# The Nanny State



## Julia (17 June 2008)

We've recently experienced a case of moral panic regarding the Bill Henson photographs.  You know the ones:  seized by the police as being pornographic, and subsequently deemed not to be so at all.   

And yesterday the AMA comes out with the ludicrous suggestion - amidst all the hysteria about binge drinking which has been going on for a while now, probably since climate change came off the media headlines - that four standard drinks, e.g. four midis of beer or four glasses of wine over a meal during an evening , constitutes binge drinking.  Anyone who indulges thus will automatically be a candidate for physical and moral ruin.

And this evening, the AMA, bless their hearts has suggested that the way to stop people smoking is to ban any depiction of smoking in any art form such as films, plays etc.  Their theory appears to be that any person gazing upon a screen image of a person smoking will immediately be upswept with the crazed urge to rush out and start smoking.

Now, obviously I'm completely opposed to the proliferation of pornography which involves the abuse of children and I object to smokers brushing their burning cigarettes against me as I walk down the street, but I'm just getting completely fed up with governments and organisations like the AMA treating us as though we have no personal sense of responsibility.

Binge drinking, I would have thought, is when people drink with the express intention of getting blind drunk, often to the point of physical collapse.
The government in their questionable wisdom are trying to introduce an extra tax on the alcopops products, telling us that this is what is going to eliminate binge drinking in teenagers.  Really?   It has already reduced consumption of these ready to drink products because the drinkers are simply turning to buying whole bottles of spirits and mixing their own, running the risk of each drink being considerably stronger than the premixed ones.

Another of Mr Rudd's thought bubbles which simply wasn't thought through?
Another gesture in order to be seen to be doing something?

I always think that most people behave pretty much as we expect them to, so if we tell people that they are too irresponsible to make wise choices for themselves, and interfere in their lives by banning and taxing indiscriminately, then chances are they will rebel and do those things anyway.

And I'll resist the urge to get started on censorship.


----------



## wayneL (17 June 2008)

Julia,

It seems to be a blight across the whole English speaking world. Here in the UK it's the same.

Eg All business vehicles (eg a work ute) must display 'no smoking' signs in the cabin. Even if you are a self employed gardiner and you are the only person who ever drives your ute! 

There are bright spots however. The delightfully eccentric Boris Johnson, the new Mayor of London is bucking the trend.

Fantastic stuff IMO:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/17/do1701.xml



> I came out of my house the other week and saw that it was a perfect day for cycling to work. The clouds were high and fleecy, the sky was blue, the road was dry.
> 
> Boris Johnson tries to evade the press
> Boris Johnson makes his escape from the press in the days before he bought a cycle helmet
> ...


----------



## 2BAD4U (17 June 2008)

On the binge drinking "definition" it was suggested in the media yesterday that it was a precursor to raising taxes. ie: more people are now binge drinking by the new definition, lets raise taxes to combat the problem. I would have to agree.  It has also created a joke of binge drinking in that the definition is so absurd that no one will take it serious.

On the broader subject of being a nanny state, I once heard an overseas tourist describe Australia as a country of signs with "red circles with lines through them." That was about 15 years ago and I thought how sad it was then, but it is even worse now. The solution in my opinion is to start by making people responsible for their own actions and get away from this litigious society we have become. Do we really need warnings telling us not to use a hair dryer in the bath? If you do and you survive, why should your stupity give you the right to sue the manufacturer? If you don't survive, well that's just one less moron in the gene pool.


----------



## saiter (17 June 2008)

Julia said:


> We've recently experienced a case of moral panic regarding the Bill Henson photographs.  You know the ones:  seized by the police as being pornographic, and subsequently deemed not to be so at all.
> 
> And yesterday the AMA comes out with the ludicrous suggestion - amidst all the hysteria about binge drinking which has been going on for a while now, probably since climate change came off the media headlines - that four standard drinks, e.g. four midis of beer or four glasses of wine over a meal during an evening , constitutes binge drinking.  Anyone who indulges thus will automatically be a candidate for physical and moral ruin.
> 
> ...




Hi Julia,

I too find the idea of a nanny state distasteful. However, I think you can find the laws/actions committed by this government justifiable if you think of the effect on the wider community.
In relation to Ben Henson's art, I don't think Henson's intention was to create child pornography, but nevertheless, his art could become pornographic media to pedophiles. The government would have had to appease the parents & those strongly for child rights (the majority) or the art critics & lovers (the minority). If they had chosen to appease the minority then confidence in the government's morals would have dropped and that would be bad news for the Labor party. The alternative would have been to screen viewers of the art gallery but this would be too tedious and possibly discriminatory.
Binge drinking is another difficult problem that the government faced/is facing. Alcohol is a part of Australian culture and unfortunately, teenagers are choosing to amplify it even further and are probably going to keep doing so well into their adult life. By drinking to excess, they place an enormous strain on their livers, brains and other organs. 
Eventually, they will require medical attention if they don't kill themselves and the responsibility will probably fall on the Nation's public health care systems. Can you imagine the costs involved for dialysis, transplants and care? These costs would far out weight the revenue being lost from alcopop sales. I agree that introducing the tax has only switched them to cheaper and more highly concentrated drinks, so something else needs to be done about this too.


----------



## wayneL (17 June 2008)

Julia said:


> that four standard drinks, e.g. *four midis of beer* or four glasses of wine over a meal during an evening , constitutes binge drinking.




So that's 2 English pints. 

Sheesh that barely touches the sides. A lot of the guys I have met here would view 5 pints in a sitting as a light night out... though must admit 2 pints is where I stop... well maybe 3...


----------



## theasxgorilla (17 June 2008)

wayneL said:


> So that's 2 English pints.
> 
> Sheesh that barely touches the sides. A lot of the guys I have met here would view 5 pints in a sitting as a light night out... though must admit 2 pints is where I stop... well maybe 3...




2 pints and I'm happy and satisfied.  I don't know they do it in the British Isles...though widespead and accepted it seems like alcoholism to me.


----------



## cuttlefish (17 June 2008)

And it wasn't too long ago that the roads and traffic authority used to run adverts that would tell us we could have three drinks in the first hour and one every hour after that!  So that would in theory mean that you could binge drink and drive lol.


----------



## wayneL (17 June 2008)

fwiw, the English definition of binge drinking:



> This defines binge drinking as men having more than eight units and women having more than six units a day. Recommended limits are three to four units for men and two to three units for women a day, but not every day. Binge drinking for women would be more than three glasses of wine or six measures of spirit in a session. For men it would be four pints of ordinary strength beer or eight measures of spirit.


----------



## Julia (18 June 2008)

Thanks for responses.  Good to know I'm not alone in feeling irritated.

Saiter, you make a good point.   But it's pretty sad and doesn't say much for us as a society when political considerations (i.e. the government making sure it looks OK) take precedence over common sense.

Anyone completely on the side of all these regulations?


----------



## Timmy (18 June 2008)

I don't think we know how lucky we are ... if the state was run by my Nan smoking a pack a day would be made compulsory...


----------



## MRC & Co (18 June 2008)

That tax on 'alcopops' was absolutely rediculous!

As Julia stated, anybody could see youngsters were going to mix their own instead, which (from my own experience) does lead to FAR higher % drinks!  One reason I moved accross to softer beers.

On another note, my father always used to tell me how much he despised 'binge drinkers' as two of my grandads (one a great grandad) loved several drinks a day.  Have to say, both had a far happier life than my father with absolutely no drinking related problems.  Makes me question, if you enjoy it and don't go around beating people up, what is so bad about drinking,even 'binge drinking'?  

This 'binge drinking phenomenon' is not exactly a new thing in society.  It has been around for thousands of years, look at the culture in Rome at the height of it's power, binge sessions and trips to the brothels were a common occurance.  Look at the vikings and their feasts........not sure the Greeks were any different, or the Germanic tribes and Gaul who also loved their alcohol in excess from what I have read.  Of course, only really available to those with the $$ to afford it, but still, it does not appear they only had 2-4 in a session!  

Personally, drinking once a week is plenty for me, but I usually make a good effort of it.  Usually have at least 12 beers


----------



## alankew (18 June 2008)

We were amazed at the rules that we have to abide by when we moved from the UK.No dive bombing at the public baths9thats what you are supposed to do when you are learning to dive!),no diving full stop,must wear a helmet if you are riding a bike(I know its for my safety but some of the helmets you see people wearing seems little point)-not only that but you cop a fine/warning if caught without.20 years of driving in the UK on some pretty busy roads with only one speeding fine yet within 6 months of living here me and my wife(no tickets previously)had copped 6 between us.Got so bad that my wife was scared to drive for fear of being banned.Could go on but will only be called a whinging Pom but never has a nations catchphrase being so inept.NO WORRIES.And the one rule that really gets on my nerves,the 100 character rule!


----------



## stockGURU (18 June 2008)

More than almost any other nationality on Earth, Aussies love being told by the government how to live their lives and what freedoms they are allowed to enjoy and which they aren't. We will literally take anything that the government (in their infinite wisdom) dishes out and lie down like dogs and beg for more.

IMO this is a hangover from cradle to grave socialism that has been a integral part of the Australian mindset up until recent times. 

If a dictatorship ever comes to a first world western country, it will come to Australia first. Aussies wont fight against the government controlling every aspect of their lives. We are used to it and expect it. I think, as a nation, we are addicted to it and need it.

The apathetic nature of Australians is legendary. We couldn't give a stuff about freedom or individual rights as long as we can buy a Commodore, have a BBQ and go to the beach. 

Australians need a nanny state. It's our security blanket.


----------



## nioka (18 June 2008)

stockGURU said:


> More than almost any other nationality on Earth, Aussies love being told by the government how to live their lives and what freedoms they are allowed to enjoy and which they aren't. We will literally take anything that the government (in their infinite wisdom) dishes out and lie down like dogs and beg for more.
> 
> IMO this is a hangover from cradle to grave socialism that has been a integral part of the Australian mindset up until recent times.
> 
> ...




And I always thought it was a hangover from our British colonial heritage. Maybe you are right. Maybe we are too used to being policed as a hangover from the convict times. But then it was one of the Queen's men, Johnny H, who disarmed the population to make the "powers" less vunerable.


----------



## Wysiwyg (18 June 2008)

Good post there stockguru..

Is not the whole system `designed` to keep the majority in a working class consciousness.I mean if one has a certain amount of money they become freer.We can`t have too many breaking out so restrictions through taxation on overtime, capital gains and  goods/services are cleverly weighted and adjusted to keep us jumping through the hoop.


----------



## disarray (18 June 2008)

stockGURU said:


> We will literally take anything that the government (in their infinite wisdom) dishes out and lie down like dogs and beg for more.
> 
> Aussies wont fight against the government controlling every aspect of their lives. We are used to it and expect it. I think, as a nation, we are addicted to it and need it.




i think thats a bit harsh. it's really tied into your next point.



> The apathetic nature of Australians is legendary. We couldn't give a stuff about freedom or individual rights as long as we can buy a Commodore, have a BBQ and go to the beach.




well thats a pretty good standard of living. we have a nice, stable, reasonably prosperous nation so there's not much to be radical about is there? most of the world is much much worse than us and i think its a testament to our national character that we've maintained our (eroding) egalitarian nature for so long. we have nowhere near the crass excesses of america or nobility, and our worst off still have access to first world standards of food, health care and education.

seriously once you see lepers lying in the gutter and smallpox victims blundering around blind and tribes of kids sleeping in doorways and scrounging garbage for their next meal you really appreciate just how good our society is. there is no need for society to rail against anything because we have it good.

it all comes back to human nature man. when people are fed and entertained they are happy and easily led, especially if its to more food and entertainment. the people get fat, lazy and are content - compliance is just a side effect. but when people are lean and hungry then thats when humans true nature becomes evident, all pretence of civility falls away and we become animals again.

talking about a dictator etc. i honestly believe the world is going to cave in my lifetime. the population is going from 6 to 9 billion over the next 40 years. already we have food shortages, water shortages, climate change,epidemics of disease outside the first world and declining resources to support development based on current technology. unless the boffins take us to the next tech level soon there is just no way the planet can support 9 billion of us.

the nanny state will become irrelevant.


----------



## Rafa (24 June 2008)

One of my biggest concerns of voting labor was the further entrenchment of the nanny state model for adults.

The issue goes further than just nannying.... but goes to the core of the whole welfare state principle, esp for those who are capable (or should be capable) of looking after themselves.

In a way, we where heading down that path anyway under the howard govt with the middle class welfare system firmly entrenched (very disappointing coming from a liberal govt)…  At least now some welfare has a means test associated with it…. 

There is a role for a nanny state…. And that is for those who can’t look after themselves…. That is children, and the poor and disadvantaged. Children need to be protected (or nannied) till they are capable of looking after themselves (and the legal age for that is 18 years)… And the poor and disadvantage need to be assisted with the basics, food, shelter, education, health care.

THAT SHOULD BE THE LIMIT TO ANY NANNYING.


As for Henson, he exploited a child in the name of art for his own fame and benefit…. Not of that of the child…. He is not a paedophile, and the art wasn't pornographic, but it was still exploitation of a child.

And as for alcopops… it has nothing to do with nannying… everything to do with revenue raising. And that is why govt's generally love nannying... gives them a excuse to raise revenue and get involved in the lives of people who should be making the decisions themselves...

The legal fraternity has a lot to answer for too, esp with the whole duty of care business....


----------



## stockGURU (4 August 2010)

More nanny state madness. This time from Queensland:



> *Toy guns will have to be licensed in Queensland under new firearms laws*
> 
> ANY ITEM that looks like a gun will have to be licensed under several changes to the Weapons Act being considered by the Queensland State Government.
> 
> ...




More: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...ew-firearms-laws/story-e6frfku0-1225900889228


----------



## nunthewiser (4 August 2010)

stockGURU said:


> More nanny state madness. This time from Queensland:
> 
> 
> 
> More: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...ew-firearms-laws/story-e6frfku0-1225900889228




LOL potatoe Guns and Gings next i heard.


----------



## Surly (4 August 2010)

Many of the hold ups here are reported as being armed with a screw driver or syringe.

This is going to make things tricky for mechanics and diabetics everywhere when authorities work this out.

cheers
Surly


----------



## todster (4 August 2010)

Maybe with all the new media,dedicated news channels,internet etc they are just producing more crap stories.
Like the Sunday paper if nothing happens Saturday no news


----------



## Happy (4 August 2010)

MRC & Co said:


> That tax on 'alcopops' was absolutely rediculous!
> 
> ...




Tax should not be used purely to reduce consumption.

But responsible drinking should be executed, to the point that person drinking is 100% responsible for actions.

Like say detah penalty for drink driving fatality  - (hope you get my drift)


----------



## Julia (12 July 2011)

With my apologies to those on the PEN thread, I responded to gg's suggestion that, if his trade was less than successful, he'd seek solace with some cask wine and a cigar, with the following.   I just can't believe the level governments will go to.  If you disagree with this proposal, maybe send your local MP an email.  Hard to know whether the suggestion derives from 'experts' who seem to imagine alcoholics won't drink cask wine if it's more expensive, or if the drive for this comes from a government anxious to rake in any tax from any source.



> Make the most of being able to access that cheap cask, gg. The nanny state appears to be about to introduce a floor price on alcohol which will render the now cheap casks about three times more expensive.
> 
> The reason for this is the asinine suggestion that the aborigines specifically and other alcoholics will immediately desist from consuming this cask wine, their alcoholism magically having disappeared as a result of the price rise.
> 
> ...


----------



## breaker (12 July 2011)

Maybe one should dust the still off


----------



## Logique (14 July 2011)

breaker said:


> Maybe one should dust the still off



He he good on you Breaker. An experienced home brewer can produce a delicious sparkling ale for 10 to 15% the cost of the let's face it, fairly _ordinaire_ mass production beers out there. One batch after another, cookie-cutter style, simple as. 

I recently bought a couple of bottles of a market leader best cold beer, but tipped most of it out, it just tasted odd. 

Julia, prohibition has never worked, nor wowserism in Australia. Pretty insulting to the Aboriginal community too. I suppose going down to the TAB and getting on the punt will be next.


----------



## Calliope (5 July 2012)

Most people think wandering children are a parent's responsibility.



> Wandering boy died in man's pool - is this manslaughter.
> 
> THE mother took her eyes off her toddler for a second. But it was enough time for the two-year-old boy to wander away, fall into a swimming pool and drown.
> 
> Now, in what is believed to be a nationwide first, Philip John Cameron, 61, has been charged with manslaughter because he did not adequately fence his pool.





Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/wandering...anslaughter-20120704-21hs6.html#ixzz1ziJDAbmR


----------



## CanOz (5 July 2012)

Lets think of it differently. What about instead of a pool it was a large pit, a dozen meters deep with no barricade. Perhaps instead of a child it was an adult. The adult was walking home in the dark and took a short cut though this mans property. They fell down into the pit and suffered fatal injuries. Trespassing or the owners liability?

To a child, a pool looks inviting. In reality it is a death trap that by law, is to be fenced and LOCKED.

At 61 he'll probably get a suspended sentence, but the message must go out, fence your 'death trap' and lock the bloody fence.

CanOz


----------



## prawn_86 (5 July 2012)

CanOz said:


> Lets think of it differently. What about instead of a pool it was a large pit, a dozen meters deep with no barricade. Perhaps instead of a child it was an adult. The adult was walking home in the dark and took a short cut though this mans property. They fell down into the pit and suffered fatal injuries. Trespassing or the owners liability?
> 
> To a child, a pool looks inviting. In reality it is a death trap that by law, is to be fenced and LOCKED.
> 
> ...




But what if, in this case it was only an inflatable pool that he had just put up for his teenage kids party and was still out the following day? The toddler could still wander in and drown in that...


----------



## Julia (5 July 2012)

CanOz said:


> Lets think of it differently. What about instead of a pool it was a large pit, a dozen meters deep with no barricade. Perhaps instead of a child it was an adult. The adult was walking home in the dark and took a short cut though this mans property. They fell down into the pit and suffered fatal injuries. Trespassing or the owners liability?



Trespassing.



> To a child, a pool looks inviting.



Sure.  So the parent has to be properly vigilant.

Manslaughter?   For god's sake!


----------



## prawn_86 (5 July 2012)

Julia said:


> Trespassing.




Agree. 

I saw an interesting quote the other day (i think it was in Wired magazine, but could be wrong), where as a society we have gone from everything being legal except for that explicity stated as illegal, to a society where everything (especially new things/ideas) is implicity illegal/against the law until you can prove it is legal.

IE it used to have to be proved it was illegal, whereas now you have to prove what you were doing is legal


----------



## CanOz (5 July 2012)

Certainly the parents still have a responsibility for the child, however kids are not kept on a leash. We would expect a playground to be safe for children and at the same time if a child wanders away a few meters they should be prevented from entering into a death trap. If it is the LAW that the pool is fenced and LOCKED, as it is in Canada then the owner takes on the responsibility for the death if they chose to break the law. This isn't something new, the law in Canada (and Australia and Canada are very similar for civil law) has been around since 1980 ish. 

Perhaps manslaughter is a bit harsh but they would certainly be open to a civil suit if the law didn't punish accordingly.

If it were my child I'm sure I'd be looking for some punishment. If they had just fenced their pool that child would be alive. How many parents out there can admit losing their kid for 5 minutes while they unpacked the groceries, or answered the phone. Does that make the parent irresponsible?

The LAW is there for this reason specifically.

Prawn, if it were a small wading pool it may not be illegal but it would certainly get the lawyers interested in a liable suit I'd reckon.

My opinion, i agree the punishment should be severe enough to send a message, nothing will ever get that kid back.
CanOz


----------



## basilio (5 July 2012)

I think your being a bit rough in this case.

Passing a law to force people to properly fence their pools was  a response to regular tragedies of children falling into backyard pools and drowning.  I havn't got the figures but there would have many, many heartbreaks in the past. 

Kids are curious, very quick to disappear and love water. Our community decided that we owed them some protection from their own vulnerability.

The tragedy of the childs death in the pool highlights what happened on a regular basis before mandatory pool fence laws were passed.

I feel for the guy and hopefully some "sensible "outcome eventuates. But I don't believe we should condemn or abandon compulsory fencing of pools.

______________________________________________________________________________

On a similar note its can you remember the carnage on our roads around schools before we had  lollipop people escorting children across the road? Similar problem and an interventionist solution to protect children.


----------



## CanOz (5 July 2012)

basilio said:


> I think your being a bit rough in this case.
> 
> Passing a law to force people to properly fence their pools was  a response to regular tragedies of children falling into backyard pools and drowning.  I havn't got the figures but there would have many, many heartbreaks in the past.
> 
> ...




Well said....

CanOz


----------



## prawn_86 (5 July 2012)

I'm not against the law fencing pools, but what is the penalty if you dont? Whatever the penalty is, then that is what he should be charged/fined.

Yes he broke the law by not having his pool fenced, but none of his actions had anything to do with the child wandering into his yard.


----------



## CanOz (5 July 2012)

prawn_86 said:


> I'm not against the law fencing pools, but what is the penalty if you dont? Whatever the penalty is, then that is what he should be charged/fined.
> 
> Yes he broke the law by not having his pool fenced, but none of his actions had anything to do with the child wandering into his yard.




Prawn, he's been charged with manslaughter. He hasn't been convicted yet.

The prosecutor will try and send a message, but the judge and or jury will decide his fate.

CanOz


----------



## CanOz (5 July 2012)

prawn_86 said:


> I'm not against the law fencing pools, but what is the penalty if you dont? Whatever the penalty is, then that is what he should be charged/fined.
> 
> Yes he broke the law by not having his pool fenced, but none of his actions had anything to do with the child wandering into his yard.




Prawn, he's been charged with manslaughter. He hasn't been convicted yet.

The prosecutor will try and send a message, but the judge and or jury will decide his fate.

Perhaps we should start a poll and see how the majority feel about what the punishment should be?

CanOz


----------



## moXJO (5 July 2012)

Pool had a fence but both pool and fence were in bad condition


> Mr Cameron was inside his Armidale home watching television one afternoon this year when the boy wandered through his backyard and fell in the pool.
> 
> Mr Cameron's unkempt pool, described by one neighbour as ''a bit of a cesspit'', had a fence around it that was dilapidated.
> 
> ''We believe he's committed an offence by not adequately fencing the pool as he's required to do by law,'' he said. ''We'll allege the fence was there but not in a state that would stop people getting in.''


----------



## McLovin (5 July 2012)

prawn_86 said:


> I'm not against the law fencing pools, but what is the penalty if you dont? Whatever the penalty is, then that is what he should be charged/fined.
> 
> Yes he broke the law by not having his pool fenced, but none of his actions had anything to do with the child wandering into his yard.




Manslaughter (and murder) can be either by doing something or not doing something which causes the death of someone. Not having the pool fenced or having the fence is disrepair caused the death of the child, it would seem.

Extending the argument you are making, one could say if you drive around with bald tyres, lose control of your car in the wet and kill someone, should you only have to pay the penalty for having bald tyres?

NB: I'm not debating whether or not there should be laws for swimming pool fences, just providing the legal basis for the charge of manslaughter.


----------



## prawn_86 (5 July 2012)

McLovin said:


> Extending the argument you are making, one could say if you drive around with bald tyres, lose control of your car in the wet and kill someone, should you only have to pay the penalty for having bald tyres?




If the other person had drifted into your lane after not paying attention, then yes. If you lose control of your car that is your fault, meaning you are responsible for the tyres. If they drift into your lane and you have bald tyres then the tyres had nothing to do with it. 

My understanding for manslaughter was that you had to be involved in some way, not just negligent in another area. I'm far from a legal expert though


----------



## wayneL (5 July 2012)

McLovin said:


> Manslaughter (and murder) can be either by doing something or not doing something which causes the death of someone. Not having the pool fenced or having the fence is disrepair caused the death of the child, it would seem.




The question to me is 'what constitutes manslaughter?'.



> man·slaugh·ter
> [man-slaw-ter] Show IPA
> noun
> 1.
> ...




Where do we extend the boundaries to?

Is have a roof that someone fell off and died manslaughter?

How about having a knife in your drawer that your depressed brotheri n law topped himself with?

How about owning a car that the drunken knucklehead step out in front of and got squashed by?

How about building a city next to a beach where people drown at? Who do we charge with manslaughter there?

I find it deeply concerning that the charge is manslaughter, perhaps negligence causing death (if there is such a statute), but not manslaughter.


----------



## prawn_86 (5 July 2012)

wayneL said:


> I find it deeply concerning that the charge is manslaughter, perhaps negligence causing death (if there is such a statute), but not manslaughter.




Well expressed, my thoughts also.

I can appreciate the prosecutors are trying to send a message, and it's probably not the childrens family pushing charges, but surely its some form of negligence charge (at worst), rather than manslaughter


----------



## Surly (5 July 2012)

Wayne,

While I hate the nanny state the reason there is a fence is to stop children entering the pool area and drowning. 

The reason there is a penalty for not having a proper fence is to convince you you need to have a fence to stop children entering the pool area and drowning.

If you do not have an adequate fence and a child drowns...

Quite a long bow to draw to align this with someone slipping off of a roof.

cheers
Surly


----------



## wayneL (5 July 2012)

Surly said:


> Wayne,
> 
> While I hate the nanny state the reason there is a fence is to stop children entering the pool area and drowning.
> 
> ...




I don't think so at all.

Manslaughter implies an act that inadvertently causes a death, for instance, playfully throwing the child in the pool and he drowns.

I cannot accept that passive negligence is manslaughter.

If I build a dam on my 5 acre property that some kid drowns in, is that manslaughter?


----------



## pixel (5 July 2012)

I still find it a deplorable sign of Nanny State that forces home owners to fence themselves in simply because parents need a scapegoat for their own shortcomings.
Before the pool fencing laws were introduced, parents were aware -

of their responsibilities in supervising their kids
they had to teach kids the difference between their own and other people's properties
of the need to be especially vigilant around dangerous areas
that accidents could happen
All of that went out the window, creating complacency and the need to always find somebody else to blame. The latter is of course ably assisted by ambulance-chasing members of the once respected Legal profession.


----------



## McLovin (5 July 2012)

prawn_86]If the other person had drifted into your lane after not paying attention said:


> I find it deeply concerning that the charge is manslaughter, perhaps negligence causing death (if there is such a statute), but not manslaughter.




Negligence causing death is just a variant of manslaughter. Manslaughter, unlike murder, is a pretty wide concept. The defense will argue that the nexus is toward the lower end of the scale (ie the defendant is removed from the event) while the prosecution will argue that his inaction directly caused the death of the child.


----------



## prawn_86 (5 July 2012)

McLovin said:


> Manslaughter, unlike murder, is a pretty wide concept. The defense will argue that the nexus is toward the lower end of the scale (ie the defendant is removed from the event) while the prosecution will argue that his inaction directly caused the death of the child.




So the scenarios Wayne listed could be considered manslaughter? If so that is quite disturbing


----------



## wayneL (5 July 2012)

McLovin said:


> Let's avoid trying to parse a hypothetical. In simple terms, the law requires that a pool be fenced. The pool wasn't fenced (or was inadequately fenced) and as a result of the negligence of the pool owner a child died. I don't see how it can't fit within the definition of manslaughter.
> 
> 
> 
> Negligence causing death is just a variant of manslaughter. Manslaughter, unlike murder, is a pretty wide concept. The defense will argue that the nexus is toward the lower end of the scale (ie the defendant is removed from the event) while the prosecution will argue that his inaction directly caused the death of the child.



Perhaps you can address my other hypothetical examples?


----------



## McLovin (5 July 2012)

wayneL said:


> Perhaps you can address my other hypothetical examples?




The roof, maybe.

The drunk, maybe.

The city by the beach, no.

The knife in the drawer, no.

Sorry, I'm in a bit of rush.


----------



## wayneL (5 July 2012)

McLovin said:


> The roof, maybe.
> 
> The drunk, maybe.
> 
> ...




If so, the law is dysfunctional IMO.

I'm getting closer and closer to heading for the hills with a sack of heirloom seeds and a Kalashnikov.


----------



## CanOz (5 July 2012)

wayneL said:


> If so, the law is dysfunctional IMO.
> 
> I'm getting closer and closer to heading for the hills with a sack of heirloom seeds and a Kalashnikov.




LOL! Well you're in the right country for that!

CanOz


----------



## wayneL (5 July 2012)

CanOz said:


> LOL! Well you're in the right country for that!
> 
> CanOz




I might wait for global warming to kick in... those hills are freakin' freezing!


----------



## Surly (5 July 2012)

wayneL said:


> The question to me is 'what constitutes manslaughter?'.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Reversing your argument Wayne:

if a drunk driver kills someone are they only to be charged with drunk driving?

if a person discharges a firearm in a public place and inadvertently kills someone is it simply discharging a firearm in a public place?

To me the opposite of a nanny state is accepting that while you have the right to pursue an activity or course of action, you also have to bear the consequences of your actions.

cheers
Surly


----------



## wayneL (5 July 2012)

Surly said:


> Reversing your argument Wayne:
> 
> if a drunk driver kills someone are they only to be charged with drunk driving?
> 
> if a person discharges a firearm in a public place and inadvertently kills someone is it simply discharging a firearm in a public place?




Your two examples are bona fide examples of manslaughter IMO because the deaths directly resulted from an act they were engaged in.

This is intrinsically different from my examples.


----------



## village idiot (5 July 2012)

> Reversing your argument Wayne:
> 
> if a drunk driver kills someone are they only to be charged with drunk driving?




It cant be reasonable to charge everybody caught drunk driving who doesnt kill anyone, with manslaughter.
Neither can it be reasonable to charge every drunk driver who does  kill someone, only with drunk driving. 

What is required is some sort of algorithm to that takes into account the level of both the original offence and the consequences if any. and that by and large is what happens.



**If drunk driving particularly offends replace with "maintains inadequate pool fence" etc


----------



## prawn_86 (5 July 2012)

I have to maintain that i am still with Wayne on this one. If someone is passively involed in someones death then how can they be charged with manslaughter.

Relating it specifically to this pool case, if the person whose child it was, had a friend around, and it was that friend who distracted them by asking them to look at something, is the friend also responsible for manslaughter as they took the parents attention away from the child?


----------



## prawn_86 (5 July 2012)

Or one last hypothetical that the wife just came up with:

What if the child didn't wander next door, but across the road and has hit and killed by a car unable to stop in time, doing the speed limit at the time, should the driver be charged with manslaughter?


----------



## wayneL (5 July 2012)

prawn_86 said:


> Or one last hypothetical that the wife just came up with:
> 
> What if the child didn't wander next door, but across the road and has hit and killed by a car unable to stop in time, doing the speed limit at the time, should the driver be charged with manslaughter?




'zackly

...and what if the child broke its neck trying to climb the pool fence?


----------



## Surly (5 July 2012)

prawn_86 said:


> Or one last hypothetical that the wife just came up with:
> 
> What if the child didn't wander next door, but across the road and has hit and killed by a car unable to stop in time, doing the speed limit at the time, should the driver be charged with manslaughter?




Unlike failing to comply with the law by properly fencing your pool, there is no apparent negligence in your example.

If this gentleman had complied with the law in every way required and a child had still managed to enter his pool it would be along the lines of your example.

cheers
Surly


----------



## wayneL (5 July 2012)

Another hypothetical.

Someone has a pool with fencing constructed according to the statutes.
You had a pissup last night and chocked the gate open for easy access to house and back.
You pass out, pissed as a maggot, legless, paralytic, incapable of shutting the gate (but not before the proverbial technicolour yawn).
Meanwhile, a kid crawls through the garden fence, enters the pool area, slips on the vomit and cracks his head open on the concrete and dies.

Manslaughter?


----------



## Julia (5 July 2012)

CanOz said:


> If it were my child I'm sure I'd be looking for some punishment. If they had just fenced their pool that child would be alive. How many parents out there can admit losing their kid for 5 minutes while they unpacked the groceries, or answered the phone. Does that make the parent irresponsible?



Yes.  The child is the responsibility of the parent.  If you can't fulfil that responsibility, don't have the child.

Transfer the situation to the beach.  The family is on the beach.  The kid wanders out into the sea while the parent's attention is diverted.  The kid drowns.  Who is responsible?   God???



> My opinion, i agree the punishment should be severe enough to send a message, nothing will ever get that kid back.
> CanOz



The parent should have considered that before failing to supervise the kid around water.




basilio said:


> I think your being a bit rough in this case.
> 
> Passing a law to force people to properly fence their pools was  a response to regular tragedies of children falling into backyard pools and drowning.  I havn't got the figures but there would have many, many heartbreaks in the past.



Not only do you not have figures, but you are apparently unaware that in many cases the pools were properly fenced but some ingenious kids dragged chairs et al from some distance away to enable them to either operate the pool fence gate or climb over the fence.
For god's sake, there's only so much pool owners should be expected to do.







> Kids are curious, very quick to disappear and love water. Our community decided that we owed them some protection from their own vulnerability.



Oh, all the emotional stuff dragged out again.



> The tragedy of the childs death in the pool highlights what happened on a regular basis before mandatory pool fence laws were passed.



And more drownings will happen.  How are you going to legislate against all the streams, dams, rivers, and - as above - the sea.
Absolutely nothing will replace the vigilance of a parent.



prawn_86 said:


> I'm not against the law fencing pools, but what is the penalty if you dont? Whatever the penalty is, then that is what he should be charged/fined.
> 
> Yes he broke the law by not having his pool fenced, but none of his actions had anything to do with the child wandering into his yard.



Entirely correct.



CanOz said:


> Prawn, he's been charged with manslaughter. He hasn't been convicted yet.



No, but he is undoubtedly anxious and upset about such a charge.  I sure as hell would be.
All because a parent wasn't watching the child and the child trespassed where it had no business being.



wayneL said:


> The question to me is 'what constitutes manslaughter?'.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Exactly.  And all sorts of other scenarios.
We seem to have evolved into a pathetic society where we cater for the most stupid, the most careless, legislating away the rights of all others, in some sort of facile attempt to remove any semblance of danger from existence.  I'm utterly sick of it.


----------



## basilio (5 July 2012)

You've gone over the top Julia.

Protecting children from their own  inquisitiveness, childishness and vulnerability is a, IMO, partially a community responsibility.  That is the rationale behind compulsory, proper fencing of pools, school crossing guards, safety house systems etc.  We look after each other.

Every parent has experienced their children or a friends getting into mischief. Thats just the nature of being a child. Trying to prevent every "escape" is impractical or so overbearing it creates it's own problem.

We don't know the full story of this incident beyond the death of the child and the allegation that the pool fence was inadequate. The court will consider the degree of negligence of the pool owner. We don't have enough information to make an informed decision. (But then we can always have opinions can't we ?) 
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

But having said all that there is a case for parents supervising their children while they are swimming.  (This is a different case isn't it ?)  I did find a refrence to the number of children who drowned in pools in NSW. Between 1996 and 2010 there were 114 drowning deaths of children

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...GDN2rq&sig=AHIEtbQakLVwIHBsPoJnC77RWyc6D9c9MQ


----------



## McLovin (6 July 2012)

wayneL said:


> I don't think so at all.
> 
> Manslaughter implies an act that inadvertently causes a death, for instance, playfully throwing the child in the pool and he drowns.




No it doesn't. Manslaughter, and murder, can involve either the commission or omission of an act. This isn't some new law either, it's been around since Federation in Australia and I'm sure it's been around in the UK since pretty much day dot.


----------



## wayneL (6 July 2012)

McLovin said:


> No it doesn't. Manslaughter, and murder, can involve either the commission or omission of an act. This isn't some new law either, it's been around since Federation in Australia and I'm sure it's been around in the UK since pretty much day dot.




If that is so, pretty much any death could result in a manslaughter charge as someone somewhere, it could be purported that some omission of some act resulted in the death.


----------



## Tink (6 July 2012)

Makes you wonder where the pool was, in the front yard?
I dont know the area.
The child could have been killed on the road, same scenario.

They are both at fault.


----------



## pixel (6 July 2012)

Julia said:


> We seem to have evolved into a pathetic society where we cater for the most stupid, the most careless, legislating away the rights of all others, in some sort of facile attempt to remove any semblance of danger from existence.  I'm utterly sick of it.



+100%
Spot on, Julia.
That's been my gripe exactly.
Agree with the rest of your comments as well.


----------



## Calliope (6 July 2012)

God! What next???



> *Counselling for navy rescue crew traumatised by sinkings*
> 
> DEFENCE has mustered military chaplains and psychologists to treat navy patrol boat sailors traumatised by the recovery of drowned asylum-seekers and the rescue of boats in distress.
> 
> The move comes amid concern that the navy will have to cope with a spate of new rescues in the months ahead as asylum-seeker boats more frequently send out distress signals to engage Australian patrols.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ised-by-sinkings/story-fn9hm1gu-1226418314936


----------



## DB008 (6 July 2012)

pixel said:


> +100%
> Spot on, Julia.
> That's been my gripe exactly.
> Agree with the rest of your comments as well.




+2....


----------



## prawn_86 (6 July 2012)

Surly said:


> Unlike failing to comply with the law by properly fencing your pool, there is no apparent negligence in your example.
> 
> If this gentleman had complied with the law in every way required and a child had still managed to enter his pool it would be along the lines of your example.
> 
> ...




Ok what if he was doing the speed limit, but his tyres were bald to the point of being defected? Even if it made no difference to stopping time as the child ran out in front of him


----------



## Surly (6 July 2012)

prawn_86 said:


> Ok what if he was doing the speed limit, but his tyres were bald to the point of being defected? Even if it made no difference to stopping time as the child ran out in front of him




There is a step to this process that seems to be overlooked.

If you are charged with an offence you still have the right to a trial. It is then in the hands of a judge and jury to determine guilt and allocate a sentence.

The circumstances play a part in both. It may be that in your example it is shown that brand new tyres would of made no difference and the outcome would of been the same.  It may be that the police still wish to press charges. It may be that the jury find that he is not guilty.

It is unknown just as the outcome of the charges regarding the child drowning are not known.

cheers
Surly


----------



## prawn_86 (6 July 2012)

Surly said:


> It is unknown just as the outcome of the charges regarding the child drowning are not known.




Yes i agree and have said as much, but the fact that a manslaughter charge can even be laid shows what a litiguos socitey we live in now.

Essentially you can now be charged for just about anything (corssing the road wrong, not wearing a bike helmet, failure to service your car, not wearing safety equipment etc etc), and have to prove yourself innocent, as opposed to being able to do what you want (that wasn't expressely illegal) and using common sense and taking responsibility for your own actions if things go wrong.


----------



## prawn_86 (6 July 2012)

> An 18-month-old boy has died after being found in an irrigation channel in south-west New South Wales.
> 
> Police says the boy's family was visiting friends at the rural property in the Murray River town of Barham, on the Victorian border.
> 
> The boy had been playing with other children, but at around 3:00pm yesterday the family noticed he was missing.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-06/toddler-drowns-in-irrgation-channel/4114464

Just out now, another sad story, but should the farmer be charged? Or maybe the parents this time for letting a child wander around a farm without supervision


----------



## CanOz (6 July 2012)

prawn_86 said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-06/toddler-drowns-in-irrgation-channel/4114464
> 
> Just out now, another sad story, but should the farmer be charged? Or maybe the parents this time for letting a child wander around a farm without supervision




No one will be charged, if no laws were broken.

You need to *break the law* to be charged. Otherwise there could be a case for liability

Why can't people get this? If the LAW says the channel must be fenced, and it was not then they will charge the farmer. If the LAW says the parents must have the child on a lease while on the farm the they will charge the parents.

Farm deaths are very tragic and farm safety is is not treated as strictly as safety is in a workplace such as manufacturing. 

Very tragic indeed...

CanOz


----------



## Calliope (6 July 2012)

CanOz said:


> If the LAW says the parents must have the child on a *lease* while on the farm the they will charge the parents.




Is it lawful to *lease* a child?


----------



## CanOz (6 July 2012)

Calliope said:


> Is it lawful to *lease* a child?




Sorry, i meant leash...

My point IS, if it is the LAW to do that and the LAW was broken people will be charged...

CanOz


----------



## Julia (6 July 2012)

prawn_86 said:


> Yes i agree and have said as much, but the fact that a manslaughter charge can even be laid shows what a litiguos socitey we live in now.
> 
> Essentially you can now be charged for just about anything (corssing the road wrong, not wearing a bike helmet, failure to service your car, not wearing safety equipment etc etc), and have to prove yourself innocent, as opposed to being able to do what you want (that wasn't expressely illegal) and using common sense and taking responsibility for your own actions if things go wrong.



+1.
And the natural outcome of this growing culture is that individual expectations of taking responsibility are diminished.   Instead of a society consisting of thinking, considerate individuals, we produce robots dependent on governments instructing them how to behave.


----------



## CanOz (6 July 2012)

Julia said:


> +1.
> And the natural outcome of this growing culture is that individual expectations of taking responsibility are diminished.   Instead of a society consisting of thinking, considerate individuals, we produce robots dependent on governments instructing them how to behave.




What an utter pile of rubbish:frown:.

While we are at it, lets remove the guards from machinery, the stop signs at intersections, the stop lights, the seat belts, and just trust that everyone will be responsible. What a complete and utter joke. 
The majority of the population is *irresponsible* and needs laws and regulation. Just look at the mess the banker/wankers got us into because they had zero regulation and no responsibility for their actions.

Good grief... What world do you live in? Have you actually worked with people to learn how they behave on the whole?

CanOz


----------



## Julia (6 July 2012)

CanOz said:


> What world do you live in? Have you actually worked with people to learn how they behave on the whole?
> 
> CanOz



Yes, worked with and managed people throughout my working life.  Invariably found that the greater trust and responsibility I offered those people, the more they fulfilled that expectation.
On the whole, people behave pretty much as you expect them to.

Tell them, as you are, that they are irresponsible, and they will behave accordingly.

Tell them the opposite, and they will also behave accordingly.

And please don't distort what I have said.  I have nowhere suggested practical and reasonable safety measures should not exist.  I have not, for that matter, said swimming pools should not have to be fenced.

I am simply attempting to broaden the discussion to a more thoughtful level, something you seem to have difficulty grasping.


----------



## prawn_86 (6 July 2012)

CanOz said:


> While we are at it, lets remove the guards from machinery, the stop signs at intersections, the stop lights, the seat belts, and just trust that everyone will be responsible. What a complete and utter joke.
> The majority of the population is *irresponsible* and needs laws and regulation. Just look at the mess the banker/wankers got us into because they had zero regulation and no responsibility for their actions.




Nothing like a bit of over-dramatisation hey Canoz? 

There needs to be basic rules and safety, but there also needs to be responsibility for ones actions. If i get hit by a car when crossing the road, away from a stop light, then that is my fault. Instead they fine people for jaywalking to try and discourage it. 

If i chose not to wear a harness when climbing on a roof, providing the harness has been provided and i have been told the benefits, and fall off the roof, then that too is my fault, not my employers.

etc


----------



## CanOz (6 July 2012)

prawn_86 said:


> Nothing like a bit of over-dramatisation hey Canoz?
> 
> There needs to be basic rules and safety, but there also needs to be responsibility for ones actions. If i get hit by a car when crossing the road, away from a stop light, then that is my fault. Instead they fine people for jaywalking to try and discourage it.
> 
> ...




Yes Prawn, i embellished a little for effect....

People on the whole, the majority are ignorant, irresponsible, lazy, inconsiderate, self centered and emotionally unintelligent. They will think about a million other things other than their own and others well being in potentially dangerous situations. 

As in the example of a workplace, it is the full responsibility of the employer to safe guard the welfare of the employees. If you choose to disregard the rules for safety it is still the fault of the employer for not properly conditioning you to always think about your safety first. I was a factory manager in my past life and i can tell you when we first started to change our behavior and think differently it was strange to me. In practice we had to train our people to think differently and behave responsibly as well as physically eliminating all hazards in as much as practically possible. The employees would still be punished for not obeying the safety rules, but the fault was on us. If you cannot manage safety you have no business managing.

A court would not see your argument about an accident being the employees fault 'because they chose to ignore the obvious benefits', unless it was demonstrated that despite all the training and conditioning they deliberately chose to ignore the safety harness. Even then there have been cases where the employer is at fault.

Education and conditioning work far better than punishment, that i will say. We have laws so that those who take no head of the former suffer the law.

As far as regulation goes, bring it on. Society had demonstrated time and time again that without it, people suffer far more than with it.

Carrot/Stick

That's my last word...enjoy your discussion.

CanOz


----------



## Calliope (6 July 2012)

CanOz said:


> As far as regulation goes, bring it on. Society had demonstrated time and time again that without it, people suffer far more than with it.
> That's my last word..




I know it was your last word. but please allow me to comment. Your last statement is nonsense. Society has demonstrated time and time again that regulation leads to over regulation, which leads to totalitarian government, which leads to suffering. North Korea is a good example.


----------



## white_goodman (6 July 2012)

CanOz said:


> What an utter pile of rubbish:frown:.
> 
> While we are at it, lets remove the guards from machinery, the stop signs at intersections, the stop lights, the seat belts, and just trust that everyone will be responsible. What a complete and utter joke.
> The majority of the population is *irresponsible* and needs laws and regulation. Just look at the mess the banker/wankers got us into because they had zero regulation and no responsibility for their actions.
> ...




Banking and finance is probably the msot regulated industry in the world after say the nuclear industry, it isnt the lack of regulations, its the fact that the regulators are bought off/lobbied in bed with the people they are meant to be regulating.

Its amazing society was able to survive without a government to save us from ourselves in the early years of the western industrial societies.

You have the typical attitude that allows for statism (fascism, communism etc). Regarding some of your examples, name me why seat belts should be legislated? Who does it harm if i choose not to wear a seatbelt besides myself?


----------



## white_goodman (6 July 2012)

Calliope said:


> I know it was your last word. but please allow me to comment. Your last statement is nonsense. Society has demonstrated time and time again that regulation leads to over regulation, which leads to totalitarian government, which leads to suffering. North Korea is a good example.




statism ftw in canoz's case,

wonder how much he will be trumpeting when the regulation extends to his social behavior and what he is allowed and not allowed to do


----------



## white_goodman (6 July 2012)

The Role of Government in a Free Society


----------



## McLovin (6 July 2012)

wayneL said:


> If that is so, pretty much any death could result in a manslaughter charge as someone somewhere, it could be purported that some omission of some act resulted in the death.




Not really. The law is not a black and white thing.


----------



## CanOz (6 July 2012)

Calliope said:


> I know it was your last word. but please allow me to comment. Your last statement is nonsense. Society has demonstrated time and time again that regulation leads to over regulation, which leads to totalitarian government, which leads to suffering. North Korea is a good example.




When i think of regulation Calliope, I'm thinking of the differences between Australia and Canada, and the US in regards to finance. From my research on the banking industry in the US, I've become disenchanted with investment banking and the dilution and removal of laws in regards to banking. I certainly do not wish for a totalitarian government, but something more than of flawed US model. 

There are tens of dozens of examples where grown men and women willfully broke the law, exploited holes in the law or paid extreme amounts of money to have the law changed, to the detriment of their countrymen and of future generations. While i am certainly happy that i was not part of that, or able to suffer the consequences of their broken political system directly, i sympathize with them and share their disappointment of how the regulators let them down. Canada, under a social government has the best quality banks in world, due to reasonable regulation that forbids the gambling of the people's savings on 'innovative' self interested derivatives.



Cheers,


CanOz


----------



## IFocus (6 July 2012)

prawn_86 said:


> Yes i agree and have said as much, but the fact that a manslaughter charge can even be laid shows what a litiguos socitey we live in now.





Yes welcome to the United States of American we talk more yank than English these days and follow their culture very closely!


----------



## IFocus (6 July 2012)

Without passing judgement on the charges....

Just to remind people the reason for pool fencing is it saves lives lots of lives statistical fact.

For those that say hell to these laws I guess they have never found a child face down or at the bottom of a swimming pool dead.

What are the consequences when this happens likely depends if that child is yours or not and whether a fence would have saved his/her life.


----------



## Julia (6 July 2012)

CanOz said:


> Yes Prawn, i embellished a little for effect....



Thus inflaming the discussion unnecessarily.



> People on the whole, the majority are ignorant, irresponsible, lazy, inconsiderate, self centered and emotionally unintelligent. They will think about a million other things other than their own and others well being in potentially dangerous situations.



This can only be a reflection of the people with whom you mix.  My conclusion about my fellow human beings is on the whole entirely different.



> I was a factory manager in my past life



Ah, much is explained.  If your experience is in managing factory workers, then that's a whole different world from that which I've experienced and from which I draw my conclusions.
Pretty silly, however, to label all of humanity with the traits of those who are only able to engage in employment in factories.



> As far as regulation goes, bring it on. Society had demonstrated time and time again that without it, people suffer far more than with it.
> 
> Carrot/Stick
> 
> ...



Turned out to not be your last word.
White Goodman below has very appropriately responded.



white_goodman said:


> statism ftw in canoz's case,
> 
> wonder how much he will be trumpeting when the regulation extends to his social behavior and what he is allowed and not allowed to do


----------



## white_goodman (7 July 2012)

IFocus said:


> Without passing judgement on the charges....
> 
> Just to remind people the reason for pool fencing is it saves lives lots of lives statistical fact.
> 
> ...




once again you are arguing against a strawman, no-one wants kids face down in a pool, its the principle of the matter/law and how that can be used in other areas...

For example, many people are in favour of the same sex marriage law, I am very much against not due to hating gays or whatever, but because the government should not be legislating peoples personal lives and private contracts... prime example the 'fat tax' what a joke, its an attitude of "i (the champagne elite/govt)know whats best for you, even better than yourself"


----------



## white_goodman (7 July 2012)

CanOz said:


> When i think of regulation Calliope, I'm thinking of the differences between Australia and Canada, and the US in regards to finance. From my research on the banking industry in the US, I've become disenchanted with investment banking and the dilution and removal of laws in regards to banking. I certainly do not wish for a totalitarian government, but something more than of flawed US model.
> 
> There are tens of dozens of examples where grown men and women willfully broke the law, exploited holes in the law or paid extreme amounts of money to have the law changed, to the detriment of their countrymen and of future generations. While i am certainly happy that i was not part of that, or able to suffer the consequences of their broken political system directly, i sympathize with them and share their disappointment of how the regulators let them down. Canada, under a social government has the best quality banks in world, due to reasonable regulation that forbids the gambling of the people's savings on 'innovative' self interested derivatives.
> 
> ...





I wouldnt trumpet Canada's banking system too much, yes the banking crisis in the US caused concentrated (sub prime) disasters in housing, but Canada like Australia are levered to the hilt in resi housing and are a bigger house of cards as the funny money is much more systemic..

You say regulators let them down, so your argument is for more regulation? What happens when those regulators let you down even more? Who regulates the regulators? When will people understand regulators are controlled by the people they are meant to be regulating, they are lobbied jsut as easily as politicians. Who in the US writes the pharmaceutical bills/laws etc, its the pharamceutical industry, lobbying money has the greatest return profile of any investment in the world, its close to the inflated % returns as bottled water. How to remove this? Remove the incentive for people to lobby, if pollies and regulators dont have the power there is zero incentive to lobby? What a crazy idea huh!

The best and oldest regulation is if your company fails you go bankrupt and insolvent, you dont get bailed out.. heaven forbid we dont socialise losses these days and try a bit of true capitalism and tie managers (finance) to the fate of the company


----------



## Calliope (7 July 2012)

CanOZ will love this one. Perhaps we should be careful about criticising the Carbon Tax on this forum.



> The Federal Government has backed a major bakery chain's advice to its franchisees to take down Liberal Party placards criticising the carbon tax.



 ABC News

Brumby's boss has run into a whole new swathe of Labor regulations i.e. if you blame (or even suggest) a price rise may be due to the Carbon tax, they will get you. Putting a Liberal party placard in your window will also bring the regulators down on you like ton of bricks.


----------



## CanOz (7 July 2012)

Calliope said:


> CanOZ will love this one. Perhaps we should be careful about criticising the Carbon Tax on this forum.
> 
> ABC News
> 
> Brumby's boss has run into a whole new swathe of Labor regulations i.e. if you blame (or even suggest) a price rise may be due to the Carbon tax, they will get you. Putting a Liberal party placard in your window will also bring the regulators down on you like ton of bricks.




B_A_N_K_I_N_G not B_A_K_I_N_G 

CanOz


----------



## johenmo (8 July 2012)

Julia said:


> Ah, much is explained.  If your experience is in managing factory workers, then that's a whole different world from that which I've experienced and from which I draw my conclusions.




This is not a dig at Julia or CanOz.  The above says it all - our experiences shape our views.  Through the years I have worked and/or been responsible in factories, building sites, farms, Qango's, small private family company, large multi-national.  Have also been involved with community groups dealing with various sections of society, private and Gov't schools, board of a counselling centre.  So I have observed and dealt with very rich and very poor - as have  many people.

I can honestly say that in all the above people have taken advantage of loopholes in any legislation or codes, whether they be rich or poor, well or poorly educated, etc.. Even if rules and regulations are in place, some will disregard them and do what they want or can get away with.  It's the consequences of the actions that often have a big effect e.g. no seatbelt causing injury = medical expenditure plus someone having to clean up the mess; financial skulduggery (a.k.a. theft) resulting in losses to those who can't afford to lose it.

It's the enforcement that makes or breaks any rule.  If there were no police but the laws remained on the books society would deteriorate - we see it overseas.  The issue is: "to what level" should be regulate/legislate?

Unfortunately people in general have to be saved from themselves - either their stupidity, naivety/innocence , or the temptations, large or small, that come their way that brings out their dark side.


----------



## Julia (8 July 2012)

johenmo said:


> I can honestly say that in all the above people have taken advantage of loopholes in any legislation or codes, whether they be rich or poor, well or poorly educated, etc.. Even if rules and regulations are in place, some will disregard them and do what they want or can get away with.  It's the consequences of the actions that often have a big effect e.g. no seatbelt causing injury = medical expenditure plus someone having to clean up the mess; financial skulduggery (a.k.a. theft) resulting in losses to those who can't afford to lose it.



That's a fair point.  I think, though, that it depends on the regulation.  If it makes sense (eg seatbelts) then people will do it without much question.   

Some of the recent pool fencing rules, however, are ridiculous.  Example:  if you build a new house now, you have to have fixed security screens on even the high, small toilet windows.  Apparently a toddler can be smart enough and sufficiently co-ordinated to climb up on the toilet, then onto the top of the cistern (good luck balancing there, kid), then understand how to manipulate the flyscreen out of the window, climb up onto the window sill and drop that substantial distance to the ground below.  Now if you really think a 2 year old is going to do that, I'd like to meet that kid.  This is in addition to having the actual pool fenced, cost of which, btw, for a 7m x 2.5m lap pool is nearly $8000.

I  have a pool in the back yard.  There is a six foot fence controlling access to the back yard.
There are security screens on all front windows and doors so even if my dog's warning to stay away was insufficient, no one, kid included, is going to break in.   Yet I still have to have an additional fence around all egress from the house at the back, effectively fencing my pool off from myself.  Just madness.



> It's the enforcement that makes or breaks any rule.  If there were no police but the laws remained on the books society would deteriorate - we see it overseas.
> 
> The issue is: "to what level" should be regulate/legislate?



That's a reasonable question.   Do you think the pool fencing rules, as I have described above, are reasonable?




> Unfortunately people in general have to be saved from themselves - either their stupidity, naivety/innocence , or the temptations, large or small, that come their way that brings out their dark side.



This is where we disagree.  Of course there need to be regulations regarding basic safety, e.g. do not light fires in a drought where there is long grass.  Personally, I'd have thought that was so damn obvious you wouldn't need to spell it out, but apparently not.

In a variation of "The Nanny State" there's an excellent article in yesterday's "The Weekend Australian" by Frank Furedi, Prof of Sociology, about the 'disease' of bullying.  http://www.frankfuredi.com/index.php/site/article/560/
Extract:


> A close inspection of the claims made about bullying indicates that what they refer to are everyday troubles of human existence.  Workplace bullying covers a multitude of sins.  Virtually any negative, uncivil encounter can be, and is, defiined as bullying.  The vast majority of experiences branded as bullying are what used to be called workplace politics.  Bullying can mean deliverative destructive and threatening behaviour.  But in most instances it refers to the normal tensions and conflicts integral to the life of work.
> 
> Unpleasant gesture, flaunting status, unwanted eye contact, ignoring a person's contribution, pulling rank or making jokes at someone's expense are now experienced as bullying  In effect experts have redefined elementary forms of unpleasant and insensitive behaviour as bullying.
> 
> ...




It's along the same lines as the medicalising of ordinary human emotions.   It seems every episode of normal sadness following an unhappy event is now classified as depression and requires pharmacological intervention.

I don't know if anyone here can get what I'm on about, but it seems to me that in so many areas, our lives are being interfered with by various people who declare they know what is best for us.  Imo it's going to be ultimately counterproductive as we produce a society that has lost the capacity for its members to think for themselves.


----------



## Tightwad (8 July 2012)

I don't have a problem with fencing pools, in my state its been compulsory as far back as i remember.  

The issue is not just about who has access to a backyard, but the pool itself - with the risks being from children who live in the house, are visiting the house etc. who are unattended for whatever reason.


----------



## johenmo (9 July 2012)

Julia said:


> That's a reasonable question.   Do you think the pool fencing rules, as I have described above, are reasonable?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Pool fencing - a fence around it, separating it from the house -  yes.  This negates the need for the screens.  My Dad had this and it was fine.  If the backyard fence forms part of it, great.  I understand your setup and that's sufficient to me, but consider the  same setup with little kids where they can wander straight from the house to the pool - the child shouldn't pay for the parent's inattention.  But the window thing - that's crazy.

As for people needing to be saved from themselves - I used to have your view but changed it.  Third party injuries etc are sufficient for me.  But again, to what level??  Like CanOz did I work in manufacturing and I have seen people do stupid things, and some of them have University qualifications - so they are "intelligent idiots"!

PC has contributed to our precious society and like the article states about workplace bullying, true bullying and perceived bullying are now one.  And so it is with many things.  "Girly calendars" are gone - I had QC girls at one place who brought in their own "manly" calendar (at my suggestion).  The guys were not amused and seriously claimed they were offended.  It made the point and all calendars disappeared.

Julia - I agree with being cautious about over-legislating and (further?) creating a nation of wimps. My faith in humanity to live and work cooperatively is less than yours, I fear..


----------



## Julia (9 July 2012)

OK, thanks for response, johenmo.  I get what you're saying.  Just worry that the expectation of idiocy becomes the reality.


----------



## white_goodman (9 July 2012)

Tightwad said:


> I don't have a problem with fencing pools, in my state its been compulsory as far back as i remember.
> 
> The issue is not just about who has access to a backyard, but the pool itself - with the risks being from children who live in the house, are visiting the house etc. who are unattended for whatever reason.




its kind of an insulting attitude, who cares more for children, the government or their parents?


----------



## johenmo (9 July 2012)

Julia said:


> ... the expectation of idiocy ...




Julia - I laughed when I read the above.  A phrase worthy of remembering.


----------



## johenmo (9 July 2012)

white_goodman said:


> its kind of an insulting attitude, who cares more for children, the government or their parents?




Why is thinking that a pool should be fenced off within a yard insulting?  Only if you take it that way.  

Who cares more?  Depends on the situation - sometimes it IS the Govt.

Loving parents have taken their eye of the kids for a few moments, only to lose them.  White - do you have kids?


----------



## Julia (9 July 2012)

johenmo said:


> Julia - I laughed when I read the above.  A phrase worthy of remembering.




Glad to provide you with a moment's amusement, johenmo.  The tragedy is that I was entirely serious.


----------



## johenmo (10 July 2012)

Julia said:


> Glad to provide you with a moment's amusement, johenmo.  The tragedy is that I was entirely serious.




I presumed you were.  It's either laugh or cry.

But if society was to stop heading the way it is (sheltering people from themselves) and let nature take it's course and not provide any safety net, could society accept it?  E.g. I elect not to wear a seatbelt and have a bad accident - so because I elected not to wear it, medical treatment is no longer covered like it is now and I have to pay a substantial sum towards it.  I have pool which isn't secure i.e. there is an avenue of easy access and a child wanders in and drowns, then I face an appropriate charge of accidental death/manslaughter/maybe a whole new charge?

What I'm trying to say is not accepting idiocy as a defence and making people more responsible for their actions.  everyone should be responsible for their actions.

And if are becoming more of a nanny state, is the push more from politicians or the public?


----------



## bullet21 (10 July 2012)

johenmo said:


> What I'm trying to say is not accepting idiocy as a defence and making people more responsible for their actions.  everyone should be responsible for their actions.
> 
> And if are becoming more of a nanny state, is the push more from politicians or the public?




Except parents? If property rights do exist surely it's up to me to decide whether or not I put a fence around my pool. Why should government mandate such a thing? and if you don't want your kids drowning in my unfenced pool keep them of my property.


----------



## johenmo (10 July 2012)

bullet21 said:


> Except parents? If property rights do exist surely it's up to me to decide whether or not I put a fence around my pool. Why should government mandate such a thing? and if you don't want your kids drowning in my unfenced pool keep them of my property.




Re pools - Whatever the debate between various views, why should a child pay for with their life?  Partly sensationalist post but true nonetheless.  I accept that having a secure fence within a secure fence seems absurd.  
Consider people who accidentally back over (their) kids.  I guess one parallel to pool fences might be legislation saying you can no longer park within your own boundary and having a secure fence - creating a barrier between the kid and the car.  it might be absurd but technology exists to minimise this risk - sensors that stop the vehicle.  Make that compulsory instead.  The thread is more than pools - I feel that one rule is needed for all and it has to cater for the irresponsible.  Last comment on pools. 

Interesting comment on TV re the basics card - "if people act like babies then expect the State to act like a Nanny".


----------



## Julia (10 July 2012)

bullet21 said:


> Except parents? If property rights do exist surely it's up to me to decide whether or not I put a fence around my pool. Why should government mandate such a thing? and if you don't want your kids drowning in my unfenced pool keep them of my property.



Agree.  It would be quite a different matter if the pool was adjacent to the footpath and an obvious attraction to anyone passing.  

 How about if we extend the notion a bit further:    You live in a very safe neighbourhood and don't usually lock your front door.  You decide to have a bath.  You fill the bath and then remember you need to do something in the kitchen.  A kid trespasses onto your property, is bold enough to open the front door and walk through your house.  He sees the bath and climbs in and drowns.  

Using the example of the person who has just been charged with manslaughter, you will be similarly charged.

Meantime, the irresponsible parent who has allowed his/her child to wander around the neighbourhood unsupervised is not only absolutely not held even remotely responsible but will be the object of vast outpourings of sympathy.  

What madness.






johenmo said:


> Re pools - Whatever the debate between various views, why should a child pay for with their life?  Partly sensationalist post but true nonetheless.



johenmo, best to lay off the emotive stuff.  You can make an intelligent argument without this.



> I accept that having a secure fence within a secure fence seems absurd.



Excellent.  We are at least making some headway.



> Consider people who accidentally back over (their) kids.



That is not a valid analogy.
You are here discussing what a parent does with respect to his / her own child.
My concern derives from the innocent outside party who has no connection with the child. 



> Interesting comment on TV re the basics card - "if people act like babies then expect the State to act like a Nanny".



Exactly.  The problem is the state then legislates for those babies and in so doing impinges on the rights of all responsible people.


----------



## johenmo (11 July 2012)

Julia said:


> That is not a valid analogy.
> You are here discussing what a parent does with respect to his / her own child.
> My concern derives from the innocent outside party who has no connection with the child.




My recollection of the stats from when we had a pool was that in pool drownings the majority of children who drown are connected/known to the pool owner - either own child or of an acquaintance/friend.  If this is still the case, the unknown wandering child is a minority case.  Hence my use of the car as a poor analogy for a pool.  If it's not than I accept the correction.  

The analogy also related to the Nanny state thread.... e.g. legislate for mandatory reversing sensors.  Some may say this would be excessive.

The interaction between state and welfare is interesting. I admit to being split in my view over it's use.  My other half worked with 6 yr old kids some years ago who mentioned they got "cheerio soup" for dinner (Julia may recognise the term).  This turned out to be drinking the water the cheerios (cocktail franks) were cooked in - "mum and dad had the cheerios".  She came home so angry about this.  So I can see the intention but not sure if this card is the best way.  But I can't suggest a better alternative atm apart from more home visits.  What's your alternative?


----------



## bullet21 (11 July 2012)

johenmo said:


> The interaction between state and welfare is interesting. I admit to being split in my view over it's use.  My other half worked with 6 yr old kids some years ago who mentioned they got "cheerio soup" for dinner (Julia may recognise the term).  This turned out to be drinking the water the cheerios (cocktail franks) were cooked in - "mum and dad had the cheerios".  She came home so angry about this.  So I can see the intention but not sure if this card is the best way.  But I can't suggest a better alternative atm apart from more home visits.  What's your alternative?




MY issue isn't with state taking a stance in a child welfare case like this, I don't think anyone would say an intervention in the above would be a case of Nanny Statism. But if the state then views this example as the norm and not the exception, then it becomes an issue.

I personally think individual accountability would be the best way to deal with these things.


----------



## Julia (11 July 2012)

Johenmo, I don't know anything about 'the card' or whatever the story was on TV.
Perhaps you could outline what it's about?
If it's to do with protecting at risk children in a domestic situation, that's an entirely different matter from pool fencing.


----------



## johenmo (11 July 2012)

bullet21 said:


> MY issue isn't with state taking a stance in a child welfare case like this, I don't think anyone would say an intervention in the above would be a case of Nanny Statism. But if the state then views this example as the norm and not the exception, then it becomes an issue.
> 
> I personally think individual accountability would be the best way to deal with these things.




Agreed but the types involved don't care.



Julia said:


> Johenmo, I don't know anything about 'the card' or whatever the story was on TV.
> Perhaps you could outline what it's about?
> If it's to do with protecting at risk children in a domestic situation, that's an entirely different matter from pool fencing.




It's about income management - first used in the NT.  The Government aims to stop people spending their payments on alcohol, tobacco and gambling.  The Basics Card will also dictate which stores you can shop at. It can only buy ‘priority items’ at Government approved stores.  A recent report from the Ombudsman claims it hasn't worked.  I see it as the Gov't saying "we're helping you out with money, so here's some restrictions on how to spend it." - rightly or wrongly.  Those who are already fiscally responsible will see it as an impingement on their rights.  I can think of some that need this sort of interaction - so it should be on a case-by-case basis rather than a blanket rule.


http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/enablers/centrelink/income-management/basicscard


----------



## Julia (11 July 2012)

johenmo said:


> It's about income management - first used in the NT.  The Government aims to stop people spending their payments on alcohol, tobacco and gambling.  The Basics Card will also dictate which stores you can shop at. It can only buy ‘priority items’ at Government approved stores.  A recent report from the Ombudsman claims it hasn't worked.  I see it as the Gov't saying "we're helping you out with money, so here's some restrictions on how to spend it." - rightly or wrongly.  Those who are already fiscally responsible will see it as an impingement on their rights.  I can think of some that need this sort of interaction - so it should be on a case-by-case basis rather than a blanket rule.



OK, thanks for explaining.  The card itself seems entirely reasonable to me for people who have a history of spending their taxpayer funded benefits on booze, cigarettes, pokies etc.
The issue that I'd be interested in further understanding is whether the card is being distributed across an entire population, or whether it's just to those with a history of inability to budget properly for necessities.

Most of the NGOs who distribute food vouchers include the proviso on the Woolworths etc vouchers that they may not be used to buy any alcohol or alcohol related products, cigarettes/tobacco, or confectionery.

It's unfortunate that some people will need to rely on such a card but I'd be surprised if it was issued in instances of good management.

(For many years I volunteered to show people how to budget via a couple of charities.  People would come in week after week saying they just couldn't manage.  A few questions showed they had no concept of budgeting so they were offered some one-on-one appointments to show them how to go about it.  "Oh, yes, what a good idea, I'd really like that.  I'll make the appointment now.   May I have the food voucher today?"

Make the appt, client enthusiastically agrees to be there, the time comes and they don't show up.
Eventually you accept that they're never going to take responsibility and look for another way to avoid the taxpayer dollars being misused.)


----------



## johenmo (12 July 2012)

I now get the impression it's for special cases e.g. referred by DHS, Child-protection authority,youth and long-term recipients says the Govt website.  All the reports made it sound as if it was everyone.  

"The Australian Government recently announced that the policy of income management, currently operating in the Northern Territory will be trialled in a number of metropolitan locations across Australia. The five locations are: Bankstown, (NSW), Logan, (Qld), Rockhampton, (Qld), Playford, (SA) and Shepparton, Victoria. In addition, Kwinana in Western Australia, one of the other trial sites, has had Child Protection and Voluntary Income Management in place since April 2009. The Government has stated that these communities have been selected because of the high level of unemployment and disadvantage. The trials begin on 1 July 2012."


----------



## Julia (6 October 2013)

I was talking today to a mother with two primary school aged children.  She said that regularly her children are stopped from eating some of their provided lunch because it's deemed by the teacher as 'unhealthy'.
The offending items are sent home in a specially marked plastic bag with instructions to do better next time.

One of her daughters is pretty picky about what she will eat, and her mother has reluctantly conceded that peanut butter and cheese sandwiches are better than the kid eating nothing.  These are, however, returned by the school, as no peanut content may be admitted.

She seemed a pretty sensible and responsible person to me, not someone who would send the kids off with a bottle of Coke and some chips etc.

I'm all for a healthy diet, and in some ways can see some positive aspects to such a project, but it does seem demeaning to parents and an overtly excessive amount of interference by the State.

I'd be interested in what others think.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (6 October 2013)

Julia said:


> I was talking today to a mother with two primary school aged children.  She said that regularly her children are stopped from eating some of their provided lunch because it's deemed by the teacher as 'unhealthy'.
> The offending items are sent home in a specially marked plastic bag with instructions to do better next time.
> 
> One of her daughters is pretty picky about what she will eat, and her mother has reluctantly conceded that peanut butter and cheese sandwiches are better than the kid eating nothing.  These are, however, returned by the school, as no peanut content may be admitted.
> ...




If you delve deeply in to this story you may find that the teacher, knows a teacher, who knew a teacher who had a pupil who died from nut allergy.

Rare events have huge consequences in a nanny state such as Australia.

gg


----------



## Knobby22 (3 July 2014)

Subsidising nannies with government grants is on the agenda federally and being looked at by the Productivity Commission. if that goes through, we will literally be a nanny state! 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-...ilies-that-benefit-from-nanny-rebates/5569506


----------



## SirRumpole (3 July 2014)

> One of her daughters is pretty picky about what she will eat, and her mother has reluctantly conceded that peanut butter and cheese sandwiches are better than the kid eating nothing. These are, however, returned by the school, as no peanut content may be admitted.




Peanut butter and vegemite sandwiches were my staple diet at school, and there is nothing wrong with me.

(Except I usually vote Labor).


----------



## dutchie (3 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> (Except I usually vote Labor).




Its a heavy load you carry SirRumple


----------



## SirRumpole (11 September 2015)

*Are we living in a nanny state ?*

Drugs, pornography and bicycle helmets under Senate microscope as David Leyonhjelm's "nanny state" inquiry begins



> Drugs, pornography and bicycle helmets under Senate microscope as David Leyonhjelm's "nanny state" inquiry begins
> By political reporter James Glenday
> 
> Updated about 2 hours ago
> ...




I wonder if he's going to mention that dirty little deal he did on gun imports.


----------



## Tisme (15 September 2015)

Getting to see first hand what a 417 gets us, I'm not so surprised at this, but perhaps there is a case for a Nanny State:


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 September 2015)

I've seen quite a few silly things done with excavators but I've never seen one put in a van before. Not much more to say really, but I don't think that Workplace Standards would be too impressed.


----------



## Tisme (18 September 2015)

Fricken Penny Wong! I bet Cameron enjoyed every minute of this: 

It's a slap in the face for every warrior Scot out there, having someone use them as a PC goat. 

http://www.news.com.au/national/pol...ng-question-time/story-fns0jze1-1227531655033


----------



## SirRumpole (18 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> Fricken Penny Wong! I bet Cameron enjoyed every minute of this:
> 
> It's a slap in the face for every warrior Scot out there, having someone use them as a PC goat.
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/national/pol...ng-question-time/story-fns0jze1-1227531655033




It's getting a bit silly isn't it ?

A joke taken seriously, where is our sense of humour going ?


----------



## Tisme (18 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> It's getting a bit silly isn't it ?
> 
> A joke taken seriously, where is our sense of humour going ?




This is what happens when you put power in the hands of the staff ... they just look for causes of indignation and new knitting stitches to use as their victims are having their necks put in the lunette for trivial matters.


----------



## Tisme (8 June 2016)

Still biartching


----------



## luutzu (8 June 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> It's getting a bit silly isn't it ?
> 
> A joke taken seriously, where is our sense of humour going ?




Quite funny.

Even I thought what's his face ought to speak Australian when I first heard him. And I am not at all racist 

It's confronting hearing white people with accent - it's like watching Hollywood movies and US news with clips of Aussies speaking.


----------

