The fountain business in Sydney seems to have been, more so than most.

It is alleged that the proprietor of one such business applied a very harsh “no compete” provision on an employee who left the business to set up his own company.  It is alleged in court that Dirk Slotboom was angry at his former colleague, Richard Carruthers, for "stealing" some of his former clients, including the lucrative contract for the City of Sydney council. This contract included the maintenance of such fountains as the water feature next to St Mary’s Cathedral in the Sydney CBD.

After sending several legal letters warning Mr Carruthers off, Mr Slotboom arranged through business associates for his rival to be " bashed" for a fee of $30,000.  Fadi "Ricky" Shamoun allegedly took up the offer and paid Mr Carruthers a visit at home.  During a struggle with Carruthers, Shamoun allegedly stabbed him in the back with a long-bladed knife, killing him.

I suppose that is one way to reduce competition – only problem is it tends to remove yourself as well as your rivals from business.  I imagine its quite hard to run a business like this from a prison cell for the next 20 years or so.

I’m listening to Powderfinger – Wishing On The Same Moon

Two men walked into a petrol station near Auckland. One of them went to the pie warmer, picked up several pies and placed one inside his jacket. He then asked the attendant if he could have one pie for free but was told he would have to pay for all of them.   He storms off in a huff, then goes off and talks to his mate in the car outside, and decides he really does want his free pies.  But the attendant has locked the doors of the shop. 

The man returned to the car where he and his friend decided they would find another way to enter the store. They drove the car through the door, one of them picks up his pies off the counter and they do a runner.  A police chase followed, ended with them running over some police road spikes.

Seriously, a service station pie.  These guys have an instant insanity defence.  When has anyone ever had a decent servo pie.  Soggy, lukewarm, meatless, yes, but decent eating, never.

And in related junk food cravings news, also in New Zealand, a man flew into a rage after staff at a Wendy’s restaurant mucked up his order. He allegedly smashed tills, flipped tables and assaulted a police officer who responded to the incident. After being apprehended he was taken to hospital to be treated for injuries he had suffered during the arrest.

This one is more understandable.  I mean who hasn’t felt like throttling the idiot teenager who screws up their order at a takeaway.  I get pissed off with repeating orders twice or more, thinking to myself  “do I not speak English?” or “fuck you, listen” or “maybe if you concentrated on your job you wouldn’t fuck my order up”.

I’m listening to The Living End – Song For The Lonely

In March the owners found the dog almost lifeless, in pain and in shock, with De Shields in the garage.  A veterinarian later found traces of asphyxiation, as well as serious injuries to the animal’s rectum and internal organs.

We can all figure out what he did to the dog.  No doubt it involved him getting dog shit on his dick.

The chihuahua was only able to survive thanks to intensive medical care.

De Shields was high on methamphetamine at the time.  He is a long term drug abuser and criminal. In the last 19 to 20 years, he has only been free from jail or monitoring by the authorities for about five months.

He got 10 years jail for rooting the dog.  In an unusual move for an animal cruelty case, De Shields was also required to register as a lifetime sex offender, meaning he will have to wear an electronic surveillance device and keep a distance from schools and other places where children gather.

A chihuahua, really?

Mind you, a cute little puppy was probably an upgrade for De Shields.

I doubt he was likely to get an actual (living) human to ever shag him. 

Negotiate a $200,000 or so deal with a media company of course. Ka-ching!  Might as well cash in on your trauma.

I hate chequebook journalism.  It stinks.  I refuse to watch or read its products.  So Channel 9, I will be studiously ignoring the story you’ve paid for.

I hope that whatever money these people get falls under the proceeds of crime legislation and gets confiscated.  Failing that, how about the Australian and Indonesian governments sue them to recoup the costs they’ve incurred defending, supporting and prosecuting the boy respectively.

Stupidity does not deserve to be rewarded in any way, shape or form.

Mohammed Sanoussi, 27, was refused parole today for his part in two gang rapes in Sydney in 2000.  He was originally sentenced to 21 years in jail, later reduced on appeal to 16 years.  He first became eligible for parole last year, and today was his second failed attempt at getting released from jail.

The NSW State Parole Authority recommended that Sanoussi address his offending behaviour and undergo further drug and alcohol counselling. The Serious Offenders Review Council (SORC) supported the decision and recommended that Sanoussi take part in further education programs.

I’m curious to know what education there is to teach someone not to rape people.  “Don’t rape” seems to me to be fairly obvious, and either you get it or you don’t.   If you get it, then you wouldn’t be in jail, and if you don’t get the message, then I’m sure no amount of education would teach the rapist as much as castration and a lobotomy.

State senator John Whitmire demanded an end to the practice after learning of the meal request of Lawrence Brewer, who was executed this week.  Brewer asked for two chicken fried steaks, a triple-meat bacon cheeseburger, fried okra, a pound (450 grams) of barbecue meat, three fajitas, a meat lover’s pizza, a pint of ice-cream and a slab of peanut butter fudge with crushed peanuts.

"It is extremely inappropriate to give a person sentenced to death such a privilege," Whitmire wrote in a letter to the State Corrections department, which quickly agreed with his views, and determined that the last meal choice by the prisoner would cease immediately.  From now on they are just going to get whatever meal is on offer to the other inmates that day.

So no longer can a prisoner try to cheat the executioner by clogging his arteries.  Others have tried just as hard as Lawrence Brewer. 

Last week, inmate Steven Woods’s request included two pounds (one kilogram) of bacon, a large four-meat pizza, four fried chicken breasts, two drinks each of Mountain Dew, Pepsi, root beer and sweet tea, two pints (one litre) of ice-cream, five chicken fried steaks, two hamburgers with bacon, fries and a dozen garlic bread sticks with marinara on the side.

Another one went for two fried chickens, French fries and a five-gallon (19-litre) bucket of peaches.

No wonder there’s an obesity problem in America!

I wonder if its possible for a prisoner to delay his death by:

• ordering shitloads of food and eating it very slowly, savouring every bite
• ordering obscure foreign foods that take ages to find
• sending the meal back and complaining to the cook that its over or undercooked?

I can understand the sentiment behind stopping the last meal privilege, but it strikes me as petty.

On the subject of executions, that of Troy Davis by the State of Georgia leaves me feeling uncomfortable.  From what I’ve read of the case there seems to be plenty of doubt over the verdict.  I’d have thought the condemned prisoner gets the benefit of any doubt – considering the execution is irreversible.  Hey, but what do I know … much better to pretend the justice system is infallible than admit something may have gone wrong.

Police arrived at the house as the fight continued in the front yard, but the woman refused medical treatment, they said. An ambulance was called when she later suffered breathing difficulties, but she died at the house.

Hope that Dad and son are immensely proud of themselves.

Mr Thomson has been accused in Federal Parliament and in newspapers of using a union credit card to pay for prostitutes. During defamation proceedings begun by Mr Thomson against one of those newspapers in the NSW Supreme Court, credit card vouchers with Mr Thomson’s signature, phone records and his driver’s licence details were alleged to reveal how he had used his union credit card to pay escort agency services in April 2005.   He has denied that it was him that used the card for prostitutes, and said another man – who he would not name – had incurred the charges, forged his signature but later paid money back to the union.   Mr Thomson later discontinued his defamation action.

The attraction to the Opposition of Mr Thomson is in a scandal forcing him to resign his seat, leading to a by-election, which most likely would be won by the Opposition, overturning the government’s one seat margin in parliament.

Today shadow attorney-general George Brandis told the Senate there were a number of undisputed facts that were now public.

"That on two occasions, on April 8, 2005 and August 16, 2007, calls were made from Mr Thomson’s mobile telephone to the telephone number of Sydney Outcall, an escort agency.

"That on April 9, 2005 and August 16, 2007 the HSU (Health Services Union) credit card issued to Mr Thomson was used to pay for services provided by Keywed Pty Ltd, which is the corporate entity which trades as Sydney Outcalls."

He said the payments were in the amounts of $2,475 and $385 respectively, and the credit card vouchers were signed in Mr Thomson’s name and Mr Thomson’s driver’s license number was endorsed on the receipt. He also said that a handwriting expert has concluded the signature on the credit card voucher and Mr Thomson’s drivers license were made by the same person.

"If Thomson did not sign the credit card voucher then it was signed in his name by an expert forger who eluded Mr Westwood (the expert) and who also had Thomson’s driver’s license,"

he said.  Senator Brandis asked how could Mr Thompson’s credit card, driver’s license and mobile phone "find their way into the possession of another person".  Then there is a final pertinent question which has not been answered:

"Why was their loss or misappropriation not reported?"

This article by Senator Brandis spells out his points against Mr Thomson in full.

Now this is all embarassing for Mr Thomson, and by association, the government.  Snicker, snicker, loser, has to pay for sex.  But there is also the strong possibility that the union’s funds were used unlawfully, or at least outside the union’s rules, not to mention questions over whether Mr Thomson had fulfilled his duties as a union official with appropriate diligence.  At worst, there is a possibility that charges relating to fraudulent use of union funds, or misappropriation or something like that could be laid.  And if so, and if Mr Thomson were to be convicted of a serious enough crime, he would be disqualified from parliament.  But that would take time, and I think it very unlikely that even if Mr Thomson were charged today, any trial and conviction would not be finalised until after the next election is due anyway.

But, things got interesting this week when it was reported that Mr Thomson’s legal bills related to his discontinued defamation action, have been funded by the NSW branch of the ALP, to the tune of $90,000.  This was apparently because had he been forced to pay them himself, there was a chance it would have forced him into bankruptcy.  And that is also a disqualifier to being in parliament.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard got involved yesterday when she defended Mr Thomson, saying she has full confidence in him and looks forward to continuing as the member for Dobell "for a very long, long, long time to come".

I think that was a very bad decision on her part.  If he goes down by virtue of his alleged dodgy dealings as a union official prior to entering parliament, she has tied herself to his wagon, and will inevitably crash with him.  And I think it unconscionable that she try to defend him and brush glibly over his alleged misbehaviour, as it is also unconscionable that the ALP pay his private legal bills.  These legal matters are nothing to do with his role as a member of parliament or indeed in performing any role for the party.  The party has no justification in supporting him in the way it has.

The prime minister is looking like a slippery weasel trying to avoid the inevitable conclusion to this matter. In any other circumstance other than  Mr Thomson being essential to the government holding its majority in parliament, it is hard to imagine him not being forced to stand aside pending some sort of independent investigation, if not being asked to resign.  That is the right thing to do, regardless of the circumstances.  It is not right to defend him now whereas nothing would be surer than him being thrown overboard if the government had any sort of comfortable majority.

Ms Gillard is tarred by association with Mr Thomson if she continues to defend him.  The right thing for her to do is face up to the inevitable, demand that he resign his seat and take the consequences of a by-election.  If she won’t do it, I would hope that one of Mr Windsor or Mr Oakeshott force the government’s hand and demand she take firm action.

It really is a no win position for the government.  There will be no happy endings for them from this.  But they can choose to act with some honour.  Failing that the prime minister may cling to power for a short while longer – but it will inevitably end badly for her government.

The mother’s lawyer rejected the murder accusation, saying she was an addict, not a killer, and the murder charge ”makes her out to be a terrible, horrible person who needs to be locked away for the rest of her life”.

The prosecutor believes the murder charge is justified.  He said:

”I think that her conduct is, or was, so intentionally reckless that it rises to the level of implied malice. And I think that a mother who is breast-feeding using the quantity of methamphetamine she did, I think that rises to a second-degree murder charge.”

The mother faces up to 15 years jail.

It will be interesting to see how this case goes.  I think murder is a stretch – her actions were certainly irresponsible and grossly negligent, and she deserves to pay some sort of price, but I doubt there was the intent or malice for murder.