old man emu

Make no mistake about it, OME is, but I shock myself when I realise that it's 18 years, but I went out on a pension and was only in my mid-50s. Before they introduced the cargo pants I wore trousers and a short sleeved shirt. In winter I also wore a clip-on ready-knotted tie and a leather jacket. The trousers didn't have knee or thigh pockets to be filled with stuff that would throw your legs out of their correct line of movement when running. The trousers were easy to wash and iron. I wore short-sleeved shirts because I felt restricted in movement by long-sleeves, but they were available to those who liked them. The leather jacket had a removable fleecy liner if you needed extra warmth. The only good part of the current uniform is the appointments jerkin which allows one to carry a radio, spray and a Taser while having the weight of these items carried on the shoulders. The reason they were introduced was that police were getting lower back problems when all these appointments were being carried on an overbelt at the waist.

We did shower after PT training.

Gay Pride earns its wings.

I went through my police training at the end of the 70s with an ex-sailor who had a tattoo of a ship's propeller on each of his bum cheeks. Back then tatts were rare, but now they are just normal amongst the generation of our young police. If there is anything for a retired copper to get annoyed about is the untidiness of the uniform they now wear.

What I meant was that in the search for information, the victims are asked by the researchers, not we here discussing it. My comments are meant to be taken as an overall approach to understanding why something that started out all lovey-dovey goes allhatey-hatey. Not by us here. That's something that is being overlooked in the discussion. Perhaps female deaths at the hands of males is another of the very many topics related to inequality between males and females that we have been having our attention drawn to in recent years. Of the 260 homicide offenders in 2022–23, 28 per cent identified as First Nations. These statistics merit repeating. First Nations people (3.8 percent of the population) comprised 20 percent of victims and 28 percent of perpetrators in homicide cases. Before going further with that statistic, I'd like to know where those homicides happened. Was it where those people are pretty well Westernised, or is it in remote areas? If it was in remote areas, then I would say tribal cultural norms may be factors.

While I would not dispute the gross statistics, they don't say anything about causation, and that is what need to be addressed (attacked?). As I said, let's ask the victims what factors in their own relationship with an offender lead to its breakdown. At the same time we should ask the offender what factors they say contributed. Once we have those answers we can start to look at patterns and from identifying patterns, we can develop strategies. The immediate implementation of measures such as tracking devices, or denial of liberty for subsequent DV offences may be the shock that could shake up the current crop of offenders. Along with all this, I keep worrying about those cases where the female claims a minor assault (push and shove) while the temperature is up, but has had some part in creating the argument. I've seen too many examples of a female demanding police drag a bloke away and get her an AVO with restrictions on his approaching her, then a week or so later, before the matters have been settled in court, she's begging him to come back - thereby aiding and abetting a breach of the AVO. A couple of days later there's another screaming match, The Police are called and the bloke's up to his neck in it. I've never seen a female charged with aiding and abetting the breach.

I don't understand what you are connecting with in my post. There are several occupations that require a criminal history check, but a DV offender is not applying for employment in a school. However an AVO can have a condition that the subject is not to approach or contact any person having a relationship with the protected person - that includes children. It amazes me that women who are working in a school in a socio-economic area where everyone is either protected by an AVO or restricted by one, would not make sure that a child was not given into the custody of the wrong person. I suppose, however, that it is up to the protected person to pass on that information to the school.

I'm beginning to think that a lot of these so-called "experts" are only expert into conning other people into supporting the expert in a lifestyle the expert describes for themself. I reckon more attention should be given to the baby rather than the bathwater it sits in. Go to the real experts - the victims and the grassroots organisations that have to deal with the frantic knock on the refuge door at 2:00 in the morning. My daughter-in-law had to deal with a similar situation from a previous relationship. I wonder how far a parent can push a school's Duty of Care towards a student in such matters. Should the parent protected by an AVO , tell the school of any conditions of the AVO that involve the protection of the child. I wonder if the fact that a person is subject to an AVO is something that is exempt from privacy laws. Afterall, if a person gets convicted for drink driving, or even if arrested for a newsworthy crime, the media will publish name and even photograph.

That's why I referred to "taking the gloves off" in the title of this thread. If one steps back at considers the "every child wins a prize" attitude of the past 30 to 40 years, one comes to the conclusion that the results have not been good for society. I'm not advocating sparing the rod, but there needs to be some change in the way we show children an acceptable way of behaving and at the same time show very unpleasant consequences for incorrect behaviour, and be willing to apply those consequences. Just look how the introduction of RBT and the associated penalties have changed attitudes to driving while intoxicated by alcohol. There's still more to be done to change attitudes to driving while intoxicated by drugs. I think that there needs to be a rebalancing of the Rights -v- Responsibilities see-saw. For too long there has been a weighting of the Rights side which had led to the ignoring of the Responsibilities that earn those Rights. Have you seen recently anyone protesting that their responsibilities have been infringed?

The question that has not been answered is "what is the cause?". Again today the "experts" are sitting around talking about ways to change what is happening. I bet there are no questions asked to identify the seed that grows into DV. Contributors to this thread have identified many varieties of seeds, but I wonder if these "experts" have ever considered them. As for the government's "help to move out" grants (apparently introduced by the Morrison government and carried on by the Albanese government) is difficult to obtain. Women's advocates are also saying that it has sexist undertones because it implies that it is the women and children who must leave the security of a home. Can you imagine how life is for a mother with young school-age children living in a car with no fixed place of abode, trying to enable her children to attend school? Obviously if the children continue to attend their original school, there is the danger of their being snatched by the father. As I said, we really need to become draconian in dealing with women beaters. Maybe make it a condition of being granted bail that the accused undergo psychological assessment. However, what I suggest is chasing the horse after it has bolted.

Can I be so rude as to suggest that if the Police haven't asked you for a statement relating to the creation of the video (ie continuity of evidence) then all your report has got is shrugged shoulders.

I have no argument there. I just nominated that one because I think it might be more relevant in recent cases. It is just that having had to deal with DV in the past, and that was before the widespread use of Speed, there was always some sort of addiction that caused problems. Ever heard of a golf widow? Times change and addictions come and go. I wonder if alcoholism is as prevalent amongst the 18 - 35 group now as it might have been 50 years ago. Isn't the addiction of choice nowadays based on stimulant drugs?

I've created this thread as a place to discuss Domestic Violence. Elsewhere on this site people have spoken openly about DV, something that is much appreciated, but I ask you, that if you become involved in the discussion here, you discuss the topic as a general societal problem. Thanks. What are the causes of DV? The causes are myriad, but before we set out planning a corrective strategy, we should get an understanding of the root causes. The usual scenario for a relationship is that a couple meets and each is attracted to the other. No names, no pack drill here, male/female, male/male, female/female is irrelevant, just that there are two people involved. Some time after meeting, a partnering with a high degree of exclusivity is established. That partnership can either grown in strength and permanency, or it can end amicably or antagonistically. One question that is never asked, and would provide so much understanding is "What caused the relationship to sour? The obvious source of answers to that question comes from those who are victims of it. Once we have collected a sufficient quantity of answers, we can sort the reasons into groups and by analysing those groups, we can see where efforts should be directed to reduce the level of DV and to create strategies to change societal perceptions. My first thought as to the overriding cause of DV is any one of the various addictions. After identifying the most serious addiction that can lead to the assaults that we are hearing of, then strategies can be developed to eliminate them as much as possible. My opinion is that the first step is taking the gloves off to intoxication, and the intoxicant that needs eliminating is methamphetamine. Apparently Australia leads the world in use of amphetamine. Whether that is based on gross volumes or per capita volumes, I am not sure. Either way, we should instruct our lawmakers to legislate for what some might call Draconian methods. Here are some hard love methods: Possession and use - Immediate loss of liberty and detention in a medical detoxification centre. Assaults whilst under the influence - as for possession and detention after detox whilst on remand. Possession for sale - detention whilst on remand. Voluntary Pill testing - Cancelled. Re pill testing: While it is usual for those volunteering a sample for testing to dispose of "dirty" stuff, what do they do if the test reveals that the pill doesn't contain any other harmful substances? Is a negative result for nasty stuff a green light to use the rest of the stash? My reason for homing in on drugs, is that it would seem that in many of the recent murders and the serious assaults that the media doesn't report, the persons involved are in that 20 to 35 age group which hasn't the experience of years about the many dangers to themselves and others of drug use. I know that gambling, alcohol abuse and philandering are other causes of DV, but perhaps not with the frequency of drug abuse.

I think I have it as a FORTRAN-slation.

Do you reckon that there would be any non-MAGA inmates there?

While most eyes are on the current fraud trial, there has been a little sideshow that is of interest. Trump has been accused of contempt of the New York court on fourteen occasions. Recently the Judge has dealt with ten of them, finding nine proven and dismissed one. The maximum penalty the Judge could impose was a fine of $1000 per offence. The judge said that amount of a fine was a joke to a rich man. The judge will soon hear the other four, but is likely to consider all fourteen together and issue fines. You can bet that Trump will do something to show contempt of the court again, and that is when things get interesting. Normally in contempt of court matters, there is an escalation of penalty. The first step would be a stern warning. If it occurred again, then a fine is the likely penalty. Do it again and the judge could impose a stay in jail either as a penalty for the contempt, or by revoking what the Americans call "pre-trial release" and we call "release on bail" Putting Trump in a cell for even the shortest period, such as until the rising of the court at the end of its normal business day, would give Trump the opportunity to call out to his supporters that his evil opponents have sent him to jail for what he is doing to defend them. Watch between 9:50 and 11:40 in this video where that idea is given.

In 1754, Great Britain and France began to fight in Canada. France allied itself with Aboriginal Canadians to boost its small troop numbers, but it was no match for British forces. By 1759, the British had roundly defeated the French and the French and Indian War (part of the broader conflict called the Seven Years War) ended soon after. The war officially ended with the signing of the Treaty of Paris on February 10, 1763. As part of the treaty, France formally renounced its claims to all its North American lands to Britain (of which the French colony of Canada was a part), except Louisiana (which had been instead ceded to Spain). Britain gained control of a strip of territory along the St. Lawrence River with a population of at least 70,000 French-speaking Roman Catholics, which was expanded and renamed as the Province of Quebec under the Quebec Act of 1774. The Quebec Act allowed the French Canadians to retain their Catholic religion and their French system of civil law.

As I was researching this topic I came across this: In his journal, Cook wrote: ‘so far as we know [it] doth not produce any one thing that can become an Article in trade to invite Europeans to fix a settlement upon it’. Not exactly a reason to promote colonisation. The myth we have been fed, that the reason for attempting colonisation in 1788 was due to overcrowding of prisons after the loss of the American colonies should be shown up for its falsehood. A lot is made of the effects of loss of the 13 American colonies, but people forget that Britain still held what we now call Canada, as well as places in the Caribbean and Africa which were more convenient places to dump the unwanted. The geopolitical situation in Europe was different in the mid 1780s - a generation after Cook's voyage. France and Britain were at it again, more so in trade than militarily. France held territory in the Pacific. The reports of Cook's voyages had been published, so the French were well aware of the east coast. The Dutch were still a trading force in south-east Asia, and the China and Indian trade was going strong. So the British government decided to establish a colony close to the holdings of its rivals. The colony was meant to produce material to support Britain's navy. Don't forget that a big product of India was hemp, which the British had to buy from the growers. Rope was made from hemp, and a British naval vessel required miles of it. How more profitable would it be to grow your own? On 10 October 1774, on his second voyage to the South Pacific on HMS Resolution, Cook discovered Norfolk Island and its famous Norfolk pines, which could be used to repair or replace the masts of naval vessels. So, the basic reason for establishing a colony was not to clear the gaols, but for military advantage. It would be a place to grow hemp and to process timber from Norfolk Island, even possibly establish the pines near the colony. Obviously the British government would never be able to get volunteers to be the "first settlers on Mars", so it staffed the initial expedition with people who had already been sentenced to transportation. The role of the first arrivals would simply be to build the basic infrastructure of a settlement, so there was not a great effort made in selecting for trades skills. A strong back and a weak mind were highly desired qualities.

I was trying to be a bit sarcastic of the people who make a song and dance about the 26th January, but seem to have forgotten the important dates associated with Cook's journey up the east coast. Those dates are his arrival in Botany Bay (29 April), and the date he formally took possession of the east coast, about the end of August 1770. It seems that anything associated with European settlement is cause for protest and blaming. I often wonder what these activists do to earn a living.

How can they be stupid when the creator has to have a good knowledge of the Art of Punning?

Reassessing the image of a woman with a cylindrical object in her mouth????

My aim in creating this thread was mainly to stir the possum in the ongoing climate of "decolonisation" that seems to be the goal of several sets of squeaky wheels. Those squeaky wheels never seem to have rolled beyond the tar and cement of our major cities to experience of indigenous people whose lives are better than their ancestors'. There are a few sayings I can quote, albeit from European literature, that indicate that people make things better for themselves and their loved ones if they take hold of advantages offered. Gather ye rosebuds while ye may, from a a 1648 poem by the English Cavalier poet Robert Herrick. "God helps those who help themselves" is found in various forms, in many cultures, from Sophocles to the Present, and "Indeed Allah will not change the conditions of a population until they change what is in themselves."  Qur'an 13:11. Can anyone point out any situation in Australian society that an indigenous person is barred from, if they decide to make the same effort that any other person makes? As Lady Macbeth utters in Act 5, Scene 1 of the Scottish play, "What's done cannot be undone". Go and ask a group of indigenous people if they prefer their lifestyles now, or would they prefer to go back to the lifestyle of their pre-European ancestors.

Two. Originally carried by the Aboriginal men. It's normal practice to secure the weapons of assailants.

I absolutely despise anyone who thinks it is comic to play on an outdated Barry McKenzie stereotype of Australian speech and vocabulary. Although a lot of Dave Allen's material is timeless, the Australian society is not locked into a late 20th Century style. It would be very hard to hear that nasal sounding speech nowadays because radio and television have standardised pronunciation. I'm sure that you could find many examples of localised terminology, but the unsophisticated "Ocker' sound and vocabulary is a thing of the past. It is as insulting to an Australian to have a foreigner try to "do the Aussie" accent as it is to have Peter Sellers try to mimic an Indian doctor.

Irrelevant to the point of this discussion. The "Big Stick" refers to a policy of international diplomacy. Roosevelt described his style of foreign policy as "the exercise of intelligent forethought and of decisive action sufficiently far in advance of any likely crisis". As practiced by Roosevelt, big stick diplomacy had five components. First, it essential to possess serious military capability that would force the adversary to pay close attention. The others components were: to act justly toward other nations; never to bluff; to strike only when prepared to strike hard, and to be willing to allow the adversary to save face in defeat. Australia is unlikely ever to have the serious military capability to act offensively, so defensive capability is essential. Otherwise, our international diplomacy can express our willingness stand up for ourselves and defend our borders.