Decades ago the government promoted a form of energy efficiency recognition by the allocation of a star rating for electrical appliances. Customers in electrical stores are now familiar with a sticker on the front of fridges and washing machines. The more stars on that sticker the better because those products with the most stars are the cheapest to run by way of the electricity used.
The era of rooftop solar panels to generate electricity for home owners has changed the game. When those solar panels are installed they come with a meter that shows exactly how many watts of power the panels are delivering, and that depends on whether it is a day of full sun or if the weather is cloudy. Many home owners quickly learn to estimate the likely meter reading by a quick glance out the window - and plan their energy use accordingly.
The key to understanding energy usage is the term "Watts "which describes the amount of power, just as litres describes liquids and kilos describes weights. We need to know how many Watts of power each electrical item uses to balance this against what our solar panels are delivering. For instance, can we run the washing machine at the same time as we vacuum the carpets - or should be vacuum first before we start the washing machine ? The Watts delivered by our solar panels are free - and we save money by using them rather than using power charged through the electricity meter - but to do that we need to know more about how much each electrical item consumes.
That star rating was a good idea in an earlier age, but now it would be a better idea if the manufacturers of all electrical items - including everything that runs on electricity - were required to display a notification of exactly how many Watts that item consumes if run constantly for one hour. In that way, people could balance the input from their solar panels with the output required to match use with the electrical items that they wish to use - to obtain maximum cost efficiency.
It could be said that this would only benefit those with solar panels, but in reality we are already becoming conscious of what the Watt implies. When electricity prices surged most people replaced the old incandescent light bulbs with the new - but more expensive to buy - low energy units and discovered that a mere 20 Watt bulb would deliver the same amount of light than the previous 100 Watt globe.
At present, the vast array of electrical items in the average home delivers little knowledge of it's electrical efficiency. The Watt usage per hour should be a required display on computers, printers, televisions, and even on the charging stations for accessories such as mobile phones and tablets. Where such items have a "stand by " capacity, both stand by and off at the switch mode should both be displayed. The world has advanced beyond the need of a star system for major items. We need the precise consumption rates for all electrical items in our household to better manage electricity usage - whether solar or charged through the meter.
As most canny shoppers well know. Items with a single star are usually the cheapest of the products on display, because they cost the most to run. We need a law change to require electricity usage in Watt terms because the manufacturers of inefficient energy products will not voluntarily display that information. Such a requirement will also be a huge incentive to upgrade the product to make it more competitive.
That old star system served us well in the past, but it applies only to major items and our needs are fast changing as innovation increases the electrical items in use. If we are to gain control over our electricity consumption we need legislation to mandate the energy use of all forms of electricals - and that can only be achieved by national legislation !
Saturday, 14 February 2015
Friday, 13 February 2015
Saving the Farm !
New limits have been imposed on foreign ownership of Australian farmland. Previously, the cut-off point was $ 252 million before a foreign purchaser needed the approval of the Foreign Investment Review Board and now that has been reduced to just $ 15 million. The Australian Taxation office has been ordered to "stocktake " the current foreign ownership position and report on the present situation.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this review is the fact that the new $ 15 million limit is cumulative. The past $ 252 million applied to each purchase, hence a foreign buyer could accumulate any number of additional farm properties to acquire a large holding, provided each purchase did not exceed that $ 252 million price tag. Now foreign holdings carry just a $ 15 million limit on a foreign investors entire ownership of land anywhere in Australia.
There is suspicion that this move is directed mainly at China, but many world countries are prudently trying to acquire overseas agricultural land to safeguard future food supplies for their own citizens, but in the case of China we need to look further at land acquisition policies because of the closed nature of the Chinese form of government.
A centralised Communist government may try and get around our holding limit by using it's vast numbers to acquire ownership by individuals which fall under that $ 15 million cap, but which in reality become the property of the Chinese state because each purchase is really held in proxy by the nominated purchaser.
There is a danger that such a tactic could result in a piecemeal patchwork of farms rather than the broad acres style of farming which applies in the big agricultural nations that supply the world food supply. Japan has a costly and inefficient farming situation because it's family farm lobby protects small holdings and high tariffs limit overseas competition. A similar scenario exists in much of Europe - and it seems that feeding a growing and hungry world will fall to the lot of countries like America, Australia, Argentina and South Africa.
A century ago, farming was mainly a family affair and when sons grew up and married it was the custom to give them a piece of the farm, resulting in some farms eventually becoming too small and uneconomic. Today, the need is for the expansion of farming land to allow the efficient use of costly machinery and to bring in the crop sizes needed to meet world demand. The fragmentation of farms is the exact opposite of best farming practice and yet if we are not careful that is precisely what applying a low foreign ownership limit may create.
Perhaps we should be encouraging farm ownership to be in the hands of big public companies - in which foreign interests may invest money - but which remain Australian entities tasked with profitably producing food for the Australian and export markets. The sticking point in many Australian minds is the concept that some foreigner may "own " the soil of Australia and dictate what will be grown on it - and where that product will end up.
There seems no doubt that food will be a future item of friction in world affairs and we would be well advised to plan for that future - now. Keeping the ownership of Australian farms in Australian hands by placing reasonable limits on foreign ownership would have a high priority in most citizens minds. The government should think long and hard to ensure that this objective is met !
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this review is the fact that the new $ 15 million limit is cumulative. The past $ 252 million applied to each purchase, hence a foreign buyer could accumulate any number of additional farm properties to acquire a large holding, provided each purchase did not exceed that $ 252 million price tag. Now foreign holdings carry just a $ 15 million limit on a foreign investors entire ownership of land anywhere in Australia.
There is suspicion that this move is directed mainly at China, but many world countries are prudently trying to acquire overseas agricultural land to safeguard future food supplies for their own citizens, but in the case of China we need to look further at land acquisition policies because of the closed nature of the Chinese form of government.
A centralised Communist government may try and get around our holding limit by using it's vast numbers to acquire ownership by individuals which fall under that $ 15 million cap, but which in reality become the property of the Chinese state because each purchase is really held in proxy by the nominated purchaser.
There is a danger that such a tactic could result in a piecemeal patchwork of farms rather than the broad acres style of farming which applies in the big agricultural nations that supply the world food supply. Japan has a costly and inefficient farming situation because it's family farm lobby protects small holdings and high tariffs limit overseas competition. A similar scenario exists in much of Europe - and it seems that feeding a growing and hungry world will fall to the lot of countries like America, Australia, Argentina and South Africa.
A century ago, farming was mainly a family affair and when sons grew up and married it was the custom to give them a piece of the farm, resulting in some farms eventually becoming too small and uneconomic. Today, the need is for the expansion of farming land to allow the efficient use of costly machinery and to bring in the crop sizes needed to meet world demand. The fragmentation of farms is the exact opposite of best farming practice and yet if we are not careful that is precisely what applying a low foreign ownership limit may create.
Perhaps we should be encouraging farm ownership to be in the hands of big public companies - in which foreign interests may invest money - but which remain Australian entities tasked with profitably producing food for the Australian and export markets. The sticking point in many Australian minds is the concept that some foreigner may "own " the soil of Australia and dictate what will be grown on it - and where that product will end up.
There seems no doubt that food will be a future item of friction in world affairs and we would be well advised to plan for that future - now. Keeping the ownership of Australian farms in Australian hands by placing reasonable limits on foreign ownership would have a high priority in most citizens minds. The government should think long and hard to ensure that this objective is met !
Thursday, 12 February 2015
A Choice of Evil !
Alcohol is addictive and it kills a lot of people, but we would ban it at our peril. The Americans tried that when they passed the Volstead Act in 1920 and until 1933 the United States was "dry ". In reality, it was awash with grog ! It poured into the country over unsealable borders and illicit breweries flourished in every state. It was the era of "Speakeasies "- hidden bars operated by criminals to provide the liquor that ordinary people craved.
Vast sums were spent and the police tried to stop the flow - to no avail, and in 1933 prohibition was lifted - and it became legal to drink alcohol.
Temperance societies tried to ban alcohol in Australia and for many years we had very restrictive laws - and these were constantly broken. Alcoholics have a shortened life span and many die of cirrhosis of the liver. Alcohol features in many fatal road accidents and is the cause of much "death by misadventure ", but taking the broad brush approach reveals a very different picture.
A huge number of Australians use liquor sensibly. Most of us can remember an occasion when we had "one too many "at a party and there are some who go on a regular Saturday night "bender ", but are totally sober for the rest of the week. The drunken hooligans who give Kings Cross a bad name usually calm down in later life. Alcohol is a problem we have learned to live with.
There seems a strange correlation between prohibition in America and the war we are steadily losing here with drugs. Just as people demanded their liquor and broke the law to get it, those that crave a "high " on the party scene are just as determined to get it - and law enforcement here has been just as unsuccessful as the US cops in imposing prohibition.
What if we accepted that it was lawful to buy a drug that delivered a high on demand ? At least it would be a product produced in a legitimate factory to a known strength, unlike the volatile products produced by untrained people that now flood the market - and often kill users.
Our laws encourage the crime scene because big money can be made. We spend a fortune on law enforcement trying to stop drugs and we fill our prisons with drug people, but all that does little to stop the endless flow reaching willing customers - and that is the salient point of the whole exercise.
We will never win the drug war as long as people crave the high drugs deliver - and can we really claim that there is much difference between popping a pill for a high - or consuming a vast amount of alcohol ? At least those pills legally available would be of a known quality - and as a new product it would be contributing to the tax net.
Drugs would certainly continue to be abused - just as alcohol is abused - but just as now it is only a segment of the population that abuses both products, and we would have completely deflated the drug crime scene. Making such drugs legally available is a big risk, but eventually defeat has to be faced.
Making such a decision sends politicians of all stripes blanching in horror !
Vast sums were spent and the police tried to stop the flow - to no avail, and in 1933 prohibition was lifted - and it became legal to drink alcohol.
Temperance societies tried to ban alcohol in Australia and for many years we had very restrictive laws - and these were constantly broken. Alcoholics have a shortened life span and many die of cirrhosis of the liver. Alcohol features in many fatal road accidents and is the cause of much "death by misadventure ", but taking the broad brush approach reveals a very different picture.
A huge number of Australians use liquor sensibly. Most of us can remember an occasion when we had "one too many "at a party and there are some who go on a regular Saturday night "bender ", but are totally sober for the rest of the week. The drunken hooligans who give Kings Cross a bad name usually calm down in later life. Alcohol is a problem we have learned to live with.
There seems a strange correlation between prohibition in America and the war we are steadily losing here with drugs. Just as people demanded their liquor and broke the law to get it, those that crave a "high " on the party scene are just as determined to get it - and law enforcement here has been just as unsuccessful as the US cops in imposing prohibition.
What if we accepted that it was lawful to buy a drug that delivered a high on demand ? At least it would be a product produced in a legitimate factory to a known strength, unlike the volatile products produced by untrained people that now flood the market - and often kill users.
Our laws encourage the crime scene because big money can be made. We spend a fortune on law enforcement trying to stop drugs and we fill our prisons with drug people, but all that does little to stop the endless flow reaching willing customers - and that is the salient point of the whole exercise.
We will never win the drug war as long as people crave the high drugs deliver - and can we really claim that there is much difference between popping a pill for a high - or consuming a vast amount of alcohol ? At least those pills legally available would be of a known quality - and as a new product it would be contributing to the tax net.
Drugs would certainly continue to be abused - just as alcohol is abused - but just as now it is only a segment of the population that abuses both products, and we would have completely deflated the drug crime scene. Making such drugs legally available is a big risk, but eventually defeat has to be faced.
Making such a decision sends politicians of all stripes blanching in horror !
Wednesday, 11 February 2015
Lindt Cafe Aftermath !
It was inevitable that every aspect of the Lindt Cafe siege would be sifted through and carefully evaluated to see what could have been done better. It was a "pressure cooker "situation and unfortunately two hostages met their death as well as the perpetrator.
The police were the first on the scene and they cleared the area and evacuated buildings. This was the correct response because there was the threat of bombs - and a claim that a number of bombs were placed around the city. A police sniper was positioned with a view of the cafe windows but an actual shot through toughened glass would have been a last resort because of collateral damage to the hostages.
The main criticism seems to be on who should take control during the sixteen hour siege that followed. Siege response was part of police training, but they had little actual experience of live situations and it may have been better to call in the Army's Tactical Assault Group ( TAG ). The TAG has taken down sieges in other parts of the world where the army has been operating and they carry special weapons suited for such missions.
Attention is being concentrated on the actual assault immediately the terrorist executed one of the hostages. The police raiding party fired twenty-seven rounds and this is being compared to the response that would have been expected from the TAG. The police were equipped with assault rifles while the TAG would use Heckler and Kock MP7's and are trained to fire just two rounds - the famous "double tap " that kills hostage takers.
Considering that one of the hostages died of a ricochet from police fire and several others sustained minor wounds this is valid criticism. It is essential to clearly define who has the ultimate decisive control in hostage emergencies to ensure that the best action is taken to bring the matter under control with the least risk. Sometimes, taking that decision may cross traditional command boundaries. It is absolutely essential that loyalties do not lead to commanders making the wrong decisions.
The lindt Cafe siege was a timely warning. It is quite possible that Islamic terrorists may strike again and that could happen in other states and even in other that capital cities. We need to establish command protocols that ensure that the response is both timely and adequate - and that it cuts through command structures to achieve the best result.
In this instance it was clearly handled well, but with a little fine tuning there could have been improvements. It was a valuable learning experience and from that we should be able to coordinate both the police and the military to combine in a joint operation that uses the special skills available to get the best result.
The police were the first on the scene and they cleared the area and evacuated buildings. This was the correct response because there was the threat of bombs - and a claim that a number of bombs were placed around the city. A police sniper was positioned with a view of the cafe windows but an actual shot through toughened glass would have been a last resort because of collateral damage to the hostages.
The main criticism seems to be on who should take control during the sixteen hour siege that followed. Siege response was part of police training, but they had little actual experience of live situations and it may have been better to call in the Army's Tactical Assault Group ( TAG ). The TAG has taken down sieges in other parts of the world where the army has been operating and they carry special weapons suited for such missions.
Attention is being concentrated on the actual assault immediately the terrorist executed one of the hostages. The police raiding party fired twenty-seven rounds and this is being compared to the response that would have been expected from the TAG. The police were equipped with assault rifles while the TAG would use Heckler and Kock MP7's and are trained to fire just two rounds - the famous "double tap " that kills hostage takers.
Considering that one of the hostages died of a ricochet from police fire and several others sustained minor wounds this is valid criticism. It is essential to clearly define who has the ultimate decisive control in hostage emergencies to ensure that the best action is taken to bring the matter under control with the least risk. Sometimes, taking that decision may cross traditional command boundaries. It is absolutely essential that loyalties do not lead to commanders making the wrong decisions.
The lindt Cafe siege was a timely warning. It is quite possible that Islamic terrorists may strike again and that could happen in other states and even in other that capital cities. We need to establish command protocols that ensure that the response is both timely and adequate - and that it cuts through command structures to achieve the best result.
In this instance it was clearly handled well, but with a little fine tuning there could have been improvements. It was a valuable learning experience and from that we should be able to coordinate both the police and the military to combine in a joint operation that uses the special skills available to get the best result.
Tuesday, 10 February 2015
The " Terror " Dividend !
We are naturally concerned at the prospect of battle hardened terrorists returning to Australia from the IS war in the Middle East but the methods IS uses to control it's troops could deliver a huge intelligence dividend. It is encouraging to learn that in Germany about two hundred jihadist fighters have returned to that country and about one in five are giving active assistance to the intelligence services.
The IS recruitment appeals to impressionable young men with dreams of adventure. The reality of their inclusion in IS ranks is completely different. They are treated with suspicion and absolute submission is demanded. Passports and mobile phones are confiscated and it is made quite clear that they will obey all orders given, even if those orders go against their moral conscience. The penalty for refusing an order is instant death.
The IS recruiters and trainers use a "test of courage " to ensure their message gets through. A prisoner is picked at random and the new jihadist is ordered to commit murder - and often in a grisly manner by using a knife instead of a gun - and that's where human nature works in our favour.
It seems that this brutality fails to connect some of these recruits to the IS cause. They have no option than to obey, but it is done with revulsion. It is evident that those returning to their home countries contain a percentage who can be easily "turned " - and as the German experience shows, that can be the turning of the tide when it comes to terror on the home front.
A jihadist sickened by the sheer brutality of IS and the slaughter of other Muslims just because they do not embrace the fanatical concept of the religion that IS favours will quickly lose the iron grip exerted on the battlefield. Back in normal surroundings that is a person who knows the "who "and the "where "and the "what " of what is being planned in the mosque. In the eyes of IS, that person is a trusted convert - and that could prove to be the "Achilles heel "of home grown terrorism.
The IS leadership seems intent in glorifying brutality and is quick to place videos on the Internet for all to see - and terrify their enemies. The fiery death of a downed Jordanian pilot probably had a counter reaction from many Muslims. That man was clearly a prisoner of war and IS was signalling that it was conducting total war. In place of terror it probably produced disgust in the broad Muslim diaspora. Perhaps those that plan their propaganda are a little lacking in the psychology department.
We need to use psychology in establishing liaison with returnees to take advantage of the revulsion IS is creating in their better cultured recruits. The olive branch will be more productive than the whip. We certainly need to maintain vigilance, but we should be careful to nurture a welcome for those who have turned away from the violence to which they have been exposed. It would be a tragedy if a heavy handed interrogation from the security people undid the softening that being reunited with loved ones and a return to the placid life of the Australian community was having as a comparison with the death and violence of the IS battlefield.
It is evident that the gung-ho which many recruits take with them when they choose to fight for IS quickly evaporates when they experience the reality of mindless terror. Carefully marshaled this resentment can be turned into a tool to allow us to fight back and destroy from within. Perhaps IS has more to fear from returnees - than the Australian community at large !
The IS recruitment appeals to impressionable young men with dreams of adventure. The reality of their inclusion in IS ranks is completely different. They are treated with suspicion and absolute submission is demanded. Passports and mobile phones are confiscated and it is made quite clear that they will obey all orders given, even if those orders go against their moral conscience. The penalty for refusing an order is instant death.
The IS recruiters and trainers use a "test of courage " to ensure their message gets through. A prisoner is picked at random and the new jihadist is ordered to commit murder - and often in a grisly manner by using a knife instead of a gun - and that's where human nature works in our favour.
It seems that this brutality fails to connect some of these recruits to the IS cause. They have no option than to obey, but it is done with revulsion. It is evident that those returning to their home countries contain a percentage who can be easily "turned " - and as the German experience shows, that can be the turning of the tide when it comes to terror on the home front.
A jihadist sickened by the sheer brutality of IS and the slaughter of other Muslims just because they do not embrace the fanatical concept of the religion that IS favours will quickly lose the iron grip exerted on the battlefield. Back in normal surroundings that is a person who knows the "who "and the "where "and the "what " of what is being planned in the mosque. In the eyes of IS, that person is a trusted convert - and that could prove to be the "Achilles heel "of home grown terrorism.
The IS leadership seems intent in glorifying brutality and is quick to place videos on the Internet for all to see - and terrify their enemies. The fiery death of a downed Jordanian pilot probably had a counter reaction from many Muslims. That man was clearly a prisoner of war and IS was signalling that it was conducting total war. In place of terror it probably produced disgust in the broad Muslim diaspora. Perhaps those that plan their propaganda are a little lacking in the psychology department.
We need to use psychology in establishing liaison with returnees to take advantage of the revulsion IS is creating in their better cultured recruits. The olive branch will be more productive than the whip. We certainly need to maintain vigilance, but we should be careful to nurture a welcome for those who have turned away from the violence to which they have been exposed. It would be a tragedy if a heavy handed interrogation from the security people undid the softening that being reunited with loved ones and a return to the placid life of the Australian community was having as a comparison with the death and violence of the IS battlefield.
It is evident that the gung-ho which many recruits take with them when they choose to fight for IS quickly evaporates when they experience the reality of mindless terror. Carefully marshaled this resentment can be turned into a tool to allow us to fight back and destroy from within. Perhaps IS has more to fear from returnees - than the Australian community at large !
Monday, 9 February 2015
The "Fad " Era !
People who jump aboard the latest "Fad " have always been with us. Miracle weight loss diets are common but sometimes the subject becomes more serious. We are seeing over protective parents withdrawing their children from NAPLAN testing because they fear that sitting a simple test will cause harm by increasing anxiety. Even more worrying, an ever growing cult is refusing to have children vaccinated against childhood diseases, allowing once vanquished scourges to regain
a foothold.
This latest Fad has some self opinionated mothers refusing baby formulae and replacing it with a formulae of their own construction - known simply as "bone broth ". It seems to have the approval of a few trend setting Naturopaths and of course it is fast becoming a talk topic on the Internet.
A vast number of recipes are going the rounds and many include boiling up a broth that includes bones, chicken feet, chicken necks, apple cider, vinegar and filtered water. Pseudo intellectuals make amazing claims and we are hearing from Mums who declare that they "would not think of giving their child that artificial commercial product ".
Long suffering dieticians who work for the commercial formulae companies know that human infants are less prepared for the world that their animal kingdom counterparts. Human breast milk is engineered by the human body to provide just the right balance to develop blood and brain tissue and develop kidneys that are under strength at birth. Balancing the formulae for newborns is an exacting task that is a constant subject of research.
Commercial greed in China saw cow's milk adulterated with Melamin to improve profits and this filtered through into Chinese manufactured formulae - with fatal results for some babies. This brought a demand rush for Australian and New Zealand formulae and quickly emptied supermarket shelves. Rationing was introduced and limits applied at airport customs to prevent overseas visitors using infant formulae as contraband - to sell for profit back home in China.
It seems that Australian and New Zealand baby formulae remains the most trusted product in the most populated world country and all our manufacturers have increased production to meet that demand. It seems that all it takes to tear down that enviable reputation is for the emergence of a few "visionaries " to extoll a theory of their own - and denigrate a product that has been tested and recommended by the world of science and has a proven track record.
It also seems that these emerging visionaries are short on academic qualifications, and long on what some call "the gift of the gab " - the ability to sound convincing. Their spiel is attractive to conspiracy theorists, those who distrust governments and all forms of industry and rely on folklore more than scientific fact. These same folk often claim to have the knowledge to cure diseases such as cancer and claim that commercial powers are keeping such discoveries from becoming known to suit their own interests.
Those who uphold the principle of free speech usually impose limitations. Someone who shouts "fire "in a crowded theatre and starts a deadly stampede could not rely on that as a defence, and surely there must be limits on claims made on health grounds that deliver known risks.
a foothold.
This latest Fad has some self opinionated mothers refusing baby formulae and replacing it with a formulae of their own construction - known simply as "bone broth ". It seems to have the approval of a few trend setting Naturopaths and of course it is fast becoming a talk topic on the Internet.
A vast number of recipes are going the rounds and many include boiling up a broth that includes bones, chicken feet, chicken necks, apple cider, vinegar and filtered water. Pseudo intellectuals make amazing claims and we are hearing from Mums who declare that they "would not think of giving their child that artificial commercial product ".
Long suffering dieticians who work for the commercial formulae companies know that human infants are less prepared for the world that their animal kingdom counterparts. Human breast milk is engineered by the human body to provide just the right balance to develop blood and brain tissue and develop kidneys that are under strength at birth. Balancing the formulae for newborns is an exacting task that is a constant subject of research.
Commercial greed in China saw cow's milk adulterated with Melamin to improve profits and this filtered through into Chinese manufactured formulae - with fatal results for some babies. This brought a demand rush for Australian and New Zealand formulae and quickly emptied supermarket shelves. Rationing was introduced and limits applied at airport customs to prevent overseas visitors using infant formulae as contraband - to sell for profit back home in China.
It seems that Australian and New Zealand baby formulae remains the most trusted product in the most populated world country and all our manufacturers have increased production to meet that demand. It seems that all it takes to tear down that enviable reputation is for the emergence of a few "visionaries " to extoll a theory of their own - and denigrate a product that has been tested and recommended by the world of science and has a proven track record.
It also seems that these emerging visionaries are short on academic qualifications, and long on what some call "the gift of the gab " - the ability to sound convincing. Their spiel is attractive to conspiracy theorists, those who distrust governments and all forms of industry and rely on folklore more than scientific fact. These same folk often claim to have the knowledge to cure diseases such as cancer and claim that commercial powers are keeping such discoveries from becoming known to suit their own interests.
Those who uphold the principle of free speech usually impose limitations. Someone who shouts "fire "in a crowded theatre and starts a deadly stampede could not rely on that as a defence, and surely there must be limits on claims made on health grounds that deliver known risks.
Sunday, 8 February 2015
Righting other Wrongs !
The Parliamentary enquiry into the bugging of over a hundred police officers grinds on. Next week the two combatant deputy commissioners return for further grilling and a statement from the Commissioner seems to be tilting the balance towards the enquiry reaching a conclusion.
The fact that there is tension at the pinnacle of policing draws attention away from other problems the public is having with law enforcement. When police clearly break the law and give false evidence they seem to do it with impunity. Every complaint results in an "enquiry "- but these never seem to reach a conclusion. A case in point.
On March 13, 2011 several young people got off a train at Cronulla rail station. Transit officers accused them of fare evasion. A scuffle resulted in the police being called. The police were led by an acting sergeant and a young woman claims that her feet were kicked out from under her and she fell to the platform, badly injuring her knee. A Transit officer was ordered to sit on her and she was placed under arrest and put in a paddy wagon.
She asked the police to call an ambulance and this request was denied. She was driven past a local hospital and taken to Sutherland rail station - ten kilometres away - and released, despite the handicap of a broken knee. Her complaint to the police brought a denial. The police claimed that she had assaulted them and she had been subdued by a "leg sweep "which they claim to be a permissible police procedure. The matter went to court.
This young woman obtained video evidence of the confrontation with police on the platform of Cronulla station. It showed the sergeant run towards her, speak while she remained motionless for seven seconds, and then kicking her legs out from under her and throwing her to the ground. Lawyers for the police then sought to amend their evidence. Other police present claimed to have no memory of the events depicted in the video.
Clearly, the police lied and were prepared to have her punished by a court for assaulting police. She would no doubt have been convicted - and have a criminal record. The fact that she had sustained an injury and been refused treatment should be a matter of concern to the public. This fate was only averted because she managed to obtain crucial evidence - and as a result she was later awarded $ 243,000 and a similar amount for costs.
The fact remains that next month four years will have elapsed and this police "enquiry "is nowhere near resolved. The Sergeant involved remains on active duty and it is unclear whether perjury and assault charges will be laid.
Cases of this nature erode our confidence in the police. They do a tough job and they are often falsely accused by criminal types trying to evade justice, but the fact remains that a police officer deliberately lied about an event in which a member of the public sustained a serious injury - and was prepared to give false evidence to obtain a conviction. He has escaped penalty for four years and it is doubtful if charges will ever be laid.
It seems strange that a case of alleged corruption at the very top of the police hierarchy is making banner headlines and has cost several million dollars so far - and yet day to day police excesses, and blatant false evidence convictions go unpunished - even when such falsification is exposed in court and costs the state damage awards to the victims.
The police will lie and pervert justice as a matter of course if they know they will get away with it. It seems that the state is frightened of the power of the police union. We will not get a squeaky clean police force until the wheels of retribution make getting caught unthinkable.
The job of the police is to keep the public awed and frightened to commit crimes. That same fear needs to apply to the very people tasked with upholding the law !
The fact that there is tension at the pinnacle of policing draws attention away from other problems the public is having with law enforcement. When police clearly break the law and give false evidence they seem to do it with impunity. Every complaint results in an "enquiry "- but these never seem to reach a conclusion. A case in point.
On March 13, 2011 several young people got off a train at Cronulla rail station. Transit officers accused them of fare evasion. A scuffle resulted in the police being called. The police were led by an acting sergeant and a young woman claims that her feet were kicked out from under her and she fell to the platform, badly injuring her knee. A Transit officer was ordered to sit on her and she was placed under arrest and put in a paddy wagon.
She asked the police to call an ambulance and this request was denied. She was driven past a local hospital and taken to Sutherland rail station - ten kilometres away - and released, despite the handicap of a broken knee. Her complaint to the police brought a denial. The police claimed that she had assaulted them and she had been subdued by a "leg sweep "which they claim to be a permissible police procedure. The matter went to court.
This young woman obtained video evidence of the confrontation with police on the platform of Cronulla station. It showed the sergeant run towards her, speak while she remained motionless for seven seconds, and then kicking her legs out from under her and throwing her to the ground. Lawyers for the police then sought to amend their evidence. Other police present claimed to have no memory of the events depicted in the video.
Clearly, the police lied and were prepared to have her punished by a court for assaulting police. She would no doubt have been convicted - and have a criminal record. The fact that she had sustained an injury and been refused treatment should be a matter of concern to the public. This fate was only averted because she managed to obtain crucial evidence - and as a result she was later awarded $ 243,000 and a similar amount for costs.
The fact remains that next month four years will have elapsed and this police "enquiry "is nowhere near resolved. The Sergeant involved remains on active duty and it is unclear whether perjury and assault charges will be laid.
Cases of this nature erode our confidence in the police. They do a tough job and they are often falsely accused by criminal types trying to evade justice, but the fact remains that a police officer deliberately lied about an event in which a member of the public sustained a serious injury - and was prepared to give false evidence to obtain a conviction. He has escaped penalty for four years and it is doubtful if charges will ever be laid.
It seems strange that a case of alleged corruption at the very top of the police hierarchy is making banner headlines and has cost several million dollars so far - and yet day to day police excesses, and blatant false evidence convictions go unpunished - even when such falsification is exposed in court and costs the state damage awards to the victims.
The police will lie and pervert justice as a matter of course if they know they will get away with it. It seems that the state is frightened of the power of the police union. We will not get a squeaky clean police force until the wheels of retribution make getting caught unthinkable.
The job of the police is to keep the public awed and frightened to commit crimes. That same fear needs to apply to the very people tasked with upholding the law !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)