Thread: The Code of Practice

Jim

Remove yourself from the corner without delay!

You have spotted a major omission from the Code and blokes everywhere will be grateful to you for your sterling work in helping to plug what had the awful potential to develop into a major breach in the defences of the Domain of the Bloke. Your name has been added to the Drafting Committee listed in Appendix D.

I attach the latest amendment to the Code, including a vitally important new Note under sub-para 5.7 - Warning signs.

The new additions have been highlighted in yellow, as usual. The Code's draughtsmen have taken the opportunity to make some other minor changes, highlighted in green. These have the effect of aligning parts of the Code in a more logical sequence.

Blokes everywhere are urged to update their copies of the Code to bring it into line with these updates.

Col

Another important addition that is essential to the code is that Blokes should avoid knowing the rules about everything anmd anything (especially swmbo's) so that they can genuinelly plead innocence to all allegations

Originally Posted by echnidna

Another important addition that is essential to the code is that Blokes should avoid knowing the rules about everything anmd anything (especially swmbo's) so that they can genuinelly plead innocence to all allegations

Bob

I think I understand this but it would help if you could suggest some wording to be included in the Code.

Col

Blokles are always entitled to be presumed innocent coz they don't know the rules.!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by echnidna

Blokles are always entitled to be presumed innocent coz they don't know the rules.!!!!!!!!!

Right. Got it!

I'll work on this and issue an update.

Not sure if this has been covered but if not I'd like to humbly suggest for inclusion:

"Under no circumstances should a Bloke ever completely read the instructions to anything.
Ideally they shouldn't be read at all, but if absolutely necessary a casual flick though should be more than enough for any bloke to operate/assemble anything".

Originally Posted by craigb

"Under no circumstances should a Bloke ever completely read the instructions to anything.
Ideally they shouldn't be read at all, but if absolutely necessary a casual flick though should be more than enough for any bloke to operate/assemble anything".

Yep. Even if you've got no idea at all, a bloke should at least unpack everything and make an attempt. Extra points if you can work out how to make it stronger, faster or better looking. High achievers will be able to get a completely different use/function from the original item.

Good one Craig.

So I use old beer cans as shim metal - does that mean I'm a high achiever

btw steel beer cans are about 4 thou thick and ally is about 8 thou thick,
dunno what a baked beans tin is though

Originally Posted by echnidna

So I use old beer cans as shim metal - does that mean I'm a high achiever

Why not?

This is sterling work, gents.

Craig's suggested inclusion, with Dan's amendment, will be included in the next update.

Watch this space!

(Incidentally, I trust you blokes have noticed that the Code received meritorious inclusion in a recent episode of the Rip saga. It was, in fact, cited as sufficient justification for Groans and Shorty to facilitate Moichael's latest flight over the taffrail and into the 'oggin!).

Col
Thanks for the "get out of the corner" card. Also clear your pm inbox. Popular buggar. Also today I was hiding (read researching) in my shed when I noticed a partially complete restoration. It is a broken bar stool. It is inverted waiting for me to find the glue. Is this acceptable? Or is it, although broken, an open invitation for four "chap" types to make themselves at home and take a seat?
Could I have inadvertently breached the code whilst trying to have at least three(3) unfinished jobs on the go.(no pun intended) To me and every other true bloke out there the article in question does not represent a seat as such,so really I only have one stool in its normal (legs down) attitude.:confused: :confused: :confused:

While you're editing Col, I've got a couple of suggestions and one minor correction.

10.3 Blokley terms
How about including Fellas (Fellers sp?)?

10.3.1
Just about anything derogatory would also qualify eg knobhead, Boofhead, big nose, tosser, wanker etc.

9.3.2.1. It is recommended, notwithstanding the strictures of para 9.3.4 – Colour,

Should read 9.3.5 Colour

Originally Posted by Dan

While you're editing Col, I've got a couple of suggestions and one minor correction.

10.3 Blokley terms
How about including Fellas (Fellers sp?)?

10.3.1
Just about anything derogatory would also qualify eg knobhead, Boofhead, big nose, tosser, wanker etc.

9.3.2.1. It is recommended, notwithstanding the strictures of para 9.3.4 – Colour,

Should read 9.3.5 Colour

Geez Louise.
You don't work in the public service do you?

I had a recent landmark case in my jurisdiction - I know there is plenty of case law pertaining to it elsewhere but I couldn't show initially that they applied in my local jurisdiction.

In me vs Chief (2004), there was a lengthy drawn out proceedings where I had to apply for a decision on articles and possessions belonging to Chief which she wanted to store in the shed and I wasn't prepared to accomodate. Ipso facto, I got the decision in my favour.

I realise the spirit of the law is important here. The shed is my dominion so it is my decision. But is there a need to allow for this explicitly in the code?

eg. "No partner may commence proceedings for application to store articles or possessions without first lodging the plan with the owner, who may consider them on merit but is obliged to indicate that the application will almost certainly be rejected out of hand. The burden of proof follows the stricter criminal law code; the appliant must prove beyond reasonable doubt there is no impediment to storage, unlike in the civil law where he must look at the 'balance of probabilities".

Articles or possessions include but are not limited to:
single beds, currently not in use,
pictures,
old oil heaters, (although prima facie, they do provide warmth for the shed and this may be considered).

Some owners may feel they can accomodate and hold, with agreed access, a limited of gardening accoutrements and articles if no other shed is available. However on the law that 'fill expands to fill all avaliable space' it is to be discouraged."

Incidentally fellows, in an appendix, can we include such cases that have come inter alia, part of commonlaw, if not yet enshrined and codified under statute.

I invite you blokes to submit examples of past cases in your jurisdiction. As all such cases won by SWMBO are not deemed to be correct in higher court, [this forum] despite ratified by the commonwealth, they need not be included.