all right

Occasionally adding corroborative details to add verisimilitude to otherwise bald and unconvincing,
but veridicous accounts
with careful attention, indefatigable assiduity, and nice discrimination.

20 June, 2015

Entering the Sixth Mass Hysteria

Meanwhile, Paul R. Ehrlich—notorious doomsayer and anti-Cassandra, predestined to be wrong but believed, famous for inaccurately foreseeing all manner of catastrophes, who predicted in the ’60s (in The Population Bomb) that “[t]he battle to feed all of humanity is over” and that we’d all die of starvation in the ’70s—has co-authored “Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction”.
Hysterical, credulous, unsceptical journos naturally cover such stories as, for example, “Earth’s Sixth Mass Extinction Has Begun, New Study Confirms” [using the word “confirms” in its rare meaning of “asserts”]; note the cool, unemotive, scientific language:
This latest research tells us what we already knew.  Humans have in the space of a few centuries swung a wrecking ball through the Earth’s biosphereLiquidating biodiversity to produce products and services has an end point.  Science is starting to sketch out what that end point could look like but it cannot tell us why to stop before we reach it.
If we regard the Earth as nothing more than a source of resources and a sink for our pollution, if we value other species only in terms of what they can provide to us, then we we will continue to unpick the fabric of life. Remove further rivets from spaceship earth. This not only increases the risk that it will cease to function in the ways that we and future generations will depend on, but can only reduce the complexity and beauty of our home in the cosmos.
UPDATE (21 June)the BBC has uncritically reported the alarmist findings of the “sixth mass extinction” paper—disingenuously describing it as “a study by three US universities”—and, of course, the awarmist, misanthracist, duplicitous misanthropes who infest the “progressive” movement are incoherently wishing that mankind perish very soon whilst simultaneously lamenting all the other species whose final days are supposedly nigh.

28 May, 2015

A New Protector of Marriage

The battle for same-sex marriage has been won.  Now the winners must defend marriage as fiercely as we conservatives tried.
And their first test comes now.  Before they get our politicians to take the final step and change the Marriage Act, they must help to maximise the good — and minimise the damage.  […]
Moreover, the Yes vote in Catholic Ireland last week broke the back of any real resistance here, too.
We can, no doubt, expect to hear discussions, in defence of marriage, like this very soon: 
Bi-bloke:  Hey, Gay-chap, old friend, you were allowed to marry your boyfriend for two reasons according to you:  “love” and “equality”.  Well, I want to marry both my boyfriend and my girlfriend for the same two reasons:  “love” and “equality”. 
Gay-chap:  Nah, but you could just live together and call yourself whatever you like.
 
Bi-bloke: Isn’t that what people said to you? 
Gay-chap: That was different.  My man and I wanted a big, fancy wedding, with all our friends and family there to witness our eternal commitment to each other, and lots of wedding presents, and lots of flowers.
  We also had a big cake.  Admittedly, we had to sue the baker because, though he made and decorated a lovely cake to our exact specifications, he didn’t enthusiastically support our marriage, the bastard.  We did get a nice out-of-court settlement.  Anyhow, cake, flowers, presents, and friends and family! 
Bi-bloke: We want a big fancy wedding too, with all our friends and family.
Gay-chap:  You can still have a ceremony—just without State sanction.

Bi-bloke: But we want State sanction; we want what you got. 
Gay-chap:  Well, you can’t.
 
Bi-bloke:  Why the hell not?
 
Gay-chap:  Because marriage can only be between two unrelated, adult human beings, to the exclusion of all others.
 
Bi-bloke:  Yeah?  Says who?
 
Gay-chap:  I do.

Bi-bloke:  See, I want to be able to say that.  Tee hee.  Seriously, what’s the basis for this old-fashioned, bigoted and narrow notion that marriage must be between only two people?
Gay-chap:  Tradition, and, and, and that’s just the way it is.
Bi-bloke:  Isn’t that what opponents of your same-sex marriage said?
Gay-chap:  There is no similarity and, anyway, it’s the Law.  And it’s different.  Because, well, becauseSo there.  You can shut up now. 
Bi-bloke:  Now, look—
Gay-chap:  Homophobe!  Racist! 

Bi-bloke:  But—

Gay-chap:  Fascist!  Hater!  Misogynist!
 
