broken legal system

#F5F6CE;line-height:120%;">Michael S brings to a persuasive conclusion his argument that Your ABC has been complicit in a brainwashing exercise that will damage the survival chances of its loyal listeners. As one who comes from a family of Friends of the ABC, with seniors who simply love the ABC for its programs and the window it provides on the world, I know how difficult it is for such people to bring themselves to believe that the ABC would mislead them. For them it is like a fundamental betrayal from an old friend. Nevertheless I think that Michael S is right: ABC policy is run by people whom the lay-person would judge to be outlaws. Yet they are not disciplined or taken to court. What does that say about our legal system? - Candobetter editorial.

A layman’s view of the legal landscape

If we accept that breach of the ABC’s Statutory Duty to avoid bias (Ref: ABC Code of Practice) has occurred, then we must also accept that the ABC is a law breaker.

One premise for accusing the ABC of law breaking is the following 5 minute video, which is the “tip of the iceberg” of ABC pro-Carbon Tax and pro-Population Growth bias:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97cmFCkb1KE

Here is a proof of party political advertising in the ABC Vote Compass, which is also unlawful according to the ABC Editorial Policy document:
http://candobetter.net/?q=node/3844

Pro-population growth and pro-Carbon Tax bias underlie each example. There are many more examples that can be exposed by scrutiny of ABC conduct between 2008 and the present.

It’s a bit like parking in a No Standing Zone. If you didn’t see the No Standing sign you still broke the law.

So I think we can comfortably move on knowing that the ABC has been, and remains, a law breaker in its coverage of these issues.

Both the ACMA and the Commonwealth Ombudsman have refused to acknowledge this bias, despite the facts presented. So they have denied the ABC even parked in the wrong place, let alone did it with intent.

This interesting excerpt provides a description of Accessory after the fact:

CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 6
Accessory after the fact

"Any person who receives or assists another person, who is, to his or her knowledge, guilty of any offence against a law of the Commonwealth, in order to enable him or her to escape punishment or to dispose of the proceeds of the offence shall be guilty of an offence.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years."

So if the bias is proven, and the ACMA and the Commonwealth Ombudsman argued that it did not exist, are they Accessories after the fact or are they incompetent and therefore innocent?

So is it possible for the ABC to be incompetent and guilty while the ACMA and Ombudsman are incompetent and innocent?

Hence nobody is accountable for a major betrayal of the Australian people? And because nobody is accountable, the betrayal can continue indefinitely?

Let’s move on to some incriminating facts that challenge the incompetence defence:

• I first raised the direct relationship between emissions growth and population growth in written communication with the ABC on 23 November 2009 and continued to do so many times before passing of the Carbon Tax legislation in November 2011
• Statistics quantifying the direct relationship between emissions growth and population growth, and relatively constant emissions per capita, had been recorded in National Inventory Reports by Government on an annual basis since 1990. They show emissions growth correlated with population growth far exceeding the Australian-based Carbon Tax reduction targets. The ABC has always had full access to this information.

Here’s something interesting about what a reasonable person should be able to do:

Ref: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1056&context=law_pubs
Ordinary and reasonable people: The design of objective tests of criminal responsibility

“This paper reviews the design of objective tests of criminal responsibility for serious offences. It will be argued that their design needs to be rationalised in light of two fundamental principles. First, there is ‘the fault principle’, that is, the principle that there should be no penal liability without fault. It follows from this principle that, whatever the seriousness of an offence, we should reject liability for failure to attain a standard that was beyond the capacities of the accused. Secondly, there is ‘the proportionality principle’, that is, the principle of proportionality between culpability and punishment or penal liability. Proportionality is both a sentencing principle and a principle of responsibility. As a principle of responsibility, it demands that the degree of culpability required for an offence should be commensurate with the level of penal liability. The more severe the sanctions that a person will face upon conviction, the worse should be the culpability required for conviction.”

Since we are not seeking to imprison anybody (but maybe we should?) the persons facing the severe sanctions are the people of Australia whose democratic rights are being abused due to:

• Misrepresentation of the Carbon Tax issue
• Omission of the Population Growth Management issue from public policy debate

Any reasonable person can see this truth, including all the ABC Operatives who perpetrated the bias. So why is it an unreasonably harsh penalty to expect them to apologise and correct all their misrepresentations. Or was it outright fraud?