Home » Australian Politics » Bread and circuses have a long and less than honorable history at entertaining the masses.

Bread and circuses have a long and less than honorable history at entertaining the masses.

click for source

Hmm pardon my cynicism but I can’t help but think that this is just another attempt by Gillard to distract media attention from the poor performance of her government, after all what could be more fine and noble that to chase after kiddie fiddlers? Strangely enough though there is no mention of the rampant sexual abuse that has been revealed in far to many remote indigenous communities or the way that our friends from the left want to look the other way on that…
I seem to recall someone of significance opining that no politician should have an royal commission unless they know precisely where it will go to and what it will achieve. Gillard may well have climbed onto the tiger here in an effort to distract attention from her own dodgy past at Slater and Gordon but who is surprised that she makes this desperate move?
This exercise will be expensive, but I have my doubts about its efficacy and as I said in my previous post it will be a great boon for the legal profession and the victims of abuse are less than likely to end up feeling that much better about their exploitation and subsequent  angst.

Its a circus and it will cost an awful lot of bread, but bread and circuses have a long and  less than honourable history at entertaining the masses.

with a very  big sigh Comrades

About these ads

52 Comments

  1. deknarf says:

    Hmm? Drawing a long bow again Iain. I suspect that it was more about an indignant public and our political mediocrity seeing the writing on the wall after the fairly pathetic attemps of various State governments to provide obviously pressurised responses to bury the whole business again. Trying to hide government poor performance I don’t think was on the agenda — assuaging a ‘pissed off’ public was.
    It remains to be seen just how thorough going and robust the commission will be, and whether it will deliver satisfactory outcomes for the victims.
    That it was timely goes without saying. For too long paedophilia has been a taboo subject — it needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into the daylight — wherever it resides.

  2. Iain Hall says:

    Not really Deknarf I have seen enough royal commissions over the years to know that a satisfactory outcome is not by any means guaranteed and that subsequent prosecutions of those mentioned or accused of wrongdoing is the exception rather than the rule.

    As for your suggestion that the public is “pissed off” about the issue well I think that they may soon become very tired of it an the activists will likewise wear out their welcome once its clear that this whole circus won’t achieve much.

  3. Brian says:

    What a load of arrant nonsense Iain. The royal commission has been called for good reasons and after considerable public pressure. A poll here in Melbourne said that 92% of almost 18,000 respondents supported the idea. You might be an apologist who thinks we should leave the poor Catholics alone, but most true atheists and agnostics think differently.

    There’s a thousand times more evidence for systemic sexual abuse in the Catholic church than there is for Julia Gillard’s alleged misconduct at Slater and Gordon. Yet you’d have us believe we should all be up in arms about the latter, while doing little or nothing about the former. Cheap and nasty political point scoring.

    As for sexual abuse in indigenous communities, what do you think Howard’s intervention was about? Do you think that rampant or concealed sexual abuse in one sector of society means we should ignore or overlook that in another?

  4. Richard Ryan says:

    The critics of The Roman Catholic Church will have a field day when all the sordid sex tales of abuse are told by it’s victims.

  5. Iain Hall says:

    Brian

    What a load of arrant nonsense Iain. The royal commission has been called for good reasons and after considerable public pressure. A poll here in Melbourne said that 92% of almost 18,000 respondents supported the idea. You might be an apologist who thinks we should leave the poor Catholics alone, but most true atheists and agnostics think differently.

    Good reason or not given the fact that these sort of allegations have been around for literally years and years you have to be suspicious of the timing of this announcement which is what motivated my post. You are mistaken if you think that I am seeking to make excuses for the church, that is not my intention at all, but I just don’t have very high expectations about the process or the possible result. Because even if that which the church’s critics hope for happens and the church organization is found to have acted badly with regard to such matters what do you think would happen? A royal commission has no power to impose legal sanctions or to convict the guilty (if they are still alive) so what will the ultimate result be?

    There’s a thousand times more evidence for systemic sexual abuse in the Catholic church than there is for Julia Gillard’s alleged misconduct at Slater and Gordon. Yet you’d have us believe we should all be up in arms about the latter, while doing little or nothing about the former. Cheap and nasty political point scoring.

    Hmm maybe not that much difference Brian because in the case of Gillard there is a paper trail and physical evidence, in the case of the church there may well be a number of individuals who make allegations but there is not likely to be any documentary or physical evidence at all. So what were you saying about evidence? Its not just the quantity that matters its the quality of the evidence that makes a case.

    As for sexual abuse in indigenous communities, what do you think Howard’s intervention was about? Do you think that rampant or concealed sexual abuse in one sector of society means we should ignore or overlook that in another?

    Yes I know that Brian if you look into my back catalogue you will find that I was quite vociferously advocating for the intervention because children were being abused on a daily basis in those communities and there was a real urgency to acting. With the church there has been a big effort to deal with these matters better in recent years as the same sort of scandals have erupted in both the USA and Ireland, I don’t think that its a coincidence that most of the abuse allegations relate to events decades in the past. Which brings us back to the question of “Why now?”

  6. Brian says:

    Good reason or not given the fact that these sort of allegations have been around for literally years and years you have to be suspicious of the timing of this announcement which is what motivated my post.

    Oh come off it Iain. The impetus for this royal commission has been building for months and has come from specific cases, police and parliamentary reports in Victoria and NSW, several journalistic exposes and the actions of pressure groups. If the government wanted to divert attention from its woes then it would have called a royal commission three months ago, when its polling figures were much lower than they are now. Your hatred of Gillard is infecting your brain with rabid conspiracy theories.

    A royal commission has no power to impose legal sanctions or to convict the guilty (if they are still alive) so what will the ultimate result be?

    Royal commissions generally suggest changes to legislation and those recommendations are usually put into place by the government of the day. It may impose or strengthen mandatory reporting on members of the church, under penalty of imprisonment if they fail to do so. But even more importantly it will look at the issue of concealment and obstruction rigorously and draw some reliable conclusions about whether members of the church have participated fully, openly and honestly.

    Hmm maybe not that much difference Brian because in the case of Gillard there is a paper trail and physical evidence

    No there’s not Iain. There is no prima facie evidence that Gillard has breached any law or done anything untoward. The case has been built up by conspiracy theories like Bolt and Pickering, and his supporters like you. In any case, crimes against children and their concealment are more serious by several orders of magnitude than what Gillard has been accused of.

  7. Iain Hall says:

    Brian

    Good reason or not given the fact that these sort of allegations have been around for literally years and years you have to be suspicious of the timing of this announcement which is what motivated my post.

    Oh come off it Iain. The impetus for this royal commission has been building for months and has come from specific cases, police and parliamentary reports in Victoria and NSW, several journalistic exposes and the actions of pressure groups. If the government wanted to divert attention from its woes then it would have called a royal commission three months ago, when its polling figures were much lower than they are now. Your hatred of Gillard is infecting your brain with rabid conspiracy theories.

    I remember personally hearing stories from catholic friends in the late seventies/early eighties and there was a simnilar scandal in the USA(and its cost them a shit load of money for compensation)
    As for your suggestions about timing well we may have to agree to disagree but I note that there is also the Saville thing playing out in the UK which has added to the frenzy IMHO< I may be merciless in my mockery of Labor and its current leader but there is no "hatred" involved, in any event lets see how this plays out and then we will see if my theory has any legs

    Royal commissions generally suggest changes to legislation and those recommendations are usually put into place by the government of the day. It may impose or strengthen mandatory reporting on members of the church, under penalty of imprisonment if they fail to do so. But even more importantly it will look at the issue of concealment and obstruction rigorously and draw some reliable conclusions about whether members of the church have participated fully, openly and honestly.

    They can do that but there can be no sanctions against the church for acts that were not crimes when they were committed, so those baying for clerical blood are likely to be disappointed.


    Hmm maybe not that much difference Brian because in the case of Gillard there is a paper trail and physical evidence

    No there’s not Iain. There is no prima facie evidence that Gillard has breached any law or done anything untoward. The case has been built up by conspiracy theories like Bolt and Pickering, and his supporters like you. In any case, crimes against children and their concealment are more serious by several orders of magnitude than what Gillard has been accused of.

    Its more than a conspiracy theory Brian

  8. Richard Ryan says:

    The big question now why did not Abbott who was in close contact with Cardinal Pell, not question the sexual abuse in the Catholic Church——which has been going on since Ireland started exporting priests to THIS CONTINENT. Watch Abbott’s rating drop to zero now that I have let the cat out of the bag—snigger-snigger.

  9. Richard Ryan says:

    The big question for you Iain is would you leave your children in the care of a Catholic Priest? The trust in the Catholic Church has been destroyed. For me I would not trust them with my chooks in their care—cock-a-doodle-doo—–

  10. Iain Hall says:

    Richard
    My trust for Godbotherers of any persuasion is incredibly low, more for their views on religion and the existence of a deity than from any fear that they might molest my children, but if you had children of your own you would not ask such a question because you would understand.

  11. Richard Ryan says:

    The old Catholic Mantra—–do as I say, not as I do. “Godbothers” I like that term, will use it if you don’t mind.

  12. Iain Hall says:

    I don’t mind at all Richard ;)

  13. Iain Hall says:

    The piece in today’s Fairfax press is consistent with what I have been saying, namely that the expectations of the Royal; commission are too high:

    A SENIOR commissioner from the 1980s royal commission into Aboriginal deaths in custody has warned the Gillard government to dampen the expectations of victims in the new wide-ranging inquiry into child sexual abuse.

    Hal Wootten, QC, said given the enormous scale, it is unrealistic to expect that all or even most cases will be investigated.

    Mr Wootten, 89, admitted the royal commission into Aboriginal deaths in custody – which cost $30 million and lasted four years – produced a disappointing result because not enough thought went into its terms of reference.
    “It seems to me that this inquiry into child abuse in institutions has got far greater potential to just become enormous” … Hal Wootten QC.

    “It seems to me that this inquiry into child abuse in institutions has got far greater potential to just become enormous” … Hal Wootten QC.

    ”The deaths in custody commission was set up very hastily as a knee-jerk reaction to a peak of deaths in custody,” Mr Wootten said. ”The government set it up to investigate all deaths over a 10-year period and had no idea how many deaths it would be.

    ”There turned out to be 100 deaths that were within the terms of the royal commission. Immediately every family that had lost a person had an expectation of investigating suspicions. You couldn’t deal with any one death quickly.”

    For its child sexual abuse inquiry, the government must take time to establish the right terms and scope and ensure its goals are realistic, he said.

    ”It seems to me that this inquiry into child abuse in institutions has got far greater potential to just become enormous. There must be thousands of cases. To think it would be possible to give a royal commission-type investigation into every case where there was an allegation of abuse would be fanciful.”

    Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/wootten-warns-of-unrealistic-hopes-for-finding-closure-20121113-29aj2.html#ixzz2C99SBtiA

  14. Richard Ryan says:

    The good book more or less reads: It were better for him, that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should scandalise one of these little ones. If we run out of millstones, can we use hessian bags supplied by Alan Jones.

  15. Brian says:

    I may be merciless in my mockery of Labor and its current leader but there is no “hatred” involved

    Just about everything you write here is anti-ALP, Iain. On the face of it, using the calling of this royal commission as a stick with which to beat Gillard is just cheap politicking. As I said, it has been a long time coming (and is probably a long time overdue).

    They can do that but there can be no sanctions against the church for acts that were not crimes when they were committed

    Sexual abuse of children, hindering a police investigation and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice were all criminal offences in the 1970s, Iain. Whether or not there will be enough evidence to charge anyone with those offences is another question. But royal commissions aren’t about nailing individuals; they are more concerned with systematic or organisational problems or misconduct.

    Its more than a conspiracy theory Brian

    Iain, those of us who view Gillard with neither passion nor prejudice see no tangible evidence of inappropriate or illicit conduct. At the end of the day, when all the blogger bullshit is raked off from path, her only error was to have a dodgy boyfriend and to perform a legal transaction on his behalf. There is no smoking gun, no evidence of complicity, not even any circumstantial evidence that she has done anything untoward. You will keep insisting otherwise of course but everyone knows your judgment is poisoned by your toxic anti-ALP perspective.

  16. Iain Hall says:

    Brian

    Just about everything you write here is anti-ALP, Iain. On the face of it, using the calling of this royal commission as a stick with which to beat Gillard is just cheap politicking. As I said, it has been a long time coming (and is probably a long time overdue).

    You may find it hard to believe but I was a lifelong Labor man until 9/11 when I became utterly disgusted with the response of the left in general and Labor in particular, this was followed by them getting the Green religion of “AGW” As for questioning Gillard’s motivations here, I think that its entirely reasonable to do so did you read may quote form today’s Age?

    Sexual abuse of children, hindering a police investigation and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice were all criminal offences in the 1970s, Iain. Whether or not there will be enough evidence to charge anyone with those offences is another question. But royal commissions aren’t about nailing individuals; they are more concerned with systematic or organisational problems or misconduct.

    As you say proving any of those sorts of offences is very difficult indeed, I will be surprised if there is even a single charge laid after this exercise.

    Iain, those of us who view Gillard with neither passion nor prejudice see no tangible evidence of inappropriate or illicit conduct. At the end of the day, when all the blogger bullshit is raked off from path, her only error was to have a dodgy boyfriend and to perform a legal transaction on his behalf. There is no smoking gun, no evidence of complicity, not even any circumstantial evidence that she has done anything untoward. You will keep insisting otherwise of course but everyone knows your judgment is poisoned by your toxic anti-ALP perspective.

    Frankly I have always thought that the partner that one picks is indicative of an individual’s judgement in general so having a dodgy boyfriend should not be so easily dismissed. But as I see it complicit or duped are the possible descriptors for Gillard’s involvement neither is a good look for either a lawyer or a PM

  17. GD says:

    those of us who view Gillard with neither passion nor prejudice

    Frankly, Brian, anyone who isn’t disturbed by this government’s track record is clearly bereft of judgment or a rusted-on Labor-ite.

    Iain’s judgment isn’t ‘poisoned by his anti-ALP perspective’, he is rightfully reacting, as any passionate person would, to a government that has grossly abused its charter to the Australian people.

    Failure after failure, whether it’s refugees, live cattle trade, the education revolution, pink batts, massive debt accumulation, myriad smaller failed initiatives ie set-top boxes, cash for clunkers, fuel watch, or the larger all-encompassing imposition of a non-mandated carbon tax, Labor has inflicted nothing but debt and failure on the populace.

    Did I mention the massive debt racked up by these incompetents? This is a debt that won’t vanish with a change of government. It will be around for those starry-eyed Gen Y voters to pay back when they reach middle age, with their mortgages and non-existent super packages.

    Yes, the Gillard/Rudd government is leaving a fine legacy for the very generation that believed in them.

    your judgment is poisoned by your toxic anti-ALP perspective

    How anyone could have a ‘pro-ALP perspective’ at this time is beyond me.

  18. One organisation that needs to be investigated is St John ambulance:
    http://www.stjohnnz.com

  19. Richard Ryan says:

    Like bloggers who have the protection of a screen name, the pedophile has the protection of the Catholic Church. Shalom, Richard Ryan.

  20. Ray Dixon says:

    I was a lifelong Labor man until 9/11 when I became utterly disgusted with the response of the left in general and Labor in particular

    Iain, what was wrong with Labor’s response to 9/11? Did Kim Beazley (the then ALP leader) say it was the work of the US themselves? Did he not equally condemn the terrorists and did he not equally empathise with the victims as much as John Howard did?

    The only difference I’m aware of was the ALP’s later opposition to the unsanctioned invasion of Iraq in 2003, which in reality had no basis in being connected to the events of 9/11 and Al Queda – not then and not now, although it did draw some elements of Al Queda into the conflict eventually. You know, the war that was based on a lie – were you “disgusted” with the ALP’s stance on being opposed to killing about 1,000,000 innocent people?

    It’s when you make sweeping statements like that one mate that you incur the ire of others, quite frankly.

  21. Iain Hall says:

    Ray
    At this remove I find it hard to recall the details of my reasoning beyond the raw emotion but it was the culmination of a long period of disappointment with Labor in general. As for responsibility for the death-toll in Iraq I find it incredible that the internecine killing there is laid at the feet of the coalition of the willing rather than allocating responsibility to the Iraqis themselves besides which I am just discussing why I gave up on the party but of the two reasons that I cite it was the latter which has far more significance.

  22. Richard Ryan says:

    WANTED : To answer for war crimes, John Winston Howard, for the deaths of thousands of men, women, and innocent children,for plunging Australia into the Iraqi war, a war based on a lie.

  23. Iain Hall says:

    Predictably dull Richard :roll:

  24. Ray Dixon says:

    Labor had been out of office for 5 years at that time, Iain, so how was it “the culmination of a long period of disappointment with Labor in general”? What had Kimbo done from 1996 to 2001 that disappointed you so much? He nearly won the election (against all odds) in 1998 and would have won if he’d gone a lot harder on the GST broken promise by Howard (remember how Howard said pre winning office in 96 that he would not introduce a GST?). Kim’s only fault was being too nice.

  25. Iain Hall says:

    As I said Ray it to me a long time to decide to abandon Labor it was lots of little things that cumulatively made me abandon them, Kimbo was as you suggest a “nice guy” but uninspiring at best. for the last few times that I gave them my vote it was with great reluctance and following a belief that I held at the time that they were the “lesser of the evils”what really solidified my political change of heart was taking up blogging and discovering that so many minions of the left were far from admirable…

  26. Brian says:

    You may find it hard to believe but I was a lifelong Labor man until 9/11 when I became utterly disgusted with the response of the left in general and Labor in particular

    That’s interesting, Iain, because frankly I thought the ALP’s response to 9/11 was appropriate and quite bipartisan alongside Howard’s own response. Beazley said all the right things and lent his support to invoking ANZUS. What on earth were you disgusted by?

    As you say proving any of those sorts of offences is very difficult indeed, I will be surprised if there is even a single charge laid after this exercise.

    Even if there is not, it will not be a wasted exercise. The point of such a commission is to find ways to stop sexual abuse and its concealment thereof from happening again. Not necessarily to dish out recriminations.

    Frankly I have always thought that the partner that one picks is indicative of an individual’s judgement in general so having a dodgy boyfriend should not be so easily dismissed.

    One of the more ridiculous things I’ve seen you write. Most people have made bad relationship choices in their teens and 20s. Or do you expect aspiring politicians or lawyers to conduct investigations, criminal history checks or character references on every person they share a bed with?

    How anyone could have a ‘pro-ALP perspective’ at this time is beyond me.

    Of course it’s beyond you, “GD”; you’re even more embittered and further to the right than Iain.

  27. Ray Dixon says:

    many minions of the left were far from admirable

    And so many on the right, Iain. Present company excluded.

    I’m still buggered if I know what really turned you.

  28. Iain Hall says:

    Ray

    I’m still buggered if I know what really turned you.

    You make it sound as if becoming more conservative is rather like being seduced into homosexuality… :lol:

    Brian

    That’s interesting, Iain, because frankly I thought the ALP’s response to 9/11 was appropriate and quite bipartisan alongside Howard’s own response. Beazley said all the right things and lent his support to invoking ANZUS. What on earth were you disgusted by?

    It was twelve years ago now Brian memory fades on the details but having changed well there is no reason to go back as far as I can see.

    Even if there is not, it will not be a wasted exercise. The point of such a commission is to find ways to stop sexual abuse and its concealment thereof from happening again. Not necessarily to dish out recriminations.

    The issue is about justice as far as I can see and if this process can’t deliver that then what is the point? To be honest if this was about “doing something” about Kiddie fiddling then we don’t need a Royal commission, we need legislation to require all organisations to report it when they hear of abuse,and to make failing to do so a criminal offence.

    One of the more ridiculous things I’ve seen you write. Most people have made bad relationship choices in their teens and 20s. Or do you expect aspiring politicians or lawyers to conduct investigations, criminal history checks or character references on every person they share a bed with?

    I’m no spring chicken Brian and I have seen lots of people make bad judgement calls on who they choose as partners, strangely enough those same people seem to make, bad judgement calls on the toys they buy and the major life decisions they make as well,I know that such observations are far from scientific but I do reject your suggestion that most people make bad relationship choices when two in three marriages seem to be long lasting and enduring seems to contradict your claim.

  29. Brian says:

    The issue is about justice as far as I can see and if this process can’t deliver that then what is the point? To be honest if this was about “doing something” about Kiddie fiddling then we don’t need a Royal commission, we need legislation to require all organisations to report it when they hear of abuse,and to make failing to do so a criminal offence.

    I’m not sure you understand the function of Royal Commissions. They are not about dispensing ‘justice’ but about getting to the bottom of complex issues, often within an organisational context. Yes, new or better legislation is what’s needed. But you can’t legislate until you have a fuller understanding of the problem, which is the point of a Royal Commission.

    I do reject your suggestion that most people make bad relationship choices when two in three marriages seem to be long lasting and enduring seems to contradict your claim.

    Are you seriously suggesting that we marry everyone we have a relationship with?

    Gillard picking a dud boyfriend in her 20s is about as relevant to her political leadership as the price of fish. I’m sure you’ll continue to claim this blackens her reputation. Then again, if she had a part time job in Woolies in 1979 and once short changed a pensioner by $1.40, you’d claim this makes her unfit to be prime minister. Because that’s what you always do.

  30. Iain Hall says:

    Brian

    I’m not sure you understand the function of Royal Commissions. They are not about dispensing ‘justice’ but about getting to the bottom of complex issues, often within an organisational context. Yes, new or better legislation is what’s needed. But you can’t legislate until you have a fuller understanding of the problem, which is the point of a Royal Commission.

    I’m from Queensland so I’m more than familiar with royal commissions, what they do and how they function which is why I am so cynical about this effort. Besides which what is there new to learn about kiddie fiddling? There have been enough enquiries and stories over the years to tell us the nature of the problem, and how to address it. What do we have to reinvent the wheel here for?

    Gillard picking a dud boyfriend in her 20s is about as relevant to her political leadership as the price of fish. I’m sure you’ll continue to claim this blackens her reputation. Then again, if she had a part time job in Woolies in 1979 and once short changed a pensioner by $1.40, you’d claim this makes her unfit to be prime minister. Because that’s what you always do.

    Brian she was thirty at the time she was at Slater and Gordon

    Only by $1.40? heck we can forgive her that because its under the $1.41 threshold :roll:

  31. Richard Ryan says:

    BUGGERED! anal intercourse, or sexual intercourse with an animal——gee don’t tell me priests were having it off with a sheep or a goat.

  32. Richard Ryan says:

    As well as altar boys!

