Episode 265 – Jim, Josh, Godfrey and Yanis

Who are Jim, Josh, Godfrey and Yanis and what did they do or say?

Presenter quits after BBC defends use of N-word in report

From The Guardian

BBC radio presenter has quit his job after the corporation defended its decision to broadcast the N-word in a television news broadcast.

Radio 1Xtra presenter Sideman said he no longer felt comfortable working for the national broadcaster after it stuck by the decision to broadcast the language in a report on a racially motivated hit-and-run attack.

The presenter, who had a weekly show on BBC 1Xtra, said he could not work with the BBC allowing “the N-word being said on national television by a white person”.

He said in a post on Instagram that the BBC’s subsequent defence of the broadcast “feels like a slap in the face of our community”.


“On this occasion I just don’t think I can look the other way. We live in a world that needs to change, systems that need to change, organisations that need to change.”

More than 18,000 people have already complained to the BBC about the decision to broadcast the word last month in a report that originally aired on the regional service Points West before being repeated on the main BBC News channel.

The report, by the BBC social affairs correspondent Fiona Lamdin, repeated the language allegedly shouted during the attack on a young black man in Bristol. The BBC has defended its decision, saying the inclusion of the racial slur was made with the approval of the victim and his family, who wanted to show the severity of the attack. They said the decision to broadcast the word followed discussions involving “senior editorial figures” and was preceded by a warning to viewers.


Recklessly careless

Easy to infect 100 people directly or indirectly

Morbidity rate of 1%. High likelihood of killing someone.

We convicted people for recklessly spreading Aids. Grievous bodily harm.

Zaburoni case

A Gold Coast acrobat who was sentenced to more than nine years’ jail for intentionally infecting his partner with HIV has had his conviction overturned in the High Court.

Key points:

  • Zaburoni to be re-sentenced on lesser charge of grievous bodily harm
  • High Court quashes conviction of intending to spread HIV
  • Zaburoni lied to his ex-partner and had regular unprotected sex

Godfrey Zaburoni, originally from Zimbabwe, had regular unprotected sex with his ex-girlfriend of two years and lied to her about his medical history.

While he admitted to infecting her, he argued he did not do so deliberately and was ignorant about how the virus was transmitted.

The High Court ruled on Wednesday that other than the fact Zaburoni engaged in frequent unprotected sex, the jury in his 2013 trial could not infer from the evidence that he intended to give her HIV.

The court found foresight that a result was possible or even certain was not a substitute for proof of specific intent.

“[There was not enough proof to safely exclude the hypothesis] that the appellant engaged in that sexual intercourse with the complainant not with an intention to transmit the disease … but selfishly for his own gratification, being reckless as to whether or not the complainant might become infected,” Judge Stephen Gageler said.

Zaburoni was diagnosed in 1998 when performing with a touring circus in Adelaide.

Godfrey Zaburoni, a circus acrobat, appeared in the TV show Australia’s Got Talent

Although the High Court judgement said Zaburoni was repeatedly warned by doctors not to have unprotected sex, during a 2010 police interview he said he did not know much about the disease and was not told the need to inform sexual partners.

In 2013, Zaburoni pleaded guilty to causing grievous bodily harm but the Queensland District Court convicted him of the more serious offence of intentionally transmitting a serious disease.

The High Court on Wednesday quashed the conviction and substituted a verdict of grievous bodily harm.

Zaburoni, who appeared on the television show Australia’s Got Talent, will be re-sentenced in the District Court in Brisbane.

He is likely to be deported to Zimbabwe when his sentence ends.

‘Zaburoni hasn’t got away with it’

Queensland Law Society president Bill Potts said intention involved a motive and a desire to cause harm, while recklessness may be negligence of a very high order or simply acting without care.

“Even though he knew that he had HIV and lied about it both to his partners and to the police, they still found that there was not intent,” Mr Potts said.

“People might think he’s got away with it, he hasn’t.

“The High Court has sent him back to the court be sentenced, this time for grievous bodily harm.”

Trust people to be adults is one argument

The NRL and AFL show that is fancifull.

Tevita Pangai Jr, Wayne Bennett etc

Also …

But some people want hard and fast rules and consider it ethical to do whatever is legal.

Jim’s Mowing

From Independent Australia blog

Jim told Sky News he was not defying the law because:

“We just need leadership and it’s not helpful when we get completely contradictory mixed messages … The problem is we aren’t disobeying the law, the problem is the law is unclear.”


As obvious, in fact, as the motivation behind just a few of Jim’s choice earlier remarks about the law and Black people, in general:

Black sexual behaviour is freer, on average, than that of whites. Unemployment is higher and occupational success lower, reflecting, alongside racial oppression, a lack of high-restraint work ethic and commercial skills. Rates of crime are higher, because of the reduced respect for law and authority in lower-restraint groups.

And about Indigenous Australians, in particular:

“Unsuited in general to the discipline of academic study and of many jobs, they have become a poor-underclass.”

That’s just a little bit of Jim’s racism.

Don’t be like Jim.

For organising protests

From SBS

Two men accused of planning an anti-lockdown protest in Melbourne have had their homes raided and been arrested.

Police vowed to crack down on the protest, planned in Melbourne’s CBD on Sunday, calling it a “blatant breach” of COVID-19 restrictions.

Officers seized phones and a computer, charging a 41-year-old Mooroolbark man with incitement. A 41-year-old Chirnside Park man is expected to be charged on Friday.

The Facebook event has called on people to protest in opposition to the city’s six-week shutdown and claimed to be a broader movement of planned protests.

“Let’s blow this one up and fill up the streets to show these criminals we won’t give up our country and livelihoods without a fight,” the event description reads.

It had more than 100 confirmed attendees and 400 expressions of interest late on Thursday evening.

If they turn up, Victoria Police said it wouldn’t hesitate to hand out $1652 on-the-spot fines or arrest protesters.

“This is a completely blatant breach of the chief health officer’s directions and puts Victorian lives at risk,” police said.

What Happened in those quarantine hotels?

This article is from the August 4 issue of The Australian Digital Edition. CAROLINE OVERINGTON

Poorly trained security guards on a so-called “crazy floor” of the Rydges Hotel in Melbourne’s Swanston Street may have let COVID-19 escape into the community , after they became overwhelmed by hysterical guests who were screaming, crying and banging on walls, begging to be let out.

A guest of Rydges, released from the hotel after returning from Europe in April, told The Australian he had been put on what guards described as the “crazy floor” of his hotel, “with people going absolutely nuts” .

“They had mental health people coming to sedate them,” said the guest, who asked not to be named. “They were asking for Valium , for sleeping pills.

“They were begging to be let out and running for the doors.”

The Victorian government was alone among the states in deciding to engage private security firms to manage hotel quarantine. By contrast , NSW relied on police officers , who are far more experienced at handling civilians under stress.

The guest said the guards seem ill-equipped to handle people “who were coming off flights after 60 hours on the go, who wanted a cigarette, wanted fresh air, wanted to go home and see their family.

“And they were being told no, but the guards had no real authority … they gave the impression they could be talked around. And guests were going up to the security guards, begging and offering money to be let out. It was insane.”

More than 20 security guards, relatives and other contacts tested positive after coming into contact with guests at the 107-room Rydges Hotel.

Paul: Any issue with mandatory quarantine for incoming Australians?


What did he say?

On Insiders he Drew inspiration from Reagan and Thatcher

saying they “dealt very successfully with the challenges that they faced, particularly stagflation”

“The reality is that Thatcher and Reagan cut red tape and cut taxes and delivered stronger economies,” Josh Frydenberg said on The ABC’s Insiders last weekend

A quick comment

When she died at The Ritz in 2013, film director, producer and writer Ken Loach said Mrs Thatcher was the most divisive and destructive Prime Minister of modern times. “Let’s privatise her funeral, put it to competitive tender and accept the cheapest bid. It’s what she would have wanted.”

What did the left say?

From Ross Gittens

The truth is that only conservatives of a certain age (and failing memories) hanker after the glory days of Thatcher and Reagan. No one else wants to return to the halcyon era of privatisation and deregulation because by now most people realise how lacking in halcyonicity those things are.

In any case, all the obvious reforms have already been made. When you’ve privatised Telstra, Qantas, the Commonwealth Bank, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and much else, what’s left? Selling off Australia Post?

From the Michael West Blog

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has suggested we look to the Reagan and Thatcher legacies for inspiration to climb out of the Covid-19 recession – i.e. supply side economics. In his terms, this means bringing forward tax cuts, increasing workplace flexibility and reducing green tape.

Thatcherism and Reaganomics were characterised by huge transfers of income and wealth from the poor to the rich. During Margaret Thatcher’s 11 years in power the spending power of the poor actually fell while that of the top 10% increased strongly. Lower income groups only maintained their spending by borrowing. Household debt went from 37% to 73% of GDP. Unemployment rose from 4.2% when Thatcher took office to 6.1% when she left. In short there was no “trickle down” of prosperity and growth from her concentration on the supply side of the economy and cutting social services.

Meanwhile in the United States Reagan claimed that cutting tax rates, particularly for high income earners and on capital gains, would unleash so much growth that government revenues would rise, not fall, and public debt would shrink. His huge tax cuts of 1981 had exactly the reverse effect. As common sense would suggest, revenue plummeted and debt soared. The same thing happened when Bush cut taxes in 2001. Conversely when Bill Clinton raised the top marginal tax rate a few percentage points in 1993, tax collection soared.

The evidence suggests that Frydenberg is sadly mistaken if he genuinely believes cutting taxes for the already better off will unleash growth and repair the budget.

In the last comprehensive review of workplace relations, the Productivity Commission (2015) concluded: “Contrary to perceptions, Australia’s labour market performance and flexibility is relatively good by global standards, and many of the concerns that pervaded historical arrangements have now abated.”

On the ABC Insiders program on Sunday, Frydenberg also pointed to Thatcher’s success in increasing productivity by massively reducing strike action. But as the Productivity Commission noted in its 2015 report, “Strike activity is low, wages are responsive to the economic cycle and there are multiple forms of employment arrangements that offer employees and employers flexible options for working.”

What did the right say?

Janet Albrechtsen in The Australian

Thatcher’s policy to allow occupiers of council houses to buy them was central to her belief in empowering individuals. It’s a far cry from throwing money at people to spruce up a dowdy bathroom or add a new garage.

Similarly, Thatcher’s privatisation program was so successful in getting rid of bloated bureaucracies , spurring growth and improving living standards that it was copied across the world by more than 100 countries.

Though far from perfect — who can forget the ill-conceived poll tax? — Thatcher delivered enough big-bang financial reforms to turn the “sick man of Europe” into a country that, by and large, enjoyed decades of uninterrupted economic growth.

Reagan did the same. His belief that high taxes discouraged people from working more and undermined growth and investment led him to return hundreds of millions of dollars to the middle and working classes by indexing tax brackets, followed by an acrossthe-board 25 per cent reduction in tax rates, closing loopholes and reducing the number of tax brackets to two: 15 per cent for the middle class and 28 per cent for the rich. The results? In the 1980s, growth exceeded 6 per cent. By the end of the decade, Reagan’s tax cuts increased tax revenues from $500bn to $1 trillion

The Fist: From Wikipedia. According to a 2003 Treasury study, the tax cuts in the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 resulted in a significant decline in revenue relative to a baseline without the cuts, approximately $111 billion (in 1992 dollars) on average during the first four years after implementation or nearly 3% GDP annually … total federal tax receipts increased in every Reagan year except 1982, at an annual average rate of 6.2% compared to 10.8% during the preceding eight years.

Before we look at economic cost

From the John Menadue Blog

Only two Australian treasurers have been awarded the coveted Euromoney ‘Finance Minister of the Year’ award. Paul Keating won it in 1984 in recognition of the government’s role in structural reform. Wayne Swan won the award in 2011 in recognition of the government’s successful response to the Global Financial Crisis.

But what about Peter Costello who because of his performance as treasurer in the Howard government is now treated by the media as a financial guru.

Peter Costello was a very lucky treasurer. He inherited a booming world economy and a mining boom. As Paul Keating once put it, Peter Costello was ‘Hit in the arse by a rainbow’.

With record revenues in boom times, Peter Costello introduced measures which have left a very serious and damaging legacy. Continuing chronic budget deficits are very much due to Peter Costello. The Howard and Costello government wasted the buoyant revenues of the mining boom.

… These tax concessions introduced by Howard/Costello cost the budget over $50 billion a year. We are paying a very heavy price for the budget damage that Peter Costello inflicted over a decade ago.

The Howard/Costello governments did pay down the debt it inherited by $96b but $70b came from asset sales and particularly from the sale of Telstra for which we are paying a heavy price today in the NBN mess.

From The SMH

AUSTRALIA’S most needless wasteful spending took place under the John Howard-led Coalition government rather than under the Whitlam, Rudd or Gillard Labor governments, a study has found.

The International Monetary Fund study bills itself as the first to examine 200 years of government financial records across 55 leading economies.

It identifies only two periods of Australian “fiscal profligacy” in recent years, both during Mr Howard’s term in office – in 2003 at the start of the mining boom and during his final years in office between 2005 and 2007.

The stimulus spending of the Rudd government during the financial crisis does not rate as profligate because the measure makes allowance for spending needed to stabilise the economy.

The Whitlam Labor government of 1972 to 1975 also escapes censure.

The economists from the IMF’s fiscal affairs department found the only other years of profligate spending during the past six decades took place during the conservative government of Robert Menzies, in 1960.

From Alan Austin


On YouTube

2020 is continuation of 2018

Money used to move to finance trade. You could use it to assess real economy.

Greece and USA are deficit countries.

End of Bretton Woods led to unshackling of financiers. Then trade deficits could be propped up with even larger financial engineering.

USA power (counterintuitively) increased with increasing deficit because Wall St recycled the profits of the foreigners.

Debt bubbles are the only way to finance deficits and debt countries are largely similar.

Surplus countries like Germany and China differ. China invests a lot (but working class suffers) but Germany relies on credit bubbles in other countries.

In 2008 the system crashed. It was refloated by central banks but the ability to create jobs failed.

The real economy gave money to the financial sector. Austerity was imposed which constricted the system. Financiers were given free money and they weren’t going to give it to small companies. What does a big company do with it? Invest in production improvements? No, because there is no demand.  Just take it and buy back your own shares. Great for the share price and CEO bonuses. This creates a big disconnect.

Savings = supply of money. Investment = demand for money. The rate of interest is the price of money. Between 2018 and 2020 the rate was 0. So the interest rate wasn’t regulating the supply and demand of money.

Yanis theory part 1, from 2018 a number did not exist such that if it prevailed as a rate of interest it could simultaneously turn savings into investment and not destroy the financial sector. There is no real  interest rate low enough to turn savings into investment that is not so low as to destroy pension funds.

If it is low enough to encourage investment it will be so low as to ruin pension funds and the finance sector.

2008 was a banking debt problem. Since then corporations have taken cheap money to do buy backs and now we have a private debt problem. Covid-19 has pricked this bubble.

Part 2 of his theory, after 12 years of boosting, prices are artificially too high and are kept that way through boosting which bears no relationship to the real economy.

Most corporations today survive due to cheap loans and they need high values as collateral for cheap loans.

Fist: Artificially high prices discourage investment but without them corporations will not have the collateral for their loans and will collapse. A new deal would deflate asset prices and create new jobs but corporations will collapse.

Covid is reawakening state power but corporations are in power and they may abuse increased state power.

We are at a fork in the road. A dystopia of feudal capitalism (gated communities or escape from New York) or a post capitalism fusion of rationality and solidarity.


A new deal is not enough. Rearranging existing resources is not enough. Share prices are turbo charged by government financialization and always will be. Capital will always find a way to privilege itself. We have to address ownership of capital.

The only way to have properly functioning markets is to end capitalism. No private banks and no stock exchange.

We don’t need private banks. QE shows direct relationships would be better because the central banks gave money to private banks hoping they would direct it the right way but they are incentivised to give it to the wrong people.

It is a class war. The oligarchy without frontiers Vs the rest of us.

Next Week – Just me and a special guest – talking about books

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


Regular per episode donations

One off donations

IFVG Index