Monday, October 19, 2009
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Booze Hours Clipped
The Sunday Age reported today that three of Melbourne's CBD 24-hour bottle shops hours have been clipped do try and curb alcohol-fuelled violence.
The Liquor Licensing Commission has been forced to act due to police and public pressure to try and solve the violent problems in Melbourne.
Will this help diminish alcohol-fulled violence? Or just push the violence to an earlier hour?
I don't believe that slashing bottle shop times will change anything. If people want to get drunk, they will get drunk. What really needs to be looked at is the responsible serving of alcohol in pubs and clubs and even restaurants to not give already intoxicated people more alcohol. I understand that at most places it is dark and the bar is often crowded and you're so busy you may not even being that much attention yo who you are serving. But guess what, to be serving alcohol legally in the first place, you need to have obtained an RSA certificate, which means you have learnt that it is illegal to serve an intoxicated person. You need to be paying attention.
I know many mangers and bar owners will not be happy to read this and having worked in hospitality, I know that the bar is the main money earner but at what price?
Most people going to bottle shops are at a home environment and in the suburbs. Violence is still happening there too, so maybe the Liquor Licensing Commission should look further out and crackdown on venues rather then bottle shops.
What do you think? Will this help curb alcohol-fuelled violence, or is it just a scheme for the Liquor Licensing Commission to be seen to be doing something?
The Liquor Licensing Commission has been forced to act due to police and public pressure to try and solve the violent problems in Melbourne.
Will this help diminish alcohol-fulled violence? Or just push the violence to an earlier hour?
I don't believe that slashing bottle shop times will change anything. If people want to get drunk, they will get drunk. What really needs to be looked at is the responsible serving of alcohol in pubs and clubs and even restaurants to not give already intoxicated people more alcohol. I understand that at most places it is dark and the bar is often crowded and you're so busy you may not even being that much attention yo who you are serving. But guess what, to be serving alcohol legally in the first place, you need to have obtained an RSA certificate, which means you have learnt that it is illegal to serve an intoxicated person. You need to be paying attention.
I know many mangers and bar owners will not be happy to read this and having worked in hospitality, I know that the bar is the main money earner but at what price?
Most people going to bottle shops are at a home environment and in the suburbs. Violence is still happening there too, so maybe the Liquor Licensing Commission should look further out and crackdown on venues rather then bottle shops.
What do you think? Will this help curb alcohol-fuelled violence, or is it just a scheme for the Liquor Licensing Commission to be seen to be doing something?
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Smack Out Of It
On an issue that many may think would divide the nation, a whopping 90% of Australians believe it is OK to smack a child.
According to polls where almost 8000 Australians voted, 90% and more believe that it is OK to give a child a quick smack to remind them that what they have done is wrong. No one is condoning belting a child, and there is a large gap between abuse and a smack but in an age where everyone is so righteous, the poll results shock.
The issue of smacking flared up again recently when Victorian mother Claire Davidson received a knock on the door from the police who promptly informed her that if she hits her child with a wooden spoon again she would be charged with assault with a weapon. I'm not sure about you, but last time I stirred a bowl, I didn't use a deadly weapon.
Claire Davidson's daughter, who is 9, was participating in a classroom discussion when she told her class her mum hits her with a wooden spoon. Her teacher then informed a school support worker who contacted the police.
When did it become a crime to reprimand your child? When did we become so precious? Our Tasman friends the New Zealanders know all about punishing children. In 2007 it became illegal to use force to discipline your child. If parents are seen to be doing so they could be charged and turn into criminals overnight.
A recent argument put forward against smacking is that it will in fact lower your child's IQ. American (where else?) psychologist Murray Straus found that children who were smacked by their parents scored an IQ 5 points lower then those children who were not physically disciplined.
A quick poll around my office found that the majority if not all, showed no problem of smacking a child. One mother said, "Don't tell me off for smacking my kids and then when their 16 tell me to control them. If they don't learn respect and what's right and wrong from a young age, what hope is there for them?"
One can't help but to ask is this why there so many violent attacks happening? Youths of today know, no boundaries and lack respect for people their own age, older and authority figures.
So what's your opinion? Is smacking a form of abuse or a way to discipline a child every now and then?
According to polls where almost 8000 Australians voted, 90% and more believe that it is OK to give a child a quick smack to remind them that what they have done is wrong. No one is condoning belting a child, and there is a large gap between abuse and a smack but in an age where everyone is so righteous, the poll results shock.
The issue of smacking flared up again recently when Victorian mother Claire Davidson received a knock on the door from the police who promptly informed her that if she hits her child with a wooden spoon again she would be charged with assault with a weapon. I'm not sure about you, but last time I stirred a bowl, I didn't use a deadly weapon.
