When a new model car hits the showroom the designers cross their fingers and hope that the " look " finds favour with buyers. Different people have different reasons for making a buying decision, but the actual physical design must be pleasing.
To cater for the wide world of customers a lot of other factors come into the equation. Price is equally important, but the selling points salespeople hammer are safety, performance and the various gizmos that manufacturers build into the design to make their vehicle " different " !
To a " Greenie " a reduction in exhaust emissions might be the factor that results in a buying decision. To a young mother needing a car to transport her children a five star safety rating might be the compelling factor. To a hard nosed businessman, perhaps fuel economy would swing the deal.
Recent revelations have soured some new car buyers on the accuracy of claims made by the car industry. Volkswagen has been caught out using a clever software programme to disguise the true engine emissions of their diesel vehicles. Their CEO has stepped down and it is likely that they will face billion dollar fines for this deception.
Now it has been revealed that the fuel efficiency claims for many models fall far short of reality. Most vehicles are not road tested to substantiate the claim made, but tested in a laboratory under ideal conditions, and yet these tests suggest the expected fuel economy in both city traffic and open road driving. The discrepancy is often thirty-five percent higher and can cost the average owner an extra $ 600 a year in price at the bowser over a year's motoring.
The latest round of car sales warfare embraces the manufacturers warranty. Kia now offers a seven year unlimited kilometre warranty on all it's models and a host of other manufacturers offer five years, but - strangely - cars in the upper price brackets are stubbornly sticking with a three year warranty - and even that comes with a odometer limit.
The kitting out of new cars seems to run in cycles. A few years back navigational aids were a feature in the higher priced cars, but now that has been extended to even the base models. Rear view cameras became all the rage and there is talk of requiring them in future design rules, particularly in SUV's because of a spate of reversing causing death and injuries to children.
The latest buzz word seems to be " automatic braking ". Sensors are constantly measuring the distance to the car in front and if that gap closes dangerously because of driver inattention, the onboard computer applies the brakes and avoids a tailender !
Many manufacturers are including the cost of servicing in the selling price and one manufacturer promises a free courtesy car while the owner's vehicle is undergoing all regular periodic servicing. The driverless car is undergoing tests in some countries and it seems that what was once considered a Utopian dream is likely to become a reality.
Each new innovation first appears in the top of the range models,but globalization and mass production quickly brings them into play as inclusions in the entire product range. Recent revelations may cause new car buyers to consider all claims with that proverbial grain of salt.
Very little has changed since the days when people traded horses - before the advent of cars. And the same rules that applied to horses are applicable in this modern age !
Thursday, 1 October 2015
Wednesday, 30 September 2015
The Sport of - " Battlers " !
It used to be a common sight when the first rays of the rising sun appeared above the horizon each morning. A man or woman leading a string of Greyhounds on the massive exercise walks that were needed to condition them for racing.
If horse racing was the " Sport of Kings ", then Greyhound racing was the "Sport of Battlers ". Only the wealthy could buy a promising horse at the yearling sales and then shell out for stabling fees and the cost of a celebrated trainer. The results were often disappointing. It was a rare horse that became a champion and delivered riches in prize money.
The thrill of being an " owner " for the less affluent belonged in the world of Greyhound racing. For a mere fraction of the costs associated with horse racing very ordinary men and women could buy a Greyhound pup, do the hard yards of training and preparing it for racing - and in some cases win fame and fortune if their prized dog became a champion.
A recent " Four Corners " report has clearly shown that all is not well within the Greyhound racing industry. That old time practice of " blooding " the dogs by tying a live rabbit or cat to the lure and letting them catch it and tear it to pieces still persists. Animal lovers were shocked to learn that somewhere between thirteen and seventeen thousand dogs are put down every year because they lack the speed to be competitive at the raceway. Only four in every hundred pups born lives beyond forty-two months of life.
Not surprisingly, animal lovers have called for a shut down of Greyhound racing in New South Wales and it seems likely that the Special Commission enquiring into Greyhound Racing in New South Wales will consider this option. It would be a devastating blow to the TAB because well over a billion dollars is wagered annually on that sport and as an industry it employs a lot of people, both directly and indirectly.
