Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Will they catch Malcolm Naden?

Jump to new
I'm not saying he is or isn't guilty, he most probably is, but i dont know that so i'm not going to say that he is.

With regards to personal searches etc i think we all have a basic right of innocence. Sniffer dogs for example are not accurate >70% of the time yet they still get used on the premise that they deter people. Thats like saying an officer should have the right to detain someone just because the officer 'thought' that person might commit a crime. A very slippery slope against personal freedoms imo. I do not trust the law makers or the enforcers enough that i am happy to give away my personal rights/freedoms for. The thing that comes next is that verbally criticising governments etc will be made illegal and you will be able to be detained for speaking out against those in power...

One thing i do agree on is that penalties for those proven guilty are much too leniant. But remember, if you were arrested/detained for questioning for a crime you didnt commit, you would want the presumption of innocennce also
 
prawn_86 said:
And; the 'i have nothing to hide' attitude is erroding our freedoms. IE - terrosism suspects being able to be detained without charge etc etc
Click to expand...
What do you suggest as an alternative? Wait until they've blown up the Sydney Harbour Bridge just as one example, killing hundreds of people.
Viz the recent case where they had a plan to kill as many soldiers as possible at Holsworthy. Would you prefer that our laws had allowed them to do it, so you could then justifiably say "oh goodness, they really did mean harm, didn't they"!
 
Julia said:
What do you suggest as an alternative? Wait until they've blown up the Sydney Harbour Bridge just as one example, killing hundreds of people.
Viz the recent case where they had a plan to kill as many soldiers as possible at Holsworthy. Would you prefer that our laws had allowed them to do it, so you could then justifiably say "oh goodness, they really did mean harm, didn't they"!
Click to expand...

No, i'm saying if you can prove something, be it actions or intent, then that is fine. Being able to be detained indefenitely without charge is against all basic human rights,. Its like me coming into your home, taking you to prison and saying "oh yeh, you're going to think about committing a crime in a couple years time so we thought we would stop you now" and holding you there without a charge :2twocents

I know nothing about this Malcolm Naden guy apart from what i have seen on the news, and all the media outlets are already painting him as guilty so it is unlikely he would be able to get a fair trial, which under our laws he is entitled to. As i have said, his actions do look suspicious but that is not for me, or the media, to decide imo. I can form an opinion, bu it will be just an opinion ntil i have all the facts on the table.

I'm amazed by how many members are happy to give away their freedoms to governments/police forces that have repeatedly proven throughout history that they have no interest in supporting the 'common mans' rights. The protestors in Syria right now are trying to rise up from an oppresive government and being killed for it but if they have done nothing wrong i suppose its ok for government forces to shoot them or raid their houses and kidnap them so long as that is within the law?
 
Oh, for heaven's sake, Prawn, comparing what is happening in Syria with our rights here in Australia, is just silly.

I can only speak for myself, but I'm pretty happy with my rights in this country.
Happy to do a breath test in case I might be a danger to other road users.
Happy to have Customs search me as thoroughly as they wish when I come into the country. etc etc

You say it's OK for people to be detained if it is PROVEN that they mean or intend harm.
What about the period between a well founded suspicion of their harmful intent and the gathering of evidence to prove this?

Are you quite happy for them to remain at large?

I have already given the example of the recent Holsworthy case. You have declined to answer this.
 
Julia said:
Happy to have Customs search me as thoroughly as they wish when I come into the country. etc etc
Click to expand...

Even to be strip searched? I know of girls at music festivals NOT carrying drugs who have been strip searched when a sniffer dog sat next to them

Julia said:
What about the period between a well founded suspicion of their harmful intent and the gathering of evidence to prove this?

Are you quite happy for them to remain at large?

I have already given the example of the recent Holsworthy case. You have declined to answer this.
Click to expand...

No, they should be able to be detained for the usual amount of time without facing a charge, which i think is usually 48 hours. What makes them different to any other criminal? Or should all suspected criminals be able to be held indefinetely without charge or evidence presented to a court?
 
prawn_86 said:
No, they should be able to be detained for the usual amount of time without facing a charge, which i think is usually 48 hours. What makes them different to any other criminal? Or should all suspected criminals be able to be held indefinetely without charge or evidence presented to a court?
Click to expand...

I have no problem with that. My neighbour ran the terrorism squad. When she caught them (a different lot) she had evidence everywhere and they all got long terms in jail. 48 hours is fair to be held without charge, surely be then if they are planning terrorism then there will be some evidence to charge them with. I have no problem with them being ruthless in their duty, as long as they are fair.

Back to Malcolm Naden, what a lousy name, "Malcolm" is a name that demands rebellion, maybe that is why he turned bad? :D On the other hand he could have gone the other way and become Prime Minister.
 
Knobby22 said:
I have no problem with that. My neighbour ran the terrorism squad. When she caught them (a different lot) she had evidence everywhere and they all got long terms in jail. 48 hours is fair to be held without charge, surely be then if they are planning terrorism then there will be some evidence to charge them with. I have no problem with them being ruthless in their duty, as long as they are fair.
Click to expand...

Exactly, 48 hours (or whatever limit is set) is fair within the laws, but to hold someone without charge for as long as you feel like is against basic human rights imo.
 
prawn_86 said:
Exactly, 48 hours (or whatever limit is set) is fair within the laws, but to hold someone without charge for as long as you feel like is against basic human rights imo.
Click to expand...

julia & i have made some points prawn that you refuse to answer, than go off again.

Drug importation networks could involve 2 years of investigation whilst allowing drugs to be released into the drug market, are you PRAWN suggesting society is better off allowing terrorists to only be held for 48 hours, hopefully their civil rights will be respected & your family can be amongst the carnage, maybe than you will sing a different tune
 
quadfin said:
julia & i have made some points prawn that you refuse to answer, than go off again.

Drug importation networks could involve 2 years of investigation whilst allowing drugs to be released into the drug market, are you PRAWN suggesting society is better off allowing terrorists to only be held for 48 hours, hopefully their civil rights will be respected & your family can be amongst the carnage, maybe than you will sing a different tune
Click to expand...

With regards to if it was my family, obviously i would have more of an idea about the situation. In that case I would have more suspicions and knowledge and then of course i would have a different opinon as to this particular crime. As it stands now i am just an impartial observer to this case.

I'm suggesting that a fair society should have a limit as to how long someone can be detained without charge. So yes if a 'terrorist' is detained and the authorities cannot come up with information to convince a judge for an official arrest within that given time period, yes the suspect should be released. My whole point is that if someone is arrested they have to know what they are being arrested for, IE - there has to be evidence not just a 'hunch'

Here's one for you then, what if 'terrorists' were using your land and you were detained on suspicion of being involved but not charged and not told why you were being detained? How long would you happily be detained without charge?

Also as per ASF posting guidelines, please note that any malicious posts attacking members personally will be removed
 
prawn_86 said:
Here's one for you then, what if 'terrorists' were using your land and you were detained on suspicion of being involved but not charged and not told why you were being detained? How long would you happily be detained without charge?

Also as per ASF posting guidelines, please note that any malicious posts attacking members personally will be removed
Click to expand...

prawn i find your opinion malicious as you do mine,,,, moderation does not exist in society nor should it online. back to your question,

Simple prawn if i was caught up in something i was innocent of, how ever long it takes whatever access they want, phones computers bank accounts, I have nothing to hide, i would demand good food.
 
quadfin said:
Simple prawn if i was caught up in something i was innocent of, how ever long it takes whatever access they want, phones computers bank accounts, I have nothing to hide, i would demand good food.
Click to expand...

The Nazi's liked people with your attitude.

The Jews were innocent and look what happened to them.
 
Not sure where this 250k bounty is as they just temporarily banned a few forests for us to hunt in... (restricted game license)
 
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...ouse-in-niangala/story-e6freuzi-1226228911742

Surely they can nail him now, if they didnt pin him down after this latest encounter, they would have been logistically unprepared. It must only be a matter of time.

For the police, I am sure however they must still proceed on the basis he is armed and will shoot to kill rather than be taken

One of his biggest problems for him is that he would be wary to start fire without risk of detection.

It is going to be a bit weird up their over Xmas, as the area gets an influx of campers, prospectors, pig-hunters etc and out-of-towners with rural properties

Those hill are full of gold, with many abandoned mines, some only recently.
There is new interest with high gold prices.
There is an abandoned mine in the deep rainforest at the headwaters of the Karuah River, Whispering Gully, a trek is required, I have been wanting to get up there for a long time.

As well as gold .."The hills have eyes"..I dunno what would happen legally if you just shot him on sight, I imagine their would be some that might. (check the Wes Craven movie)

Some hunters use private property with permission of the owners as wild dogs and pigs are are a problem.

I worked with a fellow for several years that was from that region and a very keen pigdogger. He was of Aboriginal descent, took great interest in the old skills of his people, a survivalist and martial artist. Reminds me of Naden even in appearance. He used to hunt pigs and sell the carcasses for pet food, as a leisure pursuit, Im not sure it was legal.

Although I greatly admire his bush skills, I hope they get him.
Apart from anything else, I detest stealing from remote properties
 
Thankfully he has been captured.

My understanding is police had set up surveilance devices including infra-red cameras, at a number of isolated and not permananently occupied buildings that Naden was known to have entered on multiple occassions.

They also would probably have formed a very extensive knowledge and surveilance of the bush trails in the area.

That is what I would have done anyway
 
prawn_86 said:


As i said, i do not KNOW he committed these crimes. If you can prove it please provide the evidence and then i will change my opinion. Until I (or the legal system, which admittedly probably isn't as harsh as it should be) know that he committed these cimes he is permitted to the assumption of innocence.

I agree that he seems dodgy and it doesn't look good for him, but i do not know for sure that he has committed the crimes he has been accused of. :2twocents

Out of interest, as per my previous question, would you let the cops satellite track your speed limit? If you're never guilty of speeding you have nothing to hide right? Or what about search you publicly at a train station? I'm guessing you have never broken a law in your life?

The whole point i'm trying to get at here is that the media have a massive influence on the presumed assumption of evidence. This man hasn't gone to trial yet but i bet >80% of the population already think he is guilty.

And; the 'i have nothing to hide' attitude is erroding our freedoms. IE - terrosism suspects being able to be detained without charge etc etc
Click to expand...


Well only new here but caught this thread and will offer my opinion. Prawn you are talkig out of your you know what.

As a relation to the murdered there is evidence that the public has not been given. He was wanted as DNA, finger prints were on the person, that is all I can say, and guess what they were his.

He had been in trouble prior. The 15 year old that he touched also identified him. This is enough to say he is guilty. What is wrong with this country and the law makers, and idiots like forum posters is that you treat everyone as innocent before proven guilty. I find it hard to justify this and in past cases we have seen shooting on mass scales where the shooter in innocent, ??? How can this be when they were witnessed doing the act and caught in the act.

I dont always agree that all are guilty and need there day in court, but just sometimes they should be locked up.

This monster has done this, the family has seen the evidence. The media do blow it up, but at the end of the day the police have more evidence that proves and will prove the guilt of this man.

Sometimes you should consider what you write.

Anyway they have caught him and time will tell. In the mean time crawl back to your hole prawn.

Oh by the way, the cop that was shot and kill in Tamworth the other day. Whats your views on that. Is the crim who lies in a Sydney hospital innocent of killing this man and leaving his 6 children behind. I think not. Maybe not guilty for shooting but certainly guilty for being a part of it. But hey we will pay 100 of thousands of dollars for the case????
 
prawn_86 said:
I have no idea about this at all, the first i heard was 2 weeks ago. But as an impartial observer can you please show me the evidence that proves he is a murderer? I'm not saying he is or isn't because i don't know.

So by your theory, if you refuse the police something then you are guilty. If the police rocked up to your place without a warrant asking to search it would you let them? Remember if you dont you're already guilty...
Click to expand...

---
Malcolm Naden pleads guilty to murders

FORMER bush fugitive Malcolm Naden has pleaded guilty to the 2005 murders of Kristy Scholes and his cousin Lateesha Nolan.

Naden, 39, appeared in the NSW Supreme Court today, where he entered guilty pleas to 18 charges against him, including the indecent assault of a 12-year-old girl, the attempted murder of a police officer and a string of break-and-enter offences.

Link:http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/malcolm-naden-pleads-guilty-to-murders/story-e6frg6nf-1226603287323
---

Job well done by the Police and the Courts.:xyxthumbs
 
Top