Steve Smith should resign. If not he should be sacked


Cheating is cheating. Gaining an advantage outside the rules is cheating. Money and match fees are such nowadays that players seemingly will do anything to win. Cricket was so much better when it was an amateur sport. When a bad decision from an umpire couldn’t be reviewed. It was just part of the game. Sometimes it went with you and others against you. Cricket hasn’t often been about the “spirit” of the game. Not any more.

Of course modern technology can provide instant feedback on the correct decision but I’ve always viewed it as wrong to challenge authority when it suits. Really, what message do we send young kids who grow up to think they can protest any decision they disagree with? What lessons or values get taught? TV cameras are everywhere. How do these sportsmen think they’ll get away with claiming a catch they didn’t take? Now this.

While a full inquiry hasn’t commenced it is clear that the player caught tampering was the one fighting hardest to keep his seat, Cameron Bancroft. However team captain Steve Smith admitted he knew in the press conference. While adamant he won’t step down as captain because it will never happen again (Scout’s honour), if he is found implicated in this mess he should be sacked. Period. So should the coach Darren Lehman. I absolutely admire Smith’s crazy talent as a batsman but find such lapses in judgement no excuse and even less worthy of having the honour of leading a national team. If found guilty he should face a lengthy suspension.

Any board would call on their CEO in the corporate world to resign if he/she hadn’t already volunteered it. Yet sports stars, much like politicians, believe hollow promises that the incident won’t happen again should be punishment enough. Qantas should fly these cheats back economy.

Which brings about the ethics of the game. As Smith is the highest ranked batsman in the world will the authorities go weak and impose lighter sentencing to keep the turnstiles ticking? What message does that send? If Smith is in charge he should take the fall for this shocking behaviour and be fined in the $100,000s.

Australia already has a shocking record for bad sportsmanship most infamously with the underarm delivery against NZ in 1981. This test series has been disgusting in many levels. Players mocking other players about the sexual antics of their wives and so on. Australia should forfeit the match and lose their fees. Cricket Australia should be forced to compensate the fans for this debacle and the players responsible fired. Just because Bancroft was fighting to save his career doesn’t excuse him from wrong doing. Sure, playing for one’s country is the highest accolade but any fan wants to see players reach and stay at the top through their hard efforts not through cheating.

What it does tell us is how terrible the governance is within the Australian team. Where were the whistleblowers?  Or do the millions they earn each year somehow cloud their judgement? How could the coach condone it? He was on TV admonishing fans for sledging players walking up the race after being dismissed. What a hypocrite if he knew what the team was up to. No excuse. South African Captain Hansie Cronje received a life ban for match fixing. While ball tampering is not quite as severe as throwing matches it is still cheating.

Fans will be judging the response by the authorities and Cricket Australia. Will CEO James Sutherland issue an apology and some harsh words to really clamp down on this? Or will he gloss over the sordid tour, hope time will heal and think of dollar signs only because  fans can be treated as mugs.

Ethics? A sign in society today of how little it means.



Fantastic film. Finally got around to watching it 5 years late. Here is the trailer.


Trudeau pushes for more compelled speech


You can’t make this stuff up. The Trudeau government plans to ban front-line public service workers from saying Mr., Mrs., Mother, and Father. In what can only be seen as another push toward more compelled speech legislation,  the majority have to put up with more political correct nonsense for the benefit of peoplekind.

Seriously though, if someone is going to be so irreparably mentally damaged by the misuse of a pronoun that it requires legislation to protect he/she/xie, the victim has far bigger issues that require immediate help. How fragile can one be?

The beauty is that for the 99% of us that identity with our biological make-up must make way for the 1% of which it’s actually only 1% of that who would benefit from this legislation. Take the same sex marriage debate in Australia. The 2015 Census showed that only 0.03% of all couples identified as a traditional marriage and same sex. It isn’t questioning equal rights but most campaigners had next to no idea how many it truly impacted. Yet don’t step in the way, else be shot down as a bigot or homophobe.

To put the shoe on the other foot, shouldn’t our rights to be addressed Mr. or Mrs. be equal to that of those who don’t?  Like Bill C-16 the apparatchiks in charge of introducing these laws are by far and away the least appropriate people to enforce it. What are civil rights if legislation only applies in favour of certain groups? Surely Canada’s social service systems can field and burn in requests on which people wish to be called what without having to blanket ban language.

The laughable fact with respect to Bill-16 (which is designed to protect gender identity and expression), is that the Trudeau government did not consult transgender people widely. The sheer fact that they clump all transgender people as “one” distinct group just shows how ignorant Trudeau’s cabinet is. There aren’t individuals within the trans community who think differently from other trans? Who’d had thought?

Yet the left see that such legislation is all about positive outcomes which judged by the complaints by the transgender community show the opposite. Many transgender people do not want to have their identity widely advertised. Yet this legislation seeks to disrupt others into compelled speech many trans people aren’t calling for.

Welcome to the slippery slope. At least one thing is for sure, if the polls are right and  Trudeau gets booted in the 2019 election, Qantas will happily put him in charge of the political correctness department so as to make sure all of the aircraft safety videos address gender equality over the more important safety aspects.

Double Dipper Dan


Social Justice Warrior and Victorian Premier Dan Andrews is in hot water after 21 of his Labor MPs have been embroiled in a “Rorts for Votes” scheme investigated by the Ombudsman which breached parliamentary guidelines. It found Labor misused almost $388,000 during the 2014 election campaign. Labor spent $1,000,000 of taxpayers dime over two years trying to stop the Ombudsman investigating them. While the money has reportedly been repayed, Andrews & Co are pleading honest mistakes with regards to probably the most basic and well understood laws of election campaigning. Were someone to rob a bank, invest the proceeds to make a big return then return the original funds, would the justice system turn a blind eye? Andrews would seem to think that there should be no consequences.

Dan Andrews is the first to point the finger at everyone else for morals and ethics. How quick he is to virtue signal on social media at his amazing feats for the state of Victoria which put the rest of the country to shame. To belt neighboring states inferior unemployment rates when his government has been creating New Deal type tax spending programmes to fund new jobs.

Here is a list of just five of the shocking lapses in ethics and morals his government can lay claim to:

1) Andrews handed over $500mn in taxpayer funds to contractors for the backflip on the East-West link. He said during the election campaign he would honour those contracts but said after becoming Premier that “Be very clear about this: there will be no compensation paid.” Then still burnt the funds.

2) He told Victorians that the closure of the Hazelwood coal fired power station would hit electricity bills by 85c/week for the sake of the environment. This turned out to be an average of $278/year because of the over reliance on wholesale electricity markets. Despite all of his hair brained renewables schemes, to make up for the shortfall of closing Hazelwood 100MW of dirty diesel generators were secured to offset any shortfalls in baseload. He also spoke of how many green jobs would be created. Facts show that green job creation has been on a long term downtrend

3) Was instrumental in forcing rural fire-fighting volunteers (those who do it from the heart) against their will to come under the control of the fireman’s union who helped him get elected.

4)  To indoctrinate diversity the Vic Police practiced segregation in police recruiting seminars as the blueprint to reach nirvana in terms of the type of open mindedness and multi-cultural society we should strive for. If they truly wanted to teach the virtues of diversity why don’t they just have a come one come all seminar which didn’t base it on gender, religious or sexual orientation. Victoria has more cops per capita than any other state yet home invasions, carjackings and other crime rates are soaring.

5) The Andrews’s government wants to allow girls as young as 11 to get access to the contraceptive pill without consent from the parents. Most parents worry about their kids. What they eat and what they put in their bodies. Some kids may only want it to reduce pain during their menstrual cycle but to have a government provide a service which deliberately allows kids to bypass parental approval is downright wrong.

While Opposition Leader Matthew Guy has hardly helped his cause by having dinner with a member of the underworld in August 2017 in what was dubbed ‘Mobster-Lobster-gate’ this should hopefully wake up socialist Victoria to the crooked nature of the incumbents.

Jordan Peterson slays Trudeau’s Bill C-16

Professor Jordan Peterson articulated the reasons why Canada’s Bill C-16 (protection of gender expression and gender identity under the Human Rights Act)   is so reprehensible. Less so on grounds of ‘intent’ per se but the fact that it is grounded on unsubstantiated research with zero scientific backing and loose ideology rather than reality. Listening to the Canadian Senate ask questions, Peterson manages to make perfectly reasonable retorts to the identity politics driven nature of the bill. He even goes as far as to say that the people proposing it hadn’t even consulted those with “non-standard genders” to get their feelings on the matter. Peterson said he’d received countless letters to back this up

In typical Trudeau cabinet style, the issues surrounding the identity and gender bill were mostly assumed positions. In much the same way as Bill M-103 operates it is a law which is one way only. One can bet that if a person identifying as their biological gender (99% of us) complained that his or her feelings had been hurt by a transgender person who didn’t acknowledge their gender identity/expression it would be thrown out before it even reached a courtroom. Had the person who identified as a  “non-standard” gender complained the case in the reverse thennthe book would be thrown at the perpetrators. This is the problem. A law must have exactly the same application to everyone rather than a selective bias to protect a few.

No one is questioning a basic requirement for basic human rights. However Peterson makes the point very clear that the very people who proposed the law are by far and away the least appropriate people to enforce it. It is a law that seeks to muzzle free speech. To curb language. Peterson labours the point that the state shouldn’t have a right to prosecute people on the basis of a law that essentially forces them to pretend to accept someone’s subjective opinion on what they happen to identify with. Ironically Peterson tells the panel that the law actually works against “non-standard” genders because when they’re not part of the process they feel misrepresented.

The biggest flaw with such laws is the idea that the argument (as Peterson refuted so well) is so weak on its own that it must be made a statute of law to defend what can’t support with rational debate. The day that diversity has to be indoctrinated is the day we know it has no basis. Much like the hypocrisy surrounding white South African farmers. Many on the left proved their own inner racism and twisted logic by suggesting their skin colour precluded them from the same basic human rights afforded to the groups it peddles constantly. That’s the beauty of identity politics. No solutions are ever sought. Perpetual grievance is the goal in order to ensure equality in misery.

The unbiased ABC happily calls and treats us as c*nts

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) says it is strictly impartial when it comes to politics. No bias whatsoever. The point was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt when it came to one of its comedy programmes calling conservative politicians c@nts. It is not a question of humour (if one can call it that) being like cartoons addressing political satire, it is a question of the organization flagrantly violating its own charter. Australian taxpayers deserve better. The financials of the ABC reveal how out of touch it is.

The ABC was originally established to make sure even rural communities could access news. Scroll forward c.90 years and we are able to stream radio programs from Berlin or TV shows from Canada right to our mobile handset, desktop or TV screen. Media choice is everywhere. Yet the Aussie taxpayer funds multiple ABC radio and TV stations to cater to markets well covered by the commercial sector. The ABC and the SBS get over A$1.5bn a year in funding.

Let’s dig a bit deeper in the stats of the ABC. Comparing 2016/17 and 2015/16 we see that TV audience reach for metro fell from 55.2% to 52.5% and regional slumped from 60.3% to 57.3%. If we go back to 2007/8 the figures were 60.1% and 62.4% respectively. For the 2017/18 period, the ABC targets a 50% reach. Hardly a stretch.

Since 2008, the average salary of ABC’s staff has risen 25% from $86,908 to $108,408. Total staff numbers have risen from 4499 to 4769. Therefore salaries as a percentage of the ABC revenues have risen from 37.1% of the budget to 50%. The ABC’s ability to generate sales from content has fallen from A$140mn to A$70mn last year. The multicultural SBS has seen its budget grow from A$259mn in 2008 to A$412mn in 2017. SBS staff numbers have grown from 844 to 1,466 over the same period with average salaries rising from A$82,689 to A$88,267 or 7.2%. Which begs the question why is the SBS able to operate at 31% of the budget in salaries while the ABC is at 50%? Surely the ABC’s economies of scale should work in its favour? Clearly not.

Australia’s largest commercial terrestrial station, Nine Network, has 3,100 employees against revenues of $1.237bn. So to put that into context, Nine can generate c. A$400,000 per employee whereas the ABC generates A$217,236 in tax dollars per employee. In a sense the ABC could be shut down, and each employee paid $108,000 in redundancy costs annually for two years simply by selling off the land, buildings and infrastructure. The SBS generates A$281,000 in tax dollars per employee. The ABC will argue it deserves $400,000/employee revenues rather than a 46% headcount reduction to be on equal terms with the efficiency in the private sector.

On a global basis, the BBC generates GBP 4.954bn and employs 21,000 staff. 22.7% of those revenues are spent on salaries. Average salaries have grown 17% since 2007/8. Average income per employee at the BBC is now GBP236,852 (A$428,000) thanks to the generous mandatory licensing fees. Average salaries at the Beeb are now GBP 55,651 ($A100,728).

Imagine if the ABC was listed and forced to compete. If it is infinitely confident it has the right content which captures future audience trends (which by its own measures doesn’t) then it can call whoever it wants a c*nt and see whether the ratings stack up when it comes time to attract revenue and capital. Why not give the ABC staff a choice to list and say what it wants or stay government owned and tow the line of the charter? Of course the answer is stay under the protectorate of blind politicians and say what they please. The beauty of the private sector is that sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Is it really our ABC? There is no balance in content and even less balance in its accounts. It should be massively defunded.

Truth in advertising?


Imagine if Delta released an ad like this today? 45 years ago it offered military personnel cheap tickets. In an era where sex, drugs and rock’n’roll ruled, such a risqué advert (torn asunder all the promiscuous women are seemingly white) was one can only guess “in step with the times” back then.  Then again the same Delta Airlines has just cut off its association with law abiding NRA members for simply flying to see the inlaws. CM noticed that National Geographic has just issued a formal apology for its racist and bigoted articles from 100 years ago. The editor wrote, “For Decades, Our Coverage Was Racist. To Rise Above Our Past, We Must Acknowledge It.” One would imagine that all the editor did was raise an issue that a majority of its readers never thought about and hold present journalists and photographers to some sort of ‘Day One, Year Zero’ doctrine.

What is it with this “shaming” culture we live in today where corporates must make collective apologies for things that were done before people were born to people who are most likely dead on matters they had zero control over? Just spare the sanctimonious lectures and thought control. I can’t remember the last time I heard a wolf whistle but some want this made a ‘hate crime’. Not condoning it but a wolf whistle is generally viewed as a compliment not a slur. Just like those Hollywood actresses wearing three postage stamps held together by dental floss chanting #METOO all the while they kept quiet about mass sexual harassment because their careers were more important than principle. Spare us the hypocrisy.

Surely people’s sensitivities can’t be such that this should be a jailable offence? Even Qantas staff have been handed newspeak dictionaries on what they can and can’t say to customers to avoid the 0.00001% risk of offending someone. Where do we draw the line? Seems like the line is being drawn further to the point of endorsing a whole industry built on victim culture.

Instead of acknowledging humans have flaws, celebrating differences and accepting it we are being cornered into smaller and smaller ‘legal’ boxes of what is deemed ‘with the times’ and straying outside that risks an innocent person being labeled a bigot, racist, sexist or homophobe. Worse, more laws (like Canada’s M-103 or Australia’s 18-C) risk jail or massive fines for anyone that makes a factual statement. The worst part about it is that lives have been ruined based on trumped up charges willingly egged on by groups like the heavily biased Australian Human Rights Commission, a group that encourages people to lodge complaints but gladly tweets justices it self-serves on its own side  no impartiality

We can all look at the above advert from Delta 45 years later and see it doesn’t really fly (no pun intended) but most of us do not need some sort of state sanctioned manual to ensure we all are indoctrinated to know it is bad form with a law laced on top. Yet this is exactly the type of thing we are seeing day in and day out.