Jerry_Atrick

.

Ya' know, there's something on the internet about everything

If this is true, it shows he is not stoopid, but quite a cunning bar steward: https://youtube.com/shorts/-Abt7-FwZwY?si=1dfMH-kRKGLEHotH

Yes.. And keeping us on power generated using fossil fuels will result in the same. Absolutely right. I saw the inside of a turbine hall about 6 months after the shaft ate itself up while under full load.. it wasn't pretty and extremely lucky people weren't in the hall at the time. Turns out, it would be more than a year offline. At £1m/day lost revenue (it was a nuke), that was a hefty cost. Can't recall what the overall repair bill was.

He is in good company... I keep forgetting to shave lately, too

Hmm can be one of two things: 1. He is a bad credit risk and/or they don't really like him much; or 2. They're not really worth $1bn (well, not in liquid assets). Of course, the reality is that they probably own companies and property, so they can't really get their hands on it quickly themselves, and even if they could, there may well be taz and or impropriety issues. (I know the last one is something the Trump family care little of).

This is probably what @nomadpete is referring to? https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-17/nsw-police-shot-western-sydney-man-bradley-balzan-inquest/103592578

The results are almost in and look like this: With 4 seats in doubt (and I don't know the top 2, but lets assume Lab and Lib), it is possible that the Libs could nab 17 seats. If they did that, they probably could form a minority government without giving away too much. Let's assume they stay where they are; LNP will need the confindence of the JLN, the independents, and at least 1 green to form a minority government. Given, as I have read, the independents are not likely to want to support the Libs, and the JLN MPs are not great supports of the Libs, and the Greens are diametrically opposed to the Libs, if the Libs want to stay in government with this result, they may well have to concede a lot more than they are comfortable with in terms of policy and integrity. On the numbers, Labor can form a minority government as well, but they will need all of the non-major MPs to side with them, and the JLN, albeit critical of the Libs, are not exactly soul mates with Labor. By the sheer numbers Labor would have to garner, they would have to give up a lot, anyway, but with the JLN, they may well have to move to the high end of the discomfort zone. This may well end up in a hung parliament and another election, or a very shakey coalition that stumbles at the first hurdle and an early election is called. I have no idea of the geenral political disposition of Tassie, but I guess as the last standing blue state, it wouldn't be an illogical conclusion to draw that it is conservative. This is not a good night for the Libs, but it is also not a good night for Labor. Often disenfranchised voters will vote in the others, even if they are incompetent, on the basis that the incumbents aren't doing well and may as well give the others a try - it can't be worse - which is what I think some of the federal election was - not that they won, but the the LNP lost. That Labor couldn't manage it in Tassie is a_ because the conservative bias is simply too strong, or b) that they are not well thought of in what is happening federally, either. Although a small state that probably has only a small effect on the federal elections, Albo should take note of this, too.

I don't think Australia has the appetite for nuclear weapons. However, as @Mr.Vegemite says, it would be folly to think we could not develop our own. They may not be equivalent of the latest that US, UK, or France has, and possibly Russia, China, or North Korea, but I think we know enough about hoe to make them, and have all the raw materials and engineering capability to build the tooling/plants, and then build them. We also have the raw materials for the energy/ammo, and we have established nulcear testing sites already (though they may want to be refined a bit - like be done underground). But, as soon as it becomes known we have or are building the capability - and for some reason I think it would be a secret we would find hard to hide - unless done with the cooperation with our allies, it will probably strain relations there. And, at the same time, it will make us a prime target of those who are not as friendly to us as our allies. So, an easier way to become a prime target is to invite one of our allies to establish bases for themselves here? That way we get the tech, the people to operate it, and become a prime target. As we will not naturally be the aggressor, we will only usew them to defend ourselves. If the allies assets are under attack here, they will retaliate, too.

Care to provide numbers where the law (and we mean courts) got it wrong? Are we talking various branches of public law (criminal, taxation, etc) or private/civil law (tort, contract,defamation, etc). Is it the advesarial system that gets the law wrong, or is the law wrong? And, wrong in what way - your or my personal assessment or those of 12 people on the jury that hear the facts without relying on news reporting, etc, judges in non-jury cases who I would have to say are more expert and have probably seen a lot more than you or I in their field. Even if we read the court reports rather than rely on reporting, you are reading a media which does not convey the vast majority of what is involved in human communication - body language and inflection. So, where the attendees of the whole trial can make up their mind of the credibility of a witness or exhibit, it is harder to do that purely from the written word of a court report. This is correct. The other tenet of our system is the adversarial system of law.. .which means the plaintiff/prosecution and defence are like two teams fighting each other to get a winner and loser. The idea is that through this apprach, the truth will emerge - or at least who is the more believable. This is in stark contrast to the European system, which is inquisitorial and works of a general code of laws. This is known as a civil legal system after the first Rome code of law known as Corpus Juris Civilis, introduced by the Roman emperor Justinian. Most of the European code across most central and western European countries is based off the Napoleon code. In the inquisitorial or civil system of law, the judge in like the lead investigator and is supported by counsel for the plantiff/prosecution and defence. There is no jury. Although the are not bound by their previous case decisions, they often refer to them to determine the outcome. There are advantages and disadvantages in both, to be honest. I can point to cases for both legal systems were the outcome was perverse; and similary I can point to many more cases in both legal systems where the outcomes seemed perfectly logical. In my personal view, a sort of hybrid approach will get us to a better outcome inquiditorial in which the preceding cases need a good reason not to be applied, but also a jury )there is none in the inquisitorial model) that acts as a check and balance.. there have been some cases where juries have found the just outcome amidst the legal and prfessional experts leaning the wrong way. One issue with the adversarial system is, of course, it assumes representatives for both sides are of equal calibre. This is obviosuly not the case. I can't comment in plenty of High Court decisions, because I don't know them. Which ones in particular are you (and Peter) relating to? Of course judges get it wrong, historically, and contemporaneoulsy. But there are three checks and balances on that: 1) An appeal - utlimately to the appeals bench of the High Court. Now,, appeals generally occur if there is a good chance of an error of law, or on a procedural issue, such as being deined a fair trial because of some direction. Generally speaking, one can't bring an appeal on a question of fact. However, a point of law may be that a pevious case (or more often the case, a series of previous cases - it is rare only one case will be cited) has been incorrectly applied to the facts, or the facts are sufficiently different as to warrant a review of the applied decisions. 2) The parliament has the power to override any common law, so if it is that bad, and there is enough will, parliament can fix it. And they have in the past. The third, is a little more esoteric, but I thinnk in around 1850 or so, the law of Equity, which intorduced to offset the hard effects of early common law practice in the 16th century has been combined with the common law, so if an unreasnable outcome would occur in applying the common law, the judge can grant equitable relief. I agree with this, but I don't think there is any system of law where this does not happen - maybe anarchy? What are the numbers - do global civil legal systems result in less wrongful incarcerations than common law systems? I would hesitate to use one county to compare to another, because there are local cultural issues. The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody points to a dire bias against Aboriginals in the justice system; many have been freed after length times in jail because of finally being proven innocent on evidence that would not normally result in a white fella's conviction. I am not sure the same holds in Canada, for example. And also, how do you prove of those who are in current incarceration are or are not there legitimately - a country's appeal system may not be effective enough to find out the truth, so it may just appear that there are not many wrong incarcerations because they never really entertain an appeal. In Japan, it is pretty well accepted that if you are charged with an offence, you are going to be convicted; the acquittal rate is extremely low - 0.1%. People reason this is because Jaspanese prosecutors will not prosecute anyone unless they are 99.9% sure they will get a conviction. That may be the case, but I would question what is the bar for getting a conviction, then. I personally know the facts and the laws that applied to a case where the defendants were convicted and sent to jail in Japan. Under both Australian and, at the time, European law, which is largely the same in Japan in this area, they probably would not have even been charged. This is simply not true. Precent allows a far more dynamic evolution of the law that statute. Yes, there are "binding" precedents on the lower courts. The most obvious one in Australia that dynamically developed the law where parliament was going nowhere near is the Australian Doctrine of Native Title. The Mabo [No 2] case In 1992, the High Court held that the declaration of terra nullius, which allowed Australia to be settled rather than colonised by treaty giving regards to the rights of the indigenous population required by conquest. It overturned it based on English (and "international", or largely European) law that applied at the time, not as it is now. By making the delcaration of terra nullius illegal, which overturned centuries of common law cases (see R v Murrell (1836)), it proves that historical decisions are not held sacrosanct. Of course, now the court was faced with a bit of a dilemma - if it were to find that settlement of Australia was illegal, then theoretically, in light of there being no treaty to recognise indigenous rights, colonisation and reception of British Law into Australia would be illegal to, and the land would revert to the descendants of indigenous people. That would not be good, so they invented to common law doctrine of native title, recognising rights in what seems to be a practical way to avoid that. Then the parliament decided it was time to refine it somewhat witht he Native Titles Act. Another example is the UK case of White v White (2000). Prior to this, the common law required that in the case of a divorce, the dependent (ex) spouse was entitled to a property settlement that would keep her (as it was in those days) in teh same standard of living that she enoyed at the time of the divvorce. So, before a wealth bloke was to leave her, he would tone down the lifestyle significantly about a year earlier, and then the courts would award her a much smaller amount and the wealthy breadwinner would take a nice packet to himself, despite her working with the business or making sure everythig else was done so he could focus solely on the business. White v White changed the comon law to be equal settlement (subject to some conditions - such as taking away the value of the pre-marital assets, conduct during the marriage, whether or not there are dependents at home, etc). With precedent, previous decisions oof cases with the same facts are binding on the lower couts of a jurisdiction. The courts where the decision was made are usually able to overturn the common law decision they made, and higher ones certainly can. Often courts will differentiate a case by the most marginal difference in a fact and call it material enough to alter the decision (not totally disregard previous precedent). Where it can't be and a judge has to apply binding precedent, they can apply equitable relief to that judgement. If for some reason that can't be done, the jusge will apply the unfair decision and usually grant immediate leave to appeal to the court that can review the decision. Of course, as with native title, Parliament can change something that is deemed needing change. Buying judges can happen with any legal system - it is not the sole preserve of a common law system. Thsi would be more about the political and constitutional arrangements than any legal system itself. The US is a prime example - political appointees are generally not a great thing for indepdentnt justice, but this is totally separate to whether it is a common law or inquisitorial system. Note, Louisianna is an inquisitorial/.civil law state and they have the same aappointment process. Often people get hung up about how something was not fair in a court trial - usually how the truth was shut down.. or how someone got off on a technicality or something. This is not the result of common law; this can happen in inquisitorial systems and often does. This is the result of procedural law - the operation of the courts, or the law of evidence. Vuirtually all of this is codified in statute these days, and only interpretive cases clarify some of the law where it is vague. [Edit] The reality is there is no certain outcome in any legal system for a case, and by definition a common law and inquisitorial system are reactive - meaning the law is only delcared when a case comes to court, where is a statute is proactive - it is declared as the result of its enactment.

It's not limited to EVs.. Here is the article; they are reporting with the example of a driver who happens to drive an EV: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/technology/carmakers-driver-tracking-insurance.html Regardless of the car you buy, check whether it has Internet connectivity

Reminded me of the second Chicken Run movie.

Re convicitng for murder without the body, it is possible based on very strong cicumstantial evidence. It uis highly unlikely the missing person is alive as well.. The standard of proof is still beyiond reasonable doubt. Under English law, 10 of the 12 jurours are required to find guilt beyond reasonable dount. Reasonable doubt is not given any quantitative bar; it is the normal use of the English language that determines its meaning and it is subjective to each juror. The only direction to what reasonable amount means is ins Australian law (well between English and Australian law) in which a judge determined it is beyond balance of probabilities. Under UK law, that would be in excess of 51% sure. Going back to circumstantial evidence - the judge (under English law and I recall at least under the state of Victoria's law) has the power to direct a jury to find not guilty. The judge can use this when the evidence is simply not strong enough - especially when circumstantial. The miscariages of justice by utilising technology such as DNA many years after the conviction applies equally to those csaes whee the body was and was not found.

Agree, Marty. I am not familiar with Aussie or Vic contract law, but even if it were in ther Ts and Cs, it because of the pootential impact on her not having the eqivalent enjoyment, that term that they could sell would may have to be prominently displayed, or if she bought somethign akin to a standy ticket. ACCC would be your best bet

As does this WA magistrate: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-22/geraldton-magistrate-blasts-parental-neglect-of-accused-teenager/103617042

https://youtube.com/shorts/-G1YpjsncsI?si=QhtZDKvtiFRLdjud

Well, this week so far has been.. interesting. Monday was no worries; in fact, the only downer on Monday was hit clocking past midnight. Tuesday morning - 3am and I am up and getting into my car. My phone slips out of my grip and I drop it just like I have done a thousand times before. Unlike previous times, this time, it shatters the screen. F! But, I ascertain it works, which is good because even those my commute starts 170 miles from where I work, I get in before others, so I can still log into my desktop at work without having to wait for the help desk brigade to arrive. I had a fantastic drive to work.. Almost the whole way, there was not a car that overtook me, nor one that I overtook. Apart from the oncoming cars, it was like I had the rooad to myself - not a tailight in front nor headlights behind. Then I had to take a diversion/detour.. not 100 metres into it, and a thwack on the windscreen and a decent sized chip. No probs, except on Friday, I have to have the car in for an MOT (RWC) to renew the rego, and if it does not pass on Friday, the car is grounded as Friday is the expiry date (I had it in fo last week, but had to delay because of being in London longer than I wanted to be). I was a little miffed and yelledd a couple of expletives, but settled down quickly. I thought next would be the specs I was wearing. I got to work and there were a few niggles. but nothing to remember. On the train back to Richmond ready for a bite at the pub and to finish my assignement, and an old acquaintance from the area and I bumped into each other. A great chat, and next week, we are having dinner at the pub.. He and his wife are a lovely couple and just downright friendly... Althogh about 50, he is about to retire, and he an dhis wofe are thinking of moving back to Germany. Yesterday, started wll, and ended rather poorly.. Work things went a little in the shape of a pear that had been stomped on.On the train back to the car, I was a little, er.. restless. But, I had the whole of what used to be first class to myself (a lot of people haven't cottoned on that some of the routes no longer officially have first class), Managed to get some work done; jumped in the car, going through road works, the bus breaks down and blocks both ways. F! Have to take a nuisance of a detour. But once settled into the motorway drive, I am able to relax, and although it is night, take in the sights The traffic is light, and I stop for a bite (worst ever motorway services food I have had).. I stop twice more and end up home at a decent hour. Oh yeah, almost forgot.. have been interviewing like crazy for a new hire. The agencies sent people with superb CVs.. One candidate had the knowledge and experience but was so far up his own orafice, he could re-pre-digest the food he ate for breakfast if he wanted to. The other was so nice as a bloke but could not really talk to what we wanted him to talk to on his CV. Todayt we interviewed the diversity and inclsuion candidate.. CV had just enough on it to qualify and to be honest, it I didn't know she was either female or shemale (she has the same name as a famous Kinks song), she would not have made the cut. Well, to top off the D&I tick box, she is balck as well. And she was not only the best candidate by a mile for this role, but he best candidate I have seen for a very long time (she did work at one of the firms I previously worked, and on the systems I worked, so I grilled her, and she was right on the money). Tring to get her in front of stakeholders and if they like her, she is in the door. Today was fraught with more emergency meetings, and what I call career limiting emails and discussions, and the day ends with a positive - and internal stakeholder and I had a meeting and he was extemely supportive of what I am trying to do - an dimportanly his boss, who is a senior exec is also extremely supportive. I closed down the computer to chat to you fellas. Yeah, there were a few hiccups, but if they are bad, we have cause to celebrate much more good. (BTW, Wolfie has just joined me now.. Unless Grant Burge comes along, I would say does it get any better than this?)