Foley is a Pig!

[Psyber]

If protection from these people were the purpose, why do we lock up people who have committed mercy killings? What about someone who killed another driving recklessly, presumably taking away their licence would suffice? Shouldn't sentence's be indeterminate then and release based upon rehabilitation?

Good question. I probably wouldn't, but I guess there is concern about murder being dressed up as mercy killing.
It is a bit like the situation where we can't grow the low THC Cannabis species for the fibre for rope and clothing because the legal system is worried they won't be able to prove which plants are which sort.

[The Big Shrek]

No-one has said the D word yet.

[JK]

I'd be interested to find out what people believe the purpose of incarceration is.

Personally I reckon it's 2-fold mate, protection for the public (priority 1) and then rehabilitation ... I know there's grey area's in there and I don't have the answers so can't offer anything there, but that's just my opinion.

[Ian]

My latest peeve is the overcrowding of jails. Foley of course mad the infamous rack 'em and stack em" remark.

Due to the current governments law and order campaign jail populations have exploded. At the same time funding has decreased and there are less prison guards. To cope with the staffing problems they just lockdown the jail a few hours earlier than they used to. I believe prisoners are in their cells at 4:30pm now.

They're prisoners, they are in there because they did something wrong and have been getting far more liberties than they deserve, make it a place people are scared of and there may be some more that are rehabilitated, lock 'em down more often, it's not meant to be a holiday camp.

[The Big Shrek]

You touched upon the main purpose of prison which is deterrence.

When you say make it tough for them I don't think you understand how tough it is. We shouldn't dehumanise them which is what is being done currently.

[Gozu]

I agree and first thing they probably want to do when they get out is take their anger out on something.

Foley is a pig though, Atkinson's a nut and Rann is a wanker. In saying that no chance in hell I'd ever vote for the Liberal Party.

[Psyber]

I agree and first thing they probably want to do when they get out is take their anger out on something.
Foley is a pig though, Atkinson's a nut and Rann is a wanker. In saying that no chance in hell I'd ever vote for the Liberal Party.

To me, you sound like my father!
He read me the lecture on class treachery when as a child of 12 I made one positive comment about Bob Menzies skills as a speaker.
[Apparently there could be no good in anyone not of the Labor Party.]

In an ideal world we could put aside party/team allegiances and vote for the best man who presents at the time but we are conditioned to those attachments and they function as religions.

[The Big Shrek]

I agree and first thing they probably want to do when they get out is take their anger out on something.
Foley is a pig though, Atkinson's a nut and Rann is a wanker. In saying that no chance in hell I'd ever vote for the Liberal Party.

To me, you sound like my father!
He read me the lecture on class treachery when as a child of 12 I made one positive comment about Bob Menzies skills as a speaker.
[Apparently there could be no good in anyone not of the Labor Party.]

In an ideal world we could put aside party/team allegiances and vote for the best man who presents at the time but we are conditioned to those attachments and they function as religions.

I come from a dyed in the wool Labour family. No-one will be voting for Labour because they don't represent the same values they used to. It will take a lot of effort but the libs will be ahead on my ballot.

Foley is a pig to teachers too.

[Psyber]

I agree and first thing they probably want to do when they get out is take their anger out on something.
Foley is a pig though, Atkinson's a nut and Rann is a wanker. In saying that no chance in hell I'd ever vote for the Liberal Party.

To me, you sound like my father!
He read me the lecture on class treachery when as a child of 12 I made one positive comment about Bob Menzies skills as a speaker.
[Apparently there could be no good in anyone not of the Labor Party.]

In an ideal world we could put aside party/team allegiances and vote for the best man who presents at the time but we are conditioned to those attachments and they function as religions.

I come from a dyed in the wool Labour family. No-one will be voting for Labour because they don't represent the same values they used to. It will take a lot of effort but the libs will be ahead on my ballot.

Foley is a pig to teachers too.

I guess it doesn't pay to have one party in power for too long, whoever they are.
They get too cocky and lose sight of the idea of serving the people rather than just telling them what to do 'cos "we [the party] know best!"

[Gozu]

I agree and first thing they probably want to do when they get out is take their anger out on something.
Foley is a pig though, Atkinson's a nut and Rann is a wanker. In saying that no chance in hell I'd ever vote for the Liberal Party.

To me, you sound like my father!
He read me the lecture on class treachery when as a child of 12 I made one positive comment about Bob Menzies skills as a speaker.
[Apparently there could be no good in anyone not of the Labor Party.]

In an ideal world we could put aside party/team allegiances and vote for the best man who presents at the time but we are conditioned to those attachments and they function as religions.

What I said has nothing to do with voting for Labor. All I said is I will never vote for the Liberal Party. They only look out for big business and the wealthy and don't give a rats about the environment. Keep in mind this is the party that gave us WorkChoices. That's why I will never vote for that crooked, morally bankrupt party.

[smac]

Is that the same work choices that the Rudd Government have been so prompt to eliminate? The same environment that the Rudd Government signed a treaty yet actually did nothing to save? The same big business that is still doing as it pleases?

Thought so.

I'm all for someone supporting a party of their own choosing but some common sense in the approach wouldn't go astray.

[The Big Shrek]

I agree and first thing they probably want to do when they get out is take their anger out on something.
Foley is a pig though, Atkinson's a nut and Rann is a wanker. In saying that no chance in hell I'd ever vote for the Liberal Party.

To me, you sound like my father!
He read me the lecture on class treachery when as a child of 12 I made one positive comment about Bob Menzies skills as a speaker.
[Apparently there could be no good in anyone not of the Labor Party.]

In an ideal world we could put aside party/team allegiances and vote for the best man who presents at the time but we are conditioned to those attachments and they function as religions.

What I said has nothing to do with voting for Labor. All I said is I will never vote for the Liberal Party. They only look out for big business and the wealthy and don't give a rats about the environment. Keep in mind this is the party that gave us WorkChoices. That's why I will never vote for that crooked, morally bankrupt party.

We're talking about state politics though. Those are all by in large federal issues. By the way, I haven't seen the Labor party (state or fed) do anything for the environment since stopping the Franklin dam.

[Gozu]

Is that the same work choices that the Rudd Government have been so prompt to eliminate? The same environment that the Rudd Government signed a treaty yet actually did nothing to save? The same big business that is still doing as it pleases?

Thought so.

I'm all for someone supporting a party of their own choosing but some common sense in the approach wouldn't go astray.

You do understand that the ALP decided not to do a 180 on WorkChoices so as to neutralise it as an election issue that the master of spin Howard would've used backed by the Ltd News hacks? I didn't agree with it but they hardly would've needed big business coming out more forcefully than they did with all their anti-union ads they funded for the Liberals. I'm not going to talk up Labor's enviromental credentials but they did sign Kyoto and are bringing in an ETS. Just a bit more than the flat-earthers in the Liberal Party ever did.

The problem with common sense is that it's not all that common as you've just shown.

[Gozu]

I agree and first thing they probably want to do when they get out is take their anger out on something.
Foley is a pig though, Atkinson's a nut and Rann is a wanker. In saying that no chance in hell I'd ever vote for the Liberal Party.

To me, you sound like my father!
He read me the lecture on class treachery when as a child of 12 I made one positive comment about Bob Menzies skills as a speaker.
[Apparently there could be no good in anyone not of the Labor Party.]

In an ideal world we could put aside party/team allegiances and vote for the best man who presents at the time but we are conditioned to those attachments and they function as religions.

What I said has nothing to do with voting for Labor. All I said is I will never vote for the Liberal Party. They only look out for big business and the wealthy and don't give a rats about the environment. Keep in mind this is the party that gave us WorkChoices. That's why I will never vote for that crooked, morally bankrupt party.

We're talking about state politics though. Those are all by in large federal issues. By the way, I haven't seen the Labor party (state or fed) do anything for the environment since stopping the Franklin dam.

Yes, they are for the most part federal issues but they are still central tenets of the Liberal Party.

[The Big Shrek]

Gozu, the parties are becoming more alike but the main state issues are really education, health and what to build. The Labor party aren't really great on any.

There's nothing wrong with trying to support big business in itself. Both parties will try and do that.

[Gozu]

I know they're becoming more alike. The Labor party might not be great on them but they are all basically areas that people associate with Labor's core beliefs and not the Liberal party, for good reason I might add.

[Psyber]

Is that the same work choices that the Rudd Government have been so prompt to eliminate? The same environment that the Rudd Government signed a treaty yet actually did nothing to save? The same big business that is still doing as it pleases?

Thought so.

I'm all for someone supporting a party of their own choosing but some common sense in the approach wouldn't go astray.

You do understand that the ALP decided not to do a 180 on WorkChoices so as to neutralise it as an election issue that the master of spin Howard would've used backed by the Ltd News hacks? I didn't agree with it but they hardly would've needed big business coming out more forcefully than they did with all their anti-union ads they funded for the Liberals. I'm not going to talk up Labor's enviromental credentials but they did sign Kyoto and are bringing in an ETS. Just a bit more than the flat-earthers in the Liberal Party ever did.

The problem with common sense is that it's not all that common as you've just shown.

Do you understand the Labor Party would not have done that had they not suspected that the swinging voters who decide elections may have seen some of Work Choices as good, even if they shared my view that the Liberal Party had taken it too far? If they did not suspect that, there would have been no need to neutralise it...

I thought the union advertisements against Work Choices, and the business advertisements for it, balanced each other fairly well, without getting into the argumant about which group started it.
Again the middle ground voter didn't seem to agree with either of them entirely.

[Gozu]

Do you understand the Labor Party would not have done that had they not suspected that the swinging voters who decide elections may have seen some of Work Choices as good, even if they shared my view that the Liberal Party had taken it too far? If they did not suspect that, there would have been no need to neutralise it...

I thought the union advertisements against Work Choices, and the business advertisements for it, balanced each other fairly well, without getting into the argumant about which group started it.
Again the middle ground voter didn't seem to agree with either of them entirely.

I've all ready said why the ALP in their wisdom cose not to immediately ditch WorkChoices. The "swinging voter" did not think any part of WorkChoices was good. For starters how could they when it takes away a lot of the rights of employees, most people are not bosses looking to improve their already obscene profits.

What you seem to forget is that the very month WC officially came in that was when Labor went ahead of the Howard government in the polls. The second it came in Labor were always going to win the next election and I'll remind you that was under Beazley too. They only kicked him out later in '06 and replaced him with Rudd to guarantee the win due to Beazley's issues during election campaigns.

[Psyber]

Gozu,
Those swinging voters running small businesses with no more than 8-10 employees were probably delighted with Work Choices, because it meant they could get rid on the "dud" employee before they crippled the business accidentally, or deliberately once they know they are on the way out. I'd have been delighted with it had I not already minimised staffing in my small enterprises back in the late 1980s, when it was already beginning to get very difficult to sack bad employees. [I agree permitting that power to businesses employing up to 100 people was excessive because at over 8-10 employees one dud is not crippling - you can use other staff to cover and correct for them while giving them a chance to shape up.]

Even back then I had to resort to employing only casuals, and paying the higher casual rates, so that each time we had an employee turn out to be a dud we could decide to "economise" with my wife taking over their hours for a few months until it was safe to get someone else. We dumped our last retail business at a loss in 1988, and thereafter stayed out of retail and concentrated on consultative services, because retail in small business had ceased paying adequately about 1985 - unless you found an untapped niche market.

The campaigners tend to carry on about low wages, but many people running small businesses are netting much lower incomes than low wage earners for the hours worked, while being seen as "rich b.......s" because they "own" a business. I'd never bother to run one again. And that is sad because the last time I saw the statistics it was clear there were more jobs created in small businesses than in large ones over the years.

[Gozu]

Gozu,
Those swinging voters running small businesses with no more than 8-10 employees were probably delighted with Work Choices, because it meant they could get rid on the "dud" employee before they crippled the business accidentally, or deliberately once they know they are on the way out. I'd have been delighted with it had I not already minimised staffing in my small enterprises back in the late 1980s, when it was already beginning to get very difficult to sack bad employees. [I agree permitting that power to businesses employing up to 100 people was excessive because at over 8-10 employees one dud is not crippling - you can use other staff to cover and correct for them while giving them a chance to shape up.]

Even back then I had to resort to employing only casuals, and paying the higher casual rates, so that each time we had an employee turn out to be a dud we could decide to "economise" with my wife taking over their hours for a few months until it was safe to get someone else. We dumped our last retail business at a loss in 1988, and thereafter stayed out of retail and concentrated on consultative services, because retail in small business had ceased paying adequately about 1985 - unless you found an untapped niche market.

The campaigners tend to carry on about low wages, but many people running small businesses are netting much lower incomes than low wage earners for the hours worked, while being seen as "rich b.......s" because they "own" a business. I'd never bother to run one again. And that is sad because the last time I saw the statistics it was clear there were more jobs created in small businesses than in large ones over the years.

You're looking at things through your perspective thinking others are too. Owners of small businesses do not make up the majority of swinging voters. I dare say given a lot are Liberal voters they make up a complete fraction of swinging voters.

The "dud" employee thing is almost non-sensical. You expect the government to not only bail you out but take away the rights of everyone else because you made the mistake of hiring a bad employee?

A bad boss (with WorkChoices up their sleeve) is far worse than a bad employee.