What has taken place, really? A solicitor acting for these vile criminals has given police information about their crimes that allowed police to prosecute them when normally this would not have happened.

It is not suggested this solicitor gave false information so in fact the evidence give to the courts was true, so the convictions were correct.

But now we suggest the police should not have obtained that information, therefore the criminals should not have been convicted even though they were guilty.

The reason given by the solicitor for giving this information is the telling factor in how rotten our justice system is. She gave the information because of her frustration at criminals using solicitors to hide their crimes, hide evidence of their crimes and to get rid of witness evidence by legal means.

I think this is an indictment of the legal system and how it makes it almost impossible to convict these vile criminals by the few methods thought appropriate by the courts. If the Melbourne press has any claim to honest reporting, then the other side of this scandal should be published. Why was it necessary to go to these lengths to get a correct conviction as the criminals are so easily able to distort, pervert and corrupt the criminal justice system?

Now we are going to have a Royal Commission by a judge who is part of this system of criminal obstruction where every legal decision gives all the rights to the criminal and none to the victims.

SEND US A LETTER

Isn't it about time that our voting system was changed? The two-party preferred method is a joke.

Earlier in the week the statistics for the counting in Benambra showed the incumbent on 50.3 per cent and an Independent on 49.7 per cent. Once the two-party preferred votes were allocated the incumbent retained office. No great joy to him with the obvious swing against him. But it is the system of voting that will allow it, not necessarily the will of the voters. 

If we had a first past the post system I believe it is far better representative as the electoral view. With an independent to poll so well obviously indicates a change may be warranted, but the system will negate that.

The horse racing stables with hundreds of horses in work and trained in name by one trainer have made the balance and fairness in the industry warped. There should be a maximum number of horses that one trainer can have in work, perhaps 50 (and 50 spelling or in pre-training.)

The smaller stables need to able to compete and attract owners and have a spread in the industry. There are many outstanding trainers that get very limited owner support because of the dominance of the big stables.

Creating a restriction on how many horses one trainer can train at a time would cause a spread of horses to more trainers and the result would help the industry. Racing needs the battlers and the battlers need to be supported and the industry correct the lack of balance.