I understand what you're all saying.

And I suppose I am wrong.

However, I still find it difficult to blame
Marcus Einfeld. I admit I am biased. To me
the good he did in the overall scheme of things
outweighs the mistakes he made. I don't know
what prompted him to do what he did. Did he
really feel that he (like the American
Presidents - Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton) really feel
that he - Marcus Einfeld, was outside the law?
I don't know. I don't quite believe the media hype
that surrounds him.

There's so much greed and corruption in the seats
of power - but I still find it sad that a person
of the calibre of an Einfeld - should make the
mistakes that he apparently did. Sad for him, sad
for his family. He's going to pay for it - why can't
we leave it at that?

foxy:"I still find it sad that a person
of the calibre of an Einfeld - should make the
mistakes that he apparently did."

I couldn't agree more.

There is still the question of why he was allowed to get away with his petty dishonesties for so long. Now it seems that many people, including some journalists, were in the know years ago, yet still he went on.

Why were those people silent?

Antiseptic:

You're suggesting that I'm suggesting anti-semitism? "I was wondering how long it would take."

Bless my socks! Why was anti-semitism lurking in your mind? It wasn't in mine. I was thinking about the powerful enemies Einfeld made while supporting unpopular causes in human rights and Indigenous disadvantage. (Foxy nailed it.)

But since you've raised anti-semitism, I note your little qualifier: "his religion has nothing to do with it, other than that it may (among other factors) have played a part over the years in allowing him to get away with things he should have been punished for." You believe that Jews get away with illegal actions that non-Jews don't? Can you elaborate?

Pericles,
On Wednesday: "I confess to being a little biased, having met the man and having found him to be little more than a posturing, arrogant, self-important buffoon."

Today: "it is not considered polite...to tell someone you have only known for a few hours that they are an arrogant bully."

On the basis of a "few hours" in a meeting, you decided he was an "arrogant bully". The same few hours in which you decided he was a "self-important buffoon"?

You asked: "...given the fairly even balance of views here (including the golden-hearted Foxy) don't you think that your description of it as "a concerted vicious personal assault" is a little over the top?"

You are constructing an artificial 'for-or-against' model of debate. There are at least four positions here.

1. The largest group are those clearly attacking Einfeld - I characterise it as "a concerted vicious personal assault" and It's ironic to call me "a little over the top" (given your own language).

2. There's another smaller group arguing that his reputation should not be totally junked on the basis of the charges that have led him to prison.

3. Another small group are saying the matter has been blown out of all proportion.

4. My own position is not a defence of Einfeld (who is in prison for good reason) but to challenge the sink-the-boots-in pack mentality.

I think we understand each other, Spikey.

>>On the basis of a "few hours" in a meeting, you decided he was an "arrogant bully". The same few hours in which you decided he was a "self-important buffoon"?<<

Correct, on both counts.

>>There are at least four positions here.<<

At least.

>>My own position is not a defence of Einfeld (who is in prison for good reason) but to challenge the sink-the-boots-in pack mentality.<<

You perceive that my holding an opinion that the man is a posturing arrogant, self-important, bullying buffoon, is motivated by a sink-the-boots-in pack mentality.

I see my opinion as one that is totally independent of any pack whatsoever.

Maximilion asked:

P' the B', since you are far more informed than I, let me ask, would it be possible for a citizen, or group, or whatever, to start an action to remedy the situation as you describe it? It would appear the Court is failing in it's duty of care, or responsibility, or something, I don't have the legalese to cover what I'm trying to ask.

Sometimes I am a bit obscure. Every court in theory has the power to remedy the situation and there are numerous laws in place to allow it to happen. I say that when a court is asked to grant a remedy, every judge should do so, unless the judge gets authority from a higher authority to refuse.

However we have a problem with atheist courts. The atheist courts established after the Australia Act 1986 had their power to decide that Parliament had exceeded its authority and advise Her Majesty accordingly removed. Kable seems to be the High Court saying that this was illegal.

In 1640, the Imperial Parliament as the highest court declared all proceedings without reference to Almighty God void. This was evidence that the United Kingdom was Christian. When it refused to extend its Christian laws to the colonies in America, they went to war for their Christian rights. One of the reasons the United States has survived is its universal acceptance of jury trials in its Constitution. Even their money says In God we trust.

My battle since 1991 has been with the vesting of absolute power in one man or woman, without requiring an appeal to a higher power. In practice jury trial was an appeal to a higher power, the power of Almighty God and atheists believe there is no higher power than themselves. Christians do. Einfeld is Jewish. Jews hate juries. You should read the answers again

I thought I had answered yes.

spikey:"Why was anti-semitism lurking in your mind?"

This, which I read this morning:: http://www.smh.com.au/national/einfeld-show-hits-bum-note-20090326-9cgm.html "A furious synagogue president, Rosalind Fischl, emailed the congregation yesterday after members complained about footage of Einfeld singing with the synagogue choir was broadcast during Sarah Ferguson's report on Monday. The Diary understands they were upset about having the disgraced judge so publicly associated with their synagogue."

It made me think about why the Synagogue would want to be dissociated from Einfeld, when he's been a very active and prominent member.

spikey::"You believe that Jews get away with illegal actions that non-Jews don't?"

I believe that all sorts of things influence people to shield other people from the consequences of their actions. Commonality of religion is one very powerful such influence. Do you deny that there is a tendency among people to protect or assist those with whom we may feel we share some bond? The Synagogue mentioned above is top-heavy with the rich and powerful and has much to do with other synagogues that are just as stacked with talent. Do you think that it is beyond the realms of possibility that some of those people might have helped out a prominent fellow member who had made a "mistake"?

I attended a very prominent Anglican Church school in Brisbane. One of the reason people send their children to that school is the sense that one may form associations with the rich and powerful, or at least, those who will be one day. The expectation is that such association will provide benefits not available to others. There are similar examples everywhere