lee wrote on Nov 20
th, 2018 at 5:29pm:
philperth2010 wrote on Nov 20
th, 2018 at 4:59pm:
.If an offence has been committed weather punitive or not it would have a punishment relative to the crime committed....The point is punitive action may be taken but it in no way diminishes (or excuses) the need to address more serious misconduct does it???
Do you understand what you have written?
"If an offence has been committed weather punitive or not" - If there is no punishment how can there be an offence?
"it would have a punishment relative to the crime committed." - Therefore there is a crime and a punishment.
"punitive adjective
uk /ˈpjuː.nɪ.tɪv/ us /ˈpjuː.nə.t̬ɪv/
formal or specialized law intended as a punishment: "
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/punitiveBut perhaps you can show a law for which no punishment is invoked? Not even a sentence until the "rising of the court"?
Or perhaps you mean no custodial sentence should be imposed instead of jail for “pedantic, petty irrelevancies” .
Editing my posts again to avoid the question dickhead....Already answered in the text you omitted....You are a deceitful prick aren't you???
WTF does it matter....A federal anti-corruption commission will investigate any crimes or wrong doing regardless of their nature!!!
Let me explain it too you!!!
Katter was claiming MP's were jailed for pedantic, petty irrelevancies (during the Fitzgerald enquiry) as an excuse not to back the federal corruption commission....This of course means a federal corruption commission would also be unable to investigate any corruption no matter how serious....If MP's are caught doing wrong they need to be held too account!!!