When someone's freedom is at stake

then a comma in the wrong place can matter. Yes, legal language does need to be that precise. Writing legislation is quite possibly one of the most difficult things which needs to be done in law.

I have never actually had to do it. I doubt very much I could. My mind simply does not work that way. I have, in a very small way been involved in the process of trying to decide what the law should try to do. That was hard enough and I have no desire to repeat the experience. (It was the "equal opportunity" legislation for this state. I also sat on the tribunal for a while - another experience I did not enjoy.)

The need for precise language came up again after my blog post yesterday. "Really Cat! Does it matter that much?" I was asked. I said "Yes, it does."

We misunderstand things far too often. We have arguments with other people because we misunderstand intentions or directions or consequences. Much of that has to do with language.

Law students are required to do an enormous amount of reading, most of it is in the very legal language used by judges. It rarely makes for amusing reading.  

In my first week at law school I complained (hopefully in a nice sort of way) to my first year tutor that my reading speed had dropped by about half. I knew why of course. The language I was reading was different. Yes, it was supposedly English but it was legal English and it was very different from everyday English. 

My tutor, a lovely person, smiled. She asked me what my usual reading speed was. I told her. She smiled again and told me I was doing very well. The undergraduates were much slower. She also assured me that I would likely soon be a good deal faster but some of the undergraduates would always struggle. Again she was right. I did get fast, a lot faster but I never reached the level of someone like the Professor of Commonwealth Constitutional Law who seemed to merely glance at a page and understand it.  No, I did not expect to do that.

In my second year at Law School I took on the responsibility for a group of students for whom English was a second language. It was a challenge. It also taught me more than I suspect I taught them. They were students whose English was perfectly adequate for every day purposes but legal language was a struggle. Understanding it was difficult enough. Writing it was even more difficult. 

We were given examples of what happened when language was not used in a very precise way. It was not simply the words used but the way they were used. I write this blog straight off without revising it. There are undoubtedly "split infinitives" and other grammatical errors everywhere. I try to write it as if I was simply talking. Doing anything else would take too much time. It is a daily mental exercise for me. Nobody is likely to die because I put a comma in the wrong place but it mattered when we had the death penalty. A comma in the wrong place could still incarcerate an innocent person or let a guilty one go free. 

Such problems can begin with the reports written by police too. It is why it is important for police to have the skills to spell and write reports. Someone else's freedom may depend on it.   

Can't spell and can't do the maths

but we will give you a gun so you can be a member of the police force?

Our state has a serious shortage of police officers. It is apparently such a serious shortage they are lowering the standard required to pass the entry examinations in spelling and mathematics.

I do not know what the current entrance examinations are like but I suspect the standard is low. I know we are not getting a stream of university graduates into the police force. Nobody expects that. I do however see the police out and about and I have observed them. On rare occasions I have had dealings with them.

Last week I had occasion to go to a major shopping centre some distance away. When I arrived the entrance I had planned to use had three police cars, a fire truck and an ambulance there. There was no activity around these things. There were three police leaning against one of the cars just chatting. 

I would normally lock my bike to the rack next to the entrance. Did I just go to another entrance and then, with some difficulty, make my way to the other end? I decided to ask if the entrance was open.

"Yeah, just go on in." I was told. It was permission but it was hardly what I would have considered to be a "professional" sort of response. It was well meant enough but it almost certainly reflected the level of education of the officer I had asked.  

If we cannot find recruits who can read and write and do basic calculations to a good standard then we need to look at why this is so. We cannot have police relying on spell checkers and calculators or using AI to write reports. That might be even more dangerous than giving them a gun.  

"Bur I am only taking eleven supplements"

and she is taking four prescriptions as well. 

Yesterday someone asked me if I had given some thought to the way I would need to take the low dose of blood pressure medication with me if I do manage to get away in September.

I do not see this as a problem at all. It will simply go in the original packaging. It is very clearly doctor prescribed. My doctor was so unconcerned by all this she went ahead and doubled the number of pills I will be able to get next time around.

Not so this other woman. She was alarmed at the thought of me travelling at all if I had take any sort of medication. I know V.... as a  hypochondriac. She is often at her doctor for one thing or another. I know her doctor too. He once let his frustration with her and "all those supplements" show. It was a very brief, almost not there, look as she started to talk to him about something she had begun taking even before she entered his room in the clinic. His frustration was nevertheless obvious. 

Yes, she takes eleven different "supplements" and four prescription drugs. It apparently makes her annual holiday packing "very difficult because I have to take so much with me". 

I have tried querying all these so-called supplements and all the limitations she has put on her diet as well. It makes no difference. She looks pale and unwell to me. I know one of the prescriptions is for blood pressure because she showed me what she was taking and wanted to compare it with mine. I think she was disappointed to discover that we take the same thing but pleased to discover that she takes a marginally higher dose. She also showed me one for a thyroid condition which is commonly taken by many people and one for anxiety. The fourth one is one I looked up. It is of almost no value at all but sometimes given to people who want to believe they need to be taking something. 

And then there are the "supplements", the vitamins, the sleep aid and more. I cannot get my head around those. Apparently they are all "necessary" because "there are so many things I am allergic to I don't get proper nutrition". Really? Her husband, a long suffering man, tells me, "She is not allergic to anything if she wants to eat it." He has given up in disgust. 

All this of course is an addiction of a sort which is costing a great deal. I looked at all the pills and potions she had lined up one day and wondered how she could even be bothered. I would much prefer not to be bothered at all. I avoid taking things. It takes time as well as money. I have better things to do with my time and my money.  

Ooh how to lose weight easily!

Late last year I saw someone I had not seen for several months. He had lost a considerable amount of weight. I naturally wondered how he had done it.

I did not ask but I was told. "I was diagnosed as diabetic. The doctor put me on Ozempic."

Really? That was all he needed to do? Oh that would be so easy! I let him talk on and nodded and smiled and, I hope, said the "right" things. 

But, I wondered. I wondered even more this morning because apparently children as young as eleven and twelve are now being prescribed Ozempic and other semaglutide drugs like Wegovy to deal with their diabetes and their weight. The article in the paper mentioned the concern that these drugs are being prescribed more and more often. People want the easy way out.

It is human nature to want the easy way out. Is everyone as lazy as I am? Probably not - but there would be a lot of people who are. They may be even lazier. I don't know.

In the course of moving from one place to another I did lose some weight. There were at least two obvious reasons for this. I ate less because there was less time to eat and I was doing more than the usual amount of physical exercise. Neither thing did me any harm. I was actually rather pleased because I know I needed to lose the weight I put on during the Covid lock downs. Although I made an effort to get out and exercise at the time it was not the same sort of exercise I had done before that. 

But taking weight off apart from that is very hard work for me. I cannot get out for a brisk walk - the very thing that might help me lose weight if I was also "eating sensibly".   I do try to eat sensibly. On my recent visit to our GP she asked me something and I added something like, "I do try to think about whether  I have had enough protein, enough carbohydrate and enough of a good mix of fruit and vegetables and I try to do that each day." 

I think the response startled her - but I really do try to do that. It is something I doubt she does herself. Having the time to do it and deal with it is something she probably does not have.

But other people? I hear people saying how wonderful the new drug is. So many of them seem to believe it is an effortless way to lose weight, that all they need to do is "pop a pill" and they can eat whatever they like. A few know there are perhaps side effects and risks but they will take the risks because they have lost some weight and they "feel better" because they have dropped a size or two with no effort.

I wonder how long this will last before doctors stop succumbing to pressure to provide what appears to be the easy way out? When will we all realise that many of our weight problems are to do with eating too much and not exercising enough? 

I am as guilty as the next person in thinking it would be nice to be able to do. Someone please tell me that Ozempic is not a substitute for diet an exercise!  

I am not intending to travel unless

it is "safe" to do so.

All travel has risks. All forms of travel have risks. There are "acceptable" risks - the sort we take every day. If we did not take those risks then we would go nowhere and do nothing. We cannot live that way.

There are also unacceptable risks. These are the sort of risks we should not take. It is why government travel advice exists. 

Right now you do not travel to some very specific places. They are war zones. 

Apparently there are around three hundred and fifty people from here trying to leave Israel at present. There are another three hundred trying to leave Iran. Neither lot can leave because there are no planes flying in and out.

In our local shopping centre there is a tiny coffee shop run by Syrians. They are lovely people who tell me I am "family" because I have shared a single recipe with them. They made the shortbread and took it back to Syria with them when they went "home" for a month this year. Their home in Syria is in the quietest part of the country and they take the risk only after multiple checks. They are back here now and A... tells me he would not travel now, even if a family member was seriously ill. He does not expect the government to get him out if there is a major eruption of conflict.

I wonder how many other people think like that. How many of those in Israel or Iran went on holiday without thinking of the potential consequences? They might be fascinating places to visit but, even with family there, is it something which should be done?

Middle Cat and I have air fares booked and paid for. We have accommodation booked and paid for in Singapore. That is as far as we have got and the travel agent has not been inquiring about what else we might need to book. There might be a reason for this. It may be the same reason I am being cautious about making any more plans. If the situation between Israel and Iran escalates it may be that it will not be safe to travel.

If I was going to travel alone I might take the risk. It may not matter too much if I end up being blown up but Middle Cat has a partner and two boys to consider. If I was stuck in the UK it would matter far less than if we were both stuck there. We both have to consider that it would be our choice to travel. We should not expect our government to bail us out of trouble if we travel knowing it is not safe to do so.  I wonder if those who travel to trouble spots think about this sort of thing? 

So, we won't be travelling unless it is deemed "safe" to do so - safe in the sense that the risks we will be taking are the risks that sensible people think are acceptable. Will I be disappointed? Yes. Will I be sensible? I don't want to be but I am a nervous cat so I will do the right thing. 

Using a recording device without

obtaining permission from those about to be recorded is illegal. This is why some places (such as government departments) are supposed to ask before a conversation takes place over the phone if they are using conversations for "training purposes". 

"Training purposes" is a cover for other purposes of course, a supposedly neutral purpose but one used to cover themselves. No, I am not simply being cynical. It is all too likely that people will get upset and abusive and this is designed to keep them from that.

I usually say yes they can record because I am never doing anything more than something like making an appointment. Even now important matters go wherever they need to go in writing and I expect replies the same way. "Paper" trails are important - even email trails are important. "You said..." or "s/he said..." or.... something else and the information is there - or it should be. This is not perfect of course because nothing is foolproof.

But there is another good reason to have things in writing. People forget what they have said or done or they misremember. Anyone who has spent any time in court listening to a barrister pull a testimony to pieces will know that even the apparently most clear memory of an event can be torn to shreds. 

Keeping a record of everything we have said or done is impossible but keeping a record of the important things is necessary. How do we best do it?  Not in the way I saw recently. A friend was on Facebook and said, "Look! This is what I need! It would save heaps of work."

I was immediately suspicious. I looked. The same advertisement had come up for me. There it was a tiny recording device you could allegedly wear around your neck, It would record and then transcribe. Wonderful! No, perhaps not."

I pointed out two things. The first is that it would be illegal to use the device without the permission of everyone in the room if you were at a meeting - and that was the intention of the person who thought it would be wonderful. Yes, people might give their permission but just one objection would be enough to halt the use of it if the user was wise.

But the second objection I had was quite different. This device would not help you remember anything. It would have exactly the opposite effect for most people. If someone was no longer actively involved in the process of remembering they would forget more and much more quickly. The act of writing things down reinforces the memory that is to be preserved. It is why taking notes down by hand is so important. Even using a keyboard is preferable to taking no notes at all. Study after study has shown the importance of being actively involved in learning. The little recording device does not require active involvement. That matters.

Yes, memory can be trained. It is possible to use all sorts of tricks and techniques but even those do not make up for actually physically committing something to paper.  As someone who has real problems writing anything down I am perhaps more aware of this than many people. My own lecture notes tended to be sparse. I would write down single words and have to remember what went on around that word. My memory is still supposed to be very good but it has taken years of "training" to do it. Other people will sometimes ask, "Cat, can you remember..." Often I can but I do not always remember. Why should I? 

Remembering everything that ever happened to us would be an immense burden. Equally not being able to remember things we need to remember is a burden of a different sort. I would not use one of those little recording devices (or a similar idea on a fancy phone) because I know it is important to remember without such aids. We should be teaching children to do the same.  

  

"You will have to download the app first"

I was told yesterday.

No, I won't. I am not downloading any "apps" on my very basic mobile phone. Even if I had the capacity to do it I would not do it. Why should I have to download an "app" simply to buy something? All it really means is that I am going on to a data base so I can then be bombarded with their advertising. Their "free" whatever it is really is not free at all. It is built into the price and their "special" is not really a special at all.

"Thanks. If I need to do that then I won't be buying it here."

"You won't get it cheaper anywhere else," I was told.

"Perhaps not but I don't download apps on my phone."

"Why not? You can get some great bargains here that way. It's a free app."

"Nothing is free."

The young one in the shop just looked at me in disbelief. I did not bother to try and explain. I went out and considered my next option. I had researched "on line" for what I needed and this had been the best option - apart from the app. That had not been mentioned on the website, certainly not the necessity to first "buy" the app in order to get what I wanted.

I prowled off feeling decidedly put out. It would have been a simple matter to "download an app" on a fancy phone perhaps but I still do not have a fancy phone that connects to the internet and does all those whizz and bang and whistle things. 

I stopped at the booth which repairs mobile phones and the lovely pair who work there finally sorted out another problem. The boy had researched it on line and actually thanked me "because it was good to learn how to do that - never came across that problem before". No, I could not pay them because I had helped them too. (English is their second language and I had told them how to write something.)  They agreed about "apps". I was interested in that. Neither of them has the latest phone. The girl's phone is about the same age as mine and the boy's is not much better. No, their phones are fine and they do not need all those "apps". These are people who work all day with other people's phones. I wonder what they do at night but I am sure it is not play games on their phones.

Apparently there are also "apps" on computers but I have never knowingly downloaded one - unless the sort I have for the purposes of actual work are also "apps". There are no "business" apps but I still need to "unsubscribe" from all sorts of things. It irritates me. When did the idea of putting someone on a data base in order to force advertising on them become a right rather than a privilege? There are two places which, despite my efforts to "unsubscribe" have continued to send me information. One of them is a real estate firm from my house hunting days. I sent them a polite message saying I had a new place for my sleeping mat and please to take me off their list. It has been ignored. Why? I will never do business with them. The other company no longer does business in Downunder but they still send messages. I have tried explaining that they no longer send items here (and it was for my BIL anyway) but they have ignored that. I will never do business with them again.

But apparently there are "apps" for things like the weather and ordering pizza and playing games I have never heard of.  I look elsewhere for the weather (mostly the sky) and I last ate pizza more than a year ago but not by ordering it on line. I do not play games on the computer, let alone on the phone. 

"Oh, I have dozens of apps," someone told me as I grumbled some more. His partner raised her eyebrows at me. I did not inquire how many she has but it would not be many. 

Perhaps this is what is wrong. Perhaps it is not the phones themselves but all these "apps" that are causing the problems? Is this why people do not talk to each other as much as they once did? If that is the case then there is even less reason to download an "app". 

 

Going to a mosque or a synagogue on a

weekly basis in Iran or Israel is not nearly as high as some of my fellow Downunderites seem to believe. 

Around a quarter of Iranians go to their mosque once a week. There are more men who do it than women. This is down from around a third twenty or more years back. I talked to a non-believer of Iranian origin about this some time back. He claimed that "not everyone who goes is a believer. If they don't go then they will be in trouble from their employer." I have no idea if this is true but he also conceded that young people are less likely to attend. 

In Israel the numbers are about the same with respect to Jews who attend synagogues on a weekly basis. It also seems young Jewish people are less likely to attend than older people.

Here in Downunder the numbers attending church on a weekly basis appear to be lower although about half of us claim to be "Christian". I thought about all this again this morning as I read main news sources about Israel and Iran. 

Why? Because news sources like to give the impression that the vast majority of people in both countries are devout believers who attend a synagogue or a mosque on a regular basis.  Much footage is shown of those attending Friday prayers as if this is what a majority does. We are told about "the Supreme Leader" and other religious leaders in Iran and how the "ultra-orthodox" influence decisions in the Knesset. We are told how Muslims want to take over the world and impose sharia law on everyone. Is it what most Muslims want?

All is not what it seems to be perhaps?  Starting WWIII is not going to win you respect or support. I am trying not to think about where the current friction between Israel and Iran will lead.  It is utter madness on both sides and it would seem that there are a minority of fanatics who wield too much power in both countries. 

Defending the indefensible

has to be done but perhaps not in the way many people believe. 

There are currently all sorts of stories in the media about the way AUKUS will fall apart and the nuclear submarines will go with it. True? Not true? 

I do not have the capacity to see accurately into the future. I can make some guesses about what "might" happen and that is all. 

There are things I know and many more I do not know. One of the things I do know is that it would be physically impossible to defend this country.  It is the world's largest island or the world's smallest continent. Take your pick.  It has a massive coastline and, while most of us live on the coast, there is enough of it that boatloads of "desperate" people do sometimes manage to get past maritime patrols. That alone should be enough to tell us two things. People want to come here because they see it as "safety" and we cannot control the borders as easily as all that. 

All countries have border controls. Border controls have been around since before the early Roman empire. Travel documents became common under Henry V in the 14thC but it was not until the 1800's that something like the modern day passport issued by the government became common. There was no need for these things. Most people did not travel that far. It might even be said most people did not travel at all. They stayed within, at most, a day's journey of their homes. 

I can almost see this happening again. Travel might not become easier at all. It might become more difficult. We might need to be able to show good reasons for travelling. In that way future governments might be able to control us using "net zero" claims and more. There will still be a tourist industry of course but it will be mostly within the borders of our own countries. Only the wealthiest and those with good reason to travel will be permitted to see the rest of the world. 

I might be wrong about that. I hope so. I hope I am wrong because it seems to me that we are already being invaded in other ways. China already owns vast swathes of this country. Wealthy Chinese have been buying real estate here for a long time now. This is not just about the houses that wealthy individual Chinese buy but about the vast sheep and cattle stations they own through complex "business" trails. It will be a brave government that tries to wrest those back.

We spend very little on defence, less per capita than it is said we should. I do not know how much we "should" be spending but I suspect it is much more than we do. This is not because we could physically defend ourselves. It is because doing so would at least suggest we were making some sort of effort. If we do then it might also look as if we cared enough to help some of our small Pacific neighbours.  That may prove more valuable during an actual war than simply allowing a northern power walk in.

 

A colleague of mine was arrested

yesterday. He was making his way to the hospital he works in when he was pulled over by the police. 

T... had done nothing wrong. That made no difference. He looks as if he might be Mexican-American and that was apparently enough. 

I do not know all the details but the incident took several hours to sort out. There was no apology from the arresting officers. They were "just doing (their) job". T... was very late in for work with flow on consequences for many other people. 

The reason I heard about it is because he was due to attend a conference next week but is now worried about leaving the country. T... is an American citizen by birth. His parents and grandparents and probably many times great-grandparents were American citizens. 

The colleague who told me this was alarmed. T... left me and others a brief message late in the day, "Am OK but need time to consider as advised might be best not to go."

What on earth is going on in a country which was supposed to be "the land of the free"? How has it come to this? 

I had, in a quite serious way, considered doing a "round world" trip when I began thinking about a journey back to my second home - London. It was not because I have any particular desire to see America as a country - although I think their national parks would be spectacular. No, I was thinking how good it would be to see friends who would be unable to travel here. While it would be difficult enough for me it would be impossible for them to go far.

Now it seems that even some of those with the physical and financial capacity are worried about leaving. Several projects I have been peripherally involved in have had to be dropped recently. Those involved are not Greta Thunberg type activists. They are just people who were being asked to volunteer help using their professional skills. 

And I have now had four warnings not to come. Our official government travel warning page is also anything but reassuring. I will not be going. It may be that I would be safe but if T... can get pulled over on his way to work....  I just hope everything calms down and my friends and colleagues are safe.  

"Why do we bother with Europe at all?"

I overheard this while waiting in the medical clinic yesterday. It was a routine appointment - nothing more wrong than usual - but obviously not for the man in the business suit. He was on his mobile phone and apparently oblivious to everyone around him.

I could not hear the responses to his conversation. One side was enough. He was (apparently) firmly of the view that trade with our nearer neighbours was enough. There was no need for his business, whatever it was, to branch out. They could "grow" inside Asia.

It is a common enough belief here. "We are part of the Asian region" is a common mantra.  We do business with Indonesia, Thailand, China, Korea, Japan and (more recently) India - the big players. Apparently it is considered to be all we can cope with except for miniscule amounts elsewhere. We look to the other side of the Pacific of course - but America is there to protect us as long as we let them use our land bases.

All this has just become much more interesting and relevant because we have, in a very minor way, involved ourselves in the war in Ukraine. (We sent them some old Bushmaster vehicles.) We have, in a sort of way, taken sides in the war in Gaza. We are arguing with the European Union about what we are allowed to call some foods like wine and cheese. 

Our defence force is small and, if we had not already been invaded in other ways, it could not physically defend the country.  It is too small. It would always be too small. The biggest island on earth simply cannot be defended by that sort of force.

It is my belief though that we should bother with Europe. Several Prime Ministers ago there was actually a serious suggestion as to whether we should be negotiating to join the European Union. It came to nothing of course but would it have been such a silly idea? The general public never had a chance to debate it and any thought of doing it would have gone out the window with Brexit even if there had been any thought of doing it before.

All this was back in my thoughts as I read a column by Alexander Downer in this morning's paper. He was pointing out that we do need a defence force. We cannot rely on America to defend us. China has a massive defence force - and it is not just a defence force. It has the capacity to invade militarily. They may never need to do it though because they also have the economic power to do it. The Chinese already own vast swathes of Downunder. They control many of our business interests. If they just chose to blockade our ports (and Downer points this out) then we would be very quickly brought to our knees. America would be very unlikely to come to our defence - except in their own interests.

In all this do we really not want to bother with Europe at all? Do we really go on spending just a miniscule amount on "defence"? I think we should be "bothering" with it even more than before. 

The business man was still there talking on his phone when I came out of my doctor's room. I wonder what the people around him thought of his views on Europe. I think it is worth "bothering" about - even more now than before.  

So we don't say "Gday" anymore?

I was almost amused to see the column in this morning's paper where one of the local journalists was writing about the way many people no longer know their neighbours. 

I say "almost amused" because I no longer know my neighbours. I have gone from a short street where I knew everyone to a block of "units" where I do not know anyone. The only person I knew, and I scarcely knew him, has just moved on. He was a policeman and, like so many other young policemen, he has just "split" with his partner. The toll of night shifts and other irregularities was too much for her. I met her once - through the window - when she held up a cat to be introduced.

I know the name of the woman on the other side - but only because she shares the same name as Middle Cat. Middle Cat met her when I first moved in. She has never spoken to me, indeed avoids looking at me and everyone else.

A woman with a dog exchanged a few words one day but that was it.

Across the way there is a man who introduced himself as "I'm a divorcee". There is something about him that makes me want to prowl off as quickly as I can.  I know this is not good. I am grateful that Middle Cat and her partner only live three streets away. If I need help quickly it is likely I could get it. I am grateful I still live in the same area where I know so many people...and many more know me. 

 There are twelve "units" and I have not even seen most of the residents after five months here. They must come and go but they do it at hours when I am not alert to it. 

Yesterday someone did say "hello" in a sort of way. As I was about to pedal off a voice behind me asked, "Is that difficult to ride?" 

I was so startled I almost did not reply but then I turned around and we had a brief, friendly conversation. The only problem? She was a visitor. I probably will not see her again. 

  

Truth is the first casualty

of war and of news collection.

I am late to the blog this morning because I have been trying to explain this to a group who tend to believe anything they read - that group being readers of our state newspaper. I tried commenting on line and the "moderators" did not like what I had to say. I have now sent a letter to the editor. It will depend on which member of staff is looking at what might be published tomorrow whether it gets up or not.

But, let me explain something. My job involves working with individual aid workers. These are people who do not work in a paid capacity for big organisations like the United Nations (where they are funded by their own governments) or Save the Children Fund or any of the many "aid" groups we hear and see on the news. These are people who are often not paid anything at all. They may sometimes have (some of) their expenses met but that is all. If they are being paid then it is someone else's responsibility to help them, not mine.

Yes, these people will often go because they feel passionately about something but what they feel passionate about might surprise others. It will often not be some "noble" cause like "saving the environment" but something much simpler. There will be a dam that needs to be repaired or a channel which needs to be dug or a lake which needs to be cleaned so that people will have a safe water supply. There will be a bridge that needs to be repaired or relocated or altered or strengthened so that a transport route can stay open. There might be a mosque or a temple or another holy site which needs to preserved because it has great significance for the local population. There might be a new medical technique to be taught to a group of doctors or nurses so that lives can be saved. There are many other things which also need to be done and can be done in a limited time frame by an individual who knows what needs to be done and can communicate with the local people. It is a different sort of aid altogether and one which people know little about, about which people do not need to know. It often is not safe to do.

Those people will sometimes send back information which is at odds with the news we get on the major news services.  It is not often they do that because it is generally not safe to do so. Those of us who have remained at home and who are in their loop will get information on their return. Let me give you two examples from current conflict zones.

The first is, inevitably, from Gaza. Someone went in to try and repair something needed for human safety. While he was there another major incident was reported here. Hamas would have it that there were over a hundred people killed or wounded. The IDF would  have us believe a much lower number. The aid worker returned and said there were eleven physical casualties but no deaths. The building which was hit was empty at the time.  None of this makes what happened right or wrong but the story he brought back was very different and, as he was actually there, perhaps a good deal more accurate. He is trained to assess such things.

The second one example is from a conflict zone I will not name but the aid worker was lucky to get out alive. All the work had been done when an opposing group came along with explosives, tied three locals to the structure which had been repaired and blew it up. The aid worker and his local colleague had left the structure about an hour before and gone to look at the other problem he was there to fix. This act of terrorism did not reach any news service.

What we see and hear on news services is possibly no more than a vague approximation of the truth. Journalists may do their best and some take enormous risks to try and get their version of the truth out but it is their version. They have their own sources and their own prejudices just as I have mine. I have to hope mine are the more accurate of the two but that does not make these things any more or less palatable. Truth is a casualty in all of this and we need to recognise that when we read or hear "the news".  

Free speech is dead at

universities - or so one of the local journalists would have it. His article in this morning's paper was an unusually serious one for a Sunday.

He points out, rightly, that he started his journalistic career at university by writing for the student newspaper. At least one of his colleagues did the same thing. I suspect most of them did. 

I remember the student newspapers from more than one university. Without exception they were left wing, often radical left wing. One was so left wing it might as well have been a second communist manifesto at times. The articles in them were often so controversial they made the mainstream media as well. 

I never contributed apart from a report on an "access" conference I attended in Birmingham one year.  I doubt many of the other students read that. They would have been more concerned with a new "compulsory" unit required of students from abroad. 

Of course future politicians also joined the party political clubs on campus but student politics at each higher education place I attended was a left wing affair. If you did not believe passionately in the latest causes then you were ignored - or shunned if you were foolish enough to try and argue with them.

There were staff like that as well of course. I knew who they were and what their thinking was. Like other students I tailored my essays in order to be sure I passed. The pressure to do that was immense and I am not a cat who likes confrontation. 

I suspect it is even greater now. It may not be true of the fee paying foreign students but it is true of the local students. There are required courses in politically correct subjects for everyone. Even the student studying geology finds there is a requirement to study indigenous beliefs about the landscape that have no relationship to what is accepted as the science. Any research project in psychology has to take into account "multi-cultural" ideas and beliefs. Reading lists focus on politically correct texts and thinking. No, I am not exaggerating I have seen the lists and read student essays that reflect all this.

Of course the idea of what a university should be has changed even more in recent years. Now it is openly said that they are there as job factories. Courses are taught in accordance with what employers are looking for rather than for the sake of learning. An "arts" degree in English or history or the classics is considered "useless" and something only the less able students will do. Parents tell me it is not what they want for their children. 

I suspect that "political correctness" is not helping any of this. It is considered "good" to be doing a course in the environmental sciences or genetics or robotics. If you must do an arts degree then it should be in gender studies or indigenous culture - both worthy things in themselves but surely no more important than any number of other things? 

I wonder what the function of a student newspaper really is now. There is so much more "on line" activity. People can throw out their ideas at a distance - just as I am doing now.  Students who disagree with the editors of the student newspaper can publish something on line. Do they do it?

I doubt it. Perhaps I am wrong but I suspect the social pressure to agree, to appear to believe in what is being expressed, is very strong. It may be that "free speech" has never really been there and that, if there was any, it is dying from fear.  

 

The cats have gone

or should I say "My neighbours have moved out"?

I did not really know them but the neighbours on one side of me in my new abode have moved out. They were renting and the rent was high. He is a policeman and often works night shifts. It is a stressful sort of job at the best of times so the fact they have "split" does not really surprise me. I knew there was tension there. 

They had two cats. I liked the cats. We would "talk" to each other through the window as I passed. They spent a lot of time sitting on the windowsills looking out. 

"We have one cat each," J... informed me when he came to ask if he could fill my rubbish bin with their rubbish. (I told him he could provided he put it out in the street ready for collection.) 

I wonder about this. Will the cats miss one another. They never seemed to fight...or not that I heard them.

It also made me wonder about other animals missing their companions, including human companions. They do of course. I do not care what anyone says because I am certain they do grieve. They know humans not simply as strange two legged creatures but as individuals. 

When the Black Cat left to live somewhere else she left two cats with our parents. The cats did not seem too concerned about this. They had each other and that large and lively dog who chased them was gone. I was in and out at intervals and the cats seemed to know me but they were strongly attached to Mum (who fed them) and the Senior Cat (who would play "fetch" the table tennis ball with them). They would wait for them to come home.

When I moved back in they had an extra human to care for and they did. Their attention would be divided between us. All three laps were there for sleeping on. When the Senior Cat came home from hospital after quite major surgery the cats watched over him and Mum and I saw very little of them while he spent most of the time in or on his bed. 

Eventually, as happens, one of them died of old age. The younger cat spent hours wandering and staring out of windows. One night he gave the most heart-wrenching howl. It was as if he had finally realised that his mate was not coming back. He attached himself much more firmly to me. I put a towel on the end of the bed. As I worked for years in the corner of the bedroom (not a good arrangement but the only one available) he could spend hours there on "his towel". He "slept with one eye open" most of the time. If I left the house he would almost always be waiting for me. Mum would say, "I don't know how he knew but he went out to wait for you." Surely he could not hear me pedalling from afar? Perhaps he could.

He was almost twenty-one when he died. We all wept. I still miss him. Now I will miss the small "conversations" with the other two cats but not in the same way. I really did not know them as well as I knew our own. How could I?  I just hope they are not missing each other in the same way. 

I warned J... "You will have to spend more time with your cat." He gave me a rueful smile and said, "Yes, I have already discovered that." Cats know. 

"He's eleven and he can't read

yet."

If a parent said that to me I would be very concerned. Yesterday it was said to me by a grandparent. 

I had an invitation to "coffee" with the former owner of our local indie bookshop. It is a lovely shop and much of its ongoing success is due to this woman. She has an encyclopaedic knowledge of the bookselling business and, in particular, of books for children. Although she "retired" from the shop and sold the business many years ago she still does some work for another business. She is in and out of schools all the time and she is only too well aware of what teachers are looking for in books.

I was aware of it too although, perhaps because I see so many children in the library, I had not felt her level of concern. The children I see are readers. Most of them are there to borrow books. Their parents and grandparents think reading is important. It is to be encouraged. What J.... was talking about was something different. 

I called in at the shopping centre on my way home and saw someone else I knew. "You're late today," she told me. I told her where I had been and why and thus came the comment about her grandson. I know the boy but I also know what she means. He is not a "reader". 

He will play computer games if given a chance but the idea of reading a book does not appeal to him at all. He is one of those who needs "interesting topics, simple language and larger print". It is all he is prepared to try...and he is not alone in this.

J... tells me that teachers are looking for such books. The books need to look much more sophisticated than picture books for the first few years of school. At the same time they need to be in language that these reluctant readers can handle. "Middle Grade" topics but very junior language? 

I was reading everything I could at age eleven. Brother Cat was much the same. Our parents used the "Children's Library" in the city as a sort of child minding service I suppose. We would come back to the city for the school holidays and there would be a library day for me and my brother while our parents did whatever else needed to be done in the city centre itself. The librarians did not seem to mind but that may have been because we would head for the shelves and then the wonderful window nooks where we could read and read and read.  We knew how to find the books we wanted to read too. Other children must have come in and out but we seemed to stay for hours. On one glorious occasion we took our lunch with us. It was solemnly handed over to the librarian at the desk and we went to read until she told us it was time to go outside and eat it. We were very careful about washing our hands when we had eaten!

There might be children who would still do that but I suspect even some "keen readers" are happy to leave the library after a short time. We left reluctantly.  

I wonder now how many children are not reading at night the way we did. I know, from multiple sources, that the number of parents reading to children is not as high as it once was. There have always been some who have never read to their children. Some cannot read themselves. There are others who simply do not see it as important. Now though there seem to be parents who say they "do not have time". They apparently cannot find time to do it. Some even struggle to find time for the child who is learning to read to read to them. I know families where the grandparents and the older children are those who hear the younger children do their "reading homework". If your parents are not interested in your reading why should you be interested? You need feedback. You need encouragement. You need to be told it is important.

I wonder how I would get on if I had to go back into school and teach a class of reluctant readers? How would I manage as a school librarian if the children did not want to read? Would a lot of books for those reluctant readers even help? 

Never be able to work again?

I think all Downunderites will know of a certain person who alleges she was raped in the office of a government minister. This allegedly happened after hours and the minister was not involved. 

The experience was said to be so traumatic the incoming government gave her a very large sum in compensation because, so it was claimed, she would never be able to work again. Curiously (or perhaps not so curiously) she now has another job. It has taken four years but she now has a role as the director of public affairs for a public relations company. 

This is surely a role where she will need to be in a "public" role most of the time. There will not be any hiding in the office. She will have to deal with people, all sorts of people.

Perhaps all this is legitimate. I have no idea. I have never met her. I am unlikely to do so. Her case was never settled in court. It was said the potential damage to her mental health would be too great for it to continue.

I also know of two rape victims, both of them at work by people in positions much more powerful than their own. Neither of them received any compensation. In both instances the mental harm done was immense, especially as they lost their jobs. Both of them took on much more menial roles and still look over their shoulders. They have not "recovered" but they have perhaps learned to live with the trauma.  I know these two people well and I would not wish their lives or mental health on anyone.

One of them left me a message this morning and asked, "How has she done it? How can she do a job like that?" 

I have no answer to that but I wonder too. There are plenty of conspiracy like theories flying around. The male involved has been made out to be a serial rapist. There are other charges he must now face but they have not been proven or disproven. He has no paid employment but has apparently been trusted enough to care for children of friends. That seems strange but they apparently trust him.

It will be interesting to see how this person who was said to be unfit for employment ever again will cope with what is likely to be an at least somewhat stressful position. Will she cope? If she does not then will it be blamed on the alleged rape or will it be because she is not able to handle the role?

The mushroom cook or

the mushroom murderer? That is the question which will need to be decided at the end of the trial.

At present there is a case being heard in a neighbouring state which seems to have captured national attention. It concerns the allegation a woman deliberately served her in-laws and another couple a meal of "Beef Wellington" with death-cap mushrooms in it. Three of the four guests died. The fourth will have medical issues for the rest of his life. 

The cook denies she did this deliberately. She says it was a "terrible accident". Whether it was or not will be up to the law to decide. 

Apparently there have been several writers listening to the evidence. Perhaps they plan to write about it? I do not know. 

I am not at all sure I would want to listen to this woman giving evidence. From the media reports she sounds, at very least, a confused and self-centred person who has not been able to make the most of the opportunities she was given. That does not make her a murderer of course but it will not be helping her case.

What it sparked me however was thoughts about eating at the homes of other people. As a child I cannot remember eating at the homes of people who were not directly related to me on many occasions. It was not something we did. We did not often entertain other people to meals either. If it did happen there would be some very special reason for it.  Apart from my grandparents we simply did not do it. 

Did other people do it? I have a feeling they may not have done. In rural areas farmers simply had to be at home to do things like milk the cows. They may go out later in the evenings but even that was limited if they had to be up before five in the morning to milk the cows, feed hens and more.  Perhaps people did it more often in the city? I do not know.

I can remember very clearly the first time I ate a meal in a restaurant. I would have been twelve at the time and we had come to the city for the school holidays. We children were very subdued. There had been an argument between Mum and her mother. Our parents never argued with each other. We had found the argument and the things Nana had said about us very upsetting. Mum was in tears and the Senior Cat was anxious and worried and, I suspect, very angry. As children we were not perfect but we were usually "good" and "obedient".  

There were very few places to eat a meal out in those days. The pubs did meals of course but our parents would not have considered taking us to one. We went to one of the few places in the city centre. It was small and quiet and rather dark. We sat in a corner and barely dared to open our mouths.

I have no idea what else was on the menu because Mum ordered for all us children. What she ordered was what she would have considered a treat for all of us...mushroom omelettes. We ate them silently but we ate everything on the plate. It was all we had, certainly almost all that could be afforded. I can never eat anything like that now without remembering that occasion...and I remember it every time I eat a mushroom.

The "Spider's Web" attack

on Russian aircraft was a masterpiece of military planning. It was also a much needed success for the Ukrainians. It may well have given them some hope if the Russians, at least one Russian, can be convinced that this is a war which is not worth fighting.

I am not totally convinced this will be the case. There may still be an aircraft somewhere capable of carrying a nuclear warhead that this one particular Russian would be more than willing to use. He won't care about the loss of a third of his air force if he believes he can still use a nuclear weapon to do the greatest amount of harm possible.

What was so good about the Ukrainian attack was the fact it was done with a minimal loss of life. If there have been any casualties then we have not been informed of them. At most it seems likely that there has been the loss of a very small number of lives. The Ukrainians are to be acknowledged for this if the Russians do not retaliate with a massive attack on civilians.

I have no doubt that this mad man and his henchmen will attempt such an attack if they still have the capacity. This has been humiliating for him. It will have been a much needed boost for their "enemy" and this is the last thing they want. They had been hoping to wear them down into submission and accept their "inevitable" fate of once again being part of the Soviet empire. The plans for "buffer" zones are nothing more than plans to take the country by gradually moving the boundaries of those zones.

Someone cheerfully told me this morning that "this will be the end of the war" but I doubt that. It could even lead to increased issues. The humiliating losses will not lead to success in the peace talks. To give in now will show Russians that their "strong" leader is actually weak. His position depends on remaining "strong" - or at least being seen to be that way.

There will be other high ranking Russians who must be wondering when they too will need to "fall" from high windows. They will wonder when the guns are being loaded to be used against them. There will be a search for those who have assisted the Ukrainians in this matter too because there must have been inside assistance.

The ordinary people on both sides are undoubtedly tired to death of this pointless war. I won't wish death on anyone but perhaps moving some of them to a penal colony in a remote area would help. 

Making a film of a book

is something I am never likely to be involved in. Perhaps it is just as well. 

Someone is writing about this in the state newspaper this morning and I have had reason to think about it all over again.  My viewing of such films has rarely been a happy experience especially where a book for children or young people has been involved.

Reading the article I thought back to a DVD I watched last year. It was something called "The secret of Moonacre Manor". One of my young friends at the library told me it was "fantastic" and I really should watch it. She was so enthusiastic and her mother was so encouraging that I borrowed the DVD to watch.

The story is supposedly that of "The little white horse" by Elizabeth Goudge. This book won the Carnegie Medal in 1946 and it is so good it is still available in print now. It is a book that I loved as a child. I knew exactly what Maria was like. I could see her clearly. 

The film was nothing like the book. It was an intense disappointment. There was only some vague relationship to the book.

It made me think of other film adaptations I had seen. I think all of them have been disappointing in that what I imagined was not at all like what appeared on the screen. Then I tried to be fair. I think Colin Thiele was pleased with the first adaptation of "Storm Boy" but he would not be happy with the much more recent remake. The first one does perhaps give some sense of isolation. The second one could be set on a beach anywhere in the world.  

I know Alan Marshall was quite happy with the adaptation of "I can jump puddles". He had never expected that the book would be of such interest to others. He was an old man when the film came out but friends said he was "very pleased" by it. Perhaps it was good to see his childhood through the eyes of someone else? 

The other film adaptation I know something about is Ivan Southall's "Let the Balloon Go". Ivan talked to me about the book even before he had written it. I think I really do know something about what he was aiming at.  "Trying to get inside John's head is one of the most difficult things I have ever done" he once said. He later said that, while he thought the film was "quite a good story" it did not succeed in getting inside John's head. Could a film even do that? If it cannot then should a film even be made from the story? 

Adult film versions of books often take liberties. They may even be necessary at times. It probably does not matter too much. If the author is still alive they may even agree to these and have a hand in writing the words.  Many adults who see a film may never bother with the book. It may not be of concern if they do not. 

Is it the same for children? My own feeling is that it does matter if the child does not read the book or have the book read to them. A film, however good, is not the book. It is a different experience. Children do not have the life experience to understand that...and it matters. 

Playing sport is dangerous

and it needs to be recognised as such.

Okay, okay I am not suggesting people do not play sport. It does have benefits too, recognised benefits. That said, it is also dangerous. 

Brother Cat once tried golf and ended up accidentally hitting someone in the head with a golf ball. The other person is still a friend but there was a great deal of blood and anxiety at the time. These days Brother Cat is looking at ankle issues brought on by compulsory sport at school.  He is lucky that is all. It could also be knees, hips, shoulders and hands.

Middle Cat played every sport she could. She was on the state team for two sports and was considered for the national team for one of those. Yes, she was good but now she sets off the alarm as she goes through airport security. Joint replacements tend to do that.

There was a story in this morning's paper about a former footballer looking at the potential amputation of a lower limb because of injuries during his career. This is not the first such story and it will not be the last. Football is a contact sport.

Last week there was a story about wheelchair rugby. I can personally inform you that, even at the most amateur of amateur levels it is a very dangerous game. The boys knew what they were doing the night they loaded an extra wheelchair into the van and took me off to "watch". I lasted about five minutes on the "field" before they laughed and let me sit on the sidelines. Most of the time I kept my eyes closed so I could not see them charging into one another.

At least there is now some recognition that at least some of this can cause serious injury and that the worst of these injuries may not be visible. Brain injury in contact sport is now being recognised and should have been recognised long ago. They now have to send children with head knocks off the field immediately and even immediately is too late in my view.  Padded helmets might help a bit but they are not the complete answer. And only adults foolish enough to risk it should be allowed into a rugby scrum.

So why on earth has someone come up with an idea that seems to be a combination of all that is wrong and called it a "sport"? The RUNIT or RUNIT Straight idea where people deliberately collide with one another while carrying a football is the height of stupidity. At least one person has already died and more will if they continue to take the risks this involves. Trying to ban it now will probably see those foolish enough to involve themselves "play" this "game" illegally. 

Yes, some exercise is good for us. Most of us do not exercise enough but others exercise too much and in the wrong way. All too often they are lauded for doing so. They are made into "heroes" but they are anything except that and it is time to recognise it - particularly if they indulge in RUNIT. 

Frightening children into believing in

the worst case scenario of climate change is apparently considered acceptable by our Federal Education Minister. He has been reported as saying that what is being taught in schools is "age appropriate". Research suggests otherwise? He still believes it is "age appropriate".

The "Institute for Public Affairs" research will be "wrong" of course because it is a "right wing think tank". Children need to be informed of the "very real problems" facing us. Five year old children need to know about climate change, about the dangers and more. They need to go home, distressed, and inform their parents they should not be eating meat or using their cars, that they should have solar panels and the battery to go with them, and that they should only be planting natives in the garden. In school every lesson should be related somehow to climate change and the danger it poses to humankind. Teachers should use every opportunity to get the young to understand how serious this is.

No, I am not exaggerating. It may not be put into those words but the reality is that this is what is happening. Perhaps most of it will be more subtle than that but some of it will be blatant scaremongering. This is the national curriculum. It must be taught. 

Teachers who do not believe in climate change may as well resign. The vast majority do care about the environment and the do believe the climate is changing. Do they agree with what the national curriculum requires them to teach? It would be interesting to know just what they think but there is no research of which I am aware. My guess is that many of them are concerned by it.

I thought back to my own school days. In rural areas we had a close association with the environment and the landscape around us. We knew it had to be cared for because the livelihood of farmers depended on it. We knew where our food came from in the way that country children do, that cows had to be fed and milked.  In school we were taught about the process by which a loaf of bread came to be. In the tiny "town" I first lived in we saw the sheep in the paddock (field) next door to our house that became the chops and stews our mothers cooked. I don't think anything was hidden from us apart from the actual slaughter of the sheep but most adults did not see that either. 

It was much less obvious in the city but there we still had lessons about wheat and sheep and loaves of bread. We had lessons about the "market gardens" the post-war Italian community worked to provide our vegetables and how potatoes grew in the best soil in the south-east of the state.  We were taught about the Goyder line, the "dog fence" and the problem of "rust" in wheat.

We also had the annual "Arbour Day" at school. There would be lessons about the importance of trees and caring for them. We would go to the "big oval" and other locations and each class would plant a tree. We knew about their root systems and the rings which showed what the "weather" had been like. School would finish earlier than usual in the afternoon and we felt good about "our tree". We were being taught to care for "the world around us". The word "environment" would have meant nothing to most of us and "climate change" was not mentioned. It did not exist even in the minds of most adults.

I think we were lucky. We grew up knowing we had to care for the world around us but without fear of it or for it. The idea that even very young children need to know about CO2 emissions and "net zero" and the many dangers related to climate change seems wrong to me. Surely teaching them to care for the environment in a positive way would have a greater impact?  

Dumping rubbish

outside charity shops is illegal...but people do it anyway. We all know what happens. Boxes filled with broken toys, dog-eared paperbacks, stained clothes, chipped crockery and much more appears as if by magic overnight. In the morning the charity has to deal with all this. It has to take in things that have been ruined by soaking rain or further damaged by being kicked along the street. It all has to be sorted and the things that are completely useless need to be collected by the council rubbish vehicles. 

There are people who dump their rubbish in at such places deliberately. There are others who believe that "oh it might be good enough for someone" and many other thoughts in between. I have seen all this, heard all this and more at one of our local charity shops. That they have a team of volunteers working during the day who are willing to take things which can be sold makes no difference. People will still dump rubbish. Making the charities responsible for it has been the "easy" way to deal with the problem. It costs charities in this state many thousands of dollars every year.

We took a lot to this shop in the process of clearing the house and moving me into this much smaller place. Right through the process I tried to make sure that everything was clean and of a standard that someone else might actually want it. I did not try to pass on anything I thought they could not sell. There were several items I was unsure about so I asked. One thing was turned down but the manager said cheerfully to me, "I know who will take it." She actually called them and someone came to pick it up.

"You give us such nice things," I was told as I handed over the shirts the Senior Cat had worn. They had been washed and ironed and were on cheap dry-cleaning hangers. A friend had done this for me when I told her where they would go. It was one of those simple gestures which can mean so much.

But today there were reports of a neighbouring council which was going to prosecute the workers in a charity shop for clearing up the rubbish left around their premises. Yes, that is correct. They were going to prosecute the workers, the volunteers, in the charity shop for clearing up the rubbish. The council argument was, "Once you touch it then it becomes yours." This was how they had decided to interpret the law. 

It took the state newspaper to make the matter public and make the council see sense. Here were people doing the responsible thing at their own expense. They were clearing away rubbish other people had dumped and paying council rates to have it collected and they were going to be prosecuted for doing this?

The council has apparently "seen sense" and will not be prosecuting those who were attempting to make sure the footpath was clear but it all makes no sense to me. People need to be much better educated about what can go up for a sale. They need to ask, "If I need an item like this and I have a limited income would I buy this one? Is it good enough for that?" Perhaps it is time to teach that in school. It might be of more use than some of the politically correct matters which ar taught.

Dumping rubbish at charities is illegal.Dumping rubbish on charities should be illegal too. 

Buying a mobile phone

should be a simple matter - yes?

Of course it is not. It becomes even more complicated when the would be user has issues with manual dexterity and would much prefer something she could actually use with ease.

I have a mobile phone but it needs to be replaced. It is no longer reliable. There is no auditory alert of an incoming call so I need to be alert to a little green icon popping up. This usually means returning the call with apologies. This is more than a little irritating to both of us. Nobody has been able to solve the problem. 

Yes, it is an old flip-top but it does have 4G capacity. It should be okay to make and receive calls. I can also receive a text message but sending one is a different story. There is no internet access on the plan I am on but the cost of this would outweigh the benefit because there is a limited amount of data which can be stored. I could go on. 

It has been fine until now. I am not wedded to the phone. I avoid giving out my number if possible. I do not want to be contacted in the wee small hours unless it is an emergency. My family and the police have my number for that reason and anyone else who dares to call at that time may no longer be a friend. I dislike phones and making phone calls is something I find stressful.

But, Middle Cat and I are planning the Big Trip. This phone will no longer do. I need a reliable phone that can do some things we used to do on paper. I will need flights and accommodation. In order to enter the UK I need a photograph and relevant information. I will need to be able to find things, make inquiries, do things....it is all done on a phone - or so they tell me. Even more importantly I will need access to my email and a bank account. Sigh....

I spent almost the entire day yesterday looking at various sorts of phones. I read reviews. I visited websites. I compared prices. At the end of it I was no wiser. I think I understand why touch screens are more popular - but they are also more difficult for me to use. My current phone has "big" buttons - not that they are actually that big or as big as some phones but they are bigger than some. Apparently you can get a sort of delay on a touch screen and that might help but it is not available on all phones. I found a tough looking phone with a keyboard but it is heavy and it is made in China which may pose a security risk for me. Sigh again....

It seemed to me there were phones available which would do anything you asked of it...even start the dishwasher or turn the oven on. Yes, I suppose those things could be useful for some people. I just suspect that most people do not need to do anything more than make and receive calls. It might actually be good if they could only make and receive calls...unless of course they are planning the Big Trip.   

Our power bills are going up again

and it seems that almost nobody is even daring to complain about this for fear of being thought a "climate change denier".

Alexander Downer, former Foreign Minister and High Commissioner in the UK, has a regular column in the state newspaper. This morning he has pointed out that the residents of this state pay the most for power anywhere in the country. 

We also have the most reliance on "renewables", the most frequent fluctuations and the greatest need to import power from another state.  This is not something which is mentioned in the media and most certainly not something mentioned by those responsible for supplying our energy needs. 

Companies with high energy needs go elsewhere for the most part. Those who do stay here stay because they get propped up by tax payers. Our local council has taxed us in order to provide "free" solar panels to those who do not already have them. The cost benefit of doing this has been negative, not the positive the Mayor would have us believe.

All this is being done without a plan of any sort. There are "bits" being done here and there and "pieces" being done there and here. Nobody seems to be absolutely certain what the solution is or who is doing what or even when some of it will be done. There is no national solution. We just keep hearing "renewables, renewables" and "infrastructure" and "it will take more...".

Yes, it is a mess. It is a mess which is going to get worse if people are not a great deal more realistic and do not start working together. What is happening right now is not, as many would have us believe, about "climate change" and "net zero". This is about power games in politics and the money to be made from pursuing policies that have not been properly thought through.

Many of us will try to take care of the environment around us but it will not succeed if politics, policies and financial power take precedence.  

A doctorate in political science does not

mean you are an economist. It also seems it does not mean you are intelligent or able to listen to advice from people who do understand economics. The Treasurer in Downunder's national parliament is one such man.

The government has a big problem. The country is in debt, far too much debt. We are not in the happy financial situation many people believe. There is a debt which will have to be paid. If it is not paid by current generations then it will need to be paid by future generations.  It has another big problem. It has to pay for the day-to-day running of the country. There is a third problem and that is that they need to at least look as if they are carrying out the costly election promises they made.

There are other economic problems of course, many of them. Not the least of these is one of the most clumsy and complex tax systems in the world. It is extraordinarily difficult and expensive to run our taxation system. It is also highly inefficient.

So why on earth would you add to the complexity of the system? This is just what our Treasurer is planning to do. It is a plan of such extraordinary stupidity that it is difficult to believe he can even consider it. 

What it amounts to is a system of double taxation on what he claims will be a "very small" number of people, those with superannuation balances over $3m. That may seem a great deal to those whose superannuation balances are well under the million mark. Mine is so far below even that I am, short of someone else buying me a winning lottery ticket, never going to see a million dollars anywhere. It would be nice but it is not going to happen. 

For some other people however it is going to be different, very different. Superannuation contributions are compulsory for both employee and employer. They are taxed. There is, rightly, an expectation that once you have paid tax you should not need to pay tax again. If your assets increase in value but you have not divested yourself of them then why should you suddenly be required to pay tax on that increased value?

Apparently the government, or at least the Treasurer and Cabinet, believe this is perfectly fair and reasonable. It does not affect them in anyway. Our Constitution does not allow them to be taxed in this way. Yes, this is correct. The rest of us are subject to different rules. 

The legislation to do this has not yet passed parliament. It will get through. The government has the numbers in the lower house and they will have the support of the very socialist Greens in the Senate. Once it has been passed it is going to be very difficult, perhaps impossible, to dismantle.  They are not even proposing to "index" it so more and more people are going to get caught up in this. 

Yes, it is a "wealth" tax and many people will, as they believe it will never affect them, see it as fair and reasonable. They will see it as "make the rich pay". I am no economist but I suspect that this is not going to work. It will create a great deal of work, especially for those who have the task of auditing the value of our assets, but it may not bring in the riches the government believes even if it is not indexed. People will find other ways, even legal ways, of hiding their assets. Having already paid tax on them once perhaps they cannot be blamed? 

Sales of Tesla cars are

are apparently going down here.

It is not something I know much about. My SIL, a very environmentally conscious person, bought a new EV last year. She did it with money inherited from her mother and believes she has made an environmentally responsible choice. As she lives in another state I have not seen this vehicle. 

Brother Cat is less enthusiastic about it but has supported her. They have so far been able to charge it using their solar panels but the long term cost is, according to his reckoning, "not that cheap". I have not inquired too closely for fear of upsetting my SIL. My brother is aware that, should the battery need to be replaced, the cost of such a replacement could be very big. It is just one of his concerns.

Here in this state a  NIMBY sort of protest has just erupted over plans for TESLA to build a battery factory on a piece of contaminated land in an adjacent suburb. People do not want it there. They want the land, closed to the public for the past eight years, to be recovered as a green space. Those opposing it  apparently see themselves as environmental warriors of some sort. Perhaps they are. They are also opposed to Elon Musk and anything related to him. 

The two things do not seem to go together but this is their thinking and they are making their thoughts heard. I doubt it will stop the plans going ahead. If their council decides to oppose it then there is little doubt that the government will step in and overrule the council.

Recovering the land as a green space would be very difficult to do. It is contaminated with a particularly nasty chemical. A great deal of soil would need to be removed. Other soil would need to be brought in. Suitable vegetation would need to be planted in an area which had been "landscaped" and more. The whole process could take years. All that also makes it unlikely to happen.

I thought of all this as I read through the comments being made this morning. At some point I may be asked for my opinion as to whether the project should go ahead.

I think my response will be something along the lines, "The factory needs to go somewhere. I would like all factories to be contained elsewhere but that is not going to happen. What I would like to see is the requirement to plant three or four times the number of trees that an area the size of the proposed site can hold." 

That way some good might come out of the proposal.  

"What is really going on in Gaza?"

Talking with friends yesterday this was a question that came up. I did not comment even when asked for my opinion. 

It is very likely I do know a little more than any of them because they rely solely on local news services for their information. I do not see the "commercial" television stations here. I see almost no television and seventeen minutes an hour devoted to seeing and hearing advertisements is more than I can handle. 

The news I do see on the international news service is perhaps best described as "lop-sided". Yes, bias also comes into it but the footage shown is lop-sided. We are constantly told that "some viewers may find the content in this story distressing".  I wonder however whether a more accurate description might be "many viewers do not see any of this as real". It has simply become alarmingly commonplace.

All the footage of ruined buildings is hard enough but the sight of people living there, especially men carrying tiny bodies wrapped in shrouds, leaves me shaking. It should not be happening...but it is happening.

An aid worker who has been in and out a number of times occasionally gives me small pieces of information. I trust this man as much as I trust anyone in that sort of situation. He is telling me things which rarely get told by those responsible for news broadcasts. Those things matter.

We are not hearing about the protests in Gaza, protests against Hamas. They are apparently growing louder but to protest is dangerous, very dangerous. Hamas does not allow protest unless it is in support of them. Hamas needs to be seen in control.

The control Hamas has is not as secure as we are often led to believe. Hamas is not an army. It is a terrorist organisation with one aim in mind and that is to wipe out the state of Israel. Nothing less than that will satisfy them. They are fanatics. They are radicals. They will stop at nothing to try and get what they want. 

Hamas has no qualms about embedding themselves in among the civilian population. They use homes and schools and hospitals for their own appalling activities. That they might be causing the deaths of innocent civilians by doing this does not concern them. It is a very effective way of working. It makes it so much harder for those they see as the enemy to fight them. 

And yes, they are also using food as a weapon of war.  The problem is not all on the Israeli side. Hamas is also hijacking efforts to distribute aid where it is needed most. They do this in their efforts to keep the civilian population under their control. Hunger and the promise of food are very effective weapons. You provide just enough food to keep people alive but not so much they have the energy and the will to disobey you. Yes, the footage of the bakery with all the bread might look good but the reality is there will be just enough bread to keep people alive. They will not be properly fed and not everyone will get some bread.

Can the UN organise the distribution of food? They say they can. They say they have the means to do it and that they have done it many times before.  Again the reality is rather different. Neither the UN or the Israelis have the means to do it in a safe, fair and equitable way. It requires the cooperation of Hamas as well and that is something which is not likely to happen at present.

The idea that "people can just return the hostages and stop fighting" as one of the group suggested is so far from a solution that I wonder if there will ever be an end to the conflict. 

 

 

The "peppercorn" rents paid by

local interest groups are under review in a neighbouring council area. This is hardly surprising and not really even news.  Word had it that this was going to happen. The council is, like all other councils, looking for more money. 

These local interest groups cover seventeen sports clubs, four kindergartens and fourteen community organisations. Yes, sports clubs take up almost as many places in the review as the rest combined. I do not know whether they share any facilities. The four kindergartens are presumably providing a service the government considers "essential". The fourteen community organisations include things like a CFS base - for firefighting.

Yes. someone has to pay for these and pay for their upkeep. Some facilities can be shared but others cannot. The CFS base is a one purpose facility. You cannot have a gardening club meeting there. The bowling club does not want football boots on their green. The library on the other hand provides not just book related talks and groups but a craft group, a "tech" group and other interest groups. They are live streaming events from an interstate festival too. 

All these things are important, very important. Most people expect to pay something for the use of these facilities. They expect this just as they expect to pay something for membership of an organisation.

It occurs to me however that there are two things we are not talking about. The first is that not everyone can afford to pay. Some of those who might need the companionship or a group the most cannot afford to pay or cannot easily access a venue. Just getting somewhere if you are elderly or do not own a car can be an issue. Someone I know accesses two buses and a train to go to a meeting once a month. She intends to do it as long as she can but it is becoming increasingly difficult and nobody else lives in her area. The second issue is that the venue has to continue to be available. One group recently had to cancel a meeting because another group wanted the space and was given priority because the public had been invited to attend. No alternative space was available at short notice.

People need spaces to meet. Yes, we can pay a reasonable amount to meet in them but they need to be available. Ways need to be found for everyone to afford and be encouraged to meet for their special interests. This is not a luxury but an issue of physical and mental health. Peppercorn rents may be a thing of the past but we still need to ensure that everyone who wants to have access has access to groups they need as much as want.   

The supposed economic benefits of "tarriffs"

are something I will not pretend to understand. I am not an economist. I am a simple minded "cat" with respect to economics. I work on the principle of, "Do I have enough money to pay for the essentials?" Then it is, "If I have paid for all the essentials have I managed to save something for the future essentials?" At the end it is, "If I have done the first two is it wise to spend money on something I would like or want to do but is not essential?"

Okay, it is more complex than that but I suspect most of us work like that. The vast majority of us "splash out" sometimes. We all buy something non-essential or do something we did not plan to do. This is in addition to unexpected bills and the like. Our accounting is often of the sort which asks, "Is there money in my account which can pay for this?" We juggle things. Credit card users will regret purchases, particularly for non-essentials.

The recent election results have shown all too clearly however that we need to be a great deal more economically literate. The government which was returned has made all sorts of promises it cannot possibly keep. The money simply is not there. In order to pay for at least some of what they have said they will do they will need more money. This is the usual situation of course. It is why we pay taxes.  

In this instance however the government is planning to tax some people on money they have yet to earn. This is not the "provisional tax" for the earnings in the following year, money which will be returned if they have earned less than the amount due on the projected income.  This is a tax on money being saved for retirement, on which tax has already been paid.  What is more it is a tax which cannot be applied to some of those earning the most because the Constitution, not the law but the Constitution, does not allow it. 

The government is cheerfully telling us that the proposed provisions will only apply to a tiny number of people. That may be true at the moment but the proposal is not being "indexed" and that means a good many more people will be caught up in this net in the future. This is an issue which has been raised but, so far, the government is not listening except to keep saying that it will affect only a very few. 

It will never affect me. I will never, short of someone else buying me a winning lottery ticket, have enough money to be concerned about the amount of tax I am paying. It does however concern me because , while we need to pay taxes, this seems wrong. Just on fifty years ago one state ditched "death duties". Far from doing the state's coffers any harm it actually increased revenue as people moved in. Eventually the other states had to do the same thing. What is more people were encouraged to save for their future. People knew that if they were to die suddenly then the government was not going to get a share at the expense of a partner or children. Yes, there are other issues with this but it can have a positive influence as well. It might have seemed counter-intuitive at the time but it worked.

I think it was the late Maggie Thatcher who said something along the lines of "the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money". It seems that our government is trying desperately hard to get money that has not yet even been earned. It is doing this in addition to demanding ever increasing amounts of money in other ways.  As I said at the start I am not an economist. I fail to see how this works for the good of all and into the future. Could someone please explain in words of one syllable?