- Chiwie
- Oct 21, 2010
-
DROP YOUR COAT AND GRAB YOUR TOES, I'LL SHOW YOU WHERE THE WILD GOOSE GOES!!!!
|
I know two people involved with the ADF, one an ex-full timer and the other an active reservist. The former is Young South Australian of the Year and the latter has received a South Australian Science Excellence Award, both in regards to their work in humanitarian technology. So I guess ymmv?
Vast majority that I've met have been chilled out people as well. Even the guys with 2+ trips to the ghan are really well balanced and have more progressive views on race, war, welfare etc than about half the idiots I went to uni with.
There will always be a few bad eggs that will promote the hurr durr meathead vibe, but your going to get that with any large group of people.
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 03:06
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2024 20:21
|
|
- Amoeba102
- Jan 22, 2010
-
|
Obviously we shouldn't be sharing it on twitter so that it's not old news before they can get their front page out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 03:32
|
|
- Murodese
- Mar 6, 2007
-
Think you've got what it takes?
We're looking for fine Men & Women to help Protect the Australian Way of Life.
Become part of the Legend. Defence Jobs.
|
Vast majority that I've met have been chilled out people as well. Even the guys with 2+ trips to the ghan are really well balanced and have more progressive views on race, war, welfare etc than about half the idiots I went to uni with.
There will always be a few bad eggs that will promote the hurr durr meathead vibe, but your going to get that with any large group of people.
I think it's primarily just the attitude of infantry. Every infantryman I've met (and I've met a fair few) have been genuinely loving terrible people. The others (signals, commandos, SAS) all tend to be a lot more normal and not shitheads, possibly because being a fuckwit would exclude them from those roles.
Don't forget that the people that end up in infantry are those that fail literally every aptitude test.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 03:55
|
|
- DeathMuffin
- May 25, 2004
-
Cake or Death
|
I think it's primarily just the attitude of infantry. Every infantryman I've met (and I've met a fair few) have been genuinely loving terrible people. The others (signals, commandos, SAS) all tend to be a lot more normal and not shitheads, possibly because being a fuckwit would exclude them from those roles.
This.
A good friend of mine's dad is an retired SAS senior officer. Chill, thoughtful and sharp as a tack. Apparently it's far more common to fail out of special forces selection on psychological grounds rather than physical aptitude.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 04:08
|
|
- Cleretic
- Feb 3, 2010
-
Ignore my posts!
I'm aggressively wrong about everything!
|
This fearmongering me-tooism is really disgusting, but what gets me is that it's always so full of individual statements that I can agree with, for exactly the opposite reason they said it.
Like, yeah, I could see barbaric, senselessly evil acts of terrorism in Australia. But I don't see the people being targeted by this sort of thing being on the side that's doing it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 04:37
|
|
- Lid
- Feb 18, 2005
-
And the mercy seat is awaiting,
And I think my head is burning,
And in a way I'm yearning,
To be done with all this measuring of proof.
An eye for an eye
And a tooth for a tooth,
And anyway I told the truth,
And I'm not afraid to die.
|
Tony Abbott has signalled he's against exempting children from a planned $7 GP co-payment, after saying pensioners should pay the full charge.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 04:44
|
|
- Contra Duck
- Nov 4, 2004
-
#1 DAD
|
Tony Abbott has signalled he's against exempting children from a planned $7 GP co-payment, after saying pensioners should pay the full charge.
When the plan is to break the entire concept of "Universal healthcare" you can't allow any exemptions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 04:46
|
|
- bell jar
- Feb 25, 2009
-
|
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/proceeds-of-crime-seizure-beggars-belief-20140820-3e109.html
quote:
Police are seizing coins and cash from beggars in Melbourne's CBD as proceeds of crime, according to reports from homeless people and welfare workers.
Youth Projects say they have had up to eight cases in the past year of police confiscating the "meagre proceeds" of the homeless after they were charged with the offence of begging alms.
The welfare group's chair, Melanie Raymond, said in one case, on Christmas Eve, a man was forced to put his takings in a charity box.
"We think begging should be decriminalised because it's penalising people for being poor and hungry," Ms Raymond said.
City worker Philip Staindl said last month a homeless man that begs near his office on Little Collins Street had $20 from his coffee cup taken.
He said the man was told that he was breaking the law, could be taken to court, and that his morning's takings were the "proceeds of crime". "I was incredulous," Mr Staindl said.
A man, 33, begging on Elizabeth Street on Tuesday, said he had been charged with begging alms four times, but they let him keep his money. He said others have had their cash confiscated.
The last time the former heroin user was charged was two months ago, but yesterday he was back begging with his upturned beanie.
"I got sick of going to jail. Instead of stealing to get somewhere to stay I do this, which doesn't hurt anyone," he said.
Police on the beat on Tuesday confirmed they enforced begging laws and said while they can seize their cash as proceeds of crime, "we don't do it". Meanwhile homeless people said those beggars who were targeted by police were mostly those who harassed the public, by yelling out to them and approaching them. Victoria Police spokeswoman Sergeant Sharon Darcy also said she was not aware of any cases of cash seizures occurring.
More than 200 people were charged with begging alms last year, an offence that carries a maximum penalty of 12 months imprisonment. However, most who are charged in Melbourne are diverted to a program run by police, council and the Salvation Army.
The program, which puts the homeless in contact with welfare workers, was launched early last year over concern around "professional" and "aggressive" beggars were menacing people for cash.
Yet Lucy Adams, the manager and principal lawyer at Homeless Law, said those beggars netted in the crackdown were not the so-called professional beggars, but those experiencing "extreme hardship".
Almost 80 per cent of their 14 clients involved in the program were long-term unemployed. All but one person had mental health problems.
"The vast majority were begging passively, just with a sign and sitting on the streets," she said.
"We've got a complex social problem, we don't know what else to do and our first response is law enforcement."
Noice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 04:48
|
|
- Freudian Slip
- Mar 10, 2007
-
"I'm an archivist. I'm archiving."
|
For those that are interested, the AMA has released their counter proposal to the co-payment policy today.
It's a far better model than what the government was proposing - but it is still the end of Universal health care as far as I am concerned.
Pretty much it boils down to no cuts to the current Medicare rebates for GPs. The Government continues paying the full amount for concession card holders and kids under 16 (including the bulk billing incentive item). The GPs in turn are obliged to charge other general patients a minimum of $6.15 copayment per visit (which the GP keeps). This is to match the extra amount of money they get for treating a concession card holder or someone under 16. If they don't charge the co-payment to general patients they get less of a rebate for the consultation from Medicare.
Long story short - AMA has said don't charge the vulnerable and give us extra money.
(I am not against GPs getting extra money as their wages have risen below CPI for quite some time - compared with specialists who have a licence to loving print money)
https://ama.com.au/media/ama-model-protects-vulnerable-patients-co-payment-pain
AMA posted:
AMA MODEL PROTECTS VULNERABLE PATIENTS FROM CO-PAYMENT PAIN
MEDICARE CO-PAYMENTS - THE AMA’S ALTERNATIVE MODEL
Background
The 2014/15 Budget proposed the introduction of a $7 co-payment that would apply to the vast majority of Medicare funded general practice, pathology and diagnostic imaging (DI) services, effective from 1 July 2015.
At the same time as it seeks to introduce a Medicare co-payment, the Government is also reducing Medicare rebates patients receive for these services by $5.00.
General patients who need pathology and DI tests will also be hit by the removal of bulk billing incentives for these services.
Key issues with the Government’s co-payment model
The AMA has opposed the Government’s model for several key reasons:
• Medicare rebates for patients are cut by over $3.5 billion;
• International evidence shows that co-payments hit disadvantaged patient groups disproportionately, unless they are protected by an adequate safety net;
• Patients will face multiple co-payments across an episode of care, which creates barriers to accessing care;
• A poorly designed system of co-payments will make it harder to tackle the growing burden of chronic disease and discourage important preventative health initiatives like immunisation;
• The changes to Medicare rebates for pathology and DI services are far reaching. In relation to DI, for the more expensive tests, general patients will be paying very high upfront costs - well beyond the proposed $7;
• Practices will face significant additional compliance costs to administer the Government’s co-payment model, including additional staff time, banking, new infrastructure, EFTPOS costs, late payments and bad debts;
• There are significant practical issues in collecting co-payments, including in pathology, aged care and out of rooms consultations.
A poorly designed system of co-payments has the potential to intensify the pressure on our emergency departments and discourage patients from accessing care from their GP.
