Bracksy,s govt attains new level of ineptness

[nitrotiger]

I Cannot believe what I read in today,s herald Sun about the Government coming to a secret deal concerning the G20 rioters....these vermin had only one objective...to stick it up authority and create general mayhem to feed their own pathetic agenda....and then....they SUE the state of Victoria?And They get compensated?For F......ing what?
Am I missin something?Those bloody wankers were the ones that broke the law..and were BEGGING for trouble.....in my book this is on a par with someone who drives while drinking....has an accident and sues the other person.......
Mate....if this is where victoria,s headed....Im GLAD Im headin back to QLD........... :-\

 

[jb03]

Looking forward to L'Pools pots on this matter

 

[Liverpool]

Looking forward to L'Pools pots on this matter

Thanks for the introduction JB03....

Well, what can I add that Nitro hasn't aleady said... ???

Victoria - On the Move?
More like...."Brackistan - Going Nowhere"
:hihi

An absolute farce, joke, disgrace....you name it.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg....and has set a precadent for the G20 morons to go for the same type of payouts.

I wonder if the police can sue the protesters now, for damages done to property, injury to themselves as well as their police-horses?
No, of course not...that wouldn't be the politically-correct thing to do, would it? :

Here's the article Nitro was referring to:


Protesters win compo
March 04, 2007 12:00am

PROTESTERS who clashed with police in the violent S11 riots have been given a secret payout by the Bracks Government in return for dropping legal action.
The Government and Victoria Police have agreed to a $700,000 payment to protesters in the confidential deal.
The cash is on top of $600,000 taxpayers have paid in fees for the Government's solicitors.
Forty-seven demonstrators and law firm Slater and Gordon will share the windfall. The lawyers are believed to be allocating about $600,000 to cover their fees.
All parties in the legal dispute were tight-lipped about the deal yesterday.
The protesters sued authorities after wild riots outside the World Economic Forum at Crown Casino in September, 2000.
Protesters spat at and poured urine on police and hurled ball-bearings, marbles, nails, nuts and bolts.
Those who sued alleged their injuries, including fractures to vertebrae, sternums and wrists, and shock and anxiety, were caused by police action.
News of the payout has fuelled worries that the S11 protesters' success could prompt similar action from participants in November's G-20 riots in Melbourne.
It is understood agreement was reached when the event's insurers -- who will cover the payout -- bowed to the prospect of even higher legal costs. And authorities caved in to concerns that even if they beat the protesters and were awarded costs, they would not have been able to get the money from them.
S11 litigants included comedian Rod Quantock, serial protester Ciaron O'Reilly and an SBS TV cameraman.
They alleged they were hurt when police cleared a path for WA Premier Richard Court.
The protesters sued the state of Victoria and 953 officers who worked at the riot, including former deputy commissioner Neil O'Loughlin -- in charge of the police operation -- and former traffic assistant commissioner Ray Shuey.
Inspector Glenn Weir, of Victoria Police, said the settlement resolved all proceedings against police and the state relating to the protest.
"The parties . . . are all satisfied that an appropriate resolution has been reached without the need for costly and time-consuming court proceedings," Insp Weir said.
Lawyers from Slater and Gordon refused to discuss the case this week.
Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu said the deal was another shady deal by Premier Steve Bracks, who was already under the microscope over a secret pre-election agreement with the Police Association.
"The Victorian public will be rightly outraged," Mr Baillieu said. "This is yet another backroom deal and people are sick of Labor's backroom deals."
The police paid out more than $6 million after strip-searching hundreds in a raid on Tasty nightclub in 1994.
In 2000, 30 protesters baton-charged by police outside Richmond Secondary College in 1993 were paid $300,000.

http://www.news.com.au/sundayheraldsun/story/0,21985,21322057-661,00.html

 

[TigerForce]

So that's how the 'Get Rich Quick' schemes work........

Whoever voted for Bracks should be shot.

 

[craig]

Said it once and ill say it again, Bracks is a do nothing, go nowhere, mentally impotant, inept, stammering tree swinging imbecile, and his government has not achieved anything of worth throughout their entire terms in office.

The alternative aint any better either so Victoria is stuffed either way.

Nitro i'm thinking seriously bout joinin ya up there.

Victoria - On The Move ...................to Qld

 

[Liverpool]

I thought this was the perfect thread for more ludicrous stunts here in Brackistan....now a committee and inquiry to look into school uniforms.
What a waste of taxpayers money...as they go overseas to look at 'international trends'! :


School uniforms face inquiry test
Milanda Rout, education reporter
March 02, 2007 12:00am

AN inquiry into whether uniforms should be compulsory in state schools has been ordered by the Bracks Government.
The Education and Training Committee will investigate the costs and benefits of mandatory school uniforms, as well as enforcement problems.
International trends on school uniforms will also be looked at, along with ensuring uniforms meet anti-discrimination and health regulations.
Individual state school councils currently decide whether uniforms are compulsory or optional.
Education Minister John Lenders said the inquiry was a chance for the community to have a say on uniforms.
"While people may be happy with the status quo, this inquiry will be a timely check-up to ensure the current situation is continuing to reflect community needs and standards," he said.
But principals and teachers have slammed the inquiry as pointless and unnecessary.
"It is an absolute waste of time and effort," said Australian Education Union Victorian branch head Mary Bluett.
"If they really want to do a parliamentary inquiry they should look at the inequitable funding in the state school system."
Victorian Principals Association president Fred Ackerman said parents already had their say on uniforms through their school council.
"Parents across the community generally support school uniforms," he said. "And I think there are more important issues for parliamentary inquiries to investigate."
Opposition education spokesman Philip Davis said uniforms were a matter for schools to decide.
"School uniforms and the discipline around school uniforms is a matter for the local school communities," he said. "I don't think there is much merit in the inquiry."
Parents Victoria president Elaine Crowe said that the current arrangements with school councils were adequate.
Alphington Primary School principal Lex Arthurson said the school had a uniform but it was not compulsory.
"We are finding that the younger kids and the children in the middle school wear the uniform," he said. "While the older ones don't."
Mr Arthurson said his school's uniform policy had taken into account parents' wishes.
The committee's report is expected in a year.

http://www.news.com.au/sundayheraldsun/story/0,,21310337-661,00.html

 

[Jools]

Agree about uniforms - absolute waste of money having an inquiry. Seems to be what this government as good at - inquiries, committees etc.

Leave it up to individual school councils, as happens now. Both schools that my children attend have compulsory uniforms which suits us, and was decided on by the school councils.

 

[Ready]

Wouldn't that be alleged INEPTITUDE? olice:

 

[Legends of 2017]

Wouldn't that be alleged INEPTITUDE? olice:

We won't know until the committee is formed to see if there is ineptitude involved and the inquiry is held ;D

 

[Ready]

This inquiry is now in session.

Use of the term "ineptness" clearly demonstrates gross ineptitude and is a stain on all those of good character who have the misfortune to stumble across it.

There are no recommendations because nobody ever listens to a bloody word I say.

The inquiry is adjourned until further notice.

 

[Rosy]

Unreal how get-rich-schemes pop up in different places. Join the rent-a-protest crowd and never have to work again.

 

[Mr Pumblechook]

Why the anti-Bracks sentiment with regards to the protestors pay out?


Firstly, the article clearly says that the events insurers will cover the payout.

Secondly, it also states that even if the gov't won the case, they probably wouldn't have been able to get the money off them. This poorly written article further implies the decision for the payout was the insurers - as a cost saving exercise.

Thirdly, the only reason the protesters can sue is because they have a case under law, and there are lawyers willing to take it on (who also appear to be getting most of the money). Therefore it is a matter of law - and nothing to do with the government.

Fourthly, despite the pathetic behviour of some of the protestors some of the time ["Protesters spat at and poured urine on police and hurled ball-bearings, marbles, nails, nuts and bolts"], this case appears to relate to a single incident and it is possible in this incident undue force was used.


This is nothing more than an emotively written article designed to aggravate those with an anti-Bracks leaning and, guess what, it appears to have worked.

 

[Anduril]

Gee Mr P, why rain on the parade? ;D Let's face it you wouldn't want to let facts in the way of a good anti govt tirade surely......

 

[Mr Pumblechook]

Sorry for spoiling the party.

Perhaps deep down I want to join in with Lynch mob, just never been any good at it.

"Bracksy you, you, you... Cats supporter!" [Pow! - Take that]

 

[Liverpool]

Mr.Pumblechook,

And people wonder why I get fired-up on these thread!

