Jerry_Atrick

Yes, though threw my back out moving that large kitchen cabinet, so not much today... just cleared some more dishes into the room where the cabinet is.. We aren't replacing the flooring in the bottom two photos - they are elm boards and you can't get them anymore (not new, anyway and second hand they are a king's ransom). The top two photos are the kitchen flooring - it is very old pine and rotted in some places. We are ripping it up and puttinng engineered oak in - which will make it look amazing, one hopes. The elm will be sanded.. There is some pine finishing, but we will use a light oil seal to try and keep the colours similar and hopefully not look too different. Sparky, whios is a mate, was in today, and happily, there is very little earth leakage; We will have to bring it up to spec with the boards and breakers (I have to look up what we are getting).. 22222222

Well, I guess Albo is hankering for more flood.. him riding in to save the day makes such a good photo opportunity

Er, the church is next door... and we have our own gate to access it. Well, we started pulling the kitchen apart today... Packing is a pain.. but here are some photos: The above is where a kitchen dresser/cabinet was. Note the black paint on the floor is bitumen to handle damp. The floor is coming completely up All the cupboard doors and draws out... ashing all f the dishes as we managed to get a load of dust on them.. The lower and upper side of the kitchen cabinet in the dining room.. that room will be our kitchen going forward. All the radiators have been taken down. The white box in the background is the ceramic (I think) butchers sink that will go into the kitchen. I managed to get a decent splinter in my finger, so will see how it goes before going to get it cut out.

No longer a policeman? Yes.. Retired? After reading his reno blog, I am not so sure 😉

I must admit, I thought it was a little odd, too.. Which is why I mentioned if it is true.. However, just because most people don't act violently if they are rejected or humiliated does not mean the majority of those that do commit DV don't do it out of those feelings. In other words, for some reason, they may be particularly sensitive and emotionally fragile to those feelings even if the majority of men aren't; in the same way that not all men commit DV, not all men react the same way to any emotional upset. The point I am making is that whatever the experts have identified as the major root cause (or causes) is where the resources have to be put to in order to slowly, and hopefully prevent it happening in the future. But sabre rattling, rabble rousing or similar to cajole an emotional response in men to provide knee-jerk reactions may do more harm than good. In the case of your friend having to go through what really is indefensible, her husband's jealousy may well be driven by fear of being humiliated by having her flirt with some co-workers and he may have been preventing being, in his perception, being humiliated. I honestly think a lot of controlling types of people are that through some form of insecurity; but it is what I think on anecdotal evidence and not ony any study I have read. My ex-fiancee was always trying to control me and even threw out the "if you go and play football with your mates, I'll kill myself" threat, She was always accusing me, of all people (because I wasn't terribly confident with the ladies), of having affairs and flirting. And she finally did try and lash out.. It all started nicely, but progressively got uglier; we didn't stay together for too long after her behavioiur deteriorated. My guess is they are already internally angry - self-provoked - and it doesn't take much to reach the threshold where they lash out. It is not defensible per se, but w have to try and understand the root cause. My partner's father was the same with her mother (and he did bash her, and we ended up getting her mother out of the house bruised and beaten up); and her brothers were similar, too.. no bashing as far as I could tell, but totally domineering and worried their partners were off with every fella they laid eyes on. I was at a family gathering in the early days of the relationship, and one of the brothers brought his girlfirend along. The brother's girlfriend and I were sat next to each other at a long table of about 30-ish people that neither of us knew (except for the immediate family), and of course our other halfs were sat next to us. We had never met each other before, but as we were bored listening to family stories, we got talking to each other and were just having a laugh. After the festivities, my ex accused me of flirting with the bo's girlfriend and he accused her (separately - I had no idea at the time) of flirting with me. She was nowhere near my type and I am sure the feeling was mutual. But it is not controlling per se, but the unease at the fact their partners could be having fun with someone else, which of course, though their insecurity (and both of them were) gets them perceiving a threat that their partners will run off into the sunset and the humiliation that will cause. I have seen similar with others I know as well... In contrast, the partners I have had and those of mates of mine that are confident of themselves seem to not have the same issues of needing to control people, and don't react as jealously when conversations of their partners have had have headed towards the flirting zone (not that I have any of those anymore). So, I am not so resistive to the findings, if they are well researched, of course.. but I admt it is still hard to fathom.

I haven't read Waleed's article nor this reply: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/oh-waleed-only-a-man-could-write-that-20240503-p5fotc.html But the headline of the reply makes me tink this is sinlking into a gender war of some sort, on the assumption Waleed's article is remotely accurate. One of the problems I have with humanity is that we are emotionally driven, and I count myself squarely in that corner, though lately, I am a fan of the numbers telling the story. In terms of intimate partner homicide, the numbers tell the story that it has been reducing for some time., There is an uptick, yes, and we should be having rational conversations about the causes. If research shoes that the major root cause is as Waleed writes, then all of the sabre rattiling of men need to do this and that to stop the baddies is futile - why? Because, if a man is beating his wife in response to some sort of humiliation he is subject to, and we say to that bloke he shouldn't be doing it, it may trigger further humiliation and have the opposite affect. Ad look at the graph of women killing men.. has anyone noticed, it is converging (except for the blip), despite trending downwards as well? In some stat I looked up, most of the women killing intimate male partners, the woman has been long-suffering in an abusive relationship. Fiven the wonward trend of that stat, would also imply that, at least as a percentage of the population, abuse is either coming down or women are putting up with it more (and without delving into the numbers, one can't tell). Don't get me wrong, one killing through violence is too many - regardless of who does what. But all of society has to be open to what the root cause is. Society has to rethink its approach to DV.. There was an article I read (of which the sentiment was echoed on a previous post not on this page) that the system is inherently weighted against the system because the woman has to leave with the kids and is disrupted, This is correct in theory, but when subject to DV, isn't immediate safety the greatest convern. If there are resources provided to allow her to leave rapidly with protection (easier said than done, granted), and a well resourced team that can almost by default slap an AVO on the alleged perpetrator and barring him from the house (i.e. court order to vacate, etc) then she can move in quickly. Of course, this sould be available to men suffering DV as well. Then you could secure the kids at least while a specialist unit deals with the case rapidly to establish the facts. With all of the types of techological coercian and electornic trails, it should not be hard to establish a pattern fairly quickly to deetermine if the whole thin was real or vexatious. And then, as part of the process, if there is found to be DV on a sustained basis, clearly there is an issue (not just an extremely heated argument where someone snapped). Part of the consuequences through the criminal system would then have to include some sort of clinincalintervention to deal with the root cause to try and stop it from happening again. Of course, by this time, turning an adult around psychologically is a much harder proposition, but also if the kids have been exposed to it, they may well be desensitised to it, or even adopting some of the behaviors, so interventioon should also be considered on that basis. And of cours,e the victim may well be truamatised and also need intevention, too. You can start seeing that the cure is costly and requires a lot of resources. But, hey, some of the billions iin corporate welfare paid out by the government each year could be redirected to build up and sustain an approach - coupled with education. After time, in theory, the cost should reduce as the levels of DV reduce (assuming it all is performed by competent and conscientious people). It's just an idea that came to my head - not saying it is the right thing to do. But, if governments really want to sort things out, they have the means to prioritise accordingly... and getting them to priorotise it is best done by threatening losing their vote if they don't do anything.. Which is no doubt why there is dsabre rattling going on at the moment.. That sabre rattling has to be done in such a way that they don't alienate the people that should be helping them.

Russia's war with Afghanistan went for how long?

Yes - thanks Peter.. great to hear he is fine.. But what is he doing working so hard?

So luxurious there, he can go waterboarding.

Actually, I think it looks cool.. Should be easy to spot on a blue sky without clouds, and of course, on a grey day...(or given it is N reg, gray day)

How intimate, you, two 😉 I haven't seen one covered in tatts over here.. I think a small one here or there... I personally don't care, and it may well allow them to connect with those they have to keep under control, so could actually be a benefit. Yeah - when left Aus, the Vic Police still had the older style uniforms; when I first came back, it was a much more casual affair. But, thinking about it, for chasing and wrestling down those whom they protect us from, it is probably easier in the new kit compared to that of old. I will always go for function over form, but would be interesting to hear from a retired policeman.

Not limited to EVs, but because of the ubiquitous of social media and its propensity to cause harm to society by spreading BS like this, which seems too readily accepted by those who see it, I am thining it is high time that the internet is much more heavily regulated than it is, and when perptrators post this stuff recklessley or with an intention to deceive, then jail time is a calling. Of course, catching them, and spoofing people is an issue.. but it can be done.

If anyone has his personal email address, may be worth dropping a line to it..

Is it a binary question?

Awww c'mon.. I was slapped around the head by my missus for not eating my sprouts because I am only 5'6" tall... And I don't like the bloomin things

Sorry about the multiple posts.. I don't think people are blaming individuals today for yesterday's crimes. Neither you nor I are at fault for the illegal declaration nor the mistreatment for generations afterwards. But, as a society, i.e. collectively, we are in a position to start to make things right... Are we not? In the 90s I think, Germany started paying reparations for the atrocities they committed in WWII.. That includes de-nuding poeople of their assets such as businesses, fine art work, etc (it cut across religions and races, BTW). Very few Germans by that time were alive who were anything but children in the war - and one could hardly hold them accountable. But the society recognised they needed to try some token of making goof for what their forebears did. I think the press make a meal out of it and portray it as if Aboriginals are blaming people today for the colonisation of Australia; some may, but I think you will find many don't.

I would agree - it isn't all about displacement and years of systematic oppression, but I would wager that it has a bigger impact than many think - IMHO, of course.

I am not sure how recognising the day for what it really is, is somehow laying the blame on everyone today. Remember, it is the anniversary of the first fleet landing - this was to establish the colony of NSW - not even Australia. If we are going to argue it is the catalyst of tthe fouding of Australia, then I would argue, April 29 is the real date. In other words, the country is celecrating the invasion day (intention to create a colony of NSW, and can't do that to a populated land without invading it) as Australia day, and it would seem that date is not he most appropriate. I doubt that, by itself will bring peace and goodwill to mankind.. but one has to take small, but meaningful steps in that direction, right? Or are you suggesting something like waving a wand and magically the full solutions to the worlds problems appear is the only way to solve them? Sorry if I am coming across as flippant or cynical, but it really is an equally flippant or cynical question. But, I guess some feel it would be a meaningful step in the right direction... And if it does that, then I would support it: https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/australia-day-indigenous-figure-kyra-galante-tells-pm-shifting-date-from-january-26-would-help-reconciliation-c-13196716 My preference is Australia Day is moved to March 3rd which is when we finally completely unhitched our remainin legal dependence on Britain. But, if we are insistent on keeping the date, evern as a white dinki-di Aussie, it should be renamed to be reflective of what it really celebrates.. NSW Conolisation Day - because it certainly isn't Australia day.

Unless you are talking the law as it was from the 1600s and modern is relative to Aboriginal society, this is a common misconception. The law was applied as it was at the time (actually, the delcaration of terra nullius was in the 1800s from memory). It's a common mosconception that the courts apply todays law to yesterdays events; it does so only when parliament provides for it in retrospective (or as the yanks say and has cottoned on almost everywhere wlse, retroactive) provisions. The declaration was totally illegal at the time of the direction and at the time of the landing of the first fleet; not in what our modern day values are. If you go to most of the states legislation sites, they provide tools to tell you the law at the time in past so if one is working with, say a cold case that has got warm, one knows what the law was at the time of the event. Yes, in common law, a court can overrule an existing precedent, but it can only do so under strict rules of seniority or where it can distinguish the case with more than a trivial difference. Often they will couch the decision in such a way that it doesn't apply retrospectively, so it is moer changing rather than historically reversing a law. By that logic, no one living took part in Galipolli, so we should shut down the annual commeroration of what could be construed objecively as a national disaster - losing all those men in a war that had no impact on Australia. You know, the same way Vietnam vets were treated on their return. What is the saying, if we don't learn from history then we ae condemned to make the same mistakes? Frankly, having a day that honours a travesty that has resulted in a disproprtionately intergenerational displacement and disadvataged native population - claimed to be the worst impact of the worlds displaced indigenous populations - is one where living people who ware still living with the fallout shold be in our minds of making lives better. A day a year that focuses the mind (in so far as any public holiday focuses the mind) would be checking the mirror while we ae driving forward - not staring backwards the whole way.

I am so pissed off at the moment, I need to celebrate a positive., No good writing up the grip - it will piss me off even more. Great positive to celebrate.. I have had a great weekend with the family... Just chilled.. well up until now. Even my revered Hawks drubbing by Sydney could not have shaken theyt enjoyment of the weekend. In fact, it was a good backdrop for having a nice chat to the store manager of the local Co-Op.. Ahh... feel better now. Phew!

I always tried to get their tarps off in the back of the ol' ute.... .... ... y'all..

Doesn't it depend on what you mean by "invasion day"? If it means the day that the Brits acquired the knowlesge to determine whether or not they wanted to colonise, it is likely to the April 29; if it is the day a British fleet arrived with the intention of colonising the land, then it owuld have to be Januar 26th (or thereabouts, because the actual date of landing is apparently in dispute). I am going to go on a limb here. Australia Day (as opposed to Invasion Day) should be moved to March 3rd as this is the day in 1986 that the Australia Acts were passed simulatenously in the UK and Australian Commonwealth parliaments which severed all legal ties of Australia back to Britain. This is when Australia became truly independent of Brtiain and should be celebrated. The curernt Australia day should be renamed Invasion Day should be 26th Jan as it was roughly when the first fleet first landed with the intent and initial manpower to establish the new colony of New South Wales. You can't colonise a populated area without invading it (note, invasion is not limited to a military action). But the name, Invasion Day, should probably actually be illegal settlement day. Because, Australia was settled under the doctine of terra nullius, which means empty land; The Brits used this because they thought they could justify the land being empty as the local population had no concept of organised settlement not discernible laws. However, this was wrong and it was asseted it was intentionally wrong so that the Brits didn't have to adopt parts of the local laws of over 250 countries (after all, that is how many countries were colonised) into the new laws, and of course, there was no need for a treaty. That is what th High Courty of Australia found in 1992 with the Mabo case - that the English broke their own law in the way they settled Australia. There ya go.. managed to rename the existing holiday to be more respectful of yet another wrong perpetrated against the first nations peoples in that the English broke their own law; and got ourselves another public holiday.,. You can thank me later. 😉

There's no right or wrong; you're welcome to express your opinion as I trust we are, too. That is the great thing of living in the [relatively] free part of the world. Personally, I hate all forms of smoking - even vaping, while not often smelling disgusting, to me, looks disgusting - it physically repulses me. Yet, many men find it alluring when a woman smokes in a partular way. Not much repulses me more and I would guess I am in the minority if most people I know are anything to go by., Different strokes for different folks..

It's a good point, Peter. What are our borders, today? If a country shows aggression to an ally (say NZ), because it's not our counry, should we just sit back and watch? What about Ukraine? What about if someone invaded the USA, Canada, the UK, or any of our European allies? Taiwan? Japan? What about countries that aren't our allies, but are tiny anddo not have the resources to defend themselves such as many of the pacific and atlantic islands? Do they not deserve to be free from invasion in this mdern day? What really are our borders in these sorts of conflicts? If you ask me, the west's tardy respose to Ukraine is shameful. And I am by no means a war hawk. But sometimes, as Kenny Rogers sang, sometimes you've got to fight when you're a man. It is a global world now, and looking at defending invasion on only our soil is a little narrow-focused, IMHO. I would argue our "children" haven't been taught well. This is different to the US going into Vietnam and Iraq (Afghanistan I could understand, but as usual, they stuffed it).

Yeah - was probably a 70s or 80s clip, so makes it quite a lot older; Unlike the "Goodess Gracious Me", the accent is to accentuate the commedy and is not a main part of it. A lot of what he touches on is probably still relevant today.. The length of rime to fly to Australia (relatively) and feeling tired afterwards... "How did you find Ausstralia".. was aksked on my last trip there... "ie" added to almost every word... Still happens from what I heard last time I was in Aus; Cold beer Sharks still swim there and take people, last time I heard.. Practical jokers... The sheep joke - don't know... Seems, given its age, if the one insulting item is the accent, which was probably time-contextual, then I guess it has survived reasonably well. Or would you prefer someone redub ut, maybe with AI, using this accent: