The Pickering Post
Friday, 14th December 2018

If you would like to be involved or support the upkeep and further development of this site, it would be very welcome no matter how small.


Larry Pickering

Four-time Walkley Award winning political commentator and Churchill Fellow, has returned to the fray over concern that the integrity of news dissemination is continually being threatened by a partisan media.


Liberal Party wets led by Malcolm Turnbull are screaming for the rule of law to be applied to an accused terrorist despite no rule of any law being observed by the terrorist himself. Abbott is wary of giving the judiciary final call on a terrorist’s guilt or otherwise, and for good reason... our soft Left judiciary is responsible for far too many murders as a result of their “compassionate” findings and soft sentencing.

Despite our prison population having risen by 39% in recent years to 186 per 100,000 population, the US in comparison incarcerates over 700 per 100,000 of its population. But Australian courts still remain keen to release repeat offenders back into the community either on bail, on early release or on parole.

Since 1980, 13 Australians have been murdered by violent repeat offenders granted early release or parole. The figures involving light sentencing for repeat offenders of sex crimes (including paedophilia) are through the roof, particularly where the accused is given a sympathetic judicial ear because he is Islamic and has claimed “a cultural difference”.

Abbott still has the stench of the judiciary’s lax treatment of Man Monis in his nostrils. Once a terrorist is allowed free access to our slack legal system, via legal aid, there will always be some smart-arsed Leftie lawyer ready to pounce on a technicality to ensure his freedom.

The Left cites the cost ($2,000 per week) of an inmate’s upkeep as the reason for going soft on crime, but it’s not really the cost that concerns them, it’s actually the culture of the Left not to jail people.

Magistrates and judges (who are mostly failed solicitors in a self-regulating system that promotes and protects its own) have come straight from university and struggle to relate to community sentiment.

Terrorism has made the world a far different place, so terrorists need far different rules. You simply can’t apply our beloved “rule of law” to a terrorist. Common (or even statute law) is in another judicial world and has no relevance where some religious bigot is determined to decapitate people in the furtherance of his Islamic caliphate, Shariah law and/or jihad.

We are not talking white-collar crime or drug offences here, we are talking an Allah-sanctioned instruction to kill as many non-believers as possible... and it’s happening.

Of course it’s understandable that lawyers will always insist criminals be exposed to criminal law. But we are not even talking a death penalty for these bastards... we are merely talking citizenship rights!

Allowing our soft judiciary to adjudicate on accused terrorists will only create more of the Man Monis disasters. Current laws can be applied to terrorists but it’s a new area for judges who will always err on the side of compassion.

The law of sedition has been around since Jesus. In 2006 the AFP investigated  Islamic bookstores in Lakemba and Auburn which were promoting suicide bombings, anti-Australian conspiracies and racism, but found the proprietors did not breach the Commonwealth Criminal Code, so how the hell could a conviction be obtained under the law of sedition?

Okay so let’s try “treason”! Under section 9A of the Crimes Act a person is guilty of treason if, “... (he/she) assists by any means whatever, with intent to assist, an enemy at war with the Commonwealth of Australia, whether or not the existence of a state of war has been declared or not”. Penalty, life imprisonment.

Even if a person did not inform authorities of another person’s treasonous intentions  the penalty is up to 20 years imprisonment.

So there ya go! There are thousands of active Islamic radicals in our suburbs right now who should have been tried and convicted of treason and sentenced to life imprisonment. Yet not one has!

No prosecutor will prepare a brief he knows a judge will reject and few AFP officers will bother making arrests that will prove a waste of time.

So Malcolm Turnbull and his Lefty mate, ABC Chairman Spigelman can stop the bullshit... the judiciary can never be trusted to deal with the threat of terrorism.

I do not often agree with Abbott, but this time he is right. Confine adjudication on citizenship to Ministerial discretion on the basis of advice from intelligence Agencies. Include the Attorney General and his shadow counterpart in the decision making process and have judicial oversight by an appointed terrorism tribunal privy to the intelligence needed to convict.

The judiciary, like those in Europe, should not be allowed to adjudicate on terrorism offences under any circumstances because their courts will be closed due to the national security nature of the evidence.

Of course they would crave that sense of judicial power but so far they have shown they are incapable of applying it in the interests of the community.  


I ACTIVELY ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO READ ATTENTIVELY THE POSTS OF,,,,,,,,,,, RINALDO,,,,,,,,,,TSCabot,,,,,,,,,,,,,MARCO-ELOCO,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,dodo. & now the DRY RED,

Their posts give an excellent opportunity to appraise those who would destroy our Democracy and replace it with a Marxist Totalitarian Regime. Thus be aware and bear in mind their political aims and aspirations when you peruse their offerings as they all appear to be;

1. Rampant Communists who prefer to be known as a Progressive Socialists, ( dodo now claims to be A political however appears to support Communist dogma and tenet ?)

2. Anti Semites. ( dodo claims not to know what an anti Semite is)

3. Holocaust deniers, ( dodo now accept the holocaust occurred )

4. Pro Muslim, with all the evil that goes with that, (dodo on this issue has a bob each way.)

5. Conspiracy theorists? Who openly contend for example "man has never walked on the moon", and in MARCO-ELOCO case "THE EARTH IS FLAT"??? And;

6. Anti Catholic,

7. They cite fiction novels to substantiate their cut and paste assertions, and we are expected to believe a photograph of some event or asserted incident is total verification; "because the camera doesn't lie". OMG naive is alive and well in the ranks of Australia's Communists of today.

8. They are also against the vaccination of children and spread false information in justification of their lies...................(The dodo vehemently assures me that to name it as anti vaccination fanatic is a falsehood so in deference to the energetic denials please note the dodo is an exception to this category. )

9. Anti fluoridation proponents.



I do not suggest any of these label are right or wrong but I do suggest knowing the authors stand on issue increases ones ability to determine if their statements are creditable or not?

Also it befuddles me why; those who choose to "carry the banner" and prosecute the views of their political masters appear be so shamed when named for what they are?

Have they no pride in their written word? Do they indeed not believe what they post, is it ALL lies and deceitful propaganda? I am forced to wonder. And if so to what purpose?

"...Toward the latter part of The Descent of Man, Darwin clearly understood that his “survival of the fittest” principle, which really is a clumsy way of postulating tautology,[22] would create havoc if applied consistently. “At some future period,” he lamented, “not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.”[23]
Here we see again and again that Darwin and Jewish ideology end up locking themselves in the same ideological building block. Each “race” and group tend to proclaim that they are the “chosen ones.” Keep in mind that the subtitle of Darwin’s Origin of Species is “the preservation of the favoured races in the struggle for life.”..."

Sorry but here I have to disagree as I don't go along with the churches hell doctrine - in the original sense of the term to hell meant to put a cover over i.e. to thatch a roof or to cover with dirt [bury].

Revelation 2:9, 3:9. Isaiah 45:5-7, Mat 5:44, Luke 6:27. Mark 12:36.

stone cold, there are no absolutes - anything goes when arguing with a jew. It's just his way of having fun.

: )

Has TURC stopped for the day? Why are those gooses still there?

Fuck the Palestinians....there are no rules against those who don't have any.

The squirrel works hard in the whithering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks he's a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the squirrel is warm and well fed.

A social worker finds the shivering grasshopper, calls a press conference and demands to know why the squirrel should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others less fortunate, like the grasshopper, are cold and starving.

The ABC shows up to provide live coverage of the shivering grasshopper; with cuts to a video of the squirrel in his comfortable warm home with a table laden with food.

The Australian press informs people that they should be ashamed that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so while others have plenty.

The Greens, the Labor Party, Greenpeace, Animal Rights and The Grasshopper Housing Commission of Australia demonstrate in front of the squirrel's house.

The ABC, interrupting a cultural festival special from St Kilda with breaking news, broadcasts a multi-cultural choir singing 'We Shall Overcome'.

Bill Shorten rants in an interview with Laurie Oakes that the squirrel got rich off the backs of grasshoppers, and calls for an immediate tax hike on the squirrel to make him pay his 'fair share' and increases the charge for squirrels to enter Melbourne city centre.

In response to pressure from the media, the Government drafts the Economic Equity and Grasshopper Anti-Discrimination Act, retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The squirrel's taxes are reassessed.

He is taken to court and fined for failing to hire grasshoppers as builders,for the work he was doing on his home, and an additional fine for contempt when he told the court the grasshopper did not want to work.

The grasshopper is provided with a Housing Commission house, financial aid to furnish it and an account with a local taxi firm to ensure he can be socially mobile.

The squirrel's food is seized and re-distributed to the more needy members of society - in this case the grasshopper.

Without enough money to buy more food, to pay the fine and his newly imposed retroactive taxes, the squirrel has to downsize and start building a new home.

The local authority takes over his old home and utilises it as a temporary home for asylum seeking cats who had hijacked a plane to get to Australia as they had to share their country of origin with mice.

On arrival they tried to blow up the airport because of Australians' apparent love of dogs.

The cats had been arrested for the international offence of hijacking and attempted bombing but were immediately released because the police fed them pilchards instead of salmon whilst in custody.

Initial moves to make them return to their own country were abandoned because it was feared they would face death by the mice.

The cats devise and start a scam to obtain money from people's credit cards.

A 60 Minutes special shows the grasshopper finishing up the last of the squirrel's food, though spring is still months away, while the Housing Commission house he is in, crumbles around him because he hasn't bothered to maintain it. He is shown to be taking drugs.

Sarah Hanson Young blames inadequate government funding for the grasshopper's drug 'Illness'.

The cats seek recompense in the Australian courts for their treatment since arrival in Australia.

The grasshopper gets arrested for stabbing an old dog during a burglary to get money for his drugs habit. He is imprisoned but released immediately because he has been in custody for a few weeks.

He is placed in the care of the probation service to monitor and supervise him.

Within a few weeks he has killed a guinea pig in a botched robbery.

A commission of enquiry, that will eventually cost $10 million and state the obvious, is set up.

Additional money is put into funding a drug rehabilitation scheme for grasshoppers.

Legal aid for lawyers representing asylum seekers is increased.

The asylum seeking cats are praised by the government for enriching Australia's multicultural diversity and dogs are criticised by the government for failing to befriend the cats.

The grasshopper dies of a drug overdose.

The usual sections of the press blame it on the obvious failure of government to address the root causes of despair arising from social inequity and his traumatic experience of prison.

The Greens and the Labor Party call for the resignation of the Prime Minister.

The cats are paid $1 million each because their rights were infringed when the government failed to inform them there were mice in Australia.

The squirrel, the dogs and the victims of the hijacking, the bombing, the burglaries and robberies have to pay an additional percentage on their credit cards to cover losses, their taxes are increased to pay for law and order, and they are told that they will have to work beyond 65 because of a shortfall in government funds.

Thanks for the Dorothy Dixer DH. :-) ...

What the hell is an "israeli militant". Or does that rag mean a member of the IDF?

UN has no credibility. NY Times is a Leftoid rag lacking credibility.

Australian Lacrosse Assoc? Adult Learning Australia? C'mon Dizzy what's ALA, you might have started something here?

Apologies, Marigold. I'm afraid I find your in-depth investigative reports into the dark underbelly of poster skulduggery a little too difficult to follow. I have the same problem with 'The Bold And The Beautiful' on the telly. Fortunately I have my wife there to explain things to me.

Last year i joined the ALA. Come the next election I intend to break the habit of a lifetime and not vote LNP. Still think they're streets ahead of Liebor though.

Dizzy, I never would put you in that category, but it is pleasing to see that they have not yet responded after a full 21 minutes.

I would take notice of the U N as being truthful as is TRAD bullshit.

Well I must be a boofhead Harry. :-)

While we're on the subject fellas, what has Turnbull ever done that's to the benefit of his constituents or for the nation for that matter. I have never forgotten the underhanded way his party colleagues shafted Peter King in favour this "Fraser lookalike" to get the piece of shit into the seat of Wentworth. The LIBERAL PARTY under Howard did that, and don't even get me started on the useless stinking lawyer Brandis. BTW if there are any boofheads thinking "well they're better than labour", please don't bore us with that predictable rubbish either.