Up front, I've never met Barnaby Joyce, got no personal axe to grind with him. None at all.
Got a few views of when he probably should have stepped aside in this whole unfunny circus act we've all seen play out.
Up front, I've never met Catherine Marriott either, got no personal axe to grind there. in fact have no personal base bias either way on either Catherine nor Barnaby, but obviously I'm familiar with Barnaby & like a few bush folk in WA certainly know of Catherine.
I have gleaned a few things from the press & social media. To me at least it seems she lodged a complaint with the Nationals. Now I hate making assumptions but I can only assume it was with the Federal Nats Exec.
Media reports mention it was to remain confidential. It wasn't to be a public hanging & drag through the mud. A non public complaint lodged, Nats Fed Exec will probably have a policy & procedure for this (or should and will). One news report says it was only lodged this week and that the date of the actual harassment was several years ago.
Time it takes to report is irrelevant. We don't set time limits on any complaints otherwise sex offenders in cold cases would get off Scott free. What we do know is Catherine Marriott is well known & widely known of. She's a rural community builder. She has a pretty solid hard earned reputation and good standing in the community.
We also know she lodged the complaint with the proviso it was private. She was not looking to hit the news herself, indeed she's been far from being on a talk circuit. One written statement, nothing else. Not efforts to defame nor grab fame. Private complaint is/was to be investigated by the Nats Exec. There's absolutely no evidence she had any other axe to grind with the ex-Deputy Prime Minister. None. That doesn't prove anything good or bad about Barnaby, it proves there's no malicious or nefarious intent on her part.
Someone leaked the existence of the complaint. It would seem it can only come from a small number of places.
1) The Nationals Federal Exec
2) The Cabinet or a Cabinet minister
3) Barnaby Joyce
4) Catherine Marriott
I'll take the last one off the list, because the agreement was private. I have no reason to believe she'd lie & breach it. Doesn't make sense.
Barnaby, might have leaked it but as possible as that may be, it'd be the dumbest strategy we'd see for some time were it true. Probably equally unlikely
That leaves the Nats Fed Exec or Cabinet (Liberal or National MP). Could be either but the possibilities would take pages to jot down and we don't know all the people involved, what motivations might be.
We do know there's no advantage whatsoever for Catherine Marriott to leak it & indeed whoever leaked it has done both Catherine & Barnaby a huge disservice.
The complaint should have been dealt with in private and a resolution handed down privately.
Catherine is a bit like the Kevin Bacon 6 degrees of separation thing...I don't know her but I know plenty of folk who do & she doesn't appear to be on anyone's shit list nor has she been identified as some northern Lex Luther corporate psychopath. Her reputation is to be envied, its not small & by all accounts she's earned everything. Yes she was a winner of the WA Rural Woman of the Year Award.
People need to keep calm heads and let whatever the process is in play to run its course. Don't publicly speculate unless its to speculate who leaked the private complaint & why.
One thing is also for sure, the public perception on what is and isn't acceptable for a Deputy PM, a Cabinet member, a party leader, a Member of Parliament is going to probably have new limits soon. Think the pub test will be a bit stricter. Not a bad thing at all.
I don't know what was in the complaint. I won't comment on how correct it is because due process (corrupted as it is by a leak) must go ahead.
And Catherine Marriott has 100% nothing to answer for.
I hope she continues as a community builder as she did before. If her allegations prove correct then there is absolutely no wrong committed by her at all. None. Zip zero, nada.
Because some disgracefully have piled blame on her, then I'll back her with the #Solidarity4Catherine hashtag. I make no judgment on a complaint I haven't read & encourage others to push the "let the process run its course" approach.
We'll see where we are in a few weeks or months time.
Saturday 24 February 2018
Wednesday 21 February 2018
What's a Reasonable Person's Test?
When we elected representatives and give them authority to act on our behalf, it should never be "Free Reign", it should always be "Full Rein"
For example if we elect some directors to a board of a company we own or part own, they have as a part of their role a number of rights & responsibilities.
"Free rein" is probably interchangeable with "Free Reign", it has no accountability, no layers of transparency nor any need for compliance with an accepted set of policies & procedures. Only fools do that, at their own peril.
"Full Rein" is yes, go hard, think wide & outside the box. Make bold & courageous decisions by all means, but there are limitations. It must all be in the best interest of the company & its share holders. There also must be a process of review, to ensure even the most daring decisions were not reckless or fool hardy.
Remember you need some risk, without risk there can be no gains.
Full Rein allows full extension of the powers the directors or board have whilst keep their fiduciary duty intact.
Now trouble starts when shareholders misunderstand the brief they've handed their directors or committee members. The only saving grace, the only sensible mechanism to apply is the "Reasonable Person's Test" (RPT). This is recognised under the Corporations Act & by the Judiciary when corporate court cases happen.
Its not whether the decision did damage to the entity or not, that may be established & indisputable.
What the RPT does is apply a very simple test, asking simple questions. Were the actions or decisions they made the kind of actions or decisions a reasonable person would make in the same situation?
A decision or action that turns out to be wrong and/or very harmful to the company may have been the right decision to have made at the time. Having been a shareholder in this position I had to let go of the noose and concede that the wrong decision the board made was one most people would have made in the same situation, considering all the information the board had at the time.
Revenge & retribution is off the menu. There is only one outcome. Best people, doing the best they can for the company. If a board announces a radical plan or position on something, just cool your heels & give some room. Directors & higher decision makers have more information than us shareholders, they have more people in their ears, they are looking at more pressures & pulls that we cannot know about at the time. We have to cool our heels, allow some room to move and just watch a little. Yes make contact for assurances, but there maybe confidential information they cannot share until later. Later, when we apply a full Reasonable Person's Test if we have to that is. If they have Full Rein, let them have full rein and make the bold decisions they may need to make. If it goes pear shaped there's plenty of time for "the 3rd umpire to review the video"
If all else fails you'll have an AGM, the member's meeting to hold people to account. Let the delegated authority do their thing until they are clearly breaching the set protocol & boundaries or legal restrictions.
Otherwise, cool the heels, allow Full Rein and let the bold decisions unfold.
If you remove ALL RISK you very much remove all possible gains.
For example if we elect some directors to a board of a company we own or part own, they have as a part of their role a number of rights & responsibilities.
"Free rein" is probably interchangeable with "Free Reign", it has no accountability, no layers of transparency nor any need for compliance with an accepted set of policies & procedures. Only fools do that, at their own peril.
"Full Rein" is yes, go hard, think wide & outside the box. Make bold & courageous decisions by all means, but there are limitations. It must all be in the best interest of the company & its share holders. There also must be a process of review, to ensure even the most daring decisions were not reckless or fool hardy.
Remember you need some risk, without risk there can be no gains.
Full Rein allows full extension of the powers the directors or board have whilst keep their fiduciary duty intact.
Now trouble starts when shareholders misunderstand the brief they've handed their directors or committee members. The only saving grace, the only sensible mechanism to apply is the "Reasonable Person's Test" (RPT). This is recognised under the Corporations Act & by the Judiciary when corporate court cases happen.
Its not whether the decision did damage to the entity or not, that may be established & indisputable.
What the RPT does is apply a very simple test, asking simple questions. Were the actions or decisions they made the kind of actions or decisions a reasonable person would make in the same situation?
A decision or action that turns out to be wrong and/or very harmful to the company may have been the right decision to have made at the time. Having been a shareholder in this position I had to let go of the noose and concede that the wrong decision the board made was one most people would have made in the same situation, considering all the information the board had at the time.
Revenge & retribution is off the menu. There is only one outcome. Best people, doing the best they can for the company. If a board announces a radical plan or position on something, just cool your heels & give some room. Directors & higher decision makers have more information than us shareholders, they have more people in their ears, they are looking at more pressures & pulls that we cannot know about at the time. We have to cool our heels, allow some room to move and just watch a little. Yes make contact for assurances, but there maybe confidential information they cannot share until later. Later, when we apply a full Reasonable Person's Test if we have to that is. If they have Full Rein, let them have full rein and make the bold decisions they may need to make. If it goes pear shaped there's plenty of time for "the 3rd umpire to review the video"
If all else fails you'll have an AGM, the member's meeting to hold people to account. Let the delegated authority do their thing until they are clearly breaching the set protocol & boundaries or legal restrictions.
Otherwise, cool the heels, allow Full Rein and let the bold decisions unfold.
If you remove ALL RISK you very much remove all possible gains.
Tuesday 6 February 2018
Recreational Hunting on Public Lands in WA
Rick Mazza has reignited a plan for recreational shooters to have legal access to public lands for the purpose of hunting. As you'd expect the RSPCA WA is completely opposed to it but has a little trouble finding enough reasons and borrows some unrelated issues to bolster their position.
When this first came up back some yers ago the Barnett Govn was considering allowing it after a Parliamentary Committee suggested it. A decision was expected by March in 2015 and when it came it was a big no.
Lynne Bradshaw, RSPCA WA President was pretty vocal but in all the yak several unrelated issues popped up.
1) Illegal "hunters" & "hobby hunters acting illegally"
2) Pigs lower teeth being smashed out to create larger tusks in feral pigs
3) Hunting is an "unspeakable cruelty"
Firstly several things here, the RSPCA is anti hunting of any sort. To them no hunting is morally ok nor humane enough. They want all hunting banned. That's the real motivation behind their rhetoric.
But answer some of their positions...
1) There are hunters and their are poachers. There are not "illegal hunters" or "hobby hunters acting illegally".
Law abiding people who are hunting animals completely within the law are "Hunters"
Those breaking laws whilst hunting, trespassing on public or private lands and all pig dumping etc, they are poachers...not hunters.
There is no penalty for those (legal) recreational hunters, but there are for those poachers. Trespassing for one and those "pig dumping" or breeding pigs to release into State Forests to later go hunt, $50,000 fine and up to 5 years in prison.
More on criminal penalties later...
2) Lower pig teeth smashing, if it even happens is abhorrent but frankly has nothing to do with legal, law abiding recreational hunters. If they were teeth smashing or pig dumping then they need to be prosecuted to the full extent allowable by law AND have their firearms licence abolished. The idea of recreational hunters is as a part of feral pest control. Whilst the RSPCA yell down its own rabbit burrow, the pigs are being dumped by poachers, the teeth are being smashed by poachers (if it happens at all) and the killing of the pigs is being done by poachers. Whilst recreational hunters could make a good dent in the feral numbers, whilst they're excluded the numbers grow as pig dumping poachers seed the forests & only fluctuate as poacher numbers rise and fall.
3) Hunting is "unspeakable cruelty" ? Really? Why?
Because an animal dies at the hands of another?
So what do we do with hunting, ban it completely?
Well if so they RSPCA has a huge unpinned moral hand grenade in its own lap.
Is all predation to be banned? Snake eating the frog, the eagle eating the small roo or wallaby?
Do we ban all predation or only in humans because humans are a higher order?
If it morally wrong, then they will have to cite the moral code with which they make the judgement.
Christian, Islam, Judaism and every other world religion that has a moral code...would find predators hunting to be AOK, even humans hunting animals.
If you decide for yourself you don't like it, that's fine, that's a choice. But your view that you hold to be higher morally than someone else's is going to need backing on why that it.
In regard to hunting on Public Lands, I would assume :-
This to be a regulated & licenced activity, not a free for all.
I'd expect it to be a part of an integrated land management plan that involves hunting, trapping and baiting...not just hunting. Cats, dogs, foxes & pigs need eradication but you cannot do it just by hunting as there's many that turn into shy ferals and are incredibly difficult to even spot let alone shoot. There's some areas that are inaccessible to vehicles and even humans on foot, aerial 1080 baiting has to happen
If its to be a success, the Government need to apply far more hefty fines & penalties to "poachers" who hunt without permission or licence. If its $50,000 & 5 years, double it & apply a Firearms Licence Ban for Life. For a second offence, double it again. 3rd conviction double it again.
Message gets through clearly very quickly.
Trespass laws on farming properties...yes these need to be tightened and elevated. Many farmers adjoining State Forest have fences cut & gates open. One I speak with regularly in the Talbot area west of York says he'd actually be ok with poachers if they shut the gates behind them but several times a year he has to repair cut fences where poachers leave the State Forest and trespass onto the farmland.
Criminal conviction for farm trespass has to elevate and adopt the same double per offence. Convictions via field cameras has to become the norm.
Firearms hunting is never going to be a control measure on its own, but its the cheapest. You get people willing to pay a licence, willing to burn their own vehicle fuel and their own time to go hunting.
The other 2 facets being baiting and trapping, well there the relevant departments are going to have to seriously ramp activity and the Government is going to have to fund them.
With the state forest areas of Walpole being reported to have between 3000-5000 pigs decimating the peat swamps, scrub & river habitats the clock is ticking. Add to this a friend who works in the department said he'd be very surprised if the actual numbers at Walpole "were that low, its pretty bad"
Not sure of the RSPCA's view on habitat destruction, the levelling of native flora and fauna by just pigs & cats but it would be more relevant than some of the unconnected angles they've been using.
Am I happy about hunters entering land to shoot?
If its regulated as it is for burning off with signs every where yes its sure a heck of a lot safer than having poachers in the state forest with firearms and not knowing they're even there. Yes hunters would be safer to the public.
Right now we have no proper integrated feral action plan...and we need one fast.
When this first came up back some yers ago the Barnett Govn was considering allowing it after a Parliamentary Committee suggested it. A decision was expected by March in 2015 and when it came it was a big no.
Lynne Bradshaw, RSPCA WA President was pretty vocal but in all the yak several unrelated issues popped up.
1) Illegal "hunters" & "hobby hunters acting illegally"
2) Pigs lower teeth being smashed out to create larger tusks in feral pigs
3) Hunting is an "unspeakable cruelty"
Firstly several things here, the RSPCA is anti hunting of any sort. To them no hunting is morally ok nor humane enough. They want all hunting banned. That's the real motivation behind their rhetoric.
But answer some of their positions...
1) There are hunters and their are poachers. There are not "illegal hunters" or "hobby hunters acting illegally".
Law abiding people who are hunting animals completely within the law are "Hunters"
Those breaking laws whilst hunting, trespassing on public or private lands and all pig dumping etc, they are poachers...not hunters.
There is no penalty for those (legal) recreational hunters, but there are for those poachers. Trespassing for one and those "pig dumping" or breeding pigs to release into State Forests to later go hunt, $50,000 fine and up to 5 years in prison.
More on criminal penalties later...
2) Lower pig teeth smashing, if it even happens is abhorrent but frankly has nothing to do with legal, law abiding recreational hunters. If they were teeth smashing or pig dumping then they need to be prosecuted to the full extent allowable by law AND have their firearms licence abolished. The idea of recreational hunters is as a part of feral pest control. Whilst the RSPCA yell down its own rabbit burrow, the pigs are being dumped by poachers, the teeth are being smashed by poachers (if it happens at all) and the killing of the pigs is being done by poachers. Whilst recreational hunters could make a good dent in the feral numbers, whilst they're excluded the numbers grow as pig dumping poachers seed the forests & only fluctuate as poacher numbers rise and fall.
3) Hunting is "unspeakable cruelty" ? Really? Why?
Because an animal dies at the hands of another?
So what do we do with hunting, ban it completely?
Well if so they RSPCA has a huge unpinned moral hand grenade in its own lap.
Is all predation to be banned? Snake eating the frog, the eagle eating the small roo or wallaby?
Do we ban all predation or only in humans because humans are a higher order?
If it morally wrong, then they will have to cite the moral code with which they make the judgement.
Christian, Islam, Judaism and every other world religion that has a moral code...would find predators hunting to be AOK, even humans hunting animals.
If you decide for yourself you don't like it, that's fine, that's a choice. But your view that you hold to be higher morally than someone else's is going to need backing on why that it.
In regard to hunting on Public Lands, I would assume :-
This to be a regulated & licenced activity, not a free for all.
I'd expect it to be a part of an integrated land management plan that involves hunting, trapping and baiting...not just hunting. Cats, dogs, foxes & pigs need eradication but you cannot do it just by hunting as there's many that turn into shy ferals and are incredibly difficult to even spot let alone shoot. There's some areas that are inaccessible to vehicles and even humans on foot, aerial 1080 baiting has to happen
If its to be a success, the Government need to apply far more hefty fines & penalties to "poachers" who hunt without permission or licence. If its $50,000 & 5 years, double it & apply a Firearms Licence Ban for Life. For a second offence, double it again. 3rd conviction double it again.
Message gets through clearly very quickly.
Trespass laws on farming properties...yes these need to be tightened and elevated. Many farmers adjoining State Forest have fences cut & gates open. One I speak with regularly in the Talbot area west of York says he'd actually be ok with poachers if they shut the gates behind them but several times a year he has to repair cut fences where poachers leave the State Forest and trespass onto the farmland.
Criminal conviction for farm trespass has to elevate and adopt the same double per offence. Convictions via field cameras has to become the norm.
Firearms hunting is never going to be a control measure on its own, but its the cheapest. You get people willing to pay a licence, willing to burn their own vehicle fuel and their own time to go hunting.
The other 2 facets being baiting and trapping, well there the relevant departments are going to have to seriously ramp activity and the Government is going to have to fund them.
With the state forest areas of Walpole being reported to have between 3000-5000 pigs decimating the peat swamps, scrub & river habitats the clock is ticking. Add to this a friend who works in the department said he'd be very surprised if the actual numbers at Walpole "were that low, its pretty bad"
Not sure of the RSPCA's view on habitat destruction, the levelling of native flora and fauna by just pigs & cats but it would be more relevant than some of the unconnected angles they've been using.
Am I happy about hunters entering land to shoot?
If its regulated as it is for burning off with signs every where yes its sure a heck of a lot safer than having poachers in the state forest with firearms and not knowing they're even there. Yes hunters would be safer to the public.
Right now we have no proper integrated feral action plan...and we need one fast.
Thursday 1 February 2018
Grid Girls - The Political Left, The Political Right & Feminism
Grid Girls at Formula One Events. Not on my radar. Not my sport, don't watch it. Even as a motorsport follower of sorts, F1 never really interested me. But now F1 has announced Grid Girls are to be abolished to fit in with current day standards.
Odd.
Grid Girls = Bad
Sex Workers = Valid Career Choice
That's how its stacking. It's a little bit weird in the logic department on a number of levels.
The current day feminism says women must not have that job.
Grid girls, can't say I know many but its not actually a jet setting life of glamorous full time work.
Its a fast short term well paid part time job.
One thing is for sure, the action has taken away the freedom to make the free decision to apply for work in one scene. Their choice now reduced.
As the Daily Wire pointedly remarked
"Hey, in the pursuit of True Feminist Equality, some women are just going to have to lose the careers they love. Or something."
Kinda unsure where this new era of Feminism is going, but its not entirely empowering to women.
I'm more learning towards the old view from conservatives in that Equal Opportunity is the only way forward.
The Left is more Equal Outcomes.
Difference in these approaches is the conservatives are saying all should have the same equal opportunities in this unfair world. Work hard and get somewhere. Maybe you won't be rich as Bill Gates no matter what you do, but work hard and find your place in the world.
The Left seems a little more intent on breaking progress, splitting what people own and delivering folk straight to the outcomes. This has risen in prominence as more of the world has become 1st world and more of the world has become lazy. When people complain about foreigners taking their jobs, they're usually the jobs no locals want to do. The foreigners want to work, recognise that you get ahead through hard work. Sure enough, foreigners do well and lazy locals feel contempt for them.
If someone wants to stand around in the hot sun on asphalt holding a pose or a sign or just smiling whilst their back aches, their feet are sore or maybe even suffering from head aches & period pain...for a good bit of pay, well bad luck. That extra bit of income is gone.
The straight to equal outcome leftist approach also means we have to have 50:50 Men/Women ration on high ranking company boards, government cabinets & senior executive ranks whether there is enough women or not. Straight to equal outcome.
Equal opportunity means good people rise to the top in their chosen field irrespective of their gender.
Oddly meanwhile the Quota Approach only applies to high ranking, high profile, high paying white collar careers. The new Twisted Left & the new Twisted Feminism isn't pushing for 50:50 rates in the world of truck driving, sheep carting, shearing, slaughterhouse work, plumbers, sparkies or farm labourers. Only the big bucks, only the things that might result in a press conference.
