Good. Public office should not be a shield for objectively bad actions.
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
24 points (100.0% liked)
Australian News
551 readers
25 users here now
A place to share and discuss news relating to Australia and Australians.
Rules
- Follow the aussie.zone rules
- Keep discussions civil and respectful
- Exclude profanity from post titles
- Exclude excessive profanity from comments
- Satire is allowed, however post titles must be prefixed with
[satire]
Recommended and Related Communities
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
- Australia
- World News (from an Australian Perspective)
- Australian Politics
- Aussie Environment
- Ask an Australian
- AusFinance
- Pictures
- AusLegal
- Aussie Frugal Living
- Cars (Australia)
- Coffee
- Chat
- Aussie Zone Meta
- bapcsalesaustralia
- Food Australia
Plus other communities for sport and major cities.
https://aussie.zone/communities
Banner: ABC
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
In a country where a 10yo indigenous kid can be held fully responsible for their crimes we still can't prosecute rich and powerful people who have full comprehension of their actions and know they will never face consequences. We can lower the age of criminal responsibility to sweep inconvenient social issues created by bad economic and social policy under the carpet. So why can't we lower the bar for criminal responsibility in cases of maladministration, fraud and favoritism by public officials? Surely they should be held to higher standards than some ignorant kid.
my bet, secret hearings and one person scapegoated.
Really hoping I'm wrong.
No parliamentarians have been referred so we already know the architects are off scott-free
Borderline corrupt behavior by the corruption commissioner okay because he didn't mean it. Ok.