Evidence presented at this enquiry suggests that the sport is too fragmented to ever be brought under control. There is a high degree of self regulation and this is not the first time that questions of cruelty have been raised and promises of correction given. Animal rights activists point to former sports such as dog fighting and cock fighting that were made illegal - and years ago someone proposed to stage a bull fight at a rodeo and that was hastily added to sporting bans in this state.
To most people, placing a shut down on Greyhound racing would be an over reaction. It is a legitimate sport and to suggest that the state government lacks the power to bring it under control and ensure that these forms of cruelty are eliminated is ridiculous. It simply means that the industry as it exists today would have to accept great change and oversight. That might not be popular with owners and trainers, hut it would be the price they have to pay to ensure that their sport enters the twenty-first century.
The first casualty in bringing Greyhound racing under control would be stabling, training and keeping racing Greyhounds in private homes and exercising them on public streets. Just as the horse racing industry is closely regulated in where horses are kept and trained, similar arrangements should apply to dogs. That will certainly sharply increase costs for owners, but it is the issue of low costs that is allowing for the rapid turnover of racing dogs in the hope of a rare champion emerging.
In the horse racing industry, the mating and production of foals is not prolific. There must be a good chance of progeny delivering likely success and hence numbers are kept under control. Once the need for racing dogs to come under the control of the racing commission tasked with their accommodation and training, the costs associated will see a dramatic drop in the numbers - and it is the sheer number of unregulated pups that is delivering chaos to this industry.
Clearly, the answer is to take an unregulated industry and bring it within the boundaries of control. To simply throw up their hands and apply a blanket ban would do a great disservice to a sport that has wide public support !
If horse racing was the " Sport of Kings ", then Greyhound racing was the "Sport of Battlers ". Only the wealthy could buy a promising horse at the yearling sales and then shell out for stabling fees and the cost of a celebrated trainer. The results were often disappointing. It was a rare horse that became a champion and delivered riches in prize money.
The thrill of being an " owner " for the less affluent belonged in the world of Greyhound racing. For a mere fraction of the costs associated with horse racing very ordinary men and women could buy a Greyhound pup, do the hard yards of training and preparing it for racing - and in some cases win fame and fortune if their prized dog became a champion.
A recent " Four Corners " report has clearly shown that all is not well within the Greyhound racing industry. That old time practice of " blooding " the dogs by tying a live rabbit or cat to the lure and letting them catch it and tear it to pieces still persists. Animal lovers were shocked to learn that somewhere between thirteen and seventeen thousand dogs are put down every year because they lack the speed to be competitive at the raceway. Only four in every hundred pups born lives beyond forty-two months of life.
Not surprisingly, animal lovers have called for a shut down of Greyhound racing in New South Wales and it seems likely that the Special Commission enquiring into Greyhound Racing in New South Wales will consider this option. It would be a devastating blow to the TAB because well over a billion dollars is wagered annually on that sport and as an industry it employs a lot of people, both directly and indirectly.
Evidence presented at this enquiry suggests that the sport is too fragmented to ever be brought under control. There is a high degree of self regulation and this is not the first time that questions of cruelty have been raised and promises of correction given. Animal rights activists point to former sports such as dog fighting and cock fighting that were made illegal - and years ago someone proposed to stage a bull fight at a rodeo and that was hastily added to sporting bans in this state.
To most people, placing a shut down on Greyhound racing would be an over reaction. It is a legitimate sport and to suggest that the state government lacks the power to bring it under control and ensure that these forms of cruelty are eliminated is ridiculous. It simply means that the industry as it exists today would have to accept great change and oversight. That might not be popular with owners and trainers, hut it would be the price they have to pay to ensure that their sport enters the twenty-first century.
The first casualty in bringing Greyhound racing under control would be stabling, training and keeping racing Greyhounds in private homes and exercising them on public streets. Just as the horse racing industry is closely regulated in where horses are kept and trained, similar arrangements should apply to dogs. That will certainly sharply increase costs for owners, but it is the issue of low costs that is allowing for the rapid turnover of racing dogs in the hope of a rare champion emerging.
In the horse racing industry, the mating and production of foals is not prolific. There must be a good chance of progeny delivering likely success and hence numbers are kept under control. Once the need for racing dogs to come under the control of the racing commission tasked with their accommodation and training, the costs associated will see a dramatic drop in the numbers - and it is the sheer number of unregulated pups that is delivering chaos to this industry.
Clearly, the answer is to take an unregulated industry and bring it within the boundaries of control. To simply throw up their hands and apply a blanket ban would do a great disservice to a sport that has wide public support !
Tuesday, 29 September 2015
" Deadly " Smoke Alarms !
The CSIRO has warned that imported smoke alarms are on sale in many shops that do not meet the Australian standard. The deficiency level varies from manufacturer to manufacturer but the decibel level of warning is usually too low to wake a sleeper and in some cases the smoke trigger is virtually useless. Those purchasing these alarms are unprotected in the event of a house fire.
Last year twenty-one people lost their lives in house fires in New South Wales and investigations show that about half would have been saved had a working smoke alarm been in place and an escape plan been practised. The problem is that importers seeking to offer goods at the lowest possible price are legally able to bring in smoke alarms made in other countries that have no bearing on the manufacturing standard required here - and can range from near that level to completely useless.
The government and the fire authorities urge people to buy and install a smoke alarm and this is negated if what is offering in the shops is below standard, but capable of deceiving buyers that it is a legitimate smoke alarm. We need a law change to make any smoke alarm that does not comply with the Australian standard AS 3786 an illegal import.
Local government regulations require wired in smoke alarms to be part of the electrical installation in all new homes, but existing house stocks rely on the owners and occupiers to provide their own fire safety needs. Usually, these reasonable priced devices which meet the Australian standard are self installed - and the biggest problem is reminding owners to regularly test them and replace fading batteries. In recent times, the start of daylight saving is being used as the reminder date to urge people to check smoke alarm batteries.
Christmas gift giving time is coming around and a new smoke alarm would be a useful gift for those who do not have one, but now that this CSIRO warning has sounded the alert, buyers would be wise to carefully check the merchandise offering - and reject any smoke alarm that does not have that AS 3876 stamped on it's compliance plate.
Fire safety is an ongoing subject of law revision. Fire sprinklers are required as an integral part of all apartment buildings above three stories in height and it is likely that will soon be lowered to any multi-unit structures, and there has been some consideration to requiring sprinkler systems in individual new homes. Cost may be an obstacle, but certainly sprinklers could be an option for the upper echelon of high priced dwellings.
One very handy concession seems vastly under used in this state. Pensioners and people with limited mobility because of age or illness can call on the fire brigade for an annual check on their smoke alarms - and a free battery replacement. The fire brigade will make a house call and ensure that their smoke alarm is functioning properly and that is has a reliable battery in place - and this is completely without a cost charge.
There is no doubt that smoke alarms save lives. The government needs to take swift action to choke off dodgy imports that simply fail to do the intended job, but are capable of deceiving the public that they have full protection. Those are even more deadly - than having no smoke alarm at all !
Last year twenty-one people lost their lives in house fires in New South Wales and investigations show that about half would have been saved had a working smoke alarm been in place and an escape plan been practised. The problem is that importers seeking to offer goods at the lowest possible price are legally able to bring in smoke alarms made in other countries that have no bearing on the manufacturing standard required here - and can range from near that level to completely useless.
The government and the fire authorities urge people to buy and install a smoke alarm and this is negated if what is offering in the shops is below standard, but capable of deceiving buyers that it is a legitimate smoke alarm. We need a law change to make any smoke alarm that does not comply with the Australian standard AS 3786 an illegal import.
Local government regulations require wired in smoke alarms to be part of the electrical installation in all new homes, but existing house stocks rely on the owners and occupiers to provide their own fire safety needs. Usually, these reasonable priced devices which meet the Australian standard are self installed - and the biggest problem is reminding owners to regularly test them and replace fading batteries. In recent times, the start of daylight saving is being used as the reminder date to urge people to check smoke alarm batteries.
Christmas gift giving time is coming around and a new smoke alarm would be a useful gift for those who do not have one, but now that this CSIRO warning has sounded the alert, buyers would be wise to carefully check the merchandise offering - and reject any smoke alarm that does not have that AS 3876 stamped on it's compliance plate.
Fire safety is an ongoing subject of law revision. Fire sprinklers are required as an integral part of all apartment buildings above three stories in height and it is likely that will soon be lowered to any multi-unit structures, and there has been some consideration to requiring sprinkler systems in individual new homes. Cost may be an obstacle, but certainly sprinklers could be an option for the upper echelon of high priced dwellings.
One very handy concession seems vastly under used in this state. Pensioners and people with limited mobility because of age or illness can call on the fire brigade for an annual check on their smoke alarms - and a free battery replacement. The fire brigade will make a house call and ensure that their smoke alarm is functioning properly and that is has a reliable battery in place - and this is completely without a cost charge.
There is no doubt that smoke alarms save lives. The government needs to take swift action to choke off dodgy imports that simply fail to do the intended job, but are capable of deceiving the public that they have full protection. Those are even more deadly - than having no smoke alarm at all !
Monday, 28 September 2015
The " Shark Question " !
We are about to undertake a hundred thousand dollar review of shark detection technology as we grapple with the question of whether to deploy shark nets off the beaches of our north coast. It seems to be a fact of life that beaches from Wollongong to Newcastle have been almost free of shark incidents and many people believe that this is because those beaches are protected by shark nets.
Experts from many scientific disciplines will confer and study new developments in sonar technology, electric deterrent barriers and what are termed " clever buoy detection " to determine if this can improve on shark netting, which gets a bad press because it also entangles and kills dolphins and whales.
Sharks have always been a risk to humans swimming in the ocean but fifty years ago a shark fatality in Australia was a once a year event, and when it happened it would be treated as the main news story of the day, with banner headlines in newspapers. In the past year there have been over fifty shark attacks or close encounters on just our far northern beaches - with two of them fatalities. There seems no doubt that shark attack is a rapidly increasing phenomenon. It would be a fair question to ask - why ?
Certainly there are more of us in the water these days. Australia now has a population approaching twenty-four million people but that increase in shark encounters is also happening in other parts of the world where climate makes the sea hospitable to bathers. Why are sharks changing their meal habits ? Discovering that is equally important as seeking ways to provide protection for those using our beaches.
Could it be that world over-fishing has depleted the fish stocks that used to be their main diet ? Could attacks on humans be desperation because of hunger ? We know that sharks often come close inshore because they are feeding off great schools of bait fish. Are these schools diminishing and do we need to try and encourage their expansion ?
Rounding up the " usual suspects " will certainly raise the question of global warming and it's possible iteraction with the oceans. The seas are now fractionally warmer than they were half a century ago. Could colder seas have suppressed the appetite of sharks ? Will they become even more interested in human fare as further temperature rises continue ?
The seas are a known sump for carbon dioxide - and as a consequence they are becoming more acidic. What do we know about this change and how it will affect the food chains of all the creatures that live in the sea ? Could this be what is making sharks more aggressive ?
Then there is the question of why shark attacks seem to be concentrated on a particular area of coastline ? What is different on our far north coast that makes swimming there immensely more dangerous that other parts of the state ? Is runoff from some sort of inland industry polluting the water or changing the mix so that it has an effect on shark psychology ?
Most people will wish this enquiry the best of luck in selecting a cost effective way of protecting bathers on the north coast, but it would also be rewarding to get the boffins to give some thought to why change has occurred. There is absolutely no doubt that shark attacks are on the increase - and it would be helpful to discover the reason why this is happening !
Experts from many scientific disciplines will confer and study new developments in sonar technology, electric deterrent barriers and what are termed " clever buoy detection " to determine if this can improve on shark netting, which gets a bad press because it also entangles and kills dolphins and whales.
Sharks have always been a risk to humans swimming in the ocean but fifty years ago a shark fatality in Australia was a once a year event, and when it happened it would be treated as the main news story of the day, with banner headlines in newspapers. In the past year there have been over fifty shark attacks or close encounters on just our far northern beaches - with two of them fatalities. There seems no doubt that shark attack is a rapidly increasing phenomenon. It would be a fair question to ask - why ?
Certainly there are more of us in the water these days. Australia now has a population approaching twenty-four million people but that increase in shark encounters is also happening in other parts of the world where climate makes the sea hospitable to bathers. Why are sharks changing their meal habits ? Discovering that is equally important as seeking ways to provide protection for those using our beaches.
Could it be that world over-fishing has depleted the fish stocks that used to be their main diet ? Could attacks on humans be desperation because of hunger ? We know that sharks often come close inshore because they are feeding off great schools of bait fish. Are these schools diminishing and do we need to try and encourage their expansion ?
Rounding up the " usual suspects " will certainly raise the question of global warming and it's possible iteraction with the oceans. The seas are now fractionally warmer than they were half a century ago. Could colder seas have suppressed the appetite of sharks ? Will they become even more interested in human fare as further temperature rises continue ?
The seas are a known sump for carbon dioxide - and as a consequence they are becoming more acidic. What do we know about this change and how it will affect the food chains of all the creatures that live in the sea ? Could this be what is making sharks more aggressive ?
Then there is the question of why shark attacks seem to be concentrated on a particular area of coastline ? What is different on our far north coast that makes swimming there immensely more dangerous that other parts of the state ? Is runoff from some sort of inland industry polluting the water or changing the mix so that it has an effect on shark psychology ?
Most people will wish this enquiry the best of luck in selecting a cost effective way of protecting bathers on the north coast, but it would also be rewarding to get the boffins to give some thought to why change has occurred. There is absolutely no doubt that shark attacks are on the increase - and it would be helpful to discover the reason why this is happening !
Sunday, 27 September 2015
" Monkey Bike " Tragedy !
This week a thirty-four year old mother of two children was shopping at a Melbourne shopping centre. She was walking on a pedestrian crossing when several youths riding what are known as "Monkey bikes " began racing each other with total disregard for the safety of shoppers. One of these ran her down, and despite being taken to hospital it was soon apparent that she had received irreversible brain injuries. Her husband and two young children stood at her bedside as the life support machines were turned off.
This young mother was a nurse and she had a firm belief in the need for organ donor gifts to replace and save the lives of those suffering organ failures. Her family honoured that wish and her death will enable a host of complete strangers to enjoy recovery from a crippled lifestyle - and in some cases - reprieve from certain death.
The police have arrested one of the riders who absconded from the scene and are closing in on others, but this death raises the question of why these Monkey bikes are able to be imported and sold in Australia when they can not be legally registered for road use or serve any other useful purpose.
Monkey bikes are miniature motorbikes with very powerfull engines and they are capable of high speeds.According to the law in all Australian states and territories they are only able to be legally ridden on private land, but so far there has been no interest from farmers to apply them to cattle or sheep roundups - and they are regarded as " toys " !
The vast majority of these machines are advertised and on sale within Australian cities. It is remotely possible that some buyers may have a grandparent or friend who owns a country farm and will allow them to be ridden where it is legal to do so, but the majority of sales are to city folk who are likely to either ride them on fire trails or public land - or in the majority of cases - illegally in shopping centres or public streets.
The quality of these toys ranges with the prices asked, but they are well within what many parents spend for a birthday gift or Christmas present for teenage children - and they are often high on the list of items teenagers urge their parents to buy. It seems incredible that so many make this purchase knowing that the bikes will be used illegally on public streets and that their riders will be in danger of becoming a road statistic when they collide with other traffic.
In this case, the rider of that Monkey bike has committed a crime which has taken the life of a young mother - and court action will follow. If the rider was under eighteen, the case will be heard in a juvenile court and such courts hand down unbelievably light penalties. The same offence committed by a person who has crossed over that eighteen age barrier would probably serve a term of incarceration.
The families who buy Monkey bikes as gifts for irresponsible teenagers are equally guilty because they know that their gift will never be used in a legal manner. They simply don't care that it will be used on a public street or in a shopping centre with total disregard for the safety of the rider - or any other unfortunates who may come into contact with it's wild ride.
It also raises the question as to why these bikes are not an illegal import ? It seems strange that a piece of machinery that is destined for illegal use can be openly advertised and displayed in shops - and allowed into the country in the full knowledge that it will pass into the hands of people who will use it to breach the law.
This untimely death simply illustrates the absurdity of what passes for import restrictions in Australia.
This young mother was a nurse and she had a firm belief in the need for organ donor gifts to replace and save the lives of those suffering organ failures. Her family honoured that wish and her death will enable a host of complete strangers to enjoy recovery from a crippled lifestyle - and in some cases - reprieve from certain death.
The police have arrested one of the riders who absconded from the scene and are closing in on others, but this death raises the question of why these Monkey bikes are able to be imported and sold in Australia when they can not be legally registered for road use or serve any other useful purpose.
Monkey bikes are miniature motorbikes with very powerfull engines and they are capable of high speeds.According to the law in all Australian states and territories they are only able to be legally ridden on private land, but so far there has been no interest from farmers to apply them to cattle or sheep roundups - and they are regarded as " toys " !
The vast majority of these machines are advertised and on sale within Australian cities. It is remotely possible that some buyers may have a grandparent or friend who owns a country farm and will allow them to be ridden where it is legal to do so, but the majority of sales are to city folk who are likely to either ride them on fire trails or public land - or in the majority of cases - illegally in shopping centres or public streets.
The quality of these toys ranges with the prices asked, but they are well within what many parents spend for a birthday gift or Christmas present for teenage children - and they are often high on the list of items teenagers urge their parents to buy. It seems incredible that so many make this purchase knowing that the bikes will be used illegally on public streets and that their riders will be in danger of becoming a road statistic when they collide with other traffic.
In this case, the rider of that Monkey bike has committed a crime which has taken the life of a young mother - and court action will follow. If the rider was under eighteen, the case will be heard in a juvenile court and such courts hand down unbelievably light penalties. The same offence committed by a person who has crossed over that eighteen age barrier would probably serve a term of incarceration.
The families who buy Monkey bikes as gifts for irresponsible teenagers are equally guilty because they know that their gift will never be used in a legal manner. They simply don't care that it will be used on a public street or in a shopping centre with total disregard for the safety of the rider - or any other unfortunates who may come into contact with it's wild ride.
It also raises the question as to why these bikes are not an illegal import ? It seems strange that a piece of machinery that is destined for illegal use can be openly advertised and displayed in shops - and allowed into the country in the full knowledge that it will pass into the hands of people who will use it to breach the law.
This untimely death simply illustrates the absurdity of what passes for import restrictions in Australia.
Saturday, 26 September 2015
Smoking Fines !
Ask any ex-smoker and they will tell you about the agony of cravings for a cigarette when they have decided to give up the habit and gone "cold turkey "! Nicotine is notoriously addictive and is often compared to Heroin for the strength of it's ability to take control of a user's life. It seems that the campaign to stop people smoking is now moving into high gear and persuasion is being replaced by force.
All forms of tobacco are now prohibitive items in this state's prison system. Push turned to shove a month ago and by the stroke of a pen nicotine became a banned substance for those "guest's of the government "occupying a prison cell. No doubt tobacco has become a new "currency " within prisons and is just as readily available today as illicit drugs have been in the past.
Any day we pass Wollongong's main hospital in Crown street we are sure to see a bevy of people on the footpath puffing on cigarettes. That is despite prominent signs at all hospital entrances warning that it is illegal to smoke within ten metres of entrances and threatening a $300 on the spot fine for offenders.
Now we learn that this state's hospitals have come under pressure to implement those bans and their security people have started handing out fines. It seems to be an incremental use of the law to gradually tighten the non smoking net, but at the same time leave nicotine as a legal product and net the tax bonanza that Treasury is reluctant to lose.
Hospital patients usually do not enjoy their stay in these medical institutions. They are places of great tension - and often the deliverer of very bad news. Unfortunately, pain is often a necessary companion to surgical operations and the fact that patients are separated from home and loved ones adds to the mental tension. If a person is a smoker, the need for the soothing effect of nicotine becomes almost overwhelming.
That is just so apparent when considering those who congregate outside hospital entrances. Most have a coat over pyjamas and many use walking aids. They have slipped away from their wards, often with a nod from an attending nurse concerned at their degree of agitation, and they return refreshed - with their craving appeased. Imposing this ban seems little more than an act of incredible cruelty.
Smoking does cause both early death and many diseases but that damage is done long before they become hospital patients. Many smokers are eager to quit the habit, but the timing of forcing this decision on them when they are battling the aftermath of an operation seems counter productive. It seems to be a case of diktat from above with little appreciation of how nicotine may help in getting the patient over the stress of an imposed hospital stay.
The likely outcome of this fine implementation move will be to cause patients in Wollongong to disperse further from the rain protected area immediately covering the entrance and congregate further along the street, outside of that ten metre exclusion zone. Cold, wet and windy conditions are unlikely to counter the desperation for that nicotine fix.
No doubt the person who demanded that the non smoking rule be implemented with sharp teeth thinks they have done a great public service. Making tobacco more expensive and reducing the number of outlets offering it for sale are legitimate weapons in the anti-nicotine war, but imposing an artificial ban on those under stress and denying them the comfort that nicotine can deliver is little more than the imposition of torture.
All forms of tobacco are now prohibitive items in this state's prison system. Push turned to shove a month ago and by the stroke of a pen nicotine became a banned substance for those "guest's of the government "occupying a prison cell. No doubt tobacco has become a new "currency " within prisons and is just as readily available today as illicit drugs have been in the past.
Any day we pass Wollongong's main hospital in Crown street we are sure to see a bevy of people on the footpath puffing on cigarettes. That is despite prominent signs at all hospital entrances warning that it is illegal to smoke within ten metres of entrances and threatening a $300 on the spot fine for offenders.
Now we learn that this state's hospitals have come under pressure to implement those bans and their security people have started handing out fines. It seems to be an incremental use of the law to gradually tighten the non smoking net, but at the same time leave nicotine as a legal product and net the tax bonanza that Treasury is reluctant to lose.
Hospital patients usually do not enjoy their stay in these medical institutions. They are places of great tension - and often the deliverer of very bad news. Unfortunately, pain is often a necessary companion to surgical operations and the fact that patients are separated from home and loved ones adds to the mental tension. If a person is a smoker, the need for the soothing effect of nicotine becomes almost overwhelming.
That is just so apparent when considering those who congregate outside hospital entrances. Most have a coat over pyjamas and many use walking aids. They have slipped away from their wards, often with a nod from an attending nurse concerned at their degree of agitation, and they return refreshed - with their craving appeased. Imposing this ban seems little more than an act of incredible cruelty.
Smoking does cause both early death and many diseases but that damage is done long before they become hospital patients. Many smokers are eager to quit the habit, but the timing of forcing this decision on them when they are battling the aftermath of an operation seems counter productive. It seems to be a case of diktat from above with little appreciation of how nicotine may help in getting the patient over the stress of an imposed hospital stay.
The likely outcome of this fine implementation move will be to cause patients in Wollongong to disperse further from the rain protected area immediately covering the entrance and congregate further along the street, outside of that ten metre exclusion zone. Cold, wet and windy conditions are unlikely to counter the desperation for that nicotine fix.
No doubt the person who demanded that the non smoking rule be implemented with sharp teeth thinks they have done a great public service. Making tobacco more expensive and reducing the number of outlets offering it for sale are legitimate weapons in the anti-nicotine war, but imposing an artificial ban on those under stress and denying them the comfort that nicotine can deliver is little more than the imposition of torture.
Friday, 25 September 2015
Making Judgement !
Different countries - Different laws ! The law in Australia is based on English law because when the first fleet arrived this colony was deemed an extension of England as far as it's governors were concerned and judges enforced the law on that basis. New laws were added when the complexities of this new land warranted.
Today, there has been a divergence of law between the two countries. This concerns what juries are allowed to hear in relation to past crimes that apply to a person before them for judgement. In England the judge presiding over a case has an obligation to make the jury aware of past convictions relating to that person. In Australia, the jury is shielded from that knowledge - and only informed in very special circumstances. Pressure is building to change the law and automatically make the jury aware of all past convictions.
There are two very pertinent sides to this argument. It is argued that an accused must only be judged on the particular crime event on which he or she is on trial and that the decision must be made solely on the evidence put before the court. It is the job of the prosecutor to convince the jury on the basis of that evidence, and the job of the defence to prove that this evidence does not convince them of guilt. The judge is the arbitrator that keeps prosecution and defence within the boundaries of the law in their presentations.
Much depends on individual assessment each juror makes on the character of the accused. In most cases, this person is a complete stranger and that evaluation is made entirely on what the juror observes in his or her manner in court, and in the skill of the defence lawyer in portraying innocence. Should that juror be made aware that this same person has a long history of similar convictions to the present charge that would surely help in making that evaluation.
This panders to the families of victims who are aware that an accused has a long and sordid history of similar crimes, and yet they sit at the trial and hear the defence portray the accused as a person of fine character. It must be galling to see this go unchallenged and often leads to their notion that justice was not entirely served - and that the sentence imposed was inadequate.
Selecting a jury is a delicate process given that jurors are picked at random from electoral rolls. Where major crimes are concerned the law seeks the unanimous verdict for a conviction, but that has now been reduced so that a single holdout can no longer abort a trial. Both prosecution and defence have a limited ability to reject individuals during jury selection and an effort is made to weed out those who may have strong partisan views on law procedure.
But - it all comes down to the individual makeup of the twelve people who sit in judgement. They are counselled to be fair and only consider whatever evidence is put before them in court and yet their prejudices on morality, religion, politics and a host of other emotions will come into play as they make up their minds. Often, a single person with strong persuasive powers will dominate a jury and sway the verdict either way.
It is possible to make a case on the admission of past crimes with opposing views. Certainly the decision relates entirely to the event for which the accused is before the court and the decision must apply to that matter only, but at the same time a person who habitually perpetrated very similar events should be evaluated with that fact in mind when giving the case consideration. The past criminality of the accused is a pertinent factor in character evaluation.
This is another of those issues that will probably only be decided by the justices of the Australian High Court.
Today, there has been a divergence of law between the two countries. This concerns what juries are allowed to hear in relation to past crimes that apply to a person before them for judgement. In England the judge presiding over a case has an obligation to make the jury aware of past convictions relating to that person. In Australia, the jury is shielded from that knowledge - and only informed in very special circumstances. Pressure is building to change the law and automatically make the jury aware of all past convictions.
There are two very pertinent sides to this argument. It is argued that an accused must only be judged on the particular crime event on which he or she is on trial and that the decision must be made solely on the evidence put before the court. It is the job of the prosecutor to convince the jury on the basis of that evidence, and the job of the defence to prove that this evidence does not convince them of guilt. The judge is the arbitrator that keeps prosecution and defence within the boundaries of the law in their presentations.
Much depends on individual assessment each juror makes on the character of the accused. In most cases, this person is a complete stranger and that evaluation is made entirely on what the juror observes in his or her manner in court, and in the skill of the defence lawyer in portraying innocence. Should that juror be made aware that this same person has a long history of similar convictions to the present charge that would surely help in making that evaluation.
This panders to the families of victims who are aware that an accused has a long and sordid history of similar crimes, and yet they sit at the trial and hear the defence portray the accused as a person of fine character. It must be galling to see this go unchallenged and often leads to their notion that justice was not entirely served - and that the sentence imposed was inadequate.
Selecting a jury is a delicate process given that jurors are picked at random from electoral rolls. Where major crimes are concerned the law seeks the unanimous verdict for a conviction, but that has now been reduced so that a single holdout can no longer abort a trial. Both prosecution and defence have a limited ability to reject individuals during jury selection and an effort is made to weed out those who may have strong partisan views on law procedure.
But - it all comes down to the individual makeup of the twelve people who sit in judgement. They are counselled to be fair and only consider whatever evidence is put before them in court and yet their prejudices on morality, religion, politics and a host of other emotions will come into play as they make up their minds. Often, a single person with strong persuasive powers will dominate a jury and sway the verdict either way.
It is possible to make a case on the admission of past crimes with opposing views. Certainly the decision relates entirely to the event for which the accused is before the court and the decision must apply to that matter only, but at the same time a person who habitually perpetrated very similar events should be evaluated with that fact in mind when giving the case consideration. The past criminality of the accused is a pertinent factor in character evaluation.
This is another of those issues that will probably only be decided by the justices of the Australian High Court.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)