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.

When covering the Los Angeles riots, Channel 9 reporter Lauren Tomasi became part of the news, this time not just reporting the news. What we were witnessing was the authoritarian rise in US politics, the LA riots are the manifestation of . A survey of over 500 political scientists believe the United States is sliding from a liberal democracy to authoritarianism.

This was clearly a reporter covering the riots, she had a Channel 9 microphone in her hand and a cameraman filming her. There was no mistaking this, the ICE officer turned and took a shot a Lauran whilst she was covering the story. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who was shocked at the footage, raised the issue with US authorities, the function of a free and open press is vital for a regulatory apparatus of an operating democracy. LA Police immediately launched an investigation into the incident, we will likely see this go nowhere.

Whilst Lauren was shot by what was claimed to be a rubber bullet, the LA Police claim this was not rubber and instead a condensed foam projectile similar to a Nerf ball. Apparently the LA Police use a 37 mm multiple foam baton and 40 mm foam baton kinetic energy projectile with the 40 mm the most common munition. When I checked the technical specifications, the manufacturer called this a pain compliance round for crowd control.

Whilst reading the technical specifications, the optimal range is 15 to 30 feet, when used past 30 feet the projectile may bounce off the target and lose the majority of its energy. What we clearly saw was this was a direct hit, not a bounce deflection to absorb the energy. Using the technical terms, the 40 mm may be direct fired or skip fired at the discretion of the operator. So what we have witnessed is these Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE] agents who are not well trained, they are not elite, they are not disciplined and are not professional in action.

The Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin meeting was a concern for every Ukrainian, most Europeans, and any of us around the world outraged by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. We all know how Trump idolises Vladimir Putin, I could not believe he rolled out the red carpet for a war criminal.

Whilst Trump sees himself as the deal maker, according to him, that’s what he does. However, he is more likely to cave into Russian demands. To say Trump is easily manipulated under statement, Trump is under-prepared and acts on instinct, unfortunately his instincts are scattered to say the least. Trump likes to be flattered, Putin flatters Trump at will and this flattery leads to manipulation.

Already, his statements fail to inspire anyone except for Russians and hard-core MAGA supporters. Trump has been doing his usual TACO turn around, he really does not offer any inspiration or stability. Trump’s scattered approach does not paint a compelling narrative, he provides no direction. You get the feeling his attitude is shaped by the last person who briefed him. 

The Trump circus rolls on, even the most hardened MAGA supporters are starting to question the competency of the Trump Administration. Donald Trump told the voters he would release the Epstein files, but as we know, Donald Trump told the American public he would release his taxes, that never happened and his loyal supporter base did not bat an eyelid.

The whole QAnon conspiracy theory movement is centered around the heroic Donald Trump fighting a secretive war against the pedophile cabal and the Deep State. The leader of this conspiracy movement is the anonymous Q, a self described high level government official leaking highly sensitive government documents. Of course this is all rubbish, this is a scam for the gullible, this is just a big lie and people fall for it.

Billionaire political kingmaker Elon Musk, the man behind Donald Trump’s election victory has turned on Trump after a public fallout and hinted Trump is on the Epstein list. Naturally, President Trump, who has never acted in a Presidential manner publicly called former President Barack Obama out for treason for trying to influence the 2016 election, the two term Obama Administration already had two terms.

Trump publicly called for Russian hackers to hack into Hillary Clinton’s email accounts to expose her. I am no fan of Hillary Clinton, but even mouth frothing Trump supporters should have seen this was a step too far. Then there is January 6 in Washington, Trump calling Obama treason, yet fails to prevent the insurrection in the capital. Now that Trump has sent the National Guard into Washington, he did have the power, he just never acted.

What a win for the former Defence Minister Linda Reynolds, after a year long wait, the Western Australian Supreme Court ruled in favour of Linda Reynolds. The social media posts by both Brittany Higgins and David Sharaz were misleading and untrue, and now they are being held accountable.

During the Bruce Lehermann defamation trial, Justice Michael Lee found no evidence of a cover up by Linda Reynolds or Scott Morrisson and the Liberal Party. Lisa Wilkinson in pursuit of her Gold Logie straight out stated Linda Reynolds was lying and Brittany Higgins was telling the truth. Justice Michael Lee found both Bruce Lehermann and Brittany Higgins lied under oath, with one being more believable. Sure, Bruce Lehermann is appealing the Justice Michael Lee decision, I suspect this appeal will fail.

The Western Australian Supreme Court Justice Paul Tottle found after a year of deliberation that Linda Reynolds had indeed been defamed by Brittany Higgins and awarded $315,000 in damages and $26,000 in interest to be paid by Brittany Higgins. Brittany Higgins’ interviews with Samantha Maiden from The Australian and Lisa Wilkinson from The Project were “objectively untrue and misleading” according to Justice Michael Lee. Then there will be legal costs that look like that will be paid by Brittany Higgins, they appear to be in the vicinity of around $1 million.

What I have learned is former Chief of Staff Fiona Brown is not lodging defamation action against Brittany Higgins, Lisa Wilkinson or Samantha Maiden. Instead Fiona Brown has lodged a claim against the Commonwealth of Australia for breaching the Fair Work Act. The commonwealth came to an extraordinary quick decision to award $2.4 million in favour of Brittany Higgins,but appears to be manifestly slower to award damages to Fiona Brown.

What has to happen in what will now be the final action of this sorry saga is Fiona Brown has to be compensated by the Commonwealth of Australia, how this plays out is uncertain but I guess the Albanese Government will come out of this poorly. It would appear they are stringing this out, so this will be another televised trial that will unearth some extraordinary missteps by Gallagher, Wong and Albanese that will damage the current government.

This trail will be compelling viewing, we will find out how Finance Minister Katy Gallagher, Foreign Minister Penny Wong and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese weaponised a rape for purely political purposes. This was aided by Brittany Higgins’ now husband David Sharaz through his connections with Katy Gallagher. When this case goes to the Federal Court, we will see this case untangled just as we witnessed with the Bruce Lehermann defamation trial and the Linda Reynolds defamation trial.

The change in United States President Donald Trump I am seeing after his trips to Europe are profound, Trump is viewing how Ukrainian President Zelensky is treated as a hero by European leaders.

Trump is a populist, the former reality television host seeks adoration and clearly sees his is being treated with disdain. Trump craves the limelight, Trump craves attention, and Trump craves popularity. After his failed White House meeting with Zelensky, Trump knows his missteps earned him ridicule and disdain by the international community. Trump knows he was the laughing stock of the world, only hard core MAGA voters supported him.

It is interesting to watch, during international conferences the President of the United States should be held in high esteem. Instead, Trump is treated with indifference by European politicians and mimicked by European royalty. This will not bode well for Trump’s fragile ego, he knows he is treated as a dope whilst Zelensky is treated as a hero. I suggest Trump will seek to establish a degree of popularity and begin to shun Putin and support Ukraine.

They were the two biggest names in the AFL in 2015, Fremantle travelled down to Adelaide to play the Adelaide Crows with Fremantle’s Nat Fyfe lining up on Adelaide’s Patrick Dangerfield. With the retirement of Nat Fyfe, this classic match up saw Fyfe and Dangerfield go head to head for seventy eight minutes in a classic midfield encounter in front of 45,518 fans.

Fremantle were sitting on top of the ladder, Adelaide was seventh so this was going to be a tussle, and it did not disappoint. It was a wet night in Adelaide, so this tussle was going to be tight, it was a battle of two very good teams. At this point, Fremantle were unbeaten with eight wins, Adelaide sported a five/four record but had the home ground advantage.

The stats were Fyfe forty possessions to Dangerfield’s twenty eight, Fyfe had fourteen clearances and three contested marks whilst Dangerfield had nine clearances and three contested marks. Both Fyfe and Dangerfield kicked a goal each with Fyfe getting three Brownlow votes and Dangerfield receiving two Brownlow votes, Fremantle’s Michael Barlow received one vote.

Fremantle ended up winning the game by 11 points with a score of 10.8 [68] to 7.15 [57]. With Adelaide winning most of the stats with 238 to 204 kicks, 128 to 137 handballs, 67 to 64 marks, 366 to 341 disposals, and 88 to 72 tackles, just poor conversion in front of goals cost Adelaide the game. However, Fremantle were better in the important moments and ended up getting over the line for what was a very good match where Nat Fyfe just got over Patrick Dangerfield in a classic midfield encounter that is still talked about.