Talk:National Living Treasure (Australia)

Lying vs Perjury and one count vs two counts

So, an editor told me to read the judgement where the article refers to lying saying it should refer to perjury. But here's the thing. The fellow was imprisoned for violating two counts Charged with a total of three years. And served two years before he was eligible for parole. But those are totals -- of his charges and time served for two counts. Lying was the cause of both counts. But perjury was only one of those counts and only accounted for a portion of the time in prison and of the 3 year sentence. So it is proper to refer to lying (which is shorter than spelling out all of both counts) but it is certainly wrong to only refer to one of the two counts. --2604:2000:E016:A700:9018:747C:BF0D:FD9 (talk) 04:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

You seem intent in painting Einfeld in a better light. He was not convicted on "lying", that is your invention. If there were further charges, by all means add those to the article, but please stop trying to assert that he was just a "liar". WWGB (talk) 04:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

What are you about? Are you serious? You are the one inputting information.

YOU seem intent on adding misinformation by referring to perjury ONLY. Perjury, as you know, is only one of the 2 counts. Underlying each of the 2 counts is lying. Lying is broader. Perjury is more narrow. Is this backwards day?

Read this -- my god almighty -- you are very slow to understand this. And on top of your slowness, you are accusing me of doing what you are doing. Crazy.2604:2000:E016:A700:9018:747C:BF0D:FD9 (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

And you did the same thing here. Haven't you gotten it yet? You keep on incorrectly saying that he was convicted of 1 of the 2 counts. That is flat out WRONG. His action that underlay both of the 2 counts is his lying -- because of that action he was found guilty of those 2 counts. Duh. So lying is accurate, while what you are saying is not. Or you could go with 6 words and spell out what the 2 counts are that the lying led to .. I don't care which way, though longer is not better, and for copyvio and wp style reasons we believe in using other words and not just copying words. But I dont care .. its silly to think copyright here .. though I would go with one word rather than six because that is better from a writing perspective, just like not adding mistakes in and saying he was imprisoned just for perjury is not acceptable. 2604:2000:E016:A700:9018:747C:BF0D:FD9 (talk) 05:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Let me take a moment to make it clearer to you.

-Perjury. Do you know what the basis of it was here? Lying.

How do we know? Well -- you said yourself -- look at the judgment.

"On 7 August 2006 he gave evidence in the Local Court denying that he had been driving the vehicle at the relevant time. That false denial constituted the basis of the charge of perjury."

-Perverting the course of justice. Do you know what the basis of it was here? Lying.

How do we know? Well -- you said yourself -- look at the judgment.

It says: "The applicant provided a written statement to police which was false in a number of particulars. The provision of that statement was the basis of the charge of perverting the course of justice." --And what were the charges and the time periods, before figuring out overlaps and concurrent serving? Again look at the judgment. He didn't get 2 years without parole for perjury. Or 3 years including parole. Instead --

"Count 1 – perjury – a non-parole period of one year two months (14 months), commencing on 20 March 2009 with a balance of term of seven months, giving a total sentence of 21 months imprisonment."

"Count 2 – perverting the course of justice – a non–parole period of one year three months (15 months), commencing on 20 December 2009, with a balance of term of one year (12 months), giving a sentence of two years three months (27 months) imprisonment."

My lordie.2604:2000:E016:A700:9018:747C:BF0D:FD9 (talk) 05:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)