This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Is Garrett a Hypocrite?

Jump to new
Extract from previous post :- YES he did achieve his LLB but requires further training to finish his law degree. The programme of study for the common law LLB can be either a graduate-entry degree programme requiring a previous bachelors degree (the duration of which is usually 3 years) or can be undertaken directly after high-school either by itself (the duration of which is usually 4 years) or with another degree (ie. B.Comm/LLB, B.A./LLB or B.Sc/LLB, the duration of which can vary between 5–7 years depending on the specific combination).

Garrett has a 3 year ticket as he is an undergraduate. Needs another 4 years of training to become a fully fledged wig wearing juristprude. It takes 7 years in total. Where did the number 10 come from? I dunno?

http://law.suite101.com/article.cfm/how_to_become_a_lawyer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_of_Laws

I shunt my carriages with my train by the way.
 
kennas said:
I think law is like medicine. Once you graduate you have to go off and do some on the job training and more specialist courses before you get your wings. Not sure about 10 years, but I don't think you graduate from uni and start lawyering.
Click to expand...

Lol at the lawyering inference. Two blokes sitting in a pub. One turns to the other and says "So, what do you do for a living?" man replies "Oh, not much really, just a bit of lawyering!" Love it !
 
Cheers Macquack, we finally got this tardy bit of fluff of a thread past 100 posts !
 
Trainspotter, what is the point of putting up a link on how to become a lawyer in the United States of America?

trainspotter said:
I shunt my carriages with my train by the way.
Click to expand...
Excuse my grammar, I meant what state do you live in?
 
Is Peter Garrett a hypocrite?

I can accept that people can, and do, change their minds.

So, if Peter Garrett, had looked at the alternatives (more coal, LNG, solar, whatever), if he had looked at these other options, considered them and then decided to change his mind and support nuclear, well, so be it. I can respect that. I might not agree with him, and I might be pissed off at him for taking a hard line for many, many years and then abandoning it, and his supporters. But, if he changed his mind in this manner, then I can respect that.

But, as Julia has pointed out, this does not appear to be the case; the case is, according to Peter Garrett himself, he is now toeing the party line:

Julia said:
Krusty, I heard him being asked that question in a radio interview.
His response was pretty honest, i.e. that now that he's part of a political party he has to toe the party line.

So, at least I can respect his being truthful.
Click to expand...

OK, I can accept that too. Yep, he is in a political party and must go along with party decisions. BUT, toeing the party line has implications for his integrity. (There is always the option open to resign if you don't agree with the party).

Again, Julia said it best:
Julia said:
Yep, even better question. Presumably his lust for political power was greater than his convictions about uranium etc.
Click to expand...

Again, I can accept that too. Its the game he is in now. He is now a politician. Nothing wrong with that either.

But, now for the implications.
According to his own words, he hasn't changed his mind after considering things, he has decided to go against his principles to toe the party line. This is what makes him a hypocrite.
 
I was going out on a limb and thought he might have got his LAWYERS degree from some chintzy website? Nahhhh ... my mistake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_of_Laws ... try this one.

It does take 7 years to become a lawyer by the way. It only takes 3 years to get a Bachelor of Law. (which could be 2 years of an arts degree and 1 year of common law) From there I think you join a lawyers firm as an articles clerk and keep on training for a bit until you pass the exams etc et al ad infinitum.

I live in the state where the sun disappears into the ocean and not behind a hill.
 

Attachments

  • map-of-western-australia.jpg
    30.2 KB · Views: 75
No need to be jealous of my raw mineral deposits. There is plenty for everyone. Including the Chinese.
 
I think PG might be taking the tact that it's better to influence from the inside than as a dick hanging off an inflatable boat in the middle of the ocean.

He might be accomplishing more for the green/environmental/indigenous movements by being a voice inside government, rather than a voice from the top of a stage.

Or not.
 

"Hear hear!", a voice of logic.
 
Gee whiz, Macquack, you're wasted on ASF. The Labor Party could use you in the Spin Department.


Garpal Gumnut said:
Excuse me if I'm a bit harsh,

But political parties live off dim people like you.

gg
Click to expand...
Now I'm a bit confused. I'd somehow formed the impression that you were of pretty much the same view about Garrett as Trainspotter, g.g.?



Hmm. I'd go for the "Or not.".
Can't actually see where he has had any influence at all.
Perhaps, however, he's saved a couple of spotty nosed toads or something.
 

Fair point kennas, this is always a possibility and I've thought about "How do I assess whether this is the case, (or not)?"

This is the best I can come up with:
1. Look for disparities between Peter Garrett's principles and what the government wants to do. Then assess the actual outcomes, i.e. does government policy change to more closely resemble Peter Garrett's views. This is not perfect, of course, but would be indicative?
2. Wait 30 years for Cabinet minutes to be released and assess it then (I probably wont be around).
3. Wait for Peter Garrett's biography &/or autobiography and hope he discusses this (without gilding the lily of course).
4. Give him the benefit of the doubt.
 
Julia said:
Hmm. I'd go for the "Or not.".
Can't actually see where he has had any influence at all.
Perhaps, however, he's saved a couple of spotty nosed toads or something.
Click to expand...
I don't really know what would be more influencial, I am guessing.

Is it better to be a hard line environmentalist on the outside, with no direct power.

Or, an environmentalist on the inside with the PM's ear?

The other factor is his influence on the general population I suppose. While an independant activist he had a massive following and influence on peoples perceptions.

Now?
 
Thanks Julia. I noticed GG jump ship halfway through the routine as well?

I accept Macquacks point about Peter Garrett being a stooge on the inside and effectively and singlehandedly destroying the environment by allowing a 5th Uranium Mine to open up in S.A.

"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer" could be his philophosy. By working from the inside out would be his best chance at actually achieving something. So far he has managed to disenfranchise many of the Green voters that he spent so long building his reputation on.

I will reserve my power of veto on Mr Garrett's fate until he can come to terms with his duplicity in this matter. If perchance he commits to saving Christmas Island and does not allow the PHOSPHATE mine to expand it's opertions I will call it a draw. Ohhhhh the irony of it all. It must be gut wrenching for him to sign off on the white papers.
 
trainspotter said:
...Peter Garrett being a stooge on the inside and effectively and singlehandedly destroying the environment....
Click to expand...

Thats a bit tough on Garrett.

He has a tough job and if he was a "cop out", he would have elected to take a soft portfolio. If anything, I'm guessing that Garrett would agree there is a huge grey area between ideology and reality and it is bloody hard to keep eveybody happy.

BTW Trainspotter, does your pearl farming have any negative impact on the environment?
 
kennas said:
I don't really know what would be more influencial, I am guessing.

Is it better to be a hard line environmentalist on the outside, with no direct power.

Or, an environmentalist on the inside with the PM's ear?
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has the PM's ear. Some say God listens to prayers, but I don't think Rudd does. On the other hand he may be influenced by the unelected, highly paid young men he surrounds himself with.
 

Too true Macquack. I have softened my approach on PG due to his transparent actions of late. It must be terrible to be shown as a flip flop merchant. He does have a tough job, I commend you on pointing this out to me. But it seems he has forsaken his principles somewhat? No?

My pearl farming practices do not have a negative impact on the oceanic environment. (unless you call having a 60 foot boat with some horrible chemical painted on the hull called antifouling?) Very strict guidelines have been set down by Fisheries. Environmental Monitoring Program is in place and so far no biomass buildup has occured. The trance shots evidence that the pearl farm actually encourages more marine growth (fish life and anenomies) Good farming practices I guess. There is a waste factor component consisting of dead oyster shells which get turned into ashtrays and mother of pearl buttons etc. Some nice carved turtles from the shell is quite popular at the moment. BLATANT PLUG !! The ropes and panels that are no longer required are taken to be recycled at the plastic factory. Any rubbish from human polluters is bagged and taken to the appropriate authorities who turn it into landfill.

18 carat white gold Mabe' blister pearl with 5 diamonds.
 

Attachments

  • DSC05303.JPG
    34 KB · Views: 58
Inlcuding the 43cm 18 carat Omega white gold chain has an independent valuation of $3300.00 Sell in my shop for $2700.00 with valuation. Gift boxed and numbered authenticity certificate. I am sure I can work something out for you Macquack !! BLATANT PRODUCT PLACEMENT HERE

Photo is about 130% oversize. Shrink it by 70% and you should have approx size of "real" piece.
 
Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett has defended his decision to approve a new uranium mine in South Australia. The Greens have criticised Mr Garrett for approving a mine they think will pollute groundwater at the Four Mile site.

The Opposition agrees with the Government, but has accused the former rock star and anti-uranium mining activist of hypocrisy.

Mr Garrett says he has been assured the mine is safe and says his conscience is clear.

"I became a member of the Government and I said at the time I would accept as a team player the decisions the Government took," he said.

Well, well, well, another three holes in the ground. The whole thread has been unravelled by the above statements. Whale Oil Beef Hooked !

We are all correct in our ethos !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Methane Hydrates... Energy of the future?
Replies
0
Views
4K
overit
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...