So Anthony Albanese's chief of staff Sabrina Husic suddenly resigns with no explanation in the media other than some vague references to 'mental health leave' and so on.

Funny that this picture also popped up on Twitter tonight:



Any clues in that do you think?

Any clues in that do you think?

Honi soit qui mal y pense.

Any clues in that do you think?

Honi soit qui mal y pense.

Evil to the evil doer or something like that.

Photo taken quite publicly so nothing to see there. Appears to be quitting after some nasty online media campaign against Albo's office. Who knows?

I am more interested in the AFP raids on the CFMEU offices in Pyrmont Sydney this morning initiated by that union bashing commission set up by the Liberal fascists. I am not saying the union are angels but here we go again.

The Australian has found lots of fake names and Twitter bots from Bangaldesh on Rudd's petition to have a Royal Commission into the Murdoch media:

An investigation by The Australian into the petition, which Mr Rudd instigated as an attack on News Corp, has also revealed the document is littered with fake and absurd names, including “Nacho cheese”, “Jesus Christ” and “this sucks”. Many of those were generated offshore, easily sidestepping parliamentary measures set up to prevent fraud.

A world-renowned cyber security expert said signatories included “computer-generated bots”. He said a full digital audit was required to determine the extent of fraudulent activity in the parliamentary e-petition system.

Ken O’Dowd, the House of Representatives’ petitions committee chairman, said his committee would investigate the fake signatories in the petition.

So Kevvie Rudd's big whinge about the Murdoch media is powered by fake signatures - what a shock. Not that I'd necessarily trust anything that the Australian says about Rudd automatically but it appears that Rudd's petition is doomed to sink without trace anyway.

Not a fan of online petitions personally regardless of their cause. If someone can provide any direct evidence they actually do anything I'd be keen to see it.

Change.org petitions pop up on Social Media nearly everyday and I'm convinced those ones do exist purely to data-mine. Cannot say the Parliament one would necessarily be like this but what proof of identity checks are there?

The Australian has found lots of fake names and Twitter bots from Bangaldesh on Rudd's petition to have a Royal Commission into the Murdoch media:

An investigation by The Australian into the petition, which Mr Rudd instigated as an attack on News Corp, has also revealed the document is littered with fake and absurd names, including “Nacho cheese”, “Jesus Christ” and “this sucks”. Many of those were generated offshore, easily sidestepping parliamentary measures set up to prevent fraud.

A world-renowned cyber security expert said signatories included “computer-generated bots”. He said a full digital audit was required to determine the extent of fraudulent activity in the parliamentary e-petition system.

Ken O’Dowd, the House of Representatives’ petitions committee chairman, said his committee would investigate the fake signatories in the petition.

So Kevvie Rudd's big whinge about the Murdoch media is powered by fake signatures - what a shock. Not that I'd necessarily trust anything that the Australian says about Rudd automatically but it appears that Rudd's petition is doomed to sink without trace anyway.

Of course they would, like Paul Murray on Sky after dark with Rita wots her face sprouting every Trump election fraud conspiracy last night. Lay off the S A D horse pooh.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-feed/misleading-story-about-bangladeshi-bots-in-rudd-s-e-petition-slammed-by-experts


Now prepare for the Gish Gallop

Wow, The Australian really must be grasping at straws. Around a thousand bot signatures on a petition that got over 500 thousand signatures? That's only about 0.2% of the total signatures.

Just goes to show how scared the Murdoch empire is though that they're trying to smear Rudd, Turnbull and anyone else associated with the call for the Royal Commission.

Wow, The Australian really must be grasping at straws. Around a thousand bot signatures on a petition that got over 500 thousand signatures? That's only about 0.2% of the total signatures.

Just goes to show how scared the Murdoch empire is though that they're trying to smear Rudd, Turnbull and anyone else associated with the call for the Royal Commission.

Nah, there's been no interest in Kevvie's petition in official circles. Anyway, Rupert's influence is falling, not growing.

Meanwhile Deloitte reports that Australia is now loaded to the gills with insolvent small businesses but that it's being hidden by the advent of JobKeeper and temporary changes to the insolvency laws. From Deloitte;

The aim of the temporary changes to insolvency regulations has been to allow business more time to get on top of their debts as lockdown restrictions ease. The measures are due to run out at the end of 2020. While these changes may give some businesses the time they need to improve their financial position and stay afloat into 2021, there is concern they may also be delaying an inevitable wave of insolvencies for businesses that would have failed, many of them even in the absence of COVID...

...While we don’t know how many companies may face collapse in 2021, we can get an indication of the scale from ABS data that reveals 31% of all Australian companies were still facing monthly revenue falls in October. While this is much fewer than the 70-80% of businesses that saw revenue tumble back during the height of COVID-19 in Australia, it does show that there is a substantial proportion of businesses that are continuing to fall behind even as the economy opens up.

Kinda fits in with what I've been told myself about many small businesses only existing to harvest the Jobkeeper subsidy that will be wound up once it runs out.

Kinda fits in with what I've been told myself about many small businesses only existing to harvest the Jobkeeper subsidy that will be wound up once it runs out.

You do know that JobKeeper is only available to businesses which were operating before pandemic restrictions first came in and only for employees who were on board for minimum periods by that time, right?

Kinda fits in with what I've been told myself about many small businesses only existing to harvest the Jobkeeper subsidy that will be wound up once it runs out.

You do know that JobKeeper is only available to businesses which were operating before pandemic restrictions first came in and only for employees who were on board for minimum periods by that time, right?

People 'phoenix' businesses all the time, JAP - it's as easy as filling out a form.

A mate of mine in Ballarat lost all his accrued leave entitlements worth about $35,000 a few years ago because his boss decided to close the business and open another one and there wasn't a damn thing he could do about it except take a number in the queue of creditors. I've known people to phoenix businesses because their old business had a Workcover claim attached, because it was losing money, overdue rent, because of divorce or family situations or simply too many liabilities of one form or another.

You seriously think there's not scores of small business owners out there harvesting JobKeeper right now who are thinking about how they can best profit from it before shutting their business and moving on to another one? Hell, even big business was making a killing on account of JobKeeper - Premier Investments (Solomon Lew's company) made a huge amount of money on the back of JobKeeper because they were having their wages paid for them by the government.

I don't doubt that Deloitte report for one moment, there's probably heaps of small business jobs out there that don't exist right now but for JobKeeper - the economic impact of this thing has been completely underestimated in my opinion - we haven't even begun to feel it yet.

Kinda fits in with what I've been told myself about many small businesses only existing to harvest the Jobkeeper subsidy that will be wound up once it runs out.

You do know that JobKeeper is only available to businesses which were operating before pandemic restrictions first came in and only for employees who were on board for minimum periods by that time, right?

People 'phoenix' businesses all the time, JAP - it's as easy as filling out a form.

A mate of mine in Ballarat lost all his accrued leave entitlements worth about $35,000 a few years ago because his boss decided to close the business and open another one and there wasn't a damn thing he could do about it except take a number in the queue of creditors. I've known people to phoenix businesses because their old business had a Workcover claim attached, because it was losing money, overdue rent, because of divorce or family situations or simply too many liabilities of one form or another.

You seriously think there's not scores of small business owners out there harvesting JobKeeper right now who are thinking about how they can best profit from it before shutting their business and moving on to another one? Hell, even big business was making a killing on account of JobKeeper - Premier Investments (Solomon Lew's company) made a huge amount of money on the back of JobKeeper because they were having their wages paid for them by the government.

I don't doubt that Deloitte report for one moment, there's probably heaps of small business jobs out there that don't exist right now but for JobKeeper - the economic impact of this thing has been completely underestimated in my opinion - we haven't even begun to feel it yet.

Did your mate report this matter to the relevant authorities? If companies are involved it's a bit easier as phoenixing companies is a matter for ASIC. Unincorporated businesses are bit more trouble as the rules pertaining such businesses are not good. Bankrupting the owner is probably the best avenue.

Did your mate report this matter to the relevant authorities? If companies are involved it's a bit easier as phoenixing companies is a matter for ASIC. Unincorporated businesses are bit more trouble as the rules pertaining such businesses are not good. Bankrupting the owner is probably the best avenue.

Thanks for the concern but he knew beforehand for quite some time that it was going to happen and actually managed to reduce his exposure down from an even higher amount so he was well prepared by the time it happened. It was a really complicated company structure involving his family and the boss was only one director - it was all overlaid by the fact that the man had a heart attack around the same time and was in severe personal financial difficulty (lost his house) and my friend actually felt sorry for him having worked for him for 12 years and didn't have the stomach for any legal action.

Lo and behold twelve months later he starts trading again under a different name but by then everyone had moved on. It was all for the better anyway, my mate started his own consultancy and makes much better money now than when he was working for someone else.

The feds really do assist people trying to find work.

The feds really do assist people trying to find work.

Your taxes at work; makes you proud, doesn't it?

Wow, The Australian really must be grasping at straws. Around a thousand bot signatures on a petition that got over 500 thousand signatures? That's only about 0.2% of the total signatures.

Just goes to show how scared the Murdoch empire is though that they're trying to smear Rudd, Turnbull and anyone else associated with the call for the Royal Commission.

So only 99.8% were valid? It`s fraud I sez!

Wow, The Australian really must be grasping at straws. Around a thousand bot signatures on a petition that got over 500 thousand signatures? That's only about 0.2% of the total signatures.

Just goes to show how scared the Murdoch empire is though that they're trying to smear Rudd, Turnbull and anyone else associated with the call for the Royal Commission.

So only 99.8% were valid? It`s fraud I sez!

They should make sure they are prepared to finish what they start.

Publishing the results from a circulation audit of The Australian would be far more effective than a Royal Commission at rolling back Murdoch's influence.

Wow, The Australian really must be grasping at straws. Around a thousand bot signatures on a petition that got over 500 thousand signatures? That's only about 0.2% of the total signatures.

Just goes to show how scared the Murdoch empire is though that they're trying to smear Rudd, Turnbull and anyone else associated with the call for the Royal Commission.

So only 99.8% were valid? It`s fraud I sez!

They should make sure they are prepared to finish what they start.

Publishing the results from a circulation audit of The Australian would be far more effective than a Royal Commission at rolling back Murdoch's influence.

We already know The Oz is bleeding money and only survives because its a useful mouth piece for Murdoch. I am not sure what is going on since Fox News in the US has given up on Trump whilst Sky News here, as of yesterday, was still promoting the theory that Trump had been robbed by invalid votes. As only the most rusted on Trump US voter still believes that nonsense, why is Sky still pushing such outrageous reporting in this country?

I am not sure the threat of a RC will change Murdoch's attitude.

As only the most rusted on Trump US voter still believes that nonsense, why is Sky still pushing such outrageous reporting in this country?

You've given us the answer; it's Sky News. The ACCC should haul that mob over the coals for misleading advertising; Trump's alleged "invalid votes" is not news.

Murdoch's reach is less than ever - and there's more diversity than ever thanks to the interwebs. And Rudd sounds like a bitter, jilted ex-girlfriend - he never mentions his own culpability in the complete destruction of the Labor party in the six years that they were in office. He got the dream job of foreign minister after his was dumped by his own party and still couldn't resist wreaking Gillard's leadership. Sour, horrible man.

Anyway Malcolm Turnbull let the cat out of the bag on Q&A a couple of weeks ago when he said the law should be changed to prevent Sky and Murdoch talking down the Church of Climatology. That's what the goal really is here - they want to actually silence any dissenting opinion like China.

Murdoch's reach is less than ever - and there's more diversity than ever thanks to the interwebs. And Rudd sounds like a bitter, jilted ex-girlfriend - he never mentions his own culpability in the complete destruction of the Labor party in the six years that they were in office. He got the dream job of foreign minister after his was dumped by his own party and still couldn't resist wreaking Gillard's leadership. Sour, horrible man.

Anyway Malcolm Turnbull let the cat out of the bag on Q&A a couple of weeks ago when he said the law should be changed to prevent Sky and Murdoch talking down the Church of Climatology. That's what the goal really is here - they want to actually silence any dissenting opinion like China.

How did you come to that conclusion? The question is why does Sky News keep broadcasting total BS. I think their broadcaster from Sydney is totally senile: but they keep on giving him airspace. Why?

In regard to Rudd's leadership, as much as I admire Gillard, I don't think she should have rolled him.

Murdoch's reach is less than ever - and there's more diversity than ever thanks to the interwebs. And Rudd sounds like a bitter, jilted ex-girlfriend - he never mentions his own culpability in the complete destruction of the Labor party in the six years that they were in office. He got the dream job of foreign minister after his was dumped by his own party and still couldn't resist wreaking Gillard's leadership. Sour, horrible man.

Anyway Malcolm Turnbull let the cat out of the bag on Q&A a couple of weeks ago when he said the law should be changed to prevent Sky and Murdoch talking down the Church of Climatology. That's what the goal really is here - they want to actually silence any dissenting opinion like China.

How did you come to that conclusion? The question is why does Sky News keep broadcasting total BS. I think their broadcaster from Sydney is totally senile: but they keep on giving him airspace. Why?

In regard to Rudd's leadership, as much as I admire Gillard, I don't think she should have rolled him.

Sky is a private company and they're allowed to put on whatever old rubbish they want - apparently even though it doesn't rate highly it is extremely influential and all the politicians and people with influence in this nation watch it.

Rupert simply doesn't have the reach that he used to - there's all sorts of competition in his traditional space. Even the ABC's Media Watch has been covering the emergence of new local newspapers and news services to replace the withdrawal of printed versions of rural and regional newspapers that have been dropping like flies. Rudd's call for a Royal Commission is probably around 15 years too late; but then at that stage he liked Rupert and was busy sucking up to him as a prelude to getting the big chair.

Another rare juncture where you and I agree: I don't think Gillard should have put her hand up for Rudd's job despite the fact that his own cabinet hated him with a passion. She should have argued to the hot-heads in Labor cabinet at that time that it was unprecedented to roll a first term Prime Minister and that even though Rudd was extremely dysfunctional that the public really hadn't noticed and that it was better to let him win the impending election and then take action.

But it all went to her head I think; the prospect of being the first female PM was all too much for her.

The Australian government is still borrowing and spending unsustainable amounts of money - we borrowed another $5,000,000,000 from the Bank of Japan this week in order to keep the budget ticking over - great isn't it - they raise $5 billion from taxes and yet they spend $10 billion. The RBA is apparently also buying the debts of some of the state governments too so that the whole ponzi scheme can keep going.

The Chinese Communist Party hates us so much that they're buying coal from the United States (yes, the ultimate enemy - although perhaps not so much now that Mister Magoo is in charge) for a very expensive US$165 rather than buy it from us @ US$104 per ton. From the Financial Review:

China is paying through the nose for coal from North America while it rejects or defers shipments from Australia.

The high-priced coal buying was revealed in an update from Toronto Stock Exchange-listed Teck Resources, which said it had boosted sales into China and achieved a huge premium on Australian product.

Teck said it had seen increased demand and sales into China since the start of October, around the same time political tension between Canberra and Beijing were linked to Australian shipments being spurned or delayed.

…“Our contract sales to Chinese customers are also priced on the basis of CFR China price assessments. The most recent three cargoes were sold at prices between $US160 a tonne and $US165 a tonne CFR China.

They've also held up existing shipments in China on the basis of "failed environmental standards".

Well, off you go, Don. Nip over and sweet talk them - do a bit of Neville Chamberlain diplomacy.