Should Begging Be Legal?

In what circumstances should begging be legal in a liberal society?

The civil right to per se ask people for money is not purely a freedom of speech matter because the beggar is asking someone else to do something. However, if the begging is not intimidating, what is being asked of the other person is a very small action, en par with requests in a host of acceptable social transactions. It is merely a small request, which the other party can simply refuse.

Are there circumstances in which a request which can be refused should not be allowed? How about walking up to women (and men) on the street and offering them $100 to suck your cock?

The reason this is not allowed in current liberal societies is because the vast majority of people would not only find the request highly offensive, but intimidating, even were it made very politely. In fact, the asker could be arrested and charged with offensive behaviour or public nuisance. Perhaps in some future society eg. the utopian Fingertonia, it will not be such an unusual request, but it clearly is today.

My point here is that a request made of a complete stranger should be legal even if a negligible proportion of people would accede to it, as long as it is not offensive or intimidating to a material percentage of people.

Suppose two people with a microphone and video camera came up to you and said: “Hey! We’re filming for a new TV show and we need someone to let us pour baked beans all over them for a skit. Do you want to do it?”

The vast majority of people would say “no”. A few might even be offended or worried. But if the request was made in a jovial way, most people would laugh and walk on. Very few of us would think such conduct should be illegal.

Well, if that shouldn’t be illegal, why should a polite, non-aggressive request for money?

The argument that begging embarrasses the society and therefore should be illegal belongs in a conservative philosophy, not liberalism. If people are begging because they are out of work and there is clearly insufficient state support, a liberal society should be embarrassed. If some people are begging because they are lazy, a liberal society should be sufficiently confident to not find this embarrassing in the first place: a large population will always produce some bludgers.

The question of whether begging should be legal in a philosophy of liberalism is distinct from whether or not people should beg or give money to beggars.

Almost all liberal societies recognize the need for the state to provide unemployment benefits and aged and disability pensions. This is because we see that often, people lose their jobs because their company goes out of business. They have no control over this. Many people who are disabled are born that way or become so as a result of accidents, often with another party at fault. Some people are just too old to work.

The citizens of liberal societies will consequently pay taxes toward social security. Political debate is not about the existence of social security, but the amount and scope of benefits.

Even if you think begging should be legal in a liberal society, whether you believe people should actually beg depends on whether or not you think the social security is adequate. That means two things. Firstly, that benefits are sufficient and secondly, that sufficient misadventures are caught by the safety net. Suppose someone has a rare disease whose treatment is not covered by the public health system or insurance. Is it OK for them to beg?

I bloody well would. Whether you do it on the street or on the internet just depends on your level of education and self respect.

If your personal view is that the beggar in question is undeserving, then just refuse. It’s not hard. People need to be strong about this. Don’t cave in and give some scab money because you’re too gutless to handle even minor confrontation. That’s what the beggar is relying on.

If enough people just say “no” and walk on, begging will become not worth the effort. That’s how a mature, liberal society should react to begging if it becomes annoying.

Last year there was an old lady who stood begging on a very high traffic corner near my office. She looked at least 80. I felt sorry for her and gave her the $1 I had in change. I saw her again a few days later, so I gave her what change I had.

Then I saw her the next day. She recognized me and held out her wicker basket. I just said: “It’s not a job, love.”

This is my point. I initially felt sorry for her because she was obviously too decrepit to work. Clearly, so did a lot of other people. Then she started seeing begging as a job, which they all will if rewarded. So I stopped giving her money.

If everyone does the same, begging won’t be worth the effort. This is how a liberal society should combat begging if we don’t want people to beg: subtly and maturely. There is no need for a general law.

What should be illegal in a liberal society is invasive begging. This not only means being persistent or aggressive, but also sitting in a thoroughfare.

The above means the beggar’s behaviour is unreasonably deleterious to others’ amenity. Liberalism is not just about civil rights; it is equally about civic duties. The balance between the two is what is intended to facilitate social cohesion. Citizens have the duty not to unreasonably impose their behaviour on others, so that those others can exercise their right to freedom of speech, action and movement. This includes not being pestered by fuckwits.

Ignorant Media Sensationalism Helps Promote Japanese Whalers' Lies

With typical media ignorance and sensationalism, the reporting of the Sea Shepherd “acid attack” on the Japanese whaling boats completely misrepresents the severity and intent of the actions.

Headlines such as “Acid Attack On Japanese Whaling Boat” and “Activists Attack Whaling Boat With Acid” conjure up images of highly corrosive chemicals being thrown by people in attacks akin to terrorism. This is an utterly false representation of the so called “attacks”.

The “acid” in question is butyric acid. Its pH is around 4.8, making it about as corrosive as lemon juice. The reason Sea Shepherd is using it is that it smells like a mix of rancid butter and vomit. If fact, anaerobic bacteria can produce it from butter as it goes off.

A small amount of background research is all that is required to understand the above. Even if newspaper editors don’t know basic, high school chemistry (which they probably don’t), is there some reason they could not have checked their facts? Asked Sea Shepherd what chemicals they used? Looked on the internet to verify their claims? Rang a chemistry department at any university?

Why hysterically sensationalise the events? Do the editors support the killing of whales? If so, tell us explicitly.

The media is supposed to report the truth. That is, accurately report events and what people say and do, not skew descriptions and coverage so that the intentions of actions are misconstrued.

The characterisation of the “attacks” as “dangerous and violent” by the absurdly named Japanese Institute of Cetacean Research, representing the whalers, are self serving lies and should be reported as such. To do so is not unbalanced editorialising; there is ample, easily available evidence that butyric acid is just extremely smelly.

What papers does this “Institute” write? The Use of Mirin as a Marinade for Whale Meat perhaps? Actually, here are their publications. In the past few years, they are either surveys of whale numbers or reports on how the whales are killed.

The latter is not necessary to do the former.

If Eskimos in Greenland, Canada or Siberia kill a few whales from non-endangered species, maybe we shouldn’t stop them. But there is no justification for people from one of the most prosperous countries on Earth killing whales to eat them as a delicacy in the 21^st century. The Japanese can easily grow and import sufficient food obtained via humane farming methods. They do not need to eat whales and we should tell them so.

At a government level Australia can do little other than make diplomatic representations to or publicly embarrass the Japanese if they hunt in international waters. However, their whaling boats are regularly in our waters and have ignored our demands to leave. Many other countries would respond militarily to this violation of territorial sovereignty and we should do the same.

The Australian government should send a destroyer or a couple of frigates down to Macquarie Island and run the Japanese off. What is the Japanese government going to do? Boycott our miners? Good luck with that!

Currently, Japan needs Australia as a trading partner a lot more than we need them. The Australian government needs to realize this and act strongly. It is the only language the Japanese authorities understand.

As for activists boarding Japanese vessels in international waters, they might see themselves as operating under a higher law, but I think they are unfortunately going to find out otherwise. Australia has had a succession of extremely weak willed governments, who have consistently demonstrated an abjectly spineless unwillingness to assertively assist our citizens when held or charged by foreign powers. I’m not sure I’d be boarding a foreign vessel in international waters if I couldn’t rely on meaningful support from my government.

You Know She's Right ...

Teresa Gambaro caused predictable outrage, but anyone who has ever walked into a public toilet knows she’s right, though.

Although off the cuff and consequently ill thought out in terms of delivery, Teresa Gambaro’s suggestion that migrants be taught the Australian norms of hygiene and social etiquette is not unreasonable. The claim that they already know such things is directly contradicted by evidence from Australians' everyday experience.

Despite the self righteous indignation from members of the Labour Party (I suggest more about winning votes than their privately held opinion after entering a public toilet) and manufactured outrage from the very people who in my experience would do well to heed the advice, many Westerners would be thinking they are glad somebody said what needs to be said.

It’s not that hard:

·         Don’t piss on the toilet seat. If you’re a male, that means lift it up before you wee (and put both seats back down after you have finished). Don’t squat on the fucking thing (women included), putting your dirty shoe prints all over it and possibly some piss drips and a turd streak. That’s what third world peasants do. Who would want to sit down after you have done that? Do you even care about the amenity of your fellow human beings? (I know the answer is “No”).

I once taught at a university with a large number of Asian students. In one building which did not have separate toilets for staff, the women lecturers refused to use them. They walked back to main campus. They said the common toilets were far filthier than they had ever seen at any pub ... the seats covered in footprints and piss, even streaks from badly aimed bombs. The cleaners ended up complaining to management.

In case anyone tries to continue the paper thin pretence that Asians weren't responsible, the sandal footprints were the damning evidence. Don't pretend that saying so is racist either. No-one is implying their DNA is the cause. These are cultural problems.

The university sector is traditionally one of the most egregious bastions of political correctness. However, Swansea University has given in to reality and placed signs in toilets showing its foreign students how to use them. They actually admitted the problem was due to "foreign students" and blamed "cultural differences".

Of course, someone was going to complain. Some dopey (white) students described the posters as "ridiculous" and "belittling". They're not aimed at you, stupid. A good example of the phrase: "Plenty of education, but no brains."

Perhaps they realised who the posters were actually aimed at, but couldn't even bring themselves to voice the racial / cultural connection, lest their ideologically based world view be contradicted by evidence.

Civilized people sit on the toilet. We may or may not read the Daily Telegraph at the same time … that is our choice. The point is that when we have finished our business, the only trace of our presence is a warm dunny seat and a few stray farts. If you genuinely wish to join the civilized world, this is how you should “do your business”.

Having just returned from Hong Kong (proper toilets) and China (squatting over a hole in the ground), it is fairly obvious the former is the result of the civilizing, British influence.

You copy everything from university assignments to handbags to movies and electronic equipment … why can’t you just copy one of the few things we want you to?

·         Wear deodorant. It’s not racist. If you eat different food, you smell differently. I’d expect the same advice if I lived in a foreign country and the locals thought I smelled … In fact, I’d be mortified and try to figure out a way to not smell.

I sat next to a girl from India in a Physics tutorial once (could have been from any one of a number of lands – nothing in particular about India). It was March and 30^oC. I tried, but could not cope, so I had to get up and move. She was embarrassed. The alternative was (quite genuinely) vomiting. Her smell was appalling. I don’t know for certain whether or not some young, Indian guy would have loved it, but I’m friends with quite a few Indians and they tell me I did nothing wrong.

·         Don’t push in. This edict encompasses a variety of queueing practice. Civilized people recognise who has precedence by time of arrival and wait in an orderly and generally patient manner based on the aforesaid precept (unless some selfish, ignorant fuckwit is causing a problem).

We wait until people get out of the lift / train / bus / tram before we get in / on. If you are incapable of doing this, I’m guessing you’re Asian or Arab.

Don’t push straight to the front when there is a group of people needing service. You may receive a punch in the face (which is not an admission that Fingo has done this).

·         Don’t automatically respond to conflict by telling lies. This is really a subject of a separate blog, however note this: we know you are lying and you are losing more face by lying and trying to front it out than saying you are sorry (if you really are in the wrong).

·         Don’t think that your "community" is entitled to special rights or to have rules altered because they conflict with "your culture". We don't reserve parliamentary seats for certain religious or ethnic communities. We don't create separate areas of the beach just for women. In some situations, people are required to show their face for identification.

Should we not give this advice (in some terms) to prospective visitors?

Suppose we discount the self interested lies and pandering for the ethnic vote which is currently the province of the left. Should we really resile from asking people to refrain from squatting and pissing on the toilet seat, smelling like Beelzebub's arsehole and pushing into queues?

No!

I don’t know about you, but I’m not really that concerned if someone who is not Australian is insulted, or confects it. There are certain, basic social norms to which prospective immigrants must adhere or face censure.

It does not matter if a cabal of left wing academics, politicians, lawyers and journalists deems that people who are not from the majority social group (white, Anglo Saxon, Protestant derived) have been discriminated against or vilified by telling them how the majority expects them to behave. The set of acceptable social norms should be presented and citizens should be able to challenge them at their will. Other citizens should be able to criticise deviations from these social norms if they want to. Given adequate, democratic mechanisms, there should be no conflict with the most basic precept of freedom of speech.

Update: Learn to speak English.

Despite the dishonest and self serving criticism levelled at her, Teresa Gambaro has followed up with the quite reasonable observation that migrants should learn English and would probably experience less racism if they do, as it would help them get to know people in the wider community.

How terribly racist! Learn to speak the local language so you can get to know people better and find it easier to fit in? How patronising! But migrants don't have to "fit in" to our multicultural system, do they? "Fit in" is one of crypto-imperialism's standard codes for assimilation and assimilation is a racist policy.

Last week she observed that: "we are talking about hygiene and what is an acceptable norm in this country when you are working closely with other co-workers", which means "don't squat on and piss all over the toilet seat and flush when you have finished".

Stalwart of the lunar left, Kate Lundy provided a salient example of the type of irrational logical inversion sensible, honest people are up against with her response: "She should not blame the victim for the crime".

If I have to go to another floor just to have a shit because the toilets are unusable after about 10.30am and if the cleaners are complaining to management, we're the fucking victims!

The perpetrators are the ones who can't use a public toilet in a civilized manner. Let's not pretend they are Westerners.

Wogs

If you want to see an example of extreme wogginess and why the word “wog” is used in the derogatory context it often is, read my piece on Uzzy.

There are many left wing, Harriet Harman style, police state New Labourites who would have conniptions after reading the first paragraph. “Racial vilification! Incitement to racial hatred! We must launch a prosecution!”

Yes, we mustn’t even utter derogatory ethnic descriptors, even in the context of analyzing why people use them and what they really mean by them.

So, what does the word “wog” actually mean?

Different things to different people.

In some people’s minds, “wog” means anyone from the Mediterranean, south eastern Europe, the Middle East, right across to Bangladesh, so it is a general ethnic descriptor. From Italy to Uzbekistan: Moroccans, Algerians, Egyptians, Armenians, Turks, Greeks, Serbs, Croats, Hungarians, Albanians, Romanians, Iranians, Pakistanis, Afghanistanis, Tajikistanis … all wogs.

Generally, people who subscribe to this view hold that there are good wogs and bad wogs, just like there are good and bad white people.

If someone who holds this view says “all wogs are bad”, then this is wrong, because I know many “good wogs”, if we use the term in this sense.

On the other hand, there are those for whom “wog” is pejorative. It is a combination of ethnicity and stereotyped behaviour (such as Uzzy’s). Consequently, they can encounter two people of identical ethnic background and regard one as a wog and the other not, due to their different behaviour and outlook on life.

There are also people for whom usage of the word is more nuanced. They will often use it as a general ethnic descriptor, even in friendly conversation with wogs who use it to refer to both each other and what they know is viewed as stereotypical “woggy” behaviour.

The adjective woggy can range from slightly to very negative. A bloke from the Mediterranean or Middle East strutting about cockily and wearing a shirt that’s a little bit too tight, or a shiny suit would be described as woggy. A girl dressing and behaving like Snooki from Jersey Shore would be the female counterpart. Jersey Shore is actually built around the guido / guidette stereotype, which is a subgenre of wogs. Look at Pauly D. He may be a decent enough guy (I don’t watch the show), but he’s certainly pretty woggy … and who else but a wog would nickname themselves “The Situation”?

If all they are doing is making a bit of a goose of themselves by harmlessly acting like a stereotype, the word wog would be used by both wogs and non-wogs alike, knowing it had a slightly negative connotation, but without it being genuinely nasty.

In Australia, we see such usage in comedy shows like The Wog Boys or Fat Pizza. These are in fact more strongly negative stereotypes, made by wogs who freely refer to themselves as wogs.

Stereotypes exist because many of their elements apply to many people in the stereotyped group. Many stereotyped behaviours are culturally learned.

Most people are followers. They learn most of their behaviour by copying other members of the group to which they perceive they belong. People recognize ethnicity and this is a potent grouping mechanism. This is how stereotyped “ethnic” behaviour is transmitted.

So what do people mean when they use the word wog in a strongly pejorative sense?

Wogs teach each other Uzzy style posturing; putting on a front. Just watch a group of young wog guys at a train station or in a shopping centre. It’s like they will have a personality crisis if no one is paying attention to them for more than ten seconds.

In some way, such behaviour must derive rewards within their social groups, because otherwise it would not survive. The women in their groups must at the very least reinforce it with some kind of approval, even if it’s just tacit agreement with the male pecking order.

Talking yourself up, puffing out your chest, being aggressive when in large groups, being bickeringly argumentative, dishonesty in business dealings, no shame about cheating in general or making false accusations, rigid views of what constitutes appropriate female behaviour … all stereotypical wog, male behaviour, if you’re using the word as pejorative.

In Australia, we’re seeing a big problem with young, Middle Eastern, often Lebanese males. With massive chips on their shoulders, so many of them strut around in large groups, mouthing off, acting tough, encouraging each other. All very brave boys in packs of 10 or 20, they’ll yell insults or flick cigarette butts at people as they walk past. They’ll do it to white women as well. If someone says something to them, they will bash them “for respect”, if there are no police or security cameras around. Some even decided it was OK to gang rape white girls because they were Australian.

These people are wogs and it’s wogs like these that make people look down on wogs.

Having said that, most people understand that most wogs aren’t like that. Unfortunately, people who witness it on a regular basis are drawn to thinking: “Yeah, but too many of them are.”

Although there are white kids who mouth off and cause trouble when in groups, the above behaviour is generally at odds with that of people from Asian or North Western European backgrounds, with more stoic social behavioural norms. It’s also far more prevalent, which is evidence of cultural problems.

Woggy countries have rampant corruption compared to north western European derived societies. It is not uncommon for police or others in positions of power to falsely accuse people to extract bribes or to avenge some perceived slight. Of course, this is also common in Asia and Africa, probably even more so.

If you use the general ethnic descriptor definition of “wog”, then many wogs reject the above behaviour in the same way as most people of Anglo Saxon background reject “yobs”. To say that all wogs behave like the above is like saying all Australians are yobs.

If you think that “wogs” means people from a certain set of ethnic backgrounds who also behave like the above, then in the sense that people have free will, some people choose to be wogs.

In this usage, some Australians choose to be bogans. If you want an example, look at the lives and behaviour of the people in the Macquarie Fields riots.

I know quite a few people of Italian descent who used to be comfortable making light hearted wog jokes and engaging in a bit of banter, usually initiated by them. Now they’re not so sure they want to be associated with the word. They would rather be thought of as European (by descent).

Why the change?

Italian and Greek migrants were the first large groups of wogs in Australia. When they first started arriving en masse after the Second World War, they hated being called wogs. Eventually they claimed the word and ameliorated it.

Now, we have many North African and Middle Eastern wogs in Western countries. These are different kinds of wogs. Without the Christian, European background, most have very alien cultural behaviour and perspectives on life. Often Islamic, aggressive and separatist, they are genuinely disliked. The Italian and Greek wogs don’t want the guilt by association.

As Australia starts to have significantly increasing numbers of second (and more) generation Australians not just from woggy countries, but also from Asia, I’ve noticed the word wog becoming a bit passé, largely because it is so general that it lacks the descriptive nuance for genuine discrimination.

People of second or third generation Italian or Greek descent who still have a few “old country” cultural characteristics are technically wogs, but they aren’t nearly as woggy as first generation Lebanese immigrants, for example. “Traditional” Aussies ie. those of Anglo-Saxon or Aboriginal background tend to see the former as Aussies these days, probably from a subconscious reasoning that the cultural distance from “us” to Italian Aussies is small compared to the gulf between “us” and Middle Eastern Muslims.

In large part, that’s the purpose racial slang really serves: it’s subconscious, categorical reasoning about which people are like each other and different from me and how different they are.

There’s no point trying to stamp it out per the left’s goal of controlling behaviour by controlling language and the structures available to parse thought. I’m sure they think they have had a lot of success with this strategy in places like the UK, but they will only ever police the public utterances of people who speak the dominant language. Immigrants will continue to use their own racist epithets, then manufacture hypocritical offence at the ones we use to describe them.

Police Try Common Sense ... And Gain Respect

In a liberal democracy, it is the province of the (adult) citizens to decide not only the laws by which they wish to be governed, but also the manner in which those laws should be policed. By this last statement, I mean: should a particular law always be enforced to the letter or should the police be given (and expected to use) the discretion to ignore minor breaches in certain circumstances?

So what is an example of how we do want to be policed?

This afternoon, I was unloading the shopping from the boot. It was a fair bit, as it was New Year’s Eve and people were coming over. No parking spots were available in the strip outside my house as several had been taken by non-residents wanting an easy walk down to the beach (fuck off, you arseholes). So I put the hazard lights on and pulled up in the no standing zone on the corner.

As I was unloading, the police drove past. They looked at me. I gave them a wave and shrugged my shoulders. They just nodded and drove on. I noticed them driving back past as I was parking the car about 100m up the street a couple of minutes later. If I’d still been there, I’d probably have gotten a ticket, but they’d seen I am a local resident and given me some leeway.

This is the type of law enforcement the vast majority of citizens want and expect: mature police with an interest in being part of the local community, using common sense and discretion for small events; technically illegal, but doing no material harm.

Other examples of such small breaches of the law I’m referring to are: driving at 5 - 10 km/h over the speed limit, puffing on a joint around the corner from the pub, having a piss behind a tree, two blokes (both at fault) getting into a fight where neither was seriously hurt, some people getting drunk at a party and going for a nude run.

All of these examples are the types of events where most people would consider a fine or an arrest neither fair and proportionate to the act nor a sensible and effective use of police resources. They would expect the police to tell the perpetrators to stop because their behaviour is illegal and just move on if their instructions were complied with. If instead the “persons spoken to” mouthed off and / or continued, most people would also agree that they brought the fine or arrest on themselves.

It doesn’t matter whether or not you think smoking a joint should be legal. It currently isn’t and the police are put in a difficult situation if they encounter people doing it. There is however a view amongst much of the community that given the trivial nature of the offence, if you are polite to the police, comply with their instructions and don’t antagonize them in such situations, they should in turn leave you alone.

I’ve seen examples of exactly this occurring. I’ve also seen the police being heavy handed in similar situations and thus losing trust and respect.

Citizens expect police to see themselves as part of the community. Part of this is understanding how the public expects to be policed and acting accordingly. If the police service does this in a mature way, in return they will find a respectful and co-operative community.

Why Should She Pay Anything To This Loser?

The law is an ass. Well, in this case, the law is inadequate and the judge is an ass.

How is it in any way fair or reasonable that a couple separates, agrees on a property and custody settlement, then seven years later, one of them is allowed to claim money from the other because they have since made a mess of their life?

That’s what has happened to a woman who separated from her husband who, according to the evidence presented was violent, smoked dope and drank to excess almost every day during their marriage. By mutual agreement, she kept the mortgaged home and the kids, he kept an investment property, a car and his super.

In the ensuing seven years, the husband not only drank and smoked more, but developed a gambling problem, lost his job and eventually was declared bankrupt. He’s now an “invalid pensioner”.

Incapable of working are you? Really? Too fucking lazy and busy feeling sorry for yourself to clean up your act and get a job, more like it. The pension is for people who can’t hold down a job because they genuinely cannot work. This is either because they are disabled or chronically ill, not because they won’t stop drinking. Excessive drinking and drug abuse are not such chronic maladies that people cannot stop.

Now this grub thinks that he has some right to ask his former wife to give him more money because his life is such a mess … and the judge agreed with him, despite offering the opinion that he had perjured himself as to their initial agreement.

How was this absurd piece of judicial activism able to occur? Because she never got around to actually divorcing him. The 12 month time limit on challenging settlements did not apply because they were still technically married.

The biggest problem with this ridiculous ruling is that it sets a precedent which is clearly at odds with the views of the majority of the community. It is the community who should decide what is right and just in areas like family law, yet Justice Philip Burchardt seems to believe that the law should or in fact does require one spouse to continue to support the other, years after separation, because they did not formally divorce.

No, they shouldn’t. If a marriage breaks up and one person hasn’t been working, they will obviously need some support while they get back into the workforce. But there is clearly a time limit beyond which each person’s circumstances are their own responsibility and not a consequence of the marital arrangements. That time is far less than seven years.

The judge should have thrown this case out. The husband is a loser who has brought his own life to this point. His wife is not responsible for his maintenance. Instead of grifting, how about some mature self examination, cleaning up his act, getting a job (any job to start with) and being a man his children can respect?

With such a precedent set, other bludgers may well use it to try to make claims for undeserved support long after a de facto relationship ends. Since there was no formal marriage and hence no formal divorce, would the 12 month time limit on claims also not apply here? Why not bring a claim, then settle beforehand, effectively using the threat of costs as blackmail?

Did you think of that, Justice Burchardt? I’ll bet you didn’t.

How is it that a couple who do not formally marry can be considered de facto married in law, yet a couple who are clearly de facto divorced are not considered so when it comes to maintenance claims?

One might also ask how this claim ever reached court. It could only be because the husband was receiving legal aid or some speculative solicitor took the case on a no win, no fee basis.

If the former, whoever approved legal aid for this case should be severely censured. This loser is already bludging off the taxpayer and scarce legal aid budget is allocated to funding his undeserving claim, when people facing excessive and often false charges are unable to adequately defend themselves because they are poor?

If the latter, the case should have been thrown out and the wife’s costs awarded against the husband’s solicitors as a warning to other scumbags.

It will be interesting to see how many women need to be stiffed in divorce settlements for them to join the fight to make divorce law more equitable. Since the 1970’s, there hasn’t been much incentive for women to support such changes, as they tend to end up with the house and kids and / or be the beneficiaries of undeserved and excessively lengthy maintenance awards. Now more women are coming into marriages with significant assets and are working and earning more than their husbands, how will the feminist lobby react?

A final lesson from this case: If you separate from your spouse and don’t want to get back together, divorce them as quickly as possible, lest they drink and gamble everything away, then come slithering before Justice Burchardt.

Sack and Charge This Idiot

What sane society allows a train driver to stop the train and call the police because passengers would not stop singing?

The worst thing about this incident is that we have become a society in which it is possible for a train driver to form the belief that not just is it reasonable to tell singing passengers to stop, but it is also justifiable to call the police and so grossly exaggerate the events that 15 to 20 officers turn up with sniffer dogs and the train is stopped for a significant period of time.

According to the article, Queensland Rail says that "neither the driver, nor the guard called police". Who believes that without corroboration?

How come 15 to 20 police, plus dogs were waiting for the train at the next station?

Reading quotes from the article, passengers were simply singing loudly. No swearing or bawdy songs, nothing yobby; just happy people enjoying themselves. There were children on the train. None of their parents reported concerns about any of the behaviour.

The police made no arrests.

There is one person who should be arrested: the driver. There are plenty of possible charges: public nuisance, wasting police resources, making a false report to police. There is no way 15 or 20 police would turn up to a train station unless the driver had grossly exaggerated and possibly even fabricated events.

Now the passengers are probably thinking what aggressive dickheads the police are. This may be very unfair. How do we know the driver didn’t report a violent disturbance by a large group? The police would have had to respond in force to a complaint like this. Which is precisely why they should throw the book at this turd.

Additionally, the driver should be sacked by Queensland Rail. If the union tries to bung on an act, take them to court. Any union bloody mindedness in a situation such as this is precisely why we need legislation preventing strikes by vital services such as public transport, fire brigades and hospitals. For such highly unionized, public service industries, the Fair Work Ombudsman should be equipped to handle legitimate grievances (and dismiss illegitimate ones).

It has always been the case that some people in positions of authority have misinterpreted a sense of entitlement as a licence to abuse their power for personal reasons. Free societies recognize this and censure it.

It appears a more recent development is for absolute peons such as train or bus drivers, bar staff, council workers, clerks etc. to believe they actually have some meaningful authority. Those with a sufficiently weighty chip on their shoulder seem increasingly bent on trying to include the rest of us in this delusion by making absurd requests under the guise of pretend rules.

If we tolerate this, they will not only keep doing it, but become emboldened to even more bullshit. Make formal complaints, find out their names and publish them wherever you can. Make sure they are aware that the consequences of trying it on with you will not be worth it.

Perhaps this more recent development of shitkickers believing they can get away with bunging on acts is a symptom of Western society’s increasing emphasis on rights over responsibilities.

To the train driver: Your responsibility is to drive the fucking train and stop it at the stations. It’s not hard. That’s why you don’t get paid as much as say, an engineer or an airline pilot. Your right is to collect your pay each fortnight and have a work environment free from violence. You do not have a right to stop passengers from singing loudly and in particular, you do not have a right to hold up 400 passengers while you make a false complaint to police because you are unhappy with your pathetic, loser life.

Hopefully the police will charge this idiot and the press will publish his name and address. Maybe some of those inconvenienced passengers can tell him personally what they think his rights and responsibilities are.

Council Oxygen Thieves Ban Cricket

It could be from a satire: Boroondara Council in Melbourne has banned 20/20 cricket from many of its grounds after a “risk assessment”, prompted by a broken car window.

Not two day and 50 over matches; just 20 overs a side. One can only presume the survey found that the number of sixes hit per 20/20 game was unacceptably high, but the number hit during other forms of the game was not.

This is exactly the kind of Kafkaesque bullshit, promulgated by public service oxygen thieves that citizens need to vigorously oppose.

I shudder at the thought of the scientific shoddiness of the “risk assessment” procedure used, as well as the useless jobsworth who conducted it and the idiot local councilors who voted in favour of the ban (if a vote was even required).

There are balls hit over the boundary in all forms of the game. Fingo even hit a big six last weekend (followed by a catch to deep mid on).

A simpler way to mange council liability is to require all clubs to have appropriate public liability insurance, which all registered clubs have anyway. The insurance companies will work out the premium from the estimated number and severity of claims. This is how it’s always worked in the past, with no meaningful problems, so the council can just get on with its real job: mowing the outfield and preparing the pitch.

Instead, we have someone who probably knows nothing about cricket making an unreviewed and ignorant decision to ban only certain forms of the game, thus affecting a large number of people playing a traditional Australian sport.

Another possibility is that this decision is the first step in a secret agenda to remove the cricket pitches from these parks permanently so the council does not have to incur the expense of maintaining them.

The people who make decisions like this are worse than merely lazy. They don’t just eat up wages, doing nothing useful: they actively ruin the amenity of citizens. They hide behind anonymity and bogus “regulations”, made up by themselves for their own protection.

The way to deal with them is public exposure. This is what they most fear.

The cricketers affected should identify the council employee who has made this recommendation and the local councilors who have made the decision and distribute their contact details to all affected parties. Make sure they are acutely aware of your opinion of them and whether they should continue in their positions.

Let the councilors know that a vigorous campaign will be conducted against their reelection.

It is not enough for people to merely be angry but take no action. Look at the UK, with its jungle of ridiculous regulations, stifling an enormous number of what sane citizens see as reasonable civic freedoms. The same thing is starting to happen here. If we don’t want this trend to continue, we must have the types of people who make these decisions removed from any positions of influence and dismantle the self perpetuating structures they have put in place to ensure their survival.

These are not people who can be reasoned with, because they would not listen even if they could understand the counter argument. They are a cancer, consuming public funds and destroying public amenity, inventing idiotic rules and procedures in a failed attempt to justify the unjustifiable: their own existence. If they are not weeded out of all positions of any authority, they will continue to destroy our quality of life and freedom to enjoy ourselves with their inane regulations.

Update:

If we do end up with a referendum on recognising local government in the constitution, do not vote Yes, unless you want to greatly increase the power of local councils and hence have much more of these bullshit decisions.

The proponents of the Yes vote will mostly be Greens, local governments and their supporters. They will tell you recognition will have no unintended increase in local government powers, but they will be either deluded or lying. It only takes one activist judge.

Why Lock Someone Up For 14 Days?

A juror who pulled a sickie to go to London and see the musical Chicago with his mother has been sentenced to 14 days in a “young offenders’ institution” for contempt of court. Presumably this comprised 7 days for pulling the sickie and 7 days for choosing such a lame way to spend his day off.

How clearly were the requirements of jury duty explained to the jurors, particularly that the defendant’s future is at stake, so being off sick isn’t an option unless you can’t get out of bed?

I know that’s obvious to many of us, but given the abject fecklessness of the majority of modern youth, this little twat probably viewed his actions as akin to ringing in sick to skive off from a low paying job he hates anyway. His mother’s response: “We thought he’d get a slap on the wrist” shows were he gets it from.

Yes, you’re right, love. He was only helping decide whether or not someone accused of a criminal offence is actually guilty. But don’t worry, it’s not a big deal if he skipped off to London with mummy for the day to watch some poncy musical and wasted dozens of people’s time, not to mention a day’s extra legal fees for the defendant. How old is this little cunt? 14?

I had to laugh at his mother’s other comments: “He wanted a career in government but now he’s got a criminal record.” Probably fortunate for the citizens of Britain that’s no longer a possibility.

It’s not the harshness of the punishment that is the problem: it’s the type. What possible net benefit to the community is there in a 14 day custodial sentence, for this or any other offence?

How is there any restitution derived from serving 14 days in prison? What is the cost to the community of housing and feeding someone for 2 weeks? What requirement is there for the community to be protected from the anti-social behaviour of this dangerous thug?

I was under the impression judges were required to take the above into account in sentencing. Britain is struggling with massive debt and a judge wastes public funds on a short custodial sentence for a first time, non-violent offender who makes Morrissey look like a cage fighter?

Surely there is a large amount of graffiti and refuse needing removal in the Greater Manchester area. How about a boot in the arse, a fine equal to the day’s jury service fees for the 11 jurors who had to be sent home, plus 50 - 100 hours of community service?

No, we’ll waste taxpayers’ funds locking him up for 14 days instead. Nice work Judge Rudland, you dunce.

Contempt of court … is it really so strange?

Virtual Battles, Real Twats

How much of the negative response to the Red Cross’ pronouncement that game play in computerized war games violates international humanitarian law and the Geneva Convention was an overreaction by people who hadn’t clearly read what was actually said and how much was well founded suspicion of the motives of lefties who would impose their agenda on yet another area of our lives if they could?

Reading the comments below many internet articles on this topic, there is plenty of the former. Reading some of the quotes by the Red Cross, there is genuinely some of the latter as well:

The International Committee of the Red Cross says they may ask developers to adhere to the rules themselves or "encourage" (the article’s emphasis) governments to adopt laws to regulate the video game industry.

Ask the developers to adhere to “the rules”. And if they quite reasonably tell you to fuck off? You’ll organise a campaign against them will you? Try to damage their business until they give in to your demands?

Evidence of a far more dangerous mindset is: “encourage governments to adopt laws to regulate the video game industry”. Yes, let’s make laws banning game play which allows gamers to without penalty do things which you find offensive or which would be illegal in reality. While we're at it, let’s ban Grand Theft Auto and Mafia and not let anyone play the bad guy.

The two quotes below leave little doubt that this is more than just academic chatter:

“There is also an audience of approximately 600 million gamers who may be virtually violating IHL (International Humanitarian Law) … Exactly how video games influence individuals is a hotly debated topic, but for the first time, Movement partners discussed our role and responsibility to take action against violations of IHL in video games. What should we do, and what is the most effective method?”

"While National Societies shared their experiences and opinions, there is clearly no simple answer. There is, however, an overall consensus and motivation to take action."

Add this guff from anti war crimes organisation TRIAL, with their incredibly tweely titled paper Playing By The Rules and we can detect the seeds of an organized campaign to control gaming content in order to pursue leftist political agenda:

"It would be highly appreciated if games reproducing armed conflicts were to include the rules which apply to real armed conflicts. These rules and values are given by international humanitarian law and human rights law."

"One possible course of action could be to encourage game designers / producers to incorporate IHL in the development and design of video games, while another could be to encourage governments to adopt laws and regulations to regulate this ever-growing industry."

Yes, we must ensure we teach our children to always “play by the rules”, even in games. Your rules, of course.

“No! No! These are rules agreed by all civilized societies via the Geneva Convention. All our military must obey them or face prosecution as criminals. We must ensure realistic games reflect this so that our children learn what is right and wrong.”

Yes, the Geneva Convention is indeed an agreement between some nations regarding rules of engagement and how they will treat each other’s military and civilians. Soldiers are definitely bound by it and prosecuted if they violate it.

But why would it be incorporated in a game scenario like WW2 on the Russian front, or a Roman siege campaign?

What if you want to play the bad guys? Many people like to play the insurgents.

What I mean by “your rules, of course” is that the types of lefties who support government regulation of war gaming rules are also the people who believe our troops should behave according to the Geneva Convention even in conflicts where the enemy clearly does not, such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

Why should a game not put forward the political view that maybe the rules of the Geneva Convention are only to be obeyed when we are fighting enemies who accept them? Why should a game not have the ability for the player to turn on and off the Geneva Convention in the settings?

Why should the Red Cross be allowed to make political statements, but not game developers? Actually, organizations like the Red Cross and TRIAL are actively encouraging game developers to make overt political statements, but only ones with which they agree.

“Encourage game designers” is fine if it means working with them and showing them evidence of studies linking violent behaviour with playing certain types of violent games. There is nothing wrong with making suggestions to game developers such as if you play as certain countries, then you lose benefits or are directly disadvantaged if you violate the Geneva Convention.

These types of rules already exist in some games. For example, in Civilization, if you raze cities or use nuclear weapons, you can end up fighting a coalition of all the other nations on the planet.

More insidious is the campaign to have governments legislate and regulate game play. This is the epitome of the leftist agenda: rules governing not just every aspect of social interaction, but now private behaviour in a virtual world.

If you have enough rules constraining behaviour, most people will obey and we can weed out the troublemakers and reactionary counter-revolutionaries. Eventually, we’ll have a society where all citizens think and behave “correctly” because everyone will have been brought up believing anything else is wrong.

The response I’d like to see from game developers?

Put the Geneva Conventions in as a rules option in Game Settings, but make sure that certain enemies ignore it. Turning it on for the player would help show people just how difficult it is for our troops to fight such an enemy when hamstrung by a fifth column of left wing lawyers, journalists and activists, waiting to accuse them of war crimes if they put their own safety above that of enemy civilians … and yes, many of those civilians are as much the enemy as conscript soldiers. Turning the setting off and flattening a mosque full of Taliban just adds to the satisfaction of the overall gaming experience.

Conversely, if you’re playing as a militia, allow them to take Red Cross or aid workers hostage.

Have scenarios where you can play the army of a brutal dictator or rebel insurgents. Round up civilians and shoot them. This would of course turn the population more against you, to which you could respond with more brutality.

Or why not a scenario where you have left wing activists helping the enemy? You could have the option to round them up with your security service.

Let’s see how realistic these lefties really do want gaming to be.