Thecuriousmail’s Weblog

Police: Will the corruption and abuse of power ever end?

Posted in Uncategorized by thecuriousmail on June 23, 2017


There is  a personality type drawn to employment in a police force, there is routinely an anti-social culture inculcated in the organization, and there are all-too-regular instances of police corruption and abuse of power. The police are a unique organization, and the community expects and insists on a higher standard of behaviour, performance, and accountability.

The larger the organization, the more difficult it is to address issues. Easier to turn around a row boat than an ocean liner, so it makes sense to put a limit on the size of a police organization.

Where hiring/dismissal, disciplinary action, and promotion are solely the province of police themselves, it must change so community members have an involvement, and in fact, have a veto on any decision (community members, not politicians, with a time-limited term).  All reasoning and decisions must be made public. Part of the reasoning for this is similar to as to why jury trials are important to a democratic society.  And the community must set the remuneration. A community that has a respected police service will suitably reward them.

Inculcation begins in a police academy. If such a central training academy is retained, there must be routine and widespread community involvement in the training of new police, and the training itself needs to include education in the mind (ethics, philosophy, reasoning, history etc).

Technology exists, with body cameras and GPS tracking, where the police can be monitored/recorded during their work/non work activities. It must be utilized. GPS tracking and body cameras must be activated and recording at all times while on duty, in the case of the camera, except for toilet breaks. GPS can always show where they were located. There must be penalties, including dismissal, for not having activated, or attempting to disable or circumvent, the camera or GPS. Extensive research shows that when people think they are being watched, they are demonstrably more inclined to do the right thing.  The police are a unique organization, and the community expects and insists on a higher standard of behaviour, performance, and accountability.

The issue of recruitment is problematic, as particular negative personality types are drawn to such employment, and there is a desperate need for diversity.

There have been many articles written about the political personality types of the police. One of the most influential is the 1972 work, The Police Personality: Fact or Fiction by Robert Balch. He explores several questions in an effort to crystallize the various arguments in the research on police psychology: are authoritarian personality types more likely to choose police work as a profession? Are police more or less likely to have authoritarian personality types than the general public? Does being a police officer exacerbate authoritarian impulses?

On the topic of authoritarianism and police, Balch summarized some characteristics:

  1. Conventionalism: rigid adherence to conventional, middle-class values.
  2. Authoritarian Submission: submissive, uncritical attitude toward idealized moral authorities of the ingroup.
  3. Authoritarian Aggression: tendency to be on the lookout for, and to condemn, reject, and punish people who violate conventional values.
  4. Anti-intraception: opposition to the subjective, the imaginative, the tender-minded.
  5. Superstition and Stereotypy: the belief in mystical determinants of the individual’s fate; the disposition to think in rigid categories.
  6. Power and “toughness”: preoccupation with the dominance-submission, strong-weak, leader-follower dimension; identification with power figures; overemphasis upon the conventionalized attributes of the ego; exaggerated assertion of strength and toughness.
  7. Destructiveness and Cynicism: generalized hostility, vilification of the human.
  8. Projectivity: The disposition to believe that wild and dangerous things go on in the world; the projection outwards of unconscious emotional impulses.
  9. Sex: Exaggerated concern with sexual “goings on.”

If such personality types are attracted to police work, then there must be great efforts made to address police culture and accountability


 I went to university  in Brisbane in the eighties. Queensland then was the closest I think Australia came to a “parliamentary/police dictatorship”. 

Joh Bjelke-Petersen of the National Party was the Premier. Later, when the dust settled, 2 ministers and the police commissioner were jailed. Joh was tried for perjury, but one, one only, jury member voted for his innocence. So hung jury. That jury member was a member of the National Party! The new ALP premier (and a crook himself) decided not to re-try Joh. An Australian state premier should have gone to jail.

There was a cosy corrupt relationship between the government and the police, where the police were allowed to do what they wanted, provided they supported the government.

There was widespread evidence of police involvement in illegal gambling, drug supply and dealing, extortion, stand-over tactics and assaults, prostitution, various corruptions, perjury, and verballing and planting of evidence on suspects.

It has been said that if you think qld police didn’t kill people thru their criminal activities you are naive. And there was some political and media discussion at the time, when the ALP came into government, but it was quickly and quietly dropped, because, it was said, it would have led to a public crises of confidence in the police. Yes, it sure would have!

Qld police (indeed all police services)  have a long history of corruption, criminal and violent behaviour, and there should be independent ongoing monitoring. In the time of Joh, any good cops were mostly forced out by bent cops, both co-workers and superiors. It wasn’t a good organization with a few bad apples. It was a criminal organization with a few good cops. People who lived thru Joh’s time wonder just how much Qld police culture has changed. Indeed, concerningly, if at all.

Successive governments have stripped away powers from the crime and corruption commission, the body that investigates political and police corruption, so much so, that soon the only official watchdog will actually have no power to investigate. Brave New/Old World.

So police and politicians went to jail,  but interestingly no judges. I would have sacked them all for gross incompetence and cowardice. You know, 45kg 19yo female uni student in a street march charged with assaulting 2 90+ kg policeman. Only they’re uninjured and she has a broken nose and black eye, and there’s credible defence witnesses saying she assaulted no cop.

COP: “Yes your honour, the defendant’s face assaulted my fist.”

JUDGE: “What a lovely man you are officer.  Yes, absolutely clear to me. GUILTY! “.

Crazy times.

it might be hard to fully  appreciate now, there’s been nothing comparable since (well as widespread, maybe, hopefully, err no, that’s incorrect), but at that time Qld was a laughingstock nationally and internationally, with a police culture of corruption, abuse of power, and cover-up.

“With firmness but courtesy”? What is this nonsense (substitute local police motto)? Sounds like “it’ll hurt me more than it’ll hurt you’ (which is rarely the case). Better it were ‘we serve with honesty and without favor’, or some such thing. A police force does not serve the police department,  or the government,  or the state; it serves the community. It is the community’s wish that people not murder, rape etc, and the community tasks the police (and pays for them ) to maintain that peace. And the police are accountable to that community. Police services the world over maintain a hostility, implicit and sometimes explicit,  to the community, or parts of the community, an ‘us and them’, and a fantasy that only they as good and right can control a community evil and wrong.

This police culture must change. It can only lead to police corruption and abuse of power. Police are members of the community,  charged with maintaining peace in the whole community, always with honesty and fairness and in a prescribed manner, and answerable to the whole community. If they either cannot understand their role, or they do not accept this role, their participation as police officers is immediately at  an end.

What can be said of all police forces? A substantial number of police –more than a few or some, maybe most or nearly all– are little different from the criminals they arrest.

Research is possible by googling something  like: how many police are convicted of a criminal offence. The percentage of serving police officers with criminal convictions is about 2.5% (I have seen much higher, but never lower).  The percentage of the general population with a criminal conviction is significantly lower than this. How is it that the police, tasked with upholding the law, demonstrate a higher rate of criminality than the wider community, and how is it that a person with a criminal conviction is hired into, or maintains their position in, the police force?

In Queensland in the last 12 months, serving police officers, on duty or off duty,  have been convicted of offences including murder, extortion, rape, underage sex, assault, and drug dealing. As it is, it is right and proper for the community to demand better, and to insist on a greater control of the police force.

Lightly scratch the surface of every police force and you will find widespread corruption and abuses of power.  I believe this is due to the personality type attracted to the police force, the laughably low entry requirements, and a lack of real accountability by the police to the general community.


The fiction of the ‘Rule of Law’, and why you must break the law

Posted in Uncategorized by thecuriousmail on June 21, 2017

lady justice

A law has  been defined as an ordinance of reason, for the common good, made for the care of the community, and promulgated.

I say a law must be consistent with reason and common sense,  must be equitable, the reasoning made public, and must be for the overall good of the community. For a free agent, this is a precondition for acceptance and compliance. A law is not valid if it doesn’t meet these conditions, and as such may be broken.

If a law is not reasonable, equitable and such, it is not just permissible to protest and break the law, (and if desired, to take necessary steps to avoid detection), it is the duty of all free agents to oppose, disobey, and break that law. To acquiesce (as distinct to active opposition) to an unreasonable and inequitable law is to perpetuate it, gives tacit approval to the corrupt, compromised and inept lawmakers, and is contrary to the long-term interests of society.

Such laws must be opposed, must be broken, must be defied,  that is the responsibility of all free agents.

The ‘rule of law’ is an intent to rationalize and validate control, and it is often used merely as a weapon to support the privileged and to attack the powerless. It is a mechanism of such control.

The lawmaker’s half-plead, half-threat,  of “you may disagree with a law, but you can’t disobey it”, is a totally meaningless distinction, but more, it is an implicit acknowledgment by the lawmaker of the baselessness of their claim to the legitimacy of the law.

Your understanding of,  and personal consent to, the law, is not required, and reason and fairness and openness may be entirely absent, but (because the law  is an exercise of their power and control, and an expression  of their agenda,) you are simply required to obey without reason or explanation. You are permitted an internal non-effectual objection, and it must remain internal, and it must be without force or import,  but you must still and always obey regardless.

Yet if a law is consistent with reason and common sense,  is  equitable, the reasoning open, and in the overall interest of the community, ‘disagree but obey’ is simply nonsensical. But the rule of law cannot even limit its own absurdity: disagree with good reason, but you must obey the unreasonable, the discriminatory, the inequitable and unfair, the concocted and deceitful, and even the absurd.  See with new eyes, open.

The legal system is concerned with the legal system,  they are as vultures picking over a rancid carcass. It has been oft said,  but is worthwhile repeating: the legal system is concerned only with the law, and  not justice, not reason, not equity. If the government made ketchup ( tomato sauce) illegal,  the police — subject to regular corruption and abuse of power issues– would arrest anybody with ketchup, and the courts would contest interpretation and argue particulars, usually at considerable financial cost to the accused (and in this paradigm more costly legal representation usually equates to a better result for the defence, so all subject to the law, all being nominally equal, but more leniency if you are privileged).

To the police and the courts a strict intellectual obedience and subservience applies –the door to rationality and reason is slammed shut, and the door to absurdity flung open– and no law is ever too unjust or unreasonable or fanciful to disobey At best one might hear them muttering the mantra, ‘disagree but obey’. But never,  ‘on good reason I disagree, and therefore I do not obey’.

If a law is  unjust, if a law is nonsensical, how is redress possible?

It must be, it can only be,  the individual, the  free agent, taking action. You.

If a law isn’t consistent with reason and common sense,  isn’t equitable, the reasoning isn’t made public, and isn’t for the overall good of the community, it is the duty of all free agents to oppose, disobey, and break that law.

In these circumstances,  if the state uses force against you, or threatens to use force, it is your duty to respond in kind.

The single and sole purpose of the state is to provide the framework for the interactions
of free agents. It has no purpose,  no meaning, no justification , no legitimacy, beyond
this, and it is only with the approval , initial and ongoing, of  free agents that the state
has any reason for existence.  The modern state has come to act as if the only reason for
free agency is to support the state, and that the state exists as some separate and beyond
entity to free agency. This argument is the modern equivalent of the divine right of


See with new eyes, open

Victorian supreme court judge, Michael Croucher, in sentencing Sevdet Ramadan Besim, 19, for planning to kill a police officer: “It was also evil because, among other things, the planned behaviour was calculated to undermine the authority of the institutions of government.”

Any claim to authority by the institutions of government was long ago extinguished by their lies, deception, and manipulation.

Who does history applaud? Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Irena Sendler, for example (only two examples among many throughout history) who broke the law and moved Jews to safety,  or the german police officer who helped round up Jews, likely knowing their destination in a concentration camp, and their fate.

