In the loop? Out of the loop? Fruit loop? Decide for yourself.

A few years back The Daily Examiner had a prize (a Lottery/Lotto ticket pack) for the week's best letter to the editor. If such a prize still existed it would surely have to go to John  Edwards of South Grafton for his letter in today's Examiner.

Shooters and Fishers

Following the announcement of a Shooters and Fishers Party-sponsored inquiry into the management of public land, the Clarence Environment Centre wrote to the Member for Clarence, Chris Gulaptis, posing three questions.

One of these was: "Would you support the opening up of national parks to recreational hunting?"

On May 22 we received the following response: "There is no proposal for recreational hunting in national parks in the Clarence electorate being considered by me or the NSW Liberals & Nationals Government."

Less than 10 days later the Government announced 79 national parks and nature reserves where recreational hunting will be allowed.

I'll let readers form their own opinion on their member's response.

Among the affected parks that have been reported in the media are Kosciuszko and Dorrigo, which are among the most visited reserves in Australia, and where tourists will now experience the tranquillity of those forests being shattered by the noise of gunfire, and the possibility of being shot.

The decision has outraged many in the community, but has been welcomed by hunters who claim they are the answer to feral animal control.

However, if there is a serious feral animal problem, it is because successive governments have failed to properly fund control programs.

Recreational shooters have been hunting in state forests for over five years, and I challenge anyone to produce evidence that they have had any significant impact on feral species in those forests.

In fact last year the national parks service had to run local eradication programs for feral pigs which they believe were deliberately introduced by hunters.

In trying to justify breaking an electoral promise, Barry O'Farrell claims it was necessary to balance political expedience with public interest.

This isn't the first time this government has sacrificed public interest, and I'll guarantee it won't be the last.

John Edwards, South Grafton

Sometimes the young make my heart sing - Part Six

http://youtu.be/lU-Uwl7AZ7o

Published on Apr 11, 2012 by southlandification

It has become a morning habit to sing Bohemian Rhapsody on the way to school in the morning. Depending on traffic, we can usually start the song as we pull out of the driveway, and pull into the school just as the song ends.

From the 'How Stupid Can A Federal Government Be' file

This year the Gillard Labor Government signed off on a reduction of ‘green tape’ between the federal government and state government over approval of development projects.

The results were always predictable – monumental state defaults.

“Prime Minister Julia Gillard has written a strongly worded letter to Queensland Premier Campbell Newman, accusing his Government of undermining community confidence in the approval process for major resource projects.

The letter is a further escalation in the war of words between the Commonwealth and the Queensland Government over a multi-billion-dollar mining project in central Queensland.

The Alpha Coal Project's location in the Galilee Basin means it could have an impact on the health of the Great Barrier Reef.

The state and federal governments had been working together on a single environmental approval process for the $6.5 billion project, but Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke says Queensland has not upheld its end of the deal.

He says the Queensland approval process had been "hopeless" and falls "abysmally short" of what is required under the bilateral agreement.

In a letter to Mr Newman, Ms Gillard writes that any "breach of this agreement is unacceptable to the Commonwealth".

"I am particularly concerned that Queensland's decision has immediately put at risk community and business confidence in the ability of Queensland to work with the Commonwealth," she wrote.

"The Commonwealth will, as a result, work directly with Alpha Coal to complete the assessment process and resolve any remaining uncertainties for the project."

Now watch Gina do Julia over!

The real losers in all this are The Great Barrier Reef and the Australian electorate.

Pic from Google Images

Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard and his ministers have questions to answer

There always was a political stench attached to the Howard Government in relation to its handling of Wheat Board trade contracts, which saw Government fail in its duty of care and allow a breach of UN sanctions which aided Saddam Hussein by corruptly paying $300 million in kickbacks to the Iraqi regime.

Unease over the role of the Prime Minister and his ministers was apparent before, during and after the Inquiry into certain Australian companies in relation to the UN Oil-for-Food Programme

This article wafts that stench under voters’ nostrils once more.

In The Sydney Morning Herald, 7 June 2012:

THE man who led the Australian Federal Police investigation into the AWB scandal has alleged he was offered a promotion to shut down the inquiry.
In an explosive statement lodged with the Federal Court, the former AFP agent Ross Fusca said another senior officer told him that if he could ''make the oil-for-food taskforce go away, he would be appointed as next co-ordinator''.
Mr Fusca, a 30-year AFP veteran, has declared the inquiry into the wheat marketing body was never given enough resources and was shut down prematurely.
And he has alleged the police's AWB taskforce - which ran from late 2006 to August 2009 - had a high-level political informant who indicated that federal government officials were aware of AWB's payment of kickbacks.
In an interview with the Herald and ABC television's 7.30, Mr Fusca said he believed the offer of a promotion represented an improper inducement.
Mr Fusca's Federal Court claim also alleges that a day after the offer of promotion was made, another senior AFP officer pressured him into
Court documents state: "[The officer] insisted that the brief be completed by April 2009, claiming that the taskforce was out of budget. The applicant [Mr Fusca] maintained his position that an April 2009 deadline for the brief was unachievable" and that the earliest it could be finished was December 2009.
In a statement last night, the AFP said it was aware of Mr Fusca's claims, but that it could not comment.
The AFP shut down the taskforce in August 2009, handing responsibility for the case to the corporate watchdog ASIC………………..
The federal police-led taskforce was set up in late 2006 as a result of the Cole Royal Commission. The commission found that AWB Limited and some of its executives had corruptly paid $300 million of kickbacks to the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein, but that no Australian government officials knew of these payments. But Mr Fusca said a credible political informant had provided the AFP with intelligence that suggested ''senior government officials were aware … of the kickbacks''.

Opposition leader Tony Abbott, a Cabinet Minister in the Howard Government from 2001-2007, has set the I know nothing tone for Liberal Party and Nationals response:

"I'm just not aware of those reports, just not aware of them. [I'm] afraid I haven't yet read the newspapers, not aware of that report, so I just can't comment on it,"

The Tele comes a cropper and deservedly so

I have little sympathy for Mark Latham but do not consider that his children should be made to suffer for the political foolishness and grandstanding of their father, so this Press Council of Australia determination is applauded:

“Adjudication No. 1531: Mark Latham/The Sunday Telegraph (May 2012)

Document Type:

Complaints

Outcome:

Adjudications

Date:

21 May 2012

The Australian Press Council has considered a complaint by Mark Latham about articles in The Sunday Telegraph on 11 and 18 December 2011. They concerned his behaviour at a swimming lesson run for the NSW Education Department at a local pool and attended by his young children.

The first article alleged he had been reported to the Education Department for intimidating one of the swimming teachers, who is the mother of two famous Australian sportsmen. It said he approached the teacher from behind, told her “As far as I can see, they are not learning anything” and, after she replied, said “a lot of parents are going to be pulling their children out of the scheme”. It added that teacher was “visibly shaken”.

The article identified the public pool at which the swim program, which still had a week to run, took place and also the school that Mr Latham's children attended. The first article also stated the reporter approached Mr Latham at the pool three days later but he refused to comment, saying the matter had nothing to do with her.

The second article reiterated some of the earlier report and added that Mr Latham had withdrawn his children from the classes after the first article was published.

Mr Latham complained that, as the reporter was the daughter of one of the other swim school teachers, she had a conflict of interest which should have been disclosed in the articles. He said at least one of his children had been taught by the reporter’s mother during some of the lessons and he provided what he said were his children’s descriptions of their interaction with her.

The newspaper denied that she taught either child at any stage or had any direct contact with them, and also denied there was any conflict of interest. It said she was one of the three-person team teaching the course and, on the day in question, was under the supervision of the teacher to whom Mr Latham spoke. It added, however, that she was not a frequent member of the team.
Mr Latham also complained that the articles breached the privacy of his family, especially his children while engaged in an educational program, without any justification in the public interest.

The newspaper replied that he was a public figure because he was a former Leader of the Federal Opposition, received a parliamentary pension and was a very active media commentator on politics and national affairs. It said the report related to a “loudly audible confrontation at a publicly-funded swimming school between a public figure with a reputation for bullying and intimidation” and the teacher who was well known because of her famous sons. Mr Latham denied, however, that the encounter was a loudly audible confrontation.

The Council has concluded that the reporter’s relationship with the supervisor should have been disclosed in her articles. This conclusion is based on the agreed fact that her mother was one of the very small team conducting the program (and on the day in question was being supervised by the woman with whom Mr Latham spoke). It is not based on any decision about whether the mother taught the Latham children or was the source for the story. The Council emphasises that in accordance with generally-recognised principles a conflict of interest exists where there is a reasonable possibility that the conflict will affect a reporter’s impartiality, irrespective of whether it actually does so. Accordingly, this aspect of the complaint is upheld.

The Council considers that Mr Latham remains a public figure despite ceasing to be a Member of Parliament, at least by virtue of his high-profile role as a media commentator. In some circumstances, reports which intrude on the privacy of a public figure may be justifiable if they relate to his or her public activities or views and are in the public interest. But Mr Latham’s complaint related to the privacy of his family, especially his young children, not himself. Accordingly, this adjudication does not consider whether his own privacy was intruded upon without adequate justification.

The Council has concluded that Mr Latham’s alleged conduct at the pool was not of sufficient importance in the public interest as to justify seriously intruding on the privacy of his young children in the manner caused by these articles. This applies especially to the initial disclosure that they are participating in an ongoing educational program in a named place, the disclosures in both articles that their father had criticised the program to one of their teachers, and the claim in the second article that their father had withdrawn them from the program. There is no evidence that these matters had become widely known before being disclosed in the Sunday Telegraph, a mass circulation newspaper.

Mr Latham reiterated much of the material in an online news site twelve days later and his regular magazine column a further eight days later. But as the children were no longer participating in the program, this disclosure did not retrospectively justify the initial breaches of privacy (even though he also mentioned, without apparent need, the name of one of his children). His alleged behaviour in unrelated contexts, including possible breaches of other people’s privacy, also does not justify a newspaper’s breach of his children’s privacy in the absence of a public interest justification. Accordingly, this aspect of the complaint is upheld on the ground of unreasonable intrusion on the children’s privacy.”

On the subject of stupidity as opposed to identity theft....................

This telephone exchange would be funny if not for the fact that versions of it are repeated every day.

From the pages of NO HELP Not Always Working:

(I have just checked my credit report for the first time, and notice a store credit card I had never opened. I call the credit company to report this.)

Me: “My report lists a delinquent account on a [store] credit card. I’ve never had a card with that store.”

CSR: “It says here the account was opened in 1974.”

Me: “Well, that must be a mistake. I wasn’t born until 1978.”

CSR: “Could you have opened the account and then forgotten about it?”

Me: “…I’m going to need to speak to someone else.”

When it comes to the crime of murder, don't believe everything you read in NSW North Coast newspapers

On 2 June 2012  The Northern Star  and The Daily Examiner online trumpeted that:

WHEN they think of the North Coast, most people think of the relaxed lifestyle, idyllic beaches and lush hinterland - not Australia's regional murder capital.
But statistics obtained from the state homicide squad have revealed the strip between Newcastle and the Queensland border had the second highest number of murders in the state last year, even as NSW topped the nation for the number of people murdered.
The Northern Star spoke to police in every state and confirmed that the NSW northern region was the regional murder capital of Australia.
Of the 84 murders across NSW in 2011, 20 were in the Northern Region police command, which runs from north of Newcastle to the border....
The state had 15 more murders than in 2010....

The Northern Region takes in Police Local Areas Commands in Brisbane Water, Central Hunter, Coffs-Clarence, Hunter Valley, Lake Macquarie, Manning-Great Lakes, Mid North Coast, Newcastle City, Port Stephens, Richmond, Tuggerah Lakes, and Tweed-Byron.

A rather wide net to cast when trying to include the Northern Rivers into a tag of regional murder capital of Australia.

The Northern Rivers where these two APN daily newspapers circulate is traditionally thought to include Bellingen, Coffs Harbour, Clarence Valley, Richmond Valley, Lismore, Ballina, Kyogle, Byron and Tweed local government areas only.

These are the actual murder victim numbers officially recorded by NSW BOSCAR for the Northern Rivers region in 2011:

Ballina 2

Byron 1

Lismore 2

Richmond Valley 2

Total: 7

Sounds a lot less alarming and probably sells less newspapers, but it was the truth about recorded murder statistics in Northern Rivers communities last year.

The discrepancies don’t end there however. These are BOSCAR official statistics for NSW murder victims: 75 in 2010 and 77 in 2011. Even if one added manslaughter victim numbers and missing persons unofficially presumed murdered to these totals, one doesn’t come up with fifteen more violent deaths in 2011 when compared with the previous year. In fact when combining all categories, the annual totals remain constant.

Later on in the article the NSW body count inexplicably rises to ninety-four for which, again, there is no logical explanation. One has to suspect that somewhere along the line these two newspapers have possibly confused the numbers of persons charged with the crime of murder* in New South Wales with the number of murder victims – which are not necessarily identical totals.

One interesting fact remains unreported entirely. Since 1990 the number of NSW murder victims has been steadily falling, so that in 2011 there were 42 fewer recorded victims compared with 1990.

* Murder is defined in s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) in the following terms:

“Murder shall be taken to have been committed where the act of the accused, or thing by him or her omitted to be done, causing the death charged, was done or omitted with reckless indifference to human life, or with intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm upon some person, or done in an attempt to commit, or during or immediately after the commission, by the accused, or some accomplice with him or her, of a crime punishable by imprisonment for life or for 25 years.”

For murder and manslaughter only, the counting units used are victims. Under the definition of a criminal incident (same parties, same time, same place, same offence and same incident type) one murder or manslaughter incident could involve two or more persons being killed. Because of the seriousness of these offences and their relatively small numbers, it is considered to be more appropriate to count the number of victims, rather than the number of criminal incidents. Hence, where one murder incident involves a person killing six people, six murder victims are counted.