Daily News

murray sells · **Posted:** Sat Apr 26, 2025 10:11 am

Apologies but that wasn't in his file but thankyou for that appreciate that its right

BC · **Posted:** Thu May 08, 2025 8:28 am

Well, well, well, who could have thought!

Who noticed the small announcement that Australia Blue, the first wind farm, is shutting down after 20 years?

Situated in Western Victoria the closure is for financial reasons as the turbines must be replaced and it is unaffordable to do so. The alternative is also unappealing as it requires the farm to be demolished.

The cheaper of the options is to demolish and restore the land. There is no way of recycling the blades, so they will go to landfill, the metal work to scrap but the 20,000 tonne foundation will have to remain in the ruined farmland.

It is interesting to note that the returns from this installation after 20 years is less than the expenditure to build which goes to illustrate the massive con job this "green and free" energy hype has been.

Enough to make even that fool, Blackout Bowen, weep.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/australias- ... -too-high/

Graeme Rhodes · **Posted:** Thu May 08, 2025 10:43 am

Not at all surprised at this BC. Topic that has been the point of discussion for some considerable time.

Pony · **Posted:** Thu May 08, 2025 11:51 am

It will be the first of many!!

Stroppy Chippie · **Posted:** Thu May 08, 2025 6:30 pm

I note that the footnote offers:

Note: We have taken note of some comments pointing out that the Crookwell and Salmon Beach wind projects were built before Codrington. We suspect the dispute about who was the first “commercial” wind farm – as Pacific Blue claims for Codrington – comes down to a definition of “commercial.”

The original Crookwell wind farm continues to operate (well, the blades turn at times when we pass) and it was spruiked that it supplied 2,500 homes after commissioning. If that is not "commercial" what is?

So, an average of 25 years life for a wind powered generation site, what, around 50 years for a coal powered equivilent and 80 years for a nuclear site.

Maybe the "new" Chinese owners are anticipating a subsidy being offered to upgrade the site.....

Hippy Chippy · **Posted:** Fri May 09, 2025 4:59 pm

BC wrote:

Well, well, well, who could have thought!

Who noticed the small announcement that Australia Blue, the first wind farm, is shutting down after 20 years?

Situated in Western Victoria the closure is for financial reasons as the turbines must be replaced and it is unaffordable to do so. The alternative is also unappealing as it requires the farm to be demolished.

The cheaper of the options is to demolish and restore the land. There is no way of recycling the blades, so they will go to landfill, the metal work to scrap but the 20,000 tonne foundation will have to remain in the ruined farmland.

It is interesting to note that the returns from this installation after 20 years is less than the expenditure to build which goes to illustrate the massive con job this "green and free" energy hype has been.

Enough to make even that fool, Blackout Bowen, weep.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/australias- ... -too-high/

Never fear...

...Don Quixote will save us...! :poke:

Pony · **Posted:** Wed May 21, 2025 1:03 am

Good article in support of Ben Roberts-Smith.

Tuesday, 20 May 2025
Opinion: “The Cost of Judgement: Standing with Ben Roberts-Smith”

By Ray Payne OAM

In a nation that once celebrated him as a hero, Ben Roberts-Smith VC now finds himself the subject of relentless legal and media scrutiny…scrutiny shaped largely by individuals who have never faced the enemy nor endured the brutal theatre of war.

The recent failure of Roberts-Smith’s appeal against defamation findings has reignited debate about not just the man, but the judgement of war itself. As lawyers from Nine celebrated their legal win with hugs and smiles outside the courtroom, one couldn’t help but reflect on the stark contrast between their triumph and the life this soldier has led in service to his country.

This is not a defence of every allegation made or a denial of justice, but a call for perspective. The battlefield is not a courtroom. It is a place of chaos, life-and-death decisions, and moral ambiguity. Those who have not lived through the fog of war cannot truly comprehend its cost, nor should they so easily condemn those who have.

Ben Roberts-Smith was awarded the Victoria Cross, Australia’s highest military honour, for his extraordinary courage under fire. His acts saved Australian lives. He faced down machine-gun fire to rescue pinned-down comrades. For that, he was not only decorated but held up as a symbol of our national spirit. Yet, years later, after reports by journalists and a civil court judgement made on the balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt, his reputation lies in ruins.

Critics point to war crimes allegations that remain untested in any criminal court. No charges have been laid against Roberts-Smith. The findings against him stem from a civil defamation case, where the threshold of proof is significantly lower than that of a criminal trial. These are vital distinctions that too often go ignored in the court of public opinion.

It is easy for those who have never worn the uniform, never kicked in a door in hostile territory, never watched a mate die, to pass judgement. War, by its very nature, is not clean. It is not governed by the same expectations we uphold in civilian life. And yet, we seem determined to hold our soldiers to peacetime standards while demanding they fight wars on our behalf.

What message does this send to those who may one day be asked to risk everything in defence of the nation? That honour and service will only be recognised until it becomes inconvenient.

Roberts-Smith is now left facing a legal bill that may exceed $25 million, not because he was charged with a crime, but because he fought to defend his name. While journalists and lawyers toast their victory, the human cost, the psychological toll, the ruin of a man once lionised. remains largely unspoken.

This is not about shielding anyone from accountability. If war crimes were committed, they must be prosecuted in the proper forum, through a criminal trial, with the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Until that day comes, Roberts-Smith remains an uncharged man, still entitled to the presumption that he served his country with honour and did his duty under unimaginably difficult circumstances.

Let us not forget that the freedom to judge was purchased by those who stepped into harm’s way. Perhaps we should show a little more humility, and gratitude, before condemning them.

Stroppy Chippie · **Posted:** Wed May 21, 2025 1:45 am

"War crimes" - rules of engagement tend to get very foggy when the opposition do not work to the same rules and wear a distinctive uniform. Never seen any documentary that shows previous "wars, police actions, etc" that remain a clean and above board action.

Graeme Rhodes · **Posted:** Wed May 21, 2025 10:25 am

War is hell never meant so much and is ohhh so true!
This man was surely obeying orders. Where is the effing hierarchy now?

BC · **Posted:** Fri May 23, 2025 11:34 am

I am totally against these actions regard war crimes. I have read a number of books about the SAS, both British and Oz. There has been a number instances where "civilians" have stumbled on the the "hide". And unfortunately, the individual would have to be eliminated for the safety of the team and the mission.

Under normal laws and morals, that would be wrong. But, in war, other priorities must take precedence, for the sake of the team.

Daily News

Who is online