PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   War in Australia (any Oz Politics): the Original (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/477678-war-australia-any-oz-politics-original.html)

Worrals in the wilds 20th Feb 2014 20:55


Therefore the policy of Indonesia with respect to drug use is well known. Why do Australians (and Kiwis, evidently) assume that Bali is a northern suburb of Perth, replete with a spineless judiciary who prioritise the criminal over and above the public? I’m sure this is not lost on the Indonesians as well, which is probably p*ssing them off mightily.
Agree, Captain. They're all full of BS and bravado until they get caught, then it's Whine To the Embassy time. :ugh:

A Papua New Guinea MP claims asylum seekers made threats to rape the mothers and sisters of local Manus Island detention centre guards in the lead-up to Monday's deadly riots.
OOPS. Of course it may not be true, but it does sound rather familiar, doesn't it? Rather like the often reported threats made to women by some criminal members of a certain ethnic minority resident in Australia, usually while swaggering around Sydney in large, intimidating groups? :hmm:

Re Sydney (sorry :}) here's the curfew details. Freighters and small bizjets (up to BAe 146 size, IIRC) are allowed limited 24hr ops, as are the 737 Toll / AAE freighters. Without doing a full comp-and-con it looks similar to the Stanstead restrictions.
Curfew at Sydney Airport

Personally, I miss Thumper and friends :}; the AAE (Australian Air Express) 727 freighers that used to blast off across Brisbane at midnight and 2AM weeknights leaving an Armageddon sounding Boom and a sea of grumpy phone calls to AirServices in their wake, particularly on cloudy nights when the wind didn't suit departures over the Bay, leading to departures straight over the top of Kevin Rudd's house. :E
Awesome aircraft. :ok:
http://m2.i.pbase.com/t6/05/686005/4...2.O8oijJG8.jpg

CoodaShooda 20th Feb 2014 22:04

Circa 1981, when US B52's were regular visitors to Darwin, 4 KC135 tankers (with first generation engines) departed at 0200 local.

I doubt anyone within a 20km radius slept through it.

I was asleep on a water bed in a top floor flat less than a kilometer from the centerline and was literally bounced out of bed with the vibration.

Now that's jet noise. :ok::E

And, of course, it was pure coincidence that a Qantas 747 the following night was marshalled up to the fence and the exhaust of its APU pointed directly at the RAAF Base Commanders bedroom window. :}

Worrals in the wilds 20th Feb 2014 22:29

Nice work. :E

ruprecht 20th Feb 2014 23:38


And, of course, it was pure coincidence that a Qantas 747 the following night was marshalled up to the fence and the exhaust of its APU pointed directly at the RAAF Base Commanders bedroom window.
Amateurs...

Should have used this.

http://www.aviationspectator.com/fil...85.preview.jpg


The P-3 Orion APU. The most efficient converter of fuel into noise known to man. :)

7x7 21st Feb 2014 02:14

Re the riots in Manus Island, some might consider this an appropriate response. Then again, there'd be some (SHY?) who would not.

A word to rioting Muslims - 11 Translation(s) | Dotsub

500N 21st Feb 2014 02:16

Re the Navy boats going into Indos waters.

Listening to talk back on the ABC today and quite a number of people involved, some interesting scenarios thrashed out !!!

The one that had most credibility was that they were ordered to cross the line but no one is game to admit who. Another aspect was, who will be sacrificed at the altar for this ?

7x7 21st Feb 2014 02:17

I see that Tony Abbott has announced today that the RAAF will be getting eight P8s to replace the P3s.

Big bucks involved - bucks we do not have.

7x7 21st Feb 2014 02:21


Another aspect was, who will be sacrificed at the altar for this ?
Traditionally, it's usually someone of about Colonel rank. What's the Navy equivalent? - Captain?

Given that patrol boats are involved, they might be able to get away with 'burning' some poor bloody Lt Commander, maybe even a lowly Lieutenant.

500N 21st Feb 2014 02:22

I think this was budgeted for but agree, big $ in interesting times.

chuboy 21st Feb 2014 03:18


Originally Posted by 7x7 (Post 8330753)
I see that Tony Abbott has announced today that the RAAF will be getting eight P8s to replace the P3s.

Big bucks involved - bucks we do not have.

Yes, an interesting thing to announce on the same day we have Joe Hockey predicting that Australia "will run out of money".

Ken Borough 21st Feb 2014 04:46

Honest politicians! What an oxymoron?

Here's a very interesting piece about the matter written by Julian Burnside: it provides food for thought.


POLITICIANS WHO MISLEAD THE PUBLIC


It is time to take action against dishonest politicians, and it would not be difficult.

Most members of the public see honesty as a core value in our society. In personal dealings, dishonesty on matters of any significance is rightly regarded as an unacceptable breach of standards. In commerce, section 52 of the Trade Practices Act prohibits companies from engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct.

Politicians fill a vital role in our society. Why should the behaviour of politicians fall short of the standards Parliament has set for business, and which we all set for ourselves?

There are many different ways of lying. Notoriously, telling only part of the truth is a way of misleading the unwary. It is the way generally favoured by politicians, because it is less easily exposed than a direct falsehood. In Parliament, politicians are not allowed to mislead the house. They should not be allowed to mislead the public – they are the servants of the public, paid from the public purse, and representing the public interest.

Most people believe politicians lie. Some politicians lie more than others. It is not a trivial problem. Every time politicians lie to us, they betray the public in a fundamentally important way.

But honesty in politicians is important for another reason. Politicians’ vision for the future generally does not extend past the next election. Anything over that magic horizon is put aside for another time, unless it is worth some votes. If politicians could be punished for misleading and deceptive conduct, they would have to confront long-term problems much sooner.

Global warming is a recent, although possibly a contentious, example. The science concerning global warming has been clear at least since the Independent Panel on Climate Change Report of 1995. Politicians confronted with the scientific evidence have a future choices: they can say they believe it is true and that there is a problem; they can say they do not believe it is true, and that there is not a problem; or they can say that they do not know or do not care. But if the opinion they express is not an opinion they truly hold, then they mislead us. If politicians were forced to express an honest opinion – that is to say an opinion they honestly hold – rather than one peddled by vested interests or lobbyists, we may have begun the conversation about global warming a decade ago.

Enforcing honesty in politicians would help extend the policy horizon beyond the next election.

Several commentators have dismissed the idea of a law which would punish politicians for engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct. Laurie Oakes suggested that it should be judged and dealt with at elections. Unfortunately, this is no solution at all. It has been shown repeatedly that it does not work. The reason is simple. A vote at an election is dictated by many things, only one of which is an assessment of the candidate’s honesty. Generally speaking, a candidate whose dishonesty has been exposed will nevertheless be supported in the election if he or she offers a sufficient inducement – lower interest rates, higher Centrelink benefits, or whatever.

By contrast, Courts have vast experience in judging whether a person has engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct. It is a question which courts can abnd should decide. One thing is certain: if it is possible for a politician to be jailed for misleading the public, we will hear a lot more truth from them. That has to be a good thing.




CoodaShooda 21st Feb 2014 05:43

Given the nature of politics and its obeisance to the media cycle, a law as proposed by Burnside would foul the system up to the point of paralysis with claims and counter-claims.

And why stop with the politicians (some of whom do look beyond the next election)?

The messengers in the media should also be held up to the same standards.

A windfall for lawyers. A drain in the tax payer. Although it might slow down the current trend of rushing to introduce more and more legislation to burden us all with.

Or is that his intent and Burnside is touting for the abolition of the Separation of Powers and demanding rule by the legal profession?

parabellum 21st Feb 2014 06:28

Boats
 
As I mentioned before, I still think the towing the boats back is a set up. The Indons are stamping their feet and showing righteous indignation, as they are expected to do by various observers and their own opposition party, it is a presidential election year after all. The politicians in the public eye will, of course, denounce towing back but behind the scenes they will have washed their hands of it and told their respective military to sort it out between them.
I believe there is a tacit agreement between Abbott and the Indons that towing back can continue for a while, at least until there is a very significant reduction in country shoppers, the end will then be orchestrated showing Australia pulling back with a slapped wrist.
God knows how many dollars the whole sham will have cost but the savings should be considerable, hopefully enough to fund six P8s!

porch monkey 21st Feb 2014 08:02

Absolute self serving bullshit, although a nifty piece of touting, I grant you. There is already the ability for politicians to be jailed for lying. Problem is, only other politicians, I.e., the Speaker, can enforce it. What chance you think?

CoodaShooda 21st Feb 2014 08:41

The Parliament gaoled a couple of pollies back in the 50's, I think.

Hopefully, they'll see fit to add more time to whatever the magistrate gives Thomson.

Worrals in the wilds 21st Feb 2014 08:46


There is already the ability for politicians to be jailed for lying.
They also can (and should) be voted out. If the public don't like dishonest politicians then they have the option of turfing them at the following election. That has happened to various recent governments, and to me it demonstrates that the current system works.

I agree with Oakes (which happens about once every ten years :\). Burnside doesn't supply evidence to support his claim that politicians still get elected after breaching the public trust and I think several recent elections show otherwise, though it's difficult to quantify.


But if the opinion they express is not an opinion they truly hold, then they mislead us.
This is overly simplistic and completely ignores the party system that has existed for hundreds of years. Many MPs hold personal views that differ from their party's policy. Does Burnside dismiss them as liars :confused:, even though the party has developed its platform based on the majority view of its members? There are valid criticisms of the party system, but without it politics would become even more unwieldy than it is now and IMO the good outweighs the bad.

As a group, where we must be careful is not to come to accept political dishonesty as a fait accompli; we must continue to despise it and punish it at the ballot box. When a politician's dishonesty becomes criminal (as with Thomson and Gordon Nuttal, who was sentenced to seven years jail for corruption and perjury) there is already a legal framework to deal with it. Surely the system doesn't need another layer of lawyers.

bosnich71 21st Feb 2014 08:56

Julian Burnside accusing others of being liars ... instant vomit !

porch monkey 21st Feb 2014 10:50

Are you suggesting that poor Julian and other lawyers are liars???? Wash your mouth out!!!! Why do you think they start every sentence with "My client instructs me"..........? It's not THEM lying, you see. F=cking shysters, all of them.

Worrals in the wilds 21st Feb 2014 11:19


"My client instructs me"..........? It's not THEM lying, you see. F=cking shysters, all of them.
As I'm sure you're aware, a defence barrister is hired by an accused person to argue on their behalf. No-one ever claimed they were there for the greater good; the truth is decided by the jury or judge after hearing both arguments. Of course either as defendant or accuser you could argue on your own behalf, but you'd need to do a lot of pre-reading. :} The counsel is there on behalf of the client. That's their job whether they be for the prosecution or the defence.

An alternative system is the inquistorial system favoured by Europe and Indonesia, but any time an Aussie is subject to it people didn't seem to like that either.

Given the current adversorial system (and within the inquistorial system) there is a place for lawyers. If you were the innocent (or even the guilty :E) defendant no doubt you would agree ;), likewise if you were the innocent (or guilty) alleged victim. Any person has the right to a fair trial and representation, even if they're so guilty that they're still covered in bloodstains and clutching the knife. If you deny them that right then you also deny it to the wrongly accused. Otherwise, how is guilt decided? By pollies? By the media on our behalf? They'd love that...:eek:

However, that place is not running the show, for the very reasons you state. A lawyer does not automatically have the greater good as their primary interest. Nor do many pollies, but unlike lawyers they're supposed to. :mad:

Neither lawyers nor coppers should be governing. Unfortunately the current Queensland government gives far too much power to the police with some very scary laws as a result. According to that government we 'innocent' people have nothing to fear, a statement that instantly makes me very fearful. :ooh: Their attacks on lawyers who have publically spoken against these laws only adds weight to that.
Gold Coast lawyer to sue Qld premier - Yahoo!7

Hence the separation of powers which as CoodaShooda has already pointed out, Burnside seems to have trouble comprehending. It's a convoluted system, but it more or less works.

Solid Rust Twotter 21st Feb 2014 15:29


My take - dumb-ass Kiwi bint and 'Azaria' were in cahoots flogging drugs to other stupid white-eyes in Bali. It appears 'Azaria' bailed in time, leaving dumb-ass carrying the can.
The stupidity of some people knows no bounds. Schapelle Corby is a household name in Australia, and I’m pretty sure the case is known fairly well in other countries as well. Therefore the policy of Indonesia with respect to drug use is well known. Why do Australians (and Kiwis, evidently) assume that Bali is a northern suburb of Perth, replete with a spineless judiciary who prioritise the criminal over and above the public? I’m sure this is not lost on the Indonesians as well, which is probably p*ssing them off mightily.
Stuff the stupid Kiwi bint – she can rot in jail as far as I’m concerned.


That fence must be playing merry hell with your piles, CSD.:}


All times are GMT. The time now is 00:51.


Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.