This is my blog on all things we might consider unfair, biased or otherwise, and the occassional rant. I'm sick of the 'general media' and its bullshit sensationalised stories. Gone is decent journalism, and we have to put up with spelling errors, bad grammar and a load of other crap from the junior journos they hire.
Warning: This blog is NOT moderated. Your comments will go on-line immediately. Make sure your comments are legal and will not make you liable for prosecution and/or civil action.
A disturbing story was sent to me by a reader who allegedly claims that the owner of the vehicle above may have slashed his tyres in a side street off Prospect Road in South Australia.
Prospect Road is known for it's cafe's, restaurants and sadly difficult parking. The story involves the owner of a vehicle parking in a space they thought was free, only to find that same space may have been wanted by the driver of the Toyota Kluger. You draw your own conclusions from the story and images taken from the Navman camera from the vehicle which had it's tyres slashed.
"We saw the Toyota Kluger pull in and seemingly go to park in that position. There was plenty of space for them to park and so we thought nothing of it (see picture 1). We could see the reversing lights going on and off and simply thought they were straightening up".
"There was a driveway behind the Kluger and another space. You can see in Picture 1, the Kluger parking, and you can see the space where we parked. There was plenty of room for both vehicles to park".
"Suddenly the Kluger reverses back hurriedly (see Picture 2) and in Pictures 3, 4 and 5, you see it drive off at speed".
"Again, we don't think much of it, and head off to lunch".
"We come back from lunch and discover that someone has slashed both the left hand tyres - front and back. Instantly, we thought of the Kluger and it's erratic behaviour when it was parking. The guy was obviously pissed because "we took his spot", even though there was plenty of room where he originally parked".
"Whilst there's no direct evidence the Kluger driver slashed our tyres, when we thought about it, the speed he drove off at seemed to indicate anger".
"I mean, I've had parking spot taken whilst I've been ready to pull in, it's annoying, but hey, it's not the end of the world". And is certainly doesn't warrant slashing tyres. It takes a certain childish and vindictive person to do something like that".
You make up your minds based on supplied images and the recollection of day as supplied.
As many people know, Australia is in the midst of a trade war with China - in particular, the Chinese Communist Party.
It's a situation of David against Goliath, and China knows that. We have more to lose than China,
The Chinese president/dictator Xi Jinping, has Australia by the short and curlies and he is using all the excuses under the sun to ban certain items of trade from being exported to China.
As usual, the Australian government is grovelling and playing the part of the naughty boy being punished. Well, I say FUCK THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY, And lets face it, it's a well known fact that even the Chinese people hate their government. The people are FORCED to LOVE their government. They're not free to love or hate like we are in Australia.
Australians are fighting back though by deliberately choosing to boycott Chinese made items, which, let's face it, are usually shit quality anyway. And to this end, we are choosing to boycott wineries which have partial of full Chinese ownership. The purported list of wineries is as such. I have not vetted the list, and have taken it as "verbatum":-
South Australia:
Auswan Creek (Barossa) 包括以下品牌, Peacock Series, Blue Lobster, Inspire Estate,
Red Deer Station, Finders and Seekers, Linwood Estate, EI8HT Basket, Auskoala,
Burge Family Wine (Barossa), Château Yaldara (Barossa), Cimicky (Barossa),
Green Dragon (Barossa), Greenock Creek (Barossa), Hemera Estate formerly Ross Estate (Barossa),
Max’s Vineyard (Barossa), Reis Creek (Barossa), 1847 Wine (Barossa), Kilikanoon (Clare Valley),
It has been mentioned about the Australian workers that may suffer because of a boycott, but, the Chinese government/dictatorship doesn't care about all the workers that'll lose their jobs. You have to fight fire with fire.
If Morrison had any balls, he'd be slapping import duties on everything Chinese made coming into Australia.
If you intend to take up the Fetch TV offer from any ISP as part of a package, it's worthwhile to take the ISP to task over what happens to the Set Top Box if you leave the ISP in the future.
Some ISP's I believe, effectively "rent" you the Set Top Box and if you move from the ISP, the Set Top Box has to be returned. Fair enough.
Some ISP's make you purchase the Fetch Set Top Box outright (I know iiNet does), and then you purchase and stream whatever "channel package" you want from Fetch TV.
What the ISP's don't tell you is that the Fetch Set Top Box is loaded with "branded" firmware, that for all intents and purposes will only work with that ISP.
In addition to the confusion, is that you can buy retail versions of the Fetch Set Top Box from retailers such as JB HiFi, Harvey Norman etc and open an account with Fetch TV directly, and then you're not "tied" to any ISP.
Fetch TV also stated to a friend of mine, that they make it "abundantly clear" that they do not reload new firmware onto Set Top Boxes issued to an ISP for resale. Fetch TV were then taken to task to show on their website where they make this "abundantly clear", and they ignored it and never returned the email. My friend and I went through everything on the website, and couldn't find anything that relates to them advising that they will not reload new firmware onto a set top box purchased from an ISP. We searched around the start of March 2018, so there may have been something added since then. It's all a bit sneaky, and end Fetch users don't really know where they stand until they close their account with the internet provider only to find they can't move their Fetch set top box to any other Fetch provider, or deal direct with Fetch TV.
This is where you need to be careful.
