Jerry_Atrick

I would agree - it isn't all about displacement and years of systematic oppression, but I would wager that it has a bigger impact than many think - IMHO, of course.

I am not sure how recognising the day for what it really is, is somehow laying the blame on everyone today. Remember, it is the anniversary of the first fleet landing - this was to establish the colony of NSW - not even Australia. If we are going to argue it is the catalyst of tthe fouding of Australia, then I would argue, April 29 is the real date. In other words, the country is celecrating the invasion day (intention to create a colony of NSW, and can't do that to a populated land without invading it) as Australia day, and it would seem that date is not he most appropriate. I doubt that, by itself will bring peace and goodwill to mankind.. but one has to take small, but meaningful steps in that direction, right? Or are you suggesting something like waving a wand and magically the full solutions to the worlds problems appear is the only way to solve them? Sorry if I am coming across as flippant or cynical, but it really is an equally flippant or cynical question. But, I guess some feel it would be a meaningful step in the right direction... And if it does that, then I would support it: https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/australia-day-indigenous-figure-kyra-galante-tells-pm-shifting-date-from-january-26-would-help-reconciliation-c-13196716 My preference is Australia Day is moved to March 3rd which is when we finally completely unhitched our remainin legal dependence on Britain. But, if we are insistent on keeping the date, evern as a white dinki-di Aussie, it should be renamed to be reflective of what it really celebrates.. NSW Conolisation Day - because it certainly isn't Australia day.

Unless you are talking the law as it was from the 1600s and modern is relative to Aboriginal society, this is a common misconception. The law was applied as it was at the time (actually, the delcaration of terra nullius was in the 1800s from memory). It's a common mosconception that the courts apply todays law to yesterdays events; it does so only when parliament provides for it in retrospective (or as the yanks say and has cottoned on almost everywhere wlse, retroactive) provisions. The declaration was totally illegal at the time of the direction and at the time of the landing of the first fleet; not in what our modern day values are. If you go to most of the states legislation sites, they provide tools to tell you the law at the time in past so if one is working with, say a cold case that has got warm, one knows what the law was at the time of the event. Yes, in common law, a court can overrule an existing precedent, but it can only do so under strict rules of seniority or where it can distinguish the case with more than a trivial difference. Often they will couch the decision in such a way that it doesn't apply retrospectively, so it is moer changing rather than historically reversing a law. By that logic, no one living took part in Galipolli, so we should shut down the annual commeroration of what could be construed objecively as a national disaster - losing all those men in a war that had no impact on Australia. You know, the same way Vietnam vets were treated on their return. What is the saying, if we don't learn from history then we ae condemned to make the same mistakes? Frankly, having a day that honours a travesty that has resulted in a disproprtionately intergenerational displacement and disadvataged native population - claimed to be the worst impact of the worlds displaced indigenous populations - is one where living people who ware still living with the fallout shold be in our minds of making lives better. A day a year that focuses the mind (in so far as any public holiday focuses the mind) would be checking the mirror while we ae driving forward - not staring backwards the whole way.

I am so pissed off at the moment, I need to celebrate a positive., No good writing up the grip - it will piss me off even more. Great positive to celebrate.. I have had a great weekend with the family... Just chilled.. well up until now. Even my revered Hawks drubbing by Sydney could not have shaken theyt enjoyment of the weekend. In fact, it was a good backdrop for having a nice chat to the store manager of the local Co-Op.. Ahh... feel better now. Phew!

I always tried to get their tarps off in the back of the ol' ute.... .... ... y'all..

Doesn't it depend on what you mean by "invasion day"? If it means the day that the Brits acquired the knowlesge to determine whether or not they wanted to colonise, it is likely to the April 29; if it is the day a British fleet arrived with the intention of colonising the land, then it owuld have to be Januar 26th (or thereabouts, because the actual date of landing is apparently in dispute). I am going to go on a limb here. Australia Day (as opposed to Invasion Day) should be moved to March 3rd as this is the day in 1986 that the Australia Acts were passed simulatenously in the UK and Australian Commonwealth parliaments which severed all legal ties of Australia back to Britain. This is when Australia became truly independent of Brtiain and should be celebrated. The curernt Australia day should be renamed Invasion Day should be 26th Jan as it was roughly when the first fleet first landed with the intent and initial manpower to establish the new colony of New South Wales. You can't colonise a populated area without invading it (note, invasion is not limited to a military action). But the name, Invasion Day, should probably actually be illegal settlement day. Because, Australia was settled under the doctine of terra nullius, which means empty land; The Brits used this because they thought they could justify the land being empty as the local population had no concept of organised settlement not discernible laws. However, this was wrong and it was asseted it was intentionally wrong so that the Brits didn't have to adopt parts of the local laws of over 250 countries (after all, that is how many countries were colonised) into the new laws, and of course, there was no need for a treaty. That is what th High Courty of Australia found in 1992 with the Mabo case - that the English broke their own law in the way they settled Australia. There ya go.. managed to rename the existing holiday to be more respectful of yet another wrong perpetrated against the first nations peoples in that the English broke their own law; and got ourselves another public holiday.,. You can thank me later. 😉

There's no right or wrong; you're welcome to express your opinion as I trust we are, too. That is the great thing of living in the [relatively] free part of the world. Personally, I hate all forms of smoking - even vaping, while not often smelling disgusting, to me, looks disgusting - it physically repulses me. Yet, many men find it alluring when a woman smokes in a partular way. Not much repulses me more and I would guess I am in the minority if most people I know are anything to go by., Different strokes for different folks..

It's a good point, Peter. What are our borders, today? If a country shows aggression to an ally (say NZ), because it's not our counry, should we just sit back and watch? What about Ukraine? What about if someone invaded the USA, Canada, the UK, or any of our European allies? Taiwan? Japan? What about countries that aren't our allies, but are tiny anddo not have the resources to defend themselves such as many of the pacific and atlantic islands? Do they not deserve to be free from invasion in this mdern day? What really are our borders in these sorts of conflicts? If you ask me, the west's tardy respose to Ukraine is shameful. And I am by no means a war hawk. But sometimes, as Kenny Rogers sang, sometimes you've got to fight when you're a man. It is a global world now, and looking at defending invasion on only our soil is a little narrow-focused, IMHO. I would argue our "children" haven't been taught well. This is different to the US going into Vietnam and Iraq (Afghanistan I could understand, but as usual, they stuffed it).

Yeah - was probably a 70s or 80s clip, so makes it quite a lot older; Unlike the "Goodess Gracious Me", the accent is to accentuate the commedy and is not a main part of it. A lot of what he touches on is probably still relevant today.. The length of rime to fly to Australia (relatively) and feeling tired afterwards... "How did you find Ausstralia".. was aksked on my last trip there... "ie" added to almost every word... Still happens from what I heard last time I was in Aus; Cold beer Sharks still swim there and take people, last time I heard.. Practical jokers... The sheep joke - don't know... Seems, given its age, if the one insulting item is the accent, which was probably time-contextual, then I guess it has survived reasonably well. Or would you prefer someone redub ut, maybe with AI, using this accent:

Oh.. this is one that came up when I clicked the link:

Getting back to the violence in sport that may be a catalyst to other violent behaviour in society - take a look at this: Lachie Neale is pushed to the ground and it is called a dive; he is constantly physically challenged off the ball, and that is a good look for the game.. But, kids are looking at this with the commentary dsaying it is fine and Lachie Neale is diving when there looks to be a clear push off the ball.. I love the game, but that sort of shit should be eradicated from it regardless of whether or not a dive was taken. I can' t think of too many sports that, whiole being more violent on the ball, allow that off the ball stuff to happen.

Has anyone seen or heard from OT lately?

Was that the Dave Allen video?

Been a bit busy this weel, so catching up.. This is how I relax.. I need a life! With greatest respect, this is your taste. There are others (although for most of those pictures, I would say well in the minority) that may find that stuff attractive and decorative... Certainly the third photo was not offensve to me and didn't seem excessive. There is a girl who works at the local shop who has not quite as much metal in her face as the second photo. When I first saw her, I thought what a shame - she was otherwise attractive, but totally off-putting to me - not that what an almost 60 year old bloke thinks about athe attractiveness or otherwise of a early 20 year old girl makes a difference in the world - as if I am something the ladies throw their feet at - yeah, right.. But, I found myself talking to her for about 10 minutes - she was an absolute lovely young lady - well articulate, polite, considerate (no - she didn't ask if I needed a Zimmer frame) who had just finished a physics - yes physics degree. She removed all the armour when gooing for job interviews, but she wasn't having any luck. I suggested she keep an eye out for interns at banks because her maths would be in very good demand. She plitely said her morals wouldn't let her work for a bank... Her boyfriend rocked up and he had a face full ofg metal, too.. Works for a charity or something. I guess those into that stuff are attracted by others into that stuff. Also goes to show - you really can't judge a book by its cover.. By the time I had finished talking with her, I was thinking if I were 35 years younge I may well have compromised my tolerance for that stuff if I had met her.

Maybe I didn't express myself correctly.. I was not thinking in the sense of a man has to be the sterotypical role of a man; and a woman has to be the stereotypical role of a woman.. I was more thinking in terms that certain people need a structured and well-defined set of rules - and in the absence of an agreed set - or more realistically - when first asserting themselves in a relationship - they fall back to the traditional roles and structures because that is the set of rlules which is known. Of course, today, the lines are blured compared to yesteryear, So,while you are comfortable with things being more fluid, I may not be (although I am). I would have loved to have taken the time to be the home father, but the diparity in earning power meant it was not really an option based on the lifestyle we wanted to live. To be brutally honest, I probably would have done a better job, and my partner would be much more confortable at work. So, even though we had a more or less traditional facade, we would have been happier if we reversed it - but that facade was not out of choice - with the exception of partner not working while the cherubs were young. The best role models are these people, but even these people are likely to have been inspired by role models at some stage of their lives. The trick is to act on what you want to do, but, apart from the very strong-willed, this will often require a supporting damily while one is at a younger age to encourage one to follow that path and ignore the nay-sayers. IMHO, parents should never be bay-sayers (well, except for illegal or highly immoral activities). A child being mentally and/por physcially abused on a sustained basis should never happen either, but it can have the same impact or workse as nay-saying parents.

Will defintiely have to catch up when I get to Aus; My 21 yr old son, who is coming with me loves fencing, but, alas, there are no competitive clubs here anymore.. Ironically, he was introduced to it through his provate school. He does foil (and purely foil). I think he likes the structure and the rules (right of way and the like). A couple of days ago, there was an opinion piece on The Age's website written by a barrister, where the headline was someting like "I don't care if we lose some liberties; It's got to stop". The teaser text under it was about the violent killing of women. I haven't yet read the article, but I tend to worry at these headlines as the political call is usually to deny the right of one side to be heard in search for the truth; and only to believe the stereotypicla victim, which results in miscarriages of justice. But, in todays website, there is this artivle: https://www.theage.com.au/national/a-woman-is-being-violently-killed-in-australia-every-four-days-this-year-20240424-p5fmcb.html. I have not yet read both articles - will do so on the weekend. But on the numbers, that is 92 violent female deaths perpetrated be men per year. One is way too many, but one of the iossues I have is the characterisation of men being naturally violent to women; Assume a different killer in each case, that is 92/11m adult males, which makes it 0.00084%. Of course, this is not the whole story, because rarely, if ever, is a violent (usually domestic violence) killing performed as a one off; there is often a long trail of abuse that leads to the killingl and there is obviously many instances of sustained and systematic dometic physical and mental abuse that does not lead to a killing. Absolutely correct. My brother is now a headmaster at a private school in Melbourne and my sister-in-law is a GP. The stories they have told me have physcially repulsed me and there seems to be no limits to the levels of depravtiy our fellow humans can sink to. In one case, the mother was holding down the daughter while the father was having his pleasure. In another case, a sibling was found to be having his pleasure on his youger brother and the parents protected the older sibling. My brother's observations of bullying kids is that it flows from the family; he suspended a kid for bullying and the father was down like a shot abusing and violently threatening my brother. On the one hand, bullying is shunned, but that show of masculine toxic aggression is revered as showing strength. The chains of abuse or abusive behaviour are passed from generation to generation. As I said, I have yet to read the barrister's opinion piece in The Age, but if by infringing on liberties, he means when there is a reasonable suspicion of domestic violence or abuse (regardless of the gender of the abuser and victim), then the law will requiree those who reasonably suspect it to report to the authorites and the autorities to take appropriate intervening action, I would personally applaud this. However, even this is not without huge risks. Firstly, how many government employees are satisfactory compensated to attract the best in social welfare, phyhology, and the myriad of other health and solcial type professionals required? What about the large scale failings of the executive public servants lateley ala Robodebt and Ex Servicepeople.. The of course, one's most formative years is in the 0 - 3 age group. So by the time things come to light, the nature of the intevention required is far greater than that. I don't know if this is entirely true, but for those "traditionalists" that are struggling, we should be careful not to label them, at least in a potentially disparaging way (and I am not saying this was disparaging - it is a general observation). There can be many reasons why a clear set or roles is preferred - both by men and women. One may be control of another person - keeping them barefoot and in the kitchen is a means to exert control over someone - regardless of who is doing it. The other reason may be a need for structure and in the absence of any other norms, the traditional roles are imputed. I am very uncomfortable in unstructured situations, for example (although I think I am happy to say our family is anything but traditional in its roles - despite me being the breadwinner; she very much wears the pants). Wearing the pants is another thing.. I have heard this said many times in disparaging ways, but frankly, I am happy with it.. Of course, major decisions are joint and we have had disagreements, etc. But when it comes to the dull every day things, I am relieved of not having to worry about it.

Generally speaking the consensus ad idum (consent to risk) rule applies to contact sports. However, there is precedent where Leigh Matthews was charged with GBH (I thought it was common assault) for breaking the jaw of a player: https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/matthews-charge-still-mystery-20130729-2quxt.html Even on the ball, if it is clear that there was an intent to go outside the rules and hurt a player (and it has to be clear), I would support a legal consequence, even if it were a minor community correction order... I was coached to hurt the other players in close in plays (I am only 5'7"); but our tall timber were also coached on how to bang up the other players.. I was never comfortable with this sort of thing even as a nipper.

Bigger code of Rubt than here... Just a lot of pomp, mainly.

I know the topic has moved on, but on partner murder, I thought it would be interesting to try and find some facts: https://www.aihw.gov.au/family-domestic-and-sexual-violence/responses-and-outcomes/domestic-homicide#data-tell-us In terms of how to fix it, there are probably so many factors, it's almost impossible, but my anecdotal observation is that Aussie men, on a whole, have a more aggressive stance than British/European and even Amercian men (note aggressive dispostion does not = violence), And I think it is a bit of a culture thing. For example, in the USA, the ultimate culture is that you can fix things through the barrell of a gun. Is it Switzerland that has a per captia number of guns per household > the USA, yet one of the lowerst murder rates in Europe, and certainly a tiny fractiion of the USA? One of the perpetrators of Aussie male's more aggressive disposition is, and I hate to say it, football (At least Aussie Rules). Go to Youtube and look at the opening moments of the 1989 AFL grand final, where a player (Brereton) is lined up by Yates, who broke Brereton's ribs; not a free kick, nothing. Many people (even my 20-something year old neives who weren't even born at the time) claim that was the greatest AFL (then, technically VFL) grand final of all time! It was a game where one set of players was systematically going after the opponents and not the ball, and retaliation ensued, which resulted in more retaliation. And of course, in the 70s and 80s, there were the enforcers whose job it was to KO the opponents star, and this was seen as a postivie of the game. These days, that sort of stuff has been all but rubbed out, but there is still scraps which go unchecked and considered a normal part of the game. It is strange the AFL are trying to crack down on all of the off field issues including violence, but santion it on field (admittedly to a lesser extent than the past). And our young, impressionable kids seeing their heroes do it, and they tend to immitate it, and as it has been going on for generations, it becomes a normalised part of society. I remember as a young lad being coached on how to hurt opponents when going for a mark and I have been KO'ed a couple of times on the field. Don't get me wrong, I love the game and aggression at the ball is fine, but while the AFL turn a blind eye to aggression at the poerson (without the ball), I think it perpetuates the culture. Yes, if you strike a player off the ball as Yates did, you will be rubbed out. but there is still the tussling and pyushing off the ball, that only results in a consequence if the othger player falls (without diving). So, if unnecessary aggression is seen as getting an advantage on the field, it must be the way to get results off the field, right? That of course, is not the only thing that has to be addressed - @Marty_d's post summed it up well, I think...

When we were doing up our place in London, we were approached by some TV show, but politely declined. It wasn't grand designs - what we were doing would not have made that grade. We have a couple of friends who are local real estate agents and one a buyers' agent, so we will simply spread the word through them. Anyone who is actively buying will register with the agents, anyway. Yeah, if it goes onto escape to the Country, it may entice someone not thinking about moving to look at it, but to be honest, I think it is a long shot and they would likely be tyre kickers. I was thhinking about including it in a raffle, but it can be too risky.. With the house comes a fully self-contained 2br cottage, a coachouse (with vehicle nspection pit), a share of the local community pub, and for a little more, as many of the garden implements as they want.

I could be wrong, but I thought Brietling donated watches to the Red Arrows pilots as a bit of marketing. However, according to this site, a Red Arrows pilot is donating his Brietling for an auction for Aerobility, which is a charity set up to get disabled people flying to PPL standard (the CAA and their medics are very supportive of this): https://www.air-shows.org.uk/2020/11/airshow-news-red-arrows-and-breitling-fly-in-to-support-the-aerobility-grand-auction/ As a side note, Aerobility is based at Blackbushe, which is where I had my YB20 Shareoplane.. and some bastards broke into the Aerobility Warriors and nicked the avionics. Counts, minus the "u" comes into mind.

Jeepers.. May need some help from Wolfie to comprehend all that... But I get it.. and it is why suddenly things like moving back to Aus are accelerating... Mind you, depending on the virgins, I may take a little longer than a couple of weeks to get bored.. 72 of them. eh? One a day makes it a touch over 10 weeks, and assuming they take my fancy.. well, you ge the picture.. But, they may wear me out and get bored of me long beeofre the 11th week. Time is free, yet it is the most valuable resource we have. Use it wisely... Is what I tgell my kids.

https://youtube.com/shorts/ehWz7u_EHoY?si=xx5oBsDPh2-JbJd5

I would guess so.. Plumbers took a bit longer than they expcted to do the pipework, but they are done. I was relegated to the AirBnB on Tuesday. so packed up my workstation and motored it to the cottage (a whole 20 or so metres down the driveway... And set it up on the kitchn table. I have for monitors on a single monitor stand. Went to work Wednesday and Thursday this week (normally Tuesday and Wednesday).. Friday morning, I thought the plumbers had finished, so retrieved my git. There are three steps down from the kitchen to the libing room and front door of the cottage (no hall). I thought I had stepped down them, but missed by one. I went A over T hilding the monitor stand with 4 monitors, and with about 25kgs, managed to save all but one. So a new monitor was ordered - second hand of course.. Managed to find the same as one of the ones I have, so that was good. Skip arrived yesterday (Friday) and the first thing to be thrown into it is the old monitor. On Monday, confirm when the builders are putting in a new steel, and then will commence the demoliaton of the kitchen and the partition walls, as well as killing the circuits to the oven, etc. Things are moving and they are going to get mightly quick.

Certainly not a listed (or in Aus, Heritage listed) building. Way too much bureaucracy to deal with. Also, wouldn't mind it when I don't have so much else on teh go, as I don't mind doing some of the work myself. But, I would like the next place to not have anything but the carpets replaced and a lick of paint.