Crappy Media Moralism Rules The Day

Sorry To Burst Your Bubble Lady, But I Don't Thinks So


I'm a little legalistic sometimes. I figure if you can't abide by the law, that puts you in the criminal basket. So if somebody's done something criminal, then they should at least be charged, and if the charges stick by the judge, they should get tried. It's fairly simple.

It worries me a little bit that what is happening to Matthew Johns is looking more and more like a media beat-up rather than a desire to get to the bottom of what happened. Now, it has to be said, charges were not laid, and the NZ police have said that they won't reopen the case which seems to say to me that there isn't anything criminal going on.

Thus it worries me considerably to see articles wherein the NSW Rape Crisis Centre chimes in and has this to say.

NSW Rape Crisis Centre Manager Karen Willis, who advises the NRL on sexual assault issues, says the problem of group sex happens across the board.

She said the NRL has already taken steps to address the behaviour of some footballers towards women.

"It's not just footballers...generally a lot of blokes just don't get it," she told Network Ten.

"The NRL...(have)... been the first male-dominated organisation in this country to put up their hand and say we have a problem and we need to do something about it. That work needs to continue."

Ms Willis also urged the men who took part in the New Zealand sexual assault with Matthew Johns to come forward and publicly name themselves.

"If they're in any way sorry for what they've done or understand the impacts of their behaviour, the very first thing they need to do is admit that."

Let's get this right. This Karen Willis is saying these Group Sex incidents are  more common than we've been led to believe. The NRL is actually leading the way educating men against this kind of behaviour; but these Cronulla Sharks players need to put their hands up to take the public punishment that's been meted out to Johns for his part - even though no charges have been laid?

I'm getting more than worried about the tenor of the media response to the allegations. Nobody can claim to know what exactly transpired. Not even Matthew Johns was there from start to finish - he left the room by his own account. The NSW Rape Crisis Centre is dispensing announcements as if Johns and the other players committed rape - which may or may not be true, but the NZ police sure don't think so; yet these other guys have no incentive to come forward and admit they did it. They won't even get to see the inside of a courtroom when the media has billed them guilty as charged.

Why the hell would they admit to anything? For a free kick to the crotch? These people are on drugs.

Okay, what happened was incredibly unsavory, and yes, there are immense differences of power between star athletes and a single 19 year old woman that make it very unpleasant, but I need to see that a crime was actually committed before I kick Matthew Johns any harder. I thought we still lived under a system of presumed innocence until proven guilty. All of this is just jumping the shark as they say.

The sanctimoniousness of the media and the pundits is getting pretty ridiculous.

If Not Consent, Then What?

The hypotheticals that come out of this 'case' are quite disturbing.

Imagine you have a one night stand with a woman, and you part ways and think everything is okay. You got your consent, did the deed as mutually consenting adults; it's not like she screamed rape or you did any rough stuff; she's not even saying date-rape.

Then 6 years later you're lambasted for taking advantage of the woman, even though you secured consent at the time.

The media goes to town on your reputation and without a trial to prove anything, you're branded as guilty as charged and sacked from your job and everybody thinks you're the scum of the earth.

It could happened to you if a woman changes her mind about consent after the fact, and you would have absolutely no recourse. So it seems to me right now, consent isn't consent any more if this 'Clare' woman's version is allowed to stand and destroy Johns' career. I just don't understand why more people aren't disturbed by that.

Why Moralising Is Not Getting Us To Ethical Behaviour

Moralising is an ugly business. You profit on other people's bad behaviour and the prejudices of the stupid and ignorant. Heres' Tracey Grimshaw talking about her editorial stance.

She stated clearly that Johns must answer "the hard questions'' about an incident in 2002 which involved having group sex with a 19-year-old woman in a New Zealand hotel room while on tour with his team, the Cronulla Sharks.

"I wrote the editorial myself,'' Grimshaw explained.

"It was something I wanted to say, and it was decided in the program meeting that day that I would do this.''

The following night, Grimshaw did score the searing 20-minute interview with Johns, who admitted that what he had done was morally wrong.

He has since stepped down from the Nine Network and from his coaching work with the Melbourne Storm.

Grimshaw is considering whether she will continue with editorials on the show.

"I don't see why my view should be any better than anyone else's,'' she said.

"I prefer to just be a conduit for information, but this was obviously something I felt very strongly about.''

Well yes, the Group Sex thing is rather repugnant to the majority of the populace, but I still want to see charges laid and stick before I go further in condemning Johns. In the mean time Ms Grimshaw, the type of editorialising where you dance all over Johns' credibility is actually the unethical thing to do.

Here's another moralising column by one Robyn Riley.

That I find is the saddest indictment of the whole incident. People seem ready to believe almost anyone who has something to say, except the woman.

She's the one person whose claims have been openly questioned.

Some of that may be because of the circumstances, how it took five days for her to make a formal complaint, but is that the only reason?

Maybe it's more to do with the fact that Johns is a likable personality. It also may have something to do with the genuine pain and remorse he has increasingly shown with every appearance on Channel 9.

Whether by accident or manipulation, he has become the real victim in the eyes of many.

Umm, lady, you wouldn't want to be tried in the media with the same sort of information with which Johns has been buried. I'm also a little miffed by this notion/assumption that the woman who claims to be the victim wouldn't possibly lie about this incident, even with testimony to the contrary that's been in the press. While I'm not defending Johns' right to indulge in this sort of sordid behaviour (and maybe one should defend it but that's another topic), it's not like we'd know anything about his sex life if he wasn't a public personality that's just been thrown under the bus.

But you know what? If there's one thing we know about moralists is that they're shameless.

News That's Fit To Punt 15/05/09

Small Neighborhood, Bad Karma

This story is plain sad.

TAIPEI - A Taiwan carpenter bought a porn DVD only to find secretly taped motel footage of his wife having sex with his friend, whom the husband later stabbed, a newspaper reported on Wednesday.

The husband, identified only by his surname Lee, discovered the illicit sex on the DVD in 2002. The sexual acts apparently had been recorded using a hidden camera and were on a pornographic DVD, titled Affairs with Others' Wives, which the husband bought from a vendor to watch at home.

Lee, who lives in Taoyuan County near Taipei, divorced his wife after viewing the DVD. His friend, a butcher, fled their village.

In August 2008, Lee spotted the butcher in Chungli City, returned with a knife and stabbed his former friend in the thigh.

You feel sorry for all participants. How unlucky would you be, to be any of these people?

Viagra For Free For The Unemployed
I'm not sure that this is exactly what the unemployed need, but here you go.

Pfizer is unveiling a new program that will let people, who have lost their jobs and health insurance, keep taking some widely prescribed Pfizer medications - including Lipitor and Viagra - for free for up to a year.

The world's biggest drug maker will provide more than 70 of its prescription drugs at no cost to unemployed, uninsured Americans, regardless of their prior income, who lost jobs since January 1 and have been on the Pfizer drug for three months or more.

The announcement comes amid massive job losses caused by the recession and a campaign in Washington to rein in health-care costs and extend coverage.

The move could earn Pfizer some goodwill in that debate after long being a target of critics of drug industry prices and sales practices.

The program will also probably help keep those patients loyal to Pfizer brands.

"Everybody knows now a neighbour, a relative who has lost their job and is losing their insurance. People are definitely hurting out there," said Jorge Puente, Pfizer's head of pharmaceuticals outside the US and Europe and a champion of the project. "Our aim is to help people bridge this point."

The first thing that popped into my mind was that wanting free viagra was probably the least important thing on Matthew Johns' mind right now.

More Sporting Scandals

This time it's the A-League. It involves a 20year old rising star Sebastain Ryall, who is accused of fondling a 13 year old girl when he was 18.

