soldiers were being wrongly accused and illegally investigated for war crimes.

Is honestly pretty unambiguous wording.

And the other evidence against your claim is, why would McBride had been pissed off by the ABC’s reporting of his leaked files? If you were right, the ABC’s angle would be completely aligned with McBride’s. Why would Oakes allege there was disagreement there?

Did you ready the article? McBride initially posted on his personal blog, which caught the attention of ABC journalist Dan Oakes. The information was leaked to Oakes and the ABC from there.

My reading of the article was McBride didn’t initially think there were war crimes committed but:

ADF leadership alleg(ed) that SAS soldiers were being wrongly accused and illegally investigated for war crimes.

“If there is political bullshit going on against soldiers, and it doesn’t matter whether they’re SAS or not, you need to stand up for it,”

McBride didn’t think war crimes had happened which is why he asserts that the soldiers were being wrongly accused and investigated. Oakes disagreed.

Now the question is, why is Oakes making this allegation allegation against McBride if it’s not true?

I’m sorry mate you are a terrible first aider and you should reconsider your approach before someone dies on your watch. As an EMT, loss of consciousness is absolutely something that warrants clinical assessment by a healthcare professional.

As a first aider you should understand the chain of survival, one of which is “early access to advanced care”. Delaying calling the ambulance completely violated that training. You should understand that the protocol DRSABCD has “send for help” after any response less than “alert” is identified. Your anecdote already shows you cannot follow the protocol and are not acting within your training. It also doesn’t say “go back and cancel the ambulance if they regain consciousness”. The training is simply “put them in the recovery position” which implies “and wait for ambulance to arrive”.

The reason it is taught that way is, you are not a doctor qualified to diagnose whether someone’s complex condition is an emergency or not. The absolutely worse thing you can do is make the wrong choice and delay necessary care. The best case is the paramedics come, assesses the patient, and decided they don’t need to go to hospital and they go on their merry way (at no cost to the patient). So for you, you always make the worst case scenario.

It’s not your responsibility as a first aider to consider the strain on the ambulance or the financial outcome to the patient. Your duty of care is to the medical outcome of your patient, nothing else.

No it’s not. People don’t generally lose consciousness, so even if they regain it, they should still be escalated to advanced care to be clinically assessed.

There was a podcast episode, I think from Democracy Sausage, that talked about how historically referendum no campaigning parties actually do poorly in the subsequent general election since they lean in to absolutely insane arguments during the campaign, which gets them the referendum win, but the loss in the general election. I hope that happens here.

I thought voting no was supposed to end the division?

Literally pulled a Mark McGowen. But to be fair, probably the best way to go rather than have it drag on for ages.

I think your first paragraph nails it. Developers are holding off development not to introduce artificial scarcity, but to maximise development. So they keep the land empty until either they can convince the council to approve a higher density, or a change in state government gives them an avenue to bulldoze through the council roadblocks.

At least in NSW a single graph is needed to show this relationship: https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/policy-and-legislation/housing/housing-supply-insights/quarterly-insights-monitor-q1/trends-in-housing-supply the correlation between number of approvals and number of constructions is basically exact. Which means, the roadblock to construction is council approval, not corporate greed or developers gaming the system to generate artificial scarcity or any other conspiracy you can think of.

I do agree that removing infrastructure charges is not a solution. From my perspective, this won’t do anything since developers aren’t blocked because of costs, but either materials supply or council blockades. Removing infrastructure charges solves neither of these issues.

The opposing viewpoint is that the reason apartment building is slowed is because developers are incentivised to maximise profit, and thus they are disincentivised from building too many apartments at once, creating an artificial scarcity and keeping home prices high. Developers are land-banking to the detriment of society as a whole.

I find this hard to believe. Every time council releases land, or the state government increases allowable density, developers are licking their lips and inundating councils with applications. Why submit an application, with the architect and application costs to get a DA to sit on, if they want to create artificial scarcity. Just don’t sit on the land without a DA.

The reality is, since covid, building companies have been collapsing left right and centre due to supply chain issues which has led to way higher building materials costs. Projects builders have started are now operating at a loss and causing builders to go bust. Furthermore, the lack of building supplies means projects can’t proceed, despite the record demand for construction work. It’s really one of those rare situations where a highly in demand industry is in recession.

Just just way more convenient and fits the narrative to, once again, put it down to pure corporate greed.

I don’t understand why state liberals who support the voice are not out in droves to rebuff Dutton’s acrobatic positions. At this stage “Liberals for Yes” is an impotent empty shell of a campaign group.

Seems like she was convicted on a technicality, possibly that by the letter of the law she committed the crime, even if it was done under duress and she didn’t benefit from it.

It seems the judge recognised this by not recording a conviction against her and no additional jail time. The bond seems unfair though but maybe it’s to provide assurance that she won’t start the prostitution ring again.

Why is this a single box people have to write in, rather than two boxes with “yes” or “no” that the voter has to tick, cross, fill in to select?

What if people write yes/no in their own language.

Honestly this set up does seem dumb and leaves so much to for error.

While I’m a strong supporter of the Voice, I fear it’s going to be defeated. I’ve spoken to a number of people around me and there’s genuine confusion around whether it’s something indigenous Australians want. While the statistics show 80-90% support amongst indigenous Australians for the Voice, when the Coalition trots out Price and Mundine, the public sees a sizable dissenting indigenous faction. Those I’ve spoken to are unsure if they should vote yes solely on the basis that they aren’t sure if indigenous Australians want it, and that’s from my more progressive mates.

Labor has and is botching this campaign in a major way. Their near silence and passive approach to this campaign is failing and it’s shifting normally supportive people into undecideds, let along flipping the undecided voters.

Either Labor and the Greens lift their game fast or this referendum is dead. Polling is suggesting that support has already dipped below 50%.

There’s a reason insurance companies don’t cover flood plains, because it’s a matter of when, not if, and insurance won’t cover losses that will definitely happen.

I tried to do a daily thread long ago but got like no comments so stopped.

Sadly the Sydney community on here is non-existent while Brisbane and Melbourne are thriving. To be fair though, the Reddit Sydney community was also non-existent.

I think even a weekly thread will be pretty dead here.

The fastest currently is 25 mins. Over 23km. That’s less than 60km/h average.

I would argue this is due to the clusterfuck that’s the approach to Strathfield station and the stretch of tracks between Strathfield and Central. You would get more speed if the lines going across those sections are decoupled, and work is underway to do just that.

That would reduce the dwell time and the trains will have better acceleration and deceleration.

The point of this feature is for transit systems with frequent and close stops, which is more stations.

The last thing we need is for stations to be skipped like they do currently. That’s how we get lopsided development. Everyone wants to live where the trains stop and then areas where the trains skip gets neglected.

I’m not saying do it now, I’m saying do it after the metro comes online. But I could make the same argument for having metro line that’s sparsely spaced.

But the general point I’m making is, heavy rail was always designed to move lots of people over long distances, and metros are designed to move few people over short distances. Somehow we’re building it back to front. We shouldn’t do that.

Metros everywhere else in the world (Europe, Asia) are designed with stations very close together, some within 5 walk of each other. The point is you have high density all along the route so most people are only taking part of the journey, not from end to end.

And if you want 20 min between Parramatta to Sydney, the best way is to have a metro with really close stations, and have heavy rail only stop at Parramatta, Strathfield and Central. Have a metro serve all the intermediate stops.

I think I can buy the argument that more stations are needed. That there are no stations between Olympic Park and Parramatta is ridiculous for a metro system.

But to contemplate canning the project is just dumb.

So he had what 5-6 decades to become a citizen? And he chose not to?

I get that not all cases are clear cut and I’m all for human rights lawyers fighting for cases like the Biloela family, who have done nothing wrong. But this guy’s case is pretty black and white. He had ample opportunities to become a citizen, and to stop being a dickhead, but chose not to at every turn. Meet consequences.

I would argue fighting cases like this is more likely to create precedent that ends up being more conservative than it should be. If the case was someone who was sentenced to > 12 months in prison for some trivial like not paying a traffic fine because they didn’t receive the fine due to not having a permanent address and then having their visa cancelled, that’s worth fighting. But because this guy fought to stay, the traffic fine guy is gonna have to also fight this precedent that didn’t need to happen.

This is my point. Don’t fight cases that don’t pass the pub test unless you want to set a precedent that closes legal openings for those that are worth fighting for.

And no we’re not responsible for this guy. We’re responsible for our citizens for legal reasons, but this guy chose not to become a citizen. He had decades to take it but didn’t. He doesn’t get to now choose to put the responsibility on our country because it now suits him.