Home » Search results for 'sport' (Page 2)
Search Results for: sport
It seems to this humble blogger that anyone who sets out to be all things to all voters is bound to fail, just as a manager who tries to micro manage everyone, he is trying to lead is bound to fail. But that seems to be precisely what is happening with our dear Brother, he has such a desire to be seen as the decisive persona behind everything that is admirable from the government that he has tried to micro control every aspect of its decision making.
Mr Rudd declared he refused to be bullied by the miners, who had to pay “their fair share of tax” and warned the talks could last until the election.
After Mr Rudd’s public appeal, the Minerals Council of Australia last night released an economic study suggesting the proposed tax would kill off new projects in nickel, gold and copper mining and cut 57 per cent off the value of new black-coal mines and 46 per cent of iron ore projects.
The report to the MCA forecasts that the tax would cause significant loss of value in investments and is “likely to result in mining companies deferring or cancelling Australian projects in the short to medium term”.
The government’s political standing and Mr Rudd’s leadership support has been rocked during the month-long dispute over the new profits tax on mining. The latest Newspoll surveys show Labor’s primary vote at just 35 per cent and more people opposed to the new tax than supporting it.
His problem emerges when things go wrong, then he seeks to blame everyone-else rather than genuinely admitting that he has stuffed up. With the mining tax the more that I read about it the more that I think that the real target here is not the miners but the states. Our constitution gives state governments the right to demand royalties from anyone who wishes to dig things up and from Brother Number One’s perspective this means that his government does not have its hot little hands on a most desirable revenue stream. His new tax will make the feds the collector of those monies and you can bet anything that eventually some of the “compensation” that is promised to the states for the loss of those royalties will mysteriously stick to Comrade Swan’s fingers and never get back to the large scale mining states like Queensland or Western Australia.
Meanwhile having tried to talk tough on asylum seekers I think that this little piece is indicative of Brother Number One preparing for back-flip on his previous back-flip (with half turn and pike)
Mr Rudd told the Labor caucus he would not move to the right on the boats issue.
“We will not be seeking to outflank the opposition on the right on either the rhetoric or substance,” the Prime Minister said.
“So we’re not going to engage in some sort of race to the bottom.”
He added that this seemed to be where the Opposition Leader was heading.
Five MPs questioned Mr Rudd in the caucus meeting, saying the surge in boatpeople numbers had been raised with them by many constituents.
They said the government had to engage with people to “get the facts out”.
The member for the South Australian regional seat of Wakefield, Nick Champion, complained that the government was playing a “dead bat”. He said letting the Coalition take control of the issue did not stop people’s distress.
He said Labor must acknowledge that distress and better communicate with the Australian people.
Member for the far western Sydney seat of Lindsay, David Bradbury, said the fact people had concerns about illegal boat arrivals did not make them racists.
The MP for the regional Queensland seat of Blair, Shayne Neumann, who represents an area once represented by Pauline Hanson, said community concerns must be addressed.
So there you have it, On the new Mines tax Brother Number one thinks that he is playing Rugby and he is trying the crash or crash through tactic and on asylum seekers he is trying to play a “dead bat” He is floundering in both games. In the first instance he has been definitively shown to have wilfully infected his government the the “sick cancer” of partisan political advertising from the public purse and then tried to defend his hypocrisy by declaring that his predecessor was worse. Heaven in a hand basket that is a weak argument for the indefensible! It is the equivalent of the school yard bickering between fighting school boys about who is to blame for a fight. For some one who is now the head prefect it is inexcusable.
Secondly Rudd’s attempt to look tough and decisive (on illegal boat arrivals) it is really equivalent to someone turning up to a friendly work cricket match in perfect cricket whites (while everyone else is in singlets and thongs) but not being able to play at all in the first place. He may look the part as he stands at the crease but we all know that as soon as the first ball is bowled that the bales will be airborne. and we will see the undignified efforts by the man in white trying to agre that he was not really out.
Interestingly there is a minute bit of truth from David Bradbury in the quote above. At several forums written by devout Latte sippers there has been the suggestion that those of us who disapprove of people just lobing here in leaky boats have a racist underpinning to our objections. But strangely every time they are challenged to explain just how that racism is manifested and why those objections are racist there is a stunned mullet response in return. So it seems to me that if the latte sippers can’t explain why objecting to open borders is “racist” then it isn’t so in the first place.
While so many “progressives” repeatedly whine on about poor public transport or advocate taking up the Lycra perversion There is a way to achieve excellent fuel efficiency and personally autonomous transport and that is through the use of small motorcycles using this sort of design
As a designer and rider of faired recumbent bicycles, I have enjoyed the benefits of reduced air resistance.
It makes cycling more energy efficient and allows you to travel faster over greater distances.
A recumbent riding position is more comfortable, while adding a fairing can provide weather protection as well as speed.
If one can decrease aerodynamic drag and at the same time improve comfort and energy efficiency of a bicycle, imagine what might be possible with a faster vehicle.
If a vehicle is faster the aerodynamic drag becomes more important.
If you ride twice as fast rolling resistance becomes twice as big but the aerodynamic drag increases exponentially with velocity.
Please read the source piece and consider the benefits of the design, great weather protection, energy efficiency, and much less road space required for that commute to work or play and less than 20% of the parking space needed for a car. I particularly like the way that all of the body slides forward to allow the rider to get in and out of the machine.
This is what you can come up with if you think outside the false dichotomy between public and personal transport.
I post this to show what a versatile platform the seven-style car can be. This also shows that electric cars can have a bit of style and excitement. However I wonder just what sort of range this car may have because I’m guessing that it will not be that much.
I also found it interesting to hear just how much of the noise of the car was generated by the tyres especially after undertaking my own noise testing. Finally I can’t see why the designers did not do away with the openings in the nose cone and take the opportunity to improve the aerodynamics a little.
I offer for your viewing pleasure a two minute vid of a test drive of my clubman, the commentary and barely controlled panic belongs to my brother who held the camera, Mine is the voice declaring his suggestion that it is “brown underpants time” to be rubbish.
Anyway since shooting this vid I have taken the engine out of the car to have the torque converter modified so that it has a lower and more suitable stall speed (down to 2000 from the previous 3000).
All in all it was grin factor plus 😀
This page is worth checking out if you think that less is more when it comes to the weight of a sports car . Clearly this is an ongoing trend that appeals to the minimalist in us all.
The make up of the Deronda is quite impressive. A steel tubular space frame is at the center of it all with double side impact bars, a front crash structure and rear crash bars. For safety the car has double longitudinally braced rollover hoops, a foam filled gas tank, an external master cutoff switch, and an onboard fire suppression system. Suspension duties are handled by a double wishbone suspension that sports fully adjustable Ohlin springs and dampers. Power for the car comes from an Audi sourced 1.8 liter turbocharged four cylinder engine that delivers 250 brake horsepower and 300 pound feet of torque. The Deronda also comes with massive brakes, light weight wheels, performance tires and a fully adjustable pedal box to help tailor the car the specific needs of different sized customers.(source)
Jeffrey Epstein’s long time girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell has had her sex trafficking conviction upheld.
Judge Alison Nathan of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld Maxwell’s conviction for transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity and sex trafficking of minors.
However, Judge Nathan ruled that the three conspiracy counts Maxwell was convicted of were “multiplicitous,” and sentencing the convicted sex trafficker on all of them would violate the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause.
Maxwell was found guilty in December by a 12-person New York jury of five of the six counts she was facing, including sex trafficking.
Maxwell is due to be sentenced in June.
Full story: https://sterlinglawqld.com/ghislaine-maxwells-conviction-for-sex-trafficking-upheld/
Generally, indictable offences in Queensland are dealt with by the District or Supreme Courts, as they are usually serious offences. However, in some cases, indictable offences can or must be dealt with in the Magistrates Court.
The Criminal Code
Section 1 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) defines an “indictment” to mean a written charge preferred against an accused person in order to the person’s trial before some court other than justices exercising summary jurisdiction. A “summary conviction” is defined as summary conviction before a Magistrates Court.
Section 3 of the Criminal Code provides that offences are of 2 kinds, namely, criminal offences and regulatory offences. Criminal offences comprise crimes, misdemeanours and simple offences. Crimes and misdemeanours are indictable offences, which means that the offenders cannot, unless otherwise expressly stated, be prosecuted or convicted except upon indictment. A person guilty of a regulatory offence or a simple offence may be summarily convicted by a Magistrates Court.
Sections 1 and 3 of the Code make it clear that the indictable offences are to be dealt with in the District or Supreme Courts, unless the Code provides otherwise. In the District or Supreme Courts, a jury is ordinarily the trier of fact in a criminal trial. In contrast, a trial in the Magistrates Court is called a summary trial, and the presiding Magistrate is the sole trier of fact (ie, there is no jury). A matter dealt with summarily is dealt with in the Magistrates Court.
When indictable offences must or can be heard summarily
Chapter 58A of the Criminal Code (containing sections 552A-552BB inclusive) provides for when indictable offences must or can be heard summarily:
– Section 552A of the Criminal Code provides for a list of indictable offences which must be dealt with summarily on Prosecution election.
– Section 552B of the Criminal Code provides for a list of indictable offences which must be dealt with summarily, unless the defendant elects for a jury trial.
– Sections 552A, 552B and 552BA of the Criminal Code are all subject to section 552D, which provides that the Magistrates Court must abstain from hearing and determining a charge and must instead conduct a committal proceeding if it is an offence listed at Schedule 1C of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, the Court is of the view that the defendant may not be adequately punished on summary conviction after considering submissions, or if exceptional circumstances exist.
– Section 552H of the Criminal Code provides that the maximum period of imprisonment under section 552A, 552B or 552BA is three years, unless the court is constituted by a magistrate imposing a drug and alcohol treatment order, in which case the maximum penalty is four years imprisonment.
Indictable offences which Prosecution can elect for summary trial
The list of indictable offences that must be dealt with summarily on Prosecution election is contained at section 552A(1) of the Criminal Code.
The offences listed include the commission, counselling or procuring, attempt, or becoming an accessory after the fact of any of the following offences under the Criminal Code:
Section 141: Aiding persons to escape from lawful custody.
Section 142: Escaping from lawful custody.
Section 143: a person responsible for keeping someone in lawful custody permitting escape from lawful custody.
Section 205A: Contravening an order about information necessary to access information stored electronically.
Section 340: assaults committed with intent to commit a crime, or as part of an unlawful conspiracy in relation to any manufacture, trade, business, or occupation or committed against a police officer, a person performing a legal duty, a person aged over 60, or a person who relies on a guide, hearing or assistance dog, wheelchair or other remedial device.
Indictable offences which must be dealt with summarily unless defence elects jury trial
The indictable offences that must be dealt with summarily unless the defence elects for a jury trial are listed at Section 552B(1) of the Code.
The offences listed include the commission, counselling or procuring, attempt or becoming an accessory after the fact of any of the following offences under the Criminal Code:
A sexual offence without a circumstance of aggravation for which the defendant has pleaded guilty, the complainant is at least 14 years of age and the maximum sentence is more than three years.
Section 339: assault occasioning bodily harm which is not committed in company, without the use of a dangerous or offensive weapon or instrument and not during the term of a community service order.
An offence involving an assault without a circumstance of aggravation and which is not of a sexual nature, and for which the maximum penalty is more than 3 years but not more than 7 years.
Section 60A: Participants in criminal organisation being knowingly present in public places.
Section 60B: Participants in criminal organisation entering prescribed places and attending prescribed events.
Section 76: Recruiting a person to become participant in criminal organisation.
Section 77B: Habitually consorting with recognised offenders.
Section 328A: Dangerous operation of a vehicle (with a circumstance of aggravation at Section 328A(2)).
359E Punishment of unlawful stalking if the maximum term of imprisonment for which the defendant is liable is not more than 5 years.
An offence against chapter 14 (Corrupt and improper practices at elections), division 2 (Legislative Assembly elections and referendums), if the maximum term of imprisonment for which the defendant is liable is more than 3 years.
An offence against chapter 22A (Prostitution), if the maximum term of imprisonment for which the defendant is liable is more than 3 years.
An offence against chapter 42A (Secret Commissions).
Indictable offences which must be dealt with summarily
Section 552BA(4) of the Code provides that ‘relevant offences’ must be heard and dealt with summarily.
Relevant offences are defined as indictable offences which either:
- 1. carry maximum sentences of three years or less; or
- 2. are an offence under part 6 of the Code, excluding an offence under Chapter 42A (secret commissions) or an ‘excluded offence’ listed at Section 552BB.
The list of excluded offences contained in the table of Section 552BB includes the following offences:
At about 1.00 am on Sunday 17 February 2019, police were patrolling in Rockhampton when they saw a car driving erratically and knocking over a street sign. They pulled the car over and found the driver was Douglas “call me Doug” Winning, a local solicitor.
What transpired was recorded on the officer’s body-worn cameras. All class, Winning was wearing only a pair of shorts. His vehicle had sustained damage on the bonnet where the sign had hit and there was damage to a front tyre. When asked that he had been drinking, Winning nominated the amount as “a bottle of rum”, explaining that he had had a sleep since finishing it. He was slurring his words. He twice said “You’re not going to pinch me”.
One of the officers said she was going to administer a roadside breath test. Winning was in the car holding his passport and $300 in cash, made up of six $50 notes. At the conclusion of the roadside breath test, Winning lifted his hands. He put his passport down on the seat beside him, and held up his right hand with the notes in it, saying: “Can’t pay my way out this, can I?”.
One police officer responded, “No. No, you definitely can’t pay your way out of this”. The other responded “No”.
After the officers’ responses, Winning folded the cash in his right hand and extended his right arm out of the car, and towards the officers, keeping it there for some time. He remained seated with his left hand on the steering wheel. He only withdrew the extended arm when he was told he was detained and to turn his car off.
Winning then said that “someone’s been threatening my daughter and that’s the only reason I’m drivin’”. He was a told that he was detained for the purpose of a further breath test which would be done at the police station.
In the course of police telling Winning that the car would be secured, Winning said, “You gonna let me go. You’re not gonna lock me up, are ya?”
As Winning was taken out of the vehicle, he told Senior Constable Parkin that he did not need to call him Mr Winning, but rather “call me Doug”. At that point, Winning still had the $300 cash in his hand. Then followed this exchange:
“Officer Parkin: Do you wanna put your cash in the car or do you wanna leave it on your possession?
Winning: I’ll leave it on my possession.
Officer Parkin: Ok. Alright.
Winning: You wa-, you wanna lazy quid?
Officer Parkin: No, no, no.
Winning: Give you a lazy quid
Officer Davies: No, no, no. Parkin: No, no, no. No, not at all. Come on, Winning, we’ll get you in the back of the car. Come on, sir, this way.”
Winning blew 0.191 per cent at the roadside breath test. Later, on the breath analysis machine at the police station, he recorded 0.146 per cent.
Winning was subsequently charged with drink driving and official corruption, arising out of his proffering $300 and asking if he could buy his way out of the situation, and asking whether the police wanted a lazy quid.
Winning was later interviewed by a Channel 9 journalist, and the interview, in which he claimed he was joking about bribing the officers and denied offering them money to withdraw any charges despite the police footage, was recorded on video.
Read full story: https://sterlinglawqld.com/winning-winner-douglas-dinner-loses-corruption-conviction-appeal/