Sydney FC and Australian under 20s player Sebastian Ryall has been stood down by Football Federation Australia after being charged with engaging in a sexual act with a 13-year-old girl, the FFA said in a statement today.

The charge arises out of an incident that allegedly took place at Mona Vale on January 25, 2008, when Ryall was aged 18.

Ryall first faced court  on August 13 last year, and is expected to face Downing Centre Local Court in October.

Ryall, who was scheduled to leave on Saturday with the Australian under-20 team for a camp in the Netherlands, recently transferred to Sydney from Melbourne Victory.

He has been suspended from participation in football matches in Australia, including the A-League, until September 3 and is also ineligible to participate in national team competition until the criminal case has been determined, or September 2009, whichever is the later.

That's just so wrong, isn't it? It's certainly enough to make A-Rod and Barry Bonds  and Roger Clemens look like normal, decent people. ...Wait a minute, Roger Clemens is meant to have fucked an under-aged country-western singer so scratch him off that list.

Athletes As Role Models

Matthew Johns, Group Sex Enthusiast

It's coming to light that Rugby League celebrity Matthew Johns participated in a bit of group sex with the lads. He's apologised for 'it' though it is unclear what bit exactly for which he is apologising.

ONE of rugby league's famous faces and a much loved personality, Matthew Johns, is horrified that old claims of sexual misconduct in New Zealand made when he was playing for the Cronulla Sharks have been publicly revisited by the woman involved.

"I am very sorry for all the trauma and embarrassment this has caused for everyone, but particularly for my family," said Johns about the public outing of his involvement.

Channel Nine, which employs Johns as a rugby league expert, last night went public with his response to the yet-to-be aired allegations about footballers and group sex scheduled for Monday night's Four Corners on ABC1.

Johns says he had consensual sex with the woman seven years ago and he was upset, particularly for his children, that the woman was making the claims again.

At the time it was known that three Sharks players were allegedly involved in the incident after a preseason game in Christchurch. None of the players was named publicly.

But privately Johns had spoken to his wife Trish about the incident. Last night Johns fronted his usual Thursday night television program, The Footy Show, and spoke emotionally about the drama. "It put my family through enormous anguish and embarrassment and once again for that I can't say I'm sorry enough … there has been a lot of pain and embarrassment to a lot of people."

Awesome! Sweet!

What kind of man has Group Sex? In a day and age where we say, "not that there's anything wrong about that!" about gay sex, we sort of have to ask this question in order to get a sense of what the social norms might be pertaining to this heterosexual activity of group sex by football players. And it has to be said, it is kind of weird to want to have group sex as portrayed by these articles. I'm not sure I would want my team mates watching me shag a girl in a hotel room, and then watch them do the same girl. If I were more poignant, I might point out that I'd rather not have 'sloppy seconds' either; so this whole group sex thing has got to be a sub-cultural phenomenon of League players, right?

Then there's the question of consent in such a context. How do you get consent for something like this? How does a girl find herself consenting to this sort of thing with a group of footballers? I don't mean to blame the victim here, but it does strain credulity for Johns to say it was all consensual. I mean, did they pass minutes around and counter sign it before hey all joined in the orgy? how the hell does this all work?

Maybe I'm a little squeamish. Then again, I'm pretty squeamish about gay sex as well so I'm in the crowd that says "not that there's anything wrong with that!" with a great deal of irony.   Y'know, there just might be something *wrong* about it on my own personal level.

Didn't Seinfeld joke about this sort of thing? I think he said that if one joins in the 'orgy crowd', one must change friends, clothes and everything else, and then grow a mustache. Perhaps that is what that Reg Regan's mustache is all about?

Meanwhile Manny Gets Done


Turns out Manny Ramirez too was on PEDs. He was on Gonadotropin, which he claims was for a sexual dysfunction, but is something that raises the level of Testosterone. Great.

Manny Ramirez is always going to have this 50-game bust for performance-enhancing drugs hanging over him, no matter what he says, no matter whether he comes back strong in July, no matter that he says he tested clean 15 times in the past five years.

With his suspension on Thursday, Ramirez joins Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, Jose Canseco and ultimately Alex Rodriguez and Miguel Tejada on the mental list of players who were dirty, or probably dirty.

Ramirez and his helpers can issue all the statements they want about his having been given a drug for a personal health issue and that it turned out to be illegal under current baseball rules, so he must technically take the blame. That is just not going to work.

Too many of us are beyond the giddy time when we could say, poor feller, he should have checked the label on the teabag while he was having a cuppa with the queen. They are responsible. They know that. Athletes spend much of their waking hours not just studying their opponents’ moves but also accumulating information on what will make them bigger, stronger, faster. These people could pass a pharmacologist examination.

It's quicker to count up the guys who have 300+ HRs that likely aren't on PEDs now. The currelynt untainted list starts at Ken Griffey, Jim Thome, Carlos Delgado, Chipper Jones, Vlad Guerrero, Jim Edmonds. Of this list,  I feel less confident about Thome, Guerrero, and Edmonds, but I have no proof whatsoever. Count me a Ken Griffey Jr. and Chipper Jones fan for them to make the Hall - until proven guilty, as we're finding out.

Just to recap for us, here's Jayson Stark:

We'd all love to believe that Manny's intent, in taking this drug, was pure and well-intentioned. We'd all love to believe that his "personal health issue" was serious enough to require unorthodox treatment that isn't even approved by the FDA.But face it, friends, if all the reporting is accurate, that would take the sort of leap of faith only Robbie Knievel ought to attempt.

We also need to recognize something important about baseball's testing program: Its intent is not to catch innocent people who are using run-of-the-mill prescription medications because of pesky "personal health issues."

Basically, the list of substances that can get you flagged fall into three categories:

1. Stuff you'd use to cheat.

2. Stuff you'd use to push the envelope as far as possible in the hope of legally enhancing performance.

3. Stuff you'd use to treat a condition that falls under baseball's limited list of "Therapeutic Medical Exemptions," such as ADD.

But there are no indications that either Manny or his doctors ever contacted the union or MLB seeking any type of Therapeutic Medical Exemption. So there goes that potential for an innocent mistake. And if that's out, what does that leave?

He was using whatever he was using to enhance performance. That's what.

And the rest of the world's response is hand-wringing and rhetoric. I've come to terms with the PED-infested era in my own way. I just look at it as one big load of PR turkey that has come back to roost. We were all doomed the moment we bought into the significance of numbers. They're just numbers.

In case you want to see a columnist do a mental somersault just to cope, here's Bill Simmons. Welcome to the world of Yankee fans, Red Sox fans. It truly sucks.

So Much To Blog, So Little Time

Creepiness Of Asian Sex Tours

This opinion piece caught my eye in the Herald last week.

Prostitution in Thailand is comparable to cricket in Australia. It attracts legions of fans and armies of detractors, while an ambivalent majority wonders what all the fuss is about. But the most ardent fans of Thai prostitution are foreigners.

About 10 per cent of visitors arrive to get their rocks off. In 2005 a British journalist used Thai Immigration Department statistics to show between 25 per cent and 30 per cent more men than women arrive as tourists, concluding almost a million single men travelled to Thailand for sex each year.

According to World Vision, Australians account for 9 per cent of sex tourists arriving in the region. This suggests that almost 100,000 Aussies descend every year on Thailand alone.

Why the exodus to South-East Asia? In my view, it is simply a matter of taste. Some men - a lot of men - prefer Asians. What lies at the heart of Thailand's sex tourism industry is the way we sexually stereotype Asians; about the way Asian women perform in the bedroom and act in a relationship.

When I told my squash partner I was going to Thailand, he said: "You lucky bugger. Sure you don't want company?" He then told me about the good times he'd spent with "tight-bodied Asians".

Maybe I'm just ridiculously naive - I have yet to set foot in a strip joint - but I was shocked to learn three people I knew had been to Thailand, paid for sex, and thought their actions were sufficiently ordinary to talk openly about it without fear of recrimination.

Aah, good old sexploitation, no? The rest of it is a fascinating read too. There's a certain mindset that gets explored really well in the film. 'The Beach' starring Leo DiCaprio. It's a really creepy film about creepy westerners who found a colony of pleasure and leisure, sustained on the marijuana trade. They live in a veritable sexual paradise founded on some kind of perverse utopianism. There's something about Thailand and south east Asia that seems to *inspire* (for want of a better word) this kind of behaviour. It's the stuff of songs like 'Khe San'. It just leaves me cold, but it's interesting it's actually getting discussed in the SMH of all places.

There are plenty of these creepy Gaijins wandering around Roppongi in Tokyo, loudly talking of the Asian pussy they're getting, as if nobody can understand their English. There was a mob of these guys in Hong Kong too, in pinstriped shirts, drinking their beer in Lan-Kwai Fong. I dunno what to make of it. It's as if once in Asia, they know no shame.

More On The Screen Australia Criteria Issue

I found this on Screenhub. I'm sharing it here because more people ought to read it. It's probably going to be frowned upon but what the heck. I want to show you something:

Screen Australia: where did these numbers come from?
by: Alex Prior

Multiple senior sources have confirmed to Screen Hub that key numbers Screen Australia’s draft guidelines were not the outcome of research.

Specifically, the sources claim that the eligibility criteria for writers, directors and producers applying under the Project By Project feature drama development were not checked against the evidence, and directly contradict the evidence from previous internal Australian Film Commission and Film Finance Corporation research.

The eligibility criteria, which are based on the amount of experience a filmmaker, determine who can apply for development funding. The program allows for multiple tranches of funding up to $50,000 in each round. Under the proposed guidelines, the only people eligible are:

An experienced producer must have at least one credit as producer on a feature film that has been released on a minimum of 10 commercial screens in one territory, or exceptional credits in other genres such as a primetime broadcast miniseries or telemovie.

An experienced executive producer must have at least two credits as producer or executive producer on a feature film that has been released on a minimum of 10 commercial screens in one territory, or exceptional credits in other genres such as a primetime broadcast mini-series.

A highly experienced writer or director must have a credit in these roles on at least three features that have been released on a minimum of 10 commercial screens in one territory OR one feature that has been selected for either Cannes, Venice, Berlin main sections OR Sundance or at least two network miniseries that have received significant ratings or critical acclaim.

The criteria are intended to ensure that finance goes to the filmmakers who are most able to deliver successful feature films. They have been highly contentious, with the Australian Writers’ Guild in particular mounting a public campaign against the writing criterion. The Australian Directors Guild has also questioned their validity.

Multiple senior sources have told Screen Hub that the level of three feature films for a writer was never checked against the evidence.

These sources claim that the level of three feature films for writers was first mooted in a position paper written by Screen Australia Project Manager Megan Simpson-Huberman, and eventually incorporated into the guidelines.

[Please note that Screen Australia has replied to this as follows: "Revisions to the draft guidelines based on industry feedback are being considered at today's board meeting, so Screen Australia cannot at this stage respond in detail to the comments made in Friday's article 'Screen Australia: Where did these numbers come from'. However, we wish to immediately place on record how inappropriate and unprofessional it was for the article to name Project Manager Megan Simpson- Huberman as the 'author of the '3 previous credits' eligibility criterion' for writers. This is not the case, although Megan, along with other senior staff, has been participating in the thinking and planning behind the guidelines'. The Executive Management team and the Screen Australia Board take full responsibility for the draft guidelines issued for comment last month, as well as for their eventual final form."]

They also claim that a number of other Screen Australia staff questioned the validity of this criterion for predicting the future success of a screenwriter, and requested that it be reviewed. It was not reviewed.

Another senior, former employee of the Australian Film Commission also questioned this level. The source told Screen Hub that internal research conducted by the AFC between 2000-05 revealed that first-time Australian writers, directors and producers had a much higher rate of success than second-time filmmakers. “You have to do it [fund second features],” the source said. “But it’s a great way to lose money.”

This research was confirmed to Screen Hub by a second source who had worked for the Film Finance Corporation. The FFC had also concluded that second-time projects were much more likely to fail financially than projects from less experienced filmmakers.

The Australian Film Commission had drawn a startling conclusion from this research: that the level of experience within the Australian film industry was too low for one, two or even three successful projects to act as a predictor of future success. Experience levels needed to be higher for accurate predictions to be made.

Based on this research, the Screen Australia guidelines actively exclude the filmmakers most likely to be successful.

The FFC reached a related conclusion. Screen Hub’s source claimed that part of the research had been incorporated in a position paper prepared by the former CEO, Brian Rosen, and provided to Screen Australia. This position paper argued that the focus of Screen Australia’s guidelines should be on supporting talent, rather than experience.

Multiple senior sources also confirmed to Screen Hub that no research had been undertaken by Screen Australia to determine what festivals [Cannes, Venice, Berlin main sections OR Sundance] should count towards a writer’s experience. “This list is made up,” one source said.

The Sydney Film Festival has publicly questioned the validity of this test as a predictor of future feature film success.

The Australian Directors Guild also provided a submission that questioned the validity of the experience levels. The ADG submission provided a list of films by their internationally famous members (Fred Schepsi, Jane Campion among others) that could not have been made under the proposed guidelines governing experience.

President Ray Argall noted the problem. “The thing is,” he said, “that within the Screen Australia research data – all ours [research] was taken from the Screen Australia databases. It’s not hard to see that our successful films have been made by directors who have worked on their films for many, many years. Some of them for ten years. These were directors that drove the project. Their commitment and driving of the project is not reflected in the current guidelines.”

Argall noted that there was a tremendous willingness to change, and an acceptance of the need to change, among directors. “But we’ve made too many mistakes in the past. We have to get it right,” he said.

In an interview late today, Dr Ruth Harley, the new CEO of Screen Australia, confirmed to Screen Hub that the level of experience required for eligibility had not been determined by research: “I think that is correct,” she said. All development of the draft guidelines took place prior to her taking up her responsibilities on Monday.

The bold bit is something I wanted to highlight; I'm quoting all this just to say, I'm not the only one saying the stuff I'm saying here on this blog.These film bureaucrats are irresponsible idiots with way too much power over the careers of people, and no accountability for their stupid, moronic, imbecilic, retarded decisions. This Screen Australia business is turning into a nightmare from day one.

Look at it this way. If the Australian Film industry has been producing roughly 15 films a year for a decade, that's 150 films we're talking about. If there was one credit per film we're talking about 150 writing credits. divide that by the requisite 3, and suddenly you're talking about a poll of only 50 writers, assuming the optimal 50 writers who all participated and scored 3 writing credits each. Less so, with shared credits.You're talking about a pool of 20-30 writers at best.

No wonder the Writers' Guild is up in arms: it excludes the vast majority of its members, and that means the very future of the Guild is at stake. It's simply not workable to have the Guild narrow down to a Club of 20-30 and still sustain itself.

The other issue is this: the vast majority of those 150 films would have been market flops. By demanding the 3 credits from that motley crew of misbegotten films, aren't the Screen Australia criteria REWARDING FAILURE instead of success by holding such arbitrary standards?

Hitler Only Had One Testicle (And Other News Fit To Punt)

Hitler One-Ball

There's not go beating about the bush, because there's only one ball to begin with.

AN extraordinary account from a German army medic has finally confirmed what the world long suspected: Hitler only had one ball.
War veteran Johan Jambor made the revelation to a priest in the 1960s, who wrote it down.

The priest’s document has now come to light – 23 years after Johan’s death.

The war tyrant’s medical condition has been mocked for years in a British song.

The lyrics are: “Hitler has only got one ball, the other is in the Albert Hall. His mother, the dirty b****r, cut it off when he was small.’

Until now there has never been complete proof Hitler was monorchic – the medical term for having one testicle.

But the document tells how Johan saw the proof with his own eyes. In the account, he relives the horror of serving as an army medic in World War I.

He died aged 94 in 1985, but had told his secret to priest Franciszek Pawlar, who kept a note of their conversation.

Johan’s friend Blassius Hanczuch confirmed the priest’s account of how the medic saved Hitler’s life. He said: “In 1916 they had their hardest fight in the Battle of the Somme.

“For several hours, Johan and his friends picked up injured soldiers. He remembers Hitler.

“They called him the ‘Screamer’. He was very noisy. Hitler was screaming ‘help, help’.

“His abdomen and legs were all in blood. Hitler was injured in the abdomen and lost one testicle. His first question to the doctor was: ‘Will I be able to have children?’.”

Blassius said that when the Nazis swept to power Johan began to suffer nightmares and blame himself for saving Hitler.

Hitler’s genitals have long caused controversy. Some historians dismissed the “one ball” song as propaganda. But an alleged Soviet autopsy on Hitler backed it up.

Records show Hitler did suffer a groin injury in the Somme.

It is the first time an interview with anyone who treated Hitler during WWI has come to light.

Dr Martin Farr, senior lecturer at Newcastle University School of Historical Studies, said last night: “This genuinely new twist is fascinating.”

This must be a hoax, it's just too good to be true. :)

Tame And Lame But Crazy All The Same...

Keith Roy Weatherly, 46, loved his pasta sauce, but not in the normal way.

A MAN caught by police with his penis inside a pasta sauce jar was still pleasuring himself while resisting arrest, a court has been told.

Police drew their weapons after New South Wales man Keith Roy Weatherley, 46, led them on a brief, slow-speed car chase, the Newcastle Herald reports.

Weatherley attracted police attention while he was parked in a no-stopping zone near Nobby's Beach on October 26, Newcastle Local Court was told yesterday.

Police thought he might have a weapon because they saw him doing something with his hands in his lap, the Herald said.

Instead, they found him partially clothed with his genitals in a jar, a police statement said.

That's when the pursuit began, the court was told.

When Weatherley was stopped, he refused to leave his car and four officers used batons and capsicum spray to get him out.

They found a 750mm jar around his penis and said Weatherley attempted to continue "pleasuring himself in between bouts of wrestling".

A search of his car uncovered pornography, a homemade sex aid, women's stockings and a Jack Russell terrier.

Weatherley pleaded guilty to offensive behaviour, resisting police and disobeying a police direction.

He was convicted and fined $600.

Convicted and fined $600? As opposed to what? $500 plus GST?

And what was the Jack Russell Terrier doing there? :)

At Last, A Grand Jury With Guts

Dick Cheney, the outgoing Vice President of the USA is up on charges and not a moment too soon!

A TEXAS grand jury has indicted US Vice President Dick Cheney for conspiring to block an investigation into abuse at privately run prisons.

The three-page indictment alleges that Mr Cheney profited from the abuse because he invested $US85 million ($131 million) in the Vanguard Group - an investment management company that reportedly has interests in the prison companies in charge of the detention centres.

It said this was a "direct conflict of interest'' because Mr Cheney had influence over the federal contracts awarded to the prison companies.

The indictment also accused Mr Cheney of committing "at least misdemeanour assaults'' of inmates by allowing other inmates to assault them.

The indictment further alleges that former attorney-general Alberto Gonzalez "participated by further having used his position ... to stop the investigations as to the wrongdoings which includes the assaults committed in the prison for profit in Willacy County, Texas".

How good is that? Dick Cheney is getting charged with engaging in organised criminal activity. Now, one wonders if Mr Bush is going to pardon him on the last day of his own Presidecy? Don't count it out; it's how Tricky Dicky Nixon got his 'get out of jail free' card from Gerald Ford.