General practice is a low cost and efficient part of the health system, and if people delay seeing their GP they may end up needing more expensive interventions, including hospital care. This makes our health system less, not more, sustainable – contrary to the Government’s intent.
The AMA and Medicare co-payments
The AMA is not opposed to the principle that people with the means should contribute to the cost of their health care, but it has to be done in a way that is practical, values general practice, and protects disadvantaged patients.
We are ready to support a Medicare co-payment, and have offered to the Government an alternative model that seeks to address the significant issues outlined above.
The AMA’s alternative Medicare co-payment model
No cuts to Medicare rebates for patients
Patients value their Medicare rebate, which provides important support when they need to access medical care. The real value of a patient’s Medicare rebate has been falling for many years, with indexation failing to keep up with inflation and practice costs. The AMA is opposed to any further erosion in the value of patient rebates and will not support the Government’s proposed cuts.
Protection of disadvantaged patient groups.
The Government already has a system of concession cards to provide extra support for disadvantaged patients and recognises the need to remove barriers to care for children under 16. Under the AMA model, the Government would cover the cost of a co-payment for these patients in most circumstances.
The AMA model also eliminates the 10 visit threshold proposed by the Government for concession card holders and children under 16 years, which the AMA sees as inadequate.
Helping people with chronic disease, mental health problems and encouraging prevention
Under the AMA model, there would be no obligation on GPs to charge a co-payment for Medicare-funded chronic disease services, health assessments and mental health treatment items. In addition, for concession card holders or children under 16 who access these services, the Government would also cover the cost of co-payments for the standard GP consultations they might need at other times.
Supporting patients with high out of pocket medical costs.
Under the Government’s model, the Medicare co-payment does not count towards the Medicare safety net thresholds, which is unfair on those with high out-of-pocket medical costs. Under the AMA’s model, all co-payments would be included in determining whether or not the Medicare safety net has been reached.
Reducing the compliance burden on practices
By eliminating the 10 visit threshold and using well understood and accepted systems to identify disadvantaged patient groups, the AMA’s alternative model eliminates much of the red tape that would otherwise be imposed under the Government’s model. The AMA model would also restrict the co-payment to standard in-room GP consultations, making it easier to administer.
What services would the co-payment be applied to?
General practice
For those patients that do not have a concession care or who are 16 years or older, GPs would be obliged to charge a minimum Medicare co-payment for standard GP consultations in rooms.
This obligation would not apply to:
Residential aged care visits;
Home visits;
Chronic disease management services;
Health assessments; and
Mental health treatment items.
For those GP services that are not subject the minimum Medicare co-payment, existing bulk billing incentives would also be retained to encourage access to these services.
Like now, a GP will retain the discretion to charge a higher amount for general patients.
How would the co-payment work for concession card holders and children under 16?
Medicare currently provides bulk billing incentives for GPs to treat concession card holders and children under 16 with no out of pocket costs. The AMA is determined to see that these patients continue to be supported to access GP care.
Under the AMA model, where the GP's fee matches the applicable Medicare rebate plus the minimum co-payment amount, the Government will pay the co-payment on behalf of the patient. In regional, rural and other currently eligible areas, the Government will pay an amount equivalent to the existing bulk billing incentive (currently $9.25).
Like now, a GP will retain the discretion to charge a higher amount, but in this circumstance the Government would not pay the co-payment. Experience shows that the vast majority of patients in this group would face no out-of-pocket costs under this approach.
How much is the proposed co-payment for general practice services?
The AMA has proposed that the minimum Medicare co-payment be fixed at the level of the existing bulk-billing incentive for GP services in metropolitan areas (currently $6.15), with annual indexation applied.
GPs may continue to charge more than this amount, as is currently the case.
How would the co-payment be encouraged?
The Government is determined to send a price signal to patients and it is also important that there is a level playing field for practices.
In circumstances where the Medicare co-payment should be applied and the GP does not charge it, then Medicare will only provide a rebate equivalent to the lower A2 rebate level.
Collecting the co-payment
The AMA recommends the introduction of a simplified billing system that can confirm eligibility for Government payments and simply allow the practice to charge the patient a gap where one is applicable.
Pathology and diagnostic imaging
AMA is open to the application of a co-payment in pathology and diagnostic imaging and has recommended that the Government work with stakeholders towards the achievement of this goal. There are very real practical issues that need to be resolved with respect to the collection of a co-payment as well as the impact on the viability of practices, before any system of co-payments can go ahead.
In this regard, the AMA has proposed to Government that the measure be deferred for at least two years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 05:23
|
|
- Cartoon
- Jun 20, 2008
-
poop
|
I don't know if the liberals actually want to make some homegrown terrorists or if it's an unintentional side effect of their child-like policy.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...2-1227028466911
Just add turban and stir..
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 05:27
|
|
- Les Affaires
- Nov 15, 2004
-
|
For those that are interested, the AMA has released their counter proposal to the co-payment policy today.
It's a far better model than what the government was proposing - but it is still the end of Universal health care as far as I am concerned.
Pretty much it boils down to no cuts to the current Medicare rebates for GPs. The Government continues paying the full amount for concession card holders and kids under 16 (including the bulk billing incentive item). The GPs in turn are obliged to charge other general patients a minimum of $6.15 copayment per visit (which the GP keeps). This is to match the extra amount of money they get for treating a concession card holder or someone under 16. If they don't charge the co-payment to general patients they get less of a rebate for the consultation from Medicare.
Long story short - AMA has said don't charge the vulnerable and give us extra money.
(I am not against GPs getting extra money as their wages have risen below CPI for quite some time - compared with specialists who have a licence to loving print money)
https://ama.com.au/media/ama-model-protects-vulnerable-patients-co-payment-pain
Just a cursory glance at this, it basically calls the federal government on their idea of "sending a price signal" by letting them do just that, without hiding a reduction in overall GP funding at the same time. If the government don't support the alternative plan, they expose themselves to criticism that they just want to reduce funding overall rather than send a price signal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 05:38
|
|
- Mattjpwns
- Dec 14, 2006
-
In joyful strains then let us sing
ADVANCE AUSTRALIA FUCKED
|
Uh hey there, table for Goons *gets arrested by Queensland Police for being in a gang*
Except you'd be the only one arrested, because of the curse and all that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 05:48
|
|
- BlitzkriegOfColour
- Aug 22, 2010
-
|
They would like to see some because it would give them a credible threat to bolster their claims of a crisis. Failing some showing up then I'm reasonably confident the current stooge circus can conjure some up.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...2-1227028466911
Just add turban and stir..
"Police say this is no backyard setup"
*is literally a scrub-tier backyard setup*
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 05:48
|
|
- thatbastardken
- Apr 23, 2010
-
A contract signed by a minor is not binding!
|
Police say a thing.
Literally the opposite thing is true.
Statement reported as credible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 06:02
|
|
- CATTASTIC
- Mar 31, 2010
-
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
Police Polititian say a thing.
Literally the opposite thing is true.
Statement reported as credible.
I'm seeing a pattern
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 06:05
|
|
- BlitzkriegOfColour
- Aug 22, 2010
-
|
Police say a thing.
L
Literally the opposite thing is true.
Statement reported as credible.
To be fair, journalists are really loving stupid. Like, almost police levels of stupid. But unlike police, they aren't always malicious. Just usually.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: kill all police and journalists.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 06:06
|
|
- hooman
- Oct 11, 2007
-
This guy seems legit.
-
Fun Shoe
|
Timed to perfection.
Australian army: 'boys will be boys' behaviour is responsible for human wreckage
For years, bad behaviour in the Australia army prospered because too many turned a blind eye to criminal behaviour rather than break a perverted code of military loyalty and silence
It is hardly surprising news that male Australian army personnel have been involved in unacceptable behaviour towards women. In the last 48 hours, photographs posted on the internet show special forces soldiers, some in uniform, entertaining topless female “escorts” on a Western Australian training base. Worse still was the news that yet another Australian Defence Force cadet officer appeared in a Canberra court charged with two separate “sexual intercourse without consent” assaults.
Understandably, the public response to these latest scurrilous episodes is indignation.
Australia has a proud military tradition, and thousands of our best citizens have died in every conflict since the Boer war. Fittingly, this year commemorations have commenced recognising the carnage that marked the great war. Australia, per head of population, suffered more military deaths in the first world war than any other country, except our neighbour New Zealand. Unfortunately, too often in the past this tradition was invoked to justify and safeguard behaviour that has no place in Australian society, let alone in the nation’s military.
Successive governments, some with more conviction than others, implemented inquiry after inquiry. Bad behaviour, commonly prompted by the integration of women into the ranks, would briefly disappear, only to resurface because the underlying ADF culture was allowed to be dominated by a particular definition of hyper-masculinity and physicality.
This prospered because too many turned a blind eye to criminal behaviour rather than break a perverted code of military loyalty and silence. Those in authority remained mute lest any scandal impede their own career and future promotion prospects. Too many of the old guard privately condoned antediluvian beliefs concerning “boys will be boys” behaviour and white male solidarity. This resulted in a warped sense of loyalty and poor leadership, which allowed a culture of sexual abuse to thrive and resulted in an ADF out of touch with those it was supposed to represent.
The ADF needed to acknowledge it had a problem, and to purge itself of a stagnant culture which severely hampered progress and, perhaps of surprise to proponents of the status quo, operational effectiveness.
The turning point came with another scandal at the Australian Defence Force Academy in Canberra. The 2011 “Skype affair” involved a very junior army cadet who filmed himself having consensual intercourse with a female air force cadet, and transmitting the video to equally immature cadets in another room.
The usual machinations ground into play, the cover-up, the wink, wink, nudge, nudge attitude again resulted in the victim being unsupported and further victimised. It was only when “Kate” took the issue to the media that a different response was demanded.
An outraged Labor minister for defence, Stephen Smith, took a pro-active stance. The “military old boy network” was outraged and demanded the minister apologise and withdraw his interference. Australians returned the outrage, particularly when it was discovered that the army cadet was allowed to remain at the Academy to pursue his studies, mainly because of his Rugby expertise, while “Kate” was hounded out.
This scandal was quickly followed by another. Up to 100 members of the Australian army were involved in an internet group which encouraged its members to “bed” as many women as they could; to film sex acts without the women’s knowledge; and to circulate videos which had been invariably enhanced with derogatory comment and ratings on “how good a f…” the woman was. Sometimes the victims’ names, addresses and phone numbers were included with challenges for other members of the most inappropriately named Jedi Council to engage in sex acts with them also. Those involved included middle-ranking officers and non-commissioned officers, the highest rank being a lieutenant colonel.
Subsequent inquiries were implemented which exposed long-term and ongoing systemic sexual abuse, harassment and discrimination within the ADF. The human wreckage of military service ranged back to the 1950s. Sex discrimination commissioner Elizabeth Broderick found that one in four women within the ADF had been sexually harassed or worse. Chief of army, Lt Gen David Morrison, released a fierce YouTube diatribe, warning his personnel that if they could not appreciate the role of army women they should “get out” of the army.
‘If you’re not up to it, find something else to do with your life. There is no place for you among this band of brothers and sisters.’
In March this year, the then chief of the Defence Force, general David Hurley, announced:
I want the Australian Defence Force to be recognised as an employer of choice; a fair, just and inclusive organisation that sets the benchmark for other employers. Everyone at every level has an active role to play in living the Defence values and meeting this intent.
The minister immediately implemented the opening of combat positions to women. The outcry from the old guard was immediate but logical argument was lost in sentiment.
There are two parts to the women in combat question. The first is, “can they?” and the second is, “should they?”
Can women serve in combatant roles? Absolutely, they have and they do. Modern warfare is very different from the industrial wars of the first and second world wars. Now, there is little clear delineation between combat and non-combat. In Iraq and Afghanistan, improvised explosive devices kill everywhere, as do suicide bombers. The Coalition Forces suffered the deaths of close to 200 military women, though most were conducting combat support rather than in direct combat positions.
The UK does not permit women to directly take part in combat, but in May 2011 Lisa Head was killed on operations in Afghanistan. Captain Head was a member of a British bomb disposal team in Afghanistan. She had been blown off her feet already that day but continued to defuse more of the mines that were endangering a patrol of all male paratroopers. She made another mine safe but another was booby-trapped and exploded. Her commanding officer said: “It was an act of breathless bravery”. There are many such examples. We must simply move through the “biology is destiny,” argument, and treat defence professionals as just that.
The Royal Australian Navy (RAN) has only one category closed by the direct combat clause – that of clearance diver. Women have served at sea in the RAN since 1992 and commanded warships; Australia has led the world in the deployment of women in submarines since 1998 (the US and UK have yet to fully accomplish this). Currently around 18.3% of the RAN is female.
In the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF), only defence guard has been closed – 17% of the RAAF is female. Women RAAF crews have flown the massive C-17 Globemaster aircraft. A woman pilot was a member of the elite RAAF acrobatic team The Roulettes – could anyone pick which Pilatus PC-9/A was flown by a woman officer?
The Australian army, the size of the navy and air force combined, has always had a dominant position in Australian military culture, and unsurprisingly it is the army which has been the most resistant to change. The bulk of army careers have been closed to women – armour (calvary), artillery, infantry, and special forces (SAS) – so only 11.4% of army personnel are women.
Women defence professionals make up 14.7% of the ADF, their numbers only increasing 1.3% in 16 years. Due to the physical demands for an Australian infantry soldier, there may only be a small cohort of women who can meet these standards – and no one is suggesting standards be diminished. Artillery is increasingly mechanised as is cavalry, so the cohort will be larger. SAS requirements and standards deter and eliminate a lot of male candidates, so this will be the hardest of all.
With the opening of the combat arms progress will be made, or at least we hope. The issue of women in combat has been bandied about for decades and superstitiously delayed. Progress has been hampered by too many changes of ministers for defence, ADF chiefs, and I believe most recently, by a change of government one which does not share the principles of the last. Women within the ADF will remain marginalised and abused until this occurs, until they are allowed to be seen as equals and until their numbers rise significantly. Progress has definitely been achieved in recent years, but there will sadly continue to be resistance and bad behaviour from the minority within who prefer that all-male units remained closed to women and gay men.
There is no place for military men like those outed recently – the time for rhetoric is over. Australians deserve the representative and professional ADF required to ensure our security and international commitments.
This discussion entering be entering the public mind, since we have a discussion and the guardian on the same day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 06:10
|
|
- Gough Suppressant
- Nov 14, 2008
-
|
So biff snorten was the senior labor figure investigated about a 1980s rape
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 06:12
|
|
- I would blow Dane Cook
- Dec 26, 2008
-
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 06:13
|
|
- Brown Paper Bag
- Nov 3, 2012
-
|
So biff snorten was the senior labor figure investigated about a 1980s rape
Wait, what?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 06:24
|
|
- BlitzkriegOfColour
- Aug 22, 2010
-
|
Calvary?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 06:31
|
|
- Zenithe
- Feb 25, 2013
-
Ask not to whom the Anidavatar belongs; it belongs to thee.
|
So biff snorten was the senior labor figure investigated about a 1980s rape
That was the weirdest press interview I've seen in a long time.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/bill-shorten-opens-up-about-rape-allegations-20140821-106r7h.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 06:31
|
|
- Kim Jong ill
- Jul 28, 2010
-
NORTH KOREA IS ONLY KOREA.
|
The Arsestralian posted:“Investigating police sought advice from the Office of Public Prosecutions, which advised that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction,” the statement said.
No reasonable prospect of conviction != cleared of wrongdoing Blill.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 06:36
|
|
- WhiskeyWhiskers
- Oct 14, 2013
-
"هذا ليس عادلاً."
"هذا ليس عادلاً على الإطلاق."
"كان هناك وقت الآن."
(السياق الخفي: للقراءة)
|
So biff snorten was the senior labor figure investigated about a 1980s rape
He was at my uni yesterday, the Labor club sent out a single notice about it and only 4 hours before he rocked up. I didn't get the chance to heckle at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 07:41
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2024 20:21
|
|
- Mattjpwns
- Dec 14, 2006
-
In joyful strains then let us sing
ADVANCE AUSTRALIA FUCKED
|
Ugh. This gives me the chills. Constant referrals to the police not finding anything wrong instead of an outright "Hi, this was bullshit, this was what was alleged, I did not do this. Ever.".
E: the unbearable cynic in me thinks "perhaps some of the stuff that happened wasn't 'illegal' but still makes you look like a dodgy fucker, and that's why you don't want to talk about it". I think it might be politics break time again. :p
Mattjpwns fucked around with this message at 08:33 on Aug 21, 2014
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 07:54
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 03:06
