CITIZENSHIP SAGA, what is the truth?

November 6, 2017

This story dates back some 40 years, in my case a simple 2 decades of study.

The Constitution (1901) was written with so many safe guards, mostly it was all about democracy, this is where I came in, when I was privy to various methods being used to rig election outcomes.

Section 44 was a safe guard to ensure those elected had this nation had its peoples best interests at heart.

No allegiance to any foreign nation, no interests that could affect decision making, no criminal history, it was a basic safe guard.

Now this section in respect to foreign allegiance is well out of date, because at the time of the constitutions writing, there was no such thing as an Australian citizen, we were all considered British.

The idea that there was such a thing as an Australian nationality as distinct from a British one was considered by the High Court of Australia in 1906 to be a “novel idea”.

The Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 began the changes needed to create Australian citizens.  But at the time, British was not considered a foreign power, a very confusing period when we consider applying section 44.

My interest in the Constitution and democracy were the result of putting up my candidacy for office for the senate many many years ago, only to find the system used to elect members was dodgy and corrupted.

This lead to my ongoing study of the issue and how the constitution was being undermined. As many will know, I have taken election outcomes and processes to the courts, and worked for years to restore true democracy and find ways to hold the cheats to account.

I found over the years, not only were minor players and Independents undermined during elections and through changes to electoral law, but that the laws in place were twisted and used to get rid of any elected member who was not willing to play “The Game”.

Section 44 was a favourite, and was used to get rid of independent voices by the major parties, One Nations, Heather Hill was a clear example, after her election, just like Paulines, every loop hole they could find was used to rid parliament of them. Hill was ousted by section 44.

Section 46 was there to deter cheats, it allowed anyone to sue any elected member for every day they sat in parliament illegally for $100 pounds a day, a huge some when the constitution was written.

In the early 70’s, the senate had an issue, one of their own, was caught out by section 44, while the high court decided, they sat late one night to back up their mate, watering down the penalty to a measly $200, and to ensure even that did not happen, they made any litigant file in the high court, where the filing costs would deter any demands.

This left the cheats in the clear, you might ask why they would bother to cheat, which is another story in itself, but if you could easily leave this country and live elsewhere with a massive tax free income/pension, you might start to see a picture.

(National informers act 1974 from memory)

Before I continue, I will note here, so far section 44 is being applied to the federal government, but I can assure you the same law applies in the states, not only because of the power of the constitution, but the state constitution acts and the various electoral acts, also include similar safe guards.

Maybe if you get time, have a look at where past premiers/members now live 😉

The citizen ship sage we are now seeing, was started by me two elections back, but as usual, just like rigged elections, most media sources and the self interest in our parliaments ensured it was kept quiet.

Where it came to ahead, was during the 2016 federal election, where I decided to pull up the Greens who had many candidates nominated, that were all in conflict with section 44, I asked many questions officially as a candidate.

I sent an official complaint to the AEC, with a list of that elections transgressions, and also created an online petition, it listed various faults as usual, including section 44 abuses.

The electoral commissioner replied that they had so many complaints, it would take time to get back to me, an unacceptable answer, when those invalid candidates were looking to help preference certain parties into power.

The pressure these questions had on the greens, eventually took their toll, with two resigning as a result, but still the AEC refused to act before and after the 2016 election, as did the media……..silence is golden to those who cheat.

The resignation of the Greens members, started somewhat of a war, where I was attacked by certain political leaders, my position was to bring a few to account, so if all I had was section 44, I would use it how they had.

The Greens did the right thing, but when Barnaby arked up, I thought he should be exposed, all up, it is my belief there are around 24 members in federal parliament whose elections were invalid, past members is a much greater number and the states are not much better.

The law will have its toll, but not so much on the major party players as you have seen, simply because they have the resources and connections to cover up so much better, they are the ones who appoint the judges 😉

Sadly, all of this has not exposed the more important issues facing our democratic process.

Our electoral laws are changed each year, and those changes are not by way of the demands of we the people, they are changes to empower the major parties.

Missing ballot papers are never investigated, even when in the tens of thousands, missing names of the roll, also is excused, even when in one election in SA, it numbered near on 80,000.

In State elections, missing votes are at times in the tens of thousands, where winning margins are at times just over 1000, give that some thought.

One of the other issues is that to lie on a nomination form is a criminal offence, now give that some thought, when you consider, the liars wasted millions in “Tax payer” dollars to defend themselves, and those that lost, do not pay that back.

In fact they pay nothing back, and even if sued, they will pay what a few hundred dollars?

So why have the DPP not pressed charges, ohhh that’s right, if a person is under charges or found guilty of charges, they cannot run for a seat.

So in Barnaby’s case, he has lied on nomination forms since 2005, taken income, and made decisions, which ought to all be invalid and criminal.  He spends a few hundred grand or our money and loses, then immediately nominates to run again, and no charges are laid.

Now go read what happened to Heather Hill, same abuse of section 44.

The trouble for parliament is they had a right to deal with and undermine section 46 due that sections wording, but they can’t do anything about section 44 without a referendum of we the people.

So I will wager they will spend millions during the next election to get rid of section 44, because it has benefits to those retiring.

The real issue for us all, is the Constitution was written at a time, the writers never expected it to be undermined by those we elected to protect and enforce it.

Democracy is a forgotten term, it is meant to be about the free will of an informed electorate, a safe and corruption free method of electing political representatives to do our will and protect our best interests.

The reason it fails, is we allow those with the most to gain from structural biases to write the laws and run the elections, let’s hope one day we the people use our power to change that.

Mark Aldridge

PS; When good people, and I will include myself in that term, try to enforce changes, expose the truth and fight corruption, we are intimidated, arrested, and threatened.

Advertisements

Dr. John Piesse letter on his position, regarding compulsory vaccines.

September 9, 2017

 

I have been encountering cases of vaccine injury for over 40 years. In June it was a happy, healthy nearly 5-year-old whose parents were required to put her on a catch-up schedule, in order to get her into kindergarten. She won’t be going to kinder. She’s in a wheel-chair, brain-damaged. Her life ruined. Then came a friend’s father who died after a flu vaccine, and last week a 4 year old boy, made autistic by a catch-up schedule.

In 1988, the US National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was created. It has paid out over US$3.5 billion to the vaccine-injured. The NVICP was set up to protect vaccine manufacturers from ruinous costs of litigation by vaccine-damaged people. It was deemed preferable to have ‘unavoidably unsafe’ vaccines than no vaccines. Unfortunately the protection provided to vaccine manufacturers also reduced incentives to develop safer vaccines in USA.

Politicians and doctors assure us that vaccinations are very safe although less than 5% of vaccine reactions are reported. Most are passed off as ‘just a coincidence’.

Vaccines contain health-damaging ingredients, not the least aluminium – a known neurotoxin implicated along with mercury, in brain damage as in autism, developmental delay, ADHD, and learning difficulties. Aluminium is also a powerful promoter of auto-immune diseases. Vaccines can claim to be mercury-free if their mercury content is below a still-toxic threshold. Most influenza vaccines contain mercury – also a neurotoxin. In addition, polysorbate 80 in vaccines increases the permeability of the blood brain barrier and potentiates the risks of these neurotoxins. The known presence of carcinogenic viruses in the MMR vaccine, has been covered-up. Vaccines also contain formaldehyde, a known carcinogen.

Proof of vaccine safety requires rigorously conducted clinical studies comparing vaccinated versus truly unvaccinated children for health outcomes. Are there any such studies that confirm that vaccinated children are not worse-off than those unvaccinated? No. There are none. Hence, child vaccines are unproven for safety – an inconvenient truth for a profession that prides itself on being scientific.

One analysis indicated that national infant mortality rates were proportional to the number of vaccine doses (Miller NZ 2011), contradictory to the claim that ‘vaccination saves lives’.

From mid-2015, parents who wished not to vaccinate their children, started to converge on my practice seeking assistance with gaining exemption from the penalties directed at non-vaccinators by the No Jab No Pay and No Jab No Play Legislation.

Analysis up to the end of 2016 of parent’s reasons for not vaccinating, indicated that 64% of 166 parents knew of vaccine-damaged individuals in their own family. The study of ‘Adversomics’ confirms polymorphic and genomic susceptibility factors common to vaccine–damaged individuals and their families. (Poland GA 2015). 40% of unvaccinated children had pre-existing health problems that parents considered would make them more at risk of harm from vaccines. 60% of unvaccinated children were very healthy, but only 6% of the vaccinated children. There were no cases of autism in 212 unvaccinated children, but 8 autism cases in the 50 vaccinated children (16%), and 36% with ASD, compared to 1.4% in the unvaccinated.

As yet there are no large-scale vaccinated versus truly unvaccinated studies of the sort needed prove that vaccines do or do not cause autism.

So where does the widespread belief that vaccines do not cause autism derive? In a nutshell: from an over-whelming quantity of ‘manufactured science’ of low quality, scientific fraud, and ignoring !1 evidence supporting causality. Few doctors and politicians are aware of the pivotal scientific fraud committed in the US Centers for Disease Control. A study of the MMR vaccine in black American babies showed a 2.5 fold higher level of autism in babies given the MMR vaccine at 12 months of age compared to 3 years. The CDC refused to publish these findings but manipulated the data to disguise the undeniable association found. The fraudulent data was then published (DeStefano F 2004 ) and promoted as the final statement on the question. Thereafter the official line was that vaccination did not cause autism. 5000 vaccine-damaged children had their applications in the Vaccine Court for compensation quashed after this deception. But whistle-blower William Thompson released the true unabridged data which was published briefly until pressure from the CDC forced its retraction (Hooker B 2014)

A recent study of home-school students showed a 6.6 fold increase in neurodevelopmental disorders in the vaccinated group over the unvaccinated. Autism spectrum disorders were 4.7 times more prevalent in the vaccinated children (Mawson AR 2017).

So long as doctors and governments continue to be hood-winked into believing that vaccines do not cause autism, no action will be taken to stop the alarming surge in the autism epidemic. A tragedy that need not happen if we demand good science. and safe vaccines.

Australia day 26/1, what are we celebrating?

August 28, 2017

Australia day, what does it celebrate.

Before 1770 – Aboriginal peoples had been living for more than 40 000 years on the continent we now know as Australia. At least 1600 generations of these peoples had lived and died here.

Europeans from the thirteenth century became interested in details from Asia about this land to the south. From the sixteenth century, European cartographers and navigators gave the continent various names, including Terra Australis (Southern Land) and New Holland.

1770 – Captain James Cook raised the Union Jack on what is now called Possession Island on 22 August to claim the eastern half of the continent as New South Wales for Great Britain.

1788 – Captain Arthur Phillip, commander of the First Fleet of eleven convict ships from Great Britain, and the first Governor of New South Wales, arrived at Sydney Cove on 26 January and raised the Union Jack to signal the beginning of the colony.

Captain Arthur Phillip, was instructed to “live in amity and kindness” with Indigenous Australians

Note; Phillip went on toignore the Kings mandate that he negotiate for use of the Land, as did Cook under the letters patient.

1788 – The Australian frontier wars began, they were a series of conflicts that were fought between Indigenous Australians and British settlers, with an estimated 30 to 30,000 aboriginal people being killed, these battles continued until around 1934.

1804 – Early almanacs and calendars and the Sydney Gazette began referring to 26 January as First Landing Day or Foundation Day. In Sydney, celebratory drinking, and later anniversary dinners became customary, especially among emancipists.

1818 – Governor Macquarie acknowledged the day officially as a public holiday in NSW on the thirtieth anniversary. The previous year he accepted the recommendation of Captain Matthew Flinders, circumnavigator of the continent, that it be called Australia.

*1837;  Sir Henry Parkes, Premier of New South Wales, planned something for everyone, or almost everyone. When questioned about what was being planned for the Aborigines, Parkes retorted, ‘And remind them that we have robbed them?

1838 – Proclamation of an annual public holiday for 26 January marked the Jubilee of the British occupation in New South Wales. This was the second year of the anniversary’s celebratory Sydney Regatta.

1838 – Aboriginal people started to morn the 26th of January

1871 – The Australian Natives’ Association, formed as a friendly society to provide medical, sickness and funeral benefits to the native-born of European descent, became a keen advocate from the 1880s of federation of the Australian colonies within the British Empire, and of a national holiday on 26 January.

1888 – Representatives from Tasmania, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and New Zealand joined NSW leaders in Sydney to celebrate the Centenary. What had begun as a NSW anniversary was becoming an Australian one. The day was known as Anniversary or Foundation Day.

1901 – The Australian colonies federated to form the Commonwealth of Australia. The Union Jack continued as the national flag, taking precedence over the Australian red and blue shipping ensigns gazetted in 1903.

Federation became entrenched on the 9th of May 1901 was the first day Parliament of the commonwealth sat. Schools were still celebrated federation day under the British flag.

Melbourne was the interim federal capital. The Australian Capital Territory was created out of New South Wales in 1908, the federal capital named Canberra in 1913, and the Parliament House opened there in 1927.

1911 – Empire day was earmarked as the first Australia day, May 24.

1915 – July 30th was called “Australia Day” to help raise money for Aussie troops.

1930 – The Australian Natives’ Association in Victoria began a campaign to have 26 January celebrated throughout Australia as Australia Day on a Monday, making a long weekend. The Victorian government agreed with the proposal in 1931, the other states and territories following by 1935.

1936 – Aboriginal people labelled 26th of January “Day of mourning”

1938 – While state premiers celebrated the Sesquicentenary together in Sydney, Aboriginal leaders met there for a Day of Mourning to protest at their mistreatment by white Australians and to seek full citizen rights.

1946 – The Australian Natives’ Association prompted the formation in Melbourne of an Australia Day Celebrations Committee (later known as the Australia Day Council) to educate the public about the significance of Australia Day. Similar bodies emerged in the other states, which in rotation, acted as the Federal Australia Day Council.

1948 – The Nationality and Citizenship Act created a symbolic Australian citizenship. Australians remained British subjects.

1954 – The Australian blue ensign was designated the Australian national flag and given precedence over the Union Jack. The Australian red ensign was retained as the commercial shipping ensign.

1960 – The first Australian of the Year was appointed: Sir Macfarlane Burnet, a medical scientist. Other annual awards followed: Young Australian of the Year, 1979; Senior Australian of the Year, 1999, and Australia’s Local Hero, 2003.

1972 – Tent embassy was established by Aborigine elders, opposing the date chosen for Australia day.

1979 – The Commonwealth government established a National Australia Day Committee in Canberra to make future celebrations ‘truly national and Australia-wide’. It took over the coordinating role of the Federal Australia Day Council. In 1984 it became the National Australia Day Council, based in Sydney, with a stronger emphasis on sponsorship. Incorporation as a public company followed in 1990.

1984 – Australians ceased to be British subjects. Advance Australia Fair replaced God Save the Queen as the national anthem.

*1988 – Sydney continued to be the centre of Australia Day spectacle and ceremony. The states and territories agreed to celebrate Australia Day in 1988 on 26 January, rather than with a long weekend.

Aborigines renamed Australia Day, ‘Invasion Day’. The Bondi Pavilion protest concert foreshadowed the Survival Day Concerts from 1992.

1994 – Celebrating Australia Day on 26 January became established. The Australian of the Year Award presentations began alternating between Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne and Brisbane.

2001 – Centenary of federation. The National Australia Day Council’s national office had returned to Canberra the previous year. In 2001 the Council transferred from the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts to that of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Australians’ growing familiarity with the Australia Day holiday led the Council to focus on shaping their awareness of its significance and meaning.

2004 – The presentation of Australia Day awards — the focus of Australia Day — became fixed in Canberra.

The Australian frontier wars were a series of conflicts that were fought between Indigenous Australians and mainly British settlers that spanned a total of 146 years. The first fighting took place several months after the landing of the First Fleet in January 1788 and the last clashes occurred as late as 1934

To summarise, New South Wales — Sydney especially — has long celebrated 26 January to mark the beginning of British occupation of Australia. Victoria and the other Australian states and territories, persuaded by the Australian Natives’ Association, came to accept Australia Day by 1935, celebrating it together with a long weekend. Since 1979, federal government promotion of an Australia Day that was less British and more Australian gave the day a higher profile in the hope of unifying Australia’s increasingly diverse population. The long weekend gave way to the day itself in 1994, and ten years later Canberra displaced Sydney as the day’s focal point.

Dates for Australia day have been numerous, 9th of May is the day we became federated, NSW had 26th of January as their special day, other states celebrated their dates coinciding with settlement as British colonies.

The Australian name and flag were created long after Phillip landed in NSW and proclaimed it as a British colony.

May 24th, May 9th, July 30th have all been called Australia day at different times in Australia’s history.

 

However, Aboriginal Australians have continued to feel excluded from what has long been a British pioneering settler celebration, symbolised by the raising of the Union Jack and later, on another date, the Australian flag which bears the British flag. Debate over the date and nature of Australia Day continues as the National Australia Day Council seeks to meet the challenge of making 26 January a day all Australians can accept and enjoy.

I am uncertain Phillips landing and proclamation as a British colony is the right date, considering it is such a sad one for the Aboriginal people.

You can add to this brief overview of history if you like or use it to research an ideal day to celebrate, but for me, it best be a date that genuinely celebrates Australia as a nation, so I would say May 9th, but each to their own.

The date should be able to be celebrated by all Australians, including the original people of this land.

Mark Aldridge

The Theft of Democracy by the honorable

August 24, 2017

Nominating to be a member of Parliament is an important issue, every important.

Most members are either lawyers, or have a legal team, and each wish to be called honourable.

So, when they fill in their nomination forms, to lie is unacceptable, illegal and immoral.

If elected on an invalid nomination, their election is invalid, that is the law, the highest law in this country.

Everything they have done from that moment on is invalid, unlawful and illegal.

Every vote, every preference, and ever act, including receiving income they are not entitled to, is invalid, there for illegal.

Now each of us as citizens get held to account for the lightest breach of the law, Parliament are meant to lead by example, considering they write laws.

How many ex MP are now enjoying life time pensions, that were never validly elected?

How many have introduced or voted on legislation, that ought not have been elected?

How many MP’s helped form a government, that had no right to be elected?

Why were these same laws applied to minor party or Independent candidates, to invalidate their election to parliament, yet now they are being applied to major players, the importance of adhering the law does not matter?

Politicians know what they are doing, they side step the laws on a regular basis, they play games with democracy, help rig elections, undermine our freedoms, with the sole intention of winning at any cost, I for one am sick of such actions.

There needs to be an independent investigation into every present and past member, and the law used to hold each one to account.

For god’s sake, if any one of us broke our highest laws, we would be.

 

Mark Aldridge

Section 44 & the can of worms

August 19, 2017

The section 44 issue for our elected members……interesting facts.

1. I pointed this out to the electoral commission on many occasions, a formal complaint can be found on line, what was done “Nothing”
2. I made sure the political parties new, and the media, what was done “Nothing”.
3. So far they are targeting Federal politics, but the same law applies to state pollies, so when are they opening that can of worms.
4. You will notice all those being caught out now, are not stepping down, even though when they signed up as candidates, their nominations were invalid, they all lied on their applications, so have offended the Constitution and federal and state electoral law.
5. If they had no right to run, then they cannot have been duly elected.
6. If that be the case, what about all the decision they have made, all the money we the people have paid them, and all the perks they have used? WHAT ABOUT ALL THE HUGE LIFE TIME PENSIONS……

7. So they will argue I assume something based on Sykes V Cleary, or similar cases, and hope the high court will allow them to remain, ie “I didnt know” or I did not use the benefit.
8. So can we the people now argue the same, sorry officer I did not know my car was unregistered, sorry officer I thought it was an 80 zone, sorry officer I did not know it was his money, its OK I haven’t spent it, etc etc, not a chance.
9. In each case the election is invalid, and with so many elections in valid, we must conclude the general election was also invalid, but how many.
10. Have there been other dodgy practices, yes indeed, so too many to list here.
11. Are the AEC, SEC and the MP’s aware of the other dodgy issues and abuse of law, yes they are.
12. Are the media aware of all these issues, yes they are.

So why have they all tried to cover up?

Open all the cans and let the worms out, expose the broken system, sure it up, and start again, by restoring democracy and our right to a genuine free and informed vote, a secure one.

Same Sex Marriage, who decides?

August 13, 2017

IF YOU’RE over the idea of reading yet another blog on marriage equality, I can emphasize with you.

 

 

Let’s be honest, debates like this make me want to turn of the news, and retreat into my sanctuary where the cynicism of modern-day politics does not exist.

If it was a brief informed discussion, or a simple democratic process, I would be more than happy, as always to consider what my 2 cents would be worth.

Marriage is a simple word, for so long it described the union of a man and a woman, parliament defined it, as is their power under the constitution, and they defined it in line with the Dictionary definition.

I have yet to have any of my gay friend’s demand marriage, I do remember the fight for social inclusion, and to have the same equity at law as those who held a government certificate (Marriage).

When this debate started, when was that now, a decade ago now? I always wondered if another word could be chosen, rather than marriage, something to adorn the top of their government certificate, that shows their commitment to each other.

Seems my idea was less than favorable, but it was simply my mind trying to find a way to end this debate and move on to the more important social issues we all face, regardless of our choice of partner.

Before you accuse me of a lack of compassion, may I argue my case?

I love my partner, she loves me, well I am pretty sure she still does, a government endorsed certificate does not define our love what so ever, are we married, yes we are. Why did we get married, hmmm that would be an interesting debate, was it to prove a commitment, a legal contract, I might get back to you on that 😊

I see posters that say “love is love” or I want my right! They are both right, Love is Love, even with out a government endorsement, and rights, well we all are suffering a lack of defined protections, regardless of our choice of partner.

Sydney broadcaster Alan Jones tweeted: “Re Gay Marriage. Love is a very elusive thing. If 2 people find love we shouldn’t be making judgments about it or getting in the way.”

Who is getting in the way of love, who is judging others, are those opposed homophobic?

Let’s get this debate back on track; “The only ones to blame are our elected representatives”, they represent electorates, if they don’t know what their electorate wants, they are in the wrong job. Parliament is empowered by the Constitution to define Marriage.

Fact is parliament have been doing as they please for years, so our will means little to them, and an expansive poll will do little to push them either way.

It is not as if they are not aware of the topic, it is not as if they cant simply draw up the changes and vote on them, like any other legislative redefining, they do it every day.

The fact is the very people you chose to represent you, are not, they are representing political parties, vested interests, so this debate simply exposes the flaws in our democratic process, flaws you already knew existed.

There is no need to waste 120 to 150 million asking the people, when the outcome will be wishy washy, dodgy and non-binding.

If any representative is unsure, let them poll their electorates, and if their parties won’t let them vote on legislative change, let them declare to their electorate where they stand, we can all do the maths can’t we.

There are those in the LGBTI community that are already far more vulnerable to anxiety and depression (they’re also up to 14 times more likely to attempt suicide) as a direct result of the past decades they have fought for acceptance alone.

The last thing they need is a huge national debate that will achieve nothing, what we all need is educated discussion with our representatives, and to empower their ability to achieve our will, everything else is divisional and a detraction.

Within hours of the government’s commitment to a plebiscite, former prime minister Tony Abbott was telling the nation: “If you’re worried about religious freedom and freedom of speech, vote ‘no’, and if you don’t like political correctness, vote ‘no’ because voting ‘no’ will help to stop political correctness in its tracks.”

Imagine lobbying for the ability to marry, and hearing one of the nation’s most prominent citizens dismissing the fight to end your sense of injustice and frustration as “political correctness”.

The government’s position is demeaning and disrespectful to all of us, the decision to conduct a plebiscite is a knee jerk reaction to cover up for the real inadequacies of our democratic process.

Yes, there are many other critical issues demanding the nation’s attention, and if we polled the people, SSM would not make the top of the list, but if a section of Australian society demand equity on their terms, like all social issues, they deserve to get a fair hearing and a timely decision.

For me personally, my love does not need government endorsement, my rights do, so lets all unite and fight for defined civil and human rights through a “Bill of Rights”, and let the Gay community be included in its definition.

Mark Aldridge.

INTERNET CYBER-BULLYING, Trolls or mental health concerns?

January 15, 2017
troll-001
WHAT IS AN INTERNET TROLL, WHAT ARE THEY?
 
Interesting question, one that we all may have an answer to, but there are many issues social media brings to the table.
 
In real life, if a person came up to you and called you names, they might risk a punch in the face, maybe most of us would walk away, or ignore them, very few of us would tease them with sticks to make them angrier, not so easy on line.
 
The best advice is a person comes onto your time line and is aggressive or disrespectful, is to block them, as if they will be gone, but we know that is not always the case, the more mentally unstable trolls, will already have multiple accounts, or head of to make a few.
 
I have endured trolls that are still around years later, as if I am the sole interest in their less than interesting lives. Only yesterday a person sent me a message about the devastation their family had endured and made mention of the trolls, only for me to have had similar problems years ago with the same people, so is being a troll the result of mental illness?
 
Later in this rant, I mention some research relating to the mental illness side of this post, but what we do see with on-line bullies, besides sadistic and psychopathic tendencies, is the obvious paranoia that everyone else is like them.
 
They think anyone who supports their pray, could be a fake profile, something I have noticed over the years and a good indicator of more sever psychosis.
 
The thing I find most interesting about these trolls, is their inability to comprehend the written word, or even embrace simple facts, they appear to just make it up as they go, they read what they want to read, so to speak.
 
While having dinner with friends Saturday night, leaving FB closed, I received a phone message, which included a screen shot, in which a “troll” had posted, I had just phoned and threatened them.
 
Did the person saying this get a call from another and assume it was me, because not only dont I know them, already had them blocked for whatever reason, and the site the comment was posted on even had me blocked, as I had not contacted anyone, which leads to another issue with trolls, the troll families.
 
Certain people appear to not only lack the moral turpitude to conduct themselves with respect on line, seems similar minded (or is that mindless) people flock together.
 
Going back to my first experience with “trolls” that never go away, was when I helped out an animal shelter several years ago, what appeared to be a handful of people did not like me helping out. One of the ring leaders now faces charges for theft, so had good reason to want me out the way, but that one person led a pack of maybe 4 or 5, who with their fake profiles numbered dozens on line.
No matter how many I blocked, more turned up, many years later, after issues this week, they are all back, as themselves and a few other fake profiles, and they are easy to spot, they still use all the same nasty memes they made all those years ago.
 
So it appears “Genuine trolls” become obsessed with their targets, so much so, when I was on holidays with friends after helping during the most recent fires, they targeted every FB page in the country I was visiting. I mean hundreds of FB pages, calling me a racist, a paedophile, and rapist, and a murder, anything they could do to cause me problems, not that it did.
 
For me as a reasonably well known bloke, each year more of these “Trolls” unite, and start up “Hate groups” aimed at me, yet these same names are mentioned by other victims, so I must only be a part of their obsession, with their main driver being to hurt others.
 
Currently all my special “Trolls” flocked together after channel 7 blessed me with some rather nasty media coverage, the coverage was rubbish, but that’s the media for you. On a 7 post, I have been accused of being a murderer, a thief, a pedo, and abuser, a drug manufacture, an animal murderer, and plenty of other very nasty terms, and many people reading those nasty untruths, have started saying, well all these people cant be wrong 😉
 
Where “Trolls” get even more scary is when they cant get to the subject of their obsession, and go after the friends and family of their victim, or even worse when they take their sick obsession into the real world.
 
Right now, many of my friends and family have temporarily closed their time lines, one had his car fire bombed, and others are still copping it.
 
In my most recent and nasty interactions, a post asking people not to let of fireworks near my sanctuary, resulted in a deliberate attack, on more than one night, gun shots at my home, explosives aimed at my sanctuary, and then a very nasty assault on my person and my vehicle, all by people I had blocked from one of my pages.
 
So like all of these morons, whoops “trolls” they made up even more stories to cover for their crimes, leaving me to wear a tirade of abuse and the destruction of what was left of my good name.
 
Of course that is never enough, now there are even more dedicated pages named after me, some aimed at my sanctuary and others aimed at my business. My friends places of employment, my markets, and my family now have to endure what could be months of abuse.
 
The worst thing is, that when I get my name cleared of any wrong doings, which could take 2 years, they will fire up all over again.
 
Maybe the issue here is not attributed to the word trolls, but more so bullies, haters and the socially inept, maybe it is a mental health issue, but whatever we call it, something has to be done about it.
 
I have no great answers to all this, the message being sent to me is not to help others or do good things for the community, but I ignore that message. The one main issue is the ability of anyone to make up new profiles and use them without fear of accountability; the other is the inability of the authorities to police this new social media phenomenon, leaving us to deal with all this on our own.
trolls-2
 
In Australia alone, on-line bullying is taking lives, and that number is increasing, so something needs to be done, maybe the use of ID to secure a social network account ought to be considered, and just maybe governments and or platforms like face Book, need to invest in better safe guards and monitoring.
 
There is lots of on-line research on this topic, and just as many sad stories of resulting suicides, Canadian and American researchers have found that many of these “Trolls” suffer from Narcissism, sadistic or psychopathic tendencies.
 
These people actually receive pleasure from the act of causing suffering to others, they actually are creating an appetite for cruelty.
 
In the worst cases which are increasing in regularity, when their target closes their accounts, these twisted and dangerous people take their issues into the real world, as I am starting to see happen myself.
 
The fact the aggressors can stay anonymous adds to the fierceness of their attacks, as they do not fear any accountability, this is also taken into the real world, resulting in a global rise in violent crimes.
 
Until something is done, and that could be a long wait, best we adapt and change how we use social networking, for me, well I am not your every day user, and I am not about to close my account, even after all this, because I know Social Media can achieve great things.
 
Over the past few years I have utilised FB to organise search and rescue, raise money for people in need, grow my markets, market my business and meet some great people. So much can be achieve, as for the trolls, well don’t feed them, even when you are not their target.
 
Face book is a multi-billion dollar business, and with that comes greater responsibility than replies “This page or comments does not contravene our community standards” when a victim tries to report bullying or theft of intellectual property.
 
If you see a person being targeted, even if they are not your friends, block the abuser, and support the person, if you are a parent, make sure your children are safe, and ensure they know these people are out there.
 
Last but not least, don’t poke the trolls with sticks, ignore, block and if you need to, close your account for a while. With the increasing number of people starting to populate virtual reality (social networks), many of them immature to social interaction, the phenomenon of cyber-bullying will continue to grow.
 
Not sure there is any moral to this rant, other than to remind us the world is changing, and not always in a good way. People with sadistic and psychopathic profiles, have always brought terror into this world, social networking is allowing them to unleash themselves almost without any boundaries, so best we keep the importance of this message in mind when we are forced to deal with them.
 
Mark

Media and the term “Intellectual Prostitute” SA style

December 31, 2016

INTELLECTUAL PROSTITUTES

prostitute

“I don’t like intellectual prostitution. I like intellectual honesty,” but where do we search for such a thing with in the main stream media?

“There has been great intellectual manipulation over the last few decades. An excellent job has been done to manipulate public opinion in favor of many a journalists masters.

So who are their masters, and exactly what is their agenda?

When it comes to politics, it is hard to grasp more often than not, why the media in mass, are so supportive of the major political powers, even though a majority of their readers/viewers can see through the spin they try to sell.

The lean to the left, where the minority’s needs now override those of the majority, makes a mockery of democracy just as much as the current trend in journalism does.

The Brexit, Trump, and the vote away from political mediocrity, sends these intellectual prostitutes into a head spin, “Why are people not listening to us” we own public opinion, I am sure they scream, but they only hear each other.

If you ever have doubt as to who these poor prostitutes are, all one need do is question anything, and await the name calling. You see they have lost the art of genuine investigative journalism, they no longer question, they dictate.

They use terms like “The science is settled”, or will call you names like “Racist”, Sexist” “Call you a Denier” even when you have denied nothing and race or sex are not a part of the question you have asked.

To keep their jobs, their friends and their power, they will do as they are told, but to avoid accepting what they have become, they attack any who question what they do, doing so with a pack mentality.

They game the outcome of polls, the search engines and the law, to protect what they are now forced to do.

When John Swinton first coined the phrase “We are all intellectual prostitutes” back in the late 1800’s, he went on to say “There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with.

Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone”.

The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? Question John.

Very little has changed since John’s speech so long ago, other than increased anger by many a modern day prostitute.

I assume the only driver of that change is that John not only knew what he had become, but understood why, where todays intellectual prostitutes are employed because they do not.

 

Mark Aldridge

Do LDN actually deliver your pamphlets & flyers? NOT ALWAYS.

August 14, 2016

LDN

I HAD 20,000 FLYERS PRINTED FOR A VERY SPECIAL PURPOSE

“AS A CANDIDATE IN A FEDERAL ELECTION”

It was so important, as if I were to get over 4% of the vote, I was to receive federal funding, which would cover my election costs. I knew I could not win this seat in this election, but wanted to keep my name fresh for the state election.

My usual vote was between 4% and 17%, so when the media refused to publish anything with my name, I decided to get pamphlets into every letter box, to ensure people were reminded I was running, as I am reasonably well known and supported.

I found it odd that I received about 5 calls about my candidacy, but all were from one small area, as area a friend put out 250 of my how to votes, but none from the rest of the electorate where 20,000 were meant to be delivered.

I asked my 20,000 odd thousand supporters on FaceBook, if they had received my flyers, and not one had.

I will add a few thousand voted for me, yet none received my flyer/how to vote pamphlet.

Just after the election, I receive photos showing my pamphlets in a bin, seems all of them.

IMG_8806

The photos show thousands of flyers, this is one of the photos, bundles were in 250. So I emailed LDN asking what has happened, in the bon were boxes and pamphlets in bundles of 250, so there are thousands there.

They refused to help, and offered a few hundred dollars, unless I could provide a location, I think I was lucky to have the photos, because with out them, I would have been offered nothing, and I am not taking a token payment, as if they had been delivered, in the balance of probabilities, I would have gained the extra 1000 votes I needed.

That means their mistake has cost me 10K, so are they delivering your pamphlets?

Paying for a company like Salmat to deliver our printing, is about aiming to make profit, not lose money.

It may be safer and more productive to use Australia Post of pay someone you trust, might be a little more expensive, but at least you know your flyers/pamphlets arrive.

Mark Aldridge

Do we have to include our name on the Census?

August 8, 2016

Do we have to include our name on the Census?

sensus

Many people are raising concerns about how the ABS will now be retaining peoples’ names, whereas previously it destroyed identifying information before analyzing the data.

Retaining identifying information that can be linked to Census records has potentially significant privacy implications. Data provided to the ABS is purported to be protected by robust secrecy provisions in the Census and Statistics Act 1905 (the Act), But what about the security of the storage of data and the potential for its misuse.

The ABS now prefers on line collection of data, this also raises a host of new privacy issues.

It may be difficult to call into question the value of the Census, as the government tell is, it provides essential information for all levels of government, to facilitate the planning of services from hospitals, transport and infrastructure and schools to homelessness services, libraries and services for migrants and refugees.

I doubt many people will see the value of the data for its intended purpose when we consider how poorly the data has been used in the past, but does the ABS even have the power to ask the public to provide their name on the Census form?

An argument can be made that the ABS has no legal authority to do so, because the Act only permits the collection of ‘statistical information’ for the purpose of the Census, and names are not, or until have not been considered ‘statistical information’.

A lawyer and law teacher recently said, “I would never suggest that anyone refuse to fill in their name on their Census form or refuse to provide it to the ABS if directed to do so”. But the question of the scope of the legal authority of the ABS is a perfect example of a statutory interpretation problem that a legal mind might like to consider.

Section 8(3) of the Act provides that for the purposes of taking the Census, the Statistician shall collect statistical information in relation to the matters prescribed [by regulations] for the purpose of this section.’

In other words, the Statistician must collect statistical information for the purposes of taking the Census.

So what does “statistical information” actually mean?

“Statistical information” is not defined in the Act, but section 12 of the Act provides that the Statistician shall compile and analyse the statistical information collected under this Act and shall publish and disseminate the results of any such compilation and analysis, or abstracts of this result.

Does this suggest that information that is “statistical information” is information that will be compiled, assembled in order to be analysed, examined in the aggregate, for the purpose of publishing and disseminating the results.

It is a unique thought that the ABS intends to compile and analyse “names” as a category of information.

Instead, names are collected to undertake a matching process between Census records and other administrative records held by government, likely to include tax, social security and education records.

According to the ABS, this is a separate statistical exercise performed after the Census has been taken, and is not part of the Census itself. Therefore, is it arguable that “names” are not “statistical information”, meaning that the Act does not authorise the collection of names.

Offences under the Act also lack definition, and what happens if your paper census goes missing, is not received or there are debates relating to a persons snswers?

It is being suggested that failing to provide your name on the Census form is an offence, so is it?

Section 14 of the Act states that a person only commits an offence if they fail to comply with a direction by an authorised officer, either orally or in writing, to fill out the Census form or to complete a specified question that is necessary to obtain any statistical information in the Census.

In other words, failing to comply with a ‘direction’ is not just the act of not filling in your name, but failing to provide the information following a direction made to you individually.

Of course, refusing to provide your name following a demand from an authorised officer carries the prospect of a penalty, because we cannot predict how a court would deal with the question.

The fact is the threat of a heavy penalty will result in some panic, with people wanting to avoid that fine, something that may become an issue, with many reports of Australians yet to receive their census and many feeling uncertain of completing it on line.

Someone who decides to challenge the demands to include their names, may have a case, because if a name is not ‘”information”, no offence would be committed by not providing it.

Reading of the legislation shows the Census is only permitted to collect statistical information. In other words, the ABS may not have the power to commence prosecution of people who do not provide their name.

Some people might even argue that the Regulations, which prescribe “name” as a category of statistical information, are ultra vires – beyond the power of the lawmaker to enact.

This argument would be that as subordinate legislation, they must be made for the purpose of the lawmaking power, and cannot be inconsistent with the Act or other legislation.

In simple, the changes to include a person’s name are inconsistent with the intent of the legislation.

It is important to note that section 15 of the Act provides that a person commits an offence if they are ‘required, requested or directed’ to fill in a census form and then knowingly make a statement or provide a reply/document that contains false or misleading information.

This provision is different from section 14, because it relates to the information you actually provide on the Census form. Giving a false or misleading name is clearly an offence, where not providing your name, may at least have a legal defence.

So to a strong degree from my amateur interpretation of the act, to offend the legislation, one must provide false and miss leading information, or ignore a request/direction to do a certain thing, by an authorised officer. Whether or not a request or demand can include your name, is open to legal debate.

So in summary, people who do not provide their name on the Census form would not face the prospect of a penalty unless they subsequently refused to follow a direction made to them by an authorised officer.

It would be up to the ABS to determine whether to refer a case for prosecution and for the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider whether to pursue a prosecution.

There are very few cases one can research to see how many people have failed to follow the direction of an authorised officer have been prosecuted, so one can imagine the issues that face the ABS in 2016, if hundreds of thousands refuse to say “Include their names”.

Ultimately, it will be up to the courts to determine the proper construction of the Act and regulations. But people who object to providing their name on the Census form have an arguable legal basis for so doing.

 

Mark Aldridge “community advocate”

PS; do not take this as legal advice, please see a lawyer.