So I deal with some pretty incorrigible family members. They are the cousins of my father and have a long history of being arseholes. Held in contempt within the family, the anti-Chris and Rosemongrel display not only display highly narcissistic tendencies, they are self-centred. They frequently act with psychic irrelevance to other family members – not just us.

These are the names they are known as throughout the family. Without giving too many family secrets away, their surname might not be right, and their behaviour is anything but right. They have a reputation of poor behaviour within the family. We are talking about actions leading to legal action here, legal action they have previously lost.

I would rather not use the term bullying, but this is becoming a common term now. I don’t like the term bullying as we are adults, they gang up and use standover tactics. They gang up on individuals and steamroll them, it isn’t pretty. They are used to people folding under the intense pressure they inflict, they have no remorse and have no principles and ethics – they are just horrible people.

What they are not used to is people standing up to them. So I have come in to turn this situation around, they just don’t know what to do now. They don’t work, their trust fund has pretty much supported them their whole life. Their father was a brilliant businessman, his nous never rubbed off on them, they certainly never learnt leadership skills.

This was not the result Fremantle wanted, their form had fallen off late in the season and they were losing games they should have been winning. Sure, they had injuries but every team has injuries deep into the season, this is a tight competition and even a slight dip in form is the difference between winning and losing.

Lining up in the midfield was Geelong’s Patrick Dangerfield and Fremantle’s Nat Fyfe, both veterans, both outstanding players and both nearing the end of their respective careers. In a head-to-head battle down in Adelaide back in 2015, Fyfe went head to head with Dangerfield. That time, the Fremantle Dockers were victorious against a very good Adelaide Crows outfit by 11 points. Nat Fyfe came away with three Brownlow votes and Patrick Dangerfield was awarded two votes. We all witnessed a football spectacle where the best two players lined up on each other and played an attacking brand of football.

This time around, Patrick Dangerfield was playing for Geelong and Fyfe was still at Fremantle. Dangerfield transferred from Adelaide at the end of the 2015 season and is now the captain of Geelong since 2023. Fyfe has had a brilliant career with two Brownlow medals and Dangerfield winning the Brownlow medal in 2016. Patrick Dangerfield was a member of the Geelong premiership team of 2022 and has 8 All-Australian team selections. This was not a head-to-head clash like in 2015 where Fyfe v Dangerfield were left to play attacking football, it was a good game nonetheless.

Fyfe finished with 17 disposals with 6 kicks and 11 handballs, with no marks and no handballs. Dangerfield was better with 20 disposals consisting of 16 kicks, 4 handballs, 3 marks and 3 tackles. Dangerfield scored a goal and two behinds, so whilst they did not go head-to-head like in 2015, they did spend some limited time on each other. Patrick Dangerfield at 34 years old had a big impact on the game and was ultimately the difference between the teams. Even with Dangerfield missing a goal from a goal square brain fade where Patrick tried to kick the ball from the ground instead of gathering it up, he had an outstanding game and apart from a laugh, this was a brilliant game.

United States diplomacy is finished, American leadership is over, the United States is withdrawing from international affairs and taking a highly insular view. The leadership, I use that term very selectively, is uneducated, undiplomatic and out of their depth in international affairs.

The statement from Vice President JD Vance of “we borrow money from Chinese peasants to buy the things those Chinese peasants manufacture” is highly inflammatory. The whole Chinese population is offended and I have to agree. What type of idiot would make such a statement, well, we all know that answer. It is Vice President JD Vance, the second in command to Donald Trump, not known for his intelligence or tactfulness, both make idiodic public statements.

I have to question what Vance was trying to achieve here? Sure, Vance was speaking to an internal audience, all hard core Trump supporters who lack the education, world view and intelligence to see the statement for what it is, a racist view of the world. Even if this statement was intended for an internal audience, surely the advisors to Vance were smart enough to work out that such an inflammatory statement would be viewed by an international audience. We all have worked out Vance is not a clever guy, but at least the team around him should have at least the slightest clue.

Watching the Dutch monarchy Queen Maxima openly mock President Trump during a recent European visit was more than mildly amusing, this was downright hilarious. The mannerisms went right over Trump’s head, he never picks up on these things. He just rattles on that he is a smart guy, he is an intelligent guy and the former president was not a smart guy.

The total disdain levelled at the US President is well earned, Trump brought this disrespect upon himself. Trump’s arrogance towards the Europeans is well documented. It was only a matter of time before the Europeans would run out of patience and he would be shunned. Watching Trump stumble at the NATO conference was humorous to watch, he looked lost and looked isolated. He did not even have Vladimir Putin to go and cosy up against, not even Victor Orban was his friend.

Trump’s hard ball, take it or leave it negotiating approach has alienated a vast variety of European leaders. With the tariffs levied against European nations, the threat to take Greenland militarily, and the open hostility with Canada, the Trump Administration is looking out of its depth once again. Now Trump is wanting to charge European nations for aid to Ukraine. Once again, Trump is all about money and looking good in front of peers that he is making a deal.

Do you need to study a degree in journalism to be a journalist? The short answer is no, a journalist does not require formal qualifications or a licence to operate in Australia. There is no requirement for a journalist to actually study a formal journalism course in Australia. Nor does a journalist need to be directly employed by a large legacy, a freelance journalist is  viable option, a digital journalist utilises online formats.

Therefore, a writer and journalist may write for independent publications and as we move from print media to online media, blogging is a viable option for independent writers and journalists. A journalist could be then defined as a person who collects information that may be in the form of written text, audio recordings, video or photographic images, then processes this information into a newsworthy form to disseminate it for public consumption in a news medium. A journalist is typically trained, this does not necessarily mean tertiary education, instead on-the-job learning is acceptable.

When you look at certain professions such as medicine, engineering, law, science and teaching all require degrees and professional practice for acceptance into a professional body. There are registration boards and/or professional associations, and let’s face it, who wants to receive medical advice from a non-certified doctor, drive across a bridge designed by a non-engineer. There is no required professional registration body in Australia, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance [MEAA] is about the closest professional organisation for not just journalists, but all performers. The MEAA is not a required professional body registration for journalists and offers benefits such as insurance for members.

These days, accountants require a degree and registration with a professional body such as Certified Practising Accountants [CPA], and Chartered Accountants [CA]. However, there are grandfather clauses for accountants who were qualified prior to the university requirements who can register as a CPA or CA. A tax agent registration has an age requirement [minimum 18 years of age], be fit and proper person, satisfy qualification and experience requirements, and hold professional indemnity insurance. This is not the case for journalism, there is no organisation that issues press passes in Australia, you publish news content and you are a journalist.

In a free and democratic society, participation by non-formally trained journalists allows broad participation of journalists in Australia that do not necessarily follow organisational and editorial guidelines, this allows freedom of expression. Journalists need to build a body of work, they can do this by a multitude of methods such as print media, online media and blogs, photojournalism and news reports. I have found writing for magazines is not a lucrative business for a general writer, you get paid per article and unless you are an in-house writer, there is no retainer. Sure, you have the ability to build a body of work and that is positive, it is hard to live on though.

A journalism degree is sometimes offered as part of a Bachelor of Arts, or a Bachelor of Communications by some major universities, even a Bachelor of Laws with journalism as a major, that makes sense if they are undertaking investigative duties. As I was reviewing this post, I was able to view a Bachelor of Broadcast Media where journalism is just a small number of units in the complete qualification. So what we see is journalism is this tends to be an amalgamation of qualifications that may offer major or minor specialisations. You learn to write at university, that is positive, ethics is learned in a variety of qualifications. When I review potential careers, a Degree in Journalism is an entry-level pathway for a journalist, freelance writer, a foreign correspondent, media liaison officer, documentary producer, tv reporter or producer, or a newsreader. So really, a journalism degree indicates to a potential employer that you have the skills to write professionally.

The Mille Miglia is an interesting timepiece, I would have never considered it until I pushed open the doors at their Manila boutique at Greenbelt 5 in Makati. The luxury watch market in the Philippines is interesting, they have single brand boutiques in the large shopping malls. This is the first time I have walked into a Chopard boutique after walking past it so many times.

I used to view the Chopard boutique from the mall without actually stepping inside. I viewed Chopard more of a jewellery manufacturer than a serious horological manufacturer of quality watches. What I saw in the Philippines was a large number of dedicated manufacturer boutiques, I worked my way around and finally walked in through the door. What I learned was they were all owned by the same holding company, they had multiple dedicated boutiques in the same shopping mall.

So, when I finally strapped a Mille Miglla on my wrist, I was pleasantly surprised, the timepiece was top notch horology, I had incorrectly viewed Chopard as purely a jewellery company. The history of the watch and its motorsport origins are interesting, known as the most beautiful motor race in the world through Italy. It is not a highly competitive race, more of a fun race that began in 1927 from Brescia to Rome and back again. The heritage of the Chopard Mille Miglia dates back to 1988 when Chapard sponsored the event.

I look at the response to the Charlie Kirk shooting by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and I am full of praise for him. Bernie began by stating that he disagreed with Charlie Kirk on just about every issue, Bernie went on to say he was a good communicator and organiser, he stated his support of free speech.

We can disagree with the academic argument presented by the individual, yet we don’t attack the individual, we attack the argument. Free speech is just that, you can have your opinions, you should not be persecuted or censored by the government. Donald Trump on the other hand attempts to censor individuals and organisations with lawsuits in a feeble attempt to shut them down.

Bernie was fantastic, he lambasted the shooting, he stated this is not how you silence debate. I had never heard of Charlie Kirk prior to the shooting, let alone watched one of his videos. From what video I have watched after his death, I cannot state I agree with him on any level. Bernie went on about freedom and democracy, we have differences in opinion and argue it out, without fear of being injured or humiliated for expressing our political views.

What I can say about Charlie Kirk, he left behind a wife and two children. These children will be without a father, they are so young, they will never really know their father and this has affected so many lives. He has friends, family and colleagues who would be rightly devastated. There is no rational explanation for a sniper to set up on a college rooftop and shoot a person engaging in debate with students, regardless of any views.

What Charlie Kirk tried to do was develop discourse, he would head over to a college campus and debate people. Now, as I have already stated, I pretty much disagree with everything he said, yet this would not stop me from being civil with him. From what I can determine, he built his following based on the premise of face-to-face debate. This is positive, this is what I would expect from rational people. I totally disagree with his views on gun ownership, school shootings, and his belief that this is the cost of the second amendment rights.

In Australia they have late night US television, they do play it on commercial television, but I cannot say I have ever watched it. From David Letterman to Jay Leno, they have had many examples of US programming. I wonder why we just do not produce our own. I do not even know the names of the shows of the hosts of these shows, so I needed to look them up.

Now there is The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon, and Jimmy Kimmel Live! There are probably more, but these are just the shows I am aware of. I have free-to-air television but flick over to other stations at this time of night. I cannot say this is a format I like much, but I know plenty do.

So when I saw President Trump answer a question just before he was about to step onto Marine One, I was pretty shocked, he did not appear to be upset at all. Trump’s reply to the question of how he was holding up after the shooting of Charlie Kirk was “I think very good, and by the way, right there you see all the trucks; they just started construction of the new ballroom for the White House. Which is something they’ve been trying to get as you know for about 150 years, and it’s gonna be a beauty, it’ll be an absolutely magnificent structure. And I just see all the trucks, they just started, so it’ll get done uh very nicely and it’ll be one of the best anywhere in the world, actually.”

From what I gathered Charlie Kirk idolised Donald Trump, what did he get in return? Trump’s reply of just four words before rambling on about White House construction. So on the Jimmy Kimmel show, he played the video and as the clip fades out and the camera cuts to Kimmel, he stated “Yes, he’s at the fourth stage of grief: construction.”

That was a pretty funny line actually, I laughed and I am neither a Kimmel fan or follower. So Trump goes on that he is not talented, he has been fired, he needs to be cancelled. This is the concern, the Federal Communications Commission [FFC] through Chair Brendan Carr is placing external pressure on a broadcaster, this is censorship. Even Republican Ted Cruz sees the danger here, Cruz states it is unbelievably dangerous for a government to say what speech they like and what they don’t like, and what gets taken off air. Cruz likened it to being right out of Goodfellas, as an outsider looking in, this looks like American democracy is at risk and plenty of MAGA followers are missing the warning signs.

It is all falling apart for David Sharaz, after pleading no contest, he had hoped to throw himself on the mercy of the court. Justice David Tottle was apparently not impressed, instead finding David Sharaz had defamed former Defence Minister Linda Reynolds, he clearly defamed her on social media and apparently thought he was immune from defamation laws.

I am learning plenty from following this case, Justice Tottle ordered David Sharaz to pay cost on an indemnity basis, this is where a special costs order is applied and only applied in special circumstances to cover costs and disbursements reasonably that are incurred.Based on the provisions of the defamation Act, indemnity costs can be applied if the court is satisfied that the defendant acted in an unreasonable manner where they failed to make a settlement offer.

This would include a settlement offer offered by a plaintiff, there was not even an offer of an apology made by David Sharaz. So Justice Tottle ordered David Sharaz to pay Linda Reynolds $92,000 in damages, that hurts. However, costs look like they will be around the $500,000 region after defaming Linda Reynolds in a series of social media posts, there are still plenty of supporters on social media believing Linda Reynolds acted improperly, this is why defamation laws are important, some people will believe these posts no matter what.

Natural justice is procedural fairness, what this means is this is a fundamental concept requiring a process free from bias in judgements and decisions. As a principle of procedural fairness, the accused must be allowed to present their defence once a case has been brought against them. Natural justice is a doctrine of law, according to the Federal Court of Australia, procedural fairness embodies two different rules, they are a rule against bias [apprehended and actual] and the right to a fair hearing.

As such, natural justice is not a rule that is capable of direct application; however, it informs the accusing party of the rules of prejudice, impartiality, and favouritism. Therefore, an accused has the right to notice, they must be informed of the case against them. They must have an opportunity to respond, state their case to respond to the adverse claims, a rule against bias so that the decision-makers are free from conflicts of interest. The decision must be free of bias, they cannot rule in their own case, the decision-making authority must be detached.

The consequences of a denial of natural justice allows a higher authority such as a court to determine the decision invalid. Therefore, the affected party can seek a judicial review to challenge the decision based on the grounds of denial of natural justice. The denial of resources, access to resources, or insufficient [and/or unequal] time to mount a response could be argued is a denial of natural justice. Therefore, the party bringing the case against an accused party must allow the accused party sufficient time and resources to defend the case against them including the self-judgement clause.