24 March 2018

Canberra Australia's Capitol

Did they make a mistake?

Was it a Freudian slip?

Did that American fella know something the Aussie serfs did not?

Birds of a feather flock together, in both colonies?

Anyone wanna play Jeff Hook, minus Jeff, but rather with capitol than the hook?

A 1911 design by Freemason Walter Burley Griffin's for Australia's Capitol hill.

22 March 2018

Victorian Ombudsman confirms $387,842 stolen by Labor

See full report in pdf (208pages, 23.5MB) file below :

Source acknowledged.

Document source:

Local Government Lies - No Through Road

It's not enough that the good subjects of Her Majesty in the Commonwealth of Australia a being lied to by their so called representatives, the Mutts in Parliament (MPs).

It's not enough that the good people are being defrauded and lied to by the (Daniel) Andrews government, where even when caught the fraudsters still retain their jobs, salaries and superannuation (try that trick with the social security business called Centrelink).

Now the 'local' fraudsters in your friendly city council are delivering false information to drivers.

In the below photograph, a road contains a sign that says NO ENTRY (no need for concern with what's written underneath that).

Another sign underneath states that it's a NO THROUGH ROAD.

So with reference to the "NO THROUGH ROAD" a driver would comprehend that the road does not continue for automobiles.

This could be because the road is actually a court, or either through a natural obstruction,  like a mountain, or something a bit more subtle - a rockery with trees planted in the middle of a previously drive-able road that a hipster engineer decided to plan as a result of the global warming officer's advice.

The driver in this case knows that the city councils with their alleged third tier of law making ability can go screw themselves, and proceeded down this "NO THROUGH ROAD".

To the absolute astonishment of the driver and no doubt through a Moses like miracle, the road less traveled had no dead end, even though it was far from the dead sea, it was very passable, as seen in photo of biblical proportions.

All that matters is that you get fined for going through the (false info) sign.

But what are the penalties for your members of your 'local government' lying to you?

Uuummm, about the same as for Daniel Andrews' buddies who defrauded Victorian tax payers of nearly $400,000.

You do realise that they (the peeps in federal and state gov) are laughing at the commoners.

Would you like to partake in a class action against your 'local government'?

If so, then see:

20 March 2018

Leaked video shows police brutally bashing young handcuffed father Noa Begic

A matter all too reminiscent of Corinna Horvath where she was brutally bashed by Victoria Police to an inch of her not remembering her name.

From the article by abc.net.au from 18 Mar 2018 of the headline:

Queensland Police in leaked bashing video were subject to dozens of brutality complaints

A Queensland police unit on the Gold Coast generated dozens of brutality complaints and a longstanding reputation among colleagues for excessive force before several of its members were publicly exposed in a leaked video.

The failed prosecution of former police officer Rick Flori over the leak opened up former members of so-called Surfers Paradise "Team Two" to interrogation over their disciplinary records, which revealed internal investigations of 21 allegations of serious misconduct.

Team Two was one of a number of patrol units operating out of Surfers Paradise police, each with a membership of 12 to 15 officers at any one time.

The ABC can reveal there were at least 21 other complaints of excessive force against another two officers within Team Two in the years leading up to the unjustified assault of Noa Begic in the police station car park in January 2012

Photo: Mr Flori was cleared over leaking police video in February this year. (ABC News: Josh Robertson)

A Police Ethical Standards Command (ESC) report from 2010, obtained by the ABC, noted the "inordinately large number of excessive force allegations", with ESC issuing a "medium-level warning" to senior Gold Coast police about one officer.

However, it said "no adverse inference can or should be drawn" against the officers because the complaints were not substantiated, and Surfers Paradise was a "volatile" environment.

Corruption watchdog began 'profile' of police unit

But Team Two's overall complaints record prompted the then-Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC) to "profile" the unit, Mr Flori said.

"Because of the significantly larger number of complaints that team had, not as an individual as such, but a team as a whole … they actually profiled that team prior to the Begic arrest," he told the ABC.
"They had been under scrutiny well before this and relatively little or no action was taken to curb their behaviour."

Two other former Gold Coast officers said team two had a reputation for using unjustified force in arrests and their complaint rate dwarfed other teams.

A spokesman for the CMC's successor, the Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC), said they would "neither confirm nor deny" the agency profiled Team Two.

Internal investigators found the assault against Mr Begic was unjustified and initially covered up.

But in a six-year saga that proved to be a public relations disaster for police, the only officer charged was Mr Flori, for leaking video evidence to the media.

