Are the LNP still in favour of making it illegal for children under age 16 to have social media? How do they reconcile the mechanism proposed to "protect" the children with the rejection of the misinformation Bill? They should be consistent and refuse both, but I gather they do 2/ not want to distress or be perceived to show disrespect to the bereaved whose daughters died due (in part) to online bullying. The thing, however, is that the under 16 age ban is a trojan horse for an online digital ID that will NOT prevent children from being bullied. People

I see that the cunning plan to identify the age of individuals under the age of 16 is facial recognition software predicting age. Heavens to Betsy this is a TERRIBLE idea and here's why:
1. the law if unintended consequences - so you WANT
overseas social media to be recording 2/ images of children? This is a TERRIBLE idea - you do NOT want capture of children's faces or their rooms or anything like that, it will backfire, the images will end up in places on the dark web because it is too tempting to make money from things like that for hackers.

Rubber bullets flying in Melbourne again complete with a terror warning. It's not a great day to have loved ones in Melbourne because whilst no doubt the people rioting feel deeply about their various causes and *their* rights, they don't seem to have much thought for people 2/ seeking just to go about their work or day and their rights. Isn't that always the way? Their rights to congregate, fight police and make a lot of noise are more important than the rights of people who work around there to enjoy a safe and peaceful workspace. How is it that

This call to ban children from under age 16 being able to access "social media" (for whatever value that set is assigned" is not going to achieve the outcome desired. Here is why:
My child was not permitted to have access to social media, but then, she was homeschooled and we 2/ knew how many email accounts she had and could stay ahead of her (which she knew) so she didn't try to go on facebook or anywhere, she emailed her relatives and friends. No resentment because we taught her how to do some arcane stuff. I can presume it would be a LOT harder to

It is clear now that Channel 10 is accusing Bruce Lehrmann of breaching s703 Criminal Code Act by saying that he *must* have given Channel 7 material covered by the undertaking. I know they're saying "abuse of process" and "contempt of court" but in theclassic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/act/c… 2/ Federal jurisdiction we have the Criminal Code Act that covers perjury (which is a form of both abuse and contempt). So we shall have a mini perjury trial and an questioning of the proper officer for Channel 7 (who many not still be the same proper officer as was swearing

1/ One thing that arises from yesterday's post about Lehrmann v Channel 10 and Wilkinson is the question of what is required for finding that an event occurred "on the balance of probabilities". Some people seem to think it comes down to "I believe her" or "she's lying" - it is 2/ not a general broad overall thing like that - that is what we call "credit" (believability). When we look at "balance of probabilities approaching beyond reasonable doubt" (the "Briginshaw Standard) we're looking at the evidence that was led in support of that - not general

@sinner_lukeyy made me think of the issue of courts of Parliament. Most people do not know that the Senate and the House can each summon people to appear before them and that, once summoned, people have no rights like they do in court unless the Senate/House decides to afford 2. those to them (which they often do NOT). For instance:
a) no right to legal representation or even support people
b) no privilege against self-incrimination: you can be forced to answer questions - failure to do so can land you in contempt of Parliament and you could end up in

1. Linda Reynolds: "I was told by one of your senators two weeks before about what you were intending to do with the story in my office. Two weeks before."
Katy Gallagher: "No-one had any knowledge. How dare you."
In this instance Linda Reynolds very well can dare! Ms Gallagher 2. ought to know that confidentiality is no bar to answering questions put to a witness in Senate Estimates. My opinion is that her answer is materially misleading because it suggests not only that she had no knowledge, but that nobody in her office had knowledge and that it was

I don't think that calling people who want to understand the mechanism by which people will be selected/elected for The Voice to be "Chicken Little"-like behaviour. To me it is ironic that Albanese is belittling this particular concern that it is a white person dismissing one of 2. the main concerns that my black relatives have about #TheVoice. It is not an answer to say "we'll tell you later" because human nature is subject to Akerlof's "Market for Lemons": people are going to assume that if information is being hidden that it jstor.org/stable/1879431

I have been watching with interest what people such as Samantha Maiden have said about Grace Tame pulling faces and playing political games. There had been, previously, an unspoken assumption that the Australian of the Year was designed to be unifying as opposed to overtly party- 2. political. Morrison leaves me cold, but at the same time, the question that presents itself is how should a professional deport themselves in circumstances such as someone else's big day - in this case Dylan Alcott. I was taught that it was about them and not to make it about

Here is an interesting quandary: first we are told to accept the proposition by the Democrats that parents have no "right" to know what their children are doing at school and that the "professional" trained teachers know best. Then we witness things like a black girl being forced 2. to eat waffles out of the garbage because she threw them away because she did not like them.
Let's examine the logic - if the first proposition is true, the second action should also be acceptable as teachers are infallible. If the action proves the first proposition false,

I don't agree with beating the girl who was throwing urine bombs, but can understand that being hit by one and knowing she would not be punished would be hard to take. When parents, the courts and police can't deter kids, the risk is that people will news.com.au/national/nsw-a… 2. increasingly attempt rough justice. This social experiment of saying "kids will be kids" to excuse assault between children or kids assaulting adults has to be over. If there are no consequences, there's no incentive to behave. The parents need consequences too, otherwise