Xenon4017

One reason is because of the increasing casualisation of the workforce; there just aren't as many permanent jobs around. Casual worker get a higher hourly rate because they don't get holiday or sick benefits. For those who don't take much time off it works out better. And for employers who've been stung by serially sick permanent employees it's a Godsend. The real downside is that lenders much prefer permanent income rather than casual income, even if the amount coming in is less.

But is your mortgage for the full cost of the house? If not, how would the costs compare if you had to borrow the full price of the house? (Assuming you're buying a similar house to the one you rented)

Well, I think you've got the major food groups covered......

Then hand yourself in. I accuse you of awful wrongdoing. I haven't got much evidence though. Does that matter? You don't have previous form for violent behavior either. Maybe I'm just making it up. Do we have space to house all the accused?

I assume 2 reasons. The first is cost. There's only so much prison space and it isn't cheap. The second is that at the point of being bailed, you're not guilty of anything yet. Why remand people who could eventually be found not guilty. Especially if the risk of re-offense is small. I think you're right that we are seeing some knee-jerk reactions. I can only imagine what would happen if he'd turned out to be a bona fida member of ISIS.

Unfortunately, hostage resolutions rarely play out like a Hollywood action film, where the hero dives to the floor, grabs the perpetrators weapon and deals out justice with a clear moral justification. This one's a bit more complex. He certainly put these people in harms' way. He intended to kill all of them. But how many he actually killed reamins to be clarified. And clarification is curiously absent from police reports. He bears responsibility for creating the situation in which people died regardless if he pulled the trigger. But to prove murder, you have to show that he took action intending it to cause their death, and that action was likely to cause death. Using a human shield against an indiscriminate bomb would be one thing. Using a human shield to prevent the police from shooting is another, because he can't influence the police to force them to shoot. You might take the view that the police are beyond criticism. I don't, because if you don't examine these things they'll never improve.

"Alleged" murderers, surely. The case against them for the killing of his wife hasn't come to court yet. And, as far as I know, it hasn't been established whether he actually fired the fatal shots in the cafe. Certainly guilty of attempted murder, but to prove murder, you have to show that he killed someone. The policeman who caught a blast in the face survived.

So, 10g per slice. What are you using, a plane?

The cheapest cheese I can find on the site is 5GBP per kilo. 50g of that comes to 25p. Can you really get 2 slices of bread and a tomato for 5p? Because if you can, why not leave out the cheese and stuff yourself on tomato sandwiches at half the cost.

If you're in Adelaide, I guess 30p is about 50c. Let's look at your lunch. A cheese sandwich. Assuming the bread and tomato are available for 20c, that leaves 30c for the cheese. At 15$/kg, that would mean 50g. The area of a sandwich is approx (10 cm x 10 cm) 100cm2. And cheese has a density slightly greater than water. Even so, you are slicing your cheese at 0.5mm thick. Or failing to cover your sandwiches evenly. I don't dispute that we all eat too much, generally. Nor that we could all save money by using staple wisely. But it doesn't do the debate any credit to make claims which don't bear up to scrutiny.

Care to post a few recipes including a breakdown of the costs? Where's the rest of your money going; you must be saving heaps.

A Freudian slip? I think the previous poster was referring to the fact that some organisations will always spend their budget, whatever budget that is. You could give them an extra 10 million, or take away 3 million, and their message would always be the same. They never need to rationalise by saying "well, the first 100 million was able to achieve this, but the next 100 million didn't double the benefit, so we might as well give it to a different good cause". How would you feel if the money taken from the fire budget was given to foreign aid, or domestic aid? It all comes from the same source, ultimately. There's only so much cake to go round.

In post 1010, you replied to an assertion by akiralx: "As all immigrants including asylum seekers, according to the police's own figures, commit all crimes at a lower rate than Australian-born residents" using the following statement: "hard to believe statements like your straight after the deadly Sydney Siege by an Iranian refugee and many other horror stories. " Talk about one swallow not making a Summer. And in post 999 you wrote: "Can't you be man enough just to admit that what I wrote was factually correct ? Or even apologise. Its not that hard." Well, you've been provided with the facts. And now you know how hard an apology can be.

OK, just a quick summary. You said that immigrants commit more crime. I said that there are far better predicates for committing crime other than being an immigrant. You said you didn't believe it. I said use your common sense. You demanded proof from a reliable source. I gave you official govt statistics. You seem to think that they're no longer relevant, presumably because they don't fit your point of view.

There you go: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4517.0 To save you having to read the report yourself: 31,200 men and 2,591 women. That's about 10 to 1, to save you having to open Calc.