facthunter Posted July 12, 2023 Posted July 12, 2023 That's not the issue He's licenced whether he keeps paying or not. It would hardly be a big sum and it's his choice of whether he takes advantage of his position on this matter or not. Surrendering the licence is not a requirement. It's unlikely to be demanded and Charles may decide it's not a good look which would be fair enough. Nev
Jerry_Atrick Posted August 26, 2023 Author Posted August 26, 2023 Here's the next instalment of the synopis.. this time Week 7. It is long - 1.5 hours.. But well worth the watch. The coal face personnel of the department were in no way unclear in their memory of wehat went on, while those senior public servants were very haxzy.. It makes you wonder how they can be claim to be experienced professionals if they can't remember that experience to apply it to theiur jobs? What is amazing is that even in the face of objective evidence, they can deny they knew about income averaging or fdor some reason they can't explain, they came to a different conclusion than emails they either read or authored themselves. One senior public servant claimed they did not even understand the email they wrote at the time! Good on Legal Aid and good on Professor Peter Hanks - as well as Deanna Amato - for finally casting this chapter of iinjustice to the history books., Made my blood boil... 1 1
facthunter Posted August 27, 2023 Posted August 27, 2023 The sheer Nastiness and Vindictive nature of this foul exercise should NEVER be forgotten. Smirko doesn't admit any wrong doing. Now widely viewed as Australia's WORST PM ever. Nev 1 3
old man emu Posted August 27, 2023 Posted August 27, 2023 ScoMo was the leader of the parliamentary arm of a political party. He became PM because of that party's parliamentarians voted for him to be their leader. All those parliamentarians who supported him as leader are accomplices in what he did. 3
Old Koreelah Posted August 29, 2023 Posted August 29, 2023 …and that same gang is currently having great success undermining efforts to recognise our indigenous people- over a century after NZ went much further and reserved seats in Parliament for their indig. Australia, the land of could-a-been. 1
red750 Posted August 29, 2023 Posted August 29, 2023 There are already 11 indigenous members of parliament, hundreds of indigenous representative bodies, as well as the National Indigenous Australians Agency with a staff of 1,400. If the government opened their ears, they wouldn't need a change of the Constitution to hear what the indigenous Australians want and need. If they don't listen now, they never will, Voice or no Voice. 3
spacesailor Posted August 29, 2023 Posted August 29, 2023 It will divide the nation. Who-so-ever looses . Will NOT be happy . SO there will be NO winner . So much money spent , without anything constructive being achieved. The polies are trying to get Names into history . spacesailor 1 1
Jerry_Atrick Posted September 14 Author Posted September 14 Back to the Robodebt royal commission. It has already been a year since it concluded. And what has been done? 1
nomadpete Posted September 14 Posted September 14 Our illustrious leaders of the nation have chosen to wait, pontificate, & hide from basic ethics and fainess, until the whole issue fades from the public consciousness. 2
facthunter Posted October 13 Posted October 13 The ones you see there are no longer in Politics. although Sco Mo has landed a plum job. Nev
Jerry_Atrick Posted October 14 Author Posted October 14 That does not excuse no action, and justice delayed is also justice not done. ScoMo's conduct certainly looked like a prima face case of perjury; and the evidence tended certainly looked like a prima facie case of public malfeasance. The others also have allegations to answer. The NACC said they wouldn't investigate as the Royal Commission had already investigated and there was nothing more to investigate or be gained by investigating. Their remit is not to make political judgements, but to investigate poential corruption and abuse of position. They did not come out and say that there was no case to answer. It makes no difference whether those involved have moved on or not. If there is a case to answer, there is a case to answer. Of course, the sealed section of the rRoyal Commission report, and the secrecy of the NACC means the public don't have the opportunity to scurtinise. And, BTW, if the consequences of the government actions has been that people are alleged to have taken their lives as a direct result, if that is not exceptional enough circumstance to make the information public (of course, there is no requirement in the legilsation to do that - only the hearings), than what is? Easy way to keep it from the public - don't have a hearing! 1
facthunter Posted October 14 Posted October 14 I have Family severely impacted so you don't have to convince ME. I' will hate their GUTS with a passion forever. I hope they ROT in HELL.. They KNEW what they were doing. Nev. 1
spacesailor Posted October 14 Posted October 14 If, any laws were broken, then the prosecution should make the charges . No ifs or buts . Suicide is a horrid affair for all those affected. spacesailor 1
facthunter Posted October 14 Posted October 14 These Investigatory Bodies are not Courts of Law It did go to court I think and they refunded 1'75 Million is the figure from memory. That certainly did not cover any damages. IT was just the overpayments. Nev 1
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now