That’s it. We’ve arrived at what is officially termed the Dizzy Limit.

Welcome to Sydney, can we offer you some Fanta?

NSW Police, warming to their recent self-appointment as a freelance social policy think tank, trustee of public morality and holy rolling temperance society, have announced that Australia Day should be as dry as the Nullarbor Plain. Starting now.

They have reasonable cause. Shockingly, some people treat such occasions as an opportunity to get on the squirt and a small minority of those consequently get stupid and some proportion of those play up and a fraction of those become violent and commit felonies.

There’s an old-fashioned cynic in some of us who thinks, once things get to that final phase, it’s the job of the wallopers – well, sworn duty to be blunt – to step in and restore order, issue warnings, make arrests. It’s not a job I envy and I’d never sign up to do it. It’s tough, scary, dangerous and thoroughly distasteful. No, for that kind of task you need to call the coppers. Trained specialists.

Lately however, it has become fashionable for senior police to complain endlessly about such duty. They don’t want to do it anymore and have the solution. Instead of that six pack and barbequed chop you were planning to enjoy with your friends on a sunny summer public holiday, you can have a prayer meeting, a cup of herbal tea and a free lecture.

As night follows day, this will thwart the aforementioned minority whose natural inclination to nasty violence is only waiting for the provocation of large-scale picnicking by their fellow citizens to light them up into homicidal drunken rage. If only we all stay indoors and drink plenty of water against the heat, these lunatics will have no choice but to do the same.

This will free massive police resources for the important work of issuing parking fines, servicing the water cannon and reviewing security procedures for future APEC meetings till they’re so tight that Sportingbet won’t be able to offer better than even money that if the car really has Osama Bin Laden in it next time, NSW’s finest will twig before he gets to the door of the Presidential suite.

And the plaintive whinge goes further. It rewrites history. It claims we are awash in a toxic sea of binge drinking psychosis that materialised out of nowhere in the last 5 or 10 years. 

There were never fights in pubs in the old days. Or outside them at closing time. Never violent misfits who were made even worse by alcohol while normal people were trying to enjoy a couple of drinks in company with the friends and workmates. There was never a truly disgusting ‘6 o’clock swill’ tradition of men furiously guzzling and regurgitating schooners in a race against the clock till they had to line saloon bars with ceramic tiles so they could be hosed out each night. Importantly, that hideous episode of Aussie history was a direct product of the last time the temperance crew had their pure white hands on the policy reins and forced pubs to close before dinner time.

Citizens, it’s time to take a stand. Well, in fact we should sit. On the grass. In Hyde Park. Next to our eskies. On Australia Day. All day.

And drink.

We should drink and tell stories. We should drink and eat chops. Drink and laugh. Drink and talk about our feelings and relationships (girls). Drink and ramble meaninglessly with no discernable point (boys). Drink and play music on our iPods (not too loud). Drink and throw footies to our kids and drop them when they throw them back. Drink and mind our own business and not disturb others or spoil their day or trample on their right to quiet enjoyment of the park too.

We should drink freezing cold, full-strength beer until the ice melts or the meat is cooked, then drag several corks out of some half decent shiraz to go with the snag sangers. But we should drink till we are bat-faced. Rolling, giggling, foolish, embarrassing, should-know-better-at-our-age, snot-flying shickered.

Then we’ll pack up our stuff, put our rubbish in the bins and decamp the scene in a homewardly direction for a couple of quiet ones in front of the tele. We’ll travel by taxi and train because, though half cut, we are nonetheless decent citizens and we are not criminals who would sling the kids in the back of the car and drive home while holding higher than the prescribed content of alcohol in our bloodstreams (like all our parents used to).

And if, on that train, we should come across some moron who thinks it’s okay not just to be drunk, but to be aggressive, anti-social, threatening or violent, we will hope that there will be members of the NSW police to step in, because we pay our taxes to support the biggest, best funded and best paid police force in the country and we’re entitled to expect them to act against criminal behaviour.

And so we will go safely and blamelessly home. And fall asleep in front of the tele. And wake up crook and drag ourselves to work hung-over. And be proud.

Because we’re Australians. And it’s Australia Day.

117 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Dave C says:

      06:32am | 15/01/10

      I’ll drink to that.

      Seriously its an issue on “new rules banning everyone from doing something because a small minority give the rest of us a bad name”

      Essentially the police need to have more powers to take drunk people who are anti social loud rude and abusive (the minority) into the paddy wagon and give them a touch up. While the rest of us you are pissed and behave ourselves can have a good time.

      But the human rights activists and their defence lawyer scum mates wont have any of that will they???

    • T.Chong says:

      07:10am | 15/01/10

      Thats the way Dave C, encourage coppers to beat people up even more than they currently do. Some officers ,specially in WA and QLD would actually hope youre serios.
      Author Ross, do any of your “ill defined” duties for the advertise agency include promotions for alcohol or pubs ?

    • Gary Cox says:

      07:12am | 15/01/10

      Bloody oath. Good article. This country is becoming ridiculously over regulated. I thought it was supposed be a democratic country.

    • Steve Dumaine says:

      07:28am | 15/01/10

      It was a request by email, not a direction, not an order, not command, a request.  What you can’t ask anyone anything anymore?  Was I entitled to ask that? (or that?)

    • Bail Money says:

      07:31am | 15/01/10

      Could we do a study on how many bloggers here bagging the Police later get arrested on Australia Day?

    • Dave C says:

      07:37am | 15/01/10

      T Chone when I was alot younger I engaged in alot of “binge drinking” as young single men are want to do. We would get pissed as pass then walk home or get taxies (or if in the cities) get public transport home. Never ever during this time did I ever engage in any violent stupid behavior. What I did see were other drunks engaging in such behavior and getting away with it due to zero police presence. My favorite was in a train in Melbourne when one drunk smashed a window and then when the train got to his station he got off and walked away.

      I dont do stupid things when pissed so if people do let the cops have the power to deal with them rather than stopping everyone from drinking and having a good time.

      Personally I think the cops should have a register of people who have that “I know my rights you cant touch me” mentality when dealing with them when they area accused of a crime and then when their house is broken into or car stolen or property stolen or vandalized the police can say “oh I’m sorry we cant help if would infringe upon the rights of the person who did this”

      I dont steal or vandalize cars or other peoples property I dont smoke or grow weed or any other dugs and I dont get myself into a situation where I am close to those who do. When pissed I avoid fights and walk away from idiots who want to start them.

      Therefore I think those who have to deal with such scum (cops) should have as much power as possible to deal with criminal anti social behavior properly on behalf of the law abiding people who become victims of petty crime.

    • Joe Stephens says:

      07:40am | 15/01/10

      “There were never fights in pubs in the old days”? ... really? There weren’t any fights Ross?

      By the way, wasn’t this request: not to serve full strength beer before 2pm? Seems reasonable, but surely we can always find a way to turn it into controversy… NO BEER ON AUSTRALIA DAY! That will sell newspapers.

    • Andrew Goff says:

      07:43am | 15/01/10

      From Victoria, Drinking related crime went up 45% last year.

      Interesting, a new crime was introduced called “Public Drunkeness”.

      Which, amazingly, accounts for more than the 45% increase.

      The crime? Being drunk in public. Not throwing up, shouting, or “doing” anything.

      The police created a new law, which inflated drunken violence figures, which they are now using to say *head asplodes*

    • Chris says:

      07:46am | 15/01/10

      I am sure the Police who sent the e-mail requesting the restriction are rational human beings who would have seen the futility of their actions. Unfortunately in this climate of perception beats reality, it can be said that they are doing something (regardless of its effectiveness and ultimate shredding of credibility). People can then take the moral high ground without actually fixing the problem.
      I tell you what it makes for a nice distratcion to range of other issues that are causing embarrassment for our dear leaders.

    • Bill Cross says:

      07:53am | 15/01/10

      The socialist left loonies will be cheering. We’re now paying for too many years of pink government in all States where law and order policies have softened to the point that louts know all they’ll get is a slap on the wrist from the socialist judiciary; And if they are immigrants, not even that. And they want to ban us from “wearing” the Australian flag on Australia Day; Now the communists are cheering too!

    • T.Chong says:

      08:06am | 15/01/10

      Dave C: you idulged, fine, law abidding- great.  Suppose someone misinterpretted your bonhominie for anti social behavior, called police and they convinced you via physical violence to be a good boy?
      You cant seriosly have a system where people are subject to physical violence via police. 1 punch in the face for swearing?, broken nose for protesting your innocence?
      You seem to imply that if the law finds someonre not guilty, than they still some how are?
      A register for people who “know their rights” ?pretty big list, hopefully everyone would know their rights.
      Your system of state sanctioned physical violence, along with a register of
      “trouble makers” who should have less protection sounds like a police state.

    • BMJ says:

      08:07am | 15/01/10

      It’s funny that the media have been peddling this whole binge drinking epidemic and now that consequences might affect them they get all shirty.

      What the Police are demanding is laughable. They are here to police, not to make/suggest policy. The binge drinkers will drink find a way to binge either way.

    • Elizabeth says:

      08:09am | 15/01/10

      Joe, I think you missed the very, very obvious sarcasm in Ross’ comment.

      Ross you’re 100% on the money. I’m not a big drinker, but I reserve my right to be if I choose, because if I do drink I don’t vandalise property, bash up my fellow partiers, urinate in public or do any of the things the police are against.

      I agree the cops have a tough job, but putting these bans on everyone will only impact on those of us who are law-abiding. It won’t stop the drunken yobbos who do the wrong thing.

    • Stephen says:

      08:10am | 15/01/10

      To Joe Stephens and Steve Dumaine,

      Remember that the NSW Police enforce licensing regulations so their request is not just a request - it is a ‘nudge and wink, why don’t you want to do the right thing’ request by the people who can decide to visit licensed premises as often as they like, and then check that all the paperwork is in the right sleeve in the right folder, and that every patron is over the legal age.  And do so night after night. 

      And it is not a reasonable request if you like a VB but not a VB lite, and you have never swung a punch at anyone in your life - sober or drunk.

    • Sky Williams says:

      08:11am | 15/01/10

      Bloody well said. Be Australian, be proud of it, but don’t be a wanker. Thats all it comes down to. A little bit of common sense goes a long way. bring on Australia Day.

    • Jamers Hunter says:

      08:21am | 15/01/10

      no blanket bans that sounds too muchlike china and google.
      every group of drunks there are to or three trouble makers.
      The police should crack down hard on them and the courts should follow up none of this “no sentence recorded,smake on hand be a good person in the future 100 days good behaviour” should have income related fines so the fat cats suffer same as the battlers should be compulsory community service and all community service should entail a destinctive bright uniform, say a yelloy and black striped dust coat. with “I an learning what an idiot i am” stencilled fron and back. also all offendersm should have their name and picture in the local papers. ie papers local to where they live. and every month there should be a national publication as a stuffer in all the week end papers with the names pics and offence so we can all have a read. if real fines and public humiliation dont work then the second time chuck em in rehab for a month and then the community work. no exceptions.

    • Peter Hatsworthy says:

      08:21am | 15/01/10

      It seems even the NSW Government is giving this one a wide berth which probably indicates just how wacky it is.

    • Helen says:

      08:46am | 15/01/10

      Bill Cross, do you just blame everything on the “pinkos”??
      I’d call myself a leftie, but I love a good drink, a good barbie (with meat sausages, not tofu), and i think this government is a crock of sh!t as well.
      Come on, if you want to start commie bashing, at least find some real commies.  This government hasn’t been left wing for years.

    • Dave C says:

      08:49am | 15/01/10

      T Chong I have never condoned actual punch in the face police violence. What I meant is the right for the police to arrest, detain for a few hours and if need be charge violent drunk idiots and then not have those idiots then claim police brutality as they are thrown in the paddy wagon calling the police “F- - king Pig C - -Ts. Or as they are being arrested calling out “you cant f—king touch me I will sue you for police harassment this is a police state you fucking copper c—ts”

      No not everyone knows their rights and the right of innocent until proven guilty should always apply. What annoys me however are defence lawyers stopping juries from ever hearing evidence that proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt in the first place because of minor technicalities. It happens all the time victims never get justice because of the “rights of the accused” taking precedence over the rights of the victim.

      Now I am not officially advocating a register of people who get less help from the cops. I just find it amazing however that those people who I described being arrested in the lines above would be the ones who then wanted police help when they are a victim of crime, they are not calling them f—king pig copper c—ts then are they the hypocrisy is amazing.

      No I am not advocating a police state either but the legal system has gone too far (thanks to defence lawyers and human rights activists) in favor of accused criminals instead of the victims of crimes and their families this is both in minor stuff (drunken stupid behavior) and in more serious stuff (rape assault murder) The best example is when the person who sold Anna Wood the Extacy (spelling) got off because solicitor Chris Murphy successfully argued that the victim dies of drinking too much water. 

      Essentially when defence lawyers and criminals play start playing by the rules then so should the police.

    • Zeta says:

      09:07am | 15/01/10

      @ Dave C - I simply can’t abide anyone slandering the reputation of Sydney’s finest gangland lawyer and renaissance man. Chris Murphy never defended Anna Wood’s drug dealer, Anna Wood’s drug dealer was never arrested. Chris Murphy published a statement on the internet (it was 1996, so you couldn’t really call it a blog, he was way ahead of the curve) that simply raised the issue that Anna Wood died of a cerebral oedema as a result of water intoxication which may or may not have been caused by MDMA and thus the charge of manslaughter would not have legs if her dealer were prosecuted.

    • Micko says:

      09:09am | 15/01/10

      II find it disturbing that even though Commissioner Scipione has very strong and well known personal views on the subject of alcohol (he is a tee totalling Hill Song attendee) that this has not automatically disqualified him as a serious commentator on this issue.  I think his personal views are affecting his approach, and now that of the entire NSW Police Force, on this issue.

      The role of the police is to enforce the law, not make policy.  Their request for bottle shops to shut down is absurd and inappropriate.  The police have stepped way of the line—and if there was any kind of half decent government in this state they would be firmly slapped down.

    • Lisa says:

      09:17am | 15/01/10

      In my life. I have probably been drunk around 500 times and have gotten violent zero times.  That’s pretty good odds.

      Cheers!

    • DG says:

      09:25am | 15/01/10

      Ahh yes our well preserved right to get paralytic.

      There are two options here - a police presence to arrest and remove trouble makers (after all that why they have guns, tasers, capsicum spray, handcuffs, baton and the training to use them to subdue persons that are doing the wrong thing) or a “Please don’t drink” message.

      Now, the people that have responsibility for carrying out the first option have a vested interest in the second option - after all it makes their job easier. Less people intoxicated should result in less people committing crime.

      Of course that assumes that the people that consume alcohol and then go and beat up innocent by-standers are the people that will follow such a direction.

      A few more public humiliation sentences should do the job - sandwich boards (or fluoro T’shirts) reading “I can’t handle my drink”, “I have no self control” or “I’m the sort of person that gets drunk and assaults people”. And to add to the penalty - the person must wear the shirt/sandwich board for a specified period (including to work). If that means they lose their job so be it (just like drink drivers may lose their job as a result of their loss of licence).

      Of course it’s not the drinking that is the problem - it’s the assaults (already a crime), vandalism (already a crime) and dangerous behaviour (already a crime if it endangers another person). So really, it’s a matter of police doing their job. Arrest those that break the law and let everyone else do their thing.

    • H of SA says:

      09:26am | 15/01/10

      It seems to me the argument that goes along the lines of “the police are paid to deal with the louts so they should just deal with the louts” while logically fine - falls appart when subjected to the scrutiny of how it applies in real life.

      As the author points out, no-one wants to have to deal with drunk yobs all day. And you can tell them, its your job so suck it up and no we won’t try to control public drinking anymore even if it does make your job a bit easier.

      You can tell them that….......and see how many of them stay in the force.

      In the end you can yell at people that they need to accept their crappy conditions….but they don’t. There are plenty of other jobs besideds police officer where people will listen to requests that would make your job easier.

      You can tell people to do a job, but if they are unwilling you can’t force them. Police are having trouble getting enough recruits btw.

    • T.Chong says:

      09:38am | 15/01/10

      Lisa: getting drunk, not just drinking 500 times, no probs. Add the gender factor, then for many it becomes cute, and “you go girl”
      If a harry user wrote “hit the hammer,on the nod 500 times” most would say
      your a loser, nothing to write about.
      Not a personal attack on you Lisa, Im just trying to show the strange community attitude to one intoxicating substance vs another.
      Only difference is one is legal because a govt agency taxes it, while with harry, or speed, smoko,everyone taxes it. Including many law enforcement officers.

    • JeffK says:

      09:40am | 15/01/10

      The tired old bash the Police blog, the saviour of every news site.  Were blog numbers down this week?

    • Zeta says:

      09:44am | 15/01/10

      @ Micko - Commissioner Scipione, or Skippy as he’s probably known; does not attend Hillsong. He attends a small Baptist church and that doesn’t mean he should be disqualified from commentating on the alcohol related violence problem on Sydney’s streets. Because apart from denying the sanctity of Mary and speaking in tongues every now and then, he also happens to be a Police Officer who’s probably seen more drunken hooliganism than all of the Punch’s commentators combined.

