Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
Why would anyone sit on a Board that is meaningless, just for the money?
Oh and I sense the role is about status
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why would anyone sit on a Board that is meaningless, just for the money?
Yep, exactly...for the money..Why would anyone sit on a Board that is meaningless, just for the money?
So you want politicians who won't abide by their own Ministerial Charter to remedy the ABC?
IF you read what was said, if the Board does not have the power, the Government should remedy that, aka give the Board the power to enforce the ABC Charter.
Happy to fund the national broadcaster, its a 2 way street, the Charter outlines the 't's & c's'.
Indeed. What goes on by a few here is just another false equivalence.More muddying of the waters.
Not printing RW garbage to placate the RWFWs is not a breach of the ABC Charter regardless of how many RWFWs claim it is.
The ABC has been under intense scrutiny for the last decade, only because RWFWs in govt think it should be disbanded.
In that decade of increased scrutiny, has there been a breach of its Charter? NO!!!
In that decade how many govt Ministers have rorted?
It is no more than a RWFW talking point that the ABC is in any way breaching its Charter.
More muddying of the waters.
Not printing RW garbage to placate the RWFWs is not a breach of the ABC Charter regardless of how many RWFWs claim it is.
The ABC has been under intense scrutiny for the last decade, only because RWFWs in govt think it should be disbanded.
In that decade of increased scrutiny, has there been a breach of its Charter? NO!!!
In that decade how many govt Ministers have rorted?
It is no more than a RWFW talking point that the ABC is in any way breaching its Charter.
Sadly you actually believe that nonsense & repeat it. THink for yourself.
What nonsense?
The only people that promote the idea that the ABC breaches its Charter are RWFW.
David Speers heads one of its headline political programs. David Speers, formerly of Sky.
You're just hear parrotting some more Murdoch lines, as per usual.
When will you actually post something that isn't a regurgitation of Murdoch garbage? When?
Could you demonstrate the 'misleading and deceptive conduct', please?poor quality journalism that engages in misleading and deceptive conduct
we deserve better and the ABC should be reformed or wound up
No. no . no. you have the general voters mixed up with the cretins that people vote into power.Also seem to vote with a lot more self interest than any notion of the 'collective
Never. I’d hope that was a rhetorical question.What nonsense?
The only people that promote the idea that the ABC breaches its Charter are RWFW.
David Speers heads one of its headline political programs. David Speers, formerly of Sky.
You're just hear parrotting some more Murdoch lines, as per usual.
When will you actually post something that isn't a regurgitation of Murdoch garbage? When?
Spears is the only one at the ABC who is prepared to put the hard questions to Labor, as was evidenced last week on the Insiders. Every time a Labor politician comes on they just take cheap shots at the Govt. The current ALP team reminds me of an aging AFL team past its best. Albanese, Chalmers, Wong, Shorten, Plibersek Dreyfus, Butler...all been around a long time, and have achieved nothing but ensuring they live on a fat pension.What nonsense?
The only people that promote the idea that the ABC breaches its Charter are RWFW.
David Speers heads one of its headline political programs. David Speers, formerly of Sky.
You're just hear parrotting some more Murdoch lines, as per usual.
When will you actually post something that isn't a regurgitation of Murdoch garbage? When?
Spears is the only one at the ABC who is prepared to put the hard questions to Labor, as was evidenced last week on the Insiders. Every time a Labor politician comes on they just take cheap shots at the Govt. The current ALP team reminds me of an aging AFL team past its best. Albanese, Chalmers, Wong, Shorten, Plibersek Dreyfus, Butler...all been around a long time, and have achieved nothing but ensuring they live on a fat pension.
Dude please hahaha.I'd be better off voting Liberal any day of the week
I'd rather see an federal ICAC.
In other news the wheels of justice are glacial. I'm sure victims of crime could mount a similar argument and I don't see the Oz arguing their corner all that often.Good to see the NSW ICAC stood up in the rerun of the Eddie Obeid/Ian McDonald appeal:
This week’s conviction of former NSW ministers Ian Macdonald and Eddie Obeid, along with Obeid’s son Moses, is a major achievement.
