I do not know if Ben Roberts-Smith is

guilty or innocent, innocent or guilty. His arrest yesterday for the "alleged crime of war murder" however disturbs me for reasons not related to his possible guilt or innocence. It was far too public for that.

This man has already been in court and attempted to prove his innocence. He took a television station to court because of the comments they made about his potential guilt. He claimed the comments were defamatory. His appeal was lost on the grounds it was heard in a civil court where the standard of proof is based on "more likely than not" rather than "beyond all reasonable doubt".  Much of the evidence presented was not made public and some of it came from people who claim they were "obeying orders" given by him.  They were people with a lot to lose if he was found to have been defamed. All this is far from the way in which other murder trials are conducted and to try and do this as a defamation issue in a civil court was quite extraordinary.

But there is something even more disturbing about this. If the news reports are correct then the Federal Attorney-General was the one who gave permission for his arrest. Why? Perhaps the question will be answered in other ways in due course but it does not merely suggest the government is involved in the process it tells us that they are involved. Why they are involved is something we are not being told but politics might be playing a part in all this.

There is a report due into the way the authorities failed to pick up the actions of the two terrorists involved in the November attack at Bondi. It has even been suggested it was not "anti-Semitic" - hard to believe when it was a Jewish event and the attackers were Muslim. 

Then there are the two female senators in federal parliament who just happen to be Muslim. One of them was born in Afghanistan. There are genuine questions over her right to be in the Senate at all. Senators cannot hold dual nationality and she almost certainly has not properly renounced her Afghan citizenship. She claims it is not possible because of the situation in Afghanistan. My own view is that if it is not possible then she has no right to a seat in the Senate. Other Senators who have found themselves in a similar position have had to resign and then seek a means of return. One had to do it when the law changed in another country after his election. This particular Senator has not had to do that, indeed refuses to do it. She was elected as a member of the Labor party and then left the party. They are not happy with that but she has a large Muslim following and they want, at very least, the preferences which will flow from those voting for her next time around. Keeping her as happy as possible is very important.

The other female Muslim senator comes from Pakistan. She has recently been demanding our government funds "gender equality training" not here but in Pakistan. Keeping her on side is also important. She is a member of the Greens and they have a massive and very successful media presence. Their views on the BR-S case have already shown a desire to lock him up and throw away the key. None of this helps. 

There are also current problems with the efforts to get gun ownership reduced again. The urgency of the Howard era reforms has been allowed to slide. The present government does not want this investigated too closely. They may need those votes.

The present government has a massive majority but it is built on a very sandy base. They had just 34.6% of first preference votes. Our electoral system then gave them 62.7% of the seats. They want to keep those seats and add to them if possible. Their agenda depends on it. A much stronger opposition would make it very hard to do. The opposition has something to answer for here as well. 

Tell me then that the very public arrest of BenR-S is not politically motivated. It could have been quietly done at his home - and it could have been done months or even years ago. He may be guilty or innocent but he should not be used as a political tool. 

Perhaps we need to talk about Fletcher Jones

or rather, the demise of Fletcher Jones.

Let me explain for those of you in Upover. Fletcher Jones was once a clothing store here in Downunder. I would not normally even consider writing about any clothing store. Those of you who know me that I am not someone to wear "good" clothes. I do not "dress up" to go out. I go to the library, the shops, the post office, to the doctor and the dentist wearing the same style of jeans I have worn for years. The jeans have actually not dated. People ask where I found some with the oh-so-useful pockets. 

But, Fletcher Jones? There is a story here, perhaps not a big story but still an important story. 

David Fletcher Jones was the son of a Cornish tin miner. He had a severe stammer as a child and it was one of the things which led him to leave school at the age of twelve. For a while it seemed he had overcome his stammer but it returned when he suffered shell shock while serving in WWI. (He was reportedly buried alive for some hours.)  His thoughts of being a missionary in China were halted by the stammer. What else could he do?

On his return however he took up the unlikely occupation of door-to-door salesman, then bought a clothing shop in his home town and built up a business from there. He worked on the basis of cash only and insisted people be fitted for the trousers they were buying. He also insisted on quality. WWII brought a contract for the services and his workmen's trousers were also highly regarded. All this was enough to build the factory in his home town.

It is there where the story starts to get really interesting. He insisted the factory had to have a garden, a proper garden for the staff to spend time in. They could eat their lunch there or just sit. It became a tourist attraction. I was taken to visit it as a child and it was definitely an attraction with the pool and the well kept gardens. Yes, it must have cost something but this was a workforce that he cared about.

And it went from there to something even more extraordinary. He gradually turned it into a "co-operative". At first the staff had a one third interest but he gradually turned it over so they had a two thirds interest in the company. It worked. 

By the mid-50s they were doing well enough to branch out into women's clothing. It was clothing which lasted. My paternal grandfather, a tailor, actually approved of the factory made clothing from that company. It met his very high standards for "off the rack" when he was considering the need to retire. (He was in his 80s by then.) 

My mother bought a skirt from Fletcher Jones. It was the sort of classic garment which does not go out of style. Hemlines did not bother her too much and she wore it for over thirty years. On entering teacher training college (where we were not permitted to wear trousers!) my parents bought me a "kilt skirt". It could be let out if I put on weight. (I did not. That came much later.) I finally discarded it when I moved here - almost half a century later. Their clothing lasted.  

But it seems all good things come to an end. We were run over by the big American chain store idea. We now have places like BigW, KMart, Target and the like. They sell cheap clothing imported from Asia. People buy it believing they have a bargain. It is often bright and "in fashion". It is "throw away". Mountains of it get thrown away. Recycling is at a minimum. Much of it is polyester. It has contributed to the demise of the wool industry. It is not clothing which is intended to last.

So Fletcher Jones, a company which served us and those employed there so well is going to be gone. I don't consider it progress.  

Child psychiatrist Jillian Spencer

could lose her medical licence for the offence of questioning gender based treatment for all children who, it is claimed, need it or want it without first reviewing their mental health carefully and thoroughly.

I would have thought that what she is advocating would be sound medical practice. Investigate the problem. Is what appears to be the problem really the problem? Is it perhaps a different problem? Is there another problem? What treatment is available? Is it the best possible treatment? What are the potential side effects? Can they be avoided?

I could go on asking questions but I won't. I am not a doctor. I am not a doctor but I am in the business of asking questions. My job involves asking questions all the time. I need to know what it is you think you want to know. Yes, complicated.

We do not ask enough questions. We assume we know things when we really know very little. Yes, I am as guilty as everyone else when it comes to that. I fail to ask questions I should ask, that I would have asked if I had sat there and thought a problem through. I should be more careful than I am at times.

When I started teacher training I thought we might be taught about the importance of questions. We were taught nothing at all. The art of asking questions was not even mentioned. Apparently it still is not mentioned. I managed to learn something about the art from my parents, particularly the Senior Cat. He knew how to ask questions, all sorts of questions. I once, just once, taught a group of doctors about this. They said it was useful. I hope it was because I hear doctors asking questions and realise they need to know more about the art. It isn't their fault. They simply don't get taught. They do not get answers because they are asking the wrong questions or asking the question in a way that is not understood. They use language others do not understand. It can be frustrating and confusing. It can lead to outcomes which are not the desired outcomes. It can also mean that questions sometimes do not get asked. 

But Jillian Spencer is asking questions. They are uncomfortable questions. They are questions we may not always be able to answer. They may go against what the current policies and practices say is "right" but that does not mean it is wrong to ask those questions. It is all the more reason to ask them. It is all the more reason to ask even more questions. It is not questions which do harm. It is the answers... and not listening to those  answers. 

 

  

"No, you should not be driving"

is what I want to say to someone I know.

J...phoned me yesterday. This happens occasionally. It usually happens when she is worried about something.

I reminded her to turn her clocks back an hour and then waited.

"I had to go up to the hospital," she told me. She has a range of medical conditions so this was not unusual in itself. "I had a medical for my driver's licence."  

That is not unusual either. She is some years older than I am and she is classed as "disabled". Her licence to drive means she can go out alone. I know it has been a lifeline for her even though someone else now takes her to do her shopping.

"They said I had to do a driving test." 

I responded to that with a neutral comment but I was thinking, "This is the person who did the medical test thinking they do not want to tell you it is time to give up your licence."

J... has had three quite serious accidents in the last three years. Nobody has been injured, one collision related to a bus stop, another to a car parked across the street and the third to a stationary car. She has also been pulled over by the police for straddling a line ("I couldn't see it properly") and failed to renew her licence and her registration on separate occasions. I have personally observed her back into a tree and remove the bark from it. She was getting "lost" coming to a group even when I gave her a very simple map to follow. She no longer comes to the group.

On the last occasion she was without her car for several weeks. It had to be towed. It could have been driven but she was not prepared to take it to the other side of the city and get a taxi back. It was "too expensive" and her insurance would pay for towing. In reality I think she knew she could not safely drive that long distance on a particularly busy route. 

She should not be driving. I know she should not be driving. I may not be able to drive myself but I can observe others who do. I also know I am not the only person who believes she should not be driving. It is quite likely her own doctor believes this but does not want to say it. It is likely that doctor sent her off to the hospital with some sort of excuse and the hospital is passing it on to an unfortunate driving tester. 

The driving tester may even give in and allow her to drive "only in day light" and within a small radius of her home. I do not think that is the answer. It is other road users who need to be considered. 

This is what does not happen of course. I can understand it. Take away someone's licence to drive and you take away all sorts of other things as well. I think of it often as I head out into extreme weather and think how nice it would be to "just hop in the car and go". If you have had a licence then the lack of one can mean major changes to the way you live. I do not want to wish that on her but I also think other road users need to be considered. 

I wonder whether the tester will have the courage to say, "No" or whether I will get another call down the track telling me, "I had a bit of an accident today." The problem is that it likely will not be an accident and someone else may get hurt.  

The "treaty" in a neighbouring state

has, if media reports are correct, now resulted in a situation where any law must also be approved by the members of an unrepresentative minority group before it can become law. 

The "treaty" between "indigenous" members of the community and everyone else has resulted in a situation which is potentially very, very dangerous. It is, if correctly reported, the way apartheid once worked in South Africa.

Why on earth would anyone give so much power to such a small group? Don't misunderstand me here. I still believe there is far too big a gap between the lives of some indigenous people and the rest of the population. I also believe there is a rich and diverse cultural heritage there that we will be the poorer for losing. Those things matter.

What does not matter is the alleged disadvantage of many urban "indigenous" people. I put "indigenous" in inverted commas here because I do not believe that having a single great-grandparent who was "aboriginal" disadvantages you. It is much more likely that, unless you claim to be "indigenous" nobody will even recognise you as such. They will walk past you in the street and not see it. Yes, it might be important to you. You are welcome to feel it is an important part of your heritage. It is. It is not however so important in every day life that you should feel or are disadvantaged by it. It is much more likely you are disadvantaged by other life choices, those of your own as well as your parents.

And yes, it is some of your own direct ancestors who have contributed to the very disadvantages you now claim to have. The blame for all these things cannot be placed at the door of other people. That you should now be able to choose how the rest of the community will be governed, under which laws the community will operate seems wrong to me. I know the "that's not the intention" and "that's not the way it will work" arguments but put a test case to the courts and it is very likely it is the way it will work. The courts will look at what the legislation says.

In this state there is a "voice". It was brought into being by the government after the people of this state voted against a similar voice at federal level. It was a deliberate attempt to go against the wishes of the electorate. The government did not go so far as to try and bring in a "treaty" or give similar powers to the "voice".  It was not democratic however. Only "indigenous" people could vote to be part of it. 

It has already shown signs of failure. The vote to be part of it was voluntary. Only ten percent of those who were eligible bothered to vote. There are forty six members of the "voice" and some were "elected" with no votes at all. (They are females and just being on the ballot paper was sufficient.) Others received just fifteen votes, a few just twenty-three. There was plenty of publicity about the vote, about the opportunity to stand for election. It was a very expensive exercise and perhaps done with the best of intentions. It simply did not work. 

Indigenous people I know were mostly opposed to the entire idea. They do not see such things as necessary or likely to work. One or two might grab the idea of being able to dictate to the rest of us but most  would see it as ridiculous.  

My friend M... refused to be part of the process. He does not believe it is right or necessary. I have yet to talk to him about the law in the neighbouring state. It will be interesting to hear what he has to say.  

  

There is a bike ride which

is a rite of passage for the young around here. It involves putting your bike on the train at the local station and then going to the end of the line. 

The line ends up in the hills behind me. You exit the station and then you do the hair raising ride down the hill. The road is steep and winds around. It is often busy. 

The ride is a thrill. It requires skills you cannot develop anywhere else. It is something which can occupy several hours of your time on any weekend - and right through the school holidays. If you are in your teens and your parents are not supervising your every activity during the day then you might even be able to do the ride twice in a day. 

I have never done the ride. I would not even consider it. I do not have the skills or the right sort of bike. It is not designed for tricycles at any point.

Middle Cat and the Black Cat did the ride once. Our parents did not want them to do it but agreed they could do it just the once. Once was enough. They found out what it was like. 

They also did the ride more than fifty years ago. They did it when the ride was not nearly as popular as it is now. It was not nearly so common to see dozens of young riders coming down the hill at terrifying speeds. Yes, you can break the speed limit coming down the hill - and they know it.

Now, if the weather is good, any weekend and daylight train into the hills is likely to be crowded with bikes. They are going "up to do the ride". It is almost exclusively the male of the species who participates in this activity. I have seen a female just once. 

I have also talked with them occasionally. We may not have said a lot but they will sometimes make a remark like "cool bike" of my tricycle. My response will be something like, "Thanks. Runs on banana power". That will usually produce a similar silly sort of response. I cannot say I feel comfortable crammed in with them and I avoid it if I can. The driver is usually happy to have me in the first carriage although the rear carriage is the "bike" one. They will tell me to come to the first carriage along with any wheelchair, gopher, pusher or pram.  Yes, I prefer that.

All that said I cannot help wondering about the woman who attempted to film the young who were "abusing" her in the rear carriage. I know any group of young can behave in ways they would not behave on their own or even in pairs. I know they can show off and even do harm. I have also discovered the best policy is to ignore that sort of behaviour, ignore it for my own safety. 

If I need to exit the train and they are trying to crowd on before I am off then the "hey guys more room for you if I can get out of the way" usually works wonders. They might even say "sorry".  

I know there will be renewed calls to try and stop them using the train to get to the start of the ride, perhaps to stop them doing the ride. I do not think that would be right. It would cause more trouble.  Let's face reality. Most of them will grow up to be law-abiding citizens if they can let off steam now.    

An address to the nation

or an encouragement to do the opposite? That is the question.

Our Prime Minister is not well liked. This is not simply because he is a politician and the "leader" of the party currently in power. He is not liked within the party itself. Their internal rules would make it very difficult to replace him so we are stuck with someone who is not liked and, from all accounts, not competent. 

I do not say that simply because I do not like or trust the man but because the evidence is there. He is not a leader. He dithers. He does not make bold decisions.

There he is with a huge majority in the House of Reps. He could do almost anything with it...and the threat of a double dissolution. He has done nothing of note. 

We seem to be stuck with "Net Zero". He is so captured by the increasingly unrepresentative trade union movement and their demands that we are not increasing manufacturing. We are increasing red tape and form filling. He seems terrified of investigating the unsustainable National Disability Insurance Scheme. Don't talk to him about anti-Semitism but do mention Islamophobia because of the votes not supporting concerns about that will lose. Allow a Human Rights Commission to deny rights to almost half the population. Encourage the leading medical body to deregister doctors who express concerns about potentially harmful practices after anonymous complaints are made by lay people.

Stand in front of three flags instead of one national flag for announcements of national importance while you tell us we do not have a fuel shortage - yet. Oh and don't forget to remind us that we won't have a fuel shortage because we are going to "net Zero" and show the world how it is done.

Yes, the Prime Minister may have meant well last night but he has just made the problem worse. Like it or not "oil" is not a dirty word. It is an essential part of human existence in the  21stC. We need it. Without it we are going nowhere. It is time to recognise that.