Why Indonesia Needs the Death Penalty

They don’t need a Death Penalty to Stop the Drugs, they need a scott morriscum (essentially the same really)

This semi literate dill is a lecturer in law?

This semi literate dill is a lecturer in law?

SACK HIM!

From a link in the article

Jokowi’s blanket rejection is a blatant violation of Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Indonesia is a state party.

https://theconversation.com/jokowi-should-halt-executions-under-indonesias-corrupt-judicial-system-37463

Will Jokowi make a statement along the lines of the Indonesian people are “sick of being lectured to by the” ICCPR?

Don’t worry AO, the TPP will take care of that for them. They’ll just rule the GST inhibits their “freedom” to make money 😉

AFP should be investigated over role:

Definitely.

I also read this morning that withdrawing Aid now, after yabots comments, will be very difficult.

Australia’s large aid program in Indonesia should be cutback to reflect Indonesia’s growing economic strength. But Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s maladroit characterisation of the Aceh tsunami aid during the execution row has made it harder for Australia to cut back now without adding to the impression in Indonesia that the aid is only intended to buy Australia influence.

Not only that, but the tears of this mob who sent asylum seekers back to Indonesia and their deaths makes any kind of moral grandstanding futile.

“AFP should be investigated over role:”

I dont disagree especially in “gifting” the B9 to the scumbags but I also heard this morning that the AFP were already aware of the operation when Rush’s father contacted them

the AFP were already aware of the operation when Rush’s father contacted them

That’s really neither here nor there wally (although it does add to the depth of their moral abyss)

It is the fact that they could have arrested them here before they left, but instead handed them to the Indonesians, where we now have this outcome.

The AFP may not have pulled the trigger, but it certainly looks like they had a hand in loading the gun. And they more than anyone SHOULD have known the outcome of their deal.

I heard another of their lawyers say on am that he “wouldn’t allow that rabbit to get a run”

Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono had a moratorium on capital punishment.

er, obviously I meant “in power” over here yomm 😯

They took no notice of Brazil, France

France??

On what basis do you think these executions had anything to do with the actions of Australian politicians?

Obviously you forgot my comment above about “whoever was in power” 😉

Wow, now we know why bolt and yabot get on so well together

Birds of a Feather

Tony Abbott’s Indigenous ‘lifestyle choices’ remark smacks of racism, says UN rapporteur

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/apr/29/tony-abbotts-indigenous-lifestyle-choices-remark-smacks-of-racism-says-un-rapporteur

”Do you have a link for that

Of course!!

PETER MORRISSEY: No, it’s not, it’s not my view. I don’t think they were singled out for being Australian. I hope that rabbit doesn’t start running. The first thing is that the boys were killed and that’s just…. it’s-it’s horrible and it’s the death penalty at work.

The second thing is that the Indonesian president and his attorney general are both politicians in a position of weakness and they’re using this as a display of strength. And it’s horrible to see that, you know, they’re prepared to dispense with lives – probably 63-odd lives at the moment – for that end.

And finally, the way they rode over their justice system, it’s confronting to me as a lawyer and those of us in the legal team who tried our best, it’s as if we’re using the wrong song book, you know? We’re talking the language of law and they – those two – are talking the language of power.

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2015/s4225751.htm

Thanks for the link yomm (it was more in jest) Adrian would be impressed 😉

I thought he had meant yabot when he said rabbit, obviously not

As for France, they at least have a reprieve.

A Frenchman was originally among the group to be executed but he was granted a temporary reprieve after authorities agreed to allow an outstanding legal appeal to run its course.

http://news.yahoo.com/indonesia-executes-8-convicts-filipina-spared-local-media-180033859.html

Howard never had much sympathy for any australians in trouble overseas.

Except maybe Downer

Don’t worry about my surfing TB, I’m actually looking forward to my mid year non Bali holiday.

I think there is an English woman in the next batch of scheduled Murders.

That should make it interesting.

Nothing will happen until a whole lot of Countries gang up together and threaten to give the Indo grubs a gangbang they wont forget

Looks like both media failures are going after Tanya Plibersek. She must have done something right then. What vacuous fuckwits

“Fuck nationalist kneejerkism.”

Capital punishment is wrong in all circumstances – but it is a current issue here.
Just as –

• Poverty is a problem around the world, but the issue resonates when we see it close to home
• Indigenous dispossession occurs in other continents, but we see it in Australia, so we talk about it
• Los Angeles has a severe drought, but their climate (or weather) problems aren’t always interesting to discuss

I really don’t understand the logic of suggesting we only talk about capital punishment when it involves Australians. There are plenty of topics like that.

I guess reb is having this thing called a “life”, so I’ll try it without hte tweets.

Both fairfax and newscorpse seem to be going after Labor and Tanya Plibersek specifically for daring to raise the same-sex marriage issue, and make it Labor policy. Funny, I recall the atttacks from these wanks on Gillard when she allowed a conscience vote as not going far enough. To add insult to injury, farflux even try to blame the libs failure on this as somehow Labor’s fault. They even out-corpsed newscorpse

Her misstep may well dissuade the federal Liberal Party from reviving a conscience vote for its MPs on same-sex marriage, and embolden critics in the government to cement their opposition to change.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/smh-editorial/tanya-pliberseks-misstep-threatens-progress-on-samesex-marriage-20150428-1mut6z.html

of course, newscorpse are still newscorpse, and apparently having a brawl discussion on such an important issue is somehow not good for democracy. Of course, this is the same mob who loudly cheered the Scott McIntyre lynching for broadening the Anzac brawl discussion. Of course, the stoopid doesn’t end there. They also highlight the “dearth of policies”, apparently somehow missing the four or five policies already released by Labor well over a year before the next election would even be considered, and after coming out of a 6 year term that saw a multitude of policies. Many of which are still Labor policies. Maybe they don’t really know what “dearth” means?

The gathering storm says much about the judgments and priorities of some figures in the alternative government. Despite a dearth of policies and a weak performance by Mr Shorten and his frontbench on economic issues, the opposition has fared well in the polls.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/editorials/a-brawl-labor-doesnt-need/story-e6frg71x-1227325483271

But I think this is just the first salvo in the war against same sex marriage and any further moves towards it’s acceptance. Crocodile tears and hand wringing from opponents, who appear to hold sway in our msm

Are these Lifters or Leaners?

Both? Can we call them Bludgers

Fifty-five of Australia’s highest earners paid no income tax at all during 2012-13, not even the Medicare levy.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tax-office-statistics-reveal-the-55-millionaires-who-paid-no-tax-20150429-1mw2zp.html

l tend to agree with `smh` on this one

This doesn’t surprise me. Although, to fairfaxes credit, they haven’t yet stooped to having to count coloured packets to defend the rights of killers to continue killing

So, your argument is, it’s gonna be hard, so don’t do it?

ROBBER BARONS!

It has a certain ring to it 😉

This MUST be a parody account

lsn`t reb in canoe-town still.?

If he is, then I take back my previous comment about having fun.

Although, now you mention it, it does seem a little more crowded here lately.

if your dressed for

you’re

Get a low grade public servant who only has any form of public recognition because he’s paid by the public purse on a publicly funded broadcaster. Have him use this taxpayer funded profile to make outrageous and deliberately offensive comments about people who are dead, at a time that their relatives are reflecting on their deaths.

The defenders of this leach on taxpayers insist that that he’s been denied workplace rights when he used the (minor) influence associated with his publicly funded position to press his deliberately offensive and culturally insensitive comments.

Sky Canoes?

F-35 engines from United Technologies Corp. are proving so unreliable that U.S. plans to increase production of the fighter jet may be slowed, according to congressional auditors.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-27/f-35-engines-from-united-technologies-called-unreliable-by-gao

He should stick to what he is good at.

Jazz Hands?

The world has enough airheaded celebrity types sprouting political drivel.

Like bolt?

fabulous voice and fruit-loop opinions.

I haven’t heard bolt sing, so it’s arguable it still applies 😉

🙂

Scott McIntyre was requested/directed to remove the offensive comments. This is a lawful directive, he declined.

• Therefore dismissal is a legitimate option for the employer.

The comments were made via a device provided by his employer, he is not entitled to use the device in a manner that is contrary to the policy or direction of his employer. He was given the opportunity to comply with the company’s direction for use of the device. He refused to comply.

• Therefore dismissal is a legitimate option for the employer.

McIntyre wasn’t dismissed over any freedom of speech issue, he was dismissed for using a company provided mobile in a manner contrary to the direction of his company, and for not complying with their direction.

I’m yet to see any evidence of that though.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/apr/27/malcolm-turnbull-denies-influencing-sbs-sacking-of-reporter-for-anzac-tweets

“SBS staff have been told that sports reporter Scott McIntyre was sacked not for his “offensive” Anzac Day tweets but for refusing to take them down, while the communications minister Malcolm Turnbull has denied having any influence on the network’s decision.

The director of sport at SBS, Ken Shipp, told staff at a meeting on Monday morning that McIntyre was sacked for disobeying an order to delete the posts which had caused outrage on Twitter on Saturday night.

“Cheers nIl. So, he was given an opportunity. Just as bolt was.”

I think a company has a right to expect certain behavior from their employees. SBS asked the guy to take down the tweets and he disobeyed.

Bolt is different. He was taken to court by some private citizens and the court has now banned him from speaking. Also his blog has been destroyed. It now has to be moderated and it takes ages if at all to post something.

… the IT industry has to be the place to be in the 21st Century …

YAAYs (anything but fucken manufacturing 😦 )

the court has now banned him from speaking.

Perhaps you can find some evidence to back that up nIl, cos

you keep using that phrase I don’t think it means what you think it means

the court has now banned him from speaking.

followed by

Well Bolt has just posted this

ROFL

But, to the guts of his non comment

Legal restrictions on our free speech make it too dangerous for me to comment.

So, in other words, he’s too scared he’ll revert to lying about people in order to vilify them. Although, truth be told, he just likes playing the victim to his inner circle of sycophants while ignoring the fact that the judge went out of his way to clearly state that bolt can comment on this matter as much as he wants, he just cannot lie in order to vilify people.

Do you disagree with my statement about what the judge said?

Who are you to say who is telling lies??

I didn’t, the judge did.

But his employer did not say he could not post.

No one did. It is just bolt playing the victim card. And lying about it again.

Do you agree with my above statement about what the judge said about bolt still being able to comment. He is even allowed to have the articles online, as long as they include a link to the court case (or something like that)

What did the judge say?

This

All parties agree that any injunction made should be directed at the publication or republication of the articles themselves and not at the imputation conveyed by them. Mr Bolt and HWT oppose an order restraining the publication of articles whose content is substantially the same or similar to that of the articles which have contravened s 18C. Each of those positions is based upon the recognition that the orders which are made should be clear and precise including so that freedom of expression is not unnecessarily stifled.
It is important that nothing in the orders I make should suggest that it is unlawful for a publication to deal with racial identification including challenging the genuineness of the identification of a group of people. I have not found Mr Bolt and HWT to have contravened s 18C simply because the Newspaper Articles dealt with subject matter of that kind. I have found a contravention because of the manner in which that subject matter was dealt with.
Other than by prohibiting republication, controlling by an injunction the manner in which a subject matter is communicated is difficult in circumstances where the language, tone and structure of the publications in question make a significant contribution to the unlawful manner in which the subject matter was dealt with. Mr Bolt and HWT have not contended that a prohibition on republication should not extend to the whole of each of the impugned articles and that seems to me to be a sensible and practical approach. Such an order would prohibit publication of any part of the articles and should state so clearly. For those reasons and because of the need for the terms of an injunction to be clear and precise, I agree with Mr Bolt and HWT that the terms of an injunction should not extend to the publication of articles whose content is substantially the same as, or substantially similar to, that contained in the Newspaper Articles.
In relation to the order sought that HWT remove offending articles from any online site under its control or direction, HWT contends that it would not be appropriate for that order to extend to the internet archives of the Herald Sun. It was contended, and I accept, that the internet archives of a significant media organisation such as the Herald Sun serves an important public interest by preserving and making available historical records of news and information: Times Newspapers Limited (Nos 1 and 2) v United Kingdom [2009] EMLR 14, 45-48. If I were to accede to that qualification, HWT has indicated its preparedness to consent to an order that it publish permanently and prominently, on the internet versions of the Newspaper Articles, a copy of the declaratory relief granted by the Court.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/1103.html

I personally do not give a stuff what the judge said.

I take that means that, even though the judge said he is not stopping anyone from commenting, you’ll believe bolt when he says he’s too scared to ROFL

If you do not like the Companies policies you can go somewhere else.

Yes, because there are so many jobs out there ROFL

Although, if you don’t like a judge restricting you from vilifying people inaccurately who do not have a massive soapbox with which to defend themselves, then just be scared 🙂

if the fcuking things can`t fly

we could convert them into submarines?

The court found bolt relied on “false facts”

I do not give a stuff what the court said. The court may be right or the court may be wrong.

But the company that Bolt works for had no problem with what he said other wise they would have told him to stop what he was saying.

Why bring Bolt into what Macintyre said? The Company that Macintyre works for did not like what he said. The deadbeat can therefore go and work somewhere else.

The court may be right or the court may be wrong.

facts is facts nIl, the court just applied that you cannot use incorrect ones to vilify people.

But the company that Bolt works for had no problem with what he said

Of course not, the company bolt works for bullshits as much/more as he does.

Why bring Bolt into what Macintyre said?

Because the ones who complained the most about bolt not being allowed to lie and vilify people at his whim were the first ones out of the blocks calling for McIntyres head. Do you not see the MASSIVE hypocrisy at work there? They should be fighting FOR him, not leading the charge against him. The same people who rallied behind “we have the right to be bigots” brandis forcing a guy out of his job because they didn’t like his comments.

It’s fucken laughable

If factual inaccuracy is enough to get you convicted then you and I are both screwed, Tom R.

Except
A), we are not defaming people with factual inaccuracies
B) We are not sticking by it

I mean, he could have fixed his lies, but he didn’t, he stuck by them ROFL

because it muzzled Bolt from saying anything that is similar,

Read the bit I posted above from the decision sb and see if you can still that with a straight face.

I suppose if McIntyre had made those generalised, offensive, factually incorrect comments about an ethnic group, rather than about dead servicemen, he would have been prosecuted, like Bolt.

I’m not sure I can take much comfort in our legal system as a result of that.

I’m not sure I can take much comfort in our legal system as a result of that.

Why? Seemed like a fairly fair decision to me.

If they had gone the defamation route, he could have/would have been up for shitloads

Now, we just get to call him a racist 🙂

Not a fan of Tim Flannery never have been

Except of course you understand that nIl is verballing Flannery 😉

I kind of think that dead soldiers are as entitled to protection of their reputation as an ethnic group.

So where is yor lack of comfort in our legal system from the two results then yo’mm?

Bolt’s case was about the freedom of speech.

Really, read the decision I posted up, it is very clear.

I think perhaps you need to be added to the bolt hypocrite club sb.

Free Speech, whenever you want it. lol

McIntyre got sacked cos he broke a legal construct

bolt got called a racist cos he broke a legal construct. Should he have been sacked? I reckon had they gone the defamation route and a maximum penalty, that might have been the outcome.

But legally calling him a racist is not a bad second prize 😉

perhaps dead soldiers and even alive ones, should be accorded similar protection.

Refer to my comments about defamation yo’mm. Would be interesting to see how that went in a court of law with McIntyres comments.

Bolt was punished by a court for exercising his right to free speech

No, bolt was punished for vilifying people with lies but was not prevented from commenting further on that case as long as he did so without repeating the lies. It is written in this very thread sb, try to keep up.

Does every case of defamation constitute an “attack on free speech”? If you think that, then you probably need to reassess what “free speech” is. And read Gillian Triggs column while you are at it.

bolt merely refuses to comment probably because he is a dumb cunt and without lying, he has no argument.

McIntyre showed he was also a dumb cunt.

That’s what I’m really not comfortable with.

Yet they still have a legal recourse.

And, is there such a term as soldierist?

Oh…..bloody hell we are all talking about Bolt again are we.

How many times has that been discussed ?

Why dont we talk about home insulation or school halls for a change ????????

And why do Melbourne people put up with all these bullshit protests. It must drive ordinary people crazy. At least in Sydney they have to register and request permission from the Police first ?

While I feel sorry for parents … I always have niggling doubts …

🙂

https://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/parents-sum-up-parenthood-one-tweet-2.jpg?quality=94&strip=all

Unions add so much to progressive policies in the ALP! Today’s example…

“Marriage started with Adam and Eve,” says Joe de Bruyn, earnest and straight-faced.
It is an “objective” truth, he says, that same-sex couples cannot marry.
In an austere central Melbourne office, the Dutch-born de Bruyn is reflecting on four decades with the Shop, Distributive & Allied Employees’ Association (SDA), the “shoppies”, the last bastion of conservative Catholicism in the Australian labour movement and the largest union affiliated to Labor.
He says he wants to talk industrial relations, not sex and morality. But there is no unpicking the workplace from homosexuality, IVF, and stem cell research for the man Gough Whitlam famously dubbed “a Dutchman who hates dykes”.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/why-is-the-union-that-represents-supermarket-workers-stopping-gay-marriage-20150501-1mwl32.html

Am I becoming a Tory? !!

We don’t have Tory’s in Australia

The contradictions within this grubmint is reaching plague proportions.

Deep inside the AFP bunker they will be preparing for their press conference with highly paid spin doctors (at our expense).

Practicing bulls**t, obfuscation, evasion, diversion. Excusing the inexcusable and the unforgivable. They’ll fudge it.

The actions of the AFP in deliberately getting people shot to death are indefensible and outrageous. The press conference should be interesting, but will the press ask some hard questions?

Just last month, AFP commissioner Andrew Colvin, who was working under former commissioner Mick Keelty at the time, said the AFP would bear no responsibility if Chan and Sukumaran were executed.
“Put simply, do we have blood on our hands? No,” Mr Colvin said.

http://www.news.com.au/national/crime/afp-to-break-silence-over-bali-nine/story-fns0kb1g-1227333792017

This budget is shaping up to be a cracker. I understand the libs want to pretend it isn’t going to happen, but it has to, and their positions on tax v cuts will be interesting to watch. As has been mentioned previously, there isn’t much left to cut, but there is a lot left to tax

Australia’s boom is heading for bust, with deficits over the next four years blowing out by $47bn in just the past six months due to plummeting commodity prices and the rejection of last year’s budget savings, new forecasts show.

…..
“Most of the $18bn in tax breaks designed to help people get off the age pension is being gained by people who would not be able to claim the pension anyway,” he said.

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/may/03/australias-budget-deficits-to-blow-out-by-47bn-over-four-years-modelling-shows?CMP=soc_568

And that’s just one source. The real big one is the big end of town living it large while those at the bottom are being (or attempted to be) slugged.

The 13 page document, seen by the ABC, is dynamite and is likely to prove many of our biggest companies pay nowhere near the level of tax they claim.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-04/verrender-document-reveals-tax-multinationals-should-pay/6441558

”But why does he insist on forcing Australian jobs overseas? Does he not care because he is still a pom?

Hmmm….
On the other hand, I notice –

The Australian Shipowners Association has told the Productivity Commission that it is important to understand that the starting point for the bargaining changes it is seeking is the “disproportionate industrial power” wielded by the maritime unions.
In its submission to the PC’s IR inquiry, the association argues that operators in all subsectors of the maritime industry face:
• a small number of employees (between three and 22) on any one asset, represented by three different unions;
• a refusal by the unions, in most cases, to operate as a single bargaining unit, meaning management has to negotiate three separate agreements and individual unions gain leverage by “holding out” in bargaining;
• high capital asset costs, with vessels ranging from millions to hundreds of millions of dollars, and the “consequent impact on financing arrangements in the event that those assets cease generating revenue”; and
• the ability of industrial action by all three unions to shut down a business.

Maybe the unions – and their inability to get past their own narrow self interests are a bit of a problem after all

lol teabagz, you’ve been Onioned 😉

Bill having ‘thoughts’ of not becoming PM.

It’s a satire site AO, fyi 😉

btw, my last post was a satire site too 😉

PM scuttled secret plan to kick millionaires off the aged pension

I saw an “advert” last night from the grubmint declaring that they are not getting rid of the pension and indexing will still happen (failing of course that the indexing will be lower), and then attacking state Governments for raising taxes.

I mean, what other option do state Governments have when the grubmint slashes so much from health and education.

And why does a tax payer funded “advert” have any right to only tell half a story, and attack other governments at the same time?

Is that ethical? Lawful?

See You Next Tuesday I guess Bernard 😉

Perhaps he meant it it is in poor taste for firing squads and grim reapers to be associated with AFP, rather than the other way around?

..and surely the AFP wouldn’t find this “harsh” or “bad taste” – it isn’t a cartoon.

The AFP cannot satisfactorily answer why they didn’t just arrest them all on return to australia.

I heard this morning that the AFP had enough on them to arrest them before they left. That was the statement I “thought” I heard this morning.

Get your AFP souvenir tee shirts here – send $25 to tomofmelbourne@gmail.com

Hurry!