Dirty Deeds Are Not Done Dirt Cheap In The NT

There will be a few “Dirty Deeds” coming up for the taxpayer in the NT. The deeds we refer to will cost a lot and will be very secret. Oh and mug taxpayer’s money will be used to cover the cost.

Here are just a couple coming up.

Jamie Chalker will be looking for his deed and so will Colleen Gwynne.

Natasha Fyles flop government will be forking out at your expense.

Sign here, take the money and stay shtoom. F*ck the taxpayers!

UPDATE 30th April 2023

DIRTY DEED 1

Jamie Chalker has received his Dirty Deed. LINK

UPDATE 2nd May 2023

Natasha Fyles LINK

Labor Selling Out The NT To Big Corporations One Lobbyist At A Time

Congratulations to lobbyist number one Michael Gunner on his promotion.

Chalker Does Not Like Receiving What He Hands Out To Others!

Jamie Chalker likes to shaft his subordinates but does not like being shafted himself. We hope that Natasha Fyles does a good job on him. Push him under the bus and reverse over him several times or even better brand him with ROLFE on the forehead, only joking! Tar and feathered more like.

Chalker should never have been appointed in the first place.

• Warning: Tar and feathering should only be done under adult supervision.

And So The Inquest Into The Career Of Zachary Rolfe Continued This Week

They keep mentioning a K Walker? What’s he got to do with it all?

Colleen Gwynne, We Hope You Are Convicted

We hope that the jury decides that Colleen Gwynne is guilty. Nothing worse than nepotism. Remember that real people who are actually qualified to do a job get cheated, they are the victim along with the public.

John 7:24

John 7:24 is not a new 24 hour shop. We refer to the Book of John Chapter 7 Verse 24. It is nice to use the “good book” against the NT Government.

The verse goes something like ” judge not by appearance”.

We suggest the NT Government apply this to Zachary Rolfe.

Our observations of this matter suggest that should Rolfe be no longer employed by the NT Government his chances of future employment may be very remote. Circumstances not caused by Rolfe.

The NT Government needs to do the “right thing”.

Our Take On All Things Rolfe

We believe that the NT Government had a very particular narrative. That narrative was to convict Zachary Rolfe of murder. The plan failed.

It appears that the NT Government will stop at nothing to attack Zachary Rolfe. Why? Because Rolfe is not locked up in prison according to what the Gunner Labor Government had planned for him.

The current inquest appears to be the “attack Zachary Rolfe” show. It does not matter what barristers representing the NT Government or other parties say. Perception is very telling. The NT Government has a history of attacking employees they do not like and want to erase.

Does Zachary Rolfe have a right to be angry? We think he does. It is hardly surprising that he might for the want of a better term “be lashing out”.

The people of the NT should hang their head in shame. Why? Incompetent police management that created the entire situation.

If there are any blood stained hands in this matter then look at Jamie Chalker rather than Zachary Rolfe.

Did Chalker Say “Rolfe Must Be Stopped At All Cost”?

Just a few of the things on Chalker’s list!

1. Breach of police policies and procedures: If a police officer violates the policies and procedures of the police force, they may be subject to disciplinary action, including retirement or dismissal.
2. Criminal offences: If a police officer is convicted of a criminal offence, this may be grounds for retirement or dismissal.
3. Misconduct: If a police officer engages in misconduct, such as excessive use of force, corruption, or dishonesty, they may be subject to disciplinary action, including retirement or dismissal.
4. Mental or physical incapacity: If a police officer becomes mentally or physically unable to perform their duties, they may be subject to retirement.
5. Insubordination: If a police officer repeatedly disobeys orders or fails to carry out assigned duties, they may be subject to disciplinary action, including retirement or dismissal.
6. Failure to meet performance standards: If a police officer fails to meet performance standards, such as failing to meet required physical fitness standards, they may be subject to retirement or dismissal.
7. Discrimination or harassment: If a police officer engages in discrimination or harassment, they may be subject to disciplinary action, including retirement or dismissal.
8. Conflict of interest: If a police officer engages in a conflict of interest, such as using their position for personal gain, they may be subject to disciplinary action, including retirement or dismissal.
9. Substance abuse: If a police officer abuses drugs or alcohol, they may be subject to retirement or dismissal.
10. Loss of licence or certification: If a police officer loses their licence or certification, such as their driver’s licence or firearm certification, they may be subject to retirement or dismissal.

AI Meets ICAC And Sherrington

We ran the ICAC report pertaining to Jenny Sherrington through OpenAI. Here is the result.

The report investigates allegations against the former principal of Milingimbi School, Ms Sherrington, in relation to financial irregularities, fraudulent use of government and school funds, and the falsification of school enrolment and attendance figures. The principal benefited from her position by misapplying Department of Education (DOE) and school council funds, misusing the School Resourcing System, and manipulating attendance figures to inflate funding. The report found that on the balance of probabilities, there was evidence of corrupt conduct under the ICAC Act, as Ms Sherrington failed to comply with good fiscal policy, the Education Act 2015, Education Regulations 2015, PSEMA, and DOE policy. The investigation highlights the need for principals in remote areas to be held accountable for their actions, as significant trust is placed upon them to serve the community.

Sherrington And ICAC? Is There Corruption?

 

Consider the following.

It is possible to be corrupt without being charged with criminal offenses. Corruption refers to the abuse of power for personal gain, often involving bribery or other unethical practices. While many forms of corruption are illegal and may result in criminal charges, not all corrupt behavior is necessarily criminal.

For example, a public official might use their position to steer contracts or resources to friends or family members, even if they do not break any specific laws in the process. Similarly, a business executive might engage in unethical practices such as price-fixing or insider trading, but still avoid criminal charges if their actions are not technically illegal.

In some cases, corruption may be more difficult to prosecute because it is not as obvious or easily detectable as other forms of criminal behavior. For example, it may be challenging to prove that someone engaged in bribery or influence-peddling, particularly if the transactions were conducted in secret or through intermediaries.

Ultimately, while criminal charges may be one way to hold corrupt individuals accountable, there are many cases where corrupt behavior may not result in criminal charges, even if it is still considered unethical and harmful to society.