|
Sam told Latham to gently caress off (literally)when Latham came back to Twitter and Latham has been melting down about it since
|
# ? May 8, 2017 08:42 |
|
|
# ? May 15, 2024 02:49 |
|
The ABC posted:The Australian Federal Police has decided not to investigate Human Services Minister Alan Tudge over the controversial disclosure of a welfare recipient's personal information to a journalist.
|
# ? May 8, 2017 08:44 |
|
And you thought Mark had already hit rock bottom...
|
# ? May 8, 2017 08:45 |
|
http://www.abc.net.au/news/story-streams/federal-budget-2017/2017-05-08/federal-budget-2017-afp-extra-funding-for-expansion/8504974
|
# ? May 8, 2017 08:49 |
|
Bogan King posted:The Australian Federal Police has decided not to investigate Human Services Minister Alan Tudge over the controversial disclosure of a welfare recipient's personal information to a journalist.
|
# ? May 8, 2017 08:47 |
|
Solemn Sloth posted:http://www.abc.net.au/news/story-streams/federal-budget-2017/2017-05-08/federal-budget-2017-afp-extra-funding-for-expansion/8504974 Yeah, was saying on irc that hopefully this funding increase means they can go after him.
|
# ? May 8, 2017 08:50 |
|
Solemn Sloth posted:http://www.abc.net.au/news/story-streams/federal-budget-2017/2017-05-08/federal-budget-2017-afp-extra-funding-for-expansion/8504974 Really ripens those tomatoes. Really activates my almonds Really makes you think about overthrowing the capitalist system
|
# ? May 8, 2017 08:51 |
|
I would blow Dane Cook posted:And you thought Mark had already hit rock bottom... Latham'll apparently be at a men's rights conference next month hosted by Paul Elam https://icmi.info/conference-information/about-the-speakers/ He'll give one of ten talks, eight of which are 'subject TBD' at location TBD. Price of entry is not TBD (it's 300 bucks). Hope he liked the red pill doco, the cast and director will be there too!
|
# ? May 8, 2017 08:55 |
|
bandaid.friend posted:Latham'll apparently be at a men's rights conference next month hosted by Paul Elam was that the skull guy and the fake whiskey drinker movie that they had a massive tiff over?
|
# ? May 8, 2017 08:56 |
|
You Am I posted:Seriously, does the AFP ever do any work? Nearly every time there's a request for them to investigate a pollie they quickly look the other way and do a Officer Barbrady "Nothing to see here" Because these are criminal offences there needs to be proof the person intended to commit the offence. If the politician says they didn't, then that's about it. That's why Slipper's case was eventually overturned - because he might not have intended to unlawfully use his cabcharges.
|
# ? May 8, 2017 08:59 |
|
bandaid.friend posted:Latham'll apparently be at a men's rights conference next month hosted by Paul Elam *extremely hbomberguy voice* Three Hundred Dollars
|
# ? May 8, 2017 09:00 |
|
bandaid.friend posted:Latham'll apparently be at a men's rights conference next month hosted by Paul Elam He'll be doing Prince Phillip's job next.
|
# ? May 8, 2017 09:03 |
|
Solemn Sloth posted:was that the skull guy and the fake whiskey drinker movie that they had a massive tiff over? No, it's Paul 'even if there was overwhelming evidence of guilt I would acquit all male rapists' Elam. e:oh woops you were asking about the movie. But still nope, you're thinking of the Sarkesian Effect.
|
# ? May 8, 2017 09:15 |
|
bandaid.friend posted:Latham'll apparently be at a men's rights conference next month hosted by Paul Elam Even compared to Latham this guy is a piece of poo poo: They'll probably get along like a house on fire.
|
# ? May 8, 2017 09:19 |
|
V for Vegas posted:Because these are criminal offences there needs to be proof the person intended to commit the offence. If the politician says they didn't, then that's about it. That's why Slipper's case was eventually overturned - because he might not have intended to unlawfully use his cabcharges. Doesn't that just excuse being ignorant of the law? You can't intend to commit an offence if you don't know it's an offence.
|
# ? May 8, 2017 09:35 |
|
Periphery posted:Doesn't that just excuse being ignorant of the law? You can't intend to commit an offence if you don't know it's an offence. I also thought ignorance of the law was no excuse
|
# ? May 8, 2017 09:38 |
|
https://twitter.com/David_Speers/status/861501572613758976
|
# ? May 8, 2017 09:49 |
|
Good
|
# ? May 8, 2017 09:51 |
|
Brown Paper Bag posted:Sam told Latham to gently caress off (literally)when Latham came back to Twitter and Latham has been melting down about it since I think Latham needs to retire from all forms of public speaking, and just chill in a retirement home- There he can sit in his rocking chair shouting about "I WAS ALMOST PRIME MINISTER ONCE!"
|
# ? May 8, 2017 09:50 |
|
Problem is he makes a couple of hundred grand a year with his pension and he has nothing else in his life but screaming for attention. He's probably the most blatant example of why you shouldn't be allowed to work and draw the MP pension.
|
# ? May 8, 2017 09:54 |
|
Bogan King posted:Problem is he makes a couple of hundred grand a year with his pension and he has nothing else in his life but screaming for attention. He's probably the most blatant example of why you shouldn't be allowed to work and draw the MP pension. Should be either: Work with NOTHING, or Get PM pension- stay out of the lime light.
|
# ? May 8, 2017 10:00 |
|
starkebn posted:I also thought ignorance of the law was no excuse mens rea or the guilty mind only applies to your intention to commit the offense, not knowledge that it is an offense. also it doesn't apply to strict liability offenses, where it doesn't matter what your state of mind was.
|
# ? May 8, 2017 10:02 |
|
thatbastardken posted:mens rea or the guilty mind only applies to your intention to commit the offense, not knowledge that it is an offense. also it doesn't apply to strict liability offenses, where it doesn't matter what your state of mind was. so it's the difference between something being criminal and something being a different type of offense?
|
# ? May 8, 2017 10:06 |
|
in old common law stuff and some of the time in criminal codes a criminal act has two distinct parts, the act and the intention. you have to both do the thing and intend to do it for it to be criminal. you don't have to know you're committing a crime, you just have to know what you're doing. ignorance of the law remains (mostly) no excuse. some offenses - often but not always serious crimes - fall into a category of 'strict liability'. it doesn't matter what your intention was, so long as you carried out the act. this comic explains it in the american context, but it's probably close enough: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1008 thatbastardken fucked around with this message at 10:17 on May 8, 2017 |
# ? May 8, 2017 10:14 |
|
thatbastardken posted:in old common law stuff and some of the time in criminal codes a criminal act has two distinct parts, the act and the intention. you have to both do the thing and intend to do it for it to be criminal. you don't have to know you're committing a crime, you just have to know what you're doing. ignorance of the law remains (mostly) no excuse. thank you for explaining, but how did Tudge not know he was releasing a persons details which is clearly not right
|
# ? May 8, 2017 10:18 |
|
starkebn posted:thank you for explaining, but how did Tudge not know he was releasing a persons details which is clearly not right probably just argues that he's crap at his job which is entirely believable
|
# ? May 8, 2017 10:26 |
|
actually the AFP just declined to investigate because they are poo poo cowards
|
# ? May 8, 2017 10:28 |
|
thatbastardken posted:this comic explains it in the american context, but it's probably close enough: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1008 Written by a libertarian? WhiskeyWhiskers fucked around with this message at 10:33 on May 8, 2017 |
# ? May 8, 2017 10:29 |
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Written by a libertarian? no.
|
# ? May 8, 2017 10:32 |
|
Would we get a proper investigation into the AFP when Labor gets back in? Or will merely the truncheon be passed?
|
# ? May 8, 2017 10:34 |
|
Lot of pining for the glory days when 'common sense' ruled criminal law. Of course criminal law prescribes how we act, not describes how we act. It's written by a ruling class. I guess Jim Crow was also loving common sense.
|
# ? May 8, 2017 10:33 |
|
while the comic may not be written with a sense of class consciousness, the author is clearly in favor of states and laws. not a libertarian.
|
# ? May 8, 2017 10:36 |
|
thatbastardken posted:while the comic may not be written with a sense of class consciousness, the author is clearly in favor of states and laws. not a libertarian. Libertarian in the American sense of the night watchman state, not ancap.
|
# ? May 8, 2017 10:38 |
|
Amanda Vanstone posted:Ridiculously, some tried to say that people who wanted reform of S18c to allow greater freedom of speech should not criticise Ms Abdel-Magied, because she was simply exercising her right to free speech. Since when did freedom of speech mean freedom from criticism? She of course, has the right to free speech, to say what she likes. So do those who disagree with her. That's what free speech is about. It certainly doesn't mean that if you jump in with the first comment, everyone else has to zip their lips and let your remarks go without comment or response. steadily_growing_ironicat.gif
|
# ? May 8, 2017 10:47 |
|
he sure uses a lot of dumb libertarian talking points as examples in that case
|
# ? May 8, 2017 10:51 |
|
probably? the comic gives a useful laymans terms explanation of legal matters, that's the only basis on which I suggest it. if you have a more ideologically sound option I'm all ears.
|
# ? May 8, 2017 11:07 |
|
Greens update: Parliamentary right in NSW is now openly defying the membership's decision making and boycotting the party, instead crying to RDN and the federal right to impose top-down MP leadership control. You heard it here first. Now don't go leaking it to the arsetrayan
|
# ? May 8, 2017 11:24 |
|
Solemn Sloth posted:he sure uses a lot of dumb libertarian talking points as examples in that case It's specifically refuting libertarian points. They literally don't understand how societies work, let alone governments.
|
# ? May 8, 2017 11:42 |
|
Aesculus posted:Greens update: Parliamentary right in NSW is now openly defying the membership's decision making and boycotting the party, instead crying to RDN and the federal right to impose top-down MP leadership control. You heard it here first. Now don't go leaking it to the arsetrayan Who would have guessed the splits have come from the other direction this time.
|
# ? May 8, 2017 11:50 |
|
|
# ? May 15, 2024 02:49 |
|
pretty clear that the person who leaked someone's confidential information to the paper intended to leak that information
|
# ? May 8, 2017 11:55 |