Punch on: Open thread 06/10/2011

acotrel says:

06:32am | 06/10/11

Bathurst is on this Sunday ?  What a pity I’ll be driving to Melbourne, and will be stuck with watching the traffic !

fairsfair says:

03:16pm | 06/10/11

obsidian?

(Comes from volcanos (explode))

H says:

09:21am | 06/10/11

Agree 100% Kipling. If we cannot recognise the preciousness and beauty of life in another in whatever form it takes, we do not recognise it in ourselves. Those who are cruel to other beings do not seem to realise they are screaming to the world how ignorant and disconnected from the web of life they are. They do not realise that when they hurt a fellow sentient being, they are in essence killing their own humanity. They see the one they are harming as “the other”, and therefore of no value and thus are disconnecting from life itself.
You are right when you say that human beings are arrogant, they are in the extreme. But don’t give up hope because a heck of a lot of people are getting really fed up with this evil in the world, not just on animal rights issues but a great many other social issues too. It is a mistake however to think that the state of the economy and financial issues are a seperate from animal rights issues. In the case of live animal exports, the Indonesians threatened to go to the World Bank and complain about Australia’s initial suspension of live cattle exports. This is why the government backed down on the issue. It is the power of economic forces that prevent these issues from being addressed in the way the public have very loudly demanded. When people start realising that all these social issues such as animal rights, gay marriage rights, equality of women, the environment, the treatment of refugees etc are ALL THE SAME and all activists support one another then we will achieve real change.

Jade says:

09:22am | 06/10/11

I was at Australia Zoo last weekend and went in and seen the Animal Hospital.  They had a box which on the front said… “Look inside to see the most dangerous animal in the world”, I guess you know what was inside… a mirror.  And its true.  We are all pretty horrible.  We kill anything that is a threat, destroy everything in our way and justify it by saying “we are the top of the food chain”.

It sure was sad seeing the little Koala getting pins put in it’s leg after being hit by a car, and the other Koala’s that had suffered that fate as well.  I am glad there are people out there that stop to help these poor things after they have been hit.

Elphaba says:

10:29am | 06/10/11

Well said Kipling.  I feel much the same way, which is why I made a decision this year to regularly give to animal charities rather than people ones.

It just seems to me that they need the help more.

Kipling says:

11:03am | 06/10/11

Thanks H I am well aware of the Live Animal export farce that our Government totally failed to address effectively and the threat (only one of many) from Indonesia.
One of their other threats was to import cattle from NZ, obviously whilst they were throwing around their threats to coerce they were unaware of NZ’s non participation in live exports…
Economics etc is still just man made garbage (or is the right term constructs), which give effective and more arrogant leverage to overlook our inhumanity.
I also understand and agree that there is a ground swell of people who are starting to agitate for more humane practices, the gauling bit is that is a David v Goliath type of struggle about something that, if even the smallest bit of our gross self promotion as the paragon of animals (thanks the bard) is true should not require such a struggle.
I am increasingly of the opinion that any good is immeasurably outweighed by the bad.
It is completely without any irony that I can recognise the beauty of life in all species (with their inherent violence, lack of compassion and apparent ruthlessness at times) except my own.
Clearly we have the capacity to actually take care of things but demonstrably lack the desire too for fear of reducing our material comfort level by even a minimum amount.
That is demonstrative of a species with no redeeming features what so ever and hardly a “paragon of animals”.... Oh what a piece of work is man, indeed.

chungo mung says:

11:42am | 06/10/11

I like these sentiments and agree with many also, but elphaba, the idea that animals need more help than people really indicates that you may be far removed from the many degrees of human suffering that you are surrounded by in this world.

My spirituality doesn’t lead me to a value system over different forms of life or have concern for whether or not the idea of soul is applicable to humans or animals or whatever.

I just don’t know how one could witness, know about or be connected to attrocities such as child labour/soldiers; famine in one continent whilst another has laws against bakeries giving away old food; refugees piled into horrid border camps waiting for generations to be free; torture;  neglect of children or mentaly ill; victims of domestric violence or ingrained societal violence and so on - and believe that animals are greater need of help.

I wonder if that approach has anything to do with the hopelessnes one feels when they donate or contribute to the many challenges of our human reality.

Elphaba says:

12:06pm | 06/10/11

@chungo munn, we all have to donate to the charities that resonate with us the most.  It wasn’t a decision made lightly, but a decision that I am enormously comfortable with.

Have a great day.

Mouse says:

03:10pm | 06/10/11

Elphaba, the ones I donate to regularly are animal charities, such as WWF, Backyard Buddies, Animal Welfare, etc. I am also on-call and help out with hurt native animals and nursing orphans until they can be picked up by Wildlife Services.
The people charities are well pushed and are more “in your face” than the animaI ones, ergo I reckon they probably get heaps more, so the critters get my money!  I won’t be bothered by being made to feel guilty about feeling more concern for animals. Yes, there are horrible situations around the world that children and adults are living in, but there is a lot of focus on that and a lot more money going to them.  There are also atrocious situations that animals are in and their plight is easier to ignore by most people. This is why they get my attention now and in the future.
  But, not to be completely heartless, I also sponsor a little fella in Peru, he’s 4yo and gorgeous! :o)

Shane From Melbourne says:

09:29am | 06/10/11

Bit too late for that now. The whole of the 20th Century and the beginning of the 21st Century has been looting the future to enjoy the fruits of the present. This ranges from government debt to private debt, resource depletion, environmental degradation, animal and plant extinction, to human overpopulation (humanity cannot possibly feed itself after peak oil) Might as well enjoy the ride because it all goes downhill from about 2020….

H says:

10:08am | 06/10/11

Sydney, Melbourne and Brissy are apparently staging peaceful protests echoing the Occupy Wall Street movement in New York regarding this issue on the 15th October. You aren’t the only one who’s fed up.

gobsmack says:

11:33am | 06/10/11

You could say a similar thing about carbon emissions.

Adam Diver says:

11:50am | 06/10/11

@ Shane,

What is with this Peak Oil myth. Its been spouted for decades now. Where does the certainty come from, do you suggest any resources I should look at, because I would like to know a little more of the basis behind the claims. 

@ H, Wall Street movement is completely different issue. The quote above is more closely related to the tea party movement.

@ Gobsmack, carbon emmissions also give us the quality of life that future generations will enjoy. Take that away, and you are not looting much.

Trevor says:

01:09pm | 06/10/11

@Adam

Peak Oil is the biggest threat to humanity since, well, ever!

Here are just a few names to Google to get you up to speed
-Matthew Simmons
-Richard Heinberg
-Jeremy Leggett
-James Howard Kunstler
-Mike Ruppert (although some of his claims are a bit out there)

Try some of these websites:
http://www.oildecline.com/
http://www.peakoil.org.au/
http://www.theoildrum.com/
http://www.aspo-australia.org.au/

And don’t listen to that shill for Business as Usual Daniel Yergin!

This is the reason I have been going on about the end of growth for years now, much to my family’s annoyance.

This thing is so big that I am firmly of the belief that global leaders, while being acutely aware of this issue, cannot tell the public. Stockmarkets would crash overnight etc etc. I am starting to think that this whole Global warming thing is a cover to try to get some sort of alternatives happening, although that is quite conspiratorial.

It is way too late however with conventional oil production peaking around 2006. We are now in what was predicted to come after the peaking of global oil supplies- the bumpy economic plateau.

The 2008 Hirsh report advised that the world needs a 20 year lead in time to even attempt to mitigate this. Now it is way too late. The German Army have recently released a report on this too that makes for interesting reading. 

Gain a complete understanding of this problem and you will gain an insight into the real geopolitical game that has been going on since before WWII.

Then to top it of google this name:

Thomas Malthus.

Adam Diver says:

02:07pm | 06/10/11

@ Trevor,

Love the passion, hope your wrong but I will check out some of your list. Thanks for going to the effort.

Trevor says:

02:49pm | 06/10/11

No worries Adam, this is one issue I would love to be proved wrong on!

Anne_N says:

08:19am | 06/10/11

I too feel that the judgement was stupid.

In loco parentis - if the teachers are asked to Mirandise, will I also have to start each day with it?

Ben C says:

08:25am | 06/10/11

I’m about as confounded as you are Peter, this has got to be one of the most ridiculous rulings I’ve ever heard. I mean, the child committed a crime. So what if he was honest in admitting he did what he did? A crime is still a crime, and it should not go unpunished. Why should the teacher be required to give this student a warning?

I’m hoping an appeal is lodged against the decision.

iansand says:

09:01am | 06/10/11

I would not trust the Tellyoucrap to give anything like the full story.

The protections in relation to confessions developed because of consistent patterns of abuse of power by police.  In the olden days, unsigned records of interview turned up in all kinds of cases.  The police story was that the accused had voluntarily provided the ROI, but had refused to sign it at the last minute.  Abuse of this became notorious, and the High Court said that such unsigned ROIs were admissible but only on the basis of explicit warnings and other protections.  Mysteriously, suspects stopped providing unsigned ROIs and they never turned up in Court again.  A cynic might say tat the ROIs were fabricated.

In the olden days suspects used to confess to all kinds of things verbally, but, mysteriously, would not give an ROI, signed or unsigned.  Again, the High Court said that, while such verbal confessions were admissible, certain protections were required.  Again mysteriously, accused people suddenly stopped confessing.  Someone more cynical than me might suspect that some of these verbals were fabricated.  Of course, ERISPs have replaced the old interview processes.

The protection that this child had was against abuse of power.  The warnings are a means of ensuring, at least to some extent, the imbalance of pwer is not abused.  You all need that protection, and do not let an aberrant (if, in fact, it is aberrant) decision lead you to decide that your protection and your children’s should be reduced.  Police and authority figures do abuse power.  Be careful what you throw away in the face of tabloid hysteria.

neo says:

09:21am | 06/10/11

We must protect the rights of the children, the gays, the straights, the shemales, the blacks, the whites, the blues, the purples, the dogs, the cats, the bunnies, the grasshoppers, the tables, the glasses, the snickers king size wrappers, the letter V, the fraction 25.7, the sick, the weak, the Communist Party of China and Chairman ObaMao no matter the cost!

The very fact that this became an issue to someone means that some people have way too much time on their hands.

fml says:

09:42am | 06/10/11

neo,

Yes you should protect all their rights, thats why, you know, we live in a democracy, like.

AdamC says:

10:16am | 06/10/11

One hopes this article horribly distorts what actually occurred, or that the decision will somehow be overturned. One wonders how this may affect a friend or relative of a criminal to whom said criminal might confess. Would they also be prevented from relaying any confession to the Court?

@Ian Sand, what you wrote bears no relationship to what the article asserts happened. For one thing, the confession was made to a third party, not the police. Furthermore, it does not appear that this third party sought - or even expected to receive - the confession. How on earth could an ‘abuse of power’ arise in that context?

Peter#1 says:

10:26am | 06/10/11

@ iansand
Written like a true lawyer.
Are we to assume, from what you have written, that the teacher in question fabricated the story?
The teacher asked the boy how his previous day had gone and whether he would be returning to school this year. The boy said that it depended on the outcome of his upcoming court appearance.
“I held up a servo and stabbed the attendant ... but the police have nothing on me,” the boy said, according to Judge Helen Murrell.
Let’s continue to protect the guilty on a legal technicality.
What bullshit!

iansand says:

10:33am | 06/10/11

Police and teachers are both in a position of power.  The power can be, and has been, abused so the law erects protections against abuse.  Those protections require certain procedures to be undertaken.  The approach is one size fits all.  As we know, one size fits all does not actually fit everyone.

But my guess is that the Tellyoucrap is telling you crap.

Direct says:

12:28pm | 06/10/11

People should be already aware that teachers are mandatory reporters. This decision is merely upholding existing law that teachers must devulge knowledge of an incident to the properly authorities.

iMitchy says:

12:29pm | 06/10/11

In future…
How can it be proved that warnings are (or are not) given to students prior to confessions? It would seem that in an identical situation after this ruling, the teacher could simply say that the warnings were given. Then it is simply a your-word-against-mine situation as this scenario should have been taken in the first place.

There is an exception…
Do the kids have to sign something?
If so, is it made redundant by the fact that they are under 18 and therefore only a parent / legal guardian’s signature on the child’s behalf is legally binding?

Swinging Voter says:

12:50pm | 06/10/11

Well said Iansand.

AdamC, the friend or relative you refer to is not a person who is in a position of authority over a minor, who perceives them as having a right to demand explanations for behavior and punish them if they refuse.

The danger is that teachers will become ‘stand in interrogators’ when the police know a child who is informed of their rights will remain silent. The investigators go “hmmm, let’s just tell their teacher to ask them about it, or wait for them to ask, then interview the teacher and BAMMO- confession without having to pay attention to that pesky right to silence”.

Rights are meaningless unless people know what they are and how to enforce them.

This is not a ruling about the reliability of the confession, when confessions are ruled inadmissible it’s usually because they were obtained in circumstances that were unfair and the fairness of the system requires that they not be relied upon.

It’s not criticism of the teacher, it’s just that it’s not fair on the kid to have anyone in authority asking questions, the answers to which reveal crimes, unless they know they have a right to be silent and not be punished for silence.

AdamC says:

02:34pm | 06/10/11

@Ian Sand, I don’t believe you can equate the position of authority teachers hold in an educational context to the powers of police officers. And, even if you do believe that teachers have some power to compel students to answer questions (I don’t believe they do, beyond maybe giving a kid detention) there seems to be no suggestion that the teacher was invoking any sort of compulsory power in this instance.

@Swinging Voter, and if, indeed, the teacher was operating as an agent of the police - or even merely at the police’s initiave - it may be reasonable to require the teacher to caution the student. Again, however, that does not appear to be the situation here.

iansand says:

03:13pm | 06/10/11

Adam C - You may think that.  You are wrong.

Swinging Voter says:

03:13pm | 06/10/11

The problem is we’re dealing with persons aged between 10 and 17, these are not people who can be expected to understand the distinction between a teacher’s authortiy and a policeman’s. If your teacher asks you a question, he has the power to punish you if you don’t answer- in the mind of many children.

As with all public policy type exclusions, these do not turn on the facts of the individual case, but on a general principle. If an illegally obtained confession was admissible if it could be shown to be true on the facts of the case, then people would justify the means by the end and keep on beating people up.

The only way to stop behavior and evidence gathering that smacks of unfairness is to get rid of ALL evidence that could be tainted and force police to obtain it the hard, and fair way. That means reading people their rights, even if it would have made no difference had they been read at the time. It doesn’t matter if it was an innocent mistake- these measures aren’t focussed on blaming police or teachers, but on whether the accused has been treated fairly.

It’s about ensuring the police do their job right, and having seen more examples of police sloppiness than I care to relate, I support those measures in principle. Whether this is a good application of them I’m not sure, but that’s why they’re here and a good thing they are too.

This is only district court, if it goes on appeal lets see what the NSW CoA says.

iansand says:

03:20pm | 06/10/11

The question is not whether the questioner has actual power.  Even the police do not have the power to compel answers to questions.  The problem is whether there may be a perception of power by the kid that may otherwise overcome the right to silence.  The police cannot question minors without the presence of a parent or other responsible adult for this very reason.

AdamC says:

03:57pm | 06/10/11

@Swinging Voter:

“The problem is we’re dealing with persons aged between 10 and 17, these are not people who can be expected to understand the distinction between a teacher’s authortiy and a policeman’s.”

Yes, but we are also dealing with teachers, who can’t be expected to understand the rules around obtaining evidence from suspects. (Especially when, as in this case, the student wasn’t suspected of anything.) Unless, as the article suggests, teachers are now going to have to complete training on their ‘evidence gathering powers’.

@Ian Sand, I don’t know what your first comment was about, but I am aware that police are not able to compel people to confess. However, the police are intimidating and, for most of us, getting taken to the police station and being interviewed would be a very unfamiliar and distressing experience. Chatting with one’s school teacher is somewhat more familiar.

Also, as you mention, more enthusiastic police officers have something of a history of standing over less educated or assertive suspects and obtaining phoney confessions. Therefore, protections are there in response to a demonstrable need. Maybe it’s just me, but I can’t remember too many teachers who have done the same thing. It seems like a cart before horse situation.

Swinging Voter says:

04:26pm | 06/10/11

If the evidence is because of his age the kid either didn’t know he could be quiet in the face of a teacher’s authority, or didn’t think it could be used against him, then I say I can understand why a Judge thinks it’s unfair to use it.

“Yes, but we are also dealing with teachers, who can’t be expected to understand the rules around obtaining evidence from suspects.”

Adam, you’re focussing again on whether there is any criticism of the Teacher, there isn’t.

But trials are about fairness to the accused, and so they should be.

It doesn’t matter if evidence is unfair because a butterfly beat its wings in India. If it’s unfair it’s unfair and it shouldn’t be used. Full stop. That’s the law and so it should be- about fairness.

iansand says:

05:08pm | 06/10/11

AdamC - It is actually pretty simple.  Police have positions of authority.  Teachers have positions of authority.  The protections are there because various figures of authority have abused that position.  So the law has developed protection against potential abuse.  The individual facts in an individual case do not matter.

It may surprise you to know, but contracts between in various relationships of trust such as solicitor and client or parent and child are ASSUMED to be the result of the exercise of undue influence, regardless of the facts (although the presumption is rebuttable).  This rule of evidence is an example of the same kind of protection.  Things may be perfectly above board and legitimate but the relationship is so fraught with the potential of abuse that special rules exist.

palone says:

12:38pm | 06/10/11

I gathered that what Iansand was suggesting was that protections are there for a purpose.
Peter says that the Teacher asked “so and so”, and the boy answered “such and such”. What happened to the word “allegedly”? Are all teachers honest? We hope most are, but like plumbers, bakers, and Judges, we know that no-one’s integrity can be taken for granted.
Was the teacher related to, or romantically linked to some member of the prosecution? We don’t know, and that is why we have protections. One day, (I hope not), you may be glad of those protections.
We have trials when people are charged because the Justice system recognises that a policeman’s accusation is not proof of a matter, and more importantly is seen to be not proof of a matter. Of course, not all systems are the same. Some countries, (the old USSR was a good example), where an accusation by the State was seen to be ample proof of an act, had no such protections. Is that what some here are suggesting we should adopt?
When we weaken our Justice system we destroy it. Let juries be the deciders on guilt or innocence, not the unfettered State. Be grateful. Because even though juries make some errors those errors are usually because there has been a
false prosecution launched and proceeded with. Those verdicts, as we know, are often, (thankfully), overturned.
Aidan is a humourist. Well he thinks so with his totally unrelated, unnecessary, and not very clever “loophole”.

marley says:

02:37pm | 06/10/11

I understood Iansand’s argument, but I don’t follow yours.  Iansand was talking about the issue of the teacher being in a position of authority; that’s not the same as the argument you’re presenting, which goes only to the credibility of the teacher.

Our whole legal system is predicated on the concept of presenting the evidence and giving the defence the opportunity to challenge it.  Everyone’s word is suspect - that’s the whole point of the adversarial system.  I don’t see why allowing the teacher to testify represents any great threat to that principle. 

Surely it should be sufficient for the teacher to testify as to what he says the kid said, and then be subject to cross examination to test his veracity?  I mean, for crying out loud, courts accept this kind of testimony from cellmates;  why should a teacher have less credibility than someone sitting in prison?

And if we can’t accept the teacher’s word, how in fact can we accept the evidence of any witness on any point?

Shane From Melbourne says:

09:32am | 06/10/11

Tony Abbott is soft and weak on refugees….....

Rosie my sweet says:

10:02am | 06/10/11

Don’t worry nossy
Abbott has a whole head full of brain farts to amuse us with.
There is no substance behind this fool.

Ben C says:

10:05am | 06/10/11

Boatphone was indeed a bit of a weird one nossy, I guess we’ll never know how well (or badly) it would’ve worked.

SimonFromLakemba says:

12:22pm | 06/10/11

Too true, police have no idea really. The amount of times I have seen them over-react to a situation or inflame one by getting power happy could easily be dealt with by speaking too people in a reasonable manner

The Badger says:

10:22am | 06/10/11

Go here and check out the facts behind this bastion of conservative money.

http://australianindustrytradealliance.com/
remember to click for facts.

jim the coal miner says:

10:31am | 06/10/11

Coal miners, steel makers, miners, etc.
Basically rich individuals who control companies that might be affected by a carbon tax, or a minerals tax and want workers to have no rights.
These guys have very deep pockets and are ultra conservative reptiles..

Adam Diver says:

12:03pm | 06/10/11

They are advertising for public sentiment. You know creating low polling figures to make governments drop policies that affect them.

If the ATI think they will make more money in the long run, by spending on PR, then that is their opinion and thier right. It is no different to what the Unions regularly do, besides the free publicity of strikes.

Its a self-interest group who suprise, surprise is looking after themselves. On the actual issue, “scaremongering” is more apt for the other side of politics, you know the “world is coming to an end, lets raise taxes in complete isolation” side.

Knemon says:

01:15pm | 06/10/11

@ The Badger - LOL…thanks for the link

Aussie Battler says:

03:35pm | 06/10/11

No different really to the ACTU/GetUp/Blanchett/Caton ads regarding voting “Yes” for the Carbon Tax .  Just another self interest group pushing their own agenda.

Battler my arse says:

06:30pm | 06/10/11

I know what you mean Aussie Rattler
Because Cate and Caton put up 20 odd million to spruik a cleaner earth because there was so much in it for them and their children.

Aussie Battler says:

07:37pm | 06/10/11

Interesting in what you say Battler My Arse - “I know what you mean Aussie Rattler Because Cate and Caton put up 20 odd million to spruik a cleaner earth because there was so much in it for them and their children.”  -
Considering the Ads were funded by the Unions and Green Groups - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-05-30/caton-defends-blanchett-in-dirty-carbon-ad-row/2736980
Still say they are - Just another self interest group pushing their own agenda.

fairsfair says:

11:03am | 06/10/11

And what if you get in a cab and the cabbie is pished? What is you are unlicensed?

I get that we need to get the message out - if you have been drinking and even if you think you are ok to drive - don’t, but I am not sure if this is the way to go about it.

I was once pulled over by a police officer because my 46 year old passenger was not wearing a seatbelt (he was, she just thought she couldn’t see it, so therefore he wasn’t) and she berrated and lectured me on the side of the road. I told her that even if he wasn’t wearing a seatbelt, he is an adult and she should be having this conversation with him, but no on and on she went. Just out to amp up her own sense of importance really.

Seems quite silly.

gobsmack says:

11:44am | 06/10/11

There are situations where it is obvious that the driver is over the limit and I assume that is what they are targetting.  However, one would need to see the law itself before making any definite comment.  Has it come into operation, or are the cops just talking about it?  And which jurisdication are we talking about?

Adam Diver says:

12:47pm | 06/10/11

@ FF,

I Love the anecdote, particvularly “I told her that even if he wasn’t wearing a seatbelt, he is an adult and she should be having this conversation with him”

Individual responsibility, where have you gone?

gobsmack says:

01:57pm | 06/10/11

@FF
From rule 265 of the Australian Road Rules (which most jurisdictions apply):
“The driver of a motor vehicle (except a bus or taxi) that is moving, or that is stationary but not parked, must ensure that each passenger in or on the vehicle who is 16 years old or older complies with subrule (2), unless the passenger is exempt from wearing a seatbelt under rule 267.”
Subrule (2) is the requirement that each passenger wears a seat belt.

fairsfair says:

02:41pm | 06/10/11

Hmmmm thanks gobsmack…. I thought it was 16 years old or *younger* to which the driver was responsible, above that the individual of age took responsibility. I take it there is a different subsection that relates to children though.

Anyway - he had the belt on so it doesn’t really matter, but still, I just can’t wrap my head around the fact that other adults have to be responsible for other adults when they are travelling together in a vehicle.

gobsmack says:

04:25pm | 06/10/11

@fairsfair
” I take it there is a different subsection that relates to children though.”
Yes you are correct.  Several in fact.
I guess the rational is that, as driver, you are responsible for their safe passage.  Maybe also from a practical viewpoint, the driver (usually) has a driver licence, so they know where to send the infringement notice.

nossy says:

11:48am | 06/10/11

Geez not good - RIP Steve Jobs.

Direct says:

12:14pm | 06/10/11

Reminders of your own mortality are never welcome.

Knemon says:

01:25pm | 06/10/11

Wow, they said he stood down as CEO for health reasons, I didn’t realise he was that crook. One less visionary / creative genius on planet earth…it doesn’t matter how much money one has, without good health you may as well be the drunken homeless hobo on the park bench. RIP Steve Jobs.

xar says:

01:56pm | 06/10/11

Knemon - please don’t devalue people who don’t have the good fortune of perfectly good health. To say they might as well be a drunken homeless hobo on a park bench is pretty ignorant.

neo says:

02:09pm | 06/10/11

He was very sick for quite some time now, he stepped back from his role a while back for a time to recover but then came back to work until recently.

He was a very intelligent man, not without faults, as no one is, but definitely in possession of some strong qualities. He worked hard, and despite a long run of mediocre successes, he never gave up, and before his death, he saw his company flourish and achieve the status that he worked towards.

This once again reminds us of what a terrible curse cancer is for humanity. Only last month, a great Australian actor, Andy Whitfield, has too, succumbed to the decease.

The most horrifying thing about the whole situation is the amount of time and money that is being spent on wars, consumerism, entertainment, politics and such. If only humans could learn to work together, maybe we would have had a cure a long time ago…

JulesG says:

10:53am | 06/10/11

fairsfair: Sorry to hear that you have not been well, I haven’t been on here for a while so didn’t know. Hope you’re on the mend now.

I know what you mean about forgetting what it’s like to feel well. As you may recall I’m recovering from open heart surgery and I feel like crap most of the time and I was pretty well asymptomatic before the op. I am told that I am getting better but it doesn’t feel like it sometimes.

I went to the pub last night and had a few drinks and I felt better after that. I’m not sure where to go with that one! I might just do it again and not philosify it too much. As you say, don’t sweat the small stuff (and to add my own take on) ‘coz it’s all small stuff!

Have a great day Jules

Anubis says:

11:09am | 06/10/11

Good to hear you are on the med fairs, but really “managed to make it into work. Not productive today :(” what made you decide to infect your co-workers?

fairsfair says:

11:42am | 06/10/11

According to the Dr I’m not contageous Anubis. It is just some sort of virus and I have moved past the contageous stage now leaving me with a cracker of a headache and lethargy. I have had the fever, the vomiting and the high blood pressure, but I think that is all past me now. I think the lethargy is just due to being so tired from going through all the rest. 

Jules, I am glad you are on the mend. I am certainly nowhere near your league with my piddly little virus. You have a pretty big hill to climb - you will get there. What does your Dr say abou the drinks? I thought that red wine in small volumes was good for the heart As long as they are not tequila slammers….

nossy says:

11:58am | 06/10/11

@fairsfair sorry FF didnt know you were sick - hope all is well now and you are at your fighting best - cheers.

xar says:

01:52pm | 06/10/11

I have a friend who has a range of chronic though not life threatening health conditions. Through being part of her life I’ve gained a much better appreciation for the fact that most people utterly and completely take good health for granted. The upside is people continue to have children without inordinately fearing pregnancy and birth complications, the downside is people are pretty ignorant about people with disabilities and thus - it is much harder to get people to understand the massive issues that need adressing within the disability sector, and much harder to make such concerns enough of a universal vote swayer that the pollies pay attention.

Aussie Battler says:

02:40pm | 06/10/11

Thanks Fairs, I am on the mend. Like you have got over the worst and headed into work. Good to hear you are feeling better.

JulesG says:

04:45pm | 06/10/11

fairsfair: All alcohol in small quantities is good for you, it’s anti-coagulant and cuts down the deposition of blood fats. It’s in larger quantities that the benefits are swallowed up by the negative effects of alcohol.

In my case it’s the Warfarin that stops my gallop - bugger! Alcohol in small to moderate doses will tend to enhance the effect of Warfarin risking internal bleeding and in higher doses alcohol can reduce the effect of Warfarin risking clotting and a thromboembolic event. So my motto is be careful and enjoy life.

The Docs are always chasing the ideal and err on the side of caution, if for nothing else but to avoid litigation. I had a great time last night and threw caution to the wind and measured my Warfarin when I got home and it was fine. I think the psychological benefits of a laugh and a good time outweigh the risks. I’m going to be on Warfarin for the rest of my life and I’m not one for sitting around in an arm chair. I had the heart op for some extended quality of life and I’m buggered if I’m going to be subservient to my medication, otherwise there’s no point.

Glad to hear that you are on the mend too - Jules

nossy says:

12:23pm | 06/10/11

@nihonin tonights the night nihonin - enjoy the concert - I think he will be ok.

ausspud says:

12:31pm | 06/10/11

@nihonin- Its dead,buried & cremated.
The only hope you have is to expect the worst concert ever,that way it wont seem so bad.

nihonin says:

12:49pm | 06/10/11

Apparently the sound guys who were doing the sound for the gig at the AFL GF were streaming musical advertisements into Mr Loaf’s ear pieces, so he couldn’t actually hear the backing band properly.  That’s what I’ve been told.  I shall find out tonight whether that be the truth or lies.

nihonin says:

01:10pm | 06/10/11

I’ve prepared for the worst ausspud, hope is all I and others have who are seeing him perform tonight have.  I’ll give a quick opinion tomorrow in the comments on the concert.

nossy says:

02:52pm | 06/10/11

@nihonin - if you are still out there nihonin who is that guitarist in the black hat - I have seen him somewhere before ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwHbQyIILMw

nihonin says:

04:05pm | 06/10/11

Not sure nossy, but I’ll check it out tonight and post it for you tomorrow.

NicoleG says:

12:36pm | 06/10/11

LOL!! All the water I had in my mouth, just came out of my nose. And I’m still PMSL.

gobsmack says:

12:40pm | 06/10/11

Because you want to.

nossy says:

01:02pm | 06/10/11

@ausspud thats because they want you to go"DOWN, DOWN, DOWN!” ausspud!  hahaha Poor Nicole.

TimB says:

01:27pm | 06/10/11

Perhaps it might be related to some repressed feelings you may have towards Curtis Stone?

Anubis says:

01:31pm | 06/10/11

@ ausspud - you just stumbled onto Wesfarmers Business Model. The consumer sucks and can keep on sucking. Cleverly disguised in their (going) Down, Down commercials.

TimB says:

01:26pm | 06/10/11

To be fair Nossy, Branson;‘s plans are based on technology that NASA initially developed themselves. It’s not like he started from scratch.

Standing on the shoulders of giants and all that.

JC says:

01:42pm | 06/10/11

How do you expect to get that man on mars back?

nossy says:

02:46pm | 06/10/11

My point was Tim that someone like Branson if he had been the driving force behind space exploration instead of fat old NASA we might just well have gone a lot farther now then we have - and for far less cost. There is a “black hole” right here on Earth and its called NASA - it sucks Taxpayers like no other. 42 years after Man on the Moon we have a Space Staion sitting just under the protective Van Allen Belt and not much else - 42 years and TRILLIONS of dollars Tim - Tony Abbott would be palpable if a government wasted so much money -  ahhh hang on err .....

marley says:

05:45pm | 06/10/11

The math teacher has no idea what number Johnny is going to come up with - she’s a math teacher, not a mind reader.  So long as she knows the number that she would come up with is 4, she’s a math teacher (or at least an arithmetic teacher).