Last updated 5th November, 2007. Please observe the access conditions.
Corrupt police and drug testing drivers 2005 :
Victoria Police testing drivers for thought crimes Victoria Police killing a democracy Drug testing Victorian drivers The Major Crime Bill assists corrupt police The CSA demand settlement out of court Slater and Gordon sue their own family law client The Plea bargain Werribee police go on strike Police statistics for Australian states Apology to Iraq and Aborigines New Zealand jails Mossad agents Police Separation of powers Conditioning produces corruption Brief History of Corruption Raymond Hoser Scandalising the Courts Victoria Police strike of 1923 A neutered Ombudsman Common law actus rea and mens rea Homo Statisticus drug testing Anger testing for driversToday Victorian Police began testing drivers for amphetamines and THC. Did they test themselves first before going on duty! Not likely. In September 2007 they agreed to welfare drug testing Compulsary random testing of other Victorians, but voluntary welfare testing for police! These drug tests have nothing to do with a capacity to drive safely, it has to do with a domineering government intent of persecuting citizens and increasing police powers, new laws everyday and the total destruction of civil liberties. In a few years it will be a DNA test for biological predispositions. Victoria Police demand your DNA sample.
Zero tolerance, if you smoked a joint months ago, (even passively inhailed at a party) you could be found guilty of drugged driving. THC stays in the body for months after any mental effect is gone.
THC is not even proven to lessen motor skills for driving, like alcohol. Victoria Australia, leading the world in persecuting citizens for thought crimes. See the Victorian Police propaganda page, that you will die on the roads if you smoked a joint months ago. Police will also convict you for illicit drug use as well as the driving offenses. I
Victorian Police propaganda
Email your local member of the Victoria parliament and bully-boy Bracks who resigned suddenly in 2007 to take up a one day a week job for double a normal five day a week salary. We have
This man also invites feedback on the Police propaganda campaign. Sack the Brack's government and stop the orgy of power hungry politicians with a repressive approach to ban everything, try and outlaw free thought.
Propaganda webpage feedback
On the 6th December, Simon Overland, assistant Police Commissioner released his blueprint for police to wipe out civil liberties in the former Victorian democracy. "Simon says", with the arrogance of a tyrant, that it is OK to do this as he has consulted others. The Premier does NOT seem to have any responsibility to the people who elected him. You did not say in your election campaign Bracks, that you were intent of helping corrupt police to prosper at the expense of democratic civil liberties. On the anniversary of the Eureka Stockade, you tyrant.
"Tackling crime will mean a sacrifice of some civil liberties, police admit" A draft strategy revealed by The Age newspaper targets six laws power hungry police intend to have changed, including the Privacy Act, freedom of Information Act, Evidence Act, Surveillance Devices Act and the Police Regulations Act. This police force tells the Brack's government what to do and Bracks jumps to give it to them. Police claim they need more power to combat organised crime, but they are the worst criminals of all when witnesses against corrupt police, the Hodsons have been murdered in their beds.
Blackstone's famous legal maxim is that. "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," Simon Overland, formally Simon the likeable, has his own power agenda against the best interests of 5 million citizens of Victoria. "Simple Simon" is doing an arrogant autocratic police state re-edit of Blackstone's famous legal maxim to read "It is better for 5 million innocent people to suffer and be wrongly jailed, than for one guilty man to go free. You nasty pea-brain Simon, you and the fat Hog Mullett are a threat to every law abiding citizen.
The doctrine Separation of Powers, a Westminster parliamentary cornerstone and tradition that parliament makes the laws, not megalomaniacs in Victoria police. At the Eureka Stockade 3rd December 2004 dawn ceremony to remember 27 miners killed by mounted police in 1854, the arrogant insensitive police affront the public and relatives of the deceased with their megalomania, parking their "paddy wagon" a few metres away from the memorial and had uniformed police patrolling the periphery, shadowing the crowd from hills above the Stockade site. No doubt, unlike in 1854 the police did not have to call Melbourne or Geelong, to send for more troops. How many extra police were in Ballarat for the weekend 3/12/2004, provoking trouble. If there was any trouble started by ostentatious displays of power symbols at a funeral service for miners murdered by police, aggressive police would just claim they needed more funding to control outlaws. No miners were convicted of anything, yet police still treat their descendants as criminals and the Eureka Stockade as a lawless act, yet miners were men of conscience who fought back against persecution by "scoundrels" in the police force.
The paranoid Victorian government, decided that Victoria would lead the world in testing every citizen for drugs? Andrae Haermayer, the police minister seems paranoid and devoid of any principles to protect human rights. They have allowed indiscriminate testing of Victoria drivers for marijuana and amphetamines with zero tolerance and immediate criminal records. A paranoid campaign of media support showed the father of a family killed by a stoned driver and then announces that drivers will now be tested. We do not dispute that they should throw the book at such a driver, but to choose such an extreme example is malicious and Orwellian doublespeak. What about the millions of drivers now on the road, who do smoke and now will be criminalised because of their biochemistry rather than any wrongful act. Perhaps with a Muslim or Israeli government in majority as John Stuart Mill hinted at, they could test drivers to see if they were impure from eating pork.
In some ways this is worse than police harassment at the Eureka Stockade Mr Premier Bracks. This makes new criminals of those who might be more appropriately treated as having a health problem. Overnight you deem by biochemistry, that many citizens are now criminals. ZERO TOLERANCE Prohibitionist!. What hypocracy to identify himself with Eureka when the police harassment was a big issue with the miners, now police will bail-up every citizen for 10 minutes wanting a sample of their body fluid, the error prone saliva test kits require a blood sample for confirmation. Police will demand a blood sample. How revolting!
Victoria is a paranoid place to live, police engineer fear campaigns with the support of a few feeble scared locals here and there, Frankston or Werribee. See our earlier article on Homo Statisticus, inferring a deterministic guilt based on biochemistry which has nothing to do with responsible behaviour. Victoria Australia, a philosophical nightmare crushing personal liberty, Homo statisticus, inferring deterministic guilt by biochemistry.
What next Bracks, after biochemical guilt, with DNA influences on personality, perhaps you would consider genetic guilt as well, There are no control over the Police use of your just a quick DNA test driver. I don't want to live in the Victoria police state anymore, sick of complaining against constant outrages by Victoria Police and a pathetic capitulating Victorian Labor Government.
Victoria's Premier Mr Bracks, has just given the police another unnecessary weapon, "stun-guns" to use against citizens. Mr Mullett, from the police association, interferes in the democratic process in Victoria. The Police Association continually threatens democracy in Victoria, Mullett has been calling for stun guns since July, despite ubiquitous corruption, no external investigative body and a lame ombudsman, Bracks gives police more power! Premier Bracks, on the 150th Anniversary of police corruption in Victoria, handed the most corrupt police in the nation force another lethal weapon.
Do not pass this proposed bill Mr Bracks or we will think you are in bed with Christine Nixon. Not that her character is ever questioned, but her force is not so trustworthy. Do not give the out-of-control police force the right to further abuse due process. This is so bad for democracy in Victoria, you have forgotten your own history and the electorate, shame Bracks, you have forgotten the long history of the abuse of police power in Victoria. For the Eureka Stockade 150th anniversary, you offer a vulgar amnesia. The police will now have almost every power to abuse citizens who elected you to protect them from corrupt police.
After five months of appeals to the Child Support Agency (CSA)Change of Assessment team, four hundred pages of paper, everything in quadripulicate for filing and four trips to the Family Court and CSA to deliver and file documents, $100 just in ink jet cartridges and about 100 hours work. Total cost for a moderate priced solicitor to do about $5,000. The case is listed for a stay order and departure application on this Monday 6th September 2004 in the Federal Magistrates Court Melbourne.
A lot of time, effort, worry, stress and money to appeal to a court against the arbitrary exercise of power by the Child Support Agency, for the third time! This week the CSA have called me by phone five times demanding that I withdraw my court application or they will oppose it. They posted me the letter below, supposedly an offer to settle on the 1st September 2004 from someone I have never heard of from before Krishna, they sent it by overnight post two working days before the case is due to be heard, though I have made the same points for many months (even years), many times through the useless, long-winded and (corrupt at worst or ignorant at best) CSA change of assessment team COAT.
Apart from the incident of reassessing the nights in care, just after winning numerous court battles on the question of income, I have found Krishna to be reasonable to deal with. Normal "clients" of the child support Agency do not usually get to speak with the same person twice. The higher you go, the more professional the service, but only after you have established that you are entitled to reasonable service, after years of bungling bias from the CSA.
In a case earlier this year, my ex-wife again lied to the child support agency about what her income was. I was having my pay garnisheed on this fraudulent amount. After an appeal to the change of assessment team, and an objection after that to the appeal being declined, you are allowed to appeal to a court.
I appealed to a court and was successful before Chief Federal Magistrate Bryant who has since been promoted to head the family court. Her orders to the Regional Director of the Child Support Agency on 16th April 2004:
Bryant CFM's orders page 2
Bryant CFM's orders page 3
I hand delivered sealed copies of these orders to the CSA offices in Essendon to make sure the regional director knew what amount he should use in assessing child support. Instead of what I expected, I was amazed that the regional director Geoff Mutton would not implement the orders of Bryant CFM.
I received a tedious quantity of letters (I'm only posting two) from the CSA all denying that Bryant's orders applied irrespective of who was the paying parent and dozens which stated that I owed them $2,500 in child support. If I were still employed, this would mean that hundreds would be wrongfully taken from my salary every pay-day as has happened in previous years. I will only list the first couple here: when you are involved with the CSA you need to buy a cabinet to file all their incorrect paper work for later reference.
First denial by CSA that Bryant's orders applied
Regional Director's denial that Bryant's orders applied
May 2004 Reply letter to Regional Director Geoff Mutton.
Then out of the blue after only a few harassing phone calls where I said "Please put it in writing" I received the letter below in a double back flip with a veiled threat from the CSA to accept their terms and drop my case or I would fail in court.
Letter from Krishnakoli from the CSA received 2nd September 2004.
Avoiding Family law solicitors Pages
Legal index family law pages
Slater and Gordon claim to be interested in the little guy and social justice. Slater and Gordon consider themselves the champion of the downtrodden. From their own website we learn that Slater and Gordon is interested in social justice, in my view as an ex family law client, this is a crock of shit.
Slater and Gordon claim they have "never been afraid to take on Australia's biggest companies, governments, the cases that other law firms reject as "unwinnable" or the "little" clients who may struggle to pay their family law legal costs upfront." I am a very "little" client struggling to pay my legal costs to Slater and Gordon and I feel like a bonded slave to the contradiction of their website. When I was wrongfully arrested in connection with a family law matter, your company instead of presuming innocence wrote to me saying I needed psychological counselling and then billed me $200 for that letter!
Before a County Court judge , on appeal, I proved the arrest by a Counstable from Moonee Ponds to be a "Regretable lack of objectivity" and "Unconscionable conduct" as the learned Victorian County Court Judge O stated. Slater and Gordon presumed my guilt, later, even after learning of my innocence, made no apology or withdrawl of bills for saying I needed counselling. They took me to court for unpaid fees, my time to complain to the Professional Association had expired.
Even after learning of my appeal, they kept demanding more money, not answering communication, a bias against a presumption of innocence to their own client!
Slater and Gordon have summoned me again today 30th September 2004 to appear in court in October, for an oral examination of what funds I may have to pay them ongoing (until I die and then my estate), or they will get the sherif to collect the furniture I am sitting on and this old computer. From my view, they practice a legal form of slavery in family law, instead of feeding my children I should pay Slater Gordon. Each time Slater and Gordon summon you to court, they add an extra thousand in costs and you cannot avoid it. After I notified them I could not pay their bill, they continued to act for me and then garnisheed my meager salary for years to pay their bill. Then when I became unemployed they do the same thing again, summon me yet again to court to add another $1,000 in expenses for them on top of the existing bill. So what I had paid off, what was garnisheed from my pay is lost to new fees and charges add infinitum.
They know you are unemployed, because they were garnisheeing your salary.
What can the Sherif take, basically everything except white goods, basic furniture, a car over $5,800 in value, tools over $2,900 in value. If you have any assets hand them over. The legal aid website has some advice for how to deal with the sherif. What the Sherif can take. Our Family Law page of warnings for potential family law clients Heretic Press Family Law Index.
Peter Gordon has been taken to court by a former staff member Mr Mulvany who complained that Peter Gordon awarded himself a one million dollar bonus when his clients who contracted breast cancer from faulty implants received a pittance. Ms Balaam, a bookkeeper and mother of three daughters from Mount Martha in Victoria, said at the time of the settlement that she found it hard to believe the amount could be so little, adding that it would cover less than a third of her medical costs. She now questions whether the firm was acting in her best interests. "It's very shocking to hear and I'm angry," she said. "We did expect a lot more money than I got, but we just thought there was nothing I could do about it and we had to accept it. Now we've heard that, I'm angry."
In 2007, in a secret deal with the Police Association Slater & Gordon for a while represented both sides of a dispute at the same time? A deal with bullies in the police union. The Police Association deal with Slater and Gordon. They have floated on the Australian stockmarket in 2007, solicitors adept at taking client's money, what will be left for shareholders after the advertising after million of dollars in personal fees are deducted. What will shareholders end up with, a lawyers' picnic!
Arrest and conviction rates, as well as their own power seems to be all a significant percentage of police care about. Police standing orders allow discretion, but promotions and rewards come from being harsh, obtaining the best conviction rates and corrupt to achieve that end. Simple psychology really; conditioning, reward them for corruption, any conviction rate (TRUE and FALSE) are of no concern in their thinking. This is what we have had in Victoria for 150 years, since the Eureka Stockade, after which police numbers were drastically cut.
At the Eureka Stockade there was not so much crime by citizens, but a police crime wave when they arrested innocent people to further their own career, punished those they did not like and protected those they did like. Other Australian states now have external investigations of corrupt police and integrity testing to check their honesty Victoria is still in the 1850s on this issue. The consequences for them being so motivated to be corrupt has many social costs for citizens set up and plea bargained, many more subtle ones for feelings of safety and psychological well-being.
Victoria is just the same as Iraq was before the ignorant invaded it, from a civil liberties point of view, the power is just less centralized in one man, the consequences are the same for the citizen assaulted, intimidated and plea bargained to plead guilty for something they did not do, just to help a bent copper on their career path. In Victoria it can go much further than plea bargaining, witnesses against police can be set-up, and even murdered. The injuries and fear, injustice and deprivation of liberty have the same consequences for the individual, no matter who does it to them.
What are the entry requirements personality wise for police? You should be testing all applicants for the police for "social desirability response rates". That is how the average applicant for the police force manages impressions others have about them. This is well known in psychology testing as a means to catch out cheats. So for example would a great arrest and conviction rate be seen as being a great "copper" or maybe something else more sinister? Like Pavlov's dogs but rewarded for treating fellow citizens in a harsh manner, arrests and conviction rates. The ends justify the means if you are rewarded.
"Anything that gets me promoted faster and gets more bad guys off the streets is good. Anything that does not get me arrests and convictions is bad. Take the top 10% of police officers with the highest arrest and conviction rates and grill them on all their convictions, re-interview evidence in some cases. Audit the best 10% before you promote them. In psychological terms, this category might be considered to be the most talented at managing impressions (liars) that others have of them. Some no doubt; will be the best coppers, so reward them appropriately, just audit where public money is going to promote social injustice and audit police arrests and convictions.
The current remuneration promotion package can unwittingly promote lying angry police with selfish interests for their own career that you must do as they say or else!!. A simple set-up for indecent language and then resisting arrest, by police from Fitzroy station, constable Dean approaches you and says "We will drop the resisting arrest charge, if you plead guilty to the indecent language charge. You never swore in the first place" "Piss off constable."
If you are guilty of something, admit it and suffer the consequences, if you are not and do not want to admit it, you may think it is easy, but then you may have not been locked up in a Victorian police cell. You will have already been; humiliated, strip searched, finger printed, charged and kept waiting for hours. Eventually after intimidation and threats, you may say anything and sign anything to get away and then the police are happy with you, you are just another statistic in their advance up through the ranks, with your signed confession in their hands.
Admit nothing and state your innocence and see how they treat you in a Victorian jail.
Plea bargaining is endemic, ubiquitous in Victoria, it is supported by rewards within the police force remuneration and promotion system which actually rewards this behaviour by internal policies; focusing on arrest and conviction rates. No matter how tough you are, a few nights in the cells because police oppose bail because you plead innocent, may soften you up. Don't play their selfish game, don't give a shit about their career brownie points, if you are innocent, stay so.
To overcome the problem, police should be rewarded by successful social interactions with the public. They should be encouraged to diffuse situations, not escalate them because they want brownie points with the boss. They will never get you for one offence, they will get you for three, or maybe a hamburger with the lot, multiple charges. They will always drop a charge if you plead guilty. A paper by Tim Anderson tells of how cell mates got reduced sentences for lying about him being involved in the Sydney Hilton bombing. There are all types of plea bargain. None of them suitable for an innocent man.
Today 28th July in the western Melbourne suburban police station Werribee, police walked off the job. Andre Heymeyer, the police minister, has just flown off to the US. Perhaps to get advice on managing police corruption and the separation of powers. He knows what he is up against. Let him go and Bracks can call in the Federal troops. Let them all go out on strike, they seem to engineer fear campaigns in the community if one of them is injured, maybe not in the execution of their duty, they create fear everywhere of a lawless society in the community. At a citizen's meeting this morning, they spoke of fear supported by police, always wanting more police to control more crime. While they are on strike, internal affairs should monitor each of them, to make sure they are not causing crime waves themselves to support their argument for more police.
What is the current ratio of police to citizens in Werribee? Residents seem to feel unsafe when they see graffiti on a wall. Local citizens scared by police going on strike. Call their bluff Premier Bracks (ring Howard) and call in the local air-force base staff from Laverton to take over. You only need a few dozen officers, if you act quickly. Now Victorian police are arguing that many other stations need more police, not just Werribee. Werribee residents interviewed on ABC Melbourne 774 on 29th July on the morning John Fein show quoted figures of "8 police for every 1,000 residents" according to local residents, this is the state average and Werribee only have 4 police per 1,000 citizens. We couldn't believe the statistics quoted by this group in support of police. We discovered that the usual method of measurement is police per 100,000 head of population. Where are the Werribee residents getting their misleading statistics from?
| State | Sq km | Population | Police Numbers | Police per 100,000 1999 | Police per 100,000 2000 | Square km per policeman |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NSW | 801,600 | 6,716,277 | 17,000 | 210 | 203 | 47.15 |
| Victoria | 228,000 | 4,947,985 | 12,800 | 207 | 203 | 17.8 |
| Queensland | 1,727,200 | 3,754,154 | 7,767 | 214 | 205 | 222.3 |
| South Australia | 984,377 | 1,531,375 | 5,000 | 240 | 232 | 196.8 |
| Western Australia | 2,525,500 | 1,969,046 | 4,000 | 260 | 246 | 631.3 |
| Tasmania | 68,332 | 456,652 | 1,200 | 223 | 228 | 56.08 |
| New Zealand | 267,990 | 4,000,000 | 8,800 | 30.44 |
Further breakdowns of police in each state are possible, sworn and unsworn staff and staff at each rank.A breakdown of ranks, sworn and unsworn officers in each state
In 1999 the average number of police per 100,000 population in Australia was 228, by 2000 it dropped nationally to 202. The only comparison between similar areas and populations size is between Victoria and New Zealand where the Kiwi's have 4,000 less police than Victoria for a similar area of land and slightly smaller population. The Police Association have staged a "walkout" in Frankston for political purposes in the past.
The largest states by land area, need the higher ratios of police Victoria is the opposite, the largest population in the smallest land area, a policing dream compared to Western Australia. We should be the most efficient and have the lowest ratio of police for every 100,000 citizens. We could have another measure of police per 100,000 square kilometre or average area to be patrolled by each officer, in which case Victorian police have the best territory coverage of any Australian or NZ state.
What sort of statistics are Werribee residents quoting that they want "8 police per 1,000 population?" This figure seems born in paranoia rather than reality. If it were extrapolated to the whole state, that would mean 39,000 police. We only have 12,800 presently, so Werribee citizens are supporting a trebling of police numbers based on a false fear, that they have less police than elsewhere.
Do not believe all the police statistics you hear, some are ambit claims just like any union, the police association gets the best it can for its members, but that may not be in the best interests of our democracy, you cannot forget principles of parliamentary rule and the doctrine of separation of powers. You can have extra police in Werribee, if you pay more tax in Werribee. Triple the police budget, with no new crime to report! Don't be forced into a culture of fear or allow yourself to feel intimidated by fear campaigns, lazy, ambitious or corrupt police who seem to be making residents feel unsafe for their own gain, wanting almost 26 new officers at Werribee, along with many other claims. Sack them all, they are far more militant and dangerous to democracy, than the BLF ever were! What hypocracy, saying their is a lot of local crime and then going on strike. Again, where did residents get the statistics of police per 1,000? Maybe they are not all needed? The Victorian Police 1923 strike refusing supervision At least for 80 years. Who are they working for? On the statistics, their budget could be cut in half to get them close to the number of police per square km in NZ NSW or any other Australian state.
Commiserations go to the off-duty policeman caught drink driving last weekend(over .05) at 165Km an hour on the Hume Highway. As Mars approaches your house of justice, a personality change is in store for you for the better, but it will be a carthasis, but just think of all the drivers you have booked for speeding or drink driving who lost their jobs.
Sorry to all the people of Iraq and muslims generally for the historical origin of some of our religious bias. Don't mention the crusades or religion seems to be the currency. Sorry on behalf of many, maybe most Australians (everyone connected with Heretic Press), probably a majority of Australians except Prime Minister Howard. Australians didn't vote for him to go to war against Islam with America. Sorry for invading your country. Our country acted in blind obedience to the US false information about WMD, propagating fear. Our Prime Minister Mr Howard did not ask us what we thought, he by executive decision with cabinet took us with the US, many of us protesting hopelessly against the military madness. We were/are very stupid and would hope to one day earn your forgiveness.
To our own indigenous aboriginal population, we also say sorry we have a leader as Prime Minister of Australia, who will not apologise for the inhumane way governments treated you and tried to "assimilate" or destroy your culture and specifically sorry to the stolen generations of children taken from their parents. I regret that our current Prime Minister Mr. Howard will not take responsibility for his own actions or those of his predecesors in office Mea culpa said the Polish Pope. Sorry to Giordino Bruno, for burning you at the stake in 1600.
Congratulations to New Zealand for restricting diplomatic contact with Israel and putting those Mossad agents in jail who you caught on trial for passport fraud. They will never forget the French Agents killing their citizens in the Rainbow Warrior bombing Join Mossad. See the world and get locked up in foreign countries. We wish Australia had as much guts as New Zealand sometimes. Kia-oraGo Kiwis. Being rebuked by the world court is the greatest challenge to the wall building going on. Don't let them go NZ, remember the French agents who did the rainbow bombing were on holiday almost as national heroes a few years after, what were the Mossad agents up-to with fake identities? What about economic sanctions if Israel will not take the wall down. The US has imposed economic sanctions on Iraq, do it to Israel as well, show how unbiased, impartial and supportive of world governance you are! Mordachai Vanunu A Hebrew heretic recently released from jail, a victim of Cindy the Mossad Agent.
If Israel continues paranoid wall building against a world court order, impose economic sanctions. Is Israel going to ignore the World Court, ignore the history, yet again, were they not around during the Soviet iron-curtain era and the Berlin wall? The rest of the world had this in the mid 1980's, you can't keep them out Israel, you have to learn to live with them and let live in peace. World opinion is crystalising against you. TEAR DOWN YOUR WALL Your children are destroying themselves on drugs dor the have so self pride in your isolationist decisions.
From an economic, political and psychological perspective; walling yourself in is suicide as a nation and for individuals, it is the opposite of adaptation to a changing world, that will leave you isolated, without information or facts, replaced by fear and suspicion. Everything on earth is connected, you can't isolate yourself and still grow mentally, emotionally or psychologically. What must your walled up citizens be feeling? Our self esteem as a nation of Australia seems to suffer when we as a government take aggressive action towards others like Iraq! Yours is the ultimate defence mechanism, a massive concrete wall. Repression theory, defence mechanisms, thinking the worst of others, inability to negotiate? Your wall will cost you more than you seem to appreciate. Anti-diluvian thinking reminiscent of Ronald Regan's star wars protection plan for a stone age civilization.
Today 22nd July 2004 Paul Mullett of the Police Association is demanding an apology from Robert Doyle, the Liberal state opposition leader for suggesting that police might be systematically accessing police files for political purposes. What happened to the rules and procedures in a democracy and separation of powers Paul please, speak to the police minister not directly to the public with a demand to Doyle. How gross, Keep out of politics and do your job, we did not elect you, we elected the police minister and Robert Doyle. The police minister in Queensland was jailed not long after the then Premier Joh Bjelke Peterson could not answer the question of what the doctrine of separation of powers means.
Separation of powers means that no one in any one of the three arms of government should control the other two arms. It essentially means that the parliament, law enforcement and courts are discrete entities, the parliament should not order the police except by legislation, likewise the police cannot demand anything from parliament, like an apology Paul. Even if wrongly accused, you must keep silent. Do you apologise to victims wrongly convicted? "A policeman's lot is not a happy one" Paul, so please let parliamentarians we elect make the laws for us to follow and if you think otherwise, stand for parliament or advocate your position as a citizen.
Would America or England in the West Minster tradition, tolerate a local state cop demanding an apology, from an elected member of Congress? Mr Mullett, what will you do if Doyle ignores your demand, an implicit threat I believe to Robert Doyle and democracy in Victoria. ABC article on the Victorian Police Association power struggle.
Paul Mullet of the Victorian Police Association is calling today 12th July 2004, for greater fire power, semi-automatic arms(faster on the draw and re-loading 17 shot magazines) for his men. Fair Dinkum Paul, you should have no guns at all, like the English beat police. You are not being outgunned on the streets, your members are being corrupted on the streets and internally from within VicPol. Your members have killed too many citizens unnecessarily already!
You really need a bazooka each Paul, just in case a criminal has an army tank! Try and be a little more conciliatory towards the population, forget about more power for your members, you do not disserve that level of trust on your members performance recently or historically. May your request for more fire-power-backfire and turn into full integrity testing, a raw capsicum and maybe a bow and arrow each, less likely to accidently discharge. Keep your weapons for experts on a few minutes alert. Anyway the 38 revolvers are more reliable mechanically? Ya canna hand a man a grander spanner!
Paul Mullet calling for stun guns
Monash University criminology department contacts.
Your specialist squads: Special Operations Group SOG; scrutinise the recruitment process to weed-out aggressive psychopaths,(social desirability response set testing, relationships, the full Myers's Briggs etc. etc.)
Spend on SOG training and let them have whatever weapons they want, but we don't want you and some of your psychologically damaged megalomaniac members with a pocket-full of evaded speeding fines, strolling down Swanston Street with bazookas on your hips, like it was high-noon. Mr Mullet, you have more front than Myers, to think we can be distracted by such a red-herring, from the long history and current corruption in the Victorian Police Force by your requests for more powers resources and money. Some of your members cannot be trusted to conduct a chook raffle in a pub, or last week a footy tipping competition.
Victoria's Premier Mr Bracks and his police minister Haermayer seem to be stuck in a historical waggon rut on the road laid down by the police association. Maybe like some others, he has received police issue bullets in the mail with his name engraved on them, or maybe some other intimidation tactics? We have seen that politicians are not immune from gangland reprisals. Donald McKay was a courageous crime fighter, who gave his life as a politician in vain, to try and stop the drug trade, may he (RIP) If Bracks or his police minister, have not been threatened by the Police Association, why have they done so little?
Call John the Prime Minister (he would love to help a state labour leader!) and ask him to send in the troops, like the Federal government did in 1923, when Victorian Police went on strike refusing supervision from "spooks". There is a precedent in 1923 for sending in the local army, navy and air force staff to replace Victorian Police. Victoria is a much closer place to send the troops than Iraq. Mr Howard felt an impelling need to go O/S and rescue people, rescue us in Victoria first please Mr "never say sorry" Howard. Citizens are beaten, set-up and killed by tyrants, plea bargained to plead guilty, threatened and intimidated, assaulted, raped and murdered by psychopathic elements in Victoria Police. As far as we know, Victoria has no weapons of mass destruction, but corrupt police we have a-plenty, are we any different from Iraq? We just have lots of little Sadams all over the place instead of a single one. Each one is king of their own territory and can do what they like to citizens they dislike for their own profit or set-up merely to enhance their conviction and arrest rates.
In classical conditioning, the bell is rung and the dog is fed. In operant conditioning the bell is rung and the dog is fed (or punished) depending on what it is doing at the time. There can be negative and positive rewards depending on the dog's behaviour at the time. If the bell rings when the dogs barks and it is then fed, it will bark much more. Behaviour rewarded with a pleasant outcome will be repeated more often. Behaviour punished will be repeated less often. The frequency that the reward or punishment is given for certain behaviour determines the persistence of the behaviour. Partial reinforcement schedules (the dog is sometimes fed when it barks) have the longest extinction times for the behaviour to disappear when it is no longer rewarded or punished.
Unfortunately police are rewarded for arrests, convictions and being corrupt, not for assisting the public or preventing crime. There is no negative consequence or reinforcement for them being corrupt, they personally benefit from being corrupt, there is no active investigation team or integrity testing, no negative reinforcement for corruption and the rewards are many. There must be some negative consequences to have any hope of curbing criminal behaviour by police. The swiftness and certainty of detection is not there, they rarely arrest themselves, they almost never "dob"(turn whistelblower) on each other (Karl Konrad being a rare exception).Karl Conrad an honest cop.
If you take any personality type, it can be corrupted by the reinforcement of always getting away with corruption, but take an antisocial psychopathic power hungry personality, reward it for being very hard on citizens and what will you get? Pay peanuts and get gentle monkeys (English Bobbies), pay coconuts, drugs and firepower; you get psychopathic killer gorillas. No integrity testing or external investigations body = a green light for corruption. A strong investigations team and integrity testing could redress the balance of negative reinforcement. The best deterrence and negative reinforcement for crime is the swiftness and certainty of detection. The extinction rate of criminal behaviour consistently rewarded for years would be very long indeed. Can corrupt police be reformed at all? Criminals are known to be recidivists and they do not get rewarded for crime as consistently as police can be! Will they be jailed? The ombudsman is a paper-tiger; police must be laughing, they can tap phones but not those supposed to have competence to investigate them.
If you have never had occasion to come into contact with Victoria Police, you are lucky and may think; they couldn't be that bad, or that only criminals would get any trouble from them, you are sadly wrong. Heretic Press has no staff members with any criminal convictions, (WE DEFINITELY HAVE NO WEAPONS EITHER EXCEPT WORDS "The pen is mightier than the sword we hope") but we have unfortunately had too much experience trying to deal with corrupt Victorian police. A frustrating, degrading and humiliating experience with no other authority to turn to, except police themselves.
Apart from their inglorious history and our own anecdotal experience, evidence keeps accumulating that they have a higher proportion of very bad apples than they will ever care to admit:
from the lowest constable in the window shutter scandal involving hundreds of police and more recently in July 2004, 750 police evading parking/speeding fines, including many higher officers, like the drug squad disbanded for endemic corruption. We see good police who have the job of investigating other police, intimidated
and crying on Australian Story that they never know if they will meet a handshake or a gun from their "colleagues". We have illegal handguns and shotguns concealed in many police stations around the state. It is common anecdotal knowledge that these weapons are put into the hands of
unarmed citizens after the police have shot them dead and a shot fired off into the wall, so that the police can later claim self defence. The very bad apples shoot far too many of the citizens they are charged to protect and Mr Mullet wants more firepower for all of them! Hardly objective Mr Mullet, preserving the status quo of corruption and propergating fear in society. More firepower for general members is excessive. When were you outgunned by criminals? When we hear you asking for something, we are suspicious, your self interest seems devoid of morality or accountability to the people you are supposed to serve, before the interests of the Victorian police association which seems to be your only interest.
The Police Association opposes disbanding of drug squad
Police force used against protestors
Police bullies cause payout for discrimination and harassment
They have a long history of corruption going right back to the foundation of Victoria, but we never remember the lessons of our parents and grandparents who could tell us more about the history of the Victorian Police Force.
Some notes from Michael Tuohy about Victoria Police behaviour after the Eureka Stockade in 1854.
Back in Ned Kelly's time 120 years ago and 30 years before that at the Eureka stockade, Police murdered miners armed with shovels. As brave as Ned Kelly remember that, none seem as brave as Ned Kelly these days, but Ned had no choice after a policeman Fitzpatrick who had it in for Ned (assaulted Ned's sister) jailed his mother for three years and accused Ned of shooting him. Ned took to the bush to become Australia's most famous bush ranger. When pushed to the wall by corruption that is allowed to prosper some victims of outrageous laws and police corruption, having lost everything can be expected to fight back against corrupt police.
The Eureka stockade was also in Victoria 150 years ago, brought about by unfair autocratic government, gold mining fees and a brutal corrupt police force, the state hasn't learnt anything from history. Maybe if you were attuned more to local history Premier Bracks you would be in touch with public sentiment on this issue. You seemed to be dragged screaming and kicking against every move against corruption until public pressure forces your hand. Not a very good look!
Our great-grand-parents and could tell us more Victorian police ethics in the 1920's and the Police strike of 1923. Eighty years ago, complaints about police led to the introduction of "Spooks" plain clothed police to supervise the beat policemen in the metropolitan area led to the strike.
The Police strike of 1923 is an important historical example of an extreme organisation that has feathered its own nest and consistently refused any supervision for at least 80 years. In fact nothing has changed for 150 years. The Victorian police can with impunity intimidate and even execute anyone they think may spoil their party, especially witnesses prepared to testify against them, while ordinary citizens are locked up because the Brack's government does not understand principles of justice or civil liberties and is without any moral responsibility persecuting anyone whose biochemistry does not match the demanded standard.
More recently, a few decades ago, there was a half-hearted investigation, the Beech inquiry into Police corruption in Victoria which seems to have disappeared from history as an aberration confirming the status quo is fantastic. A paper by Tim Anderson who was set up for the Sydney Hilton bombing by police informers who wanted to have their sentence reduced. Presented to Civil Liberties Victoria at Melbourne University in 1991 on Police corruption linked to witness immunity.
In 1995, 550 officers were disciplined, (how many got away with it?) this is more than the 5% the Police association quotes as being the bad apple component, a few were sacked or resigned. Only two faced criminal charges.
One company was found to have paid $144,000 over 13 months to police for bypassing the formal shutter allocation system. The Police Ombudsman, Barry Perry, concluded that many police supervisors, station commanders and sergeants, had been lazy and inept or tolerated low standards of ethical behaviour.
Age article on police corruption.
Federal government censorship and Victoria Police, censorship in 2007.
Warning, This website is visually disorientating and uses blinking side banners which could cause an epileptic fit. A summary of corruption incidents. Are Raymond Hoser's books on police corruption in Victoria still very difficult to buy in Victorian bookshops, if so why? Are police removing them and acting as censors to keep the public in the dark. Why did Rob Hulls prosecute Raymond Hoser for bringing the courts into disrepute? It is a thin line between fair public comment and saying that judge x was corrupt as Raymond was apt to. If judges were corrupt, who could he tell? No freedom of speech or fair public comment concerning persons in judicial office?
Isaacs and Rich JJ in Bell v Stewart held that the occasions on which the jurisdiction of contempt would be exercised would be exceptional. They added that would be so because in this category of contempt what occurs "is primarily abuse only, from which the good sense of the community is ordinarily a sufficient safeguard." So abuse seems OK, provided it does not look too credible in a printed text (forward written by a politician), the more substantial the abuse, the more likely you can be convicted for scandalising the court.
We do not aim to denigrate the courts, it seems you can be sued where the information is read not where it is published, so there might be no advantage in US publication and the Bill of Rights, if the information is read in Nazi Germany, you can be sued there. Just as Joe Gutnick managed to do. (Joe Gutnick's sued a US Site from Australia) Where is the server? Is it the author's fault, the ISP's fault? editor's, Owner's, if it's hosted on a US server, can the Aussie still claim US publication through the Library of Congress registration system and international ISBN book numbers. Murky water indeed, go for it weasles. He said further that Hoser's statements relating to Judge A and Judge B have a tendency to undermine the confidence of the public in the administration of justice and to lower the authority of the courts.
On this reasoning every credible critic of the legal system who names a judge as corrupt could be locked away, Heretic Press tries to confine itself to comments on the courts interpretation of legislation and to advocate parliamentary reform on issues of general social justice and issues for parents. We would contend that false published accusations of corruption could lead to an action for defamation, nothing more. Anyway, we will digress from suggesting that any judges are corrupt, but you would expect that the personalities in the ranks of solicitors and barristers they are appointed from are fair game for public comment. You would think so, but in 2007 a National Crime Authority chairman Peter Faris QC was been ostracised by the legal profession for claims of drug taking solicitors. In 2007 Victoria Police also tried to stop publication of a book by a former barrister Andrew Fraser which discussed some Victorian Police corruption.
And the rest of the world thought we were a democracy, a sort of a "Biff Sign here or I'll Give ya a clip under the ear" type Big Brother. An intrusive demon-ocracy without firm principles for human rights. One where the PM has too much power never intended by the Constitution of Australia, an Act of the British parliament. "Tally Ho me limey mateys", we have no Bill of Rights. We do need an American like Bill of Rights which guarantees basic freedom of speech. If Raymond's assertions are correct, he has been convicted by a biased judiciary and jury and then convicted again for writing about it, perhaps with emotional indiscretion on specific judicial processes and staff. Perhaps a double indignity and injustice. It is not a criteria of the legal system that everyone involved in it will be honest, it does not rise or fall with an individual's corruption.
Hoser has been harassed by police and ridiculed for years, but he has been saying how corrupt Victorian police are long before the current attention they are getting and that is only because witness against police have been murdered. One police investigation into the camera surveillance in this murder, concluded that better cameras were needed (they already have offsite recording), they have turned a double murder (perhaps by one of their own members) into a police plea to the government for more funding, they always seem to get more funding and be less accountable. Copies of Raymond's books seem readily available in other states, but they relate to corruption in Victoria, who ensures these books are not stocked in Victorian book stands, a rhetorical question only!
Today, 1st July 2004, we have yet more revelations of large numbers of police (750) police trying to avoid paying speeding and traffic fines, an arrogance they get from their working personality no doubt. Some had engaged in"improper conduct" to try and avoid paying fines. Can the rest of Victoria's citizens do the same thing? No bloody way, but police do what they like, small "improper" conducts are merely the visible tip of the iceberg of an arrogant criminal attitude. "I'm a cop, I make the rules, I can do what I like" With a current force of 12,800 employees, and assuming they were not all caught for this one category of corruption and evasion of civic responsibility, the corruption rate for this abusive attitude on the road is about 6%. We submit firstly, that they should be setting the best examples and their behaviour should warrant harsher penalities than an ordinary citizen. Secondly, that the attempts to evade are pernicious, devious and symptomatic of entrenched arrogant attitudes that the law does not apply to them and can be evaded.
This is really distressing for honest citizens, at a 6% or greater rate of borderline anti-social personality disorders, your chances are (from evidence of fare evasion alone), that almost one in every ten police you meet will be rotten to the core. They are in positions of power to cause a lot of the crime. The power of this group for graft and corruption far exceeds its numerical members, they out-punch for their weight you might say. 6% is the most conservative minimum, The internal investigations team should immediately be auditing every other category of attendance of police to complaints against off-duty police. Assaults, drunken disorderly, etc. Every instance of the public phoning the police to complain about the behaviour of off-duty police and every formal complaint made. What are real statistics for all offences by police on or off-duty? If we work with the few figures we have and extrapolate some conservative guess-estimates.
Total current Victoria Police Force Members 12,800. Estimate of the percentage of Police involved in corruption? 1995 Windows shutter fraud 550 police. (% percentage still currently serving? estimated 50% or 275 officers.
| Crime | Police Numbers |
|---|---|
| Window shutter fraud | 275 |
| Fine evasion | 750 |
| Disbanded drug squad | 30 approx |
| Drink driving speeding | 6 approx |
| Rigging footy tipping competitions | 1 |
| Other offences by off-duty police | 30 approx |
| Complaints Ombudsman | 300 approx |
| Complaints Internal Affairs | 300 approx |
| Total Offences | 1692 |
These figures are so incomplete, such a small percentage of police get caught and because of the power they have, over life and death, many people fear making a complaint against them. Many complaints cannot be made because for example; to get out of the Police station you might be forced with threats of assault and/or real battery to "SIGN HERE OR BACK TO THE CELLS" to say you were treated well. Perhaps black and bruised after humiliation and deprivation of liberty, you will sign. Try and prove duress against counter evidence from four or a half-a-dozen prepared to purger themselves, so as never to be rolled, never to know how wrong their psychopathology is and a dereliction of their civic and professional duty. The constable may even oppose your bail application, to keep you at his station and beat you in local cells a bit longer. In Moonee Ponds Police station in Melbourne, police seem to strip search everyone they bring in the door for any offence at all. They intimidate with a program of degradation (including strip-searches with disposable gloves). A large quantity of drugs from a raid were stolen by bent police from Moone Ponds and St. Kilda police stations. They will intimate you and violate every criminal law they should be upholding, while they are stealing drugs from criminals they raided.
August 30, 2001 500 ecstasy tablets stolen from police complex. 2001 The Sunday Age reported that police discovered that up to 500 ecstasy tablets worth $25,000 had been stolen from protected areas of the St Kilda Road police complex and another batch of designer pills was missing from Moonee Ponds police station.
As Corina Horvath who had her nose broken and was assaulted by police for a traffic infringement might tell you, police acting outside their duties are personally responsible if acting ultra vires, outside their power. Try and get them to prosecute themselves for assault, suing them for damages will not work. The government takes no responsibility if Police assault or kill you, you can sue them as individuals, but they seem to declare bankruptcy. The government should be responsible for law and order and not the privatised system we have of private companies owning prisons. For some examples of what "unconscionable" police conduct can bring to a family law dispute, our family law pages Family Law Pages
Bracks has appointed Tony Fitzgerald but he had much more power in the Queensland purge of corruption) as the ombudsman assistant with a limited portfolio, a token effort from Bracks. The ombudsman has no investigative expertise, he must wait for things to come to his desk. The Federal government has refused to give the ombudsman's office power to tap phones which makes this appointment a laughable joke. What about a separate investigative body with full police powers, and especially integrity testing of all police. The police must be the most upright citizens, held in high esteem and respect. Testing them all for integrity would be the most fantastic way to clean up the force. Why can't it be done as it is in other Australian states? Why have you done so little Bracks? It seems the ombudsman is like a band-aid for internal bleeding that requires more drastic surgery. Even Peter Costello, a federal parliamentarian has complained about the execution of witnesses due to give evidence about corrupt police.
Testing that people's biochemistry fits in with stereotypes of drug users destroys long established common law principles that a guilty act requires a guilty mind. There is no proof that many substances inhibit reaction times or driving ability, alcohol accepted as an exception, not the rule, many other chemicals have no such association with slow or degraded motor skills. Correlation does not imply causation. The UK Transport Research Laboratory in August 2000, found that pot-smoking has a minimal if not beneficial effect on driving performance! What is the real evidence!
The Brack's government seems to be devoid of moral principles or knowledge of civil liberties, or the history of common law. Unfortunately, we have no Bill of Rights in Australia, no guaranteed freedom of speech, life or liberty, just the old common law notions like habeus corpus Latin. You must have the body. The Victorian government is legislating away the few common law principles we had. Bracks aims by acts of parliament to deprive us of our liberty without good cause and is demolishing hundreds of years of established legal principles, meant to protect citizens from the exercise of arbitrary power. New laws on victim-less crimes, breach our common law rights with legislation. The common law required for you to be held guilty of a crime, you had to have a mental intent mens rea (guilty mind) and an actus rea (guilty act). This is part of the maxim 'actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea' The mental element, over and above basic intent, which has to be proved in any criminal case for the prosecution to succeed. See DPP v Lynch [1975] AC 653.
Crimes of specific liability like speeding, do not require any mental state to go with the act for a crime to be proved. It does not matter why you were speeding or that you have a clear conscience. Crimes of strict liability were limited to misdemeanors and less serious non indictable offences which did not carry a jail sentence.
Until now, major crimes(some argument about murder by omission to act) still required the mens rea and the actus rea and that the level
of mental responsibility needed to prove the crime went through levels of mental intent;
Grossly recklessness as to the consequences of your actions
Recklessness as to...
Gross negligence as to...
Negligence as to...
Intentionally acting so to...
Malice aforethought, intentionally
These mental states determined the criminal level of responsibility for your actions, eg whether you are charged with murder of the lesser crime of manslaughter depends on the mental intent.
There is also the consideration of diminished responsibility, that your judgement was so impaired and defences of necessity or self defence of yourself or another.
Bracks brought in new laws on 1st June 2004 for Dangerous driving causing death which require no mental element for a conviction
These common law legal principles seem to have all been abandoned by the Victorian Brack's government which gives comfort to corrupt police and gangland murders, by refusing to do anything substantial about it., Substantial and continual allegations of corrupt police are nothing new, the police association has always refused any proper supervision, they have refused to be drug tested themselves or to have an independent investigator. When trying to deliver a complaint to the Footscray Police station internal investigations officer a policeman who I now have more faith in, the constable on the front desk refused to pass on my documentation to internal affairs unless I told him what is was about. "If you don't tell me, I'll throw it in the bin". He stops complaints at the front desk from getting to police who may be trying to do their best against corruption. The attempt to cover up corruption is emdemic and ubiquitous at the lowest grass roots level! They have taken this attitude as a group for at least 80 years.
Now we have criminality by statistical membership of a group: Homo Statisticus based on our biochemistry, no wrongful act is required at all. Testing drivers for a variety of drugs creates new offences with statistical probabilities, but no actual victims, we are all at the mercy of a government devoid of principles, running scared from the Police.
You have no right to prosecute for anything other than a guilty act, a guilty mind is not enough. Even conspiracy laws require some progress towards a wrongful act. So if you smoke a joint and drive, you could be guilty of two separate offences and on a positive test, will the police march you home and turn your house up-side-down, probably. No matter that you could juggle and walk on your hands with the dexterity of a circus act and be a very responsible driver on the roads, Much better than someone else with the"right" biochemistry and a bad attitude. Bracks is attempting to deprive us of liberty based on prejudice and statistical membership of a group. The thin edge of the wedge should be decisively resisted at the ballot box and the Liberal opposition are looking stronger on corruption than Bracks dares to be.
The British had a slightly (not much though) more enlightened competency based approach to maintaining common law rights and civil liberties for their citizens, by testing drivers for competency first, before drug testing. Drivers being tested for stonedness must estimate the passage of 30 seconds, walk a straight line while watching their feet, have their pupils examined for dilation or constriction, and finally be forced to stand on one leg with their head tilted back, eyes shut, arms extended, and touch their nose three times with each hand. (This last one is not easy even for the very sober - try it.) Perhaps most importantly, officers are instructed to pay attention for "herb-like smells" during the tests. Those who fail any aspect of the test must provide a blood sample (errr no thanks, I refuse this invasion of my person and would cop the wrong label rather than the physical humiliation of a physical puncture wound by police medical assistants) I would urge all others to do the same, unless you condone invasive, threatening criminal police jabbing you with needles, sucking your blood with delight, how revolting and disgusting you seem to be becoming Bracks) Failing or refusing the blood sample brings a conviction for "drugged driving."
When you lock people up because of their biochemistry you do not take into account the consequence in the future when others follow your blind lead trying to control citizens in advance before they do anything wrong, DNA profiling and genetic developments may give you cause to go much further, destroying what little common law rights to liberty that we currently have. On the British test our marijuana smoking driver might pass the test and why not accept this, rather than bigoted bias that all drug users are unfit to do anything in society. Another stupid stereotype of drug users that does not fit with research of marijuana not impairing drivers performance, but society is happy if they are artists, we benefit from their productivity and creativity. What about LSD which is excreted in the urine long before the mental effects wear off, you may have a negative test but be "offyaface".
Lock up all the artists, writers, poets, musicians and every drug user you can find, what a cultural desert of intolerance Bracks. An extreme example of this on the streets is testing pedestrians for drugs. This is already happening in Melbourne CBD where police patrol the streets with sniffer dogs to detect unworthy citizens who have been using illicit drugs. This is a police state, no doubt about it, no matter what they do, the police claim they need more funding, no supervision or integrity testing thanks. We could lock some people up at birth on this reasoning. We think that you are genetically predisposed to aggression, so we should lock you up before you run-a-muck, like the previous Victorian government did to Garry Web, a troubled man bent on self harm with no good will towards others. They locked him up indefinitely, after his sentence was completed until he killed himself in detention. Drivers could be judged on their genetic makeup, if they are more likely than average to be reckless, alcoholics or suffer mental stress.
What about attitude or anger testing, "Pull over driver" I'm just going to abuse you verbally and see that you are not likely to react with road rage. Stop us all on the side of the road to perform a full Myers Briggs personality assessment. Driver you scored three standard deviations above the mean for recklessness in your personality profile. You are guilty of an offense of being more likely than others to drive in a reckless manner. Homo Statisticus.
Attitudes cannot be tested so easily as biochemistry, yet they are the major cause of all accidents, if you are too stoned, you should not drive, yet Mr Smith has good clean biochemistry but is very aggressive when driving, he is more dangerous than anyone else. Biochemistry has nothing to do with individual competence or responsibility for actions. One heroin addict may be driving normally after a hit that makes them feel normal, another novice user may be wasted by the same dose and LSD can be totally excreted in the urine long before the mental effects wear off. You cannot judge us all as animals with the same response and tolerance to the same drugs, you must test for competence not biochemistry.
Dear John Stewart Mill,
We are in need of your voice; to with philosophical authority, by reason dispel the enforcement of morals that is currently in the ascendency, we need philosophical principles
of individual liberty, due process and independent corruption investigations, reason why we should en-mass stand up to the government of Victoria who exercise power for the sake of it over every citizen.
They lock up their citizens for victim-less crimes. They do not allow racial vilification or religious intolerance, but judge people based on what food they like to consume.
Some foods are prohibited by law, as if GOD were in charge as said Eateth not ye the fruit of the tree of knowledge". They attribute a guilty mens rea to people by allocating them to a statistical group based on their body fluid colour, what they eat and drink. Every citizen can be DNA tested at birth and statistical assessments made of their probable outcomes, in nurturing and unfavourable environments. Based on the assessment after 18 years of nurturing albeit good or bad, they can be behaviour ally and biologically reassessed and assigned to a class, work, prison, or drug modification, much like the Brave New Work of Aldus Huxley. Citizen's have few cost effective rights to due legal process, natural justice or the right to go peacefully about their utilitarian business.
In Victoria Australia, our Premier Steve Bracks seems by his in-action to have received a bullet in the mail, running scared with his Police Minister, even sending the Police minister overseas, get him out of the place. The police should all be immediately drug tested with the equiptment that should never be used on the public, to show immediately which police have drug problems. An independent police investigations body should be set up with integrity testing and routine sting operations to detect corrupt police. Victoria, a police state, making new classes of statistical criminals with no guilty mind and no victims. Homo Statisticus Bracks. Can you can forsee the implications of testing biochemistry as if it were prescriptive of guilty behaviour. Determinism is in fact what you advocate. We are free to think otherwise and take personal responsibility for our own actions and be the owners of our own unique biochemistry. See for example Oliver Sacks whose definition for individuality is a combination of unique neural circuitry and biochemistry. How far away is this from an Orwellian nightmare of "Thought Crimes" Mr Bracks?
Victoria, who would want to live here, a criminal with money to bribe police perhaps, how do the rest of us tolerate criminal behaviour from police? The answer is that a few of us are murdered and the rest go to jail for something they did not do.
Wait until there is guilty act before locking up the citizens you are supposed to protect.
2005 Editorials Police corruption :
Raymond Hosier's website. Books and information that has been difficult to get in Victoria
Gangland Link to Police
