16 September 2017
SO, we'll start off with why a certain 'category' of fine can be dismissed IMMEDIATELY.
Let's look at one aspect of law that is advertised by your friendly 'city councils'.
They state that "Parking on nature strips is illegal - penalties apply"
(check with your local council, referring to state law - i.e. an Act to where this is 'claim' is referred to)
So, if you obtained a 'fine' from a person who parked their car like this:
or a fine from a person who is hiding their grey Mitsubishi behind some bins on a nature strip as shown in illustration below:
then should you choose to go to court over that matter you could ask the well versed at law magistrate or judicial registrar, who is at your service whether they support 'evidence' obtained illegally, referring to the relevant state law with regards to illegally obtained evidence.
Please note that a mobile speed camera operator is not a police officer, but rather an 'independent' contractor.
Should you choose to contest this type of fine in court, it would be to your benefit to obtain the owner's manual as part of evidence in order to ascertain whether the correct conditions were met that led to the allegation that a vehicle was speeding.
15 September 2017
What the people in government do, is import (more) slave labour who take jobs from Australians.
The Aussies that are 'forced' out of work, in order to apply for welfare, must do so with a company called Centrelink.
They are then being punished for being unemployed, a 'welfare problem' the people in government created in the first place.
Centrelink (together with a host of Job Network Agencies) has been 'punishing' people for being unemployed for quite some time, whereas now it's going to be 'legal'.
See article from 12 Sep 2017 by aimn.com.au of the headline:
The Jobless Did Not Ask For This!
Who is responsible for jobs? Should we punish the jobless? Is welfare a right or a privilege? These are the questions the Government is too gutless to ask. By accepting the Government’s answers to these issues without question, it may be shaping a future we haven’t asked for. The Jobless didn’t ask for this!
The term “welfare” is often touted as synonymous with the word “problem”. The question we are not asked is, “Is welfare a problem?”
The Government is asking us to argue vehemently over answers to a question they are too gutless to ask. We should ask the Government questions.
Welfare Reform is a complex issue. However, the wider narrative has a huge impact on how we address reform in this space.
The Welfare Reform Bill currently before the house, is focused on using punishment as a blunt force to solve the ‘welfare problem.’ The Government is quite brazen in no longer hiding punishment as a measure.
One system of punishment is a demerit point system. Another is drug testing. Therefore, the Government has predetermined, that the jobless ‘do the wrong thing’.
The Liberal National Coalition have successfully chipped away at society, along with the opposition in some respects. That is, to create a sub-human welfare class who society appears comfortable to punish.
Punishment sits well with a large section of society. This is due to continuous stigma aimed at the jobless. In the words of Erving Goffman, we have actively inflicted upon the jobless a ‘spoiled identity.’
The Labor opposition opposes these measures. However, since the late 1980’s the Labor party has joined with the Liberals with the same mantra.. That is, the onus is on the jobless to find a job, rather than the responsibility of Government to sustain an economy offering jobs for all.
In short, the narrative over the last 30 years is that jobseekers need a paternalistic guiding hand to motivate them. Therefore, the Government shuns the notion of the jobseeker’s own intrinsic motivation.
Who is Responsible For Jobs?
The answer given to us over the last 30 years is that the jobless are a problem. The Government(s) place the burden on the jobseeker to find jobs, although these jobs may not exist. Where jobs do not exist, the Turnbull Government believes the jobless should create their own job. For ideological reasons, the Government shuns Government intervention and job creation.
The Government(s) have given us answers without asking any questions. They assume that we, in society, simply agree that the jobless are a problem. The Government assumes that we agree that the Government is blameless. They assume we are completely happy with the amount and types of jobs available.
The questions the Government(s) are too gutless to ask is:
“Is the Government doing enough to ensure there are enough jobs for the people?”
“Is the Government skilled enough to implement the right solutions to increase available jobs?”
“If the Government does not believe it is their role to create jobs, is self-determination to create our own job by starting our own business, a practical solution for all?”
“Do we aim for a society where large pockets of ghost towns exist, along with a number of over-populated vibrant cities for workers to transition to, or do we aim for a society where the Government places the same commitment to develop all regions equally?”
Should We Punish the Jobless?
The answer given to us over the last 30 years is the we should punish the jobless. The punitive approach intensified during the Howard era, particularly financial penalties. The level of punishment today is very paternalistic and draconian.
The problem posed is that the jobless lack motivation. The assumption is that inaction by the Government is acceptable. However, the Government does not ask us if we agree.
Over the Abbott-Turnbull period, the level of punishment aimed at the jobless is unacceptable. From the jobless starve for six months policy, to the demerit system, to restrictions on volunteer work for over 55’s, cashless welfare and drug testing are aimed to develop a society, I do not recognise as an Australian society. This causes me a deep level of concern.
The questions the Government(s) are too gutless to ask is:
“Is it fair to punish the jobless, if the Government fails to provide enough jobs?”
“Should the Government punish the jobless, if they do not have the skills or capital to start their own business, if they cannot find a job?”
“Is it fair to punish the jobless if the Government has not provided an adequate jobsearch system to support the jobless to match them to available jobs?”
“Although studies show that extrinsic motivation factors such as punishment, affect psychological well-being, hinder job search and not assist it, is it acceptable to punish the jobless?
Is Welfare a Right or a Privilege?
The punitive approach of successive Governments aim to reduce spending in the welfare space. It is evident that the Abbott-Turnbull Government’s aim is to reclassify those on welfare into a sliding scale. This scale appears to bracket those on welfare from ‘acceptable citizens’ to ‘bludgers’ to ‘drug addled sub-humans.’
The Government had one other criteria “genuine jobseekers”, prior to this bill. However, all jobseekers now fall into the realm of bludgers. Every measure in the current bill, is underpinned by a suspicion the jobless individual may be prone to deviant behaviour.
The punitive measures in the current reforms are very much focused on financial penalty. They seek to exclude or restrict access to unemployment benefits. This is done by classifying welfare recipients into normal behaviour (reward) and deviant behaviour (exclusion).
In short, to save money on the welfare bill (which we all pay for, including the jobless), the Government has provided us with the answer of normals and deviants.
They haven’t asked us the question. However, it is clear their answer is ‘normals and deviants’.
The Government knows that Australians will always apply the ‘fair-go’ to normals, but not deviants. In short, it is a simple equation.
Jobless+30 years of stigma = Deviants
Normals-Deviants = Less welfare spending
This question I have left until last because it is crucial to how we see our future as a society. Most importantly, I ask readers to please ponder upon this question. This is because the Government tells us everyday who we are. We need to stand up and tell them who we want to be.Therefore, it is crucial to argue if welfare is a right or a privilege. This is intrinsic to who we are as a society.
The question the Government(s) are too gutless to ask is:
As you can see from the excerpt above, unemployment and sickness benefits were introduced in Australia as a right, not a privilege. Three generations later, the Abbott-Turnbull Government speaks of welfare as a privilege and not a right. They have changed the definition whilst we were not looking. Additionally, they again, provided us with an answer without asking us a very important question.
“Should Welfare continue to be available as a right to all people in society, from the recently redundant to the most disenfranchised in society, or do we aim for a society, where the poorest class are further divided by the Government into entitled humans and excluded sub-humans?”
Real welfare reform will begin with asking confronting questions and shifting away from arguing over the answers the Government provides without them posing an actual question.
If the Government took on the burden instead of the jobless, our conversations around the dinner table, would be very different. Importantly, these tiny conversations are powerful enough to shape public policy.
It is evident from some of the emotive speakers within the Labor opposition and crossbenchers, speaking to this bill, that the punishment regime has gone way too far. However, after 30 years of placing the burden on the jobless and praising punishment as a motivator, why is anyone speaking to this welfare bill, angry or shocked?
Real Welfare Reform can only happen when a leader dares to stand apart from the pack. This leader will remove the burden from the jobless. They will lead us by being brave enough to take ownership and responsibility for job creation. Most importantly they will not stand idly by and allow the jobless in our society to suffer from stigma in silence. They will unite us and not divide us.
They will look back over the last 30 years, look back to us and with true emotion say “Under a Government I lead, the jobless will never be punished again.”
14 September 2017
How 'dodgy' is the company Apple?
It manufactures its phones to only last a year so that the herd population can fork out another fist full of dollars ($AU1800).
No multi billion dollar class action lawsuit to teach the fraudsters at Apple a lesson ??? !!! ???
We do not recommend the purchase of Apple phones or other products.
See article from 13 Sep 2017 by thesun.co.uk of the headline:
The iPhone is only guaranteed to last for one YEAR, Apple admits in bombshell court documents
APPLE has revealed that its iPhones are only guaranteed to last for one year.
Smug Samsung, Motorola, HTC and OnePlus fans will be pleased to hear the news about Apple's short life expectancy
Apple prides itself on quality, design and value for money.
But it turns out the exact guaranteed life expectancy of an iPhone is a lot shorter than you'd hope - especially if you're planning on forking out £1,149 for its top range iPhone X.
Apple says that it is only responsible for ensuring the phones last just one year - the default warranty you get upon purchase.
The details were revealed thanks to a class action lawsuit that was launched after several iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus phones began suffering from "touch disease".
Touchscreens on tens of thousands of the phones stopped working - and three law firms have taken Apple to court over it.
Publically, Apple has often said that its phones are the "most durable".
Many people fork out far more than the market average for a smartphone to buy one on the basis that it is one of the highest quality phones.
Apple says that it is only responsible for ensuring the phones last just one year - the default warranty you get upon purchase
Our microwaves and fridges seem to last forever - so why not our phones?
Putting an expiry date on a product is called "planned obsolescence": a profit trick where manufacturers plan or design an item that has an artificially limited shelf life, so it will become obsolete and need to be bought again.
Apple brings out a new smartphone every year.
In comparison, people who purcahse appliances like hoovers, microwaves and fridges tend to buy just one item every few years.
Even Greg Joswiak. vice president of iPhone marketing, recently told Buzzfeed that the iPhone was the "most durable" around.
But in court, Apple's lawyers have argued that it is only responsible for keeping iPhones working for a year.
In a motion that was filed in April, it wrote: "Apple's Limited Warranty expressly provides for a return if the consumer does not agree to 'the terms of the warranty.'"
"Plaintiffs' allegations about the duration of cellular telephone service plans or financing options cannot change the clearly stated one-year warranty that has always applied to Apple's iPhones."
The lawyers added: "Plaintiffs had the options of purchasing a smartphone from a third party or purchasing an extended service plan to extend the duration of the one-year warranty."
So in other words, if you want a phone that lasts longer than a year - shop elsewhere or pay more for a special service plan that will fix your phone after twelve months."
Apple previously said its iPhones were built to last three years.
You will no longer be a mother or father, son or daughter but rather 'people'.
What would be 'interesting' is seeing the writ for the vote.
Anyone care to grab a copy ??? !!! ???
See 'Exposure Draft' for the new (unlawfully enacted) law to be;
and can be downloaded directly from the link:
Exposure Draft - Marriage Amendment
EDIT: 18 September 2017;
To all those idiots who have stated that this is a 'fake' document,
the document was downloaded from the OFFICIAL Australian government website of the Attorney - General, George Brandis.
This is the link from where the document was obtained;
Forget Russian children breaking out of kindergartens or hacking election results.
It's your 'friendly' federal governments that (unlawfully) hack into your PC, where they may even get a bit of help from the software manufacturers with the advent of back doors or even exploitable vulnerabilities.
It is only when they are 'busted' that a patch comes out in order to give the masses a sense of privacy, until the next vulnerability is detected (by those Russians?).
See article from 13 Sep 2017 by motherboard.com of the headline:
Researchers Catch Microsoft Zero-Day Used To Install Government Spyware
A cybersecurity firm has discovered yet another unknown vulnerability used to install government spyware. The vulnerability has now been patched.Government hackers were using a previously-unknown vulnerability in Microsoft's .NET Framework, a development platform for building apps, to hack targets and infect them with spyware, according to security firm FireEye.
The firm revealed the espionage campaign on Tuesday, on the same day Microsoft patched the vulnerability. According to FireEye, the bug, which until today was a zero-day, was being used by a customer of FinFisher, a company that sells surveillance and hacking technologies to governments around the world.
The hackers sent a malicious Word RTF document called "Проект.doc" to a "Russian speaker," according to Ben Read, FireEye's manager of cyber espionage research. Read said FireEye doesn't know who the hackers are, other than the fact that they are presumably FinFisher customers.
The document was programmed to take advantage of the recently-patched vulnerability to install FinSpy, spyware designed by FinFisher. The spyware masqueraded as an image file called "left.jpg," according to FireEye.
This is the second time in the last six months that security researchers catch an ongoing espionage operation that uses FinFisher malware and exploits. In April, FireEye and independent security researcher Claudio Guarnieri found that unknown government hackers were using a Microsoft Word zero-day to install FinFisher spyware on Russian victims.
"[This] shows that the company behind FinSpy has significant financial resources," Read told Motherboard in a phone call. "These types of vulnerabilities aren't cheap to obtain, whether you're buying them on the underground market or developing them in house. It shows that basically they got some cash to play with and that they have a healthy customer base willing to pay them to use the vulnerabilities."
FinFisher did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
11 September 2017
In the rapidly changing world of Information and Communications Technology, companies can come and go without even a ripple, invent technologies to be bought out by others and even reach stratospheric heights only to wilt away to a minuscule shadow of their former glory, like Nokia.
It seems that BlackBerry is going down this inevitable path too.
BlackBerry used to be a name synonymous with secure handsets together with a secure server communications platform.
Just because this may have been the case with BlackBerry a decade ago does not mean this is also the case today.
On the success of its (allegedly) secure proprietary device operating system (combined with the server email platform), BlackBerry abandoned its BlackBerry Operating System user base to create Google's Android Operating System base mobile phone with a twist that being a physical keyboard in order to lure the old customers.
They named the device "Priv" to give the impression that one has a privileged or private (meaning secure) communications device?
In reality it's just another 'Android' slab, running Google's operating system meaning it's far from secure or private even with BlackBerry's add-ons.
At the end of the day the sales figures showed that it was a giant flop.
Due to poor management decisions BlackBerry has lost its edge.
AS mentioned before, BlackBerry has abandoned updates that it apparently promised (legally binding contract?) to its customers using its proprietary BlackBerry Operating System.
BlackBerry has also lost many government contracts.
BlackBerry has abandoned an Android Nougat update to the Priv device.
BlackBerry does not even manufacture phones any more as that was 'given' away to TCL.
So what has TCL produced under the BlackBerry label a phone whose screen lifts, BRILLIANT, at least you can hide a business card or two there.
How's the Android side of software going with BlackBerry?
Well it looks like it's loaded with bloatware.
Most tech reviews will entice a consumer to purchase the latest 'slab' from a manufacturer, either because they get paid for the review or get sponsorship, or just to keep the cogs of industry turning.
E.g. you have to get the black version of the KEYone that came out this month as it's better (because of it black colour?) than last month's 'normal' one.
- How can you trust a company that promises to update its software, only to leave you in the lurch?
- How can you trust a company that markets its (Android) products as secure, when the moment one logs into Google, one's 'security' / 'privacy' is out the door?