Why the anti-Bracks sentiment with regards to the protestors pay out?
Firstly, the article clearly says that the events insurers will cover the payout.

They should get ZERO....simple as that.

If an insurance company is providing the payout, then someone's premium is going to go up next year, right?
I wonder who will suffer....

Secondly, it also states that even if the gov't won the case, they probably wouldn't have been able to get the money off them.

Now that they have been given a payout, then they should sue the protesters for that money for the damage done to property, injuries inflicted upon officers, and police horses.

Thirdly, the only reason the protesters can sue is because they have a case under law, and there are lawyers willing to take it on (who also appear to be getting most of the money). Therefore it is a matter of law - and nothing to do with the government.

They have a case, because it was allowed to get that far, and shouldn't have.
Two words: "*smile* off" would have nipped this in the bud, right from the start.

Fourthly, despite the pathetic behviour of some of the protestors some of the time ["Protesters spat at and poured urine on police and hurled ball-bearings, marbles, nails, nuts and bolts"], this case appears to relate to a single incident and it is possible in this incident undue force was used.

A single incident?
There were 48 people who filed a lawsuit.
The article states:
Those who sued alleged their injuries, including fractures to vertebrae, sternums and wrists, and shock and anxiety, were caused by police action
This isn't consistent with a single incident, but more like a brawl, caused by the protesters preemptive strike on the police.
Shock? Anxiety? :
You've got to be kidding me.
The police should now sue, for the shock and anxiety caused from being doused in urine, and for their police-horses having to face "undue force" of marble and nails sticking into them by these same protesters who have received their "reward money".

This is nothing more than an emotively written article designed to aggravate those with an anti-Bracks leaning and, guess what, it appears to have worked.

And I think your post is designed to aggravate people like myself, and other hard-working Australians, who are sick to death of bludging troublemakers using any excuse under the sun to cause chaos, mayhem, and anarchy on our streets, under the guise of a 'protest'.

 

[Mr Pumblechook]

Liverpool,

I don't necessarily disagree, however the point I was trying to make was that anger should be vented appropriately.

In your response you did this, correctly criticising the 'rent-a-crowd' violent protestors, and didn't mention the government

However, your first post started with:

Victoria - On the Move?
More like...."Brackistan - Going Nowhere"

Thereby implying that the government was at fault.

The single incident I was referring to, as stated in the article, was that the" alleged they were hurt when police cleared a path for WA Premier Richard Court." I think the police did a marvellous job considering the provocation, however it is possible that in this single incident undue force was used. I doubt very much that the protestors were faultless.

By the way, I'm no fan of these "bludging troublemakers using any excuse under the sun to cause chaos, mayhem, and anarchy on our streets, under the guise of a 'protest'." In my opinion they over-shadow important issues, and serve those that they protest against more than their 'own cause'. It wouldn't suprise me to read some time in the future that, on occasion, rent-a-crowds are hired by the those they protest about.

 

[Liverpool]

Liverpool,
I don't necessarily disagree, however the point I was trying to make was that anger should be vented appropriately.
In your response you did this, correctly criticising the 'rent-a-crowd' violent protestors, and didn't mention the government
However, your first post started with:
Victoria - On the Move?
More like...."Brackistan - Going Nowhere"
Thereby implying that the government was at fault.
The single incident I was referring to, as stated in the article, was that the" alleged they were hurt when police cleared a path for WA Premier Richard Court." I think the police did a marvellous job considering the provocation, however it is possible that in this single incident undue force was used. I doubt very much that the protestors were faultless.By the way, I'm no fan of these "bludging troublemakers using any excuse under the sun to cause chaos, mayhem, and anarchy on our streets, under the guise of a 'protest'." In my opinion they over-shadow important issues, and serve those that they protest against more than their 'own cause'. It wouldn't suprise me to read some time in the future that, on occasion, rent-a-crowds are hired by the those they protest about.

Mr.Pumblechook,

Two main points:

* I do criticise the protesters for their violence. They are a disgrace, and should be taken to the cleaners for the violence and destruction that THEY caused.

* I also criticise the Government for the actions they have taken, in awarding 'secret cash payouts' to the antagonists, but the police, who suffered worse injuries, and were in that position to begin with due to the protesters carrying-on like they did, are receiving no such payout. Why is it so?

The protesters have their money, and if the Government were fair dinkum, then they would be filing a lawsuit against the protesters, on behalf of their employees (the police) for their injuries.

You doubt very much the protesters were faultless?
The whole scenario WAS THEIR FAULT!
* The police would not have even been there, if it wasn't for these morons.
* The police would not have had to protect themselves if it wasn't for these protesters attacking them.
* And this officer (photo below) would not look like this, if it wasn't for the protesters using violence:

And who gets the jackpot? :

It is the GOVERNMENT'S fault, that criminals are receiving payouts, while the police and the community pay for it.

"Bracksylvania - "Anarchy one day, $$$ the next"



Police heroes forgotten
Peter Mickelburough, Carly Crawford and Paul Anderson
March 06, 2007 12:00am

THE Bracks Government is facing a fresh political storm after approving payouts to wild protesters while dozens of police officers battle for help after being hurt in the line of duty.

As S11 protesters rejoice in a $700,000 jackpot, 29 police caught in a legal loophole have been left to languish.

Sgt Geoff Nash is waiting for payment for pain and suffering after he was savagely beaten by five men in central Melbourne in 1999.

But protesters, including serial activists Ciaron O'Reilly and Rod Quantock, will pocket secret cash payments over riots outside the World Economic Forum outside Crown Casino in 2000.

Sgt Nash said the S11 payments were just another punch in the guts from police command.

"I don't expect anything different from them," he said.

"They expect us to confront all manner of radical elements and when problems occur they tend to look after the protagonists and ignore what has happened to their own employees."

Sgt Nash said he had not been offered a cent despite a promise by Chief Commissioner Christine Nixon that he and other seriously injured officers would be looked after.

"All they want to do is get out of it as cheaply as they can," he said.

Sgt Nash, who suffers headaches and blurred vision after his nose and teeth were broken, is seeking about $50,000.

A shock 30-second video highlighting the plight of the injured officers was emailed to Victoria's 11,000 police last night in the first campaign of its kind in Australia.

The launch of the Police Association video was brought forward after the S11 payments were revealed by the Sunday Herald Sun.

"Heroes should never be forgotten. Or ignored," the video says. "They deserve a fair go. To be respected. To be treated like heroes. Christine Nixon don't forget us."

Ciaron O'Reilly, who will collect about $2000 for his part in the S11 riot, yesterday mocked Victoria Police.

He plans to use the payout to demonstrate against a joint US-Australia military exercise in Rockhampton in May.

Mr O'Reilly was once jailed for damaging a B-52 bomber in New York.

But he blamed police for the S11 trouble, claiming he was hit with police batons three times in 10 minutes.

"It would have been good to get them charged. (The money) is better than nothing, but not ideal."

Police Minister Bob Cameron said the S11 deal was based on advice from the state insurer.

But Opposition police spokesman Andrew McIntosh accused the Bracks Government of looking after Slater and Gordon, which had given $88,000 to the ALP since 1999.

Under the S11 deal, the legal firm will get up to $600,000 in legal costs while protesters will share the rest.

Police Association secretary Sen-Sgt Paul Mullett said the community would rightly be outraged that money went to S11 protesters while police heroes continued to wait for compensation.

But a police spokesman said the two issues were completely separate.

The officers seeking compensation were all injured after the Kennett government removed workers' rights to sue an employer for work-related injuries in 1997 and before the Bracks Government restored the right in 1999.

Former top riot cop Jeff Mawkes said he had predicted the Government would "roll over" on payments to the S11 protesters, as it did after the 1993 Richmond Secondary School protest.

"After Richmond they said it's going to cost $4 million to defend it so you're better off paying them $10,000 a head."

Mr Mawkes, a force response unit inspector who quit the force last year, said protesters were happy to goad and assault police for a "tap with the baton", knowing they would win a payout through group legal action.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21331564-661,00.html

 

[poppa x]

A suitable protest from the ordinary folk would be to agree to NEVER EVER go to a Rod Quantock gig. Hit him in the hip pocket.

 

[CarnTheTiges]

Gee Mr P, why rain on the parade? ;D Let's face it you wouldn't want to let facts in the way of a good anti govt tirade surely......

Maybe that should read anti Labor govt tirade.

 

[billyb#40]

Bracksy
Just another polli that doesnt understand infrastructure. [size=10pt]Victoria, grinding to a halt[/size].