I know lady truck drivers, stock workers, shearers, sparkies and labourers. All the ones I know got where they are by hard work. None are actually there on quotas. None are their because the boss wanted a "pretty little slip of a thing" on the workplace. They rolled up their sleeves and worked.
Feminism of old knocked down the barriers for these younger women and allowed them the Equality of Opportunity many ladies in earlier days were flatly denied.
Somehow feminism dropped the ball whilst many women just got on with the job of getting along, getting ahead by working hard.
In the board & cabinet scene, its leftists pushing for equality of outcomes which is not the same thing.
It will damage things for some women as claims of Quota Queens will get trotted out. The unfairness there will be hard workers will get unfairly & wrongly tarnished as queue jumpers.
Meanwhile, the Left & the New Feminism has flatly told some women where they CANNOT work and what they CANNOT wear. The State has spoken.
Oddly prostitution is fine, but grid girls and cheer leaders are sex based exploitation.
We have some way to go yet I think & Political Correctness is not correct nor going away for sometime yet
Odd.
Grid Girls = Bad
Sex Workers = Valid Career Choice
That's how its stacking. It's a little bit weird in the logic department on a number of levels.
The current day feminism says women must not have that job.
Grid girls, can't say I know many but its not actually a jet setting life of glamorous full time work.
Its a fast short term well paid part time job.
One thing is for sure, the action has taken away the freedom to make the free decision to apply for work in one scene. Their choice now reduced.
As the Daily Wire pointedly remarked
"Hey, in the pursuit of True Feminist Equality, some women are just going to have to lose the careers they love. Or something."
Kinda unsure where this new era of Feminism is going, but its not entirely empowering to women.
I'm more learning towards the old view from conservatives in that Equal Opportunity is the only way forward.
The Left is more Equal Outcomes.
Difference in these approaches is the conservatives are saying all should have the same equal opportunities in this unfair world. Work hard and get somewhere. Maybe you won't be rich as Bill Gates no matter what you do, but work hard and find your place in the world.
The Left seems a little more intent on breaking progress, splitting what people own and delivering folk straight to the outcomes. This has risen in prominence as more of the world has become 1st world and more of the world has become lazy. When people complain about foreigners taking their jobs, they're usually the jobs no locals want to do. The foreigners want to work, recognise that you get ahead through hard work. Sure enough, foreigners do well and lazy locals feel contempt for them.
If someone wants to stand around in the hot sun on asphalt holding a pose or a sign or just smiling whilst their back aches, their feet are sore or maybe even suffering from head aches & period pain...for a good bit of pay, well bad luck. That extra bit of income is gone.
The straight to equal outcome leftist approach also means we have to have 50:50 Men/Women ration on high ranking company boards, government cabinets & senior executive ranks whether there is enough women or not. Straight to equal outcome.
Equal opportunity means good people rise to the top in their chosen field irrespective of their gender.
Oddly meanwhile the Quota Approach only applies to high ranking, high profile, high paying white collar careers. The new Twisted Left & the new Twisted Feminism isn't pushing for 50:50 rates in the world of truck driving, sheep carting, shearing, slaughterhouse work, plumbers, sparkies or farm labourers. Only the big bucks, only the things that might result in a press conference.
I know lady truck drivers, stock workers, shearers, sparkies and labourers. All the ones I know got where they are by hard work. None are actually there on quotas. None are their because the boss wanted a "pretty little slip of a thing" on the workplace. They rolled up their sleeves and worked.
Feminism of old knocked down the barriers for these younger women and allowed them the Equality of Opportunity many ladies in earlier days were flatly denied.
Somehow feminism dropped the ball whilst many women just got on with the job of getting along, getting ahead by working hard.
In the board & cabinet scene, its leftists pushing for equality of outcomes which is not the same thing.
It will damage things for some women as claims of Quota Queens will get trotted out. The unfairness there will be hard workers will get unfairly & wrongly tarnished as queue jumpers.
Meanwhile, the Left & the New Feminism has flatly told some women where they CANNOT work and what they CANNOT wear. The State has spoken.
Oddly prostitution is fine, but grid girls and cheer leaders are sex based exploitation.
We have some way to go yet I think & Political Correctness is not correct nor going away for sometime yet
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)