Jerry_Atrick

@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).

Winding path (to the find the missing letters, above)

This is the first time I have tried an AFR artivle for eons and I am sure my IP address has changed since I last accessed as I recently changed ISP. My guess is they allowed free use for a short period.

A prodigee of Abbott? Be careful what you ask for.

Indeed.. It looks like the "other alliance" is a bit stronger than ours: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-supplies-iran-with-cyber-support-spy-imagery-hone-attacks-ukraine-says-2026-04-07/ That't thank thanks Chump gets from Putin.. Of course, Chump won't see it that way.

The original article I saw was either on the ABC or The Age website (when I go tot he Guardian, it usually only feeds me British based or, for global news, what it considers important or interesting for Brits. There was no mention of CGT for the primary residence, but there was mention on negative grearing being removed from all but a private investor's first investment property; It must have been The Age, as I doubt very much the ABC wouls pull an article for a reason other than it iwas plainly inaccurate. But here is what I found from teh ABC: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-02-04/capital-gains-tax-changes-among-options-as-labor-weighs-housing/106306738 And it only mentions CGT discountsd being removed from investment properties. Which, IMHO, is the correct thing to do. Inherited properties that are then used by the beneficiaries to rent out (i.e. become an investment propety) should be required to have a surveyor's valuation at the commencement of them being advertised for rent so that the CGT clock starts tickign with an accurate assesment.. Or maybe ion this case, because of the emotional ties, maybe wait 12 - 24 months and if they sell in that period, then it is CGT free; after that the valuation has to be obtained and CGT has to be paid on a subsequent sale. Of course, this creates a perverse outcome on an intergenerational basis. Keep the original home in the family and pass it on to subsequent generations = no tax. Convert it to cash to invest in some other form of asset/wealth building investment, and you pat tax, and have less to invest and pass on. Would have to look into the stats of how many homes are passed onto multiple generations to work out the real impact. Be that as it may, it would be incredibly uunfair to CGT the primary property anyway. Not because of the fact it was already paid for by post tax dollars and insn;t an investment per se, but a place to live; but also, the deduction being inflation rate is not representative of the true inflation rate of a house. Unless you are moving into a care home of some sort, you are likely to be purchasing another property to live in. As house price inflation often skyrockets past the normal inflation rate and the price increase of houses is excluded from the inflation calculation, if you sold your house and had to pay CGT on it, you could not afford at least a similar standard of house - you would be going backward. And this would probably stall the housing market (except for those thast had to sell) and foprce prices up even further - no supply but a demand still will tend to do that. Labor, or Albo is not stupid.

Once again you sling mud with no substance and show your bias against Israel,.. IHaven't heard you reliably debunk much, if anything with fact Who's biased? Pot calling kettle, etc etc

I see FIFA haven't stripped him of their inaugural peace prize. I wonder who gets their second one?

I may be thick, but I genuinely don't get what you are saying. How does all humans being equal equate to being pro-Palestinian? Believing they are unfairly treated by the Israelis is one thing (whether that is true or not - I can no longer be arsed getting into that argument), but being pro-Palestinian because all humans are equal sort of ignores the horrible inequities in Palestinian controlled areas (Gaza and Ramallah) - as well as other Arabic or Islamic nations - I dunno, like Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi, Iran, Afghaistan, many ogf the other 'Stans, and the like. Unless killing gays because they are gay, or beating your wife legally and even being instructed on how to do it, legal honour killings, discrtimination against far east labourers, slavery, etc is treating everyone equally. You know - like in Israel whihc has the largest - because the only gay pride; where foreign workers are treated the same as local, where Palestinian citrizes have the same rights and one was even the previous deputy PM, and there have been Palesitnian cheif jidges of the Israeli high court. Where women are eqqual and marital rape, wife beating, etc is against the law. Where even a soldier will be held to account for killing a Palestinian terrorst after they have injured aoir killed other Israeli soldiers. Where before 7 October, Israel provided necessary medical care to Gazans and Ramallans despite there being lots of hospitals in those two areas - some hopefully withoput weapons cahces under them. Where Israel provided Gazan with the water supply (and still do) despite Hamas firing rockets at them almost daily. Where many Gazans used to work in Israel with the same rights and conditions as Israelis and could move about freely (they were justifiably searched oin their way into Israel because of the risk of them wearing bombs). Hang on.. Where is their vocal opposition to Russia that does commit war crimes on a daily basis, targetting civilian infrastructure? Where is their vocal oppostiion to the many wars and conflicts in the middle east that don't involve Israel? I can't recall much more than a scant reference to Iran, and even then it was more about the illegal Chump/Net war and not the 30,00+ civilians killed (although this could be because the newspapers and the ABC don;'t gibve them much coverage). Then, yeah. good on the Greens for sticking with their morals. Give them a clap. They're just being perfect and it's not anti-semitism at all. Shame though, because most of heir policies, if implemented properly, seem pretty good. Would I vote for them despite the above? Actually, probably, because thankfully in the incredibly unlikely event they got in, they cold probably block exports and imports to/from Israel. I don't think wither country would lose sleep over it. Given it is unlikely they would get in, the additional primnarly vote would hopefully send a message to the majors to lift their game in the other areas.

I don't agree with everything you have written, but the sentiment is spot on, IMHO.

One of the big tax perks that is gaining a lot of attention lately is the directors loans. The more you make and the more you borrow, the more you save in tax. In many jurisdictions there is (or was) a threshold for converting directors loans to dividends. It typically was about the same as the zero tax rate. For the rest, you set up a commercial rate between the director and the holding company; the loan will cover the repayment agreement, which can be very minimal. As you receive this money as a loan, there is no tax payable. The tiny repaymnent terms, just enough to be considered a legal contract, mean that the interest earned by the company and tax paid is minimal or the income from interest is offset by the admin costs. When you finally die, you have no assets in your name to repay the loan, your estate is bankrupt (your ownership of the coompany is returned to the company and distributed to the remaining shareholders, usually your family. Voilla! Virtually no tax paid. Blind or secret trusts are another good way as they often benefit from tax deductions not available to private people and you can't tell who is the beneficiary to loob tax against when they exit the trust (either through death or some other form). Apart from some family trusts, which now attract dfifferent tax treatment, the UK has effectively limited the life of any trust to 80 years, after which the lessor of capital gains, probate taxes, stamp duties, etc must be paid.

It's a bright future he have. This came from a weekly AI newsletter I get: npm is a package manager for javascrip and used to deploy most web apps.

The couldn't pronounce him guilty at a press conference - unless they want the trial and the charges to be dropped from subjudice. I was merely taking on the position of a civil law case, and on one of the alleged murders, at time was an unarmed and restrained person. As I mentioned, I don't know muc about military law, and the conjecture was based on civilian law. However, surely, a PoW has a right not ro be murdered. For that one case I mentioned, it does not seem in dispute - at least in the court of public opinion - that the victim was partially bound (hands/wrists) and gagged, and unarmed. At that stage, is he a PoW - I would imagine it to be dependent on the circumstances - and that it does not need someone to be physically locked up. I'll read the pdf later and get back.

I haven't seen what you refer to, but if it is so, then you are right . The problem is today, there is a lot about virtue signalling without allowing the process to take place to make a determination. Until, that something makes their virtueness look a biut ugly,. then it is dennial followed by wiait for due process.

Either way, he would have been excused from service - too dangerous to his own men. .Can't shut up which is not good on a patrol, I imagine.