Adelaides Street Preachers and the Supreme Court

Once again, we see the law (and the full Supreme Court at that), get it wrong.

Adelaides disgusting hate spreading street preachers have now been effectively ''sanctioned'' by the Supreme Court to spread their messages of hate. How can the court get it so wrong?

I refer to a story run in AdelaideNow. An excerpt is below:

Transit staff reported that two male preachers were "abusing" passengers with slogans such as "homosexuals are sinners and women are all sinners" while the third recorded the incident on a mobile phone.

How on earth can the Supreme Court rule that this is a good thing ? Do they not have any common sense? This ruling pretty much means these street preachers can go into any public place and spread their word of hate. It will only be a matter of time until a passerby takes offence then fists will fly and possibly someone will get hurt - either the passerby or one of the street preachers. All thanks to our Supreme Court!

Good onya fella's, great job!

You can read the full story here:

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/street-preachers-target-city-trains/story-e6frea83-1226233997664

Get Real

The rest of the world VS Islam - Can the two ever be friends?

I'm not weighing into this argument too much. See one of my previous posts.

Watch the following video and make up your own minds.

Get Real

Being gay and religion - will the two ever be friends?

I must be on a roll today with posts!!

I received this email a long time ago, and as I do, I tend to keep things just ''in case''. No matter your sexual orientation, I'm sure you would have to agree with many of the comments in the post. I'm interested to hear your opinions, whether positive or negative. I have copied and pasted the email verbatim except where I may have altered it for tidiness sake.

Here goes ...

> In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said
> that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according
> to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.
> The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, written by a US man, and posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

> Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone
tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them thatLeviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take
offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I
smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan.

James M. Kauffman,
Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,
Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education
University of Virginia
>
>
>
>
> PS (It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian)

Being an athiest, I find it interesting as to how churches relate to todays modern people. Unfortunately, I am (not?) blessed in being a realist and unless I can see something tangible or evidence of its tangibility - is that a word? -  tend not to believe it. I read this article in an Adelaide newspaper that church attendances were going up and up. Desperate people were finally turning to the church to seek hope. I found myself in the city one Sunday morning - I think I may have been on my way to have a coffee and people watch - anyway, I went past one of the bigger churches in Victoria Square, and ducked my head in. Well, all I can say if that was a church attendance that was on the up and up, I hate to think what it was. As expected, it was mainly older people and any younger ones there had hair combed by mum and looked like they had been dressed by their parents as well. You know - the dorky kids that haven't developed their own personality yet and still wear slacks and pullovers to school as their parents did.

In addition, I always love how the bible - and I speak generically here) just happen to forget certain other things contained within its pages as it's deemed no longer necessary, yet, it picks out just a few items - in particular - homosexuality and it's abomination. It's almost laughable. I think the truth is more easier to digest in that people are leaving the church in droves because of the backward conservative attitudes. Churches may like to think otherwise, but denial always does that to you. I personally know a number of people who regard themselves as Christian, but do not go to church as they disagree with the attitudes of those within the church. Ahh, the debate goes on !! Always good hey ! I can feel a lightning strike heading my way. LOL

Viral Seat Belt Ad on TV from England

Why dont we have great ads like this in Australia? We always have boring senseless ads that everybody ignores because exactly that - they are boring. (See previous post about government being too politically correct, and not wanting to offend anyone - or hurt anyones feelings hence the boring ads that don't do a thing to educate).


The below text and ad are probably over a year old by now, so it may not be ''viral'' anymore.


This is the new "wear your seatbelt" ad the UK is doing. It was started
by an individual man - not just some guy hired to do it, but because the
cause is important to him... He came up with this idea, and now it's
being hailed across the world as a 'beautiful' commercial.

And now the video has gone "viral" - which means it has become so
popular with the general public that people are forwarding it to
friends/family on their own so quickly that it has spread all over the
world in a very short time.

http://embracethis.co.uk//

Get Real

Australia - The Right To Leave Our Country

Good morning/afternoon readers,

Again, I have posted another copied and pasted email, which I must admit, I do agree a lot with. I'm also of the opinion that a lot of Australians will think similarly. At least the ones I have shared this email with, do agree. I suppose it points out a persons rights. Not only a refugees rights, but, our Australian rights as well. I get angry when I see refugees who have made it good in this coutry, get up and complain about this and that, when in their own country if they complained like they do here, they'd be thrown in prison, killed or suddenly just disappear. I think all refugees need to keep in the back of their mind, that a little gratitude would go a long way.

I'm not a racist person at all. All my friends would vouch for that. I happily make friends of all cultures and race. In fact, I love it. However, I hate the fact that Australia is happy to give up its culture so as to not offend a refugees culture. That is just wrong to me. If you come to Australia, live as an Australian, sure, keep aspects of your culture, that's great, but attempts have to be made to integrate. One ideal example of this is the establishment of specialised schools - eg: Muslim. I'm not picking, but if I went to a predominantly Muslim country and asked to set up an English speaking Christian teaching school, do you think they would allow it - NO WAY. Imagine going to Iran and asking that ? So, given that, why do we allow that in Australia ? Are we being more multi-cultural than the Muslim nations? At the end of the day, these people asked to come to our country. If they are offended that we want them to send their children to Australian public or private schools - they have the right to leave, if they don't like it. What is wrong with that? I'm sick to death of political correctness in Australia. And what's worse, it's rife in our government. We need someone in charge who has the balls - speaking metaphorically - to stop this political correctness crap. Just about all Australians are sick to death of it, oh, except the politically correct ones. Again, please note, I did not write the email below, I am simply the messenger.

 

 

   

Australia- The Right to Leave
Our Country - YOU Have the right - the right to leave ! 

After Sydney not wanting to offend other cultures by  putting up Christmas lights. 

After hearing that the State of South Australia changed  its opinion and let a Muslim woman have her picture on  her driver's license with her face  covered.             

This prompted this editorial written by an Australian citizen.  Published in an Australian newspaper. 
Quote:

IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT.   Take It Or Leave It !
I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are  offending some individual or their culture. Since the  terrorist attacks on  Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians. 

However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the "politically correct" crowd began complaining about  the possibility that our patriotism was offending others. I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a  grudge  against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to  Australia. 
However, there are a few things that those who have recently  come to our  country, and apparently some born here,  need to understand.

This idea of Australia being a multicultural community has  served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity.  As Australians, we have our own culture, our own society, our  own language and  our own lifestyle.

This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have  sought freedom. 

We  speak ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese,  Japanese, Russian, or any other language.  Therefore, if you wish to become part of  our  society,  Learn the language! 

"In God We Trust" is our National Motto. This is not some  Christian, right wing, political slogan. We adopted this  motto because Christian men and women, on Christian principles,  founded this  nation,  and this is clearly documented.  It is certainly appropriate to display it  on the walls of our  schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you
Consider another  part of the world as your new home,  Because God is part of our culture. 

If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don't like  " A Fair  Go", then you should seriously consider a move  to another part of this planet.

We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change,  And we really don't care how you did things where you came from. 

This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE,  and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. 

But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about who has the right to Our land, Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our National Motto, or Our Way of Life,  I highly encourage you to take advantage of one other great  Australian freedom,
             "THE RIGHT TO LEAVE"      

If you aren't happy here then  LEAVE!  We didn't force you  to come here.  You asked to be here.  So accept the country YOU accepted.  Pretty easy really, when you think about it.  

I figure if we all keep passing this to our friends (and enemies)  it will  also, sooner or later get back to the complainers, lets all try,  please.                     

 

Illegal Immigrants in Australia

 I do not claim ownership of the following text. It was emailed to me some time ago and for some reason or another, I kept the email. It possibly is not written by an Australian person as it makes reference to a ''free social security number'' which we don't have here in Australia. The text may have been adapted for Australia from a similar type of thing for America? I cannot vouch that the dollar figures are correct, however, I think if you take the whole thing in the context of how it was meant, it will still make sense. Some people will agree with the text, others won't. The joys of life hey!

It has been copied and pasted verbatim.


Here we go ....

*** NOW, LET ME SEE IF I'VE GOT THIS RIGHT....

IF YOU CROSS THE NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12 YEARS HARD LABOUR.

IF YOU CROSS THE IRANIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU ARE DETAINED INDEFINITELY.

IF YOU CROSS THE AFGHAN BORDER ILLEGALLY, YOU GET SHOT.

IF YOU CROSS THE SAUDI ARABIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE JAILED.

IF YOU CROSS THE CHINESE BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU MAY NEVER BE HEARD FROM AGAIN.

IF YOU CROSS THE VENEZUELAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE BRANDED A SPY AND YOUR FATE WILL BE SEALED.

IF YOU CROSS THE CUBAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE THROWN INTO A POLITICAL PRISON TO ROT.

IF YOU CROSS THE AUSTRALIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY, YOU GET:
* A JOB,
* AN INTERPRETER,
* FREE LEGAL AID,
* A DRIVERS LICENCE,
* A SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER,
* WELFARE,
* CREDIT CARDS,
* FREE EDUCATION,
* FREE HEALTH CARE,
* DOLLARS WORTH OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS PRINTED IN YOUR LANGUAGE
* THE RIGHT TO CARRY YOUR COUNTRY'S FLAG WHILE YOU PROTEST THAT YOU DO NOT GET ENOUGH RESPECT.

Sensationalism? Then think about just this one [not so] small aspect...

The Australian Federal Government provides the following financial assistance:- 

BENEFIT	AUSTRALIAN AGED PENSIONER	ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS/REFUGEES LIVING IN AUSTRALIA
Weekly allowance	$253.00	$472.50
Weekly Spouse allowance	$56.00	$472.50
Additional weekly hardship allowance	$0.00	$145.00
TOTAL YEARLY BENEFIT	$16,068.00	$56,680.00

If I were a refugee, why would I look for work? And the current Government is saying that 'elderly Australia' is going to put the country $100 Bn into debt in the next few years?!

The welfare of refugees further down the list.....Well after our Defence men and women,  farmers and the average Aussie battler.  After all, the average pensioner alone has paid taxes and contributed to the growth of this country for the last 40 to 60 years.

A Defence member voluntarily endures hardship, prepared to give up their life to preserve the way of yours; and the farmer/battler who are the backbones of this Country and Culture - never reaches for a handout but always willing to lend a hand...

When these people rarely, if ever, speak out they are shunned, ridiculed and dismissed by the Government and barely makes a headline in the news.

When refugees/immigrants speak out about repression and insensitivity to their culture in Australia, it gets widespread media coverage and quick resolution by Government bodies.

*** I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I HAD A FIRM GRASP ON THE SITUATION

Get Real

The Reliability of DNA Evidence?

I have always wondered at the reliability of DNA evidence used in Australian courts. This type of evidence has gained an almost ''wonderous'' and exhalted level of acceptance. Why?

There is growing concern on the ''other side'' that DNA evidence is not as reliable as you think. I'm just a layman, I'm not a lab technician or a scientific brain, but I have trawled as much of the information as I can that is available to me, and I have no reason to believe that it is wrong. I have presented some of that information here.

Generally, DNA is 99.9% reliable. In practical terms, in a city of 1 million people, if a person commits a crime and is identified using DNA, only 1000 other people could have committed the crime.

Only 1000! ... to me, in an Australian court, you could not convict someone solely on DNA evidence if there is a possibility that one of the other 999 people could have committed that crime. Surely a judge or jury could not reasonably believe this is fair? But it happens.

Despite popular belief, DNA evidence is not as accurate as people might assume. The 99.9% people often cite is actually just an estimate and no one is actually sure how accurate it might be. While every person's DNA is different, a DNA profile, the bit used as evidence, is only a small sliver of a person's entire DNA, and even siblings may share a very similar DNA profile. In 2001 Kathryn Troyer ran a test of Arizona's DNA database of felons and discovered two felons with DNA profiles where 9 of 13 markers were identical, despite the fact that one was white and one was black, and later discovered dozens of other similar matches, yet the FBI estimates the odds of some one sharing those genetic markers to be 1 in 113 billion. As word spread, these findings by a little-known lab worker raised questions about the accuracy of the FBI's DNA statistics and ignited a legal fight over whether the nation's genetic databases ought to be opened to wider scrutiny.

The FBI laboratory, which administers the national DNA database system, tried to stop distribution of Troyer's results and began an aggressive behind-the-scenes campaign to block similar searches elsewhere, even those ordered by courts, a Times investigation found.

At stake is the credibility of the compelling odds often cited in DNA cases, which can suggest an all but certain link between a suspect and a crime scene.

When DNA from such clues as blood or skin cells matches a suspect's genetic profile, it can seal his fate with a jury, even in the absence of other evidence. As questions arise about the reliability of ballistic, bite-mark and even fingerprint analysis, genetic evidence has emerged as the forensic gold standard, often portrayed in courtrooms as unassailable.

But DNA "matches" are not always what they appear to be. Although a person's genetic makeup is unique, his genetic profile -- just a tiny sliver of the full genome -- may not be. Siblings often share genetic markers at several locations, and even unrelated people can share some by coincidence.

No one knows precisely how rare DNA profiles are. The odds presented in court are the FBI's best estimates. The fact that only 13 markers are used out of the entire DNA strain should bring into question the validity of DNA evidence.

You have to ask the question. If the FBI were so confident of the DNA testing model and the accuracy of said model, why did they try and stop the publication of Troyers results and try and block similar searches and scrutiny of the CODIS database? To me, this is a key point. One could take the position that maybe they don't want the ''general public'' to know too much about DNA testing techniques and want to keep it shrouded in mystery. This would help to keep the ''god-like'' status of DNA evidence alive and well in courts, and no doubt, obtain more convictions. Who cares if the defendant is guilty or not, the DNA evidence says they are, so they must be. 

Law enforcement officials and prosecuting attorneys are quick to identify the benefits of DNA evidence for the criminal justice system. DNA evidence, they argue, is even more useful than fingerprinting, with several advantages over that more traditional tool of investigation. DNA evidence is more readily available in criminal investigations than are legible fingerprints because body fluids and hair are more likely to be left at the scene of a crime. DNA evidence is also "robust"; that is, it does not decay or disappear over time. The DNA in a piece of physical evidence such as a hair may be examined years after a crime. Proponents of DNA evidence fear that successful courtroom attacks on its reliability will erode public confidence in its use, giving the state less power in bringing criminals to justice. Defense attorneys and others who are skeptical about DNA evidence strongly disagree with many of these claims. While generally accepting the scientific theory behind DNA evidence, including its ability to exculpate the innocent suspect, they assert that it is not nearly as reliable in practice as its proponents claim. They argue that DNA evidence may be unreliable for any number of reasons, including contamination owing to improper police procedures and faulty laboratory work that may produce incorrect results.

As more and more cases go before courts based soley on DNA evidence, one must also consider another side benefit to the police force. It's cheaper (to put together a prosecution case). No more mucking around with grass seeds stuck to the bottom of shoes, no more fingerprints. Find one hair belonging to the accused, and you will have a case. And if the courts and prosecution have their way, the DNA evidence will surely point to the guilt of said accused.

Barry C. Scheck is a leading critic of DNA evidence. A professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, a defense attorney in several notable cases involving DNA evidence, and an expert for the defense in the celebrated 1995 murder trial of O. J. Simpson, Scheck has led the movement for increased scrutiny of DNA evidence. Conceding that "there is no scientific dispute about the validity of the general principles underlying DNA evidence," he nevertheless argued that serious problems with DNA evidence remained. He found particular fault in the work of forensic laboratories and pointed to research that showed that as many as one to four percent of the DNA matches produced by laboratories were in error. Laboratories denied such claims.
Scheck also criticized the procedures used by laboratories to estimate the likelihood of a DNA match. Because juries consider the probabilities generated by the labs—figures such as one in 300 million or one in 5 million—when assessing the validity of DNA results, it is important to ensure that they are accurate.
DNA critics assert that statistical estimates of a match may be skewed by incorrect assumptions about the genetic variation across a population. In some population subgroups, they claim, individuals may be so genetically similar that a DNA match is more likely to occur when comparing samples drawn from within that subgroup. Examples of such subgroups are geographically isolated populations or tightly knit immigrant or religious communities. Other problems may occur in cases where suspects are closely related to one another. Critics call for more research on population substructures and DNA similarities within them, in order to get a better understanding of statistical properties.

Promoters of forensic DNA testing have done a good job selling the public, and even many criminal defense lawyers, on the idea that DNA tests provide a unique and infallible identification. DNA evidence has sent thousands of people to prison and, in recent years, has played a vital role in exonerating men who were falsely convicted. Even former critics of DNA testing, like Barry Scheck, are widely quoted attesting to the reliability of the DNA evidence in their cases. It is easy to assume that any past problems with DNA evidence have been worked out and that the tests are now unassailable.

The problem with this assumption is that it ignores case-to-case variations in the nature and quality of DNA evidence. Although DNA technology has indeed improved since it was first used just 15 years ago, and the tests have the potential to produce powerful and convincing results, that potential is not realized in every case. Even when the reliability and admissibility of the underlying test is well established, there is no guarantee that a test will produce reliable results every time it is used. In our experience there often are case-specific issues and problems that greatly affect the quality and relevance of DNA test results. In those situations, DNA evidence is far less probative than it might initially appear. The criminal justice system presently does a poor job of distinguishing unassailably powerful DNA evidence from weak, misleading DNA evidence.

 http://www.bioforensics.com/articles/champion1/champion1.html

The link above will take you to a page with diagrams, graphs and the like explaining how some DNA labs show their results.  It gives defence lawyers an opportunity to look at results and see how a DNA lab has conveniently ''ignored'' a couple of ''loci'' which could be all the difference in a person being found guilty or not guilty.

Imagine the scenario in 10 or so years time, that DNA evidence is found to be not as accurate as first thought. What does the government do? If it allows publication of said results, it leaves itself liable to hundreds of million of dollars in compensation to criminals convicted using DNA. Cases would have to be overturned. Convictions quashed. It would be an absolute nightmare for the police, courts and government. That's if the public finds out. If the public doesn't find out, all will be good. I wonder what they'd do? It lends some weight as to why the FBI fought feverishly to stop the publication of Kathryn Troyers results in the USA.

They thought Thalidomide was the new wonder drug... until.....they found out the hard way. I'd hate to think that was the way with DNA testing.

To all those people who will over time, be called to jury service, don't just believe the first thing you hear - question it. Don't just blindly believe what the prosecution and court tell you. The prosecution want one result, Guilty.  The jury is there to guard against bias or vindictiveness on the the part of the prosecution and judiciary. Such apparent contradictions lead to a great deal of pressure to abandon the jury system. It would be a great loss. Don't just take it at face value if DNA evidence is used.

Get Real

American music influence

I can't say what is heppening elsewhere in the world, but I'm a little annoyed at the influence of American music in Australia. In fact, just any American influence. Full Stop.

I find it so annoying to be walking down our main mall here in Adelaide - Rundle Mall - and seeing young lads about 14/15 or so in age, talking and walking around like black American rappers, with a focus on ''gangsta'' image. They are not doing anything wrong per se, I just dislike seeing further American influence on our Australian culture. It's bad enough reading stories from on-line publishers like AdelaideNow which are riddled with spelling errors, bad grammar, bad copying and pasting (of sister papers news stories) and - you guessed it - more and more American spelling. Even local journos who have their stories published can't get it right. Australians spell centre as CENTRE, NOT CENTER. We have biscuits, not COOKIES. And the growing popularity of spelling with ''z'' instead of ''s''. Aussies spell it as recognise, NOT recognize. There are of course, many other words where you can do this substitute.

I don't want to see our Aussie culture destroyed because of slack journalists, black rappers imitated by the young. American music. I want to keep being an Aussie. In 20 years time, I want a prawn to be a prawn, I don't want to see advertising for shrimps.

When you see your local papers or on-line media publishing stuff with American spelling, send them emails or messages to the editor, telling them that you would appreciate them using correct spelling and grammar. If you don't complain, they'll continue to do it, and its use will become everyday. I've even saw a young girl recently at a Woolworths supermarket writing out something and using a ''z'' instead of an ''s''. When I told her of her error, she looked at me blankly as if her error didn't hit home.

If spelling and grammar isn't bad enough, every year, we have to put up with the growing influence of Halloween. And yes, I know Halloween didn't originate in America, for all intents and purposes, to todays people, it is an American tradition. That's fine, no problems, but keep it in America. I don't want it here. I have a sneaking suspicion, it is pushed onto us by American based multinational companies that just want to market more and more stuff in Australia. Halloween means nothing to Australians and should not be celebrated. It's just another influence we have to put up with.

We are not Americans, and I don't want to be. Enough influence. Lets do our thing to remain Aussies. If we don't start getting vocal about the influences creeping into our lives, it will only get worse and worse. It's not criminal, and I'm sure there is no bad intent in any of the influence, but at the end of the day, I want to be an Australian living the Australian way of life. What will be next ? will I see ads on telly preparing us for Thanksgiving?

Get Real

Merry Christmas to all

Unfortunately, I'm a bit late, but the goodwill and intention is there!!

Mery Christmas to all who read my blog, which is still in its infancy, but growing day by day.

Get Real

Tony Stebbing Road Death

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/family-lashes-out-at-director-of-public-prosecutions-over-tony-stebbing-road-death-case/story-e6frea83-1226229179377

If you check out the above story link, you'll see once again our so called justice system has let down the innocent. We really are so behind in South Australia. We have a court system whereby certain judges and magistrates that are so far behind in the times, and so out of touch with reality. It truly stinks. And now, we have reported that those same judges and magistrates have just received whopping pay rises... for what .. more bullshit findings. Judge Peter Brebner should be appalled and hang his head in shame. And as for our Director of Public Prosecutions.. well .. we won't go there. I find it amazing that our court system is falling apart and is so antiquated as to be laughable in other states and yet, our government throws more money at these blokes who pretend to hand out justice. It simply stinks. I used to have a lot of respect for judges and magistrates, but nowadays, they tend to be viewed in the same way as the general public view their local bank manager.

I can certainly understand why this family feel they've been ripped off by our so called justice system. Pathetic!

Get Real

Housing SA (The old Housing Trust)

Why, Why, Why do we continually support the housing of bogan scumbag tenants in public housing. There is no doubt a good percentage of tenants do the right thing and look after their houses or units, BUT, there are a reasonable portion that do not. And, I'm one (probably of many) who are just sick to death of these scumbags. There are no doubt people who are desperate to live in public housing and are well prepared to look after that property. The "charter" of Housing SA is to house those in the greatest need. But, you have to ask the question, are these people who wreck houses or units in the category of being in the greatest need? I firmly believe in Robert Brokenshires' adage - 3 strikes and you're out. SIMPLE. It seems Housing SA is full of fools who have no idea what they're doing and at the end of the day, none of them probably give a stuff. They need to get inspectors doing the hard graft and getting back to doing exactly that - INSPECTING .. and warning. Keep your properties respectable, clean and don't annoy your neighbours, or you will be evicted. Give this warning to them twice and on the third instance, they are evicted with 2 months warning, no ifs, no buts. If they're not ready, or they haven't moved at the end of two months, the heavies move in to start turfing out their furniture onto the road. It's not difficult Housing SA. You just need a department head who has balls, and a department that has the motivation.

In addition, I believe changes should be made to the Housing Act, and to the purpose of Housing SA. Tenants going into public housing under the age of 45, must purchase their house - not rent. They can then pay off their house or unit at reduced rates. I would like to think that the bogan tenants may then actually look after their houses given they are actually buying it. Safeguards and such can be built into the new Housing SA charter if a tenant defaults continually. In effect, Housing SA, can become a financier for low income families. They wouldn't need to do repairs as this is the homeowners responsibility, just as with a normal purchase. They could offer 'favourable' payment terms which could be added onto the original loan if high value items need replacing, eg, water heater. If the tenant/owner defaults on house payments, it is re-possessed, just as what happens in the real world.

It is workable, and would certainly reduce the debt owed to Housing SA as tenant/owners are less likely to smash up their own home. If prospective tenants/owners don't like the scheme - stay in private rental. No-one is forcing you either way.

Get Real

South Australian Department for Planning, Transport & Infrastructure - Registration Periods

I am really pissed at the Department for Planning, Transport & Infrastructure in South Australia in changing their registration periods by deleting the 6 and 9 month options, leaving on 3 and 12 month options. They say it was because hardly anyone used the 6 and 9 month options. I think this is bollocks and I'd like to see some proof from them (of course, not offered). In my opinion, I reckon they did it to make more money - pure and simple. In this period when we are being ripped off blindly for electricity and water, the department knows a lot of people are finding it tough - you'd think they'd offer more options... but noooo, lets take away options and market it as a good thing. What crap. Jay Weatherill, do something about it!

It stinks and more South Australians should be making their complaints. You can do this at:

http://www.sa.gov.au/feedback

http://www.dpti.sa.gov.au/contact_us/online_contact_form

DTEI.enquiriesadministrator@sa.gov.au

In fact, do what I did, copy and paste your email content at each of the above links. Swamp them with email. Let them know the South Australian public is not happy with their ''New Easier Simpler System''.

I laughed when I read the blurb from the department about the NEW SIMPLIFIED SYSTEM. The only people it is simpler for is the government. It actually makes it harder for families and low income people to register their cars. HHmm. "I'd like to register the family car for 12 months, but I have a big electricity bill coming in soon, so will only register for 3 months". Yippee, the government has just made more money out of you because it costs more to register for 3 months. Thanks Government of South Australia for helping the public. Where would we be without you...

Change it back now to the older system and give 6 or 9 month options. You have abolished car windscreen labels - I'm good with that, that's a saving already for you, and of course, you are saving in postage of said label. Isn't that enough?

People of South Australia, start complaining. Write in to the Advertiser, government and any media you can. Lets get this changed.

Get Real

The unfairness of (South) Australian Law - David Thomas Bonython-Wright

Why do we continue with this farce of naming people who have been accused of sex offences? Lets take for example, David Thomas Bonython-Wright.

 http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/counsellor-facing-sex-charges-named-as-david-thomas-bonython-wright/story-e6frea83-1226224467488

In a previous post, I exploded over the fact a teenage driver/killer under the age of 18 has his named suppressed forever because of his stupid act and his age, and yet, a man stands accused, and not yet proven guilty, and has his named splashed all over newspapers and television. I understand that some names are suppressed to protect the victims, there is no problem in doing that.

My beef is with the naming of accused offenders prior to them being found guilty - if found guilty at all. Whether you like it or not, as soon as people read or hear about someone accused of an offence, in particular, a sexual offence, in most cases, they assume the ''victim'' is telling the truth, and the accused is guilty. SHIT STICKS.

So if the accused is found not guilty, they've had their life potentially ''ruined'' by the publication of their name. If the accused is found guilty, fine, by all means, splash their name all over the media (unless it is supressed). But until they're found guilty, keep it out of the media.

But as typical, the media will argue that everyone has a right to know. What bullshit. The media are only interested in one thing. Stories to help them sell papers or TV time. Make it as sensational as possible. If the general population really think the media care about them, they'd better think again.

Why do we have these double standards? It really pisses me off. You only have to look at another high profile case - Dominique Strauss-Kahn and the maid. Virtually everyone in the public was condemning DSK, because of the automatic belief that she was telling the truth and DSK was guilty - why else would she come out with this story? And then, a little more of the truth starts coming out and finally, people start to realise that a money hungry bitch of a maid is trying to get her 15 minutes of fame (and probably some type of  "victims of crime'' payout, or a payout by DSK).

HOWEVER, if DSK had never had his name published, he still might have his job at the IMF and a bit more pride. There will of course be people who think DSK is still guilty, but got off on a technicality, again, proving that SHIT STICKS. I hope he sues the bitch for all she is worth, which is probably nothing anyway. Who cares, get her thrown out on the street so she can go live in a ghetto where she belongs.


Get Real

Update: 28/5/2013

David Bonython-Wright has been found guilty of his alleged crimes. I gather from circulating news, he has been granted an appeal based on mismatching evidence presented by the prosecution. Naturally, no details were given as to what exactly will make up the basis of the appeal, apart from what has been stated.

What really annoys the hell out of me ... Dealing with IDIOTS

I can't stand dealing with idiots. They really do annoy me.

Example: Why do certain people who happen to be driving at dusk, turn on only their parking lights, but not their headlights? In reality, they'd probably need to switch on their headlights in the next 10 or so minutes anyway .. Then, because their dash is lit up, they forget to turn on their headlights.. and end up driving around in near darkness with no headlights ... Why wouldn't you just turn on your headlights at dusk anyway, just to be prepared and a little safer? Candidate for idiot ??

Are these the same people who are being served at the checkout in a supermarket, then the checkout person says "that'll be $97.50 please" .. all of a sudden they realise they have to PAY  .. and only then do they start to fumble through their purses, pockets or whatever to eventually get their money, cards and so on. Usually then, they are so disorganised, that they don't have enough funds in one account or the other and have to put half on EFT and the other half on credit. Meanwhile holding up all the line behind them. Why can't they think ahead, know how much they can spend and have their card or cash at the ready for the checkout person. Candidate for idiot?

Are these the same people who catch the bus into work in the morning or home at night and actually hop on the bus and get to the machine where you validate your ticket and then start fumbling around to get their ticket out of their said purse, wallet etc? Again, holding up the people behind them. Why can't they think ahead and when they see the bus coming towards them, get their ticket out at the ready? Candidate for idiot?

I worked in a job previously and one of my jobs was to take telephone orders from customers. Geez, the amount of idiots I came across in that job. They would ring up, have no idea how to explain what they want to order, and have no product codes or brands to quote. Invariably, if the product we sent out was wrong, they'd ring up and ask for collection of the "wrong" goods, and the "right" goods sent out. What amazed me is that these people were running businesses and basically had no idea what goods they need on a regular basis. In fairness, we did have some great customers who knew exactly what items they needed, had all the brands and part numbers written down and quoted said numbers on their emailed, phoned or faxed order. I'm surprised there are not more businesses that go broke through sheer stupidity. Possible candidate for idiot?

Tell me what gives you the shits?

Get Real

Why do we protect these underage speeding KILLER bogans ??

I refer to the following story in AdelaideNow

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/court-told-car-might-explode-it-was-travelling-so-fast/story-e6frea6u-1226223132126

Why do we repeatedly protect the identities of these underage killers? It's about time we changed the law to reflect the seriousness of their crimes. Personally I don't give a stuff whether it affects their later life when they become an adult.

Leroy Economou was killed outright because of the stupid stupid behavious of this little bogan prick. If I was the judge, I'd be throwing him behind bars for 20 years. Adelaide has suffered at the hands of these pricks who get their licenses and then hit the road thinking they know it all. Well they're wrong. Even seasoned drivers may find it difficult to get out of a dire situation. Add to it, a pimply faced bogan who thinks he can handle a car at 180kmh and you got it... a recipe for disaster. And a disaster and death it was. This kid should be named and shamed ... who cares ... and to the bleeding hearts who want to protect this prick .. maybe taking this sort of action is a better choice than trying to protect them.

Still, I suppose, like breeds like.

I'm sick to death of the attitude of todays youth. they think they know it all .. they have too many rights .. and they should have been punished and shown what boundaries they need to stay within when they are young. We're seeing the result of slack parenting, and parenting that's all about molly coddling and sitting down and have a "talk". A good kick up the backside is what these kids need.. maybe then they'll grow up with a bit more respect.

Get Real

You can kill someone and not go to jail... wow .. this is really setting a precedent.

Thanks to Senior Judge Stephen McEwen,, you can now help to kill someone (or at least be involved in accidentally killing someone) and get a slap on the wrist. Yippee.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/eudunda-joy-ride-driver-avoids-jail/story-e6frea83-1226218151208

Why is it not mentioned that the girl involved who actually did the driving... COULD HAVE STOPPED THE CAR AND NOT DRIVEN. She showed total disregard to her own safety and those that stupidly chose to hop on the roof of her vehicle?

I also note, that she INTENDS  to talk to other young people about her stupidity ... but has she done that yet ??? Apparently not ... Yep ... She's just whoopin it up and happy not to be in jail ... Who's the next person she's gonna take for a ride?

Legal Practitioners Conduct Board and their love for Eugene McGee - KILLER

When are you going to get some balls you mangy lot. Eugene McGee does not deserve to be practicing law. He is a disgrace to the profession, but what else can we expect from the ''old boys club'' ... look after each other... Just disgusting. Eugene McGee... I'll give you this.... you knew how to play the system to get the best for yourself... We, the public know what a scumbag you are. A so called professional ..... bullshit... The sad part of this is... everything anyone says is all public knowledge .... you must be one of the most hated people in Australia. If you'd owned up to the crime you apparently didn't commit, people would have at least held you in a higher regard.

Good Luck to Di Gilcrist-Humphrey and Michael Atkinson (and Nick Xenophon - not that he has been forgiven about his rant about a certain religious character ... you did damage to yourself and your credibility Nick .. I always thought you'd be a great Premier... until then).

The fight is not over yet McGee ... you obviously have no conscience or guilt (in your mind) ... I believe in Karma .. what goes around .. will come around ..

Eugene McGee - Killed and paid a $3,100 fine. Lawyers are great :)

The case of Eugene McGee  - The hit-run lawyer ... (I thought they were supposed to be held in high regard), is just disgusting. This bloke knew how to play the system and what he needed to do to make it as difficult as possible for the law to get hold of him. Nothing that I say isn't already in the public forum, and I'm sure most South Australians (Australians!!), hold the same opinion as I do. I'd hate to be one of his friends.. if he has any left.

The whole case just stinks of 'protect one of the boys''. And John Rau is ... well.. the less said, the better.

I personally know lawyers, and whilst I wouldn't publish any names, think that what McGee did was totally and utterly, wrong. He ran from a scene of a crime and did his best to hide his tracks .. we all know that. It's been reported in every paper around the country. And to think, McGee is still practising his brand of 'defence' around South Australian courtrooms. I wonder if he'll hang his head in shame if he has to defend a client on drink/drive/killing charges? Probably not. This bloke definitely will be going to hell.


And the Legal Practitioners Conduct Board "LPCB", absolves McGee of any misconduct ... duh ... are they looking 'after one of the boys' or what ? It's either that, or basically, just like the ACCC, they're a toothless bunch that hasn't the balls to keep their profession as ''professional'' as it should be.

It's interesting to note that McGee was found not guilty to pervert the course of justice. Yes, thank god for that .. I'd hate there to be any wrongdoing going on.

Hey McGee, if I hit a cyclist and kill them, can I ring you and get you to defend me in court, so I get off with a pissy $3,100 fine?

Another  interesting thought. I wonder what the judges and magistrates think of McGee defending clients? Professionally, they'd say one thing, but behind closed doors ?

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/eugene-mcgee-and-craig-mcgee-found-not-guilty-of-conspiracy-over-kapunda-rd-hit-run/story-e6frea6u-1225841727209

http://www.woj.com.au/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapunda_Road_Royal_Commission

GET REAL

Serge Zaporoshenko and his rocket launcher

I read with disbelief that this poor bloke - Serge Zaporoshenko - faces court over having a rocket launcher mounted on his garage wall.


http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/rocket-launcher-found-on-camping-trip-court-hears/story-e6frea83-1226215383109


According to poor Serge, he found it whilst camping with friends back in 1995, and decided (maybe foolishly) to keep it. Apparently, according to his lawyer, Heath Barklay, the launcher is incapable of being operated. I'm sure this should play a big part in Serges defence. It's not like he can nip down to the local ammo store and buy a few rockets.


Whilst one may question why a young man would want a rocket launcher on his wall, the fact that it is inoperable is important. Serge is not a terrorist, nor activist and in reality shouldn't be in court. The weapon should have been simply taken from him and the matter resolved. BUT... no.. according to the powers to be, he must be charged and pay the price. It's rubbish like this that wastes court time and at the end of the day, does absolutely no good to anyone to prosecute and punish. The police, courts and prosecution should be kicked up the bums for wasting our good money on frivolous time wasting cases.



Good luck Serge.


Get Real