How times change. When I started working in an office a little over 20 years ago, you could still smoke at your desk. In fact, when you were shown the stationary cabinet on your first day in a new job you could kit yourself out with a stapler and sticky-tape dispenser as well as an ashtray.

Sadly the pewter beer tankard has fallen out of fashion.

In those days, ‘smoking or non-smoking?’ was an everyday question when checking in for an airline flight’, you watched the Benson & Hedges World Series Cup over summer and the Winfield Cup over winter and the back cover of almost every women’s magazine carried an ad featuring an attractive blonde, a beach, acres of cheesecloth and a packet Alpine.

At about the same time blokes would go to the beach in the middle of the day, shirtless and hatless, while women would lay for hours baking themselves to a golden brown while occasionally basting themselves with coconut oil. Sun protection was not standard work issue for workers out of doors and sunshirts and sensible hats had the same sartorial appeal as sandals with long socks.

They were lifestyles that gave us the leading cause of preventable death and one of the highest rates of skin cancer in the world.

Consider how these deeply entrenched cultures have changed in less than one generation and how the changes have occurred. Smoking rates have fallen by over a third as smokers are pretty much socially ostracised and must sneak off to dark corners to indulge their habit as governments gradually tighten restrictions on where and when people can smoke. This has been done while simultaneously introducing a more and more aggressive tax regime making it a cost prohibitive habit. The next steps that are being mooted could see governments banning smoking in public and sending smokers to the back of hospital waiting lists.

Over the same period being ‘sun smart’ has become much more common place. Broad hats, sunscreen and sun-smart shirts are to be seen every day on the beach and, while not exactly the height of fashion, are widely accepted in the same way that bike helmets are. This change has not been brought about by banning people from beaches during the middle of the day, or arresting parents who let their kids outside without a hat. It has been the result of long-term education and awareness campaigns that has seen a generation educated about the potential dangers of prolonged sun exposure from a young age.

With growing medical evidence that the “safe” level of alcohol consumption is lower than has long been thought (and, perhaps, hoped), pressure is mounting on governments to change drinking behaviour to reduce the long-term health impacts of Australian’s love of a drink. At the same time, a supposed crisis amongst our youth, apparently manifesting itself as an orgy of alcohol-fuelled violence, glassings and general debauchery is driving a sense of urgency to the state and Federal governments’ actions.

In many ways alcohol is at a crossroads at the moment. In responding to the pressure being placed on it, government can go one of two ways. It can follow the general path that has successfully taken the Australian love of the beach, the sun and the outdoors and made us more aware and responsible while still embracing it as a big part of our national identity. Or they can treat it like smoking and essentially try to ban it and shame those who continue to drink.

My fear is the loudest calls seem to be for using the anti-smoking route as the model with a general move towards prohibitionist action rather than education and awareness.
The problem with this path is that with smoking ‘every cigarette is doing you damage’ but with alcohol there are safe levels of consumption and, at those levels, it can and does play a positive role in many of our lives.

While education has seen the iconic bronzed Aussie feature less and less as part of our national identity, our love of the beach and the sun remain very much a part of our way of life. We just slip, slop and slap and try to avoid the hottest part of the day. In short, we do it more responsibly. We wear hats and sunscreen and teach our children to do the same.

This should be the model for our approach to alcohol. Become more responsible in our approach, but continue to enjoy the finest things about it.

While behavioural change is needed, prohibition is neither needed nor the way to achieve this end. And, as history shows us, it would fail.

One for the weekend

Jingle bells, jingle bells…

Christmas Cheer
Redoak Boutique Brewery
- from www.redoak.com.au

With Christmas starting to intrude upon our consciousness, it’s time to spread a little Christmas beer. While, for many, a pale lager is the drink of choice on a hot Christmas Day, this festive beer from Sydney microbrewery Redoak is well worth considering. A dark ale flavoured with spices from the brewer’s Grandmother’s Christmas cake recipe, this beer tastes of cinnamon and nutmeg and is quite literally Christmas in a bottle.

It’s the perfect beer for after the Christmas lunch, either with or instead of the Christmas pudding. For the dedicated lager drinker, it may sound a little odd but give it a try. It will change your perception of what beer is. Available at good speciality bottle shops or online from the brewery.

Most commented

44 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Wayne Hutchins says:

      05:24am | 04/12/09

      This current bunch of schoolies that are trashing the Goldcoast should be the generation that forced the drinking age up to 21.

    • T.Chong says:

      06:28am | 04/12/09

      Its strange how hitting the piss is still so sociably acceptable.
      Every Melborne Cup(as just 1 example), all levels of media will have cutesy stories about getting half blotto and yet we criminalise people doing pot, which has far less negative physical side effects (absolute BS about permanent psychosis from a puff of “skunk weed”).
      The only difference is alchohol is taxed by a legal govt entity, while pot is taxed by everyone on the supply line.
      Cheers folks

    • Tim says:

      09:12am | 04/12/09

      Ha Ha,
      That’s funny chong. Where’s your mate Cheech?
      The low level of pot usage to alcohol usage is the only thing preventing the same level of problems with pot.

    • T.Chong says:

      10:06am | 04/12/09

      “Low level..usage” now that is funny ! Tonight, tomorrow night, as countless before,  100s of thousands of people men and women , young and old,will light up, all thruout OZ. Despite the myths, most wont be 16 & 17 yo. , but will be yur average secondary and tertiary educated folks holding down steady jobs. They wont sell their kids for drugs, go wanton (unless lucky ! ) or committ suicide or murder as depicted in “Reefer Madness”
      But dude, you have to admit, when was the last time a bunch of cone heads get together for a bit of irrational, unprovoked violence, which is such a norm for many pubs (not all of cours, nor all drinkers violent)
      Coneys will just wanna mumble,listen to Floyd (old ones anyway) and then go to a 7/11 for a Mars Bar and can of coke.
      AS for Cheech, well hes out and about being a Mekzikan Amairricann.
      Hippy Peace and Good Karma Dude.

    • cats says:

      11:37am | 04/12/09

      hahah Tim haha wow. The only reason pot is illegal is because it was used as a smear campaign against african americans in the 20’s. There is little to no possibilty of overdosing on pot (unlike alcohol), and if you eat it then there are no effects on your body, except possibility that you will suffer a very small amount of short term memory loss, which is certain you will if you get tanked on alcohol. And do you think a drunk or a stoned person is more likely to attack random people on the street? Hmmm let me think about that for a second. I’m sick of all the lies about pot, it is safer than alcohol!

    • Bah to cats says:

      10:28am | 05/12/09

      Cats.. no side-effects of pot? Are you serious?! What about an increase in the chance of depression and other mental illnesses and brain loss. I have seen the evidence of too much pot! It’s a very dangerous idea to suggest that pot has no side-effects!!

    • RB says:

      06:33pm | 05/12/09

      Cats & T. Chong if you seriously believe that pot doesnt have long term effects, than sorry, but you are both morons.I have personally seen the negative effect this ‘harmless’ drug can have on a persons life, & it is not pretty.The majority of pot smokers i know are paronoid, lifeless, lack motivation & are usually broke(& sponging off others) to top it off, so spare me the ‘pot is harmless’ crap.

    • Alexandra Coffey says:

      12:08pm | 20/01/10

      Funny.

    • R Duke says:

      07:00am | 04/12/09

      What is wrong with enforcing currently laws protecting person and property from losers that can’t handle their booze?

      Now that a generation has been bred with a lack of personal responsible by wowsers that think they can simply regulate everything - many good people are to be judged because they enjoy whisky over jogging, or heaven forbid, wearing lycra and riding a bicycle

      I can see it now - paying 50% more,  filling out a 40 page disclaimer and having an electronic card swiped to ensure I haven’t exceeeded my Chivas Regal quota for the month.

      Society has made drugs the enemy, as opposed to bad behaviour and now more regulation is gaining support from the same fools who failed in bringing up the current crop of p!ssheads.

    • J says:

      12:18pm | 04/12/09

      Pot does is not a harmless bit of fun. It often promotes schizophrenia in people who have a predisposition for it, with catestrophic effects for the person and their friends and family. The innocent drug has been modified through hydroponics to loose it’s anti psychotic factors, making for a very dangerous game of Russian Roulette.

    • BB says:

      02:02pm | 05/12/09

      J, I am neither a pot user nor advocating its legalisation, but pot does not promote schizophrenia, even in people with a predisposition for it.

      That’s a myth.

    • Jolanda says:

      07:59am | 04/12/09

      I have two over 18’s one doesn’t drink and the other likes to drink when out drinking.  What bothers me is the attitude to drinking. Too many young people no longer say that they are going out to socialise or to be with friends they say that they are going out to drink.  With the focus on getting drunk.  It seems that they believe that if they are not drunk then they are not having fun.  How did it get to this stage and how can we change this way of thinking?

    • Justin says:

      09:24am | 04/12/09

      I can empathise with you Jolanda. As a non-drinker myself, it’s been sad to see my friends lose interest in our former social activities and go out drinking instead. I have maintained my self-imposed drought, to prove to them - and to myself - that you do not need to drink alcohol to enjoy yourself. Sadly I’ve only managed to convince myself thus far. I don’t know how the drinking attitude got to this stage, but it seems that leading by example isn’t going to change it.

    • DocBud says:

      12:23pm | 04/12/09

      What makes you think that it’s your job to prove to your friends that “you do not need to drink alcohol to enjoy yourself”, Justin? Stop being so bloody sanctimonious and recognise that people should be free to choose how to spend their time, the only constraint being that they should not harm others.

    • Jolanda says:

      03:40pm | 04/12/09

      Doc Bud what makes you think it is your job to tell Justin what his job is or isn’t ?  Justin was replying to me. Your post just proves why society is in the state that it is in.  Whenever people try to do the right thing others cut them down it is no wonder that the majority of young people believe that it doesn’t pay to be good.

    • DocBud says:

      04:07pm | 04/12/09

      Truly precious, Jolanda. I’m not trying to tell Justin what his job is, I am suggesting that it certainly is not going on a sanctimonious crusade to save his friends from themselves. The problem with your “whenever people try to do the right thing” is: who gets to decide what the right thing is? Heaven help us if it is po-faced people like you and Justin. The majority of young people up here in tropical Queensland are wonderful, caring, warm, happy, lovable members of the community who behave themselves about as much as everyone else. If it’s different where you live I suggest you move up here.

    • Steve says:

      09:13am | 04/12/09

      The statement “... with smoking ‘every cigarette is doing you damage’ but with alcohol there are safe levels of consumption ...” is WRONG.

      This is why health experts want the legal age raised. It is because every drop does brain damage. The effect is magnified in the growing brains of children and teens, but even “responsible” social drinking by adults causes small amounts of brain damage.

      It takes years for the accelerated brain shrinkage to be noticeable in the brain scans of light and infrequent alcohol users. It is like climate change. The process is slow and the small changes are hard to measure. Nevertheless, the scientific evidence that it is in fact happening cannot be denied.

      It is not just getting drunk that does brain damage, and it not just kids that are at risk. Every drop of alcohol does brain damage, and all alcohol users are affected. Anyone who attempts to deny the scientific evidence is a troglodyte!

      [By the way, while this is not quite firsthand info, I have a colleague who does research in this area and have reviewed some of his papers and checked his data.]

    • Cameron Price-Austin says:

      12:10pm | 04/12/09

      Even drinking moderately impairs your decision making, which, ironically, often leads to poor decisions about whether to continue drinking.

      In that way, drinking is much more like smoking, where every cigarette feeds an addiction which impairs your ability to make healthy choices, unlike going swimming without sunblock.

      In this way, perhaps prohibitive strategies are more appropriate for drinking?

    • beermatt says:

      12:49pm | 04/12/09

      I think that the American experience with prohibition pretty much puts paid to that Cameron, what with the entrenchment of organised crime and the harm caused by illicit alcohol. Prohibition just makes responsible, law-biding citizens criminals.  No matter how much you wish it not to be so, people are going to drink and trying to stop that is trying to hold back the tide. I’m pretty sure that there are a lot of Australians who would debate whether having a quiet beer or two will automatically lead to “poor decisions about whether to continue or not.”

