Essentially, many retailers in the Square are their own worst enemy in dealing with shoplifting. By a simple rearrangement of sale terminals and better customer service these issues could be dramatically reduced. Even a simple compulsory check of purchase dockets against items in possession of customers before leaving the store will help. If any unpaid items are found, the customer could be redirected to a sales terminal.

The police in the GP article had agreed that shoplifting is a crime and therefore by definition of the NSW Crimes Act, an intent to shoplift must be established as the sole motivator along with the possession of any unpaid items to prove the offence.

We have in Goulburn many elderly and disabled persons wanting to lead normal lives struggling with the use of IT equipment to finalise their purchases leading to the occasional situations of many such customers to be in the possession of at least an unpaid item. Where is the intent to shoplift here? Also consider, staffed scanning terminals where operators fail to correctly scan items making shoppers having unpaid items. Where is the intent to shoplift here?

Thus the warning I give to all customers is to ensure possession of shopping dockets. If not, accusations of shoplifting may occur and you may … receive $300 on-the-spot fines or court attendances.

Note to Inspector Chad Gillies: Please ensure, if anyone is charged with shoplifting, that intent can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of a court by your officers and any statement made a copy is given to the alleged offender, which is their legal right to have. I refer you to an important High Court decision on Bunning v Cross made in 1978 where a drunk driver in WA was let off because the police officer concerned did not follow the law as established.

We need to talk about that wedding; the analogy that the Goulburn Post used to explain why the date of Australia’s National Day shouldn’t change (27/1). Celebrating a wedding anniversary apparently has nothing to do with the event that kicked it off, but is all about “the years that have passed, challenges faced and achievements gained together since vows were exchanged” hence the actual date of Australia Day shouldn’t matter as long as we celebrate it, and, therefore, in an odd piece of inverse logic, the January 26 date shouldn’t be reviewed.

It was a tortured comparison, so I have no problem mangling the analogy further: If I was planning a wedding, I wouldn’t for a second consider holding it on the same day as a close family member’s funeral; important family wouldn’t attend, and probably be justifiably offended at the lack of respect shown to their grief. In years to come the anniversary celebrations would forever be tainted by conflicting memories, emotions and feelings. No. I’d choose a different date.

The last paragraph of the editorial dismisses the conversation around this topic as politicisation and disingenuously conflates the discussion with a lack of patriotic pride. In the article, questioning and discussion equalled “politicisation”, while opinions that dismissed and denigrated such talk was hailed as “popular resistance”. The rhetoric is eerily familiar to the tone of voice of a well known recent political campaign.

In an era where ugly nationalism is sweeping the globe and people everywhere are questioning their identity, their interests and their countries. Now is perfect time to revisit who we are and “what we wish” in a positive, proud, inclusive way. 

Oh, and I did skim through the Australia Day community photos on the Goulburn Post site and couldn’t help feeling that a large part of our national family had missed the event. They were at the funeral I guess.