At least he hasn’t abandoned everyone

Jeremy Sear of Pure Poison on how wonderful it can be when self-interest and principle collide:

One of the convenient things about believing in a me-first ideology like the conservatism beloved of certain News Ltd writers, is that it requires pretty much no sacrifice. Your opposition to tax increases for the rich conveniently matches your opposition to tax increases for yourself. Your political stance is “what’s good for me”, so it’s not exactly difficult to live up to it.

And on Alan Howe shamelessly damaging the criminal justice system:

The sad thing is that the same people who read the criminal reports in the Hun and don’t ask even basic questions (like – hang on, that doesn’t sound right. Why did the Judge do that? And why doesn’t the Hun tell me the Judge’s reasons?) will take Howe’s rant seriously and demand terrible, dangerous, damaging action from cowardly and populist politicians. The upshot of which will be, if not the implementation of any of Howe’s demented suggestions, more “mandatory minimum” sentencing sections in criminal legislation (with all the commensurate justice you get from a punishment being determined in advance by politicians who’ve heard not a word of the case rather than an experienced, qualified human being who can judge a case on its merits).

Which is a serious blow to justice.

Excellent pieces, both, if he does say so myself, which I think excuse him from writing anything on his actual blog today.

About these ads

72 responses to “At least he hasn’t abandoned everyone

  1. please refer to my comments on Pure Poison regarding these articles.

  2. A finer example of shameless self-promotion can’t be found outside of a certain blog of rasins.

    I doffs me cap.

  3. Dear oh dreary dear, here we go again judges and lawyers know what’s best when it comes to punishing shit bags.

    So all you miscreants out there who like to rape/murder/pillage/plunder/ go and sin no more.I mean your excused cos ya daddy wouldn’t play football with you.

    The wise judiciary has spoken, we the great unwashed know nothing, and those of us who believe, and that us, is people like me who are nearly sixty, and I admit darn, I’ve had my share of parking tickets, and shit I almost forgot I found a dollar in my local shopping car park once and didn’t hand it in to plod, mostly law abiding that’s me.

    Boring to that’s me, happily married three great law abiding kids in the thirties, who like me don’t hang around public dunny’s oooooh that was low.

    Yep I’m the fucktard cos I wanna hang some fucker up by the balls who has just murdered some five year old, and torn her vagina inside out in the process.And then some powder puff tells me I’m as bad as the offender.

    Jeremy I’m sure you mean well, It’s your blog you can insult who you like, but please when you give an opinion, please don’t give it like you and your ilk are in the majority.Cos that is abject bollocks.

  4. Phill, WTF does that even mean?

  5. I find this Sear intriguing and wish to subscribe to his newsletter.

    Phill:

    “Dear oh dreary dear, here we go again judges and lawyers know what’s best when it comes to punishing shit bags.”

    Nowhere has there been an attack on the importance of public opinion. Jeremy makes this point clearly, and often. His problem is with the cadre of misleading court reporters who deliberately distort the facts and misinform the public. This leads to *uninformed* members of the public running off with their half baked opinions to put pressure on their local MP. How is this an ideal arrangement? If anything, this post attests to the *importance* of public opinion in the law.

    “Yep I’m the fucktard cos I wanna hang some fucker up by the balls who has just murdered some five year old, and torn her vagina inside out in the process.And then some powder puff tells me I’m as bad as the offender.

    Jeremy I’m sure you mean well, It’s your blog you can insult who you like, but please when you give an opinion, please don’t give it like you and your ilk are in the majority.Cos that is abject bollocks.”

    I would suggest reading some Clarence Darrow, and maybe some criminology. Moreover, barbaric punishment is hardly being called for by the majority.

  6. ” I would suggest reading some Clarence Darrow, and maybe some criminology. Moreover, barbaric punishment is hardly being called for by the majority.”

    Says who! you? I suggest you get out a bit more.

    The whole thrust of the argument I have seen on this blog on crime and punishment is, ” If you are not part of the judiciary your opinions are not worth a fanny full of cold snow.

    That judges are out of touch with reality much less the public opinion, has been a bone of contention for years. That jails are full of murdering shit bags that should be in the ground covered in a lime mix much less some hotel with a colour T.V. some call jail is common knowledge in the real world.And not in some smoke room filled old boys club, where most of the members would already qualify for a coffin.

  7. You’re right. Let’s purge the earth of evil in one great push. If we crack down – and I mean *really* bring the pain – maybe we can drive Satan himself back down to the Ninth Circle.

    To arms!

  8. ” Phill, WTF does that even mean? ”

    What it means is the public is sick of soft cocks letting shit bags get away with murder.Of late there have been a shit load of cases where a person is going to spend about three years in prison for taking some ones life.

    There is a case in Western Australia where a person punched some poor sod once and he died. He got off with a fine and a good behaviour bond. That’s what it means.

    And I like a thousands of other law abiding citizens are told what is tantamount to” what the fuck would you know?”

    If some of the do gooders had their way the only mandatory sentencing would be a weeks holiday in Bali for murder.

    The journalists are right to point out what is an abject failure of the law to protect its citizens.

    If people are a bit squeamish about stringing some bastard up for murder call me I’ll do it for nothing.

  9. ” You’re right. Let’s purge the earth of evil in one great push. If we crack down – and I mean *really* bring the pain – maybe we can drive Satan himself back down to the Ninth Circle.

    To arms! ”

    Go away.

  10. Judges are sexist pigs.

  11. Sear, you are a lazy bastard.

  12. Phill, if you’d read the post you’d realise

    (a) The judges are NOT softer than informed public opinion, and this has been tested the only way it can be: by contrasting the sentencing preferences of random members of the public when given all the information of a case. And they’re generally softer than the judges.

    (b) You should be very suspicious of all the facts that are cynically missing from the reports on which you base your opinions about “soft” judges.

    Again, read the post. It addresses your points.

  13. It is true that the media intentionally inserts certain information and excludes certain information. This is critical because often what is excluded can change the ‘story’ significantly.

  14. Jeremy I hear what your saying but what is an acceptable mitigating factor to some is not to others.

    I can tell shit from clay.

    As an aside I watched the hatchet job on sixty minutes of the Mc Cloud family of Perth W.A. who were involved in the punch up with the W.A. Police. The journalists that investigated this case should hang their heads in shame.

    The Mc Clouds obviously knew where any interview was headed with these wankers and declined. Hence it was a one sided carve up, I now know why I don’t watch the shite anymore.

    I am able to make my own judgement on each case on its merits. You do not have to be a brain surgeon to work out who is who at the zoo.

  15. thevoiceofreason

    “me-first ideology like the conservatism beloved of certain News Ltd writers”

    Dont these people relise that the rich will all be constantly robbed and their kids held to ransom if they get their way and create a massive class devide?

    Better the push a more equal balanced society with reasonable incentive in the system.

    We live in a crazy world where the best and brightest bet on markets going up and down because thats where the money is. Wouldnt it be better if we created a system where the best and brightest could create technogolies that made the markets more up??

  16. “What it means is the public is sick of soft cocks letting shit bags get away with murder.”

    No fair dazzling us with lofty rhetoric.

  17. “Your political stance is “what’s good for me”, so it’s not exactly difficult to live up to it.”

    It’s only gonna get worse:

    http://mumbrella.com.au/news-ltd-gets-ready-for-the-punch-4309

    http://www.stopmurdoch.blogspot.com/

  18. I can’t wait to see the “mitigating factors” get rolled out for this one too:

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25391769-12377,00.html

    I can hear them already, abused childhood, mental disorder, depression, parents wouldn’t buy him a teddy bear, blah, blah, blah…

  19. Here’s a suggestion, Gavin – follow the case properly. Find out all the specifics – not just the ones reported by News Ltd. Follow the trial closely. If he’s found guilty, read the plea. Read the eventual judgment.

    And then tell me if the judges are out of touch or not.

  20. ” I can’t wait to see the “mitigating factors” get rolled out for this one too:”

    If found guilty the only factor here should be how long to make the drop on the rope on the gallows that if I had my way I would put back in every jail in Australia.The only change I would make to a modern gallows, would be to make the over head beam stronger so you could get the scum bags up on it, six at a time.

    I would like to make it retrospective, so after some shit bag who has been found guilty of premeditated murder after having a holiday in some jail some where at the long suffering tax payers expense.They can still take the bastard out and string him/her up.

    And don’t forget Gavin read all the final judgement and like me you’ll still come to the conclusion as me judges live in some parallel universe, where they breath copious amounts of rarefied air,which mixed with buckets of French wine and crayfish lunches, make them quite dizzy.

    And let us not delve in to the area of recidivism, Oh yes that’s where they “go and sin no more” until they commit the next murder.

  21. Hello Jeremy,

    I’ll certainly wait for the trial result and read up on the sentencing facts — but I think you can guess my position on cases like this, it’s pretty simple, there are no mitigating circmstances or excuses for assaulting children in this manner, offenders such as this need to be locked up forever to protect the rest of the community.

  22. Everyone locked up forever would be the safest option.

    Anything else is for “softcocks”.

  23. Everyone locked up forever would be the safest option.

    Anything else is for “softcocks”.

    Ok Michael, you tell me what possible mitigating factors there could be for this scumbag, and then tell me why the comminity shouldn’t be protected from – 1) the possibility of him offending against someone else’s child, and 2) other scumbags just like him..

  24. “Anything else is for “softcocks”.”

    Well if the hand fits Michael?

  25. Phill I like your style—the gullotine I just love, the sound of the the blade coming down, is music to my ears—and then to see the head minus the body, I reckon is a work of art. I can watch those old French black and white movies for hours—with the gullotine lobbing those heads off the bodies. Bring back the gullotine I say.

  26. ALSO a gullotine at the foot of the Opera House for public excutions–say every Sunday morning–just think of all the tourists it would pull in—-as for myself, I would be begging them to pull that lever—maybe have a lottery to see who will pull the lever.

  27. Phill, Gavin – I don’t think you guys really understand that a mitigating factor is not an “excuse” or a “defence”. The person is still punished for the offence based on its seriousness.

    The only difference they make is between people who’ve committed that offence. So someone who has a severe psychological problem that has since been treated and this is the first and only time something like this has happened, for example, might need a lesser sentence than someone who has done it before and promised to do it again and has no such illness. For example.

    A plea in mitigation is not a defence. It is not proffering excuses. Judges do not take it as such.

    But they do consider the factors when determining where this particular example of X offence fits in relation to other examples of X offence. As they should.

  28. Rick, can’t you consider Phil’s calls for the mutilation and murder of prisoners without resorting to sarcasm?

    Geez.

  29. WE can use the body parts—they say we are getting body parts from China–so why not use our own home grown body parts.

  30. DEATH is the only cure for these fuck-wits—I agree with Phill, it will happen maybe not in my life time.

  31. ” rick68 // 28 April, 2009 at 5:46 pm ”

    I don’t care how they dispatch them, so long as they get rid of them. Shooting is probably as good as anything I guess, I will ask the executioners who’ve just done the Bali bombers how the whole thing went. I have it on good authority the bombers looked a bit terrified when they tied them to one of those most beautiful palm tree that grow so well in the Indonesian Archipelago.

    So long as they didn’t shoot them on Kuta beach who can complain, I mean when I was younger I used to surf there. I would be most concerned with bits of flesh sticking to my beach towel.

    I hear there were some complaints from the Doctors at the firing party, one of the soldiers in the firing squad did suffer some pain of his own at the execution, he wasn’t wearing any ear plugs.

  32. Jeremy you can argue your case ha ha, but it wont change anything.If you are seriously telling me that the majority of Australians are happy with our judicial system, well I just wont believe you.

    I am sixty, and I do not, and contrary to the belief of some on this blog, live in a cave and beat my wife and kids about the head with a wooden/or the ass bone of a donkey, about the head. I even use a knife and fork to eat my dinner.Although I do tend to grunt a bit whilst having pleasures of the flesh, but then so does my wife I must be doing it right.

    I have lived an average life and have met people who have slept under bridges, to living in castles, they all share the same belief our laws are a joke, and we treat miscreants like movie stars.

  33. “Jeremy you can argue your case ha ha, but it wont change anything.If you are seriously telling me that the majority of Australians are happy with our judicial system, well I just wont believe you.”

    When they are fully informed, Victorians do agree with sentencing (or, if anything, they think it’s a bit on the harsh side – see the SAC report I cited in the post).

    When not – when they’ve had their views warped by the continual twisting of the facts by the Hun then yes, they aren’t happy with THAT fictional judicial system.

    You have not addressed either of the above points. You have not explained away why the Hun constantly misreports crimes, or why you believe that people have an accurate view of the sentencing process anyway. You have not explained away the SAC investigation that showed that people are no more punitive than judges when they know the facts of the case.

  34. Jeremy not everything has to be explained by a load of esoteric bullshit.I could care less what any reports says, lies, more lies and damn statistics, used regularly to bolster weak arguments.

    Who was polled to come up with the findings?

    That papers lie and distort facts is nothing new, tell me something I don’t know.I gave you an example of that with the sixty minutes version of a kangaroo court.

    I remember only tooo bloody well the Ronald Ryan case, he should not have hung. Yes that’s right folks he should not have hung, Fairfax and Packer made sure he did but.

    I am talking in the realms of reality here, when some one commits a murder, especially whilst in the process of robbing some poor schmuck, or raping a child he/her doesn’t deserve to live end of story.

    Sorry Jeremy I am old school, it’s black or it’s white, no gray areas, do the crime do the time.

    If the evidence is absolute, hey so am I.

  35. The death penalty is an entirely different debate, and I’d ask you the following questions:

    1. Given that the law makes mistakes, and innocent people are sometimes convicted, do you think it’s a good idea to recreate the US system where people are discovered to have been innocent and it’s t0o late to free them BECAUSE THEY’VE BEEN EXECUTED?

    2. Say we were to reintroduce the death penalty (joining China and Saudi Arabia and the more brutal and backward regimes in the world), where would you draw the line?

    Back to this topic, will you at least concede that, unless you’ve been making a point of looking up the cases you’ve been reading about in more detail than just reported by sensationalist news outlets like the Hun, your impression of the reality of judicial sentencing must be somewhat warped by the source of your information?

    And since the SAC has bothered to sit members of the public down and rerun trials to see what their sentences would have been, and the results were that their sentences were on a par with OR LESS SEVERE THAN those of the actual judges in those cases, could you at least consider the possibility that the judges are NOT as out of touch with public opinion as News Ltd likes to pretend they are? If not, what’s your evidence to counter this? How did they get it wrong, and how do you know that the public, when confronted with the FULL FACTS OF THE CASE (that for some reason the Hun feels it’s important to deliberately leave out), is any more punitive than the real judiciary?

  36. Jeremy,

    Point 1. The U.S. System seems to work fine, granted there are always going to be mistakes, we do not take away everyone’s driving licenses because m/v accidents are a reality.

    When you consider that approx half the population, and if want to argue the exact percentages which waxes and wanes with the weather, agree we should be still executing scum bags, well if I fall into the slightly less than 50% camp I am happy and my conscience is as clear as glass.

    Point 2, Your assertion that Saudi Arabia and China are backward is based on what prey tell? So because they have a different mind set to us on the issue of crime and punishment, they are backward? That is arrant nonsense.

    Both the countries mentioned were having hot baths, when we the left over WASP’s were living in caves.

    What line are you talking about? I have told you I believe that where there is no doubt in certain cases of premeditated murder, the offenders don’t deserve to live.Says who? Me that’s who.

    When a group of men take a five year old child and rape its guts out, I could pull the lever on them myself and I wouldn’t loose a minutes sleep.

    I could care less what sacs did or for that matter father Christmas, I have told you that a load of statistics and framed facts to suit the required result change nothing.

    Your love affair with judges obviously stems from the fact you are a lawyer. Your assertion that they are not out of touch with public opinion is arrant nonsense.This so called opinion that shit bags are treated like movie stars has not been stimulated by the hun or any thing else. Give people some credit for a bit of common dog and insight, which the judiciary have neither.

  37. “Point 1. The U.S. System seems to work fine, granted there are always going to be mistakes, we do not take away everyone’s driving licenses because m/v accidents are a reality.”

    We’re not talking about accidents – we’re talking about the state EXECUTING INNOCENT PEOPLE. Which the US does. Regularly.

    “Point 2, Your assertion that Saudi Arabia and China are backward is based on what prey tell? “

    They’re medieval in the way they treat prisoners, for one thing. I suppose you think we should be cutting the hands off thieves?

    “I have told you I believe that where there is no doubt in certain cases of premeditated murder, the offenders don’t deserve to live.Says who? Me that’s who.”

    What do you mean “when there’s no doubt”? That’s not the criminal standard, because we’d never convict anyone at all. If “no doubt” were the standard, almost everyone would be freed.

    We err on the side of innocence, but not even close to 100%.

    If you bring in the death penalty, it is inevitable that the state will execute innocents. A more horrific form of avoidable injustice by the state I can’t imagine.

    “I could care less what sacs did or for that matter father Christmas, I have told you that a load of statistics and framed facts to suit the required result change nothing.”

    What? “Framed facts”? Sorry, in what way are you criticising the SAC’s methodology? How is your blanket assertion approach more credible than their actually testing the evidence with random members of the public?

    “Your love affair with judges obviously stems from the fact you are a lawyer. “

    Oh good, we’re at the juvenile “if you don’t think they’re incompetent criminal-loving scum then you must LUV THEM AND WANT TO HAV THEIR BABIES” stage.

    “Your assertion that they are not out of touch with public opinion is arrant nonsense.”

    You mean “supported by evidence unlike my irrational claims”.

    “This so called opinion that shit bags are treated like movie stars has not been stimulated by the hun or any thing else. “

    Please, tell me what it’s based on then. Because it’s clearly ridiculous. FFS – “shit bags are treated like movie stars”? Are you serious? Examples, please.

    “Give people some credit for a bit of common dog and insight, which the judiciary have neither.”

    Based on what? People buy & read the Herald Sun and ingest its clearly biased and incomplete coverage of the courts. Are you telling me that this doesn’t in any way warp their view on the subject? That they don’t need the complete evidence, they can make up their minds based on one side of the story and get it right much more reliably than the people who’ve actually sat in court and heard the evidence?

  38. Jeremy, Is there something wrong with your reading skills, have you been living in a cloistered Abbey somewhere?

    I will try this one more time, I could care less what statistics you use, or what SAC’S did to arrive at their position. This is still airy fairy nonsense.

    Your little quip about me being juvenile I will let go through to the keeper, suffice to say, If you are trying to convince me your position as a lawyer does not help frame your opinion on anything legal, it is you who are being juvenile by insulting my intelligence.

    The facts are, right or wrong the public believe and with some evidence of past performance of the courts, they are out of touch with public opinion.

    I will not/have not trawled the net to find individual cases where the sentence did not fit the crime, I don’t have to, I have had years of seeing the results of recidivists and other shitbags murdering/raping/stealing/mugging/etc/etc/etc/ over and over again.

    When the media reports a murder that is clearly shocking, what spin they put on it is irrelevant.

    You remind me some what of the gun lobby, you keep screaming statistics and quote SAC’s plays, etc etc, and then try and tell me most people like guns.You keep throwing out the same cobblers and expect a different result.

  39. Phill. You have not even declared that YOU have bothered to do more than rely on the clearly misleading and dishonest reports by News Ltd etc, let alone any reason to think others have. Clearly it is fairly easy to provoke a sense of outrage and anger in the sentencing process if you constantly misreport it – the point is that when people are given all the facts of the case, they are NOT more punitive than judges.

    You can dismiss the evidneceo f this as “airy fairy nonsense” all you like, but not if you want to be taken seriously.

    You are wrong. The people who base their opinions on incomplete information are wrong.

    Damned right I’m inclined to believe that the people who are in court each day have a better idea of what’s going on than people who’re relying on constant misrepresentations and lies.

  40. Jeremy, Jeremy, Jeremy……you just don’t get it do you?

    It’s not about the quality of the arguments, the degree of reason, ration or experience brought to bear on the subject, it’s about my right to bloody well believe whatever I want and for my opinion to count as much as, no…more than, all those airy-fairly types with their heads in the clouds, ‘casue we’re plain spoken folks who know the truth when we see it, no matter what those damn statistics are sayin’.

  41. ” Michael // 28 April, 2009 at 10:49 pm ”

    Ah Michael go to the top of the class.At last hang out the flag, we are now getting some where.

    Of course you operate on the same lines don’t you?

    For good ol “know all”( I’ve been to your website) you leave me for dead. I mean your an expert in everything aren’t you?

  42. I apologise for being more opinionated than you….but I thought you liked opinionated??

  43. Lefty, I hope you didn’t invent Phill as a Punch to your Judy?

    If not, are you real Phill? At the age of 18 you worked out that Ryan was innocent?

    You are truly a knob-head. Not sure how that translates into neo-con loving USA-speak, but it is an insult.

    Barp

  44. Barp go away moron.

  45. Barp or is that brother of Bart. I didn’t say Ryan was innocent, I said he shouldn’t have hung.

    You can’t read can you Buuurrpp.

  46. “I apologise for being more opinionated than you….but I thought you liked opinionated??”

    Ah Michael how refreshing it is for an opinionated know all to actually admit it.But leave the thinking to others, I like a bit of old common dog and common sense, opinionated umm I will leave to you and the other soft cocks who think because they think they are lefty’s, everyone has to follow their thought process.

  47. Ronald Joseph Ryan was the last person to receive the death penalty in Australia, when hanged at Pentridge Jail on February 3, 1967. Sir Henry Bolte the Victorian Liberal Premier of the day signed the death warrant. Many maintain that Ryan was innocent of the charge of shooting prison warden George Hodson on December 19,1965 while escaping. The bullet fired from Ryan’s gun was never found.

  48. MY view is Ryan’s only crime was he was a Catholic and Irish—-Bolte hated both, Sir Henry himself was later proven to be a crook, a smarter crook then Ryan.

  49. Double apologies…I’m opinionated for thinking that I’m right, and I make this mistake because I’m a lefty “softcock”, “expert”, who thinks that miscreants should be “treated like movie stars” and given “a weeks holiday in Bali”, wheras your opinion (oh shit, no, no , not opinion, that is ‘your clear sighted view which is obviously correct’) is that your not opinionated bacause you are the “common dog” part of ‘the people’, those who really know what’s what. All us lefty’s need to get out of our damn ivory towers and follow the example of Phills’ authentic, common sense thought processes.

  50. SPEAKING of Bali I spent a week there, flew in there Easter Sunday, and flew out the following Sunday. It was a cheap holiday, spent a moment at the memorial of the Bali terror victims. Bali is like an outer surburb of any place in Australia, with the vast amount of visitors from OZ. I really liked the place, with Aussies telling me they go there year after year. Yet so many people killed there– this place is still on the no go zone area, as far as the Australian Government is concerned.

  51. Thanks Michael and apology accepted.Oh and one other thing you aint no lefty, your just a know all and there is a difference.

  52. “Yet so many people killed there– this place is still on the no go zone area, as far as the Australian Government is concerned.”

    Of course the two of the fuckers responsible for it, may have been able to be rehabilitated and turned into model Indonesian citizens with a bit of counseling. Michael and Barp, sorry Burp could no doubt give them surfing lessons or such like.

  53. See Phill’s sophisticated analysis? If you’re not demanding that the criminals be literally “hung up by the balls” and are instead in favour of some kind of sane punishment being imposed, then what you’re actually calling for is for them to be “treated like movie stars” and “given surfing lessons”.

    Clearly, there is no middle ground possible between those two positions.

    “you aint no lefty”

    What’s Phill’s definition of “a lefty”?

  54. Hey Jeremy I wouldn’t say it was sophisticated analysis I use, it’s more the home grown type, common sense and all.I leave all that sophist shit sorry sophisticated stuff to those educated Uni types who know everything.

    My definition of being a lefty is irrelevant, suffice to say, it doesn’t include following the sheep mentality of some here.

  55. Why would you, when you can follow the sheep mentality of the herd misled by the Herald Sun?

    “Common sense” = “I don’t need to listen to no damned evidence! I know what’s going on PSYCHICALLY!”

  56. No that’s what people are doing on your blog Jeremy.And I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth which is your favorite M.O. for those you can’t convince yours is the only opinion in town.

    So SACs does a little excercise and a bit of polling and that is going to change according to you” only a perception” of what has been going on in the courts for years.

    Of course now I know your taking the piss right?

  57. Phill, given that that “perception” is based on constant misreporting (in the ways I listed in the post) of criminal sentencing by the Hun – how on Earth can you deny that it’s highly questionable? How can you be so confident in the impression you’ve gleaned when you know full well you’ve been led to it with half-truths, facts twisted or omitted, and deliberate efforts to trick you?

    I don’t doubt that you, and other people who’ve spent years developing that erroneous impression from highly dubious sources, honestly believe it’s true.

    But can’t you consider for a moment – when you think about how you were led to it – that you might be wrong?

    The SAC study is the closest thing I’ve seen to some actual evidence on the subject of whether judges are really out of touch with the public or not. That’s something. What’ve you got in response? Nothing. You can’t cite any of these people who are outraged with the judicial system who’ve actually taken the time to be fully informed about what’s actually going on. They are, like you, basing their opinion on vague impressions carefully cultivated over many years by shameless media organisations.

    Or can’t you even concede that? I know you don’t dispute that media reporting on the subject is one-sided and misleading and omits important details; is your position that despite this, your anger is based truly on What Is Going On? Which knowledge you’ve gained from some kind of psychic powers?

  58. FOR the record what term would you call a person, who blog under a screen name and replies to himself under another screen. I find this on Bolts blog–I may be wrong.

  59. Jeremy:

    Why would you, when you can follow the sheep mentality of the herd misled by the Herald Sun?

    That is a bit rich come from the left. There is no greater example of herd mentality than the lockstep gridlock of leftist “thought”.

    The main form of argument of these intellectual fashionistas is howling down the opposition. You can’t have a sensible discussion with a leftist about the many defects in the allegedly scientific theory of the anthropogenic climate change. All you get is guff about “consensus”. When you try to discuss “the science” with them they have no response beyond name-calling. Al Gore refuses to debate the issue. He is as wedded to his power-point slides as Obama is to his teleprompter.

    If you want academic promotion at the universities these days you need to be of leftist persuasion or you career won’t go very far. If you actually disagree with them and point out their factual errors they will demonise you, as has been done with Keith Windschuttle.

    It has been thus for a long time now.

  60. Nice try, SB. Anyway, back to the topic…

  61. SB, aren’t you a little old to be smoking PCP?
    Are you seriously trying to say Gore and Obama are left?

    Jeremy, since when do you have moderation on this damn site? Hurry up and finish moderating my comment on the ANZAC blog will ya!

  62. Jeremy for Gods sake man do you think the Hun is the only source of information on the planet?

    I take what I read in most papers as I hope most would, with a grain of salt.I mean shit believe it or not I have been known to read a couple of books in the last fifty years.

    You asked for one example here goes now this is from memory you can check it on the net if you like.

    Case – South Austalia in the sixties, a man whose surname was Barthomelew hits a whole family about the head approx six or seven, I can’t remember the exact amount, with a rubber mallet then shoots them.

    He did approx nine months in jail for each person. The judicery released this fuck pig under the cover of darkness at the back of Yatala jail to hide their absolute fucking stupidity.

    Of course they didn’t want the herd of “Hang em high dopes” like me questioning their university approved fucking moronic decision.

    Just one I know, you want more?I will put one in every time I comment.

    And I know your gonna say “Well there must have been mitigating circumstances” I don’t give a fuck if he was mental, his dad wouldn’t play football, or he couldn’t get a root in a wood yard, the cunt should have been dispatched.

    Jeremy I will repeat for the last time, I could give a flying fuck what SAC’s did or any other exercise that do gooders do to somehow prove that a whole generation has been wrong in there assessment the courts in the main wouldn’t know what day it was.

  63. Phill – you’re asking us to condemn as corrupt, criminal-loving idiots an entire judicial system based on vague cases you can’t link us to where we can’t check the evidence, we can’t see what the person was actually convicted of, we can’t see what the reasons were for the sentence, etc. Was it appealed? What precisely did he do? What was he alleged to have done vs what they could prove he did? What charges was he found guilty of? Did he plead guilty, or was there a trial? What happened to the victims? What was the content of the plea?

    It’s the height of arrogance and stupidity for you to just blandly declare that none of the above matters.

  64. Jeremy there you go again, you are putting words in my mouth. You cannot win this argument Jeremy, as much as you blaster and insult me.

    Are you for real? With your comment “what did he do” again I must ask you must be taking the piss? Am I lying, is that what you are inferring?

    You see I have it on good authority what the public thinks of the legal process, its called experience and you can’t learn that in some university.

    Of course you have heard the joke, “What do call a 100 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean with a chain round their necks? A bloody good start.

    And that is the end.

  65. What do call a 100 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean with a chain round their necks?

    The wet dream of a psychopath who is, in spirit at least, not much different from the violent criminals on whom he wants to vent his anger.

    “You see I have it on good authority what the public thinks of the legal process, its called experience and you can’t learn that in some university.”

    You keep repeating that, and I keep pointing out why that evidence is flawed. I know you’ll hear people at the pub whinging about “soft” judges etc; my point is that the opinion is based on hot-air, misinformation and ignorance.

    You’ve yet to give me any reason to believe that this “public” on whom you’re basing your claims has any more information at its disposal than the highly dubious and one-sided version it’s fed by the media.

    I mean, I know WHY you’re yet to give me any such reason – because you know perfectly well that the angry public on whom you base your comments IS strongly influenced by the lies it’s told and doesn’t bother to check them out.

    “Are you for real? With your comment “what did he do” again I must ask you must be taking the piss? Am I lying, is that what you are inferring?”

    I believe you’re leaving out some important information, yes. I don’t believe it’s because you’re lying – I suspect you simply don’t know.

  66. “The wet dream of a psychopath who is, in spirit at least, not much different from the violent criminals on whom he wants to vent his anger.”

    But what I do know is you are a wanker Jeremy Sear of that there is no doubt.

  67. Heffernan? Is that you?

  68. “The decade kicked off with a heart-rending tragedy: a domestic killing spree. In September of 1971, Clifford Cecil Bartholomew was charged with the shooting murder of 10 of his relatives at Hope Forest near Adelaide. Among the dead, Mrs Heather Bartholomew, a baby and a group of siblings aged from four to nineteen. Pleading guilty to the murder of his wife in November of that year, Clifford Bartholomew was sentenced to death, but ultimately served only eight years imprisonment.”

    Sorry I was a little out on the date it was 1971.

    Oh by the way it wasn’t five murders it was ten.

    Here it is Jeremy give me your learned opinion on the mitigating circumstances, wanker.

  69. Sorry that was lifted from
    http://www.news.com.au adelaide/ now.

  70. Funny, that doesn’t answer any of the questions I asked you. Why’s that, Phill? Because you don’t know? Okay, he pleaded guilty to murder – what was the full sentence? Why? Why was he released after eight years?

    And cut back on the personal abuse or you can rack off.

  71. You see I have it on good authority what the public thinks of the legal process, its called experience and you can’t learn that in some university” – Phill

    ‘the public’! All of them??

    Psst, I’ll let you in on a secret. Phill’s “good authority” is ………himself.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s