Bi-bloke:  Hey, steady on, I’m not the one who won’t touch women
Gay-chap:  Police!  Help, Police!  I’m being oppressed by an opponent of same-sex marriage!
Constable Sonja:  Is, uh, there, uh, a, a, oooh, is there a, uh, problem?  Sorry, I, ooh, just had to, uh, jog nearly seven, oooh, yards then, uh, in full rig.
  So, uh, wot’s goin’ on here, then?
Bi-bloke:  I give up.

Gay-chap:  Yay!  I have successfully defended marriage!  I’m a hero!

17 April, 2015

The ‘Marriage’ Game the Whole Family Can Play

Richard Griggs, the Tasmanian director of Civil Liberties Australia, has argued (for want of a better word) in favour of same-sex marriage in The Mercury.  His assertions in favour of same-sex couples marrying could just as well apply to siblings or other closely-related people (even by adoption*) who might wish to marry each other but, under current, bigoted laws, may not thus ‘express their love’.  Accordingly, here is Richard Griggs’s article only slightly amended:
Talking Point: Same-family marriage simply gives each person equality in law
[No one] recently argued in these pages that same-family marriage was not a civil rights issue.
Same-family marriage, [no one] said, did not equate with the historic civil rights movements which gave women the vote or dismantled whites only zones in public places.
These are examples of civil rights campaigns but a full explanation of what actually constitutes a civil right needs to go much deeper.  When we do that, same-family marriage clearly becomes a civil rights issue.
Civil rights are about giving everyone the same opportunities to participate in civil society.
When we change legislation in recognition of civil rights we give more people full participatory rights in society.  We open the door and let more people in.
You can tell it is a civil rights issue when an identifiable group in society is prevented from accessing a public institution for no reason other than their membership of that particular group.
Public institutions can be physical, like shopping centres or public transport, or they can be rights of passage or rights of citizenship, like voting.
Surely marriage must sit alongside voting as an important part of civil society and should actually outrank shopping and transport in terms of its importance.
Marriage is a central part of civil society and, therefore, to exclude some couples from marrying is a civil rights issue.
Marriage has been with us for centuries and parliaments have elevated the institution of marriage into law.
Marriage is entered into by many couples.  Some marry for good reasons, some for poor.  Some marriages last a lifetime and others less than a year.  And of course some people are perfectly happy never marrying at all.
It is the freedom to choose to marry which is important.  The freedom to have the same options as other couples [or, surely, triples or quadruples, etc.].
For some readers marriage is a religious institution of long standing that only in more recent history (the past few hundred years) became enshrined in law by parliament.  There is historical debate in some quarters about which came first, marriage or organised religion.
Current marriage laws passed by our Commonwealth Parliament make clear that marriage is now owned by the people and Parliament, not any single religion.
The law allows non-religious couples to marry in a non-religious location with a non-religious marriage celebrant.  It also allows for people of two different religions to marry.
There will be some religions which do not support same-family marriage and they should be free to choose to practice [sic] their religious beliefs.  But those same religions shouldn’t assert ownership or control over marriage for the remainder of society.
They should be free to practice [sic] their beliefs but not free to mandate their beliefs on others.
Earlier this year my wife and I were married on a summer afternoon in the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens.  Gathering together our friends and family and making a public declaration of shared loved and commitment in front of them was a very proud and emotional moment.  It was a beautiful day which I will never forget.
My wife and I were lucky to enter our marriage with the support of the law and the love of our family and friends.  I feel deeply sad that same-family couples are denied the same opportunity to share such a wonderful life event.
One day the law will be changed in Australia to allow same-family couples the same freedom to choose as unrelated couples.
Why am I so sure?  Civil rights movements grow in momentum over time until most in society no longer see the particular issue as a threat any more.  We are very close to that point in Australia.
Once society thought it best if only men could vote and only white people could use public transport and enter the shops.  One day we will also see the error in denying same-family couples the freedom of choice to marry, just like everyone else, and have their marriage recognised by society, just like everyone else.
*  see §22B of the Australian Marriage Act 1961:
(2)  Marriages of parties within a prohibited relationship are marriages:
(a)  between a person and an ancestor or descendant of the person; or
(b)  between a brother and a sister (whether of the whole blood or the half-blood).
(3)  Any relationship specified in subsection (2) includes a relationship traced through, or to, a person who is or was an adopted child, and, for that purpose, the relationship between an adopted child and the adoptive parent, or each of the adoptive parents, of the child shall be deemed to be or to have been the natural relationship of child and parent.
†  for example, in Massachussetts, since at least 1784, no man may marry “his mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, sister, stepmother, grandfather’s wife, grandson’s wife, wife’s mother, wife’s grandmother, wife’s daughter, wife’s granddaughter, brother’s daughter, father’s sister or mother’s sister”.

‡  yet see, say, the Code of Hammurabi which, oddly, only a mere 3,370 or so years ago, featured many civil, secular laws relating to marriage.

UPDATE (2 July):  see “German ethics council calls for incest between siblings to be legalised by Government” by Lizzie Dearden:
Germany’s national ethics council has called for an end to the criminalisation of incest between siblings after examining the case of a man who had four children with his sister.
Patrick Stuebing, who was adopted as an infant and met his sister in his 20s, has launched several appeals since being imprisoned for incest in 2008 and his lengthy legal battle has prompted widespread public debate.
Sexual relations between siblings or between parents and their children are forbidden under section 173 of the German criminal code and offenders can face years in prison.
But on Wednesday, the German Ethics Council recommended the section be repealed, arguing that the risk of disability in children is not enough to warrant the law and de-criminalising incest would not remove the huge social taboo around it.  […]
The Ethics Council’s recommendation only covered incest between siblings and members did not recommend decriminalising sex between parents and children.

18 March, 2015

St. Patrick’s Embarrassment

Ireland, March, 2015,
a pub with the usual Irish decorations…
Declan:  Ah, Paddy, you seem glum; what’s upset you, lad?
Patrick:  Oh, Declan, I can’t enjoy my usual six or seven pints of Guinness tonight because I’ve heard in passing that the Australian PM might have implied, or at least said something that could be so interpreted, that many Irishmen are hard drinkers or, at least, that they enjoy a drink now and then.  Or that they might.  Or something.  It’s a vile and bigoted defamation,  I don’t mind telling you.
 
Declan:  That is a perturbation, Paddy. So would you care to have another ball o’ malt? 
Patrick:  Well, just one more, then, to console myself, but I’m sure that I shan’t enjoy another whiskey with an e tonight (though I shall doubtless drink a few), and I’ll be having no more than four pints of Guinness, I’m that flustered and solely grieved. 
Declan:  Curse that evil Tony Abbott!

How did this sad situation come to be?  We must look at the historical record:-

Australia, March, 2009,
a pub decorated, it seems, with an assumption that the Republic of Ireland encompasses the entire island, and ignoring Ulster…
Dave:  Did you hear what Kevin Rudd said, Gazza? 
Garry:  No, Davo, what did he say? 
Dave:  He began by saying, and I quote, “it is customary on St. Patrick’s Day for politicians to lay claim to their Irish ancestry, however tenuously.  To wax lyrical on the bonds of history that tie Australia—and in fact one in ten Australians who come from Erin’s shore—with Ireland itself and to so kiss the blarney stone on a night such as tonight that in fact we see fact itself form a seamless bond with folklore and fiction—so that by night’s end, courtesy of a Guinness or two, you’ll all be believed that in fact you are led by a lady called Anna O’Bligh and that her opponent is Liam Patrick O’Springborg.
“Such is the power of Guinness.”
Garry:  Ah, what an orator!  He has a touch of the real Irish in him! 

March, 2012,
a pub with the usual “Irish” decorations…
Dave:  Hey, Gaz, you hear what Julia Gillard said? 
Garry:  No, Davo, what did she day? 
Dave:  She said, and I quote,
“Could you have a larrikin without Irish emigration?  The answer is no.
“And if we’re more English than we like to admit—well, we’re not nearly as Irish as we would like to be.
“This year I took the opportunity to make the Federal Cabinet just that little bit more Irish.
“I already had that fine Sydney Irishman Tony Burke, a grand representative for all the Irishmen who’ve been in the great south land for a century or more.
“But this time, I thought two was better than one, and if I could get one who came out here on a boat “himself, all the better. […]
“Patrick O’Farrell reminds us of the United Irishman Joseph Holt—a true political prisoner—sent here after 1798 and who found himself farming near Sydney, and he said in 1803:   ‘My usual time to commence to sow crops was the first Monday after St. Patrick’s Day, it requiring a few days to get the men sober’.”
Garry:  Ha!  What a wit!  She has a touch of the real Irish about her! 

March, 2015,
a pub with the usual “Irish” decorations…
Dave:  Gaz, you won’t believe what our retarded PM said! 
Garry:  Oh, Davo, what was Tony Abbott’s latest gaffe? 
Dave:  The creep ended his foul St. Patrick’s Day speech with a feculent slur; he apologised because, and I quote, “I can’t be there to share a Guinness or two or maybe even three”.  He thereby unjustly and slanderously suggested that all the Irish are drunks and rascals. 
Garry:  Wow, what an embarrassment to our country that illiterate bastard is!

UPDATE (19 March):  see Andrew Bolt’s “If That’s a Gaffe, I’m from Ireland”:
How deranged have the Tony Abbott haters become?
Sydney’s Lansdowne Club of Irish Australian businessmen had invited people to come “enjoy a Guinness or three” at its annual St Patrick’s Day lunch.
Abbott couldn’t make it, but sent a video in which he said this was “a great day for ... everyone who cares to come to a party”.  He was sorry “I can’t be there to share a Guinness or two or maybe even three”.
See anything offensive there?
Yet a ninemsn report claimed immediately Abbott’s speech had “backfired” by focusing on “stereotypes around drinking”, with “Irish business leaders” calling it “patronising”.  In fact, the “business leaders” was one person, unnamed.
Why the exaggeration?
But that was all the media Left needed for yet another pile-on.
“Abbott’s cringe-tacular St Patrick’s Day video”, crowed one Sydney Morning Herald headline.
“The rise and rise of Tony Abbott as an international laughing stock,” gloated another […].
The ABC news grimly reported the offence Abbott had allegedly caused before finishing its TV news with its own St Patrick’s Day tribute—with shots of, yes, Irishmen drinking Guinness.
But here’s the full measure of these hypocrites. Abbott is hanged for merely saying he’d like “a Guinness or two or maybe even three”.  Yet not one journalist attacked the Labor prime ministers [Rudd and Gillard] who actually accused the Irish of being drunks.

08 March, 2015

A Great Walk This Easter

During this Easter members of Tasmanians for Proper Footpaths will be walking from Launceston to Hobart along the route of The Great Heritage Highway Walk of Easter, 2016. The double aim of these walks is to promote Tasmanian tourism (particularly along the Heritage Highway) and to publicise the advocacy of safe footpaths between Hobart and Launceston (and, ultimately, between all Tasmanian cities and towns).
This year’s walk will begin on the morning of Thursday morning, 2 April, at the Launceston Town Hall and will end on the afternoon (or evening) of Tuesday, 7 April, at the Hobart Town Hall.

07 December, 2014

28 September, 2014

“Proof We’re Not Violent: We Haven’t Slain All Our Enemies Yet”

Evidence which suggests that Mahometan scholars have not quite a full command of logic (or facts*) can be seen in propaganda from Islamic Online University:


Of course, Islam is a religion of peace because Mahomet hardly ever advocated bloodshed, there are very few Koranic verses endorsing violence, not all that many Mahometan governments have ever suggested exterminating Jews and annihilating Israel, and during Mahometan conquests in various countries over the centuries non-Mahometan populations were never totally exterminated or brutally forced to convert.

* A better estimate of the total number of Mahometans, for example, would be around 1,600,000,000 or about 23% of the world’s population. 

UPDATE I (29 September):  reasonable observers might find it remarkable that so many people who, one minute, loudly decry any prejudiced assumption that one group of Mahometans might typify the rest will also, next minute, readily assert that a Westerner who thinks ill of any Mahometan must be a bigoted redneck.

Similar Arguments

Very few serpents
are lethal; a fair man’s a
snake-disregarder;

and I’m no glutton
because I still have some food
left in the larder.

Ebola virus
can’t be very bad because
Africans survive,

and other plagues too
have had an unkind rap since
humans are alive.

Few Mahometans
are murderers; the rest are
unfairly hated

by folk around the
world who, so far, have not been
annihilated. 


Lions and jackals
can’t be carnivores because
zebras still exist,

and my neighbour is
so amiable he can’t
be a jihadist.

Anyone who thinks
Islam bad has been watching
too much Murdoch news;

the world’s real problem
is global domination
by prejudiced Jews!

UPDATE II (29 September):  A wilful ignorance of logic and facts can be seen in propaganda being spread all over the place wherein it is asserted that no one regards the Ku Klux Klan as representative of Christianity so no one should be so foolish as to believe that the murderers of the supposed Islamic State are obeying the commands of their holy texts.  See “Islamic State isn’t just like the Ku Klux Klan” by Aussie Madness:
While the KKK claimed it was based on Christianity, it was condemned by every Christian denomination, and the KKK would be very hard pressed to point to particular verses in the Bible to justify its actions.  Even if it could, Christianity has gone through many reinterpretations in the last 2000 years and there are very few denominations which still claim the Bible to be the literal word of god.
On the other hand, Islamic State is a perfect implementation of Islam as set out in the Qur’an, and their members are emulating the acts of Muhammad to the letter.
Unlike Christianity, Islam has gone through no reinterpretation or modernisation since its 7th century beginnings, and such a reinterpretation is strictly forbidden anyway.  The word of the Qur’an is the infallible and literal word of god, which can never be questioned or changed. There is no freedom to put any spin on it.  […]
There are literally hundreds of verses in the Qur’an which disparage and preach hatred for, and violence against, ‘infidels’.  And there are plenty of hadith which describe similar acts of Muhammad during the founding days of Islam, and since Muhammad is the ‘perfect man’, all Muslims must strive to emulate him.

24 September, 2014

The “Progressive” Submission

The Greens have already lost their heads

With any trouble,
plight, mess or crisis which might
afflict our nation

The Greens know what to
do: plan yet another march
or demonstration.

Dr. Bandt* will write
a chant, and one having
a simple thesis:

the only way to
solve our problems with Islam’s
by proskynesis;

if any muslim
promise your immediate
decapitation

bow, bow, bow to all
demands whilst blaming Western
civilisation.

*  An example of Green silliness:
Greens MP Adam Bandt asked whether Australia’s deployment to the Middle East [were] making Australia less safe.
“We have to ask the serious question what is it that makes someone, a teenager, so disaffected with their own country that they want to kill people,” he told reporters in Canberra.
To answer Dr. Bandt’s question. Australia’s recent deployment to Iraq and Syria started Monday; Abdul Numan Haider’s plans to behead someone began at least three months ago.  Clearly, for a Government’s action to have an effect on someone’s “radicalisation” three months before it occurred, it must be really bad.

UPDATE IThe Chant of Adam Bandt:

An some jihadist threaten you
blame, blame, blame your racist view,
and when your blood is on your chest
blame, blame, blame, the biassed West.
Should Muslims take away your head
blame, blame, blame yourself instead.

An Islam turn your life to shit
never blame the cause of it:
appease extremists!  let them slay!
Blame, blame blame the Western way.

Numan Haider used a small knife to attack an Australian Federal Police officer and a Victorian policeman before he was shot dead with a single shot.
When Haider was searched he was found to be carrying a larger knife and an Islamic State flag.
Police believe the plan was to follow instructions from the international terror group Islamic State and behead the officers, cover the bodies in the flag and then take photos to post via the internet.
Yeah, but it had nothing—nothing whatsoever!—to do with Islam, the Religion of Peace.

01 September, 2014

ad Kalendas Graecas

The First of September
 
It is not Spring yet
despite silly date-watchers
who say so.  I bet

the awarmist set
will grab any suppos’d rise
in warmth it can get.


We should never let
lying, self-serving scammers
persuade us to fret:

whether dry or wet,
raisin’ fears—and fees!—on change
is their raison d’être.

10 August, 2014

Defending Twitter (and Rhymed Haikus)

A Simple Solution
 
I have free advice
for those who don’t like Twitter:
give it a wide berth!

Stay away therefrom,
and give it just as much time
as you think it’s worth!

You’ll feel no loss, I
assure you, and its users
will notice no dearth:

everyone wins.
We have more important things
to address on Earth.*

* see a discussion at Catallaxy Files wherein, inter alia, I submitted these verses:

Limit characters

to one hundred and forty,

and yet still inform


effectively? Yes,

and it can be done using

some poetic norm.


A poster—Oh come on—has said 
that Twitter is better not read;
   thus critics have gibed
   at words circumscribed,

preferring the prolix instead.


The haiku’s a verse,
 
of seventeen syllables,

meaningful, but terse.

(The original

form had to contain a word

which is seasonal;

but the modern kind

can be very expressive

without that, I find.)

UPDATE Ia recapitulation:

Twitter:  “seven score
characters should suffice for
pithy points, no more”.

UPDATE II (11 August)an encapsulation:

The critics’ complaint?
brevity’s unfair constraint,
and what Twitter aint.

18 July, 2014

Two Heartening Exhortations

On Facebook, and on other “social media”, people often post, repost and re-repost all sorts of encouraging axioms and other droll examples of wisdom; here are two recent examples:



How wise!  Consider, then, a consequent situation: 
In a grimy, urban garage in a large, formerly well-developed but increasingly decrepit city, a masked youth approaches a mechanic, lounging against a wall covered in painted and printed slogans. 
Masked Man:  I’m a friend of Mad Mo.  I hear you have some AK-47s you might be able to sell me, and ammunition, and stuff.
MechanicUh-huh.
Masked Man:  I could do with some guns and ammo, see, because right now there’s a convention of Jewish oil-men in a hotel in town—one owned by Jews, by the way—and I’d like, y’know, to shoot them.
Mechanic:  Are you sure you want to do that?  Would that be a wise or good thing to do?
Masked ManWhat are you?  A critic?  The world has plenty of critics already.  You should be an encourager.  Look, you have a poster saying so.
Mechanic:  True.  Sorry.  Right, I encourage you to run through all that again; how might I help you?
Masked Man:  If you have the power to make someone happy, you should do it.  The world needs more of that.  It would make me happy to kill quite a few Jews, and did I mention that it’s a convention of gay Jews?  It is.  Very gay and very Jewish.  And they’re climate-deniers.  Making profits from fossil-fuels, y’know.
Mechanic:  All right, I’ll grab you a couple of AKs and a back-pack of ammo.
Masked Man:  It would make me very happy indeed if you would arm me to the teeth at a considerable discount.
Mechanic:  Well, if it will make you happy.  Would you be happy if I threw in armour-piercing rounds and a reloadable RPG with a sixpack?
Masked Man:  Very happy indeed. 
Mechanic:  All right then, will do.

17 July, 2014

The Stupid ‘Carbon’ Tax is Gone

Finally

The Greens, of course, are aghast,
the ABC is downcast;
reality-deniers
must give ‘deniers’ a blast.


The act was by no means fast
but the legislation’s passed:
Gillard’s stupid ‘carbon’ tax
has been abolished at last.

26 June, 2014

Dear Power Company

I sent the following message to TasNetworks by e-mail:
This morning I received a glossy, expensive leaflet—with a fridge magnet!—from you by mail informing me that TasNetworks is now providing the electricity supplied throughout Tasmania but that it will mean no difference to my current supply or use or cost of electricity; in other words, your advertising is wastefully superfluous.  You are also broadcasting the same needless message by way of costly advertisements on commercial television.
How much did all that unnecessary advertising cost?  The mailing-charges alone for your glossy but redundant missives must have cost a hundred thousand dollars, surely.  Couldn’t you merely have ensured that brief notices accompanied forthcoming electricity bills?
What are the salaries of your executives?  Will they be listed on your website and, if not, why not?  Are your obviously overpaid but clearly under-educated executives making similar dud decisions involving the provision of electricity?  No wonder electricity prices continue to rise when power companies squander so much of their energy on (unconsciously) advertising their own incompetencies.

20 June, 2014

The Books of Leo Bruce

To commemorate the eleventy-first anniversary of the birth of Rupert Croft-Cooke (June 20, 1903 – June 10, 1979), I have established a blog, “The Books of Leo Bruce”, to publicise Croft-Cooke’s two series of detective novels which he wrote under that pseudonym.  Sadly, some of those books, too long out of print, are now almost impossible to find; I shall provide e-texts thereof—though, of course, whenever possible, readers really ought to buy copies of the novels.
I have begun by providing the first chapter of Case for Three Detectives; further chapters will be added later.

UPDATE I (22 June):  I’ve added to that site a “lost” Sergeant Beef short story, “Beef for Christmas”, hitherto found only in the 1957 Christmas issue of The Tatler and Bystander.

UPDATE II (23 June):  Leo Bruce books in print:


UPDATE III (24 June)I’ve added the second chapter of Case for Three Detectives.

UPDATE IV (29 June):  the remaining chapters of Case for Three Detectives are all now available.

UPDATE V (3 July):  all chapters of another Sergeant Beef novel, Case with Ropes and Rings (1940)—which, sadly, is long out of print—are now available.

UPDATE VI (13 July):  all chapters of another two out-of-print Sergeant Beef novels, Case without a Corpse (1937) and Neck and Neck (1951), are also now available; furthermore, all chapters of the last Sergeant Beef novel, Cold Blood (1952), have been formatted and will be published on 1 August.

UPDATE VII (1 August):  all chapters of Cold Blood have been posted.

UPDATE VIII (25 September):  all chapters of Death by the Lake have been posted.