Jerry_Atrick

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.

In criminal law, when waorking out the mental element, there are two lenses the law will look at when judging an act - would a rational person have done the same thing.. and would an average person have done the same thing. When you think that these concepts have developed over centuries, the law at least things the average person does not quite hit the standard of the rational person. The notions of both are, of course subjective. And, the rationality of someone will depend on the context. For example, the builder I use is completely rational when it comes to building and has done some amazing things very innovatively. However, when it comes to managing his financial affairs, he is almost completely irrational. Sadly, a lot of people have little interest in politics, apart from the fact they know they are getting screwed by the system. Juts watch Punter Poltiics or Gary's Economics on youtube for some great content about how the average person is getting screwed to the benefiit of corporations and high net-worth individuals. Regardless of who gets in, nothing really changes. Things are marginally better under moderate governments (they are hardly left wing), but the status quo remains. And when governments are tight for money, they squeeze the average people harder... The impact is crushing, people are more pissed off as they see all of the concessions given to the upper end of town when they don't really need it.. The resentment to all sides of politics grows, but they aren't interested enough to delve into it. The sensational press, paid for by the corporates, etc, seed hatred with headlines and, if the readers care to read further, out of context reporting or downright lies, of which it is rare any press regulator holds them truly to account. Of course, the press are sowing hatred in sensatiuonalising things, and the leaders, who often lack moral compasses, use sound bytes to futher the division as they know most people won't hear beyond them. Chump is the consummate.. Sleepy Joe Biden, etc.. Even the trade wars, where he managed to convince his follwers that the exporters would pay them and not jack up their prices.. And let's not forget personal prejudices, which are often passed on from the generation before.. Cast your mind back to your school days.. Dagos, wogs (skips was a much later term), jews, slope-heads, etc.. Kids don't just hatch prejudices. All of this is mixing together with an increasing wealth and social gap, conditioned to believe it is the fault if immigrants, education, progressiveness (now called woke), etc (that is not to say there aren't issues in these things, but they are not the root cause of the issues of wealth and social gaps, and being squeezed out). Muchof Europe was poor before WWII, but Germany was doing it worse because of the controls put on them after WWi. This continual opression led to resentment, which led to acquiescence, if not support of third reich (riech meaning empire). Similar type of language to today - grand sounding, etc. People were pissed off, saw some early improvements when the Nazis took over, and thought this is better than what they had, so lets roll with it. Like Chump, the Nazis started subliminaly dismantling protections and freedoms, and it wasn't until it was too late, the sleepy average person woke up. The same is happening in the USA today. It is partially the failure of the moderates. For all their chest beating of levelling things up and working more the average American, there has been not much in the years they have been in place. Yes, it wasn't as bad as the Republicans, but that doesn't mean things have improved. The minimum wage hasn't moved since 2008, and there have been democrat and republican givernments in that time. Medicaid/Obama Care was a game changer, but, like the abortion issue, only impacts those that are sick enough to need to use it. Otherwise, under both administrations, it has been getting harder and harder for the lower and middle, and easier and easier for the wealthy. So, it does not surprise me that the majority support, or acquiesce to MAGA. I know Trumps ratings are negative at the moment, but when push comes to shove in the USA, who are they all going to vote for. I don't hink anyone picked the win like it was - both houses and the presidecy. It was a sharp rebuke The voter turnout amoongst the eligible population was the same as the last population, significantly up against historical elections, while the percentage against the total population of voting age was down from the last election, but looks around average historically, so increased voter apathy cannot be used as an excuse. It is only going to get uglier before it gets better. But the world is now crying out for leaders who will take bold steps to improve the living standards of the majority of the population and deal with the iussues faced by most of the population. Sadly, there doesn't seem to be any willing to do this, at least in the time required to do so.

Believe it or not, I do enjoy making people laugh. I was in a meeting and we were talking about how a supplier who was brought in to do something wasn't quite doing it so that department had to do it themselves. At which point, I said, "yeah, a bit like buying a dog and still havign to bark yourself." And one person erupted in fits of laughter, having never heard it before, and another said, no doubt an Australian saying...

The Fohn Effect in action!

Jeepers.. Issuing a few of these lately.

Apparentl Walmart increased their prices and he ripped right into them.. The party of the free market..pffft! https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-walmart-eat-tariffs-prices-b2753079.html Now, he looks to be screwing the American economy.. when prices rise and employment falls, and the poop hits the fan, he will probably come under quite some pressure. By then, it will eb too late because of economc lag/inertia. But, it isn't his fault.. It is the fault of the people who knew, or should bloody well ought to have known what he was going to do... andf still voted him in.. Feel sorry for the vast minority of Americans that voted the other way.. But the democratsa did shoot themselves in the foot.

There's probably a minimum number of seats in either house before parliament recognises the political party for the purposes of allowances and support.. If you type this into Google, it will give you an AI response for House of Reps.. "australian federal parliament rules regading recongising a party bor purposes of allowances"

Or AI

Just make sure you back up those precious memories

Bit of a lovers' quarrel?

They're talking about a drought in England this summer..

The mind boggles

Does that mean you can avoid a shark attack if you wear a dry suit?

