Ford Forums banner

The Whinge Pit

2K views 20 replies 10 participants last post by  HP Dude 
#1 ·
The Whinge Pit
This used to be the area for motorsports discussion, but recently all that has gone on in here lately has been people whinging, so it has been renamed appropriately


Ain't that the truth!! Where I come from supporters, support through thick and thin without whining their tits off about it (with apologies to those members who have... u know). Furthermore supporters don't knock those who are trying their absolute best to provide them with the victory they desire. But then that is the joy of being an armchair expert - you don't have to put your balls or reputation on the line.
 
#2 ·
All true Russell, but I am sure it was you that mentioned something about the constitution in Australia and free speech.

Unless I am wrong and I am happy to be corrected it isn't the place of a BB to govern the content of speech unless it goes against the forum rules. While constant bitching or moaning might be unpalatable to the majority lets be realistic about this for a moment.

Motorsport is a very passionate past time and in times like this people are going to want to vent anger and frustraion. Whinging about whinging is what?

By definition discussion is just that. You take the good and the bad and in times like this the bad is going to out weigh the good.
Have your say and maintain the standard, dont exaggerate and certainly don't claim the sport to be something it isn't unless you can prove it. In other words the rigged and cheating claims don't work unless they can be substanciated with fact
 
#3 ·
Agreed Ian but some of the posts in the Whinge Pit have gone very close to crossing the line when they question the efforts of and make unsubstantiated and/or insulting statements about, individuals who may not be in a position to respond.

I'll be the last onhe to intefere with freedom of speech but there is a line somewhere in the sand that we are getting very close to crossing IMO.

But, at the end of the day, it ain't my call.
 
#4 ·
russellw said:
Agreed Ian but some of the posts in the Whinge Pit have gone very close to crossing the line when they question the efforts of and make unsubstantiated and/or insulting statements about, individuals who may not be in a position to respond.

I'll be the last onhe to intefere with freedom of speech but there is a line somewhere in the sand that we are getting very close to crossing IMO.

But, at the end of the day, it ain't my call.
Can't argue with that. Too Wise U R 4 me and I agree will your call
 
#5 ·
I have only once had a go at Ford. Thius was out of sheer frustration and a spur of the moment thing. of course I could have edited afterwards, but I didn't feel I should. And of course I didn't maintain that train of thought, as I said it was a spur of the moment thing.

Sure this is the whinge pit, but using a name such as this is like intcing poeple to whinge. If you have a problem about something this is the official place to do so, and therefore I see the credibility of this area to go as low as the name.

I suggest it should be changed back to the pits, but I'll leave that up to the moderators to decide.
 
#15 ·
Hey atleast when we lose all we do is biitch and moan.... unlike soccer where it ends in extreme violience... soccer should be banned in some countries.
 
#16 ·
The Australian Constitution does not provide an express right of 'freedom of speech', unlike the US Constitution. Many people get the two constitutions confused. The only speech protected by our Constitution pertains to the discussion of 'political and governmental matters', and again, this an implied and limited 'freedom' which goes only so far as to protect speech that maintains the system of representative and accountable/responsible government, which is also implied from certain sections of the Constitution. There is no personal, unfettered constitutional right of freedom of speech in Australia.
 
#18 ·
TheKing said:
So while it not be expressly stated, the implication is enough.
Yes, but the implication does not protect freedom of speech as such, it will only protect communication on political and governmental matters. One cannot defame someone and rely on a constitutional defence unless the court (usually the High Court) accepts that the communication fits the relatively narrow definition of political or governmental discussion. Moreover, the test stated by the High Court in Lange v ABC can override the implied freedom of political communication if the restriction on the freedom to communicate politically is 'reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve a legitimate end the fulfilment of which is reasonably compatible with the maintenance of the system of government prescribed by the federal Constitution.'

The implication does not confer a positive right of freedom of speech in Australia. McHugh J has been saying this for the last decade in all his judgments on this issue.

As you may well guess, this was the topic I wrote a case note on for my mid year Constitutional and Administrative Law assessment. Give me torts, criminal law or contract law over constitutional law any day!!!
 
#20 ·
HP Dude said:
....... There is no personal, unfettered constitutional right of freedom of speech in Australia.
Not entirely correct. If you are a Senator you can stand up in the big building and accuse anyone of being a paedophile and no one can touch you. And that is NOT political topic or agenda.

As for the Whinging about motorsport, I have done my fair share recently. Reason? I don't care if other Commodore teams win, however I have no interest in watching HRT win every race. That's what Formula One is for!
 
#21 ·
Aussie Pete said:

Not entirely correct. If you are a Senator you can stand up in the big building and accuse anyone of being a paedophile and no one can touch you. And that is NOT political topic or agenda.

Let me rephrase:

There is no personal, unfettered constitutional right of freedom of speech in Australia for mere mortals.

You raise a good point here, although some might argue that the motivation to defame members of the judiciary is politically motivated. Needless to say Kirby J would have had Heffernan's backside in court so fast it would have made heads spin had such malicious and untrue comment(s) been made outside the Senate. Standing orders of the Senate clearly forbid the attacking of members of the judiciary which is an example of the separation of powers doctrine at work. Heffernan was a sneaky prick in how he abused parliamentary privilege (which is a convention rather than an express constitutional power); he did not name the judge he was accusing once. At the end of his attack he simply quoted Kirby J, thus making the inference that his Honour was the person he was talking about. Too clever by half, the idiot.

My Con and Admin lecturer organised to have Kirby J speak to us and even though it ended up coinciding with the time when his Honour was going through the whole ordeal, it was the best speech I have ever witnessed in my life. It was punctuated with humour and wit. The intelligence of the man is absolutely astounding.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top