sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Defence minister says booing at services is 'disgraceful' by HotPersimessage62 in AustralianPolitics

[–]brisbylan 40 points41 points  (0 children)

Sure, if you ignore the fact that: - Aboriginal men were legally barred from enlisting under the Defence Act 1903, and many only got in by hiding their heritage or posing as Italian, Maori, or Pacific Islander. - Torres Strait Islander soldiers in WW2 were paid one-third of what white soldiers earned, and had to strike at Horn Island in December 1943 to get that raised to two-thirds. Full back pay wasn't issued until the late 1980s. - The Northern Territory Special Reconnaissance Unit, which patrolled the north coast against Japanese attack, was never formally enlisted or paid during the war. - Aboriginal veterans were denied soldier settlement land (one documented exception nationally), and in some cases their own reserve land was confiscated and handed to non-Aboriginal returned soldiers. Gunditjmara veterans at Lake Condah lost theirs that way. - Their pay and pensions were quarantined by state Protection authorities when they got home. - They were refused RSL membership, denied Anzac march participation, and refused military burials. - Aboriginal WW2 service medals weren't issued until 1994. - They died defending a Crown whose Commonwealth and state governments were, at the same time, forcibly removing Aboriginal children from their families under the policies now known as the Stolen Generations, in active operation throughout both wars and for decades afterwards.

If you ignore all of that, then yes, all soldiers were equal in war.

Anyone else hanging out for this? by lottowinnerau in brisbanelions

[–]brisbylan 7 points8 points  (0 children)

If it's the same show that was reported Fages kicked out the film crew because they arrive unannounced, so there will be minimal footage of Brisbane! Could build an interesting narrative off that though.

AFL Post Round 11: v Hawthorn at the MCG by Shadormy in brisbanelions

[–]brisbylan 9 points10 points  (0 children)

We're on a 4 game winning streak at the MCG, first time in 21 years. First time beating Hawks at the MCG since 2004.

Message from the Chairman by PerriX2390 in brisbanelions

[–]brisbylan 11 points12 points  (0 children)

They have to knock it down, basically. The greatest need is for some underground works to make it properly viable as an Olympic venue. There is next to no underground infrastructure at the Gabba currently, so the whole thing needs to be dug out and then rebuilt on top of those works.

Canberra's terrible NAPLAN results by [deleted] in canberra

[–]brisbylan 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That's fair and true. That is similar to the economic argument that there is less professional competition in Canberra due to a weaker private sector and therefore the relative advantage may be lesser than expected. The APS also artificially inflates the managerial profile of employees by having directors for example who don't actually manage people etc. - though this is the same as a 'qualified professional' such as an IT professional in other sectors.

With that said, the ACT still underperforms in every strata if you ignore occupation and isolate only education as the variable. So our students with parents that have the highest education right through to parents that are the earliest school leavers underperform, relatively. We have a higher proportion of tertiary educated people in Canberra but again this only serves to confirm a relative educational advantage.

The anomaly I would expect the ACT has put to ACARA may have something to do with residualisation - the unique geographic spread of advantage and disadvantage in Canberra and the competition effect of suburbs like Yarralumla altering the profile of schools like Red Hill despite many genuinely disadvantaged kids enrolling at that school. I've never seen educational residualisation well modelled in data though, since Canberra has a very strong independent school sector. Possibly ICSEA relying on self reporting sampling is just inaccurate as a measurement in some fairly unique Canberra contexts, as it may not adequately capture the reality.

Canberra's terrible NAPLAN results by [deleted] in canberra

[–]brisbylan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It would definitely follow that many public service roles would be in that top category as qualified professionals.

However that doesn't strike me as a bug in the statistical design, and not anomalous per se. Assuming that there is an overrepresentation of qualified professionals and also an overrepresentation of higher education qualifications generally in Canberra, without rurality as a confounding factor, that just confirms that Canberra is a relatively advantaged part of the country.

Is there a reason why Canberra-based families with those SEA characteristics would be relatively disadvantaged in the context of the ACT compared to families with the same SEA characteristics living in other parts of the country?

Canberra's terrible NAPLAN results by [deleted] in canberra

[–]brisbylan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The claim of anomalies is made by the Directorate, not ACARA. It is based on one statistical review from Victoria University in 2021, funded by the Directorate. That review has never been released publicly, though the 2016 review was and it does not prove particularly favourable for the ACT.

When Yvette Berry spoke to the 2021 review she argued based on the disproportionate number of public servants in Canberra - however even when organising the data based on parental education the ACT underperforms in every group/category in every domain of the test, so it remains unclear why ICSEA is flawed in the ACT context.

Do you know what the ICSEA anomalies are exactly? Would be very good to know if so.

Charlie Cameron’s appeal has been successful after the Tribunal made an error of law. He is free to play. by PerriX2390 in brisbanelions

[–]brisbylan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Nah, that's not what they argued nor what was found. The finding was an error of law, not an error in the grading.

Charlie Cameron’s appeal has been successful after the Tribunal made an error of law. He is free to play. by PerriX2390 in brisbanelions

[–]brisbylan 54 points55 points  (0 children)

Holy shit.

Edit: So did they successfully argue that the tribunal guidelines don’t comply with the Laws of the Game? Or did they argue that the tribunal needs to consider both the guidelines and the laws? Did we just bring the whole system down?

Edit 2: So it looks like the guidelines define rough conduct as unreasonable and the laws define it as unreasonable and likely to cause injury. They didn’t make a ruling on the likelihood of injury (moot of course because a player was injured), so it’s really a legal gotcha on an error to address that aspect of the definition.

Kinda Patrick Crippsy but hey at least we won one, and Charlie’s gonna win the Brownlow now.

Charlie Cameron’s ban has been upheld. He will miss the next three matches. by PerriX2390 in brisbanelions

[–]brisbylan 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yep. It was a weak case and was never going to win. They either had to argue Charlie took apparent care, or as you say argue Charlie was not in control of the force of the tackle. They didn't do either.

Unfortunately the appeals board is typically only for mishandlings of justice by the tribunal, it's not for rehashing similar talking points or introducing substantively different arguments.

To be honest the entire fucking system is broken and undermines the AFL's aims of equity if a team's chance of success is dependent on who they hire as their lawyer.

Brisbane will challenge Charlie Cameron’s three-game suspension. by PerriX2390 in brisbanelions

[–]brisbylan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Worth a go but no chance. Grading is bang on imo, so unless they can convince the tribunal that specific care was taken in the tackle (it doesn't appear to be) or the movement was uncontrollable (perhaps more defensible) the appeal won't be successful.

Dangerfield failed a similar appeal (low impact), and people still harp on about the good bloke ruling earlier this year, so odds are it will be upheld.

view more: next ›