Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 4 weeks later...
Posted

Latest news was that Australia continued to fall in corruption standing. We are worse than ever, and our failure to establish an anti-corruption commission is part of the reason.

  • Informative 2
Posted

I thought I understood how corruption would weaken a country militarity, but I thought inequality helped with GDP. After all, thought I , people would strive to be among the rich.

Alas, this turned out to be wrong. Just as people don't want to die for Gina Reinhart's millions of acres, it turns out they don't want to work hard for her next millions....bugger huh?

  • Informative 1
Posted

On a slight tangent, but related to corruption are the proposed changes to the Privacy Act: https://www.theage.com.au/business/companies/deeply-problematic-media-companies-slam-privacy-act-review-20230406-p5cyry.html

 

I am not sure if these were original proposals hung over from the Morrison government, however, if the ALP were as against them as other things, you can be your bottom dollar, it would have already been all over them and announcing yet more malfeasance from the previous government. So, it weill be interesting to see where the ALP land.

 

OK, the objection is from media companies that thrive on reporting drug controversies and affairs of the rich and famous - and that seems all there is that is proffered up as what the public woudl be shielded from. And in some ways, I couldn't give a stuff, except, that whehn it involves public officials - or want-to-be public officials - who may be in a strong conflict of interest in such situations.

 

Will be interesting to see how Doofus takes this forward!

 

Posted

Is the

 

 "Australia’s Right to Know coalition, a group of major Australian publishers"

 

a lobby group and if so, what interests do they lobby for?

 

We already see our attorney general supporting prosecution of whistle blowers who, in my opinion, were reporting events of "national interest". (Alleged war crimes or ATO dubious methods). Sounds to me like this is a new method of muzzling the news.

 

  • Like 2
Posted (edited)

Sorry, to clarify... I would normally agree with:

44 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

Is the

 

 "Australia’s Right to Know coalition, a group of major Australian publishers"

 

a lobby group and if so, what interests do they lobby for?

This, I whole-heartedly agree with:

44 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

We already see our attorney general supporting prosecution of whistle blowers who, in my opinion, were reporting events of "national interest". (Alleged war crimes or ATO dubious methods).

Which is yet another reason I call him Doofus!

 

I don't believe the US is influenciung the charge, because, if there was US involvement, the easiest thing would be to shut the prosecution down and pay the whistleblower off to not mention anything about the US. A lot cheaper than going through with the prosecution (except, we are paying for it).

 

Edited by Jerry_Atrick
  • Like 2
Posted

Why does normal behaviour become newsworthy. We've seen pictures of Albo having a beer at a music festival or something similar. We've seen ScoMo pulling a beer. I can tell you which one I thought was normal behaviour for the average bloke. 

 

The action is not right, but why splash it everywhere  when some footballer's other half complains of Dom Violence. Every day there are hundreds of people dealt with for Dom Violence offences. We don't fill the pages with that stuff, especially since the first news published is simply a report of an arrest. People forget that arrest and charging is only the start of the legal process, and until that process is finalised, the charged person is still to be considered innocent at Law. You'll notice that the media always uses the word "alleged" when first talking about such an event, but the word is hushed over and hidden amongst the sensational.

 

As I understand it, these changes are aimed at stopping the publication of these minor matters, and should not prevent the exposure of major offences that we suspect certain politicians and others of supposed high ranking have committed.

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1
Posted

Would you vote for a politician who has been SHOWN to have poor personal moral fibre?

 

And how do you suppose the average punter might find out about a prospective learder's personal ethical behaviour?

  • Like 1
Posted

Which fibre of a person's morals should one consider? To me, lying and misuse of position are the greatest sins. Addictions can be accepted, provided the addiction hurts no one else. However, these are the results of my considerations. I respect the fact that yours might, and probably are, different.

  • Like 2
Posted

I reckon you are exactly correct OME. Misuse of position is what corruption is all about, and using money so misbegotten can buy a lot of influence. Personally, I reckon crooked judges are the worst of all.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...