Home » Posts tagged 'Jeremy Sear'
Tag Archives: Jeremy Sear
This is my 3000th post here at the Sandpit, isn’t it amazing just how quickly this milestone has come around?
I like to think that this blog functions at many different levels and its contents is as varied as life itself .
Its primary purpose has always been to keep me entertained and to give purpose to my morning cruise through the daily news reports and blog updates , to that end I like to write about the issue de jour that has taken my fancy as I sip on my first brew for the day. Of course I have also shared some of the events that happen in my own life when I have thought them notable enough and I have tried to do that with a little bit of wit and my rather wry sense of humour.
So for the next three thousand posts I hope to continue to provoke and stimulate thought and words from you, my dear readers, even if those thoughts and words are entirely focused on telling me that I have got it wrong in the most fundamental ways! Sometimes I even get feedback affirming that what I have said is correct, frankly either response pleases me though naturally the later has a somewhat sweeter effect on the palette.
When I need a laugh there is nothing more Jolly than checking out the “environment” section of the Guardian where you can be sure to fine the latest in environmental Corporal Jones (Vale, Clive Dunn) impersonations:
Now there are a couple of really major and naive assumptions in this rather silly piece not the least of which is the fact that the judiciary does not have the powers imagined by the author in the first place, secondly even if they did getting members of the legal profession to all agree about something is rather like herding cats (strangely quite few lawyers are cat lovers) thirdly the argument is profoundly undemocratic and it denies the people the right to chose their own governments and to have those governments do their bidding. Finally it reveals that inner totalitarian that seems to live within the heart of every Greens supporter. Yep its the perfect pick me up for a conservative on this bright and sunny November morning.
- Dad’s Army actor Clive Dunn dies (bbc.co.uk)
Its one of life’s great ironies that so many of the Greens come from the more affluent strata of our society and that many of them have enjoyed the fruits of private education yet their party has been fiercely opposed to any contribution to private schooling from the public purse, Maybe its because they feel guilt about their histories personal privilege and seek some sort of socialist atonement by becoming such fervent advocates for public schooling. One can only speculate about how the Greens supporters will react to the party now deciding to soften their position on education funding in the wake of their trouncing in state and territory elections:
Personally I think we are seeing a rather desperate rearrangement of the deckchairs on the party liner and those of us who are happy to see this party of religious zealotry about “climate change” and deep left ideology brought low think that there may be a better way:
After-all don’t those pesky Greens believe in composting and recycling?
98 names on a list of shame that will embarrass not only all our descendants, but theirs in particular:
About exactly the reverse of how Australians, based on any recent polls on the issue, have asked their representatives to vote.
Shame to Ms Gillard, Mr Abbott, Mr Rudd - and my former local MP, Mike Symon, who repeatedly refused to meet with me to discuss marriage equality because he's a gutless wonder who doesn't deserve to hold the marginal seat he does.
Its called democracy Jeremy and it works. in any event you and the other pro Gay marriage activists should have known that this whole campaign was nothing more than a smokescreen to help distract the public from the incompetence of the Gillard government. Cheers Comrades
Although I am not a Christian I do believe in social redemption and when it comes to juveniles who commit crimes I am as ready as anyone to give them a shot at turning around their lives and hopefully becoming worthwhile citizens who make our a better society. However how many times should we be willing to allow juveniles the benefit of anonymity when they have faced the courts? Frankly does anyone think that the chances of someone who has offended often enough to serve five periods of detention before they reach their majority actually turning their behaviour around are very high? Sadly I don’t think that the chances are measurable. to be honest.
So I am entirely unimpressed by the so called “civil liberties” arguments put against the naming of juvenile repeat offenders when they come before the courts. Its time that the bleeding hearts stop thinking that there is no such thing as a “bad” child. There certainly are individuals who begin their criminal careers at an early age and they are destined to a life of crime and that they will be immune to any attempts to “reform” them. Now while I readily admit that these individuals may well come from situations of abuse and social despair but there has to be a point at which society’s need to be protected from their aberrant and abhorrent behaviour out weighs the very small possibility that they may be redeemed.
It may be arbitrary but “three strikes and you will be named” seems to be a place to start. If a young offender commits two crimes that result in periods of detention then their next offence should lose them any right to have their names and images suppressed.
It probably won’t surprise anyone that our learned friend has come out fighting for the right of juveniles to be treated very softly by the courts even when they are clearly repeat offenders
Here’s their latest effort:
Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie wants all juvenile offenders to be publicly named when they attend court, unless a judge orders otherwise.
Currently children can only be identified when a judge deems the case warrants naming.
Wait, what? Does Bleijie not understand that the reason for emphasising rehabilitation over deterrence with young people is that their brains aren’t fully formed and the clear evidence is that deterrence is far less effective than programs to redirect their lives? That giving them a criminal history early on simply prevents them from ever having a hope of doing something else with their lives?
Any realist would not make the mistake of thinking that someone who has established a pattern of repeated offending by the time they are an adolescent is extremely unlikely to be reformable or that they will ever do anything else with their lives. Our learned friend think that even with a chance of them being rehabilitated at an immeasurably low level we should still pretend that they can be “saved” ? Name them and then if they keep their noses clean for a decade then let them “forget” about their record as we do here in Queensland.
Mr Bleijie says most children who appear in court are repeat offenders and naming them could force them to take responsibility for their actions.
“A lot of young repeat offenders who know that the reporters and journalists can’t report names, come out of court smiling and living among their communities and the communities ought to have a right to know,” he said.
“And also if there’s a little bit of community pressure put on these young people, perhaps it will actually deter these young people from committing these crimes in the future.”
Actually, you blithering idiot, that’s exactly the way to turn young, impressionable people into lifelong criminals. Young people committing crimes are more likely to respond to severe censure by defiantly identifying with criminal peers. It takes maturity to learn to evaluate risk properly and it takes maturity to persevere through difficult circumstances.
I think the person who is blithering here is our learned friend if he really thinks that a juvenile who has been repeatedly before the courts and had several spells in juvenile detention has not already become a lifelong criminal. Further the fact that they have repeatedly failed to respond to the modest ” censure” of the juvenile justice system should tell him that his preferred option is not working for those repeat offenders .
Completely destroying a kid’s life if they don’t make decisions like a rational adult is incredibly counterproductive.
How many chances does he want to give these young toe rags? Surely its good sense to draw a line at a certain number of times that these offenders should be treated with leniency when they come before the courts? A clear expectation that they have to show at least some improvement in their behaviour before they are given the metaphorical slap on the wrist for any subsequent offence? our learned friend surely can be so naive that he believes that every one of these repeat offenders can be reformed?
First Robert Clark in Victoria, now Bleijie in Queensland. What is it with right-wing Attorneys-General and a pigheaded bloody-minded determination to stomp about in a field they clearly barely understand, dismantling systems that have been developed for a good reason, refusing to listen to experts and making matters worse?
Ah maybe there is a clue here in his conclusion; its his arrogance that anyone from outside the lawyers club should dare to have an opinion about justice and the role of the law in our society. One does not have to be a lawyer to understand that just because there is a “good reason” for a particular system it does not mean that it actaully works. The idea of treating the so called “children” as if they are redeemable when they have repeatedly demonstrated that they aren’t is leftist driven nonsense of the worst kind. But then what do you expect from our learned friend?
- Qld wants to name and shame young offenders (abc.net.au)
- The victims of crime deserve swift justice (telegraph.co.uk)
- It’s So Juvenile: Court Of Appeals Of Minnesota Finds An Extended-Jurisdiction Juvenile Adjudication Not Covered By Rule 609(d) (lawprofessors.typepad.com)
- When Should Juvenile Offenders Receive Life Sentences? (learning.blogs.nytimes.com)
- Juvenile Offenders Sentenced To Life Can Face Harsher Treatment Than Adults: Report (huffingtonpost.com)
What is it with the single minded bigotry of Gay marriage advocates? It seems to me that they have totalitarian hearts that ell them that anyone who does not buy into the the entire gay agenda then they are the enemy. Usually I cite our learned friend as a prime example of this but on occasion I think that Darren Hayes has let loose his inner fascist.
As unbeliever I am like a lot of people rather indifferent to the doctrines of most religious faiths and when it comes to the Salvos their good works far out weigh their rather uptight attitude to sex in general. Frankly if Mr Hayes really wants to have a go at God-botherers for their attitude to homosexuality why is he not utterly outraged by Islam? Instead of just objecting to Gay marriage the followers of Islam are instructed that homosexuality is a capital offence and Gays in Iran are regularly hung for just following their nature.
Oh hang on, all of this rancour is rather pointless and its sad that such talented people are deluded enough to think that there will be any change to the marriage act under this or the next government and really what the only reason that this issue gets any kind of a run is to distract the public’s attention from the rather woeful performance of the Gillard Government. But its not just the Gay marriage lobby who have been sucked in by this deliberate strategy, the Greens have been running their campaign on this issue as if it actaully has a chance of getting up. Frankly it would take a shit load political Viagra to harden up enough support to consummate the Gay marriage dream of those like Hayes or our learned friend.
As a supporter of Civil Unions for same sex couples I was a little concerned that the declaration that a LNP government would scrap the hastily created Civil Unions act in Queensland because it seemed to me to be a wrong decision. Fortunately as it turns out Newman has found a way to amend the legislation to create a compromise that we can all live with.
Of course the so called “equal love” zealots like Rodney Croome or our learned friend are going to be horrified and they will see this as a retrograde step but they don’t really like the realities of democracy anyway. No, putting the the zealots to one side this decision is a sound and sensible one that protects the interests of couples without offending those of us who believe that marriage is a profoundly heterosexual institution that does not need reform. Well done indeed Mr Newman