Who are you calling a wowser Kristina

Matt says:

04:35am | 15/04/10

The problem is, as any emergency service worker will tell you, that most of the police and hospitals are dealing with the victims, offenders, and the outcome of property damage, assaults, drunk driving, etc from 7pm Thursday night until midnight Sunday night. It means that not only does it cost us all a lot, but that if you need the police or an ambulance you will have to wait a lot longer because they are tied up. It means that one your family members may get king hit or run over if they happen to be out doing the responsible thing. It also means that the minority IS affecting you, the majority. You just haven’t had the opportunity to see it. Surely those of us, the most of us, can handle having to take some alcohol home, or finishing up before 3am. It my be a curtaling of our freedom, but so is not having the right to inject amphetamines that’s fine with me.

Daz says:

03:32pm | 20/04/10

We have to have rules that apply to everyone to control the behaviour of those people in our community who don’t behave responsibly and consider their fellow human beings.  That’s how a civilised society works and sets us apart from animals.  We look towards the greater good.  If as a society we catered to every individual’s personal take on things, which we seem to be doing more and more, our world would be in a mess.  Before we can legally drive a car we have to earn a licence.  Just because we are a responsible person doesn’t exempt us from this rule, or just because we are a professional V8 supercar driver doesn’t exempt us from complying with the speed limits.  If you enter a shop you may have your bag searched when leaving, even if you’ve never stolen a thing in your life!  Fellow citizens, we have to have rules if we want the human race to survive and we have to be adaptable enough to change and implement new rules as the need presents itself.  We also have to be selfless enough to realise that sometimes we’re going to have to make sacrifices for the greater good and not be so self-centred.  That’s how the human race has survived for so long.
Cheers.

Adam Diver says:

08:13am | 02/04/10

First decent words to come out of Kristinas mouth. T chong you are competely right labor did the right thing but seeing as I am right inclined and not neccesarrily politically inclined happy to give kudos when due.

As for the article itself Cops banning things to avoid violence is like retailers banning customers so they dont have to deal with them. That being said I sympathise with thier plight and feel much stronger penalties should be enforced when people are apprehended particularly for violent behavior whilst under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.

Formersnag The Child Protector. says:

02:17pm | 03/04/10

Yeah, but why do they appear to be on the “right” side this time, Tommy? Are they going this way for the “right” reasons?

Because of 4 decades of fe"man"ism, the red/green/labour coalition are “on the nose” with their male, “working class” base. So all of a sudden they have rediscovered “beer”, cash handouts, stimulus spending, (BER, insulation, anything that might put money, in the pockets of, “tradies”, etc) and bugger the consequences. Anything to buy votes.

Well i know, many working class men, who had been voting conservative, were scared back, by “work choices”, but have now been scared back to the conservatives again, by the “review” of “shared parenting” laws.

The red/green/labour coalition has no chance of holding back the tide in NSW, QLD, or federally. If Tony Abbott & Barnaby Joyce continue playing their cards right, they won’t be in a position, to “win” the next federal election, but to wipe the red/green/labour coalition into oblivion, on all 3 levels of government, every where.

Get all “Polly” staff stooges or “Galahs” off the net.

AF says:

10:05am | 06/04/10

Formersnag The Child Protector: i’m curious how you manage to make every single blog into an issue with femanism and the family court? You must be one seriously sad/screwed up person.

Scott Haynes says:

10:29am | 14/04/10

Ever been king hit by a ‘fellow freedom fighter’ so full of happiness and good cheer they can’t even remember what they’ve done the the next day champ?  I wouldn’t have thought so, but keep up the good fight, it is really impressive.

Vicki says:

12:43pm | 14/04/10

I totally agree. I live in Dubbo and the 1am lockout has made a huge difference to violence in the streets. If people want to keep partying, they have to stay inside, under the scrutiny of security so they know that violence means an immediate end to their night.
I love going out dancing and having a few drinks but hate the idiocy that seems to come out as the early hours of the morning begin.
No person should have to go to work expecting to get assaulted!! What happened to everyone’s right to be safe.

Jeff says:

07:40pm | 15/04/10

Matt Diver- well put… unfortunately, there seems to be a push from the police and plenty of other policy makers these days where they’re constantly trying to figure out a roundabout way of “skinning the cat” rather than going right to the heart of the problem.

It is all about personal responsibility and holding people properly accountable in the courts for any lack there-of. It’s not’s the bar staff’s problem if you’re out on a bender and ordered five more drinks than you should have- you’re over 18 and you should know better. When you get aggro, punch on with the Cops, abuse doctors, nurses etc who are trying to help you, it’s your fault.

When are people going to stop trying to circumvent the court process and make every problem in society a “community responsibility” to deal with and start complaining about the type of penalities magistrates are handing out to the people who are committing these acts in the first place? That way, laws and restrictions that will potentially effect everyone like this curfew, don’t have to, and only those who are behaving badly are effected…

Paul says:

02:26pm | 20/04/10

I enjoy a drink as much as anyone. Alcohol and drug fuelled violence is an issue that a lot of the community read about in papers or see a 30 second snippet on the news at night.
People on here are talking about increasing penalties - ok, i agree with that but we still need magistrates to grow some balls and hand out maximum penalties. I would love to know how many times in the last 10 years any magistrate in this country handed out maximum sentences.
The point everyone is missing is - the police, the ambo’s, the doctors and even the firies are still being assaulted. Life imprisonment or a $50 fine is still an after thought.
What has happened to the victim of the assault ?? Has he or she returned to work ? Have they lost income or been financially burdened by the assault ? What long term effects have occurred as a result of that assault ?
And finally - is the community saying well you’re a cop or an ambo or doctor so you really must expect to be assaulted because thats your job - it comes with the territiory. If thats the case then the community just like the premier have lost the plot and really deserve the premier you have at the moment.
At what point as a community do we say enough is enough ? While someone is breaking into your home with your family petrified in their beds the police are out dealing with some pissed idiot who has been refused service for intoxication and now not only wants to argue the toss but take a swing at anybody that disagree’s with him.
Hopefully in the near future the premier may be out at night in a not so leafy part of town and witness life in the real world as it unfolds daily and nightly - alcohol fuelled hostility at its best or worst !
And think about the costs of alcohol - malicious damage to property, assaults, stealings, break and enters and motor vehicle accidents etc.
So why can’t people go out and have a good time and go home happily by 2 or 3am.

Dale says:

02:17pm | 02/04/10

Sara you must be living in a wonderful ferry land. If you go to some well known pubs in coogee or in kings cross you will routinely see people being thrown out by bouncers for violence. I doubt greatly that you have been out every night for 4 years drinking, maybe every weekend but is that really something to be proud of?

Arios says:

10:40pm | 03/04/10

Sarah you are living in fairy land.

Go to the centre of Newcastle (Hunter St, King St etc). If you don’t get a bottle thrown at your head or someone swearing at you, you’ve done well for the night.

Elizabeth says:

02:09pm | 05/04/10

Sarah your young and still living in Lala Land. I spoke to a policeman this weekend about this issue. I live in Newcastle where there is a curfew. He advised me to avoid Hunter Street and the surrounding area on a weekend, he told me yes its improved but not good enough. While he was talking to me he got a call and had to go their was a brawl in Hamilton a suburb of Newcastle. This was early Saturday night. Many of us are sick of getting both physically and verbally by drunken bloody louts

Sean says:

08:32am | 15/04/10

Where do you go out at night SarahJaneJones?  It must be to the local Bingo Club because fights do occur inside pubs and clubs and they happen quite often.  I just moved back from the USA after having lived in Los Angeles for 15 years.  They have time restrictions on their venues and as a result have less trouble.  It’s a fact.  As far as Adam Diver and his comment “Cops banning things to avoid violence is like retailers banning customers so they dont have to deal with them.”  Some people are best off not talking at all.  Don’t take our Police for granted.  Los Angeles began to until the day two lunatics roamed the streets with automatic weapons shooting randomly at anything that moved.  The only people to move toward them and stop them were the Police.  The worst thing the public can do is not support our law enforcement because one day they will turn around and ask, “Why bother.”  The day the police stop caring is they day we are all in trouble.

BTS says:

06:27pm | 02/04/10

Police have frequent and strong input into the creation of law, they are the experts after all.

DocBud says:

01:25am | 03/04/10

BTS,

Coppers aren’t experts in formulation of law. They are paid and trained to enforce the law. Establishing law should (but rarely does with modern politiciians) involve a rigorously considered balance between the rights of the individual and the state’s desire to restrict those rights. Coppers will come down on the state’s side every time, they don’t give a fig about individual liberty.

BTS says:

11:51am | 03/04/10

Sorry to inform you, but the Police have been instrumental in implementing new laws since they came into existence.  They certainly are experts in formulation of the law.  Dozens are fully qualified barristers.  In addition, they live it everyday.  The government then takes the consideration of others when it consults other external groups.  You seem to forget that the law is there to protect people.  So that you and I can walk the street and go about our daily life without being assaulted, robbed or killed.  If that’s not caring a fig about individual liberty, then I don’t know what is.

DocBud says:

11:46am | 05/04/10

BTS,

I think you’ll find implementing the law is enforcing the law, not formulating it.

Even if you are correct in your assertion about dozens of coppers being barristers, which I doubt, I’d have to question why someone who has qualified as a barrister would choose to join the police. I’d suspect it was a competence issue.

BTS says:

01:27pm | 05/04/10

Docbud,

To make it crystal clear:

The Drugs Misuse Act, in Qld, was written by a serving Police Officer, an expert in Drug Offences and a qualified Barrister.

The telephone tapping laws were devised by Police.  The new car chase laws and the pending automatice jail sentences for assaulting police are being promoted…by Police.

Wouldn’t you think that the people closest to enforcing laws would be listened to about what laws are required to be implemented to do their job most effectively.  In fact, I would go far to say that a new law doesn’t come into existence unless the Police have been consulted and had input into their creation.

Most Police forces these days require university study to gain entry, so doing it in law would make sense.  Some people don’t work for money, some work for the greater community good, so competence isn’t an issue.  Although I can see why you struggle with concept.

DocBud says:

05:26pm | 05/04/10

I feel the need to be protected by the excesses of the state and its agents at least as much as I feel the need to be protected from other citizens. The police’s aim is always to roll back freedoms in order to make their job simpler, irrespective of the impact on the law abiding. Laws to automatically jail those who assault police make the police unequal to those they are paid to protect which to me is wrong.

I’d imagine most police officers study degrees in policing rather than law.

BTS says:

09:14pm | 05/04/10

Feel free to imagine.

Gavin says:

04:02pm | 20/04/10

I aqm sure they do have an impact in the formulation of law. But it is always to their own agenda, just like any lobby group like hoteliers and CivLib groups. But ultimately they can only have a say, and the Legislative Assembly are the ones who vote on it. So yes BTS, Law enforcement offices are there to enforce the laws as they are and only contribute to their structure insofar as any lobby group can.

Seano says:

07:45pm | 02/04/10

Exactly. I don’t ever remember being refused service nor anyone I know but there were plenty of times we should have been. Of course we weren’t trouble makers but that’s not the point.

The problem isn’t lack of laws it’s lack of enforcement.

DocBud says:

02:02am | 03/04/10

“we weren’t trouble makers but that’s not the point.”

Of course it’s the point, Seano. If you weren’t harming anyone or damaging property, why can’t you have another drink? If you can go out, get drunk and make your way home without harming anyone or damaging property then the state should mind its own business. It is only when you infringe on the rights of others that the state should get involved. It should never be the role of the state to protect us from ourselves.

BTS says:

11:54am | 03/04/10

So we should wait until after the drunken lout has killed someone before we take action, not attempt to prevent him killing someone beforehand?

Seano says:

02:53pm | 03/04/10

Because you can’t have a rule that only applies sometimes.

Once things become subjective that’s where there problems, the arguments and fights start.

Also from a two minute interaction at a bar it’s easy to determine whether someone is drunk, not so easy to determine whether they are going to be trouble.

I’m not advocating these new laws, but we have responsible service of alcohol laws that aren’t being enforced. It’s fairly standard for the police to demand new laws whenever there’s a preceived problem, but I think they should just enforce the ones we’ve got. Start issuing fines for selling booze to drunk people and see how quickly self regulating the hotel industry becomes.

DocBud says:

02:08am | 04/04/10

“So we should wait until after the drunken lout has killed someone before we take action”.

So you’re advocating the assumption of guilt, BTS. 9999 people can get drunk and make it home without infringing on the liberties of others but because 1 might we need to take action against the 9999.

BTS says:

11:27am | 05/04/10

Your right Docbud,

It makes no difference to the 9999.

It does make a difference to the 1 though, doesn’t it. What if that 1 is you?

DocBud says:

05:02pm | 05/04/10

The 1 is referring to a drunk person who infringes on others rights. Bad laws infringe on the freedom of people who do not harm others in the hope that they might curtail the behaviour of the minority, but in fact rarely do. A prime example is the drinking in public laws, they stop those who’d prefer to enjoy a beer or glass of wine at a family picnic rather than a soft drink but do nothing to stop those who cause trouble when drunk.

DocBud says:

01:17am | 03/04/10

What the hell business is it of yours what may or may not supposedly be missing in people’s lives? If people want to get ratted, let them, as long as in so doing they do not harm others or damage property. If they do, then the law comes into play. “We” do not need to examine stuff all.

Donna Singer says:

06:10pm | 14/04/10

Thank goodness someone here is making sense of the situation!
I live in Coogee,have so for 17 yrs and to see the destuction caused by the local hotels patrons on any night of the week is heartbreaking!
The driveway of my unit is commonly used for vomiting,other peoples yards are mistaken for toilets,which then seem to become the drunks bedroom as they have decided to sleep it off. There is also plenty of violence as reported on the news with people being left for dead after bashings!!! Then the offender is aquitted?? whats that about!!
Someone needs to do something so GO SCOTT!!!

Greek Snake says:

03:10pm | 15/04/10

Nice post Vicki. The drunken morons who these laws plan to control won’t understand that people can go out, NOT get smashed, and still have a good time.

The next biggest problem is drugs. Alcohol can be sold and somewhat controlled at the venue, but drugs are another matter entirely. It is much easier to defend yourself against a drunken pig then it is to defend yourself from someone on ice. They will hit the floor half a dozen times before they realise they are beaten. Drunks will fall once.

Solution?

1. Put 2 sniffer dogs at the door of every popular bar and club.
2. Give security the right to search anyone the dogs are unsure of - failing this, security always has the right to refuse entry.
3. Get the police involved.

Tough economic times force today’s youth into different paths for a good time. They would rather spend $40 on 2 pills then spend $90 on getting drunk. It is the sad reality of today’s club culture.

DocBud says:

11:41am | 05/04/10

What would be your definition of drunk, Vicki PS? My friends and I regularly drink well in excess of what the government and typical sanctimonious wowsers recommend on a night out. I’m guessing some of us would probably be three to four times over the alcohol limit for driving. Would we be classified as drunk and deserving of not being served any more drinks despite the fact that the most serious crime we’re likely to commit is that some of the conversation might be in poor taste? The only shock the taxi driver takihg us home is likely to get is at the size of the tip.

Vicki PS says:

07:23pm | 05/04/10

Like all drunks, DocBud, you kid yourself: easy to do when your companions are as inebriated as you.  What seems like tremendously witty banter is repetitive, boring or barely intelligible to a sober onlooker.  I’m quite sure you consider yourself in control and well-behaved with a BAC of .2 or more, but you and your equally blotto friends would be the only ones who do. 

Yes, you and your mates would be drunk, and there is a high probability that sooner or later one more more of you will get into some kind of trouble as a result.  Your tremendous arrogance in insisting on your superhuman ability to handle alcohol safely is absurdly typical of the seasoned drunk.  And no, I’m not a wowser.  Name-calling doesn’t change facts.  Regarding my definition of drunk, I do not intend to get involved in the drunk’s version of dick-measuring by comparing excesses of inebriation with you.

wish i'd said it says:

12:37am | 06/04/10

Vicki PS, you’re my hero!

brilliant bit of Punching - thank you.

Steve says:

10:32am | 06/04/10

Vicki PS why don’t you write what you really mean?

Oh the shame of it all - drunks everywhere - dull conversationists and alyaws losing mobiles! Drunks on the road to ruin everyone of them, all a burden to society until they tragically fall in front of a train and delay decent law abiding citizens on the way to honest work.

DocBud says:

06:49pm | 06/04/10

So, Vicki PS, our only crime is boorish banter. I don’t care if others consider us not in control, the fact that we get home without infringing on the rights of others is the limit of contro we require.

We haven’t got in trouble in 20 to 30 years so the evidence suggests a low probability (unless the nannyistas create laws that infringe our liberty to mind our own business). Should somebody get in trouble, I’m sure there is a law that will cover it. Laws against being drunk, when being drunk in itself is not harmful to others, are simply wrong.

As someone who appears to want to control other people’s behaviour even though they have not committed any wrong, I’d suggest you most definitely are a wowser, i.e. someone who minds other people’s business.

Geoff says:

10:01am | 14/04/10

Vicki, you’re views reflect exactly my opinion on this/these matters and you sum up the behaviour of these people exactly. Once intoxicated, the decision making ability is severely lost and what someone thinks is a good and safe idea may not necessarily be true - and this is something we all agree on! The guy that thought it was a good idea to jump infront of the taxi I was in last saturday night probably has a broken wrist from punching the cab as it drove past him failing to pick him up. I’m sure the taxi driver is sick of occurences involving violence in the crazy hours of the morning.

I also know what its like to be on the other end of the troublesome behaviour. I’m a police officer and deal with the alcohol problems on the front line. I totally agree with Scott on this issue and am disgusted and appalled at those who think that assaults on front-line workers are acceptable. I didnt sign up for being assaulted, I signed up to make a difference. Why dont you?

And is not only for the police. I agree that there is an expectation that police have to deal with this behaviour. But please, nurses… doctors…. ambos…. taxi drivers….. bouncers….

susie says:

10:53pm | 05/04/10

parachute ebm

You are absolutely pathetic. The police are supposed to catch criminals, not deal with aggressive, abusive piss heads every night of the week.  ‘You receive public funds and status by serving society.’ WTF - you think that because they get paid ‘by public funds’  that they should expect to be assaulted?  Somebody should tell the Premier that she also receives public funds and status - perhaps she should try listening to the concerns of the police, ambos, doctors and nurses on the frontline who have to deal with these drunken idiots.

Ryan says:

01:16pm | 06/04/10

@susie: when did the police service decide that they can pick and choose what they are involved in. What next, the police can choose not to help anyone at an accident scene because “The police are supposed to catch criminals”. Its their JOB, we PAY them to do it, now get on with it and stop whining, if you don’t like the job, DO SOMETHING ELSE!

BTS says:

09:04pm | 06/04/10

The expectation that government workers should expect to be assaulted shows how far we have evolved as a society.  Does this extend to teachers, nurses, ambulance officers - expected to suck up being assaulted because the government pays them?

Moronic thinking, by those you can bet have never served the community a day in their lives.

parachute ebm says:

12:53pm | 11/04/10

@susie and BS, um, sorry I mean BTS

I’m a doctor working regularly in two separate emergency departments.

Now, any more whingeing?

Darren says:

10:29pm | 13/04/10

You seem to have a strange idea of what service is, what makes you think that police officers, nurses, doctors and ambos serve their role in society by getting flogged by drunks. I’d like to see you walk into your local emergency department and suggest that, in fact let us all know when you’re going to do it and we can sell tickets to see the response you get given.

Scott Weber speaks on behalf of police officers as an Association officer, and I believe his views accurately represent the views of his colleagues. Police officers and other emergency service workers choose their employment but they do not choose to be assaulted by drunken cowards. Until now I never thought that wowser is a tag that would fit me but by Premier Keneally’s definition it is a label I will also be proud to wear.

Barry says:

06:18pm | 04/04/10

I don’t know about you, Robert, but I don’t want a bunch of 20 year olds getting on the piss in the house next to mine in the suburbs every Friday and Saturday night until 4am. I’d rather they go into the city and make all the noise they want there.

Mike Cockburn says:

04:57pm | 21/03/11

Hey 000 Wowser Medic, get on board with Pedestrian 08. Bars cannot sell alcohol responsibly without providing available, reliable, near blood test quality BAC testing machines. When will Slater and Gordon sue them… Governments are negligently ignoring their duty of care obligations by failing to declare and enforce a maximum, on street, pedestrian BAC limit. Wowser Medic, try to imagine a Friday/Saturday shift where the typical BAC level of your drink walker clientele was a max of point 08.

Willy K says:

02:27pm | 14/04/10

Put more cops, harder cops, and more tooled up cops in the real trouble spots.  Have ZERO tolerance for ANY anti-social behaviour and then sort out the thugs!

Get some police from Asia or NYC if you want to see how it is done.  People there can walk the streets in the entertainment strips 24/7 due to proper police work and tough laws.

Henry says:

03:51pm | 14/04/10

So we just give up on the majority because we can’t handle a few thugs?

Toughen the the laws up!  Abuse, noise pollution, vandalism, drunk and disorderly, assault - build bigger lock ups then lock them up and give them a police record.  Repeat offender then huge fine.  Third time jail.

Get tough like all other cosmopolitan cities.  I cannot believe that suburban bogans can defeat our cops and that people want to turn our cities into retirement villages.

The Govt needs to get serious and give the cops far more power and facilities to wipe this scum off of our streets.

Henry says:

05:15pm | 14/04/10

Spot on!  Big police presence, along with zero tolerance and increased lock-up facilities could fix this problem in weeks.

Lock them up - give them a police record- and make them pay for the entire cost of their overnight stay.

Repeat offenders to lose car license and cop huge fine.  Third time serious jail time as they are obviously time bombs.

These people are cunning adults.  Stop letting them take the p*ss.

Willy K says:

01:24pm | 15/04/10

The cops are the ones whinging!  Harden up or get out.  Get onto your cops union to pressure their ALP mates to make tougher laws to lock up the thugs and repeat offenders.

Changing closing from 3 to 1 will just make people go harder and then the same old trouble will be at 1am.

Other countries can sort this out but we can’t.  Piss weak magistrates, outdated laws, and cops who don’t want to get their hands dirty.  If the thugs mouth off KO them.  Bring back some respect for the badge.

Govts have had cops behind speed cameras for decades hence the lack of respect for police in society.

Henry says:

04:09pm | 15/04/10

I feel for you Carol - but sadly when it comes to dealing with these moronic thugs I would have your biggest tallest toughest blokes, with batons, tasers, pepper spray and cuffs.  Have zero tolerance to even verbal abuse and rough them up and lock them up.  You have to see how the NYC and Asian cops treat disrespect!!!

Police need more tools and more lock-ups.  The courts need to treat these mongrels as thugs in training and hrow the book at them and BACK up the poor cops and the average joe who is sick of being bashed, glassed, knifed, and abused on a fun night out.