on 10-09-2015 10:03 AM
a lot of posters keep thinking that if its written in the law ,thats it. well wrong ,ask any solicitor.
if that was the case we would not need any courts.
a law is written for instance law 1. then there is only if a or f or section bla , does not ocur.
lets talk about photos in a post office, once you hand over your letters and as soon as the postman stamps them ,they are deemed to be the property of the federal gov. once you touch or take a photo ,then theres privacy laws. its simple its not yours anymore.
we also have posters complaining about paypal taking money out of your account when there is a problem.
read your contract with them , you agreed to there policy ,if you dont agree dont sign up or take the contract to a solicitor.
just because something is said in the law , companies have agreements with them . like the bank on charge backs the law states a bank cant take money out of another banks client. but the banks have an agreement that allows that. and we all know that happens.
look at the law about porn movies , i still have had nobody answere that. its simple the law states porn movies can only be sold in canberra. have a look around most suburbs have an adult shop. i would say there is an agreement with the law. these shops are not hidden , some are the size of small supermarkets.
in fact a couple of months ago i won an auction on ebay for some new steel paint tins and lids , when she gave me the pick up details it was to an adult bookstore , i then looked at the item number in case i bid on the wrong line, but all correct. anyway i drive to the loading bay ,she opened up the roller door and my eyes nearly popped out , as i was loading the boxes , i did not ask why they had new empty paint tins , but i did ask why the girl on the corner wearing just underwear was smiling at me ,she said thats a blow up doll , yes but whats her name. lol
12-09-2015 07:14 PM - edited 12-09-2015 07:15 PM
@joethenuts wrote:he is right thats why the seller cant photo it because the seller dont own it, once its transfired to aus post.
The only person saying a package can't be photographed, after being handed to AP, is you. Trying to use TBs - or anyone else's - posts regarding ownership of the item to support your claim is not working, because the two things are completely unrelated.
Ownership does not determine whether or not someone has the right to photograph anything.
If we do as you suggest and take TB's advice, and consider that neither the seller, nor Australia Post, own the contents of the package, and then we consider that you are also correct when you state that you can't take a photo (or image) of something that doesn't belong to you, then you better tell Australia Post to uninstall all of their security cameras, because my goodness, they'd be taking a lot of images of things that don't (legally) belong to them.
on 12-09-2015 07:17 PM
one day you will understand for now some posters take the items and photo them at another counter, you dont understand thats fine .
on 12-09-2015 07:24 PM
@joethenuts wrote:one day you will understand for now some posters take the items and photo them at another counter, you dont understand thats fine .
You are merely hinting at a completely different issue here joe, and once again that is a diversionary tactic, because you're not even backing up what you're saying, or responding to my points, you're just telling me I "don't understand". That's a cop-out response.
I suspect most people here know, and would agree, that once Australia Post accepts a package, they are not supposed to hand them back to the sender (for example, you can't get a lodgement scan on a package, then take it back and lodge it in the red box outside). The sender of an article can retrieve them officially, where possible, for a fee (i.e. stop a package from being delivered, and get it returned to them), but that's about it.
That has nothing to do with the point about pohotographing them you insist on arguing, though. Absolutely nothing at all. So just please either provide actual evidence that you can't photograph items at AP and prove it as fact, or just stop it.
12-09-2015 07:27 PM - edited 12-09-2015 07:31 PM
@joethenuts wrote:cut and paste , i wont use it anyway i think we have had enough for another topic good to hear from you again , i love it when you get going . i am going to watch my bulldogs now catch up with you at our next meeting love joethenuts
I too think that this thread has run its course.
In the Opening post joe stated "lets talk about photos in a post office, once you hand over your letters and as soon as the postman stamps them ,they are deemed to be the property of the federal gov" but now accepts the advice of TB that they belong to the buyer during transit.
Who knows, maybe one day you will start quoting me and my posts as being facts or 'the law'
For now though, nothing more to post here now, move along.
on 12-09-2015 08:10 PM
@joethenuts wrote:we all have opinions
maybe you should apologise to michele they way you talked to her was very rude
but if thats the way you are fair enough
Yes, we all have opinions...but Stawka posted facts which you seem to be unable to do throughout this whol thread.
Which post should I apologise to Michele for.....the one that said the same as you said or the one that you kudoed?
on 12-09-2015 11:01 PM
@joethenuts wrote:he dont shoot the messanger its not my writing
It was yours, not the messenger. Bang
on 13-09-2015 10:21 AM
on 13-09-2015 10:32 AM
Thanks, k1, what a shame. Such a waste of a huge wealth of good advice. If you are there TB, I wish you well and thank you for all of the time and knowledge you have freely given over time. Best regards.
on 13-09-2015 09:05 PM
Bit late to the party, but that is a wonderful cartoon drawing of you and your mates Joe.
I'm not even going to ask how you know Tandberg. But from decades of Melbourne living, am starting to think "don't mess with the old wog in Coburg who sells paint for a living".
Just saying 🙂
on 13-09-2015 09:12 PM
So what are you just saying/ um not saying?