Which country's Government is banning criticism of itself?

[Power Raid]

In summary Ratts has purposely been misleading and mischievous and has caused divide undue stress

 

[Power Raid]

I can't believe you're so enamoured with such a big government policy PR

I believe in free speech more than a policy and people should choose their values and professionalism over a job.

An exception to the rule of free speech is misleading and deceptive conduct by anyone including political stooges. Unfortunately Ratts has shown his hand.

 

[mottrain]

I believe in free speech more than a policy and people should choose their values and professionalism over a job.

An exception to the rule of free speech is misleading and deceptive conduct by anyone including political stooges. Unfortunately Ratts has shown his hand.

Actually this is what I like. The Left leaning groups get angry when their apparent right to show through protest movement or otherwise their position on issues is restricted in anyway. They then however feel that there should be brisk penalties handed to anyone going against the views of people who are aligning with their ideologies if they are seen to offend or upset them. Hence this totally is why using Gough's example as a relevant one in homosexual groups feel they should have the right to have their voices heard on issues like marriage for homosexuals and yet condemn and demand mechanisms to sanction those who will criticise their position on an issue as they are being 'bigoted' even if it is just they are presenting an alternate point on an issue. This is as much the reason that Nicola's communism laws on speech failed as much as Brandis' 18c repeal even though the latter was much milder in comparison.

 

[Maggie5]

No that is the exact point where Ratts has mislead you.

This is still very much legal.

Why would you allow yourself to be conned by Ratts?

Not mislead by anyone - was just what I thought.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Hey Power Raid, perhaps instead of spending your waking hours trying to play the man against me with wet lettuce arguments, you could actually try and summarise your position in a way that makes sense?

I know this is a tough thing to ask of you, but you seem to fail to see the contradiction between saying repeatedly that someone criticising the government would be a breach of common law, and then saying in an example given that:

there is unlikely a breach of the law.

You've been playing the man against me for over a year and aren't getting any better at it. You've decided to hi-jack this thread so at least try to be coherent. You don't want people putting you on Ignore.

 

[Power Raid]

Hey Power Raid, perhaps instead of spending your waking hours trying to play the man against me with wet lettuce arguments, you could actually try and summarise your position in a way that makes sense?

I know this is a tough thing to ask of you, but you seem to fail to see the contradiction between saying repeatedly that someone criticising the government would be a breach of common law, and then saying in an example given that:

You've been playing the man against me for over a year and aren't getting any better at it. You've decided to hi-jack this thread so at least try to be coherent. You don't want people putting you on Ignore.

I am not playing the man just calling you out for the misleading thread title and providing you a fair right to reply.

Why would you create such a misleading title thread relating to changes of government employees employment contracts which:
1) the changes, relating to reporting third parties and fellow employees, were based on a legal precedent clarifying employee and management's obligations in 2012. This case clarified silence in employment contracts relating reporting obligations was not acceptable but silence was also not consistent with modern OH&S, professional conduct and other legal concepts. As such a term was included to bridge this gap.
2) the removal of a paragraph, being paragraph 5, had no legal effect as the principle was already well established under common law and can not be waived by its omission or any other mechanism.

Were you deliberately trying to mislead? Who put you up to this? Or was it just a bona fide mistake?

 

[GWSP]

If I had an employee who was slagging me the boss or any other of my staff off on social media i'd dismiss their worthless arses too.

If you don't have the courage to say it to my face then good luck looking for another job.

 

[mottrain]

If I had an employee who was slagging me the boss or any other of my staff off on social media i'd dismiss their worthless arses too.

If you don't have the courage to say it to my face then good luck looking for another job.

Exactly. Essentially experience says servants of public think that the coalition being employed is disgraceful etc and should be allowed to tee off on them without repercussion and complain consequently if/when that they do. The y often seem suddenly to go god damn quiet some of them when a lefty government is in.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Exactly. Essentially experience says servants of public think that the coalition being employed is disgraceful etc and should be allowed to tee off on them without repercussion and complain consequently if/when that they do. The y often seem suddenly to go god damn quiet some of them when a lefty government is in.

Nice story, but somewhat ruined by the fact the Labor government also didn't allow criticism from public servants either. However, the 'dob in a co-worker' stuff was pushed by the Liberals.

If I had an employee who was slagging me the boss or any other of my staff off on social media i'd dismiss their worthless arses too.

If you don't have the courage to say it to my face then good luck looking for another job.

Don't be so thin-skinned. If your running a good business and they're doing their job competently, what do you care if they don't like aspects of your management? But let's not pretend that criticising the government, who is doing things in our name with our taxpayer money, is anything like criticising a private employer who may lose business in a competitive environment if someone defames them (for which there are laws already, of course) or questions their abilities. Making such a false comparison is completely disingenuous.

I am not playing the man just calling you out for the misleading thread title and providing you a fair right to reply.

Why would you create such a misleading title thread relating to changes of government employees employment contracts which:
1) the changes, relating to reporting third parties and fellow employees, were based on a legal precedent clarifying employee and management's obligations in 2012. This case clarified silence in employment contracts relating reporting obligations was not acceptable but silence was also not consistent with modern OH&S, professional conduct and other legal concepts. As such a term was included to bridge this gap.
2) the removal of a paragraph, being paragraph 5, had no legal effect as the principle was already well established under common law and can not be waived by its omission or any other mechanism.

Were you deliberately trying to mislead? Who put you up to this? Or was it just a bona fide mistake?

1) So in order to protect OH&S you should dob in a colleague who is critical of the government? As per usual you are making no sense.
2) So why did they remove it?
3) Just because you keep repeating that I have misled people, doesn't actually make it so. But you obviously know you have a weak case, which is why you keep repeating the same thing. It's called Abbott Politics 101.

 

[Power Raid]

Nice story, but somewhat ruined by the fact the Labor government also didn't allow criticism from public servants either. However, the 'dob in a co-worker' stuff was pushed by the Liberals.

why? because the court case deciding that common law did not cover this element was only in 2012. By the time organisations do a legal review of contracts and let an election pass, it is suddenly the responsibility of the new govt

Don't be so thin-skinned. If your running a good business and they're doing their job competently, what do you care if they don't like aspects of your management? But let's not pretend that criticising the government, who is doing things in our name with our taxpayer money, is anything like criticising a private employer who may lose business in a competitive environment if someone defames them (for which there are laws already, of course) or questions their abilities. Making such a false comparison is completely disingenuous.

Personally I would be disappointed a worker didn't have the courage or confidence to voice their concerns with management. I wouldn't sack a worker for be unprofessional but I would certainly ask why they felt the need to vent rather than deal with the concern.

1) So in order to protect OH&S you should dob in a colleague who is critical of the government? As per usual you are making no sense.
2) So why did they remove it?
3) Just because you keep repeating that I have misled people, doesn't actually make it so. But you obviously know you have a weak case, which is why you keep repeating the same thing. It's called Abbott Politics 101.

1) the dob in a worker element is not restricted to criticism of the employer it also relates to fraud, misappropriation or safety elements. Common law does not cover this unless it is in the employment contract. Try and open your mind to the application rather than just what you want to see.
2) I have covered this already: This is a common law principle governed by precedent. Any wording in an employment contract can create confusion, effect the principle and application of the law. Another way to look at it is should we add every common law duty and right? or just one's you like the sound of?
3) Surely you agree the title does not marry the reality? As such it is misleading. The question is why?

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

why? because the court case deciding that common law ...

I know you think you are onto something here, mate, which is why you are repeating it endlessly, but the truth is your prose is not clear enough for people to understand it and respond appropriately. Of course, you are also repeating it endlessly because you want to push a politically motivated point of view, but I actually want to talk about whether people think public servants should be allowed to criticise the government. So can you stop repeating yourself and stop hi-jacking the thread?

 

[Power Raid]

http://books.google.com.au/books?id...&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBQ#v=snippet&q=fidelity&f=false

hopefully this link works

section 6.3 is relevant, the rest is just interesting

 

[Power Raid]

I know you think you are onto something here, mate, which is why you are repeating it endlessly, but the truth is your prose is not clear enough for people to understand it and respond appropriately. Of course, you are also repeating it endlessly because you want to push a politically motivated point of view, but I actually want to talk about whether people think public servants should be allowed to criticise the government. So can you stop repeating yourself and stop hi-jacking the thread?

go back and have a read of the case coved by clayton utz, it has nothing to do with criticising the government. It has everything to do with the fact employees do not have an obligation to report another employee for fraud or any other offence unless it is a term in the employment contact.

it is people like you who are misleading others by attaching the second change, being section 5, to this element.


why do you feel the need to do that?

 

[Power Raid]

the removal of section 5 does not stop people from criticising the government as this is enshrined under the principles of common law.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

No, no, you misunderstood. I said stop hi-jacking the thread. Stop.

That doesn't mean "please repeat the same airy-fairy suggestion that private companies are somehow similar to public servants, and that the reasonable request to keep commercial-in-confidence information confidential is tantamount to a blanket ban on any criticism and encouraging co-workers to dob in those that do". Nor did I mean "keep ignoring the fact you claim removing section 5 is an impotent move, but the govt did it anyway".

It meant stop hi-jacking the thread. Do it again and I might even have to report you. I haven't done that before to anyone. It'd be interesting to see how the process works.

 

[Power Raid]

If you believe my concerns that the title is misleading is incorrect, please provide evidence.

Please feel free to discuss the legal cases (Hodgson v Amcor [2012] VSC 94.) Employees' duty to report misconduct of themselves or others

and http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications...ties-confidentiality-and-loyalty-and-fidelity

 

[GWSP]

Don't be so thin-skinned. If your running a good business and they're doing their job competently, what do you care if they don't like aspects of your management? But let's not pretend that criticising the government, who is doing things in our name with our taxpayer money, is anything like criticising a private employer who may lose business in a competitive environment if someone defames them (for which there are laws already, of course) or questions their abilities. Making such a false comparison is completely disingenuous.

Zero to do with being thing skinned. If an employee is slandering the business, the employer or other employees that is a problem in my eyes.

If you have a grievance take it to a superior in the work organisation, not to the public domain. Highly unprofessional thing to do in a workplace.

If you'e some kind of Labor/Liberal stooge working as a public servant and can't keep up a professional outward neutrality then go seek employment elsewhere.

We need public servants who will do their job regardless of who is in power, not some fan bois who get the sooks on when their side isn't in power.

 

[Maggie5]

I read the thread title that the government is clamping down on anyone who works for the government or in the case of charities, receives funding from them from speaking out.
Still not sure of where PR was heading.

The Liberals are not open to criticism of their policies, this goes back to the Howard government.

Take this article on Scott Parking in 2005.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Australia_Revokes_Scott_Parkin's_Visa#ASIO_admission

Wilkie, who quit his role as an analyst with the Australian high level security agency over the misleading use of intelligence ahead of the Iraq war, stood as a candidate for the Green Party at the last federal election. Parkin, he said, "is being used as an example ... But also he is a victim of ... the government's increasing preparedness to clamp down really hard on anyone who speaks out against it."

Wilkie said he suspects that the Labor Party's decision to go quiet may have been because they were misled. Wilkies said that he had sat in several ONA briefing with the former Labor Leader, Simon Crean, where information had been deliberately witheld. "I sat in on three ONA briefings with the then-opposition leader Simon Crean and on all three occasions, I saw relevant and important information intentionally omitted from the security briefings because they were inconsistent with the government's policies on the issue," he said. "So, I'm not satisfied that Kim Beazley has made an informed decision on this." [28]

"This government has a track record of trying to silence political dissent. It has a track record of being prepared to act nonsensically, unethically and even illegally," Wilkie said.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Zero to do with being thing skinned. If an employee is slandering the business, the employer or other employees that is a problem in my eyes.

If you have a grievance take it to a superior in the work organisation, not to the public domain. Highly unprofessional thing to do in a workplace.

Perhaps you're in a small business, but every large business has people whinging about management, sometimes with merit, sometimes because that's part of office culture. To try and suggest that people shouldn't complain about their job is pretty naive to me. Mostly it is going to be complaining about having to work late on something, or being asked to do contradictory things by a boss, or a boss taking credit for work done by underlings, etc.

If done without mentioning the employer then it's hard to see how this effects the business. On FB you are only talking to friends who you would hear the same thing face-to-face, on Twitter / Instagram / MySpace or whatever they're anonymous. The point is to blanket-ban criticism on social media is totalitarian in government, but if you insisist on talking about private enterprise then: As I said earlier, if it is the case that employees aren't allowed to do this in private business then why are we constantly hearing that it is hard to sack someone?

If you'e some kind of Labor/Liberal stooge working as a public servant and can't keep up a professional outward neutrality then go seek employment elsewhere.

We need public servants who will do their job regardless of who is in power, not some fan bois who get the sooks on when their side isn't in power.

So you would have been against Godwin Gretch at the time I'm guessing? Again, as I said earlier before Power Raid cluttered up the thread, if someone is wrong / showing a gross lack of 'neutrality' / trying to smear their employee, it is very different to someone who has knowledge as part of their job which goes against what the government is telling us publicly. Scott Morrison's department removed information on self-harm levels in asylum seeker detainees from their reports. This may have been done without even Morrison's knowledge (maintaing plausible deniability for him). Who are these people to alter the facts? Facts that we base our assessment of the government on? Information is everything in a democracy, otherwise on what basis are we meant to vote?

 

[Elroo]

Zero to do with being thing skinned. If an employee is slandering the business, the employer or other employees that is a problem in my eyes.

If you have a grievance take it to a superior in the work organisation, not to the public domain. Highly unprofessional thing to do in a workplace.

If you'e some kind of Labor/Liberal stooge working as a public servant and can't keep up a professional outward neutrality then go seek employment elsewhere.

We need public servants who will do their job regardless of who is in power, not some fan bois who get the sooks on when their side isn't in power.

Don't confuse being a whistle-blower and slandering an employer.

 

[Maggie5]

Whistle-blowers are a vital part of our democracy we need to protect those who bravely step forward to report abuse, fraud and corruption.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Don't confuse being a whistle-blower and slandering an employer.

And the idea that public servants serve only the serving politician, instead of the Australian public is, frankly, f***ed.

 

[medusala]

Plus, working for the state should not prohibit one from being politically engaged.

It should be on work time. When I was in the PS there were union sorts mincing around during work hours. Why should taxpayers have to fund that?

And the idea that public servants serve only the serving politician, instead of the Australian public is, frankly, f***ed.

Serve the Australian public? A quaint notion Ratts, however, one not in keeping with reality. Lets hope Abbott actually shows a bit of spine and has the culling that is so long overdue.

 

[Power Raid]

Whistle-blowers are a vital part of our democracy we need to protect those who bravely step forward to report abuse, fraud and corruption.

You're right

but why would you raise that in this thread? Are you worried that has been destroyed?

If so, can you explain why you think that?

 

[Power Raid]

And the idea that public servants serve only the serving politician, instead of the Australian public is, frankly, f***ed.

they work for the department but still have the right to raise concerns if it has public interest. This right is preserved under common law and has not been effected by this or previous governments.

thus your concerns of it being f***ed are quite invalid.

If you disagree, please feel free to post evidence for your reasoning.