 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | Well you tell me: what hasn't he lied about? |
He likes Women?
Bill Shorten is a tool?
Putin is an arsehat cnut? |
|
|
|
 |
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I'll give you #2 and #3, #1 seems very doubtful. He has a very strange attitude to anyone female. He is a failed priest, remember, carrying a vast load of psychological baggage of some kind, and the number of women you meet who say he gives them the creeps is quite extraordinary. "Creeps". That's the term they use, every time. It's not a term women generally use a lot, and when they do it's code for a peculiar kind of gut-deep instinctive loathing, probably evolved over the centuries as an aversion mechanism to protect the race. Is it his attitude to them that makes them feel that way? Quite possibly. At root, he seems to fear women more than like them. there is something very deep and murky to do with guilt and repression and denial and over-compensation in that man. Women can sense it.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | It was blatant influence-peddling favouritism, just about as blatant as it can possibly get, the school broke its own rules to hand $60,000 to the Prime Minister's daughter, and you still try to defend it even in the face of known, admitted facts on the public record. Unbelievable. |
This is, as far as I'm aware, entirely true, and I am just as appalled by it as you are. I'm also perplexed as to why the whistleblower is being pursued whilst such a blatantly obvious case of corruption has been given a free pass. None of that sheds much light on the extent of Tony's complicity, though (if any). I'm tempted to think this was just a major sucking-up exercise by an administrator hoping for future political favours.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Because the person wasn't a whistleblower, that would imply a concerned employee or internal entity who, because they're uncomfortable with something they know 'blow the whistle' on it. The girl who brought this to light AFAIK hacked the system. This is illegal in pretty much any jurisdiction in the world that uses any kind of electronic data systems.
The school is also a private entity, they can give out scholarships to whomever they like for whatever reasons they like. Was this unethical? Quite possibly (even probably). I would also think the main culprit here is Abbott's daughter for accepting a scholarship that at worst created a possible conflict of interest and at best was 'not a good look'. I don't see anything here that is earth shatteringly terrible, just some bad judgements from wealthy idiots trying to buy themselves some influence or ride a gravy train.
The answer of course is for prospective students to stop paying the school and go elsewhere. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | Because the person wasn't a whistleblower, that would imply a concerned employee or internal entity who, because they're uncomfortable with something they know 'blow the whistle' on it. The girl who brought this to light AFAIK hacked the system. This is illegal in pretty much any jurisdiction in the world that uses any kind of electronic data systems. |
I'm not quite sure of the distinction. Evidently she had a suspicion that something was amiss, hence her decision to hack into the system. I'm not sure I see such a clear distinction between hackers and whistleblowers. Bradley Manning, for instance, was pretty clearly both, as was Edward Snowden.
| Wokko wrote: | The school is also a private entity, they can give out scholarships to whomever they like for whatever reasons they like. Was this unethical? Quite possibly (even probably). I would also think the main culprit here is Abbott's daughter for accepting a scholarship that at worst created a possible conflict of interest and at best was 'not a good look'. I don't see anything here that is earth shatteringly terrible, just some bad judgements from wealthy idiots trying to buy themselves some influence or ride a gravy train.
The answer of course is for prospective students to stop paying the school and go elsewhere. |
I guess that's an interesting point. If you think it's unethical for private schools to hand out scholarships in exchange for potential political favours, why should it be permitted (beyond "it's their school and they can do what they want")?
Putting the issue of fairness to one side, there's a pretty clear conflict of interest, given that the school receives government funding. That's not to say that prime ministers' kids shouldn't be eligible for scholarships, just that the process should be transparent and accountable.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
3.14159 
Joined: 12 Sep 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Assurances by the Prime Minister that a $60,000 scholarship awarded to his daughter Frances on the basis of merit have been contradicted by testimony and documents.
Private school's have rules regarding who they can and can't offer scholarships to.
http://whitehouse-design.edu.au/courses/bachelor-of-design/scholarships.html
| wrote: | Whitehouse does not currently offer scholarships to gain a place into the Bachelor of Design, however a FEE-HELP loan to assist with part or all of eligible students’ tuition fee is available.
At the discretion of Whitehouse, a scholarship for further study may be offered during the academic year to students who have formally commenced their studies and show exceptional ability and dedication.
The scholarship scheme was established in 1995 and is offered exclusively to students of the Whitehouse Institute. The experiences of past recipients confirms the value of the scholarships, transporting young designers from Sydney into a global arena and providing the opportunity for meaningful careers in the design industry both in Australia and overseas.[/i] |
Won on merit?
https://newmatilda.com/2014/05/21/leaked-documents-cast-doubt-abbotts-60k-scholarship-claims
| wrote: | Documents show that in December 2010, over a period of one month, at least four attempts were made to contact Ms Abbott (not then a student) by phone and arrange an interview with Leanne Whitehouse.
A meeting finally took place on February 18, 2011.
Internal documents record: “Ms Abbott had interview with [Leanne Whitehouse]… – offered (scholarship) at time of interview.” |
Whitehouse broke it's own rules offering her this non-existent scholarship...
Game set and match against the "won on merit" (and "the Age of Entitlement is over") arguments.
Abbott will claim he was unaware of all this ^^^ and going by his performance over the last 4 years I'd have to cut him some slack and agree.
He doesn't appear be aware of anything much beyond his own dogmatic bluster!
Last edited by 3.14159 on Wed Nov 19, 2014 3:55 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Wokko wrote: | | Because the person wasn't a whistleblower, that would imply a concerned employee or internal entity who, because they're uncomfortable with something they know 'blow the whistle' on it. The girl who brought this to light AFAIK hacked the system. This is illegal in pretty much any jurisdiction in the world that uses any kind of electronic data systems. |
I'm not quite sure of the distinction. Evidently she had a suspicion that something was amiss, hence her decision to hack into the system. I'm not sure I see such a clear distinction between hackers and whistleblowers. Bradley Manning, for instance, was pretty clearly both, as was Edward Snowden.
| Wokko wrote: | The school is also a private entity, they can give out scholarships to whomever they like for whatever reasons they like. Was this unethical? Quite possibly (even probably). I would also think the main culprit here is Abbott's daughter for accepting a scholarship that at worst created a possible conflict of interest and at best was 'not a good look'. I don't see anything here that is earth shatteringly terrible, just some bad judgements from wealthy idiots trying to buy themselves some influence or ride a gravy train.
The answer of course is for prospective students to stop paying the school and go elsewhere. |
I guess that's an interesting point. If you think it's unethical for private schools to hand out scholarships in exchange for potential political favours, why should it be permitted (beyond "it's their school and they can do what they want")?
Putting the issue of fairness to one side, there's a pretty clear conflict of interest, given that the school receives government funding. That's not to say that prime ministers' kids shouldn't be eligible for scholarships, just that the process should be transparent and accountable. |
I make the distinction because a suspicion of impropriety doesn't give a citizen the right to invade the private property (in this case data system) of another private entity.
I also think the making a comparison between whistleblowing on your government spying on its own citizens and all the other stuff that Manning and Snowden found about their own government and military through their own involvement and someone finding out that a school gave someone a scholarship they may or may not have earned on merit by hacking into the system is rather disingenuous. I get that this girl is a hero to the lefties who want a 'gotcha' against Abbott, but she is nothing but a common thief who decided to use what she stole (in this case data) to attack a political enemy.
In saying that if some evidence arose that the School has received public funds or some kind of political benefit after giving this Scholarship then I may be slightly more amenable to your point of view, but as it stands this is petty grandstanding. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | I get that this girl is a hero to the lefties who want a 'gotcha' against Abbott, but she is nothing but a common thief who decided to use what she stole (in this case data) to attack a political enemy. |
Actually my understanding is that she didn't just choose to investigate herself, she was actively encouraged to do so.
| Quote: | Mr Payne said Ms Newman had heard some senior Whitehouse staff members talk about the Managing Director's Scholarship Ms Abbott had been awarded by the institute's founder Leanne Whitehouse in February 2011. At the time, Mr Abbott was the Leader of the Opposition.
It was with their "knowledge and encouragement" that Ms Newman used the user name and password of another staff member at the institute to access its student record system, without the staff member's knowledge.
A police facts sheet alleges Ms Newman then took screen shots of the information from the system and emailed two other institute employees, saying: " ... there's a bit about Frances meeting with Leanne J, the CEO of Whitehouse Institute on February 21, 2011 and then receiving a Managing Director's Scholarship three days later."
Soon after, she sent another email saying: "Got 'em - might go meet Chris now to talk tactics, see you tomorrow."
The police say this was a reference to Chris Graham, the editor and publisher of the New Matilda website, which published an article about Ms Abbott's scholarship the following day.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/student-who-leaked-frances-abbott-scholarship-details-motivated-by-sense-of-injustice-court-told-20141023-11acza.html#ixzz3JUxqarhi |
Stupid girl. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | she is nothing but a common thief who decided to use what she stole (in this case data) to attack a political enemy. |
I think that's a pretty offensive thing to write. You've already conceded that the scholarship at least "may have been unethical", and we know that this is a partially taxpayer-funded institution. I think the public has a right to expect that scholarships from partially government-funded institutions are being offered on merit, not to family members of powerful political figures, and a right to know when corrupt practices occur. So, this is at least somewhat in the public interest, and the simple fact is that we would not have known about it had it not been for Newman's hacking. That clearly makes her a whistleblower IMHO, albeit one who broke the law in the process. I'm not sure if the law should provide post hoc legal protections for whistleblowers in these situations, but I still maintain that it's the institution that should be copping the real heat here.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but haven't you criticised the use of terms like 'thief' to describe people who pirate movies and TV shows? If so, you can't possibly be serious about calling her a 'common thief'. Anyway, can information really be stolen? Would you call a journalist who publishes leaked documents a 'thief' too? I'm flabbergasted.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | I'll give you #2 and #3, #1 seems very doubtful. He has a very strange attitude to anyone female. He is a failed priest, remember, carrying a vast load of psychological baggage of some kind, and the number of women you meet who say he gives them the creeps is quite extraordinary. "Creeps". That's the term they use, every time. It's not a term women generally use a lot, and when they do it's code for a peculiar kind of gut-deep instinctive loathing, probably evolved over the centuries as an aversion mechanism to protect the race. Is it his attitude to them that makes them feel that way? Quite possibly. At root, he seems to fear women more than like them. there is something very deep and murky to do with guilt and repression and denial and over-compensation in that man. Women can sense it. |
OK, I'll take your word for all that.  
I'd be interested in how many of those women have actually met him in person and aren't just Non-Lib supporters projecting based on what they see on TV.
| David wrote: | | Wokko wrote: | | she is nothing but a common thief who decided to use what she stole (in this case data) to attack a political enemy. |
I think that's a pretty offensive thing to write. You've already conceded that the scholarship at least "may have been unethical", and we know that this is a partially taxpayer-funded institution. I think the public has a right to expect that scholarships from partially government-funded institutions are being offered on merit, not to family members of powerful political figures, and a right to know when corrupt practices occur. So, this is at least somewhat in the public interest, and the simple fact is that we would not have known about it had it not been for Newman's hacking. That clearly makes her a whistleblower IMHO, albeit one who broke the law in the process. I'm not sure if the law should provide post hoc legal protections for whistleblowers in these situations, but I still maintain that it's the institution that should be copping the real heat here.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but haven't you criticised the use of terms like 'thief' to describe people who pirate movies and TV shows? If so, you can't possibly be serious about calling her a 'common thief'. Anyway, can information really be stolen? Would you call a journalist who publishes leaked documents a 'thief' too? I'm flabbergasted. |
David, what would you call a journalist who encourages someone to steal someone elses computer login and password, access systems and areas for which they have no authorisation to access, and then pass that information onto them so they can publish it on their website, resulting in a nice bit of attention for the website, but the person loses their job and face criminal charges? |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I'm not sure, Stui—there could be several valid terms, some of them not very nice, but I don't think 'thief' could possibly be one of them.
One can steal money or possessions and perhaps, at a stretch, intellectual property. The concept of 'stealing' passwords or data, though, is pretty dubious.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I'd argue that anytime you take something that isn't yours, doesn't belong to you, without permission or purchasing it, unless it is implicit that it is up for grabs, then you're stealing it. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I think that's true in theory, but I think the two contentious words there are 'take' and 'something'.
The general concept of stealing is that you have a thing and somebody else takes that thing off you so that you no longer have it. True, studios have tried to extend that definition to pirating DVDs and music, but that's a bit of a stretch—if I walk into your house and successfully clone your purple alien, have I really 'stolen' it?
Secondly, most people would agree that there needs to be an actual thing that is being stolen. Can a fact be stolen?
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I give you permission to take the actual purple alien, i you can find her. 
Not sure if "fact" is the best definition as it's not really applicable, what we're actually talking about here is data.
Taking data off a computer as a copy and leaving the original data behind, is no different to taking photos, emails, videos, anything else. It's all data.
Refresh my memory, how were you disposed to people taking others nude photos and publishing them? Hacking someone's personal emails? |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Completely opposed, of course, but I don't think that was technically theft either—just a breach of privacy. The key difference is that what Freya Newman did was a) in the public interest and b) revealed something that should not have been hidden in the first place.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
