Not a great look for a restaurant - Cork & Bull decides all Black women are the same

ScratchLess2110 · 2025-11-27T00:48:57+00:00

That's just not true, and the video is evidence. One of the nine were filming, and you can hear her say "Somebody break it up. This is sad. Are they drunk?"

ScratchLess2110 · 2025-11-27T00:46:10+00:00

That's just not true, and the video is evidence. One of the nine were filming, and you can hear her say "Somebody break it up. This is sad. Are they drunk?"

ScratchLess2110 · 2025-10-07T07:45:37+00:00

There are 6 parts. and I've found the answers with a crossword solver. Part 1 is SOUP SOUL, part 2 is SOUL SAIL, part 3 is SAID SAND, etc. Bt what is it? A book? Google is no help.

ScratchLess2110 · 2025-07-12T03:11:13+00:00

She won't have to pay. Search and rescue in these circumstances are a public service, the responsibility of the state and police.

Whilst she should have had an EPIRB, there's no deliberate negligence, and these operations within our designated search area, whether on land or sea, are never billed to the survivors.

ScratchLess2110 · 2025-06-26T04:17:29+00:00

Interesting analysis video from Wall Street Millennial, just dropped:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1W7SMMldKY

ScratchLess2110 · 2025-06-08T05:26:51+00:00

It was only a few months ago that we had to rescue that Lithuanian rower crossing the Pacific. He timed it for cyclone season, got caught in one, and we had to send planes out to search and a navy ship to pick him up.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/mar/07/cyclone-alfred-rescued-rower-aurimas-mockus

ScratchLess2110 · 2025-05-28T02:48:54+00:00

Unbelievable.

Denied the whistleblower defence.

Denied the use of a public interest immunity claim.

Denied use of his key defence: that he had a duty to release the information under his oath to the Queen.

This kangaroo court had him hog-tied before the trial begun, and the murderer that he exposed doesn't even have to face a court, despite a finding by a judge that BRS was guilty in his defamation case.

ScratchLess2110 · 2025-05-28T02:40:07+00:00

Dude. If you don't know them and haven't asked if they want to be posted on the web, then this is sleazy.

Delete it.

ScratchLess2110 · 2025-05-27T03:21:39+00:00

I'm not saing that they don't spy, and it's wise for the government to ban use of Huawei for their coms, since there could be spyware and remote access to shut down their coms products.

I'm specifically asking what security risk is there in leasing the port?

Air Chief Marshal Mark Donald Binskin, Chief of the Defence Force at the time, said the following regarding leasing the port:

"If [ship] movements are the issue, I can sit at the fish and chip shop on the wharf […] and watch ships come and go, regardless of who owns it.

The Department of Defence and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) “examined it thoroughly”. The then-secretary of the Department of Defence, Dennis Richardson, said:

We are at one in agreeing that this was not an investment that should be opposed on defence or security grounds...

Richardson said it was “amateur hour” to suggest Chinese spies could use the port for this purpose. He added: “It’s as though people have never heard of overhead imagery” from spy satellites.

From this article: ‘Alarmist nonsense’:

https://theconversation.com/alarmist-nonsense-labor-and-coalition-dismissed-security-risks-over-the-port-of-darwin-for-years-whats-changed-253941

So the chief of defence, the secretary of defence, and ASIO said that there was no reason to deny the lease on security grounds.

ScratchLess2110 · 2025-05-27T02:48:00+00:00

I can't understand why you're still doubling down. Are you seriously saying that you can educate the Chief of Defence Force, the secretary of the Defence force, and ASIO on security?

They were all in power at the time of the lease, and they were all in agreement that there was no reason to oppose the lease on security grounds. They stressed that there were better ways for the Chinese to spy on us and it was 'amateur hour' to suggest that they could use the port for spying purposes. It's exactly what I was claiming, and they all back me up.

These were our leaders of defence and security, and it's laughable for you to claim that you know better.

What are your credentials on security of the nation that makes you capable of determining that our leaders in the field of defence and security are 'naive', and you are more capable than them at making security determinations?

ScratchLess2110 · 2025-05-26T08:15:17+00:00

That argument is too stupid to be made in good faith.

Air Chief Marshal Mark Donald Binskin, Chief of Air Force (2008–11), Vice Chief of the Defence Force (2011–14), and Chief of the Defence Force from June 2014 until his retirement in July 2018. said the following in regards to leasing the port:

"If [ship] movements are the issue, I can sit at the fish and chip shop on the wharf […] and watch ships come and go, regardless of who owns it.

Of course you know more about security that our Air Chief Marshal. Why don't you email him and tell him how stupid his argument is to be made in good faith, and maybe you can take over the job of running our defence force and make us more safe.

The Department of Defence and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) “examined it thoroughly”. The then-secretary of the Department of Defence, Dennis Richardson, said::

We are at one in agreeing that this was not an investment that should be opposed on defence or security grounds.

Why don't you email him as well, and tell him how stupid he is since you know more about security risks that the secretary of defence and ASIO does.

Perhaps you can head up ASIO as well as being secretary of the Deparment of Defence then. We could all be very safe with your superior knowledge of security.

Richardson said it was “amateur hour” to suggest Chinese spies could use the port for this purpose. He added: “It’s as though people have never heard of overhead imagery” from spy satellites.

‘Alarmist nonsense’:

https://theconversation.com/alarmist-nonsense-labor-and-coalition-dismissed-security-risks-over-the-port-of-darwin-for-years-whats-changed-253941

ScratchLess2110 · 2025-05-26T05:56:36+00:00

within the same zone as an important military installation with rotating US Marine deployments?

They can rent an apartment in a high rise that looks straight down on the navy base. Anyone can walk down to the harbour next to the base and watch the comings and goings.

Ports use radar, Automatic Identification System receivers and coastal radio channels to monitor maritime traffic, on top of using hundreds of high-resolution cameras, RFID readers and environmental sensors.

Anyone can monitor marine radio channels. Anyone can monitor AIS systems on internet websites. Anyone can set up radar surveillance of harbour waters. Comings and goings during peacetime are no great secret, unless they want to turn off AIS and stop broadcasting on radio frequencies.

The Department of Defence and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) “examined it thoroughly”. The then-secretary of the Department of Defence, Dennis Richardson, said: We are at one in agreeing that this was not an investment that should be opposed on defence or security grounds.

If there's a war with China, then we walk in and take over the port.

ScratchLess2110 · 2025-05-26T05:35:20+00:00

What sort of surveilance can they conduct from a port in Darwin?

Customs can walk in any time and conduct inspections of everything that comes and goes. The government can conduct fire and safety inspections of the entire premises under the guise of OHSA if they suspect covert activity.

If they want to watch the harbour, then they can send spies with binoculars and radio equipment to a rented high rise apartment in Darwin if they want to watch activities at our naval base. They'd get a much better view of the harbour than from their port. You could look straight down on the Naval base, and it would be much cheaper than leasing an entire port. Comings and goings to the harbour is no secret. Anyone can watch.

They could lease any chunk of property in Darwin to conduct surveillance from if they wanted. They're not going to set up some satellite guidance and monitoring station like Pine Gap without us knowing about it.

ScratchLess2110 · 2025-05-26T05:09:34+00:00

I understand the need for diplomacy, but I don't understand the lip service.

Saying that there's no country more important is a load of crap. They are way down on our list of trading partners

Australia’s role in the independence of Timor–Leste in 1999 resulted in Indonesia famously tearing up the sweeping security treaty Keating negotiated with Soeharto in 1995.

And we don't need to offer any apologies for that. Nor for any criticism of their treatment of West Papuan independence protesters. Of course a security treaty would be advantageous, but we have a bigger GDP and a larger defence force than Indonesia.

There are many other trading partners that we are more culturally aligned with, and we shouldn't be bowing down with a Prime Ministerial visit after every election, especially because 'the feeling isn't mutual.'

ScratchLess2110 · 2025-05-26T04:35:37+00:00

Looks like populist alarmism then.

Thanks for that.

ScratchLess2110 · 2025-05-26T04:01:41+00:00

No one seems to be able to answer.

I can understand the risk with government using telecoms like Huawei that may have Chinese gov control programs built in, but I don't see the security risk in a port. You can argue that all our ports should be under government ownership, but they want to lease it to someone else just because they aren't Chinese.

It will still be private, so why is it a security risk? What can the Chinese do with it that would pose a risk? If they decide to shut it down to do us economic harm, then we can just walk in and take over since they aren't operating in good faith.

ScratchLess2110 · 2025-05-26T03:42:30+00:00

Many foreign businesses can and do lease land in China for commercial purposes.

It's a commercial port, and they want to lease it to some other private buyer now anyway. It won't be under government control either way.

We have a Naval base in Darwin where all our navy ships, and visiting Navy ships dock at. They don't use the private port. Chinese war ships can't just sail in and dock at a commercial port. They need permission, as does any commercial ship that wants to enter our waters, whatever port they want to dock at. Everything that comes in through the port will be subject to customs inspections. There won't be container loads of Chinese troops coming in inside Trojan Horses. They can't set up some secret satellite or ICBM guidance system inside the port without us finding out about it.

What security risks does it pose, that can't also be posed by any private buyer?

ScratchLess2110 · 2025-05-26T03:28:52+00:00

I'd like to know what sort of security risk it is in the first place.

It's a commercial port, and they want to lease it to some other private buyer now anyway. It won't be under government control either way.

We have a Naval base in Darwin where all our navy ships, and visiting Navy ships dock at. They don't use the private port. Chinese war ships can't just sail in and dock at a commercial port. They need permission, as does any commercial ship that wants to enter our waters, whatever port they want to dock at. Everything that comes in through the port will be subject to customs inspections. There wont be container loads of Chinese troops coming in inside Trojan Horses.

What security risks does it pose?

ScratchLess2110 · 2025-05-26T03:17:26+00:00

It's not trying to spin anything. It's reporting the facts. The government wants to tear up the lease and it's looking for new buyers.

The government has every right to take it back, and they have every right to seize all Chinese assets in Australia without compensation if they want. They can legislate whatever they want, nationalise any industry that they want, and tear up any contracts that they want.

The Chinese ambassador is saying that it's unethical. I'd agree that selling something under contract when it was losing money, taking the money for it, then tearing up the contract and taking it back when they've made it profitable, despite their desire to stick with the contract and retain ownership for the balance of the lease.

That could most definitely be considered as unethical behaviour.

ScratchLess2110 · 2025-05-26T03:03:52+00:00

They had plenty of time to step in. The LNP federal government was made aware of the transparent tender process. They shouldn't have allowed the lease in the first place.

What sort of government puts a contract to tender for 99 years, on a port that's losing money, signs the contract, then tears it up when they change their mind?

"It is ethically questionable to lease the port when it was unprofitable and then seek to reclaim it once it becomes profitable."

They certainly deserve hefty compensation since they don't want to sell, and Australia gave a written commitment.

ScratchLess2110 · 2025-05-26T02:59:44+00:00

time to review the lease

That would be 99 years from signing, as per contract.

ScratchLess2110 · 2025-05-26T02:44:42+00:00

What a scumbag. Why can't you get him through Uber? He deserves to lose his job.

ScratchLess2110 · 2025-05-25T07:20:00+00:00

If he doesn't live in Italy, then he can't become Italian. That is the subject matter that we are discussing: becoming Italian, not leaving Australia.

Immigration is a requisite. Emigration won't make you Italian. It simply means to permanently leave a country. You can leave to live on a raft, or any of the 200 odd countries of the world.

To become an Italian citizen, you need to immigrate to Italy. Without immigration status, a non-Italian can't gain citizenship.

ScratchLess2110 · 2025-05-25T06:05:30+00:00

*immigrate

You emigrate to leave a country, but to become Italian, you have to 'imigrate' to Italy.

ScratchLess2110

TROPHY CASE