M64
More Nanny State Rubbish
December 10 2016
Comments
-
RHP User
8 years ago
For students who attend Brisbane Catholic Education schools.. All part of new risk management policies Q
-
Missb4u
8 years ago
You can't be serious! We should just remove all warning labels
-
RHP User
8 years ago
I unclick my seat belt in planes before the flashing sign goes off. I like living dangerously
-
RHP User
8 years ago
...those knobs on the planes who stand up to get their luggage from the overhead compartments before the plane has stopped taxiing. I wait smugly for the cabin crew to give them a bollocking. Same with people in the exit rows who keep having a chat when the crew member comes over and asks/tells everyone she'd like their attention. They dont take any attitude from cocky passengers.. 😊
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Remember when your baby would roll around in a basket on the back seat of the car, and sometimes roll out of the basket and underneath the front seats? (Happened to me - maybe that's what's wrong with me 😉) And now a child has to be in a child restraint until the age of 7??? Really it's all just a load of crap. They should just know that they are huge projectiles in an accident or their spines can detach from their skulls. I mean, what are we teaching kids these days? And taking responsibility away from the parent? Pffft
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Don't tell too many people but there are some good ideas for future Nanny state legislation to be found at the Darwin Society site...
-
MsJonesy
8 years ago
You won’t mind if natural selection does take you on a swim on the wild side? You don't want them to send out the search parties to find you? Oh...you do mind, you do want to be rescued? Fair enough....I 'm sure you won't mind paying the costs of the search then, because that would be ridiculously cheap compared to the price of a life jacket.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
I think you'll find this is all driven by lawyers and insurance companies. Like when schools and local councils removed treated pine from playgrounds, no definitive proof just risk minimisation at the cost of the taxpayer to minimise the risk to the aforementioned insurance companies. It's a racket !
-
RHP User
8 years ago
...there is a very basic reason why I will never need those services...I check the swell before I leave home (surfcams)...presuming all looks good, I go to my favourite spot and watch the water for 15-30 minutes before I climb down the cliff-face....the spot has a spike cemented into the rocks that allows idiots to tie themselves to the rocks that I never use....I watch to see if the waves are coming over 'green' requiring 'roping up'...the swell is dangerous in such circumstances and common sense tells me the Newport Arms is a better option...nothing hard about that....fools who cannot manage these basics should be charged 10-20 X the cost of rescuing them...if it were up to me I'd have a provision requiring dumb, rescued rock fishermen to sell their homes tp pay for the cost of the Westpac helicopter and support services to whom they owe their lives....that is far more likely to change behaviour than making the wearing of life jackets mandatory.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
(My dad dead-seriously told me once that the road rules were meant for people who weren't excellent drivers like himself.) That is hilarious 😂 I've never liked rules and always said they were made to be broken 😊 It has got me in the shit a few times. But so worth it.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Be able to do whatever the fuck we want..... Like drive at the speeds our speedos go up to..... But we can't, can we?? Cos some fuckstick who couldn't drive their finger up their arse, ran over a family..... The moral of the story, is that we can only move as fast as our slowest walker in order to keep society progressing..... Don't like it??? You don't have to.....but that's why I don't have stomach ulcers, cos I just shrug it off and think "meh, if that's all I have to be concerned about, life's good" - Posted from rhpmobile
-
PatchworkGirl
8 years ago
My grandfather used to call an expert a "former drip under pressure". His bad puns aside, if we could rely on everyone being safe if they just knew what the hell they were doing, Aron Ralston (of "27 Hours" infamy) would still be attached to his arm. I don't think there's anything wrong with safety legislations - especially when there is a risk of the legislating body being sued for negligence if someone does get hurt, and people assume that there was a duty of care. In this case, you aren't being told you can't fish, just that you might potentially need to wear a life jacket, just in case the unthinkable happens one day, and nature isn't predictable? I'd be able to see your point if perhaps you were being told that you weren't allowed to fish there at all, but we are just talking harm minimisation, not prohibition. I'd be more likely to think that the kind of "it's never happened to me, so it never possibly will" attitude is the idiocy here - it's the kind of mentality of teenage boys behind the wheel of a car, who think they'll be fine because they've never wrapped their car around a telegraph pole / right up until they do.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Ex is the unknown factor and spert is a drip under pressure
-
AnnieWhichway
8 years ago
Yep, I'm a real man. None of those faggoty life floaty things for me! I know the ocean. It can't get me! And did you know, i can lick pussy for hours.......
-
madotara69
8 years ago
If you do end up in the drink, all you need to do is grab hold of half a dozen or so plastic bottles floating around amongst all the other shit floating about. Safe as chips It's getting back out of the problem, if ? you haven't done your homework. Anyone needing a buoyancy vest that go fishing of the rocks, need a crash hat too. Mado Mado Tara xx
-
RHP User
8 years ago
...when i had the chicken pox, and i was taking the antiviral drug Famciclovir to treat it, i was given a few pages of internet advice by the pharmacist on dietry advice. Chocolate....no. Nuts....no. Brewers yeast....yes! I took that as a recomendation to drink my home brew beer. The sediment too.
-
boobsandbusted
8 years ago
what idiot invented speed limits it's the sudden stop that causes problems But in all seriousness ,it does seem far to many rock fishermen get washed off and take up a lot of search and rescues time,,when they could be looking for lost bush walkers .yeaaaa my taxes at work ,lol - Posted from rhpmobile
-
DynamicCouple36
8 years ago
There are plenty idiots there that have no clue . Who don't follow nor obey the law. Australia, like its big brother America, has become a highly litigious society. One has to cover ones own ass. Which is what the government is doing and the unions add to all the over regulation. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
DynamicCouple36
8 years ago
... - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
8 years ago
I'd be interested to know why they're doing this now, when rock fishermen being washed in has been a "thing" for as long as I can remember. What is the reasoning behind the life jacket requirement? (Although I do have to say that modern life jackets, particularly the CO2 canister ones, are soooooo inconspicuous, it isn't like the huge things of yesteryear). My question is, does the jacket make a real quantifiable difference? When a fisherman gets washed in, does he die from drowning due to being unable to float, or does he die from being dashed on the rocks, knocked out or drowned by the rough seas? Is the jacket likely to make it much easier for a washed in fisherman to self-rescue - and thus give us a cost benefit over cost of a proper rescue mission, and risk to rescue crew? If so I can see an argument. My gut says that the jacket is more likely to just keep the corpse floating after it's been dashed on the rocks, in which case I don't know that there is much benefit. (I read the coroners inquest, I didn't find it very convincing about the jackets, IMO there aren't stats out there - unlike the stats that were available for car safety)
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Just doing a quick google search and found an article published yesterday where a rock fisherman has been missing from Malabar Beach for over 24 hours. Search parties have been out looking for him, and he wasn't wearing a life jacket despite the new laws. Maybe it's not about rescuing, maybe it's about saving money on police divers, the corpse floating might save tax payer dollars? Maybe a more boyant body will make its way to shore thereby saving excessive hours on air searches? Regardless - it's a small price to pay in comparison to a fine or a life.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Quoting 'SoftandCurious'Regardless - it's a small price to pay in comparison to a fine or a life. That doesn't follow from what you've said though. If they introduced a fine on not wearing a life jacket while operating a shopping trolley - "wearing a life jacket would be a small price to pay to avoid a fine" - but should the measure exist in the first place? Would it achieve the stated goals? The only trouble with this one is that it is hard to gather good stats on whether the jacket sod help or not. The coroners inquest seemed to come in with a preconceived outcome/recommendation.
-
lily1970
8 years ago
Masculine 55 I bet your glad you posted this topic........
-
boobsandbusted
8 years ago
I'm Sure they did a pros and cons for it and pros won , sure some Situations a life jacket or a bike helmet may not help or even be detrimental ,but for the most part prolly good reason , Now if they bring in all bike riders must wear that awful fluro vest ,then you will see a whinging post from me ,I don't need cars to get a better line of sight on me before they try to wipe me off the planet ,grrrr - Posted from rhpmobile
-
boobsandbusted
8 years ago
I'm Sure they did a pros and cons for it and pros won , sure some Situations a life jacket or a bike helmet may not help or even be detrimental ,but for the most part prolly good reason , Now if they bring in all bike riders must wear that awful fluro vest ,then you will see a whinging post from me ,I don't need cars to get a better line of sight on me before they try to wipe me off the planet ,grrrr - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Maybe there's something regarding the reduction of cost for search and rescue? I'm sure you can find something 😉I haven't done enough research on it. Just throwing out a theory that maybe it doesn't have anything to do with live recovery. Regardless Mother Nature is highly unpredictable no matter how experience you have or how much research you've done. I figure wearing a life jacket for the sakes of being able to continue to fish a small price to pay. The fact is people being swept off rocks resulting in huge and costly search parties is a regular occurrence. Maybe there isn't any concrete data to support it. But it makes a little sense. Because clearly the stats aren't there that show it would be highly beneficial for preservation of life. But it might prevent resources being pushed to their limits. Whereas wearing a life jacket to use a shopping trolley makes 0 sense. Boobs_or_bust that would be annoying. The research on high vis is blurry. Depending on the time of day and whether it's urban or regional driving. its the same with the headlights on rules. I guess enforcement of motorcycle boots and pants, or jeans with Kevlar meeting minimum safety standard would be more beneficial looking at the stats of leg injuries. But we have a very different climate to European countries and that could cause other issues.
-
yankmychain56
8 years ago
While a life vest might be good 'insurance' against drowning, it doesn't prevent your head from getting smashed against the rocks, so don't be surprised when they pass legislation making in mandatory to wear a state-approved helmet (at a cost to pay the manufacturer and the legislators), so that you are 'safe'. Just more government bureaucracy. Eventually, they will pass enough laws so that everyone is 'safe', because we will all be painted in to a corner with nowhere to go.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
If you choose not to wear a vest, then maybe emergency services should choose not to save you. God forbid you should one day get washed off the rocks. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
8 years ago
First,...a couple of years ago a guy killed at my local haunt was wearing a life vest....how could this happen? Simples! When a wave picks a person up and washes them along the rocks and into and out of the various channels that are part of the formation, unsurprisingly, the person gets knocked out (if not killed outright) before ending up in the drink...and a life jacket is not much help if they end up face-first in the water...so, as some posters have noted, in such circumstances a life jacket is as much a way of finding corpses as it is a life-saving device. Second, one does not even need the swell to be up to end up unconscious in the water. Ever noticed the BLACK weed on rock platforms (not the green stuff)...black weed as is as slippery as ice and when one's feet go out from under one and one smacks the back of one's head with great force into the rocks...unconsciousness can follow (broken bones are common and it can be fun trying to climb a rope to the cliff-top with a broken arm). This is potentially fatal if it happens on the edge of the ledge, life-jacket or not. That's why I wear something called cleats, although one can also purchases slip-ons that are used for walking in snow in Canada. No m ore slipping around, falling etc...and it allows one to run when necessary. There's a whole lot of other things I do that are all part of a rock-fisherman's repertoire regarding safety...I watch the sets; waves come in patterns of regular-size with occasional out-sized waves among them...these out-sized waves are commonly mis-reported as freak waves. Freak-waves belong to the same class of animal as Yetis. I could go on....but my point remains...legislation aimed at eradicating stupidity is a pointless exercise and is to be loudly discouraged.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
For anybody who is a decent swimmer, wearing a life jacket could be a hindrance, even a death sentence, in areas with rocks getting dashed against the rocks and barnacles is the greater hazard, being able to swim clear might make the difference. In WA the dangerous rock spots have rings fixed into the rocks to clip on to, makes more sense than a life jacket as the harness is light enough to swim in, it might not stop you getting bashed about and lacerated though ! I remember when Tony Bulimore the sailor was rescued from the Southern Ocean, the screams and howls from the knockers whinging about the cost. I guess it depends on what kind of society you wish to live in, mean spirited and insipid or adventurous and inspiring.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
The problem is there's an increase in the number of boneheads who refuse to take responsibility for the stupid and/or dangerous they make. There are a lot of new laws that have come in that I'm not happy about (lockout laws in sydney for example) but I'm also not sure how else you handle adults who don't want to act like adults. It's easy to say let natural selection take care of them but what about the fuckheads that take an innocent person out with a punch or car? It's easy to blame the lawmakers, lawyers, and insurance companies for bringing in ridiculous nanny state laws which they deserve sometimes, but you've also got to look at how stupid and irresponsible people are and how to protect them from themselves or, at the very least, from the rest of us. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
Smilingwithfun
8 years ago
My 18 yr old son informs me that the reason we have airbags is that Americans refused to wear seat belts. Imagine how cheaper a car would be without airbags.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
The most horrifying thing people don't realise is that you're not necessarily projected forward in a car accident, seatbelts or airbags are useless if you're hit hard from behind, the car and/or seats project forward, you don't, sending you out through the back window. Local school teacher in a town we lived in, was clipped at high speed from behind, decapitated going out the back window, something like that anyway. Horrifying and devastating for all that knew him, students, family etc. But although there are variances with any accidents, how many lives have seatbelts and child restraints saved? Not to mention air bags, which I think are an amazing safety invention. On topic, with the rocks, I think the cost of search and rescue is the biggest issue. Massive cost involved, a lifejacket would in most cases reduce the cost by keeping the corpse afloat 😀😉
-
RHP User
8 years ago
BUT.. that is legal and legitimate.... I do NOT get recognised in the street as "Caveman - the astronomically good house builder"I fckn do NOT...And..Do you want to fckn know why???It is because, one day, I did something which USED to be legal, and some arsehole changed the rules..NOW... people see me coming.. and say.. Hello cavey.. you fckn goat fucker"fck rulemakers!!!!!!!!!
-
RHP User
8 years ago
...if you want to have a sensible discussion. Drawing analogies of seatbelts in cars and suggesting the case of life jackets for rock fishermen is the same overlooks the fact that one harm minimisation scheme applies to the entire population doing something ubiquitous while the other to a very small number of people in comparison doing something in many cases once or twice per year. We always go for the sledgehammer to crack a walnut I expect. One member's comment about the lock out la point this out quite nicely. Funnily enough I have an opinion on that Nanny initiate initiative a well, first-hand too because it is in my neighbourhood. I suspect if law enforcement had been handled properly, the perceived problem might not have eventuated. By handled properly I mean that if instead of dressing children in police uniform and having them march around in frightened phalanxes of 6, (2 lots of 3 abreast), older, hardened cops who were not frightened of patrons might've given the area less of a semblance of lawlessness...
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Quoting 'Koolgrey' ...those knobs on the planes who stand up to get their luggage from the overhead compartments before the plane has stopped taxiing. I wait smugly for the cabin crew to give them a bollocking. Same with people in the exit rows who keep having a chat when the crew member comes over and asks/tells everyone she'd like their attention. They dont take any attitude from cocky passengers.. 😊 Travelling around Egypt a few years ago, I found it pretty funny on flights around this country (and a couple of others in Europe).Here, when the plane is taxiing you may get one or two people stand up to start getting ready to disembark, they get told off, no worries.In Egypt, half the plane would get up and start getting their cabin luggage out before the plane had even touched down on the ground!! The hosts would try to tell them to sit down, but they couldnt get out of their seats and so most people would simply not listen and carry on.Crazy bastards.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Bloody vaccines. Filling up the bloody world with kids we can't afford to bloody feed. Don't get me started on bike helmets and safety goggles ....
-
AnnieWhichway
8 years ago
Quoting 'Masculine55' There's a whole lot of other things I do that are all part of a rock-fisherman's repertoire regarding safety...I watch the sets; waves come in patterns of regular-size with occasional out-sized waves among them...these out-sized waves are commonly mis-reported as freak waves. Freak-waves belong to the same class of animal as Yetis. I could go on....but my point remains...legislation aimed at eradicating stupidity is a pointless exercise and is to be loudly discouraged. You can watch set waves all day. Rogue waves exist. Not sure about the Yeti.One never knows when one will come. Different swells, different wave periods. there may be a 3 metre swell in the sea. If a 3metre wave happens to mix for a brief moment with a 4metre wave whilst transversing at different speed it will become a 7 metre energy force for several minutes. I know a family that have lost 3 family members over several decades to rock fishing on the shipwreck coast. You can only fish there on days of low swell energy. There is always a large set that is always 2 to 3 times the size of the significant swell height. It may have arrived before you got there. it may arrive 3 hrs after you start fishing. But they are there.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Is; never turn your back on the sea. Rogues or freaks are out there as are white squalls, half submerged shipping containers and boats on autopilot with no one on watch. Legislation won't change that. The question is how much do we infringe on personal liberty in the name of safety, I think vests and harnesses should be encouraged but not law as one size doesn't fit all.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
I appreciate you might think this law is stupid and unnecessary but you seem to be on a one track tangent. The suggestion or thought has been put forward that perhaps you and anyone not wishing to wear a vest sign a waver, waving your right to search and rescue teams having to spend a lot of money and man hours searching for your body. How do you feel about that. You keep coming up with points to support your opinion, but have failed to acknowledge the very valid points raised within this topic IMHO
-
RHP User
8 years ago
when the search and rescue could be better utilising their limited funds and much needed service to save someone who hasn't scoffed at the law and needs to be rescued
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Quoting 'that50zguy'<snip> The question is how much do we infringe on personal liberty in the name of safety, <snip>Yeah, great question. One which I have poured much thought into. Think internet security, street cameras, speeding cameras, heightened police powers, marriage rights....one could go on forever. But where is the line? When does it become a "nanny state".Its a pretty tough question to answer and completely personal, everyone will have a different opinion.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
The deaths of more than 70 people nationally since 2010 means it would be irresponsible for governments not to take action. This law may be inconvenient to seasoned people but: A: new people should be able to enjoy the sportB: seasoned people will have accidentsC: when something does occur and your selfish ass needs to be saved, the people doing it want to go home at night.... Some of the points so far: The point about life vests not helping when some is unconscious is completely untrue if you bought it in the last 20 years. Strong swimmers should be able to swim regardless of a life vest, and if you are struggling once in the ocean and magically haven't been injured you could remove it. You may know the sea, but you cant predict the future something something young police are kids....? probably the same age as the young cops 30 years a years... Fluoro yellow doesn't go with my fishing outfit... I may have made this one up.... If you want to talk about a real nanny state issue - talk about lockout laws and no dialogue on the real cause of violence in our streets/homes etc and why gambling would be exempt.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Using that logic if you get diagnosed with lung cancer you should be told to fuck off and die somewhere else ? Is that a society you want to live in ?
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Quoting 'centralcoast16' The problem is there's an increase in the number of boneheads who refuse to take responsibility for the stupid and/or dangerous they make. There are a lot of new laws that have come in that I'm not happy about (lockout laws in sydney for example) but I'm also not sure how else you handle adults who don't want to act like adults. It's easy to say let natural selection take care of them but what about the fuckheads that take an innocent person out with a punch or car? this is very different to lockout laws though. The "king hit" or ridiculously rebranded "coward punch" laws were also an epicly stupid bit of knee-jerk legislation designed to serve a news/election cycle. There were existing laws that easily dealt with the situation - had nobody ever had fights and died before? Even the attorney general disagreed about having the "one punch" laws in NSW and Vic introduced into ACT, it was soundly criticised in legal and academic circles ... but the most important thing about "good law" for legislators is that it passes the Daily Telegraph test. (Whether you're left or right, the broadsheets don't matter amongst the populace like a good ol' frenzy whipped up by the Tele) How closely did you follow the "one punch" legislation? You mentioned lockout laws, which have already been shown to have done nothing to reduce the violence, merely shifted it elsewhere outside the lockout zone (or to other times of the night). I know you said you disagree with those laws, but they were based on the same "quick rush it out in the news cycle" thinking that resulted in other flawed pieces of legislation. (e.g. the bikie legislation, put in place on the back of a downward trend in violent crime AND a sizeable increase in the police force) The world is drastically safer than it used to be irrespective of new nanny state laws - our assessment of acceptable risk is just going lower and lower and lower. But that is going a bit OT...
-
RHP User
8 years ago
The argument about the resources that need to be directed towards rescuing people swept off rocks is an interesting one. I'd like to know if there's any person here who can put up their hand and truthfully say that they aren't doing anything that may require them to use up publicly funded resources at some point (because they must be living an incredibly boring life).
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Considering this is your topic and you seem passionate about what has been called "Australia's Deadliest Sport", I wonder whether any stage tried to be a part of the solution? Saying you should be experienced, wear cleats etc is all very well and good. Some of the people who have lost their lives were exactly that (yes I read the Coroner's Report S). You mock the wearing of life jackets, but then say you don't even use the tie down spike for idiots. Are you part of a water safety organisation that's trying to make moves to keep fellow fisherman safe? Do you ever fish alone? Do you agreee with having angel rings at all well known fishing locations? Multi lingual signs warning of the dangers and advising where weather conditions can be checked? 60% of victims have been of Asian decent. Do you think that banning Asians would be a more useful option over a life jacket? I'm genuinely interested because people complain about things all of the time, but have rarely tried becoming part of of the solution. I agree the wearing of life jackets might not save every life that gets swept off the rocks. I agree that one solution isn't the only solution. I just wonder what other suggestions you have that would be helpful and pro-active. Centralcoast I'm kind of in agreement with S on the lockout laws 😳 There's research from different countries which was used along with testing areas in Australia that show either side of the argument. But I also agree something had to be done , although I don't know whether this was the right move. It's a shady area. It has proven to reduce the count of violent attacks inside an establishment, but not outside. I grew up with both of my fathers being bouncers at some of Brisbane's most nortorious clubs and venues. My dad was often rushing over to the Whiskey A Go-Go to lend a hand before the deadly fires. I've heard many stories over the years of altercations including a 300+ all in brawl outside the streets of the Lands Office. Alcohol fuelled violence has always been around. The issue is the increase of it. Because it's not only in out night scene but the stats on increased alchohol fuelled domestic violence have increased. It is because of better reporting, less tolerance, a change in hospital reporting from doctors? They haven't randomly picked it without researching other areas. The Gold Coast had a surge in glossing attacks. Reports have been flying left, right and centre. But there are other areas to consider also. The availability of alchohol, topping up before you go in somewhere, overcrowding, cleanliness of an establishment, behaviour of security staff, the monitoring of alcohol served during peak periods. These are also areas that have been found to have an impact on levels of violence. I don't know what the answer is, but I do agree that lives matter and sometimes it's better to try and be pro-active. Unfortunately the lock out laws were the easiest although most politically fired action that could be taken. It's very hard to legislate how security staff "best handle the situation" when each situation and person is unique. I do agree that there are a lot more "idiots" in general these days (sound like a grandma) and whether we like or not, sometimes their actions affect a much larger "well behaved" group of society.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
I'm somewhat sorry I brought up the search and rescue costs, I shouldn't have. That was idle wondering about an unintended consequence. Given the Minister flat out states in the first reading that it is about making rock fishing safer for rock fisherman, it's hard to say we should think of it in other terms, or to see it as anything other than a nanny-state ruling on adult rock fisherman. (I agree with the requirement for under 12's to not be allowed to rock fish from identified high risk locations... BUT under the Act, you can all have a picnic sans lifejackets with your 6 year olds _next_ to a rock fisherman, just so long as they don't try to catch fish. A rock platform suddenly only becomes so dangerous when you have a rod in your hand) Taking a child onto a rock platform people are frequently washed off seems like the sort of weird thing that falls under criminal negligence ITM: I don't think you'd know whether the body bobbing up in the water signed a waiver or not ;) Should adults be allowed to partake in activities they want to? I'm somewhat surprised this community doesn't extend the "let consenting adults do what they want" philosophy further.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
I'm not saying that I'm against the life jacket thing, I actually don't have a strong opinion either way as I know next to nothing about rock fishing and the associated safety issues / stats. I'm just pointing out that when you start advocating for people to not receive assistance / resources because of something they do or don't do, you're getting into very ethically murky waters (pun intended).
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Quoting 'S_OnTheLoose' I'm somewhat sorry I brought up the search and rescue costs, I shouldn't have. That was idle wondering about an unintended consequence. Given the Minister flat out states in the first reading that it is about making rock fishing safer for rock fisherman, it's hard to say we should think of it in other terms, or to see it as anything other than a nanny-state ruling on adult rock fisherman. and the costs of search and rescue / retrieval of bodies would no doubt be one reason behind the government's move, even if they haven't explicitly stated it and have tried to make it sound like they are completely altruistic.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
from what I recall reading this morning a rescue costs roughly $4.2 million dollars. A chopper alone is $3,850, and that include boats, divers and people on foot. But that could be incorrect. And that's why I had stated that life jackets might be not just to save lives, rather save money.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
There are a raft of areas to look into that they are in charge of. When children and the aged are no longer being abused under their care, I will recognise their ability to know what's better for me than I do. Peachy
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Chopper $3,850 per hour not including divers, boats and ground workers.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Quoting 'Summer_in_Sydney' Quoting 'Luck_Dragon' I'm not saying that I'm against the life jacket thing, I actually don't have a strong opinion either way as I know next to nothing about rock fishing and the associated safety issues / stats. I'm just pointing out that when you start advocating for people to not receive assistance / resources because of something they do or don't do, you're getting into very ethically murky waters (pun intended). Leaving someone to die not an option for any health service provider or other other service provider aiming to keep the public safe. We'd end up in the coroner's court explaining why we thought we had the right to decide a person's stupidity warranted a death sentence. (Hint: that would be kinda never). Rather than being allowed to choose to die. An aged relative suffering dementia got herpes in his eye while in aged care as well as suffering pain so severe they wished they were dying after neglectful care over a period of time... with the family receiving a bill over $1,000 for trips to hospital as a result, once the family caught on to what was going on with the neglect and insisted on proper treatment. He is a pensioner ffs, still stuck in the same home and now we take days off to to run him to hospital. Life at what cost? Think the government should be looking into their own business. But you'll be doing yourself a favour if you avoid putting yourself into lifetime care... so take care whatever it is your doing, for your own sake. Peachy
-
RHP User
8 years ago
...and I'm happy to continue to engage. Before I do, are there readers who are happy to range from principles to specifics and back again? As an example, the specific point I've been making about the folly of legislating against stupidity in the context of trying to legislate the wearing of life jackets by rockfishermen illustrates a broad principle anchored in political libertarianism the substance of which I will not rehearse unless there's a genuine interest. Mind you, as a prelude, I have been enthralled by the willingness of members of a website devoted to libertarian principles in the context of sexual behaviour to nonetheless advance very conservative (dare I say reactionary) defences of broadening the powers of the State when one's sexual predilections and preferences are not the issue.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
I completely agree with your sentiments and have seen it with my own eyes - my mother at 58 was forced into an aged care home for palliative care and although we were fussy choosing, one of the worst possible experiences occurred from negligence there. But I think it's best for another topic. This is more about laws preventing citizens doing things based on other people's behaviour rather than the failures of our system providing care and services. But I would make a great topic hint hint 😉
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Typical Nanny State Rubbish...you cannot legislate against stupidity. Anyone else out there wondering where/when this sort of idiocy will end? Dear Masculine, I hope I have read the intent of your OP correctly, that it it based on Nanny State behaviour with the rock fishing offered as the impetus that got you to post. I do realise I am coming somewhat from left field in response to another posters post when I suggest that the State has no business acting as a Nanny when they're such a failure in their own business. I did not actually expect any direct replies to it as far as the possibility of hijacking your post went. I did imply people should take good care of themselves on their own behalf if they don't want to be Nannied to death. Did you know we have far less bike riders since wearing helmets was brought in? So, rather than being the safety aspect it was introduced as, numbers show it has instead put people off bike riding altogether. Peachy
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Quoting 'SoftandCurious' from what I recall reading this morning a rescue costs roughly $4.2 million dollars. A chopper alone is $3,850, and that include boats, divers and people on foot. But that could be incorrect. And that's why I had stated that life jackets might be not just to save lives, rather save money. "could be incorrect". Actually 4.7 million seasonally adjusted against the Cromulent index* This is a good example of an earlier request in a different thread for people to fact check or give sources. It's stated in the Coroner's Inquest (and multiple news articles) that the "cost to the community" is "between $450,000 and $600,000". But "cost to community", which is a nefarious value that can mean anything - and I don't have access to the Ministerial briefing which it came from to see how they came up with it. The actual search and rescue cost is put to 60,000 - 100,000 - according to the Inter-Departmental Water Committee (1994) and restated in a 2003 investigation into rock fishing deaths 1992-2000. You can find it on NSW Watersafety site. (Frankly, the technology exists for that cost to be reduced MASSIVELY too, manned aircraft are a massive unnecessary overspending for the bulk of SAR activities) Soft - what relevance does it have if he is part of a fishing safety group? They just want to be left alone to fish. They're not crying out for a solution, they're saying "we know it is dangerous, we enjoy it, leave us alone". * completely made up number
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Peachy I replied to you to acknowledge your sentiments and agree with them, and you yourself have stated you came in a little left of field. If you took my response as an accusation of 'hijacking' someone's thread then you're mistaken. I merely suggested that it might make a good topic of its own. Can you clarify whether you're talking about motor cycle riders or pedal riders? Im just curious, not pointing out anything. S - I did say recall and my capacity to retain short term information is shot to shit at the moment ;) It was an article in The Daily Telegaph referencing a report from the NSW Government, referring the introduction of mandatory life jackets for rock fishing. It said every drowning death was a cost of $4.2 million to society. Apologies for not correctly using APA style to quote sources :p As far as being part of a water safety association it was a question. I asked him whether he had suggestions that would be more useful than 'letting natural selection take its course' because the people losing their lives are idiots or full of stupidity. Or what would be more beneficial in lowering the death toll that this sport seems to incur, rather than the powers that be introducing legislation that might not be all that beneficial. You don't like something, makes move to change it. That's my point. Jumping up and down and saying it's not fair might give a bit of stress relief, but what else does it achieve? The fact is that you have three choices when it comes down to it - accept and comply, go against the system and face the results, or try to be an active participant of change.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Forgive me for my directness and read my post again. Look at where I hope I read the OP's topic correctly in his heading and the question in his OP... and the words like 'somewhat' and 'possibly', and understand I am only bothered if the OP has a problem with my post, continued discussion about it's relevance, and what you think is 'best'... rather than the topic. My vision is that the Nanny gov't is a big fail. They make us live for our own good and then fail us in the execution of their own laws. and I'm talking about bicycle riding. That's a fail in several ways as far as physical excercise and benefit to the environment goes if the 40% reduction in riders soon after is anything to go by. It would make sense, to me, to have bike riders off the road and allowed passage on the footpath which could be shared between them and foot traffic more safely in my opinion. I support the idea of safety for our youngsters until they know better! It does make me wonder how so many of my generation survived though... Peachy
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Bicycles belong on the road, footpaths are ok for kids tootling home from school but for an adult moving at speed cars backing out of driveways will maim. I grew up on the roads in Melbourne traffic it's not that hard.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
What? Did you get a dictionary out to write that? Full of big words and hidden sarcasm, but your point was? And your last statement about sex and our opinions about this topic or I assume that's what you meant, what??? 😀 I need a drink 😛
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Now here's a kinky thought. Sex on the rocks lol sounds like a cocktail 😜😀 tie downs could be put to good use, no-one gets hurt and everyone goes home with a smile on their face. See, I should be a politician. And masculine, I'm blaming you for bringing sex into this, for once it wasn't me 😉
-
RHP User
8 years ago
The figures you quoted applied up to 2000, the yr 2000, is that correct? That's 16 yrs ago. Costs would be vastly different now surely? You may have been responding to Soft's comment and comparing apples with apples 😀 Are there any figures on current day costs?
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Bikes belong on the road unless you're a kid or a parent with a kid. Helmets will have saved countless lives, not just from death but from serious injury. The impact on the head onto concrete from a height of 2m at speed can easily kill. 40% reduction sounds unrealistic IMHO.... - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Quoting 'SoftandCurious'S - I did say recall and my capacity to retain short term information is shot to shit at the moment ;) It was an article in The Daily Telegaph referencing a report from the NSW Government, referring the introduction of mandatory life jackets for rock fishing. It said every drowning death was a cost of $4.2 million to society. Apologies for not correctly using APA style to quote sources :p a 4.2 million cost should surely set the bullshit alarm off - I already got my dig in about the Daily Tele a few posts ago before you brought it up, so I'll just say pretty much any fact or figure given by the Daily Telegraph should start the spidey senses tingling. (Considering that was only in the DT, whereas they'd earlier had the 450k-600k in multiple papers, Daily Tele to ABC). So, figures given: 4,200,000 (Daily Tele phantom source, "cost to society") 450,000 (multiple outlets, quote from Minister, "cost to society") 60,000 (departmental report, "cost of MAJOR rescue response") That's a fucking big difference when we go from "figures just thrown out there" to "actual cost". Taking the lower estimates, it's an order of magnitude each time! (I had a better response typed out last night, but it crapped out when I posted, so I thought 'fuck it' and went to bed :p ) Masculine: lesson learned about this place, now you know, it is incredibly conservative once you step outside the bedroom (or wherever the person conducts their sexy times). Maybe it isn't even that, in most of society I think it tends to creep in "once you step outside of peoples sphere of interest".
-
RHP User
8 years ago
That's why we rely on you to research and post the figures for us normally :p There's the figure of "cost of major rescue response" I take it that doesn't include any medical treatment or surgery expenses required afterwards, rehabilitation or counselling for witnesses etc? Does that figure just cover life rescue or is it inclusive of search and recovery of the dead?
-
RHP User
8 years ago
You'll find most people on here won't risk their lives for a fuck.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Quoting 'SoftandCurious'And that's why I had stated that life jackets might be not just to save lives, rather save money.I think your exactly right.I look at how hard successive governments have been pushing to eradicate smoking for several decades now.They've even said it plenty of times.The campaign to quit worked on me.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Quoting 'that50zguy' Bicycles belong on the road, footpaths are ok for kids tootling home from school but for an adult moving at speed cars backing out of driveways will maim. I grew up on the roads in Melbourne traffic it's not that hard. would it surprise you to know that actual research (not just listening to Roger from the pub, who presented a particularly poignant story) suggests there isn't good reason bikes shouldn't be allowed on footpaths? Most states allow adults on footpaths, it's only NSW, WA and VIC (AFAIK) that don't allow it - NSW and VIC are also probably the least progressive in updating their rules, QLD arguably the most, through their Center for Accident Research and Road Safety at QUT. I'm with you that I don't like the idea of the guys who dress like Tour de France rejects flying along the footpath trying to catch the peloton, it feels unsafe. The QUT research into e-vehicles on footpaths (segways, hoverboards, powered skateboards) found that "people just move out of the way" or the rider stops. I think there should be a leeway allowed for cyclists - they're not _always_ suitable for the road, and not _always_ suitable for the footpath - you can't ride quickly on the footpath, but sometimes the footpath is better than the road, even if only for a small part of the journey. As for mandatory helmets, I'm against that too. They've pointed to reduced cycle injuries following the helmet requirement... except the decrease in injury matched the decrease in participation. That isn't an increase in safety. Injuries actually increased when looked at against the number of riders. I'm not considering any environmental or exercise benefit, I'm not sure if that is a meaningful impact, it just isn't increasing safety so it is failing at what it set out to achieve.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Quoting 'S_OnTheLoose' Injuries actually increased when looked at against the number of riders. Is that head injuries specifically? What are the reasons for that, do you think? Goes to show how the vast the gap can be between what we would intuitively think about something, and what is often the actual reality. Too bad that intuition has become the main decision-making tool for most of our leaders.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Riding a bike was very much a baby boomer generation mode of transportation. Our ageing population is another reason the stats have dropped on bike riders ,along with helmets. It's also that roads are more congested, we have higher accident levels, people being distracted by mobiles etc, all of which put riders off riding on the road. And more parents are safety conscious when it comes to their kids - driving them to school rather than letting them make their own way on a bike. I for one won't ride on the road on a bike based on spending my whole working life in Brisbane City, and watching several collisions as week between cars and cyclists. I get that riding in the city is completely different to riding out in the burbs, but I won't let my kids ride on the road around here either. I live in a low socio economic area, so I see lots of people riding bikes - mind you they normally don't have helmets on anyway 😉
-
RHP User
8 years ago
I think stats can be used to sway an argument, depending on which stats are used, and I'm seeing that happen here. Interesting that you never responded to my question about the stats you were using which were based on figures up to the year 2000? That's not even relevant anymore and please, do you really expect us to believe helmets have no benefit. How about leaving adults out of your stats, who are more likely to die riding a bike at high speed with cars traveling at higher speeds, but for stats to be used responsibly, you need to be careful how you apply them. An example is Soft commented on less people riding bikes, having had children in the city, even as young teenagers, they don't ride everywhere on a bike the way we did when we were kids, not only because of road danger, there are other dangers, the world isn't the place it used to be. But stats are a rough guide, how we view them or what we take from them is a bit like astrology IMO whatever we want to take from them we can. I think you're throwing out statistics after a quick Google but So think you are failing to acknowledge knock on costs, or knock on effects, so many variables. For the record guys, I've always thought fixing off rocks like that is plain stupid anyway. How badly do you want that fish and would your family rather you bought one at the market and came home alive? Or do you need it for a hunting picture on here. all I'm seeing is apes beating their chests. As far as taking us outside our sphere of interest, what a load of rubbish. That's a bit condescending. We're here discussing it dude, safety affects our children, family, everyone, it always makes for interesting debate, but please don't be using stats in an irresponsible manner.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Lol 'fishing' off rocks I meant 😀
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Sounds like riding a bike to go fishing is out of the question
-
RHP User
8 years ago
When I posted, I had a vague memory of riding on paths becoming legal in WA earlier this year. But we can't have that according to the majority of opinion since I posted. I have checked and the law changed in April. I think it's great to get bike riders off the road where I believe they're in more danger from direct crashes and the fumes from the cars they are surrounded by. I also speak from my own experience considering lot of my jobs have required me to ride a bike for my work which was hard enough yakka without suffering the overheating that came with wearing a helmet. It also required a lot of going back and forth to doors and letterboxes which of course required a lot of riding on footpaths. The worst hurt I got in that time was running too fast down a cement path and scraping my knee. It was confusing reading a blog from 2016 last night with all good reasons for why we shouldn't have to wear helmets and then to read the finish that was based on personal opinion that thought helmet laws should stay. The stats I based my helmet wear on were from not long after the law came in until now. It is something I have kept my eyes on over the years because I don't agree with it being a law. From the stats I read early on... bike riding dropped dramatically because of helmet wear and in my opinion, there has been a domino effect from that making riding an unattractive option. I do like that there has been some change over the last few years geared towards making riding a bike more acceptable. Like the riding on the footpaths and the introduction of bike lanes. It's a great way to excercise the dog at their pace too. If you can't get to a place to let them off the lead. Peachy
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Reading back through... I do agree that there are good reasons for high speed bikes to remain on the roadway rather than the path... and believe that it would make sense to wear helmets under those circumstances the same as motorbikes are required to. I asked the Mr, why the rock fishing I touch. He tells me it's to be able to do deep sea fishing from shore. I know the guys don't get much success from the beach! So the risk is for the reward. Peachy
-
RHP User
8 years ago
You never got washed out to sea...I can swear I hear the ocean when I press my head to your ear. My hubby was a fisherman and stuff me he never got washed overboard...well ok there was this one time, in the middle of the dark night with a huge tide..but hey it was just the one time. And you know , ok so I did put the knife in the toaster, and well ok so what the fuses in the house went and I got this nice perm. We need our nanny because we are all collectively very naught grown ups, and should not be trusted with sharp objects or hard ones either, so have to unhand this penis, its dangerous. I get what your saying but its the overseas people, the young people the not so experienced as yourself that end up dead, and who wants to loose a loved one, no matter how foolish they might be?
-
RHP User
8 years ago
...in contemplating feedback I think I've found a sexual behaviour analogy that may get my point across. Imagine for a moment that the members of society who are not part of 'the lifestlye', (people who are 'vanilla' or who are Muggles, two pejoratives applied by some members to such people) put their minds to wondering about the potential harm that may come to sexually-liberated practitioners of sites such as this one, or better, clubs like Hellfire. What if they were to ask, 'how many divorces/relationship breakdowns, sexual assaults (whether between consenting adults in the name of pushing limits or genuinely unwanted)...happen as result of allowing these people who think they ought to be left to self-regulate being left to their own devices? You know what, we should regulate so that websites must display warnings, preferably with verified statistics, about the various misadventures that may befall the uninitiated? and instead of Dog Collars, let's regulate such that every patron as Hellfire must wear a medic alert type device, in case they feel they are out of their depth... It's all very well for experienced libertines to say 'hey' we're all adults, nobody is forcing anyone to do anything"...but...unfortunately...there are many innocents who are nonetheless damaged as a consequence of them believing that despite their ignroance and innocence they nonetheless should be allowed to exercise what they believe is their right to engage in libertine sexual behaviour...This just won't do! Warnings and medic alerts are a reasonable burden to impose in the name of protecting these innocents. Now imagine this level of socio-political meddling and its attendant regulatory/legislative justification being applied to any human activity deemed potentially harmful that involves human ignorance, innocence or stupidity...and i think perhaps my point might be clearer. Oh, Annie, I can't help but respond to your comment about freak waves and the example of 3 metre waves turning into 7 metre waves...nobody in possession of their faculties would choose to fish off the rocks on the East Coast of Australia in a 3 metre swell (except for places like Kurnell where people fish off the clifftop, and No...they do not wear safety harnesses...I don't do it, but...in my books they are candidates for natural selection but...) Regards to all.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
"The risk is for the reward." Thanks Peachy..That is the point of it all. That's why I ride motorbikes( dressed appropriately, of course...I prefer to minimise risk ),go exploring alone or have a dabble on the ASX.I think Risk is relative for each of us...weighing up what we have to lose. Which seems to increase with my age...but the thrill increases too.There's an equation in there somewhere..
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Get a note from your doctor or mum, to say no way can I ever have a think ,about will this save my life. sign a waver to say if I am floating around in the ocean please let me just get all bloated and feed the fish. Remember gun laws? It was to prevent more people getting killed. Its not rocket science, prevention is better than, fishing a corpse out of the ocean and telling their loved ones. and nurse any doctor any rescue person who has to be at the coal face of a twist of fate will tell you. Take what ever precautions you have, to come home safe to those that love you. Like some have said, balance the risk with some risk managment
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Quoting 'thetryst' Get a note from your doctor or mum, to say no way can I ever have a think ,about will this save my life. sign a waver to say if I am floating around in the ocean please let me just get all bloated and feed the fish. Remember gun laws? It was to prevent more people getting killed. Its not rocket science, prevention is better than, fishing a corpse out of the ocean and telling their loved ones. and nurse any doctor any rescue person who has to be at the coal face of a twist of fate will tell you. Take what ever precautions you have, to come home safe to those that love you. Like some have said, balance the risk with some risk managment the gun laws were very different, they're to prevent OTHERS being killed by the guns, the worry wasn't that gun owners were going to be shooting themselves. Port Arthur wouldn't have even made the news outside Tasmania if "troubled local committed suicide in rural area". You're justifying the decision on it being unpleasant for others, and talking about prevention, but failing to address the fact that having a picnic on the very same rock shelf with your 5 year old is not in breach of the Act. The ONLY time I get in trouble on that high risk area is if I'm fishing. You could get your family to sit next to you and so long as they weren't helping you, they don't need a jacket on. (How many people actually read the act they're talking about?) Closer to home for RHP - did you know that BDSM lives in murky legal waters? There still hasn't been any really clear law around BDSM differing to R v Brown so for all those kinksters who engage in the nasty stuff, the law still says "it doesn't matter if you consent, adults in private can't do what they want with each other, Put the cane down and step awayyyyy from the buttocks". Nobody was dying for a fuck, they just got off on hurting themselves, the law said no you can't, go to jail and don't collect $200. (ITM: my posts were up before either of yours were even visible on the forum, you know how the forum works)
-
RHP User
8 years ago
It would be down to risk management wouldn't it. I've seen some seriously out there bike riding on cliff edges that has you gasping at the daring! And the problem at hand is laws are made because of the weak links in the chain a lot of the time. For some it is going to make perfect sense to be more wary. I can assure you Master 8 doesn't get around without a helmet. Peachy
-
RHP User
8 years ago
I completely agree that being able to have a picnic as long as you're not holding a rod in the same area they are mandating life jackets is ridiculous. I wonder if there are statistics to show fishing vs other behaviour mortality rates in those areas? Masculine - I get the point you're trying to make however you need to compare rods with rods. I've tried to find factual information/statistics on the number of deaths per year resulting from engaging in sexual activity (S might be able to). Because the laws on life jackets have been introduced with the aim to reduce mortality rates. If you want to compare the two 'risk taking' activities, your argument needs to be supported. Bike riding was mentioned and the facts about safety legislation vs reduction in mortality has been discussed which was a good comparison.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Wouldn't holding someone's rod come under public decency ?
-
RHP User
8 years ago
As I said before... I think this thread is based on Nannyism in itself rather than specific examples. It's not all about life and death but harm reduction of negative outcomes according to the powers that be. A definition of Nanny state is... "a government perceived as authoritarian, interfering or over protective." For eg: some might say the fora is a nanny state with the deletion of threads and posts regularly as well the withdrawal of posting privileges. I thought to compare how restricted RHP picture approval can be these days compared to years previous because of agreements with Apple and Google who don't want no (yes that was a deliberate double negative) tits and arses according to the most recent input by the RHP Editor this month. Advanced search will find that easily enough or I can copy and paste when I'm on the pc later. Peachy
-
RHP User
8 years ago
So what can be done about it? As I said before it's completely normal to have a whinge about it especially if it's affecting you. But is that where it's left? Do we just expect the powers that be to make the right decisions every time (I for one don't) And when they don't get stroppy and emotional about it, which only causes us an issue - does nothing to the people who made the decision. Or are you one that tries for change even though you're only one person. I remember my cousin and I years ago used to get into debates about various societal issues. He would rant and rave and wave his arms about. When I'd say the same thing to him he'd say "Well what can I do about it?" One time I told him to write a letter to his Minister about something. His attitude was what's one letter going to do? I said to him - what if 100,000 people wrote and made complaints about the same thing? I'm not saying protest in the streets and set fire to your cleats (I know they are metal it just sounded cool), but change occurs with action.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
May well be a nanny state given the posters are mostly female as are the moderators. Or perhaps it's a maternal dictatorship ? Ok ok, back in the naughty corner. 😞
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Quoting 'SoftandCurious' So what can be done about it? As I said before it's completely normal to have a whinge about it especially if it's affecting you. But is that where it's left? Do we just expect the powers that be to make the right decisions every time (I for one don't) And when they don't get stroppy and emotional about it, which only causes us an issue - does nothing to the people who made the decision. Or are you one that tries for change even though you're only one person. I remember my cousin and I years ago used to get into debates about various societal issues. He would rant and rave and wave his arms about. When I'd say the same thing to him he'd say "Well what can I do about it?" One time I told him to write a letter to his Minister about something. His attitude was what's one letter going to do? I said to him - what if 100,000 people wrote and made complaints about the same thing? I'm not saying protest in the streets and set fire to your cleats (I know they are metal it just sounded cool), but change occurs with action. I won't go into much detail here, but I have done just that. I wrote to all relevant Authorities within my then employer organisation to blow the whistle on numerous issues including large scale systematic fraud and repeated serious personnel safety breaches (per documented internal mandatory procedures, contractual obligations, and Legislative/Legal obligations). This led to a closing of ranks within the management staff of my organisation, yet more lying and cheating in attempt to cover up, and ultimately my dismissal from their employ. (Many colleagues had frequently complained behind the scenes of these issues in the workplace, but I was the only Mug prepared to act. I have learned some others also have been manoeuvred/manipulated to either resign or be dismissed). Relevant external Authorities failed/refused to take any action despite an overwhelming abundance of evidence, and the Ministers of relevant Government Departments remained silent. A related NSW Legislative Council inquiry to which I made Submissions and which I attended was really somewhat feeble to say the least. (My then employer is a major multinational who deals exclusively B2B and B2G, and is a donor to both major political parties). I pressed the issue and did have something of a win, but Justice was not truly served. All of that said, I would not recommend protests in the street either. I've learned a great deal more about the Law in the years since my dismissal, and have been (and will be) more effective in the Legal fights I take on in future.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
(past, present, future) not in error re: "...have been (and will be) more effective in the Legal fights I take on in future." During my studies, I have effectively prepared and successfully fought some matters, and I have effectively prepared for yet more legal matters I will launch next year. Not so much Rockfishing, but I am gonna reel in some (more) big fish. (Read Sharks). I'm taking a Long Line. (Another song springs to mind: 'All I Can Do is Write About It' Lynard Skynard).
-
RHP User
8 years ago
You're not even worth it, I'd hate to waste my female nannying breath on some dim-witted online persona who won't even show themselves.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
As much as your situation didn't have the outcome you had hoped for, you were proactive in the pursuit of change. Although your action was quite more than most would take, you didn't just sit back and play wounded.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
..."Allowed to occasionally plow some fields.." Love it.Like, we're occasionally given the the keys to the lawnmower..
-
RHP User
8 years ago
I'm sorry you got so outta shape by my humorous light hearted little dig, but you did kinda prove a point, would I have got away with such a personal spiteful attack ? I doubt it. Hope you feel all better now. SS, accusing me of being a Trump supporter now that's low ! And a pretty long bow to draw, I can only offer some of my other postings in other topics as my defence. Have a beautiful day.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
So sorry, it's hard to keep track of the myriad ways people choose to be offended.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Quoting 'Summer_in_Sydney' Sydney? And SS again? So silly. but "Sydney" was my name, "Syd" before it shortened to "S" - your new moniker is rather suggestive in an outrageous manner ;-)
-
RHP User
8 years ago
I thought about throwing together a rough pun in recognition of the "Sydney" reference. But 123 it was gone. Peachy
-
RHP User
8 years ago
I am proactive in certain areas and have been part of making differences. I am proud of that. Things like fighting the ejection of a small F&V shop with a long time residence and splendid service from a shopping centre in favour of the Coles liquor store they wanted to introduce. F&V and the small human won. Peachy ... gotta love that shit
-
RHP User
8 years ago
...I caught 7 Yellowtail Kingfish at my favourite haunt. Unfortunately, they were small...ranging from 40-55 cm. The minimum size for Kingies is 65 cm, so I released them. The swell was Ok...only 2-4 ft...I went back on Sunday and the swell was 4-6 ft, so, after watching from the cliff-top for 15 minutes I concluded it was unsafe to fish. Happy festive season to all!
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Quoting 'PeachyPearL' I thought about throwing together a rough pun in recognition of the "Sydney" reference. But 123 it was gone. Peachy lol, good memory (or googling) there Peachy :) Summer - you've been reading my