Vic Daniel Andrews and the Statue of Limitations

[Ghost Patrol]

How on earth has that audio of the phone call come out?

Newscorp have prior convictions for that sort of thing, so would be a likely suspect.

 

[Satan]

Good on him.

Many middle aged women were devo when he stopped doing his pressers

 

[Festerz]

I love that I live in your head rent free!

Err, that's not the end of my body you reside. But I bet you love it nevertheless.

And just for the lols I'm gonna take off the 'ignore' tag on your posts for a while. Just so I can be reminded of the end line of one of the favourite novels from my youth...

'I've done you before haven't I?'

 

[eddiesmith]

How on earth has that audio of the phone call come out?

They are not a major secret, recordings can be obtained for any call through FOI

 

[Xtreme]

How on earth has that audio of the phone call come out?

Channel 9 will make a Warnie style tv biography. How to fail upwards: The Daniel Andrews story.

 

[Satan]

Mr Andrews and his wife Catherine, who was driving at the time, have consistently held that cyclist Ryan Meuleman was at fault, with Mr Andrews telling reporters in 2017 that the teen was “moving at speed’’ when he “absolutely T-boned the car”.

And in his statement to police signed on February 5, 2013 at Springvale police station, Mr Andrews said “I want to make it clear - the cyclist hit our vehicle”.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/police-courts-victoria/daniel-andrews-triple0-call-from-car-accident-involving-wife-and-ryan-meuleman-revealed/news-story/ba541a80d142f2661a56ef09938d55de?amp

Seems the audio may be different to the police statement

 

[FIGJAM]

And just for the lols I'm gonna take off the 'ignore' tag on your posts for a while.

Errrrrr, I'd have had to have been off ignore anyway for your to have read the posts that you've just quoted, as they weren't quoted by other posters.

 

[FIGJAM]

They are not a major secret, recordings can be obtained for any call through FOI

Was Catherine tending to the kid and calling 000 at the same time with an accurate address description after supposedly being the driver who hit the boy (or had the boy hit him) and potentially in some shock herself?

If so, what the hell was Dan doing and why did he double up on the call?

Or was there a mystery third-party witness?

 

[Festerz]

They are not a major secret, recordings can be obtained for any call through FOI

Err no.

Section 63 of the Triple Zero Victoria Act 2023 sets out clear restrictions on who can access those recordings - they are unable to be released without the express consent of any other relevant person(s) or organisation(s) identified in the call.

To request a triple zero call audio recording, you need to be:

• the person who made the call (or their legal guardian or agent), or
• the lawful guardian or next of kin of a person who made a call, who is either a child or is deceased, or
• a person who is a subject of the Triple Zero Victoria call where the caller has provided consent or cannot be identified.

There are obvious confidentiality reasons for these restrictions.

For example, a politician using Parliamentary privilege to publicly release details of a 000 call for political reasons might reduce the chances of people in future calling the 000 number to report an accident, fire or crime knowing that their personal details and recording of the call could become front page news.

The question of how this particular recording was obtained by a politician and then read into Hansard and provided to particular news organisations (or maybe it happened the other way around as we have seen in this country before) seems to me to be a legitimate and important question.

 

[FIGJAM]

Would the recording have been made available to the late Dr Raymond Shuey's Expert Review that alleged alleges that authorities engaged in an “overt cover-up to avoid implicating a political figure in a life-threatening crash” and would the information be available via a FOI request for evidence that way?

 

[eddiesmith]

Err no.

Section 63 of the Triple Zero Victoria Act 2023 sets out clear restrictions on who can access those recordings - they are unable to be released without the express consent of any other relevant person(s) or organisation(s) identified in the call.

To request a triple zero call audio recording, you need to be:

• the person who made the call (or their legal guardian or agent), or
• the lawful guardian or next of kin of a person who made a call, who is either a child or is deceased, or
• a person who is a subject of the Triple Zero Victoria call where the caller has provided consent or cannot be identified.

There are obvious confidentiality reasons for these restrictions.

For example, a politician using Parliamentary privilege to publicly release details of a 000 call for political reasons might reduce the chances of people in future calling the 000 number to report an accident, fire or crime knowing that their personal details and recording of the call could become front page news.

The question of how this particular recording was obtained by a politician and then read into Hansard and provided to particular news organisations (or maybe it happened the other way around as we have seen in this country before) seems to me to be a legitimate and important question.

Yet I’ve completed FOI requests for them in the past…

But you’ll also hear them on TV shows

 

[eddiesmith]

Was Catherine tending to the kid and calling 000 at the same time with an accurate address description after supposedly being the driver who hit the boy (or had the boy hit him) and potentially in some shock herself?

If so, what the hell was Dan doing and why did he double up on the call?

Or was there a mystery third-party witness?

You’d hope someone was given it took Dan 8 minutes to call, obviously had some important stories to corroborate first…

 

[Festerz]

Yet I’ve completed FOI requests for them in the past…

But you’ll also hear them on TV shows

Triple Zero Victoria has Ministerial authorisation enabling it to release information under the FOI Act that would otherwise be confidential under the Triple Zero Act I quoted previously.

But those authorisations are within strict limitations and purposes, namely:

• educating the community or any section of the community about the role of and the services offered by the Authority
• promoting public health and safety
• responding to complaints, enquiries or compliments about or relating to the Authority, a Member of or acting Member of the Authority or an employee of the Authority
• support for the staff of the Authority, which may include commendations or other recognition
• responding to requests for access to records under the FOI Act so far as the exemptions contained in that Act (other than that contained in s 38 of that Act) do not apply to the information.

I don't see how releasing the Andrews accident 000 call meets those authorisations (maybe point 3 but that would require a public statement from the authority outlining the justification) but I freely admit I don't know the detail of its release.

I've also not seen a statement confirming how Libertarian MP David Limbrick came to hear the recording made by Andrews that he read into Hansard yesterday. His parliamentary statement yesterday calling for the recording to be publicly released suggests to me that it was not an FOI release but was accessed from other sources.

Can you confirm that this particular recording was released under FOI? And if so who made the FOI request and what were the reasons that deemed that release justified?

Because, outside of the obvious political interest, imho this information (how the recording was released for political gain and why) is more important to the public interest than the recording of call itself.

 

[Sttew]

Err no.

Section 63 of the Triple Zero Victoria Act 2023 sets out clear restrictions on who can access those recordings - they are unable to be released without the express consent of any other relevant person(s) or organisation(s) identified in the call.

To request a triple zero call audio recording, you need to be:

• the person who made the call (or their legal guardian or agent), or
• the lawful guardian or next of kin of a person who made a call, who is either a child or is deceased, or
• a person who is a subject of the Triple Zero Victoria call where the caller has provided consent or cannot be identified.

There are obvious confidentiality reasons for these restrictions.

For example, a politician using Parliamentary privilege to publicly release details of a 000 call for political reasons might reduce the chances of people in future calling the 000 number to report an accident, fire or crime knowing that their personal details and recording of the call could become front page news.

The question of how this particular recording was obtained by a politician and then read into Hansard and provided to particular news organisations (or maybe it happened the other way around as we have seen in this country before) seems to me to be a legitimate and important question.

Clearly someone at the 000 call repository doesn’t like Dan and has illegally shared the recording.

 

[Festerz]

Clearly someone at the 000 call repository doesn’t like Dan and has illegally shared the recording.

Possibly but that would not be my first guess.

There are many other individuals and organisations who may have had authorised access to that recording over the years, including VicPol and those associated with the Vic Supreme Court action that received considerable coverage in the Herald Sun last month.

 

[eddiesmith]

Triple Zero Victoria has Ministerial authorisation enabling it to release information under the FOI Act that would otherwise be confidential under the Triple Zero Act I quoted previously.

But those authorisations are within strict limitations and purposes, namely:

• educating the community or any section of the community about the role of and the services offered by the Authority
• promoting public health and safety
• responding to complaints, enquiries or compliments about or relating to the Authority, a Member of or acting Member of the Authority or an employee of the Authority
• support for the staff of the Authority, which may include commendations or other recognition
• responding to requests for access to records under the FOI Act so far as the exemptions contained in that Act (other than that contained in s 38 of that Act) do not apply to the information.

I don't see how releasing the Andrews accident 000 call meets those authorisations (maybe point 3 but that would require a public statement from the authority outlining the justification) but I freely admit I don't know the detail of its release.

I've also not seen a statement confirming how Libertarian MP David Limbrick came to hear the recording made by Andrews that he read into Hansard yesterday. His parliamentary statement yesterday calling for the recording to be publicly released suggests to me that it was not an FOI release but was accessed from other sources.

Can you confirm that this particular recording was released under FOI? And if so who made the FOI request and what were the reasons that deemed that release justified?

Because, outside of the obvious political interest, imho this information (how the recording was released for political gain and why) is more important to the public interest than the recording of call itself.

No I can’t confirm under what reasons this one was released, but it’s not that difficult if you have the right authority.

The family of the victim should be able to obtain it, especially in recent court proceedings. Plus once it’s out, it is often used in very public uses.

But this is the usual m.o when bad information is uncovered about your dear leader, go after the source and pretend that’s far worse than the actual information.

 

[Festerz]

But this is the usual m.o when bad information is uncovered about your dear leader, go after the source and pretend that’s far worse than the actual information.

LOL - I wasn't the one who raised the issue of the source of the 000 call. And it was you who made the assertion about the source being from FOI.

All I did was point out the facts around FOI access to 000 calls and why state actors breaching those legislated privacy provisions might be the bigger issue here - especially for those who make a claim to be libertarians demanding greater privacy and personal freedoms.

But rather than discussing the issue like an adult or admitting to your lack of knowledge - you pivot to parroting the empty and baseless personal political attack for someone daring to call you to account.

Why am I not surprised at your lack of self awareness here?

 

[JackFlash]

Dan the man should be in the slammer, not only for a cyclist accident, but for crimes against every Victorian..

 

[eddiesmith]

LOL - I wasn't the one who raised the issue of the source of the 000 call. And it was you who made the assertion about the source being from FOI.

All I did was point out the facts around FOI access to 000 calls and why state actors breaching those legislated privacy provisions might be the bigger issue here - especially for those who make a claim to be libertarians demanding greater privacy and personal freedoms.

But rather than discussing the issue like an adult or admitting to your lack of knowledge - you pivot to parroting the empty and baseless personal political attack for someone daring to call you to account.

Why am I not surprised at your lack of self awareness here?

lol, you’re the one who claimed that the person releasing the recording was far more interest to the public than the content as if some massive law was broken, bigger than cleaning up a cyclist and the police corruption that followed.

But I have far more knowledge of the releasing of these recordings than someone who read the 000VIC website…

 

[Festerz]

lol, you’re the one who claimed that the person releasing the recording was far more interest to the public

'LOL' indeed.

No I was talking about the 'public interest'. Not what generates the most click bait traffic on tabloid websites.

Yet again I am not surprised you don't understand the difference between 'public interest' and the populist 'interest of the public'. They are not interchangeable concepts despite what your cooker friends like Boogers might lead you to think.

Your ignorance defines you in terms of your posting history on BF. Surely you can't be happy with that?

But the shame is mine for following you down that wormhole, engaging with your idiocy and thus giving you a credibility you don't deserve. It won't happen again.

 

[eddiesmith]

Good riddance to any ass kissing fool who thinks the releasing of a 000 call is some unprecedented and terrible crime…

 

[AlwaysHawks15]

Im sure the IPA is impartial.

Oh wait.

Stating there's nothing to show for it is laughable too. NEL, Metro, Railway crossings etc build themselves do they? IPA have a vested interest in what the government should spend money on so this analysis should be taken with a grain of salt. Perhaps Labor told these guys to piss off somewhere along the line. Not disagreeing the finances are in a poor place right now just the way those statements were worded.

 

[AlwaysHawks15]

The debt and spending numbers contained in the IPA's report are able to be fact-checked as they are not a matter of opinion. So rather than go "teh IPA ?!??!" perhaps debunk the figures - if they are wrong, it should be simple.

Shouldn't the responsibility for clearing the PFAS have been clear in the initial agreements if they all knew it was there? Also, we should expect more of governments - it's not like a collection of people off the street with no alleged expertise in, you know, governing. Easily avoidable mistakes should be easily avoided.

The issue isn't the debt levels they have stated but trying to paint a picture of " nothing to show for it" is just political spin. If they truly cared about the economy and the state they would have listed some of the positive things the money that's been invested will achieve once completed but offset that with the unfortunate circumstances that have come with it. This is just them saying " Do things our way and you wouldn't have any of these problems" which is a load of garbage.

 

[AlwaysHawks15]

Kennett's strategy seemed to be austerity, cut funding (particularly if you were, say, in the arts and criticised his government), sack everyone, sell everything.

According to Sttew that was much better than how Andrews ran the state. I'd say because it may not of affected him personally so he couldn't care less how Kennett did things. The Conservative way of running things is always Austerity regardless of the situation and other alternatives. Outside of COVID if your biggest gripe with Andrews is he has racked up alot of debt than I reckon he could live with that. Much rather proactive government than a government that cuts services across the board than tells everybody to suck it we had no choice. Newman tried to do this in QLD and look how far it got him.

 

[AlwaysHawks15]

This is a thread about Daniel Andrews not Covid. It pays to consider context instead of sniping

COVID and Andrews are related are they not? You seem to bring up COVID alot so which is it? Is he or is he not responsible?.