|
Murodese posted:Drawing dicks on the Herald Sun really needs to go to town on that gif Just label the balloon 'surplus' and have dollar signs flying out as it deflates
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2015 11:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 13:30 |
|
|
Anidav posted:I've never seen Springborg so happy. It's up on Brisbane Times. Glass houses and all that
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
katlington posted:No Country for Old Poors . This is way funnier than it should be
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
Graic Gabtar posted:Still makes me chuckle that a couple of throw away comments about football and five minutes later it's full retard time attacking someone for daring to invade your little internet home. It sounds like you are quite worked up about this persecution complex you are carrying around. Maybe it's time to step away from the computer and be a father to your children.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 12:42
|
|
|
I'm just glad that he has this thread to use as an outlet rather than expose his children to his inconsolable rage 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 12:55
|
|
|
Graic Gabtar posted:Step away from the computer? Maybe - but I'll just pick up a tablet. I am undone 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
http://boingboing.net/2015/04/02/australia-has-turned-nauru-int.html
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Australia becomes the world's sixth-largest arms importer Lost of neat charts at the link
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2015 08:38
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TL8R0zxdbS8
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
First Dog bless us, each and every one!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
Dicks
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
hahahaha Danny Nalliah from the Rise Up Australia Party addressed the rally in Melbourne, and said he was "not against Muslim people, but ... opposed to the teachings of Islam".
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
CROIKEY
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2015 06:34
|
|
|
At least their facebook page is mostly people giving them poo poo
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
Transfield immigration staff told they can be fired for using Facebook The company that runs Australia’s offshore immigration detention centres has warned staff they can be fired as a result of who their friends are on Facebook or who follows them on Twitter and has forbidden them from joining political parties or churches that oppose offshore processing.  A poster put up on Manus Island warning detainees not to speak to a Guardian reporter. It has also cautioned them not to “embarrass” the company or the government or reveal how asylum seekers are treated. Transfield Services has issued an addendum to its social media policy for staff on Nauru and Manus Island that workers said severely limited their civil liberties, as well as political and personal freedoms. The policy says workers must not reveal any information about Transfield’s operations, or any information that “relates to the treatment of transferees in relation to the operations”. “Due to the nature of [offshore processing] operations, there is a heightened risk that the publication of information or comments about the operations may pose a risk to the operations, transferees and/or workers, or damage the business or reputation of Transfield Services,” it says. Transfield specifically bans revealing publicly any “material which may damage the business or reputation of Transfield Services, embarrass Transfield Services, or injure its relationship with the department [of immigration]”. Transfield limits with whom its staff can communicate on social media, specifically on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube. A worker cannot communicate with an asylum seeker via social media, unless given express permission, or give out their email or postal address. According to the policy, a Transfield worker could be fired if an asylum seeker followed them on Twitter, even if the worker did not know, and the asylum seeker has left Manus or Nauru. “A worker must use his/her best endeavours to check that any person who seeks access to the worker’s social media is not a transferee or ex-transferee.” The new policy, issued in February, also limited staff members’ political freedoms. Workers cannot join a political party that does not agree with Transfield’s actions, or attend a political rally in opposition to offshore processing. “In his/her capacity as a Transfield Services employee or contractor, a worker must not engage in any activity which may result in a conflict of interest with the conduct of the operations on behalf of the department. This includes the following types of conduct: promoting, showing support for, or maintaining a membership with an incompatible organisation, and showing support for the closure of offshore processing centres by engaging in activities such as public rallies or demonstrations.” An “incompatible organisation” is defined as any group critical of offshore processing of asylum seekers. Senior Transfield staff have told Guardian Australia the term would include political parties or churches publicly opposed to the policy, or refugee advocacy and welfare groups. It is likely, too, to include the United Nations, Amnesty International, and the Australian Human Rights Commission, all of which have been critical of offshore processing. Transfield Services told Guardian Australia: “Under our political involvement and support policy and equality and diversity in the workplace policy, we respect the right of our people to engage in the political process in personal capacities, and work to prevent workplace discrimination based on personal political views.” “This personal engagement, however, cannot be perceived to represent Transfield Services’ views nor make use of company resources. There’s a clear conflict of interest when personal activities, posts on social media or associations oppose, or could be perceived to oppose, the work an individual undertakes.” Staff have told Guardian Australia they resented the restrictions. One Nauru worker said: “The purpose of this policy is to crush any dissent about offshore processing and to keep the things that are going on in the centre secret.” “It is designed to scare staff with the threat of losing their jobs.” The worker said restricting contact with an “incompatible organisation” was an extreme infringement of civil liberties. “An incompatible organisation is any organisation opposed to offshore processing. Some churches are opposed to offshore processing. Is Transfield seriously telling somebody they can’t be a member of a particular church, that they can’t practise their religion or be a member of a professional body that opposes the policy?” A worker from Manus Island said: “I am amazed they think they can actually get away with this.” The director of legal advocacy with the Human Rights Law Centre, Daniel Webb, said the secrecy surrounding offshore detention was “excessive, self-serving and undemocratic”. “While steps do need to be taken to protect the identities of people in detention so that relatives in their home countries aren’t endangered, the government’s crackdown on workers and whistleblowers is about hiding from view what it knows would offend most people’s sense of decency and fairness,” he said. Despite Transfield restrictions, conditions on Manus Island and Nauru have been exposed recently by pictures, video and testimony sent by workers and asylum seekers on the island. As well, the government-initiated Moss review found credible allegations of sexual and physical abuse of asylum seekers, including children, on Nauru. In the aftermath of that report, the Senate voted to establish a committee to inquire into the conditions on Nauru. Up to a dozen workers on Nauru and Manus have said they are preparing submissions and are prepared to give evidence to the inquiry, under parliamentary privilege. Several are preparing to testify, and to provide documents that show the government knew abuse was occurring for months but did not act to stop it, or to move vulnerable people. Regardless of the steady flow of information out of Nauru and Manus – from asylum seekers and concerned staff – detention centre managers have remained vigilant about preventing the conditions in which asylum seekers are held being revealed publicly. They are especially worried about journalists, who are forbidden from the detention centres, visiting. At least one Guardian journalist has been put on a misspelt “wanted” poster on Manus Island that warned staff and asylum seekers not to speak to him, and to report his presence to guards. The journalist was not in the country at the time. The poster was made and put up by Transfield staff, acting on information provided by the department of immigration, Guardian Australia was told by a senior staff member on the island. A spokesman for the department said: “The management and operations of the Manus regional processing centre are the responsibility of the PNG government. This notice was not made, requested to be made, authorised or posted by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.” Transfield declined to comment on the poster. It is not known if other journalists have been similarly treated. http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/apr/07/transfield-immigration-staff-told-they-can-be-fired-for-using-facebook
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
Government seeks immunity over use of force in immigration detention The federal government is seeking extraordinary new powers that would make it largely immune from liability for inappropriate uses of force on people in immigration detention centres. The new powers would allow immigration officers – which may include private contractors – to use “reasonable force against any person” if the officer believes it is necessary to protect the life, health or safety of people in detention or to maintain the good order, peace or security of a detention centre. Such powers potentially give staff with a low level of training a greater level of immunity than that granted to state and federal police forces. Officers would be able to use the powers in the migration amendment (maintaining the good order of immigration detention facilities) bill as long as they did not subject “a person to greater indignity than the authorised office reasonably believes necessary”. The bill states that grievous bodily harm – which courts have held to mean injuries that lead to serious or permanent disfigurement – could be inflicted on detainees if the officer “reasonably believes that doing the thing is necessary to protest the life of, or to prevent serious injury to, another person (including the authorised officer)”. The bill also seeks to restrict asylum seekers from bringing personal injury claims against the Commonwealth or private contractors relating to the use of force. They could only do so if it could be demonstrated that the detention officer did not exercise force “in good faith”. The provision would give the federal government - and private contractors managing the centres - a level of immunity for personal injury claims that is not even available in relation to the actions of police officers. While officers in the federal, NSW and Queensland police are personally exempt from liability in most injury claims, the state and federal governments can still be named in legal actions according to a Parliamentary Library analysis of the bill. Claire O’Connor SC, a South Australian barrister who has represented asylum seekers in legal actions, said the bill raised serious concerns. “In the correctional environment there are regulations which dictate the conditions of a prisoner’s regime including access to exercise, the use of solitary confinement,” she said. “Within detention centres, in spite of the courts repeatedly pointing this out as a problem, there are no regulations. People have been forcibly taken by handcuff, thrown into solitary sections of detention centres and kept there without any reason given, sometimes for weeks on end. That happens under the current system. “From time to time the courts will criticise the use of this force and the use of solitary confinement as a breach of a duty to provide adequate care. I suspect the amendment is to sanction these cruel practices so that detainees who have been unlawfully injured cannot complain or sue for harm done”. The parliamentary joint committee on human rights said the bill “appears to lack a number of safeguards that apply to analogous state and territory legislation governing the use of force in prisons”. It includes no express requirement for force to be used as a last resort, or that inflicting injury should be avoided where possible. “The bill would allow force to be used to prevent any action that disturbs the good order, peace or security of the facility, which provide an ill-defined and extremely broad authorisation for the use of force by IDSP officer,” the committee report said. “In contrast, analogous state and territory legislation governing the use of force in prisons generally limits the use of force to preventing or quelling a riot or disturbance”. Currently private contractors are generally able to rely on powers under common law to use reasonable force. Police officers have statutory rules governing in what circumstances they can use force. Although the bill does not specify what the training requirements are likely to be, the explanatory memorandum of the bill say that “at this time, the qualification and training requirements that are likely to be determined by the minister in writing ... include the certificate level II in security operations.” A certificate level II in security operations is a base level training course for security personnel. Daniel Webb, the director of legal advocacy at the Human Rights Law Centre, said: “We’re the only country in the world that subjects asylum seekers to mandatory and indefinite detention as a first resort. Instead of creating excessive and unchecked powers to suppress unrest we should address its root causes – the length of time we leave innocent people detained in limbo. “Immigration detention centres are incredibly closed environments. Increasing powers to use force while decreasing checks and balances on the exercise of those powers is a recipe for trouble.” The bill is the subject of a Senate inquiry that is due to report in May. http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/apr/08/government-seeks-immunity-over-use-of-force-in-immigration-detention
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
Well she certainly misrepresented a number of facts in that child's murder case to make whatever point she had 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2015 10:48
|
|
|
Guess We Forgot
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
I just assumed that they're so motivated by money/greed that they assume that everyone else must be too.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
I don't even remember the last time I bought a game for more than $5
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
Endman posted:If poor people don't drive, can they still fly aloft on our hopes and dreams? On a kite made from discarded Mx pages maybe
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
SadisTech posted:QLD Easter long weekend road fatalities all Labor's fault. Hey now, he also said "Road safety should be beyond politics" so maybe you should stop politicising it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 06:27
|
|
|
Where's the crying Statue of Liberty?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 11:13
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LduipA_XUJ8
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2015 08:35
|
|
|
Low hanging fruit
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2015 11:07
|
|
|
The words were spoken to be shared
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2015 11:15
|
|
|
tbh I think it'd be funnier if it got more unironic shares
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2015 12:12
|
|
|
Soon he’ll have a mighty hump, and his transformation will be complete.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2015 13:37
|
|
|
Looks like a copy/paste from Fox News or something. I like how they didn't bother to even mention Bin Laden once. CATTASTIC fucked around with this message at 02:05 on Apr 13, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
open24hours posted:Jesus Christ. But but but quote:"But ... they've got a fiduciary obligation to act in the best interests of their companies and their shareholders and they're doing that."
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
The Market can not fail, only be failed.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
Manus Island guard expresses Reclaim Australia and anti-halal sentiment
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
If anyone's interested, the man that photo is Mohammad Inaamulillah Bin Ashaari and his four wives Rohaiza Esa, Ummu Habibah Raihaw, Nurul Azwa Mohd Ani, and Ummu Ammarah Asmis taken at the "Ikhwan Polygamy Club Family Day." Rawang, Malaysia in 2009.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
Matthew Beet posted:Gotta claim that disabilaty payment I don't think grandsmother should be taking care of chidlren
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
Barnaby Joyce defends halal after Coalition MPs express concern The agriculture minister, Barnaby Joyce, has issued a warning to colleagues who are against halal certification, saying picking a fight with Islamic export countries could triple the price of beef for Australian consumers. A number of Coalition MPs and senators have expressed concern about halal certification, claiming that money for the process goes to extremist clerics. Joyce said failing to get halal certification would effectively cut off large export markets for Australian meat products, and warned against “picking a fight that we never needed to have”. “Unless it’s halal certified, we can’t sell it. That means the whole processing line becomes unviable,” Joyce told reporters on Monday. “If we didn’t have the halal market in beef, that could really affect thousands of meat workers in Australia. “You want to be careful before putting all their jobs on the line by saying that we’re not going to participate in this range of markets.” He said the lack of competition for markets could drive up the price of beef. “We don’t want any unnecessary heat brought into this space because the only people who lose out in the end are us,” Joyce said. A Coalition backbencher, Andrew Laming, wants a voluntary code of conduct on domestic halal and kosher-labelled food so that businesses can bypass the certification process and consumers can have more information about labelling. “We’re providing more options for businesses and customers,” he said. He has previously expressed concern that the money that goes to mosques for halal certification is untaxed and hard to trace. Laming agreed with Joyce that halal certification was “essential” for export markets and “shouldn’t be impeded” by the “minority campaign” against it. Last month the prime minister, Tony Abbott, brushed aside concerns about halal certification. “If we want to export to the Middle East, we have to have certain procedures in place ... If we want our exports to grow all the time, this is what we need to do and I think that’s what Australians want,” he said during a visit to a halal-certified business in Tasmania. The federal government has no formal role in the domestic labelling of halal food. The voluntary labelling is done entirely by third parties. But the government does approve certification for halal products exported to countries such as Indonesia and Saudi Arabia through the Department of Agriculture. Several high-profile food companies such as Cadbury and Kellogg’s have been targeted by anti-halal campaigners in the past few months. http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/apr/13/barnaby-joyce-defends-halal-after-coalition-mps-express-concern
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 09:29
|
|
|
The most recent US midterm elections had the voter lowest turnout since the 1940s. US Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz has just announced his opposition to the 'homosexual jihad' and Rand Paul walks out of live interviews when they ask him for policy details. Come read the USPol thread if you want to compare them to the LNP, we've got quite a ways to go. e. on the other hand, here's Rick Perry 
CATTASTIC fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Apr 14, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:good thing "axe the tax" has never been an important talking point in australia or this image would be somewhat detrimental to the point you're making That's why I wrote the words above the image that indicate I may have been mistaken.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 13:30 |
|
|
There's 3 Republican candidates announced at the moment with several more 'maybes': http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/us/politics/2016-presidential-candidates.html Whether they have a chance or not depends on how much they gently caress up between now and the nomination. Even then, whoever ends up running can expect the bulk of the traditional GOP vote.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 03:08
|
|