The recent release of phone tap conversations between Paul Mullett and trusted members of Victoria Police reveals ongoing and intentional efforts to undermine Ethical Standards. The OPI are running two covert operations into possible corruption. One is attempting to ascertain the extent of police involvement - if any - in the murder of corruption witness, Terry Hodson and his wife Christine.
The other, which is the subject of the recent audio taps, is tracking the leaking of information from media liaison officer Stephen Linnell to Assistant Commissioner Noel Ashby, then to the Police Association Secretary, Paul Mullett. From Mullett it's alleged the information was passed to President Brian Rix and then onto Peter Lalor, the suspect in the covert murder investigation. Other clear dynamics to arise include the fractions and disloyalty in the force and the shabbiness of those entrusted to police Victoria.
Firesnake runs through the audio, [Strong Language] looks at the implications of these leaks, the chain of events, why it is important and how it fits into the general ongoing problems with police corruption. We also consider the apathy of successive state governments and the necessity for an independent Royal Commission, as argued by so many for so long. Comments from Associate Professor Colleen Lewis, from the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Monash, reinforce the need for an independent corruption body.
We looked at these issues previously in Episodes Two and Eight, and noted Mr. Mulletts intellectual cowardice in facing responsibility along with his misogynistic bullying. From reneging on honest and open discourse in tohe publics interest, to casting those he aims to destroy as the real bullies, Mullett is a disappointment.
No doubt the tapes were material for a likely Clear and Present Danger to Critical Thought. It is thus with great joy we announce Mr. Paul Mullett as a winner in this episodes CPDCT competition, with a most promising entry score of 8.4/10 for being, well... himself. The Victorian public deserve more than institutional lying and crime. That we must then pay to defend those responsible with seemingly endless funds and legal help renders any hoped for justice a futile ambition. This is the end result of years of corrupt culture and Paul Mullett has fought to keep the truth from being discovered.
However, it goes further. Just how much the average person cares about "old school" tactics in managing major crime is uncertain. Yet, it is the deeper implications for policing in the future, the need to respond to force command - not undermine it - and to move forward away from the expensive and flawed days of old, that we must understand. Whilst the individual cases are serious this clearly spells out problems with policing in the second largest city in Australia. We need smart cops. Not "good cop/bad cop" mentalities.
Until this is properly cleaned out Victoria can expect to be fed more comic book stories from Murdoch press and pathetic cries of "What about Me?" from a bunch of ill trained and culture stricken public servants. The pointy bit for the average person is regardless of stereotypes this attitude destroys innocent lives. Not because it must be, simply because corrupt individuals will take the easiest way out. Those who resist corruption are denigrated and marginalised until pressure wins out.
A winnable war eh? Bronwyn Bishop has found one. Indeed, one we've been losing for over 50 years. From the ashes of the shattered psyche shall rise the Phoenix of happy children and perfect families: beneficiaries of Australians wielding Morality. Such is the thrust of the Report on The Impact of Illicit Drug Use on Families. We shall do this because the use of drugs indicates a prior dysfunction in the family. If a drug user is in ones family, ones family is the cause. Bronwyn's going to help.
In a stupefying checklist of evidence rejection Bishop has proven her laziness and impotence as an independent thinker, and reinforced how darn smart Howard was to dump her from portfolios: twice. Her new battle flag - Harm Prevention - exists as a single PDF on Drug Free Australia's website. Her insouciant use of DFA, and by extension, abuse of vulnerable and superstitious minds extends as far as speaking DFAlish herself.
Firesnake touched on Bishops pre-determined agenda on April 18th and expressed dismay at the biblical doom that awaits our poor continent. Fire, brimstone, turning to sand dear reader. Yeah verily, I say to thee: turn not back to look at the MSIC or NEP premises, or digest advertising or wear a condom. Woe betide the evil Syrup. Drink not of stability. For hearken: Albert Reece noted at the time, "there are consequences", to Methadone.
Bishop has taken on DFA's "catch me if ya care" approach. Conflicts of Interest between DFA, Bishop and Crusading Moralism render this posturing in an effort to please her PM, quite pathetic. The entire might of Harm Prevention - a single page requesting one's details - is parroted by Bishop as some contribution - not the verbal plagiarising of one ambitious single page.
Campaign to Refocus Australia's Illicit Drugs Policy to "Harm Prevention"is the single title on the DFA PDF [May 10. 2007].
"We want a Harm Prevention Campaign" announces Bishop with the integrity of a back room dealer. Perhaps the chosen mode of societal regression here is personal experience for proponents. DFA fellows, associates and exact phrasing is cited over 100 times in the report. Alex Wodak scores a whopping 15, as he brought nothing but evidence, and these citations are used to colour in the conspiratorial "drug industry" revelations.
Others who respect evidence supporting Harm Reduction were also assumed to be "pro-drug". The use of evidence to attack Harm Minimisation and insouciantly dismiss the experiences in submissions that accept the evidence of Harm Reduction is a standout feature. These poor souls are of course misled by the band of international research fellows intent on bringing Earth to it's knees. Wodak is one, it came out in the bowels of Parliament. Seemingly intent on quality research, progressive thinking, economic policy rationale and compassion, he has continued in this most unhelpful heathenism of effortlessly educating Australians.
And now, they've started to think. For themselves, no less! That's as Un-Australian as power walking in a non-Aussie tracksuit. Far better to ignore the intractable, escalating and horrific outcomes of prohibition. The global drug industry is, quite seriously, something we must not shirk from understanding. It holds the esteemed status as a member of the tripod of the stand on which our fragile globe spins. Arms, Oil, Illicit Drugs.
It is not however, the proper term to describe those who have taken a stride ahead. Cannabis is easier to purchase than tobacco. It's perceived as less damaging, and available with no checks, advice, prior awareness, images, ID requirements and help lines enforced by law under Harm Minimisations Harm Reduction concept, as with cigarettes. It is erroneous to cast such progressive reasoning as "pro-drug" and attempt to cast those who seek trials of regulation as "for drug legalisation". Why bother examining the intricacies of illicit drug economics, when we have a real life conspiracy that is aiming to sell Ice to kids. To legalise drugs.
Many drugs are of course already legal. Heroin is a medication prohibited 54 years ago. It's proven disastrous. Trials for addicts run similarly to methadone maintenance indicate greater efficacy at addressing lifestyle, community contribution, crime and even the buzz word of the decade: Families. But we can't have an illicit seen as a health issue. Next thing backyard shed grade Meth' will be on sale at McDonalds. Surely that's what these "evidence proponents", as they've been called, want.
So it's War, Goddamnit! But not just any War. A Winnable one! Assuming Aussies won't take part in waging war on the Oil industry [if there's room for another one] or buy arms from the global arms trade to wage war on the global arms trade, we may indeed have the resources. But where to start? What the heck would 20 million people fall for after Iraq, AWA's, Immigration, Refugees, our shiny new presence on Amnesty HR watch, or Howards moral relativism and bed rolling with cashed up god-botherers?
Why, the family. Fair bet most of us have or had one. Now that we wield morality, we shall not speak of how families come to be, but we will control how they exist. In fact, we'll qualify them.
Inexplicably, Bronwyn Beehive - our assistant for the CPDCT awards - is absent from the Humble Firesnake Holeplex. So, in view of spare time we have replaced the Clear and Present Danger to Critical Thought, with a live cross to Beehive Island.
We cross live via satellite to Agent FS, holed up in a bunker Apocalypse Now style, to bring us the first reports on secret trials of Harm Prevention.
In this second part of 'Aropax Hell' we touch on the behind the scenes documentation and "The" memo - "it would be commercially unacceptable to include a statement that efficacy had not been demonstrated, as this would undermine the profile of paroxetine" - that exposed GSK's intention to place the money before the box - as it were. A concerted plan to educate sales rep's from wavering under the strain of humane thoughts was launched.
Justifiably, criminal charges followed. It is plain Paroxetine must be considered carefully. European Paroxetine Q&A here. Why was it reviewed? What are concerns? What's the evidence?
We touch on Study 329 which produced the very data GSK decided to hide. Self harm, highly addictive and non-efficacy: things look bad for paroxetine. Problems continue to unfold and GSK released studies "showing suicide, hostility, etc". It's clear that the jury verdict [original document] holding GSK 80% liable for the murder-suicide case of Donald Schell was reported widely and led to the BBC Panorama investigation - which actually continues in court today [timeline]. The argument over addiction or discontinuation semantics proceeds splendidly with the courts eventually catching on to the shortfalls of addiction definitions.
BBC Panorama: Secrets of the Drugs Trials - can't see embed? Pop in here.
Struggles with paroxetine are complicated. We can see a gradual "chronology of admission" as GSK confirms dangers effect all ages and quietly reveal it's a major risk during pregnancy. At last after more time - and possibly energy - than earning a PhD, GSK admit what we wanted: paroxetine is an absolute tragedy regardless of age, and can induce suicid ideation in at risk adults.. Thankfully, the FDA agree.
Ultimately, Eliot Spitzer lodged a class action [original PDF] on behalf of New York residents deceived by GSK. The FDA succeeded in agitating for close reviews of paroxetines trials: the famous and detailed Article 31. This episode includes more out-takes of Dr. Alistair Benbow lying heroically as authours drag his name through mud [2]. GSK itself continually releases token "warnings" and basks in the credit-for-responsibility spotlight.
Firesnake also looks closely at SSRI induced aggression, depression per se, what we know of Donald Schell, his mood swings, prior medication, SSRI blood levels and time needed to observe any effect of any SSRI - no matter how inefficacious. Paroxetine may be a useless SSRI, but an SSRI it is. Did Schell kill and suicide as a direct result of paroxetine? Or, did justice really catch up with GSK due to illegal business practices and appalling ethics, revealed in so much damning documentation? If the latter, legal purists may find this challenging, but none can deny paroxetine was going to kill, did kill thousands of others, destroyed lives, families, careers and if not fordedicatedadvocates, we may never know. Firesnake considers the only conclusion possible, and reflects upon "justice" - no matter how it comes.
Our TGA is silent, yet vocal on Straterra - the type of medication one leap up from SSRI's targeting norepinephrine also. Read the documentation, find your own answers. Never use paroxetine - but it is your choice.
This Episode has an Extended News section focusing on the god-bothering moralists distress over those bastions of evil, debauchery and altered consciousness. No, not the pub - The Medically Supervised Injecting Centre. But, this isn't relevant?
Piers Akerman who is a writer for The Daily Telegraph" - Sydneys sister to Melbournes Pulp and Print Court wrote this hysterical gem. Piers, foolishly quotes the misinformative trickery of Drug Free Australia and Dr. Stuart Reece in his hilarious leap from the window sill of journalistic integrity. Kicking off with supportive waffle for The Independent in UK, which raised sales splendidly by "apologising" for a brilliant and much needed call to end prohibition of cannabis a decade ago, Piers races ahead of the Biblical rants of Stuart Reece [last episodes winner] by on-publishing a sentence containing "estimated", "could have" and - my personal favourite - "if" as fact. The tripod holding the sign "run away" snares Piers in one stupefying intellectual thrust. Go Piers!
It is no guess who wins this epidodes CPDCT - clear and present danger to critical thought - with an astonishingly high score for a new entrant of 8.3 out of 10.Piers gets extra credit simply for failing to research facts, quoting disgraced moralists obsessed with Sin not health, and trying to sound cool with language like "junkie" and "shooting gallery". His "source" also believes Piers will burn for eternity if he masturbates - but hey, why stuff up a good rant?
The Kings Cross Medically Supervised Injecting Centre - Uniting Church report here on why it took the decision - is a world class facility, and recognised as such. The British government is considering such a trial because of this very success. A strict review found the Kings Cross pilot study was a success, other key findings supported Harm Reduction and recommendations were made to commence the same in the UK. Incredibly, in 2007, Australia still has Victorian obsessions with the behaviour of others - as witnessed by the tripe we pay to read, and the fact this "room" is a pilot study.
Whilst an accepted and respected legislative bill gives weight to the need of such facilities. It's up for review this year - hence the efforts of Drug Free Australia to sell it's hysteria. Family and Friends For Drug Law Reform, in March 2007, demolished DFA's so called "report". National experts never question its value. This approach has been repeated by numerous independent bodies. Germany has dozens of these facilities, as they are vital to the public health landscape. Canadas Insite is often attacked with the same non-logic: 'addicts aren't worth the cost of government small change'. Insite also, succeeds in its mission. References abound. Critics write fictional opinion pieces - not science. European Report on "Drug Consumption Rooms" - 97 page PDF.
A full reply to Akermans piece - for which he is yet to apologise to his readers and the health community - from Dr. Ingrid van Beek, the Centres director, on May 3, 2007 is as follows:
Mr Akerman cites Drug Free Australias "review of the statistics" of the first 18 months operation until October 2002, of the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC) in Kings Cross, as evidence that it has "failed" (DT 3/5/07) despite a range of health professionals respectfully pointing out the various flaws in its extrapolations over the past several years.
The irrefutable statistics are that in the 6 years the MSIC has now been operating, around 400,000 injecting episodes have occurred in this clinical facility instead of public parks, back alleys and public toilets etc improving public amenity; more than 2,000 drug overdose cases have been successfully treated undoubtedly saving lives and drug users have been referred to treatment and other relevant services on more than 6,000 occasions. Meanwhile the number of drugs users in the Kings Cross area has decreased 40%, the number of ambulance callouts to overdoses has decreased 86% and drug-related crime has decreased 30 - 40%. These facts perhaps explain why 80% of local residents living in the area over these past 6 years support the MSIC.
Please also note that the MSIC is funded by the confiscated proceeds of crime and not tax payer revenue and that I am employed by the Area Health Service and not the Medical Faculty of the University of NSW, which employs the MSIC's evaluation team.
Dr Ingrid van Beek
Medical Director, MSIC.
All articles specific to Aropax/Paroxetine are here
All articles specific to Injecting Facilities are here
In this Two Part review of GSK's fraudulent activity Firesnake looks at the "pillars of evidence" as it were, surrounding a fairly useless drug, the obscene logic of the business mind and a close examination of sensational cases. Can Paroxetine really be said to have been 80% of the cause motivating Donald Schell to kill? We pick over what we have as evidence and in Part 2, reach the only conclusion possible - jury verdicts aside.
Whilst it's easy to embellish with an accusatory tone, simply presenting the data allows for readers to remain within their own "emotive space". The mature view holds that these issues certainly occur and we can learn from them. It's a case of big business management, investment, expected outcome and the pressure of competition in manufacturing pharmaceuticals. It's also a case of vulnerable people being ignored, ill people being made more ill, tragedy and deception. It also raises concerns over present regulation. And yes - government apathy.
Part One ranges broadly casting a net over what we can encapsulate. Part Two, will examine specifics, health choices and offer advice.
Paroxetine has been marketed as "non-addictive". Whilst the withdrawal form paroxetine is now recognised and Canada has insisted on removal of the "non-addictive" label from packaging, GSK argue semantics. The definition of addiction originally trotted out some decades ago never included drugs like SSRI's. Excluding psychological components such as compulsive behaviours like gambling, overeating, etc the physiological aspect is;
Withdrawal symptoms in the absence of the drug such that normal functioning is difficult if not impossible. Symptoms are specific to the type of drug.
Physical dependence. This gets immediately murky for SSRI's because tolerance is a component of dependence. It even stands seperate from "addiction" because addiction per se includes behavioural changes [drug seeking, spending, apathy] and a complex psycho-social aspect].
Tolerance. SSRI's don't induce tolerance. Tolerance is part of dependence so it can be argued SSRI's don't come close to the accepted definition.
Yet we had a medication that presented withdrawal symptoms in it's absence and these symptoms cease in it's presence. People were unable to function without it. This made management of depression difficult as symptoms conflicted, and paroxetine has proven to be powerfully addictive. One must be slowly weaned from paroxetine. This severely limits the opportunity depressives have to assess various SSRI and NSSRI meds. [1], [2], [3], [4] [5], [6]. GSK has gone to some lengths to fight what have become known as "Withdrawal Lawsuits". Canada succeeded in having GSK release a statement regarding prescription to teens and children.
There is enough concern over paroxetine withdrawal for data specific to it to get an airing in many areas - and the data are helpful. But the nuts and bolts are this: One of the world's foremost experts in SSRI neurophysiology is Dr. David Healy. He has published a 5 page PDF on halting SSRI medication. However, there are conflicts of interest relating to Dr. Healy's employers, his research findings and his perceived bioethical stance [2]. However, Healy has been a key player in exposing GSK, and in the case of Donald Schell.
The "Problem" with paroxetine isn't it's status as the most addictive SSRI and the most difficult to withdraw from. It was the fact that paroxetine had been shown to be non-efficacious in treating depression, led to suicidal ideation and acts in healthy subjects of all ages, led to anxiety in depressed and healthy subjects, may well lead to suicide in children and teens and should not be released.
By then however, GSK had invested billions. The "target" demographic was 25 million in the UK alone, as proudly boasted to UK Labour MP, Paul Flynn. They had invested and budgeted on paroxetines success. Lilly [formerly Eli Lilly] were racing ahead on the success of Prozac. As will be plain in the documents below, the company tried to suppress data and present a favourable outcome, fraudulently. It was considered "commercially unacceptable to include a statement efficacy had not been demonstrated" [original memo here]. [Definition of "Efficacy"].
GSK tried to stop sales reps from divulging the accurate information to potential prescribers - thereby puttng the public at immediate risk. This fact was published in the journal of The Canadian Medical Association. But it was the paying of compensation to the family of Donald Schell, after a jury ruled GSK liable [2] [Jury Verdict original], that was a turning point. This decision brought closer inspection to the safety of SSRI's in general and GSK specifically, due the public awareness of executive deception.
The BBC Panorama investigation shook the U.K. It was a regular discussion point in Parliament and the Labour member for Newport West, Hon. Paul Flynn, delivered a condenming speech on Feb. 23rd 2004. Concern for children's health was plain in later discussion. Indeed, some of Flynn's claims as specific to paroxetine are well documented in the treatment of depression by other means and even all other means; Eg - suicide risk does increase in the early stages of recovery from depression and this has long been recognised. Reasons postulated range from a renewed energy enabling the depressed person to suicide on a "bad day", an as yet not understood "stage" of recovery [ie; recovery may not be steady but a rise and fall process and we should be treating for this] or simply a clearer mind and renewed sense of identity actually play a role in the person rationalising suicide as a non-selfish "correct" choice. The speech may rankle the scientist in me, but it did draw much needed attention toward this billion dollar industry. Other SSRI meds received scrutiny. This, along with the ever increasing noise from The Seroxat Users Group who continue to produce up to date media releases, led to scrutiny around the world. [Info' PDF: Happy Pills that make you go Mad].
Ultimately, parents in the USA began a class action. New York Attorney General, Eliot Spitzer acted firmly on their behalf [original court lodgement]. This also had the effect of re-igniting the debate of a "trials registry" to record all trial data from the outset. Prior to the merger with SmithKline Beecham in 1998, GlaxoWellcome was considering such a registry.
And data continue to emerge in various forums around the world, giving a fragmented chronology of events at a time we need to seriously assess just what to attribute to paroxetine, SSRI's, illness per se and Poor Science. For this is a fact: whilst paroxetine was released and marketed in an unacceptable fashion, it was marketed and widely prescribed. For better or worse, planet Earth has become a living laboratory. Whilst much attention is given to the re-examination of GSK's data regarding paroxetine, many patients choose to remain on this particular SSRI. That choice must [at present] remain.
Part Two also expands on the documentation that damns paroxetine, acknowledges the work of Citizen Investigators, looks present tensions and offers advice on alternative treatment/s.
In News we touch upon a 3 part offering from health writerRay Moynihan on the dangerous and unregulated use of Naltrexone Implants [not oral naltrexone] by two Christian Fundamentalists. Used to stop the effect of illicit drugs, these implants carry risks. Severe risks if relapse occurs.
Our Minister for Morality Hon. Father Abbott, has given this risk his blessing - and our money. This issue itself, deserves an episode.
Dr. Stuart Reece, narrowly escaped the QLD Medical Tribunal in 2003 for malpractice; Adjourned Indefinitely.
Whilst methadone is evidence based and effective and naltrexone isn't, a christian fundamentalist mag erroneously and negligently reported on Reece's "vindication" and the value of Naltrexone implants over the failure of methadone. A crusador against porn, free thought and Harm Minimisation - Australias official D&A policy, Firesnake must conclude it is Sin, not Suffering Reece seeks to "cure".
Reece wins this episodes CPDCT - clear and present danger to critical thought - with a score of 7/10, for answering "Yes and No" when asked if he was still continuing this unregulated, controversial and lucrative procedure.
Any refusal to answer a perfectly legitimate question on our communities health, by a theocrat profitting from his personal moral crusade on our ill, is indeed a Clear and Present Danger to Critical Thought. Congratulations Dr. Reece!
All documents mentioned in both episodes are here.
Charles Darwin: 198 today. Paul Mullett: survival of the fittest. Paul Mullett - the Police Association secretary, renowned control freak and thug, has reneged on an interview offer from Four Corners [ABC Australia]. A massive Birthday Present indeed, to celebrate the realisation of Natural Selection by Darwin. Not only do we acknowledge Firesnakekind as the most highly evolved species, but rejoice gladly in the Humble Hole, at MMM's distress.
The reneging of an interview in itself is no big deal. However, the letters between Four Corners producer Sarah Curnow and Paul Mullett reveal much about Mr. Mullett, his tactics in negotiating, his unbending arrogance, his heavy handed insistence for special consideration, followed immediately by threats when he could not control potential outcomes. Firesnake touched on the corruption in Victoria Police, the lack of training, poor policing, discrimination, excessive punitive and offensive tactics and of course the corrupt to the core, Police Association, in Episode 3Corruption in Victoria Police.
As we check out today today, the correspondence language used by Mullett in attempted manipulation of outcomes, is mere play putty under The Kiln Like Heat of Firesnake's Deconstruction Glare. Or, more accurately - and modestly, we can see by reviewing the letters, Mullett has a distinct style in a.) arguing his case, and b.) seemingly apportioning blame, and casting himself as an innocent - almost "bystander" - victim.
He is prone to preempt description of issues, to place himself in a position of apparent vulnerability. The old favourites - "witch hunt", "inquisition", "collusion", "the people who" [gotta love the omnipotent, ethereal "Them"], feature in his writings. Or this gem - "Your program will inevitably be diminished in the eyes of reasonable observers if you are only prepared to raise the allegations on an 'ambush' basis". Ambush dear reader - ambush!
I shan't offend readers by reminding them a massive report pertaining to this issue is at Mr. Mullett's disposal. One may be prone to erroneously assume, he is fully aware of potential allegations, and reacts out of guilt and fear that these allegations may be aired without passing through the Mullett filter of terror and bullying. Escape the final sign off from Kit Walker as it were.There would be much consternation - and sniggering - in the Humble Firesnake Hole if readers were to form any such opinion.
Essentially, Four Corners wish to interview Mullett over the OPI findings, the content of damning video evidence, the massive Cost Fund used by corrupt officers in lengthy legal battles [$14 million] and why is it so bloody secret, what actions are underway - if any - to clean up corruption, relations between staff and governance standards, is he a bully as alleged, what's their political agenda, who did what to Janet Mitchell, and what's goin' on over there in general.
Firesnake, of course, would like to contrast this very favouritism - particularly legal - afforded members, with the hash reality of Victoria lacking a Spent Convictions Policy or indeed any avenue of reproach, for average offenders. As we have stressed previously, this unacceptable situation snares fine community members who have repaid any "debt", the ill and those caught in highly atypical circumstances.
Firesnake reads through all Nine letters in the correspondece chain and highlight the manner in which Mullet attempts to 'extort', I believe one may argue, firm control over the dynamics of this highly emotive, damning and powerfully significant issue. He attacks Commissioner Nixon's awarding of [then] Association President Janet Mitchell, with a Bravery Award, for tackling his BS, as a specific swipe of antagonism aimed only at his culture. A little boy to the core it seems.
His utter disdain for even remotely accepting responsibility for accountability of any kind shines like a beacon. His constant efforts to intimidate journalist sources and demands for covert face to face, "off the record meetings" are there in black and white. He'd play, but only if he was umpire also.
The 'source' of course is prior President of The Police Association, Janet Mitchell, [and supporting senior police] who was vilified, ostracised and bullied into neurotic stress leave by Mullett [we allege], and thus we note present president Brian Rix was a.) asked for an interview also, and b.) remained absolutely mute. Only Mullett responds. Even direct requests to Sandro Lofaro - Association contact and prior correspondent - are answered only by Mullett. We say 'allege' as we can say only that "Kit Walker"; the fictitious character who became "The Phantom" of Comic Book Fame, signed intimidating emails. Such is the maturity of these attacks - and an interesting age profile to boot.Bummer when police tactics come back to bite Police.
Could accusations he rules with an iron fist and controls every breath of members possibly be true? Why can these men not put an answer in writing? The president of the most powerful union in Australia cannot answer mail? Why must Mullet have a list of all interviewees? Why must he know "the angle" of the show? Why must he know what others 'said about' him? Why must he meet covertly with people petrified of him? Are accusations of attacks, intimidation, threats and spying true? Why does Mullet ask for a copy of "allegations" when he can answer any question? Why is Christine Nixon blamed? Is she really "colluding" in some deep dark basement with nameless, faceless people? Why is Mullet so paranoid he has dedicated enemies?
Is not an unbiased interview owed the people of Victoria and Australia. Why is "the Association's view..." identical to Mullett rhetoric? Is this merely vintage MMM - Micro Mullett Mindset? We watch as Mullet wails in frustration at not getting his way, then takes the bat and ball, and goes home.
You may judge dear reader. We raise more than mentioned above, and pick over the intuitive, biased language used, and touch on how this relies upon the readers lack of critical guard - something we all drop, in understanding the writings [a minimal communication form] of another.
The Four Corners transcript is here. Access to all relevant articles reviewed in the body of the show Mullett's Mumbles and raised by Four Corners is here. Four Corners Home Site.
Of course we have the usual contribution from The Good Book, today - The God Delusion, with thanks to authour Richard Dawkins. We touch on some of the absurd biased allowances made in the name of religion. From war service, to hallucinogenic substances - religion gets the thumbs up, no questions asked.
Corruption in Victoria Police remains despite attempts by Commissioner Christine Nixon to tackle allegations of a disturbing culture of entrenched thuggery, drug related crime, violence, database abuse - it's insecurity, witness tampering and murder [see Ceja report], substance abuse, evidence theft and tampering, Gangland links to killings, | Wiki outline | and worse, all under the protection of the omnipotent Police Association and it's secretary - renowned bully, Paul Mullett.
Commissioner Nixon was indeed correct to support the actions of The Office of Police Integrity - OPI - | Wiki | [ HTML ] and the employment of Ceja taskforce - Final report here in PDF. Yet Victorians received mixed messages. Stop the corruption Commissioner. Stand by your officers, Commissioner. Ceja officers reported concerns over handling of information, threats [2] and secret investigations due to fellow officers and finally, being bullied out of a career by Paul Mullett - who opposed every appointment post Ceja duties.
OPI itself made spectacular blunders leading to calls from the Police Association to close it down. Round one of OPI vs MMM [ Mullett Micro Mindset ] was a definite victory for corruption. Victorians swallowed this without so much as a ripple, helped along by misinformation spread by The Pulp and Print Court and Victim of Crime Advocacy groups - The victim makers. The Victorian community deserves - and pays for - better.
We deconstruct the verisimilitude behind qualifying our officers by what they are not - convicted criminals, rather than what they are - corrupt, violent, shirkers of responsibility who are plainly guilty of Human Rights Breaches. All this in Howard's great democracy: Melbourne 2007
We touch base with the visionary ideas Christine Nixon has of more sophisticated training for officers, and the fact this may be the best fashion in which to remove such a culture. Officers simply lack the skills to access, exploit and apply the vast realms of data we have collated on today's recidivists for the past 20 years.
Most are significantly marginalised with a plethora of co-morbid health issues. Unable to solve crime via intelligent means, Police fall back on exactly the same behaviour they claim to be protecting Victorians from. And we remind ourselves that most community members convicted and sentenced have a legitimate mental illness - at vast cost to our community.
Cultures evolve to supplant poor training. Today's recruits learn on the job, and "unlearn" academy training. Poor training does not make a poor employee. This episode is about solutions - not apportioning blame.
We visit the issues of security problems behind ID theft at MySpace during Interactive News and touch on the minimum security options for Windows users.
A reading from the good book - The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins - today touches on Lennons song, Imagine, and the fact U.S. Creationists have hijacked his work, replacing with no religiontoo, with the words, with one religion too. We shoot that one down on the spot.
This Episode has an Extended News section focusing on the god-bothering moralists distress over those bastions of evil, debauchery and altered consciousness. No, not the pub - The Medically Supervised Injecting Centre. But, this isn't relevant?
Inexplicably, Bronwyn Beehive - our assistant for the CPDCT awards - is absent from the Humble Firesnake Holeplex. So, in view of spare time we have replaced the Clear and Present Danger to Critical Thought, with a live cross to Beehive Island.