great post lefty...
its been ABSOLUTELY disgusting to watch this APEC conference going on...
so i read that the guy who was arrested for J-walking and locked up incommunicado for 22 hours had this happen to him in front of his young child...what sort of respect for police and a respect for the rule of law is this going to instil in this child???
...fucking shameful.
The police in this country need little encouragement to act like thugs. John Howard was the man to give them that encouragement.
His logic seems to be: "If only people would quit protesting we wouldn't need to use force to stop them. If anyone does anything stupid, beat them to a pulp."
But none of the videos show what happened before the police got nasty. A bit of a convenient "truth" I suspect. The way you put it, I should be hiding in my cupboard in fear of these roving gangs of Nazi Police Death Squads, who would randomly drag me out of my home while I'm eating dinner, and bash me to a pulp on the street for no reason at all.
I don't buy it Lefty, and most other intelligent Australians don't either. It's called being able to think about things from more than one perspective, which is why the Greens will only ever win one or two seats.
(I just I'd throw my two cents in with a bit of Devil's advocacy this Monday morning. Have fun with it). :o)
"But none of the videos show what happened before the police got nasty."
None of them need to. No matter what happened earlier, why was that police officer repeatedly punching that guy in the stomach whilst other officers held him down? Why wouldn't they just cuff him and take him away? What was the punching whilst subdued in aid of?
Why did they need to be so violent to the guy who crossed the road? That's one long take, and no-one alleges he did more than cross the road, so why the violence?
What could that photographer have done to deserve that kind of throwing to the ground?
The only way "what happened earlier" could be relevant is if the principle is now not "what force is necessary" but "revenge force when we feel like it".
I'm afraid I have a problem with the latter.
(And no, you don't need to be in fear now, probably, but the footage shows that you had good reason to be in fear if you were wandering through Sydney last week.)
But none of the videos show what happened before the police got nasty.
Exactly. It's it rather convenient that there is no footage of before the police moved in and arrested these people.
For all we know, this could have been the person that threw the dart at the cops head.
It's funny how those that are screeching about "police brutality" don't seem to mind it when it is the Protestors are doing things like throwing wheelie bins & Darts at cops heads.
Those who focus on why the chicken crossed the road are missing the point. Whatever he did is for the court do rule on. It is not for the police to mete out arbitrary punishment.
None of them need to. No matter what happened earlier, why was that police officer repeatedly punching that guy in the stomach whilst other officers held him down?
But was he punching the guy? All you can see is the cops arms moving. There is no visual eveidence that he was punching the guy with closed fists.
It quite literally makes me sick to see that footage.
SB's nailed it - although I'd argue that it's not just the police in this country who will act that way when given effectively unfettered powers.
I hope that much of this can be sorted out in the judiciary. Every single person who was assaulted or abused by the police during APEC should sue - especially the guy arrested for 22 hours.
It's a terrible indictment on the state of our Executive that we're now left praying for the Judiciary to bring sanity back to our society.
But was he punching the guy? All you can see is the cops arms moving. There is no visual eveidence that he was punching the guy with closed fists.
And Matt makes me sick too. Urgh - what a little fascist.
Jeremy, can you provide actual evidence, other than this video footage that this guy was punch by the cop?
The video IS evidence, you nitwit.
I'm trying to imagine how anyone could view the footage of that cop's arms pummeling the man and try to pretend that he was, what, vigorously exercising his fists a few centimetres away from the guy's ribs but not touching him. And I'm sorry, I just can't.
Your desperate attempt to claim that black is white would be hilarious if it weren't so disturbing.
The video IS evidence, you nitwit. I'm trying to imagine how anyone could view the footage of that cop's arms pummeling the man and try to pretend that he was, what, vigorously exercising his fists a few centimetres away from the guy's ribs but not touching him. And I'm sorry, I just can't.
So you can say with 100% certainty Jeremy that the Cop was punching the guy with closed Fist's?
MM
If he wasn't punching the guy ... what could he possibly be doing? Tickling him into submission?
A punching motion is pretty damn easy to discern ... and that certainly looked like punching.
Now ... how about you come back to us with a viable alternative to the pummeling action?
Bet you can't find a reasonable defense or alternative.
i am no lawyer but:
why during the APEC summit did the presumption of bail change...as far as i read australian justice...there is commonly a presumtion for bail and the onus is on the prosecution to argue and show a case against it being given...
but during APEC it seems to me that this presumtion had changed...people could be arrested, charged, locked up and to then seek bail, they had to prove that they were doing nothing wrong (rather than the prosecution proving that they were in the wrong and should have bail denied)
so i guess that this is the place that the conservatives are coming from...it is for the arrested to prove they were actually in the right...
where's the checks and balances in such a legal framework on the cops, spooks, and feds??? dodgy!
Matt, "beyond reasonable doubt" will do for me. And the legal system, as it happens.
Got, as RD challenges, a plausible alternative explanation? Or are you just being ridiculous?
Now ... how about you come back to us with a viable alternative to the pummeling action?
Well he could have been using an open hand. Also you don't even see the Cop make contact with the protester's body.
this is why I think it is important to have more evidence before you launch a full scale witch hunt.
...okay, he's just being ridiculous.
so a cop using an open hand is somehow better? assult is assult matt...
unfortunately NO IDENTIFICATION was being worn by the police, so we can now proceed to TAR all NSW POLICE with the same brush...
maybe compassionate punching police officer was acually giving CPR...yeah right
It is sad to say but if the fences and police action were put in place to stop "terrorists" then certainly the terrorists have won. How can a community that consideres itself to be open and progressive cut a city in half, lock people up without reason and allow a police force to rule in such a manner?
In all the media reports I have seen on the 'scuffles', the majority of the pushing and shoving was by the camera men trying to get the best shot of an 'arrest'.
TMITP: The way you put it, I should be hiding in my cupboard in fear of these roving gangs of Nazi Police Death Squads,
Only in the unlikely event of John Howard's re-election. It takes time to lose our freedoms. Now is the time to change direction and throw the bastard out on his ear.
And Matt makes me sick too. Urgh - what a little fascist.
This coming from Mondo who stated this in reference to protesters throwing wheelie Bins at Cops:
Matt - you asked me whether I think it would be acceptable to throw a wheelie bin at a cop who has just bashed my girlfriend. I quite specifically didn't answer the question and explained why I wasn't going to.
I'm not going to moralise about how people should or shouldn't react to seeing their girlfriend belted by a policeman.
so a cop using an open hand is somehow better? assult is assult matt
He could have been patting the guy down.
They don't need to show what happened before? Why not? If you are right, it would very much help your position.
I think you'll find your "innocent commuters" are protesters pushing their way through the police lines.
MM: He could have been patting the guy down
gold.. pure gold.. and I guess by your reasoning if he was bashing him over the head with a night stick he was just 'shoo-ing a fly away'
i mean watch the rodney king video guys...
you do need to squint a little to see the batons...
gold.. pure gold.. and I guess by your reasoning if he was bashing him over the head with a night stick he was just 'shoo-ing a fly away'
You don't even know what part of the guys body is being hit or even if the cop is hitting the guy.
All you can see is the cop from behind & his arms are moving.
So, TMATP, what do you suggest? You know as well as I do that I don't have earlier footage covering the relevant people's conduct over the previous hour.
In the absence of which, we'll just give the police a pass, will we? You still haven't explained WHAT kind of previous activity would justify calling the police conduct shown in the videos "necessary force".
Wow Matt - you've quoted me at random.
Well done. Shame that the quote utterly fails to make your point though.
Perhaps the next step in your 'brain developlment program' could be learning how to choose a quote that supports the point your trying to make?
Just an idea you might like to try.
Matt, give it up. No-one who watches that clip will buy your flimsy crap for a second.
So who was the political winner from the event?
JWH for being the chair of the meeting?
Kevin Rudd for his mandarin?
Dubya for being a knob?
apec - slightly positive for howard
apec - quite positive for rudd
opec i mean Apec - kept bush as a knob
In the absence of which, we'll just give the police a pass, will we?
Oh this is gold Jeremy. So in the absence of evidence you are willing to presume that the Cop is guilty.
It looks like the presumption of innocence until proven guilty does not apply to people, like Cops that Jeremy does not like.
Oh it applies to Protesters that throw darts & wheelie bins at Cops but it doesn't apply to the Cops.
I thought I'd read Matt trying to defend the indefensible before, but fuck a duck ... this takes the chocolates!
He's gone from harmless dickhead to loathsome creep in one post flat. Stunning.
"So in the absence of evidence you are willing to presume that the Cop is guilty."
Not at all. The video is evidence. To any fair-minded person (anyone other than Mighty Matt, really) it's compelling evidence of excessive force being used.
But I repeat myself.
from mighty Matt
It looks like the presumption of innocence until proven guilty does not apply to people, like Cops that Jeremy does not like.
Oh it applies to Protesters that throw darts & wheelie bins at Cops but it doesn't apply to the Cops...
where did he say there were cops he didnt like?
why was there a presumtion against bail during APEC...who was guilty until proven innocent again????
I'm disappointed that Mighty Matt hasn't accused the man being pumelled of attacking the policemans fists with his face in a clear act of asymetrical warfare.
There's a lot of people to be blamed for this. John Howard AND Morris Iemma whipped this up into being a bigger protest than it was.
Not at all. The video is evidence. To any fair-minded person (anyone other than Mighty Matt, really) it's compelling evidence of excessive force being used
Evidence of exactly what jeremy?
it's compelling evidence of excessive force being used
MM: "So in the absence of evidence you are willing to presume that the Cop is guilty."
There is no absence of evidence. There is evidence that police are beating someone who has not used violence against them.
Any earlier evidence will not go to the wrongfulness of the police behaviour, which is already established, although it may explain their motive.
maybe the extra security fences helped...helped to keep violent police away from peaceful protestors...
Evidence of exactly what jeremy?
He MUST be pretending. Nobody is really as stupid as Matt appears to be.
I mean the answer to his question is in the very quote that he provided. It's not like it's hidden - Jeremy refers to "compelling evidence of excessive force being used".
I'm utterly astounded. He really is thick as two bricks.
it's compelling evidence of excessive force being used
"Excessive force" is a rather broad term.
What did the Police actual do to the guy to have been determined as "Excessive force".
There is no absence of evidence. There is evidence that police are beating someone who has not used violence against them.
SB the video footage is from behind with the cops arms moving. You can't even see the cops hands making contact with the guy's body.
you don't know if he was hitting the guy with closed fists or if he was slapping the side of the guys body with an open hand, not causing any pain.
MM: you don't know if he was hitting the guy with closed fists or if he was slapping the side of the guys body with an open hand, not causing any pain
Would you submit to being slapped on the sides with open hands to prove it doesn't cause any pain? I'd certainly volunteer if you were willing.
MM: "you don't know if he was hitting the guy with closed fists or if he was slapping the side of the guys body with an open hand, not causing any pain"
I didnt hear any "whoop whoop whoop" or "knuck kncuck" 3 stooges style.
The deal is that this cop is also a human being & you are all out for his blood even though you don't have solid evidence that he was using "Excessive force".
If it is found that this Cop was using "Excessive force" then I believe he should be dealt with by the Law, but until we have actual solid proof that he did do this then he deserves the Presumption of innocence.
can we form a line???...i mean just to get an 'average' reading for the pain...
Well he could have been using an open hand. Also you don't even see the Cop make contact with the protester's body.
"bzzzt" WRONG ... do you see any open fist in the video? No! Closed fist only.
this is why I think it is important to have more evidence before you launch a full scale witch hunt.
In this case MM, there is clear evidence that the guy was being punched ... you have failed to provide any other credible alternative.
If you were the policeman's lawyer, the judge would lock you up for being such an idiot.
but how can this police officer be charged?
he wasnt wearing ANY IDENTIFICATION!!!
bzzzt" WRONG ... do you see any open fist in the video? No! Closed fist only
RD you can't even see the Cops hands. So bzzzzzzt... you are wrong!!!
In this case MM, there is clear evidence that the guy was being punched ... you have failed to provide any other credible alternative
Not in this video footage. You can't see the hands of the cops... so bzzzzt..wrong again.
MM, look again. If you freeze where the cop pulls his arm back for the third swing you can see he has black gloves on and his hand is clenched into a fist.
with all that bzzz-ing better look out because the federal police might think it is a fly and "swat" it with a water cannon
MM
You can see his hands. They are closed fists going into the guy ... and closed when they come up.
Unless this guy is a messiah at sleight of hand, or incredibly dexterious ... there is no way for him to push his fists in, slap (or tickle) the guy on the ground, reclose his fists, bring them out ... and repeat the exercise a few times.
I can clearly see those fists in seconds 2-4 in that footage. Are you blinking during that timeframe.
I can clearly see those fists in seconds 2-4 in that footage. Are you blinking during that timeframe
What part of the body is the Cop punching RD? Can you see that in the footage?
MM: What part of the body is the Cop punching RD?
So now you admit he IS punching?
woops! :)
So now you admit he IS punching?
No I am not. If you are so certain that the Cop was punching the guy, then you should be able to tell me where on the guy's body was the cop punching.
mighty matt;
please post violent protestors being violent videos from APEC...
just want to see how ambigious the footage is...
So he IS punching now?
Thank you for clarifying that particular point.
As to where ... as the guy is being pulled up (seconds 4-6) you can still see the policemans fists going into his ribs.
Video evidence is a bitch isn't it?
So he IS punching now?
Thank you for clarifying that particular point.
FFS are you that stupid RD?
I am not saying that he was punching.
I am trying to make the point that if you are so certain that the guy was punched by the cop, then you should be able to say on what part of the body the guy was punched.
if you can't, then how do you know that the guy was punched. It all comes back to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
um...
As to where ... as the guy is being pulled up (seconds 4-6) you can still see the policemans fists going into his ribs.
Video evidence is a bitch isn't it?
*yawn
Quick Mighty Matt! Switch to my theory.
The man on the ground is obviously headbutting the good policemans fists. In fact he is doing it with such force that the poor policemans entire arm is forced backwards time and time again.
All the copper was trying to do was wipe the furrowed brow of the perp.
Lefty, I think it's time to step in here. The thread is dominated by Matt's idiotic apologetics, and he hasn't said anything new for several posts. All opinions (no matter how inane) have been expressed, and they don't look like changing any time soon.
Pull the plug on this one to save the thread: it's becoming boring (not to mention infuriating).
"What part of the body is the Cop punching RD?"
That is quoting YOU MM. Now ... I'm guessing that, in a court of law, if that statement was submitted as written evidence ... it would be very clear that you were saying the cop was punching someone.
You said it ... not us.
Time and again ... you fail to come up with a credible alternative to what this punching motion was and where it was aimed.
The policeman was punching, and he was not punching his workmates. So, what was her punching? The pavement? Nope ... no sane person would do that. Limits the options somewhat doesn't it?
As to where ... as the guy is being pulled up (seconds 4-6) you can still see the policemans fists going into his ribs.
For starters, the video footage is too grainy and because of the black gloves you still cannot see a closed fist.
I'll take the last few comments on board ... sorry guys.
I've fallen fall the Matt Trap.
Will whip myself several times in penance.
Indeed. Matt is right. It's possible the inidentified police man has no fingers.
What do you have against people with no fingers!
I agree with Ant.
Matt is doing nothing in this thread other than bare-faced trolling.
Given that you are all out for blood. What are your thoughts on this guy:
http://www.news.com.au/
heraldsun...5005961,00.html
Will you show him the same presumtion of innocents as the cops?!
No Lefty, please don't pull the plug on Mighty! Any other day I'd be the first to agree, but today please let him continue.
"Will you show him the same presumtion of innocents as the cops?!"
If he has assaulted the cops then he deserves justice.
What did you want us to say? That he should be set free ad given a chocolate fish as reward?
Yep...typical MM...look guys and gals he's just a contrarian..all he wants to do is distract everyone and get them bogged down debating things which are obvious to anyone who doesn't have their head completely and firmly WEDGED UP THEIR ASS!...for the love of god DON'T PLAY HIS GAME!....That guy who was arrested trying to cross the street,what possible excuse could the cops have for using that much force?. And did anyone hear him mention his son as they led him away?
That guy who was arrested trying to cross the street,what possible excuse could the cops have for using that much force?.
Yes, in front of an APEC motorcade with security everywhere & protestors being arrested.
yes, that's a smart place to take your son on a day out.
doesn't sound like a smart place to hold a conference...a busy large city of 4 million people...doesn't this man live in sydney...doesn't he have a right to take his son to the city for a day out??? did he cross the road in an APEC security zone?
why wasnt this held on a North Queensland resort Island or some place similar...easy to keep secure...lots of wildlife to pat for the WAGs of leaders, MUCH LESS INCONVENIENCE for citizens/tax payers...
sounds to me like the only reason it was held in sydney was that certain politicians wanted to APPEAR tough and strong before a certain election is called...
Morris Jemma is a fool yes...but this whole APEC conference has been planned out of the PMs office for the past 12 - 18+ months...
this shamozzle was meant to be the event that gave the coalition re election...
ps...nice post APEC poll in the fairfax press.
Ok then...why the force?...if you look at he footage the cops spoke to him before they arrested him...presumably he explained what he and his son were doing so why arrest him at all?...Just tell him to wait and cross later
I was interested to note a few citizens were detained outside the security zone because they were on a "targeted list" or something.
That is way over the line in terms of being guilty before being proven innocent... very much "minority report" stuff.
which makes me think...are the police and security forces in this country spying on left wing citizens while online?
have/did security forces infiltrate left wing organisations/protest groups?
how/where else would they get this 'intelligence' from...
makes me feel dirty
peace
robb
I saw some footage of the person who sprayed the paint on the "pro-bush" banner. the arresting officers were plain clothed and fitted in with the crowd. The police officers there realised this and actually blocked the cameras.
I know it could be a bit of conspiracy theory but could they have set that up to try and attract nut bags?
Also on the point of the location. Certainly somewhere more remote than the Sydney CBD would be 'safer'. But then there wouldnt be the photo opportunities.
sounds like special branch 'tactics' circa 1970!!!
The only mob violence on display was by the biggest mob of, all trying to out do each other, all dressed like GI JO's, THE POLICE, working on behalf of the govenment.
Ok then...why the force?...if you look at he footage the cops spoke to him before they arrested him...presumably he explained what he and his son were doing so why arrest him at all?...Just tell him to wait and cross later
scott, there isn't all the footage. The guy was obviously asked to go with them but he refused.
The question that should be asked is why didn't the guy go with them.
Matt, the police are there as our representatives. I am more concerned with their activities than those of ordinary people. If the man did something silly, then that's one thing. But if the police do something brutal whilst in uniform and representing us, that's quite another, whether the man has irritated them or not. The standard required of police is somewhat higher.
Or do you reckon they should get to be judged by the standards of the lowest of the mob?
And try arguing in good faith. I am very close to banning you from this thread.
Matt, when the SMH's Miranda Devine even condemns the conduct of those police, you know your argument is on exceptionally shaky grounds.
Give it up mate.
Although I do wonder where Devine might have stood on this issue if she weren't mates with Greg McLeay.
Interesting that Andrew Bolt has made no mention of it. Instead he has a go via Landeryou and Tim blair on "stereotypical" lefties showing a picture of the nude guy and someone baring there arse.
The police cannot be trusted with extreme powers, they have proven it. The must be an inquiry, immediately, as to serve and protect is not an excuse to maime, lock up and beat up innocent citizens. This was always going to be the case the abuse of force by police, if you turn up with there's going to a roit attitude and you have a wavier of accountablity from you employer (the govenment) then this is your day of a free for against a per determined enemy.
Wheres the presumption of innocence for those locked up without charge.
The govenment gave the order to use as much force as possible while APEC is on. And the police followed it to ythe letter. The buck stops with Howard, he treats his citizens with contempt and is now dodging this police volice issues like all other calls for inquiries on his watch. He is dangerous and must be called to account on APEC police volience and if nessecary charged him.
"The question that should be asked is why didn't the guy go with them."
No, the question is, what reason did the cops have to take him away?...
What need was there to wrestle him to the ground?
What need was there to hold him incommunicado for 22 hours away from his family and his lawyer?
DamBuster, the other intersting (but predictable) thing about Bolt was that he didn't mention Bush making a hash of his speech, where he called us Austrians and referred to APEC as OPEC.
Funny, huh? When Bush performs well, Bolt never fails to point out the president's 'class', 'wit' and 'nobility'; anyone who dares say otherwise is surely blinded by hate for the man!
But when Bush makes an arse of himself, we get nothing.
Ant - spot on.
I wait for him to comment on how Kevin Rudd performed by speaking to Chinese in mandarin.
Next he will be saying Rudd is communist because of the fact. I think the reaction by the Chinese delegates was priceless.. Probably only matched by JWH saying "oh poo" under his breath.
But if the police do something brutal whilst in uniform and representing us, that's quite another, whether the man has irritated them or not. The standard required of police is somewhat higher.
But jeremy we don't have all the facts.
I noticed how that second video you posed is so conveniently edited. you see the cops talking to the guy, then you see footage of other people, then all of a sudden it cuts back to them arresting him.
The guy could have threatened the police or anything. We don't know because those videos have been edited. What happened to the rest of the footage? Why did the person who posted it, leave out the most important part?
So I am not willing to label it as Police brutality because those video's do not provide all the facts of what was really going on.
And try arguing in good faith. I am very close to banning you from this thread.
You talk about "good faith" well those video's are far from good faith because they have been clearly edited & do not show all of what went on.
No, the question is, what reason did the cops have to take him away?...
Scott why did the video leave that bit out? Why is it that we cannot see what happened in the minutes before they arrested him?
MM: Jeremy and others have put evidence up. If you believe the evidence is wrong show some evidence to show the contrary. Don't bleet on about "what if's and buts" without providing a shred of fact to show the opposite.
Whenever Bolt writes of his admiration for Bush, I'm reminded of that scene in Fawlty Towers where Basil offers the con-man he believes is "Lord Melbury" a drink on the house. I'm paraphrasing the dialogue here, but it went something like:
BASIL (at his most sycophantic): Your lordship, may I offer you an aperitif as our guest?
MELBURY: Thank you, I'll have a dry sherry.
BASIL (sighs with unconcealed admiration): .... what else?
MM: Jeremy and others have put evidence up. If you believe the evidence is wrong show some evidence to show the contrary
The evidence is that crucial parts of the video have been edited out.
look, I'm all for police being reprimanded for a miss use of power, but at the same time I am not for them being set up this way or for them being judged in the public area by videos that have obviously been edited to leave out crucial footage.
It just looks rather suspicious to me when the owner of those video's on Youtube have edited the videos.
Show me the rest of the footage before I demand blood, that's all I ask.
Matt, you're pretty quick to demand blood when the shoe's on the other foot though. This is precisely why it's so difficult to take you seriously.
No MM: YOU SHOW US.
No MM: YOU SHOW US
The onus of proof is on those making the allegation. You know, innocent until proven guilty. Those video's are not proof as they have been clearly compromised by clever editing.
MM: So if they discovered Azaria Chamberlains leg in the outback... "No she wasn't murdered as she could still be hopping around out there".
You are a joke. You state that you need to see the missing bit of video to be proven wrong. Well how about you go off and find it to prove your point.
hahahaha... what a gronk
next thing he'll be saying is that some tricky CGI graphics have been used to make the police officer 'appear' to be 'slapping' the victim...
Please don't ban MM Lefty.
This is MM at its finest in ages.
95 posts. isn't easier just to remark that he's a twat and move on?
95 posts. isn't easier just to remark that he's a twat and move on?
Oh Camila your back.
Bushbasher: theoretically, yes. But have you ever had chickenpox? Your mother insists that you don't scratch, and makes it perfectly clear why you shouldn't. And you even agree: no one wants nasty scars later in life.
But still...
Actually, I take that back: Matt's more like a particularly itchy, painful haemorrhoid.
You know you certainly shouldn't scratch that, because apart from being a futile act of temporary pain relief, you'll get your finger all filthy...
You are a joke. You state that you need to see the missing bit of video to be proven wrong. Well how about you go off and find it to prove your point.
It's not a matter of being proven wrong. It's a matter of having all the facts before demanding the blood of another Human being.
It is also being sceptical of a video that has clearly been edited to show bias.
I'm afraid that it is you that is the joke if you cannot see this. Your blatant bias is showing.
Matt will not be proven wrong until he personally sees the fist shaped bruises on the body of the protestor with independant medical proof that the fist shaped bruises are from the police officer and not the protestor himself.
When did I ask for the blood of the police officer?
I ask for our police to protect the community, not be the private army of a political leader.
100 posts, and he's still a twat.
When did I ask for the blood of the police officer?
Oh Please... Of course you are. You are accusing those Police officer's of brutality.
If it is Police Brutality as you claim, then those officer's will be charged & loose their Jobs.
Unless of course you seriously aren't interested in whether they have miss used their power but rather more interested in sinking the boot into the State & federal governments?
If this is the case then you are not genuine about what you are arguing as you have a hidden agenda.
When I saw the photographer being thrown to the ground I thought of David Hookes. She could have easily smashed her skull on the pavement and died!
I hope the bastard who did it loses his badge and the footage of the crime becomes the defining footage of APEC for most Australians. And I hope it happens before we go to the polls.
Matt's comments around the protester getting punched while lying on the ground have been demonstrably idiotic. Clearly that protester was assaulted by the police and I imagine there will be legal action following from that.
Only a pathetic tool like Matt could possibly deny what is quite plain to everyone else.
However, much as it disgusts me to agree with Matt about anything, his comments about the Accountant are reasonable. The footage (shot and aired by Channel 9 Matt - not on Youtube) does not show what lead to the individual being pushed to the ground and we therefore don't know why it happened.
The cops certainly seemed to be speaking to him calmly prior to the 'take-down' so something has clearly happened in the interim that caused the police to start man-handling him. Perhaps it was simply that the decision to arrest him was made and he indicated that he would not come willingly?
Perhaps the police were just being jerks. We don't know.
I'm sure that we'll learn more about this case but in the meantime I'd hold off on declaring the guy completely innocent until the facts are in.
Mind you this is not an endorsement of Matt's position. I think Matt is a dickwad of the highest order.
mondo, what has he been charged with?
I have no idea Bushbasher - entering a prohibited zone?
Who knows what wacky new laws were passed for the benefit of APEC.
MM: Now you are trying to put words in my mouth. You have no idea what viewpoint I am coming from and why I am typing this.
In fact, the reason why I am not agreeing with your view point is because you are blindly standing behind a flawed argument about the level of force that was used on largely peaceful protestors.
If a protestor is stupid enough to attack a policeman then they deserve to be taken into custody and punished by the courts. The police are doing their jobs and following orders.
If a peaceful protestor is apprehended, supposedly punched and dragged to the ground and then locked up. Is that the kind of society you want to live in? I certainly don't.
My issue is that the orders given to the police and enacted by the federal and state government were too far reaching. And the police worked at the absolute limits of those orders based on the wrong assumption that the protests would become violent as per the G20 protest.
So back to your argument Matt, got any proof the police officers did not go overboard? Like a video from another angle showing the officer tickling or slapping the protestor?
mondo, as far as i can tell, the guy was jaywalking. given the level of force, and given he was locked up for a day without being able to call anyone, i think there's a fucking huge onus on the cops to justify their behvaiour.
I've watched the lady being thrown to the ground again and I'm now of the opinion that her backpack probably saved her life. The bastard should be charged with conduct endangering life. The thought must have passed through his mind as he did it that she might hit her head on the pavement. The thought probably made him use all of his strength.
In fact, the reason why I am not agreeing with your view point is because you are blindly standing behind a flawed argument about the level of force that was used on largely peaceful protestors
For starters, the videos were cleverly edited so we don't have the luxury of knowing if they were "Peaceful protesters".
maybe if we were allowed to see all the footage of what happened before, during & after the arrests then maybe we would know.
If a protestor is stupid enough to attack a policeman then they deserve to be taken into custody and punished by the courts. The police are doing their jobs and following orders.
For all we know these protesters that were arrested could have attacked the police. we don't know for sure because the video was edited.
So back to your argument Matt, got any proof the police officers did not go overboard? Like a video from another angle showing the officer tickling or slapping the protestor?
Dam the onus of proof is on those making the allegations of Police Brutality like you.
The video you are asking me to make my judgement on is clearly edited which means it is compromised.
I will reserve my judgement until I am shown more reliable, unedited evidence.
mondo, as far as i can tell, the guy was jaywalking. given the level of force, and given he was locked up for a day without being able to call anyone, i think there's a fucking huge onus on the cops to justify their behvaiour.
Undoubtedly there is BB - but the very fact that you're calling for them to explain themselves indicates that even you recognise that there is some possibility that they are not at fault.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not arguing that the cops are innocent - I am simply agreeing with the Pratt that the video evidence in that case is not conclusive.
The camerawoman being hurled to the ground and the protester being punched, however, are quite clear examples of police brutality. No need for any further information in those cases.
MM: Blah blah blah. Maybe you should check out the 9Raw video website and look for yourself. Police lead a protestor away, one on each arm and a third jogs up and joins in and tries to push the protestor to the ground to which he resists. Before this he was being led away calmly until one officer tries to join in making the whole think look very ugly.
Police lead a protestor away, one on each arm and a third jogs up and joins in and tries to push the protestor to the ground to which he resists. Before this he was being led away calmly until one officer tries to join in making the whole think look very ugly
Was he resisting arrest & refusing to follow instructions from the police that were arresting him?
Also did you see what the guy was being arrested for?
yeah, mondo, i understand your point. i just think your post lacked the prima facie stuff. also, you mispelled "twat".
LOL - I can't believe Jeremy allows the blatant trolling to continue.
There are plenty of interesting discussions we could have had about this issue were it not for the daily 'Matt-a-thon".
I don't know if anyone has highlighted this before but Miranda Devine comes to the defence of the arrested accountant.
Ken at Surfdom comments:
Miranda enthusaistically whoops and hollers from the sidelines when the AFP destroys Dr Haneef Mahomed’s life. Hey, what’s it matter if he did anything, he should’ve known better than to have dodgy second cousins. His little bit of inconvenience is just the price we have to pay to stop the terrorists.
Miranda sagely counsels that it’s OK to slaughter hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and make more than four million of them homeless, because it’s a small price to pay to stop those damn terrorists. I mean it’s all a matter of getting your priorities right.
But now Miranda’s thrown a real little tantie because one of her friends got locked up for a day - a whole day dammit - by over-zealous coppers at APEC. One of her friends!!
MM: Was he resisting arrest & refusing to follow instructions from the police that were arresting him?
No. He had already been apprehended and was being led away seom 50m behind the police lines.
Also did you see what the guy was being arrested for?
He was standing in front of the police talking and gestating to them to join in and protest against howard and bush.
http://ninemsn.video.msn.com/v/e...1c&f=39&
fg=copy
is the link
http://ninemsn.video.msn.com/v/e.../v/e...1c&f=39&
fg=copy
is the link
Once again the video has been clearly edited. They show him talking to Police, then they cut away with the next scene him being taken away by police.
Why did they edit it?
Also just before they drop him to the ground he struggles & resists being put into the Police van.
once again this video footage has been compromised. What are they hiding? What did the guy do to the police & why was this edited out of the video?
"LOL - I can't believe Jeremy allows the blatant trolling to continue."
You can just ignore him and discuss the matter with the people who want to have a sensible discussion. If Matt then starts flooding threads I'll ban him, but, apart from being staggeringly thick-witted about what the video clearly shows, he hasn't actually committed a banning offence that I can see. Merely being irritating is far too subjective for me to be comfortable with it being grounds for a ban.
jeremy, i agree (as if it matters).
Matt, no-one is going to upload hours of unedited video to YouTube, and whenever it started and stopped you'd complain that there might be something crucial just out of frame.
But it doesn't matter. I cannot imagine what else these "unedited" videos could show that could excuse the police behaviour.
Say the person on the ground being punched was the idiot who threw the dart - pretty much the worst behaviour reported at the march. Even then, that's grounds to arrest him, but what's the punching in aid of? The police aren't there to mete out punishment, they're there to do what's necessary to maintain order.
That thuggery from the police clearly wasn't necessary, no matter what the man had done earlier. At the point in the footage I've uploaded from the news, he is clearly restrained, and the obvious punching is clearly excessive.
Likewise the accountant. What could have happened in the interim that required them to be treating him as they do in the second part of the video?
Let your imagination go wild, Matt. I'm all ears. But shut up about the "oh the video is edited so therefore we can completely disregard it" crap. You've made that point, and it's been demolished. Let it go.
There was clearly some rouge cops on the beat at that protest, and for Howard to say he backs all police actions taken on the day shows what a cover up of the excessive force used by some police and the cover up goes all the way to the top. Find the rotten egg cops who went over the top and bring them to account before they kill someone needlessly. It was more good luck than good management that that female photographer was not killed by hitting the back of her head on the ground.
some rouge cops? if only they were that dainty!
Matt, no-one is going to upload unedited video to YouTube; there'd be hours of the stuff.
But I cannot imagine what else these "unedited" videos could show that could excuse the police behaviour.
they could show the footage minutes before the arrest.
It's strange how the edit it so the next scene you see is the person already in police custody being marched off by the police.
Likewise the accountant. What could have happened in the interim that required them to be treating him as they do in the second part of the video?
Well he could have made threats to the police, he could have tried to fight them, he even could have produced a weapon. He also could have refused to do as he was instructed given that it was a restricted area.
Of course we don't know the truth because the video footage was cleverly edited to not show what he did.
All I am saying is that I refuse to call for the blood of the police officers involved until i know all the facts.
MM: Well he could have made threats to the police, he could have tried to fight them, he even could have produced a weapon.
Matt, if you honestly believe a news source would edit out footage as dramatic as that, you're off your bloody rocker.
Fair dinkim, no wonder we accept but dont respect authority in this country, some of these polices behaved like animals.
As someone just said
Any lefty talking about liberty and freedom is like someone having sex to get their virginity back.
Liberty has always been a ring wing thing, so i don't know why you guys are talking about an issue that is obviously confusing to you. It's not about group rights guys.....
fuck. there goes the thread for another couple hours.
Matt, if you honestly believe a news source would edit out footage as dramatic as that, you're off your bloody rocker.
That's only an assumption by you. The truth is that vital parts of the footage was removed. The very footage that tells us why they were arrested.
bushbasher - not wrong. It is like playing tennis against a brick wall.
apart from being staggeringly thick-witted about what the video clearly shows, he hasn't actually committed a banning offence that I can see. Merely being irritating is far too subjective for me to be comfortable with it being grounds for a ban.
It isn't the irritation that is the problem - it is, as you have previously identified, the fact that he argues in bad faith.
I understand how important it is for you to maintain a blog that is fair to all commenters, but Matt is simply abusing your good nature. He knows the rules you've set down and how to ensure he stays within them - but this doesn't change the fact that he's quite obviously and deliberately trolling your blog.
You say 'why not simply ignore him' but that's the whole point about trolling - it's basically impossible to ignore. Matt comes here every day for the sole purpose of being contrary and arguing with everyone.
Funnily enough I wouldn't have a problem with that if he was capable of arguing in good faith - but he isn't. He quite demonstrably is incapable of admitting error or recognising fault in his own position, and so we have these ridiculously childish exchanges where Matt says something utterly idiotic and then refuses to retract it - fabricating increasingly ludicrous counter-points in a desperate attempt to avoid admitting error.
Lefty - it's your blog and your rules, but Matt is making a mockery of the 'comments' sections on a daily basis. Your reluctance to put a stop to it when Matt so clearly revels in his ability to derail every discussion thread he enters is mystifying to me.
MM: "Oh Camilla your back."
What about it Matt? Getting a bit personal aren't you?
Awesome. The only bloke who could possibly give Matt a run for his money in the Make A C*nt of Himself Stakes has arrived.
You've got your work cut out for you today though, Real Anon. It'll be a close race.
Actually, Ant, if you ignore the deliberate provocation Ranon is actually in full agreement with the Lefty position.
Well, he should be if his commitment to liberty is as strong as he would have us believe.
here here Mondo.
So far the argument has gone from "he didnt punch him" to "there was an edited section that has all the answers" with no counter proof or evidence other than "in my opinion..." to state fact that opposes what lefty and pretty much anyone else says.
The wolrd is not a PC where everything can be broken down into 0 and 1 or black and white. To argue one viewpoint without budging or admitting flaws in one's arguments is flawed in itself.
Matt might be right. The accused OBVIOUSLY had one of those missing rocket launchers.
As for banning Mighty Matt.
Cannot be done. He's now in a win-win situation.
Ban him and he's won. "They can't handle the truth."
Ignore him and he's won. "You've stopped arguing with me. I win by default."
So let's skip to the end. Matt.
You win teh internet. Congrats. Your Godwin trophy is on it's way.
For the rest of us. Interesting that over at http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/0...badge/
#comments a protestor made some interesting comments about the police action at Hyde Park.
Now if this was some lefty feral we could of course safely ignore it.
However this was terje from the LDP pro free trade rally. His comments "However when it came time to leave it was another matter. Everybody in Hyde Park was effectively imprisoned and I had mild arguments with police on three boundary points to the park by which time it became clear we were being held against our will. It was a very antagonistic move and whilst I felt sorry for the individual police officers who were “just following orders” I also felt angry at being deprived of liberty and intimidated by heavily armed individuals. Not a good look. At last an exit point was opened before the crowds got really cranky."
See, even the non leftys had problems on the day.
Tssk: I am pre-empting MM here: "But is there an unedited video of it"
Realanon reckons liberty is a ring wing thing, which I guess is Libertarianese for right-wing thing. Bloody hell, that's a very big statement RA. Kind of begs the question of what you mean by right- (or ring) wing, doesn't it?
Yes - the Civil Libertarians, for example, will be astounded to learn that they are Right-wingers.
They won't be able to argue with the credibility of the source though, Mondo. After all, in case you'd forgotten, Real Anon HAS READ HAYEK'S THE ROAD TO SERFDOM!
Which, I hasten to add, he hilariously referred to as “The Road to Surdom” a few days ago.
That would be because he hasn't read it Ant. I doubt very much that anyone who did would make such an error.
For example it's been a while since I heard a commited Christian refer to 'the Byble'.
I'll bet he's read Mises' 'Intermaventionalism: An Ergonomic Analysis' too. Foundational text of libertarianism, that one.
Mondo, are you referring to the version that was written by womyn? It shits all over the King James edition.
An Ergonomic Analysis! LOL.
Mighty Matts' logic is superb, the cops deserve to be innocent till proven guilty, but the protesters deserve to be guilty(of throwing darts, wheely bins etc.) till proven innocent. Breathtaking logic Matt. Thankfully people like you Matt, do not have the intelligence to become judges. What rank is daddy in the police force Matt, or is it another family member in the force. Oh and Matt, shouldn't you be doing your homework before bed, it's exam time soon.
Judging from Miranda Devine's grossly hypocritical position on accountant guy (her friend trying to cross the road), I assume what got him bashed was something like: "who do you think you are? Do you know who I am? I am a white conservative guy, go use your powers on some muslims or hippies you thugs. Ouch". Relativism hurts.
Actually, Ant, if you ignore the deliberate provocation Ranon is actually in full agreement with the Lefty position.
Quite so... not too different at all.
Where we part company is the economics. It's a mild illness for which he could get treatment for.
Lefty is ok as he's not envy ridden like most lefties that drive their economics.
Just watched the vids.
Thank god we have the police to protect us from photographers and 52 yr old jaywalkers.
Ummm bad shit.
I hope the people sue the shit out these cops.
However I have one small complaint about the guy in the middle vid. Anyone see his socks. They were absolutely disgusting. Wearing socks like that alone deserves some sort of police action like immediate arrest.
I think Matt ought to be banned from this thread. Honestly the man is an absolute lunatic.
All that aside my friend was arrested at the protest. What was this friend doing you ask.
Well said friend was sitting in a park in an area open to the public and talking to a group of other friends. She was filming too. She had her video camera with her something that she does all the time; she is an artist and makes documentaries and other political satire. The police walked up to her, threw her down and arrested her. She is in Sydney awaiting for her Court appearance.
Now I know this women. I have known her for many years. She is a passive, sweet women who has never hurt anyone or anything. I cannot for the life of me understand how this could happen.
The police are bloody thugs. And these videos you have up J prove it without doubt.
I would like to know who the hell is going to charge those cops with excessive force and with abuse of power. Tell me that.
Ant says:
"Which, I hasten to add, he hilariously referred to as “The Road to Surdom” a few days ago."
Ant is on a mission. Instead rounding up crums he finds to take back to the mound he's now found his true calling in life. Correctling typos and grammar check.
Ant thinks this will get him through debates.
I'm sure he's related to mondo. Their brother and sister were their mum and dad.
Does anyone know how many people were actually arrested and charged? I heard, via various media, 18 then over 80, then 18 then 80.
Most strange.
Are there people held in cells that we may not be hearing about because it would be illegal for it to be mentioned under pain of law?
Well, Lefty,
MM has obviously popped off to his night job stacking his trust fund.
But please let it keep posting so as to let the desperation shine through.
As for RA, hmmm... maybe it's getting a bit silly.
I vote for banning them both in future threads if justified but please let them both run wild on this thread.
They need to have the right to spell out how excellent cop thuggery is, and essential, to pertecting our threedoms and mockracy.
Best thread for yonks.
bushbasher
Dude are you mentally disturbed? You tell me to go F myself while you're monikered up as a Bushbasher. Stop boasting.
It's a ludicrous suggestion coming from you snatch.
MIGHTY MAT NEEDS TO GO JEREMY he's ruining you your blog mate. just for one second step away from your morals and think about this as a commercial decision. while i appreciate that you make no money out of this you do want people to read what you have to say on matters. part of the attraction to reading blogs as apart from the papers is the comments section, matt is making it difficult to do so.
anyone who knows anything about assault would know that striking with an open or closed hand is the same. perhaps i should bitch slap matt so he can judge for himself if that constitutes assault. and the darts and metal bar dude is a fuckwit who assaulted the police and i hope he gets what's coming to him.
SEE I RESPONDED INVOLUNTARILY!!! perhaps you should take a vote from you longtime readers and see what they think.
ps i'm going to send this to my family. there's a few coppers in it and some that are particularly high up, and some radical lefties so this should start a good debate.
Please don't ban MM or RA from this post, Lefty.
Please ban them in future, but not from this post.
The true colours they are showing are just too good to shut down and should be allowed to stand for the historical record of blogging in Australia.
(disclosure: I would love to see MM going on in this vein for my book idea).
Again, please let MM go on as much as it likes. Please.
Oh, and because Sgt. Chris Hurley killed a man on Palm Island (Yep, a cop killed a man with violence. You know, killed him dead! split that liver in two with a well aimed knee to the lower back, and got away without so much as a demotion), I tend to think we should wonder about how much force our Coppers should be able to use at protests, or in any other situation. Just me, I guess.
So, please Lefty, let MM continue to justify his and RA's political position.
Thanks
real anon, the problem is not that you're insulting. the problem is that you're gratuitously and solely insulting. you're simply a fucking troll. you have no interest in anything here except being an annoying prick.
most others here are polite and well-spoken and tolerant. maybe overly tolerant. but i have no time for dicks like you. so, again, go fuck yourself.
RA's abuse of Miss P (I have deleted the relevant comments) has resulted in his being banned for a week.
NAR, I hear what you're saying, but I would hope that people who are reading my posts can ignore one single person writing drivel in the comments. If Matt starts flooding threads, then he'll be banned, but otherwise, you can ignore his comments and discuss things with everyone else. It's not like Matt's the only one here.
Miss P - have you found out yet what your friend has been charged with?
To repeat a post that in hindsight was spot on:
fuck. there goes the thread for another couple hours.
bushbasher | 09.10.07 - 4:32 pm | #
yeah, miss politics, i'm also very interested to hear more about your friend. also, has anyone heard any response in the main stream press about the cops attacking filmers simply for filming?
DBoP: Also did you see what the guy was being arrested for?
He was standing in front of the police talking and gestating to them
That explains it!
Real Anon: Ant is on a mission… Correctling (sic) typos and grammar check. Ant thinks this will get him through debates.
The point I was making had little to do with your misspelling of The Road to Serfdom, but I should’ve know it’d be too subtle to penetrate that thick head of yours, filled as it is with flaccid provocations and the half-understood ideas of people more intelligent than you.
Here’s what I was getting at:
* A book, no matter how influential, holds no talismanic power in a debate
* The invocation of a book title, or an author, is not an argument
In fact, what you’re essentially saying when you try the cowardly “read this book and get back to me” line is:
“Well, you’ve kicked my arse, but how about you argue with Hayek instead: that’s where all my ideas come from anyway… the ones I can remember, anyway. BAM! Who’s the big man now!?”
I merely mentioned your misspelling because debating is a lot like playing poker: if you’re going to have the audacity to bluff, you’d better make sure it’s bloody convincing.
filled as it is with flaccid provocations and the half-understood ideas of people more intelligent than you.
A put-down worthy of SB!!
Classic line Ant - I'm glad that RA's not here to ruin it with some tacky and childish response.
WHOA - I was just perusing Bolt's blog and he's posted this morning predicting a change in the Liberal leadership today.
Could it be that Australis's darkest period is about to end? Dare we hope that the rodent will desert his sinking ship?
Dear God - please, just this once, let Bolt be right!!
i dunno. seeing howard twist in the wind is kinda fun, too.
Thanks Mondo. I don't know what it is with that bloke: I've taken an instant and profound dislike to him.
As infuriating at Mighty Matt is, I genuinely don't think he's a nasty person ... but Real Anon is a vicious little prick.
hell no.. I want howard to be rejected at the ballot box. It's the only way we'll be truly free of his legacy. Imagine if if gets to claim if could've won if only the liberals had stuck with him.
and maybe we can even see him lose his seat. that'd be a buzz!
Pleeeeeeeeeease Johnny, don't go!
bushbasher: seeing howard twist in the wind is kinda fun, too.
I'm with you on this bushbasher. I'd like to see him sqirm until the end, hopefully a very bitter end.
I'll take what I can get at this point - Howard the Coward, making what has got to be the world's biggest hospital pass to Costello just prior to the election.
I have to agree with Bolt's logic - everyone knows that Howard won't stay on long after this election and, as such, he's dead in the water. Especially in Bennelong where McKew can guarantee a full three years of representation.
I don't care how he goes - just as long as he goes. History already has a particularly shitty place lined up for Howard - the sooner it can deliver it to him the better.
sb... Maybe he had it in a box.
uh, that was for sb's second last comment about a man "gestating" at police. The moment's passed.
ok ok I admit I stuffed up (see MM I can admit it) on the gestating vs gesturing or gesticulating.
Andrew Bolt may be a knob but he certainly knows how politics works. His insights on how the 'machine' operates are well founded and well educated. I have to give him that. His viepoint on a lot of other matters is a different story altogether.
Howard's mistake in adopting radical policies was to leave the middle ground vacant. Rudd has moved in, whereas Latham went off in a different direction.
The danger is that with Costello as leader the Libs may try to do something sensible like try to reclaim the lost middle ground and make the election more of a contest.
Dam Buster, Bolt is definitely putting bollocks on the line with his prediction that this will be over by tomorrow. Since when is he so decisive about anything? It's the first time in, well, since I can remember, that he hasn't hedged his bets.
I reckon the Libs would be much more formidable with Turnbull at the Helm than they will be with Costello.
But either way they're sitting ducks.
I'd be keen to see Howard stay on and be defeated at the B-box. He doesn't deserve to go undefeated and not face a rejection of his leadership.
In addition to that, it would let Rudd off the hook to a large extent; and his policies and intentions need to be further scrutinised and tested. A new PM/Coalit Leader would perhaps give them the equivalent of a honeymoon bounce; but ultimately, I think the lack of time between now and the election would play into the hands of Labor. The "first cab off the rank" principle?
I don't think anything can save the Libs/Coalition now. Too many holes in their strategy either way. They've been adamant Howard would stay and then they dump him - a lot of egg on faces.
At the last, it's Howard's dishonesty that will cost him - as it should. He claims to admit the Gov has made mistakes but, to the best of my knowledge, he hasn't said what those mistakes are. IR? Iraq? The latest admission is that they've been basking in their "economic achievements" and not addressing the future. He says the dissatisfaction that historically has seen Govs dumped is not evident. I don't think he's looking very hard.
I reckon the Libs would be much more formidable with Turnbull at the Helm than they will be with Costello
OMG - I actually agree with you mondo.
Costello is far too connected to the Howard era. Turnbull would be a representation of a whole new era for the liberal party.
Mondo, if they did change the leadership & Turbull became leader, would you start to vote Liberal?
Matt has spends all his time defending Howard and his "era" and yet now wants a leader that has no connection to it. I'm sure there's an explanation for that.
It's interesting that Howard felt compelled to send someone over to Downers' office to check if the story about Downer and Turnbull was true. That tells you quite a lot by itself.
Howards problem now is that sufficient speculation turns into a self-perpetuating situation, where the on-going speculation makes it difficult for him to get any positive policital messages out, leading to a greater feeling among supporters that maybe a change is neccessary simply to end the speculation, as it's rapidly becoming the only story which Howard is starring in. APEC? What's that?
I doubt it Matt - but it depends a bit on their policy agenda under Turnbull.
My primary objection to the Libs is their social policy. Whilst I respect them for their economic competency, I cannot support their fundamentally backwards ideological approach to social issues such as reconciliation, refugees, homosexual marriage, war and welfare.
If Turnbull were to change all that in the future then I might be convinced . . .
Interesting that The Oz has whacked Beattie's leadership for not spending on the infrastructure required to support Qld's burgeoning population. This is the same Oz that has supported Howard sycophantically in the neocon economic approach to Gov of no spending on infrastrusture or nation-building government projects and large budget surpluses. The state Govs have been wedged and levered into adopting this practice and yet now there's screaming about lack of state gov planning and spending. WTF?
Shhhh DeanL, someone might notice the inconsistency! Geez, what do you want to do -- ruin it for the Federal Government? Can't you see they're in enough strife as it is? Shame on you.
The other thing is: Governments should be regularly turned over as a matter of principle. Entrenchment leads to corruption; corruption leads to autocracy; autocracy leads to the Dark Side of the Force. Heed ye the words of Yoda, you should.
Matt has spends all his time defending Howard and his "era" and yet now wants a leader that has no connection to it. I'm sure there's an explanation for that
That's your words dean not mine.
What I am saying is that Costello has negative connections to the Howard era because of all the leadership tension he caused.
It would probably not be a good thing for the liberal party for costello to lead with all that bad history behind him.
OK Matt. I can't think how I got this so wrong, when you said: Costello is far too connected to the Howard era. Turnbull would be a representation of a whole new era for the liberal party.
A question of office etiquette
A person who removes his or her food from the communal microwave before it has dinged, but fails to clear the remaining 3 seconds should be:
a) yelled at
b) bitten
c) stabbed with whichever item of cutlery you happen to be holding
Please note: any other response to this scenario would be totally inappropriate in the workplace.
Perhaps "Rogenised".
DeanL - In response to your post on the federal govt leverage.
It has been going on for years. Fed govt says do it our way or you don't get the funding. They then say "the states are getting much more now than they used to"
The real fact as described here:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/busin...250.html?
page=2
is "not only are a growing proportion of the funds going to the states now earmarked by the Commonwealth for purposes that fit its policy priorities, but its overall funding has effectively been shrunk - contrary to the Federal Government's claims that its post-GST revenue-sharing arrangements have been a bonanza for the states"
By replacing state based taxes with the GST the Federal govt has taken a larger control over the type and size of state spending.
Hmm never really bothered me...what annoys me is leaving their food in the microwave and walking away. So you are standing there waiting for them to take it out so you can use it.
Regarding John Howard - I am just waiting for the political version of the footy "The coach has the full support of the board" which translates into "he is about to be sacked"
Interesting that The Oz has whacked Beattie's leadership for not spending on the infrastructure
Beatties government has been a joke in regards to infrastructure.
Interestingly he looks like getting a job at Babcock and Brown, the same company which won alot of state infrastructure projects that didn't go to tender.
i'm hoping that the labour wins by a few seats. then combined with the greens have enough votes to have a majority in the senate.
but i want howard to win bennallong by the narrowest of margins. then they wont want him to go as another election will probably give the seat to mckew. to watch the little man have to sit on the back bench and live away from the lodge and kirribilli ahh thought to saver. perhaps some comfortable accomodation in villawood will suffice for him!!!!
Regarding John Howard - I am just waiting for the political version of the footy "The coach has the full support of the board" which translates into "he is about to be sacked"
Dam Buster of Preston
All the rumours are saying Howard is gooone!
John Howard should retire.
John Howard should retire.
He will Chris, after this election.
Now, even since he has introduced work choices his approval rating has gone through the floor. Treating workers badly is not smart politics, he has single handedly sent the libs back twenty years and they will never be trusted with both houses again.
Strong labour markets where employees are treated well, like Denmark have thriving economies, so his "this is for future ecomonic prosperity of Australia" is wrong, he has decreased workers rights to look after his mates in big business, and will lose his job as he should because of it. He is corupt to the core, they should deny him any superannuation as punishment.
"My primary objection to the Libs is their social policy. Whilst I respect them for their economic competency, I cannot support their fundamentally backwards ideological approach to social issues such as reconciliation, refugees, homosexual marriage, war and welfare."
I also have a problem with their "I'm alright thanks Jack, screw the poor" approach to funding of health and education.
I will never be comfortable with a system that allocates health resources on the basis of wealth rather than need, and particularly not with an education system that allocates resources according to which children are lucky enough to be born to wealthier parents.
Whilst I'm not a communist who wants equality of outcome (except in basics like healthcare), I think equality of opportunity is a fundamental before you should leave anything to the "market".
I will never be comfortable with a system that allocates health resources on the basis of wealth rather than need, and particularly not with an education system that allocates resources according to which children are lucky enough to be born to wealthier parents
It's a shame for you that K.Rudd and his wife with their $175 million worth of wealth do not share your ideals.
no doubt Mrs K.Rudd vehemently disagrees with you on may of your ideas in respect to Private Health & Education.
... and now, the Mighty Matt show!
Who knows what lows we'll hiiiiit...
On with the show, this is it!
I consider health and education to fall firmly under the banner of 'social policy' and, as such, agree with you completely.
Agree entirely Jeremy.
Individual choice is a fine thing. But not when your choices in the basics are heavily weighted by your $ value.
Merit and hard work should always be rewarded (isn't this the argument against socialist/communist economies?) but (in my opinion) we are rapidly losing out to the well-known problem with capitalist-dominated systems - merit and hardwork are secondary and falling further behind to $-power. Of course, it wouldn't be so bad if $-power was securely and firmly tied to merit and hard work but then along come new IR laws...
no doubt Mrs K.Rudd vehemently disagrees with you on may of your ideas in respect to Private Health & Education.
I'm going to regret this - but what is your logic behind this comment Matt?
Surely you're not ascribing right-wing views on education and health to Therese Rudd just becasue she's wealthy?
I'm going to regret this - but what is your logic behind this comment Matt?
Surely you're not ascribing right-wing views on education and health to Therese Rudd just becasue she's wealthy
Don't their kids go to some of the best Private schools in Brisbane?
If they truly shared your beliefs then they would send their children to the local government school while making yearly donations to the school.
Mondo, does it even matter what Matt's logic was? This is just more blatant hypocrisy from a bloke who cries "smear!" every time someone criticises the government. How he justifies unfounded allegations about the opposition leader's wife just because of her personal wealth is entirely beyond me.
How he justifies unfounded allegations about the opposition leader's wife just because of her personal wealth is entirely beyond me
hahahahaha It's hardly a smear and it's not directed at Kevin Rudd's wife personally.
I am just pointing out the fact that Kevin Rudd & his wife do not share your point of view when it comes to private schools as they have chosen to send their children to private schools.
that's hardly a smear.
Matt, I sent my kids to private secondary schools because the local government schools had been so neglected for so long that there was no way they could offer a decent education, and I was not going to allow my political beliefs to disadvantage my kids. I wish it could have been different, because I believe very strongly in public provision of education services, but the years of neglect have left the public system a legacy that will take a decade or so of concerted action from state and federal authorities to redress. In the meantime, of course, poor kids will suffer because their parents have no other option, but no self-respecting parent who can afford private school fees would send their kids to a government school that is clearly not functional.
MM: Do there kids go to private school. Some proof please.
The way workchoices has been implemented is interesting.
Basically if you force people out of the welfare system so they are forced to work, then you give them a dodgy agreement with low pay and conditions they have a choice:
work or go hungry
Now put this on a larger scale. If you have a heap of workers being paid less, of course you can afford to pay for a few more, creating jobs, lowering unemployment etc.. makes the govt look good but in reality the punters are being screwed to the wall. The latest ABS statistics on the difference between lower and median wages has shown this.
Matt, I sent my kids to private secondary schools because the local government schools had been so neglected for so long that there was no way they could offer a decent education, and I was not going to allow my political beliefs to disadvantage my kids.
Michael that's such a croc of shit. I went to a Public school & I got a fantastic education that took me onto Uni & a high paying career.
I also have numerious nephew's & neices that are all in the public school system & they are getting fantastic educations.
It interesting to note that those that push this myth are those that have never experience a public school education.
Matt - I also went to a public school that shared resources with a private school so have seen both.
How long ago did you go to high school and was it in the country or city??
The schools are in the country where I would say the difference was a lot less than what would be experienced in capital cities.
Matt, I'm going to point one thing out to you, then I'm going to tune out so I don't get swallowed up in another steaming pile of your bullshit.
Posted by MM at 3.09pm:
no doubt Mrs K.Rudd vehemently disagrees with you on may of your ideas in respect to Private Health & Education
Posted by MM at 3.45pm:
It's hardly a smear and it's not directed at Kevin Rudd's wife personally.
(NB: emphasis mine)
If you can't explain how an assumption (which you've dressed up as incontrovertible fact) about Mrs Rudd's values is not about her personally, I'll take it as an admission that you're a slippery, dishonest little weasel.
Whoops, and that should be Ms Rein incidentally -- not Mrs Rudd.
How long ago did you go to high school and was it in the country or city??
I was in the public school system from the mid 70's to 1989. My education was fantastic and I always had fantastic teachers & the schools I attended had really good facilities.
My parents could more than afford to send me to a private school but they chose not to because they realised that the money was not worth it given that the local public schools were fantastic.
I currently have several nephews & nieces that attend various public schools in & around Melbourne my siblings are extremely happy with the educations that their children are receiving.
I just find it interesting that most people I hear that push this myth about how terrible public schools are are normally people like Jeremy who only ever received Private School educations.
No doubt it is a myth that is instilled within them by their private school educators while they are at these private schools.
A way of push a class myth about how much better they are because they are getting private school educations.
If you can't explain how an assumption (which you've dressed up as incontrovertible fact) about Mrs Rudd's values is not about her personally, I'll take it as an admission that you're a slippery, dishonest little weasel.
You can interpret any way that you want Ant. I was pointing out that the ALP, Kevin Rudd & his wife do not share your point of view on Private School education.
Correct me if I am wrong but Kevin Rudd has ensured personally that Mark Latham's policy on private school was scraped. That says it all.
Now I know what i meant when I said it & if you chose not to believe me then that's your choice.
Thank you Matt. Just as I thought. Admission noted.
MM: Did you go in the city or the country?
Are your niece's and nephews in primary or secondary school as there is a difference?
So still no proof about the Rudd children?
I know when my kids are old enough they will be going to a public primary school. As for high school that is still a way off down the track.
Matt - it barely requires saying - but clearly the Rudds' decision to send their children to a private school in no way supports your conclusion that they do not support "a system that allocates health/education resources on the basis of wealth rather than need"
I will be sending my kids to a private school if I can afford it, and yet I still support increased government funding for public schools and a decrease in public funding of private schools.
Weird eh?
And if you can't get your head around the reason why your statement is therefore demonstrably false, then I suggest that your Public school education wasn't quite as good as you think it was.
Is it just me, or does anyone else reckon John Howard will be wondering how the media that all but fellated him when he reached his 10-year milestone has now turned on him so cruelly?
It would almost be a sad spectacle if he didn't thoroughly deserve it.
Matt, how many times do I have to tell you? I'm not voting for Rudd. I'm voting for the Greens. One of the main reasons is that Labor is pretty much identical to the Liberals on economic policy.
So pointing out how similar they are on economic policy is completely irrelevant. BECAUSE I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THEY ARE SIMILAR ON ECONOMIC POLICY.
In fact, they're similar on most issues. The reasons I'll preference (note: NOT vote for) the ALP over the Liberals are:
1. Howard has been such a sneaky, corrupt leader he must go - Rudd may end up being almost as bad, but with Howard he's already DEMONSTRATED he's that bad;
2. Labor will at least partially undo the Liberals' IR changes.
I'll vote Greens first, of course, because they actually DO care about public services.
So don't even think about responding by repeating that Howard and Rudd are similar; the point has been not only conceded but I've repeatedly argued it. The similarity is why I'll be voting Greens.
PS RA, I hate to delete your contribution to the debate, since I don't mind having the argument, but WHICH PART OF "YOU'RE BANNED FOR A WEEK" DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
Are your niece's and nephews in primary or secondary school as there is a difference
Some are in primary, other's are in secondary school. also they are spread between 6 different schools in 4 different areas. all of their schools are exceptional & they are all getting high grades.
For those who are interested, I was present at the arrest of the person in the first video. He was the guy who allegedly threw a dart into a cop's skull and then allegedly hit a cop with an iron bar when they tried to arrest him. I was standing a few people away from him when he started throwing things towards the police buses, and when the protesters around him expelled him from the sit-down I followed him across the road because I suspected something was going to happen.
The cops grabbed him, subdued him (he was fighting back throughout), flexi-cuffed him and then ran him across the street to a bus. At least one of the cops that arrested him was bleeding heavily from the head when he stood up. The whole thing took about two minutes from when they grabbed him until he was in the bus.
I've also heard, but not confirmed, that a 16 year old who was standing near him was also arrested because they thought he had thrown the darts - he was allegedly strip-searched and beaten in a police bus and it is also alleged that police made racist comments throughout this process.
Enjoy the context.
Jeremy- "Howard has been such a sneaky, corrupt leader he must go"
Too ture JS, sadly, too true.
Matt, I guess I knew you would misread my post, but I figured I could always correct your misunderstandings one by one as they emerged. And sure enough, you thought I was attacking ALL public schools EVERYWHERE. Um, no I wasn't. I was saying that the schools on offer in a particular geographical area (i.e. where I live) at a particualr point in time (i.e. when my kids were high-school age) were a bunch of crap. I had some intimate knowledge of this, because in fact I had taught in one of them. So I decided I couldn't send my kids there. However, I am sure there are good public schools elsewhere.
I'm sorry you're so dense, and I am not implying that your education had anything to do with that. You probably would have been even worse with a private school education. Believe me, I've seen it many times - that old joke about private schools producing the cream of the crop (i.e. the rich and the thick) must have had some basis in fact.
Michael - I hope you caught Ja'mie doing her speach to the kids at Summer Heights High.. I think it summed up pretty much what you said but only if MM was saying it.
Ok
Sorry, i didn't realize I was officialy banned seeing that i am normally placed on moderation and didn't see the notice appearing at the top of the box.
I thought you offered an indulgence, lefty and let me off the hook. But not to be
So just to be precise what exact day and time did the ban start? I would presume it's from the point you posted the red card, right?
So I gesss i'll be back next tuesday morning at 8 .00 precisely fresh and raring to go.
See you guys then: have a nice weekend.
Ps. And matt, i didn't want you banned but I thought better you than me if I could save my own hide.
DamBuster, yes I did see Ja'mie's speech and I thought it was brilliant. The school reminded me very uncomfortably of the places I taught at, and the teachers I taught with. I'm glad I never had to teach those kids how to avoid using prepositions at the end of sentences.
Interesting, Cam, and explains why the punching police officer might have lost control.
Doesn't excuse it, though.
RA - one week from when I banned you, yes.
Doesn't excuse it, though.
If I had been hit in the head by a iron bar, I would throw punches at the guy as well.
Cam didn't say that the officer in question was actually the one who was hurt.
Even so, where's the professionalism in letting the victim administer the punishment whilst his colleagues hold the offender down?
It might not have been the cop he hit with the bar who was throwing the punches, but he was certainly fighting back against all of them. The action the police took here was fairly subdued (considering what he had done) compared to how they treated the people who were in their way when they went in to snatch Paddy and Dan Jones later in the day.
This was probably the only legit arrest of the day. Nabbing the two nude guys for offensive behaviour is debatable (according to Damien Lawson of the Greens, their arrest was prompted by them saying something along the lines of "fuck the iraq war" - on the other hand, they were walking around with nothing but socks on their cocks in the middle of the city) but the hindering, assault and affray charges that were laid on the 15 people after the rally was over are what people should be getting angry about.
I simply can't understand how you can charge someone with hindering police when their only crime was standing between police and their targets when the cops launch a surprise snatch attack. It's not that they deliberately got in the way - they were having a meeting when the police attacked and the police just happened to come in from the side that they were standing on.
Yes I know the charges however until my friend attends court and it is resolved I would prefer not to be specific. I do not want my friend tracked down by any of the trolls who reside on the internet to be honest.
If a relevant thread comes up in the future I will let you know ... and once the court hearing is over I'll blog it.
I know who you're talking about MP - I'm confident that the charges will be dropped before trial or it'll be over pretty quickly. The video evidence I've seen directly contradicts what the police claim they have done.
dr. cam, i take your point, but "fairly subdued" is not how i would describe the cops' behaviour. even violent dickheads have a right to not be beaten up by arresting officers. as far i can see, they weren't subduing the guy, they were allowing one cop to take revenge. possibly heat of the moment stuff, but i don't see it as any less excusable for that.
with the cops overreacting - or simply making up charges - against other people, is there any chance that the cops will be held to account for that?
I just heard on SBS news that an official inquiry might be held into the case of the lady photographer being thrown to the pavement which reminds me of the death of David Hookes at the hands of that vicious bouncer. I'm not bored of APEC.
I meant that considering the OTT manner with which they dealt with nabbing Paddy, Dan and the 13 in between, it was remarkable that they weren't even more violent when they nabbed this guy, who had actually allegedly done something.
As per the cops getting held to account, I understand that there is legal action against the NSW police force in the works. I'm not sure how the individual members will be dealt with - since most involved in violence weren't wearing ID, they'll be harder to pick out, but most of them were caught on tape.
thanks, dr. cam (and miss politics). very interesting to hear actual news.
Michael: I had some intimate knowledge of this, because in fact I had taught in one of them. So I decided I couldn't send my kids there.
I have a friend who has spent thirty years in public education and would not teach in the private system. He was committed to improving public education. He still is, but decided to send his kids to a private school for the same reasons as you.
There is clearly no hypocrisy in this. His commitment to public education is as strong as ever. The needs of his children are a completely different matter.
Hypocrisy might occur if he accepted a job in a private school. I urged him to do this, and tried to organise interviews. I was met with his resolute integrity to do his bit for public education despite difficult working conditions and constant battles with his principal.
We owe teachers, particularly public school teachers, a huge debt.
i disagree bout the schools.
it's not just bout money and facilities. it's mostly about attitude. it only takes a few families who really want a decent education for their kids and are prepared to have a presence around the school to make a difference.
maybe i'm just lucky living around brunswick but with one of the best high schools in the state and primary schools with waiting lists. i send my kids to a primary school that not many other european (is lebanon and turkey european) it doesn't have much of a reputation but the teachers there are fantastic.
learn to live in your area. if you don't want to send your kids to the local school it's a good sign that you should live somewhere else.
the other thing for me is the stats that show that while a larger percentage of private school kids get to uni publicly educated kids usually do better when they get there.
the other thing for me is the stats that show that while a larger percentage of private school kids get to uni publicly educated kids usually do better when they get there.
I so agree with you NAR.
I just find it unbelievable the shear arrogance of people to shit all over public school education like it is inferior to a private school education.
The truth is, it's not. A person with a public school education can equally succeed in life as a person with a private school education.
As I said up above it is usually those that were educated in the Private school system who are usually the ones that do this.
notalright, do you have the statistics which shows public school kids do better at uni?
to both you and mighty matt, i really am puzzled by your doubting (on average) the superiority of private school education. i was educated in public schools (and got a fine education), and i'm a very strong supporter of public schools. but if i had children, i'd be amazed if i didn't feel compelled to send them to private schools. i do some work on the fringes of the education system, and it is just obvious that better teachers are attracted to schools with better facilities, AND to schools with less government-imposed bureacratic crap.
I just find it unbelievable the shear arrogance of people to shit all over public school education like it is inferior to a private school education.
Sometimes, Matt, I think you are literally incapable of grasping the point being made.
It's almost as if you live in a bizzaro world where, for example, arguing in favour of increased funding for public schools is akin to "shitting all over public schools".
Next you'll be arguing that those who call for increased Government funding for Public Hospitals are "shitting all over the public health system"
It's fascinating to watch someone actually convince themselves that black is white.
It's not a matter of being proven wrong. It's a matter of having all the facts before demanding the blood of another Human being.
I laughed when I saw this.
Okay, before the likes of MM call for blood of another "violent protesters"* let's have them present unedited evidence for each individual charge.
* Or is it that they are somehow de-humanised by the "authoritarian right"?
i actually prefer the attitudes to life and the broader demographics of public schools much more appealing. seriously life is about living (that's a pretty bad cliche it's all mine) and our interactions with other people and the natural world as well as the thoughts we carry around involuntarily. i'd much rather meet the characters here and have my children learn to be part of the community that they live in then just shiny facilities and heaps of highly strung over zealous parents.
plus the best high school in melb is public anyway.
and yes my stat regards who does better when they actually get to uni was very mighty matty of me wasn't it. ok i'll admit that actually haven't read it anywhere but mum told me. not as bad as it sounds she's a teacher but i can't be arsed looking for a source.
so in true mighty matt style the onus is on you to disprove my statement, and even if you can i'll just stick my fingers in my ears and say "la la la laa" followed by a "what's that just behind you" so i can run off.
"shear arrogance"
The sense of superiority felt by an uncommonly individualistic sheep who thinks his fancy new buzzcut makes him better than everyone else?
notallright, i take your point about attitudes to living and whatnot. private school prissiness very much gets up my nose. not to mention the god bullshit. but there is also something to be said for learning to read and write.
for me all a private school has to offer is better sports facilities more teacher pressure more computers better camps ect.
i'd rather the kids had the camps with me and the rest of their sibling personaly. and sports well one of my youngest shows particular ability in athletics and footy (not to mention fighting) and if he keeps on this projectory he'll get a scholarship to one of the major footy schools like xavier or scotch or whatever. not to mention that melbourne high lets kids in who couldn't make it on academic ability because they're good as sport, though they'd never admit it.
plus goin to school with heaps of lebanese kids is making him tougher!!!
only problem is that he's considering converting to islam, but if that keeps him off the grog when he gets older then so be it. still loves his ham sandwiches though!!!
notallright, i simply don't believe that that is all private schools have to offer. i have a number of friends who knock themselves out paying for their kids to go to private schools. they are not dumb and they not social climbers. they would not being doing this for merely a few educational frills.
in terms of solid education, teaching the basics, and learning to learn, i just don't believe public schools are generally up to the level of the good private schools. and i won't believe it until someone produces some evidence.
Bushabsher. For your reading pleasure, I offer you this article from last year.
...students from comprehensive schools outshone those from government selective, independent and Catholic schools.
Indisputably, there are some public schools to which you would never want to send your children. However, it seems that, 'on average', public education does very nicely for itself.
As NAR said above, an engaged community helps provide for better educational outcomes.
For this very reason, we moved to the NSW Southern Highlands a couple of years before my daughter was due to start primary school.
We now live in a close knit community and the benefits are myriad.
Aside from the academic upside, our daughter has also benefited from the 'rural' lifestyle. She's healthy, safe and able to spot a red-bellied black snake from a mile away!
Most importantly, I'm always running into her teachers at the local shop or pub and that gives me a chance to keep informed about her progress!
special help is only required for those with "special needs"
jesus if you doubt your kids intelligence and think that they'll need to go to a school that is full of kids with the pressure that their mum is working solely to pay for their schooling or come from a very rich family then fine send them to one. i know my kids will do very well at any school but i wouldn't send them to any school, well not a high school any way.
generally the best public schools are better then the bottom half of private schools any way. and we all know that private schools cheat to make their results look better, like give their kids extra hints for exams (or sacs these days) and kick out kids who's marks aren't good enough.
i really think that (except for some special needs) public schooling is the best start to life for your kids. i know this cause my gut tells me so.
marek, thanks for the article. i'll look at it and get back to you. don't misunderstand me. i'd be delighted to know public schools are doing as well as private schools. i just find it implausible. re your other comments, i think they are promoting the general benefits of community. i certainly have no argument with that.
notallright, to frame it as special help for special needs is completely missing the point. i'm convinced that most teachers, public and private, are highly dedicated. i am not convinced that most teachers are highly qualified, or that the victorian curriculum is in good shape.
i know what i said was just as silly as saying that it's implausible that public schools should do as well as private.
jesus if you doubt your kids intelligence and think that they'll need to go to a school that is full of kids with the pressure that their mum is working solely to pay for their schooling or come from a very rich family then fine send them to one.
NAR - this is close to being a very nasty comment about all parents who send their kids to private school.
Certainly I can understand your desire to argue that some public schools can match it with the big privates - but there's no need to insult private school attendees to do it.
I'm one, and I'm not all that thrilled with your explanation for why my parents sent me there.
notallright, i think mondo is right. you're being a reverse snob. there's no need for it, especially since no one here is being a direct snob.
marek, i now have the study upon which the news article was based. it'll take me a while to read it and ponder it, and things are busy. so, it may be a while before i get back to you. but i will at some point, on some appropriate thread.
i'll just throw out one statistic for discussion, from the introduction to the study. they note that students from the 25% of "low socioeconomic postcodes" provide about 10% of the medical students and law students.
what is the explanation for that? the three possibilities which come to mind are: a) poor people are dumb; b) poor people are less interested in becoming doctors and lawyers; c) money helps you qualify to be a law student or medical student. i'd suggest c) is the most plausible.
note that the statistic, and my suggested explanation for it, are not inconsistent with what notallright is saying. but maybe the explanation for the study's conclusion will somehow fit in with this: good performance by a public school student may say more about the student than the school. and, once the playing field is level, the relative performance of the public school student can improve. if so, i'm not sure that devalues the (debated) worth of a good private school education.
bushbasher: what is the explanation for that? the three possibilities which come to mind are: a) poor people are dumb; b) poor people are less interested in becoming doctors and lawyers; c) money helps you qualify to be a law student or medical student. i'd suggest c) is the most plausible.
It might be something related to (b. Parental expectation plays a large role in academic achievement, as this and other studies have shown.
If parents don't expect good results and work to make the home conducive to study, some students at least may not make the cut in spite of their goals.
I assume that the statistic under discussion is:
the stats that show that while a larger percentage of private school kids get to uni publicly educated kids usually do better when they get there.
This statistic alone indicates that Public School students are at least as capable as Private School students but are somehow being disadvantaged in terms of their academic performance.
In other words doesn't it prove the point it was intended to disprove - i.e. that kids at public schools are at a disadvantage compared to those at private schools?
Exactly. It demonstrates that there are more capable public school kids missing out on uni places to less capable private school kids. Which is nothing less than privilege being entrenched through the generations.
Hey Bushbasher,
By linking to the article above, I wasn't trying argue a public vs. private case.
I was simply answering, on NAR's behalf, this question from you;
notalright, do you have the statistics which shows public school kids do better at uni?
As I said earlier, it's all about the school and broader community. A shitty community will, in most instances, produce a shitty education. End of.
Spending ten grand a term to educate
a child doesn't buy you a better education per se, it just buys you the chance to have it done in nicer surroundings.
If the kid is hopelessly stupid or emotionally retarded, then it won't learn any more, regardless of the price tag.
Which, incidentally, is something that a very good friend of mine is about to find out.
thanks marek, et al. i guess we're all arguing from the saying side, so i'll leave it there. back to howard bashing.
Commenting by HaloScan
