You won’t get an argument from me.I have always said that self induced intoxication or psychosis should be considered a mandatory aggravating factor in crimes.
You won’t get an argument from me.I have always said that self induced intoxication or psychosis should be considered a mandatory aggravating factor in crimes.
Neighbours as well. He was howling out loud and totally isolated.All that has been reported about his mental health is that family members were concerned.
I howl out loud when home alone “singing” along to YouTube.Neighbours as well. He was howling out loud and totally isolated.
The neighbours knew him better than you and what was of concern to them.I howl out loud when home alone “singing” along to YouTube.
Still no evidence of mental illness.
Whatever. I just hope he faces a trial by jury.The neighbours knew him better than you and what was of concern to them.
Again with the strawmanning? This is beneath you.What we have, in fact, is a weak narcissist who thinks the world owes him a living, (“wah, I’m only on the DSP not NDIS”; “I’m smart, so why won’t someone give me a job”) and is 100% responsible for his own actions.
Unhinged? Sure. Who wouldn’t be given the amount of weed he was consuming? But that doesn’t make him mentally ill, and there is absolutely no evidence he was.
But it’s only a matter of time before the ABC, the Age or the Guardian (or all three) declare him the real victim.[/HIHILITE]
What? This is not strawmanning, it’s a prediction. And I have good reason for making it.Again with the strawmanning? This is beneath you.
No, they don't. They report the fake protesters AND the real ones. The press groups screaming about so-called "leftist protesters" breaking stuff are the right wing gutter rags. They "accidentally" never, or just could not be arsed to, check facts.exactly. Just as with the fake "protesters" who deliberately pick fights to get the Age and the ABC and Guardian to go off about "police brutality" the following day.
Again... Reporting what happens without condemning people is NOT endorsing their actions. It's just reporting.What? This is not strawmanning, it’s a prediction. And I have good reason for making it.
I have always said that self induced intoxication or psychosis should be considered a mandatory aggravating factor in crimes.
Which I never understood.Could not agree more.
I'd also like to see the complete elimination of 'the drunk's defence' in Australia, with that elimination expanded to consumption of any drug.
(The drunk's defence is where the defence argue that a person was intoxicated, therefore not of sound mind, therefore not criminally responsible. Particularly heinous where a person gets liquored up seeking 'Dutch Courage' before committing an offence.)
Trade is a good thing. I thought this was resolved in the 1980s under the Hawke and Keating governments and that, since then, there was support across this parliament and across the mainstream political parties.”
“This is just an excuse for going down the road of protectionist and nativist politics. Nativist politics is not in Australia’s national interest. We are a trading nation.”
Australia and the European Union agreed on a comprehensive free-trade agreement (FTA) in March, after nearly eight years negotiating and much political rancour. The agreement abolishes almost all bilateral tariffs, covering 98% of Australian goods exports and broadens our export base at a time of high US tariffs.
And gas. And uranium. There’s a demand for them and we would be stupid to ignore that.Yeah, we wouldn't want to stop trading coal, would we?