A minor correction; the student who attempted to assassinate Calwell used a sawn-off .22 rifle. He fired through the window of Calwell’s car, the bullet was deflected and Calwell was injured by shards of glass.
Apparently, the student was motivated more by a desire to emulate the spate of political assassinations that had occurred around the world. He chose Calwell because of his opposition to conscription and the Vietnam War.
Just to round things out, a cyclist kicked and punched a Strumpet of Patriarchy volunteer at a Pakenham pre-polling station. The cyclist's political affiliation, if any, isn't known but his comments indicate that he is opposed to Palmer's policies on migration and multiculturalism.
At the 20 minute mark of the last quarter both Weiters and McGov were waving their arms and yelling out to Charlie to come back, even the crowd around me, level one Carltonians Bay joined in calling out for Charlie, he duly came back. So Charlie doesn't decide, he's called back by Weiters, we were there we saw it
Charlie may get a call to go into defence but Vossy has stated that Charlie can and does decide if and when he should go into defence.
The coaches didn’t want Charlie in defence in the last quarter and sent him back to the forward line.
Was behind the goals on level 2 city end of the ground.
Weitering late in the second was jumping up and down waiving his hands in the air to bring Charlie back into defense for the remaining few mins.
Besides that, happy with what they are doing to change things up. I think a few mins of swinging Charlie back is warranted at times, if nothing else to keep the opposition guessing. Do they hold the line?
Do they push a number forward (the second they do, we can tell Charlie to run off, creating a situation where they might have been happier having a loose man behind the ball).
Its good stuff, and im neither here nor there. A goal resets everything due to the 6.6.6 rules.
As I understand it, Charlie is free to help out in defence whenever he likes. Even if he's not taking intercept marks, his presence in the defensive 50 will make the opposition unsure of their delivery inside 50; do they kick it to Cameron if Charlie has the sit on him?
While "Charlie to the backline" is a spontaneous move, the seven defenders all in the backline together must be a practised scenario. As you say, one of them has to make up one of the other sixes if there's a goal, and that has to be planned, not random.
Neo-nazis wearing crude Hasidic Jew costumes turned up at pre-polling station in Kew and handed out pamphlets with a manipulated Liberal Party logo and anti-Semitic messages. The pamphlets were also widely distributed to homes across Caulfield. Election billboards for both Labor and Liberal candidates were defaced with red Stars of David. The pamphlets are authorised by Joel Davis, a prominent neo-nazi who incited violence against Jewish people from the steps of Victoria’s Parliament House and who is out on bail in South Australia for displaying a Nazi symbol.
While it is unlikely that the pamphlets and pre-polling station antics will have any bearing on the election, State Liberal MP David Southwick is spot on with his statement; “Let me be crystal clear: this is not politics. This is hate. And it has no place in our community.”
In other news, on Tuesday, witnesses reported a man in a Collingwood jumper lobbing an estimated half-dozen eggs at the One Nation candidate and his supporters as they handed out how-to-vote cards at the Wills pre-polling station in Brunswick. Sitting Labor member for Wills, Peter Khalil, has had his posters defaced with "Zio Dog", "Fully Cooked" and other slogans. Activists are unhappy with Khalil for what they say is his lack of action on climate change and the conflict in Gaza. Khalil could lose his seat to the Greens and, in this case, the vandalism and pre-polling station tensions could impact the outcome.
Finally, activists have gone to a lot of trouble to vandalise a Clive Palmer billboard in Brunswick. It now reads "Vote 0 Rump Riot”, with cartoon buttocks pasted over Palmer’s face, and "nonsense solutions to reduce the living."
All of these incidents are corroborated by several sources and backed up by photographs and video.
An interesting observation from the bench cam footage.
Charlie had moved himself into defence late in the last quarter. Carroll was on the bench and Greaves instructed him to go back on, tell Charlie to go back to the forward line, and ensure that all seven defenders were in defence.
While Charlie’s ability to go back and pluck a mark in defence has been game saving, our priority was to have the seven defenders working together as a unit and as they have been drilled.
It’s interesting that Aaron Greaves is the bench coach now.
Adelaide really only has Thilthorpe as a tall forward but Walker and Fogarty will have at least 10kg on most of our taller defenders if we don’t play Young.
Jack Silvagni has been outstanding with his ability to play on tall and medium forwards and to set up our transition from defence. Young isn’t a like for like replacement but neither are Doc and Moo, and we’d be quite undersized with either of them replacing Jack in our defensive seven.
I think I’d like to see Young on Thilthorpe, Weitering freed up to control our transition and Cowan to come in for Carroll. Not that Jeff has been poor but Moo can play taller and is a bit harder.
I’ve watched it a couple of times and it’s great viewing. The investment and cohesion of the players, coaches (including Newey) and fitness staff is inspiring.
Of course, it’s all scripted and everyone is just repeating the lines they’ve been taught 😇
@DJC its not about giving up, its about seeing all this crap for what it is.
That is, its designed to ellicit a response. In this day and age, with no footage, and some flaky online articles, not susbstantiated on TV is all you need to consider.
IF you want me to believe it all, I will, but it matters nought what I believe. The MAGA hat is perhaps the single most useless bit of information out of all this stuff.
Make America Great Again has nothing to do with us, and is as tenuous a link to what happens if you vote red (or in our case blue) as it gets.
You can choose to ignore what’s before your eyes or put any spin on factual reporting if that suits your agenda.
It is a fact that a 79 year old man wearing a MAGA hat was punched out by a 17 year old boy after the older fellow knocked over ALP signs at a pre-polling station. It is also a fact that the 79 year old was hospitalised and the 17 year old is in custody and will appear in the Children’s Court.
A friend of mine has a MAGA and wears it when he wants to take the p1ss. The 79 year old may have been taking the p1ss too but the fact that he was kicking ALP signs over suggests otherwise.
It’s interesting that you’re focusing on the MAGA hat. I would have thought that the actions of the 17 year old are more significant.
Similarly, the actions of the Monique Ryan supporter who threw a punch at the right wing protesters are more significant than the protests.
But, yes, it’s all propaganda cooked up by a bunch of conspirators from most of the political parties, independents, so-called eye witnesses, police, the AEC, hospital staff, and the media, both mainstream and social media influencers and podcasters.
Long serving psephologist and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's chief election analyst, Antony Green, will be pulling the pin after this election. Election night won’t be the same without him … but it’s all probably just social media propaganda intended to influence our voting 🤣
There wasn’t a 79 year old in a MAGA cap kicking over ALP signs. He wasn’t punched out by a 17 year old. The 17 year old isn’t in custody and he won’t be appearing in the Children’s Court tomorrow. The whole incident was made up by the media for nefarious purposes and, as a result, people are going to change their votes. The other incidents reported didn’t happen either 🙄
FYI, you vote early at a pre-polling station and children are processed through the Children’s Court without delay.
My instant response is to dismiss this as pure emotive propaganda, and in response to your claim, it's got people up and about online. So yes, people will be swayed by this.
No, it isn't balanced reporting of events, no its isn't substantiated and who knows what was actually said and done given the behaviour isn't commented on but the reaction is.
I'm confused!
You have quoted two reports of incidents at pre-polling booths. The incident involving Julian Leeser was reported to the always impartial AEC who notified the police as required under their legislation.
Here's another article covering three incidents, two at pre-polling booths and one at a campaign rally:
In the first incident we have a MAGA supporter (WTF!) interfering with election advertising and being assaulted by a teenager who seems to have been a supporter of the PM. The teenager was charged and locked up. Then there's a person behaving aggressively towards Liberal volunteers who was also charged by police. Finally, a supporter of Independent Monique Ryan threw a punch at right wing protestors who were disrupting Ryan's campaign meeting.
That's pretty well the whole gamut of the political spectrum. It's reported on mainstream media, not social media. The police are involved in two incidents and the offenders have been charged. The reporting is balanced, factual, and certainly not emotive. The incidents are substantiated and there will be consequences ... and they won't make an iota of difference to the election outcomes in the electorates concerned or the overall result.
Strange as it may seem, not everything is a conspiracy, people of all persuasions can behave badly, police don't get involved without good reason, the media can provide accurate, impartial reports, and voting intentions are not swayed by bullying or reports of bullying.
