Lindt siege psychiatrist stood down

So the disgraced psychiatrist who was advising police during the Lindt siege in Sydney is now claiming that it's the escapees fault that Monis killed people.

Like a true little liar, he's putting responsibility anywhere but himself.

He's quoted as saying (in other articles) that he wasn't aware that IS had put a callout for Lone Wolf attacks at the time the siege took place.

So, I guess he's blaming:

• The people who escaped, to save themselves;
• The lack of knowledge of the overall situation; and
• Anyone but himself.

Now, most normal people would feel guilty for how this whole thing played out and would have to live with it for the rest of their lives.

Not this guy.  No, he's absolved himself of any responsibility because the events weren't allowed to play out how he thought they should and that he wasn't aware of the bigger picture.

In my line of work, if I'm making calls without considering ALL the information, including LOOKING UP information that may be applicable, I'm still liable if things go wrong.  Legally if someone dies, professionally if it costs my organisation money (no pay rise for the guy who blew our profit margins when he forgot to allow for a $1 million piece of equipment in the tender!).

I guess psychiatry is a bit like being weather forecasting: there's no accountability if you're wrong because you missed an important variable in the equation.

Except this time the psychiatrist made calls that got people killed, which is why I applaud him being stood down.

I also note that nowhere do they mention the radicalisation of Islam as a cause.  I guess this "non-terror attack" has found its scapegoat and the gods of public opinion have been appeased.

Media and mother of slain girl slams Trump

So the media is at it again bagging out Trump, this time doing exactly what they're accusing Trump of doing: using an emotional event to make a political point.

The final sentence is an attack on the writer of the list, stating that it was obviously hastily put together as it had even misspelled the word "attacker", yet the same media that attacks Trump's cabinet's spelling can't even edit a simple sentence:

I think what they MEANT was "Allahu akbar" - an Arabic phrase meaning "God is great" - during the attack.  If the media can pick on the US government for spelling errors, which isn't one of their core points - then I can pick the media up on their bad editing, which IS one of their core points.

So, a Muslim man can do whatever he wants whilst yelling the war cry of a Jihad soldier and it's not considered a terrorist attack.  When is it a terrorist attack?  How many people have to die in an attack by a man yelling "Allahu akbar" before it's deemed a terrorist attack?  More than two?  Because one death is too many to me.

As usual, the media is only too happy to give coverage to stories like this, but far less likely to give stories like the Angel mums, mothers who have lost their children to the criminal activities of illegal immigrants.  Or to the pro-life march that took place in Washington.

Of course, that's not the narrative the media wants to spread.

Which is why public trust in the media is at the lowest point in history and they're showing no sign of doing anything different to try to turn that around.

We are very rapidly heading towards a post-media world, where no one trusts anything that comes out of the media unless it confirms what they know to be fact.

Well done media, you've only go yourself to be blamed.

Group of Sudanese men rob jewelry store at gunpoint, ethnicity held back in report until end

So, this is par for the course: a group of Sudanese men robbed a jewelry store in Melbourne yesterday (Wednesday 4th January).

The whole article goes the whole way through peppering throughout that all the perpetrators were simply "men", but it's not until the final sentence that we find out (assuming we're still reading) that the perpetrators were "of Sudanese appearance".  What a great example of the 4th paragraph!

I've got a novel idea for the newspapers: actually report the news without PC bias (or better yet, flip bias and go right-wing) and see your drop circulation reverse.

I know I will never buy a newspaper as long as they keep tweaking the news and omitting details so as to not offend certain non-white groups.  Had the perpetrators been white, that detail would have been in the headline or in the first few paragraphs.

A week of the 4th paragraph

So, my observation that the media, it all it's PC and bias, singles out men and whites in headlines, but pushes down references to women and minorities when reporting, unless it's a positive story, where the script is flipped and being male and/or white is left out.

Here in this wonderful week in the 4th paragraph, note the links here a MY headlines, the actual headlines are far more predicatble:

Three people "of African appearance" scarred a 34 year old woman for life over a phone
Man named Mohammed (presumed Muslim immigrant) assaults 2 year old girl, resulting in her death
Woman assaults elderly in shopping center and puts one in hospital for Christmas
Muslim(s) attack German Christmas market, killing 12 and injuring 50

I notice the web address on the 2nd article includes "as-girl-2-fights-for-life-in-hospital".  Obviously the content of the article has since been updated, but the address hasn't.

All of these articles contain a common factor: the crucial details of the offenders, be they African, Muslim or women, is either withheld or left until after the first couple of paragraphs (by which time most casual readers would have stopped reading.

Contrast that with the following articles with their ACTUAL headlines:

Man attacks father in fight over Christmas shopping
Man attacks Muslim woman with coffee

So, let's face it, the media clearly haven't stopped doing their thing after they've clearly lost their credibility.  I guess they have to first admit they've got a problem before they can do anything about it.

I'm not holding my breath for any admissions of racial/gender bias in the media.

Woman who killed eight children in 2014 still hasn't been tried / African assault in St Kilda

A few people may remember when a woman by the name of Raina Mersane Ina Thaiday is alleged to have killed eight children (seven of her own, one of someone else).

Interesting how the headline refers to the case by her last name, which wasn't widely released at the time, and the name of the obscure suburb of Cairns in which the incident took place, thus guaranteeing most people wouldn't bother clicking on the link.

Had the article read "Woman who allegedly killed eight children back in court" they would have gotten far more hits, however to news sites the narrative that all women are victims, never perpetrators is more important that hits on a news website.

It's not just HOW the media reports the news that determines whether it is Left or Right, it is WHAT the media reports.  A bit like how if a migrant is verbally abused on public transport it's front-page news and Australians are declared racists, but if 30 migrants assault random people in the street, the stories are tucked away and their identities hidden for the sake of the PC agenda.  Notice how the first article in this story makes NO MENTION of the nationality of the gangs at all, the guys were just set upon by some random gang that could have been white or Asian.

Muslim teen only sentenced to 5 years for trying to blow up bomb in Melbourne CBD

So, here we have yet another example of integration failure where a 'teen' (who is 18 but can't be named for legal reasons) has been sentenced to 5 years 3 months jail for trying to set off a bomb in crowded part of Melbourne CBD.

Now, I know that we can't know his name, but surely we can know whether or not he was a recent arrival from the Middle East or not, but the article doesn't mention his religion, race or country of origin.  About all we get is that he'd been in contact with a Jihadist.

So, yet another example of the 5th paragraph where race and religion are immediately removed because he's not a white Christian.  I had actually thought that the media was upping its game after Trump's big win, but then they pull this PC leftist BS.

I note also that the article comes to his defense stating his family was there in support and that his attitude to ISIS has since changed.  I love it how the media tries to paint this guy who wanted to BLOW UP INNOCENT AUSTRALIANS as some misguided youth who has since seen the light.

Maybe if someone had corrected his course in life BEFORE he planned to kill people for a religious cause.

Why not let them leave and never let them return?

Here's a story about how Australian Counter Terrorism Squad has stopped 230 suspected jihadists from leaving Australia to join IS in the Middle East.

Question is, why?  I know that a stitch in time saves nine, but lets face it, until they actually do something we can't lock them up for 20 years to keep everyone safe.

No, they'll be prevented from leaving, they'll be given a slap on the wrist, because technically they haven't done anything that could warrant a long jail sentence, and they'll be free to organize attacks in Australia.

Great plan!

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I could suggest that the home security agencies secretly want an attack in Australia because then the Australian government would be forced to commit more money to the defense agency budgets and give them more power.

What could possibly go wrong?