Thursday, September 21, 2017

Judge supports drink driving with get out of jail free card?

The Australian 'authorities' (you know, the people actually in government and not the masses according to the Constitution) are full of sayings.

"Nothing to hide nothing to fear", right?
(Please note this does NOT apply to the people in government, as many of their documents are sealed never to be released to the public).

How about "Do the crime do the time"?

Unless you've been a 'free man' traveler in the Australian outback, where the mainstream media radio waves cannot reach your television or radio, you would know that the authorities advertise that drink driving is not acceptable behaviour.

Well one New South Wales 'judge' doesn't seem to think so.

Paul Conlon (pictured above) reckons that if you're a "person of good character", where you've been sentenced before to a 6 months prison term for drink driving, he will get you out of gaol (proper Australian term for "jail').

Apparently a Brazilian national Arthur Rohsig (pictured centre) was drink driving in Australia, where he accumulated 36 demerit points and his blew a breath test reading of 0.172.

The police have stated that he had “no regard for Australian law” and was “a danger to himself and others”, but (naturally) the police were unable to revoke his Brazilian licence.

As a result of his 'crime' he was sentenced in July to serve six months in the slammer but good ol' Paul Conlon got him out.

As a consolation prize though drink driver Arthur will be apparently deported.

So the message is loud and clear from (judge) Paul Conlon, if you want to drink drive and your a "person of good character" (whatever that means) he'll let you off the hook.

It might help if you're visiting here too.


Tuesday, September 19, 2017

The SSM 'vote' is a statistic that will be sold by the ABS

With all the racket about the YES or NO 'vote' on Same Sex Marriage, many people have lost focus on the documentation that is provided to them.

First of all it is NOT a 'vote' but rather an indication whether you support homosexuals marrying.

Secondly it goes to a business called the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which will then SELL your data to whoever wants those 'statistics'.

Don't forget the ABS sold 'your' census data for $41,000,000.

You have been fooled into 'voting' where you are conducting an action in business / commerce / trade, albeit for free, and for profit to the ABS.

Corporation:$$$, People:$000.00

Thank you for your 'business', dumbos!!! !!! !!!

Mainstream media hiding the truth re City Councils?

The slogan for the Herald Sun publication on the front of the newspaper is "We're for Victoria".

So what any average Joe would maybe comprehend from that statement is that the Herald Sun 'supports' the people (?) of Victoria?

This does not necessarily seem to be the case.

Does the HS seem to publish the stories that the 'herd population' are supposed to know to in order to keep them docile and distracted?

Another publication 'curates' stories for its subscribers, with a liberal left wing bias rather than the 'truth' irrespective of its perceived political slant.

A post on social media showed how the Fairfax publication The Age stated that a rape was committed by an ex Victorian Police man on a five year old child, while in the next paragraph it was stated that she was raped by an employed Victorian police officer.

So, let's have a look at what the Herald Sun publication did not publish in their online comments

Bit of a bugger that!

Monday, September 18, 2017

Australian Government's Violent LBGT Agenda?

We're NOT into meme's, but hey WTH...

You know they saying....

So, surely with the application of simple mathematics, the good peeps should be able to comment at least a couple (non married, of course, ESPECIALLY with the amendment to the Marriage Act of 1961) of thousand words....

Saturday, September 16, 2017

Mobile speed camera fines are ILLEGAL

An enormous amount of detail can be written into why a or rather any fine before (prior to) a court appearance is not lawful, where the details are not going to be discussed in this post, but rather can be found in various other posts within the Corporate Australia blog.

SO, we'll start off with why a certain 'category' of fine can be dismissed IMMEDIATELY.

Let's look at one aspect of law that is advertised by your friendly 'city councils'.

They state that "Parking on nature strips is illegal - penalties apply"
(check with your local council, referring to state law - i.e. an Act to where this is 'claim' is referred to)

So, if you obtained a 'fine' from a person who parked their car like this:

(illustration of white Toyota speed camera equipped car parked on a nature strip)

or a fine from a person who is hiding their grey Mitsubishi behind some bins on a nature strip as shown in illustration below:

then should you choose to go to court over that matter you could ask the well versed at law magistrate or judicial registrar, who is at your service whether they support 'evidence' obtained illegally, referring to the relevant state law with regards to illegally obtained evidence.

Please note that a mobile speed camera operator is not a police officer, but rather an 'independent' contractor.

Should you choose to contest this type of fine in court, it would be to your benefit to obtain the owner's manual as part of evidence in order to ascertain whether the correct conditions were met that led to the allegation that a vehicle was speeding.

Friday, September 15, 2017

New law for Centrelink to punish people for being unemployed

The administration of the penal colony called Australia can even use brute force against the tax slaves of this country.

What the people in government do, is import (more) slave labour who take jobs from Australians.

The Aussies that are 'forced' out of work, in order to apply for welfare, must do so with a company called Centrelink.

They are then being punished for being unemployed, a 'welfare problem' the people in government created in the first place.

Centrelink (together with a host of Job Network Agencies) has been 'punishing' people for being unemployed for quite some time, whereas now it's going to be 'legal'.

See article from 12 Sep 2017 by of the headline:

The Jobless Did Not Ask For This!

Who is responsible for jobs? Should we punish the jobless? Is welfare a right or a privilege? These are the questions the Government is too gutless to ask. By accepting the Government’s answers to these issues without question, it may be shaping a future we haven’t asked for. The Jobless didn’t ask for this!

The term “welfare” is often touted as synonymous with the word “problem”. The question we are not asked is, “Is welfare a problem?”

The Government is asking us to argue vehemently over answers to a question they are too gutless to ask. We should ask the Government questions.

Welfare Reform is a complex issue. However, the wider narrative has a huge impact on how we address reform in this space.
Welfare ‘Reform’

The Welfare Reform Bill currently before the house, is focused on using punishment as a blunt force to solve the ‘welfare problem.’ The Government is quite brazen in no longer hiding punishment as a measure.

One system of punishment is a demerit point system. Another is drug testing. Therefore, the Government has predetermined, that the jobless ‘do the wrong thing’.

The Liberal National Coalition have successfully chipped away at society, along with the opposition in some respects. That is, to create a sub-human welfare class who society appears comfortable to punish.

Punishment sits well with a large section of society. This is due to continuous stigma aimed at the jobless. In the words of Erving Goffman, we have actively inflicted upon the jobless a ‘spoiled identity.’

The Labor opposition opposes these measures. However, since the late 1980’s the Labor party has joined with the Liberals with the same mantra.. That is, the onus is on the jobless to find a job, rather than the responsibility of Government to sustain an economy offering jobs for all.

In short, the narrative over the last 30 years is that jobseekers need a paternalistic guiding hand to motivate them. Therefore, the Government shuns the notion of the jobseeker’s own intrinsic motivation.
Who is Responsible For Jobs?

The answer given to us over the last 30 years is that the jobless are a problem. The Government(s) place the burden on the jobseeker to find jobs, although these jobs may not exist. Where jobs do not exist, the Turnbull Government believes the jobless should create their own job. For ideological reasons, the Government shuns Government intervention and job creation.

The Government(s) have given us answers without asking any questions. They assume that we, in society, simply agree that the jobless are a problem.  The Government assumes that we agree that the Government is blameless. They assume we are completely happy with the amount and types of jobs available.
The questions the Government(s) are too gutless to ask is:

“Is the Government doing enough to ensure there are enough jobs for the people?”

“Is the Government skilled enough to implement the right solutions to increase available jobs?”

“If the Government does not believe it is their role to create jobs, is self-determination to create our own job by starting our own business, a practical solution for all?”

“Do we aim for a society where large pockets of ghost towns exist, along with a number of over-populated vibrant cities for workers to transition to, or do we aim for a society where the Government places the same commitment to develop all regions equally?”
Should We Punish the Jobless?

The answer given to us over the last 30 years is the we should punish the jobless. The punitive approach intensified during the Howard era, particularly financial penalties. The level of punishment today is very paternalistic and draconian.

The problem posed is that the jobless lack motivation. The assumption is that inaction by the Government is acceptable. However, the Government does not ask us if we agree.

Over the Abbott-Turnbull period, the level of punishment aimed at the jobless is unacceptable. From the jobless starve for six months policy, to the demerit system, to restrictions on volunteer work for over 55’s, cashless welfare and drug testing are aimed to develop a society, I do not recognise as an Australian society. This causes me a deep level of concern.
The questions the Government(s) are too gutless to ask is:

“Is it fair to punish the jobless, if the Government fails to provide enough jobs?”

“Should the Government punish the jobless, if they do not have the skills or capital to start their own business, if they cannot find a job?”

“Is it fair to punish the jobless if the Government has not provided an adequate jobsearch system to support the jobless to match them to available jobs?”

“Although studies show that extrinsic motivation factors such as punishment, affect psychological well-being, hinder job search and not assist it, is it acceptable to punish the jobless?
Is Welfare a Right or a Privilege?

The punitive approach of successive Governments aim to reduce spending in the welfare space. It is evident that the Abbott-Turnbull Government’s aim is to reclassify those on welfare into a sliding scale. This scale appears to bracket those on welfare from ‘acceptable citizens’ to ‘bludgers’ to ‘drug addled sub-humans.’

The Government had one other criteria “genuine jobseekers”, prior to this bill. However, all jobseekers now fall into the realm of bludgers. Every measure in the current bill, is underpinned by a suspicion the jobless individual may be prone to deviant behaviour.

The punitive measures in the current reforms are very much focused on financial penalty. They seek to exclude or restrict access to unemployment benefits. This is done by classifying welfare recipients into normal behaviour (reward) and deviant behaviour (exclusion).

In short, to save money on the welfare bill (which we all pay for, including the jobless), the Government has provided us with the answer of normals and deviants.

They haven’t asked us the question. However, it is clear their answer is ‘normals and deviants’.

The Government knows that Australians will always apply the ‘fair-go’ to normals, but not deviants. In short, it is a simple equation.

Jobless+30 years of stigma = Deviants
Normals-Deviants = Less welfare spending

This question I have left until last because it is crucial to how we see our future as a society.  Most importantly, I ask readers to please ponder upon this question. This is because the Government tells us everyday who we are. We need to stand up and tell them who we want to be.Therefore, it is crucial to argue if welfare is a right or a privilege. This is intrinsic to who we are as a society.
The question the Government(s) are too gutless to ask is:

Menzies Welfare

As you can see from the excerpt above, unemployment and sickness benefits were introduced in Australia as a right, not a privilege.  Three generations later, the Abbott-Turnbull Government speaks of welfare as a privilege and not a right. They have changed the definition whilst we were not looking. Additionally, they again, provided us with an answer without asking us a very important question.

“Should Welfare continue to be available as a right to all people in society, from the recently redundant to the most disenfranchised in society, or do we aim for a society, where the poorest class are further divided by the Government into entitled humans and excluded sub-humans?”
Real Reform

Real welfare reform will begin with asking confronting questions and shifting away from arguing over the answers the Government provides without them posing an actual question.

If the Government took on the burden instead of the jobless, our conversations around the dinner table, would be very different. Importantly, these tiny conversations are powerful enough to shape public policy.

It is evident from some of the emotive speakers within the Labor opposition and crossbenchers, speaking to this bill, that the punishment regime has gone way too far. However, after 30 years of placing the burden on the jobless and praising punishment as a motivator, why is anyone speaking to this welfare bill, angry or shocked?

Real Welfare Reform can only happen when a leader dares to stand apart from the pack. This leader will remove the burden from the jobless. They will lead us by being brave enough to take ownership and responsibility for job creation. Most importantly they will not stand idly by and allow the jobless in our society to suffer from stigma in silence. They will unite us and not divide us.

They will look back over the last 30 years, look back to us and with true emotion say “Under a Government I lead, the jobless will never be punished again.”

Thursday, September 14, 2017

Apple phones designed to only last one year

How 'dodgy' is the company Apple?

It manufactures its phones to only last a year so that the herd population can fork out another fist full of dollars ($AU1800).

No multi billion dollar class action lawsuit to teach the fraudsters at Apple a lesson ??? !!! ???

Please note: 
We do not recommend the purchase of Apple phones or other products.

See article from 13 Sep 2017 by of the headline:


The iPhone is only guaranteed to last for one YEAR, Apple admits in bombshell court documents

Do you remember the good old days were the appliances and gadgets you bought were meant to last a lifetime?

APPLE has revealed that its iPhones are only guaranteed to last for one year.

The tech giant said its warranty only covers iPhones for 12 months of use, meaning that anyone whose device fails outside this window will have to stump up repair costs unless they have paid for an extended warranty.

Smug Samsung, Motorola, HTC and OnePlus fans will be pleased to hear the news about Apple's short life expectancy

Apple prides itself on quality, design and value for money.

But it turns out the exact guaranteed life expectancy of an iPhone is a lot shorter than you'd hope - especially if you're planning on forking out £1,149 for its top range iPhone X.

Apple says that it is only responsible for ensuring the phones last just one year - the default warranty you get upon purchase.

The details were revealed thanks to a class action lawsuit that was launched after several iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus phones began suffering from "touch disease".

Touchscreens on tens of thousands of the phones stopped working - and three law firms have taken Apple to court over it.

Publically, Apple has often said that its phones are the "most durable".

Many people fork out far more than the market average for a smartphone to buy one on the basis that it is one of the highest quality phones.

Apple says that it is only responsible for ensuring the phones last just one year - the default warranty you get upon purchase

Our microwaves and fridges seem to last forever - so why not our phones?

Putting an expiry date on a product is called "planned obsolescence": a profit trick where manufacturers plan or design an item that has an artificially limited shelf life, so it will become obsolete and need to be bought again.

Apple brings out a new smartphone every year.

In comparison, people who purcahse appliances like hoovers, microwaves and fridges tend to buy just one item every few years.

Even Greg Joswiak. vice president of iPhone marketing, recently told Buzzfeed that the iPhone was the "most durable" around.

But in court, Apple's lawyers have argued that it is only responsible for keeping iPhones working for a year.

In a motion that was filed in April, it wrote: "Apple's Limited Warranty expressly provides for a return if the consumer does not agree to 'the terms of the warranty.'"

THE X FACTOR Read all about the new Apple iPhone X that costs an iwatering £999

"Plaintiffs' allegations about the duration of cellular telephone service plans or financing options cannot change the clearly stated one-year warranty that has always applied to Apple's iPhones."

The lawyers added: "Plaintiffs had the options of purchasing a smartphone from a third party or purchasing an extended service plan to extend the duration of the one-year warranty."

So in other words, if you want a phone that lasts longer than a year - shop elsewhere or pay more for a special service plan that will fix your phone after twelve months."

Apple previously said its iPhones were built to last three years.

Gay marriage vote removes your rights as a mother or father

If passed through, the rights of 'parents' i.e. a mother (woman) and father (man) WILL be removed, and your son or daughter which at law are an entity called a 'child' will no longer exist.

You will no longer be a mother or father, son or daughter but rather 'people'.

What would be 'interesting' is seeing the writ for the vote.

Anyone care to grab a copy ??? !!! ???

See 'Exposure Draft' for the new (unlawfully enacted) law to be;

and can be downloaded directly from the link:

Exposure Draft - Marriage Amendment

Source Supplied

EDIT: 18 September 2017;

To all those idiots who have stated that this is a 'fake' document, 
the document was downloaded from the OFFICIAL Australian government website of the Attorney - General, George Brandis.

This is the link from where the document was obtained;

Governments hack your computer through Microsoft's vulnerabilities

Forget Russian children breaking out of kindergartens or hacking election results.

It's your 'friendly' federal governments that (unlawfully) hack into your PC, where they may even get a bit of help from the software manufacturers with the advent of back doors or even exploitable vulnerabilities.

It is only when they are 'busted' that a patch comes out in order to give the masses a sense of privacy, until the next vulnerability is detected (by those Russians?).

See article from 13 Sep 2017 by of the headline:

Researchers Catch Microsoft Zero-Day Used To Install Government Spyware

A cybersecurity firm has discovered yet another unknown vulnerability used to install government spyware. The vulnerability has now been patched.

Government hackers were using a previously-unknown vulnerability in Microsoft's .NET Framework, a development platform for building apps, to hack targets and infect them with spyware, according to security firm FireEye.

The firm revealed the espionage campaign on Tuesday, on the same day Microsoft patched the vulnerability. According to FireEye, the bug, which until today was a zero-day, was being used by a customer of FinFisher, a company that sells surveillance and hacking technologies to governments around the world.

Read more: For 20 Years, This Man Has Survived Entirely by Hacking Online Games

The hackers sent a malicious Word RTF document called "Проект.doc" to a "Russian speaker," according to Ben Read, FireEye's manager of cyber espionage research. Read said FireEye doesn't know who the hackers are, other than the fact that they are presumably FinFisher customers.

The document was programmed to take advantage of the recently-patched vulnerability to install FinSpy, spyware designed by FinFisher. The spyware masqueraded as an image file called "left.jpg," according to FireEye.

This is the second time in the last six months that security researchers catch an ongoing espionage operation that uses FinFisher malware and exploits. In April, FireEye and independent security researcher Claudio Guarnieri found that unknown government hackers were using a Microsoft Word zero-day to install FinFisher spyware on Russian victims.

"[This] shows that the company behind FinSpy has significant financial resources," Read told Motherboard in a phone call. "These types of vulnerabilities aren't cheap to obtain, whether you're buying them on the underground market or developing them in house. It shows that basically they got some cash to play with and that they have a healthy customer base willing to pay them to use the vulnerabilities."

FinFisher did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Monday, September 11, 2017

BlackBerry abandoning its users riding on its success of yesteryear

In the rapidly changing world of Information and Communications Technology, companies can come and go without even a ripple, invent technologies to be bought out by others and even reach stratospheric heights only to wilt away to a minuscule shadow of their former glory, like Nokia.

It seems that BlackBerry is going down this inevitable path too.

BlackBerry used to be a name synonymous with secure handsets together with a secure server communications platform.

Just because this may have been the case with BlackBerry a decade ago does not mean this is also the case today.

On the success of its (allegedly) secure proprietary device operating system (combined with the server email platform), BlackBerry abandoned its BlackBerry Operating System user base to create  Google's Android Operating System base mobile phone with a twist that being a physical keyboard in order to lure the old customers. 

They named the device "Priv" to give the impression that one has a privileged or private (meaning secure) communications device?

In reality it's just another 'Android' slab, running Google's operating system meaning it's far from secure or private even with BlackBerry's add-ons.

At the end of the day the sales figures showed that it was a giant flop.

Due to poor management decisions BlackBerry has lost its edge.

AS mentioned before, BlackBerry has abandoned updates that it apparently promised (legally binding contract?) to its customers using its proprietary BlackBerry Operating System.

BlackBerry has also lost many government contracts.

BlackBerry has abandoned an Android Nougat update to the Priv device.

BlackBerry does not even manufacture phones any more as that was 'given' away to TCL.

So what has TCL produced under the BlackBerry label a phone whose screen lifts, BRILLIANT, at least you can hide a business card or two there.

How's the Android side of software going with BlackBerry?

Well it looks like it's loaded with bloatware.

Most tech reviews will entice a consumer to purchase the latest 'slab' from a manufacturer, either because they get paid for the review or get sponsorship, or just to keep the cogs of industry turning.

E.g. you have to get the black version of the KEYone that came out this month as it's better (because of it black colour?) than last month's 'normal' one.

  • How can you trust a company that promises to update its software, only to leave you in the lurch?
  • How can you trust a company that markets its (Android) products as secure, when the moment one logs into Google, one's 'security' / 'privacy' is out the door?
We do not recommend the purchase of any TCL (nee BlackBerry) Android device.

Sunday, September 10, 2017

Anti-vaxxer equals anti-government equals terrorist

Friday, September 8, 2017

The lies of people in city councils - Local Laws

It seems that the people from the (unlawful) business called a 'city council' of Warrnambool are on a false advertising run.

The best part about it is that they lie to your face.

Apparently now they are 'advertising' (i.e. enticing you to conduct a business transaction) something called 'local laws', whatever that may be.

Very Very briefly; a collection of pieces of papers called an 'Act' is 'law'*.

For the record, there are only two sets / tiers of law that are legal / valid in Australia;

1). Commonwealth laws (e.g. Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900),

2) State / Territory laws (e.g. An Act to prevent the influx of criminals into Victoria 1854)

There is no 'lawful' third tier of government.

A city council's 'local laws' have no lawful effect on your 'person'.

Pity the corporate media (deliberately) ignores these facts.

(Herald Sun's motto: "We're for Victoria", right?)

* - Note: validity of any said law is put aside for the purpose of this post.

Wednesday, September 6, 2017

Have you been unlawfully charged under the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act?

We should all know by now that the people in government in Victoria can make whatever laws they please, even to kill babies that are born with blue eyes if they wish.

So what the 'good' people in the Victorian government have done is made up a law that is called the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 (refer to AustLii for further details).

We also put up information that there are no order for appointments for the Australian Governors General from the period of 1982 to 2003.

So, is the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act of 2001 a lawfully enacted Act?


In Victoria Muslims are not a people of a religious faith, but rather a "class of person".

Are Catholics a "class of person" too, or are they being discriminated against?

The Constitution does not apply to Australian Prime Ministers?

The Australian population should be aware that in 1901 a law called the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (or the 'Constitution' for short) was passed as a rule book that the people in government MUST abide by.

Since then it seems that it was put in some annals of a government repository not to be referred to, especially (among other institutions) by the court system of Australia.

The 'Constitution' gained popularity in the 'social media age' when the herd population became aware of Section 44 of the said Act.

At a point in time when the 'Constitution' was only 67 years old a man whose 'persons' name was John Grey GORTON ( i). see illustration above; ii). you can tell he was a criminal as criminals are referred to by their 3 names) who had an allegiance to a foreign power (against Section 44) became Prime Minister.

So was the 'Constitution' not valid in 1968 - 1971?

Why was he not charged?

It seems that the 'administration ' of the penal colony called Australia are literally criminals, where all you have to do is 'just' allege their criminal activity and support it according to the 'law' (whatever that is).

See the document; PRIME FACTS 19 - Australian Prime Ministers Centre

from the link:

So who is prepared to charge the 'natural person' Mr. John Grey GORTON (posthumously of course)?

Australia the wild wild west where the 'administration' is above the law?

Friday, September 1, 2017

Police committing fraud and other criminal actions against Victorian motorists every single day

Victoria Police are committing criminal activities against Melbourne drivers every single day and they're getting away with literally 'highway robbery'.

So how does one deal with the situation?

Like one would with a 'common' criminal.

  • Make the allegation in the appropriate forum,
  •  Refer to the relevant sections of law,
  •  Seek a 'remedy', for harm against your 'person'.
It's that easy right?

One aspect that some people may overlook is that fines are literally unlawful, unless before a 'court' (of competent jurisdiction), where that also presents some difficulties for those in charge of this so called court.

The 'problem' is that you have to call it, i.e. comprehend the proper due process of lawfully enacted laws and document the (many) points of failure along the way.

One 'law' that is being relied upon with regards to your 'fine' is the unlawfully enacted Melbourne City Link Act 1995. All you have to do is prove it, that's all, along with the other 'failures' of government along the way.

Other laws you may want to refer to could be; 

Victoria Police Act 2013, Infringements Act 2006, Constitution Act 1975, Royal Style and Titles Act 1973, Australia Act 1986, and the Act of which ever court you're appearing in, e.g. Magistrates' Court Act 1989, Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, 

just to name a few as there are plenty more depending how thoroughly you wish to expose the corruption and fraud of the people in 'government'.

You have already been 'fined' once, and then you are the proud recipient of another 'harsh and unreasonable penalty' on the second and third day for an alleged offence that occurred once.

For those who are familiar with the correct due process of law, there are many other aspects (deliberately) omitted in this post, as this post is not designed to provide a complete solution to the fraud that Victoria Police are committing together with Transurban and other agencies along the way including but not limited to;

- CCV (Civic Compliance Victoria), 
- DoJ&R (Department of Justice and Regulation),
- Magistrates' Court of Victoria,
- Sheriff's Office Victoria (or whatever other name / logo they go by in whichever year),
- Supreme Court of Victoria.


Will YOU let them get away with criminal activity against your 'person' ???

Wednesday, August 30, 2017

Telstra allows fraud against your person's name

The bane of Australia's information and communications technology is Telstra.

A private company which is in charge of the Australian peoples communication infrastructure.

Why is it the "Australian peoples"?

Because the people payed for it (via their taxes), where it was unlawfully taken over by the private sector, but that is another matter for a dozen posts or so.

Telstra has stifled competition, by not allowing other companies to access the infrastructure already payed for by the Australian people.

An all too common 'problem' is that in 2017 in a 'new' suburb of a capital city, a household may not be able to get;

- the advertised internet speeds,
- internet from the competition, as Telstra has (deliberately) not allocated enough slots,
- any internet (landline) connection at all.

Telstra employs a 'low quality' migrant workforce which is based on a cheap (dollars per hour) cost rather than employing a (plentiful) skilled 'Australian' workforce.

Once the low quality workers stuff up the work, Telstra then gets another 'resource' to fix the problem, which comes at a cost to the customer. In effect work that did not need to be re-done if the correct resource was used in the first place.

Telstra has sacked many good workers only to replace them with cheap overseas outsourced labour, in questionable IT 'datacentres', with very low regards to privacy or customer data security.

At the end of the day, the shareholders, customers and 'mums and dads investors' pay for the incompetence of Telstra's management.

If you have been hacked as a result of Telstra's negligence we recommend you sue Telstra.

The results of these appalling business practices have been loosely touched on by the mainstream media in an article of the headline;

Mobile porting: Illegal hack 'happening more than we know'

One Telstra customer had her Telstra number stolen four time and the telco’s response was futile. Picture: Claudia Baxter

WHEN Katie Fletcher had her mobile number stolen and ported to a different carrier she knew it was bad news, but she didn’t necessarily expect it would lead to her friends having thousands of dollars drained from their bank accounts.

Ms Fletcher, 30, who works in Sydney and lives on the central coast has had her Telstra number illegally ported an astonishing four times in the past 18 months.

After stealing her number, hackers were able to gain access to her e-mails and from there collect personal details of her contacts and begin hacking their accounts. She believes a huge number of her friend’s personal accounts were hacked stemming from her number being ported.

“I stopped counting when I got to 33,” she told

Each time her own bank account was compromised, Commonwealth Bank stopped the offender from withdrawing money but some of her friends weren’t so lucky and had up to “thirty or forty thousand dollars drained from their accounts” which took months to get back, she said.

With telcos failing to adequately defend against unauthorised porting, cyber criminals are using the simple trick to steal people’s mobile numbers and use it to burrow into their digital lives. Given that most important accounts rely on two-factor authentication, which involves receiving a text message code to log into the account, the momentary access can be all they need to cause harm.

In most instances, fraudsters simply need an account number for your mobile provider and your date of birth to move the number across and begin wreaking havoc.

Dr Terry Goldsworthy is a former detective inspector for the Queensland police who now works as an assistant professor at Bond University. He began researching the prevalence of illegal porting earlier this year but says reliable data is almost non existent.

“No one seems to be collecting the data,” he told At least no one who is willing to share.

Last month he delivered a talk on the topic at the International Conference on Cybercrime and Computer Forensics in which he made the suggestion that there has been a regulatory failure in Australia when it comes to dealing with the issue.

At the conference “I ran into a police source and he said they’re getting hundreds of them (porting complaints), mostly referred to them by the banks,” he said.

In April the NSW police created a phone porting category for complaints however if they do get reported to police or consumer bodies, most cases typically get filed as instances of generic fraud.

“The actual offence numbers are getting diluted,” Dr Goldworthy said. “The problem is: who are we reporting to?

“I’m sure it’s happening more than we know.”

Terry Goldsworthy spent 28 years working for the Queensland police. Picture: Gosling RichardSource:News Limited

The issue made headlines earlier in the year when ABC journalist Tracey Holmes was the victim of unauthorised porting. She believed someone likely got hold of her mail after she moved house to get access to her Telstra account number and then managed to find her date of birth online to carry out the attack.

In June Telstra told that it was “working to strengthen our identification and verification procedures even further” because it recognised the increased threat level because of the growing “availability of individual’s personal information on social media and other open platforms.” Telstra says it is continuing to do so, but couldn’t provide any concrete examples.

The first time it happened to Ms Fletcher was in March last year. Usually, it takes about a week for victims to get their number back. It happened to her again a year later and the third time her number was stolen, the hacker simply ported the number to a new SIM card on a Telstra account.

At one point, a Telstra employee called the number and someone else picked up, Ms Fletcher said.
“By the fourth time they just wouldn’t help me, they (Telstra) were useless.”

Contrary to what many disgruntled customers claim about the reality on the ground, Telstra says its porting processes are identical for pre-paid and post-paid services and comply with industry regulations.

But a number of affected customers who spoke to have called on the telcos to ensure staff actually carry out the proper checks when porting numbers to make sure the correct procedure is followed and the number belongs to the person porting it.

“They all talk in generics, but what are they actually gonna do?” Dr Goldworthy said of industry assertions that it is addressing the problem.

In the case of Ms Fletcher, not much.

“Telstra’s advice was to just go somewhere else because we can’t stop it from happening,” she said.

Unsurprisingly, she has since switched carriers.

Tuesday, August 29, 2017

In Australian politics any criminal can become an MP

Australia is truly a politically unique country / continent of this inhabited planet.

A penal colony of the British Empire, where its constitution allows the slave population to have ultimate authority over the people in parliament, where the slaves have chosen not to assert this 'authority', and sit on the couch with beer in hand watching ' da fooody'.

It's also a place where there is a [deliberate by design] sad state of affairs with regards to politics, where (any?) criminal can become a Member of Parliament.

The fact that Roberta Williams (a convicted criminal) has made an announcement that she has the desire to enter politics, and the fact that they will allow her to enter, is proof that literally any criminal can run this country.

Foul mouthed gutter trash Roberta Williams lived like a pig, trashed rented properties, is now in politics.

Your best 'assumption' about Australian politicians is that they are criminals first (you know guilty until proven innocent) and work your way up from there.

Trailer park trash running the country.

Australia the 'lucky' country !!! !!! !!!