It shows that the justice system can provide a fair trial for public figures despite immense prejudicial publicity.
But that achievement has also highlighted institutional flaws that caused ludicrous delays in bringing these men to justice.
Instead of giving priority to the prompt enforcement of the law, the case against the Obeids and Macdonald was subjected to a fractured system in which delays were inevitable. Different institutions applied different rules.
The conduct that gave rise to this week’s convictions took place up to 14 years ago and was reported to authorities more than a decade ago.
A large part of the responsibility for this delay must rest with the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption. One of its own reports shows it received a tip-off in February, 2011, and only produced a report on the Obeids and Macdonald two years and five months later in July, 2013.
Some have described this week’s convictions as a triumph for ICAC. A letter to the editor of this newspaper even said it had strengthened the case for a federal ICAC. Neither is true.
The only triumph is that of Justice Elizabeth Fullerton. She used all the tools at her disposal in a determined effort to ensure Macdonald and the Obeids received a fair trial.
She was worried about the prejudicial impact on potential jurors of the massive adverse publicity that was clearly related to accusations at an ICAC public hearing and the equally sensational media coverage.
In September, 2019, Fullerton was still intent on having this matter dealt with in the normal manner – by a jury. So she issued a temporary stay order because of what she said was “an unacceptable risk that the right of each of the accused to a fair trial would be prejudiced because of the intensity, proximity and nature of the pre-trial publicity where the accused are referred to in adverse terms”.
In December, 2019, the frenzy had not subsided and had even gained impetus because of a separate ICAC inquiry. Fullerton reluctantly ordered a judge-alone trial.
“The notoriety of the accused Edward Obeid and Mr Macdonald, and the opprobrium with which their affairs continue to be reported upon in the media (largely, it would seem, triggered by the recent [unrelated] ICAC inquiries which are current and continuing) is productive of what I consider to be a very real risk of a prospective juror being actually infected by the media coverage to date, or an equally real risk that further coverage of matters of public importance where the accused are named, or their conduct referenced, will result in the trial being aborted after it commences,” Fullerton’s judgment says.
Moses Obeid. Picture: Jane Dempster
This judge felt duty-bound to delay the case and then preside without a jury in order to protect the right to a fair trial. She was right to do so. The public prejudice generated by ICAC was real, long-lasting and threatened this trial.
This gives rise to two issues: is it responsible for the NSW parliament to allow ICAC to intentionally generate community prejudice that has an impact on potential jurors when it is foreseeable that the people concerned are likely to face jury trials? A journalist who did that would face contempt proceedings.
And why should judges be required to change or delay court processes to accommodate ICAC’s desire for publicity? Real trials are more important than show trials.
We are yet to learn whether Macdonald and the Obeids will appeal. As recent cases have shown, public damnation of those convicted of serious offences is best reserved until the entire legal process is concluded.
But some things are already clear: if the Morrison government proceeds with a federal ICAC it should be an integrated and orthodox part of the justice system that adheres to the same rules. Based on this case, the alternative is inconsistency, investigations that run for years and more threats to the right to a fair trial.
The NSW system should be avoided. In that state, coercion, publicity, prejudice and show trials are more important to some policymakers than the community’s expectation that wrongdoers like the Obeids and Macdonald will be brought before a court and dealt with promptly.
Delays of this magnitude are bad enough when they affect the guilty. But what if they were to affect the innocent?
NoCookies | The Australian
www.theaustralian.com.au
In other news the wheels of justice are glacial. I'm sure victims of crime could mount a similar argument and I don't see the Oz arguing their corner all that often.
15 seats decide any election. The rest go to plan. This is why both Parties pander to a particular demographic that is sitting in a marginal seat.I doubt the average voter actually exists because Australia's political landscape is very demographically diverse.
A few elections ago, I read that statistically the most middle Australian electorate was Wills in Melbourne's north.
15 seats decide any election. The rest go to plan. This is why both Parties pander to a particular demographic that is sitting in a marginal seat.
...and this is why both political parties are identical.True but if we look at the marginal seats they are not all alike.
...and this is why both political parties are identical.