Beer Garden

[abc]

Maybe they are, but suggesting they should be shot is vicious lunacy. By all means, if someone is alleged to have commited a crime, put them through the courts.

In the US, for example, Trump is accused of being a criminal, and is thus on trial. That's the right way. Some looney taking a pot shot to give him an ear piercing is not.

Likewise, we should use the courts.

Your people were cheering the police when they shot the lockdown protesters in Melbourne at the Shrine. They were doing nothing violent at all.

Show me where I ever cheered the police shooting at protesters.

There are plenty of examples of where police are justified in using deadly force. For example, Wieambilla in 2022. However, anyone suggesting that police should use bullets on people for protesting is a psychopathic nutjob, whatever side of politics they come from. Is that clear? Do you understand that?

Wieambilla? why are you bringing that into it? What does that have to do with the peaceful lockdown protesters in Melbourne? The fact you're equating a rural property siege with a peaceful protest in a city bankrupts your entire position.

I referred to your people, not you personally. However its a safe assumption you were in agreement with this action at the time because I saw plenty of examples of your people doing just this.

The point is, if you agree with the cause of the protesters you will support them no matter what, whereas if you're in disagreement you'll turn a blind eye if the police shoot them.

[gnrc_louis]

Maybe they are, but suggesting they should be shot is vicious lunacy. By all means, if someone is alleged to have commited a crime, put them through the courts.

In the US, for example, Trump is accused of being a criminal, and is thus on trial. That's the right way. Some looney taking a pot shot to give him an ear piercing is not.

Likewise, we should use the courts.

Your people were cheering the police when they shot the lockdown protesters in Melbourne at the Shrine. They were doing nothing violent at all.

Show me where I ever cheered the police shooting at protesters.

There are plenty of examples of where police are justified in using deadly force. For example, Wieambilla in 2022. However, anyone suggesting that police should use bullets on people for protesting is a psychopathic nutjob, whatever side of politics they come from. Is that clear? Do you understand that?

Re: your second paragraph - exactly.

[Waewick]

Your people were cheering the police when they shot the lockdown protesters in Melbourne at the Shrine. They were doing nothing violent at all.

Show me where I ever cheered the police shooting at protesters.

There are plenty of examples of where police are justified in using deadly force. For example, Wieambilla in 2022. However, anyone suggesting that police should use bullets on people for protesting is a psychopathic nutjob, whatever side of politics they come from. Is that clear? Do you understand that?

Wieambilla? why are you bringing that into it? What does that have to do with the peaceful lockdown protesters in Melbourne? The fact you're equating a rural property siege with a peaceful protest in a city bankrupts your entire position.

I referred to your people, not you personally. However its a safe assumption you were in agreement with this action at the time because I saw plenty of examples of your people doing just this.

The point is, if you agree with the cause of the protesters you will support them no matter what, whereas if you're in disagreement you'll turn a blind eye if the police shoot them.

Why is it your people always end up the same

Code: Select all

Comments circulating on social media channels, seen by the Guardian, are explicitly racist, antisemitic, and include conspiracy theorist tropes.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... nd-teargas

Sounds like it was a bit more of a peaceful protest once your mob rocked up.

[Waewick]

in this instance the people who are protesting are just lonely miserable losers who want to be part of something. They couldn't give less of a shit about Palestine or wars. They just want a reason to be angry, to protest and to cause maximum chaos.

deplorable and sad individuals who have been hurt by something/someone

Maybe they are, but suggesting they should be shot is vicious lunacy. By all means, if someone is alleged to have commited a crime, put them through the courts.

In the US, for example, Trump is accused of being a criminal, and is thus on trial. That's the right way. Some looney taking a pot shot to give him an ear piercing is not.

Likewise, we should use the courts.

Yep protests should be a protected part of any democracy.

But once you start trying to cover your identity and being anti social you probably should expect some recourse

[rubberman]

in this instance the people who are protesting are just lonely miserable losers who want to be part of something. They couldn't give less of a shit about Palestine or wars. They just want a reason to be angry, to protest and to cause maximum chaos.

deplorable and sad individuals who have been hurt by something/someone

Maybe they are, but suggesting they should be shot is vicious lunacy. By all means, if someone is alleged to have commited a crime, put them through the courts.

In the US, for example, Trump is accused of being a criminal, and is thus on trial. That's the right way. Some looney taking a pot shot to give him an ear piercing is not.

Likewise, we should use the courts.

Yep protests should be a protected part of any democracy.

But once you start trying to cover your identity and being anti social you probably should expect some recourse

Yup. Absolutely. that's what the courts are for, not nutty ideas about shooting first and a fair trial second. That's just demented.

[rev]

Can the ACCC be any more useless?

They're suing the Coles and Woolies apparently, because they've finally come to the conclusion that they're price gauging. Something any ordinary person could have told them years ago.

Apparently each instance can draw a fine of $50 million.

I say not just fine them for every instance, in Woolies case they found 260, that would he $13 billion overall, but break them both up. Create some competition and wreck their duopoly.

Consumers will benefit and so will suppliers particularly agricultural suppliers.

[A-Town]

Can the ACCC be any more useless?

They're suing the Coles and Woolies apparently, because they've finally come to the conclusion that they're price gauging. Something any ordinary person could have told them years ago.

Apparently each instance can draw a fine of $50 million.

I say not just fine them for every instance, in Woolies case they found 260, that would he $13 billion overall, but break them both up. Create some competition and wreck their duopoly.

Consumers will benefit and so will suppliers particularly agricultural suppliers.

I've long been of the opinion that fines will do nothing. These shameless corporations will very quickly go back to their old ways and in a few years time the ACCC will launch another investigation and send them a fine. Rinse and repeat.

The only way to enact real change is to gaol the criminals involved with the price gouging in the first place.

[[Shuz]]

I know nothing about competition laws but is there any legal mechanism available to force Coles and Woolworths to break up? Even if there was wouldn't it be moot point anyway if they were under different trading names just the same parent company.

[rev]

I know nothing about competition laws but is there any legal mechanism available to force Coles and Woolworths to break up? Even if there was wouldn't it be moot point anyway if they were under different trading names just the same parent company.

I think if they were forced to break up, parts would be sold off so wouldn't be under the same parent company trading as X and Z and Y.
Whether that happens or not, one thing that definitely needs to happen is stronger consumer protection laws.

Why does the ACCC need to take them to court? They've investigated and found wrong doing? They should have the power to hit them with fines, the minimum fines should be eye watering.
This isn't simply a case of a few million being made. They're making billions. And it shouldn't just be aimed at Coles & Woolies, but all the big corporates from insurance companies to utilities companies.
We have people in this country who are choosing whether to eat and feed their kids every breakfast and dinner, or pay their bills.
People that have ended up homeless. People that have committed suicide.
Not to mention the mental health stress it is causing, potentially domestic violence.

[SBD]

I know nothing about competition laws but is there any legal mechanism available to force Coles and Woolworths to break up? Even if there was wouldn't it be moot point anyway if they were under different trading names just the same parent company.

The ACCC can make orders to a company to divest certain properties, if it sees grounds relating to competition.

A recent example is that Viva Energy bought the Coles Express fuel outlets a few years ago, then bought the OTR business last year. Viva was required to on-sell about 25 shops when it bought OTR. It sold them to US-based Chevron and they are now branded as Caltex. [The old Caltex Australia stopped paying a licence fee for the brand name a few years ago, and is now Ampol]

Apart from at Ingle Farm, I'm not sure how much better off consumers would be if every second (current) Coles became Tesco and every second Woolworths became Walmart.

Would all four start building new shops to fill the gaps in their sales, then two of them would fold due to not enough customers?

From my home on the fringe of an outer northern suburb, I think an 8km radius gets me a large Foodland, 2x Coles (2 more at about 10km), 2x Woolworths, 2x Drakes, 2x Aldi (soon to be 3), at least one IGA and at least one Foodworks. That's not counting all the Convenience Stores under looser rules because they sell fuel.

[rubberman]

I know nothing about competition laws but is there any legal mechanism available to force Coles and Woolworths to break up? Even if there was wouldn't it be moot point anyway if they were under different trading names just the same parent company.

The ACCC can make orders to a company to divest certain properties, if it sees grounds relating to competition.

A recent example is that Viva Energy bought the Coles Express fuel outlets a few years ago, then bought the OTR business last year. Viva was required to on-sell about 25 shops when it bought OTR. It sold them to US-based Chevron and they are now branded as Caltex. [The old Caltex Australia stopped paying a licence fee for the brand name a few years ago, and is now Ampol]

Apart from at Ingle Farm, I'm not sure how much better off consumers would be if every second (current) Coles became Tesco and every second Woolworths became Walmart.

Would all four start building new shops to fill the gaps in their sales, then two of them would fold due to not enough customers?

From my home on the fringe of an outer northern suburb, I think an 8km radius gets me a large Foodland, 2x Coles (2 more at about 10km), 2x Woolworths, 2x Drakes, 2x Aldi (soon to be 3), at least one IGA and at least one Foodworks. That's not counting all the Convenience Stores under looser rules because they sell fuel.

Yup. This is the answer. It doesn't matter if it's Foodland and Aldi, or Tesco and Coles. If there's only two stores, they really don't have to compete. And if there are two stores, it is suicide for a third competitor in most areas.

It is not really practical.

[abc]

I know nothing about competition laws but is there any legal mechanism available to force Coles and Woolworths to break up? Even if there was wouldn't it be moot point anyway if they were under different trading names just the same parent company.

The ACCC can make orders to a company to divest certain properties, if it sees grounds relating to competition.

A recent example is that Viva Energy bought the Coles Express fuel outlets a few years ago, then bought the OTR business last year. Viva was required to on-sell about 25 shops when it bought OTR. It sold them to US-based Chevron and they are now branded as Caltex. [The old Caltex Australia stopped paying a licence fee for the brand name a few years ago, and is now Ampol]

Apart from at Ingle Farm, I'm not sure how much better off consumers would be if every second (current) Coles became Tesco and every second Woolworths became Walmart.

Would all four start building new shops to fill the gaps in their sales, then two of them would fold due to not enough customers?

From my home on the fringe of an outer northern suburb, I think an 8km radius gets me a large Foodland, 2x Coles (2 more at about 10km), 2x Woolworths, 2x Drakes, 2x Aldi (soon to be 3), at least one IGA and at least one Foodworks. That's not counting all the Convenience Stores under looser rules because they sell fuel.

Yup. This is the answer. It doesn't matter if it's Foodland and Aldi, or Tesco and Coles. If there's only two stores, they really don't have to compete. And if there are two stores, it is suicide for a third competitor in most areas.

It is not really practical.

kind of like politics...

[Plasmatron]

Greetings patrons of the SA forum beer garden. I didn't feel the need to post a separate thread for this, especially since it's not CBD/building/development related content, but for anyone who enjoys aerial tours of beautiful coastal scenery, check out my Hallett Cove drone video that I recently made and uploaded. Thanks!

[rev]

Great video as always.

[Plasmatron]

Cheers. Any suggestions on other locations I should fly? I'm already planning to make a new skyline/CBD drone video sometime in the next few months.