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.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
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)