Sunday, 25 January 2015

The assault case against Constable Norman Hoy. Yasser Shahin and Judge Paul Rice's comments re the case.

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:

Get Real

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.

Read more about it on AdelaideNow:

Get Real

Friday, 23 January 2015

Winston Churchill Quote from 1899 re Muslim influence.

Quote from Winston Churchill 1899

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.

Form your own opinion.

Get Real

Wednesday, 7 January 2015

Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack in Paris. Will World War 3 be caused by religion? The Sydney terrorist attacks.

I am pissed off (once again) at the lack of response by the Muslim community in general at the disgusting attack on the Paris based satirical newspaper, Charlie Hebdo.

Charlie Hebdo has been the victim of firebomb attacks, threats against life, and a range of other threats, over the years.

They have insulted the prophet Mohammad (according to Muslims). In other words, they drew and published pictures in their paper which insulted the Muslim community. Note, this happens all the time with Jesus, Mary etc and no-one seems to give a toss about it.

For publishing those images, some of them died, and quite a number were injured.

And yet, the Muslim community in general is quiet. They only seem to come out with a statement condemning the attacks when they're prodded by journalists or government officials.

Whether Muslims like it or not, everybody has the right to express their opinions and not face the threat of being killed or injured for it.

The Muslims I know are a little more open minded, and whilst personally they might be slightly offended of a caricature of the Prophet, they keep it to themselves as they know they live in a western world, and unfortunately, that's what westerners do... they poke fun at those things near and dear to them.

What concerns me is this silence from the community as a whole. After the seige in Sydney at the Lindt chocolate outlet, there was a little statement from Muslims condemning the attack, but overall, am eerie silence.

It makes you wonder if on the outside, the community is saying one thing, but thinking another.

These extreme terrorists will be the way of the future. There will be insidious attacks on a small scale like Paris and Sydney. It's too hard now to try and hijack planes, so go for the easy targets.

The Muslim community needs to become more vocal if they want world peace. They need to do more when it comes to condemnation of the Islamic State. To sit around and do nothing is to support this terrorist group. I look out for Islamic blogs (in English anyway), to see if I can see signs of condemnation of IS, but there is nothing.

Charlie Hedbo must beef up security and show these terrorist thugs that they will not give in. We all have a right to be heard, even if some of us don't like what we're hearing. Incidents such as this should cause all good hearted Muslim citizens around the world to stand up and condemn the actions of ISIS and Al Quaeda.

In saying this, westerners also need to realise that the bulk of Muslim people are peace loving and simply want to live in our community and do their thing. However, no-one has the right to take up arms against another person simply because they are insulted. The western world would be in total chaos if everybody took up arms every time there was a caricature of Jesus, God, Mary or any other religious character.

Lets just live in peace and have a little more acceptance and tolerance towards each other. And that goes for all sides.

Get Real

Is it fair that victims of crime exaggerate their claim in a victim impact statement or testimony in court? Should alleged sex assault victims not be allowed to go to the media? Bill Cosby, Prince Andrew, Virginia Roberts.

On the heels of the guilty verdict of Rolf Harris, plus allegations against Cliff Richard, plus allegations against Bill Cosby, it got me thinking of how fair the 'system' is.

In the case of a 'not guilty' plea, a defense lawyer will usually try and find fault with the victims claim and/or discredit their testimony in the defense of their client. In return, the prosecution also tries to discredit the defense and find faults in the defense testimony. What is fair for one side is fair for the other.

It has often been said by defense lawyers that a sex crime allegation is hard to defend simply by the fact that most people will ask the question "Why would she/he make up such an allegation"? Add 20 years into the equation, and whammo, you have a court case that will most probably go in favour of the victim, even if the victim is lying, or exaggerating their claim. Is this fair? No, of course not.

I'm sure, most of the alleged victims in the Rolf Harris case had on occasions met with him in the past. But, have they been assaulted by him? And what constitutes an assault in the moral sense? If I touch someone on the shoulder, am I committing a crime? If I gently smack a woman on the bum as she goes past, am I committing a crime? Of course I am, but lets face it, it's not going to make the sky fall down.

Here lies the dilemma which pisses me off.

Lets say I'm a rock singer and as singers do, they have fans, who follow them around. I have the chance to meet with some of my fans after a concert and as it goes, I give one or two of them a smack on the bum. It might also be that a fan stays and we end up in bed together. No, I didn't specifically ask her to stay as we were in each others arms kissing and making out. I took it that she and I wanted sex, and it was mutual. She was happy and loving every bit of it, as was I.

Fast forward 25 years.

A middle aged woman comes out to the media with allegations she was sexually assaulted by me after a concert, a number of years ago.

She says I used her infatuation to gain her trust and use it to my advantage to have sex with her, thereby committing a sexual assault. So far, she hasn't made an official complaint to police. And lets face it, in most of these high profile cases of recent, the complainants have gone to the media first.

Suddenly another woman arrives on the doorstep of the media, and claims "Oh, I was assaulted as well many years ago". That was the woman I gave a gentle smack on the bum to. I have to own up to that as I probably shouldn't have done it.

Well now, the media thinks all it's Christmases have come at once. Virtually unknown people coming to them with exclusive stories to tell. They are wetting themselves with joy, and boy, are they going to have a field day. My life is laid out and I'm described as a monster who prayed on young girls, using my stature as a rock singer to woo them.

Women band together on the front steps of buildings yelling abuse to me (via the ever present media). My life is undergoing a bit of turmoil at the moment.

People who know me, support me. Those people who don't know me personally, (which is most of the public), think I'm a monster.

Is it fair for a woman to have willing sex 25 years ago, then later in life, change her mind and say she was assaulted? No, of course not. But somehow, some women think this is fair. The woman I had consensual sex with 25 years ago tells the media she was assaulted and all the time she never wanted sex. I'm bewildered as when we were in each others arms kissing and canoodling, I thought it's what we both wanted. She showed no signs of resisting my approach and seemed to be loving it. Apparently not, as now she's saying I assaulted her. How dumb was I to think her smiles and laughing was all put on and she was hating it.

Ultimately, the case goes to the court and I'm found guilty (surprise surprise), and I spend the next 3 years in prison for an assault which apparently happened without either of us knowing about it all those years ago.

Let's leave the pretend world of the rock singer and look at this case and other points.

  • Should a person be allowed to have willing sex and then change their minds later that in fact it wasn't willing sex?
  • Should a 'victim'' be allowed to exaggerate their hurt in a victim impact statement to make their case more likely to succeed?
  • Why is it that when men lodge complaints against women for sexual assault, they mostly are lost or the case is thrown out?
  • It seems on the face of it, that women never sexually assault men. What about a woman who is horny and her male partner wants to sleep? She's all over him trying to get him aroused, and all he wants to do is sleep. Why is this not considered assault? Why is it OK for women to assault a man like this but if a man does it, he's in the shit for not being sensitive enough and not remembering "no means no". This doesn't seem to apply to women.
  • Do men now have to resort to getting women to sign a consent form before having consensual sex to protect themselves from these women who will try and turn the tables around?

Virginia Roberts

The case now hitting the headlines is of Virginia Roberts, The woman who has lodged legal documents in a United States court as to her being kept as a 'sex slave' by Wall Street financier, Jeffrey Epstein. According to ... yes.. you guessed it, the media, Roberts claims to have had underage sex with many men arranged by Epstein, including Prince Andrew. Funny how stuff like this happens to 'leak' to the media ... probably in an effort to build the sympathetic momentum. It all seems a bit orchestrated if you ask me. No matter what the verdict, she will walk away a rich woman. Probably just what she wanted.

Already, the headlines claim "VIRGINIA ROBERTS: FROM SEX SLAVE TO GOLD COAST MUM". Nowhere is it mentioned that it's actually been proved that she was a sex slave, so why not word the headline "ALLEGED SEX SLAVE". But no, that doesn't excite the media. So this carefully orchestrated campaign to 'leak' information to the press to help her case has started.

Roberts also claims she was underage. Underage for where? The age of consent in Britain is 16, as with parts of America. In other parts of America it is 17 and 18. So her claim of being underage is just crap. In my opinion, a young girl in Roberts position of being pampered and 'hanging' with the rich and famous would be a huge ego boost. For all we know, she might have been a very willing sex partner. (Remember what I said before about women who change their minds later in life?).

If you're going to hang around with that seedy part of life having sex with the rich and famous, you have to expect some of that seediness to rub on you. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If this relationship between Virginia Roberts and Jeffrey Epstein really did exist. I'll bet you she wanted every bit of sex and to be able to flirt with the rich and famous. What other girl (fullstop) is going to have the chance of having sex with Prince Andrew? Roberts quotes "He wasn't my type .. but I still did it anyway". Duh, Hello, Well, of course you are going to say this type of comment. You're trying to garner public opinion and you want it to go in your favour. You don't want to be seen as some bimbo slut sleeping around with famous people so what better way to explain stuff as it was 'expected' of you. "I was being kept by Jeffery Epstein (and Ghislain Maxwell), and I was effectively lent out (prostituted out) to his rich friends for sex". And of course, she adds 'juicy' parts in to make her story more plausible. I'd be interested to know how she and the prosecution intends to prove her case. It's her word against the powerful lawyers of the ruch and famous. I guess that's why you need to have the media campaign to garner support.

From Roberts own mouth, she claimed to have met the Queen, but this has been refuted by her father, who also says her claims should be tested in court. The father now speaks out but where was he when she was 17 and being used as a sex slave?

Virginia Roberts stands to make a lot of money from the media attention to her case. Funny that. If the case is unsuccessful, she still stands to make millions from it. There'll be the women's magazines, probably a book in the making with some title of "From sex slave to proud Mum". But, the public aren't stupid. They'll stand divided. The women's groups will herald her a saviour to women, whilst others will look at her as a bimbo that may or may not have had sex legally or illegally. If she had sex with all or some of the people she said she did, how will this be proved in a court of law?

Retired Harvard University Professor Alan Dershowitz has accused Virginia Roberts of lying, saying he can prove her claims are ‘completely untrue’. Roberts claims to have had sex with Professor Alan Dershowitz in Jeffrey Epsteins private island. She claims she was 'forced' to have sex. Dershowitz does not refute that he was on the island as a guest of Epsteins, but asserts that the one day he was there, he was with his wife and daughter the whole time and the family slept in the same apartment room together.

It's liken it to a bimbo who has had the privilege of meeting a lot of esteemed people, and she may or may not have had sex with some of them. And she may have been underage or she may not, depending on what country or county she was in. Like I said before, 16, 17 and 18 is an age where a lot of countries allow teenagers to have sex. Roberts doesn't claim she was beaten or tortured, but simply she was used as a 'sex slave'. And now that term bothers her and she's pissed by it. What better way to protect your image but to say you were forced into it. I don't buy that sorry. Some of you will, but I don't. We're not talking some middle age dark countries here. We're talking about the United States and London. You can't tell me that if Roberts felt she was being abused or mistreated, she couldn't have found a way to get to a police station or another person for help? She's not claiming to be held against her will, so that can't figure into it. I reckon she's simply been a bimbo to the stars and now regrets it.

Sorry, love, you can't live the high life and enjoy all the benefits and then turn around years later and claim it was all forced onto you, and you were too young and stupid to know what was going on. I'll bet you knew exactly what was going on.

Get Real

Friday, 2 January 2015

Coleman Rail and Adelaide's Tram Extension. Fix the problems the government is accusing you of creating!!

A number of readers will have seen the reports of major problems involving the tram extension in Adelaide.

From recent reports, it appears the problems were created by Coleman Rail, the builder of the extension.

It appears from the reports that most of the problems surround the power conduit running along the length of the track. The South Australian government has launched Supreme Court action against Coleman Rail in a bid to recoup compensation for the extra work needed to bring the track up to scratch.

Some of the problems in the report are detailed below:

  • A number of access pits at tram stops contain water and have been built to a substandard level. How will workers be able to get into the pits to do work ?
  • The electrical conduit, which one assumes, should be quite clean and free of foreign material has been found to contain sludge, string, gravel, rocks and even a tent peg.
  • The conduit is in sections, cracked and leaking. Duh!! This is electricity we are playing with. Does anyone remember that electricity and water don't mix?
  • Sand used to pack around the conduit to provide stabilisation and protection has been laid haphazardly and without care. In addition, the cable placement is also haphazard and undulating. In other words, it's up and down all over the place. Don't think this is a drama? Low area's can result in water pooling around the cracked conduit and zappo... I don't want to be on the tram when it has another power outage on a freezing cold wet day.
If these problems are really caused by bad workmanship, I fail to see how Coleman Rail aren't jumping to fix the issues. If I did some work for someone and the work later showed to be substandard, I'd be jumping to fix it asap to keep my reputation. Maybe Coleman Rail simply don't care? I'd imagine they get enough government contracts for builds and repairs that they don't feel they need to do anything to fix their alleged substandard work.

I think it's important to show larger companies that think they're above the government and provide substandard work as alleged, that they are still responsible to fix their mistakes. It's how they respond to the alleged mistakes is what matters. To claim no ownership of the problem after the event is like turning your back and pretending it hasn't happened. Coleman Rail need to take ownership of this problem and work with the government to sort out the issues and have them rectified. Isn't positive press all what it's about?

South Australia is not a big State. This sort of work to us is a major build. We need to get maximum value for money for our economy. We're not the size of NSW or Victoria (economically speaking) and have to make the money spread around as best we can, and get the best value we can.

You can visit Coleman Rail  / Geotech Groups Facebook page and let them know you're not happy with their alleged poor work.

Get Real