Dangerous Chihuahua On The Loose

Attention people of Townsville … get inside and lock all your doors … there is a dangerous chihuahua on the loose!

A 78 year old resident complained to Townsville Council about a 12 year old, arthritic chihuahua which “ran at her and growled” on the stairs of her QLD Housing Commission block of flats, causing her “great distress”.

Yes, of course … great distress. Must have been absolutely terrifying for you, love. Of course, you wouldn’t have exaggerated the events, by any chance?

Maybe the government should allow you to live rent free as a result … because you have obviously contributed so much more to society than you have received.

When the events made the front page of the local paper, the complainant, Winifred Lofthouse subsequently tried to pretend that she is a “dog lover” and that the complaint “was not vindictive”. Of course not. You were just looking after the “health and safety” of the residents of your block, performing a public service … in the same way as you’ve served the public all these years while living in a Housing Commission flat and drawing the pension.

Are people supposed to resile from exposing obvious bullshit just because it comes from an old woman? Is a widow on the old age pension allowed to get away with clear exaggerations and possibly outright fabrications, escaping censure by pleading frailty?

No.

Fuck off, you lying old bag. How have you managed to live almost your entire life and still not own your own home? Why do you believe you have some right to live in public housing, draw the pension and then make up bullshit complaints about tiny little dogs barking at you? Do the taxpayers of this country a service and curl up and die, you decrepit, old parasite.

Now to the worst culprit in this episode: the local council. They always are.

On reviewing Winifred Lofthouse’s complaint, Townsville Council officers decided the dog "menaced a person causing fear" and "carried out a menacing attack". Yeah, right. Of course it did. Because you assessed the “evidence” in a balanced manner, didn’t you?

Was Penny (the dog)’s owner given right of reply? By what criteria was the decision made? Are people who are only able to get a job as an “animal control officer” for a local council even capable of assessing conflicting evidence and marrying it with the requirements of the law?

No, they fucking well aren’t. They are, however, capable of using up large amounts of oxygen better allocated to the rest of us. Useless idiots, wasting other people's time and money.

A sensible council (or any other organization) would simply have recorded Winifred Lofthouse’s complaint, sent an employee to Diane Christensen (the dog owner)’s residence, asked for her side of the story, then told her to keep the dog on a leash or build a fence around her yard or face a fine. Pretty simple.

There are people who will say that Winifred Lofthouse has a right to the amenity of her home without having to put up with a yappy dog running up and barking at her. She does to the extent that the dog shouldn't be allowed to run onto the steps outside her front door. But that should have easily been solved via a cordial chat with its owner.

I've seen plenty of people react with amusement to barky little dogs running up to them and growling. They generally bend down and try to play with the dog, which usually doesn't work of course, but it does establish a rapport with its owner and then they can say what they think and be listened to. This is how normal, well balanced people handle such a situation.

There are far too many people who want to complain to their local council about dogs and have them banned from running around in any park they might occasionally walk through, under the ridiculously dishonest pretence that their safety is at risk. These people are fuckwits and should be marginalised. Their neurotic stupidity should not be allowed to ruin residents' ability to have fun with their dogs and let them run around in designated areas. There is plenty of room for everyone, including to have parts of public land where dogs cannot run off leash.

Unfortunately, councils listen to these emotionally crippled fun haters disproportionately to their numbers. This is in part because most of the people who want to work in places like the local council are lazy arse coverers, incapable of independent thought, who do not aim high in life and would not survive outside the public sector. They naturally gravitate toward rule based systems. When someone complains, their reaction is to create a rule, largely to avoid any possibility of blame coming back onto them. To combat them, they must be singled out and their personal details passed around to the people whose amenity they are unreasonably ruining. That is what such people most fear: being unable to hide behind a wall of bureaucracy and having to deal personally with the consequences of their actions.

The apparent influence of the wowsers is also due to some local councilors abusing their position to pursue personal agenda, for example their own, pathological dislike of dogs. When someone makes a complaint, these councilors cynically use it as "evidence" in support of their own agenda, despite not having been elected to pursue such a policy.

