Is authoritarianism the solution to crime?

Have you heard about Simpson’s paradox?

It is a phenomenon in probability and statistics, in which a trend appears in several different groups of data but disappears or reverses when these groups are combined.

You can’t always rely on crime statistics to tell you what is happening in society. However, it is obvious that if you have little need for high police to the resident ratio that the level of harmony in a community must be reasonable as no one is complaining they need more police on the streets.

Prior to about the year 2000, the operational police to resident ratio in many areas around Australia was about 1 as to about 800 in the city and 1 as to about 1,100 in the country.

As you may have noted, in the Exploration Notes of the proposed Bill the statement [ … ] “the barometer of harmony [ in society] is a low ratio.” i.e. the few police required more harmony in a community.

Therefore the question is, “What has actually happened to our society over the past 20 years?” I am asking you to consider the situation today relative to before in terms of the number of police being deployed in some areas.

For example, some towns there is 1 officer for 800 and in other places 1 as to 400residents. I have also noted some areas there are even more police. i.e 1 as to 200.. A possible explanation may be civil unrest?

But why is there ongoing civil unrest in these places that should be the question for which an answer will lead to a solution?

The answer isn’t having a police officer on every street corner forever and a day.

Since about the year 2000 the police to resident ratio has been steadily increasing as some politicians seeking to be elected promised to get tough on crime by putting more police on the streets.

Did it work? The short answer is “no”. In fact, in relative terms within the context of civil unrest and certain crimes as a form of rebellion against authority, things are far worse compared to the past.

Why haven’t you heard about this before?

Because “civil unrest” is covered up by some in authority or those in authority simply don’t have the resources or a clear understanding of the underlying social problems?

The same thing was happening around Australia, the police to resident ratio were steadily going up and crime wasn’t reducing.

Of particular note, was the increase in violent crime. Hence the up-gunning of the police and them putting on near black uniforms and body armor. Black uniforms historically are the colour of intimidation and it is reasonable to say the general public don’t feel comforted by the sight but intimidated by it.

Did the police ask for this colour, I doubt it. They were put into this uniform by those that favour an authoritarian system of things.

So we mustn’t blame the police for their appearance.

Have safer communities resulted from more police that appear to be para-military in appearance?

There is a good reason we don’t have the military do police work. Because when we do the enemies of the State that were once outside the State begin to emerge from within the State.

The same thing happens where the police are no longer a service but have become a force that has taken on the appearance of the military.

Today we are far from Westminister and beyond Napoleonic with some laws that don’t even exist in some communist countries.

Section 114 of the Australia Constitution comes to mind, words to the effect that the State may not raise a “military force”. Do you think the State has a police service or is it something that now resembles a military force?

My personal opinion is that we no longer are sure what our police service has become?

Please tell me what you think about the current laws and appearance of our police.

In conclusion, please elect someone that has policies that represent sensible well researched and thought out strategies to improve the harmony of their respective communities.

Authoritarianism is not the solution to crime as it only encourages a form of crime that represents a pushback against authority.

Synopsis Karen Q Public school teacher in remote areas of Queensland (The following is based on a true story):

Last year Karen was attacked by two large dogs, hunting dogs that were once domesticated. Her injuries were so serious that she had to be air evacuated to Townsville hospital for emergency surgery.

The circumstances of her attack were:

The Queensland Government

provides a $50/month subsidy to people living in certain remote communities if they have a dog. Because dogs have culturally been a part of their communities.

Most dog owners are responsible, however as is the case for anywhere there are always a few bad apples.

These bad apples will get a dog in order to claim the subsidy, but then the animal is either let go or not feed very well. These dogs, usually large hunting dogs are left to roam the streets looking for food.

Karen had complained to the local council, however, little was done because in many instances who owns the dog plays a part in what gets done. Being deprived of the subsidy may result in retribution.

The synopsis:

A representative of Preservation of Life – Community Protection Australia has visited several communities and has concluded that a dog problem does in fact exist. Karen was approached and offered security training and a permit of possession for a special type of pepper spray that has a range of up to 8m that was originally designed for bears in Canada.

By agreement with the school she keeps the pepper spray in her locker while at work and now walks to and from the school to her home with the pepper spray in her bag in the event she is again attacked by a pack of dogs.

### Your comments appreciated ###

Grey Nomad Glenda Q Public permit of possession of a low velocity rifle:

Grey Nomad Glenda Q Public permit of possession of a low-velocity rifle:

In her application, she had stated that the regulated weapon will be secured in the safe of their motorhome.

The permit issue allows for a low-velocity rifle. The reason the permit issue specifying low velocity is to safeguard against a round traveling well past the area of engagement. You may have noted that I have posted my concern about Police being issued 223 semi-automatic rifles for use in heavy urban environments such as a city. If the police officer rounds should stray the probability of it killing a bystander down the road at a very long distance from the area of engagement is very real.

In the case of Glenda Q Public who has received security and firearms training meets an approved standard as specified by “Preservation of Life – Community Protection Australia” the weapon as a standard is the modern and reliable 10 shot 38/357 lever-action rifle as featured below.

Some comments have been made about the speed in which the weapon may be produced from a safe, however, it is a matter of balance between the security of the weapon to prevent it from being stolen (when the vehicle is not occupied) and being able to access the weapon if needed as a deterrent.

The greatest risk is remote camping.

In her security training, it is re-enforced that when you’re inside your vehicle always lock the security door behind you.

The aspect of what type of safe to allow quick access and the arrangement the weapon should have is a matter for discussion here i.e. research for the proposed Bill.

In the case of a level action, there is no removable bolt, the rounds can be easily loaded and the number of rounds maintained without having to remove a magazine.

Glenda maintains her proficiency at a rifle club. The recoil for this weapon is most modest for Glenda and the knockdown capacity is solid.

The 38/357 lever-action rifle is therefore put forward as the standard weapon for those seeking a permit of possession for the above and similar scenarios.

One more thought, the reason for standardization has two functions, no up-gunning is permitted and the training of approved applicants is consistent.

The civilian standard for a capacity of self-defense involving a firearm does not exceed the police standard prior to their moving to military-style weapons.

Your thoughts on this standardization policy appreciated.

Synopsis Glenda Q Public 12 months after the issue of her Class B permit of possession of a low-velocity long arm:

During the past 12 months, Glenda and her husband have made three long-distance grey nomad trips about Australia in their motorhome. Glenda and husband are members of a traveller’s group and the general rule for free camping safely is to try and always camp with others or if you are unable to do so find a camp spot that can’t be seen from the road.

Over the past 12 months, they were pleased to tell their friends there had been no ugly incidents travelling the highways, however, they did meet a couple, friends they had known for years, that had original knowledge about a highway the locals call the “highway of death”, where a thrill killer is rumoured to have lurked on a desolate stretch of road where 11 people have vanished, with some found murdered.

Now there is a twelfth, missing Newcastle man Jayden Penno-Tompsett, who disappeared close to the cursed Flinders Highway in Charters Towers.

The mystery of the 22-year-old last seen on New Year’s Eve has baffled, but not surprised the locals, said the couple. As the couple was part of the traveller’s group and Glenda and her husband had known them for years they brought them into their confidence that whenever they travelled and locked up at night in their motorhome they had the peace of mind that tucked away in the safe was a rifle.

Glenda’s husband commented, “My wife is the most unassuming bad-ass crack shot with that rifle should trouble come knocking.”

The lady replied, “Good to know we are camping with your guys tonight” and her husband said in a serious tone, “Well it is about time that these highway murderers don’t know who is armed? You know that just the knowledge that someone may be armed is often enough of a deterrent.”

The above synopsis uses extracts of information from a true story of 12 unsolved murders on the highway some call the Highway of Death and others the Wolfe Creek Highway can be found at


Glenda Q Public permit of possession of a low-velocity rifle

Grey Nomad Glenda Q Public: Australia has had a long history of very tightly regulated laws with regard to concealable weapons. This is because no one knows who is armed and who is not. You readily see that a hostile is armed when they carry a rifle. Therefore the penalties are far higher as a circumstance of aggravation.
From a cultural perspective, long arms have no such issues. In further, those that lived during those times were not concerned about people that had a rifle or rifles because of their upbringing, supervised experience and education to become responsible firearm owners.
Therefore in the case of the grey nomad scenario of Glenda Q Public and other related scenarios the public should not all be presumed to be untrustworthy and irresponsible people noting that when you outlaw the weapon only outlaws (not victims) have weapons.
I am confident that Glenda’s grandfather that lost his life as an ANZAC to keep his children free and safe would agree that his daughter should have a capacity for self-defense, otherwise why did he give his life?
The evidence that the possession of a rifle in and of itself was not considered evil is that in almost every town across Australia we see the statue of the downturned rifle and a solemn ANZAC soldier. Those deserving of consideration in term of responsible possession of a rifle must include the children of those that sacrificed so much for their loved ones.

Magna Carta and the Un Bill of Rights connection…

It should be noted that the Australian Parliamentary website contains this statement:Some of Magna Carta’s core principles are echoed in the United States Bill of Rights (1791) and in many other constitutional documents around the world, as well as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the European Convention on Human Rights (1950).

It can be legally argued that Australia has not created legislation that recognises the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” as it moves closer to coming under the control of the UN. Can’t have one without the other if that’s where it’s all heading. Its a double edged sword and we should use it as follows:

In Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) it states: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

The key words being “security of person” not “control of the people for security reasons”. In other words, your security is personal and the first law of nature is “self preservation”.

The Proposed Permit Issue System

Low Doc:To ensure quality, certain types of personal defence device would be acquired through a regulated outlet such as a hunting and sporting store where self defence and victim avoidance training may also be offered.

At the time of purchase the applicant would complete the online application form sent electronically using the custom service portal at “Preservation of Life – Community Protection Australia” (POL-CPA).It is for this reason a $5 fee applies i.e. maintenance and improvement of the customer service portal.The above is referred to as a low doc permit application.

As to what types of personal protection devices would require a “low doc” application that is a matter for discussion and debate? Perhaps starting point is “pepper/mace spray”

Provided the store assistant has electronically affirmed the statement having verified the identity of the purchaser the permit issue would arrive in electronic format within five (5) minutes of being submitted.

A store assistant may only affirm a permit issue provided the statement given was valid within the specified criteria i.e. consistent with the information provided to them at their “permit assessor training” endorsed by POL-CPA .

A typical applicant’s statement meeting the criteria might read: “I am nurse that does shift work. Whilst we do have hospital security my car is often parked well away from the hospitals and I am aware that last year a nurse was sexual assaulted when walking to her car. I wish to carry this device (specified) in a public place in the event of being attacked.”

Another applicant’s statement might read: “I am a school teacher in a remote area where hunting dogs have been known to roam the streets. Last year an man who was walking in the park was attacked by two dogs. I walk from the school to my home and I wish to carry pepper spray (specified type and model of device) in a public place in the event of being attacked by dogs.”

The statement of dangerous dogs is of particular note (See below the news report of the school teacher attacked by 2 dogs and had to be air lifted to Hosptial because of the serious nature of her injuries.

Low Doc with Review:The above application protocol would also be applicable to other personal protection devices that are considered to be a regulated weapon, however for which they have a greater potential to cause attacker incapacity i.e. pepper spray and hand held tasers.The greater the potential for incapacity the more attention that needs to be given to home or work based secure storage and who and why a person may be permitted to carry the device in a public place.As an example, “hand held tasers” the store assistant submits the information electronically however a permit may not be issued until a POL-CPA reviewer as seconded the application.This arrangement is referred too as “low doc with review”.

The permit is issued after a background check and other inquiries have been made and the findings are satisfactory. A fee of $50 would apply and the permit issue would be 5-years and non-transferrable. The reason for the fee is to maintain and improve the review system that requires integrating with other data-bases i.e. POL-CPA / POLICE.In some cases a tribunal hearing if the initial review finds something inconsistent in the history of the applicant.

A Review Tribunal of 3 people with a show cause notice issued to the police as an “invitation” to attend to voice any objections they have supported by relevant evidence.

It is to be noted that the POL-CPA is a statutory authority that administrates the “Preservation of Life – Community Protection Act 2022” which is a Commonwealth statute law applicable nation wide. In other words, a permit issue in one state or territory is valid in another state or territory provided the address of the applicable is updated with POL-CPA within 3 months of a change of address.

The Act would need to include this statement:

“When a firearms law of a State or Territory is in conflict with a Commonwealth law within the context of self-defence the latter shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency”.

This paragraph would be supported by the principles outlined in the Magna Carta which have been ignored in the past. The hope is that politicians that support the principle of the Magna Carta will recognise the importance of placing “preservation of life” above all other laws.

Information about the Magna Carta can be found at: