or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Australian Members
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Australian Members - Page 2708

post #40606 of 51873
Keane J couldn't sit because he had been part of the Full Federal Court bench that got rolled.

If you're injured during the course of an activity required or encouraged by the employer, or in a place you are required to be by the employer, you're covered. Apparently vigorous sexual intercourse hanging from a light fitting in the local motor inn didn't qualify.
post #40607 of 51873
Quote:
Originally Posted by nabilmust View Post
 

 

Pass on the cream, get the Navy. You'll get more mileage out of the latter.

 

The double monks sound alright, to add a little casual flair.

 

Hold on to the orange tie for now, see how the whole outfit comes together.

 

You've got your canvas - the suit. Mix and match the shirt and tie combinations to find a stand out yet subtle outfit. They key: small details that thread your pieces together. Don't go all #blogger with too many statement pieces. Tip: anything more than 1 is too many statement pieces.

 

JM is right, you don't want to steal your brother's thunder. But considering he's going to be wearing what is essentially a bouncer's uniform, you will outshine him by just turning up at his wedding. Not that it's a bad thing - the ladies will pay attention and/or take notes.


Thanks Nabil. You're right. I don't want to stand out all that much. This is what I'll do. I've sent them an email asking when they will get a 46R back in stock. I don't think the quality of women will be very high at the wedding though.

 

Get some streetwear into you.

post #40608 of 51873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stiva View Post

Keane J couldn't sit because he had been part of the Full Federal Court bench that got rolled.

If you're injured during the course of an activity required or encouraged by the employer, or in a place you are required to be by the employer, you're covered. Apparently vigorous sexual intercourse hanging from a light fitting in the local motor inn didn't qualify.

Such a surprise isnt it? I hope it was worth all the money and resources spent on behalf of taxpayers to clarify this complicated point.
post #40609 of 51873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Carter View Post

So I'm thinking of adding some socks back in to the line up, won't be Pantherella.... Tossing up between Bresciani and Sozzi. Positive/Negative feedback on either of those brands anyone?

 

Kopped four pair of Bresciani argyles at some sale or other. Superb, totally worth the money. Please stock them and save us from ridiculous pricing!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osiris2012 View Post
 

Anyone ever had a belt shortened/cut if so where do you get that done?  In my ongoing 5 year mission to find some descent formal belts I was looking at Carmina.  Betty came back and said the calf belts I enquired about can be 'easily cut' anyone had experience with this?

 

Depending on the belt, very easy to do yourself. There's usually a screw you can undo, the near end of the belt slips out, you cut it to the correct length, reassemble, realise you got it wrong, do it again, pop it on, realise you cut it too short, sulk for a few weeks, go on an exercise program, lose weight, hey presto, belt fits! But you're a professional sumo wrestler and now you're out of a job.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxhound View Post
 


Thanks Nabil. You're right. I don't want to stand out all that much. This is what I'll do. I've sent them an email asking when they will get a 46R back in stock. I don't think the quality of women will be very high at the wedding though.

 

Get some streetwear into you.


Looking sharp my lad. Oh to be young again.

post #40610 of 51873

Bottlegreen sports jackets - yay/nay? I've kept my eye out for one ever since seeing Ryan Gosling in a bottlegreen suit in 'Crazy, Stupid Love'.

post #40611 of 51873

I think green suits are awesome in the right shade!

post #40612 of 51873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pink Socks View Post

Dukes. One of Melbourne's best coffees. Order the avocado hummus toast with poached egg and candied bacon.

+1 dukes
Quote:
Originally Posted by nabilmust View Post

Huge fan of Bresciani.

Their OTC socks holding up even after weekly wear for a year. And they don't 'bite' into your skin.

Mazarin kinda 'bites' for me.

I haven't tried Sozzi yet, so can't be of too much help there.

Just had some cashmere brscianis land at pj
post #40613 of 51873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerry Nelson View Post

I think green suits are awesome in the right shade!

What shade would that be then?
post #40614 of 51873

I love cotton olive suits.

post #40615 of 51873
Quote:
Originally Posted by California Dreamer View Post

What shade would that be then?

More subdued rather than brighter - olive, bottle green, racing green.
post #40616 of 51873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petepan View Post


Such a surprise isnt it? I hope it was worth all the money and resources spent on behalf of taxpayers to clarify this complicated point.

 

I disagree with the sentiment that this was somehow an unworthy case to be taken that far. Although I get the feeling this case will turn on the facts -- as with a lot of tort cases it's probably also going to be a matter of degree -- and it probably won't have a whole lot of value as a precedent, I personally feel it is a very borderline call as to whether her activity should have been covered.

