Leaderboard

Oops. Ahh.. OK.. this is not the militarisation of the police like the US.. The police here do not use brutal tactics as they do in the USA. They are trained to first de-escalate and they don't usually send in fire-armed police as a first option unless the threat assessment is very serious. Whether you think it is right, PA is a proscribed terroirist organisations and there are laws against showing support to proscribed terrorist organisations. And the police have to uphold the law irrespective of their own political beliefs. Frankly, anything coming out og the UN Human Rights agency, council or whatever they call themselves has to be treated initially with some degree of scepticism. Apparently up to 10% UNRWA, a body within the UNHROC were affiliated with islamist militant groups including HAMAS. Yes, they are supposed to have all gone now, but does that remove the bias that allowed them there in the first place? Secondly, look at the members of the UN Human Rights Council: https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/membership I would suggest that those who have an honest repect the basic freedoms and rights of people ar probably in the minority. It is strange that they have sent delegations to Australia report on violence against women, yet have not sent delegations to Saudi, Pakistan and the like - other member nations. You can guess, I don't hold them in high esteem. The article purposts that PA has been a proscribed terrorist organisation becausde they damaged a few planes. Unfortunately, their website notifies they are proscribed, requests a donation in some obscure crytocurrency, so I cannot go to the source for their actual policies, agenda, etc. On the internet, it mainly talsk about them targetting Israeli firms in protest and limits it to property. However, the UK government has documented the following in https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2025/803/pdfs/uksiem_20250803_en_001.pdf "Palestine Action 5.2 Palestine Action is a pro-Palestinian group with the stated aim to support Palestinian sovereignty by using direct criminal action tactics to halt the sale and export of military equipment to Israel. Since its inception in 2020, Palestine Action has orchestrated a nationwide campaign of direct criminal action against businesses and institutions, including key national infrastructure and defence firms that provide services and supplies to support Ukraine, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), “Five Eyes” allies and the UK defence enterprise. Palestine Action has also broadened its targets from the defence industry to include financial firms, charities, universities and government buildings. Its activity has increased in frequency and severity since the start of 2024 and its methods have become more aggressive, with its members demonstrating a willingness to use violence. Its activities meet the threshold of being concerned in terrorism as set out in the Terrorism Act 2000. There are varying defnitions of terrorism, but this is what Google spat out: Terrorism is the calculated use or threat of serious violence against people or property, intended to intimidate the public or coerce a government for political, religious, or ideological goals, often by creating widespread fear . Key elements include violent acts (murder, damage, endangering life) and specific intent (influencing government/public, advancing a cause). Definitions vary, but generally focus on these core components. So, it would seem the general definition is not limited to violence, despite being played down by the artiucle you present. Now, the UK may be unfairly acting against Palestinians and Muslims/Islam in general, but I don't think so on the evidence and definitions. After all, the UK, to its moneatry costs in exports of education, are not sanctioning the Muslim Bortherhood, where others do: https://www.ft.com/content/f256cc27-b80f-4fce-88cf-e80cb2451ef5 Also, as a display of how police tactics try (possibly too much) to de-escalate, here is a video documenting a policewoman receiving potentially life changing injuries at the hands of a PA protestor: Unf, I couldn't find the video my son dug up, which was far more graphic. And this was before they were proscribed? Peaceful prtest, eh? Just like Sydney jews were actively encouraged not to walk near the Palestinaian protests in Sydney and Melbourne because they were in danger.. because of the possibility ov violence purely because they were Jewish. But I gues it is OK for some Palestinian supporter to taunt the Jews at Bondi after the attack? Actually, it is a free world so yes, but I recall the Jews getting heated but no violence emanating from it. Wake up and put your prejudices aside for a change. I am happy to say there are times where the UK police go too far, but seriously, peaceful protest! FFS! Israel also have stuff to answer for. But to paint the Palestinian protests in the UK as peaceful is generally a joke.. Yes there have been few - very few of them. Shall we mention intimidation and threats of violence on the campuses etc.. where Jes had to be protected or refused entry to the campus. The lsit goes on. UK police are generally very good.

Banks are withdrawing ATM's due to the cost of servicing them. With the reduction of branches and tellers, and people requiring access to cash, this has left it up to privately owned ATMs. They also have to be serviced by companies like Brambles to top up the cash dispensers, which costs money, hence the charges. Private ATM owners also have to pay rent to shopkeepers for the space the ATM occupies.

That is not true. Government and its representatives can be criminally responsible. If it was unconstitutional, it could have been challenged in the courts, and lawyers even then, looking for their next fee and publicity would have approached many to commence an action. The government is elected democratically and makes laws on behalf of those who elect it. Therefore it was democractically done. The constitution (includes the writtten constitution, the body of conventions, and the developed case law to that point) defines the powers and obligations of the government. If it was unconstitutional, it would have been against the law. An action could have been brought against the government. In fact, apparently there were many challenges to the High Court, with the focus of the interpretation of the law rather than whether it was constitutional. No doubt, as part of those challenges, if the legal opinion was that it was unconstitutional, especially given the controversy at the time, it would have been constitutionally challenged. Your perception of a threat is sort of illogical. A valid law will may have consequences of not complying with that law. That is the same, say for not acquiring a licence to drive. You may be the best driver in the world, but if you do not fulfill your obligation to have a current drivers licence at the time of driving you will be fined and/or imprisoned. If you do not have a valid excuse for performing your duties under the law, you will have a consequence (usually). If you consider it a threat, I suppose every possible criminal punishment is a threat. In the context of the above, this is illogical, except that one of the things you will have learned is to seek legal advice on situations where you believe you have been wronged, even by government or its agencies. You wouldn't be punished for slipping up (i.e. a genuine mistake), You would be punsihed for intentionally not complying. This is called the guilty mind or mens rea. It is an element that is required to be proved of most crimes. You may have been anxious and felt you were under duress, however, these may have been grounds for being excluded. Did you review what the exclusions were and what your options were? If not, maybe that is a lesson learned. Did you not receive shelter, food, clothing and pay. Did you not learn practical skills or the like? (Genuine question). Your definition of duress is correct, but in the context it was the punishment for not meeeting your legal obligations, which is almost everywhere in the law. However, I do get that this was not for safety or the well being of society, so I agree, it was not right. But there is little you can do now, except take the learnings from it as positives and move forward.

There are plenty of other vids. Sky in the UK is not affiliated with Mudoch and co.. and is far more reputable. And in any case, the video sky presented is currently being tested in court - provided by the police - not put together by Sky I am not sure what the rest of what you say has to do with the point we are discussing. A claim (unfounded) that Palestinian protests are peaceful was made in the face of easily obtainable consistent evidence. That was the context of my statement of prejudice. How many mosques around the world have to be guarded from Jewish attack compared to vice versa? So I do agree that not allowing facts to agree is dangerous. I also think ignoring them is. Almost every country has their cover ups and protection rackets. Australia is harbouring its own war criminals while whistleblowers languish in jail. Oh, and the Catholic church, Vatican city and many other jurisdictions covering up pedophilia and child abuse for how long? I can keep going. If you're thinking propaganda and information management, there are far more egregious from other parts of the world. Plenty of Jews in Israel don't like Netanyahu, too.. So what. Is that an excuse to attack Jews, ignore facts, etc? So yeah, I would call it and wilfull ignorance of facts in this context anti-semetism I said in my post Israel sometimes goes too far. I haven't seen too many hold other jurisdictions to the same level of accountability of Israel and apply the same level of intimidation and violence to the diaspora of those jurisdictions as Jews. Happy to be corrected

Pity the banks don’t pick up all those costs themselves seeing the ATM’s are there so people can get access to their bank accounts. They make enough money as it is.

I would NOT TRUST ANYTHING From SKY, EVER. It was Amusing that You said "Wake UP and Put YOUR Prejudices Aside", Survival rates Of reporters In GAZA etc are NOT GOOD They are NOT Permitted anyhow. Netanyahu interferes DIRECTLY In Australian Politics Plenty OF Jews are not happy with HIM. and what he is doing either. Criticism 0f what HE does when It's clearly criminal is NOT ANTISEMETIC. 'Think PROPAGANDA and Information Management/CONTROL". READ what happened with THE MALKA LEIFER Incident. 8 Years of Orchestrated Obfuscation, Outright LIES and Cover up. There's Always 2 sides to every STORY and the Stakes are high but not allowing fact to Emerge has a DARK History. Nev

The only ATMs you pay for here are those in motorway services and in some of the convenience shops in the bigger cities. I can't think of the last time I paid for withdrawing cash from an ATM.

A young man introduces his fiancee to his parents. While they were having dinner the girl gently farts. Annoyed by the funny smell the father in law yells: – Rocky!! The girl is relieved that the future in-law blamed the dog from under her chair but after a few minutes she lets one more rip. The boy’s father is getting nervous: – Rocky!! be careful now!! Worried no more the girl fires another one. Feeling exasperated, the boy’s father yells: – Rocky! Get out of there fast! She’s gonna sh*t on you!

What's wrong with OLD sandshoes? I guess that's what you are Talking about. I've Mucked about in a few Boats but I NEVER dressed up for it.. Used to hire a Cat when slipping in Darwin. Too many crocs Now. I've sailed a Cat right across Port Philip Bay with a good wind and swell. That was about as Much challenge and excitement as I will ever want. I LIKE Boats but the Wife doesn't. She would get sea sick IF I swished the Bath water. But she DID Jump out of a Helicopter into the Bay oblivious to the Presence of SHARKS. Nev

"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." It pays all free peoples to be vigilant to the possible loss of liberties. That means careful monitoring of our system of leadership. Fortunately our Australian system has the means to remove leaders who remove liberties. However that often simply results in placing a similar type in the role.