Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

You just don't get it.

Try reading the link I gave in my previous post.

Desperate people are going to continue to come
to Australia. And paying people smugglers is
not only encouraging criminals to continue with
their trade - but it's also breaking laws.
The people smugglers are not about to give up
a lucrative trade - especially when they're
earning money from not only desperate people
but also the Australian government.

I am truly surprised that you see nothing wrong
with what the government's is doing.
Shame on the government and shame on you!

Foxy,

I have seen a lot of rhetoric in the news, but no one offering an actual legal opinion, just waffle on generalities such as "paying smugglers is illegal"

Secondly, having made similar declarations of illegality of intercepting boats and holding people at sea, only to have their challenges thrown out of court, I would say their credibility is somewhat tarnished.

The clue to when people are blustering is when the word "may" (non committal) is being used. "if you follow xx diet, you may lose 20kg a week" etc.

P,

I was unaware of how easily your mind was boggled. Just for you I will try and use small words.

To be bribed, you need to be "an official or other person in charge of public or legal duty",
This in no way applies to people smugglers
=> People smugglers can be paid but not bribed
=> You are talking drivel.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Try reading the link I gave. It
does list all the laws Australia is breaking
as well as the legal experts making the claims.

Poirot - Quote "I'm not required to check if another person's post is "correct" when I am quoting them. When you quote someone, you are quoting what they said or wrote - not analysing their stuff as to its veracity or its abridgement."

So what you are saying is it okay to Quote something someone else has writen even if it is wrong.

Taking your statement into account I will take anything you Quote from other sources as suspect to errors.

Foxy,

The article was written by an activist journalist and the only lawyer quoted already has a few facts wrong such as: “There’s also the legal issues about the power to intercept, the power to detain, and the power to turn these people around.” Which was already settled in the high court in the government's favour.

The rest of the allegations as has been shown in the past are extremely tenuous, and are generally made to muddy the waters.

Foxy, I read the link you gave but I can't see how it would cover
a boat acting illegally even if it was really heading for New Zealand.
Two points the commander of the intercepting vessel may have decided
it was not seaworthy enough for that voyage, fuel capacity etc, and
2nd that as it had not cleared legally from an Indonesion port that it
should be returned.

Naval vessels, and customs vessels can act as law inforcement agencies.

Shadow Minister,
I think those that are in a panic have got themselves
worked up to such an extent that they cannot see the wood for the trees.

It might be better to let them calm down over a few days or perhaps
find something else to get all stirred up about.