Sunday, October 23, 2016

New policy of no warrants (from ASIO) for the British colony, Australia

Many people have been very vocal with a new proposal from an arm of the Australian government to detain people for up to a week without a warrant from a judge.

In other words you can be tortured illegally (without a warrant) on the basis of someone's misguided decision, without the interaction of a court.

ASIO now wants to detain people without a warrant.

There is a common catch phrase that people use with regards to law namely:

"Innocent until proven guilty",

but this does not apply in Australia.

In Australia the legal system functions on strict and absolute liabilities, basically Roman law.

In a nutshell:

Absolute liability - First and foremost you are guilty and a penalty is enforced,

Strict liability - You are guilty and you must prove your innocence.

Good example of these is 'owner onus' and parking fines, where your matter is listed in the court system as criminal and not civil.

Another lesser known aspect of law is that among all the deceptive Acts, treaties and statutes is that Australia is a colony of the British empire.

Many a QC, constitutional lawyer or law researcher would sure have plenty to say about the above statement, maybe calling reference to Sue v Hill, an entity called the 'Queen of Australia', the Balfour Declaration, Treaty of Versailles, Unidroit Treaty, Lima Declaration or even entry into the U.N.

From the paperwork that we have obtained there is no debate nor 'interpretation' of law, with regards to Australia still being a colony.

This is reflected by the laws that are instilled forced on the people and not voted as required by law on certain matters.

See article from 27 Aug 2016 by of the headline:

ASIO asks for detention powers without warrant from judge

ASIO has proposed scrapping the need for judge-approved warrants to detain and question Australians for up to a week without charge in terrorism investigations, in a watering down of safeguards that has alarmed lawyers and rights advocates.

The power to grant the security agency a controversial "questioning and detention warrant" would rest instead with the Attorney-General – a situation the Law Council of Australia has branded "unprecedented".

Concerns over ASIO questioning powers

Australia's intelligence agency - ASIO - has asked for detention powers without warrant from judge. Fairfax's David Wroe explains.

The changes being requested by ASIO would also remove a current separate requirement that an independent legal authority, such as a retired judge, is present when a person is being questioned. Rather, oversight of questioning would rest with the intelligence watchdog, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.

Under laws passed in the wake of the September 11 and Bali bombing attacks, ASIO has the power to hold someone for up to seven days and question them if it may "substantially assist the collection of intelligence that is important in relation to a terrorism offence", even if the person isn't a terrorism suspect themselves.

ASIO head Duncan Lewis says a streamlining of the process "would be most desirable". Photo: Andrew Meares
ASIO head Duncan Lewis told a review inquiry last week into the laws that the organisation would "support amendments to the legislation to make the regime more efficient and effective for use in the current security environment".

While ASIO's submission to the inquiry by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor is confidential, Mr Lewis told the hearing that "it would be most desirable in our view for there to be a streamlining of the warrant authorisation process" whereby authority for the warrants was given by the Attorney-General.

Currently ASIO needs an "issuing authority" in the form of a serving judge to approve the warrant.
The laws include both "questioning warrants", which make it an offence to refuse to answer ASIO's questions and also "questioning and detention warrants", which allow ASIO to have the Australian Federal Police arrest and hold someone so ASIO can question them.

The agency, in this building, wants powers of detention described as "unprecedented" by alarmed lawyers and rights advocates.

Mr Lewis told the hearing these powers were "fundamental to ASIO's work in responding to the terrorism threat that we face".

Police and intelligence agencies say that terrorism plots in the Islamic State era are increasingly rudimentary and fast-moving, which means processes such as obtaining warrants need to be streamlined as much as possible so authorities can swoop to protect the public.

But the detention warrants have never actually been used in the 11 years they've been in place. Questioning warrants have been used 16 times since 2004, though not since 2009.

The Attorney-General already has the power to approve intelligence-gathering methods such as phone intercepts and surveillance.

But Law Council of Australia director Arthur Moses, SC, who also gave evidence to the inquiry, told Fairfax Media: "We're talking here about persons being detained in custody and deprived of their liberty. That takes it to an entirely different level."

"Western democracies have always taken the position that we do not in effect have a situation where a politician can give that authority … Usually people have the protection of a judicial officer … In my view it's unprecedented.

