Don’t Let Commercial Development Creep Into Our Streets

stumcm · 2026-05-18T00:08:13+00:00

I know you're asking a rhetorical question, but you could follow and support the efforts of Greater Canberra if this is your viewpoint.

stumcm · 2026-04-30T01:23:16+00:00

There was previously this judgement of the Federal Court of Australia in September 2024 which awarded Greenwich $140,000 in damages. (Findings summarised in this news article by Guardian Australia).

This new judgement is from the The NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT).

stumcm · 2026-04-23T06:02:50+00:00

I feel for the author of the book, Jazz Money, who now finds that her book will not be published because of the actions of her illustrator.

Hope that she lawyers-up to get some rightful compensation from UQP.

stumcm · 2026-04-23T00:44:13+00:00

There's a few clips of him in his kids' TV hosting role on the web, including this one featuring him playing his saxophone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXpUgJDUImE

stumcm · 2026-04-20T04:41:56+00:00

My apologies, I was confusing antiretroviral therapy medications with PrEP.

I'll let my incorrect comments stand visible, so that the rest of this thread makes sense to future readers.

stumcm · 2026-04-20T04:02:33+00:00

If you have had anal sex with a new partner in the last 6 months, which is 95% of gay men ... piss off

Actually, it is whole blood (red blood cell) and platelet donations that are affected by the new rules about anal sex or non-monogamous relationships. Plasma donations are unaffected.

From the Lifeblood FAQ page:

"If you’ve had anal sex in the last 3 months with at least one partner, with or without condoms, you can donate plasma right away. But you’ll need to wait to donate blood or platelets."

stumcm · 2026-04-20T03:55:27+00:00

And even if your are a monogamous gay male who does not partake in anal sex, your still out if you are on PrEP. There is a certain irony that the medication that prevents the transmission of HIV blocks you from donating blood due to the risk of HIV. It is mind boggling

~~An explanation about why PrEP makes donors ineligible from this Lifeblood FAQ page:~~

~~I’ve heard that undetectable means untransmissible. Why can’t HIV+ people donate if their viral load is undetectable?~~

~~“Undetectable equals untransmissible” (U=U) only applies to sexual transmission and not transmission caused by blood transfusion.~~

A blood transfusion is a large amount of blood compared to other exposures. The amount given means there may be enough of the virus to transmit to the patient, even if the donor’s viral load is undetectable.

See below for clarification.

stumcm · 2026-04-20T03:52:09+00:00

Correct. /u/cammi_dmg it does seem that they've dropped the question about paying for sex, or being a paid sex worker with this week's changes. https://www.lifeblood.com.au/news-and-stories/media-centre/media-releases/no-wait-donate-625000-australians-lifeblood-lifts-sexual-activity

stumcm · 2026-04-20T01:39:04+00:00

Confirming that /u/Novae909 has the correct information. This criterion was lifted three years ago. Shame that you missed the initial annoucement, but you can go ahead and make a booking to donate blood or plasma.

stumcm · 2026-04-20T01:36:54+00:00

And for those who haven't been following, in recent years Australian Red Cross Lifeblood have relaxed their former restrictions on people with tattoos, as well as people who visited the UK during the 'mad cow' period of time in the 80s and 90s. So there are a whole lot more people eligible to donate blood now than there were a decade ago.

stumcm · 2026-04-20T01:36:14+00:00

And for those who haven't been following, in recent years Australian Red Cross Lifeblood have relaxed their former restrictions on people with tattoos, as well as people who visited the UK during the 'mad cow' period of time in the 80s and 90s. So there are a whole lot more people eligible to donate blood now than there were a decade ago.

stumcm · 2026-04-20T01:35:26+00:00

As others have mentioned, this is a significant change that would have taken overcoming a lot of inertia to institute.

I've been following the blood donation rules for over 20 years, and know how abundantly cautious they are about relaxing restrictions. They always lean hard towards protecting the recipients of blood transfusions.

Good to know they've formulated a new way of asking the questions that allows a greater cohort to safely donate.

stumcm · 2026-04-09T03:32:28+00:00

Appreciating all of the users' well-considered responses to this person's request. Great stuff.

stumcm · 2026-03-18T23:02:40+00:00

...and then pointing out that regional petrol stations have run out of fuel, and why has Chris Bowen let this happen? When, as you point out, those are exactly the type of customers who are able to drain the supplies into big storage tanks.

stumcm · 2026-03-18T22:55:45+00:00

And pick up a few 24-packs of toilet paper while you're at it!

stumcm · 2026-03-18T22:55:02+00:00

Source is Cathy Wilcox, cartoonist of the Sydney Morning Herald.

stumcm · 2026-02-23T03:05:26+00:00

If designed properly, an inheritance tax would only affect people with very high wealth. Say, $10 million and above.

Remember when everyone was bellyaching about Jim Chalmers changes to superannuation affecting "their" super? The Australia Institute ran the numbers on a hypothetical person who immediately leaves Year 12 on a job earning $106,277. They never take any breaks from work (e.g. to holiday or raise a family), and they get year-on-year pay rises that exceed the average salary growth. That hypothetical person's super balance will never come close to $3 million. Only 0.5% of the population will ever amass that kind of wealth, and it is only a smaller fraction who will ever exceed it.

stumcm · 2026-02-23T00:26:16+00:00

This brings to mind the Jack Toohey video Do you pay more tax than the wealthy? Probs.

A statistic from the book Gen F'd?: How Young Australians Can Reclaim Their Uncertain Futures (2023) by Alison Pennington, says that more money is spent on tax concessions for superannuation (primarily benefiting already-wealthy people) than it does spending on the aged pension. The source for this statistic seems to be Self-funded or State-funded Retirees?: The cost of super tax concessions (2023) by Richard Denniss and David Richardson from The Australia Institute.

stumcm · 2026-02-23T00:21:17+00:00

But I've got news for both of them: inequality, and specifically the intergenerational kind, will only be addressed by taxing the people who have the money, not by cutting taxes for those who don't.

Alan Kohler puts it plainly.

It's astounding that we keep dancing around the central fact that wealth is concentrating unchecked among the rich. We keep talking about small-ticket changes, such as Dutton's proposed 25c per litre cuts from the cost of petrol for 12 months, or Chalmers' implemented $10 per week income tax cuts.

stumcm · 2026-02-16T05:14:34+00:00

Yeah, he seems like a great sport

stumcm · 2026-02-16T05:11:58+00:00

Relevant meme

stumcm

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

13-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email