OK. that was groan worthy... But then, Stormy Daniels came to mind...

Bit of rumpy Chumpy! About as good as anything else he does.

Yes - one of the reasons of the need for massive infrastruture investment in Victoria (and not only Melbourne) is the underinvestment in in many decades prior - from both ALP and Lib governments. And, when it was too neglected to ignore, the kitty was already bare. I don't think anyone is advocating completely stopping the investment. But to take the tree metaphor, if we plant that many tree that they all compete for resources and wither and die, or the wrong trees, or in the wrong place, then it will be all for nought. I get that the 'burbs are developing in the west at a rapid rate. The Western corridor between Weribbee and Laverton, and the surrounds (Tarneit, etc) are well developed now, and of course, the development connecting Laverton to Deer Park via Truganina, Derrimut and the like, and the development north of Deer Park, and west towards Rock Bank require infrastructure. But aren't they adequately serviced by the Domain Tunnell/Westgate, and the Western Freeway as well as the Ring Road? Do we even need more roads, rather than focus on investment in developing convenient public transport as part of an urban mobility capability? Id following a USA based urban planning method the right thing for Melbourne? So we have a question of are we planting too many trees, and the right type of tree. And If we look at the Metro tunnel development, given the current access to Sunshine, do we need another tunnel from the Shrine to Sunshine? Is it the right location? The SRL may be a good investment as it invests in PT across the city; not using a hub and spoke system which only works if you want to go to the hub or not far from it. But if I lived in Werrbbee and wanted to go to Cheltenham, I am probably still better off using the car or go into Flinder Street and change trains to the Frankston line. What may be better than all those roads, is one or two more inner rail loops - possibly underground, so people can move more freely across the city. Herer is a London "Tube" Map. It shows interconnecting routes, and additional non-tube routes which can be used to negotiate the city. Didn't need a car when we lived in London, and only take one in as it is cheaper than the inter-city rail. Once in London, car doesn't move until until I need to get home. My niece and her boyfriend moved to London from Sydney about 6 months ago. They had to buy a car because their work is in the boon docks outside London, but they love London. Of course, the tubes run a lot more regularly than the trains in Melbourne and I guess Sydney, but that can be upped.. With a clean efficient, and unlike London, cheaper method of transport (Brisbane metro fares are at 50 cents, they don't have to be that cheap, but reasonably cheaper than a car), the roads would decongest somewhat, too.

John Gault's facebook page is here: https://www.facebook.com/john.gault.96/ He is not originally from the coutnry from what I can see.. Oakliegh is modest south eastern suburb of Melbourne. But, he has clearly made some money off the land, and is clearly right wing, looking at some of his posts. I agree that those who have the means to pay more should.. but that is somethign that is a wider discussion than this particular tax. For example, we are still giving our gas away to multinationals for free - shouldn't they pay for it.. they certainly have the means? The tax system has to be fairer, I agree. Also, you're right the government coudln't give two stuffs about your business, but there are other non-agri businesses that, if you took away the subsidies, would probably go broke - fossil being one. You have to whinge like a pom to get the government to care 😉

Here is a story on it: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-16/fire-levy-vote-passes-parliament-angers-farmers-emergency-tax/105295008 I agree with Nev, but there are different ways to manage it. As I recall, Australia generally had an unspken policy that those in rural and remote areas deserved a similar level of utilities (as far as practical) as more urban areas and that the bills for such utilities included the cost of supplying those areas - i..e there was a sort of defacto subsidisation. I recall some controversy over Telecom's bills in the day, but it was a generally accepted part of life in Aus. I don't see why rural Victoria, especially farmers would be required to disproptionately pay, especially when they are doing it fairly tough at the moment. The way I see it, the Allan government has made a pretence of everyong pitching in, but the reality, the ones disproprtionately pitching in are the ones that are unlikely to vote for her in 18 months' time. There are other ways to manage it. For example, there are still massive infrastructure investments, mainly in roads and the Tulla railway that could be paused or slowed to allow the economy to rebalance and breathing room to maintain the essentials. But that would mean probablyk releasing a heck of a lot of tradies works companies to compete in the normal market, which would probably drive prices lower, and since these people will be largely dran from ALP supporters, that will hit her already low relection chances. She could do what Jeff Kennett did when he took over from Joan Kirner and add a flat increase for a defined period of time to council rates, but that would impact far ore people from her voter base and she doesn't have the luxury of blaming the current woes on the other team.. She is also, as Joan Kirner was when she took over, captive to her party and backroom vested interests. Yes, the Libs leader would also be captive to their party ideology and vested factional interests, but having the luxury of blaming the other team is a very potent one in politics. What else can she do? The room to manoeuvre for any state premier isn't great. She can look at marginal increases to all of the revenue channells she has available to her. Here is a list: https://www.dtf.vic.gov.au/state-taxation-revenue. At the moment, the state revenues are $35bn or thereabouts. A 1% increase across the board will increase the coffers by $350m. I am not sure if that is what is required.. I can't find an amount the government say they need for the the fire service. But it should go a good way to what is needed.

.

Himself ragged 10 miles