Jump to content
Rocket Salad

The Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

It was the corporate leviathans

I would have thought it was more the lowest prolonged wages growth in memory, paired with highest ever debt to earnings ratios, and softening of house prices, leaving so many consumers "exposed" and worried.

The consumer sector accounts for around half of the GDP, and it was a paltry 0.1% this quarter, so brought down any higher growth figures by the large corporates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://theconversation.com/why-the-raids-on-australian-media-present-a-clear-threat-to-democracy-118334?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest from The Conversation for June 6 2019 - 1328112421&utm_content=Latest from The Conversation for June 6 2019 - 1328112421+CID_0df7ba303eaf561faf7ff28cbfeb4650&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Why the raids on Australian media present a clear threat to democracy

written by a University academic

“Australia has more national security laws than any other nation. It is also the only liberal democracy lacking a Charter of Human Rights that would protect media freedom through, for example, rights to free speech and privacy.”

whistleblowers go to jail, and so do the journalists. Public interest vs national security? Or politician scrutiny? It’s complicated but the laws rushed through by Dutton in 2018 give sources and whistleblowers no protection and undermine the freedom of the press

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what that says (rightly) is that there are specific protections and defences for journalists that have been written into legislation though they are yet to be tested.  If anything the raids show that the metadata law changes have been ineffective and certainly not the Big Brother scenario painted at the time, otherwise the raids would have been unnecessary.

 

Quote

One of the most disturbing outcomes is not prosecutions or even the raids themselves, but the chilling of public interest journalism. Sources are less likely to come forward, facing risk to themselves and a high likelihood of identification by government agencies. And journalists are less likely to run stories, knowing the risks posed to their sources and perhaps even to themselves.

Well not being a conspiracy theorist I reckon it's probably a good thing that journalists and their sources will think really hard before revealing confidential and sensitive information that they have obtained through their position of privilege.  A lot of it is probably mundane or embarrassing at worst but a lot of it, such as the Afghan story, can result in the loss of Australian lives.  So yeah, think bloody hard before you go down that path.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Stikman said:

So yeah, think bloody hard before you go down that path.

The problem is that at the moment it's been amped up so there is effectively no room for negotiation on that one - no public interest or importance test - it's pretty much an all or nothing situation covering all facts and information, which includes thoughts and opinions of commonwealth employees. Blow the whistle on anything or report on information provided, and you risk time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, XCOM.! said:

A judge might have agreed there is a legal right - because judges make decisions based on law - but whether or not such a law should exist is another matter

The warrant was actually issued by a local court registrar, interestingly (to me, at least) 

FB_IMG_1559801353259.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, XCOM.! said:

The problem is that at the moment it's been amped up so there is effectively no room for negotiation on that one - no public interest or importance test - it's pretty much an all or nothing situation covering all facts and information, which includes thoughts and opinions of commonwealth employees. Blow the whistle on anything or report on information provided, and you risk time.

I'm not familiar with the legislation so this is second hand of course but the academic Parky linked to says otherwise:

Quote

Again, journalists are offered some protection. If prosecuted, a journalist can seek to rely on the “journalism defence” by proving that they dealt with the information as a journalist, and that they reasonably believed the communication to be in the public interest. The meaning of “public interest” is unclear and, in this context, untested. However, it will take into account the public interest in national security and government integrity secrecy concerns as well as openness and accountability.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Stikman said:

I'm not familiar with the legislation so this is second hand of course but the academic Parky linked to says otherwise:

 

Likewise, I'm not a lawyer, but it was my understanding that the Dec-18 amendments to the Public Interest Disclosure Act placed conditions and limitations of protection available with regards "intelligence information" and the problem here is that the definition of what is intelligence information is so broad-ranging and vague in the various acts covering this, and the unusual exceptions provided to the ASD in its 2018 act, as to make it a veritable minefield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if Waleed says it...  It's rather ironic that he laments " framing public debates as personality contests and culture wars".

Factually wrong in the first sentence, it's definitely debatable that the Afghan story was in the public interest at the very least.  Later he says that story was of how troops "allegedly killed civilians and covered it up" yet there isn't the slightest hint of a cover-up, official or otherwise, having occurred.  In fact they were all investigated through the proper channels and recorded as they should have been.

And in case anyone is concerned that this is about finding the source of these leaks, I'm not sure about the other one but the guy who leaked the Afghanistan reports was arrested and charged back in September so this raid has absolutely nothing to do with discovering who it was.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

And in case anyone is concerned that this is about finding the source of these leaks, I'm not sure about the other one but the guy who leaked the Afghanistan reports was arrested and charged back in September so this raid has absolutely nothing to do with discovering who it was.

Quote

“There’s another witness who tells a different story to me in The Afghan Files. Maybe, they want him to go on trial?”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Stikman said:

Well if Waleed says it...  It's rather ironic that he laments " framing public debates as personality contests and culture wars".

Factually wrong in the first sentence, it's definitely debatable that the Afghan story was in the public interest at the very least.  Later he says that story was of how troops "allegedly killed civilians and covered it up" yet there isn't the slightest hint of a cover-up, official or otherwise, having occurred.  In fact they were all investigated through the proper channels and recorded as they should have been.

And in case anyone is concerned that this is about finding the source of these leaks, I'm not sure about the other one but the guy who leaked the Afghanistan reports was arrested and charged back in September so this raid has absolutely nothing to do with discovering who it was.

You are conflating your opinion with fact. Your opinion is that the public has no interest. if it is debatable, it hasn't been proven to be fact. There will be a legal definition of public interest and the issue appears to me, that this is very grey and hasn't been tested properly in court since the new legislation.

So thinking in abstract terms ( ie not the Afghan story) , is conduct of Australan defence forces of public interest?

Edited by Parkside

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Stikman said:

at worst but a lot of it, such as the Afghan story, can result in the loss of Australian lives. 

How may Australian lives were lost as a result of the Afghan story?

How many Australian lives have been lost a result of any story about "national security" matters?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Tyno said:

How may Australian lives were lost as a result of the Afghan story?

How many Australian lives have been lost a result of any story about "national security" matters?

 

 

Is DUI okay if you don't run into anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

Is DUI okay if you don't run into anyone?

So you don't have the answer or you don't like the answer, Jimbo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Tyno said:

So you don't have the answer or you don't like the answer, Jimbo?

The answer is, the risk of loss of life was increased

Which is obviously why the AFP are taking it more seriously than you are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

The answer is, the risk of loss of life was increased

But how do you KNOW that?

Do you trust the guys who want the power to spy on you without you knowing, without any reason at all?

Or do you trust the political spin masters who absolutely, positively have nothing to do with it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Parkside said:

Waleed. Isn’t this the guy that said labor will win in a landslide and attain up to 88 seats. Yep.... we should listen to this bloke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Parkside said:

You are conflating your opinion with fact. Your opinion is that the public has no interest. if it is debatable, it hasn't been proven to be fact. There will be a legal definition of public interest and the issue appears to me, that this is very grey and hasn't been tested properly in court since the new legislation.

So thinking in abstract terms ( ie not the Afghan story) , is conduct of Australan defence forces of public interest?

 No, you're deliberately or otherwise confusing in the public interest with being of interest to the public.  The public may be interested in what goes on in your bedroom, it doesn't mean that it's in the public interest to know.

Thinking in abstract terms, no there is no benefit to the Australian public in knowing anything that was revealed nor more generally what goes on in a war zone.  Where people under constant threat to their lives sometimes make incorrect judgements that are only discovered add such with the benefit of hindsight and information that wasn't available at the time.  War is ugly.  Non-combatants die simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Maybe one day have a good chat to someone who's been in those situations if they're not so traumatised by the experience that they will talk openly.  I hope like hell that none of us ever find ourselves in that situation because I've seen what it does.

Edited by Stikman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So those children were never really thrown overboard, and there never really were any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and the unqualified Dr Petel only killed a few people at Bundaberg Hospital. Yeh none of that sh#t was in the public interest. Should have just covered it all up by arresting anyone who opened their mouth or wrote about in the press, like Russia does.

Edited by Mike Del

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, IronmanFoz said:

Waleed. Isn’t this the guy that said labor will win in a landslide and attain up to 88 seats. Yep.... we should listen to this bloke.

Did you read the article?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Parkside said:

Did you read the article?

attack the individual, rather than discuss the issue. Failing that asset intellectual superiority and moral, then snicker about the left. Is much more fun than reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Stikman said:

 No, you're deliberately or otherwise confusing in the public interest with being of interest to the public.  The public may be interested in what goes on in your bedroom, it doesn't mean that it's in the public interest to know.

Thinking in abstract terms, no there is no benefit to the Australian public in knowing anything that was revealed nor more generally what goes on in a war zone.  Where people under constant threat to their lives sometimes make incorrect judgements that are only discovered add such with the benefit of hindsight and information that wasn't available at the time.  War is ugly.  Non-combatants die simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Maybe one day have a good chat to someone who's been in those situations if they're not so traumatised by the experience that they will talk openly.  I hope like hell that none of us ever find ourselves in that situation because I've seen what it does.

I'm sorry you think that way - that's essentially the "you can't handle the truth" argument. The public benefit is that it imposes a level of accountability for actions that would otherwise go unchecked. While it may be true that the average citizen does not benefit from knowing the gory details of war, they do benefit from the military knowing they are not beyond review or above the law (as it applies to them) and must be accountable for their actions, both right and wrong.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, XCOM.! said:

I'm sorry you think that way - that's essentially the "you can't handle the truth" argument. The public benefit is that it imposes a level of accountability for actions that would otherwise go unchecked. While it may be true that the average citizen does not benefit from knowing the gory details of war, they do benefit from the military knowing they are not beyond review or above the law (as it applies to them) and must be accountable for their actions, both right and wrong.

There are institutions who provide that oversight.

what is the role of the press

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, BarryBevan said:

There are institutions who provide that oversight.

what is the role of the press

Seriously? The modern "press" is certainly flawed (Murdoch's more than most) but they still provide a level of accountability via the threat of exposure, that would be all too easily eliminated by "official" review, where cover-up is more common-place. I remember words of my grandfather - a WWI vet - never join the army son, the bastards can't be trusted. He was obviously jaded by his horrific experiences, but the sentiment of distrust was common with his mates, and reliance on "official" review processes would not have placated their concerns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.law.upenn.edu/institutes/cerl/conferences/ethicsofsecrecy/papers/reading/Silver.pdf

not directly applicable to aus.

raises question if found to hold classified info just say I’m a journalist.

insta and fb valid platforms for a journalist.

can anyone use this defence. What is in the public interest and what is harming or risking national interest.

stikman makes valid points 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read the past few pages but I have a gist of the discussion.

Context: I work in the media (newspapers). I have met (literally) hundreds of journos from council hacks to the Canberra bubble. I was the Secretary and a Director of the largest community newspaper association in Australia.

There are some absolute morons in the profession who think their sh!t don't stink and seem to have fallen to the back of the line when brains were handed out. There's a good proportion of young upstarts who don't hold the old school values of journalism and would sell their grandmothers grave plot to climb one rung up the ladder. They pump out trivial bile thinking they've just broken the next watergate. My opinion of 'new' journalism isn't high.

However, a free press is essential. It's critical the voices of the unheard are heard. History is punctuated by stories so extraordinary they were hard to believe at the time but were brought to prominence by people who may well have been risking their lives to reveal them. There needs to be protection for credible journos doing their jobs, and the ability to kick the arse of the idiots who believe a press pass is a license to print anything.

Just as importantly, security of undercover operatives needs to be of paramount importance when their lives are at risk. There's no perfect answer, but both sides have valid arguments.

Edited by trinube
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BarryBevan said:

https://www.law.upenn.edu/institutes/cerl/conferences/ethicsofsecrecy/papers/reading/Silver.pdf

not directly applicable to aus.

raises question if found to hold classified info just say I’m a journalist.

insta and fb valid platforms for a journalist.

can anyone use this defence. What is in the public interest and what is harming or risking national interest.

stikman makes valid points 

It didn't say Stickman didn't make any valid points - and he is absolutely correct that public interest is not typically served by disclosure of gory wartime details, particularly via twitter, buzzfeed or any of the other excuses for journalism that now exist - but that doesn't mean they are not served by the ability of a free "press" to do so. Public accountability and the media are issues that the military have been struggling with far more since the Vietnam era, and have forced reforms that perhaps would not have otherwise happened. The media must also be accountable for their reporting, and abide by the law, but using legislation to effectively curtail their ability to do so is anathema to the very concepts championed by the military as our "way of life".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So just to extract from the abstract and return to the reality of these raids, ultimately what was achieved or revealed that was great public interest with the "Afghan files"?  It brought attention to the ABC, sure, but other than that there have been no suggestions of wrong-doing on the part of defence, no charges against individuals and no great organisational reform.  Basically everything was found to be in order and nothing has changed.  It severely damaged our international reputation in order to highlight that in a war zone bad stuff happens but there is oversight and it might not be perfect but works okay, thank you very much.  Bravo to that brave journalist.

The press has never and should never be free.  There are always limits to what can be said without repercussion, a fact that Rebel Wilson and Geoffrey Rush are both grateful for and News Corp and Bauer Media no doubt lament.  And while the legislation may say otherwise, the reality is that if a whistleblower or media organisation do reveal a true scandal of public interest then no government in their right mind would pursue it because of the blow back from doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Stikman said:

And while the legislation may say otherwise, the reality is that if a whistleblower or media organisation do reveal a true scandal of public interest then no government in their right mind would pursue it because of the blow back from doing so.

I suspect we are talking at cross-purposes here - reporting example vs. reporting ability.

Was the public benefit served by the reporting of the so-called Afghan files? - perhaps not, it smacks a bit too much of "gratuitism".

Is the public benefit served by the ability to report such incidents? - definitely so - and I think that's a lesson we should have learnt from the My Lai massacre all those years ago.

Legislation that criminalises unauthorised disclosure of facts or information, and relies on the law not being enforced because of possible embarrassment, is not a position we should be comfortable with.
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, XCOM.! said:

 

Legislation that criminalises unauthorised disclosure of facts or information, and relies on the law not being enforced because of possible embarrassment, is not a position we should be comfortable with.
 

so how do you explain the USA trying to extradite Assange?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Prince said:

so how do you explain the USA trying to extradite Assange?

Seriously? Are you asking me to explain and/or justify the USA's actions? I would have thought it pretty clear we are discussing Australian law here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, IronmanFoz said:

Waleed. Isn’t this the guy that said labor will win in a landslide and attain up to 88 seats. Yep.... we should listen to this bloke.

'Interesting piece by Waleed Aly'

Not sure if you could find a better definition of 'contradiction in terms'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Tyno said:

But how do you KNOW that?

Do you trust the guys who want the power to spy on you without you knowing, without any reason at all?

Or do you trust the political spin masters who absolutely, positively have nothing to do with it?

Your question is based on several false premises, not the least of which is your suggestion of 'no reason at all'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IronJimbo said:

'Interesting piece by Waleed Aly'

Not sure if you could find a better definition of 'contradiction in terms'

Just out of interest, did you read it?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to see Al Gore burning the fossil fuels to come talk to some politicians that won't be in office long enough to do anything to preach his own climate change emergency - oh and collect a very nice paycheque along the way.  The same politicians that want to quickly approve Adani to save their own seats...

I wonder why the issue is not taken seriously?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Cottoneyes said:

Good to see Al Gore burning the fossil fuels to come talk to some politicians that won't be in office long enough to do anything to preach his own climate change emergency - oh and collect a very nice paycheque along the way.  The same politicians that want to quickly approve Adani to save their own seats...

I wonder why the issue is not taken seriously?

What a joke, if he was serious he would use modern tech like video conference which is seamless these days...pack of stinking hypocrites lining their wallets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I've been saying for years, I'll believe there's an emergency when the people telling me there's an emergency start behaving like there's an emergency 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one thing that seems to stand out as is the news corp journo was raided, not news corp itself whereas the abc was raided, not the journo.   I would assume in the modern age people work from home and work so your intel must be amazing to only do a persons house for one and only do a person workplace for the other.... 

There is massive self interest in the media debating this so very hard to get an unbiased opinion from the media.   

Whether you are right or wrong, whether you are aware or naive, if you woke up this morning and weren't assaulted, tortured or killed last night, Government is at least doing something right in this country.... which is an inconvenient truth for many Australians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, more said:

What a joke, if he was serious he would use modern tech like video conference which is seamless these days...pack of stinking hypocrites lining their wallets

you must have the nbn...lol.  100% correct in what you are saying though, massive hypocrisy in doing world tours... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and its time to go......John Setka.

You have been a disgrace for the past several years and do not help the CFMEU improve their badly needed public image. 

Well done Albo for doing something that Shortpantz ducked away from in his years. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Prince said:

and its time to go......John Setka.

You have been a disgrace for the past several years and do not help the CFMEU improve their badly needed public image. 

Well done Albo for doing something that Shortpantz ducked away from in his years. 

 

 

Indeed

After years of genuinely abhorrent behavior, finally Setka has fallen below the ALP's standards by saying something relatively innocuous 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another interesting article for you not to read IJ. It's about the benefits to the UK of adopting an ambitious emmissions reduction target which they've fast tracked to zero by 2050. It has financial stuff in there too. I'm interested in your opinion about why Tories since Thatcher have been all about climate change and emissions reductions and why they're obviously wrong.

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/a-disorienting-sight-to-an-australian-how-the-uk-got-on-with-the-climate-change-challenge-20190614-p51xqf.html

Edited by Parkside

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listened to Bob Hawkes memorial yesterday. 

A great event befitting a great man. 

Finished with this from the Sydney Symphony Orchestra.  If something can be  both extremely happy and sad at the same time I think this captured it. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, roxii said:

Listened to Bob Hawkes memorial yesterday. 

A great event befitting a great man. 

Finished with this from the Sydney Symphony Orchestra.  If something can be  both extremely happy and sad at the same time I think this captured it. 

 

 

I heard a list of most of the important dignitaries that attended the Sydney memorial service for Hawke and noticed Abbott wasn’t mentioned. Does anyone know if he attended at all? Or just no longer considered important or dignified?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Parkside said:

Here's another interesting article for you not to read IJ. It's about the benefits to the UK of adopting an ambitious emmissions reduction target which they've fast tracked to zero by 2050. It has financial stuff in there too. I'm interested in your opinion about why Tories since Thatcher have been all about climate change and emissions reductions and why they're obviously wrong.

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/a-disorienting-sight-to-an-australian-how-the-uk-got-on-with-the-climate-change-challenge-20190614-p51xqf.html

Apples ain’t Apples. The two countries are not comparable.

Australia is 31 x the size of the UK. And our landscape and climate is vastly different. 

UK’s population is nearly 3 times as big.

UK has 3 times the tax payers of Australia. This means over 30million people supporting a country 31 times smaller than Australia. Small countries with larger populations can afford to piss money up a wall. 

Besides , both sides or the fence show proof it either does exist or doesn’t exist.

One should look at Germany - one climate expert who was all for climate change targets etc admitted that after spending 72 billion it made absolutely zero change to climate change.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, IronmanFoz said:

spending 72 billion it made absolutely zero change to climate change.

Governments spending money ineffectively isn't exactly a new thing :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IronmanFoz said:

Apples ain’t Apples. The two countries are not comparable.

Australia is 31 x the size of the UK. And our landscape and climate is vastly different. 

UK’s population is nearly 3 times as big.

UK has 3 times the tax payers of Australia. This means over 30million people supporting a country 31 times smaller than Australia. Small countries with larger populations can afford to piss money up a wall. 

Besides , both sides or the fence show proof it either does exist or doesn’t exist.

One should look at Germany - one climate expert who was all for climate change targets etc admitted that after spending 72 billion it made absolutely zero change to climate change.

 

You realise 3 x times the population equals 3 x the expenditure, right?  Come and try and get Drs appt, your kid into a decent school, a hospital appt. All these things are 'free' over here but it comes from somewhere.

I love it when folks that live 12,000 miles are experts on what's happening here. (it's why I don't comment on Brexit thread). Trust me, the streets here aren't awash with so much cash that the Gov. (any Gov) has enough to 'piss it up a wall'.

The biggest difference here was that years ago, there was a massive push for 2nd Gen clean diesel cars.  A few years ago in most western EU countries, you'd be flat out seeing a petrol car. The golden egg was lower CO2 emissions but lately that mantra has changed back in favour of petrol. (higher CO2 but less other nasty toxins).

Diesel sales have plummeted by something like 60%. EVs are becoming very popular here, things holding them back are non standardised charging and the stupid subscription models but by far the biggest issue is that an awful of the urban population in the UK don't have a driveway, so no charging point.  Tide is turning though, many many companies are installing charging points that are free for employees at company car parks. (my company has 10).

On the non vehicle front, that's a tougher nut to crack, mainly due to the way that the P/Kw is charged and the taxed amount. (approx 57% of all energy bills in the UK are tax).  Distributed Energy is becoming a big thing but storage is the issue.

CHP. (Combined Heat and Power) will be next shift in the way large corporates reduce their energy foot print. Ironically, that involves big Rolls Royce engines from Germany that produce huge amounts of power.   Folks always think about offices using a lot of power. (they don't).  By far, things like MTX and Data Ctrs are absolute power monsters.

There are probably more barriers in the UK to go green than Australia, especially running EVs in winter.  yet somehow, we seem to be able to adopt the willingness to give it a go.

I'm involved in a lot of this in my corporate life.  There are no simplistic answers but burying your head in the sand and shouting 'but we're different' sure as shit ain't one of them.

Edited by FatPom
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Parkside said:

Here's another interesting article for you not to read IJ. It's about the benefits to the UK of adopting an ambitious emmissions reduction target which they've fast tracked to zero by 2050. It has financial stuff in there too. I'm interested in your opinion about why Tories since Thatcher have been all about climate change and emissions reductions and why they're obviously wrong.

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/a-disorienting-sight-to-an-australian-how-the-uk-got-on-with-the-climate-change-challenge-20190614-p51xqf.html

Because Thatcher herself admittedly invented co2 based climate change concerns back in the 80s as a ruse in order to win her war with coal mining unions

The rest of the article is a typical bunch of bullshit platitudes with little substance.  Just like your other article which was just another excuse for Waleed to peddle his 'terrorism isn't a big deal' agenda  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...