Sttew
Brownlow Medallist
Have any IStandWithDan responded to this question?
Last edited:
Vic How would you rate Daniel Andrews' performance as Victorian Premier? - Part 6
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
- Thread starter
- #1,102
Imagine taking a train to the city every Saturday to protest about your lack of freedom and totalitarian policies.
Imagine if these people ever saw a totalitarian Govt. (They'd be cowering in their homes, cos if they're afraid of needles, they'd definitely be afraid of bullets).
I support their right to protest. But surely, soon, they're going to realise how stupid they look? Maybe then city businesses can get back to some sort of normality.
Andrews is letting it play out, because the longer he does, the more it appears it's protesters and LNP v ALP. And the longer the LNP is associated with the protests, the more moronic the LNP look (who would have thought that possible even 6 months ago? or post-drink-driving Dim Tim).
Younger voters who switched on to politics more than they ever have, or will again, will always associate the LNP with the moronic rabble. It's a shift which may have decades of impact on Vic state politics.
Imagine if these people ever saw a totalitarian Govt. (They'd be cowering in their homes, cos if they're afraid of needles, they'd definitely be afraid of bullets).
I support their right to protest. But surely, soon, they're going to realise how stupid they look? Maybe then city businesses can get back to some sort of normality.
Andrews is letting it play out, because the longer he does, the more it appears it's protesters and LNP v ALP. And the longer the LNP is associated with the protests, the more moronic the LNP look (who would have thought that possible even 6 months ago? or post-drink-driving Dim Tim).
Younger voters who switched on to politics more than they ever have, or will again, will always associate the LNP with the moronic rabble. It's a shift which may have decades of impact on Vic state politics.
ToddaRools
Team Captain
- Jan 30, 2009
- 408
- 675
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
As soon as they finish watching sky news they’ll answer the question
- Thread starter
- #1,104
Previous advice was given with the understanding it would not be public and therefore may involve items which shouldn't be made public (i.e. commentary on specific age/cultural/medical groups).
It's not hard to understand that they don't want to release advice which may marginalise certain communities.
So under the new legislation they will just make sure they only write down the stuff they want you to know?
- Oct 9, 2006
- 22,622
- 29,338
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Super Tottenham....from the Lane.
Well put.
Not sure why you answered though, I would have thought it self-evident.
Perhaps our right wing mates would like to answer the same question with regards to a federal style ICAC. Why has Scott the Liar walked back that particular undertaking and what have his mob got to hide?
I mean, the muckraking from the right is about as laughable as it gets. I note that Rita Panahi has now resorted to posting fraudulent photography to make her point.
You say “may involve” and then finish by saying it’s not hard to understand. Are you guessing or do you know that’s the reason for sure?
- Oct 9, 2006
- 22,622
- 29,338
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Super Tottenham....from the Lane.
Common sense....something sorely lost on you lot.
Very few acts that go through parliament are retroactive. And for good reason.
- Oct 9, 2006
- 22,622
- 29,338
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Super Tottenham....from the Lane.
I guess a bill in place will ensure people don’t get offended moving forward
Pay that.
If Saint is correct, we’ll receive the health advice with the bill, but most of it will be blacked out as we don’t want people getting offended about their age, culture or health. So pretty much we’re in the same position as we are now. Apologies for being skeptical, I just don’t trust these pricks.
- Oct 9, 2006
- 22,622
- 29,338
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Super Tottenham....from the Lane.
- Thread starter
- #1,113
In Govt reports, there are things you write in some submissions (private ones) that you wouldn't write in public ones.
For example: If Jewish synagogues are meeting in private and spreading COVID, if it's a non-public doc, you'd be specific. If it was a public doc, you'd say "some" or "specific religious denominations" are meeting in private and spreading COVID.
This is so that when it's made public, that some sections of the public don't use it to demonise or further marginalise huge swathes of the Jewish population who are doing no such thing.
Ah right ok gotcha. So pretty much, no new report can be provided based on the previous lockdown, and they’d need to hand over a report that had already been written that will contain sensitive info?
Despite these considerations, that has not stopped the demonisation of certain ethnic and religious groups for doing what they have always done during the pandemic, like celebrating holidays with family members and seeking to congregate.
Having said that, I stand by my previous suggestion that what people want to see in the health advice is really modelling, e.g. if we do this, then we will get this many cases and this many hospitalisations, etc. And again, to the Andrews Government's credit, they've been more open with this stuff recently, releasing the Burnet Institute's modelling for the recent easing of restrictions.
Having said that, I stand by my previous suggestion that what people want to see in the health advice is really modelling, e.g. if we do this, then we will get this many cases and this many hospitalisations, etc. And again, to the Andrews Government's credit, they've been more open with this stuff recently, releasing the Burnet Institute's modelling for the recent easing of restrictions.
Gralin
Super Moderator
- Moderator
- #1,116
Do you write emails the same when they are internal vs customer facing?
I'd imagine there is information they don't want getting out regarding what's happened in the last 18 months
Whether it's poorly worded advice or ignoring the advice and doing something else etc
The point of the legislation being proposed is that oversight and transparency are baked in. Not necessarily because the Andrew's Government want it but as a condition of passing the bill
You know, democracy and all that, needing votes, amendments etc
So if you bring in legislation with the rules and powers to compel evidence outlined they have to work within that framework, currently they don't and as such they are blocking the truth of what happened behind closed doors.
An amended Pandemic Bill with the correct checks and balances is the best option for us, Libs might not be pushing super hard for the amendments because if they get into power they will the ones being scrutinized for using it.
Remember Andrews wasn't able to get his version of the bill through and into legislation, thankfully as the original was pretty s**t even if it was better than the SOE for 90% of situations
End of the day would you rather another 6 months of status quo due to Omnicron or whatever the next variant of concern is, or new rules that require parliamentary oversight and have the powers to force transparency on decisions?
The current bill has improved accountability and transparency, but not sufficient accountability and transparency according to the crossbenchers now being wooed to pass the bill.
I wouldn't be surprised if the inclusion of a non-government majority parliamentary oversight committee will get the bill over the line.
I wouldn't be surprised if the inclusion of a non-government majority parliamentary oversight committee will get the bill over the line.
- Thread starter
- #1,118
Do you think people would be satisfied if they said "Look, you can't see the old report, but we wrote a summary of it"?
The new law will say they have to release all this advice. And all the public servants will know it and will write reports accordingly.
Keep in mind, this will mean that those reports will likely omit potentially critical information because it will involve public scrutiny. Also, throughout the pandemic, there's no way they could have been 100% confident in their findings. So in future, instead of being completely honest, things will get watered down. So instead of saying
"We think 500 people will die" they'll hedge their bets and say
"we think 100-10,000 people may die."
Public scrutiny and transparency comes with less honesty. It will also slow things down. Always has, always will.
If you found out Chief and all the mods were Nazis would you continue to post here?There are probably Nazis on big footy, so according to Maddo11 we are all Nazis
Sent from my CPH2005 using Tapatalk
Looks like this variant is very mild. That seems to be the consensus so far. Hopefully stays this way.
www.9news.com.au
'If it's mild, you actually want it to spread': Coatsworth calls for calm over Omicron transmission
A leading doctor says the apparent mild symptoms of the Omicron variant mean widespread community transmiss...
- Thread starter
- #1,121
Looks like this variant is very mild. That seems to be the consensus so far. Hopefully stays this way.
'If it's mild, you actually want it to spread': Coatsworth calls for calm over Omicron transmission
A leading doctor says the apparent mild symptoms of the Omicron variant mean widespread community transmiss...
Coatsworth is no longer a responsible source of information. He was saying long after being proven wrong that the virus was not airborne.
I'm 90% sure he's jockeying for LNP pre-selection. But I think he's missed his moment.
Sorry didn’t know that. Plenty of other sources saying the same thing though re mild symptoms. Fingers crossed it stays this way.
Crankyhawk
Brownlow Medallist
South African doctor who noted variant also notes mild symptoms
May contrast with other doctors in Soweto. There’s another analysis out there on the general covid thread which states vaccination still is protective for disease severity.
May contrast with other doctors in Soweto. There’s another analysis out there on the general covid thread which states vaccination still is protective for disease severity.
It's early.
- Status
Similar threads
