Hello and welcome back, dear listener.

Episode 427 of the Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove podcast.

I'm Trevor, aka The Iron Fist, coming in loud and clear from regional

Queensland, Scott the Velvet Glove.

How are you, Scott?

Good, thanks, Trevor.

G'day, Joe.

G'day, Trevor.

G'day, listeners.

I hope everyone's well.

It's all not too bad up here in Mackay actually, it's a lot

cooler than what it has been.

Yes, a bit cooler down here as well, yes, and rainy.

And, still munching on his dinner because of our early start time.

Joe the Tech Guy, how are you Joe?

Evening all.

Right, so, what's on the agenda tonight dear listener?

there's no particular, the reason why we're a little

bit early is, public holiday.

I'm not babysitting as per usual, so I'm not reading

bedtime stories to little kids.

Grandkids and, a few other things.

So that's why we're early.

We'll be back to 8 o'clock next week.

But, that was the reason why.

So, on the agenda, Oh, we're going to start a little bit about Gaza.

We're going to then move into this whole intimate partner homicide

discussion that's been going on over the last couple of weeks.

New statistics have come in.

And, short story, You're just an insult, Trevor.

You're What's that?

I said you're just an incel.

yeah.

A short version of this story, dear listener, is a lot of the media has

been talking about a crisis of an increase in domestic homicide, but

the statistics just don't show that, and the people writing these articles

are looking at those statistics and then more or less ignoring them.

I find it quite extraordinary.

So, so yeah.

Some of you may recall that in recent times, when people who read the Courier

Mail and the Boomer Generation were talking about, you know, violence

that's increased in Queensland, and I said to them, You realise,

of course, that violence is down.

I took great delight in that.

Now I'm having to say, you realise that, you know, the medium to long term

trend on domestic homicide is it's down.

I don't get the same delight in saying it because It's not like, I'm

poking fun at boomers in the Korean Mail, but it's still the hard truth.

But anyway, that's, that's my fate, dear listener.

I can't help myself.

I have to do this.

It's probably good news, though.

Yes.

But, you know, that's not what people want to hear sometimes.

They want to hear something that confirms Some thinking that they already had.

Yeah.

And we know that on the left, Joe, that if you are on the left and

you disagree with the left, nobody there is particularly forgiving.

They'll scrub you.

So, yeah, so that's where we're heading on this episode.

But before we get there, let's talk about, I'm going to put a, well, it's not really

so much as a, what am I grateful for?

But, Flu Tracking.

I've been doing this for years and years, ever since Craig mentioned it.

Yes.

Well, Deep Throat mentioned it on the

podcast, and that's when I started.

Yeah.

So, I'll put a link in the show notes, dear listener, and head

over to Flu Tracking and sign up.

Basically, they send you an email once a week.

And you just quickly, click some boxes as to whether you're suffering

flu symptoms or not, and whether you've had a flu injection or a COVID

injection and send it back to them.

It takes about 30 seconds and this is vital data for these people

and it's a good thing to do.

Doesn't cost you anything.

Have you

had your flu jab yet?

No, I haven't.

Okay.

I had mine last week.

and I was unsure because I had mine in Europe.

back in November, and I went through the list, and depending on which one I

had, because I'm not sure which one I had in England, the B strains, so it's a

quadrivalent, so four different strains.

Both the B strains are the ones I had in England, and the A

strains, one of them may have been the same as I had in England.

So you're repeating, the doses are repeating what

you've already had in England?

At least for the B strains.

So for two of the four, it definitely is, there may be a third as well.

So I don't know if it boosts me particularly for those

strains, it gives me more.

Did you pay particular attention to where they jabbed you in the arm

to make sure it was the meaty part?

no, I didn't.

Right.

Check out a previous episode for why I mentioned that, dear listeners.

Yes,

because it was the pharmacist that jabbed me.

Yes.

I had mine tomorrow or Wednesday or something like that.

I've just, it just reminded me this morning while I was doing the flu server.

I thought to myself, oh, I better go and get that done.

Hmm.

I have this problem where I faint when I get needles.

Have I mentioned that before?

No.

Yeah, so I can't help myself.

Even if you look the other way?

Yep.

Really?

Yeah, so I have to lie down whenever I get any sort of needle, otherwise I faint.

And the local one here, Just as a chair, it doesn't have a bed, so I have to do it

somewhere else and it's not as convenient as it could be to get the jab, so,

yeah.

Do you remember the, when the COVID vaccine was first rolled out, there

was a nurse who on live TV fainted?

Right.

So she had a, it was a vagus nerve reaction and she gets

it for all the vaccines.

But of course this happened on live TV and she just collapsed in front of everybody.

And the rumours that were going around about, oh, you know, you

see how bad these vaccines are.

Yeah.

So yeah, with COVID, you know, you'd had your big queues lined

up, especially the first couple.

Then I would be the one saying, is there a special room here where I can lie down?

And off I'd go into the special room.

But look, dear listener, there's chapters, you can, look at timestamps, scoot

through this private experience that I'm about to relay if you're not interested,

but I at one point was having an atrial fibrillation, which is where your heart

rhythm is out of kilter, and the atrial is fibrillating rather than pumping properly.

Anyway, I was in overnight in hospital.

And I was in the cardiac ward at the Wesley Hospital, hooked up to

all sorts of, stuff, monitoring my heart and vital signs.

And they were about to, later that morning, hit me with the

paddles to, you know, get the heart, shock it back into rhythm.

And I had a drip in my arm and the drip, the vein had started to close and the

drip was pumping into the muscle of the, of my hand, which is really painful.

It is pretty painful.

I'd said to the nurse, I think this is what's happening, I've had

it before, please, you know, do something, and she started flushing

the saline solution through.

That hurts.

And that hurts as well, but I'm in a bed, and I'm sitting upright in a bed,

And she's mucking around, flushing the saline through the drip, and my mind says,

Trevor, this is like getting a needle.

You need to faint.

And so, I said to her, Oh, I've got to, I've got to lie down, and I'm trying to

inch my way into the lower in the bed.

And I fainted, and when I woke up, there was, at least six people around the bed.

And they said, wow, that was really interesting.

it was basically, yeah, all the, alarms and everything had gone off in

this cardiac ward because I'd fainted while, under atrial fibrillation

and, it was totally involuntary.

Just, nothing I can do about it.

Anyway, there's a little diversion for you.

Right,

let's talk about Do you want to know what I'm grateful for?

Oh yeah, Scott, go ahead.

I'm grateful for the Catholic Church, because I'm going to be working for them.

As of in a fortnight's time, dear listener, I'm going to be the finance

manager up at a local Catholic high school, and I will no doubt Be

able to, but also be unwilling to reveal any of the secrets of what

happens to the government's money.

Yes, I'd like to keep that secret and not tell anyone.

I will keep it

secret, I won't be telling anyone anything, but anyway, if you can see me

Yeah, it'll be an interesting experience.

Oh, it will be for sure.

You know?

Very good.

Good luck with that one, Scott.

I do.

Thank you very much.

Remember talking to a project manager who worked for Catholic Cha Catholic.

It was a religious charity.

I can't remember which one.

And they were saying that in their risk analysis of every project

they had to put God's prayers not being answered as a risk.

Wow.

Yeah.

. Well, the Better Half works for a, Anglican charity right now.

Right.

He hates it.

He doesn't like it at all.

And, he says one of the things he's getting sick of is having welcome to

countries and all that type of thing.

Because they appear to have gone very much down the, You know, look

at us, we're so woke type of thing.

So they have welcome to countries at everything that they do.

And the, they were making a big deal because the executive suite were going out

to, Oh, not Murgon, but anyway, a remote indigenous settlement in Queensland.

Now we're going out there to have a look.

And.

Like he said, he said, why?

And the basic response was, oh, because it's there.

So, you know.

Right.

Did you see the Qantas thing?

What

Qantas

thing?

Oh, somebody had scribbled, that was basically, on the safety video,

that was a welcome to country.

And somebody had scribbled on, on the back of the in flight magazine

or something in a seat pocket.

Basically, keep your attitude to yourself.

We don't care.

and there was a big article about how dare they, you know, this racist attitude

of people saying we don't care about.

Somebody's scribbling something on the back of a pamphlet in an aeroplane seat.

Yeah.

Made the news.

Yes.

Meanwhile, 40, 000 people dying in Gaza.

Because it doesn't make

the news.

And

it just doesn't make the news.

And that's why we are leading with Gaza stories on this

episode, because it's true.

It just doesn't get any, it just keeps getting worse and worse, and how

often can you say it sort of thing.

But it should be, the first five minutes of every news bulletin should be images

from Gaza of what's going on there.

Because it's the most incredible thing, yet it just gets glossed over and

doesn't get mentioned in the media much, compared to what it should, and even,

you know, amongst people just talking.

So.

there was an article, John Mandu blog, by Sorsan Medina, who formerly

was head of television for SBS.

And, I think so she wrote some things that sort of struck with me.

So, I'm just going to read a couple of excerpts from her article.

So, here we go.

Friends.

With whom for years I've gone to watch movies about the Holocaust, and to whom

I have lent books on the suffering of Jews in Nazi Germany and elsewhere.

Do not say a word about Gaza, and their indifference cuts me deeply.

One says she tries to avoid politics.

Avoid politics?

I wonder how she would feel if it was Belfast that was being bombed.

I remember, I remember her anger at the suffering of Ukrainians, and

I think, children of a lesser god.

I don't know.

Over 14, 000 children have been killed in Gaza by Israel's bombs and snipers,

and others are buried under the rubble.

The surviving children suffer unspeakable horrors.

14, 000 children murdered.

How can people treat this as a mere statistic?

How can they read it and move on?

How can they avert their gaze?

I try to imagine the pain of the Palestinians witnessing the suffering

of their traumatised children.

The sense of being utterly helpless to protect their

children must be overwhelming.

There have been so many distressing images from Gaza.

One image lives in my mind, a little girl rushing behind the body of her

dead mother, weeping and beseeching her in Arabic to, get up mother, get up.

I wade through the words of politicians about the conflict and think of

this little girl, And all the other children whose world has fallen apart.

I see the headlines in the mainstream media and I am dumbfounded.

How can they lead with trivialities?

Until the slaughter in Gaza stops, shouldn't the headlines

scream about it daily?

I watch the confected exasperation of Biden and I think, you

can stop this apocalypse now.

I read our politicians words and watch their inaction and mourn the

loss of Australia's sovereignty.

And I weep for the children of Gaza, children who are wondering

whether they will be alive tomorrow instead of thinking, when

I grow up, I would like to be.

Children who are searching for wood so mumma can make a fire

when they should be at school.

Children who want their legs back.

I remember seeing a video, dear listener, with this little girl just

saying, just crying I want my legs back.

There's just such a downplaying of this tragedy and people just

don't get it, I don't think.

I don't think people get the suffering.

I don't understand.

Maybe, maybe people just haven't experienced enough.

Like, maybe people haven't been to enough funerals or kids.

Like, and haven't seen, you know, we don't see deceased bodies.

We just, it's all in a box, we don't see it.

old people are shuffled off to nursing homes, we don't see the deceased body.

We, maybe we struggle to put ourselves in that position.

I was speaking to a guy, he's a good friend, he's a good friend.

The guy has got an absolute heart of gold.

He has done so much for, the disabled community, it's ridiculous.

Tens of millions of dollars of benefits to them, like volunteer work, setting up

stuff, like, unbelievable heart of gold.

And, you know, we sat down for a coffee and we were talking about

the state of the world and he said, you know, Values today, Trevor.

People don't have values, you know.

Why can't we just, it's obvious what's good and evil.

And then as we were talking, he's basically supporting what Israel had done.

I'm thinking, you're kidding me, mate.

Like, you're kidding me.

You can't possibly be supporting what Israel has done.

And he said, well, what else were they to do?

What else were they, how else would they respond to October 7th?

And I said, mate, I don't have the answers.

I don't know.

But I know that this was not the answer.

Killing all these people is not the answer.

They should

not have continued any longer after the first

three days.

No, I mean, the Israel of old would have targeted the leaders and taken them out.

Very, very obviously, as a message to say, pick on us and we'll pick on you.

But generally it wasn't, it wasn't the foot soldiers.

It wasn't the people.

It was the leadership

that was actually

shot.

Yeah.

Which I, I, I don't have a real problem with, you know, they are talking

about what the latest deal is, they're going to release 33 Israeli hostages

in exchange for 300 Palestinians.

I don't know who the 300 Palestinians are in Jewish prisons and that sort of stuff

that they're talking about releasing.

There is one bloke whose name escapes me that they reckon could be the next leader

of the, of the Palestinian Authority.

But, I couldn't tell you what his name is, but they're talking

about him being on the, on the most highly want to release list.

So, I don't know whether or not, I don't know whether or not they're gonna

get him out with only 33 hostages, because they've still got 133 to go.

So, they did see there's a Jewish family in Israel who are suing them.

That really doesn't surprise me.

Because they have evidence That the Jewish government turned down

the chance to negotiate with the

hostages.

That really doesn't surprise me.

Because

Netanyahu

wants to continue this war as long as possible because while the war

is continuing, he remains in office.

If he actually has to face the people, he will be thrown out on his arse.

I was hearing Israelis, he's got a very, very high approval rating.

Really?

There is nobody to challenge him.

Yeah,

I don't know.

I've heard the opposite.

I've sort of heard a lot.

I've read that, I've read that if a poll was held today, that there's the

possibility the Israeli Labor Party could form government in its own right, which is

a big turnaround for the entire country.

Mm hmm.

Yeah.

Maybe we will look at that next week, see what his popularity rating is.

I also heard that he needed the war to continue to stay

out of jail for some reason.

Yeah,

it's exactly because he's facing, he's facing, I can't

remember what the charges were.

I had listened to a podcast the other day, they actually

explained what the charges were.

He's facing charges based on Trying to buy a positive media media campaign

and everything for him for his government He was actually I can't

remember what the charge was called.

It was called something well, we'll call it buying influence, but it wasn't that

and he was buying the influence of a popular Jewish newspaper in Israel and he

was He said to them he said look if you stop all the negative press on me You I

will give you ABC legislation, and that's, they've got him, they've got him, they've

got him recorded on a telephone with that.

So, that's where the whole case is, that if they can get him before the

courts and that sort of stuff, they're actually gonna do time behind bars.

I was gonna say, you know, this is He just needed a Murdoch, didn't he?

Sorry?

He just needed a Murdoch.

Yeah, I know.

Well, he's probably got them, but the point is, while the war is continuing,

all that's on hold, I guess, until Yeah.

Yeah.

Well, see, this is the whole point.

Like, you know, I don't know if it's official, but they're just saying

that they can't go to a poll because the war was continuing, and, you

know, he's got right wing elements in his government that want the

invasion of Rafa to happen tomorrow.

And it's just absolutely ridiculous.

It's already happening.

They've started bombing already.

Oh, have they?

Yeah.

So they haven't given them very much time to get out of the place, have

they?

Nowhere to go anyway.

So,

Chronic Famine

in the North and, there's nowhere to go.

Well, I was listening to something that, I don't know, but there was

something that, A Jewish, an Israeli general was actually saying to somebody

or other that he was interviewing him and he said that we've, they could

move five kilometers to the north and then they'd be out of harm's way.

Right.

But there's nothing left of the rest, the whole

Into the rubble.

The whole

strip has been bombed to hell and back.

There is nothing left.

Whatever an Israeli official says, I just wouldn't believe any of it.

Yeah.

Just, you just can't believe anything they've got to say.

So, you

know, that's exactly what I was thinking at the time.

I just thought to myself, where are they going to go?

And he says, Oh, they can move five kilometers north.

And I thought, well, there's probably nothing left there.

Yeah, I don't think there is.

Now, what are Australians views currently on the Israelis,

Israel's military action in Gaza?

There was an essential poll asking Australians, views on

Israel's military action in Gaza.

And I'll focus on the one statistic which was, Israel is justified in

continuing its military action.

That was one option.

The other was, Israel should agree to a temporary ceasefire.

There was also, Israel should permanently withdraw, and unsure.

Let's just look at the one that says, Israel is justified in

continuing its military action.

Overall, in April, 19 percent of Australians thought

that, previously it was 18%.

So, slightly more are in favour of saying Israel's justified in continuing.

Break it down into gender.

Males.

27 percent of Australian males in this survey said Israel is justified

compared to 13 percent female.

Big difference there.

Age.

In the 18 34

category, only 10 percent think Israel is justified.

In the 35 54 age group, only 10 percent think Israel is justified.

Thank you.

In the 55 plus boomer category, 35 percent.

I think Israel is justified.

How does our society get so divided along these lines all the time about everything?

Whether it's tax, drugs, free speech, environment, how, how do

we just get so divided on, well.

Male, female, age.

The Boomers are more likely to be religious, and they've

forgotten the thousands of years of persecution of the Jews.

Now the Jews are our friends, and we all hate Muslims.

Yeah.

Yeah, but, the Boomers were also the group of people that took to the

streets to oppose the Vietnam War.

You know, there were also the, there were also the Flower Power and everything

like that, they used to smoke dope.

Yeah, you're right, Scott.

Sorry?

You're right.

And now they're the group saying, Israel's justified in continuing.

No, no, it's one of those things, I don't understand that because I would

have thought that if you asked a boomer, is this, was Australia justified in

joining the Vietnam War, I reckon you get 90 percent of them would say no.

Hmm.

But Ask a question about the Israeli government's conduct in Gaza, they'd

say, oh yes, it's totally justified.

Yeah.

God knows why.

It's depressing.

It is depressing.

according to Voting Intention, 11 percent of Labor voters think Israel is justified.

The percentage of Green voters is so small I didn't even write the percentage.

It looks like it might be about 4 percent or 3.

Coalition voters, 32%.

I think Israel's justified.

Independent or other party, 22%.

So, big difference there.

Labor, 11%.

Greens, 3 or 4.

Coalition, 32.

And the sort of Pauline Hanson and other parties, 22.

Big difference there.

Boy, it's, you know, you can just, we've said this before, you can ask people a

few key questions that have seemingly nothing to do with each other, and if

people fall into line on them you can almost, you know, be guaranteed of knowing

what their voting intention is, you know?

Are you in favour of nuclear power?

Are you, you know, unsure whether climate change is man made?

do you think there's too much woke teaching at universities?

a range of just sort of seemingly things like this Gaza and Israel and

And you'll quickly understand where the people fall into, where they fall

into line in terms of voting intention.

What are you doing?

What are you doing?

One other thing in this poll was they asked people to rank sources

of energy in terms of the most expensive to the least expensive.

And People put down renewables as the most expensive, nuclear as There was

some valid, debate as to expensive.

What do you mean by expensive?

Yeah, I was going to get to that, Joe.

Okay.

So, so, so basically if you sort of quickly read it, it'll say,

well, people think renewables, most people think renewables are the most

expensive, but nuclear is second and fossil fuels are the cheapest.

but the actual question from essential was, please rank the following sources of

energy in terms of total cost, including infrastructure and household price.

And Ian McAuley in his weekly sort of summary article that appears in

the John Minidoo blog said it was just a terrible, a terrible question

in terms of the wording of it.

So it mixes up cost.

and Price, and you've got confusion of whether we're talking short

term or long term as well.

So, what he says is, it confuses cost and price even more seriously

because it does not ask whether it refers to short run or long run costs

and what people understand by cost.

In the short run, the lowest cost, ignoring externalities, is to

flog the last few kilowatts out of our ancient coal fired stations.

In the medium to long run, renewables are by far the cheapest.

followed by fossil fuels and nuclear power.

So an example, dear listener of lies, damn lies and statistics.

And that's a pretty badly worded question leading to a

misleading statistic, I think.

and we're going to be dealing a lot with statistics in this episode,

dear listener, and we spent a lot of time on statistics with COVID.

Guys, you might remember.

Yeah, we did.

And I think that's where you said if you torture the data long

enough it'll confess to anything.

That's the one.

Yeah.

And people who, who trust models have never been involved in constructing a

model because they don't realise all the assumptions that are built in.

And, there was a few good quotes in there.

You know, often people struggle.

This is what I think.

Was had a problem with, in that where you had multiple factors interplaying, some

people struggle to keep all the balls in the air and understand that there's a

range of different influences all playing a part and some people look for a simple,

easy solution that maybe isn't there.

I think you need to be careful with models because, yes, models are based on guess

its, but a lot of them have been compared against reality and they have been useful.

They've made predictions that track with the past, and they make predictions for

the future that track in the short term.

Yeah.

And that's the best you can hope for with a model.

So, you know, take weather forecasting, which is incredibly chaotic, but 50

years ago, your three day forecast was, at best a guess, yeah, it was 50 50

whether it was going to be accurate.

And now we're accurate out to five days.

Yeah.

Once you get much past five days, it really is still a

guess, because it's so chaotic.

There are so many variables.

Yeah.

Yep.

And when you look at something like predictions on climate change Pretty

much what was predicted 30 years ago has come to pass, if you're looking at

the International Committee on Climate Change, whatever that one's called.

Yeah, there's a least, least case, worst case, and then a medium, and

I think it's tracked medium so far.

Yes, and, you know, sceptics will say, You know, they don't know what they're doing

because they can't predict these things.

Well, in fact, the main authoritative predictor of that has been pretty much

spot on, from what they said 30 years ago.

So, so modelings, of course, look into the future and try and

guess what's going to happen.

When it comes to just comparing statistics, what we also discovered

in COVID, you know, we were comparing different countries and their experience.

And the problem was, it was hard to compare apples with apples.

Yes.

And Australia being an isolated country, with a shut border, was an entirely

different proposition to, you know, a European landlocked country surrounded

by others, where, it was, you really n People try to compare statistics when they

were not comparing apples with apples.

So, one of the faults in the current discussion about intimate partner

violence, it's getting confused with gender violence, and the statistic

that was trotted out with sort of 26 people killed this year, included five

people from the Bondi incident, and that was not an intimate partner homicide.

It wasn't even an acquaintance homicide, but the mixing up of that number in

the same discussion as intimate partner homicide just gives me the shits because

you've got to be really careful if you're going to swap between the two and

make it clear that's what you're doing.

But in a lot of the articles that I've read in the Guardian and other

places, They will use that figure of 26 at the same time as they're talking

about intimate partner homicide.

And it's not part of that statistic.

And these people are just not careful enough in, in what they're looking at.

So somebody gonna say something then, Scott?

Were you about to or not?

I'll just keep going.

So, dear listener, sort of violence and stuff.

Previously.

We've looked at the Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey,

which was the most accurate measure of self reported experiences of all forms

of personal violence in Australia.

You might remember me talking about that one, describing violence has

basically decreased over the last decades, except for, cyber crime.

And we were talking about, uh you know, other issues with that.

Then last week we looked at the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and

the statistics that came out of that.

But now we have, dear listener, recently, and the problem with that last one that

we talked about last week, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, I said at

the time it was really statistics related to, 2020, 2021, around about that period.

It was sort of about three years old.

That was sort of the most recent stuff that they had.

And we were trying to ascertain whether, how much of it was male on

male partner violence, and did that include gay couples, and had all

that discussion, blah, blah, blah.

Well now we've got, 2022, 2023 figures.

That's as current as you can get for a full financial year.

This is Homicide in Australia, a statistical report from the

Australian Institute of Criminology, part of the Australian Government.

So we're going to be looking at their statistics.

The National Homicide Monitoring Program is Australia's only

national data collection on homicide incidents, victims and offenders.

So the NHMP holds data on all homicide incidents, victims and

offenders recorded by state and territory police since 1989 1990.

So the last 30 years.

That sounds pretty good, guys.

Sounds authoritative.

Yeah.

Remember last week?

There was an article in The Age where it was said, The Facebook page,

Counting Dead Women Australia, which is maintained by volunteers using verified

police reports of women's homicides, is recognised as the most accurate

tally of women killed by violence.

And I said at the time, Doubt that that's going to be the case, that a Facebook

page, I think we can say that the National Homicide Monitoring Program is going

to be more authoritative than Counting Dead Women Australia Facebook page.

No offence, but really, what sort of journalist writes that without checking?

Is there some other government body counting homicides?

One would have thought so.

Yes, it just sounded to me highly suspicious.

Anyway, so homicide incidents are classified as domestic,

acquaintance or stranger homicides.

And in that financial year, 1st of July 22 to 23, there

were 232 incidents of homicide.

That's general homicide in Australia, which was an increase of 14 homicides

from the previous year, but is the third lowest homicide rate recorded since 1989.

And overall, the homicide incident rate has halved so.

Overall homicide, including domestic acquaintance and stranger

homicides, falling significantly, despite a uptick of 14 in that

financial year, but a downward trend.

Now, moving on to intimate partner homicide.

So for 2022 2023, there were 38 incidents of intimate partner homicide.

And that was half of all domestic homicide.

So remember, domestic homicide might include siblings, grandparents,

you know, extended family or whatever, but not intimate partner.

So intimate partner was half of the domestic homicide and 16

percent of all homicide incidents.

So on this intimate partner homicide, 89 percent were perpetrated against

female victims, And, that was an increase of eight from the previous year.

But the number of incidents is still lower than the average number of incidents

recorded in the previous 10 years.

And dear listener, there is a chart, which I'm going to put on the screen right now.

And that, Joe, how do we make that bigger?

anyway, The top line is, female victims.

And you can see a significantly strong downward trend.

And okay, in the last 12 months there is an uptick.

But the uptick is one of the smaller upticks in that graph.

Like, the thing moves in a jagged line in a steady downward progression.

And it's not unusual for a much bigger increase to be followed

by a much bigger decrease.

And if you're looking at this sort of data, where the numbers are in the

scheme of things relatively small, you're not going to get a flat line.

you're going to get a jagged line of little ups and downs along the way.

And what you need to look at is, well, what is the overall trend?

And the overall trend is that intimate partner homicide with female victims,

is, is decreasing significantly and has decreased significantly.

Has halved in 30

years.

Has

halved in 30 years.

So, if you were reporting about the state of the world and intimate partner

homicide with female victims, and you're, and you're declaring a crisis,

and you're aware of these figures And you're not putting it into the context

of, of a significant long term trend.

You're really being, you're really just misrepresenting what's going on.

Like they're talking now about, well, what are we going to do?

What are we going to do to improve the situation?

If I came up with a range of options and I said, well, I suggest

that we do A, B, C, D and E.

And I guarantee you that over the next 30 years, you're going to get a

trend line that looks a bit like this.

People would say, fantastic, let's implement that, let's implement

whatever you've suggested.

If you, if you can get that trend line, that's a good

result, is what people would say.

And,

if, if,

if we're looking at, sorry, let me just finish this idea, Scott, is, you

know, if, if we've got a, a trend line that's actually in the right direction.

And we change things, well we might actually make things worse.

Like, obviously, you've got to be, people would not withdraw programs,

you wouldn't think, they would just add more programs, so it wouldn't really be

worse, but, the whole idea of not looking at that trend line and not going, you

know what, some of what we're doing is actually right, and if it keeps going

in this way, well we're heading to zero, we'll never get there, but the trend

that's shown Actually a good trend.

Sorry, Scott, go on.

No, I was just going to point out to the dear listener, those numbers there

are based on a per 100, 000 population.

So the population of Australia has gone up significantly since it started the count.

So you would expect that there would be some downward numbers.

What I'd be interested to see is if you got the raw data and that sort of stuff,

if you had the raw numbers that made that up, I'd be interested to see that.

But I do take your point.

As a per 100, 000 population, it's obviously on the way down.

Yeah, so, And,

you know, it's one of those things, like, if you really wanted to get technical

about it, you can see that the spike in the women's deaths also led to a spike

in the total death, where there wasn't, there didn't appear to be the, same

sort of movement in the male deaths.

Yeah, so just, finishing off with this report, most victims of

homicide, that's general homicide in Australia, are male, 65 percent, yeah.

There will of course be people pointing out that most of that is.

Male victim, male offender.

Yes.

However, the outlier is filicide.

Murdering your children.

Yes.

Where two thirds of the offenders are women.

Right.

Oh,

really?

Yeah.

Yeah.

the other one in here was, victims of homicide by sex of primary offender.

So, this was not necessarily intimate partner, but it

was just homicide generally.

And.

So for male offenders, there was 131 male victims and 60 female victims.

For female offenders, there were 21 male victims and 9 female victims.

So, males tended to kill more males than females, and females tended

to kill more males than females.

So, so there was that one there.

And, and there was another one here.

There was

also a significant proportion of offender not identified.

Yes, and you might recall we talked about in the gay community, because

Scott, you felt that anecdotally, Based on your small sampling.

Yeah, and I also, I also said that any, you know, adding

anecdotes aren't, aren't data.

Yes.

But anyway, it is what it is.

But in this financial year where there was 38 intimate partner homicides,

so, male offender, female victim 34, female offender, and a male victim four.

So that made up to 38.

In terms of a male victim and a male offender, zero.

So, gay male relationships, Scott.

Zero.

And female victim, female offender, lesbian relationships.

Zero.

So

we need to be careful though, because gay relationships are a much

smaller subset of the population.

True.

And therefore with numbers like that, you'd expect between

zero and one, I would say.

You would.

And we're talking about one year.

Yes.

That we're looking at here.

But it's just a matter of interest.

I mean, you can't, what?

Yeah, absolutely.

It's in line with what, yeah, we're I

mentioned this to a friend who said, actually, in the states where there's

easier access to gun, the number of female offender, male victim is a lot higher.

Ah, true, because they have the ability to overcome the physical disadvantage.

Yeah, the ability to shoot them.

Yes, interesting, interesting.

So, anyway, so this particular report that I've been referring to.

came out after the rally that was going on around the country.

so maybe people might've not rallied had they known about it.

I think that, I think they're always going to rally.

Yes.

It's, it's one of those things that it appears to have taken over the zeitgeist.

So, you know.

Yes.

Because, even people who are aware of this study are misrepresenting it, I think.

So, here was an article from The Guardian, and the headline of The

Guardian was Almost 30 percent spike in rate of Australian women killed by

intimate partner last year, data shows.

That was the headline.

And, now dear listener, as the article goes on, it will continue.

Talk about the overall trend being downwards.

But as we know from previous episodes and discussions, lots of people just

read the headline and nothing else.

Or maybe the first paragraph and nothing else.

So, it's not a justification to say, oh well the headline was dramatic but

they made up for it by providing the detail in the guts of the article.

That doesn't cut it.

So this article from The Guardian, had the headline, Almost 30 percent

spike in rate of women killed by intimate partner last year, data shows.

And in the first paragraph, the rate of women killed by intimate partner

in Australia increased by nearly 30 compared to the previous year, according

to data released by the Australian Institute of Criminology on Monday.

eight more than were killed in the previous year.

The data has been released after the alleged murders of 26

women at the hands of men in the first four months of the year.

But again, dear listener, the preceding paragraphs talk about intimate partner.

Then they use the data of 26 women at the hands of men, allegedly, where we

know that that includes five women from.

The Bondi incident, which was not an intimate partner, homicide.

No.

So, lazy, misleading, journalism.

it then goes on to say, while an uptick on the previous year, the rate of

female intimate partner homicide was still the third lowest rate for more

than 30 years since the records began.

and the rate of women killed by partners has decreased by

66 percent since that time.

But we're a fair way into the article at this point, and it shows the graph

that we've just shown you on the screen.

And, and then, now what are the authors, dear listener, of this report, this

one that we've been quoting, which is the, let me go all the way back up.

Did I get it correct?

the Homicide in Australia 2022 23 Statistical Report, Australian

Government, Australian Institute of Criminology, two authors, Hannah

Miles and Samantha Bricknell.

So Samantha Bricknell is then, quoted in this Guardian article and she says, Dr.

Samantha Bricknell, a research manager at the Australian Institute of

Criminology, said that the increased rate of intimate partner homicide.

needed to be considered within the context of the downward

trend of the data over 30 years.

Quote, I mean a fact is a fact.

We've had a 28 percent increase in the rate and a 31 percent increase

in the number of female victims of intimate partner homicide, she said.

That's not to take away that we've had that.

But we're just not sure at this point whether this is a reflection of an

increase in female victimisation from intimate partner homicide.

Or just a factor of a change in the pattern as we've emerged from COVID.

And, so she, she's making the point.

There's a long term trend here that we've got to look at.

yeah, and she's the author of the report.

Ah, what else do we have?

We have Crikey repeated the Guardian article.

where it said, Crikey said eight more women were killed by

their partner or ex in 2022 than the, 2023 than the year before,

It was also worth noting that report did say that there was a drop around

lockdown and we may be just seeing rebound back to normal after lockdown.

Yes, that's right.

Yep, exactly right.

So, because during lockdown, less movement of people.

and also I think in the report, maybe I read somewhere, I will come

to it, increased financial stress on people, can also lead to increases in

domestic violence, so, Crikey anyway repeated, the 26 killed, victims.

At the same time, I was talking about intimate partner homicide, so I got

that statistic mixed in amongst that.

And, and then we had an article in the, now I think this was the John Menardew

blog, Christine Zawicka, Melbourne based columnist and a consultant who's

a regular contributor to Women's Agenda, The Age, a Sydney Morning Herald.

And She, in her paragraph in the article, said, well actually

this was in Crikey again.

She, writing in Crikey, said, The nation is indeed at the peak

of what has long been a crisis.

I don't want to waste time having a semantic debate about whether we

need to call it a national emergency.

It was bad before and it's even worse now.

Now, dear listener, if we're talking about Non homicide domestic violence.

I don't know.

I haven't seen any of the data.

And, but most of the commentary about this is talking about the

intimate partner homicide rate.

Not just sort of homicide assaults and other, not just domestic violence assaults

or non homicide domestic violence.

So,

It's misrepresenting what is happening with intimate partner homicide.

Um, what else have I got here?

Patricia Cavallis on ABC radio.

You don't like her, do you?

No.

Do you like her?

No, she doesn't worry me.

Yeah.

I know she's a, I know she's a lesbian and all that sort of stuff,

so you're gonna take some of what she says with a grain of salt, but

Haven't heard much of her, but the little bit I've seen on Bits and Pieces

has not impressed me, but I haven't, because I think she's Melbourne based

and on Melbourne radio, like she's sort of a morning presenter or something?

She's the morning presenter on she's not actually Melbourne based, I think

she does the Radio National mornings.

Ah, is that it?

Yeah, and

she also looks after Q& A these days.

And yeah, so I don't listen to her.

Radio, ABC or anything.

And I can't watch Q& A anymore.

No, it's just ridiculous.

There's only so much a man can take.

Anyway, she was, I've got a, there's a transcript of some audio where she was

in a sort of a podcast y type thing.

This is Patricia Kovales.

Not only hasn't it gone away, There is evidence that it's getting

worse, and that is sobering.

And the comparison I make in my piece is to homophobia.

Now I'm gay, and I've experienced a radical reduction

in homophobia in my lifetime.

It's not to say I don't experience it.

Still, I do.

But it's not the way it was when I was in my teens, in my early twenties.

No way.

And there's been a reduction in hate crimes.

That's not to say they don't happen, but a reduction.

And so I thought the same with women, that we would see a reduction in the

violence perpetrated against women by men.

And we haven't.

And this year, of course, the reason it's so much on the agenda

is it's actually accelerated.

Every four days we've seen a woman killed, allegedly by a man, and so

clearly our programs are not working.

For There must be something else going on.

And the person interviewing her said, So PK, I think it's widely seen now

that this is a national emergency.

We're at crisis point.

You can just look at the figures to know that.

You can't really debate against it.

So let's have a look at what the government's going to do about it.

They're talking about intimate partner homicide, and that

we've peaked with a crisis.

And the chart shows that.

That's just not the case.

Now, by all means, we don't want domestic violence, we don't want domestic homicide.

We want programs to improve it.

We're never going to get rid of it all, but we can always improve.

It's good to talk about it, but let's just talk the truth and

put things in proper context.

And when you start bullshitting, then people who genuinely have an

agenda against this, helping these programs, will use that to say, oh,

you're all just talking shit because look, here's the, here's the facts.

And people just look disingenuous.

It's, it's not helpful.

Anybody else want to get in trouble for making a comment?

I'll just keep going.

I was about to say, In one of the articles, and I can't remember which one,

there's Walid Ali going on about all the different drivers of this, and he's going,

you know, violent pornography again.

And a whole load of other things.

He seems to miss out strong religious beliefs as a driver

of gender based violence.

And I can't, can't for a reason think why that might be.

Yes, because his religion is important to him, perhaps?

Yes.

Yeah.

It's one of those things, I think the more we uncover the statistics and everything

like that, it's just going to, it's going to look like what the, what the drivers

of this are actually, they're lying to us.

You know, they're picking up something, and they're saying, well,

this is proof, when it's not proof.

I have just looked at the comments.

Joe, I wasn't saying that you were too lively last week.

No,

no,

no, that my volume was.

No, I wasn't saying the volume was compressed.

Yes, that was it, yes.

Yeah, I was translating

that.

Now,

let's try and look at some domestic violence solutions, having now, sort of,

looked at the statistics and, in the John Menendee blog, there's a guy called Ian

McCauley who sort of does a roundup of what's been happening during the week and

so he wrote, it's possible that there's sharp fall in real wages over 2023.

and suddenly imposed mortgage stress could be contributing

factors to the recent rise.

Researchers from Monash and Melbourne universities say there

is a strong correlation between domestic violence and unemployment.

Minister for Women, Katie Gallagher, explains coolly that even the most

energetic process to end violence against women will take a generation.

Before it could be eliminated.

In part, that's because it can be intergenerational.

Many perpetrators of domestic violence grew up in violent households.

governments can do something in the short run.

Mentioned some of those.

but those initiatives in the short run are about imminent danger faced by women

in a relationship with a violent partner.

So this is sort of access to shelters and access to money and stuff like that.

He writes, It is possible that some factions of the Me Too movement

believe that all men are predisposed to violence and therefore it is futile

to try to change their behaviour.

That view ignores the reality that there's been progress over the long run.

He says that, Some people look on all men and all women as a homogenous community.

All men are guilty, even if they don't realise it.

A gender equivalent of the rubbish known as critical race theory.

He says, a version of this view is that action to address gender based violence

must be directed at all men collectively.

He says, supported by a solid research base, criminology professor Michael

Salter of the University of New South Wales and Jess Hill dispute this model.

It's one of, Treating men collectively, and its collective approach in a paper

called Rethinking Primary Prevention.

Salter summarises their research in a nine minute interview on ABC.

There's all the links to this in the show notes, dear listener.

And it goes on, Violence against women is most common in societies

where there is gender separation and men and women are unequal.

Achieving gender equality is a necessary condition for

eliminating violence against women.

But it is not a sufficient condition.

Public policy using measures appropriate to particular situations should address

those boys and men who are at risk of engaging in violence against women.

Those particular situations may be communities Among communities

with a tradition of strong male control in families.

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding.

Joe and Scott thinking of communities where there might be

strong male control in families.

No idea what you're talking about.

Yeah.

No,

we wouldn't be thinking of religious groups.

No, exactly.

He goes on.

The main task lies in changing the attitude of behaviour of men who

believe there is some special quality That sets men apart from women.

He says we still have a long way to go before we live in a society

where men and women live together in true equality and mutual respect.

in the Human Development Report, Australia lies at number 17 on gender equality.

Ahead of the USA and UK, but behind the Nordic countries.

And, breaking down gender separation would help establish better

attitudes and behaviour among men.

All this makes sense to me so far.

He says, there are longer established organisations promoting male bonding,

such as, Sodalites in the Catholic Church.

What is a sodalite?

Sodalites?

I've never heard of it.

Yeah.

Is

that where sodomites go to?

No, that's not where we go to.

Anyway, there are longer established organisations I presume it's a sodality.

Sodality, yes.

There are longer established organisations promoting male bonding.

Such as, so in the Catholic church, brotherhoods in Islamic

communities and football clubs,

Wiki, PBS says in Christian theology, a sodality in is a form of the

universal church expressed in a specialized task oriented form.

Right?

so confraternities

is another word for them.

So, ah, yes.

Brotherhoods.

Brotherhoods, yes.

he says, as powerful institutions strongly defended traditions.

That may not be strictly described as misogynistic, but which valorise

male qualities of aggression and dominance over women, and he said,

The concluding paragraph, we will know we have made progress when the last

girls and boys schools have gone co ed.

When football and boxing matches have been consigned to the same history

as gladiator fights and duels.

When women's magazines and their male equivalents are found only

in the stacks of libraries.

And when gender separation has become as reviled as racial segregation.

So in a summary, getting the genders together, not separating them, and

creating equal gendered societies of equal opportunity and mixing, those are the

societies that have less gender violence.

And that would make sense to me.

I noticed that certainly in the past they've talked about plans to teach

boys to be respectful of girls.

And there was a whole series of adverts on TV.

I, I really don't think that is the answer.

I think you need to teach everybody to be respectful of everybody.

And possibly a way of disagreeing without resorting to violence.

Thanks.

Yes, and guess what, just living together and going to school together, you'll

be taught a hell of a lot more than a slogan or an ad campaign might do.

For all those people out there sending their kids to single sex schools.

And crying when they can't.

Yeah.

Oh, this is a statistic heavy episode.

But let's just finish off with some more statistics and then we'll be done.

Remember, dear listener, I was talking about the Queensland statistics

because the, I was having great delight in telling people who read the

Courier Mail and were thinking that there was a lot of violence around.

You realize, of course, that, you know, crime's on the way down.

Except for crimes by children, because of course.

The Courier Mail has a particular hard on for that.

Yeah.

Anyway, and I mentioned at either last week or what, that I was going

to look more closely at the statistics in the recent report to try and

figure out why this recent Queensland report seemed to be in conflict with

the other stuff that I had read.

And, so, There was a change in July 2021, which basically required police officers

to report all criminal offences associated with domestic and family violence.

So I think previously in domestic violence situations, they would not report lots of

the stuff going on for whatever reason.

Well, this says a large proportion of these are withdrawn, so I think they're

now reporting the ones that withdrawn, whereas in the past they didn't.

Yes.

And, but, but they're required to, the police are required to

report all criminal offences.

Now, that was in 2020, July 2021, and to see what sort of effect

this has had on the figures.

I draw your attention to Table 1, Count and Rate of Selected Offences.

Domestic family violence related offences.

Other property damage.

So, in 2020 2021, prior to this change, total property

damage offences was 33, 000.

And in the most recent report, it had increased to 41, 000.

An increase of 8, 000.

So 30%?

If you look at other property damage by domestic violence, domestic family

violence related, It was previously 3, 700 and in that same time period it went up

to 11, 800, an increase of roughly 8, 000.

So the increase in property damage offences was basically matched by an

increase in property damage domestic family violence related offences brought

about by this new reporting requirement.

So, so that's a significant subset of property damage that increased

and more or less accounted for the total increase over that time.

Similar sort of story with assault, not quite as clear cut, but pretty similar.

Assaults went from 30, 000 to 55, 000.

Assaults related to domestic family violence went from 8, 000 to 27, 000.

So, assaults generally rose by 25, 000.

Assaults from domestic family violence rose by 19, 000.

It was a significant proportion.

So, so a lot of the, change in the crime rate seems to have been caused

by this reporting requirement.

And it has meant that, for those years, maybe you're no longer

considering apples with apples.

So, that would be some of the explanation involved in

that.

It actually says, consequently, 2021 to 2022 presents as a

break in the time series.

In other words, You cannot compare the numbers between, before

that time and after that time.

Yes.

So, so yeah, there we go.

oh, I think that's probably, oh, actually one more, one more statistic,

but this is a good one, Scott.

Census changes to dilute religion.

Oh, yeah.

That was that ridiculous article you sent us, wasn't it?

Well, it seems, dear listener, that the census is canvassing and

considering, because this was reported in the Australian What we've been

asking for, for the last two or three censuses, yes.

Well, even more so.

Right.

Because, remember, dear listener, the history of the religious question

in the census was one of originally.

Tell us what religion you are, because of course you must be some religion.

No, tell us

what denomination you are.

Which denomination of Christianity you are.

Yes, that's right.

Indeed.

And then right at the very bottom, if you're one of those really

weird people who's not religious, there's a little thing you can

put for, you're not religious.

And that then got changed to, you know, the last census, I think it was

it was the same

thing.

But you had the first, but they, they moved No religion to

the top.

Yes.

No religion moves to the top.

It was the first

from the top.

Yeah.

And we'd been asking for something like the New Zealand, arrangement,

which was, are you religious?

Yes.

No.

If yes, which religion are you?

Which seemed of a much better sort of Mm-Hmm.

. Now, what was reported in the Australian is that the question will

be, does the person have a religion, and there's a tick box for no.

And then following that, there's no tick box for yes, instead there's a

space where a person who has a religious belief can write their religion.

So, does the person have a religion?

And there's a box there, ready to tick to say no, and the alternative to that is

to write in yourself the denomination or religious belief that you have, and not a

series of Suggested religious categories.

I think it's interesting.

Archbishop Costello says reformulating the question destroys the

measure of culture and identity.

In other words, we can no longer claim people who feel that

culturally, that they are religious.

because, you know, they don't know any better, even though

they don't believe in God.

It's a pretty str if this goes through, Scott, this would be a massive change

Yeah, that would be a huge change,

yeah.

Like, I'm almost at the point where I think it's almost unfair the other way.

Like, I like the New Zealand one of Are you religious?

Yes, no, if yes, which one?

So I'm going, does the person have a religion?

And the first thing is tick is no, and then a blank space where you

write your religion if you have one.

Almost goes the other

way.

It does seem just

a little bit too extreme to do that.

Yeah.

Was it not a write in or was it a series of, there was definitely a write in.

It was a series of ticks.

And then you had one box at the end of it, if you couldn't find your religion.

Right, if you're not one of the

major ones.

Correct.

Yeah.

That's where you had most of the clowns that would write Jedi.

Yes, correct.

But there was a suggested list.

So, oh look, I love it.

If this is how it's going to pan out, because most people don't,

some of these people don't even know what religion they are.

But the point was the religious were claiming those culturally religious

people for funding and for greater clout when it came to laws being passed.

When in fact they were

true believers.

Yeah, which is just, it's, I don't have a major problem with it.

It's just I would prefer the New Zealand model where you had the number

of religions that you could tick.

But, if we're not going to get that, this is the next best thing.

And it means that they're actually going to have to say to their people, you

know, you're a Catholic, make sure you write Roman Catholic in the, in the book.

Yeah, I mean, I

have to think about it a bit more.

I mean, you know, if you are a religious, you should know what your religion is.

Exactly.

Why, why give people, I mean, we're so indoctrinated, aren't

we, and so used to things.

It's not like many people will screw up their religion because the ABS have a list

of this translates to, so whether you say you are a member of the Church of Jehovah

or Jehovah's Witness or whatever you want to call it, they have a table that

translates that into a single religion.

Yes, true.

What if I write Happy Clappy or something like that?

Is that Pentecostal?

Yeah, it probably does have that in the little cross reference section.

Yeah, Pentecostal includes

Happy Clappies.

Happy Clappies,

yeah.

I don't know that anyone would self identify as that, but No, I don't

think they would, but it's And if you really care, the ABS does

print out a table of Yeah, codes.

So each religion is coded down into a specific number.

And you can look up your religion in that set of codes, and you can probably

say, I am code 423, or whatever it is.

Yeah.

It's one of those things, this is the last death rings, or

last death howls of religion.

They're claiming that they're now being persecuted, which is a

ridiculous thing for anyone to say.

And it is especially ridiculous from these pack of bastards that have had

it far too good for far too long.

They're persecuted because how many of the last Prime Ministers were religious.

Scott, are you sure you can be on this podcast and continue with this job?

We're just going to wait and see.

I'm not going to be mentioning the podcast at my new employers.

If Scott disappears from this podcast, you'll know why.

Look, there was a commentator, James Macpherson, writing in

some religious magazine y type website that I came across.

I think James Macpherson used to write in The Spectator when I was

arguing with Twelfth Man about, just the horrible things that

would come out of The Spectator.

I think he was one of their writers.

And, Here goes, the ABS, Australian Bureau of Statistics, are currently finalising

the question, blah blah blah, rigged.

The result is already obvious.

The number of invalid, indecipherable or ambiguous

responses will go through the roof.

And as such, the number of people reported as being religious will drop dramatically.

I like this line.

This is a good line.

Blind Freddy doesn't need to be healed by Jesus in order to see where this is going.

He goes on.

Yeah.

And this is how I think I remember him from The Spectator.

Marxists don't like religion.

This is another backdoor moment.

Another brick in the wall.

The government doesn't want anyone following a religion.

That is not aligned with its Marxist principles or the ABC.

and so the census is becoming just another tool to engineer society

into the left's chosen image.

Ah, it's a load of crap, isn't it?

Great stuff.

Great stuff.

That's gold.

Thank you, James McPherson for finishing off with a sense of humor.

Yeah.

What have we got in the chat room?

What have people been saying?

da da da da da.

John Simmons says it sounds okay.

that's most of the ones in there.

Everyone was late to the chat because we started early, it seems like, so.

Right, dear listener, I am out of town next week and it might make it podcast.

May not be one, may be a recorded one, may be a different time, not sure.

So long.

So, I haven't even mentioned that to you guys, I'll talk about it

off air when we finish up here.

So, you should be following us on Facebook if you want to be updated

as to what's happening, because little messages about change in time,

et cetera, will get posted there.

Thank you for listening, I hope you enjoyed all the statistics talk,

I hope we made it interesting.

Talk to you next time.

Bye for now.

And

it's a good night from me.

And it's a good night from him.

Good night.