I didn't do any writing about this on Tuesday because I was just so fed up. I worked and studied, and we decided to have KFC for a treat. Whether those gruesome, greasy globules of chicken can be truly called a treat is debatable, but when one is tired et cetera, et cetera, and again: et cetera. We have to do drive through. Everybody else in town wanted KFC. It took me ages to arrive at the window, and when I received my order, it was revealed 'my' share of the food hadn't been included. It seems that whilst it was put on the 'system', it wasn't charged, ergo not paid. I suggested I pay for it at the window where I was parked, only to be advised the front registers are locked down, and I would have to go back around to the drive-through window. I snapped that I would do nothing of the sort, just give me the food that was paid for, and fuggedaboudit. So I drove home, the smoke streaming from my ears threatening my vision, and was fortunate enough that my husband and son were willing to share their greasy treats with me.
I was too furious to think straight, and now that I have calmed down somewhat, will do a bit of writing. There are so many suggestions as to what we can do whilst we are in isolation, and I think some people out there could maybe enrol in a law unit via open university. When the subject of the High Court's role comes up, listen really hard, everybody. The amount of dumbarsery that has been put forward is beyond a joke. Let me address some of it for you:
1. 'Money talks.' Maybe it does. But not in judicial appeals. Yes, not everybody has the means to fund an appeal. However, a poor person can still apply for legal aid funding. That funding is contingent upon a learned counsel's opinion as to whether the appeal has merit, and if so, then a poor person can argue a case to the High Court of Australia, too.
2. 'All seven judges must be Catholics'. I would be embarrassed to have put forward such a lame assertion, but some people clearly have no shame (nor common sense). No, what the seven judges are is this: very senior lawyers who make decisions in the highest court in our land. Our land is subject to rule of law, and this is a pretty good idea. The High Court must rule on the laws, and there are laws that must be adhered to in the running of trials, too. The Court found there was room for reasonable doubt. A person cannot be convicted unless guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.. I have a multitude of friends in the legal profession (and was a member of the profession myself for twenty-plus years) who were of a mind that in the legal sense, the evidence against Pell was 'flawed'. This does not mean they believe Pell is of good character, or that they do not believe the person who gave evidence against him. It just means legal minds saw room for reasonable doubt.
I hope this makes sense.
Anyway, so all the news is back about Covid-19. So, let's just keep working together to get this stupid curve flattened, thus allowing our lives to return to normal. We have to look after each other. Did you hear that, Alexander Downer? Let me provide the text from his tweet:
We either save avoidable deaths & destroy society OR accept avoidable deaths & save society. The moral dilemma of our time.
No, I'm not making that up. I've copied and pasted. Alex, if you're reading this as you recline on your chaise lounge, a snifter of cognac in your hand, knowing you are safe in your tightly fortressed abode Snobby-Fuck Manor, I must ask: Are you fried? What is WRONG with you (other than a bad case of Gentrified-Twat-Privilege)? How's this for a proposal: we prevent avoidable deaths, and society will just organically rebuild because our consciences are clear in the knowledge we did what we could? Mate, your the reason the peasants revolt, so watch yourself.
No comments:
Post a Comment