Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Aidan Brufort Bruford to face four charges of property damage

johnboy 21 April 2005 53

ABC Online are reporting that former Advisor to the Chief Minister (and soon to be employee of the Chief Minister’s Department if the CM is to be believed), Aidan Brufort, is going to be charged by police for his spray stencilling ways.

ACT Policing has now confirmed Mr Bruford has been served with a summons to report to the ACT Magistrate’s court next Wednesday.

He will face a total of four charges of property damage.

Can our police contingent confirm if this sort of delay (he was caught on 07-APR-05) is normal?

What’s Your opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
53 Responses to
Aidan Brufort Bruford to face four charges of property damage
Showing only Website comments
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
LurkerGal 1:55 pm 22 Apr 05

Sorry Git, I still don’t get it.

“May that be the last time I l33t”. By my understanding of the entry, it would mean “may that be the last time I elite”.

English is better…….. And universally understood on this forum.

David Heidelberg 1:48 pm 22 Apr 05

The histrionics taking place are unbelievable. I’m with randomc*nt.

Stanhope didn’t endorse this guy’s work. If that were the case, he would have lobbied to have charges dropped. That didn’t happen.

The matter is being dealt with be the law, and that is where it should have ended.

RandomGit 9:10 am 22 Apr 05

@LurkerGal, all these pop cultural phenomenon can be searched at

In particular to your current concern is

RandomC*nt 8:59 am 22 Apr 05

Lovely discourse on civil society johnboy, but you neglect the key to the whole idea of political liberalism: all citizens ae equal and are subject to the same treatment under the rule of law. Aidan is being subjected to the law (more rigorously than your average first-time minor offender) as well as losing his job and being slandered in the media and on websites like this. is this your idea of ‘civil society’?

Also, the reason I respond with insults is that there is a continual stream of ‘lefty’, ‘commie’, ‘ALP-affiliated’, ‘bleeding heart’ commentary whenever anyone takes a position against the “we, the people” line.

Let me also address a neat little contradiction that you have included in your last post. First you claim that I don’t understand that people don’t agree on everything. Then you claim that the Assembly represents “We, the people”. Well, both these things can’t be supported by your argument, unless you think that everyone DOES agree or that the majority should make the rules, in which case Stanhope was entitled to reject your calls for Aidan’s sacking because he won the election (that’s where “we, the people” get to express our views). Geddit? More to the point, there is nothing in the law about sacking people who are caught stencilling. Nothing. Remember that when you want to comment on “the social contract”.

In any case, I know that there are many more views on this than the simple “left”, “right” dichotomy that you paint. It’s typical of politics that this over-simplification gets peddled ad nauseum in order to stifle genuine debate.

Finally, if there are no criminals allowed in the assembly, there would be no assembly.

LurkerGal 8:54 am 22 Apr 05

Ok, I can’t stand it anymore. It’s frigging everywhere and I’m going to open my mouth and reveal myself to be a fool rather than keep it closed etc etc.

What the HELL does l33t mean?????? I hate it when people replace letters with numbers because they are too ignorant to spell, but this one is everywhere lately and I’m worried I’m missing out on something.

RandomGit 8:10 am 22 Apr 05

JB, I am gay for your p0wnag3 ski11z.

May that be the last time I l33t.

johnboy 11:59 pm 21 Apr 05

Perhaps coincidence that the Ministerial Media Release Page has nothing from Ted Quinlan since before young Aidan got to know the police?

johnboy 7:07 pm 21 Apr 05

Quite right K, I don’t know where that meme snuck in but it just goes to show how dim-witted I am.

But that aside our RandomC friend needs to think a little more and shout a little less.

You started making offensive assumptions about people here. Where do you get off getting huffy when people pay you back in the same coin?

Now as you were sadly let out of school without a working understanding of how society actually works (rather than how lefty teachers might want it to work) here are some things you would do well to consider.

Firstly the outrage over Aidan Bruford is not the result of some sinister conspiracy, the matter is (I agree) far too small for a conspiracy to be formed or to bother with.

No-one is paying us to make a racket out of it, we gain nothing by it. It’s the result of pretty much everyone who isn’t associated wih the ALP (and many who are) being utterly disgusted with what has transpired.

Instead of labelling us all small minded bigots perhaps you should try and see why we feel this way?

We just think it is untenable for the Chief Minister’s advisors to be vandalising public and private property in the aid of a political cause

That the Chief Minister thinks it IS tenable speaks volumes for his probity, his trustworthyness, and his service of the best interests of the ACT rather than the ALP.

The thing you utterly fail to understand is that not all people agree on everything.

in fact a room of people who agree on everything are almost certainly wrong.

In years gone by people just killed each other when they disagreed, and no-one got very far.

Very slowly, over a very long period of time, with many lives lost along the way, our civil society emerged. Largely it revolves around ways to resolve disputes, and our elected parliaments and assemblies are a very important part of that.

So when a member of an Assembly’s staff (let alone the Chief Minister and Attorney-General) damages another citizen’s property, in service of what they believe, then that strikes at the very heart of our social contract.

It is deathly serious. It is not trivial. Frankly I wouldn’t mind if the courts did let him off with a slap of the wrist. He just has no place in our assembly.

Note that OUR ASSEMBLY. Not Jon Stanhope’s, not the ALP and the Liberals and the Greens. That Assembly belongs to we the people. And we have laws against graffiti and we agree (on balance) that it is a crime to damage another person’s property.

Just because the ALP Government in NSW is hopelessly corrupt in no way excuses similar behaiour here. Why not point to the government in Sudan as an excuse to round up and shoot people YOU disagree with here?

Incidentally while I think it a shoddy refelction on Bob Carr that Craig Knowles is still in his cabinet it is worth noting that Knowles maximum sentence was non-custodial while graffiti can see you go to the big house.

And David H, I am totally opposed to capital punishment. I also don’t care what the courts make of this. Mr Bruford simply has no place in politics if he thinks criminal acts are a valid political tool.

Kerces 5:13 pm 21 Apr 05

Here on the Riot our intrepid grafitti-er is being caller BruforT but the CT’s calling him BruforD — who’s right?

RandomC*nt 4:37 pm 21 Apr 05

See my last post Prufrock. Your glib ‘commie’ accusations say more about you than they do about me, and they also give a good insight into how this whole debate has been powered. Media, law, and politics, hand in happy hand.

Loudon Prufrock 4:29 pm 21 Apr 05

CONCENTRATE! I meant, mate.

Loudon Prufrock 4:28 pm 21 Apr 05

Dear Random c*nt, Yes. Perhaps a wee holiday in a quiet Soviet home of tranquility could help you in your battle with unhappiness. Forget the fetid green bile people, and concentrste on completing your costume for the May Day march. Sod grim reality, comrade.

Mr Evil 3:14 pm 21 Apr 05

As Grandmaster of the ACT KKK, my spelling and proof-reading are expected to be 100% correct at all times: the master-race must never make mistakes! 😉

RandomGit 3:03 pm 21 Apr 05

Mr Evil = p0wnzored

RandomC*nt 2:53 pm 21 Apr 05

I’m sure you’re not Mr Evil. It was a joke.

Mr Evil 2:51 pm 21 Apr 05

Okay, my proof reading’s not so crash hot sometimes, but I don’t see how that makes me racist?

RandomC*nt 2:44 pm 21 Apr 05

That you think I’m a member of Resistance is indicative of your narrow mind. I’m not a member of any group, relgion or political party, and you won’t find me under any other stereotypical label that you can think of. If you don’t want to be attacked, you shouldn’t be calling for the death penalty as if it’s a big joke.

As for whether he would have been sacked for writing something racist, well i doubt he would have had the job in the first place if he held those views. You can always pick a racist, they are usually the ones who forget to put the ‘s’ at the end of ‘Asian’ 😉 ) But if I must answer your question, and judging by how this issue has played out, I would guess that he would have been sacked, but not charged, seeing as this has been more of a political than a legal matter.

Mr Evil 2:17 pm 21 Apr 05

RandomC*nt why don’t you grab some of your Resistance mates and do us all a favour by going away! Iraq is nice at this time of year I believe.

Aidan was a stupid fool, and now must face the consequences for his actions. It’s his boss who made this into such a big issue by defending Aidan. Would Jon have done the same if Aidan had been spraying “Asian Out” or “Mormons are Arseholes” all around town?

GuruJ 1:31 pm 21 Apr 05

I think Crikey nailed this one — the best thing Stanhope could have done was to suspend Aiden immediately pending an investigation.

Then, since the story would have no oxygen, everyone would have gone away in a couple of days, and Jon could have quietly reinstated Aiden in a month’s time.

Shame Crikey only noticed the issue a week down the track when it was too late for the bro to be saved.

Apocalypse 1:30 pm 21 Apr 05

damn, i forgot to refresh the page since this morning. im refering to the death by firing squad comment

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | | |

Search across the site