Follow & Contact me on:
A.B.PATTERSON
  • Home
  • Author Bio
    • Also: Q & A
    • Also: Author Talks Done
  • Works
    • Also: ALL ABOUT HARRY
    • Also: BOOK AWARDS
    • Also: BOOK REVIEWS
    • Also: FREE STUFF
    • Also: AT LIBRARIES
    • Also: MERCHANDISE
    • Also: ANTHOLOGY PROJECTS
  • MEDIA
    • Also: Archived News
  • Blog
  • READING
    • Also: MY READS
    • Also: Cops Writing Crime
    • Also: Crime Genre
    • Also: Anthology Corner
    • Also: Francophile Corner
    • Also: Dystopia Corner
  • Quotes
  • Contacts
    • Also: Links

Gender equality in Parliament - here's a radical, and yet simple, solution!

18/9/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture
In the last few weeks, we've seen in Australia a rising debate about the numbers of women in a male-dominated Parliament.  And not forgetting, of course, the reported issues of bullying, intimidation and misogyny.  Sounds like a truly toxic work environment, to be frank.
Now, I am all in favour of gender equality in our Parliaments, although I'm not under any illusion that suddenly politics will become awash in integrity and decency.  I elaborate on that post further below.
This is a reissue of a blog I put out last year on this subject.  Given the current interest in the subject, I offer my radical, yet simple, solution again.  It would actually be damned easy to have a 50-50 gender split in our Parliament.
Cheers, ABP

June 2017 Blog:
If you follow my blog (as spasmodic as it can be - sorry, working on that!) then you'll know that every now and then I digress away from writing and books, and I have a rant about something in society that gives me the shits.  Today is one of those days.  Not that I thought of this today, it was on the weekend, but I'm finding the time this evening to blog.

Now, plenty of people have called for gender equality in our Parliaments.  And I am so on board with that one.  The thoughts I was having the other day, and I've no idea why (but then I often have zero idea why my brain heads off in various directions at times), concerned the issue of bunches of mainly men sitting around (which accurately describes all of our Parliaments in Australia) and making all sorts of laws about how women can, or more often, cannot have control over their own bodies.  Let's mention abortion, sex work, tax on tampons, equal pay...and the list could continue.  I won't even get started on how religions treat women, since I'm going to confine myself to Parliaments.

Now, whether or not women getting into positions of political power leads to any discernible changes to the way we're governed is probably another subject.  I've seen plenty of women in positions of power in government agencies, and they're just as ego- and power-driven as their male counterparts.  And quite a few of the women we currently have in our Federal Parliament seem quite indistinguishable in terms of humanity and compassion from their male colleagues (there are, of course, exceptions to this).  Then again, there is an argument to say that these women become like this because they have to compete against the overwhelming male contingent.  Anyway, this is not my point, as interesting a debate as it is.  Maybe in a future blog...
​
As an aside, I have a personal friend, Fiona Patten, who is a Victorian MP.  Fiona epitomizes the huge value that great, committed women can add to politics - 50% Parliamentarians of her humanity and ability, we wouldn't even recognize the place.  I dream...

My research online this week: Here in Australia, at a Federal level, our Parliament (both houses) is 32% female.  Our Canadian cousins manage 29%, and our New Zealand neighbours come in at 31%.  The world average apparently is 23%.  Over in Rwanda, they manage 64% - GO Rwanda!  Who would have thought?  Bolivia achieves 53% (outstanding), and Cuba cruises in at 49% (great effort, have a cigar!).

So, how could we achieve gender equality in the Australian Parliament?  My solution is radical, but so bloody simple.  I'm going to put it in terms of the House of Representatives (for overseas readers, this is our lower house, where government is formed), but the principle could be applied universally.
Now, our House of Reps has 150 seats, so 150 constituencies across Australia elect 150 MPs.  And in the House, currently, 29% of those MPs are female.  Now, we occasionally hear ideas about quotas and the like.  The problem with that is that you may end up getting an MP to meet an artificial quota, rather than electors voting for the candidate they perceive to be the best for the job, in their eyes.  And the latter is what democracy is supposed to be about, notwithstanding the corruption of democracy by the political party system - again, maybe a future blog...

So my radical but simple idea is as follows:
We don't want more MPs, so keep it at 150.  However, merge the current constituencies into 75, and have 2 MPs elected from each, 1 male and 1 female.  So whichever constituency you live in, you front up on polling day and are given 2 ballot papers - 1 to elect your male MP and 1 to elect your female MP.  Et voila! Gender equality in Parliament - 75 male MPs and 75 female MPs.  And all elected by the people, not pushed up via quota systems.  Sure, the party political system will try to control this too, but, hey, at least there will be gender equality in our Parliaments.  It has to be worth a try?!!!

Food for thought, my friends

Cheers,
ABP.

0 Comments

CORRUPTION TALES! Issue # 3 - NSW Local Government

16/1/2018

1 Comment

 
Picture
Over the many years of my work in corruption investigations, I've delved into many, many councils in New South Wales.  And so I have a treasure trove of tales of corruption to draw upon - local government is an incredibly fertile ground for naughtiness!  I certainly use some of what I've seen to inspire my fiction writing, but some tales are so stellar that they warrant joining this blog of factual history!  These are the stories which are not fictionalized, aside from being anonymized.

These things happened!!!
Here's the first of them, and it's an absolute pearler!

This is a tale of Nepotism Central.
I had a complaint in a council about the recruitment process for the HR Manager (of all positions!).  
So, the background was this: the HR Manager's position had been vacant for some time, with an HR Officer (Person X) acting in the position. Nothing unusual so far.  This acting person (Person X) was very much in favour with the council's general manager and executive - basically did their bidding, and had a very "close", and I mean "very close" (saliva involved, me thinks), relationship with one of the executive who was going to sit on the selection panel for this recruitment.  (The general manager also ended up sitting on the selection panel, along with two other executive members.)  Again, whilst starting to get a little distasteful, and a little issue of a potential conflict of interest, nothing here is unusual in government circles.
So the vacant position was then advertised - but internally only.

Wait till you see how much this job was paying!  Read on!

The council's recruitment policy said that if recruitment was to be internal only, there had to be a "pool" of suitable applicants.  Person X, who was applying for the position, went to one of their staff and told them to apply as well, so that there would be a "pool" of applicants, namely two of them.  To the credit of that staff member, they refused to comply.
So, the recruitment process still progressed with just the application of Person X.  So much for a "pool".  How does one person constitute a "pool"?  Go figure.  Clearly, the council's own policy counted for nothing, since Person X was definitely wanted for the job.

But the real "get me the fuck out of here" moment is yet to come.

The "essential criteria" for the position, those  things you just have to have to be eligible, included "relevant tertiary qualifications".
Now, Person X had NO relevant tertiary qualifications, absolutely none.
A major problem, you would think?
Aha! Never underestimate the audacity of the corrupt in government.  Never, ever.
So, the applications closed for this recruitment - only one application - from Person X.  The idea of a "pool" was long gone.  And Person X did not meet the essential criteria for the job.
No problem at all, for this council and its executives - three of them!  After the applications closed, the only applicant, Person X, was interviewed for the job.  After that, and already acting in the position, Person X was allowed to rewrite the position description, for the position they were applying for, to remove the essential criteria they could not meet.
Then, two days later, Person X was appointed to the job, now that they could meet the criteria for the job.
I don't think, in all my years, I've ever seen such a brazen example of corrupt nepotism anywhere.
And as if the above isn't bad enough...

And guess what the position was paying...

$230,000 p.a.

Yes, that's right. Nearly a quarter of a million dollars a year, and this is the corrupt recruitment process that enabled it.  
Aside from the obscene iniquity of it all, I do feel sorry for the ratepayers in that council area.  Especially since, on all accounts, Person X wasn't even any good as an HR practitioner.
So, $230,000 p.a. when you can't even meet the essential criteria for the job.
Not bad fucking work if you can get it!

Cheers,
ABP


1 Comment

Vale, Senator Jacqui Lambie.  And thank you, for being a much-needed human being in Parliament.

14/11/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture
Image from Wikimedia Commons.
Australian democracy has been sliding, if not cascading, into serious farce territory for some time.  Section 44 of the Constitution, with all the dual-citizenship fiascoes, has made a mockery of our country.  And what a tragedy for our democracy.  I'll save my rant on s.44 for another time.

No, today, I am actually saddened by the demise of a politician.  Yes, I know that's hard to believe about me, with my utterly undisguised contempt for our political charade, and most of the players within it.
But today, the ridiculous s.44 debacle claimed the scalp of Senator Jacqui Lambie.  And I think that is a tragedy for Australian politics.

Now, to be clear at the outset, I don't agree with some of the views that Senator Lambie has espoused, don't get me wrong.  However, let's look at the person who is the politician here.
Jacqui Lambie has been a genuine, heart-felt human being in our Parliament.  Plenty of the people in there are just self-serving wankers.  Even if you don't agree with her views, if you take the trouble to listen to her efforts in the Senate - her speeches for veterans, for people on welfare, for those at risk in society - here is a politician who IS a human being and who CARES.  How bloody rare is that?  And she's also been a soldier serving our country - even more credit to her, in my view.
So, Jacqui Lambie, I say this to you: I don't agree with everything you've said, but I do love you as a politician.  You're an authentic human being, someone who actually cares about others (and not just themselves, like most politicians).   
I don't live in Tasmania, so I can't vote for you.  But I tell you this: if I could vote for you, then I would, even with my differences of opinion with you.  Why?  Because you're a decent and genuine human being.  You are what an elected politician should be in a healthy democracy.  Not like the usual egotistical strokers we get served up with.
I'll probably never meet you, but I give you my very best wishes, and I sincerely hope to see you on the political stage in the future.
Cheers,
ABP


0 Comments

CORRUPTION TALES! Issue # 2 - NSW Department of Community Services

7/11/2017

4 Comments

 
Picture
In this issue, as promised in my intro issue, I'm going to relate my experience of the NSW Department of Community Services (DoCS).

Corruption Central!

I was deluded enough to take a job at DoCS after I decided to leave ICAC.  Given my extensive child protection background, when I saw a job advertised for a new function reviewing child deaths within departmental care, I actually thought I might be able to make a difference. Well, we all live and learn.
As a side note, whilst I've left various jobs feeling somewhat disenchanted with them, in hindsight I've never regretted taking a job, except for this one at DoCS.  I only spent 12 months there.
I should have listened to my gut feeling at the two job interviews I had, as the senior DoCS members on the panels came across as some of the coldest people I've ever met.
Anyway, that urge to do good things overrode my instinct and I took the job - Assistant Director for Child Death Reviews.
Fool was I.
Things started innocuously enough, with setting up systems, collating data, etc.  But it rapidly became clear that DoCS was not remotely interested in properly "reviewing" deaths of children in its care.  What the DoCs senior management appeared to want was a thorough and detailed justification of the Department's actions, regardless of the outcomes.
Of course, those "outcomes" were dead children.  Dead because of all sorts of reasons, but the one thing they all had in common was that they were under DoCS oversight as these were the seriously vulnerable and at-risk children in our society.
Now, before you think I'm writing off every single person within community services, I'm not.  In my short time at DoCS, I met many front-line staff who were trying their hardest to do a damned difficult and thankless job.  And I applaud those dedicated and caring staff.
But DoCS head office was another culture completely.  This was the culture of cover up and deception and document destruction; the culture of avoiding responsibility and accountability at all costs.
Things came to a head for me with the case of a baby who was beaten to death in a town in country NSW.  The child had been placed with supposedly carefully selected carers, who both happened to have extensive records of alcohol and violence.  The DoCS office didn't carry out proper checks, it turned out, and then placed the infant in the custody of these clearly unsuitable people.  The little child was murdered, no glossing over that.  The DoCs office then claimed they had done the checks, even "creating" records to try and establish this, but came unstuck in the review as, for one thing, the police records simply didn't correspond.
When I wrote my review report, I obviously highlighted this appalling negligence in not doing the checks, and then the egregious malfeasance in trying to cover up the fact.  To cut a long story short, I was called in by DoCS senior management, and directed, loudly and aggressively, to remove the damning portion from my report.  I was told that I could find fault with systems used, but under no circumstances was I to make any negative findings about DoCS personnel.
Yeah, I've never been that ambitious - I refused.  That wasn't exactly what you'd call a "career move".  However, I didn't foresee what was in store for me; should have guessed it was going to get nasty.
Three weeks of daily sessions (had been weekly meetings previously,  but it seemed I suddenly deserved special attention)  with senior management followed, being yelled at and denigrated, along with other punitive tactics.  It was all intended, no doubt, to make me cave in.  I didn't last longer than the three weeks, and I left.  Not my proudest professional day.  Rather than my resolve to stand my ground surrendering, it was finally my health that gave out, following the constant bullying, and I left in an ambulance (literally!).
I never saw the final review report, but I'd bet it was nicely sanitised and the "inconvenient" evidence collected had probably gone into a shredder.
And there were other aspects I saw which reflected endemic corruption at DoCS head office, including discussions about removing documents from files before the NSW Ombudsman viewed them.  It was, simply put, an entirely corrupt culture.
Whilst this sort of corruption has nothing to do directly with money, I think on many levels it is far more serious.  It's all about protecting the Establishment power structure from all scandal and criticism, let alone legal culpability.  And innocent, vulnerable members of our community are the victims.
If you're prepared to cover up the true facts around a child's death, then I would suggest that you are utterly morally bankrupt; you have sunk to the lowest level of gutter corruption possible; and you have surrendered all human decency to serve your own venal needs, and perhaps those of others (in this case, the government of the day - as they never like scandals under their watch).
Yes, whilst I've seen a lot of corruption in my time, in terms of a sheer moral abomination, nothing has ever topped what I experienced at DoCS.
May all those responsible for this type of corruption truly rot in hell.
Cheers,
ABP

P.S.1: More Corruption Tales coming! 

P.S.2: In case you've read the above and are wondering if I tried to do anything outside DoCS... (and a fair question).
​I subsequently tried twice to contact a senior officer at the Ombudsman's office with oversight responsibilities for DoCS - my calls were not returned.  To set the context at the time, the government had recently given a $4B funding injection to DoCS. I don't think anyone wanted to rock the boat, that's my speculation.  Or maybe that person was just bad at returning calls.  Who knows?
After I left DoCS, there was a Commission of Enquiry into child protection matters.  I did make a submission.  One of their lawyers contacted me and said they would need me to produce some documents or evidence to support my submission, if they were to be able do anything.  Yeah, given the nature of my leaving, I wasn't exactly collating documentary evidence on my way out the door.
So, the lesson to me was that our oversight mechanisms can be very "selective" in their oversight urges.
Sad but true.
Oh, and whilst I was in the process of resigning, I did formally complain to DoCS about the way I had been treated.  Result?  Nothing.  Not that there were any surprises there.

Cheers,
ABP
4 Comments

CORRUPTION TALES! Issue # 1 - Introduction.

29/10/2017

1 Comment

 
Picture
CORRUPTION...
...One of my 7 themes as a writer.


Yes, sadly it's a pervasive aspect of human nature.  Almost all of my professional life has been on the front line with corruption, whether it be investigating it or witnessing it.  
And when I use the term "corruption", I'm using it in its traditional sense: using one's position and/or power to gain a personal benefit, or bestow a benefit on someone else.
I'm not interested in the technically-defined types of corruption, whether it be "noble cause" misconduct (breaking the rules to get the right result), or police getting  half price hamburgers, or administrative paperwork being "massaged" to comply with unrealistic or inflexible rules.  I remember well this last type: as detectives, we often had to work overtime without getting paid for it, as there was insufficient budget, but we still insisted on locking up crooks.  Old-fashioned, I know!  So every now and then, if Friday afternoon was looking empty, the boss would tell us to go for lunch at the pub and not bother coming back.  In other words, the afternoon off in lieu of all the unpaid overtime.  Of course, our duty journals needed to reflect that we worked our shift until 4 p.m.  And so they did.  These days, times having changed, those technically inaccurate journal times would be regarded as "police corruption".  Meanwhile, you should see all the real shit that goes on...
I'm going to be doing a series of blogs detailing some of the stellar examples of corruption I've seen over the years.  I won't be naming anyone, so don't expect any scoops.  But, in line with my fiction writing serving to showcase what goes on in our society, these blogs are going to relate true tales of corruption, again to share with you some of what really goes on behind those respectable façades.
One of the most interesting aspects of this for me is that our society still hangs on to the image of corruption as being the bags of cash changing hands - my blog image attests to this!  And, sure, bribery is still huge business.  But so much of corruption in government and its agencies actually relates to corrupt decision-making, whether it be to cover up scandals, appoint favoured mates to jobs, or to keep political masters happy.
And given all the years I worked as a detective, you might thing my best examples would come from what I saw going on in the squads.  No, is the short answer.  I saw a few things over the years I wasn't very impressed with, but on the whole I found most of my fellow detectives to be honest.  Short-cuts and administrative paperwork issues aside, those men and women did their work for their community, and not to serve their own greed and self-interest.  
No, and this may be surprising, the most endemically corrupt organisational culture I have ever come across was that at the NSW Department of Community Services, where I was unfortunate enough to spend 12 months of my working life.  And it certainly wasn't your bribery style of corruption.  Rather, it was the routine covering up of matters and the falsification of paperwork to perpetuate the lies.  Anyway, my next blog will dish up the details of that lovely organisation.
Stay tuned.
Cheers,
ABP


1 Comment

Gender equality in our Parliaments - long overdue and here's a solution!

28/6/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture
If you follow my blog (as spasmodic as it can be - sorry, working on that!) then you'll know that every now and then I digress away from writing and books, and I have a rant about something in society that gives me the shits.  Today is one of those days.  Not that I thought of this today, it was on the weekend, but I'm finding the time this evening to blog.

Now, plenty of people have called for gender equality in our Parliaments.  And I am so on board with that one.  The thoughts I was having the other day, and I've no idea why (but then I often have zero idea why my brain heads off in various directions at times), concerned the issue of bunches of mainly men sitting around (which accurately describes all of our Parliaments in Australia) and making all sorts of laws about how women can, or more often, cannot have control over their own bodies.  Let's mention abortion, sex work, tax on tampons, equal pay...and the list could continue.  I won't even get started on how religions treat women, since I'm going to confine myself to Parliaments.

Now, whether or not women getting into positions of political power leads to any discernible changes to the way we're governed is probably another subject.  I've seen plenty of women in positions of power in government agencies, and they're just as ego- and power-driven as their male counterparts.  And quite a few of the women we currently have in our Federal Parliament seem quite indistinguishable in terms of humanity and compassion from their male colleagues (there are, of course, exceptions to this).  Then again, there is an argument to say that these women become like this because they have to compete against the overwhelming male contingent.  Anyway, this is not my point, as interesting a debate as it is.  Maybe in a future blog...
​
As an aside, I have a personal friend, Fiona Patten, who is a Victorian MP.  Fiona epitomizes the huge value that great, committed women can add to politics - 50% Parliamentarians of her humanity and ability, we wouldn't even recognize the place.  I dream...

My research online this week: Here in Australia, at a Federal level, our Parliament (both houses) is 32% female.  Our Canadian cousins manage 29%, and our New Zealand neighbours come in at 31%.  The world average apparently is 23%.  Over in Rwanda, they manage 64% - GO Rwanda!  Who would have thought?  Bolivia achieves 53% (outstanding), and Cuba cruises in at 49% (great effort, have a cigar!).

So, how could we achieve gender equality in the Australian Parliament?  My solution is radical, but so bloody simple.  I'm going to put it in terms of the House of Representatives (for overseas readers, this is our lower house, where government is formed), but the principle could be applied universally.
Now, our House of Reps has 150 seats, so 150 constituencies across Australia elect 150 MPs.  And in the House, currently, 29% of those MPs are female.  Now, we occasionally hear ideas about quotas and the like.  The problem with that is that you may end up getting an MP to meet an artificial quota, rather than electors voting for the candidate they perceive to be the best for the job, in their eyes.  And the latter is what democracy is supposed to be about, notwithstanding the corruption of democracy by the political party system - again, maybe a future blog...

So my radical but simple idea is as follows:
We don't want more MPs, so keep it at 150.  However, merge the current constituencies into 75, and have 2 MPs elected from each, 1 male and 1 female.  So whichever constituency you live in, you front up on polling day and are given 2 ballot papers - 1 to elect your male MP and 1 to elect your female MP.  Et voila! Gender equality in Parliament - 75 male MPs and 75 female MPs.  And all elected by the people, not pushed up via quota systems.  Sure, the party political system will try to control this too, but, hey, at least there will be gender equality in our Parliaments.  It has to be worth a try?!!!

Food for thought, my friends

Cheers,
ABP.




0 Comments

DISGRACE! The vengeful assault on the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

20/12/2016

0 Comments

 
I spent several years as a Chief Investigator at the ICAC, and I loved the work we did. The amount of entrenched corruption in the New South Wales public sector, both state government and local government, is truly staggering. If you are a taxpayer/ratepayer, you genuinely have cause to despair.
At the ICAC, we did what we could and we did a lot of good work, within the constraints we had. Frankly, the ICAC could do with being a lot bigger than it is - there is no shortage of work for it.
And being truly independent is vital. And I mean TRULY independent.

Yet now, the NSW Premier has taken a butcher's knife to the ICAC and its Commissioner.
Make no mistake, all of the recent castration of the ICAC by the State government is a direct payback for the outstanding work the Commission did in relation to exposing all the corruption in both major political parties in relation to financial donations.
Do not be fooled by the pretence that the changes now proceeding were the result of the ICAC's investigation of a state prosecutor - all of that story is a fancy sideshow, convenient to the government to provide a smokescreen for its true motives.

The changes are payback, pure and simple.

The ICAC took on both the major political parties, exposed their inherent corruption, and now revenge is being served up.
This would be a pitiful comment on our democracy at any time, but at a time when so many of our citizens view our political system with disdain and contempt, as utterly ruined and contemptible, and rightly so, it is nothing short of tragic.
The NSW Premier and his government should forever be viewed as Santa and his elves for those who crave corruption in the future - it will be so much easier for them as a result of the neutering of the ICAC.
​
And all in the month a former politician went to jail, as a result of an ICAC investigation.
They really don't like to be held accountable, do they?!!!
​ABP



0 Comments

WESTERN LIBERAL DEMOCRACY - A MOMENTOUS DAY - A NEW WORLD?

9/11/2016

0 Comments

 
WTF?  Did that really just happen?  Probably not uncommon remarks across the Western world tonight (Australian time).
As we now absorb the fact that Donald Trump has won the election to become the 45th President of the United States, what should we take from this news?  Well, I'm an author and I'm interested in world affairs, not to mention freedom and democracy, so I can't help myself but comment.  I've been at home all day watching the process unfold in the U.S.  Yes, I should have been writing, but it was rather distracting and compelling.  And as an Australian, living under the comfort of the security guarantee provided by the U.S. since 1945, where America is going has to be of prime interest to me and my fellow Aussies. 

There is so much going on in my head right now - I'll try and limit it to a few salient points:
1.  Democracy, and the right to freely and genuinely vote, are very precious assets (not overly popular when you look at the world as a whole).  The U.S.A. has always been the beacon for these values.  Today, the American people exercised their democratic right to vote.  Their wishes through their votes must be respected.  Absolutely.
2.  I've never met Mr Trump, so I can't really comment objectively on him as a person.  Some of the things he has said, and some of the views he has espoused, really don't sit well with me.  I am hoping that the worst of these were campaign bluster, spewed out expediently in order to win votes (as awful as that is in what it says about some voters), and that in reality as President he behaves differently.  I hope...
3.  I also hope that he can, as he espoused in his victory speech, unify the American people.  I would love him to make America "great again", as long as that "great" is inclusive of ALL Americans, and it doesn't cause conflict elsewhere, and it has the value of freedom as the centrepiece.  This will depend on whether or not he was serious in all the objectionable things he said.  If it turns out that he was, then he hardly has a vision to treat all Americans with dignity and respect, and freedom will certainly suffer.
4.  Australia and many other countries have enjoyed the largesse of American military protection for decades.  This is likely to change, and we, as well as many others, may have to be prepared to pay substantially more towards our defence.
5.  But for those still going "WTF?"  Actually, we should not be at all surprised by today's result.  What we are seeing is the manifestation of popular disquiet that has been brewing for years.  In summary, and I stress this is my personal view, the political classes and our political establishments in our Western democracies have become so arrogant, so corrupt, so complacent, and so greedy for power, that very significant chunks of the population have been left voiceless and politically impotent.  And now those disenfranchised masses are speaking up.  We saw it today in the U.S., we saw in in the U.K. in the Brexit vote, we saw it in the resurgence of One Nation here in Australia, we are seeing reactionary political movements in various European countries, and we are going to be seeing it in other places as well in the near future.  And, we are not short of arrogant and complacent politicians in Australia, I assure you.
6.  The very fact that the political classes are shocked at Mr Trump's victory is overwhelming evidence in itself of their arrogance and disconnection from the people and their communities.  As the rich get richer, on the backs of the poor who are getting poorer, sooner or later something has to break.  History is littered with examples.
7.  Who knows how a Trump Presidency will work out.  But this is for sure; what we have seen is a major democratic country voting against the political establishment, against the complacency and corruption of the accepted political establishment, and for a change, hopefully for the better.  I really do hope they achieve this.  Again, I hope...
8.  But democracy???  We cannot take it for granted - it is a fragile and precious gem.  Our elected political leaders MUST learn to respect this, just as they must learn to respect that WE run the country, not them.  And that they are in their comfortable, well-paid, and perk-laden offices to SERVE us.  I am quite convinced that the majority of them have diligently learnt to forget what that word actually means.
9.  What do I want from my elected representatives?  I want ethics, honesty, humility, and competence.  What I want to eradicate are self-interest, party politics, spin, and all the bullshit.  Is it really too much to ask???
10.  Did I mention I hope?

Cheers to a free Australia!  And my very best wishes to our American cousins!
ABP


0 Comments

Brexit - something literary to read - Derek Raymond's "A State of Denmark"

11/7/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
With Brexit being such a news item, and such an important historical event, I just had to highlight this incredible dystopian novel.
Derek Raymond was the pen name of Robin Cook, a British novelist who died in 1994.
I came upon this chilling gem by chance, having last year discovered Raymond's crime writing (I've previously mentioned him for that genre) for which he is known as the father of British noir. 
Dystopia is a literary genre that I've always loved to read, and I started with Orwell, as many of us did.  
A State of Denmark, written in 1964, in my view ranks up there with Orwell.  It is a brutally chilling depiction of an England removed from Europe and having slid into dictatorship.  Scotland has gone independent (a familiar theme there).  And so those who had seen what was coming and voiced opposition to the dictator on his ascent are pursued.  No spoilers from me, so I won't sat anything further about the storyline.  However, as a literary study of dictatorship through bureaucratic stealth, insidious in its routinism, it is simply stunning.
This is a must read.
ABP

0 Comments

The Nanny State strikes again!!!

3/1/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
I know I tend to get on my soapbox about the Nanny State, but it never ceases to give me the shits.
Here is another classic example that we saw at our local Liquorland shop the other day.
I'm sorry, but we're going to get asked for ID if we look under 40?!!!!!

The legal age to buy alcohol here in Australia is 18.  For years we've seen notices saying if you look under 21 or under 25, etc.  And okay, no problems there.  You certainly get teenagers who can look their early 20's, and I do fully support not selling alcohol to juveniles.
But under 40?  Has the country gone insane?  I really think it has.  And then they dress it up with suggesting you take it as a compliment.  Get real, Liquorland!
This is the Nanny State and Political Correctness conspiring to take ridiculousness to the extreme.
And in the interests of transparency, I will declare that this middle-aged crime author has NOT ONCE been asked to show ID when buying his wine supply.  And why not?  Is my twice daily moisturiser not doing its job?  Not happy!  Not happy at all.  I might just pour another red wine!
​And I might think of shopping somewhere else.

ABP

0 Comments

Paris, mon amour x

15/11/2015

0 Comments

 
Picture
Liberté
Egalité
Fraternité

J'aime la France.


ABP

​
0 Comments

Australia - The Fourth Reich???

13/10/2015

0 Comments

 
Today, 13 October 2015, is a day which should go down in infamy for us as Australians.  Yes, today is the start of the Orwellian metadata retention regime.  All our metadata records (phones, emails, social media, etc.) will be kept for 2 years and will be openly accessible to a whole range of law enforcement and security agencies without even a sniff of a warrant.  And without even a sniff of any suspected wrongdoing by us.
Just where the hell is this country going?  Or is hell the actual destination?
Think also of the proposed street operation in Melbourne (which was cancelled at the 11th hour) by this new Border Force agency back in August.  Since when has it been acceptable for random checking on masses of citizens in the streets?  And on the subject of the Border Force, I had the delight of seeing their new outfits recently at the airport as I came back into Australia.  A stunning all-over black (perhaps to make them look slim?).  Actually, it struck me more as a modern reincarnation of certain outfits in Germany in the 1930s.
And we all know how that ended.  A version of hell indeed.

This disgraceful assault on the civil liberties and privacy of law-abiding citizens was brought in by a Liberal government (clearly having forgotten what "liberal" means) with the complete connivance of the Labor opposition (clearly having forgotten what "opposition" means).  I applaud the efforts by the Greens and some cross bench Senators to oppose the legislation, but, of course, their voices were raised in vain.
I have no problem whatsoever with law enforcement agencies being given sufficient powers to do their jobs (after all, I spent years working in that arena), but what happened to warrants?  Yes, those little bits of paper which at least provide a level of judicial oversight over law enforcement using intrusive powers against citizens.  Exactly the sort of oversight there should be.  And I've yet to see any reasonable, cogent argument put before the people of Australia as to why the concept of warrants is suddenly unfashionable and unnecessary.  Perhaps the real reason is the desire of the government and opposition (who'll have their turn back in government sooner or later) to really embark upon totalitarian control of the citizenry.  Big Brother is truly here.  Let's just wait for the abuses of these new powers which are inevitably going to occur.  Why?  Well, notwithstanding the many honest and decent personnel in our law enforcement agencies, there are certainly also those who are far from honest.  And, with no judicial oversight, it will be open slather for abuse by those so inclined.

This is supposedly all part of our benevolent government's efforts to keep us safe (from terrorists, I think is the usual glib rationale).  I'm happy to have a level of protection, but at what cost?  Does that mean my civil liberties disappear?  If so, and a whole lot disappeared today, then what way of life are we left trying to protect?  The tragic irony here is that these sort of efforts to "protect" us actually diminish and restrict our very way of life - exactly what terrorists are seeking to achieve by their own awful methods.  As a society we rightly voice our revulsion at what terrorists do in their efforts to destroy civilised, democratic societies.  When our own government and opposition engage in efforts to destroy our liberties we apathetically suck it up.

The problem is, as the freedoms evaporate, it becomes too late to speak up, to protest, to regain our lost way of life.  Remember Germany in the 1930s.  And remember this day in Australia, 13 October 2015.  Perhaps each 13 October from now on we should mount a silent vigil to commemorate what we lost today.

ABP 





0 Comments

NOTES on ETHICS # 1 - Education & Religion

2/9/2015

0 Comments

 
Ethics are one of my most cherished of subjects, and one which is endlessly fascinating and full of stimulating discussions.  When it came to thinking of a dedication in my first novel, Harry’s World, I settled on this:

“To ethics … And all those prepared to stand up for them.”

When ethics classes started being offered several years ago in NSW schools for those children who did not enrol in religious education, I thought that was a significant step forward for our supposedly secular society.  And the way in which they have grown has been fantastic to witness; it is true social progress.  After all, surely assisting children to become more ethical adults can only be a great thing?

But here we are, again facing the rising influence of the conservative and religious right-wing of our political classes.  So are ethics now to be regarded, again, as only of value to atheists, heretics and non-conformists?  (I’ll proudly count myself into that broad bunch).

The recent move by the NSW government to remove the ethics option from public school enrolment forms is nothing short of a disgrace and an offence to democratic and inclusive principles across the board.  It returns us to an approach where those of us who are not religious are deemed as outsiders, unacceptable to the mainstream, heretics no less.

Personally, I think religious education should be confined to homes and religious institutions.  As much as I disagree with religion (of all varieties), being a libertarian I fully respect the rights of others to be religious and hold those beliefs.

But my issue from a societal perspective is that religion does not equate to real ethics.  And this, perhaps, is at the heart of the political and religious loathing of them.

Ethics, in their genuine application, lead us to have consideration for others, as a general principle, regardless of who those others may be.  The reality about any religion is that the adherents have only consideration of any real sort for their own.  If they profess to have consideration for “others”, then it is always provisional consideration, it being on their terms.  In other words, any “ethics” preached by religious groups are selective and conditional in their applicability.  Not to mention the rampant hypocrisy in religions, but I'll save that for another day.

Further, those in power, whether governmental, religious, organizational or otherwise, tend to have a fundamental problem with real ethics because of the implications for them and their hold on power.  In order to obtain and/or maintain power, expediency and corrupt decision making will almost always be the most efficient and effective strategy.  For many people in power I would venture that this is also the most naturally comfortable approach for them as well.  And so ethics will always end up being unpalatable.  Lip service gets paid, sure, but that’s as far as it really goes.
 
Ethics classes should absolutely be available to our children, on an equal footing with any religious education.  Sadly this won’t be likely under our religious right-wing rulers.

But perhaps the real problem for our politicians is this:

If we teach all our children to be ethical adults, then where the hell will the next generation of politicians come from?

ABP

 

 

 

0 Comments

    A.B.Patterson

    Bringing you hard-boiled and noir tales of crime and corruption. And various related opinions!

    Categories

    All
    A.B.Patterson AUTHOR
    Authors Uncensored
    Book Reviews
    Colonialism & Literature
    Cops Writing Crime
    Corruption
    Crime Writing & Authors
    Dystopian Writing
    Ethics
    Flowers & Trees
    France
    Liberty & Censorship
    Literature & Authors
    Planet Earth
    Power & Politics & Society
    Quotes

    Archives

    June 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    December 2024
    January 2024
    November 2023
    September 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    December 2021
    October 2021
    August 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    November 2019
    October 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    October 2014

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly