Accused 'Pam the Bird' vandal performs bizarre Spider-Man stunt outside court
Victoria
national
courts
Australia CONTACT US
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
Victoria and WA's surging crime stats expose The Conversation expert's claim that Australia is becoming less violent
The term 'gaslighting' was born in the arts, but it found its true home in academia. And today, nowhere is the practice more pervasive than in Australia's universities. As readers know all too well, these institutions have become safe havens for left-leaning gaslighters, skilled at persuading the public that what they see and hear can't be trusted. It's a culture built on denial, where tidy theories and carefully scrubbed statistics are paraded out to wash away the fears, frustrations, and daily struggles of ordinary Australians. The latest example comes courtesy of Griffith University's Samara McPhedran, who confidently informs the nation that violent crime isn't rising. Such a claim presents a very narrow-minded version of reality. It's the kind of contrived intellectual thought that can only survive in the stale, insulated air of a lecture theatre, far from the streets where the damage is actually done. Perhaps Dr. McPhedran should speak with the families in Victoria watching their state's crime rate surge by 15 percent in a single year, each percentage point measured in stolen cars, broken bones, and lives violently knocked off course. Or she should consider the lengths the Victorian Allan government have gone to recently in an attempt to reduce violent crime, including the bizarre move to place more than 40 bins at police stations across the state so machete-wielding gangsters can safely dispose of their weaponry. She might then visit the residents of Perth's suburbs, where more than 25 suburbs have endured crime surges topping 30 percent in just 12 months. Perhaps she should speak with the parents who bolt their doors before the sun slips behind the rooftops, with the shopkeepers sweeping glass from their doorways for the twentieth time this year, with the pensioners who have abandoned the short walk to the corner shop because the risk now outweighs the reward. Instead, she remains sealed inside a bubble, an elitist echo chamber utterly detached from the realities and hardships of the people whose lives her theories claim to explain. If McPhedran's analysis reads like a masterclass in sidestepping the obvious, that's because it is. She leans on decades-old datasets, sanding down the jagged spikes of recent surges with long-term averages that bury the scale of the problem and don't engage with other aspects, such as recent rises in crime rates generally. In Victoria alone, police logged 627,268 criminal offences over a single twelve-month stretch (a shocking 17.1 per cent jump). Youth offenders now dominate robbery figures. In the 12 months to March 2025, according to the Crime Statistics Agency a range of theft offences were up significantly: motor vehicle theft was up 39.3 per cent, theft of number plates up 49.6 per cent and retail theft up 38.6 per cent. Cost-of-living pressures have driven this type of crime to levels that are breaking small businesses. Knife attacks have cut through once-secure communities, turning quiet shopping strips into places where tension lingers with every step. Yet McPhedran waves it away, insisting that reliable statistics aren't always available and that violent crime rates have fallen when compared to decades ago. When the evidence refuses to fit, she doesn't grapple with it. Unlike the principal research fellow, the public doesn't have the luxury of retreating into a spreadsheet. They live with the fallout of policy failure every day. They watch as the Albanese government's soft-on-crime stance emboldens offenders who know that the most likely consequence of repeat theft or assault is a token caution, not a meaningful sentence. They see state governments trial diversion programs that sound virtuous in a seminar room but collapse in the chaos of real streets with real victims. And while those failures multiply, academics step forward to supply the intellectual alibi for political leaders more intent on shielding their ideology than shielding their citizens. This is the point where the insulated arrogance of modern academia ceases to be an oddity and becomes a political weapon. Theories that clash with lived experience might remain harmless curiosities if they stayed buried in dusty journals, but they never do. They seep into ministerial speeches and bureaucratic talking points; they harden into legislative proposals. They turn genuine public concern into a 'perception problem' to be managed, not solved. Once that narrative takes root, the facts are bent until they break. The modern university system is built to protect that narrative. Scholars who dare to challenge progressive orthodoxy on crime, immigration, or public order find themselves quietly cut off from funding, promotions, and platforms. Those who repeat it are crowned as 'independent experts,' their words treated as gospel by journalists eager to paint public dissent as nothing more than hysteria. The result is a closed loop in which those most insulated from the damage their ideas cause are the very ones most empowered to write the laws everyone else must live under. Over time, this drip-feed of denial trains the public to second-guess themselves—until eventually, we begin to gaslight ourselves. Mention the knife-wielding teenagers roaming your streets, and you'll be branded a paranoid provocateur. Point to the boarded-up shopfronts in your town, and you'll be told you're cherry-picking. Describe a loved one's assault on public transport, and you'll get a lecture about 'isolated incidents.' The aim is not to convince you you're wrong; it's to make you doubt you were ever right. This gaslighting reaches far beyond crime statistics; it's now woven into the reflexes of Australia's academic and political class. The unspoken assumption is always that ordinary people misread reality, while they alone hold a higher, purer truth. In a university setting, that arrogance is tedious – but in the halls of power, it's lethal. Crime policy leaves no margin for theoretical blunders; every wrong assumption is paid for in screaming sirens, scared citizens, and suburbs drained of trust. Australians deserve far more than ivory-tower ignorance. They deserve leaders willing to face brutal truths—men and women prepared to say plainly that crime is climbing and the nation is hurting. They also deserve to know that the truth on their streets outweighs the fairy tales pushed by officials whose paychecks depend on avoiding inconvenient facts. And they deserve academics who leave the seminar room for the suburbs, who speak with business owners, walk with police, and listen—really listen—to victims. Because only then can their theories carry the weight of the world they claim to explain. John Mac Ghlionn is a researcher and essayist who writes on psychology and social relations. He has a keen interest in social dysfunction and media manipulation.
Perth Now
9 hours ago
- Perth Now
Two-thirds of Britons want Andrew stripped of titles
Some 67 per cent of the public would back the removal of Andrew's York dukedom, according to YouGov. (AP PHOTO) Some 67 per cent of the public would back the removal of Andrew's York dukedom, according to YouGov. (AP PHOTO) Credit: AAP Two thirds of Britons believe the Duke of York should be stripped of his remaining royal titles, according to a new poll. Research by YouGov found that 67 per cent of the public would back the removal of Andrew's York dukedom, as well as his princely title. An unflattering biography of the disgraced duke by Andrew Lownie in August delved into the private life of the late Queen's son, depicting him as sex-obsessed, a "useful idiot" and easy prey for Jeffrey Epstein. Some 13 per cent opposed the removal of his titles and 21 per cent were unsure, the survey suggested. Three years ago, 62 per cent believed Andrew should have his York title removed, with the current 67 per cent in-favour figure seeing a jump of five percentage points. Another YouGov survey found that just five per cent have a positive view of the King's brother, with Andrew languishing at the bottom of the royal favourability tables, beneath the Duchess of Sussex who has a 20 per cent positive rating and the Duke of Sussex at 28 per cent. Legislation would be required for Parliament to prevent Andrew continuing as the Duke of York, while his birthright to be a prince, as the son of a monarch, could be changed if a Letters Patent were issued by the King. The duke stopped using his style of his royal highness following his disastrous Newsnight interview, but it could be removed entirely by a Letters Patent. Andrew stepped away from his public role in 2019 amid the furore over his friendship with convicted billionaire paedophile Epstein. He later paid millions to settle a civil sexual assault case with Virginia Giuffre, who was trafficked by Epstein as a teenager and who Andrew claimed never to have met.
The Advertiser
19 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Young, conspiracy-drawn teens are potential terrorists
The changing face of terrorism from horrific acts by extremist Islamist groups to radicalised young men under 18 tapping away at their keyboards in regional areas is prompting a review into who is a terrorist. The Independent National Security Legislation Monitor is looking at whether Australia's laws are fit-for-purpose, contain appropriate protections for individual rights, remain proportionate to threats and remain necessary. The Australian definition of a "terrorist act" has not changed since it was enacted in 2002. "Next year will be the 25th anniversary of 9/11 and that's the event that really shaped out understanding of terrorism," monitor Jake Blight told AAP. "When we made this law it was followed by the Bali bombings. These were international organisations that were well-funded and executed mass casualty events." Citing ASIO's most recent threat assessment released in February, Mr Blight said the typical profile of who is a terrorist has markedly shifted. "But now and especially since COVID, it's mostly young people, mostly acting along, they're radicalised online and with basic weapons or not even a really fully fledged plan," he said. "They're mostly Australian-born, they're male, they're minors and they're from families previously unconnected to extremism." The average age of those under investigation for violent extremism was 15. He said less than half the potential terrorist matters investigated by ASIO in 2024 were religiously motivated. Those under investigation were not just confined to major cities but were spread out across rural and remote communities. All involved lone actors or small groups, almost all involved minors and almost all individuals involved were unknown to ASIO or the police. None appeared to be directly inspired by conflict in the Middle East or directed by offshore extremists, the assessment found. More than 300 federal, state and territory laws contain offences, obligations and powers that rely on the 2002 definition, Mr Blight found in a 58-page issues paper. These included many exceptional powers and modifications to longstanding legal principles including keeping suspects in detention after serving their sentences and the ability to strip citizenship. "We need to make sure that our terrorism laws are effective but also consistent with our human rights obligations," he said. Mr Blight also cautioned that defining terrorism was a tricky legal minefield and that public figures needed to be careful in their language. "People use the word terrorism to describe horror or abhorrence, it's kind of a short-hand for the worst crime they can think of but that isn't legally accurate," he explained. "There are many terrible and terrifying crimes that are not terrorism." In January, an abandoned caravan packed with explosives discovered in northwest Sydney contained a list of addresses of Jewish institutions. Police did not officially designate the incident as a terrorist event, but Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and NSW Premier Chris Minns labelled it a potential terrorist act. Australian Federal Police officials later said the fabricated caravan plot was a criminal con job. The changing face of terrorism from horrific acts by extremist Islamist groups to radicalised young men under 18 tapping away at their keyboards in regional areas is prompting a review into who is a terrorist. The Independent National Security Legislation Monitor is looking at whether Australia's laws are fit-for-purpose, contain appropriate protections for individual rights, remain proportionate to threats and remain necessary. The Australian definition of a "terrorist act" has not changed since it was enacted in 2002. "Next year will be the 25th anniversary of 9/11 and that's the event that really shaped out understanding of terrorism," monitor Jake Blight told AAP. "When we made this law it was followed by the Bali bombings. These were international organisations that were well-funded and executed mass casualty events." Citing ASIO's most recent threat assessment released in February, Mr Blight said the typical profile of who is a terrorist has markedly shifted. "But now and especially since COVID, it's mostly young people, mostly acting along, they're radicalised online and with basic weapons or not even a really fully fledged plan," he said. "They're mostly Australian-born, they're male, they're minors and they're from families previously unconnected to extremism." The average age of those under investigation for violent extremism was 15. He said less than half the potential terrorist matters investigated by ASIO in 2024 were religiously motivated. Those under investigation were not just confined to major cities but were spread out across rural and remote communities. All involved lone actors or small groups, almost all involved minors and almost all individuals involved were unknown to ASIO or the police. None appeared to be directly inspired by conflict in the Middle East or directed by offshore extremists, the assessment found. More than 300 federal, state and territory laws contain offences, obligations and powers that rely on the 2002 definition, Mr Blight found in a 58-page issues paper. These included many exceptional powers and modifications to longstanding legal principles including keeping suspects in detention after serving their sentences and the ability to strip citizenship. "We need to make sure that our terrorism laws are effective but also consistent with our human rights obligations," he said. Mr Blight also cautioned that defining terrorism was a tricky legal minefield and that public figures needed to be careful in their language. "People use the word terrorism to describe horror or abhorrence, it's kind of a short-hand for the worst crime they can think of but that isn't legally accurate," he explained. "There are many terrible and terrifying crimes that are not terrorism." In January, an abandoned caravan packed with explosives discovered in northwest Sydney contained a list of addresses of Jewish institutions. Police did not officially designate the incident as a terrorist event, but Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and NSW Premier Chris Minns labelled it a potential terrorist act. Australian Federal Police officials later said the fabricated caravan plot was a criminal con job. The changing face of terrorism from horrific acts by extremist Islamist groups to radicalised young men under 18 tapping away at their keyboards in regional areas is prompting a review into who is a terrorist. The Independent National Security Legislation Monitor is looking at whether Australia's laws are fit-for-purpose, contain appropriate protections for individual rights, remain proportionate to threats and remain necessary. The Australian definition of a "terrorist act" has not changed since it was enacted in 2002. "Next year will be the 25th anniversary of 9/11 and that's the event that really shaped out understanding of terrorism," monitor Jake Blight told AAP. "When we made this law it was followed by the Bali bombings. These were international organisations that were well-funded and executed mass casualty events." Citing ASIO's most recent threat assessment released in February, Mr Blight said the typical profile of who is a terrorist has markedly shifted. "But now and especially since COVID, it's mostly young people, mostly acting along, they're radicalised online and with basic weapons or not even a really fully fledged plan," he said. "They're mostly Australian-born, they're male, they're minors and they're from families previously unconnected to extremism." The average age of those under investigation for violent extremism was 15. He said less than half the potential terrorist matters investigated by ASIO in 2024 were religiously motivated. Those under investigation were not just confined to major cities but were spread out across rural and remote communities. All involved lone actors or small groups, almost all involved minors and almost all individuals involved were unknown to ASIO or the police. None appeared to be directly inspired by conflict in the Middle East or directed by offshore extremists, the assessment found. More than 300 federal, state and territory laws contain offences, obligations and powers that rely on the 2002 definition, Mr Blight found in a 58-page issues paper. These included many exceptional powers and modifications to longstanding legal principles including keeping suspects in detention after serving their sentences and the ability to strip citizenship. "We need to make sure that our terrorism laws are effective but also consistent with our human rights obligations," he said. Mr Blight also cautioned that defining terrorism was a tricky legal minefield and that public figures needed to be careful in their language. "People use the word terrorism to describe horror or abhorrence, it's kind of a short-hand for the worst crime they can think of but that isn't legally accurate," he explained. "There are many terrible and terrifying crimes that are not terrorism." In January, an abandoned caravan packed with explosives discovered in northwest Sydney contained a list of addresses of Jewish institutions. Police did not officially designate the incident as a terrorist event, but Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and NSW Premier Chris Minns labelled it a potential terrorist act. Australian Federal Police officials later said the fabricated caravan plot was a criminal con job. The changing face of terrorism from horrific acts by extremist Islamist groups to radicalised young men under 18 tapping away at their keyboards in regional areas is prompting a review into who is a terrorist. The Independent National Security Legislation Monitor is looking at whether Australia's laws are fit-for-purpose, contain appropriate protections for individual rights, remain proportionate to threats and remain necessary. The Australian definition of a "terrorist act" has not changed since it was enacted in 2002. "Next year will be the 25th anniversary of 9/11 and that's the event that really shaped out understanding of terrorism," monitor Jake Blight told AAP. "When we made this law it was followed by the Bali bombings. These were international organisations that were well-funded and executed mass casualty events." Citing ASIO's most recent threat assessment released in February, Mr Blight said the typical profile of who is a terrorist has markedly shifted. "But now and especially since COVID, it's mostly young people, mostly acting along, they're radicalised online and with basic weapons or not even a really fully fledged plan," he said. "They're mostly Australian-born, they're male, they're minors and they're from families previously unconnected to extremism." The average age of those under investigation for violent extremism was 15. He said less than half the potential terrorist matters investigated by ASIO in 2024 were religiously motivated. Those under investigation were not just confined to major cities but were spread out across rural and remote communities. All involved lone actors or small groups, almost all involved minors and almost all individuals involved were unknown to ASIO or the police. None appeared to be directly inspired by conflict in the Middle East or directed by offshore extremists, the assessment found. More than 300 federal, state and territory laws contain offences, obligations and powers that rely on the 2002 definition, Mr Blight found in a 58-page issues paper. These included many exceptional powers and modifications to longstanding legal principles including keeping suspects in detention after serving their sentences and the ability to strip citizenship. "We need to make sure that our terrorism laws are effective but also consistent with our human rights obligations," he said. Mr Blight also cautioned that defining terrorism was a tricky legal minefield and that public figures needed to be careful in their language. "People use the word terrorism to describe horror or abhorrence, it's kind of a short-hand for the worst crime they can think of but that isn't legally accurate," he explained. "There are many terrible and terrifying crimes that are not terrorism." In January, an abandoned caravan packed with explosives discovered in northwest Sydney contained a list of addresses of Jewish institutions. Police did not officially designate the incident as a terrorist event, but Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and NSW Premier Chris Minns labelled it a potential terrorist act. Australian Federal Police officials later said the fabricated caravan plot was a criminal con job.