So who of the two does history applaud?
Bonhoeffer and Sendler.
But they were breaking German law.
So there must be times when the law is over-ruled by something else. Bonhoeffer and Sendler understood that at the time, and history honors people like them.
What might be a justification for action like his, a justification available in the moment,  that might successfully predict a future history’s positive conclusion?
I say,  a law must be consistent with reason and common sense,  must be equitable, the reasoning made public, and must be for the overall good of the community. And it is not sufficient to simply disagree; one must act. YOU must ACT.

The times they are a changin’.

Posted in Uncategorized by thecuriousmail on June 17, 2017


In countries around the world, disenchantment and anger builds against the status quo.

The cynical ideology of neoliberalism has increased the power and wealth of the privileged, and wannabe-privileged, and increased inequality to obscene levels.

 Democracy manifests a sameness and has become much ado about nothing, where secret decisions based on hidden agendas entrench the position of the privileged, and the rights and freedoms of the governed are being steadily removed by corrupt and compromised politicians, only concerned with political power, and justified by lies and half-truths.

But a change is coming.

It may or may not be bloody. That depends on the actions of the privileged.

Will they engage and discourse, recognize the current problems and commit to a solution, a return of power to the people, an openness and accountability to decision-making,  and a fairer and more equitable future for us all?

History would say: no. The state will use all force available, force meant to protect will be used to harass, imprison and murder. The privileged, then as now, will use complicit and obedient police and courts to maintain their control, even as events take on an increasingly absurd, and violent,  air.

Is history to doom us to a bloody conflict?

Or can reason and an equanimity prevail, a commitment to a shared future as equals?

And as the political system must change, so must the economic system.

A Note On Free Agency

Posted in Uncategorized by thecuriousmail on June 15, 2017

Reason must be our last judge and guide in everything-John Locke

Free agency is a natural right. The state has no justification to intervene in any arrangement between adult free agents exercising their reason and common-sense and in good faith, or the decision of a free agent exercising their reason and common-sense and in good faith, provided that arrangement does not deleteriously affect the experience of other free agents. The full expression of reason and common-sense means this provision should not arise, but there may be unforeseen or untoward consequences. Free agents acting in good faith can and do resolve issues and arrive at a consensus.

It is not the state’s right to otherwise intervene or to approve. The state may make procedural requirements, but the arrangement stands and is inviolable. Governments need the consent of the governed; free agents do not need the consent of the government. State intrusion into free agency has become so widespread that many think the social contract is now made null and void.

According to, for example, John Locke, when the government fails to secure our natural rights, free agents can withdraw their obligation to obey, and use any means, including, when necessary, violence, to re-assert their primacy.

Locke affirmed an explicit right to revolution in Two Treatises of Government: “whenever the Legislators endeavor to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common Refuge, which God hath provided for all Men, against Force and Violence. Whensoever therefore the Legislative shall transgress this fundamental Rule of Society; and either by Ambition, Fear, Folly or Corruption, endeavor to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other an Absolute Power over the Lives, Liberties, and Estates of the People; By this breach of Trust they forfeit the Power, the People had put into their hands, for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty.”

Addressing a couple of contemporary issues:
1. People with an incurable disease wanting to end their own lives.
The state may make minimal procedural requirements, eg two doctors must be consulted, there must be a 7 day delay between decision and action, or such like, but the free agent can make such an arrangement without either the approval of, or hindrance by, the state. The means are provided, but the act must be of the free agent themselves.
2. A woman choosing pregnancy termination.
Being a free agent, a woman’s body is her own, and she is soley able to decide on such matters, The state may make minimal procedural requirements, eg to be performed by a doctor in a hospital or clinic, or such like, but the free agent can make such an arrangement without either the approval of, or hindrance by, the state.
3. Same sex marriage.
In regards to a community recognized relationship commitment, ie marriage, with its explicit responsibilities and obligations, any adult free agents are able to make that commitment to each other, same gender or different gender. Free agents can make such an arrangement without either the approval of, or hindrance by, the state.

We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.
Ayn Rand.

The Age Of Deception

Posted in Uncategorized by thecuriousmail on June 11, 2017

british parliament

Capitalism and parliamentary democracy  are 2 very destructive  and essentially corrupt mental constructs that have evolved together, and continually re-enforce each other, and together have reached a point of being virtually unreformable.

The citizen in a parliamentary democracy has abrogated ALL personal decision-making in the polity, EXCEPT for the every-so-often marker of an election, where we are asked to express a general satisfaction/dissatisfaction.

In the meantime politicians and bureaucrats make compromised decisions largely in secret. In fact it is secrecy they demand, and lies abound. Deception is the coin of the realm.

The type of person attracted to a political career seems mostly to be the worst of us: not too bright, wanting the opportunity to let loose their prejudices into prescriptions,  and willing to be bought for the right price.

Nowadays the state can conceive of no significant polity; provided the state endures, the citizenry may number just one. And increasingly no action by the state against the citizenry is considered taboo, no liberty or right they cannot exclude or reject or modify into meaninglessness.  As long as the pigs can play in the mud, they are happy little pigs; the colours vary, but these little piggies have learnt to fly.

If in my power I would do away with parliamentary democracy and party politics tomorrow. I am happy for the future to judge me in this desire. I am happy for the citizenry to discuss what might come after this Age of Deception.

A question all people should address, as they are free agents able to use reason and common-sense. You need not listen to the oink, grunt and squeal, of the piggies. Remember tho, the pigs will defend the pigsty, and their place in the pigsty. You are a free agent, and you can rely on reason and your common-sense. You will overcome.


Terrorism paranoia allows Australian politicians to erode individual rights

Posted in Uncategorized by thecuriousmail on June 9, 2017

NEWS REPORT:The Council of Australian Governments has come to an agreement over a number policy issues, including reforming bail and parole laws.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull announced the heads of the nation’s states and territories have agreed to legislate on a presumption against parole and bail for people with terror links.  (Charged, NOT yet convicted)

COAG also agreed senior parole board and corrections staff will be briefed by ASIO on terror suspects, and all the leader were reconvene for a special terrorism summit to discuss pre and post jail control orders and surveillance of terror suspects

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said the gathering would take place as soon as possible.

‘This is not an area of policy where you can set and forget,’ he told reporters following the Council of Australian Governments meeting in Hobart on Friday.  (Yes, the state will take every opportunity to erode individual rights)

‘We’re going to be very proactive, constantly upgrading our defences.’

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews said the special COAG meeting was very important.

‘I think the community will take a very dim view of each of us if, after that meeting, we do not have a detailed list of concrete, common sense steps, doing what has to be done to keep every Australian safe,’ Mr Andrews said (We must keep the sheep afraid, very afraid, so they do not object to their loss of personal rights).

George Williams:  “Of greater importance is the reach of the laws in introducing restrictions on speech through sedition offences and censorship; detention and questioning by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation of Australian citizens not suspected of any crime; the banning of organisations by government; control orders that can enable house arrest for up to a year; detention without charge or trial; covert surveillance of non-suspects; and warrantless searches of private property by police.

As these examples demonstrate, exceptional powers and sanctions thought to lie outside the rules of a liberal democracy, except during wartime, have become part of Australian law.”

Number of people killed in Australia between 2010 and 2016

by terrorist acts,  3  (plus 3 perpetrators)

by bee and wasp stings, 51

by being struck by lightning,  64

women and children, by ex partners,  253

in motor vehicle accidents,  8,762

by heart disease and stroke,  272, 352

Does a terrorist kill civilians? Yes.  In Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria, have American, Australian, and British forces, killed civilians? Yes, in the tens of thousands.

It seems the definition of terrorist depends on what side of the rifle, and what side of the bible, you are on.

And there is a connection between foreign policy abroad and home Islamic attacks, denied by politicians in successive governments, because to acknowledge it means to accept responsibility and culpability, and this they just will not do. Western governments have for no valid reason put the soldiers in harm’s way and civilians in peril, and their answer to the danger they created is to remove the rights and freedoms of their citizens! Oh what a sordid bloody mess they create.

My future’s so bright, I gotta wear shades

Posted in Uncategorized by thecuriousmail on May 13, 2017


Why, without exception, are human visions of future society so bleak?

In literature, cinema, conversation, myth and prophecy,  we strive to find our place in the desolation that awaits,  and so fulfil a just and deserved damnation.

What do we know, that we know? When did the unwritten get wrote?

What contagion do we carry in our soul that manifests itself in these dark visions of time to come?

With our thoughts we create the world . .

and our future.

Tagged with:

The world was a better place when John Clarke was in it.

Posted in Uncategorized by thecuriousmail on April 23, 2017



A man of rare wit and compassion.

Tagged with:

Democratic governments are now NOT so democratic.

Posted in Uncategorized by thecuriousmail on April 23, 2017

gold dollar.jpgThe increasing inequality in democratic developed countries can only have a certain number of explanations:

Either, 1) that there is no problem that warrants action, and even if only 1 person owns 99.9% of the wealth, this is an acceptable situation.

The best way to “spread the wealth around is to leave it in the hands of the wealthy.” says John Tamny,  a senior fellow in economics at Reason Foundation, the political economy editor at Forbes, a senior economic advisor to Toreador Research & Trading, and editor of

Carol Roth,  an American radio host, television personality, author and investor, says: “I take issue with the entire inequality discussion, as opportunity and prosperity are important objectives, but equality is not only a pipe dream, it isn’t desirable.”

Or, that there is a problem with wealth inequality, but

  1.  we’re at “X” level, which is ok, but when we reach “Y” level, then action will be taken, or
  2.  governments are taking no real action, but say they are (collusion, corruption), or
  3.  governments are taking real action, but it has no effect (ineffectual).

What does your government say??

So, is Tamny, Roth and the like, correct?

Or these people:

During the Age of Reason, Francis Bacon wrote “Above all things good policy is to be used so that the treasures and monies in a state be not gathered into a few hands… Money is like fertilizer, not good except it be spread.”

“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”  Franklin D Roosevelt.

“It was possible, no doubt, to imagine a society in which wealth, in the sense of personal possessions and luxuries, should be evenly distributed, while power remained in the hands of a small privileged caste. But in practice such a society could not long remain stable. For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realise that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance.”  George Orwell.
“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and cause me to tremble for safety of my country; corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in High Places will follow, and the Money Power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the People, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic destroyed.” Abraham Lincoln.

And in Australia:

The tax cuts announced by Treasurer Scott Morrison flow overwhelmingly to high-income earners, with 70% of taxpayers gaining nothing.

All the benefits go to people in the top 30 per cent of income earners.

“Scott Morrison and Mathias Cormann might not be smoking cigars tonight like Joe Hockey did so ill-advisedly after his budget, but the top 1 per cent will be,” said Richard Dennis, chief economist at the Australia Institute.

Mr Morrison defended the tax changes against allegations they lacked fairness and equity because the benefits were skewed to those on higher incomes.

So, is wealth inequality increasing or decreasing? Every study I have seen, from numerous unrelated sources, says that it is, a resounding yes that wealth inequality is increasing, and an equally definite affirmation that the government is doing nothing to reverse the situation. In fact, governments appear to be not just enabling the inequality thru tax concessions and the absence of legislative action, but to also be actively attacking poorer Australians thru reductions in wages and conditions.

The question then is, have the so-called democratic governments now become the enemy??

“Concentration of wealth yields concentration of political power. And concentration of political power gives rise to legislation that increases and accelerates the cycle.” Noam Chomsky.

E.T., please stay!

Posted in Uncategorized by thecuriousmail on April 22, 2017



E.T.,                        please don’t go!


I live in a world of leaders and lies, of authority, control, and  an obedience enforced but never justified , a world of a vicious anti-reason that demands ignorance, prejudice,  and compliance, a world of violence and war, where what we do to each other will always haunt our existence, and victory a careless remembrance of brutal folly passed.

We are the worst of children who never grew up, who will never grow up.

E.T.,                               please, stay.

Tagged with: