General Discussions

[Gointocarlton]

Nine blamed AI but had to fess up after Adobe pointed out that the changes have to be authorised by a human.

Ms Purcell is an MP, but is she a politician?

And what a piece of work she is.

[LP]

And what a piece of work she is.

It doesn't matter who though, Purcell or Thorpe, truth shouldn't be sacrificed for ratings.

[LP]

While I'm not a fan for social media like FB, Twitter or Instatwaddle, I find the media pile on about child sexual abuse slightly hypocritical.

Don't the media use cameras?

Are the camera makers like Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Minolta, equally as liable for the misuse of the media by nefarious types, I mean historically shouldn't we also be pursuing Kodak, Ilford or Fujifilm?

What about the printers used to make hard copies, should HP, Brother, Epson or Xerox be keelhauled?

What about TDK or Sony and those VHS tapes, or the blank CDs and DVDs?

Pretty quickly we see the absurdity of the current situation.

[Lods]

It's like most things technological. You can use it for good genuine purposes...or you can use it for bad deeds and evil.
Some of the idiots who use it for notoriety on a platform like Tik tok are genuinely bat shlt crazy with no thoughts of anyone but themselves.
I'd ban the thing but in the end it boils down to individual responsibility. You push an old man off a wharf and you deserve to spend a couple of years locked up.

[Gointocarlton]

It's like most things technological. You can use it for good genuine purposes...or you can use it for bad deeds and evil.
Some of the idiots who use it for notoriety on a platform like Tik tok are genuinely bat shlt crazy with no thoughts of anyone but themselves.
I'd ban the thing but in the end it boils down to individual responsibility. You push an old man off a wharf and you deserve to spend a couple of years locked up.

Dont effin start me! What about the 16 yo who murdered the Doctor in Doncaster while on bail. Or the two cretins who stole a car and mowed down two cyclists?I'd lock the Kents ( and their Parents ) up in concrete jail cells with no lights or windows for 15 years. Until the laws are changed to start going after parents/guardians, this will keep happening.

[LP]

It's like most things technological. You can use it for good genuine purposes...or you can use it for bad deeds and evil.

The USA has cornered itself, because it can't act on guns and knives. Yet it acts on a platform!

How can FB be guilty, while Winchester is innocent?

[DJC]

I’m not sure that you can blame the courts EB; they have to apply the laws passed by parliaments and, in the High Court’s case, abide by a constitution that was written in the 19th century.

Indefinite detention was always going to found to be unlawful and I can’t believe that the previous government and the incoming government didn’t have a fallback plan.

I know that many asylum seekers destroy their documentation or have fake documentation and it can be difficult to determine whether or not someone is a model citizen or a serial killer.  However, once an asylum seeker’s past criminal record is discovered, why aren’t they just shipped back to where they came from?  I know that we won’t send people back to a death sentence but most of these coves have served their sentences and aren’t in line for execution.

I’m not sure what the answer is for people who will be executed if returned home …. but I’m not paid the big bucks to resolve such matters.

Bail is fraught.  There are benefits from not incarcerating people who haven’t been found guilty but community safety must come first.  If there’s a chance that folk charged with a crime are likely to offend then bail shouldn’t be an option.

Remember Dan Andrews criticising VCAT for being the ultimate planning authority but never having to face the electorate?  I think the same argument is applied to the courts.  If the electorate is unhappy with sentencing, bail, or other decisions, they will take it out on the government.  Governments therefore try to be overly prescriptive with mandatory sentencing, bail, etc or try to use ministerial powers for matters that the various constitutions don’t permit.

It’s a flawed and dated system but I’m not sure there’s a better one.  If there was, there’s Buckley’s chance of amending the Australian constitution.

Edit: I was commenting on EB’s post but it’s gone.  You should get the gist ?

[ElwoodBlues1]

I’m not sure that you can blame the courts EB; they have to apply the laws passed by parliaments and, in the High Court’s case, abide by a constitution that was written in the 19th century.

Indefinite detention was always going to found to be unlawful and I can’t believe that the previous government and the incoming government didn’t have a fallback plan.

I know that many asylum seekers destroy their documentation or have fake documentation and it can be difficult to determine whether or not someone is a model citizen or a serial killer.  However, once an asylum seeker’s past criminal record is discovered, why aren’t they just shipped back to where they came from?  I know that we won’t send people back to a death sentence but most of these coves have served their sentences and aren’t in line for execution.

I’m not sure what the answer is for people who will be executed if returned home …. but I’m not paid the big bucks to resolve such matters.

Bail is fraught.  There are benefits from not incarcerating people who haven’t been found guilty but community safety must come first.  If there’s a chance that folk charged with a crime are likely to offend then bail shouldn’t be an option.

Remember Dan Andrews criticising VCAT for being the ultimate planning authority but never having to face the electorate?  I think the same argument is applied to the courts.  If the electorate is unhappy with sentencing, bail, or other decisions, they will take it out on the government.  Governments therefore try to be overly prescriptive with mandatory sentencing, bail, etc or try to use ministerial powers for matters that the various constitutions don’t permit.

It’s a flawed and dated system but I’m not sure there’s a better one.  If there was, there’s Buckley’s chance of amending the Australian constitution.

Edit: I was commenting on EB’s post but it’s gone.  You should get the gist ?

Sorry about that deleted post DJ but one of my reference links was missing/taken down so I deleted my post with the intention
of rewriting and looking for a new link with the following the best I could find but forgot about it....MrsE wanted me to watch MAFS...dont judge me?.
Anyway this link relates to my venting about the courts and Government in Aus and how stupid in my opinion releasing known asylum seeking criminals into the community is.
https://www.news.com.au/national/courts-...862be12d8a
My ire was also raised after the murder of a local doctor in my area by a kid/kids who were out on bail for serious crimes and should have remained locked up imo, but the courts seem so weak and wanting to pander to societies forgiving and rehabilitation approach to dealing with dangerous criminals they let these people out on bail far to freely imho.

[Macca37]

I read the other day that in the USA the mother and father of a fifteen-year-old have each been charged with involuntary manslaughter. Their son was responsible for the deaths by shooting of a number of children at a school.

Here in Australia, whenever youths offend, blame for their offending is always laid at the feet of the government of the day and/or the courts.  We get the obligatory hand-wringing, calls for more money to be spent, and for the age to be raised to fourteen before a person can be charged with an offence.

The Victorian Chief Commissioner of Police said yesterday that there is a hardcore of approximately 220 youth offenders known to police who account for the majority of serious youth crimes in this state.

Surely it is about time that the parents of repeat offenders should be held accountable, at least in part, for the actions of their children.

I am tired of society expecting governments of the day and the courts  to clear up the mess, come up with solutions, and yet parents are absolved of any responsibility for the behaviour of their children

[DJC]

In fact, the mother, who, together with her husband, bought the firearm, has been found guilty of four counts of involuntary manslaughter.  The husband is yet to be tried.

Apart from buying the firearm used in the massacre, the shooter's parents refused to believe their son's claims of mental health issues and failed to get him assessed or treated.  They also walked out of a meeting at the school on the morning of the shooting and declined to take their disturbed son home.

However, I recall discussing parents' responsibilities with my late brother who was a barrister.  He said that there is a long established principle in English law that parents can't be held responsible for the actions of their children.  In the American case, the mother was found guilty because her actions directly contributed to deaths.