      I don’t like the Fun Police any more than the rest of you, but Australia is really starting to look like the dodgy alcoholic Uncle that no one bothers to host an intervention for. We have a drinking problem, and a quick tour around the other drinking capitals of the world will tell you that much. Even in the UK, where a pint of cider at the supermarket will set you back 34pp is drunkeness no where near the epidemic proportions we’re reaching. There are brothels in Amsterdam with more moderation than Australian wine bars. And in the US, which fought and won their right to drink freely from the prohibitionists, they treat that right with a degree of temperence.

      I blame our drinking problem not on what we drink, but where and how we drink it. We don’t have a concept for a ‘time and a place’ when it comes to getting properly wankered. For example: crustcore-punk concerts are a good place to drink an entire bottle Benadryl, chase it with a pint of Jack Daniels and start a fight. People won’t really mind, in fact, you’ll add to the general ambiance of a few hundred people slam dancing and yelling ‘Oi’. Australia Day, ostensibly a family celebration of our nationhood, might not be a good place to get shit faced and start shoving people. Just a thought.

    • Jolanda says:

      09:59am | 15/01/10

      So now our Government restricts us from engaging in legal activities like smoking and drinking but provides brochures on how to safely take illegal drugs and injection rooms for herion addicts and needles for those who want to shoot up illegal drugs.  I think there needs to be a Royal Commision into our Governments agenda.

      Education - Keeping them Honest
      http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/

    • Droppa Jameson says:

      10:00am | 15/01/10

      Wouldn’t the police resources be better deployed by actually building better relationships with the licencees by visiting the pubs / bottle shops, identifying the potential troublemakers in advance, and then have the info to isolate the troublesmakers before they start acting up.

    • Dave C says:

      10:13am | 15/01/10

      Zeta I stand corrected, the face that no one was charged with supplier her the drug says alot about the Legal System when it comes to Alcohol and other drugs. As Jolanda says “our Government restricts us from engaging in legal activities like smoking and drinking but provides brochures on how to safely take illegal drugs and injection rooms for herion addicts and needles for those who want to shoot up illegal drugs” honestly WTF have we done as a society have we done to achieve this?????

      Let those who wanna drink and get drunk do it and when the minority start to play up give the cops and the courts the power to deal with them effectively. AS for Illegal Drugs we should have penalties that apply in Asian countries such as Singapore (if you behave yourself you will always be safe there) or Indonesia. That would be more appropriate that the slap on the wrist mentality we have in this country.

      Simple really

    • Dan says:

      10:17am | 15/01/10

      defence lawyer scum mates Dave C? You do realise that defence lawyers serve a valuable role in our legal system? You also realise that since you essentially incited violence, if you were to have been arrested, you would be represented by a defence lawyer. Also, as for human right activists,  these people would be defending your right to spout such nonsence!

    • SM says:

      10:18am | 15/01/10

      The problem of excessive drinking by a minority resulting in alcohol related violence and crime will continue so long as the conflict of interest that exists by having those who make a profit from selling alcohol also charged with the responsibility of regulating its sale remains. 

      Emails sent to bottle shops asking them to voluntarily make less money are laughable

    • Amelie says:

      10:23am | 15/01/10

      The people who are outraged about this are the same ones who will blame the Police the moment they get beaten up on their way home by a druken fool.

      The Police are the enforcers of the law, not the creators of culture and while this request irritates my sense of personal freedoms there is a bigger thing at stake here. This is an attempt to deal with a serious problem - one that it’s hard to know the full extent of without being part of it.

      I thought I knew what the streets were like late at night, I’d had nights out with friends and gotten up to drunken shenanigans but the violence the Police are trying to deal with is another thing entirely.

      I know about it now becuase as a partner of a Police officer in Sydney’s city area I help wash the blood and spit off my partner’s uniform and sit and listen to the horrific things that our Police see and deal with. I worry about the next time my partner will be hurt again by an idiot who couldn’t opbey a simple instruction to move on and how bad the next injury will be, or if the Police will make it in time before an innocent bystander is hurt again.

      We need to have a serious discussion about alcohol related violence in this country, and whether we’re prepared to give Police greater powers and change our laws to prevent hooliganism or if we are prepared to put up with the violence, declining police numbers and increased crime. What we don’t need is another stupid and reflexive blast at the cops who are already copping enough.

    • DG says:

      10:27am | 15/01/10

      T.Chong (10:38am | 15/01/10)

      The difference IS that one is legal an the other is not. There are plenty of instances where using one substance over another is illegal. There’s a whole range of drugs and chemicals that are illegal to posses and use not just the recreational ones but also some with medical uses.

      Further the legality is not linked to the taxation - if it were the Govt would simply tax those other substances and legalise them. The reason that they don’t do that is because the public are, generally, apathetic when it comes to weed and the likes. They certainly aren’t going to change their vote just so that their neighbour can light up their doobie in the street when they are more concerned about hospital funding, roads especially when the other party then starts wheeling out the “Soft on crime - they couldn’t stop these criminals so they have decided to legalise their behaviour” line for the papers. Now the medical consequences of the drugs are a bit up in the air - I must admit that most of the material I have read tend towards the opinion that the illegal drugs (marijuana, ecstasy, heroin and the likes)  are generally more harmful than the legal ones (caffeine, alcohol etc).  Anyway, this is beside the point - the stigma and public reaction, associated with the use of illegal drugs is one of social expectation (compliance with the law) together with generations of being told that the drug is illegal and using it is a bad thing (like most social conscience issues) and general social conditioning.

      If you want to argue for the legalisation of recreational drugs - go ahead and do that. But remember getting on the gear that is illegal and claiming it shouldn’t be illegal is no different (legally) to having sex with 15 year olds while lobbying for a decrease in the age of consent. In both cases you are breaking the law while lobbying for your behaviour to be decriminalised. You are currently comparing the social response to illegal behaviour to the social response to legal behaviour and some how claim that they should have the same public reception because the only difference is the drug of choice).

    • S.L says:

      10:27am | 15/01/10

      As I usually work on Australia Day (no I’m not a cop) the thought of some drunken nobody trying to get me to kiss the Australian or Eureka flag drapped around their neck makes me sick when you don’t know where it’s been.
      I guarantee this year will be no different to the last 4 or 5 years since the Cronulla incident. We’ll have a bunch of drunk teenagers and 20 somethings singing the national anthem (or what they know of it) then look for some happless non Anglo to hassle or assualt. Then that night when these morons are home crashed out infront of the TV looking forward to the hangover that’s coming on a bunch of “young men of middle eastern or mediteranian appearance” will head on down with the intent too extract “revenge” on anyone they find, usually a straggler that hasn’t gone home yet. At least the editors won’t be scratching for a headline on wednesday…....

    • Chase Stevens says:

      10:30am | 15/01/10

      @Jolanda et al.

      It’s not like there aren’t brochures etc. on how to drink properly you know and there are more restrictions on the illegal drugs because… you know they’re illegal.

      Plus I’d rather people - especially teenagers - have access to information on how to do drugs the ‘safe way’, because if and when an adult or a teenager or whoever does honestly decide to experiment they should be able to make an informed decision from a trustworthy source. I suppose you’d rather them turn to the internet where they can read up on how in fact the drugs are not bad for them and they shouldn’t worry?

      Time to look at the whole picture instead of looking for silly agenda’s methinks.

    • haggis says:

      10:31am | 15/01/10

      Reluctant to get killed? Don’t join the defence forces. You don’t like doing police work. Don’t join the police. You don’t like the policy? Speak to your parliamentary rep.

    • H of SA says:

      10:33am | 15/01/10

      Amelie…...hear hear. Especially your last paragraph that says it best.

    • Dave C says:

      10:36am | 15/01/10

      Dan, when you read books such as Paul Sheehans “Girls like you” that quote word for word the cross examination of Tegan Wagner who was gang raped by the “K” brothers you will understand why I call defence lawyers scum. It is said that Rape victims are raped a second time you know - mentally raped by the defence lawyers in court. As for victims of child rape and their cross examination, wow lets not go there.

      BTW how the F*#k am I inciting violence by vigorously arguing a point of view???

      The other point is that juries often do not get to hear crucial evidence that proves a crime beyond reasonable doubt because of defence lawyers. Or the lawyers simply create doubt by making up crap, OJ Simpsons “if this glove dont fit you cant commit” by Cochrane was another great example.

      If this stopped happening and all evidence was included then police would not be calling for bans on alcohol and other like stunts

    • Zeta says:

      10:36am | 15/01/10

      @ Dave C - Right, because it’s really recreational drugs that are the cause of the nightly chaos in our metropolitan areas, so let’s get some Singaporean jurists in to sort them out. If people have the right to drink and get drunk, so long as they do so responsibly, why don’t they have the right to take drugs and get high? After all, you’re more likely to hug a stranger and end up having a four hour introspective deep and meaningful on your place in the universe and the nature of love on drugs, than on alcohol, where you’re more likely to either: get punched, punch someone else, punch your domestic partner, be punched by your domestic partner, or else be in a car accident and if you’re an NRL footballer - all of the above.

      I would rather stumble home from a Kings Cross where everyone was on MDMA, than stumble home from a Kings Cross where everone had a skinful and mistook Darlinghurst Road for their own personal Octagon.

      (I wonder if the NSW Crime Commission are sending out an email to their list of sanctioned drug dealers asking them to sell less drugs on Australia Day?)

    • Chase Stevens says:

      10:37am | 15/01/10

      I think that if Australia wants to solve it’s Alcohol related violence it needs to get to the root of the problem. That is to identify and solve a majority of the problems causing people to have this anger and violent tendencies before they start drinking. Because honestly it’s not the Alcohol that is making people violent it’s whatever problems they’re dragging along with them when they visit the watering hole.

    • DocBud says:

      11:03am | 15/01/10

      @ Dave C

      “BTW how the F*#k am I inciting violence by vigorously arguing a point of view???”

      So when you said in your very first comment:

      “Essentially the police need to have more powers to take drunk people who are anti social loud rude and abusive (the minority) into the paddy wagon and give them a touch up.”

      you meant “touch up” to mean sexual abuse if you didn’t mean physical abuse? I’m pretty sure it could never mean to apply due process.

      You should stop wasting time censoring your foul language, in your third comment tou rather amusingly let one slip through uncensored and the moderators didn’t seem to mind.

    • hic says:

      11:08am | 15/01/10

      sorry orificer, if im legally drunk…. then whats the problem?

    • T.Chong says:

      11:14am | 15/01/10

      DG: our beloved Abbott conceded he tried the evil weed (along with 100s of thousands of others) are you really suggesting Abbott is the moral equivalent of a pedophile? I wouldnt.
      Agree with Zeta. A room fullof cone heads just want to listen to The Angels, eat a Mars Bar ,can of coke and mumble. Whos ever been beaten up in unprovoked violence from coneys. Cant say the same about alcohol users.

    • Chewy says:

      11:17am | 15/01/10

      I just dont understand when will the media, police and pollies get the fact the problem is not alcohol but idiots. There is no such thing as alcohol related violence, there is idiot related violence.
      What about this glassing rubbish, the more the media harps on, the more it puts ideas into empty heads, the more it happens.

    • Gareth says:

      11:20am | 15/01/10

      Superb article Ross, only through such common sense journalism will we ever have any hope of turning this tide of unwanted intervention on personal freedoms. I suspect your picnic in Hyde park will be surrounded by a ring of police officers but, eh,  enjoy.
      BTW, to those of you commenting on the ‘lack of police resources’, just on Wednesday I left my suburban office to see a line of 8 police officers following a sniffer dog down the street, at 5.30pm! I hope Lucky enjoyed the exercise. Lack of resources? Maybe they just need to juggle the roster a bit. Every year, this place ends up a little more like the Deutsche Demokratische Republik. I’m ready to emigrate (ironically, perhaps, to Berlin).

    • Ben says:

      11:25am | 15/01/10

      Can anyone tell me the current legal definition of what constitutes public drunkenness, or more accurately the grounds for being charged with public drunkenness? Ie can you be nicked for walking home drunk from the pub? Do you have to be doing something anti-social?

      I think Sky Williams had it close to the mark.

      Police shouldn’t have to waste their time babysitting drunks or safeguarding people against drunks, yet it’s a shitty (not to mention high risk) job they have to do and get very little respect from the public for having to do it.

      You can suggest people take it a bit easy on Oz Day, but you can guarantee that the wankers will still be wankers.

    • New year's day reveller says:

      09:55am | 19/01/10

      Yes Ben, you can! I say this as it has happened to me. I imbibed a few too many drinks on new years day and was walking home from a hotel when I realised that it was really time to call it a day. I had walked about 10m from the hotel and was still only probably less than a couple of kilometers from home when I was approached by the police and asked where I was going. Told them I was walking home. They asked me to get in the back of the divisional van and they would drive me to the address I was staying at. At all times, my demeanour was cheerful and happy, a fact the police even attested to when I made a follow-up phone call a couple of days later. I was not abusive, I was not vomiting, I was fully conscious and I was able to walk unassisted. But admittedly, I was quite intoxicated. Once we arrived there, the police went inside and saw that the only people home were two of my also intoxicated friends. They said they would not allow me to stay at the house because they had taken me into protective custody and my two friends were not fit to take custody of me. The police then took me to the watch house, locked me up for four hours, and then sent me on my way to walk home, with a $234 fine for being drunk in public. I found it odd that the police would instruct me to walk home in an unfamiliar place (I was staying with a friend on holidays) when they had taken me into custody for my own protection.
      Anyway, we can argue the merits of whether what occurred was fair until the cows come home. . . for me, and others, it is a cautionary tale of what can occur if you don’t keep your wits about you and watch your intake. Get merry and enjoy yourself by all means (and this was new year’s day! most people would imbide more than a glass of milk on such an occasion!). But this is the power the police have in this day and age, so we do need to watch ourselves.

    • DG says:

      11:25am | 15/01/10

      Dave C (11:36am | 15/01/10)

      Nice try but it is the judges who decide which evidence is admissible, not the defence. If it were the defence I assure you a lot less evidence would get into court and you certainly wouldn’t need prisons.

      When a lawyer makes a statement to the effect of the one you mentioned they are trying to tell the jury something. Now if the jury are so stupid that they get taken in by such lines then it is really the intellect of your peers that is the problem rather than the defence.

      Having said that, if the police say “This is the glove that the offender was wearing”, it seems only logical that the offender could not have been a person that could not wear the glove (i.e if the glove didn’t fit). It’s basically the Cinderella story - I.e if the shoe doesn’t fit it can’t be Cinderella. 

      And I think you’ll find the issue with OJ was that all of the evidence was included. i.e if they had left out the evidence that the glove didn’t fit he may have been convicted…. I doubt it, but any way…

    • Dan says:

      11:34am | 15/01/10

      Dave C, firstly the lawyers need to do whatever is legally allowed to further their client’s interests. If you don’t like it, balme the law, don’t balme the defenxe lawyers who are doing an incredibly important job. However, considering your contribution on another topic,  I’m not surprised you would attack lawyers; you don’t care about the rule of law at all!

      Also, what do you call ‘give them a touch up’?! If that’s not inciting violence, I don’t know what is.

      Defence lawyers are not scum. Unlike you, they are contributing to society.

    • Dan says:

      11:34am | 15/01/10

      Dave C, firstly the lawyers need to do whatever is legally allowed to further their client’s interests. If you don’t like it, balme the law, don’t balme the defenxe lawyers who are doing an incredibly important job. However, considering your contribution on another topic,  I’m not surprised you would attack lawyers; you don’t care about the rule of law at all!

      Also, what do you call ‘give them a touch up’?! If that’s not inciting violence, I don’t know what is.

      Defence lawyers are not scum. Unlike you, they are contributing to society.

    • DG says:

      11:38am | 15/01/10

      T.Chong (12:14pm | 15/01/10)

      Firstly a paedophile targets prepubescent individuals rather than 15 year olds. Secondly I certainly wouldn’t see anything “morally” wrong with a couple of 15 year olds having sex, or a 15 and a 16 year old. Finally, I did indicate that my comment was one of legality (as opposed to morality) hence my comment that it is “no different (legally)”.

      But nice try. You ignored everything that I mentioned with one exception and you deliberately took that comment out of context. Do you work in politics? Having said that I don’t think all that much of Abbots morality - I don’t care about his morality at all. But If he admits to criminal behaviour…. there only sort of person who commits criminal behaviour - criminals.

      I would find it most ironic if a person who has demonstrated that they hold little regard for the law (by deliberately breaking the law) would then take a job making law and seeking to bind others to the law that he so willingly ignored.

    • Bill says:

      11:52am | 15/01/10

      Ben,

      A danger to yourself or a danger to others because of your intoxication constitutes drunkeness.

    • Jack says:

      11:59am | 15/01/10

      as usual in New South Wales a good part of the problem is that state employees, in this case the police, have convinced themselves that they are responsible for state policy, and the government let them do so.

      Ross is right, get a skinful, just don’t give the drink a bad name.

      Zeta, easily the most dangerous people to be around these days are the idiots taking ice.

    • Dave C says:

      12:01pm | 15/01/10

      Actually I apologize for the bad language or usage of it. When I vigorously argue a point I shouldn’t use it.

      Yes I am advocating using physical force not violenceby police officers trying to arrest a drunken idiot or idiots verbally abusing them ( ie swearing at them using names that I mentioned earlier). Thats what I was saying by a touch up. The cops who spend all day trying to protect the pubic should be able to (using batons tazers etc) use force to enforce the law quickly and efficiently.

      Now then of course you get Pat O’Shane who ruled that its not illegal to swear at a police officer, by that rational it should then be legal to swear at judges like Bilaf Scaff did when he was sentenced (I declare my innocent until the day i die you C… there we go again swearing but I was quoting word for word what he said) but I digress.

      If a police officer is violent in using physical force when apprehending an offender who doesnt want to cooperate and is verbally abusing them in the process then so be it.

      As for the rules of evidence thing yes the judges are gutless for not allowing juries to see all the evidence of the case. Whilst this happens victims or rape and families of murder victims dont get justice. Its a great world isnt it.

    • Jimbo Jones says:

      12:09pm | 15/01/10

      @Amelia - bravo, spot on.

    • maurice says:

      12:12pm | 15/01/10

      Well written, amusing article. Pity about a lot of the comments written after. One would hope that bathos and aggro were not part of the Australian character - perhaps we’ll get there one day. Put the wowsers on boats and send them to Canada or New Zealand, somewhere ‘nicer’. Less comments from senior police officers and more police on the ground would be good too. A few beers, a few snags, a good bottle of red, some music, put the flag away for god’s sake, shake somebody’s hand, try to do the right thing.

    • SM says:

      12:13pm | 15/01/10

      @ Gareth
      The other week in Surry Hills whilst having a few drinks we watched a sniffer dog and 11 police officers enter a pub, apprehend 1 person, go through his bag and his clothing outside the pub, then take him across the road to the mobile processing van.  The entire operation took over 90 minutes.  When he returned to the pub (uncharged and given the first of his obligatory 3 warnings) he looked a bit embarrassed so I asked him “what’d they get you for mate”?.  He answered “it’s all good, 1/2 a gram of pot, but it’s cool my guy’s gonna meet me at my place “.  For those who may not know, 1/2 a gram of pot is worth about $10.

      The part that’s even more stupid, if that’s possible, is that as the 11 police and 1 sniffer dog approached the pub to begin with, they were in full view of all the patrons sitting outside from at least 200m away.

    • Zeta says:

      12:59pm | 15/01/10

      @ SM - That’s the biggest problem in Sydney right there. You take a look at the pubs where the most drunken violence is, the notorious 48 from the Liquor Accord, and they’re not the places where drugs are consumed, except maybe for Stonewall (which I think is dubious, most of the assaults I’ve seen at Stonewall were consensual). Establishment and The Ivy top the list of metro pubs with high numbers of assaults. Yet the Police choose to go out, in force, and target smaller Surry Hills / Chippendale / Redfern pubs with sniffer dogs, when they aren’t loitering around outside concerts and dance parties. For their trouble, they net a few punters with insignificant doses of illegal drugs. Meanwhile, buisness men and assorted wankers are hoovering eight-balls in the Ivy toilets unmolested.

      NSW is 15 months out from an election, so I imagine the waste of taxpayer funds that is the sniffer dog regime will only continue to get worse.

    • nullanulla says:

      01:05pm | 15/01/10

      The “suggested” ban on grog sales before 2 oclock sounds pretty silly on the face of it.  Perhaps it reflects the views of the teetotal commisioner, but on balance the “suggestion” should be put where it belongs.

      But as some posters have already pointed out, it seems that in recent years a dire combination of some lying lawyers and progressive magistrates has resulted in most cases involving grog producing effectively no penalty and so no deterrent for offender/s.

      It’s the job of the police to ensure public safety, and that is what appears to be behind the police proposal in view of the court situation.  But it’s still a silly idea.

    • Jolanda says:

      01:24pm | 15/01/10

      @ Chase Stevens -  I bet you are one of those parents who say that they prefer to give their underage teenagers alcohol at home or buy their children alcohol as they would rather their children drink with them and/or think this will control their children’s drinking.  This attitude honestly makes me me wonder whether these parents actually understand teenagers.  What will happen is that your teenager will drink at home and they will also drink when they are out and they will have NO BOUNDARIES because they know that their parents allow them to drink and that they will not get into any real trouble if they get drunk as the parents have introduced the alcohol to them and are happy to pay for it and provide it to them.

      Same with drugs if you tell them that there is a ‘safe’ way to take illegal drugs then you are telling them that it is okay to take drugs even though they are illegal and it isn’t as for one they are illegal and they can also can and do kill you.

      Nowadays kids are mixing alcohol and drugs - I wonder when the next brochure will come out on how to mix alcohol and drugs safely - the message should be that it is not safe and you risk your life.  If you think that it is safe tell that to all the parents who have lost children the first time they tried drugs and those who have lost children to an addiction to drugs.

    • Dave C says:

      01:33pm | 15/01/10

      Dan your saying defence lawyers arnt scum, tell that to a gang rape or child molestation victim who is cross examined to the point of tears, with the offender smiling at them in court, tell that to a murder victims family after the murderer got his/her conviction downgraded due to a legal technicality. Tell that to a victim of a violent home invasion after their invader gets 6 months instead of 5 years because their defence spins a sob story.Yes thats contributing to society isnt it.? 

      Yes I respect the rule of law I just dont respect criminals getting away with crime and victims not getting justice due to defence counsel either inventing excuses, severely cross examining victims or coming up with legal technicalities to get their rapist/murderer/home invader/vandal/thief etc either out of jail or getting them a joke sentence. That is not providing a community service

      So if police are not allowed to use any violence and therefore any force at all what happens, are they are allowed to be spat at and verbally abused, do the police have to say pretty please sir step over here while we hand cuff you” sir. Tell me what are the police to do if the person they are arresting does not want to cooperate???? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

    • AFR says:

      01:50pm | 15/01/10

      Dave C - what you call scum, other would call it “doing their job”.

      Back on topic - this story really is another mountain out of a molehill. I’m getting a little tired of hearing “nanny state” used. So there is a call to limit people getting smashed before lunchtime - that’s a bad thing?

    • MC says:

      02:04pm | 15/01/10

      Great article Ross!

      I vote Sam Kekovich as the face/voice of the “Drinking for Australia (Day)” campaign.

      This bit should do nicely “Citizens, it’s time to take a stand. ..... snot-flying shickered.” But some more lamb references may need to be included…

      But hey - I’m a Queenslander; this is merely just another reason not to live in NSW.

    • Gareth says:

      02:10pm | 15/01/10

      @ SM.
      Yeah I understand your frustration. Remember the big weekend in December when the police were out to get ‘drunken idiots’? Well I was in a smallish bar in the Cross, when I was verbally and physically intimidated (repeatedly sworn at and pushed) by a hot head cop, not because I was drunk, not because I had drugs, but because I dared to take a few photos of the police and the dogs in the interests’ of civilian oversight. I was a whisker away from being one of the large number of ‘drunken idiots’ arrested, though I was probably under the legal driving limit.  As in the rest of society, there needs to be control over the yobbos who work for the NSW police force, and they seem to have more than their fair share. The once calm and cool bar was left looking like Hiroshima after their intervention, and the policeman got the bouncer to kick me out of the establishment, along with two friends who dared to question the police state. It ruined our company Christmas party. I suspect they found two people with a small amount of natural plant material for their efforts.

    • Matt says:

      02:12pm | 15/01/10

      Well said. Australia’s become far too an officious country. Knee-jerk rules made to make the cops job easier don’t an interesting free country make. Got to the cricket these days for a good example of over-officiousness. The larrikin is dead.

    • Carl Palmer says:

      02:18pm | 15/01/10

      Before the police arrest someone they should have a committee meeting to see if the said individual is drunk and or displaying anti social behaviour and therefore breaking the law.  If a majority vote is not reached then they should call the Police Commissioner and if he can’t the Attorney General. That will ensure every arrest is legit and genuine.

    • DocBud says:

      02:24pm | 15/01/10

      AFR,

      If people wish to get smashed and they wish to do so before lunch, as long as they do not harm anyone or damage property (i.e. they go home quietly and sleep it off) it should be none of your business or the state’s business.

      Public servants, elected and unelected, need to get back to the notion that they are paid by us to provide a specific service. For me, I pay them to provide infrastructure and to maintain law and order. I don’t want them using my money to moralise and to try and change my behaviour.

    • Homebrew says:

      02:29pm | 15/01/10

      Have a BBQ at home. As a heavy drinker, I intend to stay at home and drink with a bunch of mates on public holidays.
      Neighbourhood pool hopping is great fun when the neighbours are out for the day being sunburnt and sober in a park somewhere with the kids. Don’t get locked up, stay at home and drink in the neighbours pool!
      Anyone keen on a round of Cane Toad Cricket?

    • Aussie Aussie Aussie says:

      03:01pm | 15/01/10

      I loved this article
      I feel so proud to be Australian right now

    • H of SA says:

      03:29pm | 15/01/10

      Homebrew….yeah I like to party at a house much more myself. What’s not to like? Drinks are 1/3 the price they are in the city - everyone there is good bloke/lass - no quest to get served swimming pool. Sounds like a nice Australia day

    • SM says:

      03:36pm | 15/01/10

      @ Jolanda
      You sound like a very dedicated and caring parent, but at some stage you’ll need to broaden your views and accept that the war on drugs has been lost.  All the good parenting in the world won’t guarantee that your kids will never try/use drugs, and if they do, they might as well do so in an informed way

    • ShaneO says:

      04:04pm | 15/01/10

      No winners here.

      If nothings done about modifying drunken behaviour, and alcohol fuelled violence continues, the Police will be accused of doing nothing about addressing the issue (anyone remember Scarborough summer 2007/8? )

      And yet now the Police are trying to address the problem and they are getting grilled for it!

    • Dave says:

      04:39pm | 15/01/10

      “and a fraction of those become violent and commit felonies.”

      That IS out of control !!!
      To commit a felony, they’d have to fly to the USA and commit a crime there !

    • Dave says:

      05:40pm | 15/01/10

      Hear Hear. I wish there were more people like you in power.

    • E says:

      10:57pm | 15/01/10

      bloody ewoks its australia day, oh sorry darth, see you next tuesday

    • Roscoe says:

      11:39pm | 15/01/10

      If my kids use illegal materials, they will just HAVE to suffer ALL the consequences of their actions, up to and including death for being so innane.  I will NOT support them in illegal or immoral practices.  If they’re fool enough to risk their lives, then on their heads be it.  I’ve brought them up to know better, and if they ignore me, then they take the inevitable natural consequences.  Sad, but their choice, their results.

    • David says:

      05:58am | 16/01/10

      It is not the role of the police to tell bottle shops not to sell a bottle of wine on Australia day. How unAustralian is that? And who are these people - we did not elect them, they are not lawmakers. They play an administrative role, they administer the law. And the law is that drinking is legal. That’s the voice of Australians. So please do your job copper. Earn your pay cheque.

      Nice to see the media point out that the vast majority of drinking Australians do not engage in glassing, or rogue behaviour, and that for them alcohol plays a positive and welcome part of their lives. As it has for 5,000 years.

    • Bash says:

      09:43am | 16/01/10

      I won’t be driving anywhere drunk, or sober for that matter. I got caught speeding twice (low range) in three years and had my license suspended for three months, just before Christmas it came in. I can’t be arsed walking three hours to my nearest train station to join you at Hyde Park either, but I’m sure the fun police will be kicking your eskies over and giving you move on orders anyway.

      Hey, remember fireworks?
      http://bashpr0mpt.com

    • David says:

      10:15am | 16/01/10

      Drinking has been a cultural problem in Australia since convicts washed up here. Don’t kid yourselves otherwise people.

      P.S. That’s a fine parenting approach there Roscoe, put your head under the covers until the problem washes away. Props to you… Not.

    • Harquebus says:

      11:02am | 16/01/10

      We don’t have police any more. We have law enforcement officers. Robots following their programming. It’s time that our law enforcement officers realized that they are the cause of societies problems, not the solution. Enforcing bad laws that protect the wealthy is not something to be proud of. Now that they want to enforce thought, I am wondering what percentage are gullible religious fools.

    • Sam says:

      11:31am | 16/01/10

      “This will free massive police resources for the important work of issuing parking fines, servicing the water cannon…” And maybe reducing the road toll you fool

    • jim says:

      11:52am | 16/01/10

      The solution is simple, on Australia Day, push the drinking age up to 25.

      Any drunk underage teens or young idiots will be arrested immediately

    • Ricky says:

      03:09pm | 16/01/10

      Dave C, i couldnt agree more, well said.T Chong, as usual your arguments are full of p*ss & wind(but thats to be expected)

    • DocBud says:

      03:16pm | 16/01/10

      Jim, 

      Why the hell should under 25s who are perfectly able to enjoy themselves responsibly for 364 days of the year not be able to do so on Australia Day? Does every under 25 drinker commit an offense on Australia Day? Does every over 25 drinker not commit an offense on Australia Day?

    • Will says:

      04:08pm | 16/01/10

      Jim, from what I’ve seen every Australia Day, a great deal of the hoonery is stinky twatbilge 30 plus’s letting loose from their bland little desk jobs and pushing it too far with an ale in the brain and a punch on the scrimp.
      Now shut your gleb and leave democracy to kingly tribesman such as Kevry Stinkleplet and the band of merry odes.

    • Dan says:

      06:22pm | 16/01/10

      Dave C, all I will say is thank god you have no power whatsoever! Not only do you not respect the rule of law (as shown by your enlightening contributions in the Age blog as well as in this blog) but your attempts to explain away your incitement of violence are extraordinary.

      Also, many of the things you attack are due to the legal system itself and not to lawyers, who contribute to society a hell of a lot more than you do! If you had your way, people would probably be found guilty on the spot and lynched by the mob

    • Waz says:

      07:03pm | 16/01/10

      Getting fed up with over-regulation in everything in Australia.
      We went to Europe earlier this year. Smoking is ok, drinking is fine, can buy wine or beer from anywhere, drink it anywhere, no problems at all.
      Being tipsy, even somewhat loudly drunk, is not a crime, nor offence.
      Being actually violent, threatening, a vandal or committing indecency, is a crime. Whether alcohol is involved or not. If I do that, sure, take me off to the cells for the night. I expect that.
      Let me enjoy having a drink or three at the beach or park. Rack off, leave me alone.
      I went to an Australia Day concert 2 years ago, a big public one… great night, Then some drunk idiots started a fight nearby. Cops and security everywhere, checking bags, bossing people around. But the one actual fight? I had to put down my beer, and go to the dammed security, point it out (it was 20 feet away) from their policing of where people should walk, so they would do something about it.
      We are definitely less free in Australia than many other countries, with attitudes like this. Go away, leave me alone. Lock up trouble makers who actually make trouble, when they make trouble. Come down on them like a ton of bricks.

    • Jolanda says:

      07:14pm | 16/01/10

      Why is it that people always blame the alcohol for the violence.  I know that my husband and son, if they ever have too much to drink they get so mushy and loving and they love everybody.

    • T.Chong says:

      08:21pm | 16/01/10

      Geez Punchers, wasnt that fun?

    • Kim from Vic says:

      09:19pm | 16/01/10

      Well Ross - dead right.
      Why the hell should I be punished for having a few bevvies anywhere [ maybe apart from Church ] because a small group of morons across the country act like dickheads, ;leave their rubbish everywhere, upset other people and act like we have no rule of law.Thats right let the vast majority enjoy a frothy or 20 and punish the idiots that have no class or self restraint.
      Why dont we teach responsible imbibing in schools rather than say some useless language [ like Indonesian ].
      Thats it for now-fridge is calling

    • TB says:

      10:26pm | 16/01/10

      Any plan that centers around sitting around all day (on NSW Day of all days - I’m sorry but I have a hard time calling it Australia Day anymore) having a skinful is doomed to failure. But it’s worth a go, I suppose.

    • Dave C says:

      09:58am | 17/01/10

      Dan..
      1) I do respect the rule of law. I said that in my previous post and you chose to ignore it. On the Age blog by Paul Sheehan I was agreeing with the great man about terrorists being able to use every nook and cranny of the very legal system that they would abolish if they had power. Now thats another argument for another blob.. lets not go there…
      2) Inciting violence?? what is the difference between physical force and violence??? well what is it?  If are equating the two then that means the police (in your opinion) should have no power to use any force/violence at all especially in apprehending violent drunk idiots. If you are accusing me of inciting violence by suggesting that police can use physical force to detail and arrest a suspect then you must believe that the police should be physically powerless??? hey no guns no batons no capsicum spray no tasers because if they use them that police violence (as called for by horrible Dave C on this forum)
      3) Now the legal system - Yes often the tricks of lawyers are due to the system itself but the lawyers themselves have a choice. Concentrate on the facts of the case or make up crap about the accused being a victim or bullying the victim in the witness box. As Paul Sheehan wrote in girls like you “rape victims are often raped a second time by the defence counsel in the witness box” that says it all
      4) Lastly how do you know how much I contribute to society. I have had a full time job for the last 12 years since I finished University I pay tax have never had a criminal conviction and generally contribute to society in other ways by giving to charity and doing volunteer work. Just because I have views on the legal system does not mean that defence lawyers (who ensure victims and their families dont get justice) contribute more to society than me. I also dont make personal attacks on other contributers to this blog. Maybe you could do the same.

    • Timmo says:

      10:50am | 17/01/10

      Well, I’m not very Patriotic really so Australia Day is not really the important issue for me. Patriotism is the very thing that can also divide nations and cultures. The Aboriginals call it Invasion Day or something to that effect don’t they, and rightly so. But.,What we do each year is go down to the river side and play drums as we have over the years formed a small musical gathering with all of our families and extended family. The little kids have a good time on the swings supervised by the older kids. Babies are shared around to be hugged and cuddled and programmed with the love and happiness they need which is felt and given. And we are a group of Indonesian, Australian, Indian and other peoples or anyone who wants to join in. People stand around and enjoy what we play and most times they applaud which is great. We, the Adults used to enjoy a few beers etc. The police would walk past and enjoy our playing also. We cause no trouble and are a peaceful lot. But because of the Idiots,  they have made a $1500 fine if found to be drinking in any park on the Gold Coast and have helped to dampen the greatness of the time. But being a bit of a believer in individual freedom I still take down a few Stubbies in the old esky and the Girls have a Champagne or a couple of the heavily taxed mixed bottled drinks, and I just have a quiet sip and then put it back in the esky till the next sip is required. I mean, what’s wrong with getting a bit merry on a day which is supposed to be one of Merryment. I have never experienced any violence towards us or others there. Look everybody, it’s unfair to penalize the majority for a few violent people who can’t hold the grog. Those people should be sorted out, obviously. But we are families who just want to enjoy our country. It’s supposed to be the Greatest in the World so I have been told, but it’s not really if everything you want to do and are entitled to do has some law of prevention and the Stasi are following you around and the crooked courthouse Magistrate can enforce the local revenuing technique they have become good at. Why do you all go the celebrate in places where violent people are likely to hang out and take your kids there as well. Just go down by the river with your family and friends, find a quiet peaceful spot and do your thing and the police probably will walk past and leave you in peace. You don’t have to go where all fase patriots are and jump around like an idiot now do you?. It’s a choice. You can live with the Taliban as long as you follow the rules. Just agree with it all and think what you want and if you are patriotic, have a great day on that day, and if you’re not have the nice holiday and break from the workload they place on you.

    • Bruce says:

      10:56am | 17/01/10

      “There were never fights in pubs in the good old days” !! I can remember when it was standard protocol in the “good old days” in a pub that if you wanted a “blue” with a block, you invited him to go to the car park, and sort it out. If he refused, he was a coward and you would tell everyone in the pub. That usually got a response !!. and then half the pub would come and watch. The police were never called unless it turned into a riot. Having said that, I think the Police need more power to deal with drunked behaviour.

    • Olley says:

      01:27pm | 17/01/10

      I make my flag into a burqua, now that’s the Australianette spirit. There’s no such thing as Australian now, it’s dissolved and replaced by left that tells us how to think act and do.

      Australian culture is now replaced conveniently on the shelf and left for to include other cultures which eradicate ours and take away our country like in Britain.

    • Jolanda says:

      03:06pm | 17/01/10

      Of course there is always the concern that when you make parks and beaches ‘No Alcohol’ zones that families with adults who want to have an alcoholic drink will stay home and those who do not drink alcohol but love to go in large groups to the beach and park to picnic (like Muslims) will thank the Government for giving the parks and beaches to them.  I wonder how many more Cronulla type situations that will create?

      Of course the problem isn’ t the alcohol as such it is the attitude of those drinking the alcohol.  Until we take away the ‘excuse’ of being drunk and stop allowing being drunk to be used to avoid responsbility then nothing is going to change.  If you are drunk and you are violent and/or commit a crime then your punishment should be doubled.

      Education - Keeping them Honest
      http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/

    • Stickman says:

      07:31pm | 17/01/10

      Nothing wrong with having a drink any time, but this article, and many of the comments that follow, show just how deeply ingrained it is in Aussie culture to not just have a few quiet drinks, but drink with the express aim of getting wasted. 
      Don’t cry foul if your kids go out boozing and get into trouble.  You’re their role model.

    • Dan says:

      04:06am | 18/01/10

      Dave C.

      1) Paul Sheehan isn’t great in the least, but that aside, if you do not accept that even terrorists who are ‘out to abolish the very legal system that they would abolish if they had power’ deserve to be treated fairly and equally under the law, then no, you do NOT respect the rule of law. You may say you do, but you can only respect it, if you believe that everyone deserves the rule of law, otherwise what’s the difference between you and the terrorists? You can repeat as many times that you respect the rule of law, but nobody is fooled.
       
      2)You said that “into the paddy wagon and give them a touch up”. Now, if they are already in the paddy wagon, then why should the police be allowed to use physical force?

      This has never been about whether or not the police should be allowed to use physical force when arresting suspects, but whether or not they should be allowed to beat suspects they have already arrested. Which is what you are advocating. You may try to twist words to justify it away, but you can’t. You advocated violence against people who were already arrested!

      3)I suggest you stop quoting Paul Sheehan. Doing so can only harm your case.  That said, you may not like what defence lawyers do, but they are entitled to do whatever it takes to get their client off. You want someone to blame? Blame the politicians who makes the legal rules. Otherwise, stop criticising lawyers who do an incredibly important and vital job.

      4)” Lastly how do you know how much I contribute to society. I have had a full time job for the last 12 years since I finished University I pay tax have never had a criminal conviction and generally contribute to society in other ways by giving to charity and doing volunteer work. ” I couldn’t care less what job you have, whether you have a criminal record or whether you pay taxes or whether you do charity or volunteer work. However, if you call defence lawyers scum, be prepared to have people question your so-called contributions to society. You obviously think that you contribute more than those dreaded defence lawyers, well, if you or someone you love did have to go to court, you/they would need one of these terrible defence lawyers; people who as far as I’m concerned contribute much more than you could ever contribute!

      “Just because I have views on the legal system does not mean that defence lawyers (who ensure victims and their families dont get justice) contribute more to society than me.”  This says it all. You don’t get it. It’s not up to the defence lawyers to ensure that victims and their families get ‘justice’, it’s up to them to ensure that they do everything in their power to serve their client’s interests. The prosecution is the one who is ensuring that the victims and their families get ‘justice.’ 

      You are aware of how the legal system works? Or do you think that only innocent people deserve fair trials and good quality representation? Sorry to shatter your dreams, but it doesn’t work that way. Oh, and it’s not justice if the defendant is denied a fair trial.

      ” I also dont make personal attacks on other contributers to this blog. Maybe you could do the same.” Let me get this straight. You call defence lawyers scum and act all insulted when I question your contributions to society? Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way. If you call people names, and for that matter if you incite violence, then others have every right to make ‘personal attacks’ on you.

      I do find it interesting that you get so insulted at the idea that someone would question your contributions, when I didn’t even call you names, yet you have no problem referring to others as scum.

    • Roy says:

      06:00am | 18/01/10

      Haven’t had one all day, drinkstable.

    • Rory says:

      07:59am | 18/01/10

      Haven’t had one all day, drinkstable!

    • Dave C says:

      08:22am | 18/01/10

      Dan…

      If you dont care less what I contribute to society then dont say others (be they defence lawyers or whoever) contribute more than me. You made it personal and attacked me on this blog I did not personally question what you contribute to society and I would ask that you do not do the same. Unless you yourself or a member of your family are a lawyer then and only then have I gotten personal with you. I am allowed my opinions on a particular profession on a blog without others making it personal full stop. It seems you are the only blogger on this blog who whilst challenging my opinion has made it personal by challenging my contribution my society, that was hurtful and insulting and the fact you are the only one who said it says a lot.

      “well, if you or someone you love did have to go to court, you/they would need one of these terrible defence lawyers” well if you or a member of your family are ever a victim of crime you will see how well these lawyers ensure that the person who committed the crime gets away it and how much more suffering the victim has to go through wont we. Yes it is a legal system failure but what is the solution. What is the solution to victims of crime not getting justice. The prosecution (ie the crown) have to fight fair in court case, the defence dont have to. I think the solution is the system they have in France is the answer where the emphasis is on the police to use all means necessary to find out exactly what happened and then for the accused to disprove the evidence put before them later.

      Why cant I quote Paul Sheehan or are you like members of the Greens who believe in free speech but not for people who agree with Pauline Hanson (I dont agree with her either but I defend her right to have her opinion)  Why dont you actually read Paul Sheehans book “Girls like you” its about the K brothers gang rape of Tegan Wagner and how the court case went. Reading how that girl suffered a second time is why I have written what I wrote above.

      As for police violence, once they are arrested do you think an accused will behave themselves or once they are in the paddy wagon they can say and do what they like and verbally abuse the police and anybody else well obviously you do Dan cause you just want the police to have to put up with drunken idiots and others who wont cooperate. They are sick of it and thats why the whole basis of this article exists as they just want the grog banned in the first place instead of having to arrest drunken louts and then go to court and see them get off scot free or with a small slap on the wrist. Eventually this will happen (banning of alcohol on Aust Day altogether) and that is in part due to them not having adequate powers to deal with the small minority who ruin it for the rest of law abiding society.

      Finally Dan in a democracy I have the right on a blog to say how I believe the legal system should work and what I think of the legal profession. I dont mention names of lawyers just how they operate and hurt victims a second time round. You Dan have the right to challenge and destroy my arguments, but please, please dont resort to resort to personal attacks about my contribution to society.

    • Choo-choo cleanup says:

      08:34am | 18/01/10

      If the sensible drinking people encounter an obnoxious drunk on the train, shouldn’t it be okay for them to make a collective decision on behalf of all the other sensible drinking people and sling the obnoxious one from the train?  It would be a public service.

    • Blossom says:

      09:18am | 18/01/10

      I am a non drinker (shocking for an Aussie) I don’t care if you want a beer, thats great. I think we should all enjoy life BUT when I am to scared to go out on the streets at night because of drunken louts or to attend Aus Day celebrations ect then really people need to curb the drinking a little so that violence does not occur. I wish you all a wonderful Australia Day

    • Micko says:

      09:24am | 18/01/10

      @ Zeta—I note that you to not challenge the fact that Scippioni the NSW Police Commissioner) is a teetotaller.  I find it unsettling to have a non-drinker campaigning, and now using the resources of the state at his disposal to campaign, against alcohol consumption.

      He has been given more than adequate resources to manage the problem—he is charged with managing it.  I am sure he has seen is fair share of alcohol related violence, as have the rest of us…but the role of the police is to enforce the law, not reshape the world in its own image.

      Of course we would have less violence if we could effectively ban alcohol…as would reduce the road toll be reduced to zero if we banned cars…well we’re not going to…nor are we going to ban alcohol sales on Australia day.  I think our hand clapping teetotaller Commissioner should get on with the job he is paid to do and stop using his position to try to change our lives.

    • Bill says:

      11:12am | 18/01/10

      Talk about paranoia.  Commissioner Scipione is now using the resources of the State to campaign against alcohol consumption?  Now I HAVE heard it all.

    • Bulldog says:

      11:31am | 18/01/10

      Hasn’t the author seen the latest alcohol awareness ads? Kids follow the behaviour that adults model. Drinking in front of them anytime, yes even Australia Day, is clearly poor form just like smoking or fornicating!

      The author is clearly a flag-waving, beer-swilling, prawn-BBQing, raised in a small white town, bogan. I can almost picture a beat-up 4WD with leaded petrol cruising over a protected sand dune leaving a pile of ciggie butts and tinnies… Maybe even has sympathies towards those Cronulla folk that make life so hard for my people when we just want to swim (without alcohol).

    • SM says:

      12:17pm | 18/01/10

      @Bulldog

      Just wondering, what do you mean by “my people”?

    • CSallen says:

      12:32pm | 18/01/10

      @SM, methinks that is another entirely different conversation based on Bulldog’s moniker.

    • Dan says:

      04:15pm | 18/01/10

      Dave C,

      My intention wasn’‘t to hurt or insult you. However it was to point out that you may call defence lawyers scum, but I reckon their contributions to society are pretty fantastic. Do you also realise that you can attack lawyers without calling them scum? By doing so, you put yourself in a position where others had every right to question your contributions. If it hurt you, I apologise you. Just don’t call lawyers scum!

      “well if you or a member of your family are ever a victim of crime you will see how well these lawyers ensure that the person who committed the crime gets away it and how much more suffering the victim has to go through wont we.” IT’S THEIR JOB! The lawyers are obligated to make sure that they try to get their clients off. Dave, I said this before, and I’ll say it again. EVERYONE (including guilty people) are entitled to a fair trial. It does not matter what they did. They are still entitled to a fair trial. If you can’t understand that, then you obviously don’t respect the rule of law.

      “Yes it is a legal system failure but what is the solution. What is the solution to victims of crime not getting justice.” How can they get justice if the accused is denied a fair trial? That’s not justice, that’s revenge.

      “The prosecution (ie the crown) have to fight fair in court case, the defence dont have to. ” The prosecution have alot more finacial resources than the defence. If the defence are able to bridge some of the gap between them and the prosecution, that is great for society.

      “I think the solution is the system they have in France is the answer where the emphasis is on the police to use all means necessary to find out exactly what happened and then for the accused to disprove the evidence put before them later.”  all means necessary? Does that include beating confessions out of suspects?

      “Why cant I quote Paul Sheehan or are you like members of the Greens who believe in free speech but not for people who agree with Pauline Hanson (I dont agree with her either but I defend her right to have her opinion)” I never said you couldn’t. I said ‘Doing so can only harm your case’. There’s a difference.

      As I said before, thank god you’re not in power.

    • Bulldog says:

      04:27pm | 18/01/10

      (Bull)dog whistling.

    • Timmo says:

      08:36pm | 18/01/10

      I still say if you have kiddies and a small family group and want to go out on Australia Day or even New Years Eve to see the fireworks just find a quiet place and go about your business peacefully. The problem with Alcohol is that if has a Narcotic effect and is classed similar to Heroin in that regard. Anyone who has become so full as to experience Alcholic Poisoning will know what I am writing About. Alcohol is as a Drug Depressive by nature, so people who get poisoned by it usually either become Violent or Cry over their problems of life. The pubs have people sitting in there from opening time each day. They are usually people who are having trouble with their lives, maybe feel they are behind the 8 ball. And once they get the glow go very often as the Alcohol tends to drown their sorrows so the speak and they can become addicted . They want to approach anyone to make friends but if people move away or don’t accept them they can become angry and violent. Take the Schoolies for instance. A right of passage they feel it is to get blind drunk and vomit everywhere. Some do and some don’t but definately not a good place to go for young developing bodies as their brains and livers and other organs are still developing and can be severley damaged. All drugs are dangerous for young people for that reason and they should be aware of it. But moderation is best and there’s more enjoyment in that. Just have a few drinks, it’s not a contest. Many older people use alcohol and drugs to help with health problems. Marijuana for instance giving a higher happier experience which wears off after a hour or so, is not a Narcotic but is treated as one and the authorities should look again at the re-classification of that Plant. Many people smoke , even the Police. But they would deny it. A bit of honesty would help from them. Young people should be cautious there as well particularly teenagers as it affects memory and creates a difference in the sensory perceptions and slows down the experience. It can cause paranoia in unstable people and cause problems there . Again older people should be free to use for health benefits but all of us should never drive any type of vehicle while using anything like Alcohol or other Substances or take on any responsibilities where care of machines and others is needed. Use common sense, don’t follow the pack just to be part of it or you may lose yourself somewhere. And that my friends is Good Advice for us all.

    • Poider says:

      11:32am | 19/01/10

      I reckon some boss was sucking up to Skippy.  Jeez, the New South Wales coppers getting fussed about people getting on the piss?  Whatever happened to the old line that you’re no good as a copper if you can’t do the job pissed as well as sober?  Bloody wowser bosses.

    • Anon says:

      05:31pm | 20/01/10

      Bit rich from a bloke who was Chief of Staff while the bikie legislation went through, criminalising, for the first time in hundreds of years of common law practice, the simple act of being in company with another person.
      Noble sentiments indeed, but not what this fella practiced when he had the chance to do something about it.

    • pregnancy miracle lisa says:

      10:39am | 29/08/11

      Hello. Cool post. There is a problem with the web site in firefox, and you may want to check this… The browser is the marketplace chief and a huge component to other people will leave out your fantastic writing due to this problem.

    • Bella says:

      04:21am | 21/11/11

      If I were a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle, now I’d say ?Koawbnuga, dude!?

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

ToryShepherd

Cheeky beers with morning papers in unexpected sunshine http://t.co/MD7VPRne

Anthony Sharwood

http://t.co/Zq0nGxkf nice pic of Thredbo this morning

Paul Colgan

@seamus yeah it's now called Smooth or Soft or Douchey Dad FM or something

Paul Colgan

It's a Sydney thing, but 95.3FM... Why? It used to be all Bohemian Rhapsody and Walk this Way; now it's Father to Son and Country Road. Wah.

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

I’d like to be able to say that sharing the world’s largest radio telescope with South Africa…

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

When North Queensland Liberal MP George Christensen got the idea of launching a new political organisation…

Please enter your password

Please enter your password

Help! I’ve succumbed to a crippling modern illness that can strike at any moment. Symptoms include:…

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter