Dr. Mark Hobart, professional misconduct according to AHPRA

See letter:

See also Black's Law dictionary for the definition of informed consent:

Please note that the Australian medical and government authorities forced patients/persons to undergoe a medical procedure without proper documentation concering the administered drugs, nor was the procedure carried out without any pressure/bias/coersion to do so.

Bill Gates' An open Letter to Hobbyists 1976

See Wikipedia article:

Apple the environmental vandals

Lisa: Steve Jobs’ sabotage and Apple’s secret burial | FULL DOCUMENTARY

Sabotage, hired goons, and a landfill in Utah: this is a story about the life, death, and afterlife of Apple’s most pioneering flop, the Lisa computer. How it inspired generations of computers to follow; how Steve Jobs championed it, then turned against it; and how an outsider gave it another chance…before Apple closed the door on the Lisa forever.

See video:

NSW Police Force is Brutalising Citizens Without Sufficient Records, Let Alone Accountability

The recent lethal tasering of 95-year-old great-grandmother Clare Nowland, who was holding a steak knife and suffering dementia, has again brought into stark relief the use of excessive force by NSW police: an issue that despite its prevalence, tends to gradually subside until the next incident.

With this incident, however, there wasn’t time to sweep the issue under the carpet, prior to some NSW police officers shooting Steven Pampalian, a North Willoughby man, who was standing on a suburban street holding two chef knives on 25 May: the day after Nowland passed away in hospital.

Whilst it was uncertain if Pampalian was having a mental health incident when he was shot four times, this year’s inquest into the 2019 shooting death of Todd McKenzie has shown it was clear officers were aware he was having a schizophrenic episode alone in his home when they shot him.

The excessive use of force by police is by no means limited to lethal incidents, however. And there are numerous examples, including an eyewitness account of officers kettling a group of protesters into a corner before dousing them with capsicum spray after a Black Lives Matter rally in June 2020.

Yet, a Law Enforcement Conduct Commission report released earlier this year, reveals that the NSW Police Force is not adequately tracking its use of force, which, if it had been, may have prevented an officer considering that tasering an elderly woman using a walking frame as appropriate.

Use of force powers

The Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW), commonly known as the LEPRA, is the piece of legislation that contains state law enforcement policing powers. Part 18 of the LEPRA governs the use of force.

Section 230 of the LEPRA empowers NSW police officers to “use such force as is reasonably necessary in exercising a function contained in the legislation” in general. A function is defined as a “power, authority or duty”.

The is followed by provisions guiding use of force during an arrest. Under section 231, it provides that when taking an individual into custody an “officer or other person who exercises a power to arrest” may “use such force as is reasonably necessary to make the arrest or to prevent” an escape.

In the February-released LECC report, reference is made to the Use of Force chapter in the NSW Police Handbook 2018, which is not readily available online. However, the 2014 version of the handbook has been posted, and it includes a use of force section.

“To avoid excessive application of force and maintain an effective incident response, you should use the minimum amount of force that is appropriate for the safe and effective performance of your duties and proportionate to the risks you face,” the 2014 manual advises officers.

The document then goes on to inform them that they’re required to outline instances where use of force has been applied within the NSWPF Computerised Operational Policing System (COPS) database, with details of the specific types of force that were deployed.

So, when resistance on the part of a person of interest is recorded in COPS, this triggers a page that requires officers to tick categories of use of force used in response, which includes tasers and OC (capsicum) spray use, defensive kicks or punches and how many officers were present at an incident.

The data collected from this page of incident reports can then be used as an indication of how force is being applied in the field.

Widespread inconsistences

The LECC is the sole oversight body in NSW that deals with police conduct issues. In its report on NSW police reporting on use of force, the watchdog details its review of 210 use of force incidents, which were identified via complaints and recorded on COPS over the 12 months to May 2021.

The report outlines that the NSWPF informed the LECC in September 2020 that it has “‘a range of structured quality assurance and supervisory oversight processes” in operation, which “provide the opportunity to identify and address any training needs in relation to use of force”.

However, the police watchdog found “widespread inconsistencies” were present in the system, which is supposed to be capturing any patterns in the misuse of force, and the analysis also uncovered instances of underreporting when it comes to use of force.

Established in 1993, the Australia New Zealand Policing Advisory Agency (ANZPAA) is an organisation comprised of the current police commissioners of each jurisdiction within these two countries. And it has established a set of Use of Force Principles.

The LECC report points out that the ANZPAA principles include the requirement that police organisations “maintain governance structures to report, record, monitor and evaluate the use of force to improve public and police safety”.

