The Bill Henson controversy has been ignited again by David Marr’s latest book, which defends photo-artist Bill Henson’s right to take naked images of teenage children. My personal view is that it is fundamentally flawed on two counts.
Firstly, to argue that all is allowable in the name of art is to argue that ‘extraordinary rendition’ (ie torture) is permissible if we are able to extract information that we may put to some ‘greater good’. The same fundamentals apply.
The two arguments go like this. They, the enemy, use torture because they are barbarians, but we, we apply 'justifiable' force for the greater good because we are the righteous ones. Similarly pornographers take sexually suggestive photographs of children born of heinous motives but artists may take very similar but award-winning photos that are then hung on gallery walls to great acclaim (usually by other artists).
We would not condone the action of a parent who allowed his or her child to endure significant pain in the name of art. Why are some parents lauded by the arty-farty brigade for allowing their children to take part in an activity clearly on the fringes of normal society’s standards of modesty?
Secondly, Mr Marr is a childless man. It may be that he imagines that he can understand the completely different view a caring parent of a child might have on this subject but, by definition, he does not. He is therefore a member of the group least qualified to comment on the rightness of the actions of Bill Henson and in particular the irresponsible parents of his subjects.
You may like to sign the petition at Bravehearts. Click here
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Do we have a Clayton’s Democracy
The dust is settling on the Council elections and our new Council is all but decided. Certainly we have a new Mayor. I’m sure we all wish all new Councillors and new Mayor Paul Green well and will extend the usual honeymoon period to them to allow them to find their feet.
Then we’ll get stuck into them too. They will inevitably make decisions some of us will disagree with, although probably with not quite the ferocity as we felt obliged to react to the excesses of the previous Council.
In the meantime a look at the process that delivered our Mayor might be interesting.
In the Shoalhaven we have what is officially termed a ‘Popularly-elected Mayor’. That is, there is a separate election by the residents for the position of Mayor. In many Local Government Areas the Mayor is elected by the new Councillors from amongst themselves. There are obvious arguments for and against both systems.
One plus in our system is that the people get the Mayor they want, at least to a point; not the Mayor the dominant faction on Council decides. On the other hand, the popular election of the Mayor creates an extra position on Council. Thus we have 13 on our Council; 12 Councillors plus the Mayor. It can also be the case that a celebrity Mayor will be elected on the strength of his/her profile as, say, a local media ‘star’.
Over the last several elections the State Government has been tinkering with the method of voting. We now have a different system, or more accurately, variations on a system, in each of the three tiers of government. Each though is based on a system of preferences wherein a ballot paper can pass from candidate to candidate depending on the numbers a voter places on the paper. It should be remembered that the net effect of a preferential system is not to elect the most popular candidate but rather the least unpopular candidate.
Locally we now have, at least till they change it again, a State Lower House style, ‘number as many squares as you wish’ model for the election of Mayor and an above and below the line system of electing Councillors. However this above and below system is different to the State and Federal Upper House models. If you choose to vote below the line, only a minimum of four squares need be numbered, it being the number of Councillors to be elected. You may number further squares if you wish. If you choose the above the line option then you get to decide the flow of your preferences by again numbering as many squares as you wish. The backroom preference deals of previous elections are thankfully gone.
This new Local Government election system would, on the face of it, seem to have brought together the best of all options in that it gives the voter maximum choice to allocate his/her vote(s) where he/she deems fit. Ah, but even silver clouds can rain on the parade. The downside to all this choice is that many votes ‘exhaust’ and do not aid in the election of anyone. This was the fate of 17,972 votes in the Shoalhaven Mayoral vote just decided. If we add to this number, the informal votes and the number of voters who just didn’t turn up, then the votes cast which actually determined the new Mayor of the Shoalhaven was a mere 52.6% of the 66,298 eligible voters. Paul Green was declared the winner with 19,953 formal votes after preferences, a tick over 30% of the electorate.
In other words only one in two eligible voters actually took part in the determination of the Mayorship and the Mayor was elected by a definite minority of the electorate.
How can this be? Please explain? OK, here goes. Thinking caps on please. If a voter chooses to number less than all squares then his/her vote may not still be ‘alive’ as the final preference distribution is done. This final distribution occurs when only three candidates are left in the count and the ballot papers of the candidate with fewest votes are allocated to the other two. If any of these ballot papers do not have a number next to one of these remaining two then it is cast aside and does not play a role in determining the winner.
To be specific with respect to the 2008 Mayoral election, the last three candidates standing were Paul Green (17,897 votes), Greg Watson (14,599) and John Fergusson (11,951). Fergusson was excluded from the count and his ballot papers examined in order to allocate preferences. However, only 320 indicated a next preference for Watson and 2056 for Green. The majority (9575) of Fergusson’s ballot papers did not have a number next to either Watson or Green and were deemed ‘exhausted’ votes. Many other ballot papers exhausted at earlier stages of the count because voters chose not to number all squares.
The short of it is that if you chose to not place a number next to one of the two most ‘popular’ candidates ie the two who had most votes just before final preference distribution, then your vote played no part in the election of the Mayor. You may as well have defaced the paper or stayed home.
So there’s the shortfall in the system. Unless you have a crystal ball and know in advance who the two most popular candidates will be, so that you can be sure to mark a number next to at least one of them, then it’s best to number all squares.
So why not make it compulsory to number all squares. The short answer is that having compelled you to turn up with the threat of a fine, the powers that be figure you will feel more relaxed and comfortable about the process if you are given more latitude in filling out the ballot paper even if it effectively disenfranchises up to 50% of voters.
Similarly, numbering less than all squares on the Councillor ballot paper can also lead to your vote being exhausted and taking no part in the result.
The answer to the problem is not simple or one-dimensional. Governments and the media can help but the real key to a more participatory democracy is a better-educated and motivated electorate. The following are my observations.
Firstly, the machinations of the preferential system are not well understood by voters. Education is obviously the key here but a common system in all three tiers of government elections would ease the confusion.
More information in the media about the candidates, particularly the small party and independent candidates and a greater willingness on the part of the average voter to study the field would not go astray either.
Then, given that a voter has made the effort to turn up, willingly or not, is it too much to ask that he/she spend a few seconds longer filling in all squares, above or below the line, as he/she sees fit?
There is no perfect system. As Sir Winston Churchill once said, “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” I would add that a democracy in which up to 50% of votes are effectively not counted is intrinsically inferior to a participatory democracy where every vote counts.
Having said all of the above, the Council we have is the one we have to live with for the next 4 years so it's up to all of us to make it work by offering constructive critism where it falls due.
One thing is for certain, no group on the new Council has a mandate for anything more specific than a change from the excesses of the past.
Then we’ll get stuck into them too. They will inevitably make decisions some of us will disagree with, although probably with not quite the ferocity as we felt obliged to react to the excesses of the previous Council.
In the meantime a look at the process that delivered our Mayor might be interesting.
In the Shoalhaven we have what is officially termed a ‘Popularly-elected Mayor’. That is, there is a separate election by the residents for the position of Mayor. In many Local Government Areas the Mayor is elected by the new Councillors from amongst themselves. There are obvious arguments for and against both systems.
One plus in our system is that the people get the Mayor they want, at least to a point; not the Mayor the dominant faction on Council decides. On the other hand, the popular election of the Mayor creates an extra position on Council. Thus we have 13 on our Council; 12 Councillors plus the Mayor. It can also be the case that a celebrity Mayor will be elected on the strength of his/her profile as, say, a local media ‘star’.
Over the last several elections the State Government has been tinkering with the method of voting. We now have a different system, or more accurately, variations on a system, in each of the three tiers of government. Each though is based on a system of preferences wherein a ballot paper can pass from candidate to candidate depending on the numbers a voter places on the paper. It should be remembered that the net effect of a preferential system is not to elect the most popular candidate but rather the least unpopular candidate.
Locally we now have, at least till they change it again, a State Lower House style, ‘number as many squares as you wish’ model for the election of Mayor and an above and below the line system of electing Councillors. However this above and below system is different to the State and Federal Upper House models. If you choose to vote below the line, only a minimum of four squares need be numbered, it being the number of Councillors to be elected. You may number further squares if you wish. If you choose the above the line option then you get to decide the flow of your preferences by again numbering as many squares as you wish. The backroom preference deals of previous elections are thankfully gone.
This new Local Government election system would, on the face of it, seem to have brought together the best of all options in that it gives the voter maximum choice to allocate his/her vote(s) where he/she deems fit. Ah, but even silver clouds can rain on the parade. The downside to all this choice is that many votes ‘exhaust’ and do not aid in the election of anyone. This was the fate of 17,972 votes in the Shoalhaven Mayoral vote just decided. If we add to this number, the informal votes and the number of voters who just didn’t turn up, then the votes cast which actually determined the new Mayor of the Shoalhaven was a mere 52.6% of the 66,298 eligible voters. Paul Green was declared the winner with 19,953 formal votes after preferences, a tick over 30% of the electorate.
In other words only one in two eligible voters actually took part in the determination of the Mayorship and the Mayor was elected by a definite minority of the electorate.
How can this be? Please explain? OK, here goes. Thinking caps on please. If a voter chooses to number less than all squares then his/her vote may not still be ‘alive’ as the final preference distribution is done. This final distribution occurs when only three candidates are left in the count and the ballot papers of the candidate with fewest votes are allocated to the other two. If any of these ballot papers do not have a number next to one of these remaining two then it is cast aside and does not play a role in determining the winner.
To be specific with respect to the 2008 Mayoral election, the last three candidates standing were Paul Green (17,897 votes), Greg Watson (14,599) and John Fergusson (11,951). Fergusson was excluded from the count and his ballot papers examined in order to allocate preferences. However, only 320 indicated a next preference for Watson and 2056 for Green. The majority (9575) of Fergusson’s ballot papers did not have a number next to either Watson or Green and were deemed ‘exhausted’ votes. Many other ballot papers exhausted at earlier stages of the count because voters chose not to number all squares.
The short of it is that if you chose to not place a number next to one of the two most ‘popular’ candidates ie the two who had most votes just before final preference distribution, then your vote played no part in the election of the Mayor. You may as well have defaced the paper or stayed home.
So there’s the shortfall in the system. Unless you have a crystal ball and know in advance who the two most popular candidates will be, so that you can be sure to mark a number next to at least one of them, then it’s best to number all squares.
So why not make it compulsory to number all squares. The short answer is that having compelled you to turn up with the threat of a fine, the powers that be figure you will feel more relaxed and comfortable about the process if you are given more latitude in filling out the ballot paper even if it effectively disenfranchises up to 50% of voters.
Similarly, numbering less than all squares on the Councillor ballot paper can also lead to your vote being exhausted and taking no part in the result.
The answer to the problem is not simple or one-dimensional. Governments and the media can help but the real key to a more participatory democracy is a better-educated and motivated electorate. The following are my observations.
Firstly, the machinations of the preferential system are not well understood by voters. Education is obviously the key here but a common system in all three tiers of government elections would ease the confusion.
More information in the media about the candidates, particularly the small party and independent candidates and a greater willingness on the part of the average voter to study the field would not go astray either.
Then, given that a voter has made the effort to turn up, willingly or not, is it too much to ask that he/she spend a few seconds longer filling in all squares, above or below the line, as he/she sees fit?
There is no perfect system. As Sir Winston Churchill once said, “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” I would add that a democracy in which up to 50% of votes are effectively not counted is intrinsically inferior to a participatory democracy where every vote counts.
Having said all of the above, the Council we have is the one we have to live with for the next 4 years so it's up to all of us to make it work by offering constructive critism where it falls due.
One thing is for certain, no group on the new Council has a mandate for anything more specific than a change from the excesses of the past.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Is this a private party or can anyone join?
What a strange political party is Greg Watson’s Shoalhaven Independents Group. Perhaps it holds regular dance parties, trivia nights and other fund-raisers but I have never heard of any. It appears to emerge from the shadows once every four years for the express purpose of fielding candidates at Council elections. Between times it appears to do nothing except collect donations, provided to the party, to the exclusion of other parties and candidates, in great philanthropic zeal by a select group of developers. Then, at election time it acts as a convenient vehicle for certain candidates to minimize their out-of-pocket campaign expenses by accessing some of this considerable warchest of funds. (Approximately $90,000 at the 2004 election.)
The party also removes the burden of all that paperwork associated with keeping records of donations and expenditure etc as now required under recently passed, NSW State Government legislation.
Take the case of the off-again, on-again campaign of former real estate agent and soon-to-be property developer Cr Willmot. The South Coast Register (15.8.08) reported that Cr Willmot felt obliged to rejoin the Shoalhaven Independents Group party despite having resigned after a “huge blue” with party leader Greg Watson. What obliged him? “The cost of audits and the requirements to have a registered officer means you have to run with a party”.
What terrible fate then awaits the thirty-eight truly independent candidates in the Shoalhaven and the thousands more around the state? How will they cope with all that paperwork, post-election?
Perhaps Cr Willmot is not good with paperwork, although this begs the question of how he managed as a real estate agent and causes me considerable worry about his effectiveness as a Councillor.
But more importantly I would like to know on what basis Cr Willmot was readmitted to the party he left so abruptly? What undertakings were he required to make? Or can anyone join the Shoalhaven Independents Group and have their campaign funded by the development lobby?
The party also removes the burden of all that paperwork associated with keeping records of donations and expenditure etc as now required under recently passed, NSW State Government legislation.
Take the case of the off-again, on-again campaign of former real estate agent and soon-to-be property developer Cr Willmot. The South Coast Register (15.8.08) reported that Cr Willmot felt obliged to rejoin the Shoalhaven Independents Group party despite having resigned after a “huge blue” with party leader Greg Watson. What obliged him? “The cost of audits and the requirements to have a registered officer means you have to run with a party”.
What terrible fate then awaits the thirty-eight truly independent candidates in the Shoalhaven and the thousands more around the state? How will they cope with all that paperwork, post-election?
Perhaps Cr Willmot is not good with paperwork, although this begs the question of how he managed as a real estate agent and causes me considerable worry about his effectiveness as a Councillor.
But more importantly I would like to know on what basis Cr Willmot was readmitted to the party he left so abruptly? What undertakings were he required to make? Or can anyone join the Shoalhaven Independents Group and have their campaign funded by the development lobby?
Friday, August 01, 2008
Picking the Spin
It's nearly that time again.
That's right, on Sept 13 we get to vote again and exercise our democratic right to elect the very best of us to high office. In this case we are being asked to elect a new Shoalhaven City Council.
But this time let's do it right. Pay no attention to the extensive advertising campaign about to be unleashed by the incumbent Shoalhaven Independents Group Party (SIG) led by longtime Mayor, Greg Watson. The Group is anything but 'independent'. It is a fully registered political party.
Instead, pay close attention to the facts-
That's right, on Sept 13 we get to vote again and exercise our democratic right to elect the very best of us to high office. In this case we are being asked to elect a new Shoalhaven City Council.
But this time let's do it right. Pay no attention to the extensive advertising campaign about to be unleashed by the incumbent Shoalhaven Independents Group Party (SIG) led by longtime Mayor, Greg Watson. The Group is anything but 'independent'. It is a fully registered political party.
Instead, pay close attention to the facts-
- this Council is controlled by one party led by one dominant individual.
- the dominant party is funded by a number of large developers, many of which have benefitted from recent decisions of this Council.
- this Council has made a number of decisions which are directly opposed to the community interest and often in the face of contrary advice from council officers and/or the Dept. of Local Government.
- this Council has been and is the subject of several inquiries by the Dept. of Local Government.
- several prominent local citizens including former State Member John Hatton have called for the activities of this Council to be investigated by ICAC.
- long term dominance of any level of government by any one political group/party or individual is unhealthy and can lead to bad government.
Do not be fooled by claims that the economy of the Shoalhaven will collapse if the Watson crew are no longer in control. We already have an unacceptable level of unemployment and under-employment.
When times are tough economically we need governments, at all levels, that are sympathetic to the needs of citizens as individuals not too busy to listen because big business has bought their ear.
Ignore the spin, hit straight down the line.
Monday, June 09, 2008
Rule 303.1
I caught a rat last night.
His crime? He invaded my kitchen. He invaded my kitchen and I killed him.
No doubt the rodent wished me no harm; he told me no lies; he invaded my kitchen not someone’s country.
Still, I killed him.
I did not give him a State funeral. I will not be recommending him for a medal or knighthood.
He was a rat and I killed him.
His crime? He invaded my kitchen. He invaded my kitchen and I killed him.
No doubt the rodent wished me no harm; he told me no lies; he invaded my kitchen not someone’s country.
Still, I killed him.
I did not give him a State funeral. I will not be recommending him for a medal or knighthood.
He was a rat and I killed him.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Deeper pockets needed
The NSW Premier says he may ban political donations and revamp the system of public funding of elections. The intention is admirable, though I don't believe for a minute the Premier is a passionate convert to the concept of an election as a fairly run race, being as doing (or at least saying) something was forced on him following the scandalous behaviour of members of his own party on Wollongong Council.
Don't hold your breath for any actual change in the reality of the electoral process. Even if donations are banned, the parties will still be free to hold their inevitable raffles and other fund-raisiers. Till now a typical raffle might have as a prize a bottle of wine or similar. If donations are banned expect the typical prize to be a car or overseas trip. Tickets may still be a dollar, so the party faithful will still be able to show their support by buying 5 or 10 tickets but the big ticket sales will be made to those who currently buy the ear of a Minister via a large donation.
-"How many tickets for you, Mr. Property Developer?"
-"1000 thanks and by the way, who do I speak to to make an appointment with the Minister?"
-"I'm sorry Sir, I think you need 5000 tickets for that".
The second thing that is unlikely to change is the minimum number of first preference votes a candidate is required to achieve in order to qualify for any public funding at all. Currently Federally and in NSW the threshold stands at 4%.
This doesn't seem much but that's several thousand votes. In the recent Federal election for the seat of Gilmore there were nine candidates including myself. Of the nine only three (Labor, Liberal, Greens) qualified for funding. The other six received no 'reward' for their efforts at helping make democracy work.
Indeed in my case, as the only Independent candidate, I had to meet virtually all my expenses from my own pocket.
I don't expect that anyone will be doing us little guys any favours when the Electoral Act is redrafted. The system is currently designed to funnel the majority of the money into the coffers of the Labor and Liberal parties.
A 'donation-free-zone' Electoral Act will simply deliver more taxpayer money to the BIG TWO. The only real difference is that developers will have to get deeper pockets, not in order to fork out more money but to hold all those raffle tickets.
Link- http://www.efa.nsw.gov.au/state_government_elections/election_funding__and__entitlements
Don't hold your breath for any actual change in the reality of the electoral process. Even if donations are banned, the parties will still be free to hold their inevitable raffles and other fund-raisiers. Till now a typical raffle might have as a prize a bottle of wine or similar. If donations are banned expect the typical prize to be a car or overseas trip. Tickets may still be a dollar, so the party faithful will still be able to show their support by buying 5 or 10 tickets but the big ticket sales will be made to those who currently buy the ear of a Minister via a large donation.
-"How many tickets for you, Mr. Property Developer?"
-"1000 thanks and by the way, who do I speak to to make an appointment with the Minister?"
-"I'm sorry Sir, I think you need 5000 tickets for that".
The second thing that is unlikely to change is the minimum number of first preference votes a candidate is required to achieve in order to qualify for any public funding at all. Currently Federally and in NSW the threshold stands at 4%.
This doesn't seem much but that's several thousand votes. In the recent Federal election for the seat of Gilmore there were nine candidates including myself. Of the nine only three (Labor, Liberal, Greens) qualified for funding. The other six received no 'reward' for their efforts at helping make democracy work.
Indeed in my case, as the only Independent candidate, I had to meet virtually all my expenses from my own pocket.
I don't expect that anyone will be doing us little guys any favours when the Electoral Act is redrafted. The system is currently designed to funnel the majority of the money into the coffers of the Labor and Liberal parties.
A 'donation-free-zone' Electoral Act will simply deliver more taxpayer money to the BIG TWO. The only real difference is that developers will have to get deeper pockets, not in order to fork out more money but to hold all those raffle tickets.
Link- http://www.efa.nsw.gov.au/state_government_elections/election_funding__and__entitlements
Saturday, March 08, 2008
The New, New Australia Day
Readers will be aware that only last year did my family decide on a day on which to celebrate Australia Day. see Australia Day takes a giant step forward by going back one below.
However we now have an even better one; Feb 13, the anniversary of The Apology. So next year skip the Old New Australia Day, the Old Australia Day and save yourself for Friday February 13. Let's have a party to celebrate the New Australia's first birthday.
However we now have an even better one; Feb 13, the anniversary of The Apology. So next year skip the Old New Australia Day, the Old Australia Day and save yourself for Friday February 13. Let's have a party to celebrate the New Australia's first birthday.
Human ingenuity knows no bounds
I just logged on to find that the counter at right has ticked over the magic $500,000,000,000 (US$500 billion) mark.
What a shame to have missed the actual moment when $499,999,999,999 clicked over by the cost of one more bullet. Must have been exciting. Let me know if you were actually watching at the time. What a hoot.
I must set an alarm or something to let me know when the $1,000,000,000,000 mark is close. Mustn't miss that one. What a milestone for humanity that will be.
What a shame to have missed the actual moment when $499,999,999,999 clicked over by the cost of one more bullet. Must have been exciting. Let me know if you were actually watching at the time. What a hoot.
I must set an alarm or something to let me know when the $1,000,000,000,000 mark is close. Mustn't miss that one. What a milestone for humanity that will be.
Developers, developers everywhere and not an Independent Councillor in sight
Well Councillwatchers, what an interesting few weeks it's been. We now know for sure what many of us have long suspected; Wollongong City Council has been riddled with corruption for many years.
But not only Councillors and council staff seem to have been trawlled from the bottom of the pond by the ICAC enquiry. Several State Labour pollies have been drawn into the net as well. Of the four (Brown, Hay, Campbell, Tripodi) only Wollongong MP Noreen Hay seems like she may have a case to answer. Her, or her agent's, oversight in not including some $65,000 of donations including some from, yep you guessed it, developers, is hardly confidence-inspiring.
In the last few days the spotlight has turned on Shoalhaven Mayor Greg Watson's Shoalhaven Independents Group Party, NSW's sixth most successful party in soliciting donations from developers.
What can be learned from all this? Get the parties; all parties, out of local government. Let's get back to the notion that Council is about people representing the people, not parties representing some people and certainly not parties representing developers.
But not only Councillors and council staff seem to have been trawlled from the bottom of the pond by the ICAC enquiry. Several State Labour pollies have been drawn into the net as well. Of the four (Brown, Hay, Campbell, Tripodi) only Wollongong MP Noreen Hay seems like she may have a case to answer. Her, or her agent's, oversight in not including some $65,000 of donations including some from, yep you guessed it, developers, is hardly confidence-inspiring.
In the last few days the spotlight has turned on Shoalhaven Mayor Greg Watson's Shoalhaven Independents Group Party, NSW's sixth most successful party in soliciting donations from developers.
What can be learned from all this? Get the parties; all parties, out of local government. Let's get back to the notion that Council is about people representing the people, not parties representing some people and certainly not parties representing developers.
Friday, February 15, 2008
From the Log of the Starship Terra Australis
Wed. 13th Feb 2008
Great day. Our new Captain Rudd said ”Sorry” to the original peoples of this Land for the effects of our continuing occupation of this magnificent place. His apology was accepted with the grace and dignity we have come to expect from these proud people.
Calls for us to leave seem to have disappeared. Instead cohabitation based on mutual respect seems to be the overwhelming sentiment of both groups; settlers and locals.
Small group of rebels led by Major Tuckey staged a walkout. They are expected to be rounded up and sent home by the next election. They have been an embarrassment to most of the crew for sometime and have well and truly overstayed their welcome.
Former Captain Howard not sighted. Thought to be living a hermit-like existence somewhere in the unchartered territories. Not expected to pose a problem.
Thurs 14th Feb 2008
Sad day. Our most senior officer of the Entertainment Corps has passed away. Commodore Smokey Dawson was an inspiration to several generations of the inhabitants of this Land.
For over 60 years he gave us great service, always making time for a song or a yarn. He was truly one of a kind. His partner, Dot, and all Terra Australians will miss him greatly.
As I heard one of the crew say, “They don’t make ‘em like that any more”.
Let’s hope ‘Smoke’ and rebel leader Tuckey have at least that much in common.
Great day. Our new Captain Rudd said ”Sorry” to the original peoples of this Land for the effects of our continuing occupation of this magnificent place. His apology was accepted with the grace and dignity we have come to expect from these proud people.
Calls for us to leave seem to have disappeared. Instead cohabitation based on mutual respect seems to be the overwhelming sentiment of both groups; settlers and locals.
Small group of rebels led by Major Tuckey staged a walkout. They are expected to be rounded up and sent home by the next election. They have been an embarrassment to most of the crew for sometime and have well and truly overstayed their welcome.
Former Captain Howard not sighted. Thought to be living a hermit-like existence somewhere in the unchartered territories. Not expected to pose a problem.
Thurs 14th Feb 2008
Sad day. Our most senior officer of the Entertainment Corps has passed away. Commodore Smokey Dawson was an inspiration to several generations of the inhabitants of this Land.
For over 60 years he gave us great service, always making time for a song or a yarn. He was truly one of a kind. His partner, Dot, and all Terra Australians will miss him greatly.
As I heard one of the crew say, “They don’t make ‘em like that any more”.
Let’s hope ‘Smoke’ and rebel leader Tuckey have at least that much in common.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)