Australian Politics General...

[basilio]

Interesting when you consider what you say in context, this guy was sent to jail for selling hard drugs as a teenager, but that is o.k because he is an exceptional administrator, Porter was accused of a crime as a teenager and you wanted him strung up from the tree on the outskirts of town, without due process.

Have to disagree with you on so many points SP

Michael Coutts-Trotter went to jail as 19 year for selling hard drugs. On release and over his subsequent life he proved himself to be exceptionally capable and I assume a principled person. He never hid his original crime. In that context viewing him as a 56 year person one sees what he has achieved and can offer since he came out of jail rather than the behaviour as a 19 year old

Christian Porter on the other hand ? He was accused of a particularly nasty rape which allegedly occurred as a 17 year old on a young woman he had been friends with. Currently there is insufficient legal evidence to convict him of rape in a criminal trial. There may still be a private prosecution. The allegations were conveyed across a number of people at the time and their recollections still stand and could be tested in an inquiry.

An ABC 4 Corners investigation also found evidence a number of current behaviours with women that didn't reflect well on his character.

The issue with Christian Porter was his character and suitability as Attorney General of Australia and potentially a Prime Minister. The allegations made against were about his fitness for these positions. Finding him legally culpable was always a long shot and particularly so when the NSW police did not take Katherine Thorntons formal statement

Of course Mr Porter has completely denied any sexual activity with Katherine Thornton. So we now have to blindly trust his integrity as both a person and a politician. I think his electorate back in WA will have the last say on this issue.

 

[sptrawler]

Have to disagree with you on so many points SP

Michael Coutts-Trotter went to jail as 19 year for selling hard drugs. On release and over his subsequent life he proved himself to be exceptionally capable and I assume a principled person. He never hid his original crime. In that context viewing him as a 56 year person one sees what he has achieved and can offer since he came out of jail rather than the behaviour as a 19 year old

Christian Porter on the other hand ? He was accused of a particularly nasty rape which allegedly occurred as a 17 year old on a young woman he had been friends with. Currently there is insufficient legal evidence to convict him of rape in a criminal trial. There may still be a private prosecution. The allegations were conveyed across a number of people at the time and their recollections still stand and could be tested in an inquiry.

An ABC 4 Corners investigation also found evidence a number of current behaviours with women that didn't reflect well on his character.

The issue with Christian Porter was his character and suitability as Attorney General of Australia and potentially a Prime Minister. The allegations made against were about his fitness for these positions. Finding him legally culpable was always a long shot and particularly so when the NSW police did not take Katherine Thorntons formal statement

Of course Mr Porter has completely denied any sexual activity with Katherine Thornton. So we now have to blindly trust his integrity as both a person and a politician. I think this electorate back in WA will have the last say on this issue.

My case rests. ?

 

[basilio]

My case rests. ?

No probs. If you think Christian Porter is a right on guy vote for him. It's a free world. After all 70 million people in the US now believe Trump was robbed in the last election and that's going down well. Plenty of examples of leaders who have managed to avoid jail time for anything and everything. No reason why our potential leaders shouldn't get a free pass as well is there ?

 

[sptrawler]

No probs. If you think Christian Porter is a right on guy vote for him. It's a free world. After all 70 million people in the US now believe Trump was robbed in the last election and that's going down well. Plenty of examples of leaders who have managed to avoid jail time for anything and everything. No reason why our potential leaders shouldn't get a free pass as well is there ?

It wasn't about Christian Porter, it was about how people's biases, influences their decision making.
I wouldn't vote for either of the people, they obviously both have a different moral compass to me.
One has actually sold hard drugs which ruins heaps of lives, the other avoided going to court to clear up an issue, because there is obviously other issues he doesn't want aired.
By your remarks, you find one acceptable, because they have shown they now of good character because they have held responsible jobs and what happened was when they were 19 and the crime was of a nature you find acceptable.
The other isn't acceptable, because he was accused of an incident when he was 17 and the nature of the accusation wasn't acceptable to you.
Then you throw Trump into the mix, like I've said on a number of occasions over the years, "I love your passion".

 

[SirRumpole]

Interesting when you consider what you say in context, this guy was sent to jail for selling hard drugs as a teenager, but that is o.k because he is an exceptional administrator, Porter was accused of a crime as a teenager and you wanted him strung up from the tree on the outskirts of town, without due process.
This is why it is difficult to debate with those who hold extreme views, which are based on emotional factors, rather than actual facts.
But having said that, it is entertaining, you could replace Michael Coutts-Trotter's name above with Christian Porters and there would be right wing extremists that would agree whole heartedly with the same statement.
Yet there would be a left wing group, that would be screaming for you to be banned for writing the quote.
But it just shows how biases drive perceptions, thankfully most people fall in the centre of the bell shaped curve.

The difference is pretty obvious. Couttes-Troutter was punished for his crime, Porter (if he is guilty) never was and never will be.

 

[sptrawler]

The difference is pretty obvious. Couttes-Troutter was punished for his crime, Porter (if he is guilty) never was and never will be.

Like I said I wouldn't vote for either, one is a convicted criminal, the other is an alleged criminal, I find it hard to see why either should have my vote.
As for your description Rumpy, what should Porter's punishment be, jail for 8 years just in case he was guilty?
I don't follow the reasoning, what should there be, mandatory punishment, for all allegations?
It certainly would solve the court system issues.

 

[basilio]

The other isn't acceptable, because he was accused of an incident when he was 17 and the nature of the accusation wasn't acceptable to you.
Then you throw Trump into the mix, like I've said on a number of occasions over the years, "I love your passion".

I suggest you miss the points SP.

I didn't think the crime that Michael Cotters committed was "acceptable". It was well and truly wrong. He was punished and completed his sentence.

Unlike many other people who have a serious criminal conviction he managed to prove he could change and rehabilitate . Well done

Christian Porter has never been convicted of a crime. He also denies anything untoward has ever happened. My issue is that I don't believe him after having read all the material that was released. In top of that his current behaviours as ex AG say he is still a person I wouldn't want to see in such a powerful position.

I threw up Trump ? I could have thrown up a score of public figures who have abused their office and managed to avoid legal recriminations. He just happens to be the most spectacular current example of how a venal, lying, corrupt politician can gain power despite everything.

 

[basilio]

As for your description Rumpy, what should Porter's punishment be, jail for 8 years just in case he was guilty?

It was always unlikely he would be convicted. The issue was his suitablilty for the political offices he was holding. If you had read Katherine Thorntons story her main concern was bringing to light the character of person who was now holding the highest Legal power in Australia

 

[sptrawler]

I suggest you miss the points SP.

I didn't think the crime that Michael Cotters committed was "acceptable". It was well and truly wrong. He was punished and completed his sentence.

Unlike many other people who have a serious criminal conviction he managed to prove he could change and rehabilitate . Well done

Christian Porter has never been convicted of a crime. He also denies anything untoward has ever happened. My issue is that I don't believe him after having read all the material that was released. In top of that his current behaviours as ex AG say he is still a person I wouldn't want to see in such a powerful position.

I threw up Trump ? I could have thrown up a score of public figures who have abused their office and managed to avoid legal recriminations. He just happens to be the most spectacular current example of how a venal, lying, corrupt politician can gain power despite everything.

I think you miss the point Bas,
One is an actual convicted criminal, who you say is rehabilitated and is now of good character. So should be given the benefit of the doubt.
The other is not a convicted criminal, but because you don't believe them, shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt.
That to me is contradictory, but it is only my opinion.

 

[basilio]

I think you miss the point Bas,
One is an actual convicted criminal, who you say is rehabilitated and is now of good character. So should be given the benefit of the doubt.
The other is not a convicted criminal, but because you don't believe them, shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt.
That to me is contradictory, but it is only my opinion.

Ok let's try this perspective.

One is an actual convicted criminal who since his release from jail has rebuilt his life and demonstrated excellent skills that has resulted in continued advancement. He is now Chief of Staff of a Premiers office. Everyone is aware of his early history but everyone is now prepared to accept that he is no longer the person he was 35 years ago. (so to speak..)

The other is not a convicted criminal. However the allegations are very serious and go to character. The support for these allegations from a range of sources gives them substantial credibility - but not necessarily legal proof. There are further observations of his recent behaviour that also undermine his character.

This person held one the highest Legal Offices of the land. He had aspirations to be Prime Minister. Both positions IMV require a code of conduct that goes beyond "not being a convicted criminal ". When I started the thread regarding Christian Porter I called it "Finding the Truth vs The rule of Law". Essentially there are thousands of big and small decisions made in our society that require employers, partners, family, voters to assess situations without waiting for a trial to decide the outcome.

In politics, in particular historically, politicians are required to demonstrate character and behaviour that makes them suitable to be our represented leaders. I don't believe Christian Porter comes within a bulls roar of this test. Of course he has plenty of company and as I said earlier perhaps the 21st Century is the time that anyone can doing anything when they achieve office and simply brazen their way out.

 

[sptrawler]

Ok let's try this perspective.

One is an actual convicted criminal who since his release from jail has rebuilt his life and demonstrated excellent skills that has resulted in continued advancement. He is now Chief of Staff of a Premiers office. Everyone is aware of his early history but everyone is now prepared to accept that he is no longer the person he was 35 years ago. (so to speak..)

The other is not a convicted criminal. However the allegations are very serious and go to character. The support for these allegations from a range of sources gives them substantial credibility - but not necessarily legal proof. There are further observations of his recent behaviour that also undermine his character.

This person held one the highest Legal Offices of the land. He had aspirations to be Prime Minister. Both positions IMV require a code of conduct that goes beyond "not being a convicted criminal ". When I started the thread regarding Christian Porter I called it "Finding the Truth vs The rule of Law". Essentially there are thousands of big and small decisions made in our society that require employers, partners, family, voters to assess situations without waiting for a trial to decide the outcome.

In politics, in particular historically, politicians are required to demonstrate character and behaviour that makes them suitable to be our represented leaders. I don't believe Christian Porter comes within a bulls roar of this test. Of course he has plenty of company and as I said earlier perhaps the 21st Century is the time that anyone can doing anything when they achieve office and simply brazen their way out.

A great expose on how you differentiate between who is suitable to be in politics and who isn't, I personally believe a persons character traits are formed at a very young age, that is why we have a legal system rather than system built on personal assessments.
In the past many systems have been built on personal assessment by peers or superiors, that is why a lot of those systems are being dismantled, or have had checks and balances put in place.
Whether someone wants to be P.M or the Queen of Sheba, it shouldn't make any difference how you apply a measurement of character, both should be tested to the same yard stick. IMO
That is why, as I explained, they both fail my character test.
Yours seems to be as malleable as play dough and as I said it appears to based on emotion, rather than any logical application of reasoning.
One is suitable because they have been to jail, the other isn't suitable because they can't be proven to have committed a crime, but if they did commit the crime it is a horrible crime.
IMO they are both horrible crimes, only one has been proven.
But I guess that's why we see some things differently, it would be boring if we all agreed.

 

[moXJO]

Ok let's try this perspective.

One is an actual convicted criminal who since his release from jail has rebuilt his life and demonstrated excellent skills that has resulted in continued advancement. He is now Chief of Staff of a Premiers office. Everyone is aware of his early history but everyone is now prepared to accept that he is no longer the person he was 35 years ago. (so to speak..)

The other is not a convicted criminal. However the allegations are very serious and go to character. The support for these allegations from a range of sources gives them substantial credibility - but not necessarily legal proof. There are further observations of his recent behaviour that also undermine his character.

This person held one the highest Legal Offices of the land. He had aspirations to be Prime Minister. Both positions IMV require a code of conduct that goes beyond "not being a convicted criminal ". When I started the thread regarding Christian Porter I called it "Finding the Truth vs The rule of Law". Essentially there are thousands of big and small decisions made in our society that require employers, partners, family, voters to assess situations without waiting for a trial to decide the outcome.

In politics, in particular historically, politicians are required to demonstrate character and behaviour that makes them suitable to be our represented leaders. I don't believe Christian Porter comes within a bulls roar of this test. Of course he has plenty of company and as I said earlier perhaps the 21st Century is the time that anyone can doing anything when they achieve office and simply brazen their way out.

I'm not a fan of Porter. But wokeavista allegations seem to be the new proof of guilt. I'll condemn a guy on hard proof.

Currently there is a band in Melbourne that used lyrics in one of their songs that the wokes decided was degrading to all women. Out of the woodwork they suddenly are copping rape allegations on social media and are being cancelled.

It's the equivalent of lynch mobs these days. Just because you think it doesn't hold any truth of it being right. Just because these idiots use mob tactics and a perception of safety in numbers, doesn't make it true.

 

[sptrawler]

I'm not a fan of Porter. But wokeavista allegations seem to be the new proof of guilt. I'll condemn a guy on hard proof.

Currently there is a band in Melbourne that used lyrics in one of their songs that the wokes decided was degrading to all women. Out of the woodwork they suddenly are copping rape allegations on social media and are being cancelled.

It's the equivalent of lynch mobs these days. Just because you think it doesn't hold any truth of it being right. Just because these idiots use mob tactics and a perception of safety in numbers, doesn't make it true.

To some it does, especially those who are very susceptible to media narrative, the trail by media wouldn't just happen on the normal media platforms, I guess it is prevalent on social media platforms also.
IMO it's funny how the mob is swayed and manipulated from issue to issue, the vaccine roll out has been a real classic. From riling the mob up about quarantine and discriminating by putting early repats on Christmas Island, to the death curse of AZ, to now everyone who doesn't want to have the vaccine is a neo nazi, right wing militia.
I just wish Monty Python was still running, imagine the fun they would have, with the pitchfork mob running around as the footsoldiers for the media barons.
John Cleese head of the mob, having a roadside courtroom, reads out what was in the paper and suggests a road side hanging is called for.
Eric Idle says, but we aren't sure it is the right person or the information is correct, Cleese say's don't be silly you fool it's in the paper hang him.?
Then again, the show would be cancelled.

 

[sptrawler]

A good article on Australia's wretched ghosts. ?

Australia's five Donald Trumps should shut up

When MB successfully forecast and then chronicled Australia’s great “lost decade” of the 2010s, we did not anticipate it leaving a toxic rhetorical legacy worldwide. The political carnage of the “lost decade”, in which we plodded through six PMs in seven years has, unfortunately, populated the...

www.macrobusiness.com.au

 

[Smurf1976]

A good article on Australia's wretched ghosts

One of the things that really holds us back in my view is that the parties, all of them, are beholden to former "heroes" whose ideas are now out of date.

I could go into specifics but there's really no need. All the parties have their former "heroes" either living or dead and all of those "heroes" championed ideas that are now at odds with what society sensibly needs to move forward.

We're in a world that's vastly different to that of 40 years ago but our politics to considerable extent is still stuck in the 1980's due to that legacy. The 1980's is, well, literally half a lifetime ago now, not much from back then still has any sensible relevance today.

Bearing in mind there that less than half the current population was even alive when much of that occurred. The "average" Australian was born in 1984 after all.

 

[PZ99]

I think Tony Abbott’s “Eastern Israel” megaphone sortie in Taiwan was grossly stoopid.

However this black duck will always defend the value of free speech and that extends to wretched ghosts even if they do tend to fill their undies in the process

 

[ghotib]

I think the no-one might be a bit strong.
Australia consists of a number of states, and I suspect that like me, a lot of folks who do not live in Sydney will have never heard of him, much less know his history.
Mick

A lot of folks who do live in Sydney have never heard of him either, and another lot would have forgotten what they'd heard. Isn't that how it's supposed to be? He's not a politician, he's a public servant.

For that matter, an awful lot of folks have never heard of any politicians or don't remember what they've heard, but that's another story.

 

[basilio]

On Point.

 

[sptrawler]

I'm very much looking forward to the next term of Government, labor will have the opportunity to change the current direction, which is very slow and boring IMO.
Way too much emphasis is being placed on a safety first approach, what is needed is a huge hit of new ideas and exciting risk taking, we have had 10 years of conservative politics, I for one think it is time for a change.

 

[SirRumpole]

Like I said I wouldn't vote for either, one is a convicted criminal, the other is an alleged criminal, I find it hard to see why either should have my vote.
As for your description Rumpy, what should Porter's punishment be, jail for 8 years just in case he was guilty?
I don't follow the reasoning, what should there be, mandatory punishment, for all allegations?
It certainly would solve the court system issues.