Jerry_Atrick

I think Nev means within his own supporter base as well... Except for the magamanaics, of course.

Right thread this time: Posted 44 minutes ago I have a 2013 XC90 Diesel.. 2.2l rated at 225bhp when new. We purchased it 1 year old with 10k miles on the clock. It now has 150,000 miles. This was the last of the old shape. They had a reputation for not great build quality, and there have been a few cosmetic issues with it. Within warranty it threw a turbo gate (waste) valve, which was covered under warranty. Other than that, it has had a bearing in the altnerator go, which was £30 for the bearing and £280 for labour at a local independent.. There was a problem with a prop shaft, but the local independent fella tweaked it for naught and it has run fine since. It does fo through tyres, though... Worked out to use Michelens that are all season and they hold up well.. Fuel economy for such a heavy car is pretty good - averages around 30mpg on the motorway, whihch was admittedly most of its driving. Since the ULEZ charge was implemented across the wider London area, I don't drive it anywhere near as much, still love it.

The next thing they could do is get rid of $1 & $2 bills.. I havebn't been to the US in over twent years a\nd even back then, your wallet was stuffed with stuff that was pretty worthless.

Looks like Vlad is going to have to order a few more planes: https://www.theage.com.au/world/europe/ukraine-destroys-11b-worth-of-russian-bombers-in-surprise-drone-attack-20250602-p5m418.html And not behind a paywall: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/01/ukraine-launches-major-drone-attack-on-russian-bombers-security-official-says

In case you thought that meme was not quite right: I have to disinfect my computer now.

Looks shopped

Your 'aving a larrf

Of a different type of "footy", what is it about soccer that brings out the worst in people? I can understand in the northern areas of England, where they spend more on soccer than anything else, and for many, it is all they have in their lives? But Australia? A mate of my brother is English and when he sees a riggers or AFL game, he is fine; as soon as the round ball comes out, be takes on a new personality and goes totally aggressive. In Melbourne, they blocked off Swan street asa people were going troppo: I started my days playig Aussie rules, but as a 62kg 5'6" rover getting knocked out a few times, my father suggested I play soccer instead. The players in that code were not quite of body-on-the-line as ruggers or AFL, which allowed me to quickly establish a regular spot on the side - I imprted a bit more physicality into our team. But the fans go nuts! I was playing in one of the more senior leagues in Vic - we used to get a couple of hundred to our games, and a few times we had to stop the game because if pitch invasions or the police having to stop the game because of crowd violence. I stopped playing when I was 19. Yeah, there has been some violence at AFL and rugby games, but nothing like soccer. I gave it away when I was 19 as it wasn't worth the off-pitch aggro, and the general environment was not as colegiate as in the other major codes.

Gentlemen, I present to you, the new @Marty_d:

All levles are pretty bad... With prok barelling, corruption and the like, it doesn't matter what level/s you get rid of.. All the carp will persist at whatever levels are left.

Takes balls, but this is what is needed: https://www.ft.com/content/39d4678d-a7e1-4fce-b8d8-eb799cfed3e6

The other thing to think about, is that if each successive government takes over an economy that is worse than when the previous government took over, unless there is massive real growth in the economy, there is an ever diminishing capability of the government to meet the demands of a progressively more complex society and balance the books/stimulate that real growth without people being prepared to pay more. Quite remarkably, I read yesterday in the F, that in the UK, 53% of households are net recipients of government welfare disbursements. That is not sustainable in the long term. However, when you tell business to pay their people properly, they scream it will make them uncompetitive nationally and internationally, drive up prices, etrc. The reality it all has to be paid for eventually. I was reading an article in The Age today, that was a syndication of the UK Terrorgraph, singing the praises of Musk in DOGE (and referring to the didgy savings claimed by musk with no challenge). One thing that I did agree with what Musk was quoted as saying.. The west is in a downard spiral with no real exit until it goes broke.. The level of debt globally are astronimical (and you think Vic has problems). There is one way to fix it, but it will be politically unpalatable because taxing those that have the means, will result in a campaign against the politicians, and they don't want to fight that one.

How progressive of you, Spacey 😉

Secton 6 of the Controlled Weapons act deals with carrying (concealed or not) controlled weapons, of which a machete is likely to be included: https://content.legislation.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-03/90-24aa075-authorised.pdf Basically it is illegal to carry one without a lawful excuse. There are different penalties that apply based on where it is carried.

That sums up perfectly what he and his mates are about. Nothing about doing what's best.

What is the cost.. and is any money to be made from developing these residential towers - or are they all social with rents designed to fund ongoing maintenance and operating costs? I am not sure how much Richmond station needs to be refreshed, but the state certainly needs housing, so it is a question of can the state afford not to do it? However, I guess if the state can't fund c $3.8m/year for womens crisis housing: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/new-high-security-shelters-for-women-in-crisis-to-sit-empty-during-family-violence-epidemic-20250529-p5m36a.html?ref=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_source=rss_national (bhind a paywall, but turn off javascript), then things must be dire financially. But, you forget, the Allan government has very little room to move. I am not saying she is great or anything like that, but her taking on the premiership was taking on a poisoned chalice. Yes, she was part of the Andrews' government and is partially to blame. But, Victoria's debt woes have been in the making for many years; the differnce being at least Andrews invested in the state - most necessary, but some not so. The economic performance of Napthine/Bailieau saw some minor increase in growth, mainly attributed to a population influx. However, debt continued to grow, productivity contracted and overall longer term investment slowed. At least Andrews' brought strong, albeit unsustained growth to Victoria and the money stayed more or less in the state. Allan has some real challenges now that the core Australian economy is slowing, the effects of COVID (some arguably self-inflicted). Remember Ted Baillieu (I will get the Spelling right) dramatcially resigned leaving a difficult economic predicament for Napthine, who was unceremoniously booted out by the electorate. But, we also forget, in terms of the Australian economy, the states have less direct control over the direction of their economy than the federal government. So, for Baillieau/Napthine, they had the same challenges. And this is the reason why I asked are state governments now effectively redundant? For example, although a lot of politics was made out of Andrews attempting a Victorian trade agreement with China (and I also disagree with that notion), it was overruled by the federal government and no challenge was made to the High Court about the constitional validity of either side (though the constitution is poretty clear it vests with teh federal government). Andrews say a way of improving growth an investment with a trade agreement with China - rightly or wrongly - but he couldn't pull that lever in an attempt improve the economy. State governments can't raise income tax, sales tax, etc.. Yet, they are responsible for education, health, legal systems (we have different laws in many areas per state), social services, etc. So, can the Vic Labor government get any worse? Of course it can.. But it is not a Labor specific thing, except if you believe the press that has the highest concentration of ownerships which over-dramitises Labor and gives a free pass to the Lib/Nats..

I know they have acted as a buffer when Aussies have been dumb enough to elect Abo and SFM to power, but can Australia still afford state givernments? Maybe because of the last two governments I mentioned, Austalia can't afford to be without them

Er.. hard to blame it on her.. it's symptomatic of all sorts of issues outside her control

Apparently a trade court has found the justification for his executive orders for tarrifs is illegal. It will be appealed but the Whitehouse is saying it is not the preserve of unelected judges to stand in the way of fixing a national emergency.. but the declaration of the national emergency is what the learned judge found to be illegal

And then they 8 them

I would hate for them to be in government, though.. I have voted for both sides.. long time ago, admittedly.

This is true, but in finding for the defendants, the judge has said BR-S has been proven on the balance of probabilities to have committed a war crime and also illegally killed a person.. This would have been necessary for the defence to succeed. It is not proven to the criminal standard. When Chump was sued for damages for rape, it was proven to the same standard. He has not been found criminally liable for rape, so can't technically be called a rapist That's why you should leave it to the professionals

Lovers' spat seems to be over for now as the Libs an Nats kiss and make up

Sorry Spacey.. that is not a point at all... Just because someone kills someone does not mean they are guilty of murder... But, if two people are invovled in the same killing, it is entirely feasible that one is guilty of murder and one of the lesser offence, or may be not guilty due to the cicrumstances.. The law is complex to make sure those that are only guilty of intentionally (or in the case of NSW, with reckless indifference to human life) are found guilty and we don't find people who fall short of the criminal liability for murder are not found guilty of it. Note, both intention and reckless have specific meanings in law that are narrower than normal parlance. That doesn't mean they won't be found guilty of another offence related to killing a person.

Although a confession may result in a trial for murder, it is not necessarily the case. People confess for all sorts of reasons including pressure, guilt, or wanting to come out of the cold - as well as remorse for what they have done. Or they do it to protect a loved one from the clink. Different mental states will also weigh on a confession. What will definitely happen as the result of a free and voluntary confession of anything, particularly murder is an investigation. Remember, the bar to proving murder is quite high and someone saying they murdered them will not necessarily go to trial if there is not enough supporting evidence, or they may go to trial for a lesser offence. I read an article not too long ago that in Australia, about 20% of murderers who were convicted mainly on the evidence of a confession have had their convictions quashed since. Admittedly, a lot of this was where the police conduct in those confessions was of questionable nature, from downright threats and duress to leading questions and refusing answers until the right ones that matched the confessions were provided. Just because someone confesses to something doesn't mean they will go to trial for it. The courts will still want some evidence to back up the confession that meets the bar for finding guilt.