Its war

EXAMPLES OF WORK

 Its war

In the early days of settlement, the municipal authority for Shepparton was located in Echuca, which sat at the north edge of a very large, but sparsely populated Shire. As the surrounding districts started to grow it was decided to split the old Shire and create a new local authority in Shepparton. Negotiations ensued, resolving property and financial issues, where a point of dispute emerged.

A short time before the split, the old Shire, in response to requests from local residents, built a hall meant for the use of the local community (The hall is now the site of the Shepparton Historical Society). The cost of the hall was met from Shire funds and some contributions from local residents. As part of the split, the Echuca Shire Council demanded full restitution, and the new Shepparton Shire refused, reasoning that they'd already paid for it once and didn't want to have to do it again.

After much discussion and disagreement, the Echuca Shire resolved to seize, unilaterally, what it believed to be its rightful property and sent a man armed with a shotgun to stand guard to enforce its claim. It's unclear as to what they believed would ensue at this point, but nonetheless, they ordered the guard to take possession of the hall and resist any attempt by the residents of Shepparton to retake control - presumably by force of arms if necessary.

The guard was duly dispatched and forced occupation of the building commenced.

So, let's for a moment, review.

A local government authority has a property dispute with another local government authority. Instead of referring the dispute to the police, the courts or potentially to a mediator where a resolution might have been negotiated, one government decides to use the threat of force against the other by sending an armed guard into ‘enemy’ territory to seize and occupy the disputed property.

This is an act of war.

To be fair the Shire of Echuca did not officially declare war on Shepparton, but instances of undeclared armed hostilities are common throughout history as are examples of property disputes which have, almost by accident, escalated into open warfare. And there is some debate as to whether local municipal governments can even engage in a war because they are not recognised at all under international law. But as Carl Von Clausewitz pointed out - a Prussian Major General in the early 1800s - all wars are reciprocal and require a decision to attack and also a decision to resist attack. And in this case, that's exactly what happened.

Upon seizure of the hall the members of the Shepparton Shire immediately gathered together and resolved to repossess their valued community asset. No record of their ensuing discussion still exists but a plan to rush and overpower the guard seems not to have been seriously entertained. Cooler heads prevailed. A cunning plan was devised, and the Inspector of Public Nuisances was then charged with carrying it out.

The next day, around lunchtime, a labourer wandered up to the Halls entrance and offered the guard a share in a cold billy of beer - the local brewery was just up the road – along with some of his thickly cut beef sandwiches. It was a hot day, and the guard relented, leaving his shotgun propped up against the wall of the building. Both men retired to share lunch under a shady tree whereupon the Inspector of Public Nuisances leapt up from a nearby hiding place and seized the shotgun.

The guard returned, an argument ensued, and the weapon was discharged over the guard’s head. Defeated, the guard, now disarmed, retreated northward to Echuca.

The Shepparton News in their next issue reports that there was much celebration and slapping of backs over the incident, but it is not known how the Echuca Shire reacted. Presumably, they chose not to escalate the dispute, and some other more reasonable resolution was sought.

Thankfully no one was hurt, but firearms (and a threat of force) were involved. And although the guard from Echuca didn't discharge his weapon at anyone, someone from Shepparton did, albeit as a scare tactic.

And so ended the short war between Echuca and Shepparton, proving for all time that the people of this town are much less excitable and more rational than those who live in Echuca.

 

;)

 

Witchcraft and World War Two

During a spiritual séance in Portsmouth in late November 1941 conducted by Helen Duncan, a citizen of Edinburgh and one of Britain’s most respected materialisation mediums of the time an apparition of a dead sailor appeared and told the gathering that his ship, the battleship 'HMS Barham', had been sunk. The dead sailors’ mother who was present at the séance was distressed and horrified, and immediately contacted the War Office begging for details of any survivors. The War Office denied any knowledge.

The 'Barham' had indeed been sunk by U-331 on the 25th of November with the loss of 861 seamen. However, in the moments after the attack the U-boat, to avoid escorting destroyers and survive the onslaught of depth charges took violent evasive action. The crew of the Uboat were not aware that their torpedoes, fired from only 750 yards away had destroyed the Queen Elizabeth class battleship. Within a few hours of the sinking British authorities took a decision to keep news of the ship’s loss a secret for as long as possible. Partly to protect morale, but also mislead the enemy. (It wasn't until late January that the Germans realised that the 'HMS Barham' had been sunk)

As a result of this unexpected revelation, a careful watch was placed by war-time intelligence on Helen Duncan, a devoted mother of six. While the Government of the time regarded all psychics as crooks and charlatans, they were concerned that more state secrets may be revealed in another one of her séances. And so, in the lead up to D-Day in 1944, she was charged and arrested as a fortune-teller and astrologer, an offence under the Vagrancy Act of 1824. Regrettably, however, for the British authorities, the maximum penalty for such an offence was a fine of only 10 shillings. Because the prosecuting authorities were under instruction from superstitious intelligence officers to examine ways of more seriously penalising Mrs Duncan, a more thorough search of the statute books was begun. After some careful consideration, she was charged under the Witchcraft Act of 1735. This act, which covered fraudulent 'spiritual' activity, prescribed a period of imprisonment as a penalty. (The previous act of 1604 had prescribed burning at the stake).

A jury trial took place in which Helen Duncan was convicted and jailed for nine months. Upon her release (after D-Day) she vowed never again to hold another séance. Winston Churchill would later write a memo to the Home Secretary bitterly complaining about how such activity constituted an abuse of the court's time and the 'obsolete tomfoolery' of the charge.

Helen Duncan's relatives continue to this day to try and clear her name.

To Diane by duncan.wade@mcphersonmediagroup.com.au

Diane,
I sense your indecision so let address the issues you raise point by point

1. Good Roads. You seek to be an effective Councillor and so as part of your deliberations, you identify a number of local roads that need attention, and you resolve to raise this at a council meeting. Assuming it even gets on the agenda - (and you have no power to influence that decision) - a reply comes back from the Director of Infrastructure that the roads concerned have all been identified in the strategic plan for upgrade or improvement and this will take place over the next few years. "But", you say "they need attention now and they... (placing an emphasis on the next few words) ...are dangerous" The meeting, at this point, will defer the issue to seek more information and in the next few days you receive a letter from the CEO which states, in part, that "Council, in consultation with Vic Roads, has robust procedures to deal with road safety issues and funding arrangements with State and Federal authorities allows the Shire to improve and repair local roads that fall within Council's responsibility on a triennial basis."

And so, at this point you can do one of two things, neither of which is going to get you anywhere;

a. Scream "BULL#$%!? it's not good enough. You're "robust" procedures are full of #$%!". In which case you alienate yourself from the council staff, possibly a few local councillors and look like just another hysterical female to the local community

b. Quietly approach some key members of Council's staff and politely suggest that the priority for upgrade be rearranged to include the roads you've identified as needing attention. In a split second your fellow councillors accuse you of unfair manipulation, corruption and Armageddon. And you thought you were being diplomatic.

"Oh, well," you say (still not without hope) "that didn't work" And so you move on to the next issue.

2. Clean Public Toilets. Having worked out the agenda problem you raise a concern about the hygiene standards of Council toilets. "All toilets should be clean" you assert and everyone agrees. "Absolutely - Yes - Couldn't Agree More" they say and vote accordingly. Good. Issue resolved. You feel much better about yourself because you just demonstrated that you can be effective. Except that nothing changes.

3. Non-race-based policies in welfare issues. Obviously a core issue with you. When you try and use the forum of Council to state your own policy position the CEO points out that "these issues do not sit within the responsibility of the Shire" The CEO refers you to higher authorities that are "better resourced to deal with these issues" In this case he's right. Local Government is not the best place to try and overturn Federal and State Government policy. And there are compelling laws (Equal opportunity, Racial Discrimination) and regulations. So no joy (from your perspective).

4. A clean city environment. This time you get the attention of the mayor. "So you have some concerns about rubbish and graffiti? I refer the Councillor to the Director of Infrastructure and Development....next item on the agenda?". That's all fine and dandy except that the Director isn't talking to you after the Roads issue and so suggests a tour of the tip, and graciously, he emails you a brochure.

Now you're really pissed off, wondering why you got involved in the first place and for the first time you begin to understand why Jim Cairns (an ex-deputy Prime Minister of Australia) decided to sell books outside some grocery stores in Melbourne instead of continuing in Federal politics.

5. A full lake. Well, turns out that Council has a plan for that except that it involves rain and a considerable amount of it. "Sit tight," they say "it will rain you know - at some point - in the fullness of time and at the appropriate juncture". Because it's best not to anger the Almighty you choose not to blaspheme and taking the advice of John Howard, engage in quiet, fervent and regular prayer. You ensure that pictures are taken.

6. Full and Open Financial disclosure. Ok, here's a hot issue. Where does the money come from and how is it spent? You prepare yourself for a passionate and potentially cataclysmic debate with Council. "No stone," you say, "will remain unturned!". You invite the public to attend the Council Meeting, encourage them to raise issues and look forward to raised voices and pointed argument. The day finally arrives, you turn up with a list of questions and, unexpectedly, copies of the Councils annual report for the last five years are handed to you with a short, polite letter that states that "the agenda items you requested to be listed for this meeting relating to revenue and expenditure have been deleted. Your issues have been referred to the Director of Business and Finance and an appointment has been made on your behalf."

The Mayor, who is the signatory to the letter, states that "we are confident that these important issues will be addressed in full at this meeting"

Your supporters, all of whom were in it for the long haul brought sandwiches and hot thermos to the meeting are bitterly disappointed and several late-night, angry phone calls take place.

Your determination is still strong, but now somewhat fragile. Still, you decide to move on.

7. Who is pushing for water to go to Melbourne? A very big issue and one which resonates throughout the community. But now you're dispirited and have no faith in the processes of Council. You're unable to determine a strategy to get your issues heard. And so you resolve to make a pact with the devil - you approach the press. The press is polite - one local publication wants to punctuate your comments with advertorial, the other offers a photo and an interview. You accept the offer. "At last", you think, "someone is prepared to listen." But, despairingly, at the last minute, this article gets pulled in favour of a recipe for Anzac Biscuits. You are left to wonder about what the hell is going on, and whether you could bargain to get your soul back.

8. Ok, just one last try. Why do ratepayers need to fund a freight centre on a flood plain? Good question! Or is it a good question? Confidence is rock bottom. No one is listening and any support you had within Council has evaporated. So you turn to religion. The Exclusive Brethren have a large support base in the district and are known to support politicians who favour their policies. So you offer to address the congregation. Your offer is accepted and so you turn up Sunday afternoon ready to give a rousing sermon about God and Local Government - except they won't let you talk because you're wearing earrings.

9. Finally, ultimately you decide to support frogs. You plant trees, write books, and sit outside a local grocer on alternate Sunday mornings. Everyone likes you - but no one buys your books.

Ah, well - at least you had a go.

 

A Pokie in the Eye

Wednesday, 22nd April 2009

The assertion by the chief executive that the Shepparton Club may close its doors because of changes to Victoria licensing laws is a statement that could be described as less than genuine.

Recent modelling conducted by Dr Charles Livingston; Senior Lecturer at the Department of Health Social Science at Monash University reveals that clubs are likely to see revenue from their pokies machines more than double. Once the new laws are fully enacted each machine in place at non-profit venues such as the Shepparton Club is expected to generate an average $47,000 per annum (after-tax). If the Shepparton Club chooses to retain its 60 machines then earnings may exceed $2.8 million annually.

In the News today, on page 3 Shepparton Club secretary-manager Rod Drill states that he is concerned about the Club's ability to participate in the auction for licences. As with all auctions, there is some uncertainty as to what value will be placed against such licences, however, it is possible to speculate.

In his study, Dr Livingston believes that the highest price that could be reasonably paid for a single licence would be two years retained earnings per machine or $94,000. For 60 machines this would add up to approximately $5.6 million. Add to this $600,000 to purchase the machines themselves (@ approx 10,000 per machine) and the worst-case scenario would see the Shepp Club pay a total of $6.2 million.

However, the Government has determined that full upfront payment is not required and proposes that repayments can be in instalments. Paying the licence fees can take place over four years with 10% deposit, 10% at start-up and the rest in quarterly instalments, or roughly $310,000 every three months.

Where cash flow from 60 machines is likely to exceed $235,000 per month (and this is retained revenue, not just turnover), then repayments to the Government could easily be fitted within the Club's operating budget.

But where does the initial capital come from to purchase the licences and the machines?

A pokie licence is valid for ten years, and so the combined value of 60 machines to the Shepparton Club can be calculated in the tens of millions. Without speculating too much on the Club's current financial position it would seem reasonable to assume that even if it resolved to borrow the entire $6.2 million to purchase both the licences and the machines, then the projected revenues over the decade would easily account for any loan.

Nevertheless, are we losing sight of the bigger picture?

Pokie machines are acknowledged to the arch-enemy of those on low incomes. In the years since their introduction the number of people who have become destitute or otherwise seriously financially disadvantaged due to gambling now number in the tens of thousands. On top of this the community benefit obligations that most clubs must conform to have been distorted to the extent that revenues intended by the government to be spent on projects to benefit the wider community have been directed by the clubs into wages, salaries, renovations, cut flowers and paying the electricity bill. Clearly, these kinds of expenditures are self-serving and assume that what is good for the club is good for the community, which is not necessarily the case.

As part of its community benefit obligation, the Shepparton Club donates $10,000 to hospice care and provides meeting spaces for community groups. While these are both worthwhile causes, I would suggest this barely meets the legislations minimum requirements and certainly doesn't conform to the full spirit of 'community benefit' as intended under the legislation.

So why should we care if the Shepparton Club goes under?

In depending so heavily on pokies the Shepparton Club has put itself at risk and assumed that the business environment would never change. It is simply a bad strategy never to seek to diversify and attempt to insulate yourself against the failure of one revenue stream. Should the Club be unsuccessful in its attempt to secure its existing pokie machine licences then failure can only be blamed on its own management.

It can be safely assumed that the benefits pokies bring to the community are strictly limited beyond their short-term entertainment value. Both the Government and the Victorian Gaming Industry have their very large noses in a very deep trough, fed largely by contributions from a section of the population that can ill afford it. Should the Club be forced to close, as the secretary-manager suggests, no doubt valuable jobs will be lost but what, in the long term will the community save?

More at

<url>http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20090114-Victorian-pokies-.html</url>

 

Is there any way at all?

Monday, 16th February 2009

When the units of the CFA were forced to retreat from our small towns in the face of the approaching firestorms Victoria suffered its worst loss of life in living memory.

And all of us became witness to the passing of entire communities.

These ordinary people were not expecting catastrophe. They held their ground in the expectation that they would be presented with a choice. They could choose to fight for their homes or, if they thought that battle was fruitless, they could turn and flee. They had no understanding of the ferocity of the approaching storm. They had no understanding that, once the fire took hold, there were no choices. The residents of Marysville or Kinglake would not be protected just because they were determined or resolute or stubborn. The choice was stripped away from them.

On Saturday these two communities were abandoned by the CFA and DSE. They were destroyed by firestorms unprecedented in their destructive power and which had been started, probably, deliberately. The men and women of the CFA who withdrew from those communities that day will never forget their choice, made under instruction, on behalf of their safety and with the stated intention that they would return.

Of the many images published in a Melbourne daily newspaper is the picture of a home in flames at Marysville where the inhabitants, trusting in the resilience of their house never left, and were, once the storm took hold, unable to flee.

Our Premier says that we must never allow such a thing to afflict us ever again, regardless of the circumstances. He says that there must be a way.

We cannot abandon our communities to fate, explaining the environment as the enemy. It would mean further clearing of our temperate forests at precisely the time when we need to invest more in their preservation and expansion. And when our forests burn, they release millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. If you believe in global warming then this represents a latent threat not only to ourselves but to the rest of the world.

So there has to be a way.

Our environment, in its flourish, is beautiful. Our soaring eucalypts, staggeringly picturesque wattles, our parrots, kangaroos and the rest of our native wildlife each deserve their place amongst us. And so the balance we choose to make between the welfare of our wildlife and our own economic prosperity demands that we protect both.

So what is the answer?

When Australia was threatened with invasion in 1942 we built, by ourselves, in the circumstances of a national emergency, an entire defensive infrastructure. It remained untested but it galvanised all Australians in the achievement of a single objective where the entire population numbered less than half of what it is now.

So there must be answers to the questions before us.

What would happen if we bombarded an approaching firestorm with liquid CO2 and were able to starve it of oxygen? Should we deploy specially built robots into the face of the firestorm to explode clouds of C02 bombs into its midst? Can we protect an entire community via a network of industrial strength sprinklers, feed from underground tanks filled with stormwater runoff? Why can't we provide our fire fighters with bunkers that shelter not only themselves but their trucks and equipment as well? Can we construct large, fireproof places of refuge?

Is there any way, at all, we can stand and confront a firestorm on something like equal terms?

It's down to us.

 

Winter, December 1945

Tuesday, 23rd December 2008

By December of 1945, the war in Europe had been over for seven months. The Allied armies had settled uneasily into their Zones of Occupation, and somewhere between five and seven and a half million Axis soldiers were held in rudimentary detention camps across Germany.

The war had devastated a great deal of central Europe. Roads, bridges, cities and towns were in ruins. Outside of the military, food was a scarce commodity, and most civilians were surviving on a ration of only 1200 calories a day. For not the first time in its history, starvation again stalked Europe. Eventually, it would claim upwards of a million lives.

Immediately after the cessation of hostilities, the victorious Allied armies had directed that all food relief be directed away from Germans, and the German Red Cross was disbanded. When the Pope intervened to provide food and medical aid supplied by Chile to German infants the US State Department banned the imports. By early October 1945, the death rate amongst German adults had risen to four times their pre-war level, and children were dying at ten times pre-war levels.

For the former soldiers of the Reich, December 1945 would prove to be desperate indeed. As part of the post-war agreement made by the three Allied powers, former Axis soldiers and POWs were to be conscripted as forced labour, as part payment from Germany to the Allies for post-war repatriations. However, such treatment of prisoners of war was specifically banned by the 1926 Geneva Convention to which the United States, Britain and France were all signatories. So, in June 1945 the Allies reclassified the millions of former German soldiers in its care to be members of the DEF (Disarmed Enemy Force). With the dissolution of the Third Reich, the US State Department argued that these soldiers were now to be considered "stateless" and therefore were not entitled to the protection of the Convention. It was the same argument used by the Germans after the capitulation of Poland.

Across most of Europe gangs made up of thousands of ex-soldiers were put to work to reconstruct what had been destroyed. In Belgium and Holland, 2000 soldiers were being killed or maimed each month to mine-clearing accidents and death rates for forced labourers under Soviet control varied between 19% - 39%, depending on the industry. The death rate for ex-soldiers held in the US Zone of Occupation was four times the rate compared to those in the British Zone. General Lucius Clay, Deputy to Eisenhower and later Commander in Chief, US Forces Europe, said "undoubtedly a large number have already died of starvation, exposure and disease. The death rate in many places has increased severalfold, and infant mortality is approaching 65 per cent in many places. By the spring of 1946, German observers expect that epidemics and malnutrition will claim 2.5 to 3 million victims between the Oder and Elbe"

It would take most of the next decade before the work gangs were finally dissolved and soldiers returned home. The last German POW was discharged in 1956, 11 years after the end of World War 2. Of the seven and a half million soldiers known to have fallen into Allied hands after the surrender fully 1,300,000, to this day, remain unaccounted for.

But many believed then, and still believe that this was the price of defeat, for the mayhem, the despair and the destruction inflicted by the Nazis on Europe.

It was the price for Dachau, Auschwitz and ‎Treblinka.