March Election

[smoovy]

Nothing will ever get achieved if government's are frequently changed. Especially federally where the terms are only 3 years. Progress would stall.

In this case the only reason you could possibly vote for the opposition is complete dissatisfaction with the Labor Government. The blue side of politics in SA is hardly inspiring.

At the end of the day, the vast majority of the voting public are morons and are easily swayed by the Jedi mind tricks played by politicians.

 

[Cap]

At the end of the day, the vast majority of the voting public are morons and are easily swayed by the Jedi mind tricks played by politicians.

I love how Star Wars can be qouted for anything.

I wish they would use their mind tricks on the North Adealide Brigade to lighten up! I realise its only 10 decibels but I want to hear the ACDC concert like everyone else!

 

[Macjoe]

Oh yes, jo172.

"The only campaign idea I'm interested in and feel is necassary is an ICAC ..."
​

Your approach to politics in general makes good sense to me, but this is gold.

Johnnypanther, don't waste your vote - find a candidate who supports an ICAC.

My Soapbox.
​

 

[andrew23]

The 30 minute uninterrupted election debate is on Ch 10 tonight at the inconvienent time of 5:30pm. Seriously most people aren't even home yet, and the ones who are, are having dinner etc. There is a replay at 11:45pm, but still that's pretty late.

 

[jo172]

I'm tossing up watching the debate.

I find it usually accomplishes little but me yelling at a TV screen.

Meh, I'll give it a 5 minute go.

 

[-CG-]

Is it just me or does Mike Rann look old all of a sudden?

 

[Alex99]

I liked it how his opening statement was “when we were first elected people called us the rust bucket state, now we have out mo Joe back and they don’t call us that anymore”

Right oh randy, good to see you clearly not living in Adelaide.

 

[andrew23]

How is it really a fair debate anyway, when it is pre-recorded and the questions are probably already known by the two candidates. I did read that there may be another debate. It should be one of those things in the town hall (Like you see off The Simpsons haha), with the general public being able to ask questions which the politicians are unprepared about.

 

[jo172]

Watched most of it and Mike Rann is a disgrace to the state.

"Irresponsible for a politician to attend a rave party"

How dare politicians attempt to understand all culture, particularly potentially subversive culture in order to gain a better understanding of it.

"Outrageous that Isobel Redmond as Premier wouldn't interfere with the decisions of the Parole Board"

That's the most outrageous thing I've heard come out of a politician's mouth not named Adolf or Fred Nile. In no way should criminal sanctions and rehabilitation be a political rather than merit decision.

I finished that debate wondering where he was hiding his pitchfork and horns.

 

[jo172]

Is it just me or does Mike Rann look old all of a sudden?

His skin was disturbing pale white and his hair has gotten alot greyer.

Also looked really tired, one would care to guess alot of late night talks with Sasha?

 

[Blue Red and Gold]

His skin was disturbing pale white and his hair has gotten alot greyer.

Also looked really tired, one would care to guess alot of late night talks with Sasha?

He's not tired, he has been on the phone all morning haha

 

[twentydollarnote]

Jo all politicians are lying two faced bums not just rahn!

 

[jo172]

Jo all politicians are lying two faced bums not just rahn!

I wasn't calling him a moron who doesn't properly understand judicial independence or the role of the Executive government.

At times he's positively Stalinist

 

[-CG-]

His skin was disturbing pale white and his hair has gotten alot greyer.

Also looked really tired, one would care to guess alot of late night talks with Sasha?

Oddly enough Channel 7 stated that he had a 'makeup malfunction'.

 

[jo172]

Oddly enough Channel 7 stated that he had a 'makeup malfunction'.

Probably the preferable malfunction to do with wardrobe!

Do love the irony that the master of spin is getting unstuck on image!

 

[Southerntakeover]

I finished that debate wondering where he was hiding his pitchfork and horns.

Dont half go overboard do you?

 

[jo172]

Dont half go overboard do you?

As someone presumably informed would you not agree with me on those two points?

Pure populism at the expense of the people, a disgrace.

 

[Southerntakeover]

As someone presumably informed would you not agree with me on those two points?

I find your hysterical screeching particularly unappealing actually. Lets be honest, ive got to believe youve got a vested interest whether you'll admit it or not.

I also dont believe either point is even close to satanistic.

Just a question, whats your definition of judicial power?

 

[jo172]

I find your hysterical screeching particularly unappealing actually. Lets be honest, ive got to believe youve got a vested interest whether you'll admit it or not.

My vested interest is I want Mike Rann out of office which I've said repeatedly.

I have no party affiliations nor anything personal to gain (other than competent governance) from the results of this election.

Next you'll suggest I don't exist and should post my name and post code!

Just a question, whats your definition of judicial power?

I refuse to re-live 6 weeks on the nature of Chapter 3 Courts in this thread.

Any reasonable person knows that it is not the Premier's function to interfere with the parole board nor other justice issues.

By this test the Premier and Attorney-General are not reasonable people.

 

[Southerntakeover]

My vested interest is I want Mike Rann out of office which I've said repeatedly.

I have no party affiliations nor anything personal to gain (other than competent governance) from the results of this election.

Next you'll suggest I don't exist and should post my name and post code!

I find it hard to believe someone with no vested interest would carry on in the manner you do.

Perhaps, if you're really telling the truth, you should seek professional help?

I refuse to re-live 6 weeks on the nature of Chapter 3 Courts in this thread.

Any reasonable person knows that it is not the Premier's function to interfere with the parole board nor other justice issues.

By this test the Premier and Attorney-General are not reasonable people.

Look, for the record, i wasnt actually trying to trap you or anything. Its just an interesting question. Is the parole board actually a member of the judiciary? Or are they simply part of the process administering justice. Are they actually sentencing, or simply part of the enforcement of the court applied sentence?

You say the Government has no role getting involved in the justice system, but thats clearly not true. The justice system encompasses far more than just the Judicial arm, you know that.

 

[beagle2]

Is it just me or does Mike Rann look old all of a sudden?

Stood next to him at the Aldinga leg of the bike race and thought exactly the same thing Remarked onit to my wife

 

[jo172]

I find it hard to believe someone with no vested interest would carry on in the manner you do.

I've grown up in and around the legal industry. I can assure you that my views on Rann/Atkinson are moderate.

Perhaps, if you're really telling the truth, you should seek professional help?

I wonder if I go through your post history (Ok we both know I don't have the time or inclination, well scratch that, I have the time) I'm guessing you don't patronise people who said similar things about John Howard/GWB like that?

You don't have any vested interests you'd like to share?

Your constant playing of me and not the ball (or even the politicians) makes me think you don't actually diagree with me. At this point your conscious just can't stomach the fact that Labor is the Conservative party in this state.

Is the parole board actually a member of the judiciary? Or are they simply part of the process administering justice. Are they actually sentencing, or simply part of the enforcement of the court applied sentence?

Simply I talked loosely. It does not exercise judicial power.

However, it should still be independent.

Whilst it participates in the administration and enforcement of sanctions enforced by the judiciary it is improper for them to be overruled for political considerations.

It's just a step on the long downward spiral to mob rule.

You say the Government has no role getting involved in the justice system, but thats clearly not true. The justice system encompasses far more than just the Judicial arm, you know that.

When you start talking like that we have to consider the word government. I assume we're talking about the Executive.

And yes, the Executive has many roles in the administration and enforcement of justice.

There are however two important qualifications here, this should never be in a situation where bias could potentially occur nor in an adjudicative function.

Roles in the administration and enforcement of justice where bias could potentially occur such as in the prosecution, court services and as we're talking about now parole boards must be strictly independent and apolitical.

The attack on the Parole Board during this term has been a symptom of a larger problem such as Atkinson's attack on Cannon, Hood's attack on Shaw, "Mullet Haired Lawyers", the continual cutting of funding to the CAA, the interference with the appointment of Queen's Counsel and the steadfast refusal to allow an ICAC.

Rann Co is at it's happiest when appealing to the lowest common denominator at the expense of some of the basic principles of our justice system.

EDIT - I also forgot to mention the complete cluster**** that was the Legal Professions Bill

 

[Southerntakeover]

Is it just me or does Mike Rann look old all of a sudden?

Was actively impersonating a zombie today i believe.

 

[Cap]

all I know is that the scare tatics used by Rann are quite amusing.

he is obviously a bit more worried that he is giving off. THe funniest are the ads based on throw away lines by Isobel

 

[Southerntakeover]

I've grown up in and around the legal industry. I can assure you that my views on Rann/Atkinson are moderate.

Thats super.

I wonder if I go through your post history (Ok we both know I don't have the time or inclination, well scratch that, I have the time) I'm guessing you don't patronise people who said similar things about John Howard/GWB like that?

Feel free to pick through all 9 and a half thousand of them. Theres some gold in there from 2006, 07 etc id bet.

To be honest, ive for the most part avoided political discussion on this site for the same reasons ive found your posting on the state election so unappealing. One track minded zealots picking through articles gibbets to post that vaguely support their side doesnt particularly interest me.

You don't have any vested interests you'd like to share?

State wise? Nope. Personally dont even see the purpose of them anymore. Certainly no emotional attachment to any real major figure since Peter Lewis and his crazy rants dried up. I probably still have an aversion to Lucas, but thats about it.

In actuality, Lucas excluded the two people in state politics i have the biggest aversion to are Lomax-Smith and Atkinson, but thats neither here nor there.

Funnily enough, thinking back, the best example of my vested interest would have been in the Teachers strike thread, where i was very much anti the Governments stance.

Your constant playing of me and not the ball (or even the politicians) makes me think you don't actually diagree with me. At this point your conscious just can't stomach the fact that Labor is the Conservative party in this state.

No, its just context really. When you post your opinion, small considerations like whether or not this issue transforms you into a raving loon are considered.

Simply I talked loosely. It does not exercise judicial power.

Calling someone out on not understanding Judicial Independence probably isnt the right time to 'talk loosely'.

However, it should still be independent.

Tend to agree. Their independence is crucial. As is their competency. Problems arise when the second raises questions about the first.

Dont forget though, its never going to be completely independent. Members are appointed by the Governor according to statutory guidelines, which state amongst other things "One member must be a qualified medical practitioner who has extensive knowledge and experience in psychiatry. One member must a qualified social worker or sociologist and one member must be a person of Aboriginal descent."

The point being, they're a statutory body appointed under statutory guidelines, created by the legislature and administered by the executive. The measure in which they're truely independent is questionable.

Whilst it participates in the administration and enforcement of sanctions enforced by the judiciary it is improper for them to be overruled for political considerations.

It's just a step on the long downward spiral to mob rule.

Ok, key error. The judiciary doesnt enforce sanctions, it sets them. The Executive enforces them.

I agree that i do not want these decisions reviewed by politicians on a case by case body, however, if, they belong in the executive arm (im still not positive on this... further research is required), then the Doctorine of Responsible Government would suggest that the ultimate responsibility for their performance rests with the relevant minister....

The second sentence is what i mean about hysterical comments. Your points would be much more compelling if youd leave out the ridiculous chicken little statements Jo.

When you start talking like that we have to consider the word government. I assume we're talking about the Executive.

'Big G' Government, yes.

And yes, the Executive has many roles in the administration and enforcement of justice.

There are however two important qualifications here, this should never be in a situation where bias could potentially occur nor in an adjudicative function.

Roles in the administration and enforcement of justice where bias could potentially occur such as in the prosecution, court services and as we're talking about now parole boards must be strictly independent and apolitical.

Unfortunately Jo, it could be argued that bias already exists within the system. See again the requirements per the make up of the parole board members.

The question becomes, when there is a break down in the performance of the parole board, what is the remedy?