tsf
Club Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2024
- Replies
- 2,768
Also before Iraq the bribery. They never faced anything for it.
On one hand they invade saying he has weapons of mass destruction but was fine for them to give him a handout
Australian news and politics.
- Thread starter Muz
- Start date
On one hand they invade saying he has weapons of mass destruction but was fine for them to give him a handout
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2024
- Replies
- 10,618
Youth work definitely made me nervous about the criminal justice system. Not saying it is completely broke, but judges put too much emphasis on how a kid presents themselves
There were some kids that i knew had no remorse who got away with anything because they could put on an act, and others who were reforming but didnt know how to present themselves in court who would get the judge coming down on them like a ton of bricks
There were some kids that i knew had no remorse who got away with anything because they could put on an act, and others who were reforming but didnt know how to present themselves in court who would get the judge coming down on them like a ton of bricks
patjennings
Vice Captain
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2024
- Replies
- 1,504
The call for a Royal commission is another political witch hunt by the Liberals who have a long and dirty of calling them and ignoring them.
We can go back to the The Costigan Commission (officially titled the Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union) was an Australian royal commission held in the 1980s. It was basically a hot job on unionism. Kerry Packer had been calling for it and famously as shown this past week appeared before it. While some minor illegality was found by the union the main findings surrounded the introduction of the 'bottom of the harbour tax schemes' introduced by John Howard. It was estimated that several thousand companies were involved, evading as much as $1 billion in tax.
No accountability for Howard though.
The Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption (2014-2015) was another politically motivated Royal Commission that was essentially a hit job on Bill Shorten and Julia Gillard. Both were found to have done nothing illegal.
Then look on the flip side at the Royal Commission into Robodebt by the the ALP. The final report was released on 7 July 2023. It contained a sealed section recommending the referral of (7) individuals for civil and criminal prosecution. No prosecution has been made to date.
So tell me - what will a Royal commission - with very specific terms of reference set by Sussan Ley make that will make any difference to our society and help protect the Jewish community.
The first part calls for a definition of antisemitism - like the one adopted by Scott Morrison in October 2021 and never challenged.
The second part then sets how far back the Commission will have to look at. It is limited to after October 7th 2023. So even though the release of Cabinet papers yesterday showed that hate speech and anti-semitism was a problem thirty years ago nothing was done in spite of the Minister's recommendations because of an unhealthy obsession of continuing to allow continuing hate speech. This would not be subject to the royal commission. Nor will the continued voting against hate speech restricting legislation continuing up until October 7th 2023 by Josh Frydenberg (he lost office in 2022).
So once again - this Royal commission is a hit job - with no interest in addressing real problems.
Would a Royal Commission do anything - possibly. Is it the only answer no. Is it the best answer - probably not given the lack of accountability and the political nature shown above.
We can go back to the The Costigan Commission (officially titled the Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union) was an Australian royal commission held in the 1980s. It was basically a hot job on unionism. Kerry Packer had been calling for it and famously as shown this past week appeared before it. While some minor illegality was found by the union the main findings surrounded the introduction of the 'bottom of the harbour tax schemes' introduced by John Howard. It was estimated that several thousand companies were involved, evading as much as $1 billion in tax.
No accountability for Howard though.
The Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption (2014-2015) was another politically motivated Royal Commission that was essentially a hit job on Bill Shorten and Julia Gillard. Both were found to have done nothing illegal.
Then look on the flip side at the Royal Commission into Robodebt by the the ALP. The final report was released on 7 July 2023. It contained a sealed section recommending the referral of (7) individuals for civil and criminal prosecution. No prosecution has been made to date.
So tell me - what will a Royal commission - with very specific terms of reference set by Sussan Ley make that will make any difference to our society and help protect the Jewish community.
The first part calls for a definition of antisemitism - like the one adopted by Scott Morrison in October 2021 and never challenged.
The second part then sets how far back the Commission will have to look at. It is limited to after October 7th 2023. So even though the release of Cabinet papers yesterday showed that hate speech and anti-semitism was a problem thirty years ago nothing was done in spite of the Minister's recommendations because of an unhealthy obsession of continuing to allow continuing hate speech. This would not be subject to the royal commission. Nor will the continued voting against hate speech restricting legislation continuing up until October 7th 2023 by Josh Frydenberg (he lost office in 2022).
So once again - this Royal commission is a hit job - with no interest in addressing real problems.
Would a Royal Commission do anything - possibly. Is it the only answer no. Is it the best answer - probably not given the lack of accountability and the political nature shown above.
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2024
- Replies
- 10,618
In Australia we use Royal commisions as one of the ways to hold powerful institutions accountable
in the USA the congress, which is usually explicitly partisan, does investigations and provides a similar function to royal commissions. They also have special councils which are also selected (mostly) by the dominant party in the house. Despite it being explicitly partisan in the usa, it has still been destructive to democracy in the USA for partisans to claim they are witchhunts and useless
in Australia, the royal commission has an independent head and is much less partisan. It isn't a perfect system - there is no perfect system that perfectly holds powerful people and institutions to account in a reliable and neutral way (the press, the vote, the judiciary). But, like most things in Australia, the royal commission is a pretty darn good system to maximise accountability and minimise partisanship. The example of the union RC you gave seems to show that RCs are pretty darn immune to partisan misuse, no equivalent of uncovering an affair and bringing a perjury charge.
I also don't think it is a good idea to hold royal commissions to a standard we wouldn't hold checks and balances to, by pointing out suggestions in past commissions that haven't been followed.The judiciary doesn't successfully convict all crimes, voters don't always vote for the best candidate (the one thing supporters of both parties would agree to!), the media doesn't uncover all corruption and even when they do it isn't always acted upon. The standard should be whether RCs uncover some new information and whether some of their actions are acted upon. That's about as good as elite accountability gets.
In the end democracy is nothing more than a system of checks and powers to prevent power from accumulating and shaking loose accountability. It seems really short sighted to undermine a key democratic institution....
patjennings
Vice Captain
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2024
- Replies
- 1,504
At the end of the day - why restrict s royal commission to October 2023. If Albanese held a proper one it would go back at least to the Howard Peacock wars and Howards slurs against Asians - the the rise of One Nation.
He would be accused by the same people politising this call for politicising the process. He is in a no win position. The Royal commission being proposed is useless. The one he could call (and probably should) would be de-railed. What he is doing is addressing the problem quickly
It is very easy to say that Albanese has done nothing since the October 7, 2023. The reality is quite different - whether you agree with what he has done or not. This is pure performance politics with little or no regard for the truth or for the victims. We've had some of the most hateful politicians in the last half century pretending to care about hate speech while there record is diammetrically opposed to it.
Since the October 7, 2023, attacks, the Albanese government has introduced new criminal laws, established specialized law enforcement operations, and appointed dedicated leadership to address rising antisemitism and hate speech.
Legislative Action and Law Enforcement
- Hate Crimes Legislation: In February 2025, the government passed the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill, which criminalized advocating or threatening force or violence against groups based on race or religion.
- Further Reforms (December 2025):Following the terrorist attack in Bondi, Albanese announced a suite of even tougher measures to be introduced:
- An "aggravated hate speech" offense specifically targeting preachers and leaders who promote violence.
- New powers for the Home Affairs Minister to cancel or reject visas for individuals who spread hate or division.
- A regime for listing organizations whose leaders engage in hate speech promoting violence.
- Nazi Symbol Bans: A landmark federal ban on the Nazi salute and public display of Nazi symbols came into effect in January 2024.
- Criminalizing Doxing: New laws were enacted to criminalize "doxing"—the malicious release of personal information—which was used to target members of the Jewish community.
- Operation Avalite: The Australian Federal Police (AFP) established a specialized operation to investigate threats, violence, and hatred directed at the Jewish community.
- Special Envoy: In July 2024, Albanese appointed Jillian Segal AO as Australia’s first Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism for a three-year term.
- Antisemitism Plan:In December 2025, the government formally adopted all 13 recommendations from the Special Envoy’s "Plan to Combat Antisemitism". This includes:
- Establishing a national hate crimes database.
- Forming an Antisemitism Education Taskforce, led by David Gonski, to address antisemitism in schools and universities.
- Creating a "university report card" to evaluate inclusivity for Jewish students and staff.
- Security Funding: The government committed approximately $57.5 million in additional funding for improved security at Jewish schools, synagogues, and community centers following the October 7 attacks.
- Torah Restoration: $250,000 was allocated to restore Torah scrolls damaged at the Adass Israel Synagogue.
All of this can be found with a simple google search. Maybe people should stop watching our partisan media. For the most balanced reporting I recommend SBS.
