Matty Johns Saga

Matty Johns world has been brought to it knees an shattered of recent by an allegation made by a NZ woman on the ABC Four Corners program about a group sexual activity had between her, Mathew Johns and several other members of the Cornulla Sharks team of 2002.

The girl was a willing party to the sexual activity but now claims she has been devastated by the effect it has had on her, she has waited seven years to make these complaints known, coincidentally coinciding with the media speculation surrounding the Brett Stewart incident, furthermore there are allegations from work colleagues of the complainee that the complainee often bragged about the incident in a jovial and happy manner.

As a result of her allegations made on the ABC's Four Corners Matthew Johns has lost his coaching position at the Melbourne Storm and has been suspended from duties at Channel 9.

I've always been a big fan of Matty Johns so I will clearly take his side in the incident, this is how I weighed it up . . .

I think we need to treat what she is saying in the same manner we treat complaints of (yarrr) Unroll Parchmentother sexual abuse cases, A complaint of rape should be made at the earliest opportunity, the longer the period of time between alleged event and complaint the less credibility should be given to the complaint, whilst there are always exceptions I do not believe one should be made for a time period of 7 years. Not only is it such a long time not to complain but her waiting and no doubt cashing in on her story is ideally timed and opportunistic to occur when he game is in strife for how NRL men treat women and also coincides with the Brett Steward incident. All to coincidental for me to find truth in it.

the fact is she was a willing little sl*t who wanted to fuck the whole team, given the good circumstances she is now trying to cash in on her exploits whilst having no regard for who's lives she may wreck in the process of her fabricated victimisation.

As for whether orgys are a good thing or bad, Matty Johns should not receive the treatment he is(yarrr) Unroll Parchment getting simply because he participated in one, I think we would have to outcast alot of men from society if participation in a orgy is now to be treated as a moral crime.

Opposition to Matty Johns and the above line of argument have claimed we should give consideration to her age at the event (19, old enough to know what she was doing) and the probable state of intoxication/inebriation she was is in at the time. To this I say that The material point at law and that which should also be the basis of our decision was her consent at the time of sexual intercourse, we know that she was willing to have sex and with multiple people, at the material time their was consent. (yarrr) Unroll Parchment

What the girl thought or regretted in the morning is irrelevant, I think everyone has woken up regretting their choice of sexual partner/s or act/s once or multiple times in their life. At the time of intercourse she was good for it.

critics claim that perhaps the state of her self induced intoxication should negate consent To which I will take clear opposition. She was drunk, big deal. It cuts little sympathy with me. In my opinion self induced intoxication should not negate consent. I am a passionate believer that if a girl drinks her self to a paralytic effect then whatever ills come her way are her own fault. If a girl(yarrr) Unroll Parchment drinks her way to a state where she will do anything with anyone then she should not be able to say its rape in the morning because her soberness gives her a sense of regret. There should be no pity for the self induced. Ive woken up in the morning in a foreign house not knowing how I got there to turn around and see what was a whole lot of ugly woman laying next to me, If I was to claim I was rapped (or sexually assaulted as we are that pro discrimination to women in Qld regarding sexual offense laws that a woman cant technically rape a man according to law) I would be laughed at, yet alone if I was the opposite sex my complaint would Be take very seriously, why should there be such a discriminating parity between men and women?

If she committed the orgy cause she was drunk and she what the heck well then that's her fault, It shouldn't give her a right to go ruin peoples lives when she wakes up and regrets it in the morning or seven years down the track where it can make a pretty coin, at the material time she was begging for it so she is just as to blame as the boys.


People have every right to be disgusted by the act of participating in a group orgy, you have a right to judge human action by what you find to moral or immoral. But the hard fact of the mater is no crime has been committed here.

Matty johns should not be treated like a criminal when he has only infringed certain peoples moral beliefs and not the law itself. He has gone through enough already, give the man a brake.

Aussie Politics

A bit of strife has followed this years Labor budget which announced that over the next 4 years the countries economy will go close to 200 billion dollars in debt.

This issue was actually the main reason as to why I kick started the blog again, I got sick of a few thing, firstly arguing on facebook, its annoying, that facebook limits you to 1000 characters per post and 3rd I am just sick of seeing die hard liberal fans so biased to the party that they haven't stop to consider that their own party has no better solution, they are opposing for the sake of opposing and that's as weak as piss in my books, if your going to oppose the government tell me what it is doing wrong and then how you can make it better.

I find myself in an interesting position here, I supported Rudd's economic stimulus package but not to the extent of creating such a massive debt for the next 3 Liberal governments to have to pay off, albeit the stimulus is only a fraction of the debt which also consist of a massive infrastructure investment along with Rudd's fiber internet policies. Rudd Claims that such spending will make him the messiah of this global recession/depression, whilst Hockey and Turnbull are calling Rudd reckless. I kind of agree with both sides of parliament here. I see positives arising from Rudd's spending on infrastructure but at the same time I agree with Hockey that such spending is casino economic.

Anyway, the real heart of the story and this post is rumors of the possibility of Turnbull and the Liberals blocking supply in the Senate and thus forcing a double dissolution.

Several liberal party members (though i think the vegetated matter of their brain should see them in the Endeavor foundation instead)are going on about how they should do this and how they would annihilate labor at the next election. I just wanted to take some time to firstly say your a dickhead if you believe such is the case.

In my opinion, if Turnbull is to block supply and force a double dissolution then he would slice his own throat, If we go to an election in the coming months Labor will only increase their percentage in the lower house and I believe the Libs would loose their stalemate holdings in the senate, thus giving Labor effective control of both houses. I feel Turnbull would be that heavily defeated at the election that he would have no choice but to resign. This I believe would pave the way for Peter Costello to come out of the shadows and take control of the party with a clean slate from Nelson or Turnbull. I would then go on to say that Costello would win government within the next 3 to 6 years.

I actually hope the above does occur, though my allegiance is currently with Labor I am an old Howard's Liberal man and I would love to see the party returned to its former glory.

V for Vendetta

It may be the title to one of my favorite films but it is my fear given another 10 to 30 years if governments within Australian are not pulled into line then the main theme of the movie that being totalitarian control of a government over its people will be the reality in which future Australians will have to live in.

It is my belief that our state and national Labor governments are working in tandem in a bid for totalitarian control of its subjects. The aim is being achieved slowly and at a pace where the overwhelming majority of Australians being politically apathetic or inept are unaware of the governments ever gradually dissolving of their rights, by the time they realize the government has seized to much control it will be unlikely that the two party preferred Westminster democracy of Australia could save them.

To illustrate my point I will first highlight that the Australian Constitution has no bill of rights, for that matter it has hardly any rights written within, the most important human rights such as freedom of speech in regards to political affairs are not mentioned textually within the constitution and instead implied by the High Court. Furthermore Implied rights are of little practical use against a executive arm of government which wishes to silence your speech.

Time for some case examples of how our State and National Labor Governments are ever slowly but gradually resting totalitarian control over the people thanks in part to few constitutionally protected rights.

My first example will be the recent talk and action of the South Australian government(with similar plans in every other state)in outlawing certain social/bikie gangs(The Finks in particular). Here we see a government attempting to outlaw the free association of a group of people by classifying them as a criminal group and then giving the police a wide array of powers that they do not possess at common law to enforce the legislatures will. The legislature is effectively making it a crime to be in such an association, that is effectively criminialing the forming or right to be an association that is not on good graces with the legislature. Needless to say our right to freedom of association is under direct attack here. Now yes, a lot of the members of these bikie associations have played apart in organised crime and other criminal activity. THAT IS IRRELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION. The government wants you to believe that they are violent criminals and via the effect of these laws they will be able to stop such people, they are praying on your fear of being victimized to mask their true intent. The government is not trying to stop criminal activity here, they are only trying to criminalize and prevent the association of people they find to be nuisances or in opposition of their will. These laws will do little to nothing to stop the alleged criminal activity of members of these gangs, they will only allow for the government to easily infringe human rights and allow the rapid dismantlement of associations of people that the government find to be diplomatic.

A necessary right in order to live in the supposed democratic system that must exist along with the right to freedom of speech and habeas corpus is the freedom of association. We should have a right to associate with people of similar view and believe so as to voice and represent a political belief in order that it be heard. In the case of the bikies their association and shared political belief is most likely a belief that the state should have limited powers to enforce Laws on its citizens, that they should be free and live according to the philosophies of John Stuart Mills. It should be irregardless that an associations motive is for more freedom from the law or disobedience of law, because that motive in itself is a political one and thus worthy of protection.

So what is the big deal if we let the government stop a group of people, even criminals from representing their political belief through an association, well its simple, once you give the government a power it will be eager to use it again to neutralize its next nuisance. Once you give the government the power to outlaw the association of one group of people, even criminals, they can then go to use that power to outlaw another association with the same power used in a different manner, such as a group of protesters for example. If the government is allowed to outlaw a group representing a adverse political belief it can shut down other associations adverse to its own agenda in order to obtain total power. The commonwealth government has tried to wash away the right to political speech and association before in the Australian Communist Party Case, we can only hope the High Court steps in again and realizes that the protection of the right itself must outweigh what the government will spin to be the public interest in seeing criminals arrested and crimes prevented.

To use another recent case study example of how the Australian government are bidding for complete control was after the reading of this years budget which was very negative for the countries economy. The budget drew criticism and protest and thus certain groups of people protested at parliament house. The High Court of Australia once held that the freedom of speech in regards to political affairs was one of the most sacred human rights under the Australian system of Democracy.

How is it then that the legislature (the Labor Party) and effect the executive arm of the government (Aus Fed Police) to move these people away from parliament house and thus silence them. I argue that protesting the national budget is one of the most iconic forms of exercising a right to political speech. This was irrelevant to the government though as they just moved people on and silenced the protest. This shows the governments intent to take totalitarian control as it clearly doesnt want you exercising political speech if it adverse to the government. Whats more this intent is turned into action, the government takes totalitarian control of the situation and silences oppisition through use of its executive power as the High Court isnt exactly their to defend the peoples right to protest.

My last example of a case study of the government bidding for totalitarian control if the federal governments bid on its new communication act which would give the executive government the power to tap any form of communication device used within Australia, emails, websites, phone calls, txt, fax and post, the government could have complete knowledge and control of your affairs at any time. Not only does destroy any natural right to privacy that we as people feel we deserve but it once again affects the right to political speech and association and even habeas corpus, via having complete access to every form of communication you make the government can completely control you via mean of prevention should you ever wish to oppose or rebel against the government. Simply don oppose the government you say, is it as easy as that? Well this old conservative believes the right to oppose the government and the freedom to even break the law in rebellion to government(so long as one accepts the consequences)is a democratic right and with out such a right a government would have totalitarian power, Australia would be like China or North Korea. As Mr Rudd loves the Chinese maybe he hope to establish similar control and power in his government.

Remember that Power leads to Corruption, Absolute Power leads to Absolute Corruption.

Such is the path to the dark side
Master Yoda :p

Welcome Back

Yeah ok so I let the blog die a starving heinous death again, so like like my mother's attempts to give up smoking I am gonna promise to never do it again. To get the ball rolling I'll pump out a few articles for discussion in an instant.