African youth gangs running riot in Sydney carry out six 'blitz-style' robberies of phone shops – as police launch special taskforce to bring them to justice

It's not only Melbourne

A special police taskforce will be set up to investigate a recent spate of robberies involving African youth gangs.

NSW Police has stepped up their investigation into blitz-style robberies targeting electrical stores such as JB Hi-Fi and Bing Lee across Sydney.

At least six robberies are being investigated, including three on Saturday and one at Eastgardens on Sunday.

The offenders are described as being of African appearance in all of the incidents.

It's understood thieves intimidated staff before taking off with popular items such as Apple watches, iPhones and MacBooks.

Ryde Police will take the lead in the taskforce investigation into the recent robberies and urge anyone with information to come forward.

'Ryde detectives are working with investigators from the State Crime Command Robbery and Serious Crime Squad to identify, locate and arrest groups of offenders, responsible for a series of recent thefts, including three on Saturday at retail stores in Artarmon, Castle Hill and Top Ryde,' a NSW Police spokeswoman told Daily Mail Australia.

'Officers are already gathering evidence including CCTV from each of the crime scenes. 'No-one was hurt in the latest incidents but police are concerned about the threat to public safety.'

Other recent robberies occurred in Rhodes, Strathfield, Rouse Hill, Campbelltown, Carlingford, Chatswood and Burwood.

The police spokeswoman told Daily Mail Australia it was too early to say whether the recent robberies are linked to an alleged attempted robbery of an Optus store in Sydney's south-west in April.

An innocent elderly bystander was seriously injured after a group of up to 15 African teens stormed an Optus store during the alleged attempted robbery at Casula Mall. 

Police alleged staff confronted the teens after they began pulling on items attached to the display by security cables, which was captured on store CCTV.

One teen allegedly stole a watch while another attempted to steal a mobile phone but dropped it as the group fled the store.

The group is captured on CCTV fleeing the shopping centre, as confused shoppers watch on and scramble to get out of their way.

An elderly woman suffered a broken pelvis bowled over by one of the teens. A teen was charged in relation to the incident on May 10 and police investigations are continuing.

SOURCE  






'We might be biased': New ABC chair Ita Buttrose admits broadcaster lacks diversity of views - after it is slammed for left-wing groupthink

ABC chairwoman Ita Buttrose has conceded that accusations the national broadcaster has a political bias may have some merit.

Conservative critics have accused the ABC and its presenters of a left-wing bias and the chair has admitted some presenters may have let their own views show through and that there is a lack of alternative views.

Ms Buttrose joined the ABC in February following the resignation of her predecessor Justin Milne.

'Sometimes I think we might be biased,' Ms. Buttrose told ABC Radio Melbourne on Wednesday. 'Sometimes we could do with more diversity of views. I haven't got a problem with anybody's view but I think we need to make sure ours is as diverse as we can make it.

'People, without really knowing it, let a bias show through. I think we can all do that. But the way you deflect the critics that like to give us a tough time is by having a wider viewpoint.'

Ms Buttrose, a one-time Australian of the Year, was chosen to lead the ABC at a time when the broadcaster was going through turmoil following the sacking of former managing director Michelle Guthrie.

Ms Guthrie alleged she was pressured from above into firing chief economics correspondent Emma Alberici and political editor Andrew Probyn for allegedly criticising the Coalition government.

Mr Milne, however, denied allegations he sought to have journalists sacked.

Ms Buttrose asked the ABC staff to not worry about job losses in the wake of annual funding indexation freeze from July 2019, which will cost it $84 million over three years.

She said there were no plans to shut down the ABC radio and television branches. 'There are many things that can be cut. There are many things that can be changed,' she said.

Ms Buttrose will meet new Communications Minister Paul Fletcher to discuss the broadcaster's future next week and will seek funds, if required.

"It's no good bleating and whimpering,' Ms. Buttrose said. 'We've got to present a case as to why we need it, what it's for, where it'll take us, what our plans are for the future, what the digital impact will be on the way we do broadcasting,' she said.

The Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) said almost $340 million has been cut from the ABC base funding since 2014.

SOURCE  






Bursting CSR virtue-signallers’ bubble

Many pundits have been forced to explain why middle Australia not only rejected Bill Shorten’s class war rhetoric but also spurned Labor’s enthusiastic embrace of identity politics and progressive ideology agendas.

To be fair, if you live in the insider bubble, it was easy to miss this story. All our key culture-shaping institutions — schools, universities, the bureaucracy, the media — have embraced identity politics and progressive ideology.

This also includes corporations; Australia’s big public companies, which have done so under the rubric of so-called Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).

The long march of the left is increasingly making our key business institutions inhospitable places for those with conservative and traditional views and values.

Understandably, many people stay silent and consent to progressive ‘social responsibility’ agendas to avoid the social and professional consequences that dissenters from the politically correct consensus can face in these increasingly intolerant and polarised times.

No wonder, therefore, that people working in big corporations prefer to stay quiet, especially given what is at stake: careers, mortgages, school fees, and superannuation.

What is missing is the sound and sensible cultural leadership that can convince people to not remain quiet and confidently speak up for traditional values that are genuinely under threat and at stake in the many-fronted culture war.

In Corporate Virtue Signalling: How To Stop Big Business from Meddling in Politics, I outline the apparent take-over of big business by politically correct lefties.

The book also warns companies that by endorsing progressive agendas, they risk politicising their reputations, and alienating from their brands the millions of conservative members of the community who do not subscribe to such agendas.

The problem is that many corporate leaders may not realise how divisive their CSR politicking is, because they live, work, and socialise with like-minded elites deep inside their inner city ‘bubble’.

Hopefully, the election result will burst this bubble and make corporate elites aware where the true centre of mainstream opinion lies in Australia. Surely, the only ones who won’t get it now are the truly tin-eared.

So now is perhaps an opportune time to introduce a new principle — the Community Pluralism Principle — into the management of companies.

This would hold directors and CEOs accountable for making sure CSR activities don’t stray into meddling in contentious political issues, and instead properly respect the pluralism — the different views and values — of the diverse Australian community.

If this principle was supported at shareholder meetings by the ‘mum and dad’ investors fed up with companies indulging in political activism, the Quiet Australians would send a powerful message to penetrate the dense bubbles of corporate boardrooms: business should halt the corporate virtue signalling — and stick to business.

SOURCE  






ScoMo’s immigration policy is to keep the migrants flowing

No matter how disruptive the huge flow is

THE ELECTION OFFERED no respite from Australia’s radical immigration economy. We could crank it up higher, under the Coalition. Even more so, via Labor.

In 2017 and 2018, net migration clocked about 240,000. The Budget grows that by 30,000. But permanent migration drops by 30,000. How good are bridging visas?

The long haul is real news. Only once since Federation has Australia surpassed 270,000 net migration. Before 2007, even 200,000 was unknown. Why are figures so high? How do they fly so low? Carry on regardless?

High population growth props up GDP growth

Net migration’s a mouthful. It means those arriving in Australia and staying (by whatever visa) for 12 months out of 16, less those (who are resident and) leave for 12 months out of 16.

Yet it best gauges the “mass” of overseas arrivals. Nowadays, net student arrivals swamp net permanents. Also, they swamp net temp-worker plus visitor arrivals. But about half of each year’s permanent-migrant tally is already onshore, on student or other visas.

In Treasury estimates, net migration plus a natural increase equals population growth. The population’s set to increase by 1.7% in 2019 and 2020. Over 60% is from net migration.

This past decade, population growth underpins more than half real GDP growth. The 2018-19 Budget had 1.6% population growth, for 3% GDP growth. This Budget downgrades the 3% by a quarter. It seeks 1.7% population growth, for 2.75% GDP growth.

Perennially, Treasury forecasts resurgent GDP growth: but that doesn’t happen. More reliably, population growth powers GDP. The Budget doesn’t have to square off infrastructure and service costs of rising population, traditionally state responsibilities. The 2019-20 sweetener was “$100 billion” of “congestion busting” over 10 years.

It’s not enough.

Budgets set the tone. Usually, Budget papers 1-3 mute population. The spotlight is jobs and growth, deficit or surplus. Crucial migration and population “parameters” tiptoe into Appendix A of Budget paper no. 3.

For the Budget 2019-20, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg hyped Morrison’s population plan and its migration “cap” of 160,000. His 270,000 migration sat in its Appendix A.

Labor and the Greens countered, saying that’s no way to bust congestion. What they said was: we’ll see you then we’ll raise you. All the while, the mainstream media recycled the Budget highlights and migration cap. One reporter noticed the net migration blowout, beneath the cap and its “congestion busting” fascinator.

Moreover, left-modernism has made any querying of immigration and population less welcome. Even unprecedented migration has its self-reinforcing cheer squad, including political parties, state and city governments, developers, media, academics and unions.

Disaffected parties if any are the environment (in Australia State of the Environment reports) and the electorate (in repeated surveys).

High population growth is steered not just “forecast”

Government wouldn’t presume to supervise a natural increase. Anyway, birth rates are low. How does the Government supervise net migration and thereby our turbo-charged (by OECD norms) population growth?

The current “Appendix A” format debuted 2009. Up to 2017, budget-night estimates (carrying time lags in migration and population data) may be compared with end-of-year outcomes.

Assumed net migration ranges from 175,000 to 246,000. Actuals seesaw between 169,000 and 264,000.  Average annual error of estimates is over 40,000; over 20%. Estimated population growth is 1.5% to 1.8%. Actuals range from 1.4% to 2.0%. Average annual error grazes 0.2%.

What about budget-night estimates versus end-of-following year outcomes? Assumed migration varies from 180,000 to 250,000. The average error is under 20%. Estimated population growth runs from 1.4% to 1.8%. The average error just tops 0.2%.

Home Affairs straddles diverse visa categories and applicant queues. It can’t control outward movements. It lacks real-time net migration data. Yet Treasury 12-24 month estimates are landing okay. Short term, migration and population are steered not just “forecast”.

Long term, can we manage the population? At 25 million, we’ve broken the 1998 ABS population forecast for 2051. But those extras didn’t fall like rain. Repeatedly, our sovereign Government has intensified net migration, counting big gains but discounting collateral costs.

Opposition Labor, during the mining boom, acquiesced to a big hike in permanent migration and “457” visas. By way of thanks, the miners gelignitedKevin Rudd’s tax on their super-profits. In a Coalition phase pre-GFC, and Labor-Coalition phase post-GFC, we’ve hugely increased overseas student numbers and deregulated visa pathways, at a cost to systemic quality and local aspirants.

It’s less that ABS can’t do the math. It’s more that government has decisively upped population. Average net migration 2007-2017 — 220,000 plus — is busting twice the quarter-century average to 2006.

With overseas student numbers possibly peaking, how does the Government confect the 270,000 net migration? One opinion rates this as heavily dependent on a strengthening economy, with extra chip-ins required from working holidaymakers, visitors changing status and the new temporary parent visa. So much for the spin, that migration primarily services skills in demand.

Net migration might slump under a significantly weakened economy. But we’ve trumped 170,000 ever since 2006. To shore up the “jobs and growth”, the Government could accelerate visa processing, tweak visa rules or categories, or unleash the parent visas.

Short term, should the Government keep scaling migration cliffs? The 21st Century population surges are political rather than popular. Surfing on immigration, Morrison might yet ballyhoo “30 years of growth”.

The ordinary wage-earners might wonder, did he really burn for us?

Long term, Treasury’s Intergenerational report assumes there’ll be 215,000 annual net migration annually. Obediently, today’s “illustrative” ABS projectionsalways assume elevated migration, at 175,000, 225,000 or 275,000. Even under their middle assumptions, the population will top 37 million around 2050.

Sydney and Melbourne might hit about eight million apiece.

If taken as normal, the 37 million skates round unsustainable land clearing, habitat loss, water consumption and uncontrollable greenhouse emissions. Sydney and Melbourne urban plans both work off the eight million. Elitist and “vibrant” mega-city vistas disdain manageable scenarios.

Forget the Canberra bubble. Consider the population bubble. The longer government inflates it, the more they disregard environment and electors, spruiking implausible infrastructure and decentralisation “catch ups”. That might only perpetuate our houses and holes (consumption and extractive) economy and its iron-coal-and-students trade. Net migration would better serve national — not sectional — interests if managed at its 1980s-1990s levels.

In conclusion

Net migration, Treasury’s population lever, is moved unobtrusively. Government has more than doubled it. Key political parties take this now as the natural order of things:

Traditional “permanent migration” is increasingly subverted by temporary visas seeking to flip. More than ever, the net is the reputable migration gauge.

Were the net the cynosure of migration policy, we might better perceive the frequent impacts of self-regarding (government, business or community) immigration ploys.

Treasury’s ever-steeper migration assumptions scaffold the required “GDP growth”. Sidelining environmental cautions, our ratcheting population chases a sputtering GDP.

Treasury’s 2019 and 2020 assumptions would push migration past 270,000, a high exceeded once only, and population growth to about 1.7%, last observed 2013.

In the opinion of incoming Labor leader Anthony Albanese, people build their way out of the extra-urban congestion, inevitably arising from these population surges. His opponent thinks likewise.

SOURCE  

 Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here