  33. Richard Ryan says:

    IMAGINE! If this was the Muslims buggering innocent children—-Bolt’s blog would be on melt-down—–But with Pell, Bolt sticks with him like shit to a blanket. Conservatives stick together—–I allege Tony Abbott was aware of the going’s on in the Catholic Church, I will be pushing for him to front the Royal Commission.

  34. Brian says:

    I’m from Queensland so I’m more than familiar with royal commissions, what they do and how they function which is why I am so cynical about this effort.

    Perhaps you should be more cynical about Queensland royal commissions than royal commissions in general.

    Besides which what is there new to learn about kiddie fiddling? There have been enough enquiries and stories over the years to tell us the nature of the problem, and how to address it. What do we have to reinvent the wheel here for?

    I’ve already said this here a hundred times but child sex abuse is not the only core issue. The real point of this royal commission is to find out if it is systemic in religious groups and the Catholic church (and other churches) have actively engaged in covering it up. And if they have, to put measures in place that will prevent a repetition of this concealment if/when there are future instances of sexual abuse.

    Brian she was thirty at the time she was at Slater and Gordon

    Oh well, that makes ALL the difference, doesn’t it?
    Love is blind and sometimes we think with the wrong head. No doubt you are an expert at the dating game, Iain, and have never got a relationship wrong. But I certainly got one or two wrong and so have many people I know. It does not mean you are incompetent at your job.

  35. Iain Hall says:

    Brian

    Perhaps you should be more cynical about Queensland royal commissions than royal commissions in general.

    Do I detect a certain amount of anti-Queensland prejudice here? You must be a Blues supporter still smarting after the state of origin! ;)
    But seriously what makes you think that Queensland royal commissions or inquiries are any different to those held elsewhere in this country?

    Besides which what is there new to learn about kiddie fiddling? There have been enough enquiries and stories over the years to tell us the nature of the problem, and how to address it. What do we have to reinvent the wheel here for?

    I’ve already said this here a hundred times but child sex abuse is not the only core issue. The real point of this royal commission is to find out if it is systemic in religious groups and the Catholic church (and other churches) have actively engaged in covering it up. And if they have, to put measures in place that will prevent a repetition of this concealment if/when there are future instances of sexual abuse.

    All organisations tend to be protective of their reputation and those within them will very often try to avoid scandal, that is just human nature even with the most gross social and legal transgressions, we do know this from past experience and other inquiries so clearly this Royal commission is not about discovering any NEW truth or even the sordid details of an old one. Its about politics and the social psycho-drama of a show trial Royal Commission.

    Brian she was thirty at the time she was at Slater and Gordon

    Oh well, that makes ALL the difference, doesn’t it?
    Love is blind and sometimes we think with the wrong head. No doubt you are an expert at the dating game, Iain, and have never got a relationship wrong. But I certainly got one or two wrong and so have many people I know. It does not mean you are incompetent at your job.

    I am a very long time out of the dating Game Brian because I have been with the same woman for more than thirty years and while I agree with you that we don’t consciously choose who we fall in love with we do choose just what we do about it. I suppose there is a clear downside to a society that endorses promiscuity over the creation of enduring pair-bonds.

  36. Brian says:

    But seriously what makes you think that Queensland royal commissions or inquiries are any different to those held elsewhere in this country?

    And what makes you think that because you consider one royal commission to be ineffective that the next one will also be thus? When you go to a restaurant and get a bad meal, do you stop going to restaurants?

    All organisations tend to be protective of their reputation

    And all organisations are expected to abide by the laws of the land.

    this Royal commission is not about discovering any NEW truth or even the sordid details of an old one. Its about politics and the social psycho-drama of a show trial Royal Commission.

    You sound exactly like Cardinal Pell, Iain. I’m not sure whether to be amused or genuinely frightened by that.

    I am a very long time out of the dating Game Brian because I have been with the same woman for more than thirty years

    Congratulations, Iain. Not everyone is so lucky in love. Still, having a successful long lasting relationship is no grounds for triumphalism or for making value judgements or professional assertions about anyone else. Some relationships work, some don’t, it’s that simple.

    I suppose there is a clear downside to a society that endorses promiscuity over the creation of enduring pair-bonds.

    Probably. But I’m not sure that going the other way (forcing people to remain virgins until marriage, then forcing them to stay in unhappy marriages) is any better.

  37. Iain Hall says:

    Brian

    And what makes you think that because you consider one royal commission to be ineffective that the next one will also be thus? When you go to a restaurant and get a bad meal, do you stop going to restaurants?

    Well I’ll take your response as a concession of my point that Royal commissions in Queensland are no better or worse than those held elsewhere. Oh and on Restaurants I do[t eat at them as a rule preferring home cooking made with love over fancy victuals prepared with profit in mind.

    All organisations tend to be protective of their reputation

    And all organisations are expected to abide by the laws of the land.

    Sure but you can’t ignore human nature in your quest for legalistic solutions to this problem

    You sound exactly like Cardinal Pell, Iain. I’m not sure whether to be amused or genuinely frightened by that.

    Well that would be a coincidence Brian because I have neither read no heard what he has said on the matter. But whay should my thoughts on this issue frighten anyone?

    Congratulations, Iain. Not everyone is so lucky in love. Still, having a successful long lasting relationship is no grounds for triumphalism or for making value judgements or professional assertions about anyone else. Some relationships work, some don’t, it’s that simple.

    To chose someone who is incomparable is one thing but to choose someone as a partner who is both a crook and without moral scruples is another matter entirely and as Wilson appears to fall into the latter category which does show bad judgement on Gillard’s part.


    I suppose there is a clear downside to a society that endorses promiscuity over the creation of enduring pair-bonds.

    Probably. But I’m not sure that going the other way (forcing people to remain virgins until marriage, then forcing them to stay in unhappy marriages) is any better.

    I am reminded of a the aphorism “act in haste, repent at leisure” when it comes to seeking a partner, That said I am very aware of these issues as my daughter is getting to an age where such things are at issue and I certainly won’t be encouraging her to treat sex as just another sort of contact sport.

  38. Brian says:

    Well I’ll take your response as a concession of my point that Royal commissions in Queensland are no better or worse than those held elsewhere.

    Royal commissions are only as good as their terms of reference allow them to be.

    Sure but you can’t ignore human nature in your quest for legalistic solutions to this problem

    There you go again with your apologia. We are not talking about a company hiding criticism of a product, or a politician putting a particular spin on their policy. We are discussing child sex abuse. Are you seriously suggesting that the reputation of the Catholic church has any moral or legal primacy over the interests of abused children?

    To chose someone who is incomparable is one thing but to choose someone as a partner who is both a crook and without moral scruples is another matter entirely

    The thing about crooks, Iain, if you have ever dealt with any (and I have dealt with a couple) is that they are very proficient in concealing their dodgy behaviour. They’ll quite happily be your best mate while lying through their teeth, robbing you blind or otherwise exploiting you. Gillard’s only sin proved thus far is that she trusted Wilson.

    That said I am very aware of these issues as my daughter is getting to an age where such things are at issue and I certainly won’t be encouraging her to treat sex as just another sort of contact sport.

    As the father of two now adult daughters, I sorry to inform you that after a certain point, this will be out of your hands!

  39. Iain Hall says:

    Brian

    There you go again with your apologia. We are not talking about a company hiding criticism of a product, or a politician putting a particular spin on their policy. We are discussing child sex abuse. Are you seriously suggesting that the reputation of the Catholic church has any moral or legal primacy over the interests of abused children?

    Brian I’m making excuses for no one but you have to recognise the realities of human nature and how they will stand with the tribe against outsiders even when they know that one of their own has committed the most heinous offences. I wish that it was not the way of things and I hope that we can do better in future I’m open to suggestions as to how we change something so fundamental to the human psyche as tribal loyalty.

    The thing about crooks, Iain, if you have ever dealt with any (and I have dealt with a couple) is that they are very proficient in concealing their dodgy behaviour. They’ll quite happily be your best mate while lying through their teeth, robbing you blind or otherwise exploiting you. Gillard’s only sin proved thus far is that she trusted Wilson.

    Yes I’ve met some slick crooks as well Brian but as I said earlier “complicit or duped either way its not a good look for Gillard” and I think that still stands as a reasonable criticism of Gillard’s judgement at the time, surely the setting up of a slush find should have rung bells as well the big money that seemed to be appearing out of nowhere to buy houses ect.

    As the father of two now adult daughters, I sorry to inform you that after a certain point, this will be out of your hands!

    I am well aware of that Brian! my daughter may only be thirteen but she is still with in that place where dad’s “wisdom” has some value and I am trying to make the most of that while I can!

  40. Brian says:

    Brian I’m making excuses for no one but you have to recognise the realities of human nature and how they will stand with the tribe against outsiders even when they know that one of their own has committed the most heinous offences.

    You say you’re not making excuses then that’s exactly what you do. The royal commission was not set up as a psychological or sociological study. It was set up to investigate the extent of child sexual offences and its concealment. I must admit that I find your position on this bewildering and entirely hypocritical when weighed against some of the other topics you have written about. Would you extend the same kind of reasoning to Muslims who protect their own from charges of sexual assault? Of course you bloody well wouldn’t!

    I think that still stands as a reasonable criticism of Gillard’s judgement at the time, surely the setting up of a slush find should have rung bells as well the big money that seemed to be appearing out of nowhere to buy houses ect.

    She set the account up for Wilson, Iain, and has admitted doing so without being aware of its purpose. Where is the evidence that she was monitoring the account and/or was aware of the sums being deposited?

    I am well aware of that Brian! my daughter may only be thirteen but she is still with in that place where dad’s “wisdom” has some value and I am trying to make the most of that while I can!

    Yes, you have two, three, maybe four years to go. Enjoy it while it lasts!

  41. GD says:

    Joolia was thirty four when she signed off on the illegal dealings with her then lover. She was a partner of the law firm Slater and Gordon. Hardly ‘young and naive’.

    Julia Gillard had criminal allegations made against her in 1995 when she was accused of helping her boyfriend steal over $1,000,000 from the Australian Workers Union (AWU) and helping him spend the money on such things as her personal home renovations and dresses.
    Julia Gillard has never denied helping him rip off the $1,000,000 plus dollars, what she has done is denied doing it knowingly. Her part was helping set up an account called the “AWU Members Welfare Association No 1 Account” and possibly other accounts that the money was laundered through when she was a lawyer working for Slater and Gordon who were the solicitors representing the Australian Workers Union.

    http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/2011/08/07/australian-prime-minister-julia-gillards-criminal-history-and-her-hypocris-with-wikileaks-and-julian-assange/

  42. Richard Ryan says:

    WHERE pedophiles are concerned, direct action should be taken——–shoot them. Shalom,Richard Ryan.

  43. Iain Hall says:

    Strange as it may seem to you Richard I tend to think that shooting is actually too easy I personally would prefer that they be hung, drawn and quartered

  44. Iain Hall says:

    From the Qz today (click on top search result) the bold is all mine

    This decision was pure politics. The message from Gillard’s office last Friday was no royal commission. On Monday Gillard unilaterally obtained cabinet backing for the reversed position.

    Both the NSW and Victorian governments have been pursuing the issue. In Victoria there has been a parliamentary inquiry assisted by Frank Vincent QC. In NSW, Premier Barry O’Farrell had announced an inquiry in the Hunter region headed by senior crown prosecutor Margaret Cuneen.

    It is no surprise that Roxon, at week’s end, was talking about a joint commonwealth-state royal commission because, as she said, law enforcement and child protection are state issues. In short, Gillard’s initial design doesn’t work.

    At her media conference Gillard said the ambit would go to secular as well as religious institutions. Will Labor exclude its own institutions? Is rape and cover-up of a child in a detention centre to be excluded but rape and cover-up of a child at a church school to be included? This would be untenable.

    On what moral basis could Labor make such distinctions? Yet putting all national government institutions into the terms of reference – surely a moral obligation – is virtually an inquiry in its own right.

    Unfortunately, the worse examples of child sex abuse and cover-up occur in indigenous communities. The 2007 Little Children are Sacred report to the Northern Territory government leading to the Howard government’s territory intervention documented abuse on a scale that was horrific.

    If Gillard is serious about institutional problems involving child sex abuse then she cannot, in moral terms, ignore the plight of indigenous children in institutional care across the nation. How could she explain this to indigenous people? Yet how can this issue be incorporated into the terms of reference and adequately dealt with?

    Most child abuse occurs in families, not in institutional care. Roxon, understandably, says this is not the focus since the remedies are different. But some victims groups will want family abuse and cover-up included in the terms of reference. Since this is the main arena of abuse why wouldn’t they want it included?

    What, therefore, is the purpose of the royal commission? Is it to give victims, regardless of circumstance, therapy and closure by telling their stories? Or is it to identify institutional failings and provide new statutory and policy remedies to prevent repetition?

  45. GD says:

    No smoking gun?

  46. Richard Ryan says:

    HA-HA! Julie Bishop———the Sarah Palin of Australian Politics—GD, has got the hots for Bishop—–Foreign Minister?—–she could not organize a orgy in a brothel.

  47. Iain Hall says:

    She is OK in my book Richard and far more attractive than a certain Ranga of current notoriety

  48. Ray Dixon says:

    She’s an air-head.

  49. Iain Hall says:

    That is no way to talk about our PM Ray ;)

  50. Ray Dixon says:

    I’m talking about the one with the bung eye and the Jeff Kennett type hair, Iain. The blonde one. The one who uses cat claws in Federal Parliament. Julie not Julia.

  51. Iain Hall says:

    Sorry Ray but I was just going on your “air-head” epithet which fits JuliA to a tee…. :lol:

  52. [...] Bread and circuses have a long and less than honorable history at entertaining the masses. (iainhall.wordpress.com) [...]

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 253 other followers

%d bloggers like this: