Police have relented and allowed bail for a young man...
That's not the way it's supposed to work is it?
He may have struggled and received a corrective elbow or knee in the face on the ground. Who knows.
However you’d think they would have realised at some stage during the process what was going on and found someone more suitable to parade for the cameras as the ‘face of looting’.
Which makes some sense, but I don't get why - if he required restraining at point of arrest, and if they were keen to be seen treating looters harshly, and if they were willing to parade him - why didn't they charge him with resisting arrest as well?
And presumably there's an assault investigation being carried out as we speak. After all the police quite likely know who these concerned citizens were, they certainly know who was in the cell. And assault is more serious than theft, right?
Probably there was some 'resisting arrest', or maybe even resisting arrest, who knows, no evidence yet, and likely never will be actual evidence.
Would have been nice for the media to ask the question though.
We're at the first step - The PM has made an announcement. Parliament continues to sit and new legislation can be introduced and passed and all that until Parliament is dissolved, which is still at some point in the relatively distant future - mid/latish October.
Sorry Christopher, again, for my part in it, you’re right. Shouldn’t’ve bitten. I don’t have much skin in the game and it’s not like there aren’t plenty of people here who are able to stand up for themselves when required.
[ETA: less is more, frequently]
No, I meant 10 years for incest between siblings or half siblings, as per your link to the crimes act. When I say thinking of the children I mean the potential children of an incestuous relationship between consenting siblings.
(I’d also love to change that Part name from Crimes against religion, morality, and public welfare.)
OK, I'll keep going, seeing as you did. My understanding was that the genetics issues tend to be overblown, at least until it happens for a few generations or within a small community, but I've got no evidence at hand and am not going to prolong this by looking for it.
Even if it isn't I don't see how up to 10 years can stand up to scrutiny - that's all ick, not thinking about the children.
Ah well, should've guessed. I reckon that should be taken out of the crimes act for siblings as well. Intergenerational is a little different due to pretty inherent power differentials. But now is neither the time nor place.
Sorry to help drag it down this road.
If one participant (child, cat, corpse) requires protection from the other then the state should withhold sanction, otherwise it shouldn't.
Not to say your brother and sister would have an easy time of it - it's their relationship that's causing their problems in the community, not their inability to legally marry.
Still plenty of gray areas, but if we're overly worried about them, it's probably easier to stop the state sanctioning marriage altogether.
What do you think DCBCauchi? Honest debate means playing some of your cards occasionally.
Personally, and I'm by no means speaking for anyone else, I don't think there should be laws against incestuous marriage between consenting adults.
Ick factor aside (cos, let's face it, ick factor is a piss poor basis for public policy), banning marriage doesn't prevent siblings having sex or children. Inherited health issues are only an issue for siblings with blood ties, so even if there was a health reason to ban incest, it wouldn't extend to step or adopted siblings anyway - and there's still an ick factor there.
But I also think that's a different debate than marriage equality between gay and straight, and trying to use it as a passive aggressive cudgel doesn't help create light in either debate.