2013 Federal election - Rudd sets date as 7th September

[Q.]

Indeed! Thanks for the detail.

[Bully]

lol clive palmer has said he will sue if he doesn't win his seat

[gossipgirl]

lol clive palmer has said he will sue if he doesn't win his seat

who would he sue ?

[Jimmy_041]

Not me: I voted for them in Sturt

[Bully]

lol clive palmer has said he will sue if he doesn't win his seat

who would he sue ?

I don't know it said in a newspaper article he would take the result to court and sue if he did not win his seat

Don't forget that fat man has money to burn so why not . Even on an interview on the weekend he said to the reporter" I have more money than you could ever dream of seeing"

[Q.]

[bulldogproud2]

Are there any lefties around here anymore???

Still sort of here too. Was a bit too busy during the campaign to come on here though.
The new government is off to a great start I see. Firstly, Abbott's Chief of Staff gets off a DUI despite pleading guilty!
Now, voting irregularities and 'hidden votes' for the Independent looking at unseating Mirabella.

Now, I don't think that either of those were really caused by the Liberal Party but if it had been Labor people involved in this instead, you guys would have been doing a huge outcry and wanting an inquiry!!

Interesting times ahead.

[Q.]

Abbott's Chief of Staff gets off a DUI despite pleading guilty!

This was a ******* disgrace.

[Psyber]

Abbott's Chief of Staff gets off a DUI despite pleading guilty!

This was a ******* disgrace.

You don't need a political connection - just a good lawyer.
In 1987 I agreed to plead guilty to a speeding charge, rather than defend it and tie up the court for days, in return for the Magistrate agreeing to consider not recording a conviction.
After hearing the evidence about the circumstances in which it happened, the Magistrate agreed it was a a fair outcome.

[Q.]

It's not 1987.

There is zero tolerance to drink driving now, even when you ping a little over 0.05.

She blew 0.075 and walked out of court saying "Justice doesn’t have to be done, it has to be seen to be done". Indeed.

[woodublieve12]

Abbott's Chief of Staff gets off a DUI despite pleading guilty!

This was a ******* disgrace.

You don't need a political connection - just a good lawyer.
In 1987 I agreed to plead guilty to a speeding charge, rather than defend it and tie up the court for days, in return for the Magistrate agreeing to consider not recording a conviction.
After hearing the evidence about the circumstances in which it happened, the Magistrate agreed it was a a fair outcome.

yeah just ask Eugene Mcgee disgrace

[Psyber]

It's not 1987.
There is zero tolerance to drink driving now, even when you ping a little over 0.05.
She blew 0.075 and walked out of court saying "Justice doesn’t have to be done, it has to be seen to be done". Indeed.

The original limit above which a penalty was set in SA was 0.08.
Later in SA above 0.05 was an on the spot fine only, with no serious penalty until 0.08 was exceeded.
Later again above 0.05 was taken more seriously, despite evidence that the common cold can impair you just as much as being between 0.05 and 0.08.
I don't know what happened in other states.

One has to suspect financial motives in these changes given that history, and that this is a bit of a beat up of a minor offence that may attract a warning only in any case if it was a one-off offence.
(I don't know whether it was.)

I'm not condoning driving when impaired by alcohol or other drugs, but the degree of impairment at that level is questionable.
I don't drive when affected by alcohol - I did once in 1975, and have been careful to never let it happen again even though there was no accident.

I couldn't find the comparison reference in a quick search, but this one points out the common cold does impair the driver:
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/4/e001047.full

[bulldogproud2]

It's not 1987.

There is zero tolerance to drink driving now, even when you ping a little over 0.05.

She blew 0.075 and walked out of court saying "Justice doesn’t have to be done, it has to be seen to be done". Indeed.

I would be extremely surprised if the 'average person' would be able to have their case dismissed in similar circumstances. Pysber, I take your point re not wanting to tie the legal system up. However, that should allow every individual who gets a DUI to have their case dismissed by simply stating to the courts that they plead guilty!! There is no excuse for DUI and as a person who saw my own brother placed into a coma through being hit by a drunk driver whilst riding his pushbike, I do find the result a travesty of justice.

[bulldogproud2]

It's not 1987.
There is zero tolerance to drink driving now, even when you ping a little over 0.05.
She blew 0.075 and walked out of court saying "Justice doesn’t have to be done, it has to be seen to be done". Indeed.

The original limit above which a penalty was set in SA was 0.08.
Later in SA above 0.05 was an on the spot fine only, with no serious penalty until 0.08 was exceeded.
Later again above 0.05 was taken more seriously, despite evidence that the common cold can impair you just as much as being between 0.05 and 0.08.
I don't know what happened in other states.

One has to suspect financial motives in these changes given that history, and that this is a bit of a beat up of a minor offence that may attract a warning only in any case if it was a one-off offence.
(I don't know whether it was.)

I'm not condoning driving when impaired by alcohol or other drugs, but the degree of impairment at that level is questionable.
I don't drive when affected by alcohol - I did once in 1975, and have been careful to never let it happen again even though there was no accident.

I couldn't find the comparison reference in a quick search, but this one points out the common cold does impair the driver:
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/4/e001047.full

Gives absolutely no excuse for what happened though. The law is the law!!
It seems like you are saying that anyone who blows between .05 and .08 should have their case dismissed!! Surely not!

[Q.]

It's not 1987.

There is zero tolerance to drink driving now, even when you ping a little over 0.05.

She blew 0.075 and walked out of court saying "Justice doesn’t have to be done, it has to be seen to be done". Indeed.

I would be extremely surprised if the 'average person' would be able to have their case dismissed in similar circumstances. Pysber, I take your point re not wanting to tie the legal system up. However, that should allow every individual who gets a DUI to have their case dismissed by simply stating to the courts that they plead guilty!! There is no excuse for DUI and as a person who saw my own brother placed into a coma through being hit by a drunk driver whilst riding his pushbike, I do find the result a travesty of justice.

Zero tolerance shown by the courts. Generally, the only way you get off is via a technicality.

The case has set a precedent in the ACT though.

[Psyber]

I'm simply saying there is the issue of Magisterial Discretion in the law - it may vary between states.
A Magistrate can exercise a decision to not record a conviction if they think the circumstances warrant it.
This may be in the case of exceptional circumstances, a first offence in someone of good character, or a minor offence in which no harm was caused.

Therefore, the decision may be nothing to do with any political connection as the original post here implied.

I also expressed a personal and medical view, having read the original medical article published some years ago, that the impairment caused by the common cold is similar to that of being between 0.05 and 0.08.
Perhaps none of us should drive when we have a cold if driving below 0.08 is severely impairing as was suggested above?
(I'd have to find and re-read the original comparison to be sure.)

[bulldogproud2]

I'm simply saying there is the issue of Magisterial Discretion in the law - it may vary between states.
A Magistrate can exercise a decision to not record a conviction if they think the circumstances warrant it.
This may be in the case of exceptional circumstances, a first offence in someone of good character, or a minor offence in which no harm was caused.

Prior to this case, Australian courts had pretty much refused to take this into account when looking at DUI cases. Yes, for speeding cases they may but not DUI. Can you honestly tell me that if she was not Tony Abbott's Chief in Staff she would have still had her case dismissed??
As Q has quite rightly pointed out, this case has set a precedent.
Cheers

[Q.]

May set a precedent, but the average Joe isn't going to be able to get Brandis to intimidate the magistrate

[Jimmy_041]

Abbott's Chief of Staff gets off a DUI despite pleading guilty!

This was a ******* disgrace.

Cant blame her

I do agree with you though

[southee]

Getting let off on a DUI is not ok .... But using a credit card on hookers is all fine then ?