Yesterday, Julia Gillard surprised the nation when she announced the date of this years Federal election - over two hundred days into the future. This will be the longest election campaign in Australia's history. Another surprising aspect is that the decision was not shared with her caucus members - and this brought mixed reactions.
Obviously Gillard is trying to stamp her hold on power as a " decisive leader ". The decision to parachute an Aboriginal woman into the Senate in the Northern Territory was termed a " Captain's pick ", and some see it as " dictatorial ". A long serving incumbent was ruthlessly sacrificed and the wishes of the ALP branches - were ignored.
Naming election day seems to be a " Hail Mary " tactic. On all the evidence, the voters have already made up their minds and Labor looks set for the same drubbing it got in several state elections. Gillard is hoping and praying that the long campaign may deliver a miracle. Maybe the opposition will make a tactical blunder and she can turn this to her advantage.
It seems certain that there will be a relentless call for Tony Abbott to not only release his policies, but to have them costed. The longer they are in the public forum, the better chance that the bean counters can disparage the correlation between what the policies will cost - and where the savings to fund them will come from Both sides of politics will play the usual game of " spin " in covering up cost disparities.
There seems to be another tactical benefit in setting this election date early. Should the ALP's prospects continue to look dim as the days recede, the Rudd camp might convince nervous backbenchers that a change of leadership was their only hope. With the voting date set in concrete, it is too late to change horses in mid-stream - and Gillard feels more secure in her job
Gillard claims that there will be a marked difference between her task of " governing " and the " campaigning " prelude to the election. We can certainly expect the government PR machine to be churning out favourable comment on government achievements in the period before the government goes into " caretaker mode " in early August. This period could be described as the " Clayton election period " - when the government is free to spend public money to enhance it's prospects - but without the hindrances of law that applies to an election campaign.
It is a bold move - but their are rewards and risks. Perhaps the greatest risk is the damage that a sustained political bombardment may do to voter attention spans. Short election campaigns intensify voter attention to the issues - but if this is dragged out mercilessly - that interest may become replaced - by boredom !
On September 15 - we will know whether this was a brilliant tactical move - or a total failure !.
Thursday, 31 January 2013
Wednesday, 30 January 2013
Market Values ?
At intervals of a few years, each home owner receives in the mail a letter from the Valuer General setting the revised value of that persons home. In fact this valuation has nothing to do with the bricks and mortar of the actual dwelling. It is an appraisal of what the Valuer General thinks the land it stands on is worth.
That valuation is the base on which the council levies rates and the government charges land tax, but it also bleeds into a host of other charges - such as the Fire Brigade levy and the setting of insurance premiums. Many people think that these reviews miss the mark because they don't seem to correspond with the actual market values that prevail.
There are wide variations on what the Value General says the land is worth, and what a vacant block on that site would bring at auction - and sometimes that valuation ranges far on each side of reality. Those that disagree are invited to challenge the valuation, but that is a time wasting and usually frustrating incursion into the labyrinth of bureaucracy - and few bother !
Gripes from home owners have persuaded the New South Wales government to launch an enquiry into the 2.4 million valuations that took place between 2000 and 2012. This enquiry will look at the confidential data used to arrive at valuations and suggest improvements to the system.
Deciding what a piece of land is worth varies between a buyer and a seller. That is clearly illustrated by auction results. If a celebrity moves into a district and builds a mansion, surrounding properties become more attractive and increase in price as a consequence. Such a presence converts " ordinary " into " fashionable " - and price tags lift accordingly.
This seems to be part and parcel of the controversy over land valuations. Not only do they decide what sort of council rates bill will be levied, they also reflect the owner's standing in the social pecking order.
Some people rage at what they see as an outrageous valuation that is purely intended to increase their rates bill, while others think their salubrious suburb - in which they paid a fortune because of it's good name - is being denigrated as some sort of socialist conspiracy.
Any sort of valuation relies heavily on the eye of the beholder - and the Valuer General faces an impossible task to please everyone !
That valuation is the base on which the council levies rates and the government charges land tax, but it also bleeds into a host of other charges - such as the Fire Brigade levy and the setting of insurance premiums. Many people think that these reviews miss the mark because they don't seem to correspond with the actual market values that prevail.
There are wide variations on what the Value General says the land is worth, and what a vacant block on that site would bring at auction - and sometimes that valuation ranges far on each side of reality. Those that disagree are invited to challenge the valuation, but that is a time wasting and usually frustrating incursion into the labyrinth of bureaucracy - and few bother !
Gripes from home owners have persuaded the New South Wales government to launch an enquiry into the 2.4 million valuations that took place between 2000 and 2012. This enquiry will look at the confidential data used to arrive at valuations and suggest improvements to the system.
Deciding what a piece of land is worth varies between a buyer and a seller. That is clearly illustrated by auction results. If a celebrity moves into a district and builds a mansion, surrounding properties become more attractive and increase in price as a consequence. Such a presence converts " ordinary " into " fashionable " - and price tags lift accordingly.
This seems to be part and parcel of the controversy over land valuations. Not only do they decide what sort of council rates bill will be levied, they also reflect the owner's standing in the social pecking order.
Some people rage at what they see as an outrageous valuation that is purely intended to increase their rates bill, while others think their salubrious suburb - in which they paid a fortune because of it's good name - is being denigrated as some sort of socialist conspiracy.
Any sort of valuation relies heavily on the eye of the beholder - and the Valuer General faces an impossible task to please everyone !
Tuesday, 29 January 2013
" Floodplain " risks !
Two years ago, Queensland suffered massive flood rains and the damage was immense. Thirty-five people died, and the reconstruction bill topped $ 6 billion. Now precisely the same areas are under water again.
Floods are a natural part of the Australian weather pattern and Queensland's 2010/11 inundation was not a record. What is a new factor - is the frequency. It seems that global warming will deliver a continent more susceptible to both drought - and major flooding. It seems that there is a new phenomenon to add to that mix - Tornadoes !
We are a country with an ever expanding population. As a consequence, we have a need for more housing and this is putting pressure on population centres to open up building land - and in many cases these new housing estates are located on flood plains.
Several factors come together to blind governments to the danger this imposes. Flood plains are flat areas of land and these are the least expensive on which to build roads and facilities. The biggest need is for low priced housing blocks to keep new homes within the reach of the lowest paid, and as a result this new housing is not elevated. The most common new dwelling is built on a concrete pad - well below even minor flood level.
This trend is particularly evident in Wollongong. Several vast new estates are planned to the south/west of the city - and all of them are on flood plains. The long range weather forecasters warn that flood frequency is increasing. It is possible we will see " once in a hundred years " floods making a visit on a " once in a decade " basis. Is this the sort of lifestyle we wish to impose on citizens desperate to create a home for their family ?
With careful site selection, some flood plains can consistently deliver floods that reach only about a metre above land level. A metre of water through any family home is a disaster that costs a huge amount of renovation money, but it is a disaster than can be prevented if builders are prevented from using low lying slab construction in such areas.
An elevated house, using the space underneath for car parking - costs more than using the slab construction method, but that expense returns a rich dividend when a flood strikes - and it saves public money that the government pours into relief efforts once floods subside. Perhaps a government subsidy to help achieve elevated houses on flood plains would be a money saver on a long term basis.
These proposed new estates bring the opportunity to do the right research - and achieve flood damage reductions for those who will be future residents. The weather people can determine what level of floods we can expect in the future, and the housing permitted should be designed accordingly. There is a vast difference between a flood that maroons residents for a day or so, but causes no real damage - and a flood that fills the house with muddy silt, ruins furniture, carpets and electrical items - and makes the home unlivable until relief money restores facilities.
The right planning decisions now will determine what lifestyle our future residents enjoy when the relentless need for housing sees those new estates become reality !
Floods are a natural part of the Australian weather pattern and Queensland's 2010/11 inundation was not a record. What is a new factor - is the frequency. It seems that global warming will deliver a continent more susceptible to both drought - and major flooding. It seems that there is a new phenomenon to add to that mix - Tornadoes !
We are a country with an ever expanding population. As a consequence, we have a need for more housing and this is putting pressure on population centres to open up building land - and in many cases these new housing estates are located on flood plains.
Several factors come together to blind governments to the danger this imposes. Flood plains are flat areas of land and these are the least expensive on which to build roads and facilities. The biggest need is for low priced housing blocks to keep new homes within the reach of the lowest paid, and as a result this new housing is not elevated. The most common new dwelling is built on a concrete pad - well below even minor flood level.
This trend is particularly evident in Wollongong. Several vast new estates are planned to the south/west of the city - and all of them are on flood plains. The long range weather forecasters warn that flood frequency is increasing. It is possible we will see " once in a hundred years " floods making a visit on a " once in a decade " basis. Is this the sort of lifestyle we wish to impose on citizens desperate to create a home for their family ?
With careful site selection, some flood plains can consistently deliver floods that reach only about a metre above land level. A metre of water through any family home is a disaster that costs a huge amount of renovation money, but it is a disaster than can be prevented if builders are prevented from using low lying slab construction in such areas.
An elevated house, using the space underneath for car parking - costs more than using the slab construction method, but that expense returns a rich dividend when a flood strikes - and it saves public money that the government pours into relief efforts once floods subside. Perhaps a government subsidy to help achieve elevated houses on flood plains would be a money saver on a long term basis.
These proposed new estates bring the opportunity to do the right research - and achieve flood damage reductions for those who will be future residents. The weather people can determine what level of floods we can expect in the future, and the housing permitted should be designed accordingly. There is a vast difference between a flood that maroons residents for a day or so, but causes no real damage - and a flood that fills the house with muddy silt, ruins furniture, carpets and electrical items - and makes the home unlivable until relief money restores facilities.
The right planning decisions now will determine what lifestyle our future residents enjoy when the relentless need for housing sees those new estates become reality !
Monday, 28 January 2013
Buyer beware !
The first thing we do when we contemplate some sort of business deal with a stranger is to request they produce some form of ID. It may be the purchase of a second hand car privately, or maybe they are proffering a personal cheque for something we have offered for sale. It is wise to verify the identity of who we are dealing with.
The ubiquitous photo drivers license serves as a universal ID document these days. It serves as a proof of age card to get young people into adult entertainment and venues serving alcohol, and banks, government departments and all manner of service providers require it to verify the applicants identity.
It must come as a shock to many people to discover that document forgers are openly advertising their trade on the Internet - and even more horrifying to learn that their products are so good that they are near impossible to detect alongside the genuine article.
These days, a counterfeit Australian passport will set you back a mere $ 750, and for an extra $ 200 the forgers will throw in an Australian state drivers license and ID card. If you hope to upgrade your job prospects, University degrees on the stiff parchment of the originals can be had in the various disciplines, and for those seeking entry to RSL clubs and similar institutions, even Military Service certificates can be accurately forged.
The wonders of modern technology - which gave us the I-Pad and the Smart phone - and put a " cheap as chips" - three in one printer beside our computer - have served the forger well. Clever people have learned how to work this technology to perfection, and even the forging of currency gets closer and closer to " the real McCoy ".
Of course, the forger's art is illegal, but the anonymity of the Internet makes prosecution difficult because the culprit operates outside national borders - and how do you track a bandit in cyberspace ? In the real world, it evolves into " buyer beware ! "
It seems that the only defence available to the public is to consider every form of ID offered as suspect, and delve ever deeper before taking any sort of financial plunge. Perhaps we will reach the stage when strangers will be questioned to the point of revealing a mutual third party - who can verify identity.
It seems to be the end of our " age of innocence ". That photo drivers license that has served us so well for many years - has become a victim of the age of technology !
The ubiquitous photo drivers license serves as a universal ID document these days. It serves as a proof of age card to get young people into adult entertainment and venues serving alcohol, and banks, government departments and all manner of service providers require it to verify the applicants identity.
It must come as a shock to many people to discover that document forgers are openly advertising their trade on the Internet - and even more horrifying to learn that their products are so good that they are near impossible to detect alongside the genuine article.
These days, a counterfeit Australian passport will set you back a mere $ 750, and for an extra $ 200 the forgers will throw in an Australian state drivers license and ID card. If you hope to upgrade your job prospects, University degrees on the stiff parchment of the originals can be had in the various disciplines, and for those seeking entry to RSL clubs and similar institutions, even Military Service certificates can be accurately forged.
The wonders of modern technology - which gave us the I-Pad and the Smart phone - and put a " cheap as chips" - three in one printer beside our computer - have served the forger well. Clever people have learned how to work this technology to perfection, and even the forging of currency gets closer and closer to " the real McCoy ".
Of course, the forger's art is illegal, but the anonymity of the Internet makes prosecution difficult because the culprit operates outside national borders - and how do you track a bandit in cyberspace ? In the real world, it evolves into " buyer beware ! "
It seems that the only defence available to the public is to consider every form of ID offered as suspect, and delve ever deeper before taking any sort of financial plunge. Perhaps we will reach the stage when strangers will be questioned to the point of revealing a mutual third party - who can verify identity.
It seems to be the end of our " age of innocence ". That photo drivers license that has served us so well for many years - has become a victim of the age of technology !
Sunday, 27 January 2013
" Invasion " Day !
The vast majority of Australians celebrate January 26 as " Australia Day " in recognition of the arrival of the first fleet, but to many of our Aboriginal citizens - that became " Invasion Day " !
Looked at from the point of view of those who had lived here for thousands of years, the uninvited arrival of people from the other side of the world could be seen as an " invasion ". They asked no permission and they very quickly proclaimed laws that they demanded the Indigenous residents obey - and enforced those laws harshly. Little attempt was made to protect the rights and customs of the original residents.
Basically, we set about creating a prosperous country for the white settlers as a trickle of people became a flood. Minerals were discovered and mines opened. The newcomers imported horses, sheep and pigs - and much of the land was given over to agriculture - from which the natives were excluded. Australia became a country divided - between black and white.
For the next 179 years the original inhabitants were basically ignored. They were not citizens and were not counted in the census. They could not get a passport or vote in elections - and they were forbidden the great Australian custom of having a beer on a hot day !
All that changed on May 27, 1967 when Australia voted in a referendum to right this wrong, and 90.7% of voters bestowed citizenship on our original inhabitants. At the stroke of a pen, they had the legal rights available to every citizen in this country - but in many ways, nothing changed !
Many Aboriginal people have assimilated into white culture. They are the people living next door who have children in the local school, have a job and pay taxes. They are indistinguishable from others in our mixed migrant community, but others try to maintain a traditional life in a remote area - and here the difference in lifestyle becomes pronounced.
Aboriginal housing falls way below national standards, many Aboriginal children do not attend school - or receive a lesser education than their white peers. Jobs in the bush are scarce, and the " benefit " of citizenship has condemned many to a welfare culture.
Huge amounts of money have been thrown at the problem by various governments, but few improvements have been permanent. An " angry culture " has developed in some Aboriginal communities and there is a movement to reclaim the land - a legal argument that has had some success in the nation's High court.
The past can not be changed. We did indeed behave badly with the Indigenous people and that was the normal procedure on planet Earth at that time. The Europeans - by right of their advance in ship building and force of arms - simply took possession of lands they discovered - as a right ! In many cases, the people of those lands were enslaved.
It is unrealistic to expect all those who have come here since 1788 to get on a ship or plane - and go home. Australia has become one of the great trading nations of the world and it's Aboriginal people have a part to play in advancing it further - and enjoying the prosperity that it's success can bring to it's citizens.
The future for all the citizens that call Australia home - and that includes the original Aboriginal people - will only be achieved if the future is a common purpose where we embrace equality. To do that, we need to draw a line under the past - and help the Aboriginal people make the transition into what this twenty-first century has to offer.
That can only be achieved if both side - black and white - find common ground in the middle !
Looked at from the point of view of those who had lived here for thousands of years, the uninvited arrival of people from the other side of the world could be seen as an " invasion ". They asked no permission and they very quickly proclaimed laws that they demanded the Indigenous residents obey - and enforced those laws harshly. Little attempt was made to protect the rights and customs of the original residents.
Basically, we set about creating a prosperous country for the white settlers as a trickle of people became a flood. Minerals were discovered and mines opened. The newcomers imported horses, sheep and pigs - and much of the land was given over to agriculture - from which the natives were excluded. Australia became a country divided - between black and white.
For the next 179 years the original inhabitants were basically ignored. They were not citizens and were not counted in the census. They could not get a passport or vote in elections - and they were forbidden the great Australian custom of having a beer on a hot day !
All that changed on May 27, 1967 when Australia voted in a referendum to right this wrong, and 90.7% of voters bestowed citizenship on our original inhabitants. At the stroke of a pen, they had the legal rights available to every citizen in this country - but in many ways, nothing changed !
Many Aboriginal people have assimilated into white culture. They are the people living next door who have children in the local school, have a job and pay taxes. They are indistinguishable from others in our mixed migrant community, but others try to maintain a traditional life in a remote area - and here the difference in lifestyle becomes pronounced.
Aboriginal housing falls way below national standards, many Aboriginal children do not attend school - or receive a lesser education than their white peers. Jobs in the bush are scarce, and the " benefit " of citizenship has condemned many to a welfare culture.
Huge amounts of money have been thrown at the problem by various governments, but few improvements have been permanent. An " angry culture " has developed in some Aboriginal communities and there is a movement to reclaim the land - a legal argument that has had some success in the nation's High court.
The past can not be changed. We did indeed behave badly with the Indigenous people and that was the normal procedure on planet Earth at that time. The Europeans - by right of their advance in ship building and force of arms - simply took possession of lands they discovered - as a right ! In many cases, the people of those lands were enslaved.
It is unrealistic to expect all those who have come here since 1788 to get on a ship or plane - and go home. Australia has become one of the great trading nations of the world and it's Aboriginal people have a part to play in advancing it further - and enjoying the prosperity that it's success can bring to it's citizens.
The future for all the citizens that call Australia home - and that includes the original Aboriginal people - will only be achieved if the future is a common purpose where we embrace equality. To do that, we need to draw a line under the past - and help the Aboriginal people make the transition into what this twenty-first century has to offer.
That can only be achieved if both side - black and white - find common ground in the middle !
Saturday, 26 January 2013
Dangerous territory !
David Cameron's plan to let British citizens decide whether the United Kingdom should remain in the Common Market seems the ultimate form of democracy. Surely that is a matter that can only be decided by a popular vote !
Originally, this " Common Market " was envisaged as a grouping of European countries who would prosper by sharing a market for their goods. The long term objective was a dismantling of national borders to allow the free movement of citizens, the establishment of a common currency - and perhaps the creation of some sort of " United States of Europe " To this end, a bureaucracy to set up rules and regulations was created in Brussels.
The sticking point for many Britons is the autocratic stance and ever increasing cost of this control juggernaut. The GFC has increased it's clout because of the failure of some member states to manage their finances and is now proposing measures that may harm British interests. It is proposed to implement a " transactions tax " that may shift the centre of financial gravity away from London.
Britain did not adopt the Euro and now many of it's citizens want to put limits on the ability of Brussels to rule their lives. It seems to be a matter of either limiting the terms of membership, or departing the union entirely - and that will be the choice presented to the voters.
It would be wise to remember a less publicly stated objective of creating a European union. It was hoped that a mutually dependent and prosperous grouping of nations would have less reason to go to war with one another.
For centuries, Europe has been the scene of countless wars. They have raged over the acquisition of colonies, the sharing of trade routes - and religion. Many of those wars were based on the desire of France and Spain to invade England - and reimpose Catholicism at the point of a sword. Christian relations now seem more settled, but new tensions are brewing between Christianity and Islam.
One fear guiding the creation of the European Union was the prospect of a reawakening of nationalism in Germany. In the twentieth century, Germany was responsible for two world wars that killed millions - and within the present EU Germany is clearly the most prosperous country - and the roots of National Socialism are still present just below the surface.
This coming referendum could see the dismantling of the EU or it's recreation in another form. That brings with it danger. If the German industrial powerhouse finds itself shackled to a bunch of under performing countries it may awaken that old " Master race " concept that has twice sent the world into the most destructive wars in history.
At present, Germany is leaning over backwards to preserve the union. It is German money that is keeping the EU afloat and the British voting public will need to make a choice between suffering the rule of Brussels - or taking the chance that a disintegrating Europe will revert to it's old habits.
It seems to be a matter of being very careful what you wish for !
Originally, this " Common Market " was envisaged as a grouping of European countries who would prosper by sharing a market for their goods. The long term objective was a dismantling of national borders to allow the free movement of citizens, the establishment of a common currency - and perhaps the creation of some sort of " United States of Europe " To this end, a bureaucracy to set up rules and regulations was created in Brussels.
The sticking point for many Britons is the autocratic stance and ever increasing cost of this control juggernaut. The GFC has increased it's clout because of the failure of some member states to manage their finances and is now proposing measures that may harm British interests. It is proposed to implement a " transactions tax " that may shift the centre of financial gravity away from London.
Britain did not adopt the Euro and now many of it's citizens want to put limits on the ability of Brussels to rule their lives. It seems to be a matter of either limiting the terms of membership, or departing the union entirely - and that will be the choice presented to the voters.
It would be wise to remember a less publicly stated objective of creating a European union. It was hoped that a mutually dependent and prosperous grouping of nations would have less reason to go to war with one another.
For centuries, Europe has been the scene of countless wars. They have raged over the acquisition of colonies, the sharing of trade routes - and religion. Many of those wars were based on the desire of France and Spain to invade England - and reimpose Catholicism at the point of a sword. Christian relations now seem more settled, but new tensions are brewing between Christianity and Islam.
One fear guiding the creation of the European Union was the prospect of a reawakening of nationalism in Germany. In the twentieth century, Germany was responsible for two world wars that killed millions - and within the present EU Germany is clearly the most prosperous country - and the roots of National Socialism are still present just below the surface.
This coming referendum could see the dismantling of the EU or it's recreation in another form. That brings with it danger. If the German industrial powerhouse finds itself shackled to a bunch of under performing countries it may awaken that old " Master race " concept that has twice sent the world into the most destructive wars in history.
At present, Germany is leaning over backwards to preserve the union. It is German money that is keeping the EU afloat and the British voting public will need to make a choice between suffering the rule of Brussels - or taking the chance that a disintegrating Europe will revert to it's old habits.
It seems to be a matter of being very careful what you wish for !
Friday, 25 January 2013
The " Drunk Tank " concept !
There seems to be a very real danger that the introduction of what could be called " a Drunk Tank " - will morph into a " bed and breakfast " option for young revellers. For a start, the police will only convey offenders to a service that will be run by a non government organization. The standards that apply will be at the discretion of that organization.
It seems that " guests " will be supplied with a bed, pyjamas, showers - and have a nice breakfast in the morning. Once sobered up, they will receive freshly laundered clothing to see them on their way. It is likely that access to this sobering up facility will be fairly selective. The aim is to take care of young men and women under the age of thirty who have ventured into the city night spots, had too much to drink - and need protection from their own brand of folly.
Obviously, the facilities will have number restrictions. It will not be offered to hostile drunks in fighting mode and those who get to use it's services will be health monitored - and probably targeted by alcohol reduction agencies for follow up.
It sounds too good to be true - and it probably is ! There is a very real danger that a night in this " health facility " may become some sort of " badge of honour " to young and impressionable people. In particular, it could be an appealing option to those lacking the cab fare to get home after a night out.
We do not want to encourage excess drinking by providing a " soft landing " for drunks. The original purpose of a drunk tank was to protect those at risk from self harm - and keep them safe from the actions of others until they regained a reasonable measure of sobriety. A night in " the drunk tank " was not something to be welcomed - and was not usually a pleasant experience !
This could easily backfire. All it would take is for a few people to start talking up the facility as an experience others " must have " on Facebook and Twitter - and we could see a queue forming for it's services.
The sticking point seems to be the terms set by that " non government organization " that will be the prime provider. People with good intentions can easily lose sight of the objective to be gained and err too heavily on the side of compassion. In this case, the police seem confined to the " gatekeeper " role. They will have the duty of separating the " dangerous drunks " to police cells - and the " good drunks " to the luxury drunk tank.
Perhaps we will learn from this coming experience - but it is also likely that we are entering territory " where angels fear to tread ! "
It seems that " guests " will be supplied with a bed, pyjamas, showers - and have a nice breakfast in the morning. Once sobered up, they will receive freshly laundered clothing to see them on their way. It is likely that access to this sobering up facility will be fairly selective. The aim is to take care of young men and women under the age of thirty who have ventured into the city night spots, had too much to drink - and need protection from their own brand of folly.
Obviously, the facilities will have number restrictions. It will not be offered to hostile drunks in fighting mode and those who get to use it's services will be health monitored - and probably targeted by alcohol reduction agencies for follow up.
It sounds too good to be true - and it probably is ! There is a very real danger that a night in this " health facility " may become some sort of " badge of honour " to young and impressionable people. In particular, it could be an appealing option to those lacking the cab fare to get home after a night out.
We do not want to encourage excess drinking by providing a " soft landing " for drunks. The original purpose of a drunk tank was to protect those at risk from self harm - and keep them safe from the actions of others until they regained a reasonable measure of sobriety. A night in " the drunk tank " was not something to be welcomed - and was not usually a pleasant experience !
This could easily backfire. All it would take is for a few people to start talking up the facility as an experience others " must have " on Facebook and Twitter - and we could see a queue forming for it's services.
The sticking point seems to be the terms set by that " non government organization " that will be the prime provider. People with good intentions can easily lose sight of the objective to be gained and err too heavily on the side of compassion. In this case, the police seem confined to the " gatekeeper " role. They will have the duty of separating the " dangerous drunks " to police cells - and the " good drunks " to the luxury drunk tank.
Perhaps we will learn from this coming experience - but it is also likely that we are entering territory " where angels fear to tread ! "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)