# Alcohol fueled violence



## MrBurns (24 March 2012)

Why dont the authorities here do something instead of throwing it back at the police, perhaps they don't want to offend their mates in the grog pushing business, if they can do this in the UK why not here, their problem seems much the same as ours.


"""Britain to introduce minimum alcohol price

The British government will introduce a minimum price per unit of alcohol in England and Wales to tackle their infamous binge-drinking culture.

Prime minister David Cameron said a minimum price of around 40 pence ($0.60) per 10-millilitre unit of alcohol would help stop the "scourge of violence" caused by rowdy revellers in town centres and would cut alcohol-related deaths.

*"Binge drinking isn't some fringe issue, it accounts for half of all alcohol consumed in this country," said Mr Cameron.

"The crime and violence it causes drains resources in our hospitals, generates mayhem on our streets and spreads fear in our communities."*

The government, which also plans to ban supermarket multi-buy discounts and to introduce a "late-night levy" forcing pubs and nightclubs to contribute to policing costs, intends to consult on the proposals this summer.

Scotland is also considering introducing minimum alcohol pricing.

Excessive alcohol consumption costs Britain's National Health Service (NHS) around 2.7 billion pounds ($4.3 billion) a year, while the interior ministry estimates wider societal costs of around 21 billion pounds a year.

The government hopes a minimum price would discourage Britons from drinking cheap, shop-bought alcohol at home before heading out for the evening.

The drinks most affected would be strong cut-price ciders and super-strength lagers. A can of cider, containing four units of alcohol, equivalent to 40 millilitres, currently costs as little as 87 pence.

Retailers and drinks companies have strongly opposed the proposal, saying it would punish people who enjoy alcohol responsibly while failing to tackle binge drinking.

"It's simplistic to imagine a minimum price is some sort of silver bullet solution to irresponsible drinking," said Andrew Opie, food director of the British Retail Consortium.

Mr Cameron admitted the minimum pricing would not be "universally popular" but insisted it would not hurt pubs and nightclubs, whose drinks are already more expensive than the suggested minimum price per unit.

"In fact, pubs may benefit by making the cheap alternatives in supermarkets more expensive," he said.

A 2010 study of the European Union's 27 nations by pollsters Eurobarometer found that while the British are not the most regular drinkers, they drink the most in one sitting."""

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-23/britain-to-introduce-minimum-alcohol-price/3910056

(every time I try to put quotation code in the page doesn't display)


----------



## rumpole (24 March 2012)

*Re: Alcohol fueled violence.*

You are right Mr Burns. The alcopops taxs has helped to reduce binge drinking, but there it more that can be done. Taking grog out of supermarkets and requiring pubs to close at midnight would be a start.

Now watch the civil libertarians kick up a fuss.


----------



## MrBurns (24 March 2012)

*Re: Alcohol fueled violence.*

The Govt is hopeless at doing anything right, the bashings go on every weekend, they don't care and this might be the reason why.

*"Binge drinking isn't some fringe issue, it accounts for half of all alcohol consumed in this country," said Mr Cameron.*

If what Cameron says is true the drug..err grog pushers can't afford for binge drinking to stop.


----------



## Julia (24 March 2012)

*Re: Alcohol fueled violence.*



rumpole said:


> You are right Mr Burns. The alcopops taxs has helped to reduce binge drinking, but there it more that can be done. Taking grog out of supermarkets and requiring pubs to close at midnight would be a start.



1.  Alcopops Tax:  the kids just switched to buying bottles of spirits and mixing their own, in the process likely drinking more alcohol.  This policy was far more about the government wishing to be seen to be 'doing something' than an actual practical measure.

2.  There are hundreds of thousands of people on low incomes who enjoy a glass of wine with their dinner in the evening, or shock horror, even with friends of an afternoon.  They can only afford cask wine which would apparently about quadruple in price if the per volume idea was introduced.  Why should they be so penalised because of a small proportion of stupid kids who will abuse various substances as some sort of misguided rite of passage?


----------



## Junior (24 March 2012)

*Re: Alcohol fueled violence.*

Australia already has the most expensive and heavily taxed alcohol of any country on the planet.  It's absurd to suggest raising taxes even further is the answer.


----------



## MrBurns (24 March 2012)

*Re: Alcohol fueled violence.*

It's not a small propertion any more Julia, it's way out of control.

I'm not suggesting a tax but they should be doing SOMETHING, if you can't be over .05 driving a car how come you can be roaring drunk out of control in public without penalty ? 
They have to bring in new laws to prevent drunks being loose on the streets, not just wait till they kill someone then charge them, bit too late isnt it.

Imagine how pleasant things would be if grog abuse was taken off the streets.


----------



## rumpole (24 March 2012)

*Re: Alcohol fueled violence.*

*There are hundreds of thousands of people on low incomes who enjoy a glass of wine with their dinner in the evening, or shock horror, even with friends of an afternoon. They can only afford cask wine which would apparently about quadruple in price if the per volume idea was introduced.*

They could start charging their friends for drinks, that's the capitalist way


----------



## Joe Blow (24 March 2012)

MrBurns said:


> (every time I try to put quotation code in the page doesn't display)




Seems to be working fine for me. Anyone else having trouble with the quote tags?


----------



## MrBurns (24 March 2012)

> There are hundreds of thousands of people on low incomes who enjoy a glass of wine with their dinner in the evening, or shock horror, even with friends of an afternoon. They can only afford cask wine which would apparently about quadruple in price if the per volume idea was introduced.




testing.............working now, the web has been very very slow and glitchy for 2 days, might be just Telstra not sure.


----------



## moXJO (24 March 2012)

Joe Blow said:


> Seems to be working fine for me. Anyone else having trouble with the quote tags?



 yeah I did
 I couldn't post when using the quote tag on the Clive palmer thread so just used bold tags


----------



## Joe Blow (24 March 2012)

moXJO said:


> yeah I did
> I couldn't post when using the quote tag on the Clive palmer thread so just used bold tags




A while ago I introduced a modification that won't allow posts to be submitted if the quote tags aren't closed correctly. I suspect this may be the problem.


----------



## MrBurns (24 March 2012)

Joe Blow said:


> A while ago I introduced a modification that won't allow posts to be submitted if the quote tags aren't closed correctly. I suspect this may be the problem.
> 
> View attachment 46539




No that wasnt the problem the page just didn't load for some reason, was a windows message about click here to diagnose the problem, which I never do as it never does. 

Think it might have to do with the current problems

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1888566

Ok now though.


----------



## explod (24 March 2012)

When I was a teenager we went to dances in halls where there was no grog.  We had six oclock closing and pubs were shut Sundays.  It was an offence to be found with grog  anywhere near a dance venue.

In fact if you were a bit unsteady on the feet girls would not dance with you.

Then came discos and licences to serve alcohol,

the rest is history and we're probably doomed.


----------



## Tink (24 March 2012)

Wouldnt that be nice, pubs closed on a Sunday, weekdays close at 6pm   LOL

Sadly, some people dont know when enough is enough, and business does make $$, just like this end of years Schoolies, thank God my kids didnt go - who started up this rubbish?

Education is the key like these ads on TV about role models, drink driving etc.
I often think the advertising should be stopped, just like they did with cigarettes.

BTW -- good to see you back Mr Burns


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 March 2012)

I rarely drink, basically only when on holidays and even then not a huge amount. 

But I don't for a minute think that "6 o'clock closing" or anything similar is the answer. Based on what I've seen, closing even one large nightclub only makes the problem worse, not better, since it simply shifts the drinking from licensed premises (where alcohol is relatively expensive) to private residences (where it is cheap).

It's the bottle shops which account for the majority of alcohol sales and they account for an even larger portion of "cheap" alcohol sold. Most people can't afford to get seriously drunk in a pub, and certainly not at a nightclub as it's just too expensive.


----------



## Julia (24 March 2012)

MrBurns said:


> It's not a small propertion any more Julia, it's way out of control.



Is it?  Do you have some stats on % of the population that are violent drunks?



> I'm not suggesting a tax but they should be doing SOMETHING,



I thought you were suggesting we follow what the UK is doing.  That is a new tax.



> Imagine how pleasant things would be if grog abuse was taken off the streets.



Well, perhaps I live in a completely unique part of Australia, but I never see anyone drunk in the street.  But then I'm hardly frequenting booze filled nightclubs.



Tink said:


> Wouldnt that be nice, pubs closed on a Sunday, weekdays close at 6pm   LOL



I was surprised when I came here to live nearly 20 years ago to find pubs open on Sundays.  They were, at least then, closed in NZ, though wine was sold in supermarkets which it isn't here in Qld.



> Sadly, some people dont know when enough is enough, and business does make $$, just like this end of years Schoolies, thank God my kids didnt go - who started up this rubbish?



Yes, another undesirable ritual that I'd never heard of before coming here.
Just hideous and I'd be happy to see it wiped.



> Education is the key like these ads on TV about role models, drink driving etc.
> I often think the advertising should be stopped, just like they did with cigarettes.



Would you like to see all alcohol packaged in plain olive green containers, Tink?
Reckon that would help?



Joe Blow said:


> A while ago I introduced a modification that won't allow posts to be submitted if the quote tags aren't closed correctly. I suspect this may be the problem.
> 
> View attachment 46539



Joe, I've found that modification works well.  If one is responding to multiple parts of a quote it's quite easy to leave out a quote mark.  The red reminder is good imo.
I've had no trouble with the quote tags not coming up as long as I've typed in all the necessary quote tags.



> BTW -- good to see you back Mr Burns



Yep.  Agree, though, Tink, Burnsie seems to have been a bit tarnished by those ABC lefties.


----------



## McLovin (24 March 2012)

Alcohol in Australia is expensive. Alcohol in the UK is cheap. I remember the local Tescos you could usually pick up a case of brand name beer for about GBP 15 which is about $23. If you went with a home brand versions, then you could usually get a pint can for under 40 pence. A 750ml bottle of Smirnoff Red was GBP 10. These were everyday prices, not specials. Prices are about double in Australia.


----------



## MrBurns (24 March 2012)

Tink said:


> BTW -- good to see you back Mr Burns




Thanks Tink


----------



## MrBurns (24 March 2012)

Julia said:


> Is it?  Do you have some stats on % of the population that are violent drunks?
> 
> Yep.  Agree, though, Tink, Burnsie seems to have been a bit tarnished by those ABC lefties.




The only stats I need Julia is on the news every few days , what every cop will tell you about what happens every weekend and the fact that medical staff at hospital emergency wards needs guards these days.

Naaa the ABC are gentile people as are you all, you should see the types on some motoring forums


----------



## MrBurns (24 March 2012)

McLovin said:


> Alcohol in Australia is expensive. Alcohol in the UK is cheap. I remember the local Tescos you could usually pick up a case of brand name beer for about GBP 15 which is about $23. If you went with a home brand versions, then you could usually get a pint can for under 40 pence. A 750ml bottle of Smirnoff Red was GBP 10. These were everyday prices, not specials. Prices are about double in Australia.




I dont think it's the price it's the laws, you should not be allowed to wander the streets drunk, end of story, so change the licensing rules, licensees aren't supposed to serve drunks but's that all they do on weekends, why isn't that enforced ?


----------



## McLovin (24 March 2012)

MrBurns said:


> I dont think it's the price it's the laws, you should not be allowed to wander the streets drunk, end of story, so change the licensing rules, licensees aren't supposed to serve drunks but's that all they do on weekends, why isn't that enforced ?




OK, the headline of the article you linked to is "Britain to Introduce Minimum Alcohol Price", so I thought that was what you were advocating.

As for not being allowed on the streets when drunk, no thanks. I'd prefer to keep my civil liberties and not let the government impose punitive laws on me because a small minority (and yes it is a small minority) can't control themselves when on the booze.


----------



## rumpole (24 March 2012)

McLovin said:


> As for not being allowed on the streets when drunk, no thanks. I'd prefer to keep my civil liberties and not let the government impose punitive laws on me because a small minority (and yes it is a small minority) can't control themselves when on the booze.




If one of those small minority hit you over the head with a bottle and put you in hospital, what would you say then ?


----------



## McLovin (24 March 2012)

rumpole said:


> If one of those small minority hit you over the head with a bottle and put you in hospital, what would you say then ?




The same thing. To be quite honest, it's pretty difficult to just have someone walk up to you and smash a bottle on your head for no reason. It takes two to tango.


----------



## MrBurns (24 March 2012)

McLovin said:


> The same thing. To be quite honest, it's pretty difficult to just have someone walk up to you and smash a bottle on your head for no reason. It takes two to tango.




You dont get out much do you ? They dont need a reason.
So you want the right to be drunk in public ?



> OK, the headline of the article you linked to is "Britain to Introduce Minimum Alcohol Price", so I thought that was what you were advocating.




Yes it did look like that, but I really meant at least they're having a go we just do nothing.


----------



## McLovin (24 March 2012)

MrBurns said:


> You dont get out much do you ? They dont need a reason.




The overwhelming majority of violence is not random. If you have evidence to the contrary then please share it.



> 4.5 percent of Australians aged 14 years or older had been physically abused by someone under the influence of alcohol (AIHW 2008).
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current series/rip/1-10/04.aspx

If you take out domestic violence and incidents where both parties were drinking, you end up with very few genuine acts of random alcohol fuelled violence.




MrBurns said:


> So you want the right to be drunk in public ?




Yes. What reason do you have for taking it away from me?


----------



## MrBurns (24 March 2012)

McLovin said:


> The overwhelming majority of violence is not random. If you have evidence to the contrary then please share it.




Does it have to be a majority figure to count ? , go out on a Saturday night walk the streets of your capital city, see how you go.




> Yes. What reason do you have for taking it away from me?




Because you're a risk to yourself and others, you cant cross the road, you cant do anything safely while drunk.

https://www.anzpaa.org.au/current-initiatives/operation-unite/alcohol-misuse-statistics

•Alcohol-related crime is estimated to cost Australia AU$1.7b with AU$750m alone spent on policing.[2] 

•It was reported that in Australia between 1993-4 and 2000-01 a total of 76,115 hospitalisations were a result of alcohol, with young people more likely to be hospitalised as a result of alcohol-related assaults compared to their older counterparts.[7]. 

•In Australia, the estimated social costs of alcohol-attributable crime in 2004-2005 were $15.3 billion.[4]


----------



## McLovin (24 March 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Does it have to be a majority figure to count ? , go out on a Saturday night walk the streets of your capital city, see how you go.




I do, pretty much every weekend, sometimes even on school nights. You make it sound like Baghdad.





MrBurns said:


> Because you're a risk to yourself and others, you cant cross the road, you cant do anything safely while drunk.




So under your scenario the police can set up a RBT on the footpath?


----------



## MrBurns (24 March 2012)

McLovin said:


> I do, pretty much every weekend, sometimes even on school nights. You make it sound like Baghdad.
> So under your scenario the police can set up a RBT on the footpath?




I think the police pretty much have that power now, they just don't exercise it enough , the streets would be empty if they did.

Glad to hear you havent been a victim yet.


----------



## McLovin (24 March 2012)

MrBurns said:


> I think the police pretty much have that power now, they just don't exercise it enough , the streets would be empty if they did.




They absolutely do not have the right to randomly stop and breath test someone who is walking down the street (as opposed to being obviously drunk in public). Those drug sniffing dogs are bad enough, God help us if they ever introduced random searches.


----------



## MrBurns (24 March 2012)

McLovin said:


> They absolutely do not have the right to randomly stop and breath test someone who is walking down the street (as opposed to being obviously drunk in public). Those drug sniffing dogs are bad enough, God help us if they ever introduced random searches.






> Drunk in a public place
> If the police think you are drunk in a public place they may arrest you and place you in custody. They may do this if they think it is necessary for your safety.




http://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/1799.htm

etc etc .....................

Yes bugger the drug sniffing dogs it's every man's right to carry drugs where ever he likes


----------



## Calliope (24 March 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Naaa the ABC are gentile people as are you all are




I'm sure we must have members who aren't Gentiles.:shake:


----------



## McLovin (24 March 2012)

MrBurns said:


> http://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/1799.htm
> 
> etc etc .....................




I'm talking about random searches, with no probable cause.



MrBurns said:


> Yes bugger the drug sniffing dogs it's every man's right to carry drugs where ever he likes




No, bugger the right of the majority of those stopped by sniffer dogs who are not carrying drugs and have to go through the humilation of being searched and questioned in public.



> 73% of people identified by the dogs are not carrying drugs
> most drugs detected are small amounts of cannabis
> dogs are failing to detect drug dealers




http://www.nswccl.org.au/issues/sniffer_dogs.php

Good to see we're busting those potheads, they're a real menace. I guess some of us don't like the government interferring in thier life more than others.


----------



## MrBurns (24 March 2012)

McLovin said:


> I'm talking about random searches, with no probable cause.




No point bothering with you if you arent causing trouble or staggering around.

If 17% of people are carrying drugs there ya go Guility your Honour.

What we need is more dogs:nono:


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 March 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Does it have to be a majority figure to count ? , go out on a Saturday night walk the streets of your capital city, see how you go.



Been there, done that and have done so sober in several Australian cities. 

Looking at the high concentration, mass market areas, observations as follows.

Kings Cross = seriously over hyped beyond reason. The only thing which ever shocked me about the place is how much _isn't_ there. In all honesty, the place is relatively boring compared to the hype.

Gold Coast = dominated by tourists and not a lot of trouble to be seen. Just stay well away when Schoolies is on.

Fortitude Valley (Brisbane) = one of the more scary places to be at night, mostly due to physical characteristics (layout, lighting, bouncers with an attitude etc). Not keen on it.

Waterfront (Hobart) = somewhat scary for a couple of years after Surreal was closed due to the extreme overcrowding of other venues, and it initially got worse with the lockouts and the trend toward "pre-drinks" but it's reasonably under control these days. Even what locals used to call Fight Club doesn't have many fights these days following management getting the message (under threat of losing their liquor license) about needing to get the right mix of people inside.  

Anywhere in the Melbourne CBD = stay away from bikies of any description and you'll be fine. Doesn't "feel" that safe but that's more to do with the spread out nature of people (and police) in a CBD environment rather than actual incidents. 

Hindley St and surrounds (Adelaide) = very high concentration of both venues and drunks in a relatively small physical area. The prospect of being shot or knifed has occurred to me, and I've been there when shots have been fired, but that's bikies not alcohol which causes that. Top marks to HQ (largest nightclub in Adelaide) with their somewhat over the top security - how foolproof it is I don't know, but at least they seem to be making an actual effort which is more than can be said for most clubs (in any city). 

Overall, I'd say that if you see or hear a Harley anywhere near an entertainment district late at night then it's time to go. Likewise avoid anywhere with a concentration of certain nationalities. Alcohol is far less of a problem in my experience.


----------



## JTLP (24 March 2012)

My 2 cents...

- The government would HATE to introduce anything in reality because they thrive off the tax (smokes and alcohol) that comes from relatively well off Australians (you should be thankful we have high taxes on these things - at least we are in relatively good shape economically (bring on the 2013 election though )).

- There is essentially nothing you can do to curb this unless you price everything to ridiculous proportions (not fair on the rest of the population) or if the government introduces a law that says "if you're drunk and injure yourself then look after yourself - no clogging the emergency department on a Fri/Sat night".

- What Australia really needs is ridiculously harsh penalties to deal with all these murderers and idiots getting 10 years (but that's for another time).

- Lastly - Schoolies was fantastic . We had a fantastic time and it was a great rite of passage. 10 young friends together - celebrating our coming of age essentially.


----------



## MrBurns (24 March 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> Gold Coast = dominated by tourists and not a lot of trouble to be seen. Just stay well away when Schoolies is on.






I think you'll find the Gold Coast has changed a lot.

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2011/12/01/370181_gold-coast-news.html


----------



## McLovin (24 March 2012)

MrBurns said:


> No point bothering with you if you arent causing trouble or staggering around.




Are you for real? You're ideal country is where the police can carry out random searches? How about if they turn up at your house and start going through your stuff, you know, incase they find anything illegal?

ETA: I may have misinterpreted this as sarcasm, I'm not sure.


----------



## rumpole (24 March 2012)

> Yep. Agree, though, Tink, Burnsie seems to have been a bit tarnished by those ABC lefties.




I'm sure the tarnish will rub off over time


----------



## MrBurns (24 March 2012)

McLovin said:


> Are you for real? You're ideal country is where the police can carry out random searches? How about if they turn up at your house and start going through your stuff, you know, incase they find anything illegal?
> 
> ETA: I may have misinterpreted this as sarcasm, I'm not sure.




Better than your ideal country where men are free to roam around dangerously drunk and carry drugs without fear of detection because .......they have their rights

They wont turn up at my place but you're a real risk, civil libertarians are well known for subversive behaviour and use the civil liberty rant to cover their tracks.


----------



## robusta (24 March 2012)

Have not read the thread but for me , have spent plenty of time alcohol fueled but violence? Not so much. I am a peace maker.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 March 2012)

MrBurns said:


> I think you'll find the Gold Coast has changed a lot.
> 
> http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2011/12/01/370181_gold-coast-news.html



That article is about crime in general (much of which would have nothing to do with alcohol) and suggests that whilst there has been an increase, the GC is still a relatively safe place.


----------



## Julia (24 March 2012)

MrBurns said:


> The only stats I need Julia is on the news every few days ,



Oh, right.   It doesn't occur to you that much of the media sees it as its mission in life to create the impression that we are living in an alcohol and drug fuelled place far worse than Kabul or Baghdad.  You are being sucked in by the "let's have a sensation" media.    



> what every cop will tell you about what happens every weekend and the fact that medical staff at hospital emergency wards needs guards these days.



What rubbish.  Certainly there are admissions of drunks and drug affected people who make the life of emergency people extremely difficult, but they are by no means a majority.  A few weeks ago I spent several hours in Emergency with a knee injury and a more peaceful place is hard to imagine.


> Naaa the ABC are gentile people as are you all, you should see the types on some motoring forums





> gen·tile
> adjective ( sometimes initial capital letter )
> 1.
> of or pertaining to any people not Jewish.
> ...



What were  you actually trying to say here? 



McLovin said:


> OK, the headline of the article you linked to is "Britain to Introduce Minimum Alcohol Price", so I thought that was what you were advocating.



Exactly the impression I had.



> As for not being allowed on the streets when drunk, no thanks. I'd prefer to keep my civil liberties and not let the government impose punitive laws on me because a small minority (and yes it is a small minority) can't control themselves when on the booze.



+1.



McLovin said:


> The overwhelming majority of violence is not random. If you have evidence to the contrary then please share it.
> 
> If you take out domestic violence and incidents where both parties were drinking, you end up with very few genuine acts of random alcohol fuelled violence.



Correct.



MrBurns said:


> Better than your ideal country where men are free to roam around dangerously drunk and carry drugs without fear of detection because .......they have their rights
> 
> They wont turn up at my place but you're a real risk, civil libertarians are well known for subversive behaviour and use the civil liberty rant to cover their tracks.



 Oh god, now you're just sounding pathetically ridiculous.


----------



## explod (24 March 2012)

Julia said:


> What rubbish.  Certainly there are admissions of drunks and drug affected people who make the life of emergency people extremely difficult, but they are by no means a majority.  A few weeks ago I spent several hours in Emergency with a knee injury and a more peaceful place is hard to imagine.




Maybe where you live Julia, but places like Frankston, Geelong, in fact all the Melbourne metropolitan hospitals down here are a nightmare for staff due to drunkeness and drug abuse to a lesser extent.

I have family currently employed in medicine and law enforcement.

And in the inner city areas the problems were pretty bad 25 years ago.   As pub hours became more liberal, alcohol abuse, assaults and violence in the homes went through the roof.

Until restrictions are re-imposed we are doomed.   Of course work and a full education for all would be the real way forward.

And tram conductors or any sort of work to support the community instead of the dole.


----------



## Calliope (24 March 2012)

explod said:


> And tram conductors or any sort of work to support the community instead of the dole.




*???:*:screwy:


----------



## McLovin (25 March 2012)

Julia said:


> Oh god, now you're just sounding pathetically ridiculous.




It truly amazes me when people are so willing to give up their rights which for hundreds of years people have died for. Sometimes, I wish we had a Fourth Amendment.

As far I'm concerned, if I'm minding my own business the state has no right to say or do anything to me. And I'm not even a libertarian.


----------



## jancha (25 March 2012)

McLovin said:


> It truly amazes me when people are so willing to give up their rights which for hundreds of years people have died for.
> 
> As far I'm concerned, if I'm minding my own business the state has no right to say or do anything to me. And I'm not even a libertarian.




My son and his girlfriend late at night chatting with friends minding their own business on a party street in the city of Adelaide... when one of the dozen gang members who happened to be walking past gave my sons girlfriend a king hit as he went past. (Maybe thought it was a bit of fun to impress the gang who knows) I dont know about you or what you would have done but if I was physically fit and could chase that clown down i would. But hang on the police across the road are right on to it...yes thats right they've seen it and apprehend my son whilst in pursuit...Hang on thats not right should'nt they be after the bad guy? My sons upset and wanting to chase  blurting out they're getting away and they've punched my girlfriend to the ground blah blah. So what can the coppers do but Spray him with capsicum not once but twice, lock him up for the night and charge him for resisting arrest and assult. What else could they do? They contained the situation thats their job. Later on the culprit got arrested for another incident on the night. Now the police who have charged my son want a statement from him and his girlfriend to help put this priceless person away with the help of his past record. Please cooperate??
$4000 further on in legal fees to have a non conviction who's the winner here? 
Keep dreaming Mclovin


----------



## explod (25 March 2012)

Calliope said:


> *???:*:screwy:




A large number of the drunken trouble makers are without work and idle.

Here in Victoria the axing of the Tram Conductors, Railway Ticket Officers and other such staff seemed top be a pivotal point in a broad sociological change for the worse.


----------



## moXJO (25 March 2012)

jancha said:


> My son and his girlfriend late at night chatting with friends minding their own business on a party street in the city of Adelaide... when one of the dozen gang members who happened to be walking past gave my sons girlfriend a king hit as he went past. (Maybe thought it was a bit of fun to impress the gang who knows) I dont know about you or what you would have done but if I was physically fit and could chase that clown down i would. But hang on the police across the road are right on to it...yes thats right they've seen it and apprehend my son whilst in pursuit...Hang on thats not right should'nt they be after the bad guy? My sons upset and wanting to chase  blurting out they're getting away and they've punched my girlfriend to the ground blah blah. So what can the coppers do but Spray him with capsicum not once but twice, lock him up for the night and charge him for resisting arrest and assult. What else could they do? They contained the situation thats their job. Later on the culprit got arrested for another incident on the night. Now the police who have charged my son want a statement from him and his girlfriend to help put this priceless person away with the help of his past record. Please cooperate??
> $4000 further on in legal fees to have a non conviction who's the winner here?
> Keep dreaming Mclovin




I live in one of the worst places in NSW for street violence. It has less to do with alcohol and more to do with people not respecting the law and being DHeads. Some of the judges have started to hand down harsher sentences. But the cops still have to beg victims for a simple statement.


----------



## MrBurns (25 March 2012)

explod said:


> A large number of the drunken trouble makers are without work and idle.
> 
> Here in Victoria the axing of the Tram Conductors, Railway Ticket Officers and other such staff seemed top be a pivotal point in a broad sociological change for the worse.




I agree but the Govt sold the trams and everything else so money is now more important than people. They want their profit and bugger everyone else, these were assets owned by the people , not any more


----------



## MrBurns (25 March 2012)

jancha said:


> My son and his girlfriend late at night chatting with friends minding their own business on a party street in the city of Adelaide... when one of the dozen gang members who happened to be walking past gave my sons girlfriend a king hit as he went past. (Maybe thought it was a bit of fun to impress the gang who knows) I dont know about you or what you would have done but if I was physically fit and could chase that clown down i would. But hang on the police across the road are right on to it...yes thats right they've seen it and apprehend my son whilst in pursuit...Hang on thats not right should'nt they be after the bad guy? My sons upset and wanting to chase  blurting out they're getting away and they've punched my girlfriend to the ground blah blah. So what can the coppers do but Spray him with capsicum not once but twice, lock him up for the night and charge him for resisting arrest and assult. What else could they do? They contained the situation thats their job. Later on the culprit got arrested for another incident on the night. Now the police who have charged my son want a statement from him and his girlfriend to help put this priceless person away with the help of his past record. Please cooperate??
> $4000 further on in legal fees to have a non conviction who's the winner here?
> Keep dreaming Mclovin




Thats disgusting, go to the media and let them handle it

In fact get a lawyer onto it, the cops can't get away with that rubbish.


----------



## MrBurns (25 March 2012)

McLovin said:


> It truly amazes me when people are so willing to give up their rights which for hundreds of years people have died for. Sometimes, I wish we had a Fourth Amendment.
> As far I'm concerned, if I'm minding my own business the state has no right to say or do anything to me. And I'm not even a libertarian.




Why are you so concerned about your rights , you act within the law don't you or do you want to right to go outside the law, if so tough, like to get on a plane in the US where no one has been checked for explosives or weapons ? Course not, wake up to yourself and stop espousing ridiculous unworkable ideals, you must be a Labor voter.


----------



## MrBurns (25 March 2012)

Julia said:


> Oh, right.   It doesn't occur to you that much of the media sees it as its mission in life to create the impression that we are living in an alcohol and drug fuelled place far worse than Kabul or Baghdad.  You are being sucked in by the "let's have a sensation" media.




Thats right Julia all those injuries and attacks were made up by the media to get attention, they have an acting studio on the side where they train people to to look like they were bashed or killed, very clever the media




> What rubbish.  Certainly there are admissions of drunks and drug affected people who make the life of emergency people extremely difficult, but they are by no means a majority.  A few weeks ago I spent several hours in Emergency with a knee injury and a more peaceful place is hard to imagine.






> One-third of injured patients attending St Vincent’s Hospital Emergency Department have consumed alcohol prior to incurring their injury and almost two-thirds of these patients have been drinking at licensed premises



. 

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_mr_ab06

and that was 7 years ago, it's much worse now.

You must live near the Camelot hospital where only "nice" people are allowed in





> What were  you actually trying to say here?




So now I'm a racist ? Paranoia is a horrible thing Julia (I seem to be using the roll eyes thing a lot here but it's appropriate)




> Oh god, now you're just sounding pathetically ridiculous.




Yeah that's right I'M sounding ridiculous............once again

A more recent link - 

http://amavic.com.au/page/Member_Se...ngerous_work_violence_in_healthcare_settings/


----------



## rumpole (25 March 2012)

Prevention is better than cure. If getting drunks of the streets prevents crime and traffic accidents I really don't care if some think their rights are infringed.


----------



## Sdajii (25 March 2012)

I get out into Melbourne's stereotypical problem drinking areas fairly often, and interstate from time to time. I see a lot of violence, and it's not too unusual to see it happening to random people who were ignoring the culprit. Often drugs other than alcohol are involved.

It's pretty easy to want to roll your eyes or facepalm when self righteous people living in wealthy suburbs whinge about rights being taken away in times, places and cultures they have no familiarity with. You're not going to be walking down the street minding your own business and causing no trouble and then breathalysed and sniffed. I am a bit of a libertarian, but what do I care if people looking like causing trouble get sniffed? Heck, even if it happens to me because they do it at random,  a dog sniffs me and I get a policeman telling me to have a good night. That seems a small price to pay (arguably a novelty) in exchange for keeping druggies in check. They're not going to target non problem areas anyway, it would only be in times and places prone to violence.

This 'I must live in some special part of the country because I don't see the problem' is absurd. It's like advertising the fact that you don't understand the issue, have no familiarity with it and shouldn't be trying to convince others of your baseless opinions.

Looking at what percentage of *all* violence happens in what way is completely irrelevant. If I am with violent strangers I don't become safer just because somewhere else a lot of people are being attacked by people they know! Regardless of what does or doesn't happen elsewhere, I see a lot of violence in bars and on the streets. Can the people complaining about liberty infringement say they see a lot of it too? Sure, in a perfect world we wouldn't have drug sniffs or breathalysers or locks on doors, but I'll give up my right not to be sniffed by a dog when I'm in a violence-prone situation in exchange for the police having the right to protect me and others from drug-related violence.

Sometimes it sucks that good people need to pay more or not be able to take their pocket knife on a plane or be breathalysed when they drive or pay taxes which cover expenses not related to them, but we do need to look at the big picture and do what keeps things best for everyone.


----------



## McLovin (25 March 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Why are you so concerned about your rights you act within the law don't you or do you want to right to go outside the law, if so tough,




I'm not interested in the government legislating out my rights. If "acting within the law" was the only benchmark, then I guess the government could make a law opposing political free speechand you'd be fine with that?



			
				MrBurns said:
			
		

> like to get on a plane in the US where no one has been checked for explosives or weapons ? Course not, wake up to yourself and stop espousing ridiculous unworkable ideals,




Don't create a strawman. We're not discussing airline security. We're talking about walking down the street without being stopped and searched by police. 



			
				MrBurns said:
			
		

> you must be a Labor voter




Quite the opposite.


----------



## MrBurns (25 March 2012)

Sdajii said:


> I get out into Melbourne's stereotypical problem drinking areas fairly often, and interstate from time to time. I see a lot of violence, and it's not too unusual to see it happening to random people who were ignoring the culprit. Often drugs other than alcohol are involved.
> 
> It's pretty easy to want to roll your eyes or facepalm when self righteous people living in wealthy suburbs whinge about rights being taken away in times, places and cultures they have no familiarity with. You're not going to be walking down the street minding your own business and causing no trouble and then breathalysed and sniffed. I am a bit of a libertarian, but what do I care if people looking like causing trouble get sniffed? Heck, even if it happens to me because they do it at random,  a dog sniffs me and I get a policeman telling me to have a good night. That seems a small price to pay (arguably a novelty) in exchange for keeping druggies in check. They're not going to target non problem areas anyway, it would only be in times and places prone to violence.
> 
> ...




Very true , all of it, we have no choice but to also be subject to the laws that try to catch the offenders among us.



rumpole said:


> Prevention is better than cure. If getting drunks of the streets prevents crime and traffic accidents I really don't care if some think their rights are infringed.




Correct, the population in the cities is getting more feral as time goes on, no jobs, no proper education, the only way they can get money is to steal the only way they can feel self esteem of sorts is to lash out physically.

Drugs are a huge problem, legalise them, dish them out to addicts from nominated locations and keep a record of consumption, steer them to rehab but keep the supply up so they dont feel threatened, if you do this the crime rate will plummet as there will be no drug dealing and no need to steal to buy them.


----------



## Julia (25 March 2012)

MrBurns said:


> So now I'm a racist ? Paranoia is a horrible thing Julia (I seem to be using the roll eyes thing a lot here but it's appropriate)



You used the word "gentile".  I gave you a definition of that word and asked what you had actually meant to say.  "Gentle" perhaps?  I don't know.  Would be good if you could clarify.   I'm not at all sure where paranoia now is coming in either?


----------



## Bill M (25 March 2012)

Alcohol itself isn't really the problem, it is more a cultural problem I think. For example in places like Spain or France you can buy 1 litre of red wine for 1 Euro. Yet in those places I don't see the kind of mindless violence like we see here. Same goes for some Asian countries, plenty of grog around for much cheaper prices but very few violent incidences. So what is it about Aussies getting blind then giving someone a hiding or getting into sensless brawls? What about girls glassing other girls in the face? again 
p!ssed and agressive behaviour. I've seen chairs get thrown through pub windows and knives get pulled at the cab rank in Manly, and Manly is suppose to be a nice seaside tourist spot.

Anyone who thinks this is a minor thing is deluding themselves, but I don't think the supply of or the price of grog has anything to do with it. Something is culturally wrong here in Australia. The roughest place I ever lived was in the Latrobe Valley in Victoria. I use to go to work on Monday and hear all my work mates bragging about how they gave somebody a good biffing over the weakend, unbelievabe but true, wasn't my kind of place and I was glad to get out of there.


----------



## MrBurns (25 March 2012)

Julia said:


> You used the word "gentile".  I gave you a definition of that word and asked what you had actually meant to say.  "Gentle" perhaps?  I don't know.  Would be good if you could clarify.   I'm not at all sure where paranoia now is coming in either?




I meant gentile as in gentry but you picked up the mistake and tried to infer I was against Jews , no matter, that was yesterday.


----------



## Glen48 (25 March 2012)

In USA gun companies have stopped taking orders, one company has 1million guns on order for last month, so the others manufacturing guns must be in the same boat.

 So if you are worried about violence it is going to get much worse. 

And as usual the feds won't do any thing until it is to late.


----------



## MrBurns (25 March 2012)

Bill M said:


> Alcohol itself isn't really the problem, it is more a cultural problem I think. For example in places like Spain or France you can buy 1 litre of red wine for 1 Euro. Yet in those places I don't see the kind of mindless violence like we see here. Same goes for some Asian countries, plenty of grog around for much cheaper prices but very few violent incidences. So what is it about Aussies getting blind then giving someone a hiding or getting into sensless brawls? What about girls glassing other girls in the face? again
> p!ssed and agressive behaviour. I've seen chairs get thrown through pub windows and knives get pulled at the cab rank in Manly, and Manly is suppose to be a nice seaside tourist spot.
> 
> Anyone who thinks this is a minor thing is deluding themselves, but I don't think the supply of or the price of grog has anything to do with it. Something is culturally wrong here in Australia. The roughest place I ever lived was in the Latrobe Valley in Victoria. I use to go to work on Monday and hear all my work mates bragging about how they gave somebody a good biffing over the weakend, unbelievabe but true, wasn't my kind of place and I was glad to get out of there.




You're right, but I don't know how this can be reversed, it will take a generation I guess, a good start would be to give these people some dignity, some work, I dunno.

In the short term we can only hope to control it with a big stick and the police need to be tougher and have less tolerance as should the courts.


----------



## MrBurns (25 March 2012)

The blasted media are making things up again



> Policeman kicked unconscious during party arrest
> Posted March 25, 2012 10:00:14
> 
> A police officer has been kicked unconscious during a busy night in which Western Australian Police worked to tame about 10 out-of-control parties in Perth.
> ...




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-25/police-officer-kicked-uncounscious-in-perth/3911040


----------



## Sdajii (25 March 2012)

It will take more than a generation to get a peaceful, respectful, responsible culture in Australia. The situation is getting worse rather than better. Some of the issue is a soft legal stance on violence, a stupid way of dealing with drugs, ridiculous schooling, bad parenting and multiculturalism (I'm not racist, but like it or not, putting different races and religions together causes conflict. Call me racist if you like, but it would be like telling me I'm sexist for stating the fact that wives are sometimes beaten by husbands or that some women are gold diggers).


----------



## MrBurns (25 March 2012)

Sdajii said:


> It will take more than a generation to get a peaceful, respectful, responsible culture in Australia. The situation is getting worse rather than better. Some of the issue is a soft legal stance on violence, a stupid way of dealing with drugs, ridiculous schooling, bad parenting and multiculturalism (I'm not racist, but like it or not, putting different races and religions together causes conflict. Call me racist if you like, but it would be like telling me I'm sexist for stating the fact that wives are sometimes beaten by husbands or that some women are gold diggers).




I'm afraid you're right - the French take the lead again.......

http://www.english.rfi.fr/node/75053

but at the risk of sounding more racist I think it seems to work OK with most here but with some nationalities not at all and I cant mention who but you can guess.


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 March 2012)

jancha said:


> My son and his girlfriend late at night chatting with friends minding their own business on a party street in the city of Adelaide... when one of the dozen gang members who happened to be walking past gave my sons girlfriend a king hit as he went past.



The problem there is gangs and then the police response to the situation. There is nothing to say that alcohol was even involved at all in this incident. It could have been of course, but given that we're talking about a gang I'd say it was more likely either other drugs or simply a random act.

I've had rather a lot of involvement in this issue one way and another over the past few years and my ultimate conclusion is that "smart" lawyers, slack judges and the so-called "justice" system are the real problems. 

We've had late trading nightclubs etc for decades and yet problems are relatively more recent. Partly they do probably relate to the failed "economic rationalism" which did away with many keepers of community standards (and many jobs) for no real gain in terms of cost to consumers. But a bigger part of it comes down to there simply being no consequence for breaking the law.

If I park my car too long in a legal parking space then I'll be fined for doing so. Fair enough, there's a sign and I've broken the law. Likewise I could be fined if I decided to mow the lawn at 9am on a Sunday or don't properly secure the load in the trailer on the way to the tip. Those are the sorts of crimes that the average person could foreseeably be fined for, mostly due to making simple mistakes. 

But someone can smash someone's face in and they'll get a warning and suspended sentence at most. That's the problem. There are bigger penalties for comparatively trivial offences such as those I've listed. There's no actual deterrent to those who like to throw punches, and that is the crux of the problem. Get rid of overly lenient judges, "smart" lawyers and the "slap on the wrist" approach and that will fix the problem.


----------



## MrBurns (25 March 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> But someone can smash someone's face in and they'll get a warning and suspended sentence at most. That's the problem. There are bigger penalties for comparatively trivial offences such as those I've listed. There's no actual deterrent to those who like to throw punches, and that is the crux of the problem. Get rid of overly lenient judges, "smart" lawyers and the "slap on the wrist" approach and that will fix the problem.




Been saying that for years but nothing ever happens, the only time I see a headline where someone is taking a stance it's from France or elsewhere OS, we are the country of the big bludge.


----------



## rumpole (25 March 2012)

> It will take more than a generation to get a peaceful, respectful, responsible culture in Australia. The situation is getting worse rather than better. Some of the issue is a soft legal stance on violence, a stupid way of dealing with drugs, ridiculous schooling, bad parenting and multiculturalism (I'm not racist, but like it or not, putting different races and religions together causes conflict. Call me racist if you like, but it would be like telling me I'm sexist for stating the fact that wives are sometimes beaten by husbands or that some women are gold diggers).




All good points. There needs to be a cultural change and it needs to start in the homes and especially in the public school system.

 Private schools can throw out children who don't meet behavioural standards, and public schools should be able to do the same. They should be sent to some sort of 'boot camp' and not be allowed to hang around on the streets forming gangs and causing trouble. 

 That said, it's evident that alcohol is a major cause of civil unrest and it should be made harder to get, by means of earlier pub closing hours and taking it out of supermarkets.


----------



## Julia (25 March 2012)

MrBurns said:


> I meant gentile as in gentry but you picked up the mistake and tried to infer I was against Jews , no matter, that was yesterday.



I didn't try to imply any such thing.  I just gave you the definition of the word you used because I doubted that you had any such racist implication in mind.  I thought you were perhaps trying to refer to 'gentlefolk' as in well mannered/cultured.



rumpole said:


> All good points. There needs to be a cultural change and it needs to start in the homes and especially in the public school system.



Many of the schools try hard but are frustrated by parents who don't support their efforts.



> Private schools can throw out children who don't meet behavioural standards, and public schools should be able to do the same. They should be sent to some sort of 'boot camp' and not be allowed to hang around on the streets forming gangs and causing trouble.



This does actually happen in some instances.  I've been involved for many years with a youth mentoring organisation and, until federal government funding was withdrawn last year, kids whose main purpose in life was to disrupt their classrooms, were sent to an alternative 'school' where there was a different approach.  It was very successful in engaging these difficult/troubled kids and it's very short sighted of the government to withdraw funding.



> That said, it's evident that alcohol is a major cause of civil unrest and it should be made harder to get, by means of earlier pub closing hours and taking it out of supermarkets.



Can you explain why people disposed to getting drunk and violent will no longer be so inclined if they can only buy grog before a certain time and from a bottle shop rather than with their groceries?


----------



## rumpole (25 March 2012)

> Can you explain why people disposed to getting drunk and violent will no longer be so inclined if they can only buy grog before a certain time and from a bottle shop rather than with their groceries?




Violent drunks are lazy yobbos and therefore the harder you make it for them to get alcohol the less likely they are to bother. Also when they hang around in groups like at pubs mob mentality is more likely to set in and turn into a violent brawl than if they get drunk in front of their TV set.


----------



## rumpole (25 March 2012)

> This does actually happen in some instances. I've been involved for many years with a youth mentoring organisation and, until federal government funding was withdrawn last year, kids whose main purpose in life was to disrupt their classrooms, were sent to an alternative 'school' where there was a different approach. It was very successful in engaging these difficult/troubled kids and it's very short sighted of the government to withdraw funding.




Campbell Newman may take the issue up and give funding in Qld. They are STATE schools after all and I saw him on TV mentioning something about Boot Camps as an alternative to gaols.


----------



## McLovin (25 March 2012)

rumpole said:


> Violent drunks are lazy yobbos and therefore the harder you make it for them to get alcohol the less likely they are to bother. Also when they hang around in groups like at pubs mob mentality is more likely to set in and turn into a violent brawl than if they get drunk in front of their TV set.




They'll just belt their wife/girlfriend/kids. But at least it it'll be out of sight.

It's a massive assumption that violent drunks are lazy yobbos.


----------



## Glen48 (25 March 2012)

UK  Guardian:
Doctors may be paid to monitor patients' drinking in effort to tackle spiralling cost of alcohol-related disease


GPs could be paid extra to question patients on their drinking habits and catch related problems early under proposals in the government's controversial new alcohol strategy.

Ministers hope the payments would provide an incentive to doctors to monitor the alcohol intake of their patients, to help tackle the spiralling costs of treating disease related to the consumption of drink.

Experts have advised the government to make the move as many drinkers do not come to a doctor citing a problem because they are not aware of the risks. Even couples who share a bottle of wine over dinner most evenings unwittingly increase their chances of cancer and strokes.

From next year, patients over the age of 40 will be questioned on their alcohol intake as part of general health checks which occur every five years. But the government is also looking to encourage GPs to routinely ask patients of all ages about their drinking habits when they come into practices.

Doctors are currently able to increase their practices' income by carrying out a checklist of services, and spotting illnesses and diseases listed under a system of good practice called the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF).

They are currently paid extra for monitoring chronic diseases such as asthma, diabetes and coronary heart disease.

Now the new strategy, says the Department of Health will "look at the data from the recently published Screening and Intervention Programme for Sensible Drinking (Sips) research to see if it can support further action by GPs [on alcohol] via the Quality and Outcomes Framework."

A standard "alcohol identification" test used by GPs involves a patient being asked a series of questions about their alcohol intake and the impact of drink on their day-to-day life.

Those who show signs of dependency or high use will be given 10 minutes of advice by nurses or referred to a specialist.

The strategy document says: "Identification and Brief Advice (IBA) is a simple intervention aimed at individuals who are at risk through drinking above the guidelines, but not typically seeking help for an alcohol problem. IBA has been proven to reduce drinking, leading to improved health and reduced calls on hospital services. At least one in eight at-risk drinkers reduce their drinking as a result of IBA."

Professor Ian Gilmore, special adviser to the Royal College of Physicians and the chair of the Alcohol Health Alliance, said he believed it was an important step that would prove cost effective.

"The evidence suggests that this actually works," he said. "Opportunistic detection of people, particularly professionals, works because they do respond. It works because you are asking people to reflect on their drinking, asking them if there might be a problem coming up."

_However, the policy was described as an "extension of the nanny state" by Tory MP Philip Davies. "I would expect this sort of nonsense from the Labour party, not the Conservative party. I thought the whole point of our reforms was to put trust in GPs," he said. "I am sure they know how to look after their patients and don't need to be told how to do it. This is just more unnecessary government intervention, putting their nose in where it isn't needed."_

Last week the government announced its intention to have a minimum price for alcohol amid growing concerns over the UK's drinking habits. The risk of hypertension (high blood pressure) is particularly acute for drinkers, yet about a third of men aged between 25 and 64 and a fifth of women in the same age group, say they drink at levels above the lower-risk guidelines. Furthermore, 8% of men and 4% of women in this age group admit to drinking at levels more than twice the lower-risk guidelines.

Despite the evidence, four out of five people who regularly drink above the guidelines do not think their drinking is putting their long-term health at risk. Whereas most smokers wish to quit, only 18% of people who drink above the lower-risk guidelines say they actually wish to change their behaviour.


----------



## Bill M (25 March 2012)

McLovin said:


> It's a massive assumption that violent drunks are lazy yobbos.




I agree with this too. Most violence I saw was from the 18 to 30 y/o age group on Friday and Saturday nights after their working week. It's the lets get p!ssed it's Friday night crowd, I've worked hard for it, it's my right. Then at 12, 1 AM or 3 AM (or chose your own closing time) when it all closes it's all hell to pay. We need cultural change, Friday night binge drinking is just stupid.

---
We have created a culture where young people who do not get drunk and party hard on a regular basis are considered abnormal. How do I know this? I'm a 19-year-old who regularly sees my peers getting drunk and viewing it as some sort of rite of passage. I see others my age who consider getting drunk the only means of having fun. I'm up against a social expectation that assumes I regularly partake in binge-drinking events.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/my-name-is-australia-and-im-an-alcoholic-20100826-13tqi.html
---


----------



## jancha (25 March 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> The problem there is gangs and then the police response to the situation. There is nothing to say that alcohol was even involved at all in this incident. It could have been of course, but given that we're talking about a gang I'd say it was more likely either other drugs or simply a random act.
> 
> I've had rather a lot of involvement in this issue one way and another over the past few years and my ultimate conclusion is that "smart" lawyers, slack judges and the so-called "justice" system are the real problems.
> 
> ...




Agree with you on that Smurf violence should'nt be tolerated and the justice system is'nt helping the matter. Police sometimes get it wrong but they dont seem to want turn around and say hey we got it wrong. No they BS and fabricate stories with colleagues in order to try and make the charge stick for the police prosecutor. I know there's good and bad in every work place but in part i've lost respect for some of them.
When i travelled to Bali ( Even tho i didn't like it there) i found that the taffic was crazy but i didn't witness any road rage or people fighting while partying late at night. They seem to have a more patience about them or maybe they are afraid of the consequences of being caught by the local coppers. Harsher penalties or just their non violent nature i do know but what ever it is for the amount of partying that goes on there's very little violence. If there is any it's usually the tourist not the locals.
I could be wrong but for the 10 days i was there it was all fairly tame.


----------



## IFocus (25 March 2012)

In WA alcohol violence is real but the problem is increased by the use of drugs ice etc WA police must be sick of being punching bags.


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 March 2012)

Bill M said:


> I agree with this too. Most violence I saw was from the 18 to 30 y/o age group on Friday and Saturday nights after their working week. It's the lets get p!ssed it's Friday night crowd, I've worked hard for it, it's my right. Then at 12, 1 AM or 3 AM (or chose your own closing time) when it all closes it's all hell to pay. We need cultural change, Friday night binge drinking is just stupid.



Reflecting on my own experience here in Hobart the trend is pretty clear.

Back in the old days when everyone was kicked out of Surreal (by far the biggest club in Hobart during the 10 years it operated) at 4:55am, there wasn't too much trouble since the majority had already left anyway. Other clubs closed at the same time and were also two thirds empty by then on most nights, and some closed earlier for purely commercial reasons (notably the club that used to be at the casino). 

Then along came the whinging residents and that was the end of Surreal. Then came the over-crowding of other venues on the Waterfront and that's when the real trouble started. The same number of people trying to get in somewhere, but with 45% of the entire nightclub capacity in the city closed in one fell swoop, it was never going to work. And so came the fights...

Then came the 3am lockout and the problems with too many people trying to get taxis all at once, compounded by the lack of any supervised taxi ranks nearby. That just moved the fights from inside to outside.

Then came what should have happened in the first place, a dedicated Police unit to deal with the problem, proper taxi facilities, CCTV surveillance of the whole area and a crackdown on one certain operator with a reputation for fights inside their premises.

And now we have relatively little trouble once again, as was the case prior to 2005 when the trouble all started with the demise of Surreal. 

Moral of the story? Closing clubs doesn't work that is for sure. It just makes the problem far worse. 

Making them close early simply makes them unprofitable and encourages owners to sell as much grog as possible, as quickly as possible in order to earn the same $ in less time. So that's in much the same category as outright closure, unless we can simply shift the start of the night earlier as well (eg opening at 6 instead of 9 or 10) but that requires broader societal changes to work so it's not an easy fix.

What did work? More police helped. A couple of high profile incidents swayed public opinion too. CCTV did its' bit too. And getting a certain category of people out of the area, by keeping them out of their favourite venue (which was the only one that would let them in anyway) helped too.


----------



## Julia (25 March 2012)

McLovin said:


> They'll just belt their wife/girlfriend/kids. But at least it it'll be out of sight.
> 
> It's a massive assumption that violent drunks are lazy yobbos.



+1.  Rumpole, perhaps you could explain how you have concluded that violent drunks are necessarily lazy yobbos?


----------



## rumpole (25 March 2012)

Julia said:


> +1.  Rumpole, perhaps you could explain how you have concluded that violent drunks are necessarily lazy yobbos?




If they weren't lazy they would be doing something useful instead of hanging around in pubs drinking.


----------



## Julia (25 March 2012)

There are plenty of violent drunks who never go near a pub.
You would need to talk to their families, rather than make illogical assumptions.


----------



## rumpole (25 March 2012)

Julia said:


> There are plenty of violent drunks who never go near a pub.
> You would need to talk to their families, rather than make illogical assumptions.




That's another matter, the thread started off with street violence, I was referring to that.


----------



## Tink (26 March 2012)

> Despite the evidence, four out of five people who regularly drink above the guidelines do not think their drinking is putting their long-term health at risk. Whereas most smokers wish to quit, only 18% of people who drink above the lower-risk guidelines say they actually wish to change their behaviour.




Agree with that, Glen

Just like through the years, smoking was accepted as the norm, and though people kicked and screamed at the changes of not letting them smoke indoors, it was one of the best things they did.
I cant believe they used to smoke in hospitals 

I think the culture needs to be pushed to a negative for binge drinking and it comes from home mainly, and then spills into society.

I agree with the olive green labels Julia and I have said warnings on the bottles and whatever else discourages the young.


----------



## rumpole (26 March 2012)

> I agree with the olive green labels Julia and I have said warnings on the bottles and whatever else discourages the young.




Jacking the price up by 100% would do that


----------



## Calliope (26 March 2012)

rumpole said:


> Jacking the price up by 100% would do that




Something like the Volstead Act would do the trick. Then I could get into the moonshine business.


----------



## Tink (18 July 2012)

*Get tough on alcohol ads and labels*



> The federal government should finally crack down on alcohol advertising and require warning labels on booze after the bashing death of Thomas Kelly, the head of the Australian Medical Association says.
> 
> Steve Hambleton says Australia's binge-drinking culture is getting worse and every capital city has pockets where drunken violence occurs.




http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-...lcohol-ads-and-labels-ama-20120718-22a80.html

I think they should make some changes.


----------



## Glen48 (18 July 2012)

As the world economies tank we will see more of this with more violence from younger generation wanting to vent their anger on being  jobless and the life the older generation had and what the older generation left for them.

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/11473.html


----------



## Julia (18 July 2012)

Tink said:


> *
> I think they should make some changes.*



*
Such as?*


----------



## MrBurns (18 July 2012)

Glen48 said:


> As the world economies tank we will see more of this with more violence from younger generation wanting to vent their anger on being  jobless and the life the older generation had and what the older generation left for them.
> http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/11473.html




Agree......



Julia said:


> Such as?




Make public drunkeness/drunk and disorderly a real crime, make assault a real crime not just a slap on the wrist, at some stage we will have to get tough.


----------



## Tink (18 July 2012)

Julia said:


> Such as?




As the article says, cut the advertising and all the billboards, and put labels on alcohol.
Thats a good start.


----------



## McLovin (18 July 2012)

I'm travelling around at the moment and it's really a shame that Australians are getting a bad reputation for being drunken idiots. Speaking to a bar manager in Istanbul he said the biggest problem he has is with Australians getting drunk and starting fights or urinating in the streets.

Heck, I'm in Georgia now (the country not the state) and someone here said something about Australians drinking too much. And there wouldn't be more than a couple of dozen Western tourists all up in this town. 

10 years ago we were considered "model" tourists, now we're about on par with British stag parties in Eastern Europe.


----------



## CanOz (18 July 2012)

McLovin said:


> I'm travelling around at the moment and it's really a shame that Australians are getting a bad reputation for being drunken idiots. Speaking to a bar manager in Istanbul he said the biggest problem he has is with Australians getting drunk and starting fights or urinating in the streets.
> 
> Heck, I'm in Georgia now (the country not the state) and someone here said something about Australians drinking too much. And there wouldn't be more than a couple of dozen Western tourists all up in this town.
> 
> 10 years ago we were considered "model" tourists, now we're about on par with British stag parties in Eastern Europe.




Hope you're enjoying your drive mate!!


----------



## McLovin (18 July 2012)

CanOz said:


> Hope you're enjoying your drive mate!!




I am indeed. About to make the drive to the Azerbaijan border. The police there have a bit of an issue with corruption, so it should be an interesting couple of days.


----------



## jersey10 (18 July 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Agree......
> 
> 
> 
> Make public drunkeness/drunk and disorderly a real crime, make assault a real crime not just a slap on the wrist, at some stage we will have to get tough.




Yes, enforce a rule making it illegal to have a blood alcohol limit above a certain level in public.


----------



## DB008 (19 July 2012)

McLovin said:


> I'm travelling around at the moment and it's really a shame that Australians are getting a bad reputation for being drunken idiots. Speaking to a bar manager in Istanbul he said the biggest problem he has is with Australians getting drunk and starting fights or urinating in the streets.
> 
> Heck, I'm in Georgia now (the country not the state) and someone here said something about Australians drinking too much. And there wouldn't be more than a couple of dozen Western tourists all up in this town.
> 
> 10 years ago we were considered "model" tourists, now we're about on par with British stag parties in Eastern Europe.




+1000000
I just came back from a European holiday and some of the countries I visited (Eastern Bloc), they easily out drink Aussies, but surprise surprise, no violence. 
It's a stupid Aussie culture thing l'm afraid, to get drunk and act like a a$$hole.


----------



## DB008 (19 July 2012)

W...T...F...



> *Cameraman knocked out at Thomas Kelly murder accused's hearing*
> 
> THERE were violent scenes outside a Sydney court today, where one of the supporters of the man accused of murdering teenager Thomas Kelly allegedly knocked out a cameraman.
> 
> ...




I personally believe that the teenager responsible for Thomas Kelly's death, if proven 100%, should somehow receive the death penalty.


----------



## jimd78 (19 July 2012)

There's a much simpler way of preventing all this mindless violence imo, rather than draconian laws punishing those who can handle a drink, a 9pm curfew is imposed on anyone who has a visable tattoo. The violent crime figures will plummett.


----------



## prawn_86 (19 July 2012)

jimd78 said:


> There's a much simpler way of preventing all this mindless violence imo, rather than draconian laws punishing those who can handle a drink, a 9pm curfew is imposed on anyone who has a visable tattoo. The violent crime figures will plummett.




Wow now there is a stereotype. I can count at least 5 people in my office (white collar finance) who have visible tattoos when wearing casual clothes, 3 of them women...


----------



## moXJO (19 July 2012)

These type of idiots have been around forever. The majority of the time they are let off after bashing people half to death. Get caught assaulting someone else and you should get an automatic jail sentence and heavy fines.


----------



## jimd78 (19 July 2012)

prawn_86 said:


> Wow now there is a stereotype. I can count at least 5 people in my office (white collar finance) who have visible tattoos when wearing casual clothes, 3 of them women...




Probably bikies mate, read an article once on how some bikies cover up the tatts and hold respectable jobs. Steer well clear of them on a Friday night, you'll be alright.


----------



## Timmy (19 July 2012)

jimd78 said:


> Probably bikies mate, read an article once on how some bikies cover up the tatts and hold respectable jobs. Steer well clear of them on a Friday night, you'll be alright.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 July 2012)

DB008 said:


> It's a stupid Aussie culture thing l'm afraid, to get drunk and act like a a$$hole.



Given the extent to which it is glorified in popular culture, particularly music (to the extent that "party all night" songs have become a reasonably common genre in themselves over the past couple of years), I assume that Aussies aren't the only ones.


----------



## Tink (20 July 2012)

Dannyboy, that article just shows the type of people they are, unbelievable.
No respect, no care for anyone else.
Hitting 3 other people during the night before killing this child.

How do people come to this angry state of mind.

Now he is crying in the dock.


----------



## DB008 (20 July 2012)

Tink said:


> Dannyboy, that article just shows the type of people they are, unbelievable.
> No respect, no care for anyone else.
> Hitting 3 other people during the night before killing this child.
> 
> ...




Yeah, it's crazy.

Did you hear the parents of the accused as they were walking away from the court house yesterday??? 
"Please, we are going through a difficult time" 
REALLY???
What about the victims family, imagine what they are going through? What your bogan son did to them.

What irks/bugs/pi$$es me off, is that the accused will go for a lessor charge of manslaughter - get 20-25 years, minus good behaviour and be out in 15, maybe less. Meanwhile, a family is missing a young man who did nothing wrong. Wrong time, wrong place. Gone forever.

I really wish that life meant life or there was the option of capital punishment.


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 July 2012)

The lack of an effective justice system has a lot to do with all of this.

If a punch meant prison then you can be pretty sure that there would be no need for this thread. It's the joke of a "justice" system that allows this behaviour to continue.

It's a sad reality that people can be fined $1300 if their heater emits too much smoke and in other places can be fined for watering the garden at the wrong time. But smash someone's face in and you'll get a slap on the wrist at most. Even simply parking on a city street for too long, whilst paying to do so, seems to be viewed more harshly than unprovoked violence these days.


----------



## McLovin (18 September 2012)

McLovin said:


> No, bugger the right of the majority of those stopped by sniffer dogs who are not carrying drugs and have to go through the humilation of being searched and questioned in public.




The slide down the slippery slope continues. How long until this sort of rubbish is implemented state wide?



> NSW Police will be able to deploy drug sniffer dogs on Kings Cross streets and across the entire metropolitan rail network without a warrant as part of the state government's response to the fatal assault on teenager Thomas Kelly in Kings Cross.
> 
> ...
> 
> "What will it mean for people on the trains? I think if you were to talk to most passengers on the trains, they're quite happy to share a carriage with somebody who is not drug affected or carrying drugs or in the process of going to pick up drugs," he said.




Why would I care if someone is on the way to pick up drugs or carrying drugs anymore than I would care if someone is on the way to the pub or carrying a bottle of wine.

Similarly, why would I care if someone is affected by drugs anymore than someone who is affected by alcohol. 

The nanny state is approaching a police state. 


http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sniffer-dogs-and-id-scanners-for-kings-cross-20120918-26415.html


----------



## Tink (19 September 2012)

Oh well, if you have nothing to worry about, you wont care will you?

I am thankful they are out there keeping our public transport and wherever else safe, nothing worse seeing these half brained twits hassling the elderly, the young and all in between -- seeing these people with fear in their faces when approached is enough. 
They have the right to travel in peace.


----------



## McLovin (19 September 2012)

Tink said:


> Oh well, if you have nothing to worry about, you wont care will you?




I will care as long a the polce are able to search me without a warrant while I go about my daily business.


----------



## Julia (19 September 2012)

McLovin said:


> I will care as long a the polce are able to search me without a warrant while I go about my daily business.



Are they not already allowed to do this if they have 'reasonable cause' to suspect you are carrying something undesirable?

One of Barry O'Farrell's brainwaves is apparently that anyone wishing to enter a King's Cross drinking establishment should have to present their driver's licence to the bouncers determining the desirability or otherwise of the patrons.  I can understand such patrons taking a pretty dim view of being credentialled by these dubious characters.


----------



## McLovin (19 September 2012)

Julia said:


> Are they not already allowed to do this if they have 'reasonable cause' to suspect you are carrying something undesirable?




Yes. But in the Cross the "probable cause" part will no longer apply in relation to unreliable sniffer dogs. So you could be walking from the shops back to your apartment on a Sunday night and you may have to run the gauntlet of police with dogs. While I object on principle, given the overwhelming failure of these dogs, as highlighted by an ombudsman's report, and their tendency to provide false positives (73% of those stopped and searched were in fact not carrying drugs!!) it is even more objectionable. It's only a matter of time, IMO, until this is rolled out across the state and we have mobile random drug sniffing dogs on the streets.

I should also make the point that the majority of these drug detection dogs can only detect cannabis. Apparently the training required to make a dog able to smell more serious drugs is prohibitively expensive for this sort of work.



Julia said:


> One of Barry O'Farrell's brainwaves is apparently that anyone wishing to enter a King's Cross drinking establishment should have to present their driver's licence to the bouncers determining the desirability or otherwise of the patrons.  I can understand such patrons taking a pretty dim view of being credentialled by these dubious characters.




Ridiculous, isn't it! Most of the bouncers in the X are thugs, with bikie affiliations. Hardly who you want to be handing over anything with your address details on it. Not only that but it will all go into a massive database so that if you get kicked out of one pub then your license will remain on file so that you can't get into other establishments.


----------



## Tink (28 September 2012)

Talking about policing -- what a fabulous job the police, the CCTV, and the public have done regarding the ABC worker, Jill.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-27/man-charged-with-rape-murder-of-jill-meagher/4284826

I can see the push for more CCTV's being the next call.


----------



## MrBurns (28 September 2012)

Tink said:


> Talking about policing -- what a fabulous job the police, the CCTV, and the public have done regarding the ABC worker, Jill.
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-27/man-charged-with-rape-murder-of-jill-meagher/4284826
> 
> I can see the push for more CCTV's being the next call.




Just posted on that before I saw yours but I completely agree the more cameras out there the better, I don't really care about privacy in public places, there isn't any anyway.


----------



## prawn_86 (28 September 2012)

Tink said:


> Talking about policing -- what a fabulous job the police, the CCTV, and the public have done regarding the ABC worker, Jill.
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-27/man-charged-with-rape-murder-of-jill-meagher/4284826
> 
> I can see the push for more CCTV's being the next call.






MrBurns said:


> Just posted on that before I saw yours but I completely agree the more cameras out there the better, I don't really care about privacy in public places, there isn't any anyway.




If you want to completely stop crime why not just microchip everyone with a gps tracker??


----------



## MrBurns (28 September 2012)

prawn_86 said:


> If you want to completely stop crime why not just microchip everyone with a gps tracker??




Or if you want to let creeps get away with murder scrap all the cameras, they have their privacy rights dont they ?


----------



## white_goodman (28 September 2012)

Tink said:


> Oh well, if you have nothing to worry about, you wont care will you?




what a slippery slope with that sort of argument...

all thatll happen is this, the people who have something to hide wont be going to those clubs/pubs in the cross with the ID check, more will gravitate to oxford street and surrey, which is a shame cos its mainly westy bogans in the cross expect for a few clubs, so we can sorta get away from them atm when the 'M crowd' comes into the city.


----------



## white_goodman (28 September 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Or if you want to let creeps get away with murder scrap all the cameras, they have their privacy rights dont they ?




rolls eyes, really?

we could keep everyone 100% safe if u wanted to sacrifice all freedoms


----------



## Tink (3 January 2013)

I feel so sorry for this family.

What is wrong with these kids, havent they learned -- one punch KILLS!

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-of-david-cassai/story-e6frg6nf-1226547064079


----------



## dutchie (3 January 2013)

Tink said:


> I feel so sorry for this family.
> 
> What is wrong with these kids, havent they learned -- one punch KILLS!
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-of-david-cassai/story-e6frg6nf-1226547064079




I really hate this senseless violence.
I would like to see 10 year jail sentences to those who start this type of violence and life imprisonment for any deaths (no ifs, no buts).


----------



## Tink (3 January 2013)

Yes, dutchie, makes me very angry as that could very easily have been my own son, minding his own business with his friends. 

Something has to change....


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 January 2013)

Mandatory sentencing would fix it real quick.

It would upset a few, but it would fix the situation that there are no real consequences for breaking the law and therefore no real reason to obey it unless you want to.

Same goes for a few other crimes, arson comes immediately to mind as one that needs harsh punishment.


----------



## McLovin (3 January 2013)

Smurf1976 said:


> Mandatory sentencing would fix it real quick.
> 
> It would upset a few, but it would fix the situation that there are no real consequences for breaking the law and therefore no real reason to obey it unless you want to.
> 
> Same goes for a few other crimes, arson comes immediately to mind as one that needs harsh punishment.




The death penalty has been proven to not be a deterent, so I doubt mandatory sentencing will do much except clog up the gaols and appease talkback radio. The proven best deterent to any crime is increasing the chance of being caught and convicted, not increasing the sentence. Generally, in these incidents the perpetrators are not hardened criminals, they're just boozed up idiots who don't think about the consequences of their actions. For the overwhelming majority knowing they have directly caused someone to lose their life is a far greater sentence than any court could impose.

Mandatory sentencing also has the unintended consequence of making the prosecution the defacto judiciary. There is a reasonable argument to be made about the seperation of powers.


----------



## Tink (3 January 2013)

Well here is hoping Smurf
RIP David

Thought I would share this poem that was sent...

If I could take back time

I am young fit and healthy
Been working hard all year
... It’s New Years Eve 2013
Time to celebrate … drink beer

Going out for pizza
Just me mates and me
See a group of lads out front
My fists want to fly free

I give one a hip n shoulder
See if he will fight
Gotta impress my bro’s
It’s been a quiet night

Walking away what a pussy
It’s too late for me to stop
I bring my bro’s into a fray
Three punches I watch him drop

Alpha males that is us
One KO’d one broken jaw
Gotta get out of here quick
Or we might face the law

When sober the next day
We hear the news in shock
The guy I hit has just died
His head hit concrete like a rock

If only I can turn back time
I’d breeze past them like a snail
Leave the poor kid get a pizza
Instead I face years in jail


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 January 2013)

McLovin said:


> The death penalty has been proven to not be a deterent, so I doubt mandatory sentencing will do much except clog up the gaols and appease talkback radio. The proven best deterent to any crime is increasing the chance of being caught and convicted, not increasing the sentence.



OK. So I get caught, turn up in court and face no actual consequences for my actions. Why would that deter me? The only downside I can see is waste of a day or so in court.

Using a different example, the reasonably high chance that I will receive a $35 fine for parking too long in the one spot is no real deterrent. It could be considered a fee for service almost. In contrast, the much lower chance that I'll be caught and consequently lose my driver's license for driving 38 km/h over the speed limit is however a big deterrent. Regardless of the probability, the consequences of the latter are substantial whereas the former is trivial at most.

In the above example it's the sentence, not the probability of being caught, which acts as a deterrent. We're talking about harming innocent people here, not about convicting a few drunks who harmlessly stagger out of the pub at closing time and cause no fuss.


----------



## sptrawler (3 January 2013)

McLovin said:


> The death penalty has been proven to not be a deterent, so I doubt mandatory sentencing will do much except clog up the gaols and appease talkback radio. The proven best deterent to any crime is increasing the chance of being caught and convicted, not increasing the sentence. Generally, in these incidents the perpetrators are not hardened criminals, they're just boozed up idiots who don't think about the consequences of their actions. For the overwhelming majority knowing they have directly caused someone to lose their life is a far greater sentence than any court could impose.
> 
> Mandatory sentencing also has the unintended consequence of making the prosecution the defacto judiciary. There is a reasonable argument to be made about the seperation of powers.




So McLovin going off post #108 and the current post you don't like sniffer dogs and you don't like the death penalty.


----------



## Julia (3 January 2013)

McLovin said:


> The death penalty has been proven to not be a deterent, so I doubt mandatory sentencing will do much except clog up the gaols and appease talkback radio. The proven best deterent to any crime is increasing the chance of being caught and convicted, not increasing the sentence. Generally, in these incidents the perpetrators are not hardened criminals, they're just boozed up idiots who don't think about the consequences of their actions. For the overwhelming majority knowing they have directly caused someone to lose their life is a far greater sentence than any court could impose.



I disagree.  For some time now just being caught and convicted seems to make no impression on many because they know they'll receive the obligatory verbal lecture and probably a suspended sentence.  You are not talking about people here who have a high moral compass.  If they did, they wouldn't be repetitively offending in the way they are.

In some instances there's a good case for compulsory victim/offender conferencing, which forces the offender into having the victim detail to him face to face the consequences of the event.  Especially in drug fuelled offences where the offender is focused only on his need to assault and rob in order to obtain money for the next fix, there's an outside chance that if they see an injured, terrified victim in front of them, they may belatedly realise the impact of their selfish violence.



Smurf1976 said:


> OK. So I get caught, turn up in court and face no actual consequences for my actions. Why would that deter me? The only downside I can see is waste of a day or so in court.



Yes, exactly, and this is just what happens.



> Using a different example, the reasonably high chance that I will receive a $35 fine for parking too long in the one spot is no real deterrent. It could be considered a fee for service almost. In contrast, the much lower chance that I'll be caught and consequently lose my driver's license for driving 38 km/h over the speed limit is however a big deterrent. Regardless of the probability, the consequences of the latter are substantial whereas the former is trivial at most.
> 
> In the above example it's the sentence, not the probability of being caught, which acts as a deterrent. We're talking about harming innocent people here, not about convicting a few drunks who harmlessly stagger out of the pub at closing time and cause no fuss.



+1.


----------



## McLovin (3 January 2013)

Smurf1976 said:


> OK. So I get caught, turn up in court and face no actual consequences for my actions. Why would that deter me? The only downside I can see is waste of a day or so in court.




I said, extending sentences and mandatory sentencing does not work. I didn't say their actions should be consequence free. There is a big misconception about the deterrence of imprisonment. 



> Sherman argues that “(f)or
> too long democratic societies
> have assumed that all punishment
> has a general deterrent or
> ...




http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/C/1/E/{C1EFCBE4-7FCE-4B22-8BB9-AFD965E2E536}ti138.pdf


			
				Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> That's what I'm saying. Gaol is not a deterrent, because homicide is not usually premeditated. The drunk idiot looking to start a fight isn't thinking about the consequences. And when it is premeditated, the sentence is increased accordingly. The death penalty doesn't deter crime so locking people up for ever increasing periods won't do it either. The rational choice to me would be to save the money of having them incarcerated.
> 
> Using a different example, the reasonably high chance that I will receive a $35 fine for parking too long in the one spot is no real deterrent. It could be considered a fee for service almost. In contrast, the much lower chance that I'll be caught and consequently lose my driver's license for driving 38 km/h over the speed limit is however a big deterrent. Regardless of the probability, the consequences of the latter are substantial whereas the former is trivial at most.
> 
> In the above example it's the sentence, not the probability of being caught, which acts as a deterrent. We're talking about harming innocent people here, not about convicting a few drunks who harmlessly stagger out of the pub at closing time and cause no fuss.




I'm talking about criminal offences not parking fines or other summary offences that really are victimless crimes.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 January 2013)

McLovin said:


> I'm talking about criminal offences not parking fines or other summary offences that really are victimless crimes.



True. 

But doesn't that mean that the consequences of those criminal offences ought to be more severe than the other examples I used rather than the reverse?

A quick Google search finds that the fine for travelling 5 km/h over the speed limit in NSW is 1 point plus $105. That's somewhat more severe than the punishment many of these thugs are given. Shouldn't a punch be considered more serious than doing 85 in an 80 zone?


----------



## MrBurns (4 January 2013)

Punishment only works with children, they learn from it.

Crims dont learn anything, the worst of them should be kept in cages away from decent society, the offender who killed that girl recently was out on parole after kiling someone else. (I forget the details)

People who assualt others should be locked away ......period.
Sex offenders likewise.

You would be horrified if you knew the types you rub shoulders with every day.

What's the point of punishing a pedophile, they are what they are, lock them up for good.

So there's no point "punishing" these people just lock them up and throw away the key until someone can prove they wont offend again.


----------



## Calliope (4 January 2013)

Drunkenness, with the ensuing violence, is part of our culture and there is nothing we can do about it. We have even established a tradition, quaintly called "rite of passage" where thousands of school leavers annually descend on unsavoury places like Surfers Paradise to hone their skills in drunkenness and violence and promiscuity.

The police enter into the spirit of the occasion and issue daily bulletins on those who have graduated to being arrested. The TV news bulletins seek out the violence and present pictures of these teenagers drinking, fighting and proudly being loaded into the paddy wagon.

After a week of this the Queensland revellers are followed by the NSW contingent. The irony here is that the locals are mainly only 17 and cannot legally buy alcohol. This  creates a brisk trade in false identity cards.


----------



## Tink (5 January 2013)

Very true, Calliope. A culture I have never been a part of nor do I encourage, and thank God my children arent a part of this rubbish.