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2024
- Replies
- 10,618
Labour also implemented segels policy. So I'm definitely not saying Labour has done nothing. I would support it going back to oct 2023 because that is when we saw a huge surge in antisemitic hate crimes in Australia (which was before any response from israel. There also appears to be a similar surge after bondi. A dark side of human nature is that mistreating a group inspires people to mistreat that group). If it makes Labour more comfortable they can go back to 2016 when there was a smaller surge of right wing motivated antisemtic hate crimes after trump broke a bunch of taboos the center right had with distancing themselves from the hard right
A royal commission would help shed light on key institutions like academia where we haven't been able to stop antisemitism run riot in academia, I think I called for a royal commission back on this thread ages back before anyone else did. It would be a lot more professional and non-partisan than other methods. Interestingly heads of universities called for one
As leaders of universities, we demand an antisemitism royal commission
The call for a royal commission made by former chief justice of the High Court of Australia, Robert French, is not only reasonable, but necessary.
patjennings
Vice Captain
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2024
- Replies
- 1,504
Why only anti-semitic hate speech? Why only back to 2016? This is much more deep rooted than that. The performative politics around this Royal Commission is why it won't work. The terms of reference are too narrow, broadening them will be seen by those performing the performative politics (who have no interest in the actual outcome) as politicising by the PM.
He can't win - so why support a flawed Royal Commission. TBH - if the original investigation had been conducted in a bi-partisan manner one of the conclusions would probably have been a call for a much broader royal commission.
He can't win - so why support a flawed Royal Commission. TBH - if the original investigation had been conducted in a bi-partisan manner one of the conclusions would probably have been a call for a much broader royal commission.
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2024
- Replies
- 10,618
because there was an antisemitic hate crime that killed 15 people and has been a surge in anti semitic hate crimes since oct 7. NZ did a royal commission into islamophobia after the christchurch massacre rather than a royal commission into "all hate"
Home
christchurchattack.royalcommission.nz
There is a risk is that the Bondi attack causes more antisemitism and there are already signs in the data that this has happened
After Bondi Beach Hanukkah Massacre, Antisemitic Incidents in Australia Spike 600% | Combat Antisemitism Movement
Antisemitic activity in Australia intensified sharply in the immediate aftermath of the Bondi Beach Hanukkah massacre, with online and offline incidents Antisemitic incidents in Australia rose by 600% in the days following the Bondi Beach Hanukkah massacre, according to new data tracking online...
combatantisemitism.org
I will look at police data when it becomes available to compare stats
This is dark but pretty normal for human nature. Guess whether anti-islamic hate crimes spike more after a terrorist attack committed by muslims or against muslims? It isn't even close! Anti muslim hate crimes spiked in the uk by 100% after oct 7 but 600% after the Christchurch massacre
Anti-Muslim hate crimes soar in UK after Christchurch shootings
Exclusive: rise in number of incidents related to NZ attacks alarms community groups
www.theguardian.com
patjennings
Vice Captain
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2024
- Replies
- 1,504
What about my final line. It has been politicised.
In early 2026, the overwhelming moderate Liberal position on investigating the Bondi terror attack is characterized by a strategic preference for the Richardson Review as a more immediate, expert-led path compared to a multi-year Royal Commission.
While the broader Coalition leadership, including Opposition Leader Sussan Ley, has condemned the review as "insufficient" and a "cop out", most moderate voices and expert figures aligned with the faction favour the faster inquiry:
Moderate Liberal Alignment with the Richardson Review
Emphasis on Speed and Expertise: Moderates generally advocate for the Richardson Review because it is led by Dennis Richardson, a highly respected former ASIO chief. They argue that a rapid departmental review can deliver critical national security legislative changes by April 2026, whereas a Royal Commission could take years and potentially interfere with active criminal proceedings.
Simon Birmingham: As a former Liberal Senate leader and a key moderate figure, Birmingham has focused on the need for "healing and necessary changes". While he aligns with the party's calls for broader action on antisemitism, his rhetoric often prioritizes the expert-led security assessments that form the core of the Richardson Review.
Anne Ruston: Representing the moderate wing in the Senate, Ruston has historically prioritized evidence-based policy and expert advice. In the 2026 context, she is part of the factional group that views the Richardson Review as a "necessary first step" that should not be bypassed for a more politicized inquiry.
Former Leaders Turnbull and Hewson favour expert-led, non-politicized processes (like the Richardson Review) to avoid "weaponizing" the tragedy and to ensure swift legislative action by mid-2026.
Legal and Expert Resistance
Beyond politicians, moderate-aligned legal experts have publicly cautioned against a Royal Commission:
Robert Richter KC: A prominent legal figure often associated with moderate sensibilities, Richter has explicitly supported the Richardson Review over a Royal Commission.
Reasoning: He argued that a Royal Commission "will go for years" and that its definitions would be "argued about endlessly," whereas the current intelligence failure is a clear "stuff-up" that can be identified and fixed quickly through Richardson's targeted probe.
The Moderate Tactical Split
The moderate faction is not entirely unified against a Royal Commission but rather advocates for a phased approach:
Phase 1: Complete the Richardson Review by April 2026 to fix immediate gaps in intelligence sharing and agency actions.
Phase 2: Only pursue a Royal Commission if the initial review deems it necessary to address deeper societal roots of antisemitism.
This last point aligns with my final point in my post.
In early 2026, the overwhelming moderate Liberal position on investigating the Bondi terror attack is characterized by a strategic preference for the Richardson Review as a more immediate, expert-led path compared to a multi-year Royal Commission.
While the broader Coalition leadership, including Opposition Leader Sussan Ley, has condemned the review as "insufficient" and a "cop out", most moderate voices and expert figures aligned with the faction favour the faster inquiry:
Moderate Liberal Alignment with the Richardson Review
Emphasis on Speed and Expertise: Moderates generally advocate for the Richardson Review because it is led by Dennis Richardson, a highly respected former ASIO chief. They argue that a rapid departmental review can deliver critical national security legislative changes by April 2026, whereas a Royal Commission could take years and potentially interfere with active criminal proceedings.
Simon Birmingham: As a former Liberal Senate leader and a key moderate figure, Birmingham has focused on the need for "healing and necessary changes". While he aligns with the party's calls for broader action on antisemitism, his rhetoric often prioritizes the expert-led security assessments that form the core of the Richardson Review.
Anne Ruston: Representing the moderate wing in the Senate, Ruston has historically prioritized evidence-based policy and expert advice. In the 2026 context, she is part of the factional group that views the Richardson Review as a "necessary first step" that should not be bypassed for a more politicized inquiry.
Former Leaders Turnbull and Hewson favour expert-led, non-politicized processes (like the Richardson Review) to avoid "weaponizing" the tragedy and to ensure swift legislative action by mid-2026.
Legal and Expert Resistance
Beyond politicians, moderate-aligned legal experts have publicly cautioned against a Royal Commission:
Robert Richter KC: A prominent legal figure often associated with moderate sensibilities, Richter has explicitly supported the Richardson Review over a Royal Commission.
Reasoning: He argued that a Royal Commission "will go for years" and that its definitions would be "argued about endlessly," whereas the current intelligence failure is a clear "stuff-up" that can be identified and fixed quickly through Richardson's targeted probe.
The Moderate Tactical Split
The moderate faction is not entirely unified against a Royal Commission but rather advocates for a phased approach:
Phase 1: Complete the Richardson Review by April 2026 to fix immediate gaps in intelligence sharing and agency actions.
Phase 2: Only pursue a Royal Commission if the initial review deems it necessary to address deeper societal roots of antisemitism.
This last point aligns with my final point in my post.
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2024
- Replies
- 10,618
I cant speak to internal politics of liberal party since im a labour guy, what the libs do, including the moderates, that's their business.
What do u mean by politicizing a rc? What are the risks when talking about politicization? If you just mean its a point of political division that ship has sailed, I want Albanese to show courage to stand up to his own base.
If you mean that the results of a rc will be biased by politicization. Its not clear to me how a rc where the head is independent and the rc as well as the terms of reference are chosen by a labour government is going to be more partisan than an internal review. Would you trust a Catholic party, or a bank party, to have investigation limited to an internal review? Or suppose a conservative party responded to the christchurch attack with an internal review?
In any case, a rc and internal review is not incompatible with an rc and a phased approach where an rc only happens if necessary has the risk of making a biased choice of saying nothing is necessary because the problem is solved
patjennings
Vice Captain
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2024
- Replies
- 1,504
What do u mean by politicizing a rc? Sussan Ley, as well as Josh, Cash, Howard, Morrison, Abbott, Barnaby. and Hanson - among others.
For the Royal commission she has said - here's what I'm proposing and here's who I want on the Royal Commission panel. i.e. she has limited what can be investigated and by whom. There will be no opportunity to address anything before October 7 when in light of the Cabinet papers released on 1st January there has been latent anti-semitism and anti other minority rhetoric for at least 30 years. During the last 30 years everyone of those listed above has opposed anti-hate speech laws vehemently. Only now are they complaining.
So the proposed Royal Commission by definition is flawed.
In any case, a rc and internal review is not incompatible with an rc and a phased approach where an rc only happens if necessary has the risk of making a biased choice of saying nothing is necessary because the problem is solved
Not really - if it is quite easy to identify and correct flaws in operational they can be addressed quickly.
The rhetoric at the moment is that the causes all happened under the ALP - the truth is quite different. ASIO dropped surveillance under coalition. Immigration of the father under the Coalition. Gun license given under the Coalition. Ley's RC specifically excludes any discussion of this and their stance of at least 30 years,
In doing so, Mr Richardson will consider the circumstances in which the alleged offenders were assessed by agencies over time, to inform any adjustments that are necessary to the way that Commonwealth and state and territory law enforcement and intelligence agencies all interact with each other.
In particular, Mr Richardson will examine the following matters in relation to the Bondi terrorist attack:
The Richardson Review remains a critical factor in whether a federal Royal Commission will eventually occur:
For the Royal commission she has said - here's what I'm proposing and here's who I want on the Royal Commission panel. i.e. she has limited what can be investigated and by whom. There will be no opportunity to address anything before October 7 when in light of the Cabinet papers released on 1st January there has been latent anti-semitism and anti other minority rhetoric for at least 30 years. During the last 30 years everyone of those listed above has opposed anti-hate speech laws vehemently. Only now are they complaining.
So the proposed Royal Commission by definition is flawed.
In any case, a rc and internal review is not incompatible with an rc and a phased approach where an rc only happens if necessary has the risk of making a biased choice of saying nothing is necessary because the problem is solved
Not really - if it is quite easy to identify and correct flaws in operational they can be addressed quickly.
The rhetoric at the moment is that the causes all happened under the ALP - the truth is quite different. ASIO dropped surveillance under coalition. Immigration of the father under the Coalition. Gun license given under the Coalition. Ley's RC specifically excludes any discussion of this and their stance of at least 30 years,
In doing so, Mr Richardson will consider the circumstances in which the alleged offenders were assessed by agencies over time, to inform any adjustments that are necessary to the way that Commonwealth and state and territory law enforcement and intelligence agencies all interact with each other.
In particular, Mr Richardson will examine the following matters in relation to the Bondi terrorist attack:
- what relevant Commonwealth agencies knew about the alleged offenders before the attack, and when
- the interaction and information sharing between Commonwealth agencies, and between Commonwealth and state and territory agencies
- what judgements were made and actions taken by relevant agencies
- whether there were any additional measures that relevant Commonwealth agencies could have taken to prevent the terrorist attack
- whether relevant Commonwealth agencies were prevented from taking prohibitive actions by the current legislative framework and authorising environment
- what additional measures, if any, should be taken by relevant Commonwealth agencies to prevent similar attacks occurring in the future:
- whether they have adequate legislative powers, the right systems, processes and procedures, and an appropriate authorising environment for information sharing with other federal and state and territory agencies
- whether warrant and data access regimes and powers are adequate
- whether any legislative amendments are required.
The Richardson Review remains a critical factor in whether a federal Royal Commission will eventually occur:
- Ability to Recommend: While he cannot mandate it, Richardson can recommend the establishment of a Royal Commission in his final report if his findings suggest that deeper, long-term issues require powers beyond his current remit.
- Government Stance: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has repeatedly rejected calls for a federal Royal Commission, stating that the Richardson Review will provide answers faster (by April 2026) and avoid providing a platform for "the worst voices".
- Contingent Acceptance: Prominent legal experts and some government insiders have suggested that if Richardson's report reveals "something we don't know which is important and which must lead to a royal commission," the government may be forced to reconsider its position.
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2024
- Replies
- 10,618
Admittedly i had to check this and then double check with ai, but my understanding is that the head of a rc and the terms of reference are completely set by the government, so Susan Ley is completely irrelevant to the merits of a rc imo
My understanding is an internal review has less mechanisms to enforce independence, has more limited scope (just asio and police) and wouldnt look at antisemitism in australian institutions, and lacks the power to compel witnesses
The richardson review wouldnt even be able to collect the knowledge needed to ascertain whether an rc is needed in sectors it isnt reviewing, so even if the richardson avoids bias its recommendation on a rc wouldnt mean anything
My understanding is an internal review has less mechanisms to enforce independence, has more limited scope (just asio and police) and wouldnt look at antisemitism in australian institutions, and lacks the power to compel witnesses
The richardson review wouldnt even be able to collect the knowledge needed to ascertain whether an rc is needed in sectors it isnt reviewing, so even if the richardson avoids bias its recommendation on a rc wouldnt mean anything
patjennings
Vice Captain
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2024
- Replies
- 1,504
They are set by the government - but any attempt by Albanese to do that now is already tainted. He would be accused of politicising it by exactly the same people that politicised it originally.
Richardson has plenty of scope to look wherever he wants to and is not limited to how far he can look. I can identify stuff now under one of the terms that would easily lead to a Royal Commission - a proper one - not a tainted one.
- whether relevant Commonwealth agencies were prevented from taking prohibitive actions by the current legislative framework and authorising environment
To start with the right legislative framework would have addressed Howard's anti - Asian rhetoric from the mid 80's, later adopted by Hanson (who would have been curtailed as well). Alan Jones couldn't ferment the Cronulla riots - call for the dropping of the prime minster out of sea in a chaff bag and many other examples.
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2024
- Replies
- 10,618
is it any less risk of being tainted than an internal review which will definitely be called a fix. This sounds like caring about liberal party criticism more than caring about doing the right thing
A rc will be able to look at universities, the shut out of Jewish creatives from the creative sector and society as a whole, sectors that skew left. The fact that a rc would mean putting scrutiny on sectors that skew left is why it looks a lot more political to avoid a royal commission to please influential members of labours base
The last paragraph really concerns me, it is all lives mattering antisemitism again by making the inquiry into antisemitism diluted by making it about hate in general and areas in labours ideological comfort zone. Imagine if there was a bank scam involving fraud and theft and a conservative party refused a rc because the labour leader annoyed them and instead had an "expert led internal review on theft in gemeral" that intended to go back to left wing pundits from decades ago and youth crime. I think that would be deeply concerning!
LFC
Local Hero
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2024
- Replies
- 5,420
I think a RC should be actioned plain and simple.
Good the review is goi g ahead and brings out answers or scenarios in far shorter time but a RC will also get into far more detail and will compliment and enhance the review.
It’s complicated as we all know so do whatever you can for all concerned and right thing to do.
Patj what’s all the is passed history crap for - it’s passed we’re dealing with the now.
Albo was in charge 2yrs ago that is all that matters it’s the now and ahead.
I’m afraid in our worst tragedy in history there’s a price to pay if not having done or reacted enough having been warned many times that’s been reported.
Who cares what Gov is in what’s to care is all feel safe ahead especially those effected be white black religion etcetc that action/s can happen to prevent and stop the abuse in turn for the worse.
That’s all that matters
Good the review is goi g ahead and brings out answers or scenarios in far shorter time but a RC will also get into far more detail and will compliment and enhance the review.
It’s complicated as we all know so do whatever you can for all concerned and right thing to do.
Patj what’s all the is passed history crap for - it’s passed we’re dealing with the now.
Albo was in charge 2yrs ago that is all that matters it’s the now and ahead.
I’m afraid in our worst tragedy in history there’s a price to pay if not having done or reacted enough having been warned many times that’s been reported.
Who cares what Gov is in what’s to care is all feel safe ahead especially those effected be white black religion etcetc that action/s can happen to prevent and stop the abuse in turn for the worse.
That’s all that matters
patjennings
Vice Captain
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2024
- Replies
- 1,504
Agree in principle - but much had already been done (see my earlier post) and the rhetoric is nothing was done. The past is important because it laid the foundation to the 'I've got the right to be a bigot" mindset. In a civil society you absolutely do not have that right - go back to my stats on murders vs suicides. This is a growing problem - but mainly built on past. We are concentrating on anti-semitism but the problem is much larger and it is exacerbated by a 24 hour news cycle and social media.
We always had suicides caused by despair - but this is different. Sustained hate speech since the mid 1980s has turbocharged it. Look at the rise of Rupert Murdoch and the rise and influence of the CT group Mark Textor and Lynton Crosby. All of them started here and infected western democracies around the world. This includes Brexit, Trump. Roger Ailes, Newt Gingrich and the Tea Party we have been formenting hate here and exporting hate for close on 40 years.
A RC as proposed currently (going back to October 7th) just ignores the greater problem which is tantamount to doing nothing. The review is for the quick operational wins. A proper RC after the root causes have been identified will address the real issues.
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2024
- Replies
- 10,618
I agree anyone saying "nothing has been done" is harsh. To be honest i havent heard much of that but im in the uk away from the oz press
patjennings
Vice Captain
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2024
- Replies
- 1,504
That's all we hear.
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2024
- Replies
- 10,618
I guess the upside of the murdoch media empire is half the paper is sports, so i guess thats a bright side