Policewoman With Principles Who Cares.


A policewoman in Victoria has made a public announcement that she knows would lead to her dismissal and so announces at the same time that she quits.

Why?  Because she finds it repugnant and wrong what the police in Victoria are doing and ‘have’ to do.

One policewoman from over 21,000 isn’t a lot, is it?

But prior to this we had nothing.

What it is as a percentage is:  0.0047 % give or take a tad.

If there were twice as many we’d have 0.009 %,  thereabouts.

If there were 100 times as many we’d have 0.47%

Do you see where this is going?  This is a yardstick.  A kind of measure.  That’s where it is going.

A measure.  Of what?

Of the closeness of the police force with the community.

Of the concern within the police force for the community.

For the commitment within the police force to the community as members of the community.

We could say: as the participatory rate of the police with the community.

Make an apology, an excuse:  “more would speak out but the rules forbid it”.

I don’t accept it.  I say that weighs down heavily on the other side.  I mean the very continued acceptance of that ‘rule’, ‘regulation’ is a continuing demonstration of an essential separation between police and people.

Bringing it into the debate as a factor supposedly mitigating against this particular measurement is therefore not valid.  Quite the opposite.  Bringing it in should ADD to this particular measurement.  Make it worse.

Push the number of zeroes after the decimal further to the right.

I know I’ve gotten a bit abstruse and probably logically at fault there.

But what I’m trying to say is that years of condoning this ‘can’t speak out’ rule ( if in fact it really is true as commonly presented ) is a record, a fact, that sets them automatically way, way back in any measure of their essential ‘involvement with, care for’, the people.

Like I’m mixing two different things, is the problem, I guess.

I’m saying today it is hard fact that only 0.0047% of you give a damn about the people, about your essential existence as part of the people.

And I’m saying that has to be added onto – ADDED ONTO – your record of decades of allowing, permitting, conceding, bowing to, adhering to, a stricture that says you cannot speak to the people.  (If it’s true that stricture really exists).

NOT used as an excuse trying to maintain ‘oh there’s many of us really but we’re not allowed to speak out’.

NO.  The fact that you’ve never found any ways to speak out about this ‘stricture’ is condemnatory of itself.

Hmmm.  That’s what I reckon. Why do I get so exercised about it?  Because I’m on my third glass of wine.

No. Or maybe.  But also because I was brought up to believe in coppers. In the law. That they were part of us and in fact heroes amongst us for they protected us.

I expect them at all times to be for me, with me, helping me, caring for me, protecting me – as long as I’m doing nothing wrong.

Or even if I am.  There’s a hell of a wide range of ‘doing something wrong’ – all the way from murderers by proxy killing people from boardroom tables by ordering mine poisonous effluent go into native drinking water streams to accidental traffic restriction infringers.

What is common amongst all that wide range?

As far as police actions,  which I’m talking about: the concern they have for the individual and how they treat the individual.

They are not the judge. They know that.  So they treat the individual as innocent if at all possible and give all due respect.

It is fundamental.  It is the basis.

What we have in police states, authoritarian states, dictatorships, etc, is a fundamental where the people are seen as always in the wrong.  And the police are seen as always well within their rights to treat anyone at any time with any kind of brutality they wish.

Exemplified by statements such as ‘You’ll get this or that right restored if you do this or that..’


It is the quintessential brutal dictatorial statement.

Made in Australia by a quite humdrum, quite ordinary politician.  Endorsed in effect by mimicry by many of them.

Forgive them Lord for they know not what they do is about all you can say.

So, yep.  One policewoman. 0.0047% of the Force.

‘Let the Force be with you’ they say in Star Wars, don’t they?

Well that’s how much of the Force is with us: 0.0047%




Here’s Something Really Awful.

This is very scientific.  Very real.  Check it out.  I’ll put the link there.

But I’ll tell you what it says:  It says the vaccines are causing 5 times the number of deaths that covid is causing.  In the > 65 age group!  The very group that needs protection most!

And it points out the numbers get even worse as people get younger.

Here’s an extract from the paper of the relevant concluding paragraphs:

Thus, our extremely conservative estimate for risk-benefit ratio is about 5/1. In plain English, people in the 65+ demographic are five times as likely to die from the inoculation as from COVID-19 under the most favorable assumptions! This demographic is the most vulnerable to adverse effects from COVID-19. As the age demographics go below about 35 years old, the chances of death from COVID-19 become very small, and when they go below 18, become negligible.

It should be remembered that the deaths from the inoculations shown in VAERS are short-term only (˜six months for those inoculated initially), and for children, extremely short-term (˜one month) []. Intermediate and long-term deaths remain to be identified, and are possible from ADE, autoimmune effects, further clotting and vascular diseases, etc., that take time to develop. Thus, the long-term cost-benefit ratio under the best-case scenario could well be on the order of 10/1, 20/1, or more for all the demographics, increasing with decreasing age, and an order-of-magnitude higher under real-world scenarios! In summary, the value of these COVID-19 inoculations is not obvious from a cost-benefit perspective for the most vulnerable age demographic, and is not obvious from any perspective for the least vulnerable age demographic.

And here’s the paper:


Now what?  Line up for your injections.  Go get a flag and stand by the side of the road and wave as your premiers and prime minister go by?


Peter Smith writes well.

See how Peter finished his recent article in Quadrant;

“When all of the despotism, police brutality, lies and deceptions are put together, they manifest a failure of our civilisation to stand the test. Freedoms that we thought were protected by representative government, by parliaments, by an independent press; and, importantly, by custom, crumbled under the inept management of a disease of limited lethality. Just one political leader of stature, federal or state, might have made a difference. No one. Just wall-to-wall mediocrities with autocratic tendencies.”

Here’s the article.


Beating Your Head Against A Brick Wall

Here’s another head banger from Tom Woods.  Another graph showing there’s no way to tell the difference between States in the USA that impose mask  mandates and those that don’t.

But no one is listening. Are they?

and here’s Tom’s Post about it all.  With the graph again. I just put it there to try catch  your eye.


Here’s the pic that started it all… the joke!!

This had to be a gag, right?  China never thought it’d go like this.  But once it got running they went with it. And that’s what’s happened everywhere.  It is a bandwagon now and billionaires, drug companies, coppers, politicians, all sorts of people are loving it…..  but it’s a madness.  Here’s the pic and the article I found it in.