 

People just get their knickers in a knot because it involved a woman having vigorous sex. I am particularly unimpressed with the general public outcry because I feel it is influenced by typically poor reporting by journalists on legal matters; they love reducing legal cases to nothing more than a salacious headline.

 

edit: I strongly believe the prudes on the High Court would have viewed the matter differently if a man had been injured having sex with his wife while away on business. I leave it to the world at large to ponder if that is so very different from what happened. Sex is a normal part of life.

post #40617 of 51873
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayhill View Post

I disagree with the sentiment that this was somehow an unworthy case to be taken that far. Although I get the feeling this case will turn on the facts -- as with a lot of tort cases it's probably also going to be a matter of degree -- and it probably won't have a whole lot of value as a precedent, I personally feel it is a very borderline call as to whether her activity should have been covered.

People just get their knickers in a knot because it involved a woman having vigorous sex. I am particularly unimpressed with the general public outcry because I feel it is influenced by typically poor reporting by journalists on legal matters; they love reducing legal cases to nothing more than a salacious headline.

edit: I strongly believe the prudes on the High Court would have viewed the matter differently if a man had been injured having sex with his wife while away on business. I leave it to the world at large to ponder if that is so very different from what happened. Sex is a normal part of life.

Yes, I certainly agree that the salacious aspect of it greatly increased the publicity it received. If the lady in question had simply been vigorously using some exercise equipment in a hotel gym, had broken it and had sustained an injury, hardly anyone would know about the case.

I do, however, think that it could be valuable as a precedent as, firstly, it's a High Court decision and, secondly, it has further refined the principle that was enunciated in the 1992 High Court decision of Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation Ltd.

In Hatzimanolis, the HC said, relevantly:

"[T]he modern cases show that, absent gross misconduct on the part of the employee, an injury occurring during such an interval or interlude will invariably result in a finding that the injury occurred in the course of employment. Accordingly, it should now be accepted that an interval or interlude within an overall period or episode of work occurs within the course of employment if, expressly or impliedly, the employer has induced or encouraged the employee to spend that interval or interlude at a particular place or in a particular way. Furthermore, an injury sustained in such an interval will be within the course of employment if it occurred at that place or while the employee was engaged in that activity unless the employee was guilty of gross misconduct taking him or her outside the course of employment. In determining whether the injury occurred in the course of employment, regard must always be had to the general nature, terms and circumstances of the employment 'and not merely to the circumstances of the particular occasion out of which the injury to the employee has arisen'."

This decision has narrowed down the applicability of the above principle, and it will be interesting to see where it leads in the future.
post #40618 of 51873

It seems reasonable that if you send someone on a work trip they'd still engage in sexual activity. 

 

Just another attempt from the conservative French court to erode compensation and employment law. 

post #40619 of 51873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Journeyman View Post

I do, however, think that it could be valuable as a precedent as, firstly, it's a High Court decision and, secondly, it has further refined the principle that was enunciated in the 1992 High Court decision of Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation Ltd.

In Hatzimanolis, the HC said, relevantly:

"[T]he modern cases show that, absent gross misconduct on the part of the employee, an injury occurring during such an interval or interlude will invariably result in a finding that the injury occurred in the course of employment. Accordingly, it should now be accepted that an interval or interlude within an overall period or episode of work occurs within the course of employment if, expressly or impliedly, the employer has induced or encouraged the employee to spend that interval or interlude at a particular place or in a particular way. Furthermore, an injury sustained in such an interval will be within the course of employment if it occurred at that place or while the employee was engaged in that activity unless the employee was guilty of gross misconduct taking him or her outside the course of employment. In determining whether the injury occurred in the course of employment, regard must always be had to the general nature, terms and circumstances of the employment 'and not merely to the circumstances of the particular occasion out of which the injury to the employee has arisen'."

This decision has narrowed down the applicability of the above principle, and it will be interesting to see where it leads in the future.

 

I agree; I suppose what I meant is its value as a precedent will not be proportionate to the attention given to the case by the media. Not that legal value is a particularly compelling criterion for journalists when writing about cases.

 

I like your gym example.

post #40620 of 51873

I am curious, would she not have been better off pursuing a claim against the motel which she stayed in, which (I believe) would have liability over the fittings in the room? I see her pursuing the case against her employer as her accommodations were booked by them (correct me if I'm wrong, that was a gist I got from my skim of the article), but I see the case against the establishment moreso?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Australian Members