Vicki, the courts allowing a policy under the guise of …

Comment on Much less drunken violence an early Christmas present by InterestedDarwinObserver.

Vicki, the courts allowing a policy under the guise of special measures is irrelevant to my comment.

InterestedDarwinObserver Also Commented

Much less drunken violence an early Christmas present
Vicki, I find nothing positive in any form of discrimination.
This belongs to the philosophy of Reverse Racism, Special Measures and Affirmative Action.
It is ignorance to think that Government could or should wield their power of discrimination without repercussions.
All these things seek to discriminate, breed racism and remove personal responsibility and an individual’s right to self determination.
As Newton theorised: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.


Much less drunken violence an early Christmas present
Where is the long term daily average of 150 presentations? Perhaps my data from myhospitals.gov.au is incorrect, but from what I gather, average daily admissions are as follows (equating to 123 average daily admissions over the last seven years)
Year – 2011-2012- Average daily ED admission = 116
Year – 2012-2013- Average daily ED admission = 113
Year – 2013-2014- Average daily ED admission = 120
Year – 2014-2015- Average daily ED admission = 122
Year – 2015-2016- Average daily ED admission = 124
Year – 2016-2017- Average daily ED admission = 130
Year – 2017-2018- Average daily ED admission = 137
It should be noted that the above figures fail to take into account population decline. If the data were to be converted into a “per 100,000” data set it would reveal that comparatively to this years 17/18 average daily admission of 137, 12/13 would read 104, 13/14 would read 112, 14/15 would read 117 and so forth.
But again, my data may be wrong, after all it is only published by the Federal Government via the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) with date provided by the NT Department Health.
I eagerly await the latest release of police data.


Recent Comments by InterestedDarwinObserver

Air race re-enactment government’s latest financial folly
Evelyn, the comparisons don’t end there! Nero was ruled by and for his mother. Gunner is ruled by and for his chief of staff!


Police drop MLA’s trespassing charge
Bruce, NT Labor are determined to stand up perpetual victims, identity politicians and social justice warriors. Unfortunately the most minor of challenges to them sees them wither – hence your totally uncalled for trespass notice.
What a disgusting thing to have occurred to you and what a sad indictment upon our democracy and freedom of speech.
If a politician cannot handle an energetic conversation with a constituent, what chance does she have standing up for her constituents against the mindless Labor caucus and their overarching bureaucrats.
To think Sandra served in the army! God help us if we are ever challenged by more than words!


Vowles, McConnell and Collins dumped from Caucus
Gunner also thought it wrong for the sacked trio to question the capabilities of Nicole Manison to handle her growing portfolio.
Let’s be honest, Nicole is in charge of two of the most important areas – police and treasury. Neither of these are going particularly well.
Perhaps we should look at the experience of the minister. Nicole is in her late 30s, entered parliament in 2013 at about 33 years of age.
So between leaving school and 33 you would hope she achieved something big? From what is publicly known, she studied PR and journalism, worked for a while in HR and then became a media advisor to past leaders Henderson and Lawry.
So she has never run her own budget, with her own money in her own enterprise and nor has she ever had to manage the security and ongoing crime in her own business. Yet now she is in charge of both of these things for the entire NT Population.
Experience? Nil. Performance to date? Fail.
The chief’s long list of experience are much better though. A bachelor of arts, some work at Big W and then a career working for Clare Martin.
No wonder things are so dire with the caliber of this mob. Put the business experience and fiscal management of the Labor cabinet together and you wouldn’t be able to run a chook raffle.


Human rights, centre stage
Long Term Alice: The conversation evolved. It became a conversation between commentators – not just directly about the article itself.
Seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to have occurred.
My comment was in response to another comment. My original comment – Comment 6 – was a succinct three lines / 30 words. Cheers.


Human rights, centre stage
Carolyn: The problem with the term “Social Justice” is that nobody really knows exactly what it means. The other problem is, social justice, dependent on the definition, could be quite in conflict with the meaning of justice.
Taking a stab at what it means, the American Oxford dictionary states “justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society”.
The question is, what does this mean? Does this mean that the distribution of wealth and privileges ought to be spread equally across the population? That sounds like Socialism or Communism. Neither of which will lead to justice or betterment of the population.
Does it mean bridging the gap between those that have and those that have not? If so, that can either mean bringing everyone up or taking every one down. How do you bring everyone up?
There are disparities between the haves and have nots due to personal responsibility and good decision making.
How does society enforce those positive traits on the “have nots”? Or, how would it be fair or Just, to take from those that have shown personal responsibility and good decision making in order to give those that do not do those things?
Of course, Australia does this to a great extent already, through a comprehensive progressive tax system. This is a massive redistribution of wealth as evidenced by the fact that the top 10% of income earners pay over 50% of the annual personal income tax collection.
Social Justice does not seem compatible with freedom. How can a person be free to create a better life for themselves and their family if the view of Social Justice suggests that having something, be it money, a nice house, the best food and the best health and education options, that someone else does not, is fundamentally wrong and represents a lack of social justice?
Freedom and justice are what is needed, not the undefined, “Social Justice”.
In regards to “Privileged Knowledge” – perhaps we should all dumb down our conversation to promote “Social Justice” in our literary abilities.
And yes, I agree, they are only words. Sticks and Stones may break my bones …
Of course, the words in below comments seemed to have triggered you to want to type “obscene words” and demeaning the writers. Just words indeed.
I see no one here diminishing the achievements of the recipients. Congrats to all.


Be Sociable, Share!