There was a helicopter overhead

at around 2am. 

It came over so low that I woke. My first thought was "air ambulance" as the flight path they take is usually directly over the house. I will never complain about them. They might well be saving the life of a critically ill person.

But no, this time it had to be the police service chopper because it went around and around and around. It was circling for over an hour. I am not interested in who was being chased or hunted down or what they had done but I would like the opportunity to give them a piece of my mind. I have not had enough sleep.

I don't find it easy to go back to sleep after being disturbed like that. In part this is because I am normally an "early to bed, early to rise" sort of cat. I need to be. I still work with different time zones on occasion. It is not nearly as bad as it used to be but I can still need to do it.

I turned over and curled up again and lay there thinking about other helicopter stories I have been told, about people I have worked with who risk their lives going in and out of some extraordinarily dangerous situations.

Z..., a long time friend and colleague, is an engineer. His special area of interest is dams. He has been all over the world advising on the building of dams, the maintenance of dams and the repair of dams. In the course of this work he has been in some extraordinarily dangerous situations. The latest disaster in Ukraine is the sort of situation with which he is all too familiar.  He lives in Belgium and his wife sent me an email saying how concerned she is that he might be called to go there. He is almost eighty now but his knowledge and skills are so extensive that he still gets called on.

"At least he can't do the flying," M.... told me.

I don't think many people stop to think the footage we saw on the news last night would have been taken by people risking their lives. Helicopters are particularly vulnerable to enemy fire. I suppose their ability to manouvre outweighs the danger but it doesn't take much to cause a disaster. 

Z... will go if he is asked to go. He is a Quaker. He sees it as his role to help those saving lives. He sees it as his role to do what he can to help build, maintain and restore structures which save the environment and assists the lives of those who rely on it.

I'll think of these things whenever I hear a helicopter circling overhead - but it doesn't make for much sleep.  

A severe thunderstorm warning

was not forecast for the early hours of yesterday morning but I was woken at just before 3am by the sound of thunder in the distance. The next I knew the entire sky was lit up by flashes of lightning. 

Eventually we had more than 65,000 lightning strikes and 26mm of rain in just over an hour. Dramatic? Yes. Dangerous? Yes.

We are on the same section of the grid as a local hospital so I knew that, if there was a power outage, it could be serious and the emergency crews could be out there in that weather - risking their lives. Fortunately, we did not lose power. 

But there was something else that concerned me and that was the "rough sleepers". I know there are homeless people who are actually afraid to sleep in any sort of building but this does not mean they should be out in the complete open in that sort of weather. There I was safely in bed and I thought of two rough sleepers I know who frequent this area. I know where they sometimes illegally sleep. They know me. One of them never speaks at all but, on a good day, he will raise a hand in a sort of greeting and I am always careful to respond. The other one will sign "Hi Cat." He isn't deaf but I think his friend might be.

My friend W... was coming to lunch so I did not have a lot of time to go looking for them but I needed to pick up a book from the library as well so I decided to do a check of the most obvious places on the way. They would probably have been made to move on from the local railway station but I did a quick tour of both the up and down platforms and then the adjacent garden - and there they were. They were sitting on a damp log with takeaway coffee in their hands. Their belongings were in their neat daytime rolls. The rolls might be filthy dirty but they do roll them so neatly.

"You guys okay after last night?" I asked. They nodded. I didn't ask them where they had been. I would not have got an answer. I don't know who bought them the coffee, possibly one of the people who tends the little memorial garden. They were unlikely to have bought it for themselves.

And, before anyone asks, these two are not "alcoholics". They have never been seen with alcohol. The local hotels do not know them and the local "beer, wine, spirits" outlet has never come across them. They are possibly former soldiers who simply cannot cope with life. I don't feel at all threatened by them. Sometimes they ride the trains and, if I am there too, they always help me get the tricycle on and off.  They will move on again soon and I might not see them again for months - or they may never come back. We smile at one another and I say "thank you" - and I am grateful for the help.

"Okay - take care. There's more weather coming up." I told them. They nodded again and actually smiled. They had been out all night in the most atrocious weather and they could still smile. I pedalled off feeling guilty because I have so much and, like most people, I grumble and complain at times. 

Reserve Bank Governor

Philip Lowe is probably the most hated man in the country right now. The RBA raised interest rates again yesterday.

Mr Lowe explained why this had to be done. Inflation is still not down to where the RBA Board believes it should be. It was not helped by the increase in wages recently granted by the Fair Work Commission.

All this worries me for many reasons but I also believe Mr Lowe and the Board had no choice. We Downunderites are living beyond are means. We have done so for far too long.

Before the rate hike yesterday I was doing my quick daily check of the (not) available real estate on this side of the city. As I scrolled down the page my eye was caught by a house I know. It is the house on the corner of our street, the one in the opposite direction from which I usually travel. Even the neighbours had not mentioned it was for sale but there it was with an "open" yesterday morning.

I did not bother to go and look of course. I don't want a house. I most definitely don't want a house with a swimming pool. It would also be so far out of my price range it would be ridiculous to believe I could even buy it for half of what is being asked.

Later still in the day I asked someone who knows the people currently living in it what was going on. I had my suspicions - and I was right. They cannot keep up the mortgage repayments. The house has had some lovely "renovations". The pool was put in. They put in an outdoor entertaining area and more. On top of that there are three cars, "his", "hers" and "his toy" - a massively expensive sports car. Yes, both of them go to work in high paid jobs but the person I was speaking to told me, "They can't afford the mortgage repayments. If they hadn't done so much to the place they might have got by."

I wonder how much they will lose - because they will lose unless they are very fortunate. I doubt, and my informant doubts, they will get what they are asking. Rates are likely to go up again and again. I wonder who will be able to afford to borrow at the same levels as people have in recent years. 

P...., who comes and washes the floors for me, and I looked down the street. She moved into their new home about eighteen months ago. They are slowly doing the things that need to be done and she said, "They want too much. We have what we need and we will get the extras later."

I could only agree. Is some bookshelf space a necessity or an extra? I need to think about that.  

Guilty or innocent?

Apparently there is "enough doubt" to release a woman from prison after twenty years. She was there for the alleged murder of her four young children.

Her former husband thinks she is guilty. Her friends don't. The court isn't sure. I don't know enough to have an opinion but I do know it is a mess.

It also made me wonder yet again how many people have been charged with and convicted of "murder" when a baby has died of natural causes.  The idea frightens me.

There is a section in our state show which says, "Handicrafts for others". There are just two classes in that section. One is for toys made for the purpose of giving them to our women's and children's hospital. They are then given to children as "comfort toys".  Some of the things which have been made and donated are really beautiful. A lot of love and care and attention has gone into them. The "winning" items do get awarded a ribbon but winners have often said that making it and knowing it is going to give some comfort to a child is the real reward. I am sure it is.

The other class is labelled "memory boxes". These are small boxes given to a mother who has lost a child, usually at birth. There are never very many of these. I would like to think they are very rarely needed but I know they need more than they get. We sometimes meet the people who have made them, often people who have lost a child themselves. 

Last year a woman came in with her son to pick up the ribbons they had won. Both of them had made almost identical boxes. The judges had found it difficult to choose between the two. Everyone in Handicrafts thought they had both been made by the same person. No, mother and son. There was something about her that told us she had lost a child. Her son, a boy of about twelve or thirteen, was very protective of her. He had a sort of maturity rarely found in a boy of that age. I felt for him as well when he told me quietly, "Mum is frightened of losing me too. I am going to make more boxes with her because it helps."

I hope it does help her. I have no idea how many years had passed but I doubt anyone "gets over it" as is all too often demanded. Now I often wish I had known so much more for my paternal grandmother's sake. She lost seven children to miscarriages. As children we didn't understand that. Our mother, with her Christian Science beliefs, would have held all that to be an "illusion of mortal mind". Her own mother only had two pregnancies and, having brought the necessary son into the world, refused to have anything more to do with the business.  It must have been so hard for my paternal grandmother to see all that. I wish I could hug her now, hug her again and again.

And the woman who has just been released after twenty years? She needs to be hugged because, whatever the story behind it all, she has lost four children too. 

Is it really a picture book?

I have to start by confessing something. I love reading picture books - the sort meant for "little kids". The Senior Cat loved them too. 

The Senior Cat would prowl around the picture book shelves in our local indie bookshop and choose presents for the very young children of his acquaintance. (He would give the older children book vouchers because he believed they should learn to choose their own books.) He would read picture books to the very young - if he wasn't making up stories for them. 

I do the same. Middle Cat remarked only yesterday that I happen to have two copies of Jen Campbell's "Franklin's Flying Bookshop" on hand. Yes. I want to make sure that a very young one of my acquaintance can have a copy when he is old enough to appreciate the story. I have several other "second copies" of books on hand for children I know. I am observing them now and I will know when they are ready for some things and not others, whether their developing personalities will need one book rather than another. It's important to give children the right book.

Let me repeat that. It's important to give children the right book. I try to give children books that I believe they will enjoy, that they will want to keep, that will last. 

I do not want to give children "books about...." because some issue or other happens to be in the news. I don't want didactic books. I don't want books with "overtones". Books given as gifts by me should be given so as to be enjoyed.

All this has come up because someone sent me a "tweet" and asked if I thought a book was suitable for children. It is a book by Harry Woodgate. Apparently there was a previous book by the same author. I missed that one. When I asked about it at our local library one of the staff looked at me and then said, "Ask ..... about that." 

I asked and she told me, "We had to put it in eventually but I don't like it. We have the second one coming too and that is much worse in my view. Little kids don't need to know about that sort of thing and it is going to upset a lot of parents. I'll be talking to parents about it in Storytime - just to warn them."

The two books in question, "Grandpa's Camper" and "Grandpa's Pride" both feature men in gay relationships. I don't have a problem with that as such. It's a fact of life and many children will be aware of couples in same sex relationships. The difference here though appears to be that the books are designed to overtly teach children about gay relationships, about "Pride" relationships, about "transgender" issues. The second book includes a picture which actually says, "Trans children are wonderful".  There are other pictures I would also question. I would question the entire story in fact. I also doubt that it will capture the imagination. It just doesn't feel right to me.

I can imagine a child's picture book where same sex couples are there in a much more indirect way. A book where they are shown through the pictures rather than words and where the relationship is not made an issue of at all might have a great deal to commend it.

But, I don't feel comfortable about the Woodgate books. They have been published by the well respected "Andersen Press". I suspect they have been published under duress or because one person on the staff has issues with the themes involved.  Is that the best reason to do it? 

I left the library feeling disturbed. I had to pass the shelf where the older child, a girl, had once looked up at me and said the words which are seared into my memory, "I'm sick of AIDS and death and divorce. I just want a good adventure story." That was a long time ago now and it seems things haven't changed. Perhaps it is time to insist on some "good adventure stories"? 

No, you can't have fun in the workplace

because work places are for "work". They are for treating everyone equally and with respect. They are there to get the job done and not to have fun. 

Ooooh, I could go on. I go in and out of workplaces occasionally and they have changed. I would once have prowled in with reasonable confidence that I would be greeted with a pleasant smile and a "Can I help you?"  

Now I am likely to be greeted, if I am greeted at all, with someone walking past and glaring at me. Yes, truly.  They don't want strangers in the workplace any more. They aren't sure how these oddities might upset the delicate balance of the office. Will they do the right thing and ask, "Are they in?" or will they ask, "Is she in?" 

And how does the stranger get addressed and referred to? All of this is just the start of the problems that now need to be addressed.  

If you doubt me then let me tell you that I went to a small meeting yesterday. There are usually just five people. We know one another well. We meet a few times a year to sort out a couple of ongoing issues. We never start with any sort of formalities. One person keeps the record. We go away knowing what we need to do, if anything. It has been like this for a long time now. Things get done and, even if I say it myself, done efficiently.

Yesterday was different. There was a new person present. "They" want to take over from someone who needs to leave. Oh, it was suddenly all so different. "They" wanted to start the meeting formally with an "acknowledgment of country". We were informed about "their" preferred pronouns. Everything we discussed was questioned. Ways of doing things, ways where people have been trusted to do the right thing or simply do as asked, were criticised. We were told these things were no longer possible. "It isn't the way things are done now."

"They" finally left. The rest of us looked at one another. I have spent years working with the group but I was feeling it was time someone else was found. I could see at least two more people felt the same way.  

"This isn't going to work. I think it is time we disbanded. They will find other ways of working," the person who has generally taken the lead said.  

They will have to find other ways of working. I came home and sent a carefully worded email and said I felt I could no longer work in a "modern" environment. It's a relief. I didn't really have the time to give. "They" can find like minded people and change the world... but I don't think it will be quite as helpful or well run and we won't laugh over the teapot any more.  

Ben Roberts-Smith has been

found guilty in the court of public opinion and in a civil court - not in a criminal court. He has yet to be found guilty of the offences the civil court found were not defamatory.

There is a vast difference here between the claims made and someone actually being guilty of the offence or offences claimed. Yes, people appeared in court and made claims but those claims were not proven to the standard required.

I know this is going to confuse a lot of people. My own memories of "criminal law" - a subject I did not enjoy - are not as good as they should be. I do remember something very clearly. The standard of proof for conviction in a civil court is "on the balance of probabilities" and the standard of conviction in a criminal court is "beyond reasonable doubt".  

There is a vast difference between those two standards. That is as it should be. At one time a conviction for murder could result in the death penalty. The standard needed to be "beyond reasonable doubt" and, as we all know, the courts do not always get it right. 

Even the standard applied in the civil court - where, in this case, accusations have been made - can fail. "On the balance of probabilities" depends in the Roberts-Smith case on recollections in the theatre of war and on personal relationships, indeed animosities. 

The judge in this case could only go on the "evidence" presented to him. He has to presume those giving evidence are telling the truth. He has to apply the law to the information before him. 

Defamation proceedings are always difficult. They almost always arise out of a desire to see someone fall from grace. In this case there was also a desire by the media to sell a story which would get senior "investigative" journalists awards and bring in a great deal of advertising revenue. 

Journalists are not actually interested in the truth or otherwise of a story. They are interested in how to tell a story so that it sells. In my line of work I see this over and over again. I get one story from aid workers in the middle of it all - and they can also vary greatly - and see another on a television news service. The news service is there to tell a story. The aid workers are telling me about what is actually happening. Believe me please; they are two different things.

I don't know Roberts-Smith. I am never likely to even meet him but until he has been tried and convicted in a criminal court I am not prepared to say, "He appears to be guilty of the offences charged." He isn't. Senior journalists of long standing know this too. Their reputations have also been damaged.