< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://sirhumphreys.com" > Sir Humphrey's: Whinging Snivelling Lefties

SIR HUMPHREY'S BLOG

SITE MOVED:Sir Humphrey's has moved

Please join us at our new site: www.sirhumphreys.com.

The RSS feed for sirhumphreys.com is now here.

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

Whinging Snivelling Lefties

A couple of nondescript whinging Australian lefties were given prominent airtime this morning on Moaning Report. Aided and abetted by slavering RLW lefties, they accused Little Johnny of deceiving the Australian people and lying about a terrorist threat. I think the words they used were something like 'causing the Australian people to live in a permanent atmosfear of phere' or something similar.

What was the logic? Well you see there have been no arrests since the Senate was recalled to pass the legislation.

Well chaps, eat your words as you read the breaking news via the Australian. Hopeless idiots.

POLICE are raiding homes in Sydney and Melbourne in a counter-terrorism operation involving federal and state officers.

Australian Federal Police said the raids were continuing, but have revealed little about the operation.

As of 6.45am the raids were still being carried out.

The operation involved AFP and the state police forces in New South Wales and Victoria.


Come in Ackers1.


Update 1030: Radio New Zealand and Morning Report ought to be ashamed of themselves. Will they issue an apology? Here is the latest. Note the description of the action by police: 'The final stages of a large scale terrorist attack.' So will they have it that Little Joohnny now has persuaded the Australian Federal Police, the Victorian Police and the NSW Police to join with the Labour premiers and two Labour shado ministers in a giant conspiracy? Stuck on Stupid. From The Australian - breaking News:

400 police in anti-terror raids
UP to 15 people were arrested in raids involving some 400 officers in Sydney and Melbourne this morning in an operation police said "disrupted ... the final stages of a large scale terrorist attack".
ยท Linked Article

Posted by Adolf Fiinkensein | 11/08/2005 09:37:00 AM

4 Comments:

Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

Nearly missed this - was going to post it. It's breaking onto the international sites now.

11/08/2005 10:48:00 AM  
Blogger Ackers1 said...

I guess the presumption of innocence before being proven guilty is a rather quaint notion consigned to a bygone age. They are Muslim so must obviously be guilty, it's genetic.

Sorry I missed all the excitement Adolf but have been working up a storm today, the dreaded quarterly review. Apparently they were all bought into court in the laneway adjacent to the apartment I live in and our entire apartment block was off limits for a few hours this arvo. What excitement.

I will like you be most interested in the outcome.

What is different under the new regime is that the need to prove just cause for a warrant or an arrest is being removed; the right to face one's accusers and test the evidence is removed; and we are required to trust the word of the various police and security agencies when they tell us someone has been naughty.

I'm sure the truth will prevail. This is Howard's Australia - the truth has a habit of surfacing, usually when it has become irrelevant.

11/08/2005 10:45:00 PM  
Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Hello ackers1. Well there is a war on, you know.

11/08/2005 11:04:00 PM  
Blogger Wanderlust said...

Somebody had better tell Jacques that (that there is a war on), because I don't think he's quite figured it out just yet.

I am the first to argue, nominally, for the right of "presumption of innocence", given that I am a father who has to pay child support, and the whole custody/support regime lives, breathes, and feasts on the presumption of guilt (and, for fathers who would not have to pay support to a kid who isn't theirs, if only the law allowed them to submit DNA samples on their own, the penalties are insult added to financial injury).

However, I have to ask: if you are held up in a liquor store by a man with a sawed-off shotgun pointed right at your chest, and a videocamera records the event (and is certified reliable by a disinterested third party, prior to the event) - how much more "proof" do you need, regarding the robber's guilt? A shot to the head?

At some point, the state has to act to protect the safety of the majority. Yes, democracies are founded on the rights and responsibilities of individuals. But when YOU are the person whose head is facing the business end of the gun, at what point do you draw the line, and begin acting pre-emptively to protect your own safety?

And yes, the democracy has a responsibility to answer for how it acted, at some point. That is what makes a democracy a true democracy, as opposed to a sham (e.g., the so-called "democratically elected" NAZI party government of 1933 Germany).

11/08/2005 11:30:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home