That sounds like something that Jones would also say about somebody he didn't like.I understand that police had enough evidence to charge him many years ago, but he had enough powerful friends to delay the inevitable.
Doesn’t make it wrong. These charges go back decades, and I have no doubt the evidence was there.That sounds like something that Jones would also say about somebody he didn't like.
Doesn't make it right either. So far, it's just something you want to believe.Doesn’t make it wrong.
So what’s your opinion? Do you think police simply launch charges like this without good cause? He was arrested for behaviour in a UK public toilet long ago. He had access to boys as a teacher. Do you think these 20+ charges are all made up?Doesn't make it right either. So far, it's just something you want to believe.
The notion that Jones had enough friends in high places to impede a police investigation is not the simplest explanation. More likely that the DPP (or whoever decided to go ahead with the prosecution) didn't believe the evidence was good enough until recently (a not guilty verdict would not have been in anybody's interest).So what’s your opinion? Do you think police simply launch charges like this without good cause? He was arrested for behaviour in a UK public toilet long ago. He had access to boys as a teacher. Do you think these 20+ charges are all made up?
Ockham’s razor alone should be enough.
“Until recently” is carrying a heavy weight.The notion that Jones had enough friends in high places to impede a police investigation is not the simplest explanation. More likely that the DPP (or whoever decided to go ahead with the prosecution) didn't believe the evidence was good enough until recently (a not guilty verdict would not have been in anybody's interest).
Do you know when his victims first started complaining to the police?“Until recently” is carrying a heavy weight.
I think Healthscope needs Bupa more than Bupa needs Healthscope and a settlement will be reached. I have skin in the game as a Bupa member.Australia's private health business is not just still ◊◊◊◊◊◊, it's just getting more ◊◊◊◊◊◊.
Healthscope set to rip up contracts with private insurers Bupa and Australian Health Services Alliance - ABC News https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-22/healthscope-ahsa-bupa-private-insurance-contracts/104633886
American investors want to make healthcare just profitable here as it is in the e USA.
As I have said repeatedly, the Greens are scum. They have no principals.The government have withdrawn their gambling ad regulation bill because the Greens and the coalition opposed it. No estimated date to reintroduce it, since we may have an election before they sit again. Just great.
They have principles. They just don't agree with yours.As I have said repeatedly, the Greens are scum. They have no principals.
They are aligning with the Liberals. Does that suit you?They have principles. They just don't agree with yours.
Supporting the bill just because the Libs oppose it would be the stupidest reason to support it imaginable.They are aligning with the Liberals. Does that suit you?
Do you support that? I find their position dispicable.The Greens aren't "aligning with the Libs", they are exercising their usual policy of allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good.
You're probably right. They might want to ban gambling ads altogether which would be nice, as I hate gambling, but maybe it's something that needs to happen in stages.The Greens aren't "aligning with the Libs", they are exercising their usual policy of allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good.
Since he 'lost his contract' on SkyNews a couple of years ago (which is basically just 'foxnews lite) he has been reduced to making podcasts only (which he is still doing- well I suspect they are just using the backlog now lol- I doubt that making podcasts is in the front of what is left of his 'mind'....Does he still have a radio show? Or other soapbox?
I predict this will go nowhere. If I am wrong and it goes to court, then it would have major repercussions. Not very often a leader gets to be a defendant in a court case.Peter Dutton could face legal action for racial discrimination - Michael West
The Australian Human Rights Commission, representing Jewish, Palestinian and Muslim communities, is taking legal action against Peter Dutton.michaelwest.com.au
You're in favour of banning teens from using social media?Also, this:
Why I’ve changed my mind about the social media bill | Andrew Wilkie
The ban is a blunt instrument that will silence the voices of young people instead of placing the onus on tech companies to protect themwww.theguardian.com
What? No! It's a stupid idea. I don't know how you come to that conclusion from my posting the above article.You're in favour of banning teens from using social media?
I was tricked by your posting sequence. You first posted about crazies Thorp and Lambie. Then in your very next post, you stated "Also, this:" and included a link to Andrew Wilkie opposing the ban on teens using social media.What? No! It's a stupid idea. I don't know how you come to that conclusion from my posting the above article.
The framework recommends legal reforms to include minimum requirements to counter racial discrimination. This includes embedding First Nations cultural safety across sectors.
It also includes recommendations for the education system to implement cultural safety and anti-racism reforms, and for workplaces to develop and implement various internal anti-racism strategies. One such suggestion is mandatory cultural safety and anti-racism training for all workers, including parliamentarians.
The plan involves strategies for recruiting and retaining staff from First Nations and other minority communities in leadership and senior roles.
It also calls for media organisations to adopt guidelines based on an anti-racist approach to reporting. To lead by example, parliamentarians and staff should adhere to a zero-tolerance approach to racism.
The framework recommends that the government establish a National Anti-racism Taskforce to develop separate implementation plans. One of these would focus on First Nations people; the other on the general population.
I agree, it's a stupid idea. "Social media" is a Boomer bugbear.What? No! It's a stupid idea. I don't know how you come to that conclusion from my posting the above article.
Calling an activity illegal won't curtail it. In fact, it is likely to make the activity more attractive - especially to young people. The first thing that will happen is that teens will learn all about setting up VPNs etc so I guess that a positive effect of the law would be to make teens even more tech savvy.And yet, apparently 77% of people are in favour of it.
Not just a Boomer bugbear, then.And yet, apparently 77% of people are in favour of it.
Support for under-16 social media ban soars to 77% among Australians | YouGov
87% support stronger penalties for social media companies who do not comply with Australian lawsau.yougov.com