Presumption Of Innocence

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sturdee

But society considers some crimes and threats to its wellbeing greater than others. Hence those crimes and threats are treated different from others.

and,

Similarly with terrorrism. The laws, by its very nature, need to be more restrictive to fight that crime against our society. Sometimes we get it wrong but hopefully most of the time we get it right.

However there may be a need for appointing a permanent royal commissioner to review and oversee the fight against terrorrism with regular reports direct to parliament.


Peter.

---

Hi Peter/Interested parties,

I thought I would apply a risk assessment of the type beloved by corporate Risk Management types. This one is good enough http://www.energyinst.org.uk/heartsa...s/docs/ram.pdf Probability is very low, severity is major to high with multiple injuries. Important point is that the threat is not extreme. Now Im sure that this is not how the military would approach it as the injuries would be civilian, but in a former corporate life with risk management responsibilities I would have had a ton of trouble if there was more than planning at a senior level undertaken. ie we wouldnt have trained the workforce in specifics of the plan, only management and various site security teams. The bulk of the response would be left to Corporate Communications and the Emergency Services.

Looks a bit like the real planning Ive seen by the Govt. Seems quite reasonable and logical. The issue is the spin, unfortunately the whole lot is now politicised and subject to the usual law and order bidding wars. The way we approach prosecution (the subject of the thread) is the casualty of these bidding wars.

Agree about a Commissioner, though he would need to have a lot of patience and wisdom. If of course there ever was an attack, the Govt would have neatly passed the buck, sounding safer all the time isnt it :wink:, to be a pollie that is....

Sebastiaan

Fear is a funny thing.

There was a coronersl report/study came out a few years ago from the US on risk of death or causes of death in the US.

The one I chuckled at was the "abducted and murdered child" occurances, which the western media is obsessed with, was six times less likely to occur than being struck by lightning :oo: .

"Today on Oprah, LIGHTNING.....THE HIDDEN KILLER......IS YOUR CHILD SAFE..."

:p

On that, more Americans have drowned in the bath than have been killed by terrorists.

Will someone write to Oprah about that?

P
:D

So what d'ya think? Is the Howard government manipulating the xenophobia and prejudice of the average person to further the party's political agenda? Or are they simply xenophobic and prejudiced themselves? Or both?

Please explain?

Are they pretending that terrorism is a bigger threat than it seems to be because they want us to be afraid, and therefore easier to control, or because they are actually afraid of terrorists?

How's that Pauline? :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

Are they pretending that terrorism is a bigger threat than it seems to be because they want us to be afraid, and therefore easier to control, or because they are actually afraid of terrorists?

---

Yes.....

Is there a threat of terrorism to australia?.

Well there is one man in gaol on a 21 year stretch for planning such an act.

There are two bunches of men on remand in Sydney or Melbourne of which the courts agree there is a case to be heard.

There is a female on remand in sydney on similar charges where the courts have determined there is a case to be heard.

There are some on remand in Melbourne for supporting the Tamil Tigers which is a terrorist group.

So yes there is a threat. The threat is small statistically.

The "war on terror" is politically driven. However I dont think these laws are politically driven but made in response to a perception (rightly or wrongly) that there is a need to detain someone in "special" circumstances.

Would still love somone to offer an alternative to our recent dr friends situation. :roll:

cheers


dazzler

Now wheres Metal Head....here metal head:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

Are they pretending that terrorism is a bigger threat than it seems to be because they want us to be afraid, and therefore easier to control, or because they are actually afraid of terrorists?

---

No. They understand that the press is a bigger threat than terrorism, and they are afraid of the press.

Put simply, they get better press from what they are doing rather than taking the risk that I may have concealed a burning car in my belt when last I flew. That's the only reason I can think of for them wanting to xray it.

I read a thesis a year or two ago, written by a PhD person somewhere in the US, as part of his Doctorate in studying the impact of things, which put forward the proposition that INCITING FEAR OF TERRORISM should be illegal.

The thesis argued that many of the "window dressing" security measures, (when was the last time a nail file or even a pocket knife was used in a plane hijacking?) did nothing other than to incite fear of terrorism, giving terrorists a small victory in their campaign.

If you want to see real terror at work, check out the stats on the number of American's killed by law enforcement officers, compared to terrorists!

Cheers,

P (still plugging censorship!)
:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

If you want to see real terror at work, check out the stats on the number of American's killed by law enforcement officers, compared to terrorists!

Cheers,

P (still plugging censorship!)
:D

---

Yes, but they were all bad :D :p .

I think the governments love Terrorism as it is a way of controlling the population, gives the people something to hate and keeps governments in power as it did with our current government.

Did anyone see the SBS (BBC) series the Power of Nightmares?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The Power of Nightmares, subtitled The Rise of the Politics of Fear, is a BBC documentary film series, written and produced by Adam Curtis. The series consists of three one-hour films, consisting mostly of a montage of archive footage with Curtis's narration, which were first broadcast in the United Kingdom in late 2004 and have been subsequently aired in multiple countries and shown in several film festivals, including the 2005 Cannes Film Festival.
The films compare the rise of the American Neo-Conservative movement and the radical Islamist movement, making comparisons on their origins and suggesting a strong connection between the two. More controversially, it argues that the threat of radical Islamism as a massive, sinister organised force of destruction, specifically in the form of al-Qaeda, is in fact a myth perpetrated by politicians in many countries — and particularly American Neo-Conservatives — in an attempt to unite and inspire their people following the failure of earlier, more utopian ideologies.
The Power of Nightmares has been praised by film critics in both Britain and the United States. Its message and content have also been the subject of various critiques and criticisms from conservatives and progressives.

---

Link

You can view it on YouTube.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

How's that Pauline? :wink:

---

Condescension almost deserving of a reddie :D:oo::D

I'm not xenophobic, I'm Xenaphobic. Its a condition which leads me to get irate in the face of awful telly shows.

Shouldn't xenophones be discussed in the Musical Instrument forum?

P
:?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

Shouldn't xenophones be discussed in the Musical Instrument forum?

P
:?

---

He's a politician in SA!!!:D

Quote:

---

Shouldn't xenophones be discussed in the Musical Instrument forum?

P
:?

---

Yes but I wish you wouldn't harp on about it.


:D