Jerry_Atrick

I can't say I agree with everything the Ausdie or state parliaments do, but what have they done that deserves the traitor moniker?

So, sexual abuse is tolerable or even OK especially when allegedly committed by a person with disproportionate power?

Maybe because statistically, you're more likely to be killed by a horse or cow: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-27/sharks-snakes-crocodiles-horses-australias-most-dangerous/10534786

Biden's recent legacy is holding on too long during the campaign as a runner and leaving it too late for the Democrats to pick a leader and take a strategy to the people, thereby allowing Trump in. We always save the worst for the reminders. I have to admit, you can throw the middle east and Ukraine conflict on ineffectiveness, as he really dragged his heals on both. And, then of curse, there is Hunter Biden issue, too. But let's not have too short memories - the egregious pardons by Trump in his last presidency, and the ones he promises for his next tenure leave Biden's way in the rear view mirror. However, domestically, his inflation reduction act brought economic respite to very tough times and is forward thinking in infrastructure investment as well as tackling real issues about the environment. In addition, his general economic policies, social agenda, etc have so far born fruit as just about all economic indicators are up from the previous "administration" The long term cost of the inflation reduction act is to play out.. A lot more debt on an already debt-burdened country can result in outcomes not consistent with what is being sought.

The justice department's policy is to not pursue criminal proceedings against a sitting president. So much for equality of the law. US courts and judges are politically appointed. The fact Biden didn't interfere with the process speaks volumes. I am not entirely defending Biden, but how many of us would act differently in his shoes compared to acting differently to what Trump has done and is likely to do

There are no doubt some acts or consequences that are binary. Strict liability offences, the most common ones being road offences, only requires that you do the thing - e.g speeding and you are liable. It is binary Are you going faster than the limit even by a small amount - yes,, you can be done if the policeman is not in a good mood But most criminal offences and almost all civil wrongs (not all), will have a lot left open for interpretation. Yes, for some offences, the outcome has to be binary - you can't have a murder charge without a dead body - except you can.. People have been convicted of murder despite there being no dead body, so even murder requires a binary outcome - the missing person is presumed dead. But for many areas, it is malleable, or at least not black and white. In criminal law, you need the actus reus (guilt act) and the mens rea (guilty mind); except for strict liability offences and attempted charges, where you intended the guilty act, and did something positive to commission the guilty act, but it didn't come off. As you mentioned in this discussion - what is the presenter or interviewee introduces some vague truth connected to the untruth. At what point does the introduction of truths nullify the untruths? You will often see in legisation the term "material" or "materially".. And then you have this thing called intent to prove - all beyond reasonable (which is a higher bar than the average person) doubt. When cases go to court, there is nothing about the law to argue - everyone more or less knows the law - the question becomes, based on the facts of the case, what about the law applies, and is the person guilty of it. And then, what was the harm done. To take our Joe Rogan interview above, what if the interviewee had been entirely accurate about the PEPs but inaccurate about the debanking stuff? Of what happens if he had of preceded most of his points with "in my opinion... " or, "I think... ".. What happens then? Ultimately, the lawyers will argue their version of how the law applies, taking into account the legislation and any precedents, and attempt to sway the judge/jury of the answer... Often you will read an article about some case where the outcome seemed to defy all reason and at odds to previous decisions. One has to remember that the judge and, if applicable, 12 ordinary members of society have heard all the evidence provided, and reached a conclusion of facts and how the law applied to them.

I have a good quality mask with filters that were just replaced.. The crap on those boards probably includes all sorts of ship. Like most things done by my predecessor, the original flooring is oak - old stuff, so quite hard. And she placed some pine in between when things needed to be repaired as it was cheap. I scratched the surface of the pine first, and then thought you beauty - easy peasy. Well, not quite.. The area is too small for a floor sander to do anything meaningful, so will probably belt sand it with 40 grit... and then 80 and then 120

Heard of contributory negligence? In criminal it is often the case that there will be multiple charges for the same act so as to get them for something But even if guilty or not as a binsry iption, the application of the law to facts can be very difficult with the decision no certainty

I agree.. which is why I think rushing this through without full public consultation is dangerous. I would argue they don't have to have factually complete conclusions; they can be totally illogical as long as they aren't concealing facts or mistaking them We can make up our own minds with the facts. If a media organisation purport to be telling the facts they should be held to account as they are an unelected force in our political system

This is a common misconception. If the law was black and white, we would have no need for different methods of statutory interpretation nor a need for precedent.. and civil law is far more nebulous than criminal..

Trump said he'd be a dictator for a day.. he is living up to that promise

I don't think I am trying to reduce everything to black and white.. it's a question of how far to go without infringing on a right to free speech. Does the introduction of a verifiable fact that is very loosely connected and doesn't alter the total untuthful message absolve someone from liability? As an example if the interviewee said PEPs are both left and right of the political divide, but maintained the untruth of what a PEP is and why it is bad for consumers, would that be OK? We already have laws against lying in court - perjury.. how do they go about proving the facts? Th US banking system ensures there are a good number of independent regional and local players, which is very different to Australia's system. The ads and their websites employed deceptive advertising using common parlance to claim they were banks, with the small print saying they weren't, and claiming deposits were covered by the FDIC,when they weren't. I don't know too many people that look up ASIC or the PRA to check if the newly launched bank is really a bank. And defunded enforcement agencies that people have become accustomed to can't keep up. The law doesn't protect foolishness, but it would seem reasonable to protect the average person in the market especially where a person's financial wellbeing is involved

I meant to reply to this earlier... Because free speech today seems to be equivalent to lying about facts to support an opinion, as opposed to expressing an opinion (whether or not they are supported by facts), there would obviously have to be limits. Here's a video of a somewhat satirically educative youtuber I follow: The facts seem very easy to establish, however, what is really concerning is how the internet allows likes to propagate through seemingly informative podcasts in this case, complete lies designed to misinform the audience and pursaude a case for defunding an institution designed to protect people. The area of the Joe Rogan podcast touches some of the work I do; I didn't need to wait to the end of the video to know it was a complete untruth and would be able to be easily proved to be so. In terms of holding people to account for what is designed to influence people to resist institutions designed to protect them (we are going throught he same thing here with the European Court of Human Rights). the application of criminal jurispridence could well assuade your concerns. I am not sure what the question Whose facts means? Facts are facts that can be proved objectively. Otherwise they are a theory/statement/guess,. but not facts. But we can, using criminal jurisprudence, address some of the questions. For example, the standard of proof would have to be that the facts are objectively proveable beyond reasonable doubt - and that an untruth (not yet a lie) is one that materially contradicts the facts - such that there is no way the untruth could be construed to be in anyway to accord with the facts (in the context of the discussion). And, to make it a lie, it would have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the person intended it to be a lie or was reckless to its fact, again in the context of the discussion. Once you hit those two hurdles, you are fairly sure that is was a lie, and these standards are requireed for most crimes. You could add to the law that for anyone to be liable, there has to be an evident attempt to pursuade the audience of something in the interests of the liar or ayone connected to the discussion at the time.. It ain't perfect, but its a start and requires further debate and discussion to get it almost right. That is why rushing it through would have probably been worse... Although I hadn't seen the bill so have no idea of its merits.

Well, we have had to take matters into our own hands Bought a random orbital sander and got out the belt sander to do the vestibule floor.. I thought it was soft wood, but f! me, it is some hard wood. Have been at it all afternoon and this is all I have got done: I am thinking of just ripping it all up, planing it and putting it back, and have to buy new skirting boards And to make matters worse, I can't find the dust bag for the belt sander, so there is sawdust everywhere.

I liken Albo to a cross between SFM and Joan Kirner. SFM because, at a political level, he was a party enforcer that managed to get to the top more on the failings of others than his own leadership merit. Joan Kirner, because at the time the electorate were calling for something to be done, he and his party hasn't done much and propogate the status quo.. and does little to debumk the perception that all of the pollies (at least for the majors) are the same. The electoral donations reform are thee to preserve the two party stronghold, and what do you get with a duopoly? Two snouts atthe trough, but not much competition. Here are two vids of toobers I follow - both would seem to normally align themselves more towards Labor than LNP style ideologies, but even they can't find too much to like about how Albo is progressing with these electoral reforms (well, they find some good things about it, but not a lot). What I didn't know what that similar reforms were made in Victorian politics and guess what? Virtually no more independents and only 7 Greens across both houses of the Vic parliament.

Timnes have changed in the UK, too. Neither of my kids birth certificates list the exact address of birth - one London, the other Surrey..

Yes.. but be careful whatyou ask for... my son is thinking he quite likes Hobart.. we could end up too close for comfort 😉

That's your choice. I have never had to put an address in as a place of birth..

Friday's gripe... London's trai.. er.. stuff it..life's too short to be a grumpy old man.. I am inviting Wolfie around 😉

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/museum-of-political-disasters-truth-bill-dies-as-greens-join-coalition-to-block-it-20241122-p5ksx0.html?js-chunk-not-found-refresh=true https://greens.org.au/news/media-release/greens-vote-against-aged-care-legislation-labor-caves-coalition-and-profit admittedly, this is from their website, but will take at face value their claims https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/explained-the-governments-stalled-housing-agenda-and-why-the-greens-are-opposing-it/wnvzf1i2u But for a list of all bills that failed, including those not sponsored by the government, here is the complete list: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_not_passed_current_Parliament?drt=2&drv=7&drvH=7&pnu=47&pnuH=47&f=26%2f07%2f2022&to=29%2f11%2f2024&ps=10&ito=1&q=&bs=1&pbh=1&bhor=1&pmb=1&g=1&st=1&sr=1 Not all bills rejected were done purely on ideological grounds, either. I personally think the housing bill fell far short of meeting any aim apart from keeping asset managers under Costello rich... I wouldn't have supported it, either as the economics of direct investment in housing would have reaped far more back into the economy than using a $10bn fund to support housing off the profits of the funds, which had to have their asset management fees deducted first. Of course, when you control a media organisation, you can write the narrative so everyone tings the Greens were thwarting genuine efforts to relieve the housing crisis. I call that BS. But you can't deny, a lot of government sponsored bills were frustrated in the senate. Maybe Albo doesn't want to call an early electon - he has so far said it is not happening, and to then call one will even weaken his position further. So, maybe he was hankering for a double dissolution.

Yes, this is true; most notably the public housing fund being one of them. However, when you delived into the detail of the proposal, it should have been sunk as it is never going to realise its aims. Of course, something is better than nothing. However, this is all part and parcel of the political process in Australia and has been for a long time. It has been rare in modern political times that a political party has held the majority in both chambers to ease through the regulatoy agenda. Whilst I am sure there have been previous governments that have rammed through legislation at the last minute, I can't recall the same magnitude - but accept that may come down to reporting. The reality is Albo has made himself an easy target for the press to get eyeballs and they are taking advantage of it. A lot of the laws are perfunctory and procedural such as tidying up wording or replacing the "Queen" with the Mornarch or some such term. However, there are a couple that warrant a full and fair debate as well as adequate consultation before passing; the laws of unintended consequences may prevail in these situations. For example (although I admit, I have yet to read ther changes yet): The ban on social media for under 16s can cause as much metnal health issues as it solves. For example, it could isolate kids that are in more rural areas; it could push them to the dark web, which should be banned for everyone, but will be where they see a lot worse than on Facebook or Youtube, or even X; it could drive them to porn, etc. Not well thought out laws can cause more probloems than they solve. The changes to immigration laws dealing with refugees, at least by this report, would probably even make SFM cringe: https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/trump-would-love-these-terrifying-laws-why-are-we-passing-them-without-proper-debate-20241128-p5ku9e.html. Surely the minimum guarantee of deportation to a safe country should be thought of. Would we want to send people to likely mistreatment of their death? Also telling is what he didn't want to put through - such as the establishment of a federal environmental protection agency with teeth, and an independent environmental data collection agency to allow better decision making on more data. I think he has unwittingly set himself up a showdown with Plibersek and this seemed to have at least cross-bench if not cross party support, as well as was well consulted according to reports.

Let's play the ball and not the man.. With all due respect, Nev proffers up an opinion based on reported facts. Because he doesn't blindly accept what he reads and points out why, based on other reported facts which are omitted from the general news on this provides a fuller picture.. this is a positive IMHO.

Seriously, it isn't me who is getting worked up over this.. we can all express feelings.. but let's have a convo about things because life isn't black and white.. You can still disapprove..

Again.. this is just a beat up.. place of birth? I don't recall ever putting hospital down. Usually it's Melbourne. Occasionally Footscray, never Footscray hospital. Seriously, why whip oneself into a frenzy? Life is too short to be angry over nothing