Humble servant of the Nation

Australia’s underworld and murder most foul

SHARE
, / 15680 314

cctbsOn Tuesday night, Pasquale Barbaro was shot dead in his car in the backstreets of Earlwood in Sydney’s south.

On hearing the news, I first thought of the difficulties facing journalists working at news desks that night. The first question to answer was which Pasquale Barbaro had been murdered? There’s a small army of them and many are known to police. Two other relatives bearing the name had already been murdered. Another was serving a 30-year jail term over his role in the biggest ecstasy importation Australia has seen.

On this occasion it was 35-year-old Pasquale Timothy Barbaro who became the victim.

In 2003, Jason Moran a key combatant in Melbourne’s bloody underworld feud, knew he was in danger and with a contract out on his life. He came out of hiding briefly to watch his children kick a footy around at an Auskick clinic at Essendon in Melbourne’s north with his bodyguard, Pasquale ‘Pat’ Barbaro, Pasquale Timothy Barbaro’s cousin.

Full column here.

314 Comments

  • Dismayed says:

    I must say I am quite happy to have been elevated to the list of esteemed contributors after being mentioned in the same sentence as JOH and DOB. I have always endeavoured to drag myself up the evolutionary ladder. It must be working.

  • Henry Blofeld says:

    Interesting to see some of the people who may end up making US President elect Trump’s Cabinet Mr Insider. Attached article gives a small run down on many who may be chosen. Interesting also to see Mitt Romney may also get a Guernsey. 2017 and beyond may turn out to be very interesting. Pollies here in Australia re aligning themselves as “Trumpeters ” including Shorten.
    http://tinyurl.com/hlndcqb

  • Milton says:

    By golly that Robert Manne can employ a lot of words to say nothing, repeatedly.

  • John O'Hagan says:

    “Increasingly family members have become witnesses to the violent deaths of their spouses, fathers, sons and brothers. Some have been put directly in the line of fire… In Australia’s underworld, the rules of engagement have changed and no one is safe.”

    Correct me if I’m wrong, JTI, but doesn’t this kind of thing happen in cycles? From my admittedly casual observations, it seems that every couple of decades, one bunch of crims reckons they can get an advantage over the others by breaking their own rules, in much the same way that crims in general seek an advantage over the rest of us. It never ends well, in either case.

    Killings like this are terrible for the children and other relatives who are not involved. But I’m ashamed to admit there’s an uncharitable part of me that feels less than full sympathy for, say, parents who initiated their own children into that life, or spouses who knowingly married into it.

    • Jack The Insider says:

      Adam Shand reminded me yesterday on 6PR Radio of a shooting murder of a 10-year-old boy at the Moonee Valley Pub in a hit gone wrong incident during the Painters & Dockers wars. It was a terrible crime and serves to remind us of the danger to the community when violent criminals are running around with guns. The difference now is wives and children are primary and secondary targets. I heard from a reliable source Nik Radev raped a man in front of his wife and children as part of an extortion attempt. Radev was one out of the box certainly but that sort of viciousness was unheard of fifty years ago.

  • Razor says:

    Great article from Robert Manne linked below. JOH, Darren and Dismayed would know him as one of those right wing lunatics pushing Uncle Ruperts agenda………

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/donald-trumps-victory-elites-smashed-by-parochials/news-story/2e76430d358becb7ba3887a538bb961e

    • Milton says:

      I think Manne’s use of the word ‘parochial’ is (intentionally) as dismissive, or condescending, as ‘deplorables’. Spun another way the ‘elites’ are just as ‘like-minded’ or ‘conventional’. One doesn’t need to have any great power of observation to know exactly what stance ‘progressive elites’ would have on ssm, climate change, refugee’s, Trump, Howard, Abbott, oz day flag wavers and so on and so forth.

      • John O'Hagan says:

        Nor are any such powers required to deduce what views conservative elites would have on those same issues. So what’s the point here?

        • Linz says:

          That RM is part of the problem, not the solution?

        • Milton says:

          The point is that Manne used the word ‘parochial’ to define those he considered not the elite,. Whereas the definition of parochial can just as easily and aptly be used to define those he considers the ‘elite’. He fabricates a distinction that in reality does not exist. Well at least not on his terms. Consider Abbott, undoubtedly a conservative, yet it was he that put forward a especially ‘progressive’ paid parental leave policy. You may want to split hairs over his reasoning behind this, it would not make any difference to the outcome. Yet because it was Abbott and the coalition who put it out there it was shouted down, but if it was Rudd, Gillard or Shorten who proposed it the usual suspects of ABC types etc would be singing its praises. No one does hypocrisy like the progressives.
          Consider also the “not my president” crowd who had the temerity to complain that Trump’s victory was the “fault” of the electoral college system. Well hello! One person called it archaic! Yet i’m sure it was the same system that delivered Obama, BClinton and would have made Hillary POTUS if she had the numbers. Madness!

          parochial
          adjective: parochial
          1. relating to a Church parish.
          “the parochial church council”
          2. having a limited or narrow outlook or scope.
          “parochial attitudes”
          synonyms: narrow-minded, small-minded, provincial, insular, narrow, small-town, inward-looking, limited, restricted, localist, conservative, conventional, short-sighted, petty, close-minded, blinkered, myopic, introverted, illiberal, hidebound, intolerant

          • John O'Hagan says:

            Amazing how touchy about a word the opponents of so-called “political correctness” can be! Isn’t Manne just “tellin’ it like it is”, “callin’ it like he sees it” and so on, and aren’t we all about that now?

            But it seems there’s a new PC and we’re not allowed to say “parochial”, “deplorable”, “uneducated” etc. as these are now offensive even when true. I think I understand how it works: if a Trump supporter calls Michelle Obama “a ape [sic]”, that’s free speech, but calling that person a racist is elitist.

            But OK, fine, let’s not say “parochial”, however well the literal meaning of the word fits the facts, in case we hurt anyone’s feelings. What word would you prefer? We can use that instead if you like, but it won’t change Manne’s argument.

          • SimonT says:

            Well said Milton. I must admit I couldn’t make it through all of Manne’s article – my BS detector was on so high it gave me a headache.

          • Milton says:

            John O’Hagan – i’m not touchy, John nor do I wish to censure Manne, he can say what he likes and thinks, and he does. It is not as if I am going to declare myself a ‘parochial’ and have him charged under 18c, or something similar, because I have hurt feelings. It’s just that he is wrong, and to compound that he is wrong after the fact. And if he can do that it is no wonder the majority of the commentariat have gotten Trump and Brexit wrong. So it is not about political correctness, more to with lexical correctness.
            One thing I like about Manne is that he had the courage to apologise and admit he was wrong in his support of open borders and his opposition to Howard’s refugee policy.

          • John O'Hagan says:

            “…it is not about political correctness, more to with lexical correctness.”

            But initially your problem with the word was that it was “dismissive, or condescending”.

            IMO, on a fair reading of Manne’s piece his use of “parochial” is lexically correct: he is saying Trump supporters are more concerned with local issues and things that directly effect them, rather than the different global preoccupations of the two elites he identifies (cultural and economic). Sure he may also have chosen the word for its negative connotations, but that’s his choice.

            I don’t see the relevance of your Abbott story, Manne’s piece was about Trump.

            As I’ve said elsewhere a few times re the “not my president” thing, sure you could call it madness, but remember that Trump himself made it clear he believes US democracy is “rigged” and is only accepting the result because he won. Unlike those angry young protesters, he is going to be President.

          • Milton says:

            JOH, Abbott got a mention because he is considered a ‘conservative’ (and he would accept that too), yet he proposed a ‘progressive’ policy which was hit on the head by those who would have supported it because he is not considered a ‘progressive’. The words matter, and then sometimes they don’t.
            I’m not sure how Manne is in a position to determine the makeup of those that elected him when he certainly would have written a different piece if the result was different. You say Manne’s ‘parochial’ people are those that are concerned “about things that directly effect them’ yet you go on to suggest that those two types of ‘elites’ (who presumably didn’t vote Trump) are concerned about global issues, one being economic, that would presumably effect those small town parochial’s who understand that global effects local.
            I think you’re wrong, John and seem to be contorting yourself to support what was not a ‘well crafted piece’. But hopefully we can agree to disagree, or you can keep on going?

    • John O'Hagan says:

      It is a well-crafted argument, and if correct, suggests that Trump may have struggled against Bernie Sanders. But like many retrospective accounts that the result was inevitable, it misses an important point that I keep emphasising: that fewer people voted for Trump than Romney. The change is less a revolution than a subtle demographic shift that had a big effect very specific to the US electoral college system.

      I note Manne uses the word “elite” more realistically to include (conservative) economic elites rather than just the (progressive) educated people who usually cop it in the Oz’s opinion pages. Still, another fact that doesn’t quite gel with that analysis is that white Trump supporters have _higher_ incomes than other whites:

      http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/

      I get the feeling that everyone is trying to use the Trump victory to bolster their pet theory, but in reality it’s a complex mess that no-one really understands yet.

      Argh, but the comments over the wall! Anti-Semites going nuts on this one. I shouldn’t have looked.

      • SimonT says:

        JOH – I find all of the handwringing about the popular vote in the US pretty desperate stuff. Hilary lost the election according to the manner in which elections are conducted. The argument that it is a democracy and that somehow there was a flawed process because more people supported Hilary than Trump is also unsound. It presumes that a simple majority of voters is a better indicator in a representative democracy – which might be true if that majority represented a majority of adult citizens. Only a minority of adult Americans voted (an even smaller subset than the registered voters) – it isn’t possible to say how that majority would voted so we are left with the system in place. Trump won – arguably it was a thumping. It is not as if Hilary Clinton’s team didn’t know how to work the system.

      • Rhys Needham says:

        I suspect that Bernie Sanders might have got severely Swift-boated by the Trump campaign and lost quite a few of the Establishment Republicans who would’ve rather swum through lava than voted for Trump normally, since they likely hate socialists and left-wing populists even more (the kind of person they’d normally send the CIA or the Army in to turf out unceremoniously).

        The Alt-Right anti-Semites might’ve got more of a run, too.

        • John O'Hagan says:

          Simon, I agree, and I hope you don’t think I was saying that. Trump won the election, and despite his own claims to contrary, the system is not significantly rigged. Anyone who believes that is deluded. But only one of those deluded people is soon to be POTUS, something I find more disturbing than a few understandably emotional young protesters.

          However, I do question claims that Trump’s win represents a revolutionary change of mood in the US electorate. It’s a few percent around the edges in particular locations that turned out to be more significant to the outcome than anyone could have predicted.

        • John O'Hagan says:

          Rhys, I had to look up “Swift-boat”. Handy phrase. A perfect description of what’s happening to Prof Triggs ATM.

  • Henry Blofeld says:

    Never able to hit a single “home run” Mr Insider we see on TV this morning that “current” PM Turnbull has struck out in trying to set up a brief meeting with President elect Trump. No big surprises there. Trump most likely has already put Turnbull on his “wally” list as have most discerning Aussies!

  • Trivalve says:

    One thing about this comment setup Jack, you know that your comment got through (unless you’re Milton I guess!)

    • Milton says:

      Don’t think me paranoid but I believe this new setup to be an elaborate and cunning plan to silence my insightful and profound conservative views. I fear I may have been too close to the bone on too many occasions and my ‘dangerous’ views need to be silenced. But I wont be. As long as I draw breath I will out the truth.

  • The Outsider says:

    Jack,

    I like the new site.

    TBLS (from the final JTI Oz blog – my response was binned) – Dick Honan is the owner of Manildra, Australia’s largest producer of ethanol. Honan was a Howard Government crony and a recipient of government largesse through generous subsidies.

    • The Bow-Legged Swantoon says:

      Ah-ha. Now it makes sense. When you were talking about the ethanol king I couldn’t figure out if it was a reference to my alcoholism . . .

  • The Bow-Legged Swantoon says:

    And really, because it’s a lot simpler than most people make it out:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbeatG_M4JE

    • Trivalve says:

      There’s a difference between the definite article and the indefinite article.

      While it’s an appalling, indefensible act, who knows what’s behind it?

    • Dismayed says:

      Right on the cue the member for the opposite and opposing view for the sake of it. know a lot about the asylum seeker do you? His obvious mental health issues? If it was possible to be more a sheep than you I would be surprised.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.

PASSWORD RESET

LOG IN