Yes, the latest outrage as the authorities try to crush resistance to a silly law.

Page 7 of today's Sydney Morning Herald with a nice big picture.

Views: 1314

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I assume this is what Michael O is talking about:

Do people still buy newspapers?

Yes, people do buy newspapers. More than 300,000 copies of the Herald will be sold today, with readership getting close to a million.
This is good news for online readers too, because online earnings alone aren't sufficient to fund the Herald newsroom.

I have a subscription. : )

So comfy for armchair reading!

Our (somewhat cheap) 7 days for 1/2 year for about 80$ ran out this week.

Any good sub deals to ask around or will I have to go offshore?

Dunno ... despite what some have suggested, I don't work in marketing or subscriptions.

But my best suggestion would be to phone or email those office-bearers up and ask them for a deal to match your last deal. See what happens.


I like this ad for The Guardian which embraces online and print

Do people still buy newspapers?

Nup. Not when you can get much better deals on things like this.

''There was no victim in my particular Australian crime and if I had paid the levy, as you demanded, I would have conceded that I was responsible to the many victims who require assistance from the compensatory fund.''

That's a tough position to take.  I think I would have viewed it more as a worthy charitable cause, and paid up.
Not a tough position at all. If they'd asked her to pay to a random charity it would be different. But by making her pay to victims of crime, there is a sense of guilt. She's a woman of strong convictions. Go Sue!

Perhaps, but there is a possibility of this transaction being 'on the record' should someone want to look up her history at a later date.

I don't think I'd like my name listed next to 'Victims of Crime Levy' particularly if it doesn't specify what crime ti was that was committed to require its imposition (an important point) - it's clearly a levy (mandatory) and not a charitable donation. 

On a similar note, the US 'Sex Offenders Register' does not specify what the crime was (teenage indiscretion or actual sexual assault). When a member of the public looks them up on this register this information is not present and the restrictions applied to individuals do not discriminate. I read a very interesting article in The Economist magazine on this subject a while ago and was horrified to discover this.

You want to be very careful where your name ends up...


© 2019   Created by DamianM.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service