All Activity

With TRUMP it's ALL about him. Trump Will FIX Everything is 180 degrees wrong, Trump Will WRECK everything. He tells lies. Thousands of them. How does one deal with or TRUST a liar? Nev

Haaa yeah l know but l was only replying to another post about the same stuff. But eh, l'll say one thing about Chump. At least he sees what's happened over there and wants it fixed. ln that way, hate to say it but we need a bloody Aussie Trump. Hang on , what we really need is an Aussie Carney. Justtttt in that way - before everyone jumps all over that. Mind you, and yep , l know, l can't stand the bloke, Chump l mean and he's turning the whole world into a shytshow buttttt,l know just sayin though, he's idea on that other stuff , immigration and what it's done to their country to, was spot bloody on. Same Italy , Canada, both taking their bloody countries back now , trying to anyway and as they should.

You have to live Here a While to get it. Nev

Isn't the topic "What has Trump done Now?". Nev

Yep, exactly. Hence for anyone that do live on the ea coast capitals actually see the crap going down day in day out and the huge changes last 20yrs. Selling our country out and our people. But alas. No matter what the view, even bothering with it in a forum achieves absolutely nothing. Just back and forth bullshit that's sadly all it does anyway so l steer clear of it mostly , head in sand, like the rest of the country. Hoping l just wake up one day and these bastards are out and someone else is putting us back together again.

Getting rid of Trump is the essential action. I'm certain they would have NO trouble finding someone superior to trump in every way. Nev

Yeah , maybe , but have you not seen what's happening all over the world bc of the immigrant situation too. lt's bloody bad. They bring a lot of crap and crime and all kinds of bloody prejudices to mate, just confuse the hell out of a country no one has a damn clue who they are any more but you can't say shyt about it. Most people here seem older and regional or wa or somewhere else and stuff, they don't see the Melb and Sydneys, they don't even know the real housing situation, or the huge change in populations in both. And you say that but so what you don't giva damn about losing our real population. l can't effg beleive some of the short sightedness on what's happening in this country. And anything l've mentioned is only a tiny bit of it.

Mark Kelly seems to be generally well liked. At this stage it’s anyone’s guess who ends up running for the Democrats. My comment was more about what the Democrats are for. They are all united in their opposition to Trump and his regime but their vision for the country is less clear at this point.

As yet they don't have a a candidate they can throw their weight behind. This video identifies two possible candidates and gives reasons for the favouring of one of them.

Making a bold choice

Totally agree regarding Induction cooking. We installed a Bosch Induction cooktop back in 2008. Then it cost about $3,500.00 but the performance was amazing. While it had 4 cooking zones there was a power option than combined 2 of the zones together with the output in 1 zone. It would boil a litre of water from cold in 45 seconds. Control is superb and instant & the cooking surface never gets baked on spillages as it stays cool only getting hot from the transfer of heat from the bottom of the pot. We are renovating the house we purchased last year & installing a new kitchen. Cooking appliances are all AEG & the induction cooktop has a matt finish which is very scratch resistant & is wirelessly connected to the rangehood so the lights & fan are switched on & the speed managed automatically while cooking & both together cost less that the original Bosch from 2008.

There are Australians and there are immigrants. Not the same. We hope the immigrants become Australians and in the past they did. But many of the recent ones, last 20-30 years, carry such huge prejudices that they want to remain what they were and to exploit the opportunity created by the Australians.

Whenever I see this thread title my mind sees it as "Victoria's Secret", so it's quite a disappointment when I open it

Thought that was obvious. People born here.

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.