Criminal defence. Legal AI Engineer w/ Bodkin AI. Melburnian.
Victoria
Joined January 2011
- Tweets14.6K
- Following1.3K
- Followers2.3K
- Likes4.4K
“In reaching that conclusion, we do not accept the analogy drawn by counsel for the news
media organisations between this case and one in which a person suspected of having
committed an offence seeks a suppression order.
Such a person has not engaged with
the criminal courts and does not have appeal rights of the kind the appellant now seeks
to have protected. By exercising such appeal rights, a person convicted of an offence
seeks to ensure their right to fairness in ongoing judicial processes. That affords the
foundation for seeking a suppression order to avoid prejudice to those processes.”
1
386
Felix Ralph retweeted
Live picture of Lord Denning telling the House of Lords he would look at Hansard and there's absolutely nothing they could do to stop him because he just wouldn't mention it in his judgments.
Without getting to into it, the overall British tradition (unlike the American tradition) is extremely hostile to legislative history, though you had rebels like Lord Denning quip that he'd just check Hansard and not tell anyone haha. Pepper was only in the 90s and is still really controversial and rare
Sovereign AI or you won’t have a job is pretty much how it will go if the profession, globally, doesn’t realise what is going on.
Felix Ralph retweeted
Its one thing to introduce laws to protect children and the vulnerable. But its another to use the same laws as a back door to censor people from raising concerns about government agencies
Upon deeper analysis The Digital Duty of Care Bill seems designed as part of a global censorship push to introduce sweeping surveillance powers.
Incredible analysis from Margaret Chamber ( institute of Public Affairs) who has uncovered a hidden amendment to the Privacy Act which unleashes the eSafety Commissioner’s ability to gather massive information on people.
Where information on political views, biometric data, religious believes, ethnicity could be collected without consent and could be shared overseas with regulators like OfCom.
Yeah. I’ve been saying this for a very long time.
It’s a global network of information sharing between police forces, government and foreign agencies.
That information gathered on you can be for all sorts of things including arbitrary visa bans, suppression of speech. It’s hard to fathom.
Upon deeper analysis The Digital Duty of Care Bill seems designed as part of a global censorship push to introduce sweeping surveillance powers.
Incredible analysis from Margaret Chamber ( institute of Public Affairs) who has uncovered a hidden amendment to the Privacy Act which unleashes the eSafety Commissioner’s ability to gather massive information on people.
Where information on political views, biometric data, religious believes, ethnicity could be collected without consent and could be shared overseas with regulators like OfCom.
Felix Ralph retweeted
Tasers have increased the willingness of police to use force because it's 'less than lethal'.
Tasers should be banned. They would not have shot her, they didn't need to taser her.
I'd ban stun and gas grenade use as well. In Tas they throw them into homes with children present.
I’d take this seriously but frankly it’s on the government at this point. The commonwealth code as it relates to “unauthorised access”’ is not fit for purpose. Written when the internet was in its infancy. I was shocked at how unsophisticated it is.
"Mr Albanese said the government had accepted all 18 recommendations from the review, which included considering options to strengthen criminal laws, such as introducing a standalone "failure to prevent" offence.": abc.net.au/news/2026-11-10/o…
I just saw this horrible footage. Police tasering in ACT of an unarmed First Nations lady described by magistrate as “exceedingly heavy handed”
“I sometimes wonder when we lost the ability to speak to people,” Richter said.
“She’s a woman that was putting up no resistance.
“She’s sitting on the bench with her arms in the air.”
Story by @ninobucci
Felix Ralph retweeted
Nick Reece has proposed the return of psychiatric centres to combat the soaring mental health crisis in the wake of the death of food delivery rider Jianming Feng. > bit.ly/4AqrRhB
The Australian Government with their AI sock puppet legislation want to do to you what the CCP did to Jensen Huang. 💀
In England and Wales you can get 2 years for watching someone sit on someone’s face.
And you’ll be placed on a sex offender register. The same one reserved for paedophiles.
💀💀💀
Few will publicly mourn the loss of videos with titles such as “Choking gets her off”. But the new law is both broad and unhelpfully vague bit.ly/4sKwTTm
Illustration: Carl Godfrey
More closely examined, it seems like register is not on the cards. They do have a discretionary
Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO) if they consider it necessary to protect the public from sexual harm. An SHPO can restrict internet use, contact with children, travel, etc., but it is discretionary, not automatic.
2
1
583
They have porn lawyers in the UK 😭😭😭
WARNING: I see @FetLife has updated their policies to: “restrict certain content from being viewed by people in the United Kingdom”.
On strangulation and suffocation images they state that:
“Pornographic pictures and videos that explicitly and realistically show one person strangling another (applying pressure to their neck) or suffocating them (blocking their breathing by covering their mouth and nose or compressing their chest).”
This appears to reference the MoJ Guidance:
gov.uk/guidance/crime-and-po…
This guidance states that:
“We consider that suffocation will generally mean depriving a person of air in a way that affects their ability to breathe.”
However, government guidance is not binding on a court in interpreting legislation; and Section 106 of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 does not define what constitutes suffocation or strangulation:
legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/202…
Nevertheless, FetLife’s given examples of what their restrictions on strangulation and suffocation images do not include are:
“Breath play done to yourself,
Hands resting on someone's neck without applying pressure,
Collars, chokers, or necklaces worn without applying pressure to the neck,
Rope wrapped around someone's neck without applying pressure,
Ball gags or other gags that don't restrict breathing,
Hoods or masks that don't restrict breathing,
Facesitting that doesn't restrict breathing,
Someone sitting or lying on another person's chest without restricting their breathing”.
BEWARE: these examples should not be relied upon, since it is for a court to decide, based on the images in question (the evidence) whether a possession or publication offence has been committed.
1
1
455
The Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 will do this to our country as well.
Government kink shaming is the consequence of giving governments powers to issue unilateral take down notices with ill defined and broad scope of interpretation as to what constitutes harm.
This will impact everyone, not just the kinky.
@DavidShoebridge @WilkieMP
Felix Ralph retweeted
Dec 13, 2022.