Officer under investigation multiple times

Former senior sergeant David 'Joacho' Joachim, who was in charge at the scene of Mr Begic's assault, was a previous Team Two leader.

He was investigated eight times by the ESC, including for six alleged assaults on prisoners in custody.

Two of these came in the weeks after Mr Begic's arrest, when he allegedly punched a handcuffed prisoner in the face three times and hit another with handcuffs while threatening to beat him "to a pulp".

He was also investigated in 2009 for alleged corrupt conduct in helping security guards cover up an incident, and in 2007 for responding to an excessive force complaint by charging the person with obstructing police.

In Mr Flori's trial in the Southport District Court last month, Mr Joachim said he could not recall any details of the incidents that prompted complaints or the investigations.

But he agreed none of them were substantiated and he was never charged for anything.

Joachim also under alleged corruption probe in NSW

The Flori trial also revealed that when he was a detective in New South Wales, Mr Joachim was investigated for alleged corruption over a shooting investigation, shortly before he resigned in 1988.

A 2001 Police Integrity Commission report criticised Mr Joachim for being too friendly with a person of interest, and giving a misleading statement in a follow-up investigation in 1996 after he became a Queensland police officer.

The inquiry cleared Mr Joachim of any criminal conduct but noted he eluded disciplinary action because he was no longer a New South Wales officer.

Mr Joachim washed away a pool of Mr Begic's blood and was involved in the struggle on camera but denied seeing an assault, even when confronted with video evidence during Mr Flori's trial.

The court heard that Mr Joachim had reported the violent incident to two inspectors at Surfers Paradise station, but had not told them he was physically involved.

Video: CCTV vision of Noa Begic being arrested by Queensland police officers in 2012 (ABC News)

He told the inspectors he had investigated the matter by viewing the CCTV footage — together with Mr Begic's assailant Ben Lamb and fellow officer Robert Johnston — and found the force was "proportionate".

Mr Joachim also had not disclosed his role to Mr Begic when he visited him in the watch house to see if he wanted to file an assault complaint.

His superiors had not watched the video until Mr Begic filed a complaint a week later.

Inspector Matt Rosevear agreed in court with Mr Flori's lawyer that on watching the footage, he saw a "blindingly obvious potential issue around excessive use of force".

Mr Joachim had told Mr Flori's trial he had a family link to Queensland Police Commissioner Ian Stewart, who was "my brother-in-law's brother".

Commissioner Stewart told media after the trial he had declared his "conflict of interest" and played no role in the investigation.

Mr Joachim and other officers in court maintained the assault was justified because Mr Begic, who was handcuffed and lying prone on the ground, had been "violently resisting arrest".

Police alleged he made offensive comments to passing officers but Mr Begic maintained he was singing a Rage Against the Machine song.

Officer admits force during arrest was 'totally excessive'

In footage of his arrest shown to the District Court, Mr Begic appeared compliant.

This included his approach to the police station carpark, which one officer, then-constable Johnston, admitted was at odds with his account that an agitated Mr Begic had been "jumping around like a freaking Zulu person".

While colleagues maintained the force was appropriate, then-senior constable Lamb, who kneed Mr Begic and punched him six times in the head — in part because he thought he was a Maori and thus likely to be strong — admitted to the court his force was "totally excessive".
"This was a clanger of a day for me," he said.
Mr Lamb said most of the six previous complaints lodged against him in less than two years were "nonsense", although he could not recall details of any of the incidents.

They included allegations that he punched two other handcuffed prisoners in the face, causing major teeth damage to one and allegedly telling him: "You boys aren't planning on making any complaints, are you?"

Mr Lamb was also investigated by the CCC for alleged corruption in 2011 for failing to take action against a person for assault.

No allegations were substantiated, but he was given managerial guidance for striking and pushing a prisoner in custody, causing him to fall against a wall.

Mr Johnston, whom Mr Begic accused of punching him in the head, was cleared of wrongdoing.

Officer investigated over 'choking' arrest

Video: CCTV vision of arrest of Kristian Puru in 2015 (ABC News)

But the court heard Mr Johnston was again investigated in 2015 for violently choking a teenager and seizing a phone he used to film the arrest of his cousin, Kristian Puru.

A magistrate at the time criticised what she found was an unjustified assault by police in the arrest, which resulted in legal costs being awarded to Mr Puru, but no disciplinary action.

Mr Flori's trial heard Mr Johnston was twice chastised for racial abuse, including of one person he allegedly punched in the face and called a "n*****".

The trial also revealed Mr Johnston had quit the force in February 2017 while under investigation for stealing drugs from a raid, assisting prostitution, illegally accessing the police database 900 times, including to gain contact information to stalk his former partner, and lying to ESC investigators.

Mr Johnston twice refused to answer questions in court about several of these allegations to avoid incriminating himself.

ESC investigators maintained in court that no police could be charged over Mr Begic's assault because he withdrew his criminal complaint, separately receiving a confidential payout.

Police disciplinary system is 'broken'

(Corporate Australia says: no it's not, it's deliberately designed to appear 'broken')

However legal experts, including former NSW director of public prosecutions Nick Cowdery, said a case could proceed on video evidence and Mr Begic's original statement.

"There might be enough evidence [from video alone] to create a reasonable prospect of conviction — it's quite possible," Mr Cowdery said.

Former Queensland police prosecutor and inspector Dominic McHugh said the police disciplinary system was "broken".

"It would appear to me that the only reason they avoided criminal charges was because of a culture or an attitude on the part of people within the service to protect their own, or to keep things closeted, or to deal with things quietly, without embarrassing," Mr McHugh said.
Fitzgerald inquiry whistleblower and former ICAC staffer Nigel Powell said the decision to prosecute Mr Flori but not others was a failure of police leadership.

"Do I want to send a message that if you beat a chained, defenceless prisoner for no reason, you are going to be prosecuted … or do I want to send the message: 'Do not embarrass us?'," Mr Powell said.

Flori 'absolutely' vindicated over leaking video

ESC finished its investigation by December 2012, finding a case for disciplinary action against Mr Lamb for excessive force and Mr Joachim for failing to report.

But the report sat with senior police for a year until Mr Joachim retired, just in time to qualify for higher superannuation as a senior sergeant, and also to avoid disciplinary action.

The CMC, which had been publicly calling for police to promptly resolve the matter, was not told about this for another eight months.

Mr Lamb was given "suspended dismissal", which the CMC unsuccessfully challenged in court as a false sanction.

He remains an officer on the Gold Coast.

Mr Flori said the outcome "absolutely" vindicated his decision to leak while an internal investigation was underway.

He said the final straw was a sergeant's meeting the day the investigation began, in which "the discussion revolved around the officers involved being 'looked after', it would be fine, that it was 'covered'".
"The result is really as was predicted — the officers suffered no consequences essentially for their actions," Mr Flori said.
"It's a disgrace and it's the way it's gone on for a long time."

Both Mr Lamb and Mr Joachim have declined to comment, while Mr Johnston could not be reached by the ABC.

Commissioner Stewart declined an interview request, but a spokesman said the public could have "confidence in internal police investigations".

Facebook data breach reveals corporations modify people's behaviour

From the article by news.com.au on 19 Mar 2018 of the headline:

Facebook is in the centre of yet another data-breach scandal

EVER felt paranoid you’re being “watched” on social media? The latest scandal around Facebook won’t make you feel any better.
Gavin Fernando

Facebook is once again facing criticism over data hacking and privacy breaches.Source:News Limited

EVER paranoid that you’re being “watched” on social media? The latest drama surrounding Facebook probably won’t help lessen those feelings.

The social media giant is currently embroiled in the largest data scandal of its history, following allegations that Cambridge Analytica tapped the Facebook profiles of more than 50 million people without their permission.

The story was broken by The Guardian over the weekend, who reported the data may have been used to influence the outcome of the United States election in 2016.


Cambridge Analytica is a British data analysis firm that offers services to businesses and groups wanting to “change audience behaviour”.

The firm, which is owned by hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer, says it can analyse consumer data — including social media and its own polling — in order to target people with marketing material.

It worked for both President Donald Trump’s election campaign, and the campaign of Republican Senator Ted Cruz.


Over the weekend, The Guardian revealed that the personal data of 50 million Facebook profiles was illegally harvested by Cambridge Analytica.

It all started in 2015, when a Cambridge psychology professor named Aleksandr Kogan created an app called “thisisyourdigitallife”.

The app was a personality quiz, described by Dr Kogan as “a research app used by psychologists”.

His company Global Science Research had a deal to share this information with Cambridge Analytica.

Around 270,000 Facebook users signed up, and were paid to take personality tests which would be stored by the company.

Over 50 million people reportedly had their Facebook data stored without their consent.Source:istock
But here’s where things get dicey: the app also collected the information of the users’ Facebook friends, who — unless they had already signed up to the app — did not consent to having their personal information stored.

This was revealed by Christopher Wylie, a whistleblower and analytics expert who worked with Cambridge Analytica.

“We exploited Facebook to harvest millions of people’s profiles,” he told The Guardian. “And built models to exploit what we knew about them and target their inner demons. That was the basis the entire company was built on.”

The app relied on its users consenting on behalf of all their friends — or at least, those whose privacy settings were to set to allow sharing with a friend’s app — to receive “more limited information”.

The information was reportedly used to map out the behaviour of voters in the lead-up to the 2016 election, as well as the Brexit campaign earlier that year.

The reports suggest over 50 million people had their data harvested without their permission.


Cambridge Analytica denied any wrongdoing, claiming it fully complied with Facebook’s term of service.

The firm claimed allegations that it obtained and used Facebook data were false, and said none of it was used in the 2016 presidential election.

The Trump campaign has also denied any wrongdoing, saying it never used Cambridge Analytica’s data. “The campaign used the RNC for its voter data and not Cambridge Analytica,” it said in a statement.

The app was removed by Facebook in 2015, and the firm reportedly assured the social media network that it had deleted all the data.

But according to the New York Times, copies of the data are still available online.

The Trump campaign has denied any wrongdoing.Source:AP


Facebook has come under pressure to be more transparent about how its users’ data is or potentially can be used by third-party companies.

Critics say the scandal highlights its ongoing problem to grasp how its platform is handled by others.

The social media giant had known since 2015 that the information had been harvested but did nothing to protect its users, according to reports.

The network attempted to suggest it was deceived, and that those involved shouldn’t have lied about deleting the data.

In a series of now-deleted tweets, Facebook’s chief security officer Alex Stamos said Dr Kogan “lied to those users and he lied to Facebook about what he was using the data for”.

In a blog post, Facebook said: “Several days ago, we received reports that, contrary to the certifications we were given, not all data was deleted. We are moving aggressively to determine the accuracy of these claims. If true, this is another unacceptable violation of trust and the commitments they made.”

Facebook is under fire after it emerged the network has known about the scandal since 2015.Source:Supplied

Politicians and critics from both the US and Britain slammed the network following the reports.

British legislator Damian Collins accused Facebook of misleading officials by downplaying the risk of users’ data being shared without their consent.

He said Facebook has “consistently understated” the risk of data leaks and gave misleading answers to the committee.

“Someone has to take responsibility for this,” he told the Associated Press. “It’s time for Mark Zuckerberg to stop hiding behind his Facebook page.”

US Senator Jeff Flake told CNN: “This is a big deal, when you have that amount of data. And the privacy violations there are significant. So, the question is, who knew it? When did they know it? How long did this go on? And what happens to that data now?”

At the same time, the social media network faces ongoing criticism over the spread of Russian propaganda, with an investigation still underway to determine whether “fake news” and Russian hacking influenced the 2016 election outcome.

Mandatory data breach notification for Australian businesses

Mandatory data breach notification comes into force this Thursday

The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) has released new resources for the Australian public ahead of the commencement of the Notifiable Data Breaches (NDB) scheme on 22 February 2018.

The NDB scheme mandates that Australian Government agencies and the various organisations with obligations to secure personal information under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (Privacy Act) notify individuals affected by data breaches that are likely to result in serious harm.

One of the new resources published by the OAIC, titled Receiving data breach notifications, provides useful guidance on what to expect when you receive a data breach notification, including how organisations might deliver notifications and when a privacy complaint can be made to the OAIC.

The other new resource, What to do after a data breach notification, provides a wide range of actions you can take to reduce the risk of experiencing harm after a data breach.

Among the information provided are tips on combatting the harm that may result from a breach involving financial information or contact information and steps to take when you believe you may be a victim of identity fraud.

The OAIC has worked with consumer groups, not-for-profits, and Australian Government agencies in the development of these resources.

The Australian Information Commissioner, Timothy Pilgrim, said, “the Notifiable Data Breaches scheme formalises a long-standing community expectation to be told when a data breach that is likely to cause serious harm occurs.

“The practical benefit of the scheme is that it gives individuals the chance to reduce their risk of harm, such as by re-securing compromised online accounts. The scheme also has a broader beneficial impact — it reinforces organisations’ accountability for personal information protection and encourages a higher standard of personal information security across the public and private sectors.

“By reinforcing accountability for personal information protection, the NDB scheme supports greater consumer and community trust in data management. This trust is key to realising the potential of data to benefit the community, for example, by informing better policy-making and the development of products and services.”

The 2017 Australian Community Attitudes to Privacy Survey found that 94 per cent of Australians believe they should be told if a business loses their personal information. Ninety-five per cent said they should be told if a government agency loses their personal information.

Organisations are required to notify the Australian Information Commissioner in addition to notifying individuals affected by an ‘eligible data breach’ (a data breach that is likely to result in serious harm). Failures to comply with the NDB scheme can attract fines up to $2.1 million.

The OAIC's new resources for the Australian public can be read online: www.oaic.gov.au/individuals/data-breach-guidance.

The OAIC has published a suite of guidance for organisations to assist them in implementing the requirements of the NDB scheme. This guidance can be found at: www.oaic.gov.au/ndb.

Background information

Previous statements from the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner

Mandatory data breach notification: https://www.oaic.gov.au/media-and-speeches/statements/mandatory-data-breach-notification

Enforcement powers of the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner

  • The Privacy Act confers a range of enforcement powers on the Commissioner, including:
    • accept an enforceable undertaking (s 33E)
    • bring proceedings to enforce an enforceable undertaking (s 33F)
    • make a determination (s 52)
    • bring proceedings to enforce a determination (ss 55A and 62)
    • report to the Minister in certain circumstances following a CII, monitoring activity or assessment (ss 30 and 32)
    • seek an injunction including before, during or after an investigation or the exercise of another regulatory power (s 98)
    • apply to the court for a civil penalty order for a breach of a civil penalty provision (s 80W).
  • The ‘civil penalty provisions’ in the Privacy Act include:
    • A serious or repeated interference with privacy (s 13G) – 2000 penalty units (current total is $420,000)
    • The maximum penalty that the court can order for a body corporate is five times the amount listed in the civil penalty provision (current maximum $2.1 million).
- ENDS -


19 March 2018

Australia's dodgy laws 101 - White Australia policy

 Migrants pointing to a painted kangaroo on a train, Ludwigsburg. An inscription on the reverse reads: ‘painted picture of / kangaroo on our / train in Ludwigsburg / November 1948 / Alex Nypl / (Newman)’. Alex Nypl was a Czechoslovakian migrant who arrived in Melbourne on PROTEA, 23 December 1948. (Source: Australian National Maritime Museum Flickr photostream.)

This relentlessly dodgy machine called the Australian Government enacts many 'dodgy' laws.

As if that's not dodgy enough what the people in government do is enact some more dodgy laws while the peasants are distracted.

A recent example of the above is, while the plebs were celebrating Valentine's Day the MPs were celebrating the bank "bail in law" (called the Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution) Bill 2017) put into action on the 14th of February to help their brethren in the banking business.

Another well advertised example of late last year was the "gay marriage" law being put into circulation before the year's end, while no one in government advertised anything about the dodgy "National Security" laws which encompass a wide range changes across Acts.

As a result of federation, Australia as a country was able to create laws from the formation of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, which took effect from the 1st of January 1901.

One of the first laws that was created was the "White Australia" policy which obtained the more politically correct legal name as the Immigration Restriction Act 1901 (see illustration below).

As a result of this Act the people in government screwed over an immigrant, Egon Kisch, where they arrested and incarcerated him to six months hard labour for allegedly failing a dictation test in Scottish Gaelic. Kisch an intelligent man spoke multiple European languages.

In his mater the High Court of Australia ruled that Scottish Gaelic was not a "European language", where his conviction was overturned.

In the end the authorities got their way where Kisch left 'voluntarily'.

So, why could the "White Australia" policy enacted during Christmas time (technically on the 23rd of December 1901), while the plebs are distracted be a 'dodgy' law?

It's not being very 'equal opportunity' to the people of many other colours in allowing them to show the people in government that they too are quiet, subservient, docile slaves.

Probably even better slaves than the white ones born here?

Maybe intelligent imports could be a danger to the people in government as they could see through all the smoke and mirrors and deception by the people in government and do something about it or even open the eyes of the herd population?

Maybe trailer park trash imports will be more accepting in voting in the Labor Party to push through the republic agenda?

After all the 'good' government let them in, so they cannot be against the people in government, irrespective of how much they oppress 'Australians'.

Source Supplied.