People who can’t handle dogs and bung on an act when they bark have mental problems. Normal people like being with animals. Normal children love them. If you have a problem with dogs or cats beyond just not really liking them, you are fucked in the head, in which case, you should be excluded from public office, since you cannot be trusted not to abuse it in pursuit of your personal agenda.

Afterword: If you would like to contact Winifred Lofthouse to listen to her side of the story, or simply to tell her what you think, her telephone number is (07) 4779 9499 and her taxpayer subsidized block of flats is at 3 Bent St, Mundingburra.

Ridiculous Sentence, Ridiculous Law

I’m not saying a 45 year old teacher having sex with a 16 year old student is not wrong. But is it 18 months jail wrong?

No. Coming on top of the loss of his career, marriage, reputation and the respect of his three daughters, 18 months in prison, amongst psychos and genuine perverts in protective custody is grossly excessive.

Because the conduct occurred in Tasmania, where the age of consent is 17, it would have been a criminal offence regardless of the teacher / student relationship.

When sentenced, the teacher had already been in custody for more than three months. That is because he defied an order banning him from contacting the girl after they were seen kissing and reported. That’s probably long enough. The judge should have given him 6 months, which makes him immediately eligible for parole as long as he has been behaving himself in custody and has a positive report from the prison psychiatrist. The 6 months would really have been for defying the previous order banning contact with the girl. If that had not occurred, all he should have received was a suspended sentence (so that if he reoffends, he will immediately be jailed).

It is ludicrous not to have uniform age of consent laws across all states. The age is 16 everywhere but South Australia and Tasmania, where it is 17. So, a 40 year old can legally have sex with a 16 year old at a motel in Victoria, drive across the border into South Australia, do the same thing in another motel and be arrested, jailed as a paedophile and placed on a sex offenders’ register. That’s just bloody stupid.

What if they are South Australian residents, but drive across the border to Victoria to have sex? I believe they could not be charged in this case, as no offence has taken place in South Australia. That is how ridiculous the law is.

Equally as silly are the comparatively recent changes to most state laws, criminalizing sex between adults and a person under 18 “under their special care”, even if the conduct would be legal were the older person not in some “position of trust”. In NSW, this is S73 of the Crimes Act. Examples are teachers, sports coaches, priests, doctors. Even if the person is 18 tomorrow, the offence can carry 4 years jail.

I’m not saying people such as teachers or sports coaches who have sex with their charges haven’t done anything wrong. However, a custodial sentence for having sex with a 17 year old is patently ridiculous, particularly since the 17 year old could very well be having sex with their peers and the conduct would be perfectly legal if the adult was not in the position of authority. Why should the adult be placed on a sex offenders’ register, so that people will think they were preying on kids? Why does the 17 year old become a “victim” when they would not be a victim if they had sex with most other adults?

There needs to be a lot more common sense exercised here. We are not talking about 12 or 13 year olds; we are talking about 16 and 17 year olds, who may well be sexually active anyway. The magnitudes of the offences are vastly different. In fact, sex with the 16 or 17 year old is not criminal per se: it is only rendered so by the relationship of care or authority.

There is an absurd moral panic developing in English speaking societies around consensual sex with young people close to the age of consent, boys included. It’s not like the girl in the Tasmanian case was 13 and it’s not like she was coerced.

One might think this moral panic was coming from the conservative side of politics. Much of it is, however large sections of the left can be notoriously prudish and inconsistent when it comes to sex. If there are power relationships involved, you can bet someone on the left will want to make a law strictly regulating it. In fact, the S73 amendment to the NSW Crimes Act was enacted by the previous, Labor government, with bipartisan support.

Most of the left are quite happy to support gay sex (or in the case of the Greens, make it compulsory). They support gay marriage and probably even polygamy. Equalising the age of consent for homo and heterosexual sex was an initiative of the left (and a sensible one too). Yet none of the same people are speaking up against the obviously illogical S73 and its equivalents in other states.

Manifestly excessive sentences are being passed for conduct which is unlikely to cause significant harm. In the above case, had he not been her teacher, the conduct would not have been illegal in most states. So how is 18 months jail a sentence which accurately reflects the gravity of the conduct? I’d have thought a suspended sentence would suffice, taking into account the loss of his career, reputation and marriage.

Conversely, if an adult is having sex with genuine children ie. materially under the age of consent, the penalties should be harsh. This is the type of twisted and predatory behaviour which does real damage.

Idiots Of The Far Future

I put this in the Idiots section because I think this creature will evolve into this type of idiot in about 3 million years. This will be its offspring.

As a friend of mine remarked: “That is just so hilariously fucked up.”

As evidence of the kind of forward planning ability required for the evolution of tool use, you may notice that the chimp tucks the frog under its armpit to keep it for later “use”.

This is the kind of behaviour astronauts are more likely to encounter in a realistic Planet of the Apes scenario.

Get Over To The Side Of The Lane, Dickhead

It’s been made to look like a pair of overly aggressive, cyclist hating bogans in an unprovoked road rage attack on an innocent bike rider. Read a few paragraphs into the story and you’ll see it’s not so simple.

The cyclist, Chris Moore said he was:

“Riding in the middle lane because it was too narrow to ride next to a line of parked cars on the left, so the people in the red car started beeping and yelling. They then threw the battery at him as he turned right into Wilson Street and the man in the passenger seat later got out and punched him”.

In another interview, he said:

“I didn’t do anything to provoke him. I maybe held them up for 15-20 seconds and wasn’t riding that slowly.”

No, of course you didn’t provoke them and of course you weren’t riding slowly. You just ride in the middle of the driving lane at any speed you feel comfortable, for as long as you like. The road is there to share. The people behind you have nothing better to do than accommodate your self absorption.

I ride a bike. I used to ride a lot. I always ride at the edge of the lane. There’s at least two to three feet between it and the parked cars. If there was less, people wouldn’t be able to get out without having their door swiped or being hit themselves. Most bike riders understand this and are quite capable of riding in this way, so that cars (for whom the roads are built) can drive past them.

There is a small percentage of cyclists like this complete prick above who give everyone else a bad name because they are delusional enough to believe they have just as much right to the road as cars, buses and trucks. You don’t, because bikes can’t travel at the same speed as cars. It’s the same reason people don’t have a right to travel down busy roads in a horse and cart.

Some fucking arsehole did it to me a few weeks ago. He was literally doing about 25 - 30km/h. Wasn’t even trying to ride quickly. Could easily have moved over; there was plenty of space.

What kind of fuckwits think they have a right to hold up an entire lane of traffic and then act as if people are so uncaring and aggressive and always in such a hurry when disabused of this notion? Guardian readers, that’s who. Green voters. Chardonnay socialists. Sanctimonious, useless dickheads. People who ask to get punched.

If you want equal rights on the road, pay rego and petrol taxes and actually contribute to the maintenance of said roads. Oh, and give up your advantage of jumping across footpaths, riding on the wrong side of the road, riding the wrong way down one way streets and running red lights. I do all of the above, when it’s safe. The quid pro quo is: don’t hold up the traffic.

A speed limit of 60 means drive at 60, not 30, 40 or whatever you feel like. Don’t ride your bike in the middle of the driving lane if you can’t match the speed of the rest of the traffic. Get over to the side of the lane. If you’re too timid or uncoordinated to handle this, get off the fucking road altogether. You don’t have some right to inconvenience large numbers of people, even though you’re so environmentally conscious and vote Green, are generally more moral than the rest of us and support the refugees and Aboriginal land rights.

And Chris Moore: Why did you get punched?

Because you took their photo. What did you think was going to happen after you did that? You’re lucky they didn’t beat the shit out of you.

Private Appeals Against Acquittals Should Pay Costs If They Do Not Succeed

Gordon Wood’s original murder conviction was not a safe verdict. The conflation of circumstantial evidence and conjecture that was the prosecution case could never amount to proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Court of Criminal Appeal clearly stated this when it delivered an acquittal, rather than order a retrial. Further, it strongly criticized the prosecutor, Mark Tedeschi’s handling of the case, implying that he had not presented the evidence honestly. By not appealing, the DPP is essentially agreeing with at least the first part of this view.

Tony Byrne, Caroline Byrne’s father does not agree. Now he wants to bring a private, High Court challenge to the acquittal.

It should be his legal right to do so and it is interesting that such a private challenge has never previously occurred. But it should not be at public expense and Tony Byrne should have to pay Gordon Wood’s (or the Crown’s) legal fees if his challenge fails.

That may seem an onerous requirement on a father whose daughter has died in at the very least, suspicious circumstances, however people with far more legal knowledge than Tony Byrne have examined the evidence in the case and determined that a properly considered verdict of guilty of murder beyond all reasonable doubt is extremely unlikely.

Even if Tony Byrne does win the appeal, Gordon Wood will almost certainly seek a judge only trial, in which he would be highly unlikely to be convicted.

So what would be the point of all this? For Tony Byrne to make it his life’s mission to pursue Gordon Wood? Well, do so if you can afford it, but the taxpayer shouldn’t have to bear the cost.

I feel a lot of sympathy for Tony Byrne. There’s much that doesn’t smell right about his daughter’s death and Gordon Wood’s involvement. Looking at the reported facts of the case, many people get the sense that even if he wasn’t directly involved in Caroline Byrne’s death, there is something he’s hiding. This probably gives Tony Byrne the feeling: “I know he’s involved somehow and I’m going to keep after him until I find out”.

But that’s not equivalent to sufficient evidence to overturn a murder acquittal and order a retrial. If such evidence is ever produced, the state should fund an appeal. The danger inherent in appealing now, without such evidence and almost certainly losing, is that it lessens the avenues for a future retrial if any fresh evidence emerges.

Additionally, citizens who have already borne the considerable cost and stress of being acquitted of serious charges should not have to bear the burden of further defending themselves against private legal pursuit if such pursuit is rejected by a court. Tony Byrne should in fact have to indemnify Gordon Wood against his legal costs before such a private appeal is allowed.

If you find that distasteful and somehow a denial of justice for Tony Byrne, that is probably because you find Gordon Wood distasteful and suspect him of some involvement, like I do. But that is not how the law should work: it should apply the presumption of innocence after such an acquittal.

Consider a person who was acquitted of murder in a case where the police were found to have withheld or even fabricated evidence. Suppose the relatives of the victim refused to accept the verdict and wanted to launch a private appeal. They should have to lodge a bond covering the accused’s projected, reasonable expenses.

Gordon Wood should have the same right. Even if many people find him dodgy, that subjectivity is insufficient to alter the application of the law.

Lastly, we should not go down the American path, where a person acquitted of murder can still lose a civil suit for wrongful death and have millions of dollars in damages awarded against them, as in the OJ Simpson case.

In this particular case, Simpson probably did it and got off the criminal charge because of the quality of the legal team he could afford, so we don’t feel much sympathy. But the burden of proof is vastly different in civil trials: it’s on the balance of probability, rather than beyond reasonable doubt. Wealthy litigants (or poor litigants with wealthy lawyers on a percentage) can use such trials to harass counterparties into a settlement or bankrupt them, even if they are innocent.

When there has already been an acquittal in a criminal trial, the law should not allow a civil suit based on substantially the same facts. In effect, this amounts to double jeopardy.

Zealots and Revenue Raisers Join Forces

What an unholy alliance: the zealots of the pedestrian and road safety lobbies joining forces with the revenue raisers to call for reduced speed limits in school zones to be enforced 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

One clown, Raphael Grzebieta, professor of road safety at UNSW's Transport and Road Safety Research unit, said the government should make school zones 24 hours and look at reducing speeds in them from 40km to 30km/h.

His reasoning?

"Even at 40km we are travelling at 10km faster than Europe. It's a matter of saving lives or allowing people to travel at speeds which are dangerous to our children."

Let’s get this straight, Raphael: You’re saying that there should be a 30 km/h zone on a six lane, divided road in the middle of the night, just because it passes a school?

You utter fucking clown. How dare you draw a salary at taxpayers’ expense and then talk rubbish like this?

The government would never consider using such zones for revenue raising, would they? 30 km/h on a public road is ridiculous at any time. Of course, if they’re doing it in Europe, we should do it here too. Maybe we can have a European style Court of Human Rights to override government policy and contribute to the Greek bailout as well.

And then he trots out the emotive dichotomy, the favourite device of the illogical and sanctimonious: We can either save lives OR allow people to endanger our children.

You’re right … it really just comes down to that simple choice between good and evil. You wouldn’t be a leftie by any chance, would you Raphael?

Actually, it’s a matter of balancing the two competing goals of freedom and safety. There’s only one way to have no road traffic injuries, pedestrians included: have no cars. If we want the convenience of being able to drive around, we must accept some injuries and even deaths, purely due to accidents (or incompetent driving). People seem reluctant to explicitly accept this, although they tacitly do so.

There is no way to minimize road injuries, because the minimum is zero. In practice, the number of injuries must be minimized with respect to agreed constraints, such as speed limits acceptable to the majority of the public.

When calls are made to remove illogically low speed limits, or not to institute them in the first place, there is always some tool like Raphael Grzebieta who comes out with statistics like: “Well, a 10 km/h reduction in speed limits would lead to a 12% reduction in road deaths.”

Given European data, we can probably extrapolate it via some not unreasonable assumptions to estimate the effect of the speed reduction here.

So fucking what? A 60 km/h reduction in speed limits would lead to a 100% reduction in road deaths, but we’re not going to do it. I shouldn’t have to drive around at 30 or 40km/h just because people can’t teach their children to cross the road. At 3am, they should be in fucking bed, anyway. If children need to cross the road to get to a school in the middle of the night, they are probably going to vandalise it.

The Staysafe report then tries to justify its insane recommendations by reference to the ACT, who have school speed zones 8 hours a day, and South Australia, who have them 24 hours a day. That means they are mad, not that we should follow their example. The ACT parliament is already well known for its lunacy and South Australia was the stronghold of the Australian Democrats.

If you’re going to increase fines and the number of speed cameras, increasing the chances for people to be caught for minor offences, then increase the number of demerit points people have available. The current government already did this early last year.

Can you imagine if Raphael Grzebieta and his wowsers got their way and had 30km/h zones in the middle of the night? It is absurd for people to lose 4 points for forgetting or not knowing about a school zone and driving through it at 41km/h at midnight. Think you’re going through it at a normal speed of 60km/h, but have a slightly miscalibrated speedo and actually be doing say, 62km/h and you’ll lose 6 points. Do that three times in three years and you’ll lose your licence.

That’s just not right. People can’t lose their convenience and in some cases, their ability to work for doing something which is completely within the bounds of acceptably safe driving. This is where lunatics like Raphael Grzebieta must be sidelined. They just do not live in the real world.

It is equally outrageous that two government MPs should chair a committee which recommends increasing both fines and the number of speed traps, when the same government promised on its election that it would remove speed traps that were judged to be mainly for revenue raising and then actually did it.

The Sydney Train Bomber

A colleague described today’s early morning train trip to the city from the metropolitan outskirts:

“There were only a few of us in the carriage. We could smell something bad, but it was worse than a fart. Eventually, my companion got up to investigate and found … a human turd, sneakily laid in the single seat in that bit behind the stairs.”

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

Now, although I have previously ranted about certain immigrants pissing and crapping all over the toilet seat, the above act is not the same.

The former is just ignorant peasants with no concern for their own comfort and hygiene, much less anyone else’s. Only the basest animals shit in their own nests.

The latter is a form of low level, urban terrorism against the lumpen middle class. It was a deliberate act, which involved some planning (at least of the undetected escape) and presumably some feeling of satisfaction at the envisioning of the consequences.

The poo says: “Smell me! Cop that, you army of corporate robots! Don’t think you’re secure in your trains, cars and houses! Al Turdawa can strike you when you least expect it!”

Unsettling the complacent. It is a necessary enterprise.

Some years ago, I lived almost opposite a golf course. At about 4am, a couple of friends and I were walking around it, when I felt the need to poo. So I dropped a big curler into the 1st hole.

Imagine the person who was first to putt their ball in next morning. Some old prick who got up at sparrow’s fart just to play golf. He would have been feeling very pleased with himself to have been the first of his group to sink the putt. I’d have loved to have seen the look on his face as he leant over and picked the ball out of the hole.

About an hour later, someone else felt a poo coming on, so we went back. It was still dark, so he dropped it in the 6th hole. Our reasoning was that the group who had been caught on the 1st hole would have been carefully inspecting the next few prior to putting, but by the 6th, would have been feeling confident the poo was a one off. Then …

Booyah Sah! Everyone knows poos come in twos!

These kinds of pranks are funny, because of the types of people they upset. They don’t do any real harm, but keep the populace on their toes, ever vigilant, as is the price of peace.

How Is This A Triumph?

Gored and blinded in one eye by the bull he was torturing to death, matador Juan Jose Padilla made a “triumphant” return to the ring by torturing two more bulls to death.

If you’re going to kill an animal for its meat and skin, do it as quickly and painlessly as possible. Violently abusing it as you deliver an extended public execution does not make you more of a man just because it is bigger and stronger than you. You have the distinct advantage of weaponry, superior intelligence and logistical support.

To kill an animal in such a manner is not in any way a triumph. It demeans you, the bull, the spectators and your culture in general.

If you want to prove your manhood in combat, how about helping hunt down and kill the rest of the arseholes (and all their supporters) who were involved in the murder 190 of your compatriots? They are your real enemies.

He Should Never Even Have Been Charged

You get into an argument in a take away food shop, late at night, with a clearly drunken idiot who tells you to “fuck off” and asks if you “want to step outside”. He’s much bigger than you and has a mate with him.

Nothing comes of it. In fact, the argument is broken up by a security guard from the pub just down the road, from where the drunk and his mate have been evicted, for being excessively drunk. Your adrenaline level is raised from the evolutionary fight or flight response, but you’re relieved the situation has been defused.

Then the drunk comes back, shouting and throwing food at you. His mate is there as well. You walk outside to tell them to “piss off”, which is your right. There is no law which says you can’t stick up for yourself. The aggressive drunk turns and comes toward you. He’s bigger than you and it looks like two against one. You’re not a fighter and it’s reasonable to think you’re going to be attacked. So you throw a few punches, trying to fight them off as best you can.

One of your punches connects, the drunk falls down, hits his head and dies.

How, in any sane world is this your fault?

There is not and nor should there ever be a legal requirement to "turn the other cheek", particularly if this would in any way risk injury, or even humiliation to yourself.

There is no way the above events should ever be seen as anything other than proportionate self defence. It certainly should not lead to a manslaughter prosecution.

But that’s precisely what happened to Tobias Simmons.

The dead drunk’s mate turned out to be his brother. That could have explained a prosecution if he had lied about the events and put the blame on the puncher, but he didn’t. There was also the evidence of the security guard and even CCTV footage. After being approached aggressively, Tobias Simmons throws three punches at Gearoid Walsh, only one of which really connects.

All that stress over a charge which carries a jail term, all that cost to defend yourself, the embarrassment of the publicity … for what? Defending yourself against a bigger man, who was drunk, shouting and throwing food at you, accompanied by a mate and had previously challenged you to a fight?

As the judge said:

“If at first confrontation, that had been the end of the matter, nothing is likely to have occurred. By returning to the shop, Mr. Walsh had escalated the level of provocation”.

The police should never have laid charges. Even when they did, one might ask how a competent DPP could believe a prosecution could succeed on that evidence, until you see who was prosecuting: Elizabeth Wilkins.

She has at least one Prasad direction loss on her record. That’s where the judge gives the jury the option of acquitting the accused straight after the prosecution case, without the requirement of hearing a defence. It’s rare and only occurs on the most bullshit prosecutions. It’s a real slap in the face for the DPP: the judge is saying that based on the evidence, the case is unsupportable without even the need for a defence counterargument and thus should never have gone to trial in the first place.

So now Elizabeth Wilkins adds to her record another resounding defeat in a flimsy case involving very serious charges, leaving in the wake of her bovine derriere another defendant (and family) unnecessarily stressed and out of pocket. Evil, ugly bitch.

This type of result in a criminal case supports the argument that defendants need broader rights to sue for wrongful prosecution, or at least costs.

Certainly, if a case is won by Prasad direction, it should never have been prosecuted. The accused should then be entitled to full costs. The DPP should be required to explain their actions to an independent review panel. Even if in such a matter, there has been some wrongdoing by the accused, that is no excuse for laying and prosecuting demonstrably excessive charges, either based on spurious arguments or clearly false evidence.