Cert IV PR for me in the end
I have thoroughly enjoyed this course and I am glad I chose to do it. I am also looking forward to the Diploma next year to really cement the learning and then get out there into the workplace and get some hands on experience. I feel this course has prepared me well for this.
Cathy has taught me a lot about public relations campaigns, from the writing, to the budgets, to the campaigns. With great experience in the retail sector and more, she has been dealing with the public for a long time and has offered some great direction with all my work. There will be many little pieces of advice I will carry on for a long time to come, and I look forward to making use of the training provided. Cathy has been my PR Mum, I needed it!
Rebel has offered excellent direction in the production of creative designs. She has so much knowledge and experience with artwork, design and printers and knows what people want. She is also young and hip and so is able to connect on a different level with the students. Many times as I freaked out over my work rebel was able to offer good advice and constructive feedback for me to improve on my work. I have learnt a lot in this cluster of units which I feel will be beneficial for my future, and even just into Diploma.
Heather has kindly taken the mickey out of all of us and our collective terrible writing skills for the last semester, which we all needed a little bit of, as overconfidence is never good if the skill does not suit the attitude! She has guided us through profiling the market, and with international knowledge, being from the UK, she has displayed to us just how small Australia is, and Perth even more so. It has made me realise I need to really think outside the square. She was very knowledgeable with the computing classes we did with her and was patient in teaching me the finer details of the word processing which I did not know before. My computer knowledge has improved immensely with both Heather and Rebel.
Tina gives a very serious demeanour but actually has a very dry and witty sense of humour. She clearly has a great deal of experience in all associated fields of marketing, PR and advertising and has nailed us week in, week out with a wealth of information on the world of PR and scheduling advertising, which has given me a great background of information to apply into my career. She has also stressed to us the importance of knowing what is going on the world on a daily basis and that it is our job to know. My attitude to many things has been adjusted through this ongoing guidance.
And then there is Keith, who pops his head in every now and again to check in on us, give a bit of hass (which is great!) and guide us in the right direction. I believe there is much more this man will have to offer us into the Diploma and I look forward to seeing it.
All in all the major changes for me in the last 6 months have been:
• My time management has improved immensely
• My knowledge on computers has grown
• My understanding and knowledge on the importance and significance of social media
• My writing skills have improved
• I have been able to do what I enjoy in public speaking and presenting, I hope to be able to do more of this into the future!
• I have a much broader knowledge of communication, advertising and marketing across the board
• I feel much more confident about my skills through the guidance and direction provided by the lecturers
• My ability to slot into a team role on the same level as the other team members and play the role allocated to me has given me a new insight
• My interest in the world has changed for the better and I am much more self motivated that I have been in a couple of years
Thank guys; you have really helped with all these positive changes!
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Cert IV PR promotion to new students
Certificate IV in Public Relations
Public Relations is the building and sustaining of stakeholder relations and the intentional communication to these stakeholders. PR is a powerful tool and a challenging career to ensue.
Certificate IV in PR has shown me a new sector for my career and I now feel excited about my future in this industry. The lecturers give great support and direction with classes and assessments and have been a pleasure to work with.
This course promotes itself after a couple of weeks in class with the well educated and experience lecturers creating the excitement that should be PR in this day in age. For those considering this course, here are a few things that should appeal to most people:
• YOU will develop campaigns and actually getting to plan, implement, and monitor them.
• YOU come up with your own concepts for websites, both content and design. This is great fun, interesting and allows creativity to flow
• YOU will become proficient in Word, Publisher, Powerpoint, Access
• YOU will learn how to write properly; using proper English (it really is funny to see just how little we know about the English language.)
• YOU will learn how to present and do public speaking
• YOU will write media releases and speeches
• YOU will be lucky enough to form an industry network to get you out there once you finish
• YOU will have Keith Critchett as a great PR guide
YOU will not regret it. If you enjoy a bit of research, writing, reading, talking and general communications, this course is for you.
Good luck!
Public Relations is the building and sustaining of stakeholder relations and the intentional communication to these stakeholders. PR is a powerful tool and a challenging career to ensue.
Certificate IV in PR has shown me a new sector for my career and I now feel excited about my future in this industry. The lecturers give great support and direction with classes and assessments and have been a pleasure to work with.
This course promotes itself after a couple of weeks in class with the well educated and experience lecturers creating the excitement that should be PR in this day in age. For those considering this course, here are a few things that should appeal to most people:
• YOU will develop campaigns and actually getting to plan, implement, and monitor them.
