Early history of the Victorian legal system is a presentation by Marilyn Warren, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria at the Royal Historical Society of Victoria. Of particular interest is the section on Plenty Valley bushrangers, pp26-28.30p. text.victoria law, legal system victoria, plenty valley bushrangers, marilyn warren, rhsv

Blue booklet prepared by John Hall. Golden Dragon Museum an Exhibition on The White Hills Mystery (the strange disappearance of Constable Ryan). Under the title there is a black and white picture of Constable Thomas Ryan. Contents: Introduction - Exhibition - Time line of Events - Conclusion - Bibliography - Appendices. The booklet has 24 pages. All the pages are lose.person, police, constable ryan, constable ryan, john hall, bendigo, white hills, legal system.

One of a collection of over 400 photographs in an album commenced in 1960 and presented to the Phillip Island & Westernport Historical Society by the Shire of Phillip IslandOval photograph of Captain David Read. An early Justice of the Peacelocal history, photography, captain david read, black & white photograph, legal system, justice of peace, john jenner, bryant west

Alfred Downard represented Mornington in the Legislative Assembly of Victoria.Historical Two photocopies of handwritten letters both with the emblem of the Legislative Assembly of Victoria .Paper has Sate Parliament House, Melbourne at top.Yours sincerely, A. Downardw. mcfee, d.h.robb, alfred downard mp, a.k. t. sampbell, justice of peace, legal system, court of petty sessions

The barrel was used in the Wodonga Court House as part of the selection process for jurors. It was a standard issue barrel used throughout Victoria. It was retrieved from the ruins of the court house which was destroyed by fire. It was then donated to the Wodonga Historical Society. The timber display stand was made and donated by Jake Tooley, a Wodonga Historical Society member, The Court House was situated in the Customs Store building alongside the Wodonga Police Station in 93 High Street. (The house where the Police Station was had originally been the home of the Customs Officer). In early 1964, the court house building was burnt beyond repair and furniture and other property destroyed. The cause of the fire was never found. The Police Station was lucky to survive but only because of the efforts of the local Fire Brigade. After the fire, the court was held first at the old Fire Station premises near where the Wodonga Post Office is near Woodland Grove, then it moved to a vacant building in Mitchell Street which was later turned into a Child Care Centre. Foundations for the new court house in Elgin Street were laid in October 1965 Local significance due to its use in the Wodonga Court House and its survival of a major fire. State significance as it documents a procedure used in the Victorian Court and Legal system Cylindrical metal-iron barrel painted black with writing stenciled on the front in white The timber mount was made for storage and display is not part of the original object,Inscription on Barrel "WODONGA./ Jurors in use./ Special"wodonga court, jurors, selection, legal system, fire

Document produced by Thiess Infraco for M>Tram or National Express as a safety guide for tram drivers and related activities as part of their safety course. It covers legal requirements, track system track operations, track safety, automatic vehicle monitoring, electrical systems, and reporting of irregularities. Refers to the General Operating Rules of 2002. Has an image of Z3 121 in M>Tram colours on the front cover. Yields information about the Tram Safety for M>Tram by Thiess Infraco who was part of the partnership with National Express.Document white comb bound, with plastic cover and blue card rear cover, 30 A4 sheets.tramways, trams, rail safety, thiess infraco, m>tram, tram 121, national express

The Irish National Land League (Irish: Conradh na Talún) was an Irish political organisation of the late 19th century which sought to help poor tenant farmers. Its primary aim was to abolish landlordism in Ireland and enable tenant farmers to own the land they worked on. The period of the Land League's agitation is known as the Land War. Within decades of the league's foundation, through the efforts of William O'Brien and George Wyndham (a descendant of Lord Edward FitzGerald), the 1902 Land Conference produced the Land (Purchase) Act 1903 which allowed Irish tenant farmers buy out their freeholds with UK government loans over 68 years through the Land Commission (an arrangement that has never been possible in Britain itself). For agricultural labourers, D.D. Sheehan and the Irish Land and Labour Association secured their demands from the Liberal government elected in 1905 to pass the Labourers (Ireland) Act 1906, and the Labourers (Ireland) Act 1911, which paid County Councils to build over 40,000 new rural cottages, each on an acre of land. By 1914, 75% of occupiers were buying out their landlords, mostly under the two Acts. In all, under the pre-UK Land Acts over 316,000 tenants purchased their holdings amounting to 15 million acres (61,000 km2) out of a total of 20 million acres (81,000 km2) in the country. Sometimes the holdings were described as "uneconomic", but the overall sense of social justice was undeniable. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_National_Land_League, accessed 21 January 2014) The Irish National Land League was founded at the Imperial Hotel in Castlebar, the County town of Mayo, on 21 October 1879. At that meeting Charles Stewart Parnell was elected president of the league. Andrew Kettle, Michael Davitt, and Thomas Brennan were appointed as honorary secretaries. This united practically all the different strands of land agitation and tenant rights movements under a single organisation. The two aims of the Land League, as stated in the resolutions adopted in the meeting, were: ...first, to bring out a reduction of rack-rents; second, to facilitate the obtaining of the ownership of the soil by the occupiers. That the object of the League can be best attained by promoting organisation among the tenant-farmers; by defending those who may be threatened with eviction for refusing to pay unjust rents; by facilitating the working of the Bright clauses of the Irish Land Act during the winter; and by obtaining such reforms in the laws relating to land as will enable every tenant to become owner of his holding by paying a fair rent for a limited number of years. Charles Stewart Parnell, John Dillon, Michael Davitt, and others including Cal Lynn then went to America to raise funds for the League with spectacular results. Branches were also set up in Scotland, where the Crofters Party imitated the League and secured a reforming Act in 1886. The government had introduced the first ineffective Land Act in 1870, then the equally inadequate Acts of 1880 and 1881 followed. These established a Land Commission that started to reduce some rents. Parnell together with all of his party lieutenants, including Father Eugene Sheehy known as "the Land League priest", went into a bitter verbal offensive and were imprisoned in October 1881 under the Irish Coercion Act in Kilmainham Jail for "sabotaging the Land Act", from where the No-Rent Manifesto was issued, calling for a national tenant farmer rent strike which was partially followed. Although the League discouraged violence, agrarian crimes increased widely. Typically a rent strike would be followed by evictions by the police, or those tenants paying rent would be subject to a local boycott by League members. Where cases went to court, witnesses would change their stories, resulting in an unworkable legal system. This in turn led on to stronger criminal laws being passed that were described by the League as "Coercion Acts". The bitterness that developed helped Parnell later in his Home Rule campaign. Davitt's views were much more extreme, seeking to nationalise all land, as seen in his famous slogan: "The land of Ireland for the people of Ireland". Parnell aimed to harness the emotive element, but he and his party preferred for tenant farmers to become freeholders on the land they rented, instead of land being vested in "the people".(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_National_Land_League, accessed 21 January 2014)Image of a number of men sitting around a table. They are members of the Land League Committee during a meeting in Dublin.ballarat irish, land league, land league committee, dublin

Parnell was an Irish nationalist and statesman who led the fight for Irish Home Rule in the 1880s. Charles Stewart Parnell was born on 27 June 1846 in County Wicklow into a family of Anglo-Irish Protestant landowners. He studied at Cambridge University and was elected to parliament in 1875 as a member of the Home Rule League (later re-named by Parnell the Irish Parliamentary Party). His abilities soon became evident. In 1878, Parnell became an active opponent of the Irish land laws, believing their reform should be the first step on the road to Home Rule. In 1879, Parnell was elected president of the newly founded National Land League and the following year he visited the United States to gain both funds and support for land reform. In the 1880 election, he supported the Liberal leader William Gladstone, but when Gladstone's Land Act of 1881 fell short of expectations, he joined the opposition. By now he had become the accepted leader of the Irish nationalist movement. Parnell now encouraged boycott as a means of influencing landlords and land agents, and as a result he was sent to jail and the Land League was suppressed. From Kilmainham prison he called on Irish peasants to stop paying rent. In March 1882, he negotiated an agreement with Gladstone - the Kilmainham Treaty - in which he urged his followers to avoid violence. But this peaceful policy was severely challenged by the murder in May 1882 of two senior British officials in Phoenix Park in Dublin by members of an Irish terrorist group. Parnell condemned the murders. In 1886, Parnell joined with the Liberals to defeat Lord Salisbury's Conservative government. Gladstone became prime minister and introduced the first Irish Home Rule Bill. Parnell believed it was flawed but said he was prepared to vote for it. The Bill split the Liberal Party and was defeated in the House of Commons. Gladstone's government fell soon afterwards.(http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/parnell_charles.shtml, accessed 21 January 2014) The Irish National Land League (Irish: Conradh na Talún) was an Irish political organisation of the late 19th century which sought to help poor tenant farmers. Its primary aim was to abolish landlordism in Ireland and enable tenant farmers to own the land they worked on. The period of the Land League's agitation is known as the Land War. Within decades of the league's foundation, through the efforts of William O'Brien and George Wyndham (a descendant of Lord Edward FitzGerald), the 1902 Land Conference produced the Land (Purchase) Act 1903 which allowed Irish tenant farmers buy out their freeholds with UK government loans over 68 years through the Land Commission (an arrangement that has never been possible in Britain itself). For agricultural labourers, D.D. Sheehan and the Irish Land and Labour Association secured their demands from the Liberal government elected in 1905 to pass the Labourers (Ireland) Act 1906, and the Labourers (Ireland) Act 1911, which paid County Councils to build over 40,000 new rural cottages, each on an acre of land. By 1914, 75% of occupiers were buying out their landlords, mostly under the two Acts. In all, under the pre-UK Land Acts over 316,000 tenants purchased their holdings amounting to 15 million acres (61,000 km2) out of a total of 20 million acres (81,000 km2) in the country. Sometimes the holdings were described as "uneconomic", but the overall sense of social justice was undeniable. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_National_Land_League, accessed 21 January 2014) The Irish National Land League was founded at the Imperial Hotel in Castlebar, the County town of Mayo, on 21 October 1879. At that meeting Charles Stewart Parnell was elected president of the league. Andrew Kettle, Michael Davitt, and Thomas Brennan were appointed as honorary secretaries. This united practically all the different strands of land agitation and tenant rights movements under a single organisation. The two aims of the Land League, as stated in the resolutions adopted in the meeting, were: ...first, to bring out a reduction of rack-rents; second, to facilitate the obtaining of the ownership of the soil by the occupiers. That the object of the League can be best attained by promoting organisation among the tenant-farmers; by defending those who may be threatened with eviction for refusing to pay unjust rents; by facilitating the working of the Bright clauses of the Irish Land Act during the winter; and by obtaining such reforms in the laws relating to land as will enable every tenant to become owner of his holding by paying a fair rent for a limited number of years. Charles Stewart Parnell, John Dillon, Michael Davitt, and others including Cal Lynn then went to America to raise funds for the League with spectacular results. Branches were also set up in Scotland, where the Crofters Party imitated the League and secured a reforming Act in 1886. The government had introduced the first ineffective Land Act in 1870, then the equally inadequate Acts of 1880 and 1881 followed. These established a Land Commission that started to reduce some rents. Parnell together with all of his party lieutenants, including Father Eugene Sheehy known as "the Land League priest", went into a bitter verbal offensive and were imprisoned in October 1881 under the Irish Coercion Act in Kilmainham Jail for "sabotaging the Land Act", from where the No-Rent Manifesto was issued, calling for a national tenant farmer rent strike which was partially followed. Although the League discouraged violence, agrarian crimes increased widely. Typically a rent strike would be followed by evictions by the police, or those tenants paying rent would be subject to a local boycott by League members. Where cases went to court, witnesses would change their stories, resulting in an unworkable legal system. This in turn led on to stronger criminal laws being passed that were described by the League as "Coercion Acts". The bitterness that developed helped Parnell later in his Home Rule campaign. Davitt's views were much more extreme, seeking to nationalise all land, as seen in his famous slogan: "The land of Ireland for the people of Ireland". Parnell aimed to harness the emotive element, but he and his party preferred for tenant farmers to become freeholders on the land they rented, instead of land being vested in "the people".(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_National_Land_League, accessed 21 January 2014)Image of bearded man known as Charles Stewart Parnellballarat irish, parnell, charles parnell, home rule

This book is a diary (1926 and 1927) which appears to contain summaries of letters written to clients of the Warrnambool legal firm, Mackay and Taylor. The summaries give the name of the recipient(s) and the content of the letter. The numbers next to the summaries may refer to the number of the client or the number in the letter book. George Mackay who died in 1926 set up the original legal firm in Warrnambool in 1891 and merged with James Fletcher in 1893 to form the Fletcher and Mackay business. In the early 1920s J. Taylor joined the business then known as Mackay and Taylor. This business with other partners survived in Kepler Street until the 1990s. This book has some significance as it contains the names of many residents of Warrnambool and district during the 1920s and gives some indication of their dealings with their lawyers. It also shows the system used at the time to record the transactions of law firmsThis is a ledger with a black cover and red binding (foolscap size). There are 190 pages, each one ruled with blue lines and a red margin line. The entries are handwritten in black ink. Front cover: ‘Minute Book’ (actually a diary) Spine: ‘Diary’ (in black ink) mackay and taylor

Victorian Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (VIOSH) Australia is the Asia-Pacific centre for teaching and research in occupational health and safety (OHS) and is known as one of Australia's leaders on the field. VIOSH has a global reputation for its innovative approach within the field of OHS management. VIOSH had its first intake of students in 1979. At that time the Institution was known as the Ballarat College of Advanced Education. In 1990 it became known as Ballarat University College, then in 1994 as University of Ballarat. It was 2014 that it became Federation University. VIOSH Australia students are safety managers, senior advisors and experienced OHS professionals. They come from all over Australia and industry. Students are taught active research and enquiry; rather than textbook learning and a one-size fits all approach. VIOSH accepts people into the Graduate Diploma of Occupational Hazard Management who have no undergraduate degree - on the basis of extensive work experience and knowledge. Ballarat College of Advanced Education invited Professor Peter Compes of Germany to conduct a Seminar on the subject "System Safety Management by Risk Assessment". This was to be held over two days in February 1980. Registration to attend was no later than 8 February 1980. Prof Compes was Professor of General Safety Science, University of Wuppertal, Federal Republic of Germany. The seminar was to look at current experiences with accidents and disasters and future projections. The moral. legal and economic need for change and the need for a system safety concept.Five A4 pages - one with news article Signatures of Derek Viner and Derek Woolley. Dates 1977 to 1980.viosh, victorian institute of occupational safety and health, ballarat college of advanced education, derek viner, derek woolley, professor peter compes, professor of general safety science, federal republic of germany, system safety management by risk assessment, seminar, university of wuppertal, school of engineering

Carrie Lam, Hong Kong’s chief executive, had plenty of political support in the territory’s pro-Beijing legislature to pass a bill that would allow extraditions to mainland China. The legislators were set to begin discussing the bill in early June, and intended to vote on it just weeks later. A series of protests took place, and after a June 16 protest saw the largest turnout yet, Ms. Lam made a major concession: She postponed the bill, at least temporarily. It was an undeniable victory for the protesters — but it did little to quell the unrest. Since the bill could later be reintroduced, protesters felt they remained in danger. The police tactics to break up the demonstrations on June 12, including the use of more than 150 tear gas canisters to push protesters far away from the government office, created a new set of demands from the protesters. Now, instead of just calling for the withdrawal of the bill and Ms. Lam’s resignation, they said they wouldn’t be content unless there was an independent investigation of officers’ conduct. They also wanted the release of protesters arrested on June 12, and for the government to rescind its description of the demonstrations as a “riot,” a designation that carries legal significance. None of that has happened. Many analysts say Ms. Lam is unlikely to step down, nor would Beijing accept her resignation if she offered it. She has more wiggle room on the other demands, but has not indicated any willingness to budge. The Hong Kong Protests are a leaderless, digital movement.There is no single leader or group deciding on or steering the strategy, tactics and goals of the movement. Instead, protesters have used forums and messaging apps to decide next steps. Anyone can suggest a course of action, and others then vote on whether they support it. The most popular ideas rise to the top, and then people rally to make them happen. At its best, this structure has empowered many people to participate and have their voices heard. Protesters say it keeps them all safe by not allowing the government to target specific leaders. Their success in halting the extradition bill, which was shelved by the territory’s chief executive, speaks to the movement’s power. Despite the lack of a clear leader, protesters have shown extensive coordination at the demonstrations, having planned the specifics online beforehand. Supply stations are set up to distribute water, snacks, gloves, umbrellas and shields made of cardboard. Volunteer first aid workers wear brightly colored vests. People form assembly lines to pass supplies across long distances, with protesters communicating what they need through a series of predetermined hand signals. Anyone walking in dangerous areas without a helmet or a mask is quickly offered one. No individual can speak on behalf of the protesters, which makes negotiations difficult, if not impossible. (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/02/world/asia/hong-kong-protest-explained.html, accessed 07/07/2019) Hong Kong’s amended extradition law would allow the extradition of suspects to mainland China for the first time. Supporters say the amendments are key to ensuring the city does not become a criminal refuge, but critics worry Beijing will use the law to extradite political opponents and others to China where their legal protections cannot be guaranteed. The government claims the push to change the law, which would also apply to Taiwan and Macau, stems from the killing last year of a Hong Kong woman while she was in Taiwan with her boyfriend. Authorities in Taiwan suspect the woman’s boyfriend, who remains in Hong Kong, but cannot try him because no extradition agreement is in place. Under the amended law, those accused of offences punishable by seven years or more in prison could be extradited. The new legislation would give Hong Kong’s leader, known as the chief executive, authority to approve extradition requests, after review by the courts. Hong Kong’s legislature, the legislative council, would not have any oversight over the extradition process. Many Hong Kongers fear the proposed extradition law will be used by authorities to target political enemies. They worry the new legislation spells the end of the “one country, two systems” policy, eroding the civil rights enjoyed by Hong Kong residents since the handover of sovereignty from the UK to China in 1997. Many attending the protests on Sunday said they could not trust China as it had often used non-political crimes to target government critics, and said they also feared Hong Kong officials would not be able to reject Beijing’s requests. Legal professionals have also expressed concern over the rights of those sent across the border to be tried. The conviction rate in Chinese courts is as high as 99%. Arbitrary detentions, torture and denial of legal representation of one’s choosing are also common. Many in the protests on Sunday 09 June 2019 said they felt overwhelmed by a sense of helplessness in the face of mainland China’s increasing political, economic and cultural influence in Hong Kong. Hong Kong’s top political leader is not elected by ordinary voters but by a 1,200-strong election committee accountable to Beijing. Half of its legislature are chosen through indirect electoral systems that favour pro-Beijing figures. Many Hong Kongers also cited the jailing of leaders and activists from the 2014 Occupy Central movement– a 79-day mass civil disobedience movement – as well as the disqualification of young localist lawmakers as signs of the erosion of civil freedoms. Resentment towards China has been intensified by soaring property prices – with increasing numbers of mainland Chinese buying properties in the city – as well as the government’s “patriotic education” drive, and the large numbers of mainland tourists who flock to Hong Kong. Many Hong Kongers are also concerned about China’s growing control over the city’s news media, as they increasingly self-censor and follow Beijing’s tacit orders. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/10/what-are-the-hong-kong-protests-about-explainerPhotograph of a street art poster taken on the streets of Hong Kong during the protests against legislation to allow Hong Kong suspects to be extradited to mainland Chinese carrie lam, hong kong protests, extraditions, poster art, posters

Carrie Lam, Hong Kong’s chief executive, had plenty of political support in the territory’s pro-Beijing legislature to pass a bill that would allow extraditions to mainland China. The legislators were set to begin discussing the bill in early June, and intended to vote on it just weeks later. A series of protests took place, and after a June 16 protest saw the largest turnout yet, Ms. Lam made a major concession: She postponed the bill, at least temporarily. It was an undeniable victory for the protesters — but it did little to quell the unrest. Since the bill could later be reintroduced, protesters felt they remained in danger. The police tactics to break up the demonstrations on June 12, including the use of more than 150 tear gas canisters to push protesters far away from the government office, created a new set of demands from the protesters. Now, instead of just calling for the withdrawal of the bill and Ms. Lam’s resignation, they said they wouldn’t be content unless there was an independent investigation of officers’ conduct. They also wanted the release of protesters arrested on June 12, and for the government to rescind its description of the demonstrations as a “riot,” a designation that carries legal significance. None of that has happened. Many analysts say Ms. Lam is unlikely to step down, nor would Beijing accept her resignation if she offered it. She has more wiggle room on the other demands, but has not indicated any willingness to budge. The Hong Kong Protests are a leaderless, digital movement.There is no single leader or group deciding on or steering the strategy, tactics and goals of the movement. Instead, protesters have used forums and messaging apps to decide next steps. Anyone can suggest a course of action, and others then vote on whether they support it. The most popular ideas rise to the top, and then people rally to make them happen. At its best, this structure has empowered many people to participate and have their voices heard. Protesters say it keeps them all safe by not allowing the government to target specific leaders. Their success in halting the extradition bill, which was shelved by the territory’s chief executive, speaks to the movement’s power. Despite the lack of a clear leader, protesters have shown extensive coordination at the demonstrations, having planned the specifics online beforehand. Supply stations are set up to distribute water, snacks, gloves, umbrellas and shields made of cardboard. Volunteer first aid workers wear brightly colored vests. People form assembly lines to pass supplies across long distances, with protesters communicating what they need through a series of predetermined hand signals. Anyone walking in dangerous areas without a helmet or a mask is quickly offered one. No individual can speak on behalf of the protesters, which makes negotiations difficult, if not impossible. (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/02/world/asia/hong-kong-protest-explained.html, accessed 07/07/2019) Hong Kong’s amended extradition law would allow the extradition of suspects to mainland China for the first time. Supporters say the amendments are key to ensuring the city does not become a criminal refuge, but critics worry Beijing will use the law to extradite political opponents and others to China where their legal protections cannot be guaranteed. The government claims the push to change the law, which would also apply to Taiwan and Macau, stems from the killing last year of a Hong Kong woman while she was in Taiwan with her boyfriend. Authorities in Taiwan suspect the woman’s boyfriend, who remains in Hong Kong, but cannot try him because no extradition agreement is in place. Under the amended law, those accused of offences punishable by seven years or more in prison could be extradited. The new legislation would give Hong Kong’s leader, known as the chief executive, authority to approve extradition requests, after review by the courts. Hong Kong’s legislature, the legislative council, would not have any oversight over the extradition process. Many Hong Kongers fear the proposed extradition law will be used by authorities to target political enemies. They worry the new legislation spells the end of the “one country, two systems” policy, eroding the civil rights enjoyed by Hong Kong residents since the handover of sovereignty from the UK to China in 1997. Many attending the protests on Sunday said they could not trust China as it had often used non-political crimes to target government critics, and said they also feared Hong Kong officials would not be able to reject Beijing’s requests. Legal professionals have also expressed concern over the rights of those sent across the border to be tried. The conviction rate in Chinese courts is as high as 99%. Arbitrary detentions, torture and denial of legal representation of one’s choosing are also common. Many in the protests on Sunday 09 June 2019 said they felt overwhelmed by a sense of helplessness in the face of mainland China’s increasing political, economic and cultural influence in Hong Kong. Hong Kong’s top political leader is not elected by ordinary voters but by a 1,200-strong election committee accountable to Beijing. Half of its legislature are chosen through indirect electoral systems that favour pro-Beijing figures. Many Hong Kongers also cited the jailing of leaders and activists from the 2014 Occupy Central movement– a 79-day mass civil disobedience movement – as well as the disqualification of young localist lawmakers as signs of the erosion of civil freedoms. Resentment towards China has been intensified by soaring property prices – with increasing numbers of mainland Chinese buying properties in the city – as well as the government’s “patriotic education” drive, and the large numbers of mainland tourists who flock to Hong Kong. Many Hong Kongers are also concerned about China’s growing control over the city’s news media, as they increasingly self-censor and follow Beijing’s tacit orders. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/10/what-are-the-hong-kong-protests-about-explainerMore than a thousand protestors surround Hong Kong's main police headquarters on Arsenal Street in Wan Chai on June 26th following a peaceful rally at Edinburgh Place in Central. Doors to the complex were barricaded by protestors, who left after a six hour siege in protest at police violence at a prtest held earlier on 12 June 2019. Protesters ended a six-hour siege of Hong Kong’s police headquarters – their second in a week over the now-suspended extradition bill – early on Thursday morning. More than 1,000 were involved at the height of the protest, which began after 10pm on Wednesday. Around 100 were left at the end and dispersed without a fight when officers with riot shields emerged from the building in Wan Chai at 4am on Thursday. After a peaceful rally attended by thousands earlier at Edinburgh Place in the Central business district, hundreds descended on Arsenal Street, blocking the junction with Lockhart Road to all traffic and sealing the entrances to the police base. (https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3016238/hong-kong-police-under-siege-again-protesters-surround )carrie lam, hong kong protests, extraditions, protest, protestors

Carrie Lam, Hong Kong’s chief executive, had plenty of political support in the territory’s pro-Beijing legislature to pass a bill that would allow extraditions to mainland China. The legislators were set to begin discussing the bill in early June, and intended to vote on it just weeks later. A series of protests took place, and after a June 16 protest saw the largest turnout yet, Ms. Lam made a major concession: She postponed the bill, at least temporarily. It was an undeniable victory for the protesters — but it did little to quell the unrest. Since the bill could later be reintroduced, protesters felt they remained in danger. The police tactics to break up the demonstrations on June 12, including the use of more than 150 tear gas canisters to push protesters far away from the government office, created a new set of demands from the protesters. Now, instead of just calling for the withdrawal of the bill and Ms. Lam’s resignation, they said they wouldn’t be content unless there was an independent investigation of officers’ conduct. They also wanted the release of protesters arrested on June 12, and for the government to rescind its description of the demonstrations as a “riot,” a designation that carries legal significance. None of that has happened. Many analysts say Ms. Lam is unlikely to step down, nor would Beijing accept her resignation if she offered it. She has more wiggle room on the other demands, but has not indicated any willingness to budge. The Hong Kong Protests are a leaderless, digital movement.There is no single leader or group deciding on or steering the strategy, tactics and goals of the movement. Instead, protesters have used forums and messaging apps to decide next steps. Anyone can suggest a course of action, and others then vote on whether they support it. The most popular ideas rise to the top, and then people rally to make them happen. At its best, this structure has empowered many people to participate and have their voices heard. Protesters say it keeps them all safe by not allowing the government to target specific leaders. Their success in halting the extradition bill, which was shelved by the territory’s chief executive, speaks to the movement’s power. Despite the lack of a clear leader, protesters have shown extensive coordination at the demonstrations, having planned the specifics online beforehand. Supply stations are set up to distribute water, snacks, gloves, umbrellas and shields made of cardboard. Volunteer first aid workers wear brightly colored vests. People form assembly lines to pass supplies across long distances, with protesters communicating what they need through a series of predetermined hand signals. Anyone walking in dangerous areas without a helmet or a mask is quickly offered one. No individual can speak on behalf of the protesters, which makes negotiations difficult, if not impossible. (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/02/world/asia/hong-kong-protest-explained.html, accessed 07/07/2019) Hong Kong’s amended extradition law would allow the extradition of suspects to mainland China for the first time. Supporters say the amendments are key to ensuring the city does not become a criminal refuge, but critics worry Beijing will use the law to extradite political opponents and others to China where their legal protections cannot be guaranteed. The government claims the push to change the law, which would also apply to Taiwan and Macau, stems from the killing last year of a Hong Kong woman while she was in Taiwan with her boyfriend. Authorities in Taiwan suspect the woman’s boyfriend, who remains in Hong Kong, but cannot try him because no extradition agreement is in place. Under the amended law, those accused of offences punishable by seven years or more in prison could be extradited. The new legislation would give Hong Kong’s leader, known as the chief executive, authority to approve extradition requests, after review by the courts. Hong Kong’s legislature, the legislative council, would not have any oversight over the extradition process. Many Hong Kongers fear the proposed extradition law will be used by authorities to target political enemies. They worry the new legislation spells the end of the “one country, two systems” policy, eroding the civil rights enjoyed by Hong Kong residents since the handover of sovereignty from the UK to China in 1997. Many attending the protests on Sunday said they could not trust China as it had often used non-political crimes to target government critics, and said they also feared Hong Kong officials would not be able to reject Beijing’s requests. Legal professionals have also expressed concern over the rights of those sent across the border to be tried. The conviction rate in Chinese courts is as high as 99%. Arbitrary detentions, torture and denial of legal representation of one’s choosing are also common. Many in the protests on Sunday 09 June 2019 said they felt overwhelmed by a sense of helplessness in the face of mainland China’s increasing political, economic and cultural influence in Hong Kong. Hong Kong’s top political leader is not elected by ordinary voters but by a 1,200-strong election committee accountable to Beijing. Half of its legislature are chosen through indirect electoral systems that favour pro-Beijing figures. Many Hong Kongers also cited the jailing of leaders and activists from the 2014 Occupy Central movement– a 79-day mass civil disobedience movement – as well as the disqualification of young localist lawmakers as signs of the erosion of civil freedoms. Resentment towards China has been intensified by soaring property prices – with increasing numbers of mainland Chinese buying properties in the city – as well as the government’s “patriotic education” drive, and the large numbers of mainland tourists who flock to Hong Kong. Many Hong Kongers are also concerned about China’s growing control over the city’s news media, as they increasingly self-censor and follow Beijing’s tacit orders. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/10/what-are-the-hong-kong-protests-about-explainerSeven police officers stand guard in front of Hong Kong's main police headquarters on Arsenal Street in Wan Chai as an estimated one thousand protestors surround on 26 June 2019. Protestors take turns to step up and hurl abuse at the officers, in a protest lasting 6 hours before peacefully dispersing. The protesters chanted 'Release the martyrs' and 'Stop police violence' in reference to violent clashes with police in the days previous. ( https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3016238/hong-kong-police-under-siege-again-protesters-surround)carrie lam, hong kong protests, extraditions, protest, protestors, police, wan chai

Carrie Lam, Hong Kong’s chief executive, had plenty of political support in the territory’s pro-Beijing legislature to pass a bill that would allow extraditions to mainland China. The legislators were set to begin discussing the bill in early June, and intended to vote on it just weeks later. A series of protests took place, and after a June 16 protest saw the largest turnout yet, Ms. Lam made a major concession: She postponed the bill, at least temporarily. It was an undeniable victory for the protesters — but it did little to quell the unrest. Since the bill could later be reintroduced, protesters felt they remained in danger. The police tactics to break up the demonstrations on June 12, including the use of more than 150 tear gas canisters to push protesters far away from the government office, created a new set of demands from the protesters. Now, instead of just calling for the withdrawal of the bill and Ms. Lam’s resignation, they said they wouldn’t be content unless there was an independent investigation of officers’ conduct. They also wanted the release of protesters arrested on June 12, and for the government to rescind its description of the demonstrations as a “riot,” a designation that carries legal significance. None of that has happened. Many analysts say Ms. Lam is unlikely to step down, nor would Beijing accept her resignation if she offered it. She has more wiggle room on the other demands, but has not indicated any willingness to budge. The Hong Kong Protests are a leaderless, digital movement.There is no single leader or group deciding on or steering the strategy, tactics and goals of the movement. Instead, protesters have used forums and messaging apps to decide next steps. Anyone can suggest a course of action, and others then vote on whether they support it. The most popular ideas rise to the top, and then people rally to make them happen. At its best, this structure has empowered many people to participate and have their voices heard. Protesters say it keeps them all safe by not allowing the government to target specific leaders. Their success in halting the extradition bill, which was shelved by the territory’s chief executive, speaks to the movement’s power. Despite the lack of a clear leader, protesters have shown extensive coordination at the demonstrations, having planned the specifics online beforehand. Supply stations are set up to distribute water, snacks, gloves, umbrellas and shields made of cardboard. Volunteer first aid workers wear brightly colored vests. People form assembly lines to pass supplies across long distances, with protesters communicating what they need through a series of predetermined hand signals. Anyone walking in dangerous areas without a helmet or a mask is quickly offered one. No individual can speak on behalf of the protesters, which makes negotiations difficult, if not impossible. (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/02/world/asia/hong-kong-protest-explained.html, accessed 07/07/2019) Hong Kong’s amended extradition law would allow the extradition of suspects to mainland China for the first time. Supporters say the amendments are key to ensuring the city does not become a criminal refuge, but critics worry Beijing will use the law to extradite political opponents and others to China where their legal protections cannot be guaranteed. The government claims the push to change the law, which would also apply to Taiwan and Macau, stems from the killing last year of a Hong Kong woman while she was in Taiwan with her boyfriend. Authorities in Taiwan suspect the woman’s boyfriend, who remains in Hong Kong, but cannot try him because no extradition agreement is in place. Under the amended law, those accused of offences punishable by seven years or more in prison could be extradited. The new legislation would give Hong Kong’s leader, known as the chief executive, authority to approve extradition requests, after review by the courts. Hong Kong’s legislature, the legislative council, would not have any oversight over the extradition process. Many Hong Kongers fear the proposed extradition law will be used by authorities to target political enemies. They worry the new legislation spells the end of the “one country, two systems” policy, eroding the civil rights enjoyed by Hong Kong residents since the handover of sovereignty from the UK to China in 1997. Many attending the protests on Sunday said they could not trust China as it had often used non-political crimes to target government critics, and said they also feared Hong Kong officials would not be able to reject Beijing’s requests. Legal professionals have also expressed concern over the rights of those sent across the border to be tried. The conviction rate in Chinese courts is as high as 99%. Arbitrary detentions, torture and denial of legal representation of one’s choosing are also common. Many in the protests on Sunday 09 June 2019 said they felt overwhelmed by a sense of helplessness in the face of mainland China’s increasing political, economic and cultural influence in Hong Kong. Hong Kong’s top political leader is not elected by ordinary voters but by a 1,200-strong election committee accountable to Beijing. Half of its legislature are chosen through indirect electoral systems that favour pro-Beijing figures. Many Hong Kongers also cited the jailing of leaders and activists from the 2014 Occupy Central movement– a 79-day mass civil disobedience movement – as well as the disqualification of young localist lawmakers as signs of the erosion of civil freedoms. Resentment towards China has been intensified by soaring property prices – with increasing numbers of mainland Chinese buying properties in the city – as well as the government’s “patriotic education” drive, and the large numbers of mainland tourists who flock to Hong Kong. Many Hong Kongers are also concerned about China’s growing control over the city’s news media, as they increasingly self-censor and follow Beijing’s tacit orders. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/10/what-are-the-hong-kong-protests-about-explainerPhotograph crowds gathering on June 16 on the streets of Causeway Bay before an estimated 2 million people take part in march protesting the government's push for extradition laws to China and demanding an apology from the chief executrive Carrie Lam. Nearly 2 million’ people take to streets, forcing public apology from Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam as suspension of controversial extradition bill fails to appease protesters. (https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3014737/nearly-2-million-people-take-streets-forcing-public-apology )carrie lam, hong kong protests, extraditions, protest, protestors

Carrie Lam, Hong Kong’s chief executive, had plenty of political support in the territory’s pro-Beijing legislature to pass a bill that would allow extraditions to mainland China. The legislators were set to begin discussing the bill in early June, and intended to vote on it just weeks later. A series of protests took place, and after a June 16 protest saw the largest turnout yet, Ms. Lam made a major concession: She postponed the bill, at least temporarily. It was an undeniable victory for the protesters — but it did little to quell the unrest. Since the bill could later be reintroduced, protesters felt they remained in danger. The police tactics to break up the demonstrations on June 12, including the use of more than 150 tear gas canisters to push protesters far away from the government office, created a new set of demands from the protesters. Now, instead of just calling for the withdrawal of the bill and Ms. Lam’s resignation, they said they wouldn’t be content unless there was an independent investigation of officers’ conduct. They also wanted the release of protesters arrested on June 12, and for the government to rescind its description of the demonstrations as a “riot,” a designation that carries legal significance. None of that has happened. Many analysts say Ms. Lam is unlikely to step down, nor would Beijing accept her resignation if she offered it. She has more wiggle room on the other demands, but has not indicated any willingness to budge. The Hong Kong Protests are a leaderless, digital movement.There is no single leader or group deciding on or steering the strategy, tactics and goals of the movement. Instead, protesters have used forums and messaging apps to decide next steps. Anyone can suggest a course of action, and others then vote on whether they support it. The most popular ideas rise to the top, and then people rally to make them happen. At its best, this structure has empowered many people to participate and have their voices heard. Protesters say it keeps them all safe by not allowing the government to target specific leaders. Their success in halting the extradition bill, which was shelved by the territory’s chief executive, speaks to the movement’s power. Despite the lack of a clear leader, protesters have shown extensive coordination at the demonstrations, having planned the specifics online beforehand. Supply stations are set up to distribute water, snacks, gloves, umbrellas and shields made of cardboard. Volunteer first aid workers wear brightly colored vests. People form assembly lines to pass supplies across long distances, with protesters communicating what they need through a series of predetermined hand signals. Anyone walking in dangerous areas without a helmet or a mask is quickly offered one. No individual can speak on behalf of the protesters, which makes negotiations difficult, if not impossible. (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/02/world/asia/hong-kong-protest-explained.html, accessed 07/07/2019) Hong Kong’s amended extradition law would allow the extradition of suspects to mainland China for the first time. Supporters say the amendments are key to ensuring the city does not become a criminal refuge, but critics worry Beijing will use the law to extradite political opponents and others to China where their legal protections cannot be guaranteed. The government claims the push to change the law, which would also apply to Taiwan and Macau, stems from the killing last year of a Hong Kong woman while she was in Taiwan with her boyfriend. Authorities in Taiwan suspect the woman’s boyfriend, who remains in Hong Kong, but cannot try him because no extradition agreement is in place. Under the amended law, those accused of offences punishable by seven years or more in prison could be extradited. The new legislation would give Hong Kong’s leader, known as the chief executive, authority to approve extradition requests, after review by the courts. Hong Kong’s legislature, the legislative council, would not have any oversight over the extradition process. Many Hong Kongers fear the proposed extradition law will be used by authorities to target political enemies. They worry the new legislation spells the end of the “one country, two systems” policy, eroding the civil rights enjoyed by Hong Kong residents since the handover of sovereignty from the UK to China in 1997. Many attending the protests on Sunday said they could not trust China as it had often used non-political crimes to target government critics, and said they also feared Hong Kong officials would not be able to reject Beijing’s requests. Legal professionals have also expressed concern over the rights of those sent across the border to be tried. The conviction rate in Chinese courts is as high as 99%. Arbitrary detentions, torture and denial of legal representation of one’s choosing are also common. Many in the protests on Sunday 09 June 2019 said they felt overwhelmed by a sense of helplessness in the face of mainland China’s increasing political, economic and cultural influence in Hong Kong. Hong Kong’s top political leader is not elected by ordinary voters but by a 1,200-strong election committee accountable to Beijing. Half of its legislature are chosen through indirect electoral systems that favour pro-Beijing figures. Many Hong Kongers also cited the jailing of leaders and activists from the 2014 Occupy Central movement– a 79-day mass civil disobedience movement – as well as the disqualification of young localist lawmakers as signs of the erosion of civil freedoms. Resentment towards China has been intensified by soaring property prices – with increasing numbers of mainland Chinese buying properties in the city – as well as the government’s “patriotic education” drive, and the large numbers of mainland tourists who flock to Hong Kong. Many Hong Kongers are also concerned about China’s growing control over the city’s news media, as they increasingly self-censor and follow Beijing’s tacit orders. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/10/what-are-the-hong-kong-protests-about-explainerPhotograph of a crowd or protestors against proposed extradition laws gathering on the streets of Causeway Bay, Hong Kong, leading down to the gathering area. carrie lam, hong kong protests, extraditions, protest, protestors

Carrie Lam, Hong Kong’s chief executive, had plenty of political support in the territory’s pro-Beijing legislature to pass a bill that would allow extraditions to mainland China. The legislators were set to begin discussing the bill in early June, and intended to vote on it just weeks later. A series of protests took place, and after a June 16 protest saw the largest turnout yet, Ms. Lam made a major concession: She postponed the bill, at least temporarily. It was an undeniable victory for the protesters — but it did little to quell the unrest. Since the bill could later be reintroduced, protesters felt they remained in danger. The police tactics to break up the demonstrations on June 12, including the use of more than 150 tear gas canisters to push protesters far away from the government office, created a new set of demands from the protesters. Now, instead of just calling for the withdrawal of the bill and Ms. Lam’s resignation, they said they wouldn’t be content unless there was an independent investigation of officers’ conduct. They also wanted the release of protesters arrested on June 12, and for the government to rescind its description of the demonstrations as a “riot,” a designation that carries legal significance. None of that has happened. Many analysts say Ms. Lam is unlikely to step down, nor would Beijing accept her resignation if she offered it. She has more wiggle room on the other demands, but has not indicated any willingness to budge. The Hong Kong Protests are a leaderless, digital movement.There is no single leader or group deciding on or steering the strategy, tactics and goals of the movement. Instead, protesters have used forums and messaging apps to decide next steps. Anyone can suggest a course of action, and others then vote on whether they support it. The most popular ideas rise to the top, and then people rally to make them happen. At its best, this structure has empowered many people to participate and have their voices heard. Protesters say it keeps them all safe by not allowing the government to target specific leaders. Their success in halting the extradition bill, which was shelved by the territory’s chief executive, speaks to the movement’s power. Despite the lack of a clear leader, protesters have shown extensive coordination at the demonstrations, having planned the specifics online beforehand. Supply stations are set up to distribute water, snacks, gloves, umbrellas and shields made of cardboard. Volunteer first aid workers wear brightly colored vests. People form assembly lines to pass supplies across long distances, with protesters communicating what they need through a series of predetermined hand signals. Anyone walking in dangerous areas without a helmet or a mask is quickly offered one. No individual can speak on behalf of the protesters, which makes negotiations difficult, if not impossible. (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/02/world/asia/hong-kong-protest-explained.html, accessed 07/07/2019) Hong Kong’s amended extradition law would allow the extradition of suspects to mainland China for the first time. Supporters say the amendments are key to ensuring the city does not become a criminal refuge, but critics worry Beijing will use the law to extradite political opponents and others to China where their legal protections cannot be guaranteed. The government claims the push to change the law, which would also apply to Taiwan and Macau, stems from the killing last year of a Hong Kong woman while she was in Taiwan with her boyfriend. Authorities in Taiwan suspect the woman’s boyfriend, who remains in Hong Kong, but cannot try him because no extradition agreement is in place. Under the amended law, those accused of offences punishable by seven years or more in prison could be extradited. The new legislation would give Hong Kong’s leader, known as the chief executive, authority to approve extradition requests, after review by the courts. Hong Kong’s legislature, the legislative council, would not have any oversight over the extradition process. Many Hong Kongers fear the proposed extradition law will be used by authorities to target political enemies. They worry the new legislation spells the end of the “one country, two systems” policy, eroding the civil rights enjoyed by Hong Kong residents since the handover of sovereignty from the UK to China in 1997. Many attending the protests on Sunday said they could not trust China as it had often used non-political crimes to target government critics, and said they also feared Hong Kong officials would not be able to reject Beijing’s requests. Legal professionals have also expressed concern over the rights of those sent across the border to be tried. The conviction rate in Chinese courts is as high as 99%. Arbitrary detentions, torture and denial of legal representation of one’s choosing are also common. Many in the protests on Sunday 09 June 2019 said they felt overwhelmed by a sense of helplessness in the face of mainland China’s increasing political, economic and cultural influence in Hong Kong. Hong Kong’s top political leader is not elected by ordinary voters but by a 1,200-strong election committee accountable to Beijing. Half of its legislature are chosen through indirect electoral systems that favour pro-Beijing figures. Many Hong Kongers also cited the jailing of leaders and activists from the 2014 Occupy Central movement– a 79-day mass civil disobedience movement – as well as the disqualification of young localist lawmakers as signs of the erosion of civil freedoms. Resentment towards China has been intensified by soaring property prices – with increasing numbers of mainland Chinese buying properties in the city – as well as the government’s “patriotic education” drive, and the large numbers of mainland tourists who flock to Hong Kong. Many Hong Kongers are also concerned about China’s growing control over the city’s news media, as they increasingly self-censor and follow Beijing’s tacit orders. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/10/what-are-the-hong-kong-protests-about-explainerPhotograph of a crowd on the streets of Hong Kong to protest against proposed extradition laws, heading towards Admiralty. carrie lam, hong kong protests, extraditions, protest, protestors, admiralty

Carrie Lam, Hong Kong’s chief executive, had plenty of political support in the territory’s pro-Beijing legislature to pass a bill that would allow extraditions to mainland China. The legislators were set to begin discussing the bill in early June, and intended to vote on it just weeks later. A series of protests took place, and after a June 16 protest saw the largest turnout yet, Ms. Lam made a major concession: She postponed the bill, at least temporarily. It was an undeniable victory for the protesters — but it did little to quell the unrest. Since the bill could later be reintroduced, protesters felt they remained in danger. The police tactics to break up the demonstrations on June 12, including the use of more than 150 tear gas canisters to push protesters far away from the government office, created a new set of demands from the protesters. Now, instead of just calling for the withdrawal of the bill and Ms. Lam’s resignation, they said they wouldn’t be content unless there was an independent investigation of officers’ conduct. They also wanted the release of protesters arrested on June 12, and for the government to rescind its description of the demonstrations as a “riot,” a designation that carries legal significance. None of that has happened. Many analysts say Ms. Lam is unlikely to step down, nor would Beijing accept her resignation if she offered it. She has more wiggle room on the other demands, but has not indicated any willingness to budge. The Hong Kong Protests are a leaderless, digital movement.There is no single leader or group deciding on or steering the strategy, tactics and goals of the movement. Instead, protesters have used forums and messaging apps to decide next steps. Anyone can suggest a course of action, and others then vote on whether they support it. The most popular ideas rise to the top, and then people rally to make them happen. At its best, this structure has empowered many people to participate and have their voices heard. Protesters say it keeps them all safe by not allowing the government to target specific leaders. Their success in halting the extradition bill, which was shelved by the territory’s chief executive, speaks to the movement’s power. Despite the lack of a clear leader, protesters have shown extensive coordination at the demonstrations, having planned the specifics online beforehand. Supply stations are set up to distribute water, snacks, gloves, umbrellas and shields made of cardboard. Volunteer first aid workers wear brightly colored vests. People form assembly lines to pass supplies across long distances, with protesters communicating what they need through a series of predetermined hand signals. Anyone walking in dangerous areas without a helmet or a mask is quickly offered one. No individual can speak on behalf of the protesters, which makes negotiations difficult, if not impossible. (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/02/world/asia/hong-kong-protest-explained.html, accessed 07/07/2019) Hong Kong’s amended extradition law would allow the extradition of suspects to mainland China for the first time. Supporters say the amendments are key to ensuring the city does not become a criminal refuge, but critics worry Beijing will use the law to extradite political opponents and others to China where their legal protections cannot be guaranteed. The government claims the push to change the law, which would also apply to Taiwan and Macau, stems from the killing last year of a Hong Kong woman while she was in Taiwan with her boyfriend. Authorities in Taiwan suspect the woman’s boyfriend, who remains in Hong Kong, but cannot try him because no extradition agreement is in place. Under the amended law, those accused of offences punishable by seven years or more in prison could be extradited. The new legislation would give Hong Kong’s leader, known as the chief executive, authority to approve extradition requests, after review by the courts. Hong Kong’s legislature, the legislative council, would not have any oversight over the extradition process. Many Hong Kongers fear the proposed extradition law will be used by authorities to target political enemies. They worry the new legislation spells the end of the “one country, two systems” policy, eroding the civil rights enjoyed by Hong Kong residents since the handover of sovereignty from the UK to China in 1997. Many attending the protests on Sunday said they could not trust China as it had often used non-political crimes to target government critics, and said they also feared Hong Kong officials would not be able to reject Beijing’s requests. Legal professionals have also expressed concern over the rights of those sent across the border to be tried. The conviction rate in Chinese courts is as high as 99%. Arbitrary detentions, torture and denial of legal representation of one’s choosing are also common. Many in the protests on Sunday 09 June 2019 said they felt overwhelmed by a sense of helplessness in the face of mainland China’s increasing political, economic and cultural influence in Hong Kong. Hong Kong’s top political leader is not elected by ordinary voters but by a 1,200-strong election committee accountable to Beijing. Half of its legislature are chosen through indirect electoral systems that favour pro-Beijing figures. Many Hong Kongers also cited the jailing of leaders and activists from the 2014 Occupy Central movement– a 79-day mass civil disobedience movement – as well as the disqualification of young localist lawmakers as signs of the erosion of civil freedoms. Resentment towards China has been intensified by soaring property prices – with increasing numbers of mainland Chinese buying properties in the city – as well as the government’s “patriotic education” drive, and the large numbers of mainland tourists who flock to Hong Kong. Many Hong Kongers are also concerned about China’s growing control over the city’s news media, as they increasingly self-censor and follow Beijing’s tacit orders. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/10/what-are-the-hong-kong-protests-about-explainerCrowds mass on Queens Way in Hong Kong as an estimated 2 million people march in protest at the government's refusal to withdraw a controverisal law allowing people to be extradited to mainland China. Chants demanded the chief executive apologise and the legislation be withdrawn, while many held signs protesting police violence. Nearly 2 million protesters flooded the streets of Hong Kong on Sunday, organisers claimed, delivering a stunning repudiation of Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor’s governance and forcing a public apology out of the city’s leader over her campaign to bulldoze a controversial extradition bill through the legislature. A day after Lam suspended her push for the bill, expecting it to defuse a crisis that has seen violent clashes between mostly young protesters and police, the centre of Hong Kong was brought to a complete standstill as the masses marched to chastise her for refusing to withdraw the bill or apologise when first asked to, and declaring that nothing short of her resignation would satisfy them now. (https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3014737/nearly-2-million-people-take-streets-forcing-public-apology ) carrie lam, hong kong protests, extraditions, protest, protestors, admiralty

First published in 1806 by John Murray and written by Maria Rundell, later editions were "By a Lady". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_System_of_Domestic_Cookery A legal dispute arose between Murray and Rundell over the copyright of the cookery book titled "A New System of Domestic Cookery" by Mary Eliza Rundell. The book, which was published in 1806, gained immense popularity over the years. In 1821, Murray claimed that Rundell had infringed on his copyright by publishing a new edition of the book without his permission. The case was brought to court, and after much debate, it was ruled that Rundell had indeed infringed on Murray's copyright. The court ordered her to pay damages and to stop publishing the book without Murray's consent. This ruling was significant as it established the legal precedent that copyright law applied to books and other written works. - Based on an article from The Edinburgh Annual Register, 1821 Robert William Whatmough (1815 Heywood, Lancashire-1887 Diamond Creek, Victoria) and his wife Mary Hill ( 1813 Rochdale, Lancashire - 1881 Greensborough, Victoria) were pioneer settlers on the Plenty River at Greensborough. Their daughter, Jemima Whatmough (1840-1926) married Robert Fielding (1820-1891) who were the parents of Thomas Edmund Fielding and great grandparents of Tom FieldingInscribed inside front leaf facing page in ink: Robert Whatmough Plenty River 1858tom fielding collection

This container is a pre-Decimal, Imperial Standard Half Bushel, part of a three-piece set of Standard measures used in Victoria from around 1900 to 1940. The measures were made in Melbourne by J. McEwan & Co. These three measures were likely used by the local Melbourne authority that monitored weights and measures in the mid to late 19th century. . An Imperial Bushel was equal to 8 gallons, or 36.36872 litres . An Imperial Peck equals a quarter of a Bushel, or 9.09 litres Standards for weights and measures began in Victoria when the Melbourne Observatory received primary sets of Imperial Standard Weights and Measures from Britain. These were tested against the then British Imperial Standards to measure length, weight and currency. Administrative bodies in the Colony of Australia could then compare their weights and measures against these British Primary Standards and adjust their Measures accordingly, to maintain the Standards. The Weights and Measures Act of 1862 was passed in Victoria, and local inspectors were established throughout the colony. By the 1870s, local councils and shires in Victoria held a set of Standards used to test scales, weights, and measures used by manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers. Every ten years, the councils’ Standards needed to be rechecked against the Victorian Standards. In the 19th Century, the Victorian Customs Department inspected and maintained the Standards. In 1901, the Customs Department was transferred to the Federal Government, but the Weights and Measures authority remained with the Victorian Government and relocated to the Melbourne Observatory. In 1904, the Standard weights and measures, and testing equipment, were installed in the room of a new building erected at the south end of the Great Melbourne Telescope House. The room became known as the Whirling Room, due to its large whirling apparatus that tested air meters. When the Melbourne Observatory closed in 1944, the Weights and Measures Branch was formed to continue maintaining the Standards. On February 14th, 1966, Australia began its conversion to metric measures and currency, and a new set of Standard Measures was introduced; the conversion took place in stages. The Weights and Measures Branch remained at the Observatory site until 1995. James McEwan & Co.: - The maker of this set of Standard Measures was James McEwan. His Melbourne business was established in 1852 and sold retail furniture and wholesale ironmongery. The firm’s warehouses were situated at the intersection of 81-83 Elizabeth and Little Collins Streets. Shortly afterwards, the firm partnered with William Kerr Thomson and Samuel Renwick. When McEwan died in 1868, his partners carried on and expanded the business under his name, J McEwan. The business was expanded to provide a retail shop, counting-house and private offices. Wholesale warehouses adjoined these premises at 4, 6 and 10 Little Collins Street, West. This company provided and sold a large and varied amount of imported goods into the colony; agricultural equipment, building materials, mining items, steam engines, tools of all types and marble fireplaces. The company grew to employ over 150 people in Melbourne and opened offices at 27 Lombard St, London, as well as in New Zealand and Fiji. It also serviced the Mauritius islands and the Pacific area with its steamship, the Suva, and a brig, the Shannon.The set of Imperial Standard Measures is an example of a bronze measure container made specifically for J. McEwan & Co. Today, it helps us to understand how imperial weights and measures were used, and how a standard of measurement for merchants was developed in the Australian colonies based on the Imperial British measurement system. The container has social significance as an item retailed by J McEwan, and used by Victoria’s authorities legally responsible for ensuring that dry goods sold in Victoria by wholesalers and retailers are correct.Imperial Standard Measure: a container to measure the volume of a Half Bushel. It is part of a set of three precision measures - a Peck, a Half Bushel and a Bushel – used by government authorities in Victoria. The cast brass cylinder has straight sides and a flat base, and two handles are attached near the base by two posts on each handle. The wall inside is straight, and outside has grooves and horizontal bands. Inscriptions are engraved on the outside. The Measures were made for the retailer, J. McEwan & Co., London and Melbourne. Engraved test: "IMPERIAL STANDARD HALF BUSHEL. / VICTORIA / J. MCEWAN & O. LONDON AND MELBOURNE."flagstaff hill, flagstaff hill maritime museum and village, warrnambool, maritime museum, maritime village, great ocean road, shipwreck coast, weights and measurements, science, james mcewan & co., precision instrument, technology, melbourne observatory, british imperial standards, standard weights & measures, volume measure, dry measure, customs, commerce, victorian standard measure, pre-decimal measure, imperial standard, imperial half bushel, bronze container, brass container, cast container

The beginning of standardised weights and measures began In Victoria when the Melbourne Observatory received sets of standard weights and measures, which had been tested in Britain against the then British Imperial standards. These included the primary standard yard and pound for the Colony of Victoria. Other standards of weights and measure held by shires and the administrative body's within the colony could then be compared to these primary standards. A Weights and Measures Act was passed in Victoria in 1862, establishing local inspectors throughout the colony. By the 1870s each local council and shire in Victoria held a set of standards that were used to test scales, weights and dry measures used by wholesalers, factories and shops. Every ten years the councils’ standards would themselves need to be rechecked against the Victorian Standards. The checking was done by the Victorian Customs Department in the 19th century, but with the transfer of responsibility for customs to the Federal Government in 1901, weights and measures function was retained by the Victorian Government and was shifted to the Melbourne Observatory. In 1904, a new building was erected at the south end of the Great Melbourne Telescope House, where the standard weights and measures and testing equipment was installed. This room had a large whirling apparatus for testing air meters and became known as the Whirling Room. When the Melbourne Observatory closed in 1944, the Weights and Measures Branch was formed to continue and this branch remained at the Observatory site unit until 1995.An example of a galvanised measuring jug made specifically to maintain government standard liquid measurements that were sold to the public. The probability is that this artifact was made around the first quarter of the 20th century and gives us today a snapshot of how imperial weights and measures were used before decimalisation and how a standard of measurement for merchants was developed in Australian based on the Imperial British measurement system. The container has social significance as an item used in Victoria as a legal standard measure to ensure that goods sold in Victoria were correct. Jug conical shaped with rounded top coming to a very slight point wide handle at back. VIB.L.66 1/2 Gall capacityflagstaff hill, warrnambool, shipwrecked-coast, flagstaff-hill, flagstaff-hill-maritime-museum, maritime-museum, shipwreck-coast, flagstaff-hill-maritime-village

This container is a pre-Decimal, Imperial Standard Peck, part of a three-piece set of Standard measures used in Victoria from around 1900 to 1940. The measures were made in Melbourne by J. McEwan & Co. These three measures were likely used by the local Melbourne authority that monitored weights and measures in the mid to late 19th century. . An Imperial Bushel was equal to 8 gallons, or 36.36872 litres . An Imperial Peck equals a quarter of a Bushel, or 9.09 litres Standards for weights and measures began in Victoria when the Melbourne Observatory received primary sets of Imperial Standard Weights and Measures from Britain. These were tested against the then British Imperial Standards to measure length, weight and currency. Administrative bodies in the Colony of Australia could then compare their weights and measures against these British Primary Standards and adjust their Measures accordingly, to maintain the Standards. The Weights and Measures Act of 1862 was passed in Victoria, and local inspectors were established throughout the colony. By the 1870s, local councils and shires in Victoria held a set of Standards used to test scales, weights, and measures used by manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers. Every ten years, the councils’ Standards needed to be rechecked against the Victorian Standards. In the 19th Century, the Victorian Customs Department inspected and maintained the Standards. In 1901, the Customs Department was transferred to the Federal Government, but the Weights and Measures authority remained with the Victorian Government and relocated to the Melbourne Observatory. In 1904, the Standard weights and measures, and testing equipment, were installed in the room of a new building erected at the south end of the Great Melbourne Telescope House. The room became known as the Whirling Room, due to its large whirling apparatus that tested air meters. When the Melbourne Observatory closed in 1944, the Weights and Measures Branch was formed to continue maintaining the Standards. On February 14th, 1966, Australia began its conversion to metric measures and currency, and a new set of Standard Measures was introduced; the conversion took place in stages. The Weights and Measures Branch remained at the Observatory site until 1995. James McEwan & Co.: - The maker of this set of Standard Measures was James McEwan. His Melbourne business was established in 1852 and sold retail furniture and wholesale ironmongery. The firm’s warehouses were situated at the intersection of 81-83 Elizabeth and Little Collins Streets. Shortly afterwards, the firm partnered with William Kerr Thomson and Samuel Renwick. When McEwan died in 1868, his partners carried on and expanded the business under his name, J McEwan. The business was expanded to provide a retail shop, counting-house and private offices. Wholesale warehouses adjoined these premises at 4, 6 and 10 Little Collins Street, West. This company provided and sold a large and varied amount of imported goods into the colony; agricultural equipment, building materials, mining items, steam engines, tools of all types and marble fireplaces. The company grew to employ over 150 people in Melbourne and opened offices at 27 Lombard St, London, as well as in New Zealand and Fiji. It also serviced the Mauritius islands and the Pacific area with its steamship, the Suva, and a brig, the Shannon. The set of Imperial Standard Measures is an example of a bronze measure container made specifically for J. McEwan & Co. Today, it helps us to understand how imperial weights and measures were used, and how a standard of measurement for merchants was developed in the Australian colonies based on the Imperial British measurement system. The container has social significance as an item retailed by J McEwan, and used by Victoria’s authorities legally responsible for ensuring that dry goods sold in Victoria by wholesalers and retailers are correct. Imperial Standard Measure: a container to measure the volume of a Peck. It is part of a set of three precision measures - a Peck, a Half Bushel and a Bushel – used by government authorities in Victoria. The cast brass cylinder has straight sides and a flat base, and two handles are attached near the base by two posts on each handle. The wall inside is straight, and outside has grooves and horizontal bands. Inscriptions are engraved on the outside. The Measures were made for the retailer, J. McEwan & Co., London and Melbourne. Engraved on side: "IMPERIAL STANDARD PECK. / VICTORIA."flagstaff hill, flagstaff hill maritime museum and village, warrnambool, maritime museum, maritime village, great ocean road, shipwreck coast, weights and measurements, science, james mcewan & co., precision instrument, technology, melbourne observatory, british imperial standards, standard weights & measures, volume measure, dry measure, customs, commerce, victorian standard measure, pre-decimal measure, imperial standard, imperial bushel, imperial half bushel, imperial peck, peck measure, bronze container, brass container, cast container

This container is a pre-Decimal, Imperial Standard Bushel, part of a three-piece set of Standard measures used in Victoria from around 1900 to 1940. The measures were made in Melbourne by J. McEwan & Co. These three measures were likely used by the local Melbourne authority that monitored weights and measures in the mid to late 19th century. . An Imperial Bushel was equal to 8 gallons, or 36.36872 litres . An Imperial Peck equals a quarter of a Bushel, or 9.09 litres Standards for weights and measures began in Victoria when the Melbourne Observatory received primary sets of Imperial Standard Weights and Measures from Britain. These were tested against the then British Imperial Standards to measure length, weight and currency. Administrative bodies in the Colony of Australia could then compare their weights and measures against these British Primary Standards and adjust their Measures accordingly, to maintain the Standards. The Weights and Measures Act of 1862 was passed in Victoria, and local inspectors were established throughout the colony. By the 1870s, local councils and shires in Victoria held a set of Standards used to test scales, weights, and measures used by manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers. Every ten years, the councils’ Standards needed to be rechecked against the Victorian Standards. In the 19th Century, the Victorian Customs Department inspected and maintained the Standards. In 1901, the Customs Department was transferred to the Federal Government, but the Weights and Measures authority remained with the Victorian Government and relocated to the Melbourne Observatory. In 1904, the Standard weights and measures, and testing equipment, were installed in the room of a new building erected at the south end of the Great Melbourne Telescope House. The room became known as the Whirling Room, due to its large whirling apparatus that tested air meters. When the Melbourne Observatory closed in 1944, the Weights and Measures Branch was formed to continue maintaining the Standards. On February 14th, 1966, Australia began its conversion to metric measures and currency, and a new set of Standard Measures was introduced; the conversion took place in stages. The Weights and Measures Branch remained at the Observatory site until 1995. James McEwan & Co.: - The maker of this set of Standard Measures was James McEwan. His Melbourne business was established in 1852 and sold retail furniture and wholesale ironmongery. The firm’s warehouses were situated at the intersection of 81-83 Elizabeth and Little Collins Streets. Shortly afterwards, the firm partnered with William Kerr Thomson and Samuel Renwick. When McEwan died in 1868, his partners carried on and expanded the business under his name, J McEwan. The business was expanded to provide a retail shop, counting-house and private offices. Wholesale warehouses adjoined these premises at 4, 6 and 10 Little Collins Street, West. This company provided and sold a large and varied amount of imported goods into the colony; agricultural equipment, building materials, mining items, steam engines, tools of all types and marble fireplaces. The company grew to employ over 150 people in Melbourne and opened offices at 27 Lombard St, London, as well as in New Zealand and Fiji. It also serviced the Mauritius islands and the Pacific area with its steamship, the Suva, and a brig, the ShannonThe set of Imperial Standard Measures is an example of a bronze measure container made specifically for J. McEwan & Co. Today, it helps us to understand how imperial weights and measures were used, and how a standard of measurement for merchants was developed in the Australian colonies based on the Imperial British measurement system. The container has social significance as an item retailed by J McEwan, and used by Victoria’s authorities legally responsible for ensuring that dry goods sold in Victoria by wholesalers and retailers are correct.Imperial Standard Measure: a container to measure the volume of a Busel. It is part of a set of three precision measures - a Peck, a Half Bushel and a Bushel – used by government authorities in Victoria. The cast brass cylinder has straight sides and a flat base, and two handles are attached near the base by two posts on each handle. The wall inside is straight, and outside has grooves and horizontal bands. Inscriptions are engraved on the outside. The Measures were made for the retailer, J. McEwan & Co., London and Melbourne.Engraved on side: "IMPERIAL STANDARD BUSHEL. / VICTORIA ./ J. MCEWAN & CO. LONDON AND MELBOURNE."flagstaff hill, flagstaff hill maritime museum and village, warrnambool, maritime museum, maritime village, great ocean road, shipwreck coast, weights and measurements, science, james mcewan & co., precision instrument, technology, melbourne observatory, british imperial standards, standard weights & measures, volume measure, dry measure, customs, commerce, victorian standard measure, pre-decimal measure, imperial standard, imperial bushel, peck measure, bronze container, brass container, cast container

Before metric measurement was introduced land was measured by a tool of chains and links called a surveyor's chain. The first surveyor's chain was designed by the English clergyman and mathematician Edmund Gunter (1581-1626) and introduced in 1620. It comprised of a metal chain made up of 100 links measuring a precise overall length of 66 ft or 22 yards, with each link measuring 7.92 inches (201.168 mm). The Gunter's chain was originally intended to be used in the accurate laying out and measurement of plots of land, for legal and commercial purposes, but was subsequently widely used by surveyors throughout the British Empire and Europe, with an Imperial mile being 80 times the Gunter's chain length. A tool used to survey the land before the introduction of the metric system.Surveyor chain Gunter type, 100 links measuring 66 feet in length. Hand grips at each end of chain. Wire links are approximately eight inches long. Incised tags or markers are attached to each tenth link of chain to assist with the more accurate recording of intermediate distances.surveying tool

The disc-shaped design of these 1LB and 2 LB metal weights enables them to be stacked one on top of the other. The weights are used with a balance scale to accurately weigh the mass of items such as grain, sugar, meat or potatoes. They could have been used in retail or wholesale businesses like a general store or a grain merchant’s premises. The user would place either one or both of these weights on one side of a balance scale. Goods would then be placed onto the other side of the scale until the beam between both sides of the scale was level, showing that the weight of the goods was as heavy as the weight or weights on the other side. These two weights are marked in Imperial units. An Imperial Standard 1LB is equal to 453.592grams. The British Weights and Measures Act of 1824 defined official standards for weights and measurements. This ensured that uniform measurements would be used for trade throughout the Empire. Towns and districts would have an official set of Imperial Standard Weights and Measures. Inspectors periodically used this official set to check the accuracy of traders’ own weights and measures. There would be penalties such as fines or imprisonment for people who broke these laws. The State of Victoria had its own Weight and Measures Act in 1862 and a decade later the inspectors in local councils used their local set of weights and measures to test the local businesses measuring equipment. In the nineteenth century the Victorian Customs Department carried out this role but this was handed over to the Melbourne Observatory at the beginning of the twentieth century. The Measures Branch then followed on with this task from the 1940s until 1995. Australia began converting to the metric system in the 1960s, beginning with its money. The conversion from imperial to metric units of measurement in Australia took place from 1970 and was completed in 1988 when metric units became the only legal unit of measurement. Imperial Standard weights; set of two disc-shaped weights designed to stack one upon the other. Inscriptions are marked in relief. "IMPERIAL STANDARD 1LB" [weight 1], "IMPERIAL STANDARD 2LB" [weight 2]warrnambool, shipwrecked-coast, flagstaff-hill, flagstaff-hill-maritime-museum, maritime-museum, shipwreck-coast, flagstaff-hill-maritime-village, shipwrecked-artefact, wieght, weights and measures, imperial standard weight

The disc-shaped design of this 2 LB metal weight enables it to be stacked on top of another similarly shaped weight. The weight is used with a balance scale to accurately weigh the mass of items such as grain, sugar, meat or potatoes. It could have been used in retail or wholesale businesses like a general store or a grain merchant’s premises. The user would place the weight on one side of a balance scale. Goods would then be placed onto the other side of the scale until the beam between both sides of the scale was level, showing that the weight of the goods was as heavy as the weight on the other side. This weight is marked in Imperial units. An Imperial Standard 1LB, or one pound, is equal to 453.592grams. The British Weights and Measures Act of 1824 defined official standards for weights and measurements. This ensured that uniform measurements would be used for trade throughout the Empire. Towns and districts would have an official set of Imperial Standard Weights and Measures. Inspectors periodically used this official set to check the accuracy of traders’ own weights and measures. There would be penalties such as fines or imprisonment for people who broke these laws. The State of Victoria had its own Weight and Measures Act in 1862 and a decade later the inspectors in local councils used their local set of weights and measures to test the local businesses measuring equipment. In the nineteenth century the Victorian Customs Department carried out this role but this was handed over to the Melbourne Observatory at the beginning of the twentieth century. The Measures Branch then followed on with this task from the 1940s until 1995. Australia began converting to the metric system in the 1960s, beginning with its money. The conversion from imperial to metric units of measurement in Australia took place from 1970 and was completed in 1988 when metric units became the only legal unit of measurement.Weight; 2 lbs. Metal disc designed for stacking. Inscription marked in relief. Imperial Standard weight, 2 pounds weight."IMPERIAL STANDARD", "2lbs"flagstaff hill, warrnambool, shipwrecked coast, flagstaff hill maritime museum, maritime museum, shipwreck coast, flagstaff hill maritime village, great ocean road, standard measure, imperial standard, weight, 2lb weight, imperial standard weight

The peck has been in use since the early 14th century when it was introduced as a measure for flour. The term referred to varying quantities until the modern units of measurement were defined in the 19th century. Cities in England used to have official standard weights and measures for that city or area. These containers were marked with the city's name and emblem, merchant’s weights and measures would then be checked against this to make sure they weren't trying to cheat their customers. The item in the collection is a standard measure approved by Bristol City and used by that City’s grocers to measure dry goods such as peas, beans, sugar, flour, meal etc., and its metal banding ensures that the measure cannot be reduced in size to cheat customers. Additional Information: The British Imperial System evolved from the thousands of Roman, Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, and customary local units employed in the middle Ages. Traditional names such as pound, foot, and gallon were widely used, but the values so designated varied with time, place, trade, product specifications, and dozens of other requirements. Early royal standards were established to enforce uniformity took the name Winchester, after the ancient tenth century capital of Britain. King Henry VII reaffirmed the customary Winchester standards for capacity and length and distributed royal standards throughout the realm. This process was repeated about a century later in the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. In the 16th century, the rod (5.5 yards, or 16.5 feet) was defined (once again as a learning device and not as a standard) defined by the length of the left feet of 16 men lined up heel to toe as they emerged from the church. By the 17th century usage and legal statute had established the acre, rod, and furlong at their present values together with other historic units such as the peck. Establishment of the System: The Weights and Measures Act of 1824 and the Act of 1878 established the British Imperial System based on precise definitions of selected existing units. The 1824 act sanctioned a single imperial gallon to replace the wine, ale, and corn (wheat) gallons that were in general use. The new gallon was defined as equal in volume to 10 pounds avoirdupois of distilled water weighed at 62°F with the barometer at 30 inches, or 277.274 cubic inches (later corrected to 277.421 cubic inches). The two new basic standard units were the imperial standard yard and the troy pound, which was later restricted to weighing drugs, precious metals, and jewels. In 1963 an act of parliament abolished archaic measures as the rod and chaldron and a metric system was adopted. An early example of a dry measuring container giving a snapshot of how imperial weights and measures developed in England to evolve the British measurement system into the metric arrangement that most countries have adopted today including Australia. It has social significance as an item that was in everyday use by grocers and other merchants to measure dry goods in the late 18th to early 19th centuries and used specifically in the Bristol region of England as an officially recognised measurement.Standard Measure; Half Peck dry measure. Wooden measurement container with iron banding and hand made rivets container is a Quarter Peck official measurement container. Inscriptions are impressed into the sides of the wooden body. The container has the official crown and emblem of the City of Bristol, indicating this item was the Bristol City standard quarter peck measurement.Impressed into the timber on the front, a crown emblem over "C B G / CITY OF BRISTOL / QUARTER", on one side "HALF" , another side "PECK". Handwritten in white chalk on the base is "1458"flagstaff hill, warrnambool, shipwrecked-coast, flagstaff-hill-maritime-museum, flagstaff-hill-maritime-village, weights and measures, quarter peck, measurement container, dry grocery measure, bristol city measurement standard, city of bristol, british weights and measures, 18th and 19th centure standard measures