"We accept and understand that in respect of an evolving security threat environment, sometimes legislation and procedures need to be amended … but we are not aware of any issue that has arisen where ASIO has attempted to obtain a detention warrant and it has not been able to."

Mr Lewis told the inquiry just because they had not been used recently did not mean they weren't vital. They could be used in the future, he said.

He also said it was an "unnecessary belt and braces situation" to require a retired judge or magistrate to sit in the questioning sessions, given the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security could provide oversight anyway.

University of New South Wales law professor George Williams said countries such as the United States and Britain did not permit such detention for questioning.

"To my knowledge, Australia is the only Western democracy that enables people who are not suspects to be held for up to a week coercively for intelligence-gathering purposes," he said.

"The thought of removing what is one of the few significant checks on the powers is deeply concerning."

But Jacinta Carroll, a counter-terrorism expert at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and former security official, said the last nine plots disrupted had all posed imminent threats and there was therefore a "logical and compelling case" for streamlining the process.

She said the fact that detention powers had never been used showed ASIO was extremely cautious in the way it used its powers.

She said while this was a "pretty heavy power", it made as much sense for the Attorney-General as first law officer to authorise warrants as a judge.

Bret Walker, SC, the former monitor, said he would want ASIO to show the inquiry examples of where the current law had proved deficient.

"The nature of the powers in some sense are drastic . . . so I would really like to look at real-life, demonstrated deficiency before we look at relaxing safeguards," he said.

Friday, October 21, 2016

Australians like lambs to the slaughter with easily hackable credit card technology

Australians are literally the most tech savvy people on the planet.

They have the highest intake of consumer electronics  (per capita) for inhabitants of first world countries.

There's apps for this and apps that, on popular 'smart' phone operating systems from Apple (iOS) and Google (Android).

 (illustration: Bank of Melbourne app)

Banks are jumping on board shelling out (your shareholder's cash) for apps for internet banking, a task that is literally completely useless, as the same task can also be achieved from an internet browser on the portable device, as the Bank of Melbourne does with their app which in turn opens up a web browser to the bank's website.

 (illustration of opening screen once the app has been selected)

Unfortunately technology has a down side and a dark side that is always played down by the 'authorities'.

(illustration app opening web browser to the page

Very briefly,

Irrespective of the commercial name whether it's  VISA's payWave or MasterCard's PayPass or your public transport ticketing system, e.g. myki, Opal or Oyster they all run on similar technology, namely NFC (Near Field Communications)  or RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) which can have a range of less than 20cm (approx 8 inches) for NFC to over 15 meters (45 feet) for RFID.

It is not a matter of whether you're a fan of MythBusters, or even believe in their experiments, let alone find fascination with the things they blow up, one fact that cannot be denied is that Adam Savage stated that they were going to document the workings of RFID i.e.

  • how hack-able,

  • how reliable and

  • how track-able it is

but the major credit card players put a stop to the airing of that episode.


Make no mistake about it, the technologies are easily hackable, meaning the information from your bank issued Mastercard/VISA can be read with relative ease, where the information obtained can be used to siphon your bank account.

Mainstream smart phones are not secure either.

They can be compromised via a malicious app, a 'Trojan Horse' in an email or intercepted communications from a WiFi / GSM connection among other methods.

The mass populous (read corporate slaves) are 'encouraged' to use 'smart' phone technologies for internet banking, 'Touch 'n Go (or whatever other corporatised name they call it) / cashless card transactions, while the institutions that gave these cards out to the unsuspecting herd know too well of the vulnerabilities of the technology. 

How can you trust a government that mandates you  to use cashless welfare card?

It's all packaged up for your own good, as the government knows full well what is for your own good, a government that enacted 

- genocide on Aboriginal people and still does, 
- the 'Stolen  Generation'
- sexual exploitation of children in its own hands,
- cover ups of paedophile judges

See official government report: Cashless Debit Card Trial - Ceduna in link below:

So, are Australians really that 'tech savvy' ??? !!! ???

We do not support or recommend the use of any cashless technologies, for privacy and security reasons.

Note: While it is not difficult to show how easy it is to rip information from credit cards we will not be showing how this can be done, as little doubt that some sociopath pen pusher sitting in some annals of a "government" security department may flag this post as supporting terrorist activity.

Thursday, October 20, 2016

Victoria Police bash their own thinking she was a member of the public

 A CCTV still of Ms Berry during her time in police custody. 

What are Victoria Police good for?

Are they only good for beating people senseless for not complying to corporate laws?

Are they only good for issuing fines fraudulently under other business aliases?

Are they just revenue collectors with guns like in the wild wild west?

Do the people in Victoria Police swear an oath to a false queen / parliament?

How can you trust an organisation whose officers attitude to their oath is:
"I don't give a sh!t about the oath" - Colin Greenland.

Aren't they supposed to protect life and property?

Why does Victoria Police destroy evidence prior to court cases that expose their criminal actions?

Does Victoria Police conceal crimes committed by banking institutions and even their own personnel?

Is the Victoria Police Act of 2013, where they allegedly get their powers from, a lawfully enacted Act?

So many more questions, so little petrabytes on the internet.

Please note that Victoria Police was made a corporation since the enactment of the Victoria Police Act of 2013 which was allegedly assented to on the 17th of December 2013.

Please also note an error made by many a lay person in that Victoria Police are not public servants ( i.e. where the people are their masters), as they never were and never will be, as they are an arm of Australia's executive, i.e work for the benefit of the Australian government.

Many beatings by Victoria Police do not get reported or even make the media's attention due to intimidation from the 'force'.

We encourage all interactions with Victoria Police be recorded with a live upstream to a secure server, or on a secure device.

How can you trust an organisation that operates criminally above the law?

This is just one story that made it to the media spotlight from 18 October 2016 in of the headline:

'I'm in Guantanamo Bay. This isn't Ballarat.' Policewoman was charged after ordeal

Until today, she has been publicly defined by CCTV footage that shows her handcuffed, stripped of her underwear, stomped on, and kicked by police in a Ballarat cell. And she has been known only as "Person A" – the description given to her by an ongoing inquiry by Victoria's anti-corruption watchdog.

But now Yvonne Berry, who was a policewoman when she was allegedly assaulted by her colleagues in January 2015, has broken her silence in an exclusive interview with Fairfax Media and the ABC's 7.30 program.

Fairfax can also reveal that criminal charges laid against Ms Berry by local police after the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission launched its investigation last year have now been quietly withdrawn.

Photo:Former policewoman Yvonne Berry has had charges against her quietly withdrawn. 

Ms Berry, a former detective senior constable, had been facing charges stemming from her night in custody, including resisting arrest and interfering with the good order of a jail – charges she describes as a "hamburger with the lot".

Police will now seek fresh advice from prosecutors about whether one of the officers who allegedly assaulted her should face criminal charges.

But the withdrawal in August of the charges against Ms Berry suggests they should never have been laid. This points to a broader phenomenon that many police privately concede occurs and which prominent defence lawyers and barristers such as Robert Stary and Dyson Hore-Lacy, SC, say is endemic: those who make allegations of police brutality are almost certain to face charges, even if they are not warranted.

If it can happen to a police officer aware of their rights in a cell with cameras, it can "happen to anyone" says Ms Berry, 52. "And I've since found out that it did and it does."

Photo: ''I was just thinking I'm in Guantanamo Bay. This isn't Ballarat ... it can't be.'' Photo: Joe Armao
If it could happen to Ms Berry, what about the teenager at the back of the commission flats?
The two police officers alleged to have assaulted Ms Berry have been cleared to return to work.

But Ms Berry's ordeal has led to a rare mea culpa by senior police.

Professional Standards Command superintendent Tony De Ridder says he is "personally mortified" about her treatment in Ballarat's police cells, which he blames partly on "a total lack of leadership" in the police station.

Ms Berry's ankle was stomped on by an officer. Photo: Supplied
"I thought on face value there were clear breaches of human rights and assaults had occurred, and I also thought the behaviour of our members was inconsistent with our training, the way we ask our people to behave. I was very shocked," he says.

Superintendent De Ridder says the force is "looking to change our culture totally so that human rights ... [are] embedded in everything we do".

Photo: Bruising on Ms Berry's wrist. Photo: Supplied

Ms Berry's journey to the Ballarat police cells on January 15, 2015, began many months earlier. In 2014, she took time off from the force after facing mental health issues she attributes partly to working as an internal affairs officer – who she says are still called "rats" by some police – and dealing with the horrific aftermath of the Black Saturday bushfires in 2009.

Photo: Ms Berry in her earlier days as a police officer. Photo: Supplied

She is one of many officers who still carry the scars of dealing with families whose loved ones perished in the fires.

"I can still see the visions of all of that stuff today," she shudders.

Ms Berry is also not alone as an officer who turned to alcohol to self-medicate. On the evening of January 15, she was found drunk and incoherent by a Ballarat resident. The woman invited her into her home and called police, who arrested Ms Berry about 11pm after her clumsy, drunken efforts to run away.

Had she been treated in accordance with policy, she should have spent four hours in a cell to sober up and then been released, possibly with an infringement notice.

But she remained in police custody for 16 hours. In the early stages of her incarceration, the CCTV recorded her in a police cell attempting to use a broken drinking fountain before gesturing to the camera for water. Desperately thirsty, she then drank from the cell's toilet.

About 1am, Ms Berry became agitated, demanding a blanket and asking to speak to police, who didn't initially realise that she was a fellow officer. When the cell door was opened by a policewoman, Ms Berry pushed past, swiping the officer's lanyard. Ms Berry claims she noticed a capsicum spray bottle and reacted because she feared being sprayed. She struggled with two officers before copping a large dose of spray in her face.

Until this moment, Ms Berry could have been regarded as a vulnerable, albeit unruly, drunk woman in the care and custody of police. But she soon became a victim of conduct that senior law enforcement sources have described as "indefensible," "shambolic" and "a disgrace".


Ms Berry briefly wandered the station alone in a capsicum spray fog before she was handcuffed. She says the cuffs were ratcheted tight to cause pain; photos of her wrists taken later show deep bruising.

She was then dragged on the floor by an officer to a cell. She was face down and still handcuffed when a male officer pulled down her underwear, apparently searching for the missing lanyard.
"I'm face down, I'm still handcuffed and I'd been sprayed. I was absolutely helpless," she recalls, still shaken by the memory of lying naked in front of male officers.

A policeman then stood on Ms Berry's feet and ankles. She was still naked. Next, he stomped on her ankle. He later told IBAC he was trying to stop Ms Berry kicking other officers. He was also filmed kicking Ms Berry. She says his explanation is ludicrous, as is the claim from a female officer filmed kicking Ms Berry that she did so to "calm her down".

"I was basically lying there like a fat jellyfish," says Ms Berry, who has photos of the injuries she says she sustained. They show an ankle crimson from deep bruising and which a doctor later said was fractured, and various bruises, cuts and welts on her body.

After her underwear was pulled back up by police, and wearing only a T-shirt, Ms Berry was taken to a shower, where she says she was scalded by hot water that also exacerbated the effects of the capsicum spray. She says she asked two policemen to turn down the water, a request they ignored.

Instead, Ms Berry claims one of the officers said, in an apparent reference to her excess weight: "You're f---ing disgusting."

Later, as she lay in the cell, wet and covered with a blanket, Ms Berry had a moment of realisation. As a police officer, she had observed many "crooks" treated inhumanely. Now it was happening to her.

"I was absolutely horrified. Stressed, demoralised, and later on when I am in the cell, later on in the incident, I was just thinking I'm in Guantanamo Bay. This isn't Ballarat ... it can't be."


After Ms Berry was released from the police station, she says she was approached by IBAC to make a statement about what was captured on CCTV. She says the evidence should have prompted the charging of the officers who allegedly assaulted her.

But in February this year, she was notified in writing by police that there was "insufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution in relation to allegations of assault".

Having been suspended, the two police accused of assaulting Ms Berry were reinstated. It is understood this has caused intense friction between IBAC and the force, with each blaming the other for various legal and administrative hurdles that impeded the investigation.

What is undeniable is that the only person to face charges has been Ms Berry, who last year left the police force on mental health grounds after 25 years' service.

Early this year, she was charged with criminal offences stemming from her night in custody, including resisting arrest and interfering with the good order of a jail. Ms Berry says she was being subjected to an old police tradition.

"In the police force, if someone has a set on you, they give you everything they can think of charge wise and it's called a hamburger with the lot. On the 8th of January this year, I got the hamburger."
She was also charged over the theft of a motor car, in connection to a stolen vehicle police found parked outside her home in country Victoria in December 2014, a month before her arrest.

A police member with knowledge of Ms Berry's charges says that despite police suspicions that a drunk Ms Berry drove the car, the case was not supported by firm evidence. The multiple charges arising from her 16 hours in custody were also deeply flawed, the source says.

"This is a classic case of police charging someone to cover their arses," says one of Ms Berry's supporters in the force.

The prospect of facing court left Ms Berry suicidal.

But in August, there was a reprieve. On the eve of her appearance at the Sunshine Magistrates Court and after advice from a senior barrister, all charges against her were quietly withdrawn by police.


Senior police expect IBAC's upcoming report into Ms Berry's treatment, along with treatment of other women allegedly manhandled at Ballarat police station, to be highly critical. The report is almost certain to focus on how the force previously dealt with persistent and high levels of complaints against some police at the station.

The officer leading efforts to improve the way the force deals with complaints is Assistant Commissioner Brett Guerin, an experienced and well-regarded policeman who says he is "after the same thing as IBAC".

Mr Guerin acknowledges police must improve the way they discipline their own and how they communicate with members of the public who complain about mistreatment, and do more to identify and retrain "high risk" officers subject to multiple complaints.

He insists "the culture is changing" and the changes are already producing dividends, including police willing to break ranks. An officer who slaps around a suspect is now at far greater risk of a colleague reporting them.

Calls for a new, totally independent police complaints body are misguided, Mr Guerin says, and change can and must be achieved from within.

"We need to own the issue of police misconduct, especially [towards] vulnerable people in custody," he says.

But leading criminal defence lawyers, such as Robert Stary and Dyson Hore-Lacy, SC, are sceptical about whether police are truly capable of investigating themselves.

Tamar Hopkins, a lawyer who has campaigned for years alongside the Flemington and Kensington Community Legal Centre for an independent police complaints body, says "there is more sunlight" creeping into the way police handle complaints. But while she says some senior police are committed to change, this is not enough to improve what is happening out on the street.

As for Ms Berry, she is taking matters into her own hands and plans to sue the force.

Her lawyer, Joseph Ridley of Arnold Thomas & Becker, said Ms Berry's case was not only about achieving justice for her, but about holding the police force to account on behalf of the community.
"I don't know that I will ever get past it. I dream about it," she says.

"I hope that the police force does do what they say they are going to do to look after people in custody – and weed out the ones who think they've got the power because they've got the badge."


  • Yvonne Berry on stress leave from force's internal affairs section, suffering mental health issues.
  • January 15: Berry arrested for being drunk and taken to Ballarat police cells. Alleged assault captured on CCTV. Corruption watchdog IBAC alerted by police.
  • April: Berry gives statement to IBAC, which announces public inquiry into Ballarat Police Station. Berry's identity is kept secret.
  • April: Police Association mount legal challenge against IBAC's right to hold public hearings as part of its inquiry. This continues for months.
  • January: Berry is charged with multiple criminal offences, including those arising from her time in a cell and theft of a motor car in December 2014. She denies the charges.
  • February: Police write to Berry, telling her none of the police who allegedly assaulted her will face charges.
  • May: IBAC holds public hearing into Ballarat and releases CCTV of Berry's treatment. Her identity is kept secret.
  • August: Police quietly withdraw charges against Berry after advice from senior barrister.
  • October: With IBAC inquiry ongoing, Berry breaks her silence..
  • October: Senior police respond, saying her treatment is unacceptable and committing to major reforms. Police also re-examining whether a police officer who allegedly assaulted Berry could be charged.

Sunday, October 16, 2016

Why you can never trust Victoria Police

Victoria Police is supposed to be an arm of the government that apparently 'upholds the right' or 'serves and protects' the general populous, but how can you trust an ogranisation that commits more criminal offences (per capita) than the people they are supposed to allegedly 'serve and protect'?

From its inception Victoria Police was made up of criminals (just really well behaved ones) where this still looks to be the case today.

We've been informed that many people who have had harm done to them in the hands of Victoria Police have been given Compensation forms to fill in, i.e. 'begging' for an amount of cash, up to a maximum of $5,000(?)

We would not recommend  this approach, but rather suing the state of Victoria, the police department and bringing in criminal charges against the police 'officers' who caused your person harm.

It seems like the police are just hired guns, subservient to corporations and not 'law' extorting the masses for cash from unlawful fines, as one example.

See also:

Ex Victorian Police Officer comments on fines

What the corporate media will not tell you:

Victoria Police was turned into a corporation the time of the enactment of the Victoria Police Act 2013.

As a result, Victoria Police is also subject to various corporations laws under state and federal jurisdiction.

Victoria Police lie under oath every single day in the courts with zero repercussions, and even laugh about it to the faces of their victims.

Victoria Police state that they shred evidence (e.g. Eugene Matthews - Sunshine Magistrates' Court), a perversion in the course of justice (a criminal offence), and they are still allowed to come to work the next day.

The Victoria Police oath is to a false entities, i.e. the Queen / parliament, where the person swearing the oath is liable for criminal charges which include incarceration.

Victoria Police attitude to their oath of office is "I don't give a sh!t about the oath" (Colin Greenland, Nunawading Highway Patrol).

Download audio:

Victoria Police delete internal video footage that incriminates them, so it cannot be used as evidence against them.

Victoria Police while committing criminal offences confiscate people's phones to delete the recorded evidence of their criminal activities.

There is no lawful instrument that gives Victoria Police the authority to issue fines.

There are many more actions that emanate from Victoria Police that are criminal, but that can be left to another blog post or few hundred.

We have obtained information that the so called 'lost badges' are sold on the black market, this practice has been going on for quite some time with no action from the government.

Should the government choose keep taking no action, then the lack of action indicates that the government supports the criminal actions of Victoria Police.

Victoria Police are private militia that work for corporations as debt collectors, threatening the general populous with armed robbery, extortion, violence and incarceration.

Make no mistake about it, Victoria Police are not your 'friend', do not work for you (re: Public servants), never have and never will, as they are an arm of the executive.

See article from 15 October 2016 by of the headline:

Victoria Police under fire for sharp rise in security breaches

(Photo: Opposition police spokesman Edward O’Donohue in the observation room at the Geelong Police Station. Picture: Mike Dugdale)

EXCLUSIVE: VICTORIA Police has been slammed for a massive rise in security breaches which has sparked an unprecedented amnesty for officers.
A scathing government report has found 453 “information security incidents” in the past financial year, up 36 per cent on the year before, fuelling fears public safety was being put at risk.

The Privacy and Data Protection report found statewide:

207 police IDs lost or stolen;

27 incidents of police officers inappropriately accessing computer systems;

40 cases of police data released without authorisation; and

21 thefts or loss of an asset.

It can also be revealed police are using their own mobile phones, computers and equipment to record critical data.

Commissioner David Watts also ordered a second investigation into how police were protecting intelligence at three random stations: Morwell, Mansfield and Dandenong.

It found:

OFFICERS were capturing, storing and sending intelligence on their personal phones and computers, meaning the data was taken to crime scenes and unsecured locations.

SIGNIFICANT volumes of law enforcement data was being stored under desks and in personal lockers, rather than being securely filed.

UNSWORN staff had “limited or no awareness” of data security procedures and received no training about it even though they had “substantial and significant” exposure to intelligence.

Victoria Police moved to set up an amnesty so that “personal holdings” of law enforcement information among officers could be archived or destroyed.

Opposition police spokesman Edward O’Donohue said public safety could be at risk as confidential police information found its way into the community.

 (Photo: Opposition police spokesman Edward O’Donohue. Photo: Josie Hayden)

“Victoria Police data security breaches have increased a staggering 36 per cent with police identity and other information lost,” he said.

The force’s security incident registry shows of the recorded 453 incidents last year — up from 332 — one was considered to be “major” and 20 were deemed to be of “moderate” concern.

Police also reported 19 cases where malware infected the force’s computer systems.

Mr Watts surveyed more than 2000 officers, many of whom admitted to ignoring security policies so they could work more efficiently.

“Personal holding of law enforcement data continues to have a high likelihood of occurrence driven by limited storage space, a continued reliance on hard copy as well as electronic data, and the belief in the need to capture personal records of work activities,” the report said.

Peter Morrissey SC, one of the state’s most respected criminal barristers and chair of the Criminal Bar Association, told the Sunday Herald Sun that slack data protection protocols were a serious threat to the integrity of the justice system.

(Photo Mr Watts surveyed more than 2000 officers, many of whom admitted to ignoring security policies so they could work more efficiently. Photo: Supplied)

“The problem is they need to have strong guidelines so that they know that if they capture information off the grid, as it were, then it is clear that they have to get it back on the grid. The informant, or co-ordinator of any prosecution, needs to know.”

Mr Morrissey said data integrity could be improved if more officers were recruited. “One way of ensuring data is kept properly is employing more police so they have time to properly handle and file information,” Mr Morrissey said.

Mr Watts is expected to hand his final report and recommendations to Victoria Police soon.

Victoria Police was unable to comment yesterday.

The State Government did not comment by press time.

Friday, October 14, 2016

Victorian government sending 1000's of children to get sexually abused and raped?

How can you trust the 'government' if it sends children to get sexually abused including being raped?

While it is certainly not tolerable, you would expect this from a third world (military?) dictatorship in some 'dodgy' country.

Apparently Australia is a first world country, but when you take a closer look it 'seems' that the current government called the 'Australian Government'  is a hostile military dictatorship, taken control from the de jure government of 1901 as described in the 'Constitution', but that's another matter for the High Court of Australia.

The general populous of this continent are the most surveilled people on the planet, and according to authorities this is done so in order to stop criminal activity (read 'terrorism').

If the administrators of this colony cannot make laws that can deal with criminal activity, irrespective of what it's called, then this is a matter of a failure of governance and the administration should be removed, and not continue to be in power.

Law experts have stated publicly (on the ABC's Q&A programme) that current laws should be able to deal with all sorts of criminal activity.

The general populous' movements can be accessed in real time by the authorities. 

They can turn on the microphones from your (self funded government spy equipment) 'smart' phones and listen in to your 'private' conversations in your home.

They can access any of your records be it either phone, internet or current location without a warrant.
First and foremost, how can you trust a police 'force' who's oath of office to a false queen/parliament is in itself a criminal action?

How can you trust a police force that beats people up and destroys the evidence?

How can you trust police that lie in court every single day?

How can you trust the people of a government to deal with criminals, when they themselves are part of a highly sophisticated criminal organisation?

The 'authorities' (Bronwyn Bishop - speaker of the House of Representatives on national television show "Q&A" from 15 Jun 2015) tell us that apparently that " The first job of a government is to look after the safety of its people" .

Please note that Google has removed the blog post called:

List of paedophile judges in New South Wales

It seems like plenty of people are getting harmed by the current government, and there is a conspiracy to conceal the truth.

Please note: Unreported instances usually outnumber the reported ones. article from 13 October 2016 of the headline:

Vic kids in state care report 138 rapes

Victorian children in state care were involved in more than 1000 sexual incidents in the past year, including more than 100 rapes.
The shocking figures were the worst for children in residential care, who make up five per cent of children in care but account for 62 per cent of category one incidents.

A damning 2015 report into Victoria's residential care system found it "creates opportunities for the sexual abuse of children".

The government accepted the report's recommendations, and the Commissioner for Children and Young People's 2015/16 annual report says some programs are working.

"However, reports relating to incidents of sexual exploitation of children and young people living in residential care continue to rise, indicating the need for urgent action on all of the inquiry's recommendations," the report said.

There were 1019 sexual incidents involving children in state care in 2015/16, making up one third of all category one incidents.

They included 138 rapes, 200 indecent sexual assaults, and 412 "sexual exploitation" incidents, up from 162 the year before.

"The increase is the result of enhanced knowledge and awareness amongst those working with young people at risk," says the report, released on Thursday.

The Department of Health and Human Services annual report also revealed 20.7 per cent of child protection cases were unallocated as of June 2016.

"With youth crime at record rates, these vulnerable children need to be protected from abusive behaviour," opposition children's spokeswoman Georgie Crozier said.

Families and Children Minister Jenny Mikakos said the government was taking steps to improve the safety of children in care through its Roadmap for Reform policy.

"(The) policy is shifting the children and family services system from crisis response to prevention and early intervention," she said.

Victoria's child protection system has strengthened its relationship with police to increase reporting and early intervention in cases of sexual exploitation.

More than 330 new child protection workers have been hired since May 2015 and spot audits of residential care facilities have started.

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Samsung's dodgy business practices

(illustration:Nathan Dornacher claims the Galaxy Note 7 caused the fire)

It's bad enough that Samsung put out a product that is capable of killing its user which sparked (no pun intended) a global recall, then an apparent safe second version was given to customers, where it was found that it too can be a silent killer.

So what's the deal with Samsung?

Can they really be trusted?

Could Samsung's BP Chemicals be the responsible entity for the exploding phone?

Let's take a closer look at the business practices of this global giant.

Samsung BP Chemicals, based in Ulsan, is a 49:51 joint venture between Samsung and the UK-based BP, which was established in 1989 to produce and supply high-value-added chemical products. Its products are used in rechargeable batteries and liquid crystal display

Samsung was the subject of several complaints about child labour in its supply chain from 2012 to 2015.

One of Samsung's Chinese supplier factories, HEG, was criticized for using underage workers by China Labor Watch (CLW) in July 2014. HEG denied the charges and has sued China Labor Watch.
In July 2014, Samsung cut its contract with Shinyang Electronics after it received a complaint about the company violating child labour laws. Samsung says that its investigation turned up evidence of Shinyang using underage workers and that it severed relations immediately per its "zero tolerance" policy for child labour violations.

CLW issued a statement in August 2014 claiming that HEG employed over ten children under the age of 16 at a factory in Huizhou, Guangdong. The group said the youngest child identified was 14 years old. Samsung said that it conducted an onsite investigation of the production line that included one-on-one interviews but found no evidence of child labour being used. CLW responded that HEG had already dismissed the workers described in its statement before Samsung's investigators arrived.

CLW also claimed that HEG violated overtime rules for adult workers. CLW said a female college student was only paid her standard wage despite working four hours of overtime per day even though Chinese law requires overtime pay at 1.5 to 2.0 times standard wages.

In 2013 New Zealand news media reported a number of Samsung washing machines spontaneously caught fire.

On October 19, 2011, Samsung was fined EUR 145,727,000 for being part of a price cartel of ten companies for DRAMs which lasted from 1 July 1998 to 15 June 2002. The company received, like most of the other members of the cartel, a 10-% reduction for acknowledging the facts to investigators. Samsung had to pay 90% of their share of the settlement, but Micron avoided payment as a result of having initially revealed the case to investigators.

In Canada, during 1999, Some D-RAM micro chip manufacturers conspired to price fix, among the accused included Samsung. The price fix was investigated in 2002. A recession started to occur that year, and the price fix ended, however in 2014, the Canadian government reopened the case and investigated silently. Sufficient evidence was found and presented to Samsung and two other manufacturers during a class action lawsuit hearing. The companies agreed upon a $120 Million agreement, with $40 million as a fine, and $80 Million to be paid back to Canadians who purchased a computer, printer, MP3 player, gaming console or camera from April 1999 to June 2002

"You can even say the Samsung chairman is more powerful than the President of South Korea. 

[South] Korean people have come to think of Samsung as invincible and above the law", said Woo Suk-hoon, host of a popular economics podcast in a Washington Post article headlined "In South Korea, the Republic of Samsung", published on 9 December 2012. Critics claimed that Samsung knocked out smaller businesses, limiting choices for South Korean consumers, and sometimes colluded with fellow giants to fix prices while bullying those who investigate. Lee Jung-hee, a South Korean presidential candidate, said in a debate, "Samsung has the government in its hands. Samsung manages the legal world, the press, the academics and bureaucracy".

In 2007, former Samsung chief lawyer Kim Yong Chul claimed that he was involved in bribing and fabricating evidence on behalf of the group's chairman Lee Kun-hee and the company. Kim said that Samsung lawyers trained executives to serve as scapegoats in a "fabricated scenario" to protect Lee, even though those executives were not involved. Kim also told the media that he was "sidelined" by Samsung after he refused to pay a $3.3 million bribe to the U.S. Federal District Court judge presiding over a case where two of their executives were found guilty on charges related to memory chip price fixing. Kim revealed that the company had raised a large amount of secret funds through bank accounts illegally opened under the names of up to 1,000 Samsung executives—under his own name, four accounts were opened to manage 5 billion won.

The Fair Trade Commission of Taiwan is investigating Samsung and its local Taiwanese advertising agency for false advertising. The case was commenced after the Commission received complaints stating that the agency hired students to attack competitors of Samsung Electronics in online forums. Samsung Taiwan made an announcement on its Facebook page in which it stated that it had not interfered with any evaluation report and had stopped online marketing campaigns that constituted posting or responding to content in online forums

Source Supplied.