Posts

Showing posts from 2014

#314: Power To The People

Image
That was amazing. I have not followed an election as closely with as much interest since the 2007 Federal Election.  Last night's Victorian State Election was as exciting as they come, for all the same reasons as the 2007 Federal effort - because it was the PEOPLE who led the way - not the incredibly biased media or the large corporations - and rightly so. The Murdoch media did it's best to call the result for the Liberals. They believed that, by running a negative campaign, that they were a lock, all they had to do was turn up.  But they didn't take into consideration the complete an utter disgust that the average Australian has for the current Federal Government, and that this disgust will impact upon State politics. It was interesting that the Victorian Liberals claim that this election had nothing to do with Federal policies, yet they distanced themselves from the power brokers of the current Cabinet.  I counted one appearance from the PM, nothing from the Treasu

#313: Six Months In A Leaky Boat

Image
Ahhhh yes, the new policy by the Liberal/National Party, as designed by the Prime Minister that nobody wants Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison, the (Anti) Immigration Minister. Welcome to the New Australia, a throwback to the Menzies Era of white people only.   In short, if you're not from England, white, preferably a racist who believes in all things English (ie: peers, lordships, knights, royalty etc etc) and can speak 'proper' English (that is, you have a 'posh' accent and can't say your 'r's pwopely) then you're just not welcome. Full stop. Stay away. The LNP don't care what violence, persecution or tyranny that you might be fleeing; they'll simply send you right back to where you came from, but only after telling the people you're fleeing from your name, your details and why you were running. While the rest of the world will, rightly, label you an Asylum Seeker, the LNP will call you an Illegal Immigrant. But, if you're from

312: Crim du Jour

A new series, in which I post real things that criminals get up to, taken from official court records. Today's Crim du Jour comes to us from Mount Gambier, South Australia. " The facts of the offences are relatively straightforward.  On 8 December last year you went to a car yard in Millicent to steal petrol. It was in the late evening. You punctured the petrol tanks of two vehicles and were in the process of collecting the fuel from the tanks when you lit a cigarette and an explosion and then a fire took place." Result - 8 months in the Big House and 3rd degree burns all over the body. That's a winner!

311: Crown Court R ‐v‐ Rolf Harris. Sentencing remarks of Mr Justice Sweeney

    In the Southwark Crown Court  R ‐v‐ Rolf Harris Sentencing remarks of Mr Justice Sweeney 4 July 2014 Rolf Harris you are 84 years old. You have no previous criminal convictions or cautions recorded against you. You are no longer in the best of health. For well over 50 years you have been a popular entertainer and television personality of international standing – with a speciality in children’s entertainment. You are also an artist of renown. You have been the recipient of a number of honours and awards over the years. You have done many good and charitable works and numerous people have attested to your positive good character. But the verdicts of the jury show that in the period from 1969 to 1986 you were also a sex offender ‐committing 12 offences of indecent assault on 4 victims who were variously aged between 8 and 19 at the time. There were a number of aggravating features. You took advantage of the trust placed in you, because of your celebrity status, to co

#310: Tony The Toothless Tiger

I just can't work people out. I'm seeing and reading comments from the same clowns who, a mere fortnight ago, were applauding Tony Abbott for his 'fine' work in keeping asylum seekers out of the country by putting them in a concentration camp on Manus Island and voted him in on his lies are now calling for his head because of the Budget. I guess you have to give Abbott credit in one area - he's been consistent with his punishment of everyone and anyone who isn't wealthy. He said he'd 'stop the boats' - he hasn't, he just stopped telling people about them - and the masses roared in approval. He ran on a platform of xenophobia, hatred and lies, and the masses rushed out to vote for him. But now the shoe is on the other foot and people realise that Abbott isn't just the 'saviour' of the 'great white Australian way' and that he will be taking money from the unemployed, the elderly, the sick and poor, those same people who cheered

#309: Don't Call Me Whitey

Lots of debate about freedom of speech and how people have the right to be bigots.  Good stuff too, anything that allows me to the freedom to upset Andrew Bolt without the fear of him demanding an apology for 'hurting his feelings' (the poor luv) the better.  Trust me, if the proposed changes are adopted, then watch me really unleash! Nothing is more worrying that giving someone like me the freedom to write whatever the hell I want to. This could get very, very messy. In amongst the many debates, people have been quoting the famous frog philosopher, Voltaire.  Now, allow me to help some of you out here.  For the record, Voltaire never said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend the death your right to say it."  He also didn't say, "Yum yum, pigs bum, turn it into powder," either.  As far as I know. So, who said it?  That'd be the relatively unknown Greek philosopher, Electrolux. What Voltaire did say was, "Think for yourselves and let

#308: Say You, Say Me

EASLING v RANKINE [2014] SADC 40     This is a defamation action by which the plaintiff alleges that he was defamed by the defendant.  At the time of the publications relied on by the plaintiff the defendant was a Member of the House of Assembly of the South Australian Parliament.  She was also the Minister for Families and Communities; for Housing; for Ageing; and for Disability.   The publications relied on by the plaintiff occurred in October and November 2008.   The first occurred in the South Australian Parliament on 30 October 2008.  On that day the defendant answered a question put to her by another member of the Parliament.  Obviously, that publication was made inside Parliament.   The other two publications are said to have occurred on 12 and 14 November 2008.  Those two publications were made outside of Parliament.   All three publications are referred to in the plaintiff’s Second Statement of Claim.    The plaintiff commenced his proceedings in this matter on 17 March 2011. 

307: Gimme Gimme Gimme or Sue Me, Sue You Blues

I dunno about you, but I love reading about people who are given all the chances in life, live richly and successfully and yet want more, all without lifting a finger.  Entitlement is a grand thing indeed, and this guy takes the cake.  Not only does he want it all, he wants to ensure he gets it all solely by taking his mother to court and contesting the will of her father, his grandfather. From the first case. "Robert, the plaintiff, made clear in his evidence that the plaintiffs not only claimed everything from the testor's estate, but had given virtually no consideration to what should happen to their mother. Q: Your case as pleaded is that you and your brother should inherit your grandfather's entire estate, is that correct? A: Yes. Q: And your mother should get what? A: Whatever she likes. Pension. Trust." Lovely kids those. You can almost see the judge sitting there and holding back from calling this guy some choice names.  Perhaps he should have, but, alas, he h