Jerry_Atrick

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.

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.

I hope Philadelphia's Sherrif is true to his word. Although, in terms of ICE, it could lead to a dangerous showdown. Maybe even the spark that sets off a civil war. I lived in Philadelphia for about 6 months in all.. they are rougher than New Yorkers and straight talking

Can you please point to the law in the UK that prevents protesting in support of Palestine as I know of no such law and I have a feeling you are confused. Also can you please point to a situation where the police have acted unlawfully in abuse of power against a peaceful pro Palestinian protest. You may not have all the facts

I hope you're not conflating UK police with US police. Most here are still unarmed and there is hot debate about whether or not they should be as a matter of routine be given tasers

If the system ain't broke, don't fix it

From chat gpt: you're welcome.

Saba ought to know better than to lend her car out.

Jeepers, that brings back memories..

That's thie thing about life. Ship happens. Pick yourself up, learn from it, and move on.

Stay safe.. hope it doesn't reach your property

Just remember GON, you're a pawn in their game. Certainly won't make life better for you, and you are very, very dispensible. I have firends and ex-colleagues in the US emailing me to see what opportunities are over here.. But, they are the travelled ones. But don't take my word for it. Move their like you say you have been invited to. Find out for yourself. Just don't forget to rescind your Aussie citizenship on the way.

Well, Chump renamed the Department of Defense (sp!) to the Department of War. He is now asking tor the Department of War budget to be increased from ISD $906bn to $1.5tn - of which tariffs will fund a lot of it apparently. His making life easy for the tech bros to make more money, so they will use their social media platforms to control the narrative in Chump's favour. He has debts he has to pay and he has debts owed to him. He may come across as stoopid, but I would say more erratically psycopathic or stabler sociopath who has a plan and is willing to do what it takes to execute it. Voters or the plebs - they are a mere inconvenince (like they are to most political leaders on both sides these days - Chump is just more open about it). He realises that most of the peope - especially in the US pay scant attention to the local and national news, let alone international news - except where the US is involved (such as a war). Unlike the democrats, who got caught up in virtue politics and ignored the majority, he knows that we are more interested in making sure our pay packet goes further more than wehether or not our neighbour is doing it tough these days - and he plays up to it. The same menatality that allowed Puytin to flouris and take more and more control. He doesn't want to be king because of some delusions of grandeur - he only wants to have absolute power - or as absolute as it can be - and primarily to enrich himself, his family and his supporters - or his creditors as I like to call them. FFS, his family crypto business is applying for a banking licence. What sitting political head of a country allows that in normal deomcratic circumstances, when that sitting head directs finanical policy? The absolute majority in both houses of congress has made it a rubber stamp - more or less - of Chump. Although more true conservative republicans sided with the democrats to block appropriations last year leading to the longest government lock down. But for he republicans, didn't this have more to do with the release of the Epstein files than actual prudence? Chump and the republicans have managed to stack the Supreme Court of the US nd many other jurisdictions with Republican puppets, er judges (a flaw in the constitution if ever there was one), which means the other two organs of power are no longer a real check and balance. The mid-terms may, with any luck, address congress, but the democrats are so far uo their own arses and squabbling like chooks over the remaining scaps, that people are not looking at them as a real alternative at the moment - that can keep food on the table. And of course, the bulk of the popular press are supportive of their advertisers who, guess what, are supportive of Chump. Bezos taking over the Chicago Post is evidence of how they went from a vocal critic and check on the government to meek complicity by initially refusing to comment. This has been a long time coming. There will be moves a foot to change the constituion no doubt to allow power to be retained in all but probably official presidency. As long as people think it is the best for keeping a roof over their head, food in their guts, and fuel in their oversised compenation for phallic deficiencies, they will continue to allow it to happen. We have seen it before, and will see it again. Buckle up, it is going to be an interesting ride.

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water

Brute force is the Chump way. In this presidency, he used the brute force of America's dominant domestic market to try and force other countries to kow-tow to his will. He is using brute foce with the ICE; now he is using brute military force. He doesn't care if it is allies, nuetrals, or foes he uses that force against as long as it is for what he wants. The the previous presidency, he used brute force to try and overthrow an election. He uses brute force of money to intimidate people through legal proceedings and the like. Ehther it is uncivilised or not; whether it wrong or not, it is sort of true. Most of the outcomes he has acheived have been through threats that he would carry out. Want to get Nato to spend more on defence. Threatend withdrawal. Want to get an oil producer - go and invade. The western world didn't stand upo to Putin because they were scared of a failing military power - they sure as hell aren't going to stand up to Chump because they have a lot more to lose. The vomit induing performance put on by Starmer was playing to what he wanted and there was no guarantee of him doing what Starmer wanted in return - in fact, he didn't do anything he did for Aus with a leader who provided a more measured approach. The reality, unless people are willing to stand up to bullies, which they won't if they feel they are powerless in comparison, then the mightier one will get the choccies.

Sadly, in jest. It would improve the lives of the vast majority of Americans if it happened

Sorry.. that should have read last sent to Australia.. I believe the last of the convicts sent was to Fremantle or some such place 🙂

It's futile to argue which is better. Convicts were sent to Australia in 1868 and I dare say both countries have changed a lot since then. There is good and bad in both places, and each have their cultural, material, sociological, natural, and dog knows what other differences. When I arrived, it was a breath of fresh air, very practical in many ways and more liberal and forward thinking. I also liked totally free at use health care, good pay and lower cost of living except for housing in London hotspots. The weather was similar to Melbourne, just colder. The long lazy summer eves on a local green sitting outside a pub watching and participating in a genuinely friendly and sociable game of cricket - everyone seemed chilled and enjoying life. The natural splendour isn't quite that of Australia, and of course the beaches are nowhere near as good. But, I am not a beach person - never have been. Free education while Australia was charging people. And what shocked me was the food, except seafood, was generally better for the average person. Although there were some traditional items that seemed a little off putting. But, it is totally subjective. One thing though - the conservatives ruined the place. When I arrived, I may as well not have left Australia there were so many of us. Slowly, as the advantages to living here declined more and more went back. Post Brexit, I feel I am the only one left

It was

Oi! I am from Melbourne.. Go easy... 😉

Don't remind me! 😉

It was about 43 years ago, but we were paying, as I recall, about $1,200 year or thereabouts to the body corporate.

Yes.. it would be great.. Although, without some of the ECUs and electronic gubbins, emmissions would be worse than today. But keep the tech to where it is needed...