This week’s Peter Black chat: NBN, Troops, Marriage, Courts and those utterly disgraceful cricket selectors

You can listen to this week’s edition of my regular Monday morning chat on local radio 4ZzZ with constitutional lawyer, compulsive tweeter and pathological loather of Australian cricket selectors, Peter Black, by clicking on this link.

(For anyone interested, the playlist for my shift this week can be viewed at this link.

Please like & share:

8 Comments

  1. If you want to Planet a smart planet a smarter yu need to put the Australian Liberal/National Coalition out their miseries.

  2. The best person to deal Malcolm Turnball is let Dr Chris Brown deal with him, same goes for Tony Abbott. A good injection may do the trick.

  3. I have listened to the tape, and it seems clear that the government is just employing another cunning plot to control information about the NBN, both before and after the vote.

    I think politicians should treat this undemocratic act with the contempt it deserves, and teach them a lesson that tells them that a lack of information doesn’t equate to twice the chance of success, but a quartering or complete annulment of same.

    From personal experience, I know that Telstra is an exceedingly corrupt organisation which grossly mistreats both its customers and its workers, and has also been fairly recently sanctioned by the government for unfair competition.

    I have already written to Peter Dutton MP and asked him to oppose Homosexual Marriage & Adoption on a list of social and medical grounds. I think most polls are unreliable due to the opportunity to log in and vote multiple times, such as in a recent abortion poll.

    In Afghanistan, I’m sure a secret secondary agenda is in progress, of which the general public have not been informed.

    I have personally found the ATO to be extremely mercenary in their pursuit and abuse of innocent people. They employ some of the rudest people I have ever encountered. While they have at last found a slot for Disability Support Pensioners under age 65, their taxation law is still exceedingly discriminatory.

    It doesn’t surprise me that a panel of 7 High Court judges mostly agree on everything, with only an occasional dissenter to throw us off the scent. I think it is proof of my contention that the judiciary does whatever the government dictates.

    On the issue of asylum seekers, if they are rejected by our government, I think they should respect the umpires’ decision and go back where they came from.

    I will leave others to discuss The Ashes, since boring sports like cricket leave far too much spare time in which there is nothing to do besides watching the grass grow.

  4. I listened to the tape again, since my mind tended to wander off a bit from listening to commentary about boring cricket.

    I think the lady who was released from Burma (I won’t even attempt to spell her very long name) should go out and purchase a head-to-foot suit of armour, including a bullet proof helmet with grills in the eye slots. She should also consult with Bronwyn Bishop as to the best place to purchase a bullet proof bra.

    On the NBN issue, I was again put in mind of police officers openly admitting on a witness stand, that they had disposed of and also failed to collect evidence, to keep jurors in the dark. Only the most racist/classist juror is going to accept that kind of deception, but not if I am there to stop them.

    One of my charity worker acquaintances is married to a former Deputy Sheriff. He seemed completely shocked when I told him what they do (which is surprising), and that I agree with Andrew Bartlett that the judicial system needs a complete overhaul of both Method and Madness.

    I am also grossly annoyed that Queensland Police are now used as instruments of corporate fundraising (think traffic fines).

    I know that the DLP was outraged by new Biker Laws. I doubt if they would uphold an asylum seeker’s right of appeal against rejection, but would probably oppose any attempts by the ATO to give students living on Youth Allowance a financial thumping.

  5. Lorikeet: I wonder why denying an asylum seeker the right to appeal against an adminstrative decision in what is a patently non-transparaent system would be seen as fair, when you clearly feel that the ATO, Telstra and Uncle Tom Cobbley ought to be open to lobbying by you. Maybe you are confident that the Immigration Tribunals could never make a mistake or be advised wrongly? Surprising, given your views on every other government body you’ve ever mentioned here.

  6. It’s hard to know what the government is up to on many fronts. I think they like to play both ends against the middle in order to muddy the waters, and actually want to bring in as many people from other countries as possible.

    It is my belief that the judiciary is not independent of the government at all. I think this tells us that the government could have been testing the waters with voters on the Asylum Seeker issue – first rejecting some through the Immigration Tribunals, then refusing them the right of appeal, and then letting the Panel of 7 High Court Judges overturn the decision, in order to validate their true attitude towards refugees.

    I think it may be purely and simply a manipulation of public perception using legalism.

Comments are closed.