All Activity

What do you mean by "locals"?

I've worked wth a lot of traditional owners over the years. They vary a lot depending on the location of the traditional land. In areas where their ancestors were relocated, generally very few if any were living on traditional lands. All were mixed race and a lot born and bred in the cities. They used to come out to their traditional land to work with us as cultural heritage monitors. Very few had any experience or knowledge of it but they were put through training induction courses to teach them what was what. At times I sensed a bit of embarrassment on their part, particularly the city people who had to learn some of the most basic things like how to boil a billy. They were all generally good people but that sense of disconnect to their traditional land weighed heavy on them. On the other side of the coin, we sometimes worked with traditional full blood people who had never left their land. Some could barely speak English, but those that you could converse with were very knowledgeable about their country and the ways of their part of the world. I must admit, when I first worked with full blood traditional people in the early 80's, I got a bit of a surprise to see young men with big thick tribal cicatrices on their bodies. I thought at that stage in history it might have been a dying practice and only found on the older men, but not so. Tribal customs are still solid in some of those areas.

too fabulous. Nev

It was about Bail conditions. Nev

You are ruining a good story with Facts. Nev

Next

Did you not see the bit in the video - and these stats apply to Australia too - that immigrants are statistically more law abiding, more likely to start small businesses that employ locals, and do the jobs that the locals don't want to?

Trouble is he's destroying the country and our housing and our people , oh, and we're over a trillion in debt. Worst and most stupidest thing about him though is not only the over 2million now immigrants he's brought in in a few yrs when we actually needed over a million houses, guess what , it gets better. Next budget they reckon he's increasing immigration another 15% But guess again , it gets even better. They reckon that by 2035 , if they were to stay in and keep this up, Actual Australians would be only 35% of the population. Yep, he;s a gem alright. ah yessa, just as little side detail, we've also had more than 25,000 small business go under in the last 2yrs, and that's only the ones they sorta, sorta, know of but that gets better too. We've also had over 7,000 builders go broke too, in the middle of the biggest housing crisis countries ever had. lt even gets better if you wanna dig more. Selling us out left and right, it goes on and on. But eh, not getting involved, sad enough watching us go down the toilet as it is already.

Agree - Labour here are haivng exactly the same problem. What it takes for them to overcome it is not in their war chest. They don't have a strong, charismatic leader than can show the press up for what they are; and of course, social media is incredibly toxic as well, and it breeds. Well, of course. We all pay for our political leaders' follies regardless of who that political leader is. The bigger the folly, the bigger the price. You can argue Australians enjoy high cost of living, unaffordability of rental or owneed housing, reduced qualioty of public services than we could have had or successive pollies not kept up a lot of the folly imposed on us. But, if you look at history, generally, this is what happens (yes, there are plenty of times where it hasn't):L Conservative parties runt he country for a longer period of time, thanks to a not well earned reputation of being the safe pair of hands with the economy. They screw it up. Less conservative parties come in and fix it up - but it takes time They get booted out as they are not the safe pair of hands; it gets handed back tot he conservatives and they stuff it up again.. And the cycle continues. Remeber, Scott Morrison was ELECTED by the Australian population because they were scared Shrorten's changes, that would have benefited most Aussies, would crumble the economy. It wasn't until Morrison really stuiffed things up that Labor was handed back the reins. Despite my misgivings of Albo as a leader, given the cycle, he has done extraordinary well. He learned a very quick and sobering lesson with the Voice, but politically, and economically has been a steadier hand than expected. He is certainly better than anything on offer from the other side - which except for the very wealthiest, will even kill off small and medium sized business poste haste. You will get some very short term gain, but very loing term pain. Over here, Labour is in exactly the same position. But, unlike Albo, they are hated. There are different circumstances. The conservatives here left an amazing black hole - over £40bn, in the end of undeclared but committed spending. These are the ones with the safe pair of hands, alledgedly. There really is little choice for Labour to do anything but raise taxes for a while. Their problkem is that they are politically inept. They only proffered up problems, but no clear path out of the ness. Most people will accept some pain for the probable gain to come out of it. All they pedalled was the pain. They were somewhat hamstrung by their manifesto of no new direct taxes and no increase in VAT. But they had a goden opportunity - £40billion of them - to say, hey, even the OBR has said there may be criminal charges to face because of what amounted to fraudulent national accounts, so we do have to - for a period - break our manifesto to put the country back on its feet (with the plan to do so).. Most people wouldn't have been happy, but they would have accepted it, especially if it more or less hit the target. But instead, they went down a similar path as Albo's pre-election approach - small target. As a government, you can't do that, as there is no message. And if there is no message and massive increases to stealth taxes (as these aren't direct), and they decide to cut welfare for those who really needed it (something they rolled back on), they were (IMHO rightly) accused of not having a vision and just reacting. What it will take from the democrats is to overcome: If you can offer a majority of people a plausible path to a better life, you will probably get the votes. Chump didn't so much as win the election, as the Democrats lost it. Albo learned that lesson early that he didn't win the election as much as Morrison lost it. Starmer and the Democrats don't seem to have learned that lesson yet. All three have small segments of the press that give them a fair shot, but the majority only able not to falsely or misleadingly criticise them in the face of abject evidence that criticism is not warranted. Sadly, democracy is the vast majority of people making the decision that do not have the time/inclination to dive into the details; the politicians have toi presnet it to them in easily digestible ways.

<pedant mode on> Well, and being totally pedantic, the chances are really remote <pedant mode off> But, he would have to have the biggest brain fart on earth to do so. I think we should be really clear about this; there is a big difference between a civil finding of "guilt" and a criminal finding of "guilt". The civil finding only finds whether or not he is more likely to have committed it than not. That is it. That is not even half way to criminal liability, especially indictable offences, of which this is one. To summarise murder, of which by war crimes will likely be the same elements, if not more because of the fact it is opeating in the theater of war where you are expected to kill people, you require the following: Actus Reus (Physical element - the doing bit) You need to have caused the killing It has to be a voluntary act (or in limited cicumstances, a voluntary omission); i.e. it can't be accidential There is no "novus actus interveniens" - no new intervening act. So, you may have done something to cause harm to someone, but even if it may have normally killed them, but some intervening act comes along which actually causes the death; that would absolve you of liability. So, for example, Roberts-Smith kicking the famer over the rock ledge, and if another soldier came along and "finished him off", unless it could be shown that Roberts-Smith was still a substantial and oeprating cause of that other soldier finishing him off, Roberts-Smith will likely be deemed not to have caused the death of that farmer. There are permutations and combinations to the above, of course. Forf example, setting off a chain of events that leads to the death, even if the act oneself started didn't directly lead to the death, will not avoid liability. Mens Rea (mental or guilt element): In NSW law, this is basically, where the defendent did have (or shown to must have had): Intention to kill or commit grievous bodily harm; reckless indifference to human life (which is higher than negligent) to whether or not it would occur. Reckless is effectively no intention for an outcome, but very foreseeable and went ahead with it anyway. Negligent is more didn't figure in the defendents mind at all. Death occurred in the commission of another offence that is liable to a prison term of 25 years or more (constuctive murder) The aboce has to be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that were all active at the time of the death. From what we have seen and read on the news - and remember that - it is not the evidence that is tended to a court, it would appear he would fit the bill. In terms of a war crime, which is his charge/s I understand, there may be additional hurdles the prosecution has to prove beyind a reasonable doubt. So, please bear that in mind. So, we move to defences, which only have to be proved to the balance of probaility. However, the burden of proof shifts to the defence. Self defence: The defendent himself believed their actions were necessary to defend themsleves. In the context of a war crime charge, I have no idea what further tests would apply. From the farmer over the ledge killing, I would find it hard to justify self defence by pushing a bound person over a ledge as requiring self defence, especially of that importance. Necessity/Duress: This has been narrowed over the years. Duress requires immediate duress, for example, someone was hoilding a gun to Roberts-Smith head and tellking him to do it. There is an innocent-agent defence avaialble as well, but generally to people dependent on the one requesting them to do the dirty work. Necessity is to avoid immediate and serious danger (there is a European case that defines this - where a ferry from the UK to Holand I think sank, and the only way to a lifewboat was blocked by someone who panicked and foze, flocking the path; someine else literally threw him overboard In the end, no verdict was offered as the could not verify the person was killed as they could not find the body, but obiter was that it would be a necessity anyway - and this convenience was used to avoid applying other legal doctines which would have likely rendered the person doing it but saving many lives as guilty). Given Roberts-Smith senirority and the fact he was reported to be operating under free will, neither necessity nor duress would apply. Partial defences of extreme provocation, partial impairement, and extreme provocation are partial defences that would reduce liability and reduce a conviction to manslaughter. Notice, there is no defence of insanity. That is because, if insanity is proven (temporary or permanent), it negates thet mens rea, and therefore takes the mental element away, and therefore cannot be guilty of the crime. However, the court can, on the basis that the physical element is proved, have him still stay as a guest of his majesty's services - but a secure mental institution. Note, the law has chaned in NSW with respect insanity/impairment, and the above may well be out of date. Note, the criminal law is more about constraining the abuses of the state against individuals accused of crimes than it is about protecting the public - at least asserted by leading jurists and lawyers, including ex NSW and other state and federal attorneys-general. From the news we have seen and the defamation court case: He is likely, but not proven beyond reasonable doubt that he did the act/s. No other of the tests have yet meen met - physical or mental. The press doesn't release all the evidence prior to a criminal trial - nor can they. Whether we think he is guilty or not is quite immaterial, I would suggest - as we are part of the court of public opinion. But from what we have seen, I would suggest his defence is going to take a three-pronged approach: Try to assert that there is reasonable doubt he actually did it (unlikely they will take that approach) or the mental element was present at the time. If they can introduce enough doubt that he met the mental elements, he should be acquited. Introduce criminal insanity (although it is not named that in NSW, and the law recently changed, so that may only result in a partial defence). Note criminal insanity is a much higher bar than the equivalent clinincal diagnosis. Assert he cannot be given a fair jury trial given the publicity and coverage; and that finding impartial jurors will less probable than probable. If this is a state charge, he would then be given a judge only trial; but as this is a federal charge and his right to be tried by a jury is constitutional, a successful argument of this will result in no trial (I forget the technical term), and although he will not be acquitted per se, so he can later face the charges under a jury trial, he will walk free. My guess is hhis defence will try and have the press rake up as much as possible to go for this approach as from what we have seen, this would have the best possible chance of him walking free. For the record, I think he should face justice. But I am also a legal positivist - meaning we abide by the rule of law even is sometimes the decisions are perverse. We can then reform the law as we understand its limitations.

Our politicians should take note of that

The problem the Democrats have is that they aren't organised and don't have an obvious plan for what they want, apart from getting rid of Trump's mob. They need to work out their version of a Project 2025 type manifesto that makes sense for the country and that they can sell to the public before the 2028 elections. I think Project 2025 was a disaster for democracy in the USA, but it unfortunately showed what can be done if you get organised.

Musk could probably pay the dollar bit from his pocket change, but doubt he could fix the international respect bit.

The USA people will pay for Trumps folies Big time in the future. Not Just democrats who shouldn't have to at all by rights ,as they didn't Vote for him. Nev

Pity the Democrats, whether you like them or not. They are going to be stuck with the cost of repairing all the damage the Republicans have done, as trying to restore sone semblance of respect for the country and the rest of the world. And there will be some expectation for them to contribute to rebuilding some of the infrastructure destroyed in Gaza and Iran by Trumps indiscriminate bombing.

The UK have solar schemes, mainly for those on benefits, which allow zero or low up front costs of solar implementation One of the problems that affects me in the UK is that it is hard to get approval for solar panels on Grade 2 listed buildings.. though it is very council dependent. If I planned to stay here past the summer, then I would llook into it. But as far as I can tell all these schemes require you to still hook up to the grid. I can';t see it would take much to install a LifePO4 or similar battery; these days they are not that more expensive. Two neighbours (both unlisted buildings and one about the size and orientation of mine) have solar panels now for some time. They are off grid and the dreary UK provides enough sunlight to power their homes. Like me, they don;t have gas, so oil fires their heating and hot water; electricity everything else - which will mean in addition to the usual, we do our cooking ith electricity (BTW, once you have used induction stoves (here, called hobs), you will never go back to gas, which is somewhat noxious anyway).

Something often mentioned is that whilst those of us who have installed solar may be doing fine regarding electricity bills, this is somehow at the expense of people who can't afford solar or who can't install solar because they live in apartments or rent. This is true, and we should do everything we can to ensure equity. Many other countries are a little ahead of us in this respect. I have mentioned a few times the so-called "balcony solar (it could also be in your back garden. Although many European countries, as well as some US states, allow balcony solar. This will also soon be made legal in Britain and Australia. This technology is relatively cheap and "plug and play", no electrician required.

Always seems to be the city folk who love to live "white", or at least with All the white mod cons that have the most to say about these things.

Any good He (Trump) does will be accidental. He only accepts a result Covering himself in GLORY. That would have to be FAKED. Nev

l'm not bothered for myself really , mainly just for our farmers and trucking . But eh, wouldn't take much notice of any price up and downs just yet, prob just his bs about the opening up. The Chump shyt show shall continue on for awhile yet though is my guess seems as 90% of it is bullshit and the opening was too atm.

They'd never do that.' For one, that could show be some sort of initiative, courage, investment and foresight from our Gov. But 2, it'd be helping our people . Couldn't have any of that stuff. PS, use to ran my old jackeroo on all sorts of cooking oils, even cleaned sump oils- prob not great that one l know. But man, some of the stuff l put in that poor thing, never complained once. Don't think we'd wanna try it with a modern diesel though , well yours maybe but not mine 😅 They'd like Canola ok though l'd imagine.

Bet you It won't. It should, though AND all the Other Illegal and reckless damage He's done, as well. Nev

Pity the next non-Republican Administration. They will cop the bill for restoring the East Wing.

A Vain Mans Erection. Nev

Your intention is clear, and source unreliable. Nev