Things that make you go.......WTF?

[David]

[Pies4shaw]

^^^ Well, since whenever this provision first appeared in Tasmania's Electoral Act:

"196. Candidate names not to be used without authority

(1) A person must not between the issue of the writ for an election and the close of poll at that election print, publish or distribute any advertisement, "how to vote" card, handbill, pamphlet, poster or notice which contains the name, photograph or a likeness of a candidate or intending candidate at that election without the written consent of the candidate.

Penalty:

Fine not exceeding 300 penalty units or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or both.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to any matter printed, published or distributed by the Commission or the Commissioner in the course of promoting public awareness of elections and parliamentary matters."


I have no idea why this would be the law - I guess it may be directed to discouraging "smear" advertising during a campaign. On the other hand, one might reasonably ask (irrespective of whether the law seems like a good one or a bad one) how in this day and age a (supposedly) competent political organisation could allow a potentially unlawful advertisement to be authorised and run.

[Tannin]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/m ... ged-breach

Since when is it a serious criminal offence to include pictures or names of rivals in political advertisements without their permission? Is this just a Tasmanian thing? And if not, how does most political advertising ever go to air?

The case could not be clearer, David.

First, the purpose of the law should be obvious to anyone: it is to prevent unfair use of unrepresentative images designed to belittle, demonise, or humiliate. Any competent photographer can make any subject look good or terrible, friendly or stupid, cruel or loving, with just a basic knowledge of lighting, camera angle and context, coupled with the gift of timing and shot selection. Why do you think people spend thousands on a wedding photographer if they don't think he can make all the women look beautiful and every moment blissful? That's what photographers do, and any photographer who can't do it (or do its equivalent in another genre) can't get much work either.

The law recognises that photographs occupy a special place in public discourse: like speeches, articles, drawings and paintings, they convey a necessarily biased personal view of the world, and can be readily twisted to mean whatever the creator wants them to mean, but unlike those other communications, photographs are seldom recognised as the personally directed, persuasive things they in fact are, and tend to be taken as gospel truth in a way few other communications ever are. (I thought you had done some Media Studies - apparently not, for these are Media 101 basics and your post doesn't seem to take them into account at all.)

Between the issue of the writ for an election and the close of poll, it is an offence to print, publish or distribute any advertisement, "how to vote" card, handbill, pamphlet, poster or notice which contains the name, photograph or a likeness of a candidate or intending candidate at that election without the written consent of the candidate.

The Electoral Act has been the same for at least 10 years that I know about, and the Electoral Commission sends all candidates a human-readable "Information for Candidates" publication which sets out their rights and obligations in plain, simple English. There is no excuse for breaking these rules, which are the same for every candidate, and which only exist to see fair play.

Palmer's stooge authorised an unfair, illegal publication in clear breech of the law, and now she wants to take the coward's option of pretending it had nothing to do with her, and shift the blame onto others including - incredibly - the newspaper staff who printed the ad her party sent them exactly as ordered!

You do the crime, you do the time. In this instance, one imagines that the judge will conclude that the breech was, as these things go, relatively minor and hand down a suitably modest penalty. A fine or a good behaviour bond would be appropriate. But penalty there must certainly be: Palmer and his stooges have form, they have been playing fast and loose with electoral law since the beginning and this is just one small manifestation of their overall attitude, which is that the law only applies to other people, not to them, that any subterfuge they can use to flout the law is legitimate, and even includes the bizarre belief, openly expressed, that there is a gigantic Australia-wide conspiracy to deny them "fairness" in electoral matters. (Palmer's massive TV campaign ran right through the electronic media pre-poll blackout, remember, flouting the law every other candidate had no difficulty complying with, and flouting it on a grand scale.)

Lamb's absurd and dishonest portrayl of herself as a "political prisoner" is in the worst tradition of extremist publicity stunts. It's not even remotely close to the truth. Sadly, there exists in Australia a large number of people so politically unaware and so easily lied to that they will accept this outrageous beat-up as simple truth.

PS: if Palmer's stooges are correct in their claim that Lamb did not in fact authorise the illegal ads - they are demonstrably wrong in most of what they have said, but maybe in this detail they are correct - then someone, presumably someone in Palmer's party, has fraudulently claimed that Lamb authorised the ads. If such a fraud has in fact taken place, then a prosecution should of course follow.

[Tannin]

On the other hand, one might reasonably ask (irrespective of whether the law seems like a good one or a bad one) how in this day and age a (supposedly) competent political organisation could allow a potentially unlawful advertisement to be authorised and run.

Yes indeed. But then, has anything Palmer's mob has done so far caused anyone to suppose that they are competent?

[think positive]

I can just see Cyrus standing there saying "that's my damn plane"

[stui magpie]

[stui magpie]

Speaking of WTF, here's one to go in the tourist ads.

http://www.msnewsnow.com/story/24869060 ... -crocodile

So not only do we have the most poisonous snakes in the world, and umpteen other things that can kill you (including Crocs) we apparently have snakes that can eat crocodiles.

Any wonder the locals in Darwin are drunk all the time.

[think positive]

Hahahahahaha!

Ew yuk!

[think positive]

[3.14159]

A pragmatic attitude to snakes...

http://metro.co.uk/2014/03/09/australia ... r-4492775/


poisonous snakes?

[think positive]

I just got this text on my phone:

"Hey beautiful so sorry to hear bout your mum, if u need anything don't hesitate to ask and remember I love you xox"

It's been 18 months since I lost my mum, and I have no damn idea who sent this text! How do I say nicely "who is this!"

The bright side is, someone loves me!

[3.14159]

Years ago I had this Woody Allen record.
He does this spiel about a New Yoik phone conversation.
(pre sms+mobile).

The phone rings this woman in thick Nue Yoik accent says hi, how ya feeling taday darling?
Not too good, the first woman says, I still have this awful flu, the babies sick, I have no food, the heating off and there's a blizzard outside, et cetera et...(I'm paraphrasing).
That's terrible the caller says! I'm your mother! I'll come over with some groceries, cook you some soup, feed the baby and clean the house!
Would you mom? That'd be wonderful!
OK, I'll jump on the 67 bus, down Lexington, jump off at the subway catch the A train and I'll be there in about 3 hours!
3 hours! But you only live down the block!!!!
OH....is that...Carol on 0789467201
No,... this is Amy on 0789467207!
OH! Sorry this be the wrong number!
OH yes it must be....err... does that mean your not coming over?

[stui magpie]

[think positive]

'Twas my nephew, he's broken another iPhone, so new number!

'Twas his mums best friends mum, but it's ok, he assures me he still loves me too!

[ronrat]

It is well known here in Thailand that if you want to sell your passport it can be done and then front up to the consulate with a Police report to get a new one. Backpackers do it all the time. I think this little scam will be met with some serious scrutiny in the future.

People wonder why we view some other countries with contempt and would prefer they never immigrate here in any major numbers. This kind of culture is why there is such a gap between 1st and 3rd world countries.

Eh?? The perpertrators selling them are usually from 1st world countries. You seriously don't think anyone would want to escape to a third world country. 60,000 passports were reported stolen last year in Thailand alone. Not surprisingly the highest places were Kao san Road and Phuket, the backpacker hot spots.You are supposed to carry your passport at all times which is of course impractical. I have a laminated reduced copy in my wallet and only take it out if I really need it and then return it safe and sound as soon as I can.

According to the BBC Asia I am watching the idea is to go through a few countries and end up in your country of choice without going through immigration, ie stay in transit. Throw away the stolen passport and claim asylum.

Today I went to open a Thai bank account to enable me to pay the rent fromAustralia and they nearly didn't get it because my passport is nearly 10 years old and the clerk didn't like the photo. I dare say this unfortunate incident will cause more diligence, for a few weeks anyway.