Yet, while the COPS reporting system requires supervisors to verify that force incidents have been detailed correctly, this is not preventing inaccuracies, which means that any training strategies resulting from these reported statistics are being developed based on dodgy data.

And this lack of consistency also hampers any ability that senior officers have to identify officers who have a problematic track record of use of force before they get too out of hand.

Habitual underreporting

In terms of its findings, the commission found that 73 percent of 210 cases analysed contained at least one inaccuracy. And further the use of handcuffs is not a reporting category, which the LECC considers it should be, and if this is factored in, it translates to a 93 percent inaccuracy rate.

So, of 144 incidents using handcuffs no use of force record was made. But in terms of arm restraints and wristlocks, whilst the report narratives of 90 events mention use of these tactics, only 44 percent of them were recorded in the section of the report used to monitor use of force.

And similar discrepancies were found in regard to other types of force. OC spray use was reported on 22 percent of occasions. Taser use was detailed only 25 percent of the time. The number of officers present was noted in 29 percent of cases and only 50 percent of dog use was detailed.

The LECC considers the underreporting and inaccuracies involved in the limited instances where a firearm was used to be the most significant issue it identified, and it recommends further investigation into firearm use reporting.

Of eight incidents involving firearms, only six recorded their use, whilst a further two incidents recorded firearm on the use of force documentation page, when the narratives of these two events failed to mention any use of guns.

Review, respond, repeat

In response to the LECC review, the NSWPF last September acknowledged “the inconsistencies in police use of force” in the cases the watchdog identified. And the organisation further said it would commit to developing “new policy, guidelines and training on” recording use of force.

“The NSWPF also developed a Use of Force Manual in response to our review,” the LECC further explains. “While this document is primarily about the use of force, it also contains some instructions on recording a use of force.”

This new manual, however, failed to have any impact on the decision of NSW police senior constable Kristen White, who, on responding to a call to deal with Nowland holding a knife in a nursing home, tasered the elderly woman twice for good measure, once in the chest and again in the back.

And whilst its promising that the NSWPF has committed to cleaning up its use of force, this commitment does come over a decade after multiple officers tasered Brazilian tourist Roberto Curti 14 times in Sydney in 2012, which caused his instant death, all because he stole a packet of biscuits.

But as with many problematic government agencies that are consistently called out on the same recurring issues, the NSW police production of a new manual is likely to be more about appearing to reform the system, whilst permitting officers to continue on with their regular excessive behaviour.

Sydney Criminal Lawyers

How the NHS has been sharing YOUR personal details with Facebook without your consent

Covert tracking tool on trust webpages passed on medical information to US tech giant in 'unacceptable' privacy breach

• The Meta Pixel tracking tool was being used by the webpages of 20 NHS trusts
• Details shared included information about medical conditions and treatments

NHS trusts have been sharing the private medical information of patients with Facebook via a covert tracking tool on their websites, a probe has found.

The tracking tool was being used by the webpages of 20 NHS trusts to collect browsing information before sharing it with tech giant Meta, Facebook's parent company.

The major privacy breach, uncovered by The Observer, included intimate details about patients' medical conditions, appointments and treatments.

Data obtained by the Meta Pixel tool could then be used by the social media giant for business purposes, including targeted advertising.

The probe found 17 of the 20 NHS trusts using the tool, which serve more than 22 million patients in England, had pulled the tracker from their websites over the weekend.

Many of the trusts said they had installed the tracking pixels to monitor recruitment or charity campaigns and were not aware that they were sending patient data to Facebook.

But information was collected from patients who visited NHS webpages about self-harm, sexual health and cancer.

One of the trusts, the Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS group, previously said in its privacy policy that 'confidential personal information about your health and care... would never be used for marketing purposes without your explicit consent'.

In one case, it was revealed the trust shared when a patient had viewed a handbook for HIV medication before sending the name of the drug, the user's IP address and details of their Facebook page to Meta. 

In a statement to the Observer, the trust apologised to patients and said Meta Pixel had been 'installed in relation to a recruitment campaign, and we were not aware that Meta was using this information for marketing purposes'.

A spokesperson added: 'Immediate action has been taken to remove it.'

The Tavistock and Portman NHS foundation also shared data with Meta when patients visited webpages for its controversial gender identity service.

A further seven NHS trusts have made apologies to their patients.

But privacy experts have slammed the data breach as 'completely unacceptable'.

Wolfie Christl, who has previously investigated the ad tech industry over data privacy, said: 'This should have been stopped by regulators a long time ago. It is irresponsible, even negligent, and it must stop.' 

