It’s been a while since I’ve been on a spin bike and it wasn’t ideal having to ride next to @Mitch_Bowen AND have his and my output data live-streamed together. But, it was all in aid of a great cause (hint, hint) and an awesome fundraising event by @amygillettfdn.
Last week our Managing Principal, Peter Moran, took a spin class in support of our partner, the @amygillettfdn.
Congratulations to the Amy Gillett Foundation in surpassing their original goal of $280,000 for safe bike lanes and improving attitudes towards cyclists.
Yesterday’s mail. I can just hear them at LNP HQ….”The polls aren’t looking great in Goldstein. What do we do?”
“Don’t hold back - send ‘em every bit of paper we have.” @GoldsteinVoices
So what was legal the advice council received? I would find it surprising that council was advised it had a lawful basis to issue fines at the point letters were sent. Which means council was merely bullying its constituents whilst knowing there was no actual infringement yet.
@BrentHodgson And for the record, your comment on Frydenberg knowing only how to network up but not down is one of the most brilliant political comments I have read in this campaign so far and puts professional political journalists to shame.
@BrentHodgson Male in mid 40’s with fairly typical successful corporate career. Classic corporate LNP blue blood on paper. Thinks Daniel Andrews is only one step above the spawn of satan. Very decent bloke. Sees through and despises the Morrison charade.
@BrentHodgson@BrentHodgson - a classic LNP type Kooyong resident told me yesterday they were voting Independent & hoping the independents form a minority government with the LNP which brings LNP back to the centre. Frydenberg necessary collateral damage to save the LNP from the hard right.
@mariewalsh18 Do better please @mariewalsh18. This tweet helps no-one and just because the cause might be good (ie a letter like this, if it is real, is horrific) does not justify the method (ie misleading people as to who the letter is from and to).
@Leo_Puglisi6@Leo_Puglisi6 - do you have a view one way or another on reporting clearly false/misleading tweets to Twitter, especially political ones (ie should people bother)?
@mariewalsh18 Do better please @mariewalsh18. This tweet helps no-one and just because the cause might be good (ie a letter like this, if it is real, is horrific) does not justify the method (ie misleading people as to who the letter is from and to).
@GoldsteinVoices@BaysideCouncil If no formal advice was sought, it raises a serious question about how and why a letter like this still got approved and sent by Council. The elected members need to answer these questions because simply currying favour with the local Federal MP’s grievance is not sufficient.
@GoldsteinVoices@BaysideCouncil Council’s legal advice is privileged but they can (and should) disclose whether or not they sought advice. I highly doubt that any decent lawyer would have given unequivocal advice that council’s position in their letters was definitely the correct interpretation of the regs.
So @GoldsteinVoices: in light of today’s SC judgment in Badger, 3 questions now flow. 1. Will Council now write to all the ratepayers it threatened to fine and apologise and concede it was wrong. 2. If my (and many other’s) quick legal view on the regs is now the correct view…
You don’t have my vote just yet @zdaniel but this is a great result in defying both political bullying and misbehaviour by my own council (& who I certainly won’t be voting for @ the next council election unless they all denounce this behaviour and apologise to their ratepayers).
I am pleased to have clarity from the Supreme Court just now, confirming that our campaign signs are legal. For those of our supporters who have signs up, thank you. For those who have been waiting for the judgement, you are free to put your signs up. Onward.
…what legal advice did Council get before firing off its letters, if any, and was that advice really so unequivocal that if justified the letters council sent? 3. Are the legal costs of this case, including the foreshadowed appeal, really a worthwhile use of ratepayer’s money?
So @GoldsteinVoices: in light of today’s SC judgment in Badger, 3 questions now flow. 1. Will Council now write to all the ratepayers it threatened to fine and apologise and concede it was wrong. 2. If my (and many other’s) quick legal view on the regs is now the correct view…
@GoldsteinVoices@zdaniel The assertion of council in the letter is actually legally wrong. Only once 3 months have passed could they assert a breach of this provision and issue a fine. They are assuming people will keep signs up for more than 3 months and pre-empting the issue of a fine in 3 months.