What will presumably be the last Newspoll of the year records no change on a fortnight ago, with Labor’s two-party lead at 54-46. Labor grabs the lead on the primary vote, moving up two points to 39% with the Coalition up one to 38% and the Greens down one to 12%. For the first time in a while, Tony Abbott’s personal ratings are not appreciably worse than last time, his approval steady at 33% and disapproval up one to 58%. Bill Shorten is respectively down two to 37% and steady at 43%, and the size of his lead as preferred prime minister is unchanged, being 43-36 last time and 44-37 this time.
”I also want to see Abbott’s role in jailing Hanson properly investigated. And I don’t even like Hanson. But something seriously stinks about all that.”
He is a vindictive nasty piece of work!, most of what he has done in government shows that.
Anyways, I see no-one can answer why Abbott didn’t just pick up the bloody phone and talk to his fellow lunatic; tell him he’d be on the first plane to Sydney as long as when he got there, the idiot would let the hostages go.
Jeez, if Lindsay Thompson could deliver a ransom to the Faraday kidnappers, then the least Abbott could do was “pretend” he was going to talk to the guy.
BUT, I suppose it was the dicks in security that told him “NO”.
Just like they did on Australia Day at that silly Canberran cafe, when they made Julia Gillard look like an idiot, as well as Abbott.
Julia Gillard could have been a hero if she’d stopped to talk to the people who were furious with Abbott’s stupidity about the Aboriginal Embassy having had its day.
Why do our pollies listen to the “security arseholes”? It always ends in tears.
And I believe Credlin had a lot to do with it!.
Quote:
”Her authority within Abbott’s office is absolute – and extends far beyond it. She’s worked closely with Scott Morrison on asylum seekers and George Brandis on the pursuit of Craig Thomson.????
[Why do our pollies listen to the “security arseholes”?]
Perhaps because they trust them to do their jobs properly. I certainly would imagine that those with specialist security knowledge would know better about what to do in a hostage situation that I would.
Says the man who profiteered through embedded journalism. What a disgrace.
Bemused:
[What is a personality disorder if not a mental illness?]
This 2002 paper might help. It does leave your question open. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/180/2/110.full
The analogy with obesity used in the paper is a good one. That is, we do not medicalise everyone who is obese even though it can lead to a range of medical conditions that might subsequently need medical treatment. Likewise we do not medicalise people with personality disorders although the disorder might lead to a range of medical conditions – like depression or anxiety.
Although personality disorder might lack the sense of free will ordinarily associated with those who are obese (i.e. one “chooses” to be fat by overeating but one doesn’t choose to lack the empathy required of a psychopath) nevertheless the same idea of free will underpins regarding people with personality disorders as just being extreme examples of “normal”. Thus we can “choose” to be “bad” (psychopathic) as we can “choose” to have another donut in each case without being thought to be sick.
Whether there is such a thing as free will is a much more difficult discussion but for most of us our intuition is that it is real. And if we regard free will as real then people who are not sick will do “bad” things.
How many ‘security experts’ do ABC24 need to say endlessly that lone nutters are harder to detect than organised groups …
@abcnewsSydney: #Sydney florists sell out as tributes to flow in for #sydneysiege victims in #MartinPlace http://t.co/kqxKNX2X7w http://t.co/MJBL6JSDc4
If I were writing “the siege” in a novel, I would have the hostages try to creep out when the perp falls asleep at around 2pm. One hostage makes a noise. Perp wakes, sees what is happening and starts shooting. Manager tries to get gun away and is killed. Police storm the building.
Could have happened that way.
[I read something about how the CIA managed to completely miss the overthrow of the Soviets and it basically boiled down to this: Even the worst military dictator never has the direct loyalty of more than a small segment of the population, for argument’s sake, 10%. But so long as the opposition is never allowed to organise into groups larger than a handful of people, the tyrant stays in power. However, if the opposition ever manages to provoke the entire opposition to act at once, the tyrant is immediately toppled.]
Rates Analyst i think this is essentially what happened in Egypt nearly 4 years ago. The Muslim brotherhood was one of the least oppressed of the opposition groups in that country that is why they had the most effective organisation at the first elections following Mubarak’s ousting. That is my understanding anyway.
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/dec/16/barrister-convicted-of-tax-offences-in-line-for-queensland-magistrate-job
Apoligies if already posted here.
Itep
[Perhaps because they trust them to do their jobs properly. I certainly would imagine that those with specialist security knowledge would know better about what to do in a hostage situation that I would.]
Name one time when listening to security, when a pollie’s involved, has ended well.
Don’t forget these people want their day in the sun, what with all their specialist sharp-shooting training.
As someone mentioned, on social media, if Channel 7 could get a clear headshot of the bloke, why didn’t a “specialist security person” just take him out? This was an hour or so into the siege.
I don’t want anyone killed, but if they’re going to be killed anyway, just get on with it – and save the civvies.
CTar1
Who the fcuk needs to get and “expert” to tell them such bleeding obvious.
[And they can’t see that even though they love their land, this is exactly what they did to the original inhabitants.]
i know kezza, its sad.
But during the anti CSG stuff in the Northern rivers (NSW) over the last few years there definitely seems to be some coming together of farmers and blackfellas, and some acknowledgement of that history.
re your comment @ 1485:
Well said – good on ya.
Kezza2
[As someone mentioned, on social media, if Channel 7 could get a clear headshot of the bloke, why didn’t a “specialist security person” just take him out? This was an hour or so into the siege.]
I was wondering this myself
The CIA also concluded that the likelihood of the British and French attacking the Egyptians in 1956 was low. The Israeli’s involvement must have come as a real surprise.
Eisenhower was not amused with the CIA.
[”Her authority within Abbott’s office is absolute – and extends far beyond it. She’s worked closely with Scott Morrison on asylum seekers and George Brandis on the pursuit of Craig Thomson.????]
WTF?!?
Talk about vindictive obsessives. Also poor political judgement if they think there is much mileage left in Thomson’s case.
victoria
Perhaps at that stage it was not clear if there was more than one hostage taker ?
[While it may appear that he was acting on behalf of the global jihadi movement, his prior actions and his history tell us otherwise. This was a man who was desperate for attention. His motives were egotistical. He was a self-proclaimed cleric, though he had no formal qualifications or any evidence to support his claims. On his website, sheikhharon.com, since been taken down, he posted letters to the prime minister as well as political opinions. Rather than being a follower, this is evidence that he was a wannabe leader driven by a desire for notoriety.]
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/16/sydney-siege-dont-call-man-haron-monis-a-terrorist-it-only-helps-isis
iAs someone mentioned, on social media, if Channel 7 could get a clear headshot of the bloke, why didn’t a “specialist security person” just take him out? This was an hour or so into the siege.
At that time they were still unsure if he was acting alone in the shop.
I guess all the armchair experts making comment with the advantage of hindsight will be espousing their expertise.
They will create more problems with their self importance and adherence to their belief they know better than the people who have spent their working lifetime training for these type of incidents
[Name one time when listening to security, when a pollie’s involved, has ended well.]
I’m sure on a number of occasions. The general public are hardly likely to receive regular updates on what security advice has been provided to the PM. It is their job to display an abundance of caution because the risks are often high.
poroti
[to tell them such bleeding obvious.]
The Septic ‘intelligence analysists’ will be here for 6 months and conclude same.
I’m guessing here, but:
The perp had made mention of explosive devices both in the cafe and in other locations in the city. While it would have been obvious at the time that that was probably a lie, the police et al couldn’t take the risk. A well prepared hostage taker, with actual explosives, could easily rig up a ‘dead man’s switch’ resulting in a detonation if the perp is killed/loses consciousness.
It was unlikely, but it was still a possibility that they had to consider that to knock out/kill the guy could result in the deaths of everyone in the building.
poroti
When the first hostages escaped, police would have been able to glean from them exactly who and what was going on
[If I were writing “the siege” in a novel, I would have the hostages try to creep out when the perp falls asleep at around 2pm. One hostage makes a noise. Perp wakes, sees what is happening and starts shooting. Manager tries to get gun away and is killed. Police storm the building.]
That’s my theory as well lizzie.
Jackol
[The perp had made mention of explosive devices both in the cafe and in other locations in the city. While it would have been obvious at the time that that was probably a lie, the police et al couldn’t take the risk. A well prepared hostage taker, with actual explosives, could easily rig up a ‘dead man’s switch’ resulting in a detonation if the perp is killed/loses consciousness.]
Good point. I had forgotten about this
[Just like they did on Australia Day at that silly Canberran cafe, when they made Julia Gillard look like an idiot, as well as Abbott.
Julia Gillard could have been a hero if she’d stopped to talk to the people who were furious with Abbott’s stupidity about the Aboriginal Embassy having had its day.
Why do our pollies listen to the “security arseholes”? It always ends in tears.]
– kezza
[Perhaps because they trust them to do their jobs properly. I certainly would imagine that those with specialist security knowledge would know better about what to do in a hostage situation that I would.]
-Itep
They certainly failed to do their job properly at that incident in Canberra. Unless their job was to stop the PM talking to the blackfellas there, which I suspect was the case. Gillard would have been fine if she’d spoken to that group of people, at least according to the ones I knew who were there. They would have loved to hear her speak.
What happened that day was just what Abbott wanted, as was obvious from the moment he made the comment with the sly shitstirring grin on his face.
Tony and Margie have laid wreaths at the “memorial” spot.
Bloody hell…Abbott had Margie with him in Martin Place.
He either needed a real human with him or ha shirt/tie ironed
AussieAchmed
Too many think there is a connection between reality and Holywood action movies.
Actually, not wreaths, sorry. I was copying the commentators. They were bouquets.
As if to emphasize the terrible tragedy, the SMH has this headline:
Sunrise host Natalie Barr overcome with emotion.
And if that’s not tragic enough for you:
‘He’s threatening to kill us’: Marcia’s horrific Facebook posts
What with horrific Facebook posts and tearful talking heads, we have, as a nation, run the whole gamut of emotion from A to B.
[The perp had made mention of explosive devices both in the cafe and in other locations in the city. While it would have been obvious at the time that that was probably a lie, the police et al couldn’t take the risk. A well prepared hostage taker, with actual explosives, could easily rig up a ‘dead man’s switch’ resulting in a detonation if the perp is killed/loses consciousness.
It was unlikely, but it was still a possibility that they had to consider that to knock out/kill the guy could result in the deaths of everyone in the building.]
From the camera footage they had multiple opportunities to shoot the guy. If they’d wanted to/felt the need they would have.
Whether what you say is a factor or not i’m glad the cops tried to resolve the situation peacefully. It says something important about our society that they chose not to just kill the guy even tho they could have.
I don’t really like cops much but the fact they didn’t kill him before it went to shit, despite opportunities, does put them in a good light imo.
shellbell@1437
Actually that is the only case I can think of where such a claim may have a shred of credibility because it went on for so long before police arrived.
lizzie
Tony and Margie could do the country a favour and ride off together into the sunset..
victoria@1515
Me too
[ As someone mentioned, on social media, if Channel 7 could get a clear headshot of the bloke, why didn’t a “specialist security person” just take him out? This was an hour or so into the siege. ]
Kezza, my understanding is that its actually quite difficult for a sharpshooter to reliably target a person through a plate glass window. In this context its a very precision business. First shot has to kill the target because of the danger to the hostages and its possible for the glass to deflect the line of the bullet as it penetrates.
Can apparently be done with two shooters. First round breaks the glass and the second follows up a second or so later through already weakened glass, fragments or suchlike. But its still chancy and i cant see the coppers wanting to take that risk early in a siege when negotiation hasn’t really begun.
[ Perhaps at that stage it was not clear if there was more than one hostage taker ? ]
I think that’s the most likely explanation. They would not have had definitive info around that until those people who escaped in the afternoon were debriefed.
Too many people watching Bond/Arne/Bruce Willis action movies and getting reality confused with the fantasy of a movie.
The shot would have been through glass, this could cause the bullet to deflect. Using a heaving bullet to “prevent” deflection would possibly passed through the hostage taker.
Given that no-one knew what was in the backpack that could have caused an explosion, or killed a hostage.
I spent 32 years working in prisons and over 17 years training and studying for all type of incidents that occur in prisons, including hostage taking.
After every incident the reviews were carried out by armchair experts with hindsight as a ‘tool’. Very little of any use came from the reviews by these “drips under pressure”.
the best reviews were our own team reviews
[At that time they were still unsure if he was acting alone in the shop.]
Especially since:
[A SYDNEY man who came face-to-face with the hostage gunman says he threatened to “shoot him too”.
Craig Stoker was walking down Phillip St after buying a coffee in the Lindt cafe when he bumped into the gunman.
“He was wearing a black T-shirt with white writing on it and a headband and carrying a blue bag,” Mr Stoker, a father-of-four from Eastlakes, said.
“The bag bumped into me and there was something hard in it.
“I said: ‘Watch where you are f…ing going’.
“He turned round and said: ‘Do you want me to shoot you too?’.
“I looked into his eyes and they were crazy. I was pretty freaked out.”
The bearded man was with two others who were similarly dressed.
Mr Stoker had no idea how lucky his escape was.
He went in to Sydney Hospital to have some stitches removed and only realised a siege was taking place when he came out.
“I had no idea what was going on,” Mr Stoker said.
“When I found out I was pretty shaken up. I am going to buy a lottery ticket right now.”]
SURE. Who’s this Mr Craig Stoker, with three children, from Eastlakes.
Obviously an angry bastard who abuses someone gratuitously for ‘bumping’ into him.
Sounds so real. NOT.
And what happened to the two accomplices? Oh, funny that, they didn’t exist.
Our security experts should be trained to filter out the dross. And our PM should have enough integrity to override bullshit. Not get caught up in the drama.
[Sky News Australia @SkyNewsAust 3m3 minutes ago
Foreign Affairs evacuated, block closed after discovery of suspicious package. Bomb squad investgting (@lipporocks)]
FULLY UPDATED: Abbott’s wreckage list increased by 25% today. It’s now up to 403 with 38 broken promises
http://wp.me/P48vlR-1S
From that article by Birmingham:
[ The rolling coverage made it all worse. If Monis had actually been a trained jihadi, and not just a murderous arse clown with mental health issues and a gun, the media coverage could easily have contributed to the death of more hostages as part of an ISIS media plan. Some protocols to avoid this in future events – because they will happen – would be prudent. But unlikely. ]
Yup, i think there is something worth considering in that.
[Actually that is the only case I can think of where such a claim may have a shred of credibility because it went on for so long before police arrived.]
And even if that had been the case (a very, very debatable case) the price would be hundreds of additional gun deaths from all of the additional massacres, random shootings and suicides.
BC
[I recall John Tingle saying the numbers killed at Port Arthur would have been reduced if there were armed citizens present.]
Aside from the shooter, I assume.
The NRA meme is that “the best defense against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”. Sounds great, but it rarely (if ever) works in practice.
NRA lore has (alleged) accounts where innocent bystanders carrying a firearm have deterred or taken down a shooter. Upon examination, most of these accounts don’t hold water.
Like the Clackamas, Oregon mall shooting in Dec 2012 – here a bystander carrying a concealed weapon claimed he deterred the shooter from further bloodshed – despite the bystander not actually firing his weapon. The police later called bullshit on his claim. But the NRA stands by this guy as a hero.
Do we know over what period the Essential Poll was taken? I was wondering if a part of it may have been taken yesterday during the hostage crisis.
imacca & aussie achmed
Of course I know that. It would have been stupid to do that at that time.
But seriously, why couldn’t Abbott have just said he’d speak to the fucker instead of all the hours of bullshit drama with the ending being two much-loved people dead.
While all Abbott did was a press-conference indicating terrorism, instead of what is was, a twit wanting to speak to a fellow twit.
Anyway, we now have another crisis on our hands. Perhaps Jihadis think Julie Bishop is at DFAT.
New thread.
Kezza2
[Anyway, we now have another crisis on our hands. Perhaps Jihadis think Julie Bishop is at DFAT.]
Honestly, things were so much better before this mob got into govt. 😀
Anyhoo talk later
Jules – yes, the same dynamic plays out over and over again.
The other reason not to take the shot through the glass is timing. Remember the Seven studies are opposite the café. If the shooter went straight in the seven cameras would have been there well before the police. The fact the cameras were then in time to take a shot doesn’t mean the police sniper was.
Can someone here give me a definitive answer to the question of whether a disallowance motion in the Senate that ties, succeeds in disallowing the regulation.