A very tranquil location

I filed and was rejected because of the non-registration issue.

Surely that’s what the US means by never allowing a US citizen to be tried in The Hague including the “invade the Netherlands” legislation so that they can try them in the … oh wait, not that second part! 😁

It’s individual little illustrations of camp life, quite satirical and in the tone of postcards home to the family. You’d love it. DM me either way preferred email and I can put you in touch. She has a colour pdf scan of it. Original is safely stored in Brisbane.

Kristen, found out today that a work colleague’s father was a Kriegie in Stalag III! She showed me a copy of his illustrated notebook! I showed her your book. Encouraged her to think about final destination for the notebook, ie AWM.

I rejected an article manuscript today and the automated acknowledgment chastised me to update my keywords for currency. I looked. There’s a list of about a dozen to *pick from* in a menu and they include highly specific terms like …. History. International relations. Politics.

I think more sensitive. Too overly so. Especially when the size of the archives often means what’s redacted in one file is clear as a bell in another, opened in an earlier era.

www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A02796/...

Have some fun and challenge the decision! 😁

No, they’ll photocopy a page, black out the text, copy it again and then stick the original file in a special sealed envelope in the file. Tantalisinly within reach most of the time. But you would know that the OWE label and one assumes they check those files very carefully when you return them.

What’s annoying is that it’s SO archivist dependent. Or it seems that way. Names are often the but redacted because then the info can’t be linked to them. But we still know the info. It’s just depersonalised.

in this case being amended. So actually it means examining eg the Commonwealth Criminal Code alongside the bill’s clauses seeking to amend or insert new provisions. Messy work involving lots of open documents at once. Ridiculous to give this proper scrutiny in mere days.

I’m in the process of writing a submission but it’s not going to be my best statutory interpretation assessment in 24 hrs. For everyone noting that the bill is hard to understand and has a lot of cross-references, that’s because it’s an amending bill. You have to read it alongside the Act or Acts …

You can’t defame the dead in Australia so literally the only reason to redact is the delicate feelings of descendants about learning the truth about something.

Yes they’ve been deploying (g) more and more in the last decade citing the “impact” on descendants esp if the file is digitised, given that increases accessibility. That’s the ss used to redact some victims’ names from the war crimes trials. Other files often include the redacted info, as you know.

I can’t believe I’m saying this but she totally has a point about the undue haste. Mere days this week to make a submission on the draft bill for committee scrutiny and the deadline is tomorrow aft! Tick box “scrutiny” at its worst.

They are in Australia!

I've got DECRA, a Special Initiative in Australian History, two Linkages and a Future Fellowship for examples if you want to drop me a line with what you are looking for. Not all were successful, naturally.

Just like most academic boards/senates/councils. Full of corporate types who maybe went to uni 10-30 years ago but have never given a lecture, run a tutorial, helped students with their myriad of issues or published their research.