Jerry_Atrick

Apparently, British tanks are being used in the incursion into Russia, and there is a lot of debate abot whether that should be the case.. Many people that call into talk back radio are concerned about poking the bear and its consequences. Apart from the fact we would normally shoot a rabid maniac bear, very few of the population here seem to have cottoned onto the fact that the Russian military has shown to be in disarray and under resourced, an under-maintained both in people and hardware/tech.

Yeah... This is the problem with th education system. Eveyday finance should be a mandatory subject at early high school. If you can understand basic maths, you can understand basic rules of finance and consumer law.. He may be an "idiot" for doing it, but if he has never been educated about what can happen if a company that owes you something goes broke, a bit of a hard word in a vulnerable situatiuon, and you have this issue. In the UK, many flying schools offer bhig discounts for big upfront payments, especially the commercial training world. Many go under owing a lot of money/training to consumers/students. I thin k Soar aviation in Melb did the same thing..

I'm not sure he had the stamina for that..

Reminds me of this oldie: Wife: "So, on your first night of being a gigolo, how much did you make?" Hubby: "$03.33" Wife: What miserly woman gave you 33 cents!?" Hubby: "All of 'em"

No wonder I don't catch much when I go fishing.

Kids didn't comit crimes in the era of corporal punishment? I think you will find the stats have little correlation to the era of corporal punishment - there were cycles of high and low rates of youth offending (oddly, these cycles are correlated to non-youth offending).. with the 1900;s high low in the 30s and escalating well past the 50s. Of course, a pure rate is useless as you have to categorise the crime - in days gone by, petty crime was pursued yet it is hardly reported today let alone working out who the offender was. In fact, did it not just mean those likely to misbehave became canny at not getting found out by their parents (until the police got involved)? Are you saying kids today don't know right from wrong? They may at the moment be more cavalier than they were only a couple of years ago, but that doesn't mean they don't know right form wrong. There are, but oddly your example doesn't sound like a crime.. But were kids not influenced before tech.. Remember the famous (or infamous) "dares", where kids wourld be dared into doing all sorts of things. Tech spreads it quicker, but is was certainlyu around in thiose days, and it didn't take long for new things from others got around... I was speaking to a bloke in the pub a few years ag o - respectable civil engineer who as a teenager stole the odd car to impress the girls... as well.. Seems like pretty women were influencers back then, too. No, but this has been going on for years (well, maybe not hte police helicopter thing); youth gangs well before more "liberal approaches" were adopted mainstream and some of them were bloody violent. The increase in tech available, including the police filming, etc, makes it more accessible to the public. Funny how they turn off their body cams, for example, when they want to. Your argument is like saying, society is increasingly fragmented and needs to be brought back together. The society was very close and looking out for each other during WWII ; we need another war to bring society back together. Prove causation, an you have a point. There apparently is evidence (I say apparently as this is a what I was taught at a criminology class - but can;' be arsed looking it up) a correlation between removing corporal punishment from school and reduction in vikolence at schools. It may well be a coincidence, though.,

Ahh.. we have a double D size - perfect!

Sadly, another example of relying on press beat-ups to come to a conclusion. My experience is anecdotal, but as a young-an, I first enjoyed life in the serene suburb of Kew East in Melbourne. Hardly a dust up in school; no bullying to note, and virtually no crime, let alone youth crime. Then, after my parents split, life was turned upside down in the suburb of Glenroy, a lower-income suburb next to Broadmeadows, where it was the polar opposite. I had never before heard of a street gang, burglaries, car theft, etc - much of it committed by youth and there was one kid in our class who's father's profession was burglary. No second prizes for guessing how that kid ended up (I coincidentally googled his name and area and some old newspaper articles came up). Oh, and not to mention the schoolyard violence and bullying.. I think you can see a picture emerging. But it went a bit deeper than that. The school I left in Kew East, admittedly early, the teachers were committed, and Mr. Stanton (one always remembers a great teacher) started teaching us electronics in grade 3. The next year, it was like stepping into a child minding centre.. it's not that the teachers were not committed - there were a couple I recall, including Mr. Parker, who worked tirelessly - but against under-funding and disinterested parents and kids. It was quite the world apart - and Kew East was decidedly middle class at the time - not like Kew, Malvern, Hawthorn, and the like. The press are great at beating things up - which sells papers and brings eyeballs to the screen near you; all , which forms popular opinion. Sadly, they rarely put a balanced set of facts across and the next thing you know, society is baying for blood. A quick Google search will tell you Victoria has the second lowest rate of youth offending, only beaten by the ACT and SA; Given the socio-economic makeup of the ACT, that is not a bad effort. It will also yield that despite a sudden rise in youth crime last year, Victoria still has 5% less youth crime than it id in 2019 (pre-pandemic) and it was on the decrease then. Is it coincidence the spike came at a time of a cost of living crisis and an increasing epidemic of anxiety. Vic has recently abandoned the reform to up the age of criminal responsibility to 14 thanks to one highly publicised incident. To be honest, I haven't done the research, but the articles I quote below say it is a waste and resources would be better spent attacking the root cause to prevent it from happening in the first place. And it will probably be a lot cheaper in the long run. https://www.mondaq.com/australia/crime/1475994/youth-crime-in-australia-an-in-depth-analysis-of-trends-and-statistics#:~:text=Youth crime in Australia – Victoria&text=In 2023%2C crimes committed by,aggravated burglary and vehicle theft. Is a fairly high level overview. I would be concerned why in one year there was a marked increase in Victoria in youth crime. What was the sudden change. Given there were no sudden changes in the law or enforcement, nor social services, I would suggest the idea that the we are suddenly "molly-coddling these c**ts". What has changed? Maybe that is a better place to start. From this article: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jul/12/amid-claims-of-a-youth-crisis-victorias-approach-is-working-advocates-say, "Murray says all data is “open to interpretation” but most of those working the sector know they are dealing with a “small group of kids” in a “small number of postcodes”. And this article shows despite the spike recently, the trend has been lowering youth crime: https://youthlaw.asn.au/the-facts-in-youth-crime/ Its a bit like the DV Murder - there was a spike and the press beat it up as if it was a chronic problem. Both issues have the potential to be a chronic problem, but in these cases the experts may well have the better ideas to resolve (or reduce, as you will never totally resolve) the issue. BTW, I forgot about this: https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/aug/14/alarming-surge-in-mental-ill-health-among-young-people-in-face-of-unprecedented-challenges-experts-warn Look at some of the root causes identified... The news rarely makes much of a meal of that, because it would offend their advertisers, and therefore, revenue.

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