Manslaughter is murder by accident and therefore I expect the full extent of the law to be put in place in all these cases, as anyone arriving somewhere with the intent to fight is pre meditated and should pay the consequences.

We should be allowed to walk the streets in peace.


----------



## dutchie (3 January 2014)

*Alcoholic Violence*

……………….
1998.........
1999 ........
2000 – innocent victim killed by “king hit” – public outrage – enough is enough
2001 – innocent victim killed by “king hit” – public outrage – enough is enough
2002 – innocent victim killed by “king hit” – public outrage – enough is enough
2003 – innocent victim killed by “king hit” – public outrage – enough is enough
2004 – innocent victim killed by “king hit” – public outrage – enough is enough
2005– innocent victim killed by “king hit” – public outrage – enough is enough
2006 – innocent victim killed by “king hit” – public outrage – enough is enough
2007 – innocent victim killed by “king hit” – public outrage – enough is enough
2008 – innocent victim killed by “king hit” – public outrage – enough is enough
2009– innocent victim killed by “king hit” – public outrage – enough is enough
2010 – innocent victim killed by “king hit” – public outrage – enough is enough
2011 – innocent victim killed by “king hit” – public outrage – enough is enough
2012 – innocent victim killed by “king hit” – public outrage – enough is enough
2013– innocent victim killed by “king hit” – public outrage – enough is enough
2014 – innocent victim killed by “king hit” – public outrage – enough s enough
2015– innocent victim killed by “king hit” – public outrage – enough is enough
2016 …………………………..







90 killed in single-punch assaults since 2000
http://www.smh.com.au/national/90-killed-in-singlepunch-assaults-since-2000-20131201-2yjtr.html


----------



## dutchie (3 January 2014)

*Re: Alcoholic Violence*

Australia is a drinking country.

We laud heavy drinking.
We laud getting drunk.
We laud teenagers getting off their face with alcohol - its a right of passage.

We encourage people to drink, starting at an early age.
We laugh when we see our young staggering the streets and vomiting from too much alcohol.

We are the lucky country ???

 But when will we grow up???


----------



## Bill M (3 January 2014)

*Re: Alcoholic Violence*



dutchie said:


> Australia is a drinking country.
> 
> We are the lucky country ???
> 
> But when will we grow up???




I am ashamed of our drinking culture. I drink and sometimes a bit too much but I never drive when I do and I have never ever been in a fight over it, it's all about control and respect for others.

I travel extensively to many other countries and you don't see this lunatic asylum kind of behavior elsewhere. Recently I was in Singapore and I was hungry at 3 AM so I decided to go out and look for something to eat. When I got out of my hotel I was amazed to see several cafes open and full with people eating and drinking. Many were only drinking and the crowd was mixed. There were 70 year olds and there were 20 year olds and there were families with kids too, all having a drink. Not a shred of violence anywhere and this was in Geyland in the Red Light District. I would never ever venture out in our hot spots in fear of being killed.

I have witnessed many many violent attacks here in Australia, one of my mates was king hit right in front of me. When the Police turned up I identified the culprits and they made no effort to chase them up or arrest them. Australia has a lot of drunken morons around just looking around to hurt someone, there is something definitely wrong with this culture. I didn't even see it to this extent in London when I was there and they are known for heavy drinking too. What sort of country do we live in when an oldie just doesn't feel safe going out at night? What a shame. How can we change this?


----------



## prawn_86 (3 January 2014)

*Re: Alcoholic Violence*

With Western society becoming more and more androgynous there are very few outlets for young men these days. Mix in some inhibition loosener and you get males wanting to do as they do naturally but are not allowed to anymore (be dominant/agressive etc).

I think sports can help curtail a lot of this, especially team sports where you understand your actions, even outside of a team 'location/environment' can have an effect on others within your team.

Asia has a totally different culture and mentality so it is hard to compare, but Europe seems to have a better standard as they grow up drinking early with food and it becomes a social activity rather than a rite of passage


----------



## Chris45 (3 January 2014)

*Re: Alcoholic Violence*



Bill M said:


> I am ashamed of our drinking culture. I drink and sometimes a bit too much but I never drive when I do and I have never ever been in a fight over it, *it's all about control and respect for others.*



Agree 100% 

Night clubs and alcohol vendors have far too much freedom, we seem to tolerate recreational drugs, and our "justice" system is absolutely pathetic. No wonder the police lack enthusiasm.

Singapore is supposed to have a low tolerance for misbehaviour and corporal punishment for offenders. Is that what we're missing?


----------



## dutchie (3 January 2014)

*Re: Alcoholic Violence*

UPDATE: Alcohol, "king-hits", a young man killed
Inbox	x

Ralph Kelly via Change.org <mail@change.org> 
	10:30 AM (8 hours ago)

to me 




dutchie -
We’d prepared ourselves for this kind of news, but it still came as a shock.
On New Year’s Eve, in almost exactly the same spot in King’s Cross where our beloved son Tom was killed, another young man had fallen victim to the rage of alcohol-fuelled violence.
A single punch. Another young man fighting for his life. Another family distraught and torn apart. When is this going to end?
Our hearts go out to the family of young Daniel Christie. No-one outside the family can really understand the pain they are going through right now.
Police allege that Daniel’s attacker had drunk eight beers and a glass of wine beforehand and that he was already on a good behaviour bond for assault.
Because someone has been charged, we can’t comment more on this particular case right now. But we know that something has to change. Too many lives are being taken from us. The toll is mounting, and the Government is far too slow to act.  
Just a few days after Kieran Loveridge was sentenced to a miserly four years jail for killing Tom, we started a petition at change.org/thomaskelly calling for minimum sentencing laws in cases of manslaughter.
More than 23,000 people have already signed our petition and we’ve had some encouraging signs from the Government.
And while we are still determined to see changes to minimum sentencing laws in cases of manslaughter, it’s clear that more needs to be done to tackle the spiralling issue of alcohol-fuelled violence.
Can you take a few minutes to share our petition by forwarding this email to friends and family?
In particular, we need laws that will send a strong message to young people and the community in general that alcohol abuse and excessive drinking should not serve as an excuse for violence. Right now, the law doesn’t do that.
Too often, criminals are using excessive drinking as an excuse for their behaviour.
We need to turn this around 180 degrees. The central plank of our new proposal to the NSW Government is to increase the penalties for any crime committed whilst affected by alcohol or drugs.
Recently, accompanied by leading Sydney lawyer Alexander Street SC, we met with Attorney-General Mr Greg Smith to propose three key areas of reform to the NSW Sentencing Act.
The three additions that we have proposed to the Attorney General - now reflected in our updated change.org/thomaskelly petition - are:
1. Any crimes committed whilst affected by alcohol or drugs are identified as a "mandatory aggravating factor" that must be taken into account on sentencing.
This will serve to send the right messaging of the primary role that alcohol plays in violence and crimes within NSW and require sentences to reflect this aggravating feature.
2. The aggravating factor of "conditional liberty" expanded to any "good behaviour bond".
This will tackle the issue of repeat offenders.
3. Youth and the inability of a victim to defend themselves as being aggravating factors that must be taken into account.
This would help stop attacks on the most defenceless and vulnerable in our society.
We have asked the NSW Government to incorporate these three key elements into the Act.  Importantly these additions would be incorporated within all areas of criminal activity, including domestic violence and sexual assault.
Right now, our sentencing laws are completely out of sync with public sentiment.  18 months ago we lost Tom. 3 days ago, another family’s boy was attacked. Until something changes, the only thing we can be sure of is that there will be more.
Social and behavioural change only occurs when we stand up as one and demand that change happens.
Now is that time.
Time to say that we’re fed up with the culture of excessive drinking.
Time to say that we’re fed up with violence on our streets, fuelled by rampant alcohol abuse.
Please share our petition at change.org/thomaskelly with friends and family. Together, we can do this.  Thank you.
Ralph and Kathy Kelly




SIGN THE PETITION AT change.org  (tom kelly) , please
cheers, dutchie


----------



## Calliope (3 January 2014)

*Re: Alcoholic Violence*

Do we really need another thread on this? We already have a thread " Alcohol fueled violence".


----------



## Tink (4 January 2014)

Agree, dutchie, here we are again saying the same thing.

Once upon a time, these drunks were frowned upon and now its encouraged and they are even trying to push drugs -- unbelievable.

So true, enough is enough.


----------



## sydboy007 (4 January 2014)

I was walking from my work site near circular quay down to world square this morning.  I counted the 10 advertisements for alcohol.  Johnny Walker Red - something about being bold, also Corona with smiling friends on the beach.

Not sure what the answer is.  making it hard to buy alcohol is probably not the solution  When I look at Europe or japan it's so easy to buy alcohol there, yet they don't seem to have this problem.

I like the idea of using the term cowards punch rather than king hit.  At least it takes the macho element out of it.  

Maybe less advertising, and I think some adverts of police videos of real drunk people would maybe make people not want to be like that.  Then again, the few times I've had a bad hangover I didn't intend on drinking that much.  After a few glasses the alcohol has pretty much dumbed down the parts of the brain that keep up out of trouble.

I doubt harsher sentences on their own will help, yet slaps on the wrist are not good enough.  The victims can have life long consequences if they survive.  Maybe all venues need the ID scanning tech and if you are caught drunk and disorderly, along with any other alcohol involved crime, then you have an automatic ban for X months.

I also think we have to fix up the wine equalisation tax fiasco.  Why can you buy 5L Berri wine casks for $15?  That's 43 standard drinks.  It's the alcoholics brand of choice.  There's no cheaper way to tank up.


----------



## Chris45 (4 January 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> Why can you buy 5L Berri wine casks for $15?  That's 43 standard drinks.  It's the alcoholics brand of choice.  There's no cheaper way to tank up.



I bought 3 for $33 recently. It should only be available to us poor pensioners on production of our cards.


----------



## bellenuit (4 January 2014)

Tink said:


> Agree, dutchie, here we are again saying the same thing.
> 
> Once upon a time, these drunks were frowned upon and now its encouraged and they are even trying to push drugs -- unbelievable.
> 
> So true, enough is enough.




I didn't catch it fully, so I may not have the full story, but I saw Bob Hawke at the cricket today downing a glass of beer in one go and appeared to be egged on by a crowd of people. He finished by throwing the empty (plastic) glass on to the field in front of him. Hardly an example of drinking responsibly.


----------



## sydboy007 (4 January 2014)

bellenuit said:


> I didn't catch it fully, so I may not have the full story, but I saw Bob Hawke at the cricket today downing a glass of beer in one go and appeared to be egged on by a crowd of people. He finished by throwing the empty (plastic) glass on to the field in front of him. Hardly an example of drinking responsibly.




Nor does the Aussie cricket team with their record attempts on flights to the UK - boonie with 52, marsh 46, Doug walters 44.

When you wear the name keg on legs as a badge of honour you know we have a problem.


----------



## prawn_86 (5 January 2014)

bellenuit said:


> I didn't catch it fully, so I may not have the full story, but I saw Bob Hawke at the cricket today downing a glass of beer in one go and appeared to be egged on by a crowd of people. He finished by throwing the empty (plastic) glass on to the field in front of him. Hardly an example of drinking responsibly.




Legend  At least someone is keeping Aussie larrikinism alive and well


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 January 2014)

I'm not a heavy drinker by any means, actually I basically never drink unless I'm away somewhere on holidays. That doesn't mean I never drink, but most months of the year I don't touch a drop of the stuff (always been this way). In my personal experience a lot comes down to the demographic of the crowd.

The troublemakers are heavily attracted to "cool" (or whatever the term is these days) clubs, events etc. They're there to impress their mates and/or women and that's their primary motivation. They couldn't give a damn about the music etc, it's all about getting drunk and impressing someone. This attitude doesn't end once they leave the venue, if anything it actually gets worse once they're on the street.

But go to the exact same club / pub on a different night when they're playing "uncool" music (retro etc) and there's rarely an issue. You still have the young crowd but some older ones as well. People drink, they get drunk, but those younger men with a certain attitude and out to impress wouldn't be seen there even if someone paid them and that gets rid of the trouble. Generally no problems with the same crowd on the street either.

So my basic conclusion is that there's a certain type of person, who is basically out to impress and that's it, and who couldn't give a damn about anything else. They go to whichever club, festival or other place they think is a good place to be seen at. They carry the same attitude onto the street once they leave, made worse by being more drunk and in many cases having failed to impress whoever they were trying to impress (ie they're going home alone rather than with a woman).

I've no idea how to fix it, but that's my observation. Most people don't cause problems even if they are drunk but there's a certain type of person who is going to be trouble and it comes down to their underlying attitude and reason for being out on the town in the first place.

As for nightclubs and pubs, personally I don't blame them that much. They're stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place really. Most revenue comes from drink sales but these days this has to compete against the trend of "pre drinks" and other drug use.

I can't verify this statistic, but I was told that about 76% of all alcohol sales in Australia are take away (bottle shops etc), roughly 21% in pubs, restaurants, RSL's, sporting events, music festivals etc and about 3% in nightclubs. I can't verify that, but it does seem about right to me given the truly ridiculous number of bottle shops around these days. It would be much easier to bring about solutions in pubs and clubs (ie raise the price and properly enforce RSA with no overall loss of revenue) if they weren't competing against bottle shops which already have the majority of the market and far lower costs.


----------



## sydboy007 (5 January 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> I'm not a heavy drinker by any means, actually I basically never drink unless I'm away somewhere on holidays. That doesn't mean I never drink, but most months of the year I don't touch a drop of the stuff (always been this way). In my personal experience a lot comes down to the demographic of the crowd.




Similar to this example there's a night club in Sydney called Arq.  Most of the time it runs most nights targeting the heterosexual crowd.  The few times I've been there on those nights can be quite scary.  It's like the macho gene has been hit with adrenaline and steorids and the small bump or enjoying the eye candy is a reason for violence, or the threat of violence.

Now go on a night when they target the gay community.  It's like a totally different club.  Never seen anything even remotely violent.  The interactions between people is just so much more clam and friendly.

Same goes for most gay bars.  The only violence I've seen in 22 years of going to gay bars has involved the odd face slap a handful of times.


----------



## sptrawler (5 January 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> I'm not a heavy drinker by any means, actually I basically never drink unless I'm away somewhere on holidays. That doesn't mean I never drink, but most months of the year I don't touch a drop of the stuff (always been this way). In my personal experience a lot comes down to the demographic of the crowd.
> 
> The troublemakers are heavily attracted to "cool" (or whatever the term is these days) clubs, events etc. They're there to impress their mates and/or women and that's their primary motivation. They couldn't give a damn about the music etc, it's all about getting drunk and impressing someone. This attitude doesn't end once they leave the venue, if anything it actually gets worse once they're on the street.
> 
> .




I grew up in mining towns in the late 60's and the 70's. 
There was always a degree of drunken behaviour and fighting, in and about these towns.
However the underlying sense of fairness and decency was observed, this seems now to be forgotten.
I laughed the other day when I heard the defense of a 19year old for bashing an 80 year old, was because he had trouble controlling his temper.
I thought why doesn't he go down to the local 'bikie' clubhouse and throw his weight around. I bet he could control his temper there.
It boils down to gratuitous violence against the weak and defencless. 
How an ageing society copes with that will be interesting


----------



## Tink (5 January 2014)

That's exactly it, sptrawler, its these vulnerable people that they are targeting, and this pathetic justice system of ours just allows them to continue doing so.

Where is the deterrent for these thugs?


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 January 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> The few times I've been there on those nights can be quite scary.  It's like the macho gene has been hit with adrenaline and steorids and the small bump or enjoying the eye candy is a reason for violence, or the threat of violence.
> 
> Now go on a night when they target the gay community.  It's like a totally different club.  Never seen anything even remotely violent.



At the risk of opening a bigger can of worms, the issue with drunken violence is pretty much an issue of young, immature, heterosexual males of a certain personality type. The girls do encourage them however so are not without blame.

It doesn't seem to be an issue in the gay community, at least not from what I've seen. It's an extremely different atmosphere that's for sure.


----------



## sptrawler (5 January 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> At the risk of opening a bigger can of worms, the issue with drunken violence is pretty much an issue of young, immature, heterosexual males of a certain personality type. The girls do encourage them however so are not without blame.
> 
> It doesn't seem to be an issue in the gay community, at least not from what I've seen. It's an extremely different atmosphere that's for sure.




The issue is young immature males picking their targets.
They are hitting from behind, they are picking light weight targets and they are using alcohol as an excuse for gutless behaviour.
How do you teach a nasty, gutless, wimp that they shouldn't do that?

Appart from giving him a good thrashing,lol


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 January 2014)

sptrawler said:


> The issue is young immature males picking their targets.
> They are hitting from behind, they are picking light weight targets and they are using alcohol as an excuse for gutless behaviour.



I think there's two distinct types of the problem actually.

1. The "king hit" issue you refer to.

2. More conventional fights in the general vicinity of licensed premises (either inside or on nearby streets).

The former is grabbing most of the media attention at the moment and I do agree that it's a totally unacceptable situation. But, whilst I don't have figures, I'd be very much surprised if the latter scenario didn't account for a far greater number of assaults in total since it's fairly routine in some particular areas. 

For every victim who dies and makes the news, there's probably another 1000+ who don't die and who don't receive such attention. But they're still a victim of an assault and even though it's of a different type it still comes back to alcohol at least partly.

But how to deal with the attacks on "weak targets" simply walking down the street I have no idea. Other than by means of deterring them in the first place by whatever means, there doesn't seem to be an easy fix. I mean there's a lot of streets and a lot of people walking on them. Unfortunately I can see this ending up with a debate about "the right to carry a gun" or something of that nature in self defence. That's a very slippery slope.....


----------



## Tink (6 January 2014)

It has come to the point now where a majority know someone that has been hit or even worse, killed -- the last one has brain damage.

The talk is, you can travel the world, but come to Australia, and you will be King Hit.
We lost a few tourists too with this King Hit, travelling alone

These criminals are walking the streets doing as they please, and there needs to be an end to this.


----------



## prawn_86 (6 January 2014)

Tink said:


> It has come to the point now where a majority know someone that has been hit or even worse, killed -- the last one has brain damage.
> 
> The talk is, you can travel the world, but come to Australia, and you will be King Hit.
> We lost a few tourists too with this King Hit, travelling alone
> ...




So rather than just hyperbole, what do you actually suggest we do?


----------



## Bill M (6 January 2014)

Tink said:


> It has come to the point now where a majority know someone that has been hit or even worse, killed -- the last one has brain damage.
> 
> The talk is, you can travel the world, but come to Australia, and you will be King Hit.
> We lost a few tourists too with this King Hit, travelling alone
> ...






prawn_86 said:


> So rather than just hyperbole, what do you actually suggest we do?




OK, I will stick my neck out on this.

All venues should enforce license scanning on entry, most clubs in NSW do this already. There is no use doing scanning without having clear CCTV footage as well. It would make it easy to put a name to the face at such venues.

Next, Police actually have to take action and arrest and charge any perpetrators. The case when I witnessed that king hit Police made no attempt to chase down or pick up the perps even after I told them where they went and what they looked like. In the old days the Police would take you in their patrol car and have you identify the perp walking around the streets.

Police visibility in popular night spots is a deterrent also. I lived in Manly NSW for nearly 30 years of my life and they talked about beat Police on the ground for as many years. Everytime a new Council or a new government got elected they promised Police Walking the beat. I rarely ever saw them, particularly in Manly, they lied in order to get the anti violence vote.

Then you need mandatory harsh sentences. *Anybody who commits such a crime and causes death must get a mandatory 20 year sentence*. No ifs, no buts, no good behavior, no good character discount. You kill someone then there is a minimum 20 years sentence, judges must hand this down, no negotiation. 

The current alcohol laws for minor offences, such as refusing to leave a licensed premises, urinating in public, disorderly conduct etc. are ok. I do not believe in turning Australia into a Police State. I drink and I've been drunk and I've staggered home after a good night out. I never caused any damage or harm to anybody. That's not the type of person these changes are targeting or would effect.

For serious alcohol related violence that causes death we need this change. People may judge me for being harsh for putting away a killer for 20 years, I don't think it is. How would you feel if it was the person who you love the most that got killed that way?


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 January 2014)

Like most people I have committed minor crimes over the years. Illegal copying of music and films (only for my own use but it's still illegal). Driving a few km over the limit. Minor breaches of local government laws about times for using noisy equipment and so on. Things like that practically everyone has done at some point.

In the unlikely event that I was caught doing any of the above, there is minimal punishment. Never heard of anyone in trouble for copying something on a non-commercial basis. Minor speeding means a relatively small fine and that's it. Mowing the lawn 10 minutes later than allowed wouldn't result in anything more than a council officer turning up and asking me to stop, pointing out the possibility of stronger action if I didn't.

But I can assure you that if there was a large fine, say $100,000, for driving at 105 in a 100 zone then I and everyone else would be sitting firmly on 90 at most. Likewise I'd be making damn sure the mower was off by 8pm rather than finishing at 8:10. And so on.

The do-good brigade will argue otherwise, but strong penalties do change behaviour if there's a credible chance of being caught and facing that penalty.

I don't know what would be appropriate punishment for violence such as is being discussed here, but provided that there is firm evidence and proper justice (court trial) to prove guilt then at least some time in prison would seem essential as an effective deterrent.

We ought to have high definition recorded CCTV installed in areas with large numbers of pubs / clubs and a history of trouble too. We can't put them everywhere, but it wouldn't be hard to cover the main areas given that such cameras are so easy to set up these days (unlike the old days when everything had to be cabled back to the monitoring point - easy to use wireless these days).


----------



## CanOz (6 January 2014)

One thing that has not been discussed but i believe may have contributed to violence by the younger members of society is the brutal violence associated with video games. 

An example: This weekend my US mate returned from his break and brought an X-Box with him. I spent yesterday afternoon watching him play Grand Theft Auto, a hugely popular X-box game where you can do virtually anything you want in this virtual world...steal cars, shoot random innocent people, sucker punch innocent people walking down the street, run innocent people over in cars or other vehicles...Now while i don't accept that playing this will turn people into violent criminals i can imagine how playing these violent games can change the way we think about striking someone in real life, under the influence, in front of your mates....the same mates that you were playing GTA with online.

Watch this.....


----------



## sydboy007 (6 January 2014)

CanOz said:


> Watch this.....




I'm disturbed after that.  In what universe can someone make a video extolling the virtues of running around killing people.  Seriously, escort killing.  To think that is entertainment 

Reminds me of the Southpark episode where they had informative murder pr0n.  Eventually the couples descend into mind craft and start killing each other to get their game on.


----------



## Tink (6 January 2014)

Mandatory harsh sentences would be my answer too.

If they choose to wipe themselves out with alcohol and drugs, then live with the consequences. 
No more excuses.

The rise in the viciousness, and the number of people who are punching to kill ... is a problem.


----------



## sptrawler (6 January 2014)

CanOz said:


> One thing that has not been discussed but i believe may have contributed to violence by the younger members of society is the brutal violence associated with video games.
> 
> An example: This weekend my US mate returned from his break and brought an X-Box with him. I spent yesterday afternoon watching him play Grand Theft Auto, a hugely popular X-box game where you can do virtually anything you want in this virtual world...steal cars, shoot random innocent people, sucker punch innocent people walking down the street, run innocent people over in cars or other vehicles...Now while i don't accept that playing this will turn people into violent criminals i can imagine how playing these violent games can change the way we think about striking someone in real life, under the influence, in front of your mates....the same mates that you were playing GTA with online.
> 
> Watch this.....





Agree with you Canoz, on one hand it desensitises the squirmish and fuels the latent sadist.
With society pushing the passive victim ideology, I dread to think where it will end.
Sometime, someone has to dish out some eye for an eye punishment, otherwise the extreme violence will escalate.IMO
From my experience, there is nothing more a bully likes, than someone who takes it.

Unfortunately the only examples I have seen of bullies changing their behaviour, is when they cop a bit of their own medicine.
I would love to agree with the warm feel good, group hug believers, however from personal experience dishing out a bit of their own medicine seemed to have more lasting results.


----------



## Tink (6 January 2014)

Yes, but they don't pick people that are going to fight back, sptrawler, its abit late when the person is killed.

How many times have we heard of people going to help, and ending up damaged.


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 January 2014)

There used to be a lot of fuss about films and especially TV "normalisng" violence.

They might to some extent, but watching that clip I'd say that games are 1000+ times worse.

As for bullies, agreed that in general they sure don't like some of their own medicine. But the trouble is, in this case they're quite literally delivering a knockout punch - there's no opportunity to fight back.


----------



## sptrawler (6 January 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> As for bullies, agreed that in general they sure don't like some of their own medicine. But the trouble is, in this case they're quite literally delivering a knockout punch - there's no opportunity to fight back.




Well I guess that goes back to my comment about the passive victim ideology, it is IMO opinion the dumbest principle perpetrated on society.
That might sound a bit harsh, but the only criminal that is going to walk away from a passive victim IMO is a person who isn't a criminal.

No matter where I go, I'm aware of the possibility of a violent incident happening. 
I don't expect it to happen, but I do think of the possibilty it could happen.
I guess that's a result of growing up in violent surroundings.

This knock out punch, runing up from behind, should be treated with corpral punishment. It's simple easy to administer and is more appropriate than throwing them in gaol.


----------



## Tink (7 January 2014)

Agree, smurf and sptrawler, as we saw, these people don't stop with the victim, they even knocked out the cameraman on the day of the court. Flat on the concrete pavement, it wasn't enough that they had already killed someone.

They have no respect for others.

Since when have we seen people knocking out the elderly, there is something wrong in society and there needs to be a strong message put out there somehow.


----------



## Bill M (7 January 2014)

This following story will shock you, the victim could have died. The Judge in this case handed down the right sentence, there is a first for everything. I heard on the news that his defense are lodging an appeal on the severity of the sentence. Nearly kills a bloke and the scum turd wants to get off. Take a good look at this thug. You don't get my sympathy and just because you are a football star you don't deserve any favours, unbelievable. I will bet you that when his appeal is heard he will get a reduced sentence and may not end up in prison at all.

---
Newcastle Knight rugby league player Russell Packer has been jailed for two years for assault.

Earlier Packer, 24, pleaded guilty to assault occasioning actual bodily harm after he bashed a man during a booze-fuelled night last year, with the court hearing he had stomped on his victim's face as the man lay motionless in Martin Place in Sydney's CBD.

"The person fell to the ground and luckily it would appear did not suffer those injuries seen in media reports as of late," Mr Grogan said.

"There was potential for that, Mr Packer.

*"You added fuel to the fire by attacking a man lying motionless on the ground, punching him and then standing up and stomping on his head."*


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...-years-jail-20140106-30crw.html#ixzz2peYBujEY

---

What kind of animal would do this?


----------



## Tink (7 January 2014)

I agree with you completely, Bill. This whole legal system is a problem too.


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 January 2014)

Tink said:


> Since when have we seen people knocking out the elderly, there is something wrong in society and there needs to be a strong message put out there somehow.



It's a totally unacceptable situation to say the least and one that we need to do something about.

Question is - what to do?


----------



## lindsayf (7 January 2014)

I don't quite get why stomping is not viewed as attempted murder.
These things need to be named for what they are and penalties given accordingly.


----------



## Tink (8 January 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> It's a totally unacceptable situation to say the least and one that we need to do something about.
> 
> Question is - what to do?




I don't know, Smurf. Harsher sentences seems to be the only answer now, that I can see. 

Responsibility for some reason has gone out the window in this country, its all about me, but has nothing to do with me, seems to be the motto.

There are so many factors that have contributed to all this in my view. We talk about education but it has to be coming from home including the TV, society and school.

Some of the discipline isn't happening at home, the public schools are having trouble controlling some of these children, some of these parents are all over the place with broken homes worrying about themselves and who cares about the children. 

Drunken behaviour was viewed as a negative, it wasn't cool to go around drunk, now its all about being drunk. Violence has escalated with alcohol and drugs becoming out of control. We have a free health system that picks them up when they fall, who needs to care.  Everything is catered for them. 

When we were growing up, if a teenager was doing something wrong, neighbours would say something and those children would stop. Now, some people have become too aggressive, and the ones that do say something, get bashed.
Some of the Samaritans that have come forward have been bashed helping them out.

Then there is the legal system and people worried they will get sued if they do anything, also helping the criminal over the victim. The victim isn't being heard anymore. 

Then we have a society saying that we aren't allowed to smack children if they are naughty. We have TV with violence and God knows where its heading with the shows, maybe more educational shows would be good rather than the garbage that is on there.

Then we have thugs like above that these children idolise. 

The list goes on, all in my view.


----------



## CanOz (8 January 2014)

> Nigel Scullion announces parliamentary inquiry into alcohol-fuelled violence




Good news.....I think


----------



## Julia (8 January 2014)

There have been plenty of enquiries.  Yet another one isn't going to turn up anything new.
A good start would be to follow the initiative taken in Newcastle and reduce opening hours.

For liquor outlets, bars and nightclubs to be open until almost dawn is just asking to exacerbate the problem.

Apart from the simple reality of making alcohol more easily available, the policy also offers offenders tacit approval for their drinking into such hours.

Governments need to act in the public interest rather than the interests of the funds they receive from the alcohol industry.


----------



## sptrawler (8 January 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> It's a totally unacceptable situation to say the least and one that we need to do something about.
> 
> Question is - what to do?




Singapore doesn't seem to have the same issue.


----------



## db94 (9 January 2014)

I havent read through the whole thread but I'll offer a perspective of 'alcohol fuelled violence' from the point of view of a 19 year old, who is sick of hearing about assualts and king hits. It scares me knowing theres people out there who do this

Firstly, there is no such thing as alcohol fuelled violence IMO. Its called a *poor* attitude. The kind of blokes who are doing these terrible acts have a poor mentality - go to the gym to look big, take drugs, get tattoos and try to intimidate. This has nothing to do with violence. Not to mention they have done other offences but been given weak punishments like good behaviour bonds

As you all know, alcohol is a depressant and impairs the body. How can someone who is 'fuelled' by alcohol have the physical ability to king hit someone? how could they hit them hard enough to knock them over? how could they hit them on the jaw to knock them back and fall on the ground? all of this doesnt make sense. maybe if they were on some other drug?

What needs to be done is stop blaming alcohol and coming up with radical ideas like 'no shots after 12am'. This does NOTHING. people just drink beer instead or compromise. A better plan would be to introduce harsh laws to punish those who do wrong. Why should those who do the right thing be punished?

Also the trial in newcastle, whilst it seemed to have worked, just meant everyone went to other places than newcastle while the trial was in place. useless

It drives me crazy when the media and other people say its the alcohol. Its like blaming the gun for shooting someone. Its the person who is in control and responsible.


----------



## Calliope (9 January 2014)

db94 said:


> I havent read through the whole thread but I'll offer a perspective of 'alcohol fuelled violence' from the point of view of a 19 year old, who is sick of hearing about assualts and king hits. It scares me knowing theres people out there who do this
> 
> Firstly, there is no such thing as alcohol fuelled violence IMO. Its called a *poor* attitude. The kind of blokes who are doing these terrible acts have a poor mentality - go to the gym to look big, take drugs, get tattoos and try to intimidate. This has nothing to do with violence. Not to mention they have done other offences but been given weak punishments like good behaviour bonds
> 
> ...




You are absolutely right, Danny Boy.



> The latest research in neuro-ethics (the interaction of the brain and personal responsibility) suggests that the concepts of personal responsibility and free will still have significant socio-cultural relevance. Thus the slap-on-the-wrist punishment favoured by some can provoke thugs to commit random acts of violence because it becomes a badge of honour to break the rules. *Violence is seen as cool and trendy as part of the wannabe-gangsta culture. When we see the frightening phenomenon of the "knockout game" where people try to knock out complete strangers with one punch (known as polar-bear hunting when it is racially motivated), what sort of naive dupe really thinks that it is all because beer is advertised during the cricket?*
> 
> We desperately need a Rudy Giuliani and not a Neville Chamberlain-like public health response.* We should be taking on the perpetrators of violence in our streets, not cowering away from them and blaming ourselves for allowing them access to alcohol*.



 (my bolds)

See more;
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...nce-thats-needed/story-e6frgd0x-1226796813410


----------



## dutchie (9 January 2014)

Tony Abbott is on board to stop these cowardly acts.

"The police, the courts, the judges ought to absolutely throw the book at people who perpetrate this kind of gratuitous, unprovoked violence," Mr Abbott told 2GB radio on Thursday.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...en-violence-20140109-30jvp.html#ixzz2psmjIhhv

It's a National problem not a state problem!


----------



## Chris45 (9 January 2014)

Maybe we should try the Malaysian approach.

[video]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ebe_1181569371[/video]


----------



## sydboy007 (9 January 2014)

db94 said:


> As you all know, alcohol is a depressant and impairs the body. How can someone who is 'fuelled' by alcohol have the physical ability to king hit someone? how could they hit them hard enough to knock them over? how could they hit them on the jaw to knock them back and fall on the ground? all of this doesnt make sense. maybe if they were on some other drug?




part of the issue is people don't realise how easy it is for a punch to kill.  I blame the fight seens in action movies where the hero and villian slug it out with punch after punch, getting up and showing their strength.

I heard on a radio doco years ago at the punches in most movie fight scenes would kill a Rhino, so people dying from similar punches is understandable.  Definitely don't have to be on any other drugs apart from alcohol to cause death.

I'd also say forcing the political parties to stop accepting donations from the Alcohol and Pubs industries is a godo step forward to allow action to take place.  The current Liberal Govt in NSW has very close ties with the AHA, which probably explains why nothing has happened since the last election:

_For starters, the chief executive of the NSW branch of the Australian Hotels Association, Paul Nicolaou, is a former Liberal candidate who for many years ran the state party's fund-raising arm, the Millennium Forum.

He also happens to be close to the minister responsible for liquor licensing matters in NSW, George Souris.

Then there is the party powerbroker Michael Photios, who runs the dominant left faction of the NSW Liberals.
To capitalise on the election of a Coalition government he established a political lobbying firm, Premier State. The AHA is a key client.

Now factor in the hundreds of thousands of dollars the AHA donated to the NSW Liberal Party shortly before the 2011 election, and a damning picture begins to emerge._

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/ofarr...ed-violence-20140107-30fh9.html#ixzz2ptR2N02V


----------



## db94 (9 January 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> part of the issue is people don't realise how easy it is for a punch to kill.  I blame the fight seens in action movies where the hero and villian slug it out with punch after punch, getting up and showing their strength.
> 
> I heard on a radio doco years ago at the punches in most movie fight scenes would kill a Rhino, so people dying from similar punches is understandable.  Definitely don't have to be on any other drugs apart from alcohol to cause death.
> 
> ...





completely agree that people dont realise how easy it is to knock someone out. And most people my age dont realise that its not the hit which kills them but the fall. This should be taught at schools

I just cant see a solution to this problem that the public would like, unfortunately. I feel something drastic has to change, and not the laws regarding alcohol more the offenders.


----------



## db94 (9 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> Maybe we should try the Malaysian approach.
> 
> [video]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ebe_1181569371[/video]




honestly think that could work but this would never happen in Australia. some people do just need a good caning


----------



## sptrawler (9 January 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> part of the issue is people don't realise how easy it is for a punch to kill.  I blame the fight seens in action movies where the hero and villian slug it out with punch after punch, getting up and showing their strength.
> 
> I heard on a radio doco years ago at the punches in most movie fight scenes would kill a Rhino, so people dying from similar punches is understandable.  Definitely don't have to be on any other drugs apart from alcohol to cause death.
> 
> ...




Syd, you do need to stop over using the Liberal/ coalition bashing onus.
It detracts from your otherwise well thought out posts.
I'm sure we could find many Labor/union, hotel or alchohol based posts. You are starting to come across as a Labor Party media rep.


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 January 2014)

db94 said:


> What needs to be done is stop blaming alcohol and coming up with radical ideas like 'no shots after 12am'. This does NOTHING. people just drink beer instead or compromise. A better plan would be to introduce harsh laws to punish those who do wrong. Why should those who do the right thing be punished?
> 
> Also the trial in newcastle, whilst it seemed to have worked, just meant everyone went to other places than newcastle while the trial was in place. useless



Agreed there and here's another similar example.

Hobart, December 2005. The largest nightclub (indeed the only truly large nightclub in the Hobart) was permanently closed amidst a blaze of controversy and after prolonged conflict with surrounding residents.

What happened? Two things really. Huge queues outside the second largest venue (which is only 40% the size of the one that closed) and a boom in "house parties". 

That other club soon earned the unfortunate nickname of "Fight Club" for all the wrong reasons. Trouble inside, trouble outside as well on a constant basis. And the house parties simply moved a modest problem (which wasn't violence - just random acts of drunk behaviour such as minor vandalism, mess in the street, noise and so on) from one large venue and it's immediate surrounds to something that was spread across the suburbs and impossible to control.

Then came the troubles on the Waterfront (main nightlife area in Hobart) which erupted after that large venue nearby (but not on the Watefront itself - a few minutes walk away) was closed. Violence and so on then became the problem.

The other big problem was that other operators tended to adopt a "get in quick" attitude fearing that they too would be shut down (indeed one of them was for a brief period) and that brought even more trouble. If you're going to be closed anyway, then you may as well do everything as cheaply as possible and sell as much booze as you can. And that's exactly what some of them did for a few years (seems to have improved more recently).

In short, shutting down the largest venue in town (and so far as actual nightclubs as such are concerned it represented about 45% of the total capacity of all clubs in Hobart) turned a problem into a bigger one and spread it all over the place. Not what I'd call a success. A few people having sex, throwing up and otherwise making a mess in the back streets of Battery Point was easier to deal with than actual fights at other clubs and problems spread all over the place.

I should point out that Club Surreal was never forced to close as such. It just had conditions imposed (2am closure on Saturday nights, closing at midnight on other nights) which made it unprofitable to continue. And so the owner simply walked away from the business there and then. 8 years later the bottle shop is still trading under different ownership, having been extended into the lower level of the former nightclub, but the rest of it remains an empty building on an inner suburban site (expensive real estate). 

Whilst other cities don't generally have such dominance of a single venue, closing all of them early wouldn't work in my opinion. It just moves the problem from a relatively small number of venues that are centralised and sort of controllable to being spread all over the place and impossible to control. It doesn't really work, and of course alcohol sales through bottle shops are already vastly greater than sales at nightclubs so it's only addressing a very minor part of the problem (albeit a highly visible part). If people are going to party until the sun comes up then they're safer in a club than on the streets, in a park etc.

Even if we permanently closed every pub and nightclub in the whole country, that only diverts alcohol sales to the much cheaper alcohol available from bottle shops which already dominate the market. And to the extent that there's trouble, it just moves it from the city or town center to the suburbs or back streets. Less visible perhaps, but not fixed as such.

All that said, I can see earlier closing (say, 1am) might work if the entire alcohol industry was restructured drastically. I'm thinking along the lines of a tax on bottle shop sales, a fairly hefty tax, and using that money to subsidise venues that provide entertainment (live music, DJ's, quiz nights, whatever) to keep them viable. I see a few benefits there. The cheapest booze gets more expensive and it facilitates earlier closing of entertainment type venues without them becoming financially unviable. It would help restore the live music scene too which wouldn't be a bad thing in my opinion. Use the rest of the money to fund extra police resources to deal with the problems to the extent that they still occur.

Whilst no doubt some would object to a surge in prices at bottle shops, to be honest they're a big part of the problem anyway. People get drunk on cheap booze, then turn up in the cities and cause trouble. And whilst I'm not going to defend smoking (I don't smoke), tobacco is a very highly taxed product on health grounds but I've never seen someone decide to bash someone innocent after having a cigarette. People seem reluctant to admit it, but alcohol is doing an awful lot of damage in Australian society these days (and for the record I do drink sometimes, but I don't go and bash someone afterward - getting drunk just makes me sing and dance rather badly ).

Alcohol is, of course, also directly linked to all sorts of health problems other than violence. Depression is one, cancer is another. I'm not suggesting prohibition or ridiculous rates of tax, but I do think that prices at bottle shops (ie the cheap source of booze) could be raised and the money put to worthwhile purposes, maintaining the viability of entertainment without such a high reliance on alcohol sales after midnight being one of them.


----------



## sydboy007 (10 January 2014)

sptrawler said:


> Syd, you do need to stop over using the Liberal/ coalition bashing onus.
> It detracts from your otherwise well thought out posts.
> I'm sure we could find many Labor/union, hotel or alchohol based posts. You are starting to come across as a Labor Party media rep.




You might be right about Labor and the hotel / alcohol industry, but my previous post makes a very valid point at this time because at the end of the day NSW has a Liberal State Government that appears to be very close to the AHA and Alcohol industry.  Too close IMHO.

In the 12 months since poor Thomas Kelly was King hit in the Cross and killed, the current Government has done practically NOTHING, and this with intense media coverage, police asking for change, most of the inner city hospitals asking for change.  You have to ask why???

To me this is a classic example of what Michael Sandel highlighted in his talk about the Moral limits of markets, and how we're becoming a market society, where money talks.  Increasingly it seems the lobbyists are winning.

If it was a Labor Govt doing the same as what I'm currently seeing in NSW I'd be just a critical of them.  It's a factually based criticism.  Should we remain silent on these issues?


----------



## sydboy007 (10 January 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> Whilst no doubt some would object to a surge in prices at bottle shops, to be honest they're a big part of the problem anyway. People get drunk on cheap booze, then turn up in the cities and cause trouble. And whilst I'm not going to defend smoking (I don't smoke), tobacco is a very highly taxed product on health grounds but I've never seen someone decide to bash someone innocent after having a cigarette. People seem reluctant to admit it, but alcohol is doing an awful lot of damage in Australian society these days (and for the record I do drink sometimes, but I don't go and bash someone afterward - getting drunk just makes me sing and dance rather badly ).




I'd prefer to see a minnimum price for alcohol to stop the cheapp stuff being so cheap.

I'm sick of being penalised by the high cost of most alcohol in this country because 1-2% abuse it.  Most of us wont go out and drink more if alcohol is cheaper, but i would happily trade up.

I was in Taiwan a couple of months ago.  750Ml bottle of Absolut was $15, 12 year old Famous Grouse $26 750Ml, Black Label $29 750Ml

I'd have been a very happy scotch drinker, but sad that wine is 4 times the price of Australia.

maybe we use some of the tricks from the fight against smoking - ban advertising and sports sponsorship, limit discounts to small quantities ie no more 2 case for X deals and make some videos showing how stupid people are when they're drunk and what some of the bad things that can happen to you and show them to year 10 students.  I'm still shocked that along the George Street strip in Sydney where a lot of violence occurs there's 10 bus / phone advertising posters for alcohol over a 1.5 km stretch.  It's near saturation advertising.


----------



## Tink (10 January 2014)

dutchie said:


> Tony Abbott is on board to stop these cowardly acts.
> 
> "The police, the courts, the judges ought to absolutely throw the book at people who perpetrate this kind of gratuitous, unprovoked violence," Mr Abbott told 2GB radio on Thursday.
> 
> ...




Good to hear, and he better start implementing it now.

The public have had enough.


----------



## prawn_86 (10 January 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> I'd prefer to see a minnimum price for alcohol to stop the cheapp stuff being so cheap.




You think it is cheap in Aus? Over here you can get a bottle of vodka for $10, a case of beer for the same price etc

I bought a bottle of champagne last night at the store for 75USD, it is over 200AUD at home.


----------



## sydboy007 (10 January 2014)

prawn_86 said:


> You think it is cheap in Aus? Over here you can get a bottle of vodka for $10, a case of beer for the same price etc
> 
> I bought a bottle of champagne last night at the store for 75USD, it is over 200AUD at home.




You can buy a 5 litre Berri wine cask for < $14 depending on what special is being run by one of the large bottle shop chains.

Each cask is equivalent to 48 standard drinks.

The issue is more around wine based products.  I'm not sure how much the rebating of the WET for producers is helping with the cheapness of wine - it's capped at $500,000 per producer but with so many brands buying on contract it could be possible some of the cheap brands are taking advantage multiple times on the rebate.  Dropping that limit might be a good start.

I'd prefer to see some sort of minimum cost per standard drink, say 50 cents, so that the cheap wine products are pushed up in price, but spirits are relatively left alone because they are already on the expensive side when compared to most other countries.  At 50 cents a standard drink the Berri wine cask suddenly has to be at least $24.


----------



## prawn_86 (10 January 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> You can buy a 5 litre Berri wine cask for < $14 depending on what special is being run by one of the large bottle shop chains.




I guarantee you that those involved in 'alcohol fuelled violence' are not drinking cask wine


----------



## sydboy007 (10 January 2014)

prawn_86 said:


> I guarantee you that those involved in 'alcohol fuelled violence' are not drinking cask wine




You've never been a poor uni student and made some cheap goon?  Cheap wine, cheap vodka, let the fun begin.

I agree it may not help as much with the violence occurring around night clubs, but it will certainly help in cutting consumption in the homes of welfare recipients.  I walk past the Redfern Tower blocks some days and these 4 or 5 litre wine casks is all most of the residents there are buying.

it might help to stop the next generation of alcoholics from being quite so big.  It would be interesting to find out how many of the people being the aggressors have grown up in families with drinking issues.  Anything that helps to cut over consumption of alcohol is a good thing in my book.


----------



## CanOz (10 January 2014)

prawn_86 said:


> I guarantee you that those involved in 'alcohol fueled violence' are not drinking cask wine




ROTFLMAO!


----------



## prawn_86 (10 January 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> You've never been a poor uni student and made some cheap goon?  Cheap wine, cheap vodka, let the fun begin.




I Always said if I could only afford goon I wouldn't drink. Although yes, there were some uni parties involving it, no violence though.

Maybe alcohol isn't to blame...

http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/steroid-use-soars-among-young-men-20140109-30kks.html


----------



## Chris45 (10 January 2014)

It's not only alcohol that's the problem.



> Steroids have overtaken heroin and methamphetamines as the substance of choice for people injecting drugs in New South Wales, with people as young as 15 shooting up the drug.
> 
> The figures come from a study carried out by the Australian Needle and Syringe Program.
> 
> ...




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-...enous-drug-of-choice-nsw-survey-finds/5193472


----------



## McLovin (10 January 2014)

prawn_86 said:


> I guarantee you that those involved in 'alcohol fuelled violence' are not drinking cask wine




Yeah, I agree. I grew up in the 90's back then drinking underage meant beer or goon in Double Bay Park on a Saturday night. Hardly any flights because you've got to drink *a lot* of either to get rugby league drunk. Kids today are getting hammered on spirits. Half a bottle of Jim Beam, mixed with some bogan dust is what causes idiots to go out and smack a stranger.


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 January 2014)

prawn_86 said:


> You think it is cheap in Aus? Over here you can get a bottle of vodka for $10, a case of beer for the same price etc




It truly amazed me how cheap alcohol is in the US when I went there on holidays in 2012. That plus alcohol being sold at places where it just wouldn't happen in Australia.

Despite the low price and easy availability I didn't see any real problems caused by it though. People seemed to be having one beer after a meal etc with no intention of actually getting drunk. Even late at night there seemed to be relatively few problems at least in the areas I went to.

The problem in Australia is cultural in my opinion. Despite their tendency to do everything "big", Americans seem to have a much better attitude towards alcohol so far as I could tell. No doubt people do get drunk, but it didn't seem to be happening in the silly way we do it here.


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 January 2014)

McLovin said:


> Yeah, I agree. I grew up in the 90's back then drinking underage meant beer or goon in Double Bay Park on a Saturday night. Hardly any flights because you've got to drink *a lot* of either to get rugby league drunk. Kids today are getting hammered on spirits. Half a bottle of Jim Beam, mixed with some bogan dust is what causes idiots to go out and smack a stranger.




Scenario 1. Someone leaves home at 8pm and starts drinking in a city nightclub, moving between a few venues during the course of the night and finishing their drinking at 4am.

Scenario 2. Someone "pre loads" with spirits etc and takes drugs the turns up at the club soon after showing no ill effects. Once inside, they buy a few more alcoholic drinks but nothing that would be considered excessive as such.

I know which one is going to lead to trouble and it's not the former. Unless you're rich, going from zero to seriously drunk inside a club isn't a particularly affordable thing to do for your average young person with limited finances. And whilst RSA is pretty loosely enforced at most places, they've got no real chance of enforcing it at all if someone is loads up before they go inside - they've only served them a modest amount of alcohol after all and it's not as though anyone demands a breath test at the bar. 

Whilst I agree that nightclubs are part of the problem, the are also themselves a victim to some extent. Pay $10 - 20 at the door to get in but that doesn't cover their costs of renting / owning the building (rather expensive in a city location), council rates, insurance, power (of which nightclubs use quite a lot - air-conditioning, refrigeration, lights, sound, video walls if they have one etc), staff (of which you need quite a few to run a club both operational and security either contracted or directly employed), paying DJ's (not cheap if they're decent), cleaning (and there's plenty of that required) and so on. They need to sell drinks to actually make a profit, and if someone has loaded up on booze or drugs just before coming in then that's not a good situation for the club either financially or in terms of responsibly serving alcohol. They're caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place - either keep selling drinks regardless of how drunk someone is, or go out of business.

I've been following this debate on and off since the goings on in Hobart late 2005 and I'm convinced that certain (not all) illicit drugs, bottle shop sales and the overall attitude of people is a far bigger contributor than clubs as such. The nightclubs aren't completely innocent, but I'm pretty sure that any decent operator would be all too glad to have their customers turn up sober and without drugs. 



> The March 2013 report of the National Drug Law Enforcement Research Fund (NDLERF), “Patron
> Offending and Intoxication in Night-Time Entertainment Districts” examined the nature and extent
> of pre-loading in detail.12
> In part it found that almost two thirds of people admitted to pre-loading an average of six standard
> ...




Quote from http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...bvnVmck_BTztI8tYQ&sig2=4idM6huCWf5pohRd2taoMA


----------



## Tink (11 January 2014)

Until our justice system gets tough on crime, and people are made responsible for their actions, this is only going to get worse.
With freedom comes responsibilities, and these people are just playing the system and growing in numbers.
The viciousness is beyond measure, and its drugs and alcohol, both.

When our elderly are under threat, you know there is a problem.
Something needs to change.


----------



## IFocus (11 January 2014)

Late coming into the conversation 

Having served an apprenticeship in the 70's on Thursday we would finish work at 3.00pm head to pub drink to closing 10.00pm then *drive* home get changed and head out to Pinocchio's or that other place Beethoven's drink harvey wall bangers to around 3 or 4 in the morning then front up at work.

I do cringe a bit now thinking about it. 

None of the guys I hung out with would have thought of punching anyone ....none.

Was there alcohol fueled violence then, yep I would image same as now some muscle bound loser would pick out the weakest looking guy and just go a smack him no different to today.

Same as a when I as 19 year old late 70's on construction in the Northwest  some muscle bound loser would pick out the weakest looking guy and just go a smack him and then of course it would an all in brawl.

Whats different is I don't remember anyone dying. 

There were drugs around but no meth


----------



## Tink (14 January 2014)

If anyone is interested in signing this petition, who hasn't already.

http://www.change.org/thomaskelly 

This one is in Melbourne too.

http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitio...-hon-dennis-napthine-mp-change-one-punch-laws


----------



## DB008 (19 January 2014)

Another "Greens" brain fart policy.


*Greens push for alcohol abuse inquiry gets Australian Medical Association support*



> The government will be asked to consider increasing the cost of alcohol, and imposing labelling restrictions on suppliers, as part of a wide-ranging inquiry into Australia's alcohol problem being pushed by the Greens.




http://www.smh.com.au/national/greens-push-for-alcohol-abuse-inquiry-gets-australian-medical-association-support-20140118-311s9.html#ixzz2qotHYyOQ


----------



## dutchie (21 January 2014)

David Penberthy: A new generation of gutless thugs 


THE bloke accused of the coward punch murder of Daniel Christie appears to be the pin-up boy for a new ugliness in our culture which didn't exist when I was young.

Shaun McNeil is an inked-up, pumped-up, mixed martial arts-loving gym junkie.

He is a lover of social media, and has turned his dopey little corner of the internet into his personal shrine. He's posted an endless series of snaps and selfies flexing his pecs, showing off his tatts in a ripped muscle shirt, triumphantly holding an empty bottle of Bundy, apparently consumed in its entirety, in what may be the crowning achievement of his life to date.

He's a bloke who didn't go to my high school. None of us who went on to university acted like him. Not one of my friends who left school in Year 10 and Year 11 to become a tradie or work at the local car factory acted like him either.

He is a new Australian man. He is also a man, to borrow a crude but evocative phrase from the youngsters, who I really wish would just f*** off and die.

It appears to be mandatory to describe the random, mindless violence we have seen in pubs and on footpaths around the nation as "alcohol-fuelled" violence.I hate this term.

A more appropriate term would be scumbag-fuelled violence, as the focus on alcohol lets the scumbags off the hook.

There are tens of thousands of Australians who frequently engage in what those abstemious folks in the health lobby describe as "dangerous" drinking.

They do so without sending anyone to hospital, or to an early grave. I am one of them. So is almost everyone I know.

For me, "dangerous" drinking brings with it the risk of winding up in a karaoke bar and singing a woeful version of Air Supply's "All Out Of Love" or having a savage argument with my mate Darien about the result of the 1978 SANFL grand final.

This is the kind of thing which happens to the overwhelming majority of Australians when they drink to what the experts call "dangerous" levels. They end up having a dangerously good time, where the only real danger is that somebody might die laughing.

The current emphasis on the availability of alcohol, on alcohol advertising and sports sponsorships, and the mindless persecution of publicans who have a vested (and demonstrated) interest in preventing violence on their premises....it's largely a load of exculpatory nonsense which elevates the role of external factors and lets flawed individuals off the hook.

Excessive drinking has always been with us. The nation was founded by some of the world's most accomplished pissheads. The die was cast that night in or around 1788 when they decided to let the female convicts ashore and the blokes broke into the rum supplies, and Sydney's first street party erupted down by the Tank Stream.

The statistics suggest that something has changed in the past decade, with 91 deaths from coward punches since the year 2000.

Blaming alcohol is a cop-out. The people who deserve the blame hail from that moronic new breed of man described above. For what it's worth, my rat fur-lined theory is that three things have changed since I was at high school and starting out with grog.

One involves the vain and vacuous world of social media. Another goes to the increasing use of steroids and methamphetamine. The third is the influence of bikie culture on the cultural mainstream.

For all its upsides, one of the defining features of social media is its absurd level of self-absorption. The he-men of the past had only a mirror in which to admire themselves, a bit like Robert De Niro as Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver.

Nowadays they can find equally feeble-minded narcissists in cyberspace where they can boast about their physical prowess, be it their ability to cut their heads open by crushing a beer can and withstand the pain, to put the gloves on and lay into the heavy bag at the local gym, or in the worst cases, to chronicle their own acts of violence or vandalism towards people and property with stills and video.

I can't comment about McNeil, but many of these blokes also fit into the second category of being both pumped up on steroids and jacked up on speed. This week I interviewed a drug and alcohol researcher who said one of the emerging (and urgent) areas of research went to the interplay between booze, speed and steroids, and the subsequently aberrant behaviour of those who were taking this insane cocktail, perhaps on account of sporting a pair of ossified testicles though their habitual steroid use.

Give me two stubbies of Cascade, four glasses of shiraz and a Beam and Coke any day.

The third point can best be illustrated through the way in which a lot of these blokes carry themselves and choose to dress. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that having a tatt or wearing a certain outfit makes you a violent person. If you want to get a tatt, good luck to you. But if you look at these blokes, they can often be found aping (an apt word) the sort of "hard-casual" look affected by the bikie gangs, with the neck and face tatts, the G-Star Raw tees, deliberately one size too small, and most tellingly of all, a weird way of walking from side to side with their arms formed in triangles, as if they're ready to punch pretty much anyone, anywhere, any time.

It's because they are.

Our nation was once largely comprised of genial, drunken boofheads who were most at risk of passing out in a mate's toilet.

You would measure the success of a night on the turps by how much fun you've had. Sickeningly, for this new breed of blokes, you measure its success by the number of strangers you've belted.


http://www.news.com.au/national/dav...of-gutless-thugs/story-fncynjr2-1226806050689

It's the gutless wonders in our society who are just looking for a fight (drunk or sober) that are to blame.
Alcohol is just an excuse.


----------



## Tink (21 January 2014)

I would say these people are violent already and it makes matters worse adding drugs and alcohol.

I am over their excuses and its time the law dealt with it with harsher sentences.


----------



## dutchie (21 January 2014)

Tink said:


> I would say these people are violent already and it makes matters worse adding drugs and alcohol.
> 
> I am over their excuses and its time the law dealt with it with harsher sentences.




Spot on Tink.

Get these cowards off our streets. Let them start fights between themselves in jail to their hearts content.


----------



## sydboy007 (21 January 2014)

O'Farrell has finally been forced to do something, though I'm not sure if was the right something.

I'm all for punishing people for their actions, but in general terms increasing mandatory sentences isn't going to make most of the people that do the cowards punch rethink their actions.

_Meanwhile, public health expert Dr Alex Wodak said he would ''wager a huge amount of money that the word 'tough' would be used in the cabinet announcement 20 times and there would not be a single evidence-based recommendation''.

The NSW government held wide-reaching alcohol summits in 2003 and last year but almost no progress was made in the intervening years, an analysis by the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education (FARE) found.

Just 19 of 107 preventive recommendations were adopted, mostly ''awareness-raising'' measures with little evidence of their effectiveness. The 2003 summit was instigated by then premier Bob Carr.

FARE policy director Caterina Giorgi said that knowledge about what could work in relation to alcohol abuse had grown in 10 years yet the challenge was making governments rely on evidence and break away from the hotels and alcohol lobby.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/alcohol-s...-publicised-20140120-314w8.html#ixzz2qym3j46Y_

This is something both sides of politics will have to answer for.  Considering the effectiveness of the 2007 RTA Pinky add we already have a reasonable blue print for how to tackle the problem at the source, rather than mopping up the victims and perpetrators after a tragedy has occurred:

Recent provisional road fatality statistics show that NSW has experienced significant 
reductions compared to the rest of Australia. Pleasingly the reductions have been even greater 
among the high risk road user group of young drivers. 

http://acrs.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Watsford1.pdf

_Provisional figures for the twelve months ending July 2008 show that the NSW road toll has decreased by 22% since the year 2006. In contrast the road toll for the rest of Australia over the same period actually increased by 1%. 

A breakdown of the NSW data for this same period shows that 
- Speed related fatalities decreased by 32% 
- Fatalities from Young Driver Crashes (Aged 17 to 25 Years) decreased by 30% 
- Fatalities from Speeding Young Driver Crashes (Aged 17 to 25 Years) decreased by 45%_

Imagine an effective campaign against abusive drinking achieving the above kind of stats within 1 YEAR!!

We've had so many effective education campaigns in the past - The Grimm Reaper adds helped Australia to achieve one of the lowest HIV rates in the world and was haled at the time to be one of the most effective public health campaigns ever, or the catchy Drink driving campaign 'Will you be under oh 5 or under arrest" in the 80s.

It just seems so often we wait too long, then explore more expensive options before getting around to raising community awareness and getting public attitudes to change so we become self policing.


----------



## McLovin (23 January 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> I'm all for punishing people for their actions, but in general terms increasing mandatory sentences isn't going to make most of the people that do the cowards punch rethink their actions.




The mandatory sentences are the kind of rubbish you expect to see in Queensland. I mean seriously, 4 years for affray, but only if you're affected by drugs and/or alcohol.

So, what Fatty O'Barrel is saying with this half baked nonsense is that this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tLOKzDeqKU

Is just boys being boys. But if you've had a sip of beer and do the same you should be locked up for four years.


----------



## sydboy007 (23 January 2014)

McLovin said:


> The mandatory sentences are the kind of rubbish you expect to see in Queensland. I mean seriously, 4 years for affray, but only if you're affected by drugs and/or alcohol.
> 
> So, what Fatty O'Barrel is saying with this half baked nonsense is that this...
> 
> ...




There's going to be so many issues with these laws.

As has been highlighted in the SMH today, what happens if you're in a pub and you or your GF is harrassed by someone drunk, you try to ignore it but eventually they get physical and push comes to shove to punches and the instigator dies due to hitting their head on the corner of a table.  You've had a few drinks so technically drunk as you'll blow over point oh five.  Seems there's nothing in the proposed legislation.

I also don't hear any mention of the $269 / day it will cost to keep to keep him in jail for the mandatory 8 years ie $785K. With inflation it looks like it could be a cool million a conviction.

From a report on the successful anti speeding Pinky Add http://acrs.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Watsford1.pdf

_The ‘Speeding. No One Thinks Big of You’ campaign took a fundamentally different tact – a social approach. It put the issue back in the hands of the community, empowering people to increase the social unacceptability of speeding, building on and extending the gains of previous speeding campaigns.

In the context of the campaign the ‘Pinkie’ gesture, as it became known, created a way for the whole community to come together to demonstrate their disapproval of a speeder’s actions – family, friends and peers alike. The key to the success of the gesture is it is never directed at a motorist, it is always the behaviour being targeted.

One of the key innovations of the campaign was delivering the anti-speeding message in a youthful, non-authoritative way, a noticeable move away from convention. It also served to provoke a timely public debate and galvanise the wider community behind a campaign to make speeding socially unacceptable.

It was understood that, while the ad may depict young offenders, the message would be aimed at all of those who speed and drive in a loutish manner.

Our P Plate drivers in this exploratory research were engaged by the concept and immediately saw its potential to deter poor driving practice motivated by the need to show off. It provides an avenue for peer group pressure to work towards more positive, rather than negative outcomes._

Why are we looking to cost the community millions in locking people up, when most likely there wont be a large drop in the kinds of behaviour that lead to these unfortunate deaths.  When the .05 blood alcohol limit was first introduced someone who was caught via RBT would get quite a bit of sympathy from the community as it was seen to be bad luck.  After a few years of public education campaigns drunk driving came to be seen in a very negative way and someone admitting to be caught DUI would usually get a negative reaction from other.  I don't see why there hasn't been multiple public education campaigns in NSW.  You can't outlaw bad behaviour unless you get the community onside to reinforce the message.


----------



## McLovin (23 January 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> There's going to be so many issues with these laws.




Damn straight there is. There is very little evidence that increasing sentence lengths does anything but increase the cost to the taxpayer and increase the likelihood of recividism. Just look at America's overcrowded prison system for just how effective mandatory sentencing is. We're seriously going to start locking people up for 2 years for assaulting a police officer, please.





sydboy007 said:


> Why are we looking to cost the community millions in locking people up, when most likely there wont be a large drop in the kinds of behaviour that lead to these unfortunate deaths.




Oh that's an easy one. It appeases the simpletons who listen to talkback radio.


----------



## sydboy007 (23 January 2014)

McLovin said:


> Damn straight there is. There is very little evidence that increasing sentence lengths does anything but increase the cost to the taxpayer and increase the likelihood of recividism. Just look at America's overcrowded prison system for just how effective mandatory sentencing is. We're seriously going to start locking people up for 2 years for assaulting a police officer, please.
> 
> Oh that's an easy one. It appeases the simpletons who listen to talkback radio.




Considering the USA has nearly 5 times the number of citizens locked up (on a per capita basis) as we do, there's a ways to catch up, but yeah these seemingly simple solutions do little to actually resolve the issue.  We've seen a doubling in the imprisonment rate in Australia over the last 30 years.  Last year we spend $3.2B on prisons.  If we keep on increasing the incarceration rate like the last 30 years then we're looking at spending an addition $5B to build new prisons since the current system is averaging 94-96% of capacity.  So the question we should be asking is _do we really need to make million dollar first offenders?_

I am sort of for harsher sentences for people assaulting police as they are the ones keeping us from anarchy.  Conversely I would like to see harsher penalties for police officers found breaking the law.  If they are to be provided extra protection they should face stiffer consequences when caught doing the wrong thing.


----------



## McLovin (23 January 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> I am sort of for harsher sentences for people assaulting police as they are the ones keeping us from anarchy.  Conversely I would like to see harsher penalties for police officers found breaking the law.  If they are to be provided extra protection they should face stiffer consequences when caught doing the wrong thing.




Yes, but assault police doesn't mean punching police, it's such a broad category, that making a threatening statement to a police officer when they are putting you in the paddy wagon is considered assault police. Around 3,000 people are convicted of assault police each year in NSW. NSW has a prison population of ~11,000 are we really going to lock up another 6,000 people for two years for assault police, for what are overwhelmingly relatively minor offences?

And that of course ignores the fact that the police can basically start handing out 2 year jail sentences on trumped up assault police charges...


----------



## Tink (23 January 2014)

Well don't assault police, simple.
You wont have a problem.

I think they have to deal with more than enough.

All of those coward punches were on more than their first offence.

These criminals have no respect for authority, be it police, teachers, or people in general.


----------



## Bill M (23 January 2014)

Tink said:


> Well don't assault police, simple.
> You wont have a problem.
> 
> I think they have to deal with more than enough.
> ...




Exactly, couldn't agree with you more.

How is it, the majority of people go through life with next to no encounters with Police, yet others continuously seem to get into trouble? 

If you don't go around getting boozed up and punching people then you have nothing to fear. 

The Police should have special protection against assault, they are not punching bags for the drunks out there. You need to look after those that are suppose to be looking after us.

 Although a stint in prison may not reform a perp at least it keeps them off the streets for a couple of years and once they get a criminal record they can not work in Public positions anymore. There are so many jobs out there that you can never get once you've done some time and that's how it should be. Who in their right mind would want to employ someone that flips off on the grog or goes around punching people?. Maybe when real sentences start getting handed out and real consequences start being felt then the whole community might take notice and the individuals might take more responsibility for their actions.

And here we go again with another pathetic response from our system, this bloke was let off for drinking and driving, resting arrest and failing to comply with Police. As long as these mongrels keep getting let off alcohol fueled violence will continue. The bolded part, is my highlighting.

---
MANLY rugby league player Richie Fa'aoso has been placed on a 12-month good behaviour bond after drinking and driving, and resisting arrest following an argument with his pregnant wife.

He drove for 2.5km before being pulled over, *but then "used his bulk" to resist arrest* and was brought to the ground by police, the court heard.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/manly-nrl-prop-richie-faaoso-given-bond-over-drinkdrive-charge/story-e6frg6nf-1226808502204
---


----------



## McLovin (23 January 2014)

Tink said:


> Well don't assault police, simple.
> You wont have a problem.




That old chestnut.

Locking people up for years because someone (police or otherwise) gets a bloody nose on a Saturday night is just pathetic.

I guess some of see a scale and some see black and white.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 January 2014)

A bit of a struggle being arrested, foul language etc - that's not an assault in my opinion and it's just something that police reasonably expect to deal with. Not nice but it comes with the job.

But throwing a punch? That's assault, simple as that, and prison seems a reasonable consequence. If not prison then what' the alternative? Slaps on the wrist aren't an effective deterrent.

Using drink driving as another example, I very much doubt that it's concerns about road safety which prevent most people from doing it. It's the consequence if caught, loss of license, that is taken seriously. Same with most crimes - if there's no serious consequence then people will do it.

One idea I heard mentioned elsewhere is the concept of a license to buy alcohol. Everyone gets one automatically upon turning 18, no specific action required. But throw a coward punch whilst under the influence of alcohol (at any level) or illegal drugs and it's gone for 10 years. No alcohol license = no entry to any place alcohol is sold or served, including restaurants, music festivals, casinos and the like with no exceptions. The concept is based on the deterrent value plus the benefit of keeping the troublemakers out of such places.

Personally I don't like the "ID card" aspect of it but then we have that anyway with driver's licenses etc so it's not a major change there. I'm not sure if it would work, but I can't see how it would be bad.


----------



## Tink (24 January 2014)

McLovin, I am sick of criminals yelling out about 'their rights', and this has been the problem where the victim is no longer being heard. Its time that roles were reversed and the law abiding citizens are being heard.

It may seem extreme but it has become extreme, there is a problem that needs to be fixed.

Agree with you, Bill, exactly, how is it that people have NO involvement with the police, yet you get the same ones playing the system and its got to stop.

These people are on their fourth offence with no fear, and something needs to change in society.


----------



## McLovin (24 January 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> A bit of a struggle being arrested, foul language etc - that's not an assault in my opinion and it's just something that police reasonably expect to deal with. Not nice but it comes with the job.




Right, and if during that struggle a police officer gets a bruise on their arm from an arm flapping around the person will get two years in prison. That's assault, but it's hardly in the same league as walking up and punching a police officer. 




Smurf1976 said:


> Using drink driving as another example, I very much doubt that it's concerns about road safety which prevent most people from doing it. It's the consequence if caught, loss of license, that is taken seriously. Same with most crimes - if there's no serious consequence then people will do it.




For people my generation, I think you're completely wrong. There's a social stigma attached to it, and very little sympathy for those who do and get caught. I've said in these threads so many times, longer sentences don't reduce crime. There's overwhelming evidence of that. But they make a loud minority feel pleased as punch that something is being done because, you know, Sydney is like Baghdad these days.



			
				Tink said:
			
		

> McLovin, I am sick of criminals yelling out about 'their rights', and this has been the problem where the victim is no longer being heard. Its time that roles were reversed and the law abiding citizens are being heard.
> 
> It may seem extreme but it has become extreme, there is a problem that needs to be fixed.
> 
> ...




Maybe take your blinkers off for a second. Mandatory sentencing will not care whether it's your first offence and you were provoked while taking your wife out for a night on the town, and usually you volunteer down at the homeless shelter on a Saturday night, you will still get the same sentence. These laws treat first time offenders, regardless of the circumstance of what took place, the same as repeat offenders. Like I said above, longer sentences don't reduce crime, the risk of getting caught does. Heck even the Police Association agrees with.



> The severity of sentences has very little influence on crime rates.
> Policy makers must look beyond sentencing rhetoric and look towards recent and emerging research in order to develop the most effective criminal justice policies to reduce crime.
> 
> ...
> ...




http://www.pansw.org.au/sites/defau...ncing _Effects_on_Crime_Rates_ExecSummary.pdf

So maybe, just maybe, politicians are just reacting to what will improve their approval rating, and God knows standing on a soap box and talking about being tough on crime does that, even if the outcomes are so poor.


----------



## CanOz (24 January 2014)

Excellent post McLovin


----------



## sydboy007 (24 January 2014)

shows what can go wrong at times with the police

_Ms Gardner was at Cronulla station with two tourist friends just before midnight when they were approached by transit officers and found to be without tickets.

An altercation ensued when the tourists could not produce identification and police attended.

Ms Gardner claimed that, when she protested that one of the tourists was being pinned to the ground by a transit officer, acting Sergeant Craig Sands kicked both her legs out from under her, breaking her right leg.

In her statement of claim, it was alleged that Sergeant Sands then directed a transit officer to sit on her while she was lying face down on the platform before she was handcuffed, told she was under arrest and put in a paddy wagon.

When she objected to what she believed was an unlawful arrest, an officer said "we don't care if this is legal", the statement said.

Ms Gardner was not taken to a police station and charged. Instead, she was driven to Sutherland railway station and "left to fend for herself in a seriously injured condition"._

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/student-r...e-break-leg-20140124-31cww.html#ixzz2rHkmVdAn


----------



## Logique (24 January 2014)

King hits in and around drinking spots, it's been around forever, but too often swept under the carpet. 

Publicity and education are paramount. Our kids need to learn some street smarts here, they're not always going to get it at home.

But it's no reason to go soft on sentencing, especially with offenders with a track record.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 January 2014)

McLovin said:


> Right, and if during that struggle a police officer gets a bruise on their arm from an arm flapping around the person will get two years in prison. That's assault, but it's hardly in the same league as walking up and punching a police officer.




Agreed there. I do see a difference between something like "resisting arrest" (I think that's the official term they use or something similar) versus someone walking up and punching a Police Officer for no apparent reason.

If I were a Police Officer then I'd expect to encounter the former in the course of my duties. It's something that's not nice that's for sure, but it's to be expected in that line of work. Just like an electrician expects to be crawling about in hot roofs (and they get damn hot I can assure you - not fun) and a cleaner expects that they may have to clean up some unpleasant messes in a public toilet. 

If that's not your thing then either do a different job or work your way into something that isn't patrolling the streets (police), get a job that doesn't involve wiring houses (electricians) or get a job cleaning offices (cleaner). Indeed that's exactly what many pursue. Police pursue internal opportunities to shift into different jobs within the police that involve little or no walking the streets. Electricians who stay in the trade long term tend to pursue roles in factories, utilities or become some sort of foreman, supervisor, estimator, manager etc which doesn't involve lying face down in a pile of fiberglass under a hot tin roof. And cleaners try to get the better jobs in many cases too if they're available - the team leader might still be cleaning but they'll be doing schools or offices and leave the public toilet contract to someone else.

But someone just walking up and punching, shooting etc a Police Officer is very different in my opinion. It's a crime in itself with the potential to cause serious injury. Whilst any sane Police Officer would have thought of the prospect that this could happen, it's not something they ought to be expected to live with. Just like a sparkie  doesn't expect someone to walk up and push them off the ladder and a cleaner doesn't expect someone to come along and throw **** in their face. Anything like that is clearly an unprovoked assault and ought to be punished in my opinion. 



> For people my generation, I think you're completely wrong. There's a social stigma attached to it, and very little sympathy for those who do and get caught. I've said in these threads so many times, longer sentences don't reduce crime. There's overwhelming evidence of that.




You may be right about drink driving, I won't claim to know for sure. But I am pretty confident that for young people especially that "Essential Requirements = Drivers License" line on their employment contract is a factor. I supervise such people, and they know damn well that loss of license is grounds for dismissal on the grounds of not being able to perform their duties. How much it actually influences behaviour I'm not sure, but it would influence some I'd expect. 



> Mandatory sentencing will not care whether it's your first offence and you were provoked while taking your wife out for a night on the town, and usually you volunteer down at the homeless shelter on a Saturday night, you will still get the same sentence. These laws treat first time offenders, regardless of the circumstance of what took place, the same as repeat offenders. Like I said above, longer sentences don't reduce crime, the risk of getting caught does.




Agreed that there's an inherent problem with tough mandatory sentences for first time offenders which doesn't take account of circumstances. As a minimum, there ought to be a requirement for proof - eg if there's two people in a fight then one is likely acting in self defence and ought not be punished.

But I'd argue that it is the proabiltiy of being significantly punished, not the probability of being caught per se, which is an effective deterrent.

As an example, I periodically attend work meetings and park near the head office in order to do so. I park on the street, typically in a space with 2 hour parking limit. But suffice to say the prospect of having to pay a $35 fine for parking too long doesn't cause me to park 10 blocks away or use a commercial car park. Any fines are paid by the driver, not the employer, but let's be realistic. There's perhaps a 20% chance of being caught, so on average that's a $7 cost if the meeting runs longer than scheduled which won't occur on most occasions. The threat of a $35 fine at my personal expense is not a deterrent but it sure would be if the fine was $3500 in which case I'd find somewhere else to park, come out of the meeting and move the car after 2 hours or whatever.

Same with anything. If being caught means that a Police Officer tells me I've done the wrong thing and asks me to not do it again then that's not much of a deterrent since the few minutes spent talking to police is of no real consequence to me or anyone else and that applies even if there is decent chance (say 20%) of being caught. But if the consequence is a large fine, time in prison or a community service order then that's going to make any sensible person think twice about committing that crime.

"Sensible" person is the key word here though, and I'd expect that your average puncher doesn't fit into the category of "sensible" such that this probably wouldn't work with this particular crime unless the odds of being caught are extremely high.


----------



## Tink (25 January 2014)

Agree Smurf, punishment is a deterrent and in my view, the soft sentencing is not working. 
If these people choose to live a life of crime, then suffer the consequences.
This entitlement mentality is spreading and these people are picking and choosing the weak, the elderly being my main concern.

I stand by the police and their works, and their protection.
Singapore locks them up for a week, we should be looking at more deterrents.
I wouldn't call it a minority, McLovin, the public are getting sick of these thugs.
We should be entitled to walk the streets, catch public transport, go shopping without some idiot hassling the elderly or any person walking by.

There is no respect in society with these people, and there needs to be changes.


----------



## Bill M (25 January 2014)

So what does everybody think about the sentence this guy got? He was caught on camera assaulting a bouncer that was just doing his job. The perp was drunk, he kneed the bouncer in the groin and then punched him in the face. He got 8 Months minimum sentence, he is going to appeal.

Do you think he got a fair sentence? In this case I think he did. Where does it stop? When will people realise that this is not the kind of behaviour that is accepted in a first world country? 

---
The sentence was handed down after the magistrate viewed security footage of the incident, which showed Dooley punching the bouncer in the face and kneeing him in the stomach. 

Dooley pleaded guilty to the charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm at the Downing Centre Local Court but said and told the court he had been drunk at the time and had no memory of attacking the bouncer.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/irish-backpacker-jailed-for-minimum-eight-months-for-attack-on-bouncer-outside-scruffy-murphys/story-e6frg6n6-1226810086019
---


----------



## IFocus (25 January 2014)

McLovin said:


> Right, and if during that struggle a police officer gets a bruise on their arm from an arm flapping around the person will get two years in prison. That's assault, but it's hardly in the same league as walking up and punching a police officer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





jezzzsssa's you'll end up joining the communist greens gay rights left wing propaganda unit saying things like that .     

Of course you are right there is a place for the law, incarceration, fines and etc but its of little deterrent as the US are now finding out and strangely or maybe not its US state Republicans that are moving to wind back mandatory sentencing due to its costs and non effectiveness.

Mandatory sentencing  is about and always has been revenge and political grandstanding (used by both sides)

Of course there that other factor that crime rates have long been falling as a % of population and we have never been safer but you wont see that on the 6.00 News (lost dog shows more like it)


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 January 2014)

I've always thought of mandatory sentencing as a response to judges handing out "slap on the wrist" punishments where a more substantial punishment is clearly warranted rather than as a goal in itself.


----------



## IFocus (25 January 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> I've always thought of mandatory sentencing as a response to judges handing out "slap on the wrist" punishments where a more substantial punishment is clearly warranted rather than as a goal in itself.




Tends to be the fodder of talk back Nazis, read the whole of the sentencing script and often as not there is a logic to a magistrates view but again you wont find that on the 6.00 news.


----------



## Tink (26 January 2014)

Yes, they only show the 90 that have died, they don't show the others, like what's filling up the emergency units.

Well now that the asylum seekers have stopped, how much was that costing us a day? maybe we can covert these places into prisons, looks like we may be needing them.


----------



## McLovin (26 January 2014)

IFocus said:


> Tends to be the fodder of talk back Nazis, read the whole of the sentencing script and often as not there is a logic to a magistrates view but again you wont find that on the 6.00 news.




There's a research paper from the AIC floating around about sentencing in Australia. It found that members of the public when given all the relevant facts of a case tended to give far lighter sentences than magistrates and judges. That's not to say some people get let off easy, as with anything that involves human decision making that happens, and it makes great "news", but it doesn't mean the system is broken.


----------



## sydboy007 (26 January 2014)

Bill M said:


> The sentence was handed down after the magistrate viewed security footage of the incident, which showed Dooley punching the bouncer in the face and kneeing him in the stomach.
> 
> Dooley pleaded guilty to the charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm at the Downing Centre Local Court but said and told the court he had been drunk at the time and had no memory of attacking the bouncer.
> 
> ...




Seems reasonable for what he did.

A good start to solving this problem is removing alcohol drugs acupuncture or whatever else they want to use an excuse and setting the punishment to the crime.  If you're violent / short tempered / nasty when drunk then stay home, otherwise you'll charged as being premeditated for your assualt.  I wouldn't go so far as saying they were out to kill someone, but would say they get charged with a high level of intent to harm when you're goign to punch someone that hard.

Sentences also need to be tougher on repeat offenders, and bail restrictions need to be harsher too, though clamping down on it too much is going to be costly considering something like 20-25% of prisoners are actually waiting for their court appearance.  Maybe some weekend detention might give them less scope to reoffend?  Turn up drunk / high in jail, turn up late and you'll receive a harsher sentence when you finally come to court.


----------



## McLovin (26 January 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> Seems reasonable for what he did.
> 
> A good start to solving this problem is removing alcohol drugs acupuncture or whatever else they want to use an excuse and setting the punishment to the crime.  If you're violent / short tempered / nasty when drunk then stay home, otherwise you'll charged as being premeditated for your assualt.  I wouldn't go so far as saying they were out to kill someone, but would say they get charged with a high level of intent to harm when you're goign to punch someone that hard.




Being drunk/under the influence of drugs is not a mitigating factor in sentencing. It's funny how half arsed the government is, according to their silly 16 point plan they will remove it as a mitigating factor. One wonders if they were drunk when they drew it up.

Here's another beauty...



> NSW Bar Association president Phillip Boulten, SC: "You are at Mardi Gras and on ecstasy, and you don't move along when you're told to by a police officer. The policeman puts his arm on you and you push it away. You have assaulted a police officer and you're on drugs. Mandatory two years in prison."




Remember, it's mandatory, the ability of the court to impose a fine/good behaviour is removed, this person will spend two years in prison for the most minor of offences. What a great place to live. 

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/comment/little-justice-in-new-laws-20140124-31ed1.html#ixzz2rTwxqRSx


----------



## IFocus (26 January 2014)

McLovin said:


> There's a research paper from the AIC floating around about sentencing in Australia. It found that members of the public when given all the relevant facts of a case tended to give far lighter sentences than magistrates and judges. That's not to say some people get let off easy, as with anything that involves human decision making that happens, and it makes great "news", but it doesn't mean the system is broken.




A while ago I spent a morning in the Rockingham magistrates court watching the local flotsam and jetsam come before the court.

I was genuinely surprised are how hard the magistrate worked to arrive at a just and fair out come in terms of the sentencing, community and the accused. 

These guys deal with 1000's of cases a year gave me a lot of faith in the system over all.

Suggest the critics here get off their big fat ar$es and do the same


----------



## sptrawler (26 January 2014)

IFocus said:


> A while ago I spent a morning in the Rockingham magistrates court watching the local flotsam and jetsam come before the court.
> 
> I was genuinely surprised are how hard the magistrate worked to arrive at a just and fair out come in terms of the sentencing, community and the accused.
> 
> ...




Yes, I spent a morning in the Mandurah court waiting for a hearing for a forced eviction . I wasn't allowed in untill my case was due to be called.
Must go up to Rockingham, sounds like Judge Judy, where you can have a peanut gallery.
Sounds like a great day out, do you have to pre book a seat.


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 January 2014)

> NSW Bar Association president Phillip Boulten, SC: "You are at Mardi Gras and on ecstasy, and you don't move along when you're told to by a police officer. The policeman puts his arm on you and you push it away. You have assaulted a police officer and you're on drugs. Mandatory two years in prison."




Or for an even sillier, but plausible example:

You are standing at a bus stop listening to music through headphones, and you don't move aside when you're told to by a police officer because you didn't hear them. The policeman puts his arm on you and you push it away thinking it was some random stranger attacking you, since you hadn't noticed the presence of the police officer whom you have now assaulted. Mandatory two years in prison.

I've done a bit of searching and there doesn't seem to be too much evidence regarding this supposed increase in violence. Most of what I can find says that violence on the streets is actually decreasing, not increasing, thus making the whole thing a media beat up. And when the "free" press gets involved, you can be pretty sure it's in order to push some agenda or justify some decision that's already been made. At a guess, the exemption of the casino in Adelaide from new liquor laws might have a bit to do with it. Follow the money..... No doubt they'd love to do the same in other states too and have thus far succeeded in NSW it would seem.


----------



## Bill M (27 January 2014)

And it just keeps going on, no use denying it.

---
Another night, another coward punch in Sydney: man attacked in Campbell Parade, Bondi Beach

AUSTRALIA Day celebrations were marred by a coward punch attack which left a man with serious injuries in Sydney's east.

"He gave him a punch, a really really hard punch, on his face and he was on the road bleeding,

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/another-night-another-coward-punch-in-sydney-man-attacked-in-campbell-parade-bondi-beach/story-fni0cx12-1226810904165
---


----------



## Logique (27 January 2014)

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/its-the-drugs-not-booze-fuelling-violence-20140126-31gur.html
*It's the drugs, not booze, fuelling violence* - January 27, 2014 - Stuart Gregor

Behind Fairfax's paywall, but...



> ...Virtually no one can go on a 10-hour drinking binge and be capable of throwing much of a punch. They are more at risk of falling in front of a cab, spewing in the very same vehicle or walking into a wall.
> 
> The sheer intensity of the recent violence is proof enough that there is a lot more than bourbon and beer fuelling the fights...
> 
> ...


----------



## sydboy007 (27 January 2014)

Logique said:


> http://www.smh.com.au/comment/its-the-drugs-not-booze-fuelling-violence-20140126-31gur.html
> *It's the drugs, not booze, fuelling violence* - January 27, 2014 - Stuart Gregor
> 
> Behind Fairfax's paywall, but...




The major issue I had with that article is quite often the punches are buy people not THAT drunk.  Poor Daniel Christie was punched before midnight and I can't recall there being mention of drugs involved with the perpetrator, nor did he seem to be too fueled up on grog.

The coward punch that landed Alex McEwen-Henderson in hospital may have been partly due to steroids as police found 13 vials of it in the house of the perpetrator.


----------



## Tink (27 January 2014)

Agree with you, Syd.

_Sentences also need to be tougher on repeat offenders, and bail restrictions need to be harsher too_

Considering a majority only serve a third of their sentence, yes they should be harsher.

I think these scenarios are getting abit silly, regarding the police, as they give plenty of warnings. 
Anyone that assaults police, ambos or firies, deserve the book thrown at them.

Punishment needs to fit the crime, and in my opinion, its not happening.


----------



## McLovin (27 January 2014)

Tink said:


> I think these scenarios are getting abit silly, regarding the police, *as they give plenty of warnings.*
> Anyone that assaults police, ambos or firies, deserve the book thrown at them.




(my bold)

You don't get out much, do you?


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 January 2014)

Tink said:


> I think these scenarios are getting abit silly, regarding the police, as they give plenty of warnings. Anyone that assaults police, ambos or firies, deserve the book thrown at them.




No problems with that in theory but it's open to abuse in my opinion. 

Whilst I'm sure that the vast majority of police are decent, honest people carrying out their duties if there's one thing I've learned over the years it's that if you create an opportunity to exploit a loophole then someone will take advantage of it. It creates a very easy option with guaranteed imprisonment versus practically any other crime which goes before the court with an uncertain outcome. It's not hard to see that someone, somewhere will abuse that power.

It's like the family violence laws in Tas. The intention is good but it's no secret that the system has been abused given the presumption of guilty until proven innocent (which may take a long time to prove) and the very limited discretion police have in dealing with the accused. 

I absolutely agree that we need to address the problem of violence in all forms. But there need to be proper checks and balances in administering punishment otherwise it's inevitable that someone will abuse the system.


----------



## IFocus (27 January 2014)

sptrawler said:


> Yes,
> Must go up to Rockingham, sounds like Judge Judy, where you can have a peanut gallery.
> Sounds like a great day out, do you have to pre book a seat.




LOL no booking required but it was interesting a side of life the average person would'nt see. 

I feel sorry for the thankless task magistrates have to do day in day out with the general public demanding action from them to solve the community's problems which by the time the issue gets to them its way to late.


----------



## Tink (28 January 2014)

McLovin said:


> (my bold)
> 
> You don't get out much, do you?




As Bill said, _How is it, the majority of people go through life with next to no encounters with Police, yet others continuously seem to get into trouble?_

Thanks Smurf, I see it working both ways.


----------



## dutchie (30 January 2014)

Warning:  *Go to Kings Cross and you might be killed. Stay away!*

Another one....

http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw...s-in-kings-cross/story-fnii5s3x-1226813499556


----------



## Tink (2 October 2014)

Tink said:


> I feel so sorry for this family.
> 
> What is wrong with these kids, havent they learned -- one punch KILLS!
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-of-david-cassai/story-e6frg6nf-1226547064079




I wonder how long he is going to get for manslaughter today.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/la...-of-david-cassai/story-fni0fee2-1227076827407


----------



## Tink (2 October 2014)

Tink said:


> I wonder how long he is going to get for manslaughter today.
> 
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/la...-of-david-cassai/story-fni0fee2-1227076827407




Dylan Closter, who landed the 'cowards punch' that led to David Cassai's death in 2012, has been jailed for 9 years and 3 months, minimum 6 years.


----------



## Value Collector (2 October 2014)

Tink said:


> Dylan Closter, who landed the 'cowards punch' that led to David Cassai's death in 2012, has been jailed for 9 years and 3 months, minimum 6 years.




6 years doesn't seem long enough for a thug like him, I hope he does they full sentence.


----------



## Tink (3 October 2014)

Agree, VC. The law changes next week to a minimum of 10 years.

I don't think its ever enough if you lose a child. One moves on and the other gets a life sentence. Justice?  
He has travelled the world, seen the most dangerous places, yet is killed in the street he has walked many times in his own state.


----------



## dutchie (5 January 2016)

“Do you want to see something funny?” 

These two scumbags need a *life* in prison (pity we don't have the death penalty)

http://www.news.com.au/national/que...l/news-story/c9271e709dade7b28e504ae887385f96


----------



## MrBurns (5 January 2016)

If the streets are ever to be reasonably safe we need to tighten out sentencing laws considerably.

Life for a crime like this should be mandatory, this bloke KILLED someone with a deliberate action.

Why let people like this out after a period in jail ? they are only further damaged and a danger to society.

Rapists
Murderer's
Child molesters

Why should they be allowed out again...........ever ?

Saw on TV where registered sex offenders have to wear a bracelet so they can be monitored, what the hell does that cost ?

Throw away the key.

We need to change things before the vigilantes start to inflict their own justice.


----------



## Tisme (5 January 2016)

dutchie said:


> “Do you want to see something funny?”
> 
> These two scumbags need a *life* in prison (pity we don't have the death penalty)
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/national/que...l/news-story/c9271e709dade7b28e504ae887385f96




It's only a matter of time before anyone with darkish skin is going to be viewed with suspicion. Obviously the value of life and liberty to some is worthless.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 January 2016)

MrBurns said:


> If the streets are ever to be reasonably safe we need to tighten out sentencing laws considerably.
> 
> Life for a crime like this should be mandatory, this bloke KILLED someone with a deliberate action.
> 
> ...




As we know the criminal "justice" system is just a lawyer's picnic filled with plea bargains and mitigating factors like drunkeness or abused childhoods or lack of parental discipline blah blah blah. It's always someone elses fault other than the guy who threw the punch.

Maybe mandatory 20 years for killing someone unless in self defence, but the problem is that the perps never believe they will be caught so theses things will keep happening.


----------



## Bill M (5 January 2016)

MrBurns said:


> If the streets are ever to be reasonably safe we need to tighten out sentencing laws considerably.
> 
> *Life for a crime like this should be mandatory, this bloke KILLED someone with a deliberate action.*




We have pathetic laws and pathetic judges that simply do not dish out maximum sentences for these sort of crimes. When will our governments *EVER* do something about it? They won't, they just make noises until the next one I'm afraid to say. Gutless to make a stand and implement the correct laws where judges can not lesson the sentences.

As you say, it was a deliberate action, he killed someone. For this, no matter what, he should not have the right to be free again, not under any circumstances. Who cares what the do gooder idiots say, we have all had enough.


----------



## MrBurns (5 January 2016)

Bill M said:


> We have pathetic laws and pathetic judges that simply do not dish out maximum sentences for these sort of crimes. When will our governments *EVER* do something about it? They won't, they just make noises until the next one I'm afraid to say. Gutless to make a stand and implement the correct laws where judges can not lesson the sentences.
> 
> As you say, it was a deliberate action, he killed someone. For this, no matter what, he should not have the right to be free again, not under any circumstances. Who cares what the do gooder idiots say, we have all had enough.





Part of the problem is the judges are learned ********s, completely absorbed in their own importance, they administer the LAW as they see it and never for a moment consider common sense. 

I'm sure the powers that let Adrian Bayley free the kill Jill Meagher still believe they acted appropriately.


----------



## Tink (5 January 2016)

Well said, Tisme.

*Obviously the value of life and liberty to some is worthless. *


----------



## Tom32 (5 January 2016)

MrBurns said:


> Why let people like this out after a period in jail ? they are only further damaged and a danger to society.
> 
> Rapists
> Murderer's
> ...




There is an unintended consequence of making tougher sentencing for things less than murder.

In parts of Africa where you get 20years for car jacking criminals often shoot the occupants of the car because the penalty for murder is only slightly worse and it reduces their chances of getting caught.

I wouldn't want to speculate on what the right answer is for the likes of rape but for the justice system to function as a deterrent for increasingly abhorrent crimes it must take into consideration the severity of each individual crime.

If it's always life in prison then criminals are more likely to go all in and murder their victims as well. 

This is the same as having an understanding of incentives in economics. You want to understand how people think then come up with an approach that rewards good and punishes bad on a sliding scale to incentivise the good and dissuade the bad.

Very easy to have brash policy that has unintended consequences that yield a worse result than the original scheme.


----------



## MrBurns (5 January 2016)

Tom32 said:


> There is an unintended consequence of making tougher sentencing for things less than murder.
> 
> In parts of Africa where you get 20years for car jacking criminals often shoot the occupants of the car because the penalty for murder is only slightly worse and it reduces their chances of getting caught.
> 
> ...




Yes good post however there must be a sweet spot between life for everything and letting dangerous people back on the streets.

At present I believe there are way too many very dangerous people roaming among us courtesy of our justice system.


----------



## Tom32 (5 January 2016)

MrBurns said:


> Yes good post however there must be a sweet spot between life for everything and letting dangerous people back on the streets.
> 
> At present I believe there are way too many very dangerous people roaming among us courtesy of our justice system.




Only thing I can come up with is a series of penal colonies.  

Each colony more harsh than the next. The worst can be shipped off to Antarctica to start developing a sustainable mining industry there. 

While it might sound tongue in cheek I think at least that would grade serious crimes in terms of the location then you can still give them all life in prison and keep them off the streets.


----------



## dutchie (5 January 2016)

I applaud Danny Green's view on this matter.

http://www.news.com.au/sport/sports...s/news-story/abc31c1a9a17a04c9c2d70045847fd31

I also applaud Danny for the effort he is putting in to stop this senseless violence, especially his TV ads.


----------



## Tink (5 January 2016)

As I said here, Tom, I disagree with watering down laws.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...t=25726&page=9&p=893969&viewfull=1#post893969


----------



## Craton (5 January 2016)

I really feel for families like the Miller's where an innocent, fun night out turns into such trauma and tragedy. Alcohol and/or drugs should never be used as an excuse. Christ, I drink but I don't become violent unlike far too many idiots that do and when said idiots are in a mob (more than one), look out!

Myself, being the victim of two unprovoked attacks in my late teens, by different attackers who were several years older than me and the attacks a couple of years apart, I hold the view that scum like these need to be eradicated from our society.

In hindsight my failure to report these attacks or divulge who the attackers were allowed the attackers to spiral down into a life of violence and the court system and myself, having permanent visible and invisible damage. 
There's the coward's punch but as a victim I also consider myself a coward because the result of naming and shaming was a fear to great for me to overcome.

Premeditated acts likes these need the fullest weight of the law imposed. Please don't give me an excuse that alcohol and/or drugs or whatever was a mitigating factor reducing one's mental capacity to think clearly. What rot!

Renata and Maxwell knew full well what they were about to embark on and bragged about it. Let them brag to the four walls in one of our finest custodial institutions for the term of their natural lives. 

We certainly don't need faulty genes like these to reproduce. Harsh?
Not to my way of thinking because dumb scum like these terrorize not only the victim and their family but all of society and no one has the right to do that.


----------



## CanOz (5 January 2016)

Craton said:


> Renata and Maxwell knew full well what they were about to embark on and bragged about it. Let them brag to the four walls in one of our finest custodial institutions for the term of their natural lives.




Bugger that, too good for them....

Take away their passports and set them afloat in a leaky boat off the Australia bite :bowser:...


----------



## Craton (5 January 2016)

CanOz said:


> Bugger that, too good for them....
> 
> Take away their passports and set them afloat in a leaky boat off the Australia bite :bowser:...




Too right and as I've said in ASF Breaking News post 614, allowing them to live is too kind.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 January 2016)

Craton said:


> Too right and as I've said in ASF Breaking News post 614, allowing them to live is too kind.




Do we really want to go down the Death Penalty road ?

In terms of deterrent it doesn't work, nothing does because people never think they will get caught.

I'd go for a "supermax" in the Simpson desert, same view every day, no visitors, no tv, no books, no internet.

Killing them is too kind.


----------



## Tom32 (6 January 2016)

Tink said:


> As I said here, Tom, I disagree with watering down laws.
> 
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...t=25726&page=9&p=893969&viewfull=1#post893969




Yes tink I did see that post and thank you for it in so far as writing this response has stirred things up in my mind that have not been stirred for a while. 

Where I disagree however would be that while ones faith can be absolute ones actions never are.

It is these immoral / illegal actions that the law has to address. 

No one living today is perfect and if we had a justice system based on absolutes I am not certain it would make the world a better place.

I understand rape / murder are far more serious than what the normal punter might commit but there is a serious practical issue if you have the same punishment for a range of different crimes just because they are all wrong. 

Putting morals to one side and let's assume some people only behave based on what works for them. Let's say they have perfect logic / reason but no morals whatsoever:

This individual decides to rob a bank because he knows he has a 95pc chance of getting away with it. They go through how they will disable the security and scare the tellers into handing over cash.

Now let's say the law says they get life in prison for robbing a bank and they have a 96pc chance of getting away with it with a more violent / different approach. What reason is there for them not to walk into the bank and shoot all three tellers? Then take the money.

While some of us have morals unfortunately not everyone does. Laws and justice system is ultimately concocted for the criminals.

i don't know the answer but I don't think the answer can be expressed in absolute terms. I guess I don't think locking people up for longer for all crimes necessarily leads to less crime.


----------



## Craton (6 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Do we really want to go down the Death Penalty road ?
> 
> In terms of deterrent it doesn't work, nothing does because people never think they will get caught.




I don't see the death penatly as a deterrent. Those hell bent on their own agenda no amount of deterrents work because of human nature.



> I'd go for a "supermax" in the Simpson desert, same view every day, no visitors, no tv, no books, no internet.



...and I can just hear the goody two shoes bleeding hearts accepting this without a whimper.







> Killing them is too kind.




A lifetime in a "supermax" is a cost to me, the taxpayer. Why should I pay to keep scum like these alive?

They obviously don't hold human life in high regard so cleaning out the gene pool is a pretty good option. You know, there are some in our society where no amount of compassion or any other type of assistance can help.

Nope, allowing scum like these to breath is way too kind in my book so SirR, lets agree to disagree on this one.


----------



## Tisme (6 January 2016)

We are better than the barbarians we invite in, because we believe in the rule of law. Making ourselves scum to counter scum just adds to the pond.

I have noticed the only real deterrent with these simpletons is to punish their parents. Primitives value the reputation of their elders and bringing public humiliation and shame onto mum and dad might just make them think about their actions before having to live with the family pariah status.


----------



## McLovin (4 February 2016)

Finally Matt Barrie says what everyone who actually lives in Sydney has been thinking. That gormless, weak ex-Premier O'Farrell has a lot to answer for for this short-sighted bit of stupidity. For the supposed party of small business, it's incredible how many small businesses they have sent to the wall. Not to mention the _Liberal_ Party has treated the rest of us like feeble minded idiots who can't be trusted to buy a takeaway bottle of alcohol after 10pm. It's a shame the government can't be held to account financially for the total mess they've created.

And if you ever needed to know who runs this state, guess who's been buying up all the buildings of failed business...Yep, property developers. Quite a field day they've had.



> Freelancer chief executive Matt Barrie has posted a scathing article on Sydney's lockout laws, taking to task the state government and labelling New South Wales the "nanny state".
> 
> The post on social networking site LinkedIn comes just hours after a new report into the lockout laws by the City of Sydney found that foot traffic in Kings Cross and Oxford Street at 11pm on a Friday night, before the 1.30am lockout and 3am last drinks, was down 58 per cent. By 4am, foot traffic had fallen 80 per cent on 2012 figures.
> 
> ...






Read more: http://www.afr.com/technology/freel...er-lockout-laws-20160203-gml82s#ixzz3z9muSbMc


----------



## SirRumpole (4 February 2016)

McLovin said:


> Finally Matt Barrie says what everyone who actually lives in Sydney has been thinking. That gormless, weak ex-Premier O'Farrell has a lot to answer for for this short-sighted bit of stupidity. For the supposed party of small business, it's incredible how many small businesses they have sent to the wall. Not to mention the _Liberal_ Party has treated the rest of us like feeble minded idiots who can't be trusted to buy a takeaway bottle of alcohol after 10pm. It's a shame the government can't be held to account financially for the total mess they've created.
> 
> And if you ever needed to know who runs this state, guess who's been buying up all the buildings of failed business...Yep, property developers. Quite a field day they've had.
> 
> ...




Any figures on the rate of hospital admissions, police callouts, violent assaults and rapes in these areas ?


----------



## McLovin (4 February 2016)

Gotta love this pic. Our tax dollars at work. Nanny state? Nah, police state. Gotta keep us all safe from dem drugs.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 February 2016)

McLovin said:


> Finally Matt Barrie says what everyone who actually lives in Sydney has been thinking. That gormless, weak ex-Premier O'Farrell has a lot to answer for for this short-sighted bit of stupidity. For the supposed party of small business, it's incredible how many small businesses they have sent to the wall.




Exempting the casino says all you need to know about this one. Looks pretty blatant that there's money involved....

That said, Sydney clubs were always too pretentious in my view (just my personal experience, a few years ago now though so maybe out of date). Always ended up having far more fun in other cities as the whole thing was just easier with less nonsense.


----------



## McLovin (5 February 2016)

Smurf1976 said:


> Exempting the casino says all you need to know about this one. Looks pretty blatant that there's money involved....
> 
> That said, Sydney clubs were always too pretentious in my view (just my personal experience, a few years ago now though so maybe out of date). Always ended up having far more fun in other cities as the whole thing was just easier with less nonsense.




I'd say the exemption of the casino was more because the casino has a contact and would have sued the pants off the state governmet. No such luck for other businesses. The Cross was never a place I liked particularly much, but it was a part of Sydney and it is sad that it has been destroyed. Sydney, and Australia, is becoming so sanitised.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 February 2016)

King's Cross is a residential area. If you want clubs, pubs and entertainment venues then they would be better placed in the CBD where the overspill doesn't disturb residents who just want to sleep or have a quiet night.


----------



## McLovin (5 February 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> King's Cross is a residential area. If you want clubs, pubs and entertainment venues then they would be better placed in the CBD where the overspill doesn't disturb residents who just want to sleep or have a quiet night.




Kings Cross has been what it is for far longer than any residents of Kings Cross. If they don't like it they shouldn't have moved there. If you move under the flight path expect planes to fly over.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 February 2016)

McLovin said:


> Kings Cross has been what it is for far longer than any residents of Kings Cross. If they don't like it they shouldn't have moved there. If you move under the flight path expect planes to fly over.




Well, things change and it appears that the residents have won. 

There should be little difference going to the CBD for entertainment than going to KC.


----------



## McLovin (5 February 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Well, things change and it appears that the residents have won.
> 
> There should be little difference going to the CBD for entertainment than going to KC.




Great, another out-of-towner with NFI. The CBD is affected by the same lock-out laws.

The residents weren't asked. It was the NSW government not the City of Sydney that introduced the laws.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 February 2016)

McLovin said:


> Great, another out-of-towner with NFI. The CBD is affected by the same lock-out laws.
> 
> The residents weren't asked. It was the NSW government not that City of Sydney the introduced the laws.




So why do you think they did it ?


----------



## Tisme (5 February 2016)

McLovin said:


> Kings Cross has been what it is for far longer than any residents of Kings Cross. If they don't like it they shouldn't have moved there. If you move under the flight path expect planes to fly over.





I remember going there regularly on my trips to Sydney and it seemed to me to have residential as well as the theatres, hotels, etc. At one stage it was touted as one of the densest residential populations .... I wonder why


----------



## SirRumpole (5 February 2016)

Tisme said:


> . At one stage it was touted as one of the densest residential populations .... I wonder why




A lot of bogans lived there ?


----------



## Value Collector (5 February 2016)

Interesting article that's going viral at the moment.

http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/other-industries/would-the-last-person-in-sydney-please-turn-the-lights-out/news-story/3ac474b2b168b029c5080f29d2e5510a


----------



## SirRumpole (5 February 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Interesting article that's going viral at the moment.
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/other-industries/would-the-last-person-in-sydney-please-turn-the-lights-out/news-story/3ac474b2b168b029c5080f29d2e5510a






> No wonder everyone’s apparently moving to Melbourne.




Of course if you read the linked article about people moving to Melbourne there is no mention of being able to get a drink after 10pm, the reasons are better planning, cheaper housing and better transport infrastructure.

I'm sure VC would appreciate the strawman argument there.


----------



## Value Collector (5 February 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Of course if you read the linked article about people moving to Melbourne there is no mention of being able to get a drink after 10pm, the reasons are better planning, cheaper housing and better transport infrastructure.
> 
> I'm sure VC would appreciate the strawman argument there.




That's not really the part of the article I found interesting, more the death of Sydney nightlife, I don't go out late nights in the city as much as I used to ( I am more of a local club guy these days ), but I think a vibrant night life does a lot for a city. 

it's just a little sad to see areas of Sydney dying, it's a hard topic I know, but I wonder if they have done the right thing.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 February 2016)

Value Collector said:


> That's not really the part of the article I found interesting, more the death of Sydney nightlife, I don't go out late nights in the city as much as I used to ( I am more of a local club guy these days ), but I think a vibrant night life does a lot for a city.
> 
> it's just a little sad to see areas of Sydney dying, it's a hard topic I know, but I wonder if they have done the right thing.




My concern would be keeping the night life and residential areas separate which is why I favour the entertainment sector being close to the CBD, and in a fairly restricted area which is easier to patrol by police. 

The CBD is well served by public transport which helps to keep drunks off the road. 

I think we need a vibrant entertainment sector, but there is no reason why over consumption of alcohol needs to be an essential part of that. A lot of people want to go to the theatres and have dinner at restaurants without risking being hit on the head by drunks.

I think the fear of violence is as much a factor in small businesses shutting down due to lack of patronage than the lockout laws. 

As in all cases,  a compromise has to be reached.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 February 2016)

Nightlife in the CBD - agreed that it's a good location in principle but one problem is that in recent years councils and others have allowed, even encouraged, residential development in these otherwise commercial areas. You only need one lot of appartments and that makes the surrounding area problematic for anything noisy.

Sydney's Luna Park, a place not associated with drinking, is a case in point. The Park has been there a very long time, longer than most of us have been alive, but then someone came along and built appartments next door. No surprises for guessing what happened next - they tried to shut the amusement park down and did succeed in putting some restrictions on its operation. 

So far as I'm concerned that is wrong in every way - clearly the appartments are poorly built if they didn't take existing land uses into account and properly sound proof them. Secondly it's just arrogant to move next to something very long established and then complain about aspects of its operation that would be very obvious to anyone who checked out the area before moving there. An amusement park makes some noise - no surprises there, that's what happens at such places.

So the problem of newly arrived residents versus existing businesses isn't unique to places serving alcohol although they are one of the issues.

As for Kings Cross, well I knew the reputation of that area well before becoming an adult and at a time when I'd never visited Sydney. It's reputation is very well known right around the country or at least it was before it all shut down. Anyone who moved there has only themselves to blame so far as noise and the nature of businesses in the area is concerned and ought to have no right to object. Same concept as anyone who chooses to buy a house next to an airport - you'd have to be an idiot to expect peace and quiet.

As for the economics of late night venues, I'm told (by someone who owns and runs nightclubs) that there are really two big changes comparing now with the past and they both produce the same outcome. 

One is the widespread trend toward binge "pre-drinks" and the other is the use of certain illegal drugs which leads to people drinking less alcohol. Neither are particularly helpful if you're running a business which derives most of its revenue from selling alcohol for consumption on the premises.

Another point she's mentioned is that a lot of clubs are effectively discriminating against what would be their "medium" profit customers if they actually let them inside. They end up with a club full of those who won't bring much profit and those at the opposite end who want to become blind drunk. Whilst the latter obviously bring a lot of revenue, they also cause most of the trouble which is one of the things which has ultimately lead to the tough regulations and which, even without those regulations, still makes the business more costly and difficult to run (more security needed, far more likely to end up with police and licensing authorities taking a dim view of the place, etc). 

There's a lot of issues here but personally I do think that the huge surge in the number and geographic spread of bottle shops is a factor. There's very easy availability of take away alcohol now and it accounts for the vast majority of alcohol sold these days. It has contributed to a change in the scene from "go out partying and have some drinks" to "the whole point is to get drunk, and it's cheaper to do that at home before going out".

I do see a need for some regulation where alcohol is concerned but I also think the wrong approach has been taken. Locking people out of clubs and sending them broke may get a few trouble makers off the surrounding streets but have no doubt that they're just drinking somewhere else instead where it's far harder to police and where any trouble quite likely won't be reported at all.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 February 2016)

I take your points Smurf with a couple of provisos.

1. The demand for and shortage of housing in Sydney especially is so chronic that any available land is prime real estate for housing development. Yes you may say that people have no right to complain if they buy near to "other uses" businesses but I think that always implies a reasonable standard of behavior from the patrons of those businesses. Residents should have a right to object to people urinating over their fences as they have a right to object if airport noise curfews are suddenly removed.

The character of our cities is changing due to massive population increases (which I disagree with) and places like Kings Cross and other quasi entertainment areas will be overtaken by demand for residential properties, like it or not.

2. It should be up to councils to require developers of housing or apartments to provide adequate insulation, resident parking and access to those residences separate from those of surrounding businesses so that various land users can live together without getting up the others noses.



			
				Smurf said:
			
		

> There's a lot of issues here but personally I do think that the huge surge in the number and geographic spread of bottle shops is a factor. There's very easy availability of take away alcohol now and it accounts for the vast majority of alcohol sold these days. It has contributed to a change in the scene from "go out partying and have some drinks" to "the whole point is to get drunk, and it's cheaper to do that at home before going out".




This implies that lockouts may not be the prime cause for clubs etc going out of business. Whether the spread of bottle shops is good or not I have doubts about. I also have doubts about the wisdom of availability of alcohol in supermarkets. As I said, enjoyment does not necessitate getting pi$$ed out of one's mind all the time as you pointed out with the example of Luna Park.

Some other countries can get away with more alcohol consumption, because as has been pointed out before they use it to enhance conviviality whereas for some reasons Australians use it to enhance violence. Until we can change our drinking culture I think we need to run a damage minimisation strategy, and if that involves less alcohol being available, so be it.


----------



## McLovin (6 February 2016)

Smurf1976 said:


> Nightlife in the CBD - agreed that it's a good location in principle..




Not all nightlife is the same. The nightlife in Newtown is very different to what's going on in the CBD and similarly I don't think we'd want brothels and street walkers on George Street, but they were fine in the X. Sydney is a city of almost five million people, it's a tad provincial to think we're going to have one area where everyone goes and everything else will be sleeper suburbs. In fact, the majority of people who live in the inner city do so because the neighbourhoods have, amongst other things, nightlife. Within spitting distance of me, I have seven or eight pubs. I love having them nearby, eat at them most nights during the week and drink there regularly. 



Smurf1976 said:


> Sydney's Luna Park, a place not associated with drinking, is a case in point. The Park has been there a very long time, longer than most of us have been alive, but then someone came along and built appartments next door. No surprises for guessing what happened next - they tried to shut the amusement park down and did succeed in putting some restrictions on its operation.
> 
> So far as I'm concerned that is wrong in every way - clearly the appartments are poorly built if they didn't take existing land uses into account and properly sound proof them. Secondly it's just arrogant to move next to something very long established and then complain about aspects of its operation that would be very obvious to anyone who checked out the area before moving there. An amusement park makes some noise - no surprises there, that's what happens at such places.




Absolutely. There is zero reason why someone living in an apartment or house _anywhere_ in Sydney can't have complete silence with double glazing and half decent insulation. It happens in New York, London, Paris...any large city.


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 February 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Residents should have a right to object to people urinating over their fences as they have a right to object if airport noise curfews are suddenly removed.




Agreed there. But if the airport is existing, and then someone builds housing nearby, then that should not result in new restrictions on the airport in my view. Rather, the onus should be on the housing developers to build in a manner compatible with the existing surrounding environment which in this example includes noise from aircraft.



> The character of our cities is changing due to massive population increases (which I disagree with) and places like Kings Cross and other quasi entertainment areas will be overtaken by demand for residential properties, like it or not.




It's a different subject but personally I don't see how there's anything gained to current residents, or Australia in general, by continuing to grow the population of Sydney in particular and also Melbourne. 

They're already struggling with infrastructure etc, that's one problem. Then there's the issues with appartments crowding out other uses in the inner urban areas. And if we do add another million people to Sydney then what does that enable, in terms of critical mass, that the city doesn't have now? Where's the benefit?

Considering our current cities, my thought is that we'd gain if the population if Adelaide in particular were increased so as to obtain a greater critical mass in that city, which would make it more of a self sustaining economy with less reliance on a few key industries, but that we're not really gaining by adding more people to Sydney or Melbourne.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 February 2016)

Smurf1976 said:


> It's a different subject but personally I don't see how there's anything gained to current residents, or Australia in general, by continuing to grow the population of Sydney in particular and also Melbourne.
> 
> They're already struggling with infrastructure etc, that's one problem. Then there's the issues with appartments crowding out other uses in the inner urban areas. And if we do add another million people to Sydney then what does that enable, in terms of critical mass, that the city doesn't have now? Where's the benefit?
> 
> Considering our current cities, my thought is that we'd gain if the population if Adelaide in particular were increased so as to obtain a greater critical mass in that city, which would make it more of a self sustaining economy with less reliance on a few key industries, but that we're not really gaining by adding more people to Sydney or Melbourne.




You are absolutely right, there is nothing to be gained by growing the population of our major cities. Doing so is a Ponzi scheme that will only end in tears for a lot of people unable to find housing or faced with inadequate public transport or other infrastructure.

The fact that governments have been conned by the business sector that they need more consumers, but don't want to employ them is one reason we are in a mess today.

However, I just state the facts that if the population is increasing rapidly they have to be housed somewhere, and they have a right to live peacefully unmolested by drunks or druggies.



			
				Smurf said:
			
		

> But if the airport is existing, and then someone builds housing nearby, then that should not result in new restrictions on the airport in my view. Rather, the onus should be on the housing developers to build in a manner compatible with the existing surrounding environment which in this example includes noise from aircraft.




Yes, I agree with that, but the thread is about alcohol fuelled violence which is a different issue.


----------



## Tink (7 February 2016)

This probably comes from the Violence Royal Commission that was set up in Victoria, when they said, Nothing was being done.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30643&p=894954&viewfull=1#post894954

I would be quite happy to swap Premiers, you can have Daniel Andrews.

Isn't Baird from Melbourne.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 February 2016)

Violence in Sydney down due to lockout laws, NSW Premier Mike Baird says on Facebook

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-...kout-laws-mike-baird-says-on-facebook/7152212



> "Alcohol-related assaults have decreased by 42.2 per cent in the CBD since we introduced the 'lock-out laws'," Mike Baird said.
> 
> "And they're down by over 60 per cent in Kings Cross."
> 
> ...






			
				Mike Baird on Facebook said:
			
		

> Let’s start with a statistic about Sydney’s nightlife that matters: alcohol related assaults have decreased by 42.2 per cent in the CBD since we introduced the “lock-out laws”.
> 
> And they’re down by over 60 per cent in Kings Cross.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tisme (9 February 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Violence in Sydney down due to lockout laws, NSW Premier Mike Baird says on Facebook
> 
> 
> ```
> ...




He can't have spent much time in other cities


----------



## SirRumpole (9 February 2016)

Tisme said:


> He can't have spent much time in other cities




So, what is your "greatest city" and why ?


----------



## McLovin (14 February 2016)

Even Alan Jones agrees. It was fun watching Mike Baird, or Casino Mike as he's now known, get worked over after his stupid comments about Sydneysiders being hysterical for objecting to the lockout laws.



> “I’m telling you this because stark raving mad government thinks that the lockout laws have solved the problems, or will, of alcohol-fuelled violence,” Jones blasts. “It’s a mindless overreaction but businesses have gone broke, the city’s being shut down, and this is precisely what’s now going to happen in Queensland. [It’s] politicians distorting reality.”




http://inthemix.junkee.com/even-shock-jock-alan-jones-wants-the-lockouts-overturned/138212


----------



## SirRumpole (14 February 2016)

McLovin said:


> Even Alan Jones agrees. It was fun watching Mike Baird, or Casino Mike as he's now known, get worked over after his stupid comments about Sydneysiders being hysterical for objecting to the lockout laws.
> 
> 
> 
> http://inthemix.junkee.com/even-shock-jock-alan-jones-wants-the-lockouts-overturned/138212




Of course Jones would be well above "cash for comment" wouldn't he ?


----------



## McLovin (14 February 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Of course Jones would be well above "cash for comment" wouldn't he ?




Any proof? Didn't think so.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 February 2016)

Mike Baird made this comment.



> Well, one last statistic: the number of small bars in Sydney has more than doubled in the same time period.




Are you calling him a liar ?

If he's right then it means that the hysteria about businesses closing down is just that, hysteria.


----------



## McLovin (14 February 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Are you calling him a liar ?
> 
> If he's right then it means that the hysteria about businesses closing down is just that, hysteria.




As you ignored my question about whether you have any proof that Alan Jones is being paid to comment, I'll just assume that was baseless slander.

Mike Baird didn't provide any source, and given his fondness for misquoting to suit his agenda I have no idea if he is lying or telling the truth. Is he referring to greater Sydney, the Sydney Metro Area, Inner Sydney, the CBD? Greater Sydney runs from the top of the Central Coast down to Wollongong. If small bars are opening in Toukley or Umina that's great, but its neither here nor there when discussing lockout laws that only affect inner Sydney. Aside from that, it doesn't matter if x number of small bars have opened. His government policy has destroyed hundreds of small businesses. Not just bars and clubs but all the ancillary things that run along side such venues.

Did Hugos, Jimmy Liks, Goldfish, The Flinders, Bar Century, SoHo, The Bourbon and on and on close just because? No they didn't, every single one said they were closing because of reduced trade caused by the lockout laws. 

As Alan Jones rightly points out the kid who killed Thomas Kelly got p!ssed in Pennant Hills went to Darling Harbour got more p!ssed then went to Kings Cross and was refused entry to three bars because he was intoxicated. So the licensees in the X did what they were supposed to and have had their businesses destroyed. What a great city.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 February 2016)

> and given his fondness for misquoting to suit his agenda ?




Baseless slander ?


----------



## McLovin (14 February 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Baseless slander ?




You're hopeless. 



> NSW Premier Mike Baird has been using misleading statistics to defend the success of the state government's lockout laws, the director of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn, says.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 February 2016)

McLovin said:


> You're hopeless.




You re pretty hopeless yourself.

If you are quoting from this article

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-...refutes-bairds-sydney-assault-figures/7154804

This is what Weatherburn said



> "The problem with that is assaults have been coming down in NSW since 2008, so you had this pre-existing downward trend," Dr Weatherburn said.
> 
> *"What the lockout laws did was accelerate the existing downward trend, so it fell even faster than before."*




I don't see any problem with reducing the rate of assaults above a natural baseline.



> When asked whether there was any evidence that violence had shifted from Kings Cross to outer suburbs, Dr Weatherburn said crime figures did not support that idea either.
> 
> "We don't see any evidence of that. In the early part of the evaluation we saw a brief increase around Darling Harbour, near the casino.
> 
> ...




It's pretty clear that Weatherburn is supporting the beneficial effect of the lockout laws even if he disagrees with the magnitude that Baird expressed.

 The front line troops in the violent assault scene, medicos at St Vincent hospital certainly support the laws.



> Director of trauma at St Vincent's Hospital Associate Professor Tony Grabs said the lockout laws had had a profound impact on the number of people being injured by alcohol-fuelled violence.
> 
> "It has been a breath of fresh air for this hospital," he said
> 
> ...


----------



## McLovin (14 February 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> You re pretty hopeless yourself.




Your ability to goalpost shift and argue for the sake of arguing beats mine. Have a nice weekend.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 February 2016)

McLovin said:


> Your ability to goalpost shift and argue for the sake of arguing beats mine. Have a nice weekend.




Same to you.

At least  I have the guts to quote a complete article instead of cherry picking a single sentence that seems to support my position.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 February 2016)

An opinion on the review of lockout laws

The lockout law review mustn't be so close-minded

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-16/lee-the-lockout-law-review-mustn't-be-so-close-minded/7170912


----------



## noco (17 February 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> An opinion on the review of lockout laws
> 
> The lockout law review mustn't be so close-minded
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-16/lee-the-lockout-law-review-mustn't-be-so-close-minded/7170912





As I stated a week or so ago, I cannot believe I am supporting the Queensland Government and cannot understand why the LNP are opposing these LOCK OUT LAWS.

I honestly cannot see why people have to consume so much alcohol that it affects their brain into acting abnormally........If the law works and saves some poor bu$$er's life, then the law has a achieved what it was designed to do......I say, give it a go, monitor the results and assess the outcome.

I can recall the days when there were no night clubs and the pubs closed at 10 pm....Nobody complained.




https://au.news.yahoo.com/qld/a/30844206/kap-to-support-qld-lockout-laws/


----------



## SirRumpole (17 February 2016)

noco said:


> I can recall the days when there were no night clubs and the pubs closed at 10 pm....Nobody complained.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




And in those days you couldn't buy grog at supermarkets either.

The alcohol industry has really watered down (pardon the expression) the laws over the years, no doubt due to financial donations to all parties.


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 February 2016)

Funny how the casino just happens to be exempt in Sydney. Just like the casino is exempt in Adelaide. Not sure about other places but that's the case in at least two cities.

Very blatant what's going on there. Money talks and casinos have more money to offer than pubs and clubs.

Considering all the damage gambling does, the last thing that ought to be happening is having drunks turn up at a casino because they can't get in anywhere else. If anything, the casinos ought to have an earlier lock-out or simply not serve alcohol at all. If someone can't make a decision to not punch someone when they're drunk then they sure can't make sensible decisions about money either.

I'm not a regular drinker, haven't touched the stuff for months and never drink at home (ever) but I don't have a problem with people going out drinking as long as they don't start throwing punches etc. Australian culture is a big problem there as there's plenty of other countries where alcohol doesn't lead to violence, people just end up happy and a bit silly but not violent.

We've changed society's attitude toward smoking and to some extent toward what people eat over the years. Likewise attitudes toward the natural environment, sexuality, race and other things have also changed radically in the space of a generation. I think we ought to take that approach with alcohol rather than just imposing simplistic solutions like time-based rules. A few drinks and having some fun is fine but getting smashed and turning violent is not acceptable.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 February 2016)

I certainly won't defend the casino exemption. Frankly I think that casinos are centres for money laundering by criminals and if anything they should be banned altogether.

Keep the pokies for the local clubs that depend on the revenue but impose restrictions for over use.

If the suggestion is that we do education campaigns for alcohol abuse instead of lockouts, then I'm afraid I disagree.

Education campaigns are expensive and they don't work. Obesity in this country is still a problem years after the "lLife Be In It" campaigns.

Education is only good for people intelligent enough to listen to and understand them. The bogans won't and can't, they can barely even read.


----------



## Bill M (3 April 2016)

Out on bail after allegedly killing somebody, absolutely unbelievable this country.

---
Anti-coward punch campaigners are calling a Brisbane judge 'gutless' for bailing a teenager accused of killing a grandfather with a single king-hit after birthday celebrations allegedly turned deadly on the Gold Coast.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/qld/a/31235779/bail-for-a-man-accused-of-a-one-punch-attack-on-a-grandfather-on-the-gold-coast/
---


----------



## MrBurns (3 April 2016)

Bill M said:


> Out on bail after allegedly killing somebody, absolutely unbelievable this country.
> 
> ---
> Anti-coward punch campaigners are calling a Brisbane judge 'gutless' for bailing a teenager accused of killing a grandfather with a single king-hit after birthday celebrations allegedly turned deadly on the Gold Coast.
> ...




The judiciary needs to harden the f.... up, a complete overhaul is needed... the streets are full of dangerous crims thanks to these pathetic bastards.


----------



## qldfrog (4 April 2016)

MrBurns said:


> The judiciary needs to harden the f.... up, a complete overhaul is needed... the streets are full of dangerous crims thanks to these pathetic bastards.



and we do agree that these pathetic bastards are the judges...
The role of the legal society in destroying our culture is kept quiet but when you see the impact of a litigation society, the cost and red tape triggerred by the blame culture.
From your rates increase as your council pay  money to anyone slipping on uneven pavements, to your surgeon, professionals or company insurance premiums (that you have to pay down the chain), the quiet interested decisions of these so called respectable judges (your honour..we should cry) are undermining our society.
They will probably release the murderous bogan (no money to be made there) but try to attack the corner pub or the spirit company drapped in grand principles.
I have the upmost disrespect for the legal system here, I am sure there are a few exceptions and I have read about some in the past, so kudos to these individuals who fought for real principle of right and wrong, but overall, a very rotten and antique system.Better avoid having to deal with it, especially as a victim...


----------



## MrBurns (4 April 2016)

qldfrog said:


> and we do agree that these pathetic bastards are the judges...
> The role of the legal society in destroying our culture is kept quiet but when you see the impact of a litigation society, the cost and red tape triggerred by the blame culture.
> From your rates increase as your council pay  money to anyone slipping on uneven pavements, to your surgeon, professionals or company insurance premiums (that you have to pay down the chain), the quiet interested decisions of these so called respectable judges (your honour..we should cry) are undermining our society.
> They will probably release the murderous bogan (no money to be made there) but try to attack the corner pub or the spirit company drapped in grand principles.
> I have the upmost disrespect for the legal system here, I am sure there are a few exceptions and I have read about some in the past, so kudos to these individuals who fought for real principle of right and wrong, but overall, a very rotten and antique system.Better avoid having to deal with it, especially as a victim...




Yes the bewigged fools who let peodphiles and rapists back on the street but if you steal from a bank you're in for life.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 April 2016)

Yet another victim of alcohol fuelled violence.

Can anything be done about it ?


----------



## Knobby22 (19 April 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Yet another victim of alcohol fuelled violence.
> 
> Can anything be done about it ?




Yes, put huge taxes on alcohol. Then we can have drug fuelled violence.


Hackett doing a nipple cripple, another incident of alcohol fuelled violence.


----------



## Tisme (20 November 2017)

*Warning about the language*



reads:



> WODONGA ....
> 
> **** Outraged - Viewer Advised ****
> 
> ...




sanitized version if you don't have farcebook:
https://au.news.yahoo.com/vic/a/379...alds-customer-spits-at-staff-trashes-counter/


----------

