Jerry_Atrick

I think, like cigarettes, the tax has to be punitive and ubiquitous. We have a 10p per can of soft drink sugar tax. Just raises a bit more revenue for the government

What does this all say about humanity that he still garners enough support to have voted him in as president already, let alone give him a second crack, even against Biden and still be a threat against Harris? I shudder for the world my kids are inheriting

@onetrack - if you have a roofrack - can try mounting a light bar or spots on it... I used to have spots on a roof rack - worked a treat.

Er the navigation system and glass roof have nothing to do with the power train and all EVs have range reduction at higher speeds.. Good journalism would have pointed that out and given a comparison of the reduced range of Teslas v BYDs at given speeds... in the same conditions

This?

Interesting.. I could be a conspiracist and say that Putin wouldn't mind sacrificing a few thousand troops to even further whip up anti-Ukraine sentiment and justify his war. He makes socio- and psychopaths seem caring and sharing.

A touch of Frost?

Reading some of those comments were the equivalent of I voted for Trump twice even though I didn't want to because I couldn't vote for Biden; but I despise Trump so much, I will vote for Harris.... I am not sure what the logic is in that; in terms of ideology, Harris is further away from Republican ideology than Biden. I guess identity politics is alive, and it is only a problem for people when identity politics is pushing a bandwagon that isn't theirs.

I still buy CDs.. My XC90 *(admittedly 10 years old now) has a CD player in it. BAD radio still suffers transmission gaps, 5g doesn't cover the entire continent, etc. Also, asI understand, more of the CD money as a proprtion of revenue goes to the artists than streaming services. But, of course, CDs do scratch, break, degrade and get lost over time - I get it. Of maybe 200 CDs I have (I know as I have transferred them to itunes and android player), I have had to purhcase maybe 5 replacements in that time. There are also times when you can't get the music you want through streaming services - like there was a time I couldn't get rRichard Clapton on any streaming service - welll I could get a couple of obscure recordings on iTunes. There are also some artists - especially those that self-publish - that you can only get via streaming and itunes type sites. And of course, good ol' YouTube has a lot of live recordings as well. There is a place for a mixture of media to get one's artistic hit. I believe vinyl is making a comeback, too.

OK - here's my gripe: (Cross posted form the Celebrating positives threads). It's not @nomadpete's thread at all, but I was reading this article (turn of javascript to read it): https://www.theage.com.au/national/more-than-20-craft-brewers-have-fizzed-out-in-the-past-year-what-s-happening-20240701-p5jq7r.html In the article, it is claimed that two brewers control 90% of the beer market in Australia. Both are Japanese: Asahi and Lion. And at the same time, ACCC allows lock in/lock out clauses foisted on pubs by the two brewers and doesn't see that as distoring competition? And WTF is FIRB thinking allowing this stuff. Will have to read the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act to work out what discretion they have to block such ship happening.

An interesting video on some of the domestic Russian propaganda

That's why I would suggest school curriculum is updated accordingly... I don't think that has been tried terribly well yet, though happyh to be corrected. And not all of it has been tried yet - certainly not reform of the criminal legal system. And I would suggest Mabo is probably the last time the common law will be used to progres the law in this area without explicit parliamentary involvement. That is the point of the article I referenced - even on the mainland, there is evidence of cultivation - and not only hunter/gathering. The point of the law at the time was that terra nullius only occured if there was no permanent assertion of rights over the land by the indigenous population; even if they were hunter/gatherers, there was assertion of rights over the land through ways other than agriculture - it is one test.. the fact there were different nations, with different cultures/customs/languages; Each first nations country had different rules about how they would let people from other first nations countries traverse their land; there were specific areas for hunting/gathering, agriculture, living, religious ceremonies/significance that did not change, etc. all points to a permanent assertion of rights of specific areas of land. Even if there was no agriculture per se, there is enough of other components of society to refute terra nullius. Otherwise the High Court would not have found it applied to all of Australia. I would have loved to be in the judges chambers formulating judgment and wondering how the heck they are going to get around an illegal settlement and effectively an illegal modern country - which was the birth of the Australian common law doctrine of native title. My guess is, if they could limit fidning terra nullius defective to a small parcel of land, it would have made their job a lot easier and they would have taken it. BTW, I am not saying first nations act entirely honestly in all of this either. Wasn't there the case of "secret womens' business" in Portland, Victoria about 40 years ago - somethign to do with the smelter. I think it was found to be a croc. I really suggest people watch the SBS series I reference as a first peek into the history of settlement. It was fascinating stuff. As I was largely regurgitating, I will going forward.

Unf, I am no expert in this area. It is my current study of Aussie law that has provided me with the info I have today. However, there are a couple of things I can think of: Simply digestible education for all of the facts and issues to break down what are natural barriers for understanding the issues and incorporating change. Also, I don't know what the current primary and secondary curricula for history is, but Making it mandatory for school kids to learn the First Nations general culture in a contextual way and the conflicts between modern culture. This isn't diving into everything about it, but the general principles Also, ensuring the historical elements tell both the European and first nations elements - not as it was in my day - just the European. Constitutional recgonition of first nations peoples; and recognition of what we call customary law (which is really just first nations laws). Now, I hear people saying we can't have people being speared in the streets. Obviosuly, there has to be limits, but spearing is not the only punishment or action taken. Most punishments are community shaming and as first nations cimmunities are very tight knit, this is considered serious by both the community and the individual. Temporary and permanent ostracision is probably more problematic for those being punished than being speared in the leg (yes, today, without antibitocis, they probably would have died, but they probably had more diverse immunities before Europeans). Recognition of first nations culture in our legal processes. European based cultures are much more individual-centred than first nations cultures. So, while if we get caught red handed doing something, we can expect to be separated from society for a bit while the investigation continues and we get bail, this is apparently a complete anathema and stressful for first nations people (who live in their communities); because decisions are made collectively - usually in the presence of elders. To ask a first nations person (who lives in community) to make a decision, or provide information, etc, without letting them consult their mob (a lawyer won't do it) apparently causes great stress so to get it over with, they just ple guilty a lot of times, etc. Also, I imagine as they don't react the same way Europeans do when in custody, it probably results in a l ot of frustration by the authorities, and the tinderbox is alight. These are a few I can think of, but based on only what I have been taught in Aussie law. Obviously resources are required, but before any real change can occur, the majority of th epopulation have to understand what is going on and what went on.. Then at least people have the facts to base their opinions on. Of course, people may still think the same - that is OK if it is based on fact - that is a value judgement,. But somehow, I think when people learn more, like me, their minds will change.. and when there are votes in it, you can bet the pollies will really put the resources in to change things.

The fact there are two cultures is immaterial. It is the act of taking the land that was already inhabitied and settled that is the issue.. As there was no treaty, the action of taking sovereignty of the land without treaty while there was settlement is conquest and required - by law at the time - a treaty. Also, the High Court has jurisduction over all of Australia in constitutional and soverign matters, and a decision in law they make is binding across all of Australia (unless they expressly restrict it to a certain location). Nothing strange about that; otherwise each state would have to contest the same overreach of federal powers. Also, the offical case name is Mabo and Others v Queensland No. 2 (1992).. To be honest, I do not know who the others are, but I am guessing they may well be mainlanders - but it is just a guess. Note, there were over 250 distinct mainland cultures, too. Just because they were on the mainland did not mean they were the same culture. About the only thing that was shared was the concept of moeity, and eventhen it meant different things to each first nation. As I recal, it wasn't unitl 1850 that Governor Bourke made the formal declaration - well after the first fleet. However, a formal declaration is not required; it is the act of seizing land by cessation/conquest and inception of the foreign law into the land that is proof enough - and that was well established by the time the formal declaration was made (and it only affect the Colony of NSW - I don't think any other colony made a formal declaration). This is a common misconception. The mainlanders were "nomadic" within their defined nation. And a map of the actual first nations of Australia is here: https://digital-classroom.nma.gov.au/images/map-indigenous-australia Thee were distinct laws, customs, cultures, and languages; there were laws or protocols of traversing others' nations, etc. There was even trade between those nations. It was a very structured set of societies; similar in concept to Europe, but built on different social paradigms. To re-iterate, the High Courty only has jurisdiction over Australia. It is a nonsense to suggest the land was not inhabited and setlled, and if their only means of hunting food was spears and boomerangs, that is indifferent to anything. This isn't the article I was looking for, but goes into the discoveries leading anthropolgists to conclude there was mainland agricutlure (I haven't read all of it): https://www.abc.net.au/listen/radionational/archived/bushtelegraph/rethinking-indigenous-australias-agricultural-past/5452454. But even if there wasn't, agrciluture, it is but one test; the fact that there were boundaries, that there were established laws and customs would have been enough in those days (according to Blackstone's English Law) to establish inhabitance and require a treaty as they all assert rigths to an identifable piece of land separate to others. That is the basis of the decision of the High Court.

If the assertion is true and it was at least neglgent, I hope their insurers have deep pockets.

I don't know who Johnny Appleseed is, but I would hazard to guess if the High Court of Australia found in the Mabo case the land was cultivated (an essential ingredient of land agricultire, I think), then I would tend to think sufficient evidence was tended for them to arrive at that conclusion: "The cultivated garden land was and is in the higher central portion of the island. There seems however in recent times a trend for cultivation to be in more close proximity with habitation." I am guessing it iwasn't a simple dropping of seeds, or a wholly natural (i.e. without human action) occurence of what otherwise would appear to be organised cropping. Entirely likley is not the same as "is". Be that as it may, even if that is the case, so what? People from different cultures and countries are learning and applying what they learn from peoples of other countries and cultures. Does that make the practice and establishment of First Nations agriculture a non-fact? Does Australia not have a manufacturing industry because whatever manufacturing we do were techniques importted from other countries? The apology is not an apology by individuals living today - this is the conflation people like to come up with. It is an apology from the government/institution of Australia for largely historical institutional transgressions. Note, the head of the NT Police officially apologised for current day transgressions and institutional racism this week: https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/radionational-breakfast/nt-police-apology-to-indigenous-kerrynne-liddle/104191246. This does not mean each individual NT police officer apologises, but the institution that let this happen does.. and it requires an institutional response. In, I think the 90s, the German government made reparation payments and apoligised to various communities it was brutal to; this was not German citizens of the day apologising - it was an institutional apology. Should that not have happened? I haven't found anything authorative on the ignorning the first fleet, but there seems there were some who did and some who didn't.. and the above seems consistent with why those who didn't didn't. Absolutely, Court reports and judgements are verbose things so to quote with full context would be not great, so you can read it for yourself if you are interested: https://jade.io/article/67683. Para 33 is a statement of how land could, at the time, be legally aquired in terms of colonisation... Basically the accepts that if it is not terra nulliius, it is a conquest, and that the declaration of terra nullius was defective and therefore illegal - at the time. However, this article from the University of Qld Law Journal summarises it for you: http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/journals/UQLawJl/2005/2.html Well, read the court report and you will see agirculture (or lack thereof) was one of the tests to determine if terra nullius/cessation or inception of the invaders' country's laws was valid. Firstly, does it matter how an issue is brought to our attention for redress? In reality, a degree of activism is involved in every societal change - the more fundamental the issue, the mode vociferous the activism. Are you saying that womens' suffrogettes (sp?) gay rights and various civil wars improving peoples rights - because they were activism - were not valid and not, in the end positive (mostly)? Secondly, when someone or a population are very downtrodden and don't see much of a future and are under threat (refer again to the NT experience), they are unlikely to become active until something or someone inspires them. Those with natural leadership qualities will be motivated from the inspiration of the black movement in the 20th century and realise they can achieve their rights, too. What is wrong with that? Also, think of when various individuals come out against what is seen as a powerful force to be reckone with, how others come out, from the catholic priests pedophillia to the #meetoo movement (yes, some are vexatious, but on the whole)? Basically, the High Court found many things believed and used to justofy continual oppression and non-recgognitioon of First Nations people, are in fact myths. Other cases have also since found more myths. The concept of being the kings subjects was illegal at the time, and, as OME so eleqouently puts it: "... was dropped on them like a ton of bricks." In fact, without the invention of the doctrine of native title, the High Court found that the settlement (and therefore, subsequent colonisation and indeed federation) was illegal without treaty (and yes, it would have probably had to be a treaty in which all the first nations consented). The fact that first nations cultures persist today rather than being forced wholly into a European culture is testimony to the strength of ther culture despite the social problems, which are arguably the result of intergenerational oppression, disposession of land and peoples, etc. However, I don't agree with all soverign demands, for example this one: https://world.time.com/2013/05/30/australias-aborigines-launch-a-bold-legal-push-for-independence/ I don't think that will achiieve anything, nor do I think it is logistically practical to implement.

Maybe, but while I found debate over the extent of Aboriginal agriculture, apart from what seemed more radical sites, there seems to be acceptance there was Aboriginal agriculture before Europeans arrived, including from the University of Sydney.. https://www.sydney.edu.au/science/our-research/research-areas/life-and-environmental-sciences/indigenous-grasslands-grain.html (Unless universities no longer rely on evidence) As I recall they also invented the world's first aerofoil

Here is something else for you... another death knell in the theory of terra nullius:

Is it the only logical explanation? Or maybe there was a war between a couple of First Nations' countries and the spoils went one way? Having said that, it would be illogical to think during the ice age or land bridge, a buch of people walked to Australia in one massive migration. It wouls make sense the migration was in waves, and it would make sense that there may have been some more migration over the years - esp fron Indonesia and Papua. But does this nullify the claim of first nations people being first nations people? What? That is like saying all kids of the Greek, Italian, and others that settled after WWII aren't somehow Australian - not like the descendents of the first fleet. Almost every inhabited land mass that is accessible has had migration, but it does not detract from the overall claim to that land at the time of an invasion to disposess people of that land.. Or am I missing something? In other words, should Australia be taken over by NZ, it is OK to give up the property of all but the descendants of the first fleet as only the first fleet were the very first wave of migration. Does that really make sense to you? In what way is it nonsesne? There are many definitions of invasion in terms of humans invading lands of other humans - but an invasion does not need to be military driven. It is generally an act of entering by force into anothers domain, and often with an intention if subjugating or disposessing the existing population. How was the first fleet and subsequent actions to claim land and colonise without consent nor acquiescence, be achoieved in those days by anything other than an invasion? Maybe you want to take your argument to the High Court that has recognised as much in the Mabo cases - and they tend not to be woke or unecessarily oblighe themselves to solve complex legal matters that arise from acknoweldging the truth. Every colony proclaimed exactly the same thing. And under who's authority? Was it a legal authority, even at the time? Whether it was honoured or not is well and truly up for debate. Let me see, I don't recall white king's subjects being held liable for such massacres, and I don't recall black kings subjkects being allowed to massacre whites or blacks . Admittedly, there weren't a lot of massacres in SA, and compared to others, I guess it is a good news story: https://c21ch.newcastle.edu.au/colonialmassacres/map.php I really think you should bone up on the real history and not what was taught in schools - at least in our day. The invasion was, and is probably still not technically illegal - neither Putin nor Netanyahu are being pursued for invasion.. But the High Court of Australia found in 1992 that the settlement (colonisation) of Australia was illegal at the time as it was based on an objectively knowingly false declaration of terra nullius. This meant that, in accordance with the European laws at the time, the land was actually taken by conquest and that does not make the First Nations peoples automatically subjects of the king until a treaty is agreed, and that treaty, under law at the time, would have had to take into account both the land rights and laws of the native population. This is not as per modern times, but even required back then. You may be proud of the fact that SA (and the rest of Australia) treated them as kings subjects, but I am not; Because, in reality, it disposessed them of land and culture - a c. 60,000 year old culture with much stronger community ties than I have seen either in Australian modern society or other places I have been. And while we may argue cultures are just beliefs and norms, tell that to the current middle east people, and look at the effect it has had on the world.. I suggest you watch the First Australians, especially Episode 4: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=first+australians+episode This series touches the iceberg - you may just have a more fuller view of First Nations peoples.

The difference between this time and last time is that the Democrats are in power. This will hopefully mean there will be a strong law enforcement presence and if trouble kicks off, it is likely the order will be immediately given to send in the reinforcements.. So while one can expect there to be trouble, one can also expect it to be met, this time, with the appropriate response.

is it "e"

Looks like Ukraine has pushed through the Russa8n border: https://youtu.be/QFv_6t8tLOI?si=jwcUaU7XOhuprrj_

A mate from Melbourne was in London so I took my Daughter to London with me. As she want to be another of what the world desperately needs - a lawyer - we went to the Royal Courts of Justice, which are near the Aussie High Commission. There were no afternoon sessions, so we were allowed to wander the courts and the reception area which is majestic. We then stopped for a spot of late lunch which was nice; then off to Dirty Dicks on Bishopsgate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_Dick). Mate and I were on the pints; daughter had a couple of half-pints. We finished up around 10 - headed back to the Dukes Head. On the train on the way back, bumped into a work colleague, and had a great chat on the train. At the pub in time to say Hi to the landlord (we were there earlier to check in, but he was visiting his wife in hospital). Only two hitches for the day - one I lost my phone - no big deal (I normally have a back pack but as it was in my pocket, I had taken it out to sit down and obviously left it there). The second is, at around 11:30, daughter and I decided it would be a good idea to grab a pizza... Ugghhh Next morning it was as heavy in the stomach as it was in the box.. All in all, a really great night - catching up with a good mate and a great intro into the London after-work life for daughter - though no doubt DDs is a little lower brow than she will visit (DDs is outside Liverpool St. Station, which is where a lot of investment banking is based). Also, DDs had the music turned up, and daughter remarked it was strange that the first club like venue she went to was with her father..

No, but we have worse. BoJo is also a narcissist, but thankfully and much more relatable than Trump is to the common man. And, although like Trump, will say and do anything to get into power, seemed to have a smidgeon more scruples once he was in. However, we have someone far more pernicious than Trump, IMHO, and that is Farage. Farage is smarter than Trump and a very skilled public orator. He has a knack of stating the ridiculous adeptly and making it plausible. He has been blaming the boat people and lack of police transparency on the riots, yet when you listen to the residents that suffer the riots, it is clear without any dissenting voices of those who actually live through it, is it has nothing to do with the three slain girls; it is sheer thuggery driven by hatred. His ability to normalise what really shouldn't be makes him far more dangerous than Trump. He has been described as an MP representing the English Defence League and I would think that Reform UK - the party he helped found, is akin to Sinn Fein in being the political wing of what is effectively a terrorist organisation. Thank dog he can't be president of the USA. Then in the EU you have the likes of Orban - who are Russiaphiles and the EU has taken little real action over his abuse of the electoral system and political rights - actual democracy is a condition of ongoing membership of the EU, and again, that organisation has found wanting when it needs courage. He is another Trumpian type. We have plenty more....

There are two issues here. One is the anarchy itself and the other is the ramifications of it occurring at different places. As has been discussed, the root cause of the anarchy looks to be the same - more or less - wherever it is. A lot are saying social media, but lets not forget, there seems to be less integrity in the MSM as well, and it too is becoming more polarising - just look at Sky Media in Australia. But also look at the reluctance of MSM to put both sides of an argument forward in the same article or segment - it removes the balance that was once there. Coupled with a weak regulation and toothless regulator, the MSM, which is already the 4th pillar of government, is now both unelected and unaccountable, yet it (along with social media) arguable has more influence on the electorate than the other three organs of government (legislature, executive, and judiciary). And, both are easy targets for manipulation: Russia is primarily accused of manipulating social media to disrupt the west; and commercial interest manipulate commercial MSM to ensure their message is heard. I will give you an example - the middle east and African refugees - the boat people - are blamed in all of the problems of lack of infrastructure, etc and this is backed up by the MSM as well as the conservative pollies, and the like. They are also pedalled as illegal immigrants, though 75% of them claim asylum and are therefore legal under both the refugee conventions and British law, which has fully adopted the refugee convention (note, this is a choice of the legislature, not some magical obligation thrust on the UK). Also, we didn't have boat people until the Conservative government of the day blocked all other routes for them to some in. OK.. So, they are alleged to be illegal immigrants, of which they aren't until their asylum applications are processed and denied. The vast majority of asylum applications are approved. Therefore the vast majority are legal immigrants, but no one states this, and hatred is being wrought onto them because they are asserted by government and backed up by MSM as illegal immigrants. So, to make things look worse, the government cuts the processing staff, so they have to wait years and then complain there are too many of them to process and they are coming in waves, and I quote Suella Braverman, as coming.. "in their millions", which again the commercial MSM (except the Guardian) ran with,, and suddenly xenophobia runs riot. Then, there are so many of them, that they take all the services, etc. Even my partner believes this BS. The reality is, in 2023, the refugees coming across the border by boat (because the government blocked all other means to make it safe, and the UK takes the kittens' share of them into Europe). How many came across in 2023? 29,000 (https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/people-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats/), Net migration to the UK was high in 2023, at 685,000, but because the majority of those don't suit the racial profile that is easy to blame, nout got mentioned about that in the press with anywhere near the same gusto. So, less than 5% of the migration are refugees and yet the conservative pollies and mainly right-wing led press are crying into their beers about the dire situation they cause - not to mention the amount of money wasted on the Rwanda scheme - which went to bent Rwanda pollies - not to the refguees. This same masking and obfuscation of facts coupled with downright lies, which both social media and most of the commercial MSM pedal has parallels to that in the USA. Also, the divide between social classes (mainly on income) creates the seeds of hate, that are sown with the lies and deceit. Yes, there were dumb moves - allowing 1m refugees into Germany almost at once was yet another masterstroke of dumbness by Merkel and her team. But also, the expansion of the EU to include many Eastern European counties at once was another - I am only speaking with respect to the UK, but the conservative government knew it was coming for years, and IMHO, were not doing anything about infrastructure or facilities in the many years they had to plan for it, despite receiving EU funds, so that the influx of people would result in services being burst at their seams., increasing the resentment of the EU, to facilitate Britain's ultimate exit, which is what they wanted all along. My favourite charade played by the MSM is the current controversy around the European Convention of Human Rights. They decry the ECHR takes our sovereignty away like the mad bible bashers on their soap boxes in the middle of the city. They don't state the facts - it is a convention and we can be a signatory but that does not by itself bind us to it. Like every country, it has to be given effect by local laws. And the law that does it here is the Human Rights Act `1998. That acr provides basically three things.. For legislation enacted before the 1998 Act came into force, in the absence of express contrary wording, legislation must be interpreted to be consistent with the ECHR; If, after the introduction of the act, legislation is passed that is inconsistent with the act, the the degree in which it is inconsistent, the act does not apply; and 3) unless at the time of introducing the act, the secretary of state (minister) or, the submitter for a private members bill simply makes a declaration that the bill is not consistent with the ECHR, and hey presto - the UK has absolute sovereignty over its laws and the impact of the ECHR. The Rwanda scheme, though being depicted by Labour as incompetence by the conservatives of the highest level is another great example of this deception. Following Australia's lead, the Conservatives made a deal with Rwanda (that even their own Home Office assessment determined was a poor choice to the the sudden crease in life expectancy refugees would have once reaching Rwanda) lawyers took the first deportations to the Supreme Court (sort of our High Court - House of Lords no longer hears cases, except for commonwealth territories constitutional issues). As expected, the courts struck it down because it was inconsistent with the ECHR and the laws did not have the requisite declaration, The Conservatives piled on about how we have to lave the ECHR as we need to take our sovereignty back and the commercial MSM were largely as vociferous as the pollies about it. Now, we have the vast swathe of, let's face it, the majority who don't know what they are talking about, calling for the UK to leave the one remaining independent institution that just may save their bacon. Labour are too stupid or worried about the electoral backlash to call it out. But, why are so many people so aggrieved that they fall for the BS? Easy - degrade the services, keep the poverty lines drawn, ensure minimal education, and all of a sudden, there is a rise in the right wing nutters blaming everyone for their malaise, and they may be right, though. The answer to this, even in the progressive press, is to marginalise them - that can't help. Look at the rise of extreme right wing groups in Aus and The Age/SMH & Huffpost response.. "Oh, they are usually poor on the social-economic scale and alienated - so leave them left out by society and ignore them.. which cannot be the right approach. I could go on, but have things to do. Yes, the anarchy in the UK will largely have an economic effect, and maybe China will have a crack at Taiwan; the anarchy in Europe will be far wider reaching on a humanitarian basis - world wars tend to start there.