Post
by saint » June 16, 2009, 7:10 am
jackspratt wrote:unless of course you consider a person who steals , lies , and is aggresive , as a person of a good character .
saint, whatever I consider has nothing to do with someone's eligibility. But more to the point, it is not the test, on character grounds, for Australia - which if you had (fully) read what I posted, says:
* having regard to the person's past and present criminal conduct, the person is found not to be of good character
* having regard to the person's past and present general conduct, the person is found to be not of good character
My suggestion about your "claimed expertise" is based on this passage:
although you seem to have a slightly differant , if not biased interpretation of your countries rules than most of us mere mortals
where it is you (mortal or otherwise) who seems to have a different and biased (ie incorrect) interpretation of the Australian requirements - as you can see from above
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
