All Activity

I believe "shah mat" was anglicised to "Checkmate" for chess.

Not necessarily, I've seen in a news report, a judge sentence a muslim father to only a token 3 years jail for stabbing a bloke to death, and he said" "The Public won't understand this sentence". He imposed it for cultural reasons. In other words, in Islam, it's ok to kill someone who brings dishonor on the family. Actually it was the father's daughter's non-muslim boyfriend who was murdered, just south of Sydney.

This is an interesting telling of the story of Iran post-WWII.

Just a bit of history about Iran in the 20th Century.

Haven't bought any Papers since 1973. You Get VIEWs, not News. Why pay to be subject to Blatant Propaganda.? . Nev

Notice how much effort was made to Not allow proper process. Every bit of skullduggery Imaginable was employed. Nev

I believe the Southern Baptist church split from the northern over their views on slavery, ie they were all for it. So I think their views on anything would be suspect.

Guess you are not a member of a Southern Baptist Church. Theres Scopes of room for discussion of your statement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_trial

Yes, I think the problem is that evolution has left us with “an old brain in a new world.” We’re generally good at spotting and avoiding immediate threats, but much less effective at responding to dangers that build slowly over time. That said, it’s not all bad. Humans have learned an enormous amount about the world we live in. We can cure many diseases and even travel beyond our planet—at least short distances into space. Still, the instincts of our “old brain” are constantly competing with the demands of the modern world. You can see this on a personal level. Most of us know that being overweight, eating poorly, or drinking too much is harmful in the long run—yet many of us continue these behaviours anyway. We’re remarkably good at justifying choices that aren’t in our best interests. This ties into a broader, almost unsettling question. Life appears to exist widely across Earth, which suggests the universe should be teeming with advanced civilisations. Yet, so far, we’ve found nothing—at least in our corner of it. One possible explanation is the idea of “the Great Filter.” This theory proposes that as a civilisation develops, it encounters critical stages where it must either overcome a major challenge or collapse. Nuclear weapons could be one example: a point at which humanity might have destroyed itself. While that risk hasn’t disappeared, it does seem less immediate than it once did, and there are likely other challenges we’ve successfully navigated. It may be that most civilisations fail at one of these stages. If that’s the case, it’s possible we may have already progressed further than many others. If so—well done us.

Yes, and no. Our behaviour really stems from the fact that humans are the result of evolution, not intelligent design. We collectively refuse to accept that we are animals governed by survival instinct which is fine tuned to respond to short term threats to our existence. We struggle to respond to any long term threat. Our brain just can't do it. This fact is the biggest single threat to humanity.

Perhaps the reason that teh Bondi Gunman has slipped from the front page is due to a lot of other stuff for the front pages. Things like Iran, fuel, cyclones, and Roberts-Smith are the short term attention grabbers now. Also the Bondi Bomber is awaitng the actual start of the Court appearances. He is currently On Remand.

Interesting.

@Grumpy Old Nasho - you really need to stay away from TV.. It is mainly American fed BS that doesn't even apply in their legal systems. War crimes are covered under the Crimes Act (Commonwwealth), making it a federal office; not a state offence. It is an indictable (serious) offence. However, there is no federal criminal court, the court of the first instance will be the supreme court of whichever state he is in, which is NSW. Under NSW law, all indictable offences require a trial by jury, except where, in the court's opinion, there is so much publicity that would impact almost anyone from being unbiased and potentially predisposed to a guilty verdict. But, this does not apply to federal offences thanks to s.80 (I think) of the Aussie constitrution, that requires all commonwealth (fedral) indictable offences to be tried by jury. The Bondi gunmen are also to be tried in the NSW Supreme Court in the first instance. In both cased, the defence may (and will likely) petition the court that a trial by jury would be prejudicial to the defence. If both succeed, then the outcome will be different for both defendants. Roberts-Smith will walk free. As the court will deem he cannot be granted a fair trial by jury, and the Aussie constitution requires those charged with a federal indictable offence are tied by jury, the court has no choice. It's as simple as that. Of course, the prosecution will appeal it, but if the decision is upheld, Robert Smith is a free man. In the case of the Bondi Gunman, there are 59 offences including murder, attempted murder, terrorism, firearms, etc. For the NSW state offences (murder, attempted murder , some of the firearms offences, some of the terrorism offences), he will still be tried - but by a judge only or a number of judges. He does not automatically walk free. If the defence do not agree, he will still be tried by jury. Unlike Roberts-Smith, he has no "get out of jail" card, if you will excuse the pun. But there's more.. the procedure is slightly different, especially where the judge has to give reasons for finding of fact (where a jury doesn't), It is hard to quantify, but because it holds the judge to a higher level of scrutiny, is is argued tha ut us harder to get a convuiction because they judge requires more to eliminate reasonable doubt (standard of proof the prosecution must provide) and less to introduce doubt on the balance of probabilities (standard of proof required by the defence). Every new editor (TV, magazine, radio, etc) in the country knows this. So, your theory that all the hype with Roberts Smith and the relatively low coverage of the Bondi Gunman is to lynch Roberts-Smith is so far from reality, it beggars belief. It is in Roberts-Smith best interests that there is as much bombastic coverage showing him as guilty as possible. With every press story that can predispose people to an opinion, the defence case stengthens that he can walk away a free man. Similarly for the Bondi Gunman, as if the defence will have less to do to introduce reasonable doubt (not that that will happen) or intorduce a defence (e.g. mental impairment - still slim but probably he only one he has got form what I saw as provication has to be proximate). By the press not covering it obsessively, they are prroviding less than they could to the defence to give them their best short at walking away. But, if you want to reverse the situation and have all the coverage on the Bondi person and none or less on Roberts-Smith, then you are virtually guaranteeing he will be tried, and possibly allowing enough of a sliver of hope the Bonid gunman can rely of some defence (though I doubt it, because criminal mental impariment is a much narrower definition than clincial definitions).

I wouldn't worry about that. Here is the jury selection process (at least in NSW) If the defence believes an Afghan (f one happened to be selected) would be prejudiced to the defence, they can challenge, as can the prosecution. The Jury Selection Process: Selection: The Sheriff randomly selects people from the NSW electoral roll within a court's district. Notice and Summons: Residents receive a notice of inclusion for a 12-month period, followed by a summons to attend court on a specific date. Eligibility: Most people registered to vote are eligible, though some criminal convictions, legal disqualifications, or occupations (e.g., police) may exclude them. Exemption: Individuals can request to be excused for reasons like health, undue hardship, or prior service. Empanelling (The Ballot): At court, the Judge's Associate randomly draws cards from a ballot box to select 12 jurors for a trial. Challenges: The defense and crown can each challenge (object to) up to three potential jurors without giving a reason.

Ben is done for if there are any Afghans or muslims on the jury.

Our Planet is a delicately balanced Place ideal for us to Live in. Why do we destroy it so readily? Are we so stupid?

Is it in the Genes or the way He was Brought Up. Read niece, Mary Trumps book.( I have) She should know the facts and is a qualified psychologist. Nev

NO I'd be breaking my own rules it I did. and (THAT is NOT a Cop Out). You under-rate the Judges responsibility. Public comment can Make a Fair trial Unlikely, The Trial is happening Now. Nev

It's the jury which will have the hard job. The judge is simply there to see that the game is played by the rules. So, Nev, are you thinking abour replying to my friendly challenge?

People often express disbelief that a gas making up only 0.04% of the atmosphere could have any meaningful impact. Consider ozone (03). Its concentration varies with altitude, peaking between about 15 km and 35 km at just 2–8 parts per million (ppm). By comparison, carbon dioxide (CO₂) sits around 420–425 ppm and is rising by roughly 2.4–2.6 ppm per year. Ozone exists in far smaller concentrations than CO₂, yet its role is critical—without the ozone layer, life on Earth would not survive. Small percentages can still have enormous effects.

Amputation of the head fixes it. Nev

I like this, from the article... "unveiled Buddharoid, a humanoid robot monk" Sounds like something you can get a cream for.

There's a few other spawn that are just as bad as their old man.

How does that Help the Problems we now face about the effect of human activity on the Climate?. nev

It Will be a hard job for the Jury and the Judge. They are the Ones to deal with it , not the Law of Public Opinion. Nev