The Information Commissioner's Office and NHS England have confirmed they are investigating the privacy breach.

A spokesperson for the Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust said: 'The Trust can only apologise that Meta Pixel has been active on our website without the privacy notice being updated to reflect this. 

'It was installed in relation to a recruitment campaign, and we were not aware that Meta was using this information for marketing purposes. Immediate action has been taken to remove the Meta Pixel from our website.'

A spokesperson from The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust added: 'Meta pixels are installed across our website to promote certain services and improve patient experience. 

'All data regarding visitor activity is anonymised and does not include any patient information or any other personally identifiable information. 

'Visitors to our website are asked whether they consent to the use of cookies via a pop-up information box. We regularly review our privacy and cookie policies.'

It comes after Meta was fined 1.2 billion euro (£1 billion) and ordered to stop transferring user data from European users to its US servers earlier this month.

The record fine was levied by Ireland's Data Protection Commission (DPC) after a three-year probe into the social media giant. 

The DPC said Meta had breached part of the European GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) rules in the way it had moved data of Facebook users across borders.

It ordered Meta Ireland to 'suspend any future transfer of personal data to the US within the period of five months' and levied the record fine on the business 'to sanction the infringement that was found to have occurred'. 

In response, Meta called the fine 'unjustified'.

dailymail.co.uk

Police Officers Will Not Be Charged Over the ‘Lawyer X’ Scandal

The ‘Lawyer X’ scandal appears to have become a circus, with the Victorian Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) announcing no criminal charges will be brought against Victorian Police over what the highest court in the land described as “atrocious” and “reprehensible conduct” which “corrupted” and “debased” the “fundamental premises of the criminal justice system” – all but accusing police of perverting the course of justice.

The decision has heads shaking in Australia’s legal community and means a jury will not be given the opportunity to decide whether the state’s police officers engaged in criminal conduct.

Five-years

For the past five years, the office of the special investigator (OSI) headed by Geoffrey Nettle KC has been investigating the scandal involving Victorian criminal defence lawyer Nicola Gobbo (‘Lawyer X’), who worked both sides of the justice system, defending some of Australia’s most notorious alleged criminals while acting as a registered police informant and informing on them, between 1995 and 2009. 

The investigation

The OSI investigation, to ascertain whether Ms Gobbo and any current and former police officers should be prosecuted for any crimes they may have committed was a key recommendation of the 2018 Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants, which delivered its final report in 2020. 

But despite a whopping cost of $125 million ($40 million for the Royal Commission, $25 million for the OSI and $60 million spent by Victorian Police on legal advice) – expenses which have come from the pockets of hardworking taxpayers, justice now seems unlikely. 

The Victorian DPP has defended the decision not to pursue criminal prosecution against anyone involved, arguing there was not a reasonable prospect of conviction.

Director of Public Prosecutions, Kerri Judd KC, said in a statement that “in all three prosecutions [proposed by the Office of the Special Investigator], I never reached the stage of having to determine whether it was in the public interest to proceed…. All three prosecutions were refused on the basis that there were not reasonable prospects of conviction.”

May change her mind

In the wake of the public backlash, Ms Judd has qualified her decision by saying she has not ‘ruled out’ the prospect of future prosecutions, telling the media she would “consider any further briefs on their merits”.

There is a Director of Public Prosecutions in each state and territory. They operate under virtually the same guidelines. 

In New South Wales, there strict guidelines which make clear what needs to be considered when determining whether a prosecution is in the public interest are as follows: 

1. Whether the available evidence is capable of establishing the offence.
2. Whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction by a reasonable jury (or other tribunal of fact) that is properly instructed as to the law.
3. Whether discretionary factors nevertheless dictate that the matter should or should not proceed.

The discretionary factors that are relevant to point 3 are listed as:

• The seriousness or, conversely, the triviality of the alleged offence or that it is of a “technical” nature only;
• The obsolescence or obscurity of the law;
• whether or not the prosecution would be perceived as counter-productive; for example, by bringing the law into disrepute;
• Any special circumstances that would prevent a fair trial from being conducted;
• Whether or not the alleged offence is of considerable general public concern;
• The necessity to  maintain public confidence in such basic institutions as the Parliament and the courts;
• The staleness of the alleged offence;
• The prevalence of the alleged offence and any need for deterrence, both personal and general;
• The availability and efficacy of any alternatives to prosecution;
• Whether or not the alleged offence is triable only on indictment;
• The likely length and expense of a trial;
• Whether or not any resulting conviction would necessarily be regarded as unsafe and unsatisfactory;
• The likely outcome in the event of a finding of guilt, having regard to the sentencing options available to the court;
• Whether or not the proceedings or the consequences of any resulting conviction would be unduly harsh or oppressive;
• The degree of culpability of the alleged offender in connection with the offence;
• Any mitigating or aggravating circumstances;
• The youth, age, maturity, intelligence, physical health, mental health or special disability or infirmity of the alleged offender, a witness or a victim;
• The alleged offender’s antecedents and background, including culture and language ability;
• Whether or not the alleged offender is willing to co-operate in the investigation or prosecution of others, or the extent to which the alleged offender has done so;
• The attitude of a victim or in some cases a material witness to a prosecution;
• Whether or not and in what circumstances it is likely that a confiscation order will be made against the offender’s property;
• Any entitlement or liability of a victim or other person or body to criminal compensation, reparation or forfeiture if prosecution action is taken; and/or
• Whether or not the Attorney General’s or Director’s consent is required to prosecute.

The applicability of and weight to be given to these and other factors will vary widely and depend on the particular circumstances of each case.

What about justice being served? 

The Victorian DPP’s decision is incredibly disappointing. In Victoria the head of the OSI, Geoffrey Nettle KC has threatened to quit over the decision not to prosecute, and relations between the OSI and the DPP are now under considerable strain. 

But the DPP’s decision is also a disappointment for the Australian public, not just because of all the taxpayer funds spent to get this far, but because the Lawyer X scandal has placed the integrity of the justice system under a dark cloud. 

The Royal Commission made 111 recommendations in 2020 after two years of inquiry, to ensure that something like the Lawyer X scandal does not occur again. 

In its final report, it placed the lion’s share of responsibility for the scandal firmly at the hands of Victorian Police, and many would prefer  to see misconduct of this scale put before the courts, and for justice to be served.   

The impact persists 

The use of Nicola Gobbo as a police informant tainted approximately 1200 cases, which have had to be reviewed, including where Ms Gobbo was acting as a client’s lawyer, and others where she may have been representing one of their co-accused. As a result of her breaching ‘client privilege’ and her duty to act in the best interests of her clients, many previously convicted criminals may now walk free. 

There have already been three quashed convictions, including one for notorious gangland drug kingpin Tony Mokbel. 

Faruk Orman who spent 12 years behind bars after being found guilty of being the getaway driver in the murder of Victor Peirce, has walked free after his conviction was quashed and is now suing Nicola Gobbo, who is still in hiding, her whereabouts unknown. 

Cases related to the scandal are likely to reverberate through the Victorian Courts for many years to come, while those responsible, will not now, and perhaps ever, be held in any way criminally responsible. 

Hopefully this won’t mean that the whole saga will be ‘swept under the carpet’, although, unfortunately, without prosecutions, it could well be. 

Sydney Criminal Lawyers

Manufacturer’s profits before environment

We (the ‘consumers’/shoppers according to their labels) are told/enticed/guilted/taxed into devoting a lot of resources in order to (allegedly) ‘save the planet’.

The problem there is that the manufacturers, corporations and governments are realistically in charge of this.

E-waste is a huge problem, both financially for the consumers and a burden on the environment which could have been being solved a few decades ago, but the corporation’s profits are of utmost priority or importance where governments 'support' this as, it's all about the economy.

For example, proprietary phone chargers could have been dealt with a couple of decades ago, but the manufacturers deliberately have not agreed on a so called standard, where the alleged pressure form governments now is too little too late.

In the case of printers, cartridges are deliberately priced where they can be more expensive than a purchase of a new printer with cartridges, where even manufactures chip the ink cartridge in order to gouge the customer for the consumable, another government 'supported' action against the consumer. 

Cartridges for the Epson WF-3820

Computer manufacturers could have designed a modular laptop with the specific goal of upgradable parts, but the major players have steered away from this for mega profits, in turn creating huge e-waste issues.

See review by Hugh Jeffreys on the upgradable laptop by Framework (https://frame.work/au/en):

Hugh Jeffreys is an advocate for your 'right to repair' the product you have purchased, meaning to take it to any (competent) repair premises instead of being locked into the manufacturer's price gouging policies.

Apple have also taken away your ‘right to repair’ the product you bought, therefore supporting the notion that you do not own it, 'trending' to a pay as a service model corporations are implementing, e.g. Microsoft.

So Hewlett Packard, Dell or Lenovo or even Apple could not make a laptop of this calibre?

Of course they could have, as this is not a new concept, they just didn’t want to.

The burden to allegedly change the world is not on the individual but for worldwide oligarchical regimes to lead the way.

Kalmykia desert

Police & FOI Work Together to Block Citizens’ Access to Their Own Data

It has been reported that the Queensland Freedom of Information Office (QFOI) and the State’s Police Force (QPS) are working together to prevent citizens from accessing their own personal data.

Restricting access to information

The Queensland Police Records and Information Management Exchange (QPrime) database stores a range of personal information about Queensland residents.

Officers from the QPS and QFOI sat down for a meeting last year to discuss the ‘nature or the breadth of the applications that were being received and the consequences of the breath of those…’.

The government agencies say they ‘identified there were much broader public policy implications to be considered in terms of what documents get released’, before agreeing that citizens should be block from accessing information about themselves on the database.

Right to access personal data

Privacy advocates has slammed the ‘behind closed doors’ meeting as well as the decision of the agencies to ‘quietly agree’ not to release the data.

They point out that in a democracy, it is fundamental for citizens to have access to personal data held by government agencies in order to make the state accountable for misconduct and help safeguard against abuses of power.

They are concerned by the fact the meeting and its resolution occurred in the absence of consultation with other organisations or agencies, making it appear the QPS and QFOI are ‘in cahoots’ with denying citizens important rights to information that is being held about them – information that can expose illegal monitoring and investigations, among other things.

President of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Justice Martin Daubney, has launched a scathing criticism of the conduct, stating:

‘It’s starting to sound awfully like the police and the [QFOI] sat down behind closed doors to set matters of policy… Can you just sit back and think about how this looks? If it were to be the subject of discussion, I don’t know, on the front page of a metropolitan daily, you know, how would that look?

“There’s this old-fashioned thing called the rules of natural justice and giving people the opportunity to be heard.”

Access to information

Queensland privacy laws currently require government agencies that hold personal information to grant individuals access.

One of the reasons for this rule is that people should be allowed to check and review their own information, and request that it be changed. There are limited exceptions to this rule, including where it is against the “public interest”.

Since 2016, the QPS has been routinely refusing access on this ground.

If police refuse to release information, the next step is to apply for access to access through the QFOI – which is meant to be an independent body that reviews contested information access decisions made by state government agencies.

No blanket refusal

The QPS has released a statement to the effect it does not have a policy of ‘blanket refusal’ to access.

It claims the ‘right to information’ is still assessed on an individual basis, and that refusal only occurs if release would “likely be contrary to the public interest as it causes significant detriment to the QPS law enforcement activities”.

Concealing police corruption?

However, the chairman of the Australian Privacy Foundation, David Vaile, suggests that police are engaging in the routine refusal of access, and one of the reasons may be to conceal the extent of police data breaches and other illegal activities, as well as to conceal evidence of its mismanagement of information and procedural breaches.

Privacy breaches

In recent years, several police officers have faced investigations and even criminal charges for computer hacking offences.

In one case, an officer was charged for looking up the personal details of his former girlfriends as well as the former Australian netball captain, Laura Geitz, “out of curiosity”.

More recently, Senior Queensland Police Officer Neil Punchard was charged with nine computer hacking offences for using the QPrime Database to look up the confidential details of a domestic violence victim. He then gave the woman’s new address to his friend, the woman’s abusive former partner.

Social Justice advocate Renee Eaves has also publicly revealed that when she was able to access her file from the QPrime database, it showed police had accessed her records 1,400 times over eight years.

There are concerns that many officers who have illegally used restricted databases have gone undisciplined, with a report finding that QPS took no disciplinary action against 52 of the 59 officers investigated internally for computer hacking during a 13-month period.

Source: Sydney Criminal Lawyers

The lies of manufacturers and reviewers on Solid State Drives

What's the BEST drive for gaming?

What drive is for 'content' creators, you know OnlyFans?

What SSD is best for workstation type loads?

Is 7300MB per second too slow for my games?

There are many misconceptions and 'lies' used to promote a manufacturer's wares, in order to be the sales kings of the industry.

It's a bit like reading an automotive manufacturer's fuel economy figures which can even be 30% less than in the real world.

Unfortunately many so called tech reviewers also have little to no idea, where all they're doing is supporting the advertising babble.

"What's the best gaming SSD in 2023?" could be answered in a simple line being: The same one as in 2020?

There are other more crucial specifications that are deliberately not focused on such as longevity, endurance, or even how long can the maximum speed be kept for, or a more real world use case scenario that 99% of the computing population does, where the speed of random read and writes are most important.

One of the better explanations out there is presented in this video:

 

See also:

User reviews useless compared to tech reviews, eg. Western Digital SN350

Can a court order a defendant to unlock their phone?

See Luppino v Fisher.

Summary: