bunchonumbers.bsky.social
@bunchonumbers.bsky.social
Why are you spreading misinformation? That is not even close to true.

The various state governments (from both main political parties) are considering making citizenship a pre-requisite for a gun licence. Race is irrelevant. Citizenship does not follow a white/non-white binary.
December 16, 2025 at 4:00 AM
The Australian, with no trace of embarrassment about the behaviour of its journalist Ms Albrechtsen, continues to misreport the earlier findings of Kaye J. Drumgold was successful in obtaining a declaration by Kaye J that a reasonable person would apprehend Sofronoff to be biased against D.
December 11, 2025 at 1:35 PM
The Australian has buried Ms Albrechtsen’s name in the middle of its article, omitted to mention the friendly + excessive comms she pursued w Sof, falsely equated the release of report to her and Ms Byrne, and misreported Kaye Js prior judgment. And of course no apology or ackno by Ms A.
December 11, 2025 at 1:34 PM
And here is Abraham J’s judgment today, dismissing S’s application for judicial review of the Juno report’s corruption findings.
December 11, 2025 at 1:16 PM
Apologies - 3 chapters, being chapters 4, 5 and 6 of S’s report.

Here are Kaye J’s orders:
December 11, 2025 at 1:09 PM
For those who lost track: S ran an ACT Inquiry into the Lehrmann prosecution. Drumgold successfully challenged S’s report as it related to him (1 chapter). A separate ACT inquiry (Juno) found S engaged in “corrupt” and “serious corrupt” conduct. S’s challenge to those findings has been unsuccessful.
December 11, 2025 at 1:00 PM
The mistake comes from the fact that D raised a *separate* argument of legal unreasonableness, with partial success. That didn’t mean the remaining findings were justified. They just weren’t legally unreasonable… but they were still a legal nullity due to the (separate) apprehended bias.
December 11, 2025 at 12:50 PM
This reasonable apprehended bias infected the entirety of Sofronoff’s report as it related to D. None of S’s findings re D were “upheld” by Kaye J - that statement by The Australian is totally untrue.
December 11, 2025 at 12:50 PM
It’s not arbitrary and the relevant conduct (Aust user accessing site) occurs in Aust. But yes, the q of whether that conduct is prohibited in the local j’tion might affect the courts willingness to enforce the Aust judgment. Not sure I’d risk it vs just complying or geoblocking users, were I CEO.
December 10, 2025 at 6:44 AM
It‘s the local rules of the jurisdiction where assets are based that are relevant, not where a website is hosted. 4Chan I understand is owned by an individual who could have assets in many places. But yes agree enforcement could be difficult.
December 10, 2025 at 6:25 AM
Funny how none of these PR-driven articles mention that R has had to amend her claim twice and drop substan parts (such as allegation that Cth owed her a fiduciary duty!) - 8 months on foot, and their defences aren’t even due until Feb earliest. R is slow-walking her own claim because it’s so weak.
December 10, 2025 at 2:52 AM
Commonwealth’s / HWLE’s application for summary dismissal or strike-out is due in 2 days - if they choose to go that way - so bitter end might be coming soon! 🍿
December 10, 2025 at 2:44 AM
Reposted
eSafety highlights:

"We've published our views on whether some platforms will be age-restricted social media platforms to provide additional certainty to Australianot families and industry.

But we expect all online platforms that operate in Australia to assess their obligations under Aus'n law."
November 21, 2025 at 12:32 AM
Reposted
My article on the social media minimum age obligation for the Alternative Law Journal is now online:

journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...

(and open access)
Sage Journals: Discover world-class research
Subscription and open access journals from Sage, the world's leading independent academic publisher.
journals.sagepub.com
November 21, 2025 at 1:23 AM
Australian judgments can be enforced overseas, depending on the local rules of the jurisdiction where assets are located.
December 9, 2025 at 10:43 AM
Screenshots - definition and exemptions.
December 9, 2025 at 9:04 AM
The Commish’s views on which platforms are in scope or exempted may also change, particularly if the facts (eg the way users engage) change. OTOH, the high court may yet strike the legislation down - v rare in Aust, but watch this space.
December 9, 2025 at 8:40 AM
Users moving to other platforms who are not currently complying with the new rules may find that, if and when the platform takes further steps or becomes the target of enforcement activity, their freedom is short-lived.
December 9, 2025 at 8:36 AM
The Act applies to all platforms that fall within the definition (and other parameters in the Act) - NOT only to those larger platforms that the Commish has stated are probably within scope.
December 9, 2025 at 8:34 AM