According to the Fetch TV people, their attitude is "If you buy a set top box through an internet provider, and you leave that internet provider, then pretty much you have a useless set top box that won't connect to any other internet provider (that provides the Fetch TV service).
Fetch TV did advise that they are looking at ways of people being able to use their Fetch TV Set Top Box between different internet providers that offer the Fetch TV service. This was some time ago, and as far as I'm aware, nothing has happened on this front.
To me, Fetch TV's business model is wrong and self defeating. At least when you buy a Foxtel set top box, you know you're stuck with Foxtel. When you buy a Fetch TV set top box through your internet provider, no-one tells you that you are now locked into that provider for life, and Fetch appear to have themselves locked into contracts with resellers whereby they can't deal direct with the end user, even if the end user is no longer with the original company they bought the box from.
You'll also see Fetch TV television ads, which aids confusion, and in my opinion, offers the Fetch TV service, but never advises that dealing direct with Fetch themselves is not available to people who purchase their box through an internet retailer such as iiNet, DoDo, Adam Internet, Optus etc.
You've been warned.
As it currently stands at 31/1/2019, buy a Fetch Set Top Box through a Fetch enabled internet service provider, and you'll have a dead set top box if you leave that provider. Fetch TV will refuse to deal with you, so you have an expensive door stop.
I received word lately of a complaint with AUSSIESIM and they have shown themselves to be some of the worst business people in Australia. At least in relation to customer service.
AussieSIM is a business offering overseas SIM cards that enables you to keep your current number overseas and they offer quite competitive rates for calls, SMS etc. That is if you can get your SIM cards to work, or even activate.
A quick Google search shows a woeful track record of unhappy customers, and virtually non existent customer service.
Before you jump the gun, and say "Well for every 1 disgruntled customer they had, the have 20 happy customers." That may be so, but I can personally vouch for their woeful service. Well actually no service at all, apart from taking your money whilst knowing full well that you can't validate or activate your SIM Cards. They are aware they have a problem with SIM activation, but are still happy to take your money. Is that fraud?
I know of a personally of a recent case where a person bought multiple SIM CARDS well ahead of going overseas, and to date, they've been unable to activate their SIM Cards for use. They are just about to go overseas, and AussieSim won't return phone calls, emails and are unreachable by phone. They have a recorded message that just runs you around in circles. They don't answer the phone, and instead have a message saying they are so busy they'll call you back within an hour. They don't. You press any option, SALES, SUPPORT or RETAIL, and it all leads to the same answering message. they are just too busy answering other calls to answer your particular call. Their phone number is 1300 333 440 or the international SUPPORT number being 61 (0)2 8076 2276, which gives you exactly the same message as if you phone the 1300 number. I personally rang them at 11:02 Adelaide time on Wednesday which is just after 8:30am Perth time. I left a support message. Lets see if they call back as the message said they would. Just out of curiosity, I decided to spend a bit of time calling AussieSim around 8-10 times today, I didn't leave any messages, just called to see if anyone actually answered. You think you're going to be lucky after you press the number for whatever service you need, it starts ringing, then the dreaded answering machine drops in saying 'Our staff are busy serving other people, for all support related issues, please go to aussiesim.com.au and lodge a support message'' ... where of course, they don't get back to you.
They are listed as being at Level 1, 91 Hay Street, Subiaco, WA, which according to Google is this place:
AussieSim, you should be ashamed of yourselves, worst organisation I have ever had to deal with, all you do is lie, I called you almost every day while I was in New Zealand regarding my Call Forwarding number which never worked for the entire 2 weeks all you kept saying was it will be rectified and we will call you back, not once did I receive a call from you. If you are travelling OS, purchase a local sim in the country you are in. For New Zealand, my wife purchased a 2Degrees sim for $20, 200 minutes to call Aus, unlimited SMS to Aus, 500meg data, for $10 more you can get an extra 1gig of data
The above complaint is from 2015, and it's plainly obvious that things haven't improved.
Here's another complaint from 2014... you can see a pattern happening here I feel.
4.Re: AUSSIE SIM Travel sim Experience
11 October 2014, 13:26
Very similar experience recently on Trip to Canada and Alaska. Aussie Sim is a complete circus. Instructions given when purchasing conflict with written instructions that come with the sim, which then further conflict with instructions on their website. They don't have a clue what they're doing. The settings they instructed for use in Canada and USA were completely wrong (only got to the bottom of this after several lengthy online chat sessions with a girl in Australia who was really trying to be helpful). Then when finally got the settings sorted, found they no longer have "arrangements" with the nominated Canadian provider and had to go back to chat again to sort that out. Complete (and very frustrating) fiasco. These guys are driving without a license. Avoid at all costs
I had also had a recent bad experience. Found it exceptionally convoluted and user unfriendly. Was using it as an emergency back up and when my flight was delayed by 10hours requiring contacting home was unable to make a phone call. I was travelling with my disabled sister which added a difficulty factor and chatted online with AussieSim and could not resolve the problem. They kept instructing me to remove sim card - do this and that and reboot all of which was too difficult to do in the circumstances (mid car travel). Don't suppose I'll ever see the $25 credit (funny how topping up credit works smoothly). In the end they were rude and unhelpful. Will never use again and advise others to avoid it.
DO NOT buy Aussie Sim Travel sim cards - their whole set up is a rip off! We bought 2 cards for our last o/s trip as their rates seemed a lot cheaper than getting roaming on our phones and we could forward numbers on our phones BUT the credits we had to repeatedly put on our phones ran out much faster than the calls we made and we were never able to contact anyone about this. My partner had put $50 dollars on his call forwarding and got an email 2 weeks later to say it had expired - without ever using it! AVOID!
Edited: 18 June 2017, 07:16
The above snippets are all from Trip Advisor. I didn't even bother to look at all the other sites with complaints. And, do you know what else, I didn't see one single post where people actually posted something good about AussieSim. In Google Reviews ... every single comment was to warn people to steer clear of them. In Trip Advisor, every single comment was a warning to other people to steer clear of them as well. Why isn't there any good comments?
It's now 4:58pm here in Adelaide and I left my message this morning at what, 11:02am, and so far, no call back, and I suspect, I won't get a call back.
I have no problems with a company if they're upfront and honest with people. If AussieSim are experiencing problems with SIM card validations/activations, state the problem on your website BEFORE people spend money to get a SIM card they invariably can't use. To take peoples money knowing you're unable to provide that service is tantamount to criminal activity.
The company has also had variations in the past, including AUSSIESIM, ZIPT, ROAMEASY, ROAMEZY, ROAMEZE and ZIPTEL.
Here is an extract from a website that gives free company information:
Aussiesim Pty Ltd is a limited by shares Australian proprietary company. Located at WA 6008 since 2015-12-02 the company is, as the updated on 2015-12-02 ABN database shows, registered. The company has been registered for Goods & Services Tax since 2012-08-07. Known company numbers for Aussiesim Pty Ltd are as follows: ACN - 147227683, Australian Business Number - 58147227683. Aussiesim Pty Ltd has been the company name since 2011-12-13. Roameze is an example of a business name Aussiesim Pty Ltd used. The complete list includes 5 business names. Roameze was the company's business name from 2014-03-19 until 2014-08-22. Other business names include Roameasy (from 2014-03-19 to 2014-08-25) and Ziptel (from 2014-03-19 to 2014-06-07). This Australian proprietary company was previously located in WA 6005 (from 2014-09-17 to 2015-12-02), WA 6005 (from 2012-07-01 to 2014-09-17). We found 7 trademarks that reference this company. 2012-06-19 is the date the documents needed to start the registration process of trademark no 1496224 were submitted. This trademark is categorised as "composite" and its application status is "never registered, live". Other company trademarks include trademark number 1499594, application status "never registered, live";trademark number 1546987, application status: "never registered, live".
As you can see they've jumped from business name to business name. Invariably companies do this because the business name ends up with such a bad reputation, it's time to shut it down and create a new one.
You've been warned. All the information I've reported is freely available on the internet for you to make your own decisions.
Oh, and by the way, it's now 8:51am Thursday 19th, and still no phone call back.
I know in future, that I'll be researching any Travel SIM Card companies properly. There's nothing to stop AussieSim closing it's doors and re-opening under a new business name, new website etc, and starting the whole thing off again.
This story starts with a tax and the fact that power companies have been allowed to invoice you for it, even though they do not necessarily pay it. It is a story, largely untold, about why power prices are still high despite the axing of the carbon tax – certainly much higher than they were five years ago.
Energy analyst Bruce Mountain uncovered this tax issue when he realised the South Australian Power Networks (SAPN) had been allowed by the regulator to factor $414 million of company taxes into its pricing structures for 2011- 2015.
This seemed at odds with the fact that SAPN’s financial documents disclosed no tax paid, instead reportinga $4.2 million tax credit for 2011 to 2013.
For Mountain, an engineer, chartered accountant and economist with more than two decades’ experience in advising governments, regulators and companies on energy policy, this raises an intriguing question.
He posed the question in a presentation to the Australian Energy Regulator (AER): “So, how much tax has SAPN actually paid, and how does this compare to what it has been allowed to recover from electricity users?”
It’s a question that SAPN itself cannot answer. Spokesman Paul Roberts says: “As a partnership, SAPN does not have a corporate tax liability. That’s a matter for the partners.”
So, Mountain dug a little deeper. The SAPN is 51 per cent owned by two companies that both belong to the Cheung Kong Group of companies. Owned by a Hong Kong-based billionaire, these companies are conveniently incorporated in tax haven, the Bahamas.
The remaining 49 per cent is owned by Spark Infrastructure, which also has an interest in Victoria Power Networks. Due to a variety of factors, including accelerated depreciation and losses, Spark is also not currently paying tax on income from its SAPN assets.
It would seem the $414 million that SAPN is allowed by the Australian Energy Regulator to charge customers to cover its income tax bill from 2011 to 2015 may be providing a windfall gain to shareholders at consumers’ expense. “I think there has to be explanation for any sizeable difference between what consumers are paying and what the Tax Office is receiving,” says Mountain.
The tax issue is particularly interesting considering another of Mountain’s findings. His research suggests that SAPN is generating much higher profit per connection from its customers than the United Kingdom Power Networks, also part-owned by the Cheung Kong Group.
Mountain calculates, in a submission to a senate committee, that SAPN had pre-tax profits for 2012-13 of $381 per connection, compared with $102 per connection for UK Power Networks.
The SAPN does have a response to this claim. When Mountain first raised the comparison, it objected. Then it commissioned its own research from economic consultant HoustonKemp in an apparent bid to debunk Mountain’s findings.
Roberts won’t release that report but says it shows, essentially, that Mountain is comparing apples and oranges and that his findings would be “misleading to the average residential customer”.
Mountain stands by his figures, which he says apply to all connections – not just residential – and urges SAPN to release the HoustonKemp report.
The sensitivity around this shows what a hot-button issue power pricing is in Australia.
Now that the carbon tax is gone, attention is falling on other factors pushing up power prices, including the role of the AER in approving pricing regimens and whether the networks that generate and distribute power have been inflating their costs, resulting in overcharging of customers.
A spokeswoman for the regulator confirms the tax allowance it factors in to its calculation of power prices has nothing to do with the networks’ actual tax bill.
“An allowance for tax is set consistent with tax law and applies the statutory income tax rate of 30 per cent to estimate the tax allowance,” she says. “Tax consolidation laws may permit some businesses to average tax liabilities across company structures. Consistent with setting tax in accordance with the statutory rate, we do not take account of these more complex tax structures in the revenue determinations of individual businesses.”
This is part of a “benchmarking” approach taken by the AER that also applies to other costs incurred by network companies, such as operating and capital costs. Essentially, the AER works out what would be reasonable costs for a hypothetical network to incur, adapts these to the size of the actual networks and allows them to be passed on to customers. It does not reflect their actual costs.
The rationale for such an approach is that it promotes efficiency by giving networks an incentive to perform better than the benchmark.
It’s hard to see, though, why this reasoning should apply to the calculation of tax expenses, unless tax minimisation is viewed as a mark of efficiency, which would be a peculiar argument from a public policy perspective.
Even more bizarre is that the state government-owned networks, which are not required to pay income tax to the Commonwealth government, are still able to factor the tax allowance, calculated at the 30 per cent rate, into their pricing structures.
The taxation anomaly that has been identified by Mountain has also been raised by agricultural groups, which are heavy energy users, in a submission to the senate inquiry. After campaigning for the removal of the carbon tax, these groups, led by the National Irrigators’ Council, now acknowledge that other factors have had an even bigger influence on rising power prices.
The steep growth in electricity prices in recent years played right into the Coalition’s political narrative about the carbon tax. Remember it was going to push the price of a Sunday roast to $100 and leave pensioners struggling to pay their bills?
That latter claim was aired in parliament in October 2012, when Tony Abbott brandishing a bill from an 82-year-old pensioner, claimed the $800 increase in one bill was 70 per cent due to the carbon tax.
In fact, the carbon tax was only ever responsible for an increase of about 9 per cent in power prices, so its removal has not reversed recent price rises, with electricity bills almost doubling in some states in the past five years.
The bigger story is one that was well charted by journalist Jess Hill in The Monthly in July 2014. “Since 2009, the electricity networks that own and manage our ‘poles and wires’ have quietly spent $45 billion on the most expensive project this country has ever seen,” she wrote.
“Allowed to run virtually unchecked, they’ve spent vast sums on infrastructure we don’t need, and have charged it all to us, with an additional fee attached. The spending was approved by a federal regulator, and yet the federal government didn’t even note it until it was well under way.”
Essentially, growth in demand forecast by the power companies to justify charging consumers for spending on new poles and wires has never materialised.
The “gold-plating” argument goes that power networks had incentives to build extensive new infrastructure because the regulator allowed them to charge consumers for a much higher cost of capital than they actually incurred.
Even the state-owned network companies, in New South Wales and Queensland, were allowed to factor in to their pricing an interest rate on debt that would have been high in a commercial context and was well above the discounted rate that they were able to secure on their borrowings from state treasuries.
Privatisation is now off the table in Queensland, following the Liberal National Party’s shock election loss, but as the NSW government prepares to sell its networks, it is worth noting that, through higher power prices, consumers have subsidised the expansion of their asset base.
State governments have overseen the rises in power prices through their control of the Australian Energy Market Commission, which writes the rules the Australian Energy Regulator enforces.
The Energy Users Association of Australia, in its submission to the senate committee, recommends a regulatory overhaul to make the network companies accountable for their investment in assets that may never be needed.
“In essence, the key question being asked by the committee is – who should bear the costs of poor investment decisions?” the submission says.
“The current regulatory rules require consumers to bear those costs through excessive electricity prices. Consumers and other stakeholders believe that the costs should be borne by the businesses who made those decisions – as applies to all other sectors of the Australian economy.”
Yet there is little political will to tackle the factors that have been most significant in driving up power bills. And anyway, the government is preoccupied with another sort of power right now, as Abbott fights to keep his job. The Greens-instigated senate inquiry, which starts hearings this month, will air the arguments, but the Abbott government has shown no interest in changing its narrative that it has vanquished the carbon tax, relieving pressure on electricity prices.
Treasurer Joe Hockey once more invoked the spectre of the carbon tax as he responded this week to the Reserve Bank’s decision to cut interest rates by 25 basis points, to a record low of 2.25 per cent.
“By removing the price on carbon – by getting rid of the carbon tax, we have got electricity prices to come down, we’ve taken upward pressure on inflation out of the equation and we are actually now giving people real relief in their household bills,” Hockey said on Tuesday.
If the government were genuine about reducing power prices, it would turn its attention to the regulatory anomalies that have really pushed them higher.
I have been reading a story about the short life of Kyle Sears.
Pretty much, Kyle came out as being gay, fled to Ballarat, and commenced a relationship with an older guy he met on-line.
Kyle also suffered mental health problems, and according to reports had a strong history with child protection. This in itself should be ringing alarm bells.
Based on the limited reporting of the case, this is my take on what COULD HAVE happened. I am open to alternative theories.
Kyle had a rough upbringing, and traumatic early childhood. This could have helped lay the foundations of what is considered his mental condition. In January of 2013, Kyle's father found out Kyle was gay. Shortly after, Kyle fled Adelaide to live with an older man he met on-line.
What was the outcome of his father finding out his son was gay? Was the Father furious and homophobic towards Kyle? I ask the question nobody else has asked yet? else what would cause Kyle to flee his home state and go and live with someone he hardly knew? Kyle's actions seem to indicate there is more to him leaving home, than just a whim. If his Father was homophobic, that'd be a good reason for Kyle to flee, wouldn't it?
The coroner fears Kyle was being groomed by the older man. If a relationship existed between Kyle and the older man, Wayne Shefferle, why does it have to be grooming? The (simplified) legal definition of grooming is one of breaking down the barriers of a child, for sexual gratification by the older person. It seems to me, that Kyle had none of these barriers. It appears he entered into a "relationship" of his own will. If this is true, and events happened like this, then there is no case to answer to grooming a child. And in reality, when you boil it down, how different is it to Hugh Hefner, an old old man, running around with 25 year old women? Why is this not grooming?
Leaving the legalities of this case aside, why do authorities have a problem understanding that a 16 year old kid could have a "crush", a "love" or whatever you want to call it, for an older person? I mean, for god's sake, I've even seem films where young female students have "crushes" on a much older male teacher. My point is that it's socially acceptable for this to be portrayed in film, but not in real life. Maybe Kyle had a crush on Shefferle? And this relationship appears to have blossomed whereby the pair were (apparently) seen kissing by a neighbour. It hardly seems possible that Kyle is being forced into this, maybe it's exactly what he wanted?
Counsel, Anna Robertson, assisting the trial into Kyle's death, has said at best the relationship between the pair was detrimental and at worst, involved the older man grooming Kyle for sexual servitude. Is this the best a counsel can come up with? To me, throwaway comments like this just show how little some legal practitioners know about the real world. They think about everything on a legal level, rather than knowing if the relationship would be detrimental or not. It also sounds good to a court to make these stupid comments when they can't be backed up with hard evidence. For all she knows, the relationship might have had a good stabilising effect on Kyle, If this were the case, is this not a good thing? A relationship that is illegal in the eyes of the law, but does good for two people?
The legal system seems to thinks that kids these days are just dumb and stupid, but a lot more goes on in their heads than you think. My nieces and nephews tell me stuff that I'd never consider when I was their age. They know what they want and it can be a less in age than someone like Kyle. The law doesn't see it this way, and so it shouldn't, but lets not run an older man's life into the ground before all the facts are established. And, in this case, the facts can't be fully established because one person is dead, so legal practitioners should not be making assumptions, like Anna Robertson has done.
Either way, I hope Kyle is in a better place. No child, whether, black, white, gay, straight, deserves to be bought up in an abusive nasty environment. Can you really blame them for running away to try and have a better life?
I work for a company which has a lot of transport costs. We bring in stuff from overseas, we export, and we move stuff around Australia.
What pisses me off is that almost all of the freight companies around are still charging a FUEL LEVY, even though DIESEL is the cheapest it's been for 15 or 20 years.
This has become a blatant ripoff and companies such as the one I work for have to bear the brunt of this cost. DIESEL FUEL is so cheap at the moment that in most cases, it's cheaper than normal unleaded.
SO WHY ARE TRANSPORT COMPANIES STILL CHARGING THIS "FUEL LEVY?"
Because it's a source of INCOME!! It's money for nothing. Transport companies will carry on about how DIESEL FUEL has become so enormously expensive, and they need to make up their rising costs. Well, the cost of DIESEL has come down enormously in the past few months.
Why do FREIGHT COMPANIES continue to rip off the buyer and in turn, the consumer?
MY SUGGESTION IS TO ANY COMPANY WISHING TO FREIGHT STUFF AROUND AUSTRALIA, IS TOO REFUSE ANY TRANSPORT COMPANY THAT WANTS TO CHARGE A FUEL LEVY. AND TELL THEM THAT DIESEL IS SO CHEAP, THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO LEVY....
The power is in the hand of the customer.
IF TRANSPORT COMPANIES COME LOOKING FOR YOUR BUSINESS, TELL THEM YOUR HAPPY TO DEAL, BUT NOT WITH A FUEL LEVY.
Legal Notice: The companies listed in this post do not reflect whether they do or do not charge a fuel levy. This may or may not be applicable. Every company is different. The chances are that they do charge a fuel levy. You will have to investigate.yourselves. Either way, we are being g ripped off, left right and centre.
Firstly, let me say ... I understand that (some) guys do attribute towards domestic violence. But then again, so do some women.
I think it's vital to separate types of violence. A man killing his wife is not the same as a man who hits his wife during an argument.
Sure, both types are violence, but the reasons they occur can be totally different.
Men are facing a tough time these days.
Apparently, it seems Men are to blame for just about everything wrong in a woman's life. We are the cause of the gender pay gap. We are the cause of why women's shelters are needed. We are the cause of violence towards women.
Apparently women do absolutely nothing wrong.
Women apparently NEVER initiate violence in a relationship. Yeah right! In my life, I have seen a number of women hit their male partners. Sometimes, there was alcohol involved and sometimes not. But, why is this not seen as violence towards men? Is it because the male is supposed to be big and tough, and therefore this violence shouldn't actually be counted as violence? It's all violence, despite who initiates it. Why is it that women can get away with it and men can't? In saying this and despite women saying they are equal to men, men are physically stronger and their violence will probably hurt more than a woman's violence toward a man.
What we also never hear about and is quietly swept under the carpet, is how women help contribute towards the violence against them. I have seen and heard this with my own eyes and ears. I have heard women put down their husbands / boyfriends in front of other people. I have heard them ridiculing their partners. I have heard them niggling at their partners, having digs. You have to wonder how long men put up with this demeaning behaviour from their wives / girlfriends before they spit the dummy and take it out on them? Add alcohol into the issue, and it's a recipe for something to go wrong. Despite this, men are still at fault. Even though they are provoked, it still rests entirely with men. What a load of crap. You can only provoke someone so much before they spit the dummy and lash out. If it was a man belittling and demeaning his partner, women would go on about the psychological damage from this behaviour. It would be added to the list of bad things men do. But, apparently, it's OK for women to do this. I don't hear Rosie Battie saying "we have to stop the behaviour of certain women who demean and provoke their male partners". In Rosie Battie's eyes, women can do no wrong. It's always the males fault.
Violence will never be combated in a relationship if the causes for the violence are not examined. Let me put it another way. There are women I work with that I know if I was to verbally demean them and put them down, they would explode and probably slap me. In Rosie Batties eyes, is this OK? because "I was asking for it" ... I was provoking them, so it's no wonder they reacted like they did. You see what I'm trying to say? How uneven the playing field is? Women can get away with doing just about anything, but men can't. We are the evil ones.
We are living in such female centric society, where females really are much better off than they think they are. Everyone knows of the Pink Ribbon campaign putting breast cancer further in the spotlight. Umpteen manufacturers from milk, to women products, to breakfast cereals got on board with the campaign. Where's the campaign spotlighting men's testicular cancer? I can't see anything around the size of the Pink Ribbon campaign. Are men not worth it?
Women also seem to forget that it was MEN who developed and invented most of the things women use on a day to day basis without a thought. Who invented powered flight: MEN. Who invented the washing machine: MEN. Who discovered the laws of physics: MEN. Who invented mobile phones: MEN. Who invented social media platforms: MEN. Who invented boats: MEN. Who developed most of the earlier medicines still in use today: MEN. Who invented computers: MEN. Who invented printing: MEN. Who design and build most of buildings, skyscrapers, offices etc: MEN. Who invented the car: MEN. Who invented railways: MEN.
If it wasn't for men, women would have no way to print literature saying how bad men are and how violent we are in relationships. They wouldn't be able to compile dossiers on violent offenders. They wouldn't be able to travel by air, road or rail to meetings about how bad men are.
And yes, I acknowledge there are women who contributed and still contribute to the above fields - Madame Curie and her X-ray work in the past for example - it is still men who have contributed the most, especially in the 18th and 19th centuries.
We have a lot of women who currently work in pharmaceuticals, computers etc, but again, if it wasn't for men, these industries wouldn't be around in the first place.
In my opinion, if we really are to combat violence between men and women, we have to examine all aspects of what makes the situation explode. No doubt alcohol is a major contributor, but lets look at how alcohol affects both genders. If we can stop drunk women provoking men to the point where the men explode, surely that has to help stop violence?
Oh, and don't get me started on how it appears that women are the biggest killers of their own children! You only have to read the media reports over the past few years. Why doesn't this receive the same attention as men who commit violent acts in a relationship?
And here, we have an example of a woman who is praised by other women for vandalising her boyfriends expensive Four Wheel Drive. OK, if he's a cheater, he's a cheater, but that doesn't give her the right to do acts such as this. If a bloke did it, he'd be regarded as a bastard, immature and he'd be in court in a flash for vandalism!
A Muslim woman has allegedly been assaulted by a man, who was later arrested and charged with offences on a bus at Kilburn, in Adelaide's inner North. He has since been granted bail.
The assault comprised of the man interfering with the woman's scarfe and further intimidation through the trip.
Shaikh Mohammad Tawhidi believes whilst the man is legally allowed to be bailed, he shouldn't be as his crime is too serious, and will result in a loss of dignity and honour with the woman. Shaikh Mohammad Tawhidi also believes that we need new laws covering such events, which presumably will help victims keep honour and dignity. Shaikh Mohammad Tawhidi also believes that (alleged) actions such as this, and "non strategic rulings" (as described on the AdelaideNow website) will possibly result in the affected Muslim families taking their own action, possibly including violence. Shaikh Mohammad Tawhidi also states (and I quote from AdelaideNow story) "Us Muslim Imams are striving hard to reform the Muslim community of South Australia into a tolerant community".
I take exception to this man, Mohammad Tawhidi, and his comments. Firstly, these events and people involved live in AUSTRALIA. In Australia, we promote people not taking the law into their own hands; That's why we have police and proper court proceedings. In Australia, (alleged) criminals also have rights as well. Maybe in countries where religion is the law, the man may have no rights, but we are not in that country. Shaikh Mohammad Tawhidi has the potential to be inflammatory. In fact, it almost seems he is wishing it to be by his comments. Secondly, and I understand that a Muslim woman's scarfe is important to her, And I understand how she would feel if it was, in a sense, degraded. However, that issue and her response lies with her. She can either continue being the victim and continue to lose honour and dignity, or she can be strong and defiant and say "I'm not going to let this event affect me, I am a strong Muslim woman". What will she choose? I don't know what "non strategic rulings" are ?? It sounds flash, The guy allegedly interfered with the woman, and he was bailed. Where is the aforementioned ruling? Thirdly, and I refer to the comment in blue above. The Australian public are always believed to be the intolerant ones. Australians are at fault, not Muslims. And yet, if what Mohammad Tawhidi says is indeed true, it also appears that Muslims, or at least the ones he references, are just as intolerant as Australians. I know that Tawhihdi has come under fire for his ill said comments, but the fact remains, that this man should be ultra cautious in what he says, lest it is construed otherwise. He is in a position where people listen to him, and he should not be saying comments like he has. I should also point out that The Islamic Society of South Australia has nothing to do with Tawhidi. Let's all just get on with living together in harmony and leave the potentially inflaming comments out of the equation. Get Real
The car next to me started to veer into my lane. The car corrected, and I looked over to see a young bloke maybe 20 or so texting on his mobile phone. He thought no-one could see because he held the phone down low, but he didn't bank on me being able to see into his car.
This event happened approx 5:30pm Friday 18th of December 2015 along Park Terrace, North Adelaide / Ovingham area. The car was heading East and drove into the filter to turn right into Jeffcott Street.
What pissed me off is this bloke chose to text whilst driving, and couldn't control his car properly and veered into my lane. Had he not corrected at the last second, he could have caused an accident - in peak hour traffic.
I see people on their mobiles all the time, particularly when they are waiting at traffic lights. Although it's still illegal, at least these people (apparently) seem to wait till they are stopped before using their mobiles.
We need more people taking down rego numbers of mobile phone users whilst they are driving, dates, times etc and forwarding it to the police. I don't want to be involved in some accident because some dickhead can't keep off their phone for a few minutes. Nothing is ever THAT urgent that they have to text whilst they are driving.
These people should be named and shamed on a public register, but of course, our government has no balls to do anything so direct. They'd rather reap in the $$$ with smallish fines to keep the revenue coming in.
I can't tell you how pissed off I am at Bronwyn Bishop and her cronies.
It seems everyday, we have more examples of her lavish work lifestyle thrust into our faces. It has spawned a myriad of photo's on the internet, which I admit, I have a smirk over.
To make matters worse, Tony Abbott doesn't have the balls to do something about it. The Australian economy is not in a good position. I'm sure that most people would agree with that. Sure, we're not as bad as Greece, and we're holding our head above the water, but surely, it would appear natural to public servants to pull their heads in a bit.
Enter Bronwyn Bishop. A high flyer with aspirations of a diva. The want of living a high life, but at someone else's expense. The Australian Tax Payers expense, if you haven't worked it out.
I'm not against politicians having SOME perks, but let's face it, how many is enough, and when is it time to stop? Sure, they work long hours, but um hello, they are also paid quite well. I work long hours at work, and am paid reasonably well, but I don't get all the perks these people do. Little Bronny could have hailed down a taxi and been driven to Geelong and back and it still would have been much cheaper than the $5000 odd we had to pay her for the luxury jaunt.
And sure, she's paid the money back quick smart, along with a penalty, but lets face it, that amount of money is probably nothing to her. To me though, that's not the point. Bronny sought to live it up at OUR expense. Taxpayers money used to support a lavish trip. That's what I'm pissed about. To me, it says a lot about what type of person she is underneath, irrespective of whether the money's been paid back or not.
It's like "I'm in government in a powerful position, and damn it, I'm going to live it up".
And Bronny paid up that money quick smart. Why? because she knew there'd be questions asked, and someone would start delving into her past expenses, which appears exactly to have happened. Good!
You only have to read any newspaper now to see new accusations of blatant 'living it up' expenses. expensive bottles of wine, lavish dinners, lavish travel expenses.
The HUGE costs of taking a small party overseas, and extravagant limousine hire. Do these people in power actually have a morality switch and turn it off every now and then so they can live it up. I can understand a Minister or Speaker travelling first class on an overseas flight, but the whole lot? Come on now. Can't the secretary and underlings go in economy? We don't have a lot of excess money in Australia, what about taking it easy on the expenses?
And now, multiply Bronny by all those other pollies who have perks and travel etc, and you can start to imagine the huge cost to the average Aussie, to keep our government alive and well.
It's like "Yay, we're in government positions, lets party and live it up"
"Expensive limo trips, expensive wines, expensive dinners, expensive airline tickets - Yay, come one guys, live it up" .. "Thank god the average taxpayer has no idea what we're doing"....
Well, I think your chickens have come home to roost people. The general media are delving deeper now, not only into Bronny, but a whole host of other people and their lavish expenses.
It's a new age of social media and enlightenment for the average person. We have Facebook, Twitter, Blogs etc, and have a voice that can reach out far and wide. It's no longer "letters to the editor" expressing disapproval at excessive government lavish expenses.
Get on your high horses people and email, write on Facebook pages and Tweet all you need to your government people to show how you are not going to put up with the lavish lifestyles at our expense. If Bronny wanted to pay for that trip out of her own money, great, not a care in the world. But she didn't, and public servants should be forced to take the cheapest means possible to do their job. EG, all national flights are to be in economy, not first class. Taxi's and hire cars are to be used in preference to chauffeured limosines. Wines at dinners should have a $40 per bottle maximum.
You can still do your job, and get around quite well whilst reigning in the costs. Just imagine how much we'd save as a nation if our government reigned in it's expensive tastes.
In fact, in my opinion, we don't really have any decent government in this country, and we haven't had it for a while. The pigs (the politicians) all have their snouts in the trough getting what they can out of an overly generous system. I know they put in a good amount of their time, but then they are also paid (good money) for that time. It's not like they're being asked to put in their time for free. I understand they have electorates and need funds to do their thing, but come on, where does the generosity stop? On top of this, the pollies have generous superannuation arrangements, which can be accessed early, with a rate well above what is paid to the average Aussie? Why? Why should a pollie be able to access their super before any of us? and why is the rate at least 15% rather than the 9% that the rest of us have to put up with? I know some companies pay more than the minimum, but most would pay the minimum. More examples of an overly generous system. And of course, what politician is going to vote away their rights to all this generosity? None, you hit it on the head. Like I said, they have their snouts in the trough getting what they can out of the system.
Time to go Bronwyn Bishop. You've lived it up well and truly at the taxpayers expense. Now it's time for you to start paying your own way.
Get Real
Update: 2/8/2015
As you've probably heard through the general media, Bronwyn Bishop has just resigned as Speaker. I'm sure she still can't fathom what she's done wrong, in a moral sense.
Most South Australians would know of the case where Constable Norman Hoy was accused of aggravated assault by Yasser Shanin during a traffic stop as the vehicle had windows tinted too darkly.
The facts relating to the traffic stop were disputed by both sides of the court using audio made by Constable Hoy during the event. In saying that, I'm curious as to whether Constable Hoy made Mr Shahin aware that a recording of the event is being made prior to the start of recording. No news article that I've read points this out and (I could be wrong), but my belief is that it's illegal to record a conversation without the consent of the other person being recorded, or at least advising them that the conversation is being recorded.
This aside, my concern is that recorded audio and it being used during a trial allows only parts of the recording to be used. The good parts in effect. The parts that show Constable Norman Hoy being a patient police officer doing his job. What assurances does the court have that the audio hasn't been edited to only show Constable Hoy in a good light?
The Advertiser / AdelaideNow were also going to publish a story on Constable Norman Hoy, but at last minute were gagged by Hoys lawyers issuing an injunction preventing the publishing. Naturally, the contents of the story aren't known, but it raises the question of why Hoy doesn't want it published publicly.
Judge Paul Rice, the judge residing over the case, made - in my opinion - inappropriate comments about the case after it's conclusion.
“Merely because someone said something happened in a particular way is not sufficient reason for it to proceed if there is no reasonable prospect of conviction, and that’s certainly my view,” he said.
What Judge Rice is pretty much saying is that if there's no reasonable chance of a conviction, why even bother to present the case in the first place. Duh, hello. What happened to justice? So if I go and stab someone and it can't be proved, I go free. However, the fact is I still stabbed someone. Judge Rice's comments seem to me that he regards the case as a waste of court time and taxpayers money. His job is to reside over the case, and that's it.
Also too, that constant crying and snivelling by Norman Hoy in the courtroom during the trial. Geez, what a sook. Man Up! You were being tried for simple aggravated assault which would result in a mere slap on the wrist. You weren't being tried for murder. Maybe you thought the waterworks would soften the jury members up to take pity on you.
Not surprisingly, Hoy was found innocent of any crime and Yasser Shahin is made to look like the bad guy by sticking up for his rights. The police and courts hate it when people stick up for their rights. Police in particular want people to be complacent and do whatever they want. They hate it when you stick up for your rights, and not enough people stick up for them. You can see pig headed police in action on this post:
Update: After being aquitted of the charge(s), Constable Norman Hoy and his band of lawyers served an injunction on the Advertiser to try and prevent the contents becoming public of numerous complaints made to the Police Complaints Authority about Norman Hoys conduct with members of the public. It was reported that Norman Hoy was an unprofessional bully, who was rude, arrogant and harsh and was the subject of no less than 11 previous complaints. On the surface, it appears that Hoy's tears in the courtroom where nothing more than an attempt to sway the judge to take pity.
My serious suggestion in future to anyone who gets pulled up by police. Record video on your mobile phone. After you commence recording, make sure you tell the officer(s) you are video recording the interaction between you and them - so it's legal - and the recording will be used in court in your defense should the need arise. If the incident ever gets to a court situation, and the officers deny you told them you were recording the incident, you have it on video they were advised. If you don't advise them of the recording, it's likely the video will be disallowed as evidence. Just imagine the importance of video had it been available in the above case of Hoy and Shahin.
It's a sad state of affairs when you have to get to this stage when interacting with police officers, but, let's face it, the police and prosecution will do anything they can to have a successful prosecution, therefore, you have the right to do anything you can to have a successful defense.
