Beccara:

 

And he's gone

 

Boom!

Kyanar:

 

Doesn't really matter who it is, the rules should be applied consistently. The other players who made the same mistake left quietly.

 

Whether he is an excellent tennis player is utterly irrelevant, and it doesn't matter if you want to see him play the Open. At this time, Hotel Quarantine (or Howard Springs/Tennant Creek) are not options available to non-residents of Australia, so immigration detention and removal are the only options ABF had available. And last but not least his detention was not unlawful, it was found to have been procedurally deficient. Not the same thing.

 

You're twisting my post. You queried my bias, I stated it, including that he should be gone. Where did I state that his sports prowess or that Id like to see him play matters???

If his detainment was not unlawful, why was that reversed? IANAL 

"Doesn't really matter who it is, the rules should be applied consistently." He is not that likeable, but if it was Roger or Andy or Rafa, do you really think it would be treated the same? 

Handle9: They were fine with other tennis players entering under the same conditions.

Multiple branches of government were fine with them entering, including the prime minister. Something made them change their minds, I don’t think it was what was ethical.

As I mentioned, granting of permission to enter is entirely automated. Border Force do not examine in minute detail everyone's evidence of their claims at the border, it is assumed everyone is truthful in their declarations unless suspicion otherwise is introduced. Djokovic introduced suspicion that the claims in his declaration may not be correct, so they requested evidence he didn't have (since the declaration was not correct) and Border Force then interviewed others who entered under the same circumstances to see if they had made the same mistake - which they had. The outcome of this was that they didn't meet the entry conditions and were removed.

Some of them are in the initial stages of suing Tennis Australia for the damages they incurred from Tennis Australia supplying them incorrect information, and that's entirely fair, Tennis Australia carries significant blame for the whole situation. They were told six months ago by the Health Minister that past COVID infection is not grounds for clearance to enter unvaccinated.

tdgeek:

 

If his detainment was not unlawful, why was that reversed? IANAL 

 

Procedural deficiency. The detention was not unlawful, nor even was the visa cancellation, what was unlawful is the procedural unfairness. The courts tend to err in favour of the one not afforded natural justice, it's a pretty significant foundation of the legal system.

 

"Doesn't really matter who it is, the rules should be applied consistently." He is not that likeable, but if it was Roger or Andy or Rafa, do you really think it would be treated the same? 

 

Yes, especially since other players were detained, interviewed, and deported. He's just the only one with the resources to hire expensive silks to try and get the decision overturned.

Kyanar:

 

Some of them are in the initial stages of suing Tennis Australia for the damages they incurred from Tennis Australia supplying them incorrect information, and that's entirely fair, Tennis Australia carries significant blame for the whole situation. They were told six months ago by the Health Minister that past COVID infection is not grounds for clearance to enter unvaccinated.

 

We agree on that. Its about the entire situation not the unlikeable personalities that are part of it. I think TA got some form of assurance from whoever, State or Federal Govt. But the commentary seems to have revolved around one person, and little about the rest, although it was earlier

Kyanar:

 

Procedural deficiency. The detention was not unlawful, nor even was the visa cancellation, what was unlawful is the procedural unfairness. The courts tend to err in favour of the one not afforded natural justice, it's a pretty significant foundation of the legal system.

 

 

"Doesn't really matter who it is, the rules should be applied consistently." He is not that likeable, but if it was Roger or Andy or Rafa, do you really think it would be treated the same? 

 

 

Yes, especially since other players were detained, interviewed, and deported. He's just the only one with the resources to hire expensive silks to try and get the decision overturned.

 

So it was unlawful then.

And if he got it overturned? How fair is that? To get the correct outcome you have to be resourced? Great.... Good thing he is gone burger, as that avoids other issues

Handle9: It’s possible to have no sympathy for Djokovic or the Australian government. They are as bad as each other.

Djokovic is an anti vax dick head who should never have been granted a visa in the first place. The Australian government was entirely happy to let Victoria deal with it until they saw polling that showed how unpopular the decision was.

At that point they miraculously changed from saying it was a matter for Victoria to cancelling his visa. They were so incompetent they couldn’t even do that correctly. Once they screwed that up they have used a different power to get rid of him.

The whole thing is an exchange between dumb and dumber.

Yup, that probably falls within spitting distance of my view on it as well. They decided they would take him down a peg or two and have handled it so badly, it's almost laughable.

Looks like his final legal bid has failed, and he will be deported.

What a shambles.

tdgeek:

 

We agree on that. Its about the entire situation not the unlikeable personalities that are part of it. I think TA got some form of assurance from whoever, State or Federal Govt. But the commentary seems to have revolved around one person, and little about the rest, although it was earlier

 

Tennis Australia got no such assurance. They were told in very specific terms by the Health Minister six months ago that prior COVID infection is not considered a medical contraindication to vaccination, and would not be acceptable as a substitute for vaccination.

Kyanar:

 

tdgeek:

 

We agree on that. Its about the entire situation not the unlikeable personalities that are part of it. I think TA got some form of assurance from whoever, State or Federal Govt. But the commentary seems to have revolved around one person, and little about the rest, although it was earlier

 

 

Tennis Australia got no such assurance. They were told in very specific terms by the Health Minister six months ago that prior COVID infection is not considered a medical contraindication to vaccination, and would not be acceptable as a substitute for vaccination.

 

So, on who's advice did ND get on a plane expecting to be allowed to play in the open. Seems unlikely he just randomly thought he'd try his luck.

tdgeek:

 

So it was unlawful then.

 

And if he got it overturned? How fair is that? To get the correct outcome you have to be resourced? Great.... Good thing he is gone burger, as that avoids other issues

 

No, that doesn't make it unlawful. The quashing of his visa cancellation, by the way, was actually a consent order by agreement of both sides. The solicitor for the Australian Government foreshadowed in his remarks to the judge after the orders were made that they intended to use the personal discretion power (which is almost certainly why they agreed to reverse the delegate's decision).

As to the rest of your statement, that's pretty much how the legal system works, like it or not (and I don't). Not enough has been made of the other people in the same detention hotel that Novak was in for one day, all of whom have been there, locked in their rooms, for up to ten years.

Kyanar:

 

Tennis Australia got no such assurance. They were told in very specific terms by the Health Minister six months ago that prior COVID infection is not considered a medical contraindication to vaccination, and would not be acceptable as a substitute for vaccination.

 

Ok, so its on TA's head then. I wonder what lead them to come to that conclusion. I do recall reading that a key factor was if past infected it had to be symptomatic, but he wasn't. But that goes against your comet. Now, I'm not deriding your comment, but what I read was on the media. That many people read, and form opinions. 

Kyanar:

 

 

 

As to the rest of your statement, that's pretty much how the legal system works, like it or not (and I don't). Not enough has been made of the other people in the same detention hotel that Novak was in for one day, all of whom have been there, locked in their rooms, for up to ten years.

 

Tolstoy