• YOU come up with your own concepts for websites, both content and design. This is great fun, interesting and allows creativity to flow
• YOU will become proficient in Word, Publisher, Powerpoint, Access
• YOU will learn how to write properly; using proper English (it really is funny to see just how little we know about the English language.)
• YOU will learn how to present and do public speaking
• YOU will write media releases and speeches
• YOU will be lucky enough to form an industry network to get you out there once you finish
• YOU will have Keith Critchett as a great PR guide
YOU will not regret it. If you enjoy a bit of research, writing, reading, talking and general communications, this course is for you.
Good luck!
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Organ Donation
Organ donation: The government want to make t compulsory for all to donate their organs upon death, unless they opt out, or their family say no. This could certainly get interesting; especially given most people rarely discuss their wishes for organ donation. What is the answer?
I myself am an organ donor, as is everyone in my family. We also donate blood at least twice a year for those of us eligible. We are not special, or different to anyone else out there, we just made a choice. One in which you remove those feelings of selfishness and fear and share what you have with others less fortunate in health.
Everyday we eat the meat of other animals from our animal kingdom, and we tear plants apart to get their fresh vegetables to keep us healthy, and we milk cows to drink their offer of calcium enriched milk, and we pull down forests and clear land to build our homes; all of this so we can survive. Food, water, shelter.
Some peoples needs to survive will reach beyond this, whether it be from sickness, or a terrible accident, and this is the opportunity to give something back from all you take from the earth in a day.
Consider this:
Although we have a world class reputation for successful organ donation, we have one of the lowest donation rates. Our organ usage rate is very impressive with each donor on average sharing 3.4 organs upon donation!
Although 98% of Australians believe that organ donation has the potential to improve and save lives, 40% of us don’t even know what our family members wishes are in regard to organ donation, with only 17% ever recalling a memorable conversation about these wishes, leading to a rate 58% of families giving consent, which is far too low. These decisions should be discussed earlier in life as nobody knows when they will go.
At any time, there are over 1700 people waiting for an organ transplant, and on average are waiting anywhere between 6 months and 4 years. In 2009, 247 donors were able to give 799 Australians a new chance at life, yet less than half of the demand for organs was met.
One organ and tissue donor can save the lives of up to 10 people! And improve so many more!
To make us feel a little more responsibility, maybe we should consider this:
By the end of 2008, Australia had only 12 donors per million, where the US had 24, Spain had 34, Italy had 23 and the UK had 15. The smaller population is not the factor as this is comparative, they simply have higher organ donor levels.
On a positive note, we are in the top 5 for corneal transplants with 2009 seeing 1696 people having their sight restored by the 1096 people donating their corneas. And every ear, 3-4 thousand skin, heart and musculoskeletal tissues are transplanted.
But is this really enough?
Perhaps people fear offending other religions. After reading up on many religious groups, here is a collation of the some of the more common religions and their beliefs, within Australia. Let’s take a look:
Christian
A Christian who chooses to donate an organ is following the example set by Jesus of “demonstrating love”. Sacrifice and helping others form a key part of Christianity, and in the Bible, Christians are invited by St Matthew to “freely give”.
Jew
Jews are required to obtain consent from a competent “rabbinic authority” before any organ donation procedure can take place, but nothing in principle in Judaism conflicts with organ donation in order to save lives. Jewish law prevents the unnecessary interference with the body after death and requires immediate burial of the complete body, however this is the law of their country, not their religion.
Islam
In Islam, violating the human body is normally forbidden, but it is permitted to save another person’s life. The Koran states in chapter five that, “whosoever saves the life of one person it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind”.
Jehovah's Witness
According to the Watch Tower Society, Jehovah's Witnesses believe donation is a matter of individual decision. Jehovah's Witnesses are often assumed to be opposed to donation because of their belief against blood transfusion. However, this merely means that all blood must be removed from the organs and tissues before being transplanted.
Hindu
“Daan” is a word in Sanskrit for donation, which means selflessly giving to a Hindu. That is the “third of the 10 niyamas”, which are virtuous acts of the faith. Actions that sustain life are accepted and promoted as “dharma”, which means righteous living. Hindus believe that the soul is invisible, and that it is wrong to grieve for the body.
Buddhist
Buddhists believe that organ and tissue donation is a matter of individual conscience and place high value on acts of compassion. Reverend Gyomay Masao, president and founder of the Buddhist Temple of Chicago says, "We honour those people who donate their bodies and organs to the advancement of medical science and to saving lives." The importance of letting loved ones know your wishes is stressed.
Sikh
A key feature of Sikhism is the requirement to put the needs of others ahead of one’s own requirements. As with most of the other religions, the soul of an individual is separate from the physical body, and “Guru Nanak” taught, in the “Guru Granth Sahib”, that: “The dead sustain their bond with the living through virtuous deeds”.
Organ and tissue donation is viewed as an act of neighborly love and charity by these denominations. They encourage all members to support donation as a way of helping others.
Catholic
Catholics view organ and tissue donation as an act of charity and love. Transplants are morally and ethically acceptable to the Vatican. Pope John Paul II has stated, "The Catholic Church would promote the fact that there is a need for organ donors and that Christians should accept this as a 'challenge to their generosity and fraternal love' so long as ethical principles are followed."
Assembly of God
The Church has no official policy regarding organ and tissue donation. The decision to donate is left up to the individual. Donation is highly supported by the denomination.
Baptist
Though Baptists generally believe that organ and tissue donation and transplantation are ultimately matters of personal conscience, the nation's “largest protestant denomination”, the “Southern Baptist Convention”, adopted a resolution in 1988 encouraging doctors to request organ donation in appropriate circumstances and to "encourage voluntarism regarding organ donations in the spirit of stewardship, compassion for the needs of others and alleviating suffering." Other Baptist groups have supported organ and tissue donation as an act of charity and leave the decision to donate up to the individual.
Bretheren
While no official position has been taken by the Brethren denominations, according to a Pastor, Mike Smith, there is a “consensus” among the “National Fellowship of Grace Brethren” that organ and tissue donation and transplantation is a charitable act so long as it does not impede the life or hasten the death of the donor and does not come from an unborn child.
Mormon (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints)
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believes that the decision to donate is an individual one made in conjunction with family, medical personnel and prayer. They do not oppose donation.
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
The Christian Church encourages organ and tissue donation, stating that we were created for God's glory and for sharing God's love. A 1985 resolution, adopted by the General Assembly, encourages "members of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) to enrol as organ donors and prayerfully support those who have received an organ transplant."
Greek Orthodox
According to Reverend Dr. Milton Efthimiou, Director of the Department of Church and Society for the Greek Orthodox Church of North and South America, "the Greek Orthodox Church is not opposed to organ donation as long as the organs and tissue in questions are used to better human life, i.e., for transplantation or for research that will lead to improvements in the treatment and prevention of disease."
Presbyterian
Presbyterians encourage and support donation. They respect a person's right to make decisions regarding his or her own body.
Seventh-Day Adventists
Donation and transplantation are strongly encouraged by Seventh-Day Adventists. They have many transplant hospitals, including Loma Linda in California. Loma Linda specialises in paediatric heart transplantation.
United Methodist
The United Methodist Church issued a policy statement regarding organ and tissue donation. In it, they state that, "The United Methodist Church recognizes the life-giving benefits of organ and tissue donation, and thereby encourages all Christians to become organ and tissue donors by signing and carrying cards or driver's licenses, attesting to their commitment of such organs upon their death, to those in need, as a part of their ministry to others in the name of Christ, who gave his life that we might have life in its fullness."
Conclusion:
It seems to be the case that basically every religion within Australia allows, and most encourage, organ donation.
What seems to be the real issue for most is that it be at the will of the donor. Some are very concerned with the purpose of the donation to be used only for the purpose of saving life. Some are in support of it for scientific research also.
So how do we decide?
Perhaps Census 2011 might be the answer. For anyone who is part of the population, they are required to fill out the Census form on the given night. This is a good opportunity to allow the government to promote organ donation to everyone. It also offers the chance for families to speak openly about organ donation, so when the time comes, they can make the right decision based on what that person chose while they were still living.
So to answer the question: Yes, I do think the government should make organ donation compulsory upon death, unless you have opted out whilst still alive, or if your family choose not to. The decision will still lie with the individual and their family, but for those who die without a family and no option for donation, unlike now, they will donate their organs instead of going to waste.
Most people, whilst alive, will never get a chance to save someone’s life and be a hero, yet after death, you are offered the chance to save up to 10, simply through offering your organs for donation. Seems like a simple choice really…..
I myself am an organ donor, as is everyone in my family. We also donate blood at least twice a year for those of us eligible. We are not special, or different to anyone else out there, we just made a choice. One in which you remove those feelings of selfishness and fear and share what you have with others less fortunate in health.
Everyday we eat the meat of other animals from our animal kingdom, and we tear plants apart to get their fresh vegetables to keep us healthy, and we milk cows to drink their offer of calcium enriched milk, and we pull down forests and clear land to build our homes; all of this so we can survive. Food, water, shelter.
Some peoples needs to survive will reach beyond this, whether it be from sickness, or a terrible accident, and this is the opportunity to give something back from all you take from the earth in a day.
Consider this:
Although we have a world class reputation for successful organ donation, we have one of the lowest donation rates. Our organ usage rate is very impressive with each donor on average sharing 3.4 organs upon donation!
Although 98% of Australians believe that organ donation has the potential to improve and save lives, 40% of us don’t even know what our family members wishes are in regard to organ donation, with only 17% ever recalling a memorable conversation about these wishes, leading to a rate 58% of families giving consent, which is far too low. These decisions should be discussed earlier in life as nobody knows when they will go.
At any time, there are over 1700 people waiting for an organ transplant, and on average are waiting anywhere between 6 months and 4 years. In 2009, 247 donors were able to give 799 Australians a new chance at life, yet less than half of the demand for organs was met.
One organ and tissue donor can save the lives of up to 10 people! And improve so many more!
To make us feel a little more responsibility, maybe we should consider this:
By the end of 2008, Australia had only 12 donors per million, where the US had 24, Spain had 34, Italy had 23 and the UK had 15. The smaller population is not the factor as this is comparative, they simply have higher organ donor levels.
On a positive note, we are in the top 5 for corneal transplants with 2009 seeing 1696 people having their sight restored by the 1096 people donating their corneas. And every ear, 3-4 thousand skin, heart and musculoskeletal tissues are transplanted.
But is this really enough?
Perhaps people fear offending other religions. After reading up on many religious groups, here is a collation of the some of the more common religions and their beliefs, within Australia. Let’s take a look:
Christian
A Christian who chooses to donate an organ is following the example set by Jesus of “demonstrating love”. Sacrifice and helping others form a key part of Christianity, and in the Bible, Christians are invited by St Matthew to “freely give”.
Jew
Jews are required to obtain consent from a competent “rabbinic authority” before any organ donation procedure can take place, but nothing in principle in Judaism conflicts with organ donation in order to save lives. Jewish law prevents the unnecessary interference with the body after death and requires immediate burial of the complete body, however this is the law of their country, not their religion.
Islam
In Islam, violating the human body is normally forbidden, but it is permitted to save another person’s life. The Koran states in chapter five that, “whosoever saves the life of one person it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind”.
Jehovah's Witness
According to the Watch Tower Society, Jehovah's Witnesses believe donation is a matter of individual decision. Jehovah's Witnesses are often assumed to be opposed to donation because of their belief against blood transfusion. However, this merely means that all blood must be removed from the organs and tissues before being transplanted.
Hindu
“Daan” is a word in Sanskrit for donation, which means selflessly giving to a Hindu. That is the “third of the 10 niyamas”, which are virtuous acts of the faith. Actions that sustain life are accepted and promoted as “dharma”, which means righteous living. Hindus believe that the soul is invisible, and that it is wrong to grieve for the body.
Buddhist
Buddhists believe that organ and tissue donation is a matter of individual conscience and place high value on acts of compassion. Reverend Gyomay Masao, president and founder of the Buddhist Temple of Chicago says, "We honour those people who donate their bodies and organs to the advancement of medical science and to saving lives." The importance of letting loved ones know your wishes is stressed.
Sikh
A key feature of Sikhism is the requirement to put the needs of others ahead of one’s own requirements. As with most of the other religions, the soul of an individual is separate from the physical body, and “Guru Nanak” taught, in the “Guru Granth Sahib”, that: “The dead sustain their bond with the living through virtuous deeds”.
Organ and tissue donation is viewed as an act of neighborly love and charity by these denominations. They encourage all members to support donation as a way of helping others.
Catholic
Catholics view organ and tissue donation as an act of charity and love. Transplants are morally and ethically acceptable to the Vatican. Pope John Paul II has stated, "The Catholic Church would promote the fact that there is a need for organ donors and that Christians should accept this as a 'challenge to their generosity and fraternal love' so long as ethical principles are followed."
Assembly of God
The Church has no official policy regarding organ and tissue donation. The decision to donate is left up to the individual. Donation is highly supported by the denomination.
Baptist
Though Baptists generally believe that organ and tissue donation and transplantation are ultimately matters of personal conscience, the nation's “largest protestant denomination”, the “Southern Baptist Convention”, adopted a resolution in 1988 encouraging doctors to request organ donation in appropriate circumstances and to "encourage voluntarism regarding organ donations in the spirit of stewardship, compassion for the needs of others and alleviating suffering." Other Baptist groups have supported organ and tissue donation as an act of charity and leave the decision to donate up to the individual.
Bretheren
While no official position has been taken by the Brethren denominations, according to a Pastor, Mike Smith, there is a “consensus” among the “National Fellowship of Grace Brethren” that organ and tissue donation and transplantation is a charitable act so long as it does not impede the life or hasten the death of the donor and does not come from an unborn child.
Mormon (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints)
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believes that the decision to donate is an individual one made in conjunction with family, medical personnel and prayer. They do not oppose donation.
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
The Christian Church encourages organ and tissue donation, stating that we were created for God's glory and for sharing God's love. A 1985 resolution, adopted by the General Assembly, encourages "members of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) to enrol as organ donors and prayerfully support those who have received an organ transplant."
Greek Orthodox
According to Reverend Dr. Milton Efthimiou, Director of the Department of Church and Society for the Greek Orthodox Church of North and South America, "the Greek Orthodox Church is not opposed to organ donation as long as the organs and tissue in questions are used to better human life, i.e., for transplantation or for research that will lead to improvements in the treatment and prevention of disease."
Presbyterian
Presbyterians encourage and support donation. They respect a person's right to make decisions regarding his or her own body.
Seventh-Day Adventists
Donation and transplantation are strongly encouraged by Seventh-Day Adventists. They have many transplant hospitals, including Loma Linda in California. Loma Linda specialises in paediatric heart transplantation.
United Methodist
The United Methodist Church issued a policy statement regarding organ and tissue donation. In it, they state that, "The United Methodist Church recognizes the life-giving benefits of organ and tissue donation, and thereby encourages all Christians to become organ and tissue donors by signing and carrying cards or driver's licenses, attesting to their commitment of such organs upon their death, to those in need, as a part of their ministry to others in the name of Christ, who gave his life that we might have life in its fullness."
Conclusion:
It seems to be the case that basically every religion within Australia allows, and most encourage, organ donation.
What seems to be the real issue for most is that it be at the will of the donor. Some are very concerned with the purpose of the donation to be used only for the purpose of saving life. Some are in support of it for scientific research also.
So how do we decide?
Perhaps Census 2011 might be the answer. For anyone who is part of the population, they are required to fill out the Census form on the given night. This is a good opportunity to allow the government to promote organ donation to everyone. It also offers the chance for families to speak openly about organ donation, so when the time comes, they can make the right decision based on what that person chose while they were still living.
So to answer the question: Yes, I do think the government should make organ donation compulsory upon death, unless you have opted out whilst still alive, or if your family choose not to. The decision will still lie with the individual and their family, but for those who die without a family and no option for donation, unlike now, they will donate their organs instead of going to waste.
Most people, whilst alive, will never get a chance to save someone’s life and be a hero, yet after death, you are offered the chance to save up to 10, simply through offering your organs for donation. Seems like a simple choice really…..
Saturday, October 30, 2010
$10 million more on casino pokies
What can you say? Pokies; or electronic gaming machines as they are preferred to be known as by the Casino, have made Mr Packer an extra $10 million dollars in the last financial year to add to has growing fortune. Yet they have obviously made a lot of households much poorer. Where is Robin Hood when we need him?
This article starts off with a hint of disrespect for the casino and its owners through the tone used. It follows with slots of sarcasm and a dig about the lack of tax paid viewed against the revenue earned.
With a few paragraphs muddled with facts and figures about gambling, the crux of the situation is addressed.
Here comes the true issue at hand for the article: With $350 million upgrade to the casino on the way, the State Government has ratified a further 250 pokies, or "electronic gaming machines", as well as a further 50 gaming tables. The Gaming and Wagering Commission have allowed these changes to occur, which will see more money being poured through the pokies in no time. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
The Commissions comments are the substance of the last two paragraphs which claim that casinos and pokies should not be held accountable for any increase in gambling, and with the increase of counseling being sought by problem gamblers, we should essentially not be worrying our little selves about it, as they have it under control! In fact, we should be thanking the casino for this as without their support of signage and website advertising within their establishment, there would be no increase in the awareness of the issue. Thanks Burswood for all your hard work in getting gambling down in WA, but when do we get the subsidised drinks like the east coast offers with it’s revenue earned through pokies? Sounds a bit like Mr Packer has the Commission just where he needs them.
This article starts off with a hint of disrespect for the casino and its owners through the tone used. It follows with slots of sarcasm and a dig about the lack of tax paid viewed against the revenue earned.
With a few paragraphs muddled with facts and figures about gambling, the crux of the situation is addressed.
Here comes the true issue at hand for the article: With $350 million upgrade to the casino on the way, the State Government has ratified a further 250 pokies, or "electronic gaming machines", as well as a further 50 gaming tables. The Gaming and Wagering Commission have allowed these changes to occur, which will see more money being poured through the pokies in no time. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
The Commissions comments are the substance of the last two paragraphs which claim that casinos and pokies should not be held accountable for any increase in gambling, and with the increase of counseling being sought by problem gamblers, we should essentially not be worrying our little selves about it, as they have it under control! In fact, we should be thanking the casino for this as without their support of signage and website advertising within their establishment, there would be no increase in the awareness of the issue. Thanks Burswood for all your hard work in getting gambling down in WA, but when do we get the subsidised drinks like the east coast offers with it’s revenue earned through pokies? Sounds a bit like Mr Packer has the Commission just where he needs them.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Lockouts!
So Lockouts…..Have we all heard about them recently?
Yep! Me too, bit sick of hearing about all the measures that need to be taken for reducing alcohol fuelled violence. Where do people take personal responsibility? And if they don’t, then ban them from all of Perth’s night hot spots, maybe some time behind bars. No, lets punish everyone instead, says the government!
Sunday Times had an article about alcohol fuelled violence being on the rise in the Perth area. And what was the reason…Because the councils and governments have allowed so many new ‘small bar’ licenses in the last 12 months, over 50 in fact!!! And all the while they try to point the finger at everyone else when they are to blame for half the problem!
Some of Perth’s most successful Bar and Club owners have now banded together in a fight against the State Government. Do we really need this? They are trying to make their establishments look good in the wake of this new control, so will they start trying to hide any new problems so as to appear not part of it. Shouldn’t be long before a few damaged bodies start appearing behind restaurants and businesses after the bouncers drag them off; can’t be punished for it if it wasn’t your venue…or can you?
Brass Monkey was slapped with a lockout just last month and they have not even had any reported problems! So was it the location in Northbridge? Or was it that the local council man doesn’t like the owner? Or was it simply a random act for the government to prove that it is in control so you better get used to it!
And then which club do you blame when a fight breaks out on the street? Is it the one that locked people out and caused them to be there????
First there was ridding bars and clubs of glass and introducing plastic drinking vessels to avoid glassing. That was actually a great idea, much to the dismay of some who considered themselves upper class while drinking at the Deen or the Shed….hmmm. That alone is debatable!
Now we have lockouts. NOBODY really wants this, do they…I know I sure don’t. Finish work at midnight, go home for a shower and get ready, head out to meet my mates for a birthday celebration in Northbridge, to arrive at 1.15am and be told I’m not allowed in!!! And to top it off, I was the designated ride home, so will my friends experience the feat of attempting to get a taxi in the wee hours, or just drive home drunk because they can’t get one, perhaps get busted for DD, or even have an accident, as I lay asleep in my bed.
Let’s come up with a better solution.
Yep! Me too, bit sick of hearing about all the measures that need to be taken for reducing alcohol fuelled violence. Where do people take personal responsibility? And if they don’t, then ban them from all of Perth’s night hot spots, maybe some time behind bars. No, lets punish everyone instead, says the government!
Sunday Times had an article about alcohol fuelled violence being on the rise in the Perth area. And what was the reason…Because the councils and governments have allowed so many new ‘small bar’ licenses in the last 12 months, over 50 in fact!!! And all the while they try to point the finger at everyone else when they are to blame for half the problem!
Some of Perth’s most successful Bar and Club owners have now banded together in a fight against the State Government. Do we really need this? They are trying to make their establishments look good in the wake of this new control, so will they start trying to hide any new problems so as to appear not part of it. Shouldn’t be long before a few damaged bodies start appearing behind restaurants and businesses after the bouncers drag them off; can’t be punished for it if it wasn’t your venue…or can you?
Brass Monkey was slapped with a lockout just last month and they have not even had any reported problems! So was it the location in Northbridge? Or was it that the local council man doesn’t like the owner? Or was it simply a random act for the government to prove that it is in control so you better get used to it!
And then which club do you blame when a fight breaks out on the street? Is it the one that locked people out and caused them to be there????
First there was ridding bars and clubs of glass and introducing plastic drinking vessels to avoid glassing. That was actually a great idea, much to the dismay of some who considered themselves upper class while drinking at the Deen or the Shed….hmmm. That alone is debatable!
Now we have lockouts. NOBODY really wants this, do they…I know I sure don’t. Finish work at midnight, go home for a shower and get ready, head out to meet my mates for a birthday celebration in Northbridge, to arrive at 1.15am and be told I’m not allowed in!!! And to top it off, I was the designated ride home, so will my friends experience the feat of attempting to get a taxi in the wee hours, or just drive home drunk because they can’t get one, perhaps get busted for DD, or even have an accident, as I lay asleep in my bed.
Let’s come up with a better solution.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
The Rise and Fall of Rice
Did Stephanie Rice deserve the dump?
Well, yes, I’m sorry to be the big bad wolf, but unfortunately I support Jaguars decision to dump Stephanie Rice; if I was the one making the decision there I would have done the same thing.
This was not caught on a mobile phone, nor was it on a live feed where she was heard saying it and could not be rectified. She got on the internet, logged into her twitter account, typed it, and then posted it. Four separate actions that lead to the fatal outcome of her being dropped.
There was plenty of time for that little part of the brain, known as the frontal lobe which controls your filter system, to kick in, and it didn’t.
Although I firmly believe that she intended no offence to anyone (except of course the South African team and probably all of their supporters), the exact wording of her rants could not have been more poorly chosen. “Suck on that faggots!” You even feel like you are doing the wrong thing when you type it out quoting her. Not only did she make the mistake of using the known derogatory “F Bomb”, she had to lead up to it with a sexual connation of “suck on it”. That was totally inappropriate and was left open to the world to interpret.
She has now given herself a reputation as a homophobe, which I think is sad, as she has homosexual friends. Her Olympics teammate, gay diver, Matthew Mitchum defended her saying: “She meant no malice. It was offensive and very thoughtless, but being friends with her for two years, I know she is not homophobic."
Perhaps a better word to describe her would be ‘Redneck’, or maybe just young, naïve, stupid, inconsiderate, foolish, selfish…hmmm, none of which I imagine Jaguar would have in their description of who they would like representing their super elite car company.
Jaguar’s market would have a high level of male clientele, high end, with money, and with that, comes a higher percentage of homosexual men. By keeping her on as a representative of the company, it would be seen by many that they are in support of her behaviour, and possibly hold the same feelings or thoughts as her, not a clever business decision.
She was chosen for her role as a good looking, up and coming athlete from Australia who had a good, clean and positive image. That was torn down in a moment yes, but she did it. It was her choice. This is not a case of someone else to blame.
I wish Stephanie Rice all the best in future sporting endeavours and truly hope that she finds endorsements through someone else who is more appropriate for her age and style and hopefully she has learnt from her mistakes and keeps her juvenile comments to herself.
The story of Stephanie Rice is the perfect example of how today’s electronic world of communications, although fascinating, fun and …empowering, can take a turn for the worse and get a life of its own. Once it’s on the net, it’s on the net!
Well, yes, I’m sorry to be the big bad wolf, but unfortunately I support Jaguars decision to dump Stephanie Rice; if I was the one making the decision there I would have done the same thing.
This was not caught on a mobile phone, nor was it on a live feed where she was heard saying it and could not be rectified. She got on the internet, logged into her twitter account, typed it, and then posted it. Four separate actions that lead to the fatal outcome of her being dropped.
There was plenty of time for that little part of the brain, known as the frontal lobe which controls your filter system, to kick in, and it didn’t.
Although I firmly believe that she intended no offence to anyone (except of course the South African team and probably all of their supporters), the exact wording of her rants could not have been more poorly chosen. “Suck on that faggots!” You even feel like you are doing the wrong thing when you type it out quoting her. Not only did she make the mistake of using the known derogatory “F Bomb”, she had to lead up to it with a sexual connation of “suck on it”. That was totally inappropriate and was left open to the world to interpret.
She has now given herself a reputation as a homophobe, which I think is sad, as she has homosexual friends. Her Olympics teammate, gay diver, Matthew Mitchum defended her saying: “She meant no malice. It was offensive and very thoughtless, but being friends with her for two years, I know she is not homophobic."
Perhaps a better word to describe her would be ‘Redneck’, or maybe just young, naïve, stupid, inconsiderate, foolish, selfish…hmmm, none of which I imagine Jaguar would have in their description of who they would like representing their super elite car company.
Jaguar’s market would have a high level of male clientele, high end, with money, and with that, comes a higher percentage of homosexual men. By keeping her on as a representative of the company, it would be seen by many that they are in support of her behaviour, and possibly hold the same feelings or thoughts as her, not a clever business decision.
She was chosen for her role as a good looking, up and coming athlete from Australia who had a good, clean and positive image. That was torn down in a moment yes, but she did it. It was her choice. This is not a case of someone else to blame.
I wish Stephanie Rice all the best in future sporting endeavours and truly hope that she finds endorsements through someone else who is more appropriate for her age and style and hopefully she has learnt from her mistakes and keeps her juvenile comments to herself.
The story of Stephanie Rice is the perfect example of how today’s electronic world of communications, although fascinating, fun and …empowering, can take a turn for the worse and get a life of its own. Once it’s on the net, it’s on the net!
Article review
The West Australian – Wednesday, September 8th, 2010
Article by Amanda Banks – Legal Affairs Editor
“On-the-spot fines a step closer”…
The article chosen for review due to its being relatively unchanged by the journalist is: ‘on-the-spot fines a step closer’ from the West Australian Newspaper.
This article has been put together, most likely by the Police Department and State Government, for the purpose of sharing information with the public on a grand scale. It tells of the intended changes that will occur within Western Australia’s legal system, in regard to on-the-spot-fines.
It explains factually that the legislation has been drawn up with the help of the police and will go before State Parliament on the day of print.
It goes on the talk about that there will be changes to the criminal code and powers of police officers to serve people with infringements for petty crimes, further outlining the basic offences that will be affected.
It goes on to provide more back up facts about the NSW legislation it is being based on and the purpose of implementing it. The benefits are also outlined, being lower amounts of time being spent on administrative duties by police and the courts, while police can be targeting the front line. This information touches on peoples need for police to be out there protecting the public, which is why the PR person has put it in there.
A quote was provided from Police Minister Rob Johnson, which shows that the police department most likely provided the details required to write this article: “This is all about smarter and more effective law enforcement, ensuring that our police officers are on the beat fighting crime and our court system is working more efficiently.”
Explaining that: juveniles under 17 will not be fined and that stolen property, when recovered, will be returned to the owners at a much faster rate as it will not be held for evidence, is a way of the police attempting to make the legislation appeal to peoples sense of concern for themselves and also for the youth of our community.
As people read the article the question will arise of: ‘Hang on a minute, these cops could just hand out fines to whoever they want, how do you appeal?’ and that question is answered by the 3rd column where it talks about challenging charges. This article was deeply considered before issuing all the information to avoid any negative response from the audience.
To wrap up the article, there are comments from: WA Police Executive Director Greg Italiano saying “Giving police the option of issuing fines for low level offences would be effective and had proved successful in other states”, and Shadow Police Minister Margaret Quirk saying “Labor would need to consider the details of the bill, which had not yet been provided as of yesterday, before deciding whether to support the changes but the laws appeared to work in other states’.
These closing comments, again show a great support for these changes from very influential people and supports the theory that this story was essentially put together by the Police Department and State Government and it managed to stay relatively unchanged by the journalist, with not a single comment or opinion being pushed by the Miss Banks.
Article by Amanda Banks – Legal Affairs Editor
“On-the-spot fines a step closer”…
The article chosen for review due to its being relatively unchanged by the journalist is: ‘on-the-spot fines a step closer’ from the West Australian Newspaper.
This article has been put together, most likely by the Police Department and State Government, for the purpose of sharing information with the public on a grand scale. It tells of the intended changes that will occur within Western Australia’s legal system, in regard to on-the-spot-fines.
It explains factually that the legislation has been drawn up with the help of the police and will go before State Parliament on the day of print.
It goes on the talk about that there will be changes to the criminal code and powers of police officers to serve people with infringements for petty crimes, further outlining the basic offences that will be affected.
It goes on to provide more back up facts about the NSW legislation it is being based on and the purpose of implementing it. The benefits are also outlined, being lower amounts of time being spent on administrative duties by police and the courts, while police can be targeting the front line. This information touches on peoples need for police to be out there protecting the public, which is why the PR person has put it in there.
A quote was provided from Police Minister Rob Johnson, which shows that the police department most likely provided the details required to write this article: “This is all about smarter and more effective law enforcement, ensuring that our police officers are on the beat fighting crime and our court system is working more efficiently.”
Explaining that: juveniles under 17 will not be fined and that stolen property, when recovered, will be returned to the owners at a much faster rate as it will not be held for evidence, is a way of the police attempting to make the legislation appeal to peoples sense of concern for themselves and also for the youth of our community.
As people read the article the question will arise of: ‘Hang on a minute, these cops could just hand out fines to whoever they want, how do you appeal?’ and that question is answered by the 3rd column where it talks about challenging charges. This article was deeply considered before issuing all the information to avoid any negative response from the audience.
To wrap up the article, there are comments from: WA Police Executive Director Greg Italiano saying “Giving police the option of issuing fines for low level offences would be effective and had proved successful in other states”, and Shadow Police Minister Margaret Quirk saying “Labor would need to consider the details of the bill, which had not yet been provided as of yesterday, before deciding whether to support the changes but the laws appeared to work in other states’.
These closing comments, again show a great support for these changes from very influential people and supports the theory that this story was essentially put together by the Police Department and State Government and it managed to stay relatively unchanged by the journalist, with not a single comment or opinion being pushed by the Miss Banks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)