> This fire season, police have taken legal action - ranging from cautions to charges - against 180 people including 24 people charged over deliberately lit bushfires, 53 who allegedly failed to comply with a total fire ban and 47 who allegedly discarded a lit cigarette or match.
These are all separate charges. The 47 people who discarded lit ciggies likely got cautioned or fined, the 24 who lit fires are going to end up in gaol.
There are currently 131 fires burning in NSW alone, according to the RFS. Not all of them were caused by arson, many of them are caused by lightning strikes and other natural causes. The reason this year is so bad is because of the drought that has increased the amount of fuel and hampered our ability to backburn, and cuts to funding in firefighting services.
*Edit: https://www.smh.com.au/national/teenager-among-180-people-fa... More details. There was deliberate arson (like a teenager setting fire to cars), but not intentionally aimed at burning down forests.
My reaction to the first sentence would be that there are vindictive arsonists out there who tried to set the bush on fire:
Police in Australia have arrested and charged two dozen people they say deliberately lit blazes during the wildfire season that has so far killed at least 18 people, destroyed thousands of homes and ravaged over 10 million acres of land
However if you read it slowly, it simply states that there were people who started fires (of unknown purpose) during a time (wildfire season) when lighting fires for any reason is banned.
The only mention of it being unknown why these started was this, buried about halfway down:
"people flouting total fire bans"
Shoddy journalism at best, clickbait fanning of flames (pun intended) at worst.
>Police in Australia have arrested and charged two dozen people they say deliberately lit blazes during the wildfire season that has so far killed at least 18 people, destroyed thousands of homes and ravaged over 10 million acres of land.
>New South Wales police said that since the beginning of November, 24 people have been charged over allegedly deliberately lighting fires as officers continue to investigate the role that arson has played in the devastation. Starting a wildfire can result in a jail sentence of up to 21 years.
Note the first sentence you quoted, where they are trying to combine the deaths with the arrests, but don't actually do it.
On the Reddit thread Australians are talking about how this includes kids that were setting off unauthorized fireworks and people who were welding outside in fire control areas.
Here's another article from the Sydney Morning Herald.
> Police allege the fires were set to garbage bins, items placed outside for council clean-up, and motor vehicles.
These are definitely arson, but still not people deliberately trying to burn down forests.
> ...including 24 people charged over deliberately lit bushfires.
>"Arson is not caused by climate change," he told ABC radio on Tuesday.
> Police in the state have also taken legal action against a further 159 people. Among them are 53 people who allegedly failed to comply with a total fire ban and 47 people who allegedly discarded a lit cigarette or match on land.
So is the premise these people deliberately attempted to set wildfires ablaze or are they charging them with arson for ignoring a total fire ban?
For example, somebody knows about firebreaks, seen on TV how easy it looks, do a controlled burn of an area to create that firebreak and they thought - I can do that.
So without going thru court/statements of each case, hard to say for sure and certainly won't be the same brush for all, however the headline spins it. After all, some charges cover a multitude of sins and non-sins and have a stigma associated with them dependant upon the current social trends. So arson charges in the current climate(sic) of Australia would be less socialy popular than somebody charged with murder - least in some parts, that you can bet. Emotions are very high and always will be in any disaster of this scale.
But whatever their level of guilt (or not), that is 24 people who are going to feel pariah.
1. Helping the people who lost everything
2. Holding the country's leadership to account on why they refused to meet with fire experts before this season.
3. Prosecuting arsonists under the laws we have
You'll note that their names weren't shared, and they will be dealt with in our legal system like any other offender, from underage drinkers all the way to Cardinals in the Catholic Church.
But people starting fires (intentionally or not) is not new in Australia, sadly. What is different this year is the conditions that caused the scale of the destruction, funding cuts to fire services and the prime minister refusing to meet with fire experts, who were trying to warn him that this was going to happen.
And as sibling points out, there’s no monetary motive, they’re volunteers for the most part. (Then again, so was my high school buddy). And the paid ones, just like the paid crew down the street from my house, get paid the same if they’re fighting fires or playing Call of Duty at the station house.
And yes, times are tough right now. In the opposite sense of what you're saying.
(and now I'm on "a list"...)
I'd say it qualifies.
Dried out conditions make initial triggers (like lightning or arson) more likely to have disastrous consequences.
What I mean is you're being needlessly defensive. The strawman completely fails even on its own terms.
Regardless of the side you fall on, making something significantly worse is still a problem to be solved.
Townhall is Conservative news, not right-wing like someone else said.
Here is one from Townhall calling out Newsweeks recent lie: https://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2020/01/07/news...