Is Mise, I would like to appease you by agreement, regarding Boyle and The Greens, but unfortunately I cannot bring myself to countenance such a preposterous notion that honorable Greens MP's would lie about this shifty character of ill repute, as Boyle was found to be in the Dunn Report. As a public servant of the people of NSW, Boyle was seen to have established an unhealthy relationship with MP's representing The Shooters Party, a political relationship in fact. As for the Privileges Committee of the Parliament, it has no function in determining the guilt or innocence, truthfulness or otherwise of members of that parliament.
No innuendo, O'Farrell sacked Boyle by disbanding the Game Council, of which Boyle was head, I note he has never made a return. What is Boyle up to theses days?

Pesky: If Colonel Dowdy saluted that private first, then he was in breach of military regulations.

Wrong again. It's in the Regs. & also in the Commissioned Officers, "Little Red Book" that a Commissioned Officer must salute any Officer of lower rank or Soldier who holds a "Victoria Cross." Correct me if I'm wrong, those that know, it also covers things like Knight Awards.

The Commissioned Officer Little Red Book is a book of Customs, Manners & Etiquette for Officers. Some of the things are very Victorian. Like; sending a messenger with a the Officers Card, the time of visit, how long & the reason for the visit. How to conduct yourself in Public. How to Conduct yourself at Formal Dinners. It's a very interesting book. It is a personal book usually inscribe inscribed with the Officers name & presented when he receives his Commission.

& yes Pesky a Private does have to obey Orders. Orders are given for good reason. Orders do not have to be obeyed if they are not of a Military nature. It the person of Superior Rank insists the private should inform that person that he will seek Redress. That's where "Redress of Wrongs" comes into play. Been there done that. That stops Superior Ranks from overstepping the mark.

Paul,

The Greens' lies are in print in various newspapers and in Hansard for all but the deliberately blind to see.
I note that you continue with the innuendo, which is handy when you cannot back up allegations; typically Green.

What is Boyle doing these days?
"Brian Boyle
Operations Manager, NBFE Program Darwin, NT Dep't of Primary Industries and Fisheries
Darwin, Northern Territory, AustraliaProgram Development

Previous
NSW Department of Primary Industries, Game Council NSW, Parks Victoria

Education
Charles Sturt University...."
https://au.linkedin.com/pub/brian-boyle/47/183/ab2

Pesky,

Jayb is spot on, and just as an illustration (and I saw this also, not a convenient invention), an officer, a 2Lt, called to a passing soldier with whom he had just exchanged salutes, "You, hey you!", the soldier ignored him, was called again, the soldier turned, marched back, (salute ritual), the officer said "You ignored me" and the soldier replied "My rank is Private, Sir, you may address me as 'Private' or 'Trained Soldier' Sir".

"Er, well Private...."

It works both ways and an order of a military nature if it is illegal can and must be disobeyed, that's the law, as pleading 'superior orders' is not a defence at law.

Yuyutsu,
The only person who should fear the law is the criminal, but because the law is not a deterrent to criminals is the reason they are criminals. Your suggestion there are two laws in Australia deserves to be challenged. Australian law should not violate good social harmony which is the principle of law. A religious law is designed to create social harmony and good relationships.

If you are associating respect for the law with an unnatural fear then you are mistaken. We are to respect God is the use of the term "fear God", only the unforgiven of good social harmony need fear God in the terror sense.

Standing in court when asked is respect for the law of Australia, no religious law bans such respect. Failure to stand shows disrespect to the sentences handed down and if these criminals do not accept punishment for stealing they are not accepting stealing as a crime, which is part enshrined in religious law for social harmony, "Thou shall not steal".

Are you saying stealing is acceptable social practice for Muslims?
Are you saying Muslims are exempt on religious grounds from Australian laws and may show contempt for the law.

I have been impaneled several times on Jury and we also had to stand on entry of the administrator of the law, so show we respected the law. Do Muslims on Jury also believe they do not need to stand? Next time everybody gives a standing ovation at a concert think!

Yuyutsu,
The only person who should fear the law is the criminal, but because the law is not a deterrent to criminals is the reason they are criminals. Your suggestion there are two laws in Australia deserves to be challenged. Australian law should not violate good social harmony which is the principle of law. A religious law is designed to create social harmony and good relationships.

If you are associating respect for the law with an unnatural fear then you are mistaken. We are to respect God is the use of the term "fear God", only the unforgiven of good social harmony need fear God in the terror sense.

Standing in court when asked is respect for the law of Australia, no religious law bans such respect. Failure to stand shows disrespect to the sentences handed down and if these criminals do not accept punishment for stealing they are not accepting stealing as a crime, which is part enshrined in religious law for social harmony, "Thou shall not steal".

Are you saying stealing is acceptable social practice for Muslims?
Are you saying Muslims are exempt on religious grounds from Australian laws and may show contempt for the law.

I have been impaneled several times on Jury and we also had to stand on entry of the administrator of the law, so show we respected the law. Do Muslims on Jury also believe they do not need to stand? Next time everybody gives a standing ovation at a concert think! Am I doing this out of fear or respect?