    • Brad says:

      02:32pm | 04/12/09

      Steve, you worry too much.  The French traditionally introduce their children to wine at a very young age and they arent a nation of dribbling, brain damaged alcoholics.

      I like a drink, and I’m not brain damaged yet, so I think I’ll take my chances.  Everything we do has risks Steve, I could suffer brain damage playing Footy too… Maybe you could try and talk me out of that next?

    • pokkeme says:

      10:11am | 05/12/09

      Anyone with older or elderly parent’s/relatives who socially beered, wined, spirited, martini’d and champagne’d themselves throughout their youth, pregnancies, social lives etc would have to question this kind of scaremongering. Brain damaged? You’d reckon we might have noticed. The truth is, we snuck into pubs early, and binged ourselves silly, and our parents did the same, (six o’clock swill followed by the odd Don’s Party) - that was the norm for a generations, and I haven’t noticed any of my era or our parents staggering around looking like bewildered troglodytes. Maybe when they hit their nineties your friend’s research will have finally paid off…heh

    • James Mc says:

      09:39am | 04/12/09

      It is and always has been about education. If kids are educated abou sex, drugs, alcohol and the “evils” of life early enough they can make better decsions. And by this I dont mean “fire and brimstone and be damed for all eternity” - I mean harm minimisation. Prohibition has obviously worked so well we are fighting a war in Afghanistan over opium poppies. Tobacco moves into Asia and takes over there. These issues and products don’t go away - we must learn to deal with them. People are always going to make bad choices - but why force the ones who act sensibly to be guilty.

    • Juju says:

      10:01am | 04/12/09

      Well Matt, the difference is that smokers only kill themselves, eventually. Binge or heavy drinkers on the other hand kill, maim, bash, abuse, vomit and assault other people. Only in Utopia is moderate drinking practised, and unfortunalely we don’t live there. We live in an increasingly violent society where some people fill themselves with alcohol and then go out looking for a fight.  IF they just filled themselves with smoke, all they would do is stink.

    • DocBud says:

      12:45pm | 04/12/09

      My wife and I went out to dinner last night with another couple. We got through two bottles of red, three glasses of white wine, a beer and a G & T. We all then went home (where my wife and I had another glass of red). Nobody got killed, maimed, bashed, abused (sorry Kevin Rudd was on the news so there may have been some abuse) or assaulted and there was no vomiting.

      That may be more alcohol than the nannyistas recommend, but as long as we don’t harm anyone else, it is our business and nobody else’s.

    • Dan says:

      04:57pm | 04/12/09

      I have on occasion binged and drank a “heavy” amount of alcohol and have never killed, maimed, bashed, abused anyone (I must admit I have vomited in public a couple of times but I’ve made it to the toilet/bin when it has happened)... Alcohol doesn’t make you violent, being a voilent/angry person makes you voilent, so how about instead of punishing people who can drink without harming others we punish those who can’t with perhaps tougher sentences?

    • Matt says:

      11:12am | 04/12/09

      heaven forbid we come down on drinkers like we did smokers!!

    • beermatt says:

      12:12pm | 04/12/09

      Given you’ve reviewed his papers and checked his data, I’ll accept your word and stop drinking Steve, in the same way that I supported the war in Iraq because Tony Blair had reviewed the intelligence. I’d really like to see some research links…In my last article saying that excessive consumption was bad, had someone discrediting that reearch citing a report sponsored by the Distilled Spirits Industry Council of Australia.

      If you can name for me one substance that humans consume that doesn’t have research showing that it causes cancer in rats, shrinks our brains, makes us impotent or will kill us in some way, I will seriously consider stopping drinking. Just google ‘dihydrogen monoxide’ and you’ll see how dangerous everything is.

    • Steve says:

      04:28pm | 04/12/09

      All of the really substantial research is of course only accessible to subscribers and so I cannot direct you there. However, Google will give you plenty of lay level info. For example, here is one from Science Daily ... “Moderate Alcohol Consumption Linked To Brain Shrinkage” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/12/031205052952.htm

      It is of course true that you cannot blindly trust all peer reviewed scientific research. Other than conflicts of interest, such as the case you mention, there are many cases where we get it wrong for lots of other less sinister reasons. Humility is an essential attribute for a scientist. You need to let people disagree with you strongly, or even tear your work apart, and then then consider their arguments dispassionately and admit it if you were wrong. Some of us find that hard, myself included, so we work hard to be right most of the time to avoid the pain!

      Given that you don’t know me, and that this is not really my area, I will not take your reference to Tony Blair personally, although I did think it a little unfair.

      Yes, all food and drink, even water, can be dangerous in excess or in special cases. The difference however is that the components of a healthy diet can be safely consumed in moderation by most people, whereas there is no safe level of alcohol consumption for anyone. The best you can say is that using it in moderation once you are old enough greatly reduces the risks.

    • beermatt says:

      05:25pm | 04/12/09

      Thanks Steve - and no offence intended, just making the point. Thanks for the moderation of your reply.

      As you can see from the comments, there are strong views on both sides. For me, it comes down to everything in moderation - even moderation. I like barbequed meat, even though apparently the charring is cancerous. I made the point in the article that the sun can kill you and am generally careful…but sometimes I don’t wear a hat. I love a drink - I don’t know at what level that drinking is risky, but I think that at the (generally) moderate amounts that I consume it at that the risk is worthwhile.

      I may not live longer, but I will enjoy my time more.

    • DocBud says:

      12:19pm | 04/12/09

      Spot on, R Duke.

    • James Mc says:

      12:47pm | 04/12/09

      Nice work Matt.

      Whilst filming “The African Queen” only two members of the cast & crew didn’t come down with some form of illness. John Houston and Humphre Bogart. Of Course all they drank in Africa was coffee and Whiskey.

      Take some personal responsibilty for your intake of “everything”. Get the hell out of other peoples lives and reliase there is a consequence for your own actions.

      Why aren’t these part of the 10 commandments.

    • DocBud says:

      01:18pm | 04/12/09

      “With growing medical evidence that the “safe” level of alcohol consumption is lower than has long been thought”

      Being a modern journalist means never having to justify your statements, but please humour me, Matt, and point to some of this growing medical evidence. It obviously doesn’t include this:

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/nov/19/heavy-drinkers-heart-attack-risk

    • BeerMatt says:

      02:12pm | 04/12/09

      @DocBud
      http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/ds10syn.htm

      I have seen the article and report you refer to, but you seem to have missed this paragraph…“Medical professionals warned that while alcohol might reduce the risk of heart attacks, it could damage the heart in other ways while harming other organs, including the liver.” The study does not give alcohol a clear bill of health and the article you cite merely highlights how vexed the issue is.

      If you read the NHMRC report, it is not saying that if you have a night like the one that you described in an earlier comment, then you are certain to be headed for the liver unit, but your RISK of disease or injury increases. That’s all.

      I’m not advocating not drinking nor am I a nanyista. My position is that people should know the risks associated with alcohol and I make the analogy that too much sun can cause skin cancer, but I still go outside and sometimes even without a hat.

      Is your position that drinking as much as you did last night is good for your heart and sustainable every night?

    • DocBud says:

      04:20pm | 04/12/09

      BeerMatt,

      My position is that it is nobody’s business but mine. I resent any laws or policies that are designed to save me from myself. I do not believe that is or should be the role of government. If I choose to go out and get plastered and yet can make my way home without harming anyone or damaging anyone else’s property then I should be free to do so. If I harm someone or commit vandalism then I should be dealt with under laws prohibiting these acts and the fact that I was drunk should not be a mitigating factor.

      As J S Mill put it: “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.”

    • beermatt says:

      05:13pm | 04/12/09

      I agree with the right to choose in a free society DocBud.  What happens though IF long-term heavy alcohol use does actually cause harm. In which case, just as smokers, the cost of a heavy drinker’s choices may end up being borne by me and other more moderate drinking tax payers through medical care and treatment. In which case the heavy drinker may not be harming me, but may be diverting money from my children’s schools or some other better cause, a different sort of injury to property. In this case, is it the role of government’s role to protect light drinkers from heavy drinkers? I don’t know.

      That is the position the government is taking - not just immediate harm, but long term costs to the community. I haven’t seen anything (independent) discrediting the NHMRC report. If anything the comments in this article are that they were pressured into watering them down.

    • DocBud says:

      06:07pm | 04/12/09

      One aspect of that argument, BeerMatt, is that you have to apply it to all behaviours, e.g. distance driven in a year, sports played (or not played, diet, etc. Plus you then have to also way it up against total cost per person, will someone living to 100 cost less than someone drinking themself (supposedly) to an early death and factor in the revenue of all those taxes on alcohol. Then you have the rather nutty problem of answering what, if it is okay to interfere in my life to save the state some money, do we do with those people who are net receivers of state money their entire lives? Furthermore, these studies always talk about “could” and relative risk, there is no certainty.

      Leave me more money in my pocket and I’ll be more than happy to assume the risk myself.

      Most of the medical studies are epidemiological studies and suffer from preconceived science, i.e. they set out to prove a preconceived truth.

    • DocBud says:

      06:09pm | 04/12/09

      PS Must dash, I’ve got a Christmas dinner to go to.

      More work supporting the good people of the Barossa Valley and Speyside.

    • SteveB says:

      02:37pm | 04/12/09

      The problem with this path is that with smoking ‘every cigarette is doing you damage’ but with alcohol there are safe levels of consumption - Sorry Mr Matt, Fail!

      The published “Safe” drinking guidelines were watered down by the Government, because, get this, people wouldn’t take them seriously, the Cancer Council originally did want guidlines to say that “Every drink increases your risk of cancer” and that there is therefore no ‘Safe’ level of alcohol consumption any more that there is ‘Safe’ level of smoking, just “Less Risky” vs “More Risky”.

      And think now, while you are sober, about just how low those “safe” levels are, and therefore just how dangerous everyone’s favourite drug is. The difference between “Less Risky and Very Risky (ie binge drinking) is 2 units, if you and your partner finish one bottle of wine (8 units) in one evening, that’s in the “Very Risky” category, you’re both binging. Same for a six pack of full strength beer.

      Literally, by the time you can feel the effect of alcohol, you have passed the “Safe” level.

      And all the while, our governments tell us we must spend billions on prohibition of other drugs because they’re dangerous??

    • BeerMatt says:

      03:34pm | 04/12/09

      Every sun exposure is risky too Steve, but do you want to spend your life in a darkened room?

    • SteveB says:

      11:41am | 07/12/09

      No Mr Matt, in fact I’ve even been sunburnt before!! I’m going to go outside shortly with no hat!!

      But I’m not the one saying that there is a “Safe” level of exposure when I know there is not.

      It’s just PC dribble, a master(batory) stroke from the crew that works so hard to maintain the artificial separation of Alcohol from other recreational drugs.

    • Tony Cooper says:

      02:52pm | 04/12/09

      So what’s next - after reducing/banning/demonising alcahol?

      Give me a break! I’m 55 and I can tell you it’s not as bad now as it used to be.

      How many of you remember when there were pubs on every city intersection which were always packed after work.

      At night and on weekends everyone used to pile into cars, go to the pub then drive home pissed.

      So what’s changed - a lot.

      The major issue here is that it is now “not the norm” so when they do let their hair down - shock and horror - garbage I say.

      Pubs are gone so it seems to be a higher concentration at venues (night clubs etc..)

      And…......  The media love it

    • Bob says:

      06:30am | 06/12/09

      ‘Sadly the pewter beer tankard has fallen out of fashion.’ - yes, glassing has taken its place.

    • david says:

      09:56pm | 19/12/09

      Well Matt, you certainly have some nutters reading your blog now. Better you than me! I was going to say why bother participating in the debate - there is no point arguing with some people. But then we need someone to fight the good fight so please keep up the good work and positive messages.

    • JenkinsRhea says:

      07:46pm | 02/08/10

      When you are in a not good position and have no money to move out from that, you would have to receive the mortgage loans. Just because that would help you for sure. I get sba loan every single year and feel myself good because of this.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter