***apologies, actually started this post 18th December 2020, and it just got pushed down the list with all the other half-finished posts, but here 'tis now...***
Howdy dear availees all over the South East of South Australia and through-out the state...in our previous post on this issue, Monday, 14th December, 2020, PUBLIC INTEREST ALERT: Mt Gambier City Council's Latest Act Of Base Corruption, we identified the extraordinary 'Unreasonable Conduct' legislation that the wholly corrupt MGCC were intending to introduce, and at their Full Meeting on Tuesday 15th December 2020, they did exactly that...it is now 'officially' in place...(well they were hardly going to go to all that trouble of creating that blizzard of word-salad Pseudo Justifications and carefully deceitful Implementation Loop Holes, etc, and then not put it all into place-Ed)...fair enough, and it's so complicated yet so obvious...(and the irony is that the convoluted carry-on that's designed to hide the genuine intent, that same carry-on only serves to highlight the real agenda at play here-Ed)...and as per usual, the local media reportage is appallingly complicit and/or uninformed and just trots along with the Council's version of events...
And this is why I'm so hot on the ABC South East Radio, The Border Watch, Josh Lynagh and his Facebook page, Limestone Coast Community News, and all other local media...(it's why appointments like Sandra Morello to Chief of Staff of the ABC SER is such a grossly inappropriate and critical issue-Ed)...exactly...(and why Josh mate defending/protecting Council and trying to deny the St Martins Lutheran School Child Abuse Cover-up, etc, by calling you a 'defamatory conspiracy theorist' is such a complicitly corrupt act-Ed)...indeed, repeatedly publicly denigrating me on his webpage then bleating the exact opposite on this 'ere blog's 'Comments' page, it just ain't gunna' fly...but, having said that, credit where credit's due, since TBW was re-birthed late in 2020, they have run several stories critical of MGCC that I'd have never thought I'd see there-in...(for example, the article identifying that Council has lied about it's 'excuse' for evicting the Aquifer Cafe/Tours, which we covered in recent posts-Ed)...exactly, that and the detailed article about local Council's 'Secret Meetings'...(well sure, that too, and kudos to TBW for that stuff, but in reality, all that TBW has done is dispassionately report the facts, and it's Council's own deceits and self-contradictory deceptions, etc, that have turned those articles into seething exposes-Ed)...a most excellent point Ed, kudos to TBW, but it's really Council's own actions defining how outrageous those actions are...(yay-Ed)...
By My Own Definition I'm Over-Reacting:...'cos as long as I've dealt with the ABC SER, going on 20 years now, they have almost always and in all ways carefully cherry-picked their reportage, seeking to avoid compromising Council and/or their mates and/or other vested interests...(and weren't the ABC SER quite willingly SAPol (police) Prosecution witnesses against you in your "bizarre trial" re ICAC, etc?-Ed)...yes, yes the ABC was...(and didn't they provide an Affidavit riddled with lies and abuse, then repeat those lies and abuse unchallenged in Court, albeit 'cos Magistrate White 'cancelled' your Medical Certificate and then concluded your 3 year trial in your absence without you getting to present any defense, etc?-Ed)...yep, and ABC SER had their reporters attend my trial, but instructed them to not talk to me, and then presented complicitly skewed 'reports' that were designed to denigrate and discredit me, eg, about how I kept being warned about 'Contempt of Court', and arguing with the Magistrate, etc, but ignoring Magistrate White's repeated outrageous threats and abuse of me...(yes, the ABC SER weren't just willingly biased in reportage of your Political Persecution, they were definably complicit in the actual Persecution to the point of corrupt-Ed)...yes they were/are...
And that's how I'm potentially over-reacting, but in a context where things are already extremely problematic...(so you're saying, in that context, having Sandra, the wife of Mt Gambier City Councillor Frank, having her as boss at the ABC SER is not likely to make things any worse than previous-Ed)...absolutely, Frank and Sandra have illustrated just how complicit and bent and untrustworthy they are with their collusion regarding Don Pegler's press releases aways back in 2010, as covered in the recent post, 21 January 2021, ABC Story About Crater Lakes Precinct Ignores Aquifer Cafe/Tours...(yep, so, overall, whilst it's fundamentally ludicrous to even sanction the idea that the ABC SER will ever do/report anything that might in any way compromise MGCC or hold them to account, etc, that's effectively just business as usual-Ed)...exactly, I expect no better of Sandra or Frank or TBW or ABC, and I'm very, very confident that individually and collectively they won't let me down...like MGCC itself, the Mt Gambier media is infested with card-carrying Liberals and their various toadying acolytes and accomplices...but for every rule there's always an exception...
And Now Contradicting Myself:..'cos I'm gunna' state here for the record, when it comes to Mt Gambier
media, that there have been some very limited occasions and/or individuals
where those involved have treated myself and/or other St Martins parents
respectfully...those incidents/people should not need to be remarked
upon, but given the overwhelmingly abusive and derogatory and
threatening and betraying behaviours that we have all experienced from
local media identities and/or organisations, especially the ABC SER,
those few persons and their actions are quite remarkable...y'all know
who you are, 'cos I've told ya's to ya' faces, so I'll leave it there...
But, gettin' back to the substance of this 'ere post, and not least of all 'cos it'll make it easier for me to explain some of the deceitful intricacies, etc, I repeat my request that y'all avail ya'llselves of the original Agenda item from the above date, pages 238 - 275, and/or the related Minutes of 15th December 2020...I had intended to provide a detailed and concise synopsis of each section of this legislation, but as y'all 'll see, that proves to be unnecessary...instead we're gunna' do a coupla' critical issues/aspects in detail, and provide a template overlay for the rest...so let's start at the beginning...
The Genuine Agenda:...MGCC is looking to give themselves 'justifiable' powers to ban people who try to hold this wholly corrupt Council to account...this 'legislation' is solely and wholly about Council removing themselves from any and all accountability by denying access to the very few people who give a damn enough about their community to actually challenge the wholly corrupt MGCC...(well, there are those who do give a damn, just they might express their 'damn giving' in other ways, eg, extensive volunteer work, etc-Ed)...alright alright, ya' ruddy bleedin' heart Leftie, I'm talking about engaging with MGCC in a more political context, eg, asking embarrassing questions about dodgy rezoning issues or Council's relentlessly corrupt Tender/Contract practices, etc, but by application, you are correct, this legislation affects everyone..(indeed, and will encompass anyone who has any 'genuine' grievance about Council, including 'first-time' complainants/contactors-Ed)...exactly, anyone who has a complaint about Council's conduct or about the behaviour of a Councillor, etc, can and will be immediately labelled/targetted as being a 'vexatious troublemaker' and 'banned' from contacting Council...
Pseudo Justifications:...1) that this is about providing a 'safe' work environment for Council staff, to protect them physical assaults, threats, abusive language, vandalism, etc, and 2) to reduce the cost (for Ratepayers) of dealing with 'dangerous' or vexatious and/or repeat complainants...(well both are absolute lies in the context of what MGCC is actually trying to achieve, and are easily dis-proven by the simple realities-Ed)...indeed...on the ABC South East Radio on Wednesday 16th December 2020, the reporter used the example of fast food workers getting abused, but made no reference to any actual instances involving this Council and it's staff...now I don't know whether that was the example Council used in the meeting, or if it was the ABC's own words, but on Thursday 17th MGCC Acting CEO Barbara Cernovskis was on the ABC and didn't even offer that much 'justification', it was all theoretical potential incidents...(well that's just bollocks, if there were any specific incidents of abuse/violence/vandalism/whatevs, those examples would have been front-and-centre as the unchallengeable justifications!-Ed)...spot on Ed, spot on...it's a classic case of peering into the vast murky silences between what's actually being said/written, and finding the truths rampant there-in...
Now We Don't See The Violence Inherited In The System:...(due credit to Monty Python, The Holy Grail)...'cos, if there had been even one single case of abuse/violence/vandalism/whatevs that they could have referenced, Council would have been floggin' that 'incident' at each and every opportunity in trying to justify their Fascist legislation...(yes they would have, I can hear it now, 'why only last week Selina, a person said "oh bottoms to that" to a young staffer who was absolutely mortified and had to have a Bex and a good lie-down'-Ed)...well I can see how hyperbolically facetious you're being there Ed, 'cos I know we both agree that there is simply no place/justification for abusing counter/office staff, and for 2 reasons...(well I know one, that it's literally never them that's made the actual decision that y'all are upset about, decisions are always a 'management issue'-Ed)...spot on, and two?...(ummm...-Ed)...it's in the same ballpark...(errr...-Ed)...no? ...well 'cos it's never appropriate to treat counter staff or council workers or park attendants or whoevs in that manner...and anyone who has ever dealt with me personally knows that I ain't just preachin' at ya's, 'cos that's exactly how I roll, absolutely respectful...(indeed, you swear more on this 'ere blog than in 'real life'-Ed)...indeed...(and even when the cops come to ya' house you're perfectly polite, albeit brutally passive-aggressive polite-Ed)... well that's an excellent example Ed, but what's "brutally passive-aggressive"?...(well you know, stating to the officers that you know that it wasn't their idea to come, it was their superiors idea, etc, and apologising to them that they've "been sent to harass and intimidate me in my own home"-Ed)...yeah, fair call...
But seriously, sure, yes, that exact exchange has happened several times, so sue me...it's not those cops fault, but rock-up to my house and stick cameras and threats of Contempt of Court in my face, etc, and all I do is look straight down said camera and quietly tell it exactly like it is, and to the people who really matter? seems very respectful to me...(true, and really the only time I've seen you cut crook it's always been at/to those who have the power and are making the decisions, eg, Magistrate Ian White, man you used to get stuck into him-Ed)...yeah, good times, albeit as part of a repulsively corrupt 'Trial' process...(fair call, but even then I'm not sure I've ever seen you swear or even really raise your voice-Ed)...indeed, I am very fortunate that my personal default setting is to be quiet-spoken and respectful, etc, and it's served me very well on many occasions...(well that and the fact that you're quite a large, wide quiet person-Ed)...well true, that has had it's advantages on occasion too, 'cos it does really freak-out some people when a large angry man is quietly stating how upset he is...but we digress...
The Silence That Speaks Volumes:...so when the media uses the Macca's example and doesn't make reference to any 'incidents' specific to Council, that might just be sloppy reportaging, but when the Acting CEO does not identify/offer a single example, not even the Macca's Paradigm, then that's the silence that speaks volumes...by their absence as actual examples, as explained above, it appears that the 'incidents' Council is referring to are theoretical ones...outside of that, Council already has available to it various legal tools/avenues when it comes to dealing with anyone who threatens and/or commits acts of violence/vandalism, etc...for example, call SAPol and/or have Final Intervention Orders issued...as evidenced by the FIOs issued against me, albeit a reprehensibly politicised mis-use of FIOs, FIOs can and do cover physical attendance, other contacts like phone calls, and even Interweb stuff...these powers MGCC have given themselves allow them to issue pseudo-FIOs when and as it suits them, and without any ability for the recipient to challenge...(and without going via a Court process which does allow a degree of 'appeal/challenge'-Ed)...exactly...(except of course in your 'Trial' when Magistrate White just ignored your submissions re his FIOs-Ed)...yes, well, but in any non-corrupt Court process there is usually an opportunity provided the recipient to address the relevant issues/allegations...
Reducing Costs At The Cost Of Accountability:...'cos yet again, Council's failure to identify a single example of a 'vexatious litigant' or 'recalcitrant serial complainer', etc, and any associated 'legal costs', etc, etc, that lack of example is to my experience the proof that this is a faux motivation and/or justification...(well I can think of a coupla' people who have been regularly contacting Council about some specific issues-Ed)...exactly, but if they identify those persons/issues, Council outs itself as to the reality of their motivation here, to shut-down those people specifically and any others like them...as with the absolute shizzle about violence/abuse, this 'costs' issue is a transparently obvious excuse to shove-through otherwise unjustifiable legislation...(isn't this exactly what Robe District Council is trying to do to former Mayor William Peden?-Ed)...yes it is Ed, and we've covered that at length in several posts, including the post we did 18th December 2020...1) Mr Peden has engaged with Robe Council in what appears to be a completely respectful and forthright manner, asking appropriate and quite critical questions about Council's conduct, and 2) time-and-again the Council has chosen to throw that stuff to lawyers...(usually with a view to 'hiding/denying/ignoring' the issue-Ed)...indeed, usually...3) Robe Council hold 'special meetings' and/or pass 'special legislation' solely about Mr Peden, etc, etc, and then 4) seeks to blame him for incurring all those associated legal/bureaucratic costs, and therefore 5) justify effectively 'banning' Mr Peden from further contact...it's absolutely corrupt and it's a text-book template/example for what can and will happen with MGCC and this Unreasonable Conduct Policy legislation...
This, This, This, But Mostly That:...as I stated earlier, there's no need to dissect each and every section of the legislation , 'cos there is a broader template that can be applied...(and that is?-Ed)...well, there's all sorts of stuff about 'Customer's rights', etc, but ultimately Council can, and will, do whatevs they want...and it can happen to you simply for exercising your right to ask questions of Council...(so, for example, and in a best case scenario, if I contact Council first thing on a Monday about an issue, and talk to a junior staffer who won't/can't put me through to the Manager/Councillor/whoevs I want to talk to-Ed)...as happens literally every time anyone calls Council...(sure, and then I don't hear back for a coupla' days, but it's kinda' urgent 'cos there's a related Council Committee meeting soon, or something like that, so I call again on the Wednesday-Ed)...and again get the 'we'll call you back' stuff, and again no-one does...(so I ring again Friday-Ed)...BOOM! you're called 3 times and BAM! you're harassing and/or a vexatious complainer/litigant, whatevs, and you can and will be banned...(and WALLOP that can actually happen after a single call, if Council chooses?-Ed)...exactly, it doesn't even have to be 3 calls, if Council decides...
Death Of Democracy By A Thousand Loopholes:...so here 'tis in it's simplest terms...after bangin'-on about the security and welfare of Council staff, etc, each section of legislation pays lip-service to how important The Customer is, etc, and supposedly sets-out a series of protections/protocols that ensure/protect The Customer's 'rights', etc...(sounds good thus far-Ed)...each section has very long-winded and supposedly reasonable guidelines
and 'protections', etc, that supposedly guarantee Ratepayers/citizens
'rights' to have reasonable 'appropriate' access to Council staffers
and/or Councillors ...(terrific-Ed)...but, and it's a very big but...(I...like...big...buts and I cannot lie-Ed)...thankyou! every time? is that really necessary?.........but.........each section then provides a series of undefined qualifiers about what Council deems to be 'The Customer's Conduct'...(well who decides that?-Ed)...like I said, it's repeatedly referred to but never actually defined, and it's therefore Council that gets to unilaterally define/decide what 'Unreasonable Conduct' actually is...(well how could that possibly go wrong?-Ed)...your sarcasm-soaked concerns are duly noted and well founded... .
(And are Ratepayers really 'customers' in the genuine sense? or even close? I thought that Ratepayers/Citizens are the employers, that literally everybody on Council is an employee paid for by Ratepayers/Citizens-Ed)...in reality, yes, but I'm quietly confident that Council will/does have a weasel-worded way of circumventing that reality, eg, by referring to themselves as 'an incorporated body', or some shizzle like that...I ain't no lawyer, but I've dealt with these stooges far long enough that ya' just know there's some massive but quietly unidentified/undefined clause somewhere that allows Councils to legally behave like they're the boss...(and if you're wrong about that, hey, then you're right that Council has no legal provision/entitlement to enact these sort of punitive and openly Fascist restrictions on Ratepayers/Citizens-Ed)...yes, that's the great thing about having a bet each way, you're always gunna' be right at some point...but again we digress...
Banning Those Who Exercise Their Legal Rights:...and yet again, it's about what's being said...(or not being said-Ed)...indeed, whichevs, it's about what's happening in between the actual words that defines the real intent and the potential application/misuse of this legislation...take for example this... "Pursuing and exhausting all available review options when it is not warranted and refusing to accept further action cannot or will not be taken on their matters of concern."...( and by saying "all available review options", is that including legal recourse through the Courts?-Ed)...it certainly reads that way, without actually saying it...(so for example, people like Richard Paltridge who took Grant District Council and Acciona to the Environment, Resources and Development Court, who exercised his legal rights there-in, and had a massive win that stopped the horrendous proposed Allendale East Wind Turbine Industrial Estate, he could be 'banned'?-Ed)..perfect example Ed, an absolutely perfect example...and again here, Council decides/defines 1) what is "warranted" or otherwise, 2) what and/or how The Customer is "refusing to accept", and 3) what "cannot or will not" means...(so Council can say 'we will not act', and if you have a right to have that inaction reviewed by a Court, Council can ban you?-Ed)...yep
Banning Those Who Go To The Media:..."Contacting different people within our organisation and/or externally to get a different outcome or more sympathetic response to their matter - internal and external forum shopping."...(hang-on, what does "externally...external forum" mean? does that include the media?-Ed)...I reckon that's exactly who/what it includes...(so, in the unlikely event the media cover your specific issue, then media involvement/coverage is justification for 'banning'?-Ed)...yep...this is every bit as obnoxious as the wording indicates, belittling Ratepayers/Citizens and our concerns by calling our rights to seek external support/review/action as looking for a "more sympathetic response (via) external forum shopping"...(yes, that really is extraordinarily condescending language to use at any time, let-alone in actual legislation-Ed)...mate, it's not a million miles from the sort of gas-lighting abusive control language that perpetrators of Domestic Violence frequently utilise to undermine the confidence of their victim...(oh my gourd! that's exactly what it is, belittling the persons feelings and experience of the situation and mocking their response, that is text-book emotional abuse and control techniques-Ed)...it's typically what Lynagh does when someone questions him on LCCN...(yes it is, mock/belittle/denigrate the person, get them questioning their own thoughts/beliefs/conduct, and therefore exercise a degree of control over them-Ed)...yep, and here-in as actual 'legislation'...
And under this 'section' people like the Turners, whom Council corruptly evicted from the Aquifer Cafe site/lease, and who's Aquifer Tours lease Council is currently trying to steal, the Turners could be banned 'cos they've talked to the media about Council's abhorrently corrupt conduct...(but didn't the media go to them, not the other way 'round?-Ed)...won't matter, 'cos it's undefined again, so again it's down to Council to decide what definition they want to apply...this could also apply to an external third party such as this 'ere blog...(how so?-Ed)...well, we write something about the latest rancidly corrupt MGCC Tender process, for example, and Council can then use our reportage/commentary to refuse to answer relevant questions from other contractors involved or Ratepayers, etc, even if those persons haven't spoken to us...(and by that rationale, if the media spots something dodgy in a Council meeting, and reports it, Council could use that as an excuse to 'ban' the contractors/Ratepayers/whoevs-Ed)...spot on mate...(and hang on, unless I'm much mistaken, wouldn't an "external forum" also include seeking action/redress through the Courts?-Ed)...indeed Ed, this covers all the bases, go to the media, go to a lawyer, actually go to Court, contact a former Local Government employee or Councillor, contact literally anyone just to get advice...all of these and some we've missed I'm sure, they all fall under the catch-all heading of "different people"...(well literally everyone outside of Council is "different people", and merely "contacting" them can/will get you 'banned'-Ed)...yep...
So these two sections, only a fraction of the actual legislation, gives MGCC undefined and absolute power to unilaterally ban people from contact and/or attendance, if that person has spoken to the media or a lawyer, etc, or has exercised their legal rights to external review of Council decisions via the Courts, etc...and in each and every situation Council has granted themselves the right to decide what constitutes a 'breach' of this legislation, with pseudo-protections that are immediately over-ridden by loopholes that allow Council to immediately implement 'total bans' and for a minimum 12 months...just read that legislation and see for y'allselves...
Tomorrow: Another Litany of Scummo's/LNP's Deceits And Bastardries
And/or a further dissection of MGCC's UCP...covered most of it's broader implications here, but there's still plenty to examine in the detail of other sections..(and we did spend quite some lineage bangin'-on about the media, etc-Ed)...true...I guess we'll just have to wait and see...(well my money's on another MGCC UCP post-Ed)...quite probably...and today we'd like to close with this quote which is very relevant to the complicit conduct of the pro-LNP Main Stream Media...
“As long as the general population is passive, apathetic, diverted to consumerism or hatred of the vulnerable, then the powerful can do as they please, and those who survive will be left to contemplate the outcome.” - Noam Chomsky
I am Nick Fletcher and this is my blog...cheers and laters...
