forced myself to listen t the whole thing and she is deliberately grandstanding.

I really do feel sorry for those south of the border. I know there are people like that here too but I’d reckon that up here most are a little more circumspect.

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

All she had to say was why she had an exemption from the government.

I’ve forced myself to listen t the whole thing and she is deliberately grandstanding.

I really do feel sorry for those south of the border. I know there are people like that here too but I’d reckon that up here most are a little more circumspect.

I really do think that the corona trackers should be on those who use terms like corona’spiracy. When I first heard the term from a Victorian heading to Sydney and to hell with the corona’spriacy. I was gobsnmacked. Is this the common vernacular down there?

Get thee a great big beautiful wall. Keep the Mexicans out.

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

I’ve forced myself to listen t the whole thing and she is deliberately grandstanding.

I really do feel sorry for those south of the border. I know there are people like that here too but I’d reckon that up here most are a little more circumspect.

I really do think that the corona trackers should be on those who use terms like corona’spiracy. When I first heard the term from a Victorian heading to Sydney and to hell with the corona’spriacy. I was gobsnmacked. Is this the common vernacular down there?

Get thee a great big beautiful wall. Keep the Mexicans out.

This stuff worries me. Apart from sporting a beard, I have also had TB and am described as having emphysema.
As it is I have breathing difficulties as well as being hearing impaired and this means that I can state legitimate reasons for not having a mask on and why I may require you to remove yours.

Why didn’t she state why she couldn’t wear a mask to protect others?
Well the reason was, she didn’t have any. She could hear well and breathe well and had no trouble seeing when she stopped trying to hide the camera.

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

I really do feel sorry for those south of the border. I know there are people like that here too but I’d reckon that up here most are a little more circumspect.

I really do think that the corona trackers should be on those who use terms like corona’spiracy. When I first heard the term from a Victorian heading to Sydney and to hell with the corona’spriacy. I was gobsnmacked. Is this the common vernacular down there?

Get thee a great big beautiful wall. Keep the Mexicans out.

This stuff worries me. Apart from sporting a beard, I have also had TB and am described as having emphysema.
As it is I have breathing difficulties as well as being hearing impaired and this means that I can state legitimate reasons for not having a mask on and why I may require you to remove yours.

Why didn’t she state why she couldn’t wear a mask to protect others?
Well the reason was, she didn’t have any. She could hear well and breathe well and had no trouble seeing when she stopped trying to hide the camera.

are such jokers really trying to protect others

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

I really do think that the corona trackers should be on those who use terms like corona’spiracy. When I first heard the term from a Victorian heading to Sydney and to hell with the corona’spriacy. I was gobsnmacked. Is this the common vernacular down there?

Get thee a great big beautiful wall. Keep the Mexicans out.

This stuff worries me. Apart from sporting a beard, I have also had TB and am described as having emphysema.
As it is I have breathing difficulties as well as being hearing impaired and this means that I can state legitimate reasons for not having a mask on and why I may require you to remove yours.

Why didn’t she state why she couldn’t wear a mask to protect others?
Well the reason was, she didn’t have any. She could hear well and breathe well and had no trouble seeing when she stopped trying to hide the camera.

are such jokers really trying to protect others

I don’t think I said that at all.

roughbarked said:

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

This stuff worries me. Apart from sporting a beard, I have also had TB and am described as having emphysema.
As it is I have breathing difficulties as well as being hearing impaired and this means that I can state legitimate reasons for not having a mask on and why I may require you to remove yours.

Why didn’t she state why she couldn’t wear a mask to protect others?
Well the reason was, she didn’t have any. She could hear well and breathe well and had no trouble seeing when she stopped trying to hide the camera.

are such jokers really trying to protect others

I don’t think I said that at all.

Yes, hence no need to reason not wearing masks.

The lady is wrong on several counts.

1. The is no 1948 Charter of Human Rights. It’s the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.I wonder if she’s even looked at it.

2. There’s nothing in the Declaration which prohibits asking people to wear facemasks for health reasons. The nearest thing to it would be Article 5. ‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.’ Given that everyone else in the video was wearing one, with no apparent signs of suffering, she’d have a hard time making a case for that.

There’s also Artile 13 ‘

‘(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.’

Although this doesn’t forbid conditions being imposed on that movement for public and personal safety.You wouldn’t let people wander around the middle of a busy road.

3. Bunnings is not a public place. It’s private property owned by Bunnings/Wesfarmers, and Bunnings is within its rights to refuse entry to anyone it chooses, and to ask people to not use video cameras, just as the lady is entitled to refuse entry to/videoing of her home of people who she doesn’t want there. There may be an implied right of entry, but that’s subject to the owners’ conditions.

4. It’s not illegal of Bunnings to ask people to wear masks. As the Victorian government had made an enforceable law requiring people to wear masks outside the home, then if Bunnings hadn’t asked her, they’d be complicit in her violating that law.

Incidentally, the lady herself may have breach the UDHR: Article 3 ‘Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.’. She’s risking the security of person of others.

And she’s is in breach of a law made by a freely elected government, and could be subject to punishment,

captain_spalding said:

The lady is wrong on several counts.

1. The is no 1948 Charter of Human Rights. It’s the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.I wonder if she’s even looked at it.

2. There’s nothing in the Declaration which prohibits asking people to wear facemasks for health reasons. The nearest thing to it would be Article 5. ‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.’ Given that everyone else in the video was wearing one, with no apparent signs of suffering, she’d have a hard time making a case for that.

There’s also Artile 13 ‘

‘(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.’

Although this doesn’t forbid conditions being imposed on that movement for public and personal safety.You wouldn’t let people wander around the middle of a busy road.

3. Bunnings is not a public place. It’s private property owned by Bunnings/Wesfarmers, and Bunnings is within its rights to refuse entry to anyone it chooses, and to ask people to not use video cameras, just as the lady is entitled to refuse entry to/videoing of her home of people who she doesn’t want there. There may be an implied right of entry, but that’s subject to the owners’ conditions.

4. It’s not illegal of Bunnings to ask people to wear masks. As the Victorian government had made an enforceable law requiring people to wear masks outside the home, then if Bunnings hadn’t asked her, they’d be complicit in her violating that law.

Incidentally, the lady herself may have breach the UDHR: Article 3 ‘Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.’. She’s risking the security of person of others.

And she’s is in breach of a law made by a freely elected government, and could should be subject to punishment,

Fixed…

Michael V said:

captain_spalding said:

The lady is wrong on several counts.

1. The is no 1948 Charter of Human Rights. It’s the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.I wonder if she’s even looked at it.

2. There’s nothing in the Declaration which prohibits asking people to wear facemasks for health reasons. The nearest thing to it would be Article 5. ‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.’ Given that everyone else in the video was wearing one, with no apparent signs of suffering, she’d have a hard time making a case for that.

There’s also Artile 13 ‘

‘(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.’

Although this doesn’t forbid conditions being imposed on that movement for public and personal safety.You wouldn’t let people wander around the middle of a busy road.

3. Bunnings is not a public place. It’s private property owned by Bunnings/Wesfarmers, and Bunnings is within its rights to refuse entry to anyone it chooses, and to ask people to not use video cameras, just as the lady is entitled to refuse entry to/videoing of her home of people who she doesn’t want there. There may be an implied right of entry, but that’s subject to the owners’ conditions.

4. It’s not illegal of Bunnings to ask people to wear masks. As the Victorian government had made an enforceable law requiring people to wear masks outside the home, then if Bunnings hadn’t asked her, they’d be complicit in her violating that law.

Incidentally, the lady herself may have breach the UDHR: Article 3 ‘Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.’. She’s risking the security of person of others.

And she’s is in breach of a law made by a freely elected government, and could should be subject to punishment,

Fixed…

also business have the legal responsibility to keep their customers safe form potential hazards…

Arts said:

Michael V said:

captain_spalding said:

The lady is wrong on several counts.

1. The is no 1948 Charter of Human Rights. It’s the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.I wonder if she’s even looked at it.

2. There’s nothing in the Declaration which prohibits asking people to wear facemasks for health reasons. The nearest thing to it would be Article 5. ‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.’ Given that everyone else in the video was wearing one, with no apparent signs of suffering, she’d have a hard time making a case for that.

There’s also Artile 13 ‘

‘(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.’

Although this doesn’t forbid conditions being imposed on that movement for public and personal safety.You wouldn’t let people wander around the middle of a busy road.

3. Bunnings is not a public place. It’s private property owned by Bunnings/Wesfarmers, and Bunnings is within its rights to refuse entry to anyone it chooses, and to ask people to not use video cameras, just as the lady is entitled to refuse entry to/videoing of her home of people who she doesn’t want there. There may be an implied right of entry, but that’s subject to the owners’ conditions.

4. It’s not illegal of Bunnings to ask people to wear masks. As the Victorian government had made an enforceable law requiring people to wear masks outside the home, then if Bunnings hadn’t asked her, they’d be complicit in her violating that law.

Incidentally, the lady herself may have breach the UDHR: Article 3 ‘Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.’. She’s risking the security of person of others.

And she’s is in breach of a law made by a freely elected government, and could should be subject to punishment,

Fixed…

also business have the legal responsibility to keep their customers safe from potential hazards…

and their staff.

• The is no 1948 Charter of Human Rights. It’s the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.I wonder if she’s even looked at it.

Given that these people go around parroting a script given to them from their “group” it is laughable they don’t see the irony in the fact that they call everyone else sheep…

Arts said:

Arts said:

Michael V said:

Fixed…

also business have the legal responsibility to keep their customers safe from potential hazards…

and their staff.

You mean I’m not allowed to smoke in pubs any more?

Have you noticed how those people who didn’t wear masks during the first phase are those who complain loudest about people not wearing masks during the second phase?

mollwollfumble said:

Have you noticed how those people who didn’t wear masks during the first phase are those who complain loudest about people not wearing masks during the second phase?

Have you noticed that the people complaining the loudest about the ‘Black Lives Matter’ rallies are the same people who complained about the ‘Climate change’ rallies – But had no problem with the ‘Patriot’ rallies in Melbourne or anti-mosque rallies in Bendigo?

Hmmmmm….

In addition to my earlier blatherings:

if the lady refused to leave the premises after being directed to do so, then she’d be liable to a charge of trespass.

So, even if she was right about the mask thing (which she wasn’t) , she’s still committed an offence.

Rule 303 said:

mollwollfumble said:

Have you noticed how those people who didn’t wear masks during the first phase are those who complain loudest about people not wearing masks during the second phase?

Have you noticed that the people complaining the loudest about the ‘Black Lives Matter’ rallies are the same people who complained about the ‘Climate change’ rallies – But had no problem with the ‘Patriot’ rallies in Melbourne or anti-mosque rallies in Bendigo?

Hmmmmm….

No, not really.

Dark Orange said:

Rule 303 said:

mollwollfumble said:

Have you noticed how those people who didn’t wear masks during the first phase are those who complain loudest about people not wearing masks during the second phase?

Have you noticed that the people complaining the loudest about the ‘Black Lives Matter’ rallies are the same people who complained about the ‘Climate change’ rallies – But had no problem with the ‘Patriot’ rallies in Melbourne or anti-mosque rallies in Bendigo?

Hmmmmm….

No, not really.

It’s a obvious at the thing on your whatsit down here.

Rule 303 said:

Dark Orange said:

Rule 303 said:

Have you noticed that the people complaining the loudest about the ‘Black Lives Matter’ rallies are the same people who complained about the ‘Climate change’ rallies – But had no problem with the ‘Patriot’ rallies in Melbourne or anti-mosque rallies in Bendigo?

Hmmmmm….

No, not really.

It’s as obvious as the thing on your whatsit down here.

sigh

captain_spalding said:

In addition to my earlier blatherings:

if the lady refused to leave the premises after being directed to do so, then she’d be liable to a charge of trespass.

So, even if she was right about the mask thing (which she wasn’t) , she’s still committed an offence.

I’m not convinced that the laws applying to private property are applicable to shops during opening hours.

The Rev Dodgson said:

captain_spalding said:

In addition to my earlier blatherings:

if the lady refused to leave the premises after being directed to do so, then she’d be liable to a charge of trespass.

So, even if she was right about the mask thing (which she wasn’t) , she’s still committed an offence.

I’m not convinced that the laws applying to private property are applicable to shops during opening hours.

Section 9(1) of the Summary Offences Act 1966: you can’t be on a property with out the authority of the owner or occupier, unless you have a lawful reason. Doesn’t distinguish between retail/commercial or residential properties.

As i say, you can argue that there’s an implied right of access, but there’s nothing in law which says that you can’t, with reasonable cause, exclude people from your property.

Under the circumstances, Bunnings have reasonable cause.

captain_spalding said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

captain_spalding said:

In addition to my earlier blatherings:

if the lady refused to leave the premises after being directed to do so, then she’d be liable to a charge of trespass.

So, even if she was right about the mask thing (which she wasn’t) , she’s still committed an offence.

I’m not convinced that the laws applying to private property are applicable to shops during opening hours.

Section 9(1) of the Summary Offences Act 1966: you can’t be on a property with out the authority of the owner or occupier, unless you have a lawful reason. Doesn’t distinguish between retail/commercial or residential properties.

As i say, you can argue that there’s an implied right of access, but there’s nothing in law which says that you can’t, with reasonable cause, exclude people from your property.

Under the circumstances, Bunnings have reasonable cause.

Face mask requirement does not infringe on human rights or constitutional freedoms, lawyers say

captain_spalding said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

captain_spalding said:

In addition to my earlier blatherings:

if the lady refused to leave the premises after being directed to do so, then she’d be liable to a charge of trespass.

So, even if she was right about the mask thing (which she wasn’t) , she’s still committed an offence.

I’m not convinced that the laws applying to private property are applicable to shops during opening hours.

Section 9(1) of the Summary Offences Act 1966: you can’t be on a property with out the authority of the owner or occupier, unless you have a lawful reason. Doesn’t distinguish between retail/commercial or residential properties.

As i say, you can argue that there’s an implied right of access, but there’s nothing in law which says that you can’t, with reasonable cause, exclude people from your property.

Under the circumstances, Bunnings have reasonable cause.

I’m sure there are other legal requirements applicable to shops though.

I mean if she had refused to wear a badge with the text “All gay people go to hell”, I doubt that the shop owners right to eject her would stand up in court.

I happen to agree that “Under the circumstances, Bunnings have reasonable cause”, but if she was right about the mask, and if it wasn’t a legal requirement, they wouldn’t have.

furious said:

captain_spalding said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m not convinced that the laws applying to private property are applicable to shops during opening hours.

Section 9(1) of the Summary Offences Act 1966: you can’t be on a property with out the authority of the owner or occupier, unless you have a lawful reason. Doesn’t distinguish between retail/commercial or residential properties.

As i say, you can argue that there’s an implied right of access, but there’s nothing in law which says that you can’t, with reasonable cause, exclude people from your property.

Under the circumstances, Bunnings have reasonable cause.

Face mask requirement does not infringe on human rights or constitutional freedoms, lawyers say

Pffft, WTF would experts know?

The Rev Dodgson said:

I happen to agree that “Under the circumstances, Bunnings have reasonable cause”, but if she was right about the mask, and if it wasn’t a legal requirement, they wouldn’t have.

I’ve just had an answer from someone i know who works in consumer law.

Provided that it isn’t something which runs contrary to anti-discrimination laws e.g. you can’t ban people because of race, colour, or religion), and that it’s uniformly applied to all customers, then shop owners can set a dress code for their premises, and refuse service to someone who refuses to comply with that code.

If a shop owner decides that a person’s appearance is likely to offend or cause discomfort to other customers, then they can refuse to admit the person.

Domino’s is giving away free pizza to nice ‘Karens’

Oh, that’s nice isn’t it? I’m glad they’re getting something, because they have had a hell of a time…

The Rev Dodgson said:

captain_spalding said:

In addition to my earlier blatherings:

if the lady refused to leave the premises after being directed to do so, then she’d be liable to a charge of trespass.

So, even if she was right about the mask thing (which she wasn’t) , she’s still committed an offence.

I’m not convinced that the laws applying to private property are applicable to shops during opening hours.

They are.
If the conditions of entry require covered shoes, a mask and feather in your hat, then you must comply. If you don’t you can be asked to leave. If you don’t, then you are trespassing.
It is an issue often encountered by photographers and signed or implied, or “made up on the spot” rules about photography in private and ‘publically accessible private property’.

captain_spalding said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I happen to agree that “Under the circumstances, Bunnings have reasonable cause”, but if she was right about the mask, and if it wasn’t a legal requirement, they wouldn’t have.

I’ve just had an answer from someone i know who works in consumer law.

Provided that it isn’t something which runs contrary to anti-discrimination laws e.g. you can’t ban people because of race, colour, or religion), and that it’s uniformly applied to all customers, then shop owners can set a dress code for their premises, and refuse service to someone who refuses to comply with that code.

If a shop owner decides that a person’s appearance is likely to offend or cause discomfort to other customers, then they can refuse to admit the person.

I doubt it’s that clear cut.

For instance, if a general department store only allowed in women wearing mini-skirts, I doubt that would hold up very well in court.

Unrelated to this story, but it’s about entitled people taking it out on retail staff.

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/why-supermarket-staff-are-wearing-a-second-name-badge/news-story/84537030b1438c3cc328b6510e7ddd71

My second name badge would say, “Fuck off”. Probably best I stay out of retail 😃

I have no problem calling out customers who are being dicks to staff. I did it a couple of times when the shopping bag ban was first implemented.

The Rev Dodgson said:

captain_spalding said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I happen to agree that “Under the circumstances, Bunnings have reasonable cause”, but if she was right about the mask, and if it wasn’t a legal requirement, they wouldn’t have.

I’ve just had an answer from someone i know who works in consumer law.

Provided that it isn’t something which runs contrary to anti-discrimination laws e.g. you can’t ban people because of race, colour, or religion), and that it’s uniformly applied to all customers, then shop owners can set a dress code for their premises, and refuse service to someone who refuses to comply with that code.

If a shop owner decides that a person’s appearance is likely to offend or cause discomfort to other customers, then they can refuse to admit the person.

I doubt it’s that clear cut.

For instance, if a general department store only allowed in women wearing mini-skirts, I doubt that would hold up very well in court.

so sex discrimination is fine

Domino’s New Zealand drops ‘free pizza for Karen’ offer after backlash

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-53589897

Bubblecar said:

Domino’s New Zealand drops ‘free pizza for Karen’ offer after backlash

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-53589897

Boo hoo. People need to get over themselves. It’s free pizza to women whose name is a meme.

sibeen said:

except that he would have deathed in the icy waters.

sibeen said:

:)