They are mainly young men and live in southern states, according to a paper, published in the American Journal of Public Health.
Researchers say these young men tend to have grown up in gun-owning households, are politically conservative (Republican) and own more than one type of firearm. Some of these homes own up to seven different types of weapon.
It comes less than three weeks since gunman killed 56 people and injured more than 500 others in an attack at a Las Vegas music festival.
The massacre was the deadliest in the history of the US, which has the highest rate of murder or manslaughter by firearm in the developed world.
The study, compiled by researchers from the University of Washington School of Public Health, the University of Colorado, the Harvard School of Public Health, and North-eastern University, looked at the handgun-carrying behaviour of 1,444 gun owners using data from a 2015 national survey.
Two-thirds of them said they carried their handguns concealed, while 10 percent did so in an open manner.
The research is the first in more than 20 years to scrutinise how and in what manner US adults carry loaded handguns.
Researchers said state laws on handgun carrying have eased since the 1980s and that some respondents to the survey admitted openly carrying a firearm even in regions where it was illegal.
I noticed this proposal on Facebook (for what that’s worth!). It takes the form of a change.org petition by Cody Orlando to be presented to the federal government. I don’t support concealed firearm possession or handgun possession in any form, but I’m interested to know the thoughts of others.
This will be a tough sell as most people have never handled a pistol, don’t understand the safety features, and have been brainwashed by the media and politicians for decades – creating a society that has an irrational fear of firearms. Jeff Cooper coined the term ‘Hoplophobia’ back in 1962, describing it as a “mental disturbance characterised by irrational aversion to weapons”.
I want you to put aside your irrational fear of firearms for a moment while I present you with some facts:
It is not possible to ban guns from a society
Violent crime in Australia is up and comparable in many ways to the United States. The media and our politicians love to hide this fact from you. In Australia, a woman is three times more likely to be raped than in America.
You might say you don’t want an American gun culture. I don’t either and I’m not proposing that. I don’t support the idea of self-regulation and the private sale of firearms and ammunition to anybody and everybody. Background checks, licensing and training are essential for anyone who wishes to use a firearm in Australia.
Because Americans have guns they are more likely to shoot each other. You will often see statistics of gun deaths in America compared with other countries claiming this is the case. What they fail to mention is that most of those deaths are attributed to suicide and because firearms are so readily available, they are the tool of choice for suicide in the US. Suicide is just as concerning in Australia, it’s just that we choose instead to jump at the gap or gas ourselves in the garage. The population of America is 14 times greater than that of Australia, so a per capita comparison is more like 715 America / 60 Australia deaths by firearms. I have included a graph below that shows how much more likely you are to die by other means in the US.
In the last two decades, the UK has introduced the most restrictive gun laws in the developed world, banning many types of firearms. During this time crime has skyrocketed and criminals are the only ones with guns.
As a law abiding Australian citizen who goes to work and pays his taxes, don’t you feel the Government should be doing more to protect you from violent criminals? I’m sure they believe they are doing the best they can, but the problem is their strategy is wrong. Criminals get too much of a free ride these days. Violent offenders brazenly rob, rape and beat people with little fear that a good citizen will step in to put a stop to the attack.
Police cannot be everywhere to protect everyone. There is about one police officer per 500 citizens and each officer works 40 hours during a 24/7, 168 hour week, reducing the ratio to 1:2100. Then you need to factor in how much time they actually spend on the beat, rather than doing paperwork, time in court etc.
Policing is not a proactive business with respect to violent crime. It’s impossible to tell when and where a rapist might attack and potentially give you a nasty disease. There’s not much you can do about that disease after the fact either. You can’t sue AIDS or Hepatitis C in a court of law.
Now I’m not suggesting for a moment that you or your daughter carry a concealed weapon to protect yourselves, but what I am proposing is that those good citizens who are trained and licensed to use pistols should be legally allowed to carry in public in their own personal time.
Why can’t an off-duty police officer choose to carry a pistol when he is doing his grocery shopping, or an armed security guard or sporting pistol shooter for that matter? Approximately 0.5% of Australians are trained and licensed to use pistols. How brazen would a criminal be knowing that 1 in 200 citizens would be only too happy to step in and assist another good citizen like yourself in distress?
You have a choice. You can continue to believe the media, political spin, lies and fear-mongering, or you can choose to believe that authorities recognise they cannot control criminals, so they control the law abiding. Lobby your government to allow licensed people to carry and remind them Article 3 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”.
Cardinal Pell is expected to be charged with sexual offences. Photo: AAP
Victoria Police have charged Cardinal George Pell with multiple serious sexual offences and have ordered him to appear in court next month.
Police confirmed Thursday that Australia’s most senior Catholic clergyman in the Vatican was summonsed to face charges over alleged historical child sex offences.
“The charges were today served on Cardinal Pell’s legal representatives in Melbourne and they have been lodged also at the Melbourne Magistrates Court,” Victoria Police Deputy Commissioner Shane Patton told a media conference.
Deputy Commissioner Patton said Cardinal Pell is facing multiple charges.
“Cardinal Pell has been charged on summons and he is required to appear at the Melbourne Magistrates Court on July 18 this year for a filing hearing,” he said.
Cardinal Pell has repeatedly denied allegations of abuse against him, branding them as false and part of a “smear campaign” to discredit him.
The charges will send shockwaves through the Catholic Church both in Australia and around the world.
Cardinal Pell is the Vatican’s finance chief and considered the third most powerful person in the Catholic Church.
Australia has no extradition treaty with the Vatican, but Cardinal Pell is expected to return to fight the charges.
He previously refused to return to Australia to front the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in 2016, citing illness.
He instead appeared via video link from Rome to refute allegations he helped cover-up abuse by other members of the clergy.
Deputy Commissioner Patton said police received advice from the Department of Public Prosecutions regarding the investigation in May.Three detectives from the Victoria Police Sano Taskforce travelled to Rome to interview Cardinal Pell about the allegations last October.
“Cardinal Pell has been treated the same as anyone else in this investigation,” he said.
“It is important to note that none of the allegations that have been made against Cardinal Pell have been tested in any court yet.
“Cardinal Pell, like any other defendant, has a right to due process and so therefore it is important that the process is allowed to run its natural course.”
The allegations of sexual assault reportedly were made by two men now aged in their 40s, from Cardinal Pell’s home town of Ballarat.
The men said Cardinal Pell, then a parish priest, touched them inappropriately in the summer of 1978-79, when he was playing a throwing game with them at the city’s pool.
The ABC’s 7.30 program aired the details of the sexual abuse allegations against Cardinal Pell last year.
The Cardinal has vehemently denied the allegations, accusing the ABC of mounting a smear campaign against him and saying the broadcaster had “no licence to destroy the reputation of innocent people”.
He again denied any wrongdoing in July upon news he was being investigated
“The allegations are untrue, I deny them absolutely,” he said.
“I’m like any other Australian — I’m entitled to a fair go.”
The operator of an airport fire engine that ran a red light and killed three people in a crash has been ordered to pay $160,000 to the Commonwealth for breaching the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
Renowned architects Greg McNamara, his wife Lena Yali, and Kevin Taylor died when the fire truck, which was on its way to assist at a fire at Wyuna, collided with their car in Darwin in 2011.
The airport fire trucks occasionally assisted on jobs outside of the airport grounds.
Airservices Australia admitted fault in 2013 during a coronial inquest, and conceded the training provided to drivers was not adequate.
But the legal battles have continued, as federal workplace safety organisation Comcare launched additional action against Airservices Australia earlier this year.
They argued it breached the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
The main argument was that Airservices failed to give appropriate training to its employees and did not identify risks to its employees or other road users.
Justice John Reeves today handed down his judgment finding Airservices breached the act and ordered it to pay the fine.
Justice Reeves noted the “airport fire engine was much larger than the majority of other vehicles driven on public roads, and the potential for serious injury and damage if they come into collision with another vehicle or a pedestrian is obvious”.
The recent arrest of an Australian 60 Minutes TV crew in Lebanon, has had (Australian) media outlets outraged that a TV crew could be arrested for reporting the news.
What they gloss over in their outrage is that the crew were filming a kidnapping and abduction of two children of an Australian woman who was in Beirut with their Lebanese father. True, the father had failed to return the children after an access visit, but still a kidnap and abduction has occurred.
The TV crew was not just there filming the abduction. No, it is alleged that the 60 Minutes producers had actually financed the abduction by hiring a professional company to carry out the grab. it is alleged that AU$115,000 was paid by Channel 9.
That makes the TV crew complicit in the action, and an accessory to kidnapping and abduction, assault and conspiracy, all serious crime in the Lebanon.
The mother and the TV crew could find themselves in detention in Lebanon for some time to come.
If found guilty, they could face up to 20 years in jail.
Dr Denis Muller, a media ethics expert at University of Melbourne, believes Channel 9 did the story because they thought it would “rate its socks off”.
“An Australian mum was rescuing children, bringing them back to a great life in Australia, that’s what it was all about,” he said.
“I can’t imagine Channel 9 looked into the risk and I can’t imagine they would have knowingly put their staff at risk like this”. But it appears they did just that.
However, the reporter at the heart of the issue, Tara Brown, has maintained a level of integrity stating, “I cannot talk, I don’t want to jeopardise anything. It has been fortifying to get messages of support, support from my family, friends and colleagues. I am being treated extremely well and the other women here are incredibly generous and kind.”
Will this action receive unbiased reporting from the Australian media?
Sometimes something that looks legitimate is not always what it seems.
For example, have look at the clip below were UK police pulled over and booked the driver of an ambulance responder unit. The public would have perceived this as an incredulous situation! But, the ambulance turned out to be a bogus unit.
A quick look a the vehicle should have raised suspicion, as the vehicle clearly has no specific ambulance service markings on it, only than the generic word “AMBULANCE” on the front and rear, and the Battenburg pattern hi-viz pattern applied to the exterior of the vehicle, and the blue light bar on the roof.
What the driver of the vehicle expected to achieve by this subterfuge beggars belief! There is no financial reward as a result of this behaviour. Delusions of granduer, perhaps?
However, senior ambulance officers in Britain’s NHS trusts say the ongoing privatisation of ambulance services has meant “sham” crews are able to operate legally. There is nothing illegal in writing “Ambulance” in bold letters across your car or wearing a flashy jumpsuit with “paramedic” emblazoned on it. The use of blue lights and sirens on public roads would constitute an offence.
John Divall, principal training officer of the Royal Berkshire NHS Trust, who has gathered nationwide reports on paramedic impersonators, said: “The NHS Executive Intelligence Unit are aware of this. They’ve been gathering cases of these Walter Mitty people who seem to want to trade on the prestige of real crews. And there is nothing we can do about it.
The other thing of note here is the quiet professional way the police went about their business. No throwing the “offender” against the vehicle, no raised voices, no slamming of doors, no behind-the-back handcuffing. All very quiet and purposeful.
The offender attended caught and was convicted and was fined for his efforts. I am led to believe that he re-offended, and received a prison sentence. He has since been at it again. refer to this article.
A very sad affair, with a man with clear mental health issues. Hopefully whist in prison he may receive treatment for this.
Some of the legal decisions that come out of the USA, never cease to amaze me. Now a US federal court has ruled that it is OK to wear military medals that you did not earn, and to lie about earning those medals. The wearing of an unearned medal, in my opinion, dilutes the intent conveyed by the medal, thus making the public skeptical when accepting the legitimacy of any medal. That said, the sheer number of medals (144 at last count) available to US servicemen and women, for all aspects of service, weapons handling etc., serves to foster that dilution on its own.
Consider this:
A federal law that prohibited people from wearing military medals they didn’t earn is unconstitutional for the same reason as a law that made it a crime to lie about earning a medal, a US federal appeals court ruled on Monday. It’s a falsehood that is protected by freedom of speech.
In an 8-3 ruling, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the now-repealed law against wearing unearned military decorations was a ban on a type of “symbolic speech.” Although the government can forbid falsehoods that cause tangible harm, like fraud or perjury, the Constitution restricts government regulation of expression based solely on its content, the court said.
“Suppressing a symbolic communication threatens the same First Amendment harm as suppressing a written communication,” Judge Sandra Ikuta said in the majority opinion. “Wearing a medal has no purpose other than to communicate a message.”
She cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in 2012 striking down a related law that prohibited lying about receiving a military honor. That 5-4 decision said the law punished speech without requiring proof of intent to defraud, and that the government had other ways of protecting the public from deception — for example, an easily accessible database of legitimate medal recipients.
A year after that ruling, Congress enacted a revised law that makes it a crime to lie about military honors, but only if the liar intended to profit or defraud someone. The new law does not punish someone solely for wearing an unearned medal.
Dissenters from Monday’s ruling said falsely wearing medals is conduct, not speech, and is potentially more harmful than lying about them.
“The wearing of an unearned medal dilutes the message conveyed by the medal itself,” making the public less likely to accept the legitimacy of any medal, said Judge Jay Bybee, who was joined by Judges N. Randy Smith and Paul Watford. “The lie here is told in a more effective way.”
The ruling came in the case of Elven Swisher, an Idaho man who served in the Marines from 1954 to 1957. In 2001, Swisher filed a claim for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder benefits, saying he had been wounded and traumatized in a secret combat mission in North Korea in 1955, two years after the Korean War ended. He said an unnamed captain had awarded him a Purple Heart and told him he was entitled to other service medals.
After initially rejecting his claim, the government reversed itself and granted Swisher benefits in 2004 for PTSD from the secret mission. The government canceled the benefits in 2006 after concluding that Swisher’s claims about the mission, the harm he suffered and the medals he earned were fraudulent.
In the meantime, Swisher wore his unearned Purple Heart when he testified as a prosecution witness against David Hinkson, convicted in 2005 of plotting to murder three people, including a federal judge. Despite learning of Swisher’s apparent deception, the appeals court later upheld Hinkson’s convictions.
Swisher, who has never recanted his claims, was convicted of the false-medal charge and three other crimes and has served his one-year sentence. His lawyer, Joseph Horras, said Monday’s ruling was a worthwhile expansion of First Amendment protections.
Bob Egelko, San Francisco Chronicle, Published: January 12, 2016
Sgt Alexander Blackman was filmed by a colleague carrying out the killing in Helmand. MoD/PA
Sergeant Alexander Blackman, formerly of the Royal Marines, is launching a new appeal against his sentence for murdering an unarmed Afghan “insurgent” in 2011. He carried out the killing while inadvertently being recorded by a comrade’s helmet-mounted camera. He quoted Hamlet as he did it.
The campaign on his behalf has gathered considerable steam over the years. It is, in my opinion, based on a number of terrible arguments and hijacks public angst over the very real hardships faced by soldiers and veterans throughout recent British history.
“There you are, shuffle off this mortal coil, you c*nt. It’s nothing you wouldn’t do to us,” he quipped in the grainy video around which his trial hinged.
The recording of the murder, even in the limited form in which it has been made available to the public, is shocking. Because of its inhuman content, but also because of the apparently casual manner in which the wounded man was dispatched. On its own merit Blackman’s conviction is uncontroversial, an open and shut case.
Marine A, as he was known during the trial, was a highly trained, highly experienced senior NCO in one of the world’s foremost infantry units. The fact is he simply cannot have been unaware of the laws of war when he pulled the trigger with a Shakespearean flourish.
The arguments put for his release or pardon have, from the off, been so utterly ridiculous that I resent having to destroy them over and over again.
For example, the wretched idea that he is a hero, that his heroism should absolve him, or that all soldiers, sailors and airmen are somehow heroes and therefore should all be exempt from the law is so flaccid that I should not need to bring it up. Simply put, it is the kind of arguments that one would only expect to hear from child.
Similarly, while I agree with his supporters that Blackman had been under pressure, that he had endured a brutal tour and that he was likely afflicted by post-traumatic stress, it is space cadet territory to suggest any of these factors could feasibly clear him of murder.
Even Blackman’s new argument that this was a “split second decision” gone wrong is dubious. Stressed, he clearly was, but he was obviously capable of reason and logic enough to urge his underlings to keep quiet because he had just broken the Geneva Convention.
Likewise the argument that he is a scapegoat of the establishment (which seems to love nothing more than a spot of extrajudicial killing, if recent drone strikes are taken into account) cannot be taken seriously given that various members of said establishment appear to be fully behind him.
In fact, his chief celebrity backer Frederick Forsythe boasted only recently of his Cold War work for MI6. Forsythe is many things, including a writer of decent thrillers, but he is hardly anti-establishment.
Likewise, Blackman has enjoyed the support of renowned establishment yes-man former colonel Richard Kemp, who commanded of British forces in Afghanistan in the early stages of the occupation, before it all got hairy.
I agree with parts of his latest statements from jail. “I had been sent to a brutal battlefield to fight for my country in an unpopular war,” he says. All true, in my opinion. A pointless, failed, imperial war driven by hubris and arrogance, and conducted to the detriment of the Afghan people, I’d add.
But there is something more at play here, and there is a hint of truth in his complaint, a truth which is being badly abused in an attempt to get the 41-year old soldier released.
They are playing on the idea of the British soldier as a victim, and while Blackman does not qualify in this case, he and many other veterans do in any number of ways.
The idea has weight. British soldiers have always been, and continue to be, stitched up by those who manage them.
The briefest glance through the history books will tell you that the many of the ‘heroes’ of battles as diverse as Waterloo, Rorke’s Drift and the Somme came home to poverty, hardship, mental breakdown and destitution.
This betrayal is expressed today through the thousands of homeless veterans on our streets and a recent spike of veteran suicides. That military men and women are betrayed by their masters is not in question, but as far as Alexander Blackman’s murder conviction goes he is no victim. He is a perpetrator.
Image copyright PA Image caption Sergeant Alexander Blackman was convicted of murder at a court martial in 2013
A campaign has been launched to review the case of a Royal Marine jailed for life for killing a Taliban insurgent.
Sergeant Alexander Blackman was convicted of murdering the injured captive in Afghanistan but his supporters say it was manslaughter.
Author and campaigner Frederick Forsyth said the court martial that convicted Blackman “stank from top to bottom”.
Joshua Rozenberg, who presents Radio 4’s Law in Action, said it would be “an uphill struggle” to reopen the case.
A new legal team – led by Jonathan Goldberg QC – is seeking a review, arguing that he should have been convicted of the lesser charge of manslaughter.
Blackman, of Taunton, Somerset, was convicted in 2013 and lost an appeal in May last year, but his 10-year minimum term was reduced to eight years.
‘Battle fatigue’
Blackman’s wife Claire told the Daily Mail: “The fact that he is now serving a life sentence for killing a dying Taliban insurgent is just wrong, this was war.
“Had the roles been reversed that man would have tortured my husband before killing him.
“We will not give up the fight to bring Al home.”
Mr Forsyth, who is leading the campaign, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that the evidence that Blackman was “nearly feral with exhaustion” was not produced at court.
“There is a very, very clear case that you can get a fighting man so tired, so consumed by battle fatigue and combat stress that he is hardly even thinking straight and there is provision in British law for that,” he said.
He claimed that at the end of Blackman’s trial, all seven members of the jury “put their caps on and saluted him.”
“Honourable men do not salute a perjurer and a murderer”, he said.
Mr Forsyth said the verdict had been a five to two majority, but Mr Rozenberg said the argument that it was unfair to have a majority verdict was dismissed so “it would be hard to overturn that”.
Campaigners hope the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which investigates suspected miscarriages of justice, will look at Blackman’s case.
Commission spokeswoman Sally Berlin said the organisation has yet to receive an application from the campaigners or legal team, but if one is submitted it will consider the case.
Mr Goldberg said there are three routes to a manslaughter verdict including loss of control, unlawful act manslaughter and diminished responsibility and he said all could be argued.
Mr Goldberg said Blackman suffered from battlefield stress syndrome and this was not presented to “any of the previous courts” as grounds for reducing murder to manslaughter “as we think it should have been”.
He said if Blackman had been convicted of manslaughter he may not have been jailed.
‘A scapegoat’
The killing, on 15 September 2011, took place after a patrol base in Helmand province came under fire from two insurgents.
One of the attackers was seriously injured by gunfire from an Apache helicopter sent to provide air support and the marines found him in a field.
Footage from another marine’s helmet-mounted camera showed Blackman shooting the Afghan prisoner in the chest with a 9mm pistol.
Blackman told him: “There you are. Shuffle off this mortal coil.”
The court martial board in Bulford, Wiltshire, found Blackman guilty of murdering the insurgent. Two other marines were acquitted.
It was the first time a member of the British armed forces had faced a murder charge in relation to the conflict in Afghanistan, which began in 2001.
Blackman was also “dismissed with disgrace” from the Royal Marines. He had served with distinction for 15 years, including tours of Iraq, Afghanistan and Northern Ireland.
Blackman had denied murder, claiming he believed the victim was already dead and that he was taking his anger out on the corpse.
A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said: “We respect the authority and decision of the court.”
Copyright Julia Quenzler Image caption Blackman’s 10-year minimum term was reduced to eight years on appeal
Image copyrightJulia QuenzlerImage caption Blackman’s 10-year minimum term was reduced to eight years on appeal
The Mail claims crucial evidence was deliberately withheld from the original court martial and says it will reveal “extraordinary and compelling new evidence” in the “coming days”.
The paper reports that it has seen confidential papers which claim panel members who convicted Blackman were “deliberately kept in the dark”.
The paper claims the court martial was never given evidence of alleged operational failings by Blackman’s commanders, which meant his troop was “isolated, under-manned, under-resourced and under daily Taliban assault”.
All of this was “directly affecting his state of mind at the time of the shooting”, which led to Blackman not receiving a fair trial, it is claimed.
Blackman, 41, told the Mail: “I made a split-second mistake, but I had been sent to a brutal battlefield to fight a war for my country.
“At the end of my trial, the establishment lined up to portray me as evil, because it suited them… to show the world how politically correct we are.
“I have been made a scapegoat.”
Blackman’s case is due to be discussed in the House of Commons on 16 September.
A South Korean court Friday suspended the prison term of the former Korean Air executive whose onboard “nut rage” tantrum delayed a flight last year, immediately ending her incarceration.
Cho Hyun-ah, who is the daughter of the Korean airline’s chairman, did not violate aviation security law when she ordered the chief flight attendant off a Dec. 5 flight, forcing it to return to the gate at John F. Kennedy Airport in New York, according to the Seoul High Court.
Photo: Associated Press
The upper court sentenced Cho to 10 months in prison and then suspended the sentence for two years. It said she was guilty of assault. A lower court had earlier sentenced Cho to a year in prison. She has been locked up since her December arrest.
She achieved worldwide notoriety after an onboard tantrum triggered when a first class flight attendant served her macadamia nuts in a bag instead of on a dish. Cho, head of the airline’s cabin service at the time, had a heated, physical confrontation with members of the crew.
Swarmed by reporters at the court, she made no comment in front of the TV cameras, bowing her head and burying her face in her hands as the media pressed in and yelled for her to say something.
The incident was a lightning rod for anger in a country where the economy is dominated by family-run conglomerates known as chaebol that often act above the law.
Kim Sang-hwan, head of the three judge upper court panel, said that even though Cho used violence against crew members, she should be given a second chance. The judge also cited her “internal change” since she began serving her prison term as a reason for lessening the sentence.
The upper court also took into consideration that Cho is the mother of 2-year-old twins and had never committed any offence before. She has resigned from her position at the airline.
And it seems that chaebol justice has prevailed yet again! Not only was her sentence reduced to 10 months, and then suspended for teo years, they cite that people using violence against others is OK, and should be given a second chance.
In Korea, as in Japan, the class system is alive and well. This judgement has shown once again that the upper classes, the chaebol, can do whatever they like and skirt around the judicial system with impugnity.
Had a lesser person carried out these acts, I’m sure they would be languishing in a U.S. Federal Prison for an undetermined period.
George Brown is a decorated soldier and health professional and 40 year veteran in the field of emergency nursing and paramedical practice, both military and civilian areas. He has senior management positions in the delivery of paramedical services. Opinions expressed in these columns are solely those of the author and should not be construed as being those of any organization to which he may be connected.
He was born in the UK of Scottish ancestry from Aberdeen and a member of the Clan MacDougall. He is a member of the Macedonian community in Newcastle, and speaks fluent Macedonian. While this may seem a contradiction, it is his wife who is Macedonian, and as a result he embraced the Macedonian language and the Orthodox faith.
His interests include aviation and digital photography, and he always enjoys the opportunity to combine the two. Navigate to his Flickr site to see recent additions to his photo library.
Џорџ Браун е украсени војник и професионално здравствено лице и 40 годишен ветеран во областа на за итни случаи старечки и парамедицински пракса, двете воени и цивилни области. Тој има високи менаџерски позиции во испораката на парамедицински услуги. Мислењата изразени во овие колумни се исклучиво на авторот и не треба да се толкува како оние на било која организација тој може да биде поврзан.
Тој е роден во Велика Британија на шкотскиот потекло од Абердин и член на Kланот MacDougall. Тој е член на македонската заедница во Њукасл, и зборува течно македонски. Иако ова можеби изгледа контрадикција, тоа е неговата сопруга кој е македонски, и како резултат научил македонскиот јазик и ја примија православната вера.
Неговите интереси вклучуваат авијација и дигитална фотографија, и тој секогаш ужива во можност да се комбинираат двете. Отиди до неговиот Фликр сајт да видите последните дополнувања на неговата слика библиотека.
Discussion on the law that applies to or affects Australia's emergency services and emergency management, by Michael Eburn, PhD, Australian Lawyer. Email: meburn@australianemergencylaw.com
Oh, let's see...distinguished Gen-X'er, frustrated writer and mom living in the confines of a small town that thinks it's a big deal. And have I mentioned Walmart yet?
Words, By George! 