Claire Davidson's daughter, who is 9, was participating in a classroom discussion when she told her class her mum hits her with a wooden spoon. Her teacher then informed a school support worker who contacted the police.
When did it become a crime to reprimand your child? When did we become so precious? Our Tasman friends the New Zealanders know all about punishing children. In 2007 it became illegal to use force to discipline your child. If parents are seen to be doing so they could be charged and turn into criminals overnight.
A recent argument put forward against smacking is that it will in fact lower your child's IQ. American (where else?) psychologist Murray Straus found that children who were smacked by their parents scored an IQ 5 points lower then those children who were not physically disciplined.
A quick poll around my office found that the majority if not all, showed no problem of smacking a child. One mother said, "Don't tell me off for smacking my kids and then when their 16 tell me to control them. If they don't learn respect and what's right and wrong from a young age, what hope is there for them?"
One can't help but to ask is this why there so many violent attacks happening? Youths of today know, no boundaries and lack respect for people their own age, older and authority figures.
So what's your opinion? Is smacking a form of abuse or a way to discipline a child every now and then?
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Fire Safe; Are You Ready?
The Brumby Government in co-operation with the CFA, have released a new fire safety policy that helps to prevent the tragedy that was Black Saturday.
You would have to be living under a rock to not know about Black Saturday so I will skip over the horrific facts and bring to your attention the Brumby Government scheme. Tell me your thoughts and whether or not this is enough to help prevent, Australia’s worse natural diaster from happening again:
The biggest change is the introduction of a new Fire Danger Rating Policy. This policy contains six categories of danger: Code Red-Catastrophic, Extreme, Severe, Very High, High and Low Moderate.
CODE RED, CATASTROPHIC: If you live in a bush fire prone area your safest option is to leave the night before or early in the morning.
EXTREME: Leave early in the morning or you can stay on your property if you are well planned, have a well constructed home and you can defend your property.
SEVERE: Leave your property early in the morning or say if you can protect and defend your home.
VERY HIGH: If you live in a high-prone area, you should leave at the beginning of the day.
HIGH: Go over your bush fire survival plan and make sure you’re ready if the time comes for you to flee.
LOW MODERATE: Check your bushfire plan.
This policy however doesn’t give any form of authorities the power to forcibly remove anyone from their property. That decision still lies firmly with the owner. But will anyone take that risk? Would you after what happened on Black Saturday?
It has also been estimated that the freakish weather conditions of February 7th, will happen at least once more this summer. It’s not only up to the Government or the CFA, local councils have to do there bit too. The Dandenong Ranges have been ravaged recently with a mass clean up (or clean out) of trees. This is NOT the way to go.
Allow local fire authorities to back burn the possible hot spots and clean up debris and scrub. This won’t stop fires from happening, but it will rob them of fuel.
So, with the fire season officially beginning on October 28, I ask you, the very people who could be affected, is the Government’s new fire policy enough to help prevent another Black Saturday?
You would have to be living under a rock to not know about Black Saturday so I will skip over the horrific facts and bring to your attention the Brumby Government scheme. Tell me your thoughts and whether or not this is enough to help prevent, Australia’s worse natural diaster from happening again:
The biggest change is the introduction of a new Fire Danger Rating Policy. This policy contains six categories of danger: Code Red-Catastrophic, Extreme, Severe, Very High, High and Low Moderate.
CODE RED, CATASTROPHIC: If you live in a bush fire prone area your safest option is to leave the night before or early in the morning.
EXTREME: Leave early in the morning or you can stay on your property if you are well planned, have a well constructed home and you can defend your property.
SEVERE: Leave your property early in the morning or say if you can protect and defend your home.
VERY HIGH: If you live in a high-prone area, you should leave at the beginning of the day.
HIGH: Go over your bush fire survival plan and make sure you’re ready if the time comes for you to flee.
LOW MODERATE: Check your bushfire plan.
This policy however doesn’t give any form of authorities the power to forcibly remove anyone from their property. That decision still lies firmly with the owner. But will anyone take that risk? Would you after what happened on Black Saturday?
It has also been estimated that the freakish weather conditions of February 7th, will happen at least once more this summer. It’s not only up to the Government or the CFA, local councils have to do there bit too. The Dandenong Ranges have been ravaged recently with a mass clean up (or clean out) of trees. This is NOT the way to go.
Allow local fire authorities to back burn the possible hot spots and clean up debris and scrub. This won’t stop fires from happening, but it will rob them of fuel.
So, with the fire season officially beginning on October 28, I ask you, the very people who could be affected, is the Government’s new fire policy enough to help prevent another Black Saturday?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)