It is ANZAC Day again in Australia and New Zealand.
A day when we remember the sacrifices given by our servicemen in many and varied conflicts, many who made the supreme sacrifice and laid down their lives so that who are left can enjoy the freedom and liberty so hard won.
Who Are These Men
Who are these men that march so proud,
Who quietly weep, eyes closed, head bowed?
These are the men who once were boys,
Who missed out on youth and all of its joys.
Who are these men with aged faces,
Who silently count the empty spaces?
There are the men who gave their all,
Who fought for their country for freedom for all.
Who are these men with sorrowful look
Who can still remember the lives that were took?
These are the men that saw young men die,
The price of peace is always high.
Who are these emn who in the midst of pain,
Whispered comfort to those they would not see again?
These are the menwhose hands held tomorrow,
Who brought back our future with blood tears and sorrow.
Who are these men who promise to keep
Alive in their hearts the ones God holds asleep?
These are the men to whom I promise again:
“Veterens”, my friends – I will remember them!
Jodie Johnson
This poem was written in 1966 by Jodie Johnson who was 11 years old at the time. The depth of her feeling and understanding for the thoughts of the veterans is unusual for someone so young. I know when I see this sort of understanding by young people, that our future is in good hands.
In Flanders Fields
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie,
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
Lest We Forget
They went with songs to the battle, they were young.
Straight of limb, true of eye, steady and aglow.
They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted,
They fell with their faces to the foe.
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun, and in the morning,
We will remember them.
The coming budget will reveal the Prime Minister as a barefaced liar.
Tony Abbott; Cartoon by Andrew Dolphin
“I trust everyone listened to what Joe Hockey said last week and again this week,” he told an SBS interviewer on election eve last September. “No cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS.”
Of that lot, it’s likely only the GST will be untouched. The ABC will be hit ruthlessly, with tens of millions of dollars slashed in what the government’s weasel spinners will try to sell as an “efficiency dividend”.
When I wrote here last November that “the fight for the ABC is on”, I knew the Tories would be vindictive. I had no idea they would get so viciously personal; led by Mr Murdoch’s myrmidons, of course. Just recently, News Corpse writers have likened the ABC managing director, Mark Scott, to Joseph Goebbels and Vladimir Putin. Individual journalists are frequently targeted by name. The Australian spent an entire week monstering the Media Watch presenter, Paul Barry, for some perceived offence to its editor-in-chief’s delicate sensibilities. The madder ideologues, like the mouths for hire at Melbourne’s lunar Right Institute of Public Affairs, shrill that the place should be sold off altogether.
Watch this space. The battle for the ABC is just warming up.
Again, I don’t normally support conspiracy theory, and this story borders on it, but as no piece of physical evidence has been found in the ongoing Flight MH370 saga, it now appears that Malaysian authorities are re-visiting the theory that the aircraft has landed in an unknown location and has been secreted away – see my blog “Landed in Diego Garcia“ and “Seen over the Maldives” on this very issue.
The search for missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 may be forced to re-investigate the possibility that the passenger jet with 239 on board landed, according to new reports.
The New Strait Timeshas quoted sources close to the probe that the investigation teams are considering revisiting the possibility that the plane did not crash into the ocean and had landed safely at an unknown location.
“The thought of it landing somewhere else is not impossible, as we have not found a single debris that could be linked to MH370. However, the possibility of a specific country hiding the plane when more than 20 nations are searching for it, seems absurd,” the sources told the NST.
The latest development comes as the multinational team searching for MH370 and its 239 passengers and crew widens the hunt using more capable underwater vehicles.
Yesterday, the Bluefin-21 completed its ninth mission scouring the seabed with three more dives expected to wind up the survey of the most likely location of MH370.
However, no contacts of interest have been found so far.
MH370 relatives reject Malaysian conclusions on plane
Relatives of flight MH370 passengers have denounced the Malaysian government’s suggestion that it would soon look into issuing death certificates for those on board despite no proof yet of what happened to the plane.
The statement, issued in response to a weekend briefing that Malaysian officials gave to families in Kuala Lumpur, also called for a review of satellite data that Malaysia says indicates the plane likely crashed somewhere in the Indian Ocean.
“We, the families of MH370, believe that until they have conclusive proof that the plane crashed with no survivors, they have no right to attempt to settle this case with the issuance of death certificates and final payoffs,” said the statement by the “United Families of MH370. In Sunday’s briefing, a Malaysian official said the government would look into a timetable for issuing death certificates for passengers on the Malaysia Airlines flight, which are required for families to seek insurance payments, settle debts and address a range of other issues. Deputy Foreign Minister Hamzah Zainudin also asked relatives in the meeting to submit a proposal for government financial assistance for families as the MH370 search wears on.
But relatives, who have repeatedly accused the government and national airline of botching a response to the plane’s disappearance and withholding information, said Malaysian authorities were playing an agonising “cat and mouse game” over the fate of their loved ones.
“WE ARE IN UTTER OUTRAGE, DESPAIR AND SHOCK!” the statement said, using bold caps.
Malaysian officials could not immediately be reached to comment. The government and airline deny they are hiding anything.
The Boeing 777 went missing March 8 en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing with 239 people aboard.
Malaysia says satellite data indicates the plane crashed in the remote Indian Ocean but no proof has been found despite an intensive multi-nation sea search. Demanding hard evidence, some vocal relatives have repeatedly said they were unconvinced by Malaysia’s conclusions on the data analysis, performed by British satellite communications firm Inmarsat. They have failed to share why they would accept a single source (Inmarsat) for analysis utilising a never before attempted method, as their sole grounds for determining that the plane is under the water and all lives lost,” the families said. The statement said they requested an independent peer review, but the suggestion was rejected on grounds Inmarsat’s data was under privacy protections.
In the Sunday meeting, “not a single one of our questions was answered,” it added.
A public opinion poll published last week found that more than half of Malaysians believe their scandal-prone government — which has controlled (as opposed to governed) the country for 57 years — is hiding the full truth on MH370.
Is this a credible release of information, in respect of the landing of MH370 in an unknown location, or is this yet another anonymous leak of erroneous or dubious sources from persons “close” to the investigation, or is the media again trying to make news where there is none? I fail to understand what benefit is to be gained by diverting the aircraft, landing it and then secreting it away. It’s too big a secret to keep under wraps for too long. Too many people would know about it!
At 17:45Z or 03:45 AEST (L) 23/04/2014, I was looking for the whereabouts of QF21 on FlightRadar24. It should have been enroute to Narita in Japan but I did not locate it. I did however find this strange, unidentified aircraft flying on a bearing of 158 degrees at FL450 NNE of Papua-New Guinea.
See for yourself!
Blocked, Courtesy: FlightRadar24.com
At an altitude of 45,000ft, this aircraft travelling in stealth mode, is flying higher than most commercial aircraft would fly. No point of origin (although tracking commenced in the vicinity of Guam) or destination was specified and at 03:45 at night.
Its identity remains a mystery! Then just as quickly it disappeared from the screen! Curious.
Police in Malaysia have been ordered to investigate the possibility of sabotage after another Malaysia Airlines jet was forced to make an emergency landing shortly after departing from Kuala Lumpur.
The captain of the Boeing 737-8H6 (9M-MXJ c 40137), which was carrying 159 passengers and seven crew for what should have been a routine 90-minute flight to Bangalore, India, had to turn back after it was reported that one of the tyres on its main landing gear had burst during take-off.
Air traffic control (ATC) contacted the pilots of flight MH192 late last night after debris (FOD) from a tyre was found on the runway. It was also reported that the aircraft also had difficulties lowering the gear on its return to the airport (WMKK).
The airline said that emergency services were responded to the runway, but the aircraft touched-down in Kuala Lumpur without incident around three hours after it left.
Malaysia’s acting Transport Minister, Hishammuddin Hussein, who has been at the forefront of Malaysian efforts to recover the missing flight MH370, travelled to the airport to see the return of the aircraft.
The pilots of MH192 were described as “heroes” for the way they calmly dealt with the emergency situation.
Malaysia Airlines flight MH192 bound for Bangalore turned back towards and parked at Kuala Lumpur International Airport (AP) According to the local Star newspaper,
The incident comes not only after the disappearance of flight MH370 on 8 March, but also after another Malaysia Airlines plane was “diverted” from its course shortly after departing Kuala Lumpur.
Flight MH066, an Airbus A330, was forced to make an unscheduled stop at Hong Kong’s international airport after losing power from its primary generator.
Asked about the possibility of sabotage due to the recent spate of incidents involving Malaysia Airlines, the minister said: “I have already directed the police to investigate immediately. Our standard operating procedure, as with MH370, has not changed but any leads that we have must be verified and corroborated.
“We are thankful that none of the passengers are hurt. I was able to meet the passengers, as most of them were very impressed with the captain and crew,” he said.
Are these incidents sabotage? I would think not! They are more likely to be simple mechanical “failures” that may occur from time-to-time with the operation of aircraft. The bursting of tyres on take-off and landing is a relatively frequent occurrence in aviation and with aircraft landing uneventfully. This incident with MH192 is likely to be just another one of these random tyre blow-outs.
ALL POLITICAL careers end in failure, as the saying goes. Few come to a crashing halt in such spectacular fashion as the O’Farrell premiership. One moment there was Barry, master of all he surveyed, about to announce billions of dollars of airport with Tony Abbott. The next he was writhing in the Macquarie St gutter, mortally wounded by an alcohol-fuelled, one-punch assault. Oh, the irony.
In all fairness, he deserves a better exit. He was an assiduous if unspectacular premier, and a decent man. I have known him and liked him since he was a bog standard backbencher making the occasional radio appearance on my ABC702 Drive show years ago. “You taught me how to use the media,” he said to me once.
Not well enough, apparently. More than a month ago a News Corpse journalist fired off a text message to O’Farrell asking if he had indeed received this now infamous bottle of ’59 Grange after the 2011 election. That should have sounded the air raid sirens loud and clear, but evidently it did not.
Jobs for an Ex-Premier; Cartoon by Kudelka
Yet I cannot believe that he was dishonest. The ICAC Counsel Assisting, Geoffrey Watson, has made it plain that he doesn’t think so either. He was forgetful, calamitously so. But remember that the wine arrived on the O’Farrell family doorstep amidst all the sound and fury of forming government, and within days of the death of his father-in-law. Sure, he did make a phone call to thank the ever-generous Mr Di Girolamo, followed up by the polite note which king-hit him. But the forgetfulness is understandable, if not forgivable. But how does one forget a 1959 Penfolds Grange?
O’Farrell’s true fault was his failure to keep his promise to root out the endemic corruption of the NSW Liberals. He baulked at bold political reform. As we will see in the next ICAC trawl, the Liberal Party state machine is rotten with spivs and shonks, touts and urgers, spongers and leeches, bludgers and layabouts, shysters and shifters, corridor whisperers and sleeve-tuggers. It is infested by the buyers and sellers of power and influence. If it never plumbed the dark depths to which Edward Moses Obeid and his cronies dragged the ALP, it was still sloshing around in the same sewer.
Barry O’Farrell was plainly aware of this but unwilling – or more likely unable – to expel the moneychangers from his temple. In the end, they got him.
Celebrated vigneron Nick Di Girolamo has excelled himself with this rare and striking Premier Grand Cru.
Selected from old grapes of wrath vines at the Obeid family’s Mt Corruption vineyard in NSW and cellared in Rum Corps oak casks, the wine reveals hidden gifts of subtle complexity. The brown nose offers a concentrated aroma of decaying cattle dung, complexed by persistent spice notes of rotten fish and more than a hint of unsavoury greased palm. An intense palate of bitter fruits displays weak backbone and piss-in-pocket acidity, with a lingering after-palate heightened by a signed “thank you” note of unmistakeable provenance.
Has Prime Minister Abbott and his office been misleading the public about his decision to restore imperial honours, compromising – and also offending – the Queen. Senior correspondent Barry Everingham suggests they have.
Yesterday, Jonathan Swan and Peter Hartcher threw doubt over Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s dealings with the Queen over the knights and dames issue in a piece published in the Sydney Morning Herald.
At the same time they were investigating this topic, I was also independently looking into this same issue and can now provide more information.
In summary, it doesn’t look good for Abbott.
Swan and Hartcher summarised the background as follows:
Tony Abbott announced last week that Quentin Bryce had been made a dame and Peter Cosgrove a knight. But had they really?
The Prime Minister’s surprise statement began: “On my recommendation, Her Majesty the Queen has amended the Letters Patent constituting the Order of Australia.”
Letters Patent are the official instrument, the parchment signed by the Queen’s own hand with her distinctive “Elizabeth R”, that give force to her decisions.
But, mysteriously, although they are public documents published in the Government Gazette, no one has been able to provide evidence that one was signed.
Or show that the Queen had signed the parchment at the time of the Prime Minister’s declaration.
This raises an awkward question. When Mr Abbott publicly pronounced Ms Bryce a dame in time for her official reception on March 25, was she? General Cosgrove started using the title Sir on March 28 after his swearing-in as Governor-General, but again was he officially allowed to claim that title?
The PM seemed to imply by his statement he had conferred directly with the Queen, however when Abbott called the Palace, my sources say he did not speak to the Queen but rather to one of her senior aides.
Abbott allegedly advised the aide that he was “restoring” a “truncated” (his words) part of the Order of Australia.
And, despite Abbott’s announcement, the subject of the Letters Patent was apparently not mentioned at that time but arose later, when the legality of his unilateral decision had time to sink in.
When I contacted the PM’s press office – the most arrogant, secretive and insulting PM’s office I have ever had the misfortune to deal with in my several decades as a journalist – they refused to comment and, indeed, slammed their phone down in my ear.
Hartcher and Swan did manage to speak the PM’s office:
After repeated requests over several days, neither the Prime Minister’s office nor Buckingham Palace would give Fairfax Media the exact date on which the monarch signed the official instrument.
On Wednesday afternoon – after Fairfax Media published this story online – a spokeswoman for the Prime Minister said “the documents” had been signed by the Queen on March 19.
But the Prime Minister’s office continued to refuse to release the signed parchment, saying the Letters Patent, which are public documents, would be published “in due course”.
Government House was unable to shed any light on the mystery. An official said Government House had not seen the Letters Patent or any copy of them.
My enquiries strongly suggest Tony Abbott bypassed the usual channels when he announced he had decided to reinstate imperial titles in the Order of Australia.
The normal accepted practise in such matters is that a joint announcement would come from the PM’s office and the Palace and they would issue a simultaneous release.
This would be followed up by a confirming announcement in the Government Gazette, which it did, but in this case no one seems to know if the Queen signed the necessary papers — and, if she did, when did she sign and where is the original?
When I called Government House, they refused to comment. In my experience, this means they were left totally out of the loop.
I then called the Palace to ask about Abbott’s decision. I received a similar response — though the anger in the royal aide’s voice was palpable.
I asked the Palace whether the titles conferred by Abbott were legal at the time he made his announcement.
I was coldly told that Abbott doesn’t confer titles, the Queen does, so I should ask Mr Abbott whether everything was legal.
Swan and Hartcher’s enquiries suggest it was not legal:
The spokeswoman had earlier said that an “electronic version” had been sent and signed in mid-March and that the signing of the paper version was “under way”.
However, there is no electronic version of Letters Patent, according to people familiar with Palace workings, and only the parchment bearing the monarch’s signature has any force.
An email exchange, in other words, may be no substitute, nor carry any official weight.
According to my sources, when the Prime Minister Tony Abbott grandly announced he was restoring knights and dames on 25 March, nothing was set in stone. In short, he lied about the Letters Patent.
And there is no such thing as an “electronic” Letters Patent — like the honours themselves, the “Letters” are a relic of another day and age.
Abbott has second guessed the Queen, which would be, in the eyes of the Palace, simply unforgiveable.
His office is now spinning desperately to try to get him out of trouble, but this merely illustrates what a mess this impetuous prime minister creates by going it alone — as he so often does.
The damage he has wrought is significant.
Firstly, his arrogance in bypassing Government House in Canberra, which he obviously did, will cause unnecessary frostiness there.
As for his Liberal Party colleagues, some 40 per cent of whom are republicans, most are privately furious he did not consult them about this move.
Despite being an avowed – one may say, obsessed – monarchist, Abbott has caused major ripples in the Queen’s office. It is a brave – indeed insane – prime minister of any country who would try to second guess Queen Elizabeth II; when it does happen, the offending politician is usually soon put back in their box.
And as to whether former Governor-General Quentin Bryce is really now a dame and Peter Cosgrove a knight?
Resigning with Style, or Beware the Shonk bearing Plonk.
Of all the judgment calls political leaders make in their careers, the last one – how to quit – is the one they most regularly bungle.
Most of the time they stay around too long, their brains so encrusted with the scar tissue of blunt political trauma that – like broken-down boxers or creaking footy players – they demand to play on, incorrectly believing they’ve still got it in them.
This happens both in leaders who have genuinely aged (Howard) and those who have aged prematurely (Gillard, Rudd).
But every now and again, someone resigns. Resignations are a science all their own. There are thousands of variables intricately woven into the formula that determine whether a resignation will be a good one or a bad one.
Don’t get me wrong. A “good” resignation is still a career-ender. “Operation a complete success, patient still dead” is the best you can hope for in these circumstances, but legacy is important in politics. If you are young – like Barry O’Farrell – it’s much nicer, when later going about your business as a private citizen, to be slapped on the back by people who thought you went too soon than slapped in the face by people who still can’t forgive you for sticking around.
The first point in the discipline of successful resignation is deciding whether it’s absolutely necessary. The sweet spot you’re looking for here is the point at which it’s very nearly necessary, but not quite. That way, the element of heroic sacrifice is preserved: He resigned, as a matter of honour.
Here again, the elements are famously slippery. Was, for instance, Barry O’Farrell’s resignation necessary? Technically – no, not at all. Of all the public figures who have trooped through Sydney’s Independent Commission Against Corruption in recent months, Mr O’Farrell is firmly and obviously one of the good guys.
But in this field, the tiniest detail can throw you. A bottle of Grange from your birth year is a horribly memorable gift, and thus twice-cursed; not only is it hard for anyone to believe you can’t remember getting it, but it also makes it harder for anyone to forget that the whole thing happened. It’s as sticky as a Wiggles chorus, and Mr O’Farrell would be in much less trouble had the thoughtful Mr Girolamo just sent him a horrible print worth $3000 instead, or a framed Wallabies jersey, or any one of the other overpriced trinkets that people like Mr Di Girolamo regularly flog off at party fundraisers.
Plus, booze is troublesome; it just is. Whether you drank too much of it and drove into a gate, like former WA treasurer Troy Buswell, or stuck your willy in a glass of it, like the Queensland MP Peter Dowling, or nicked two bottles of the stuff like former Democrats leader Andrew Bartlett, liquor is a leading cause of politicians deciding to spend more time with their families.
Punctuation is important. In the thank-you note – written, damningly, in the Premier’s own corpulent hand – Mr O’Farrell thanks Mr Di Girolamo for “all” his help. To a later reader, that single pen-stroke conjures a multitude of further gifts, the dancing girls and Faberge eggs of the imagination sketched out in the sickeningly rich colours of the ICAC palette. Personally, I think the whole thing was survivable but for the underscore, but I am especially interested in punctuation and thus possibly an unreliable adjudicator.
The most important factor by far, though, in a successful resignation, is timing. You have to do it early; ideally, before anyone has called for it. A voluntary resignation is surprising, affecting and heroic. A resignation offered by a quarry who has been bailed up in their own home for three days by a crowd of angry people carrying torches made of petrol-soaked rags is less of a good look.
By these and most other standards, Mr O’Farrell has had a good resignation.
But that’s the tragedy of the week, too. The very fact that a spectacle like this is so rare and shocking – a public figure deciding not to give himself the benefit of the doubt – is in itself depressing. And the resultant cry for more regulation, a “crackdown” on lobbying and so on, ignores the basic, awful lesson of ICAC, Craig Thomson and all the collected murk of recent years.
Some people won’t take an ounce of responsibility even when caught absolutely bang to rights. Others will resign even when they could probably have got away with sticking around. It’s impossible to legislate for that kind of thing.
In fact, the answer more probably lies in less regulation. Less of the centralised party controls that kept Eddie Obeid and Craig Thomson in Parliament for so long, and nurtured operators like Nick Di Girolamo. More involvement from ordinary people who know a shonk when they see one. Especially if he’s a shonk bearing plonk.
“Abbott !” said the Queen sharply. “Off the sofa, please. Sit there by the fire with Thatcher and Blair.”
The corgi glared balefully at the monarch and gave a sullen little yap, but then waddled over to join the other dogs on the hearth. The Duke of Edinburgh raised his head from his customary breakfast fare of kippers and Horse & Hound magazine.
“Did I hear you call that dog Abbott?” he said. “I thought you named them after your prime ministers.”
“We’ve run out of British PMs, dear. Abbott is the new Australian Prime Minister. Terry Abbott. Or is it Tony? One or the other.”
Philip forked another fishy blob onto the ducal plate.
“Abbott,” he said. ” Abbott…..Abbott…..Abbott? Terry Abbott? Can’t say I’ve ever heard of him.”
The Queen gave a light sigh.
“Of course you have, Philip,” she said. ” We had him to lunch at Windsor last year. You said it was the most excruciatingly dull occasion you’d endured since the state dinner for George Bush.”
“Ah yes. He kept banging on about being a Rhodes scholar.”
“And told us some of the colleges at Oxford were very old and historic,” said the Queen with a wry smile. “Who’d have thought it ?”
She poured herself another cup of tea. Spode china, milk and one, a tinkle with the teaspoon. The Duke lowered Horse & Hound.
“I suppose he’s one of those Australian republican chappies, is he? Can’t wait to get rid of us.”
“Oh Lord no, ” said the Queen. “Quite the opposite. He’s more Tory than we are. He’s just asked me to reintroduce knighthoods. Sir This and Dame That in the Order of Australia. Ridiculous, but one had to go along with it, of course. ”
Philip snorted. “Some of your colonials still love the baubles,” he said. ” I suppose that means we’ll have to fly out there for another bloody tour. ”
“No dear. Been there, done that. Too old now. William and Kate are going out in a few weeks. Good practice for ’em.”
“Thank Christ for that.”
The Duke returned to his magazine. His wife selected a triangle of toast and spread it liberally with best Welsh butter and chunky Dundee marmalade.
“Here, Abbott,” she said. “Come to mummy.”
The dog stirred from the fireplace and positioned itself by the royal chair, eyeing the toast proffered in the royal hand.
“Now beg!”
The animal settled back on its haunches, front paws raised, mouth open. In went the morsel. Snap went the jaws.
“Good boy, Abbott,” said the Queen. “Good boy.” Source: Mike Carlton http://www.smh.com.au
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! 