Jerry_Atrick

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.

(just kidding, of course!) Basically Windows 11 is bloatware and spies on you, Yep you can switch off spy mode, just like today you can switch off one drive, but somehow one drive every so often switches itself on. Linux doesn't have bloatware, and doesn't spy on you.. And, it is far more efficient and stable, to boot. So I am going to switch to Linux - and Mint is the particular flabour - for my main desktop which currently runs Windows 10. I use my main desktop to work from home. And to work from home, I to have to connect using Windows. So, to do this from Linux, I am going to install a virtual machine, which is a piece of software that emulates a computer such as a desktop or a lap top. In that virtual machine, I will install Windows 11 so it runs in the emulator environment only and not the whole computer. I should then be able to use that emulator to work from home, while my desktop runs Linux free of bloat and spyware.

For those that are confused by my post, the more I look into Win 11, the more it is about bloatware and controlling/monitoring the user experience. Personally, I have had enough of Windows and will be transforming my main desktop, which is running Windows 10, to a Linux desktop - most likely the mint distirbutiuon: https://linuxmint.com/ Linux does everything that Windows does, but better, and more. There are some issues with device drivers and, although I am not into gaming, some gaming platforms, but that is because those he driver companies and games platform companies don't yet properly support Linux and so the linux community try their own ports to Linux where they can. This is becoming less and less a problem. Although I can install Libreoffice for all of my word, powerpoint, excell, and access needs, I prefer the MS Office Suite (as well out Outlook over Thunderbird. I have a CD version (2019, I think, but ut could be later), so it needs Windows natively to run. No problems. Will install wine (https://www.winehq.org/), and then install MS Office from the disk. Hey presto. There is a product called Citrix. It is a run time environment that allows applications to be easily deployed in Windows environments and then allows highly secure remote access. This pwoers a lot of the companies environments and is most ubiquitous for working from home. We use it. You can install what is called a Citrix Workspace on your own Windows, Linux, or Mac computer and safely access yur work Citrix desktop environment, and it will ensure nothing crosses between it and your personal device. However, for some reason, our company has nobbled Citrix so only the Citrix workspace will work on Windows and Mac machines - not Linux - despite Linux being the safest of all environments. Because instead of having my personal computer running Wndows 11, which I don't want, I will then install a virtual machine, possibly virtualbox https://www.virtualbox.org/. So far, everything is totally free and very functional. I may have to buy an OEM version of Winn 11, as it won't detect a previous Win O/S. At work, we have been told we have to upgrade to Win 11 in orders for Citrix Workspace to allow connections to the work environment. So, I will create a virtual machine (likely on Virtualbox), install Win 11 on it, install the Citrix workspace software and that will be it. When I am working, I will use that to connect to my work machine, but when not in use, it can be switched off and I will be using Linux natively from there on in.. Assumning Citrix works with Win 11 on a Virtualbox.

While the last video points to a stark and bleak existence, the below video largely resonates reflects my thoughts in that AI. I think I have said somewhere in these fora before, unlike previous technology, which created different jobs to what it displaced, AI has the ability to reach critical mass of laying off workers without replacement of the job. I still think that AI cannot develop itself; there will be some prescience required to make the next technological leap. However, it will be bloody good at incremental improvements, which can happen much faster than with humans. I don't fully subscribe to the armageddon scenario is that AI controls itself, which the below vid is about. I am not sure that will ever be the case, though it undoubtedly technologically is able to. I think ti will be controlled by billionaires ultimately, as governments are relying on them to create the AI. The billionaires will only do something if they get a return from it. The problem when AI does cause mass displacement of human labour is that the asset values of the billionaires will diminish because most of the masses will not have money to spend, the assets of the billionaires will no longer derive the sort of income prior, and as business assets are valued based on the income they produce or their sellable value for other uses, if they can be, the wealth of billionaires will reduce. And they won't like that at all. What will keep billionaires' ability to make more money, oddly, is a wealthy population. And anything that derives its value largely from advertising will be the first to decline as advertisers will be slashed. Also, the government will not have any money in the kitty. The very people it has been squeezong instead of the ones it should have been squeezing will have no income or require state welfare. With no money to spend on things like defence, they government will become very exposed. So, it too, relies on a wealthy masses, in the absence of taxing billionaires. Now, to keep the military going and to keep some form of stability as a result, will take some money. The government won't have it, so it will have to tax the billionaires. The billionaires won't like that one bit, so they use their vast resources which have been trasnferring to them from the rest of the populaton for years, and they either buy the military or buy their own. And then that will be the geneises of the next global war - not between countries, but between classes. (Of course, there will be a national backfrop as places like China don't have the billionaire tax issue.. if they don't want it). The government could intorduce a universal basic income to keep the money flowing, but that money has to come from somewhere.. and the lower/middle classes no longer have it. Taxes needed and only the billionaires have it. Hmmm... See above. Notwithstanding, AI wil be churning out all sorts of products and services, but there is no one, except AI, to consume them. And I don't see the need for a lot of things like food, furniture, toys, etc for AI robots, so there is going to be a hell of an oversupply in amny product and service categories because without money, it doesn't matter how cheap the godds and services are made, they won't be able to be purchased in the volumes they are now.. Whole industries go broke, lawlessness breaks out to survice, and the apocolypse is coming. Or we could start now.. start taxing everyone who can bear it fairly; start investing in people, start investing in the masses as well, so they can prepare for what is ahead. There have been a few experiments of applying the universal basic income as a non means tested safety net, and it has been more positive than negative. Ironically, under this system rather than the punitive systems on unemployment benefits these days, there is more econimically active adults, more innovation, and more entrepenureship (sp?).. Of course, to fund it, the billionaires and multi-national corporations would have to pay their tax. Anyway, here is the vid:

On my list of things to do next weekend on my laptop which is about 5 or 6 years old but plenty powerful enough is to put on a virtual machine (have to do the research for the best one), set it up so it thinks it meets all Windows 11 requiements, install windows 11 on it, install the Citrix workstation and see if I can reliably connect to work with it. If so, I am installing Linux (probably Mint) natively on my main desktop which is plenty powerful and installing Win 11 as Citrix will test it has the latest updates before connecting, and then use it only for work. I already know I can run my office suite using wine on Linux.

When it comes to the flu vaccine, I am an anti-vaxxer.. Solely on the basis I don't want to admit my age (and as a result I qualify for it free).

It's not that simple, Spacey.. First, it would be dealt with under military law, I guess, and I have no ideas of what that entails. But secondly, under civilian law, not all deat results in murder. There is murder, manslaughter (2 types - voluntary and involuntary). In New South Wales, there is assault occasioning death. Then there is death by dangerous driving, etc. And as I understand, BR-S is alleged to have did the deed in at least one instance. Under international law, the sooldier who pulled the trigger under orders is deemed as guilty as the commanding officer that ordered it. But there are mitigating circumstances and defences, which may let the guard off. I don't know them all.. but here are a couple that would be availed under civilian law of murder in most commonwealth based jurisdiction: He was an innocent agent, meaning he was commanded in such a way that it was uinreasonable for him not to do it. Given the international law context, this would be highly unlikely. However, while this is usually used where adults have foced children to do the act - the child being the innocent agent, and to ensure that fault lay where it actually was, it has been successful with adults where the innocent agent is either mentally impaired, or under significant duress. You have to have the requisite level of intent. It varies slightly from most states and NSW, however, NSW requires an intent (foreseeability and desire to do something) or reckless indifference to human life (foresseabillity - didn't want to do it, but went through with it anyway - in this case with respect to the possibility of bringing about someone's death). Neither may have had the requiusite level of intent.. There may have been some valid defence in the case of the person who pulled the trigger.. such as a diminished mind, self defence, etc.. that may pull it back to a manslaughter charge And for lesser than murder offences, the requirements of proof are not as high. So, just because the person who pulled the trigger got off, does not mean that he will be found guilty, but does not change the fact that BR-S ordered, or commanded it. Secondly, the question of causation for murder or manslaughter would be a difficult one. BR-S may have commanded the murder, but was it his actions that caused the death, or what it that of the person who did the killing? Conventional law would say the person doing the killing, except BR-S could be held liable through the doctrine of joint criminal enterprise.. And I think that would be test. But we are not talking civilian law; we are talking war crimes. I really don't know much about it but I would think the war crime would be commissioning or commanding an action in violation of the Geneva Convention, in this case, intentional killing of a captive (with no good reason) and intentional killing of a civilianm again with no good reason. I am sure the words would be more technical, but you get my drift. And, indeed, he may still be being investigated while the case may have already been made out against BR-S; there is no dependency to start one before another. And, all of the players in the law enforcement function have discretion - it is well established that, even in a joint criminal enterprise, that just because the crown may charge one person with a lesser offence than the other person for doing the same thing in the enterprise, does not availa the one charge with the more serious offence a right to have that dropped to the lower offence of his or her partner in crime. So, it doesn't follow and it is not even logical that because soldier hasn't been convicted of murder (or some other offence), that you have to let BR-S go..

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-26/donald-trump-launches-putin-tirade-over-russia-kyiv-attacks/105336682 It shows he has little understanding of politics at all.. especially foreign affairs (except of the intimate type, I guess, given his wives come fro Eastern Europe..) Putin has back pedalled on everything he said he would do, and he can't work out what has gone wrong with Putin - he has known him for years and you're fake news... If it wasn't America, it would be a comedy.. But I guess there is one thing to come out of it, a reduced American relevance

Well, here is some "good" military news

Here's something to watch out for:

The defence the journalists and SMH have used to the accusation of defamation was that, on the balance of probabilities, the facts they allege that constitute a war crime did happen. This means that, to the civil standard of proof, which is all that is needed in defamation cases as they are civil cases, BR-S is most likely to have committed war crimes. It hasn't been tested to the criminal standard of proof, which is beyond reasonable doubt. I am not sure if it would be a civilian or military court that decides it (and I think military court cases can be appealed to the High Court, but don't quote me on it - if they can I would imagine it would be behind closed doors). BR-S has tried to use what defamation laws to prove his innoncence. Defamation laws in Australia are generally regared as the ones most likely to favour the claimant/plaintiff, of which BR-S is in this case. It would appear that so far, the courts have held despite this alleged bias in the law, he isn't benefiting fom it and the defence of fact is is justified. As OT points out, there restrictions on what one can appeal to the High Court. New evindence could be one, but I think that would go to a state supreme court or the federal court. Generally, they would entertain an appeal where, on a prima facie basis, there is a material/manifest misapplication of the law, or wherre the facts point to the need for a clarification of the law - i.e. interpreting the law in some series of events or circumstances that have not really been tested before. And sometimes, it can be justiufied that, where the point of law applicable to the facts has been ruled in state courts, of the Federal court, but it is of significant enough importance, that the HHigh Court deems it to be settled by the highest court of the land. I am not sure thjat, from a legal perspective, there is anything new about this case in terms of defamation law. Yes, it is high profile and yes, the defamation is about allegations printed about war crimes, but in defamation terms, investigative reports detailing a person's potential crimes and liability before police or courts have got near it happen all the time. It is one way that perpetrators are brought to justice. So, from what I have seen, there is nothing new to apply to the defamation laws, and I would be very surprised if the circumstances haven;t been tried and appealed before (I do tort and defamation starting in July). As we don't know all of the details of the case, then there may be somethng there, but from what I have seen, this seems open and shut from an application to appeal the decision perspective. What I would like to know is why criminal charges haven't been laid yet? It does not flow that charges are laid automatically if the offence is proved to the civil standard of proof; on investigation of criminal charges, the prosecution team may decide that there is insufficeint evidence to convict to the standard of beyond resonable doubt.

The former idependent member of Goldstien, Zoe Daniels has formally requested a recount after Tim Wilson took the honours by 260 votes. Given the AEC spotted an error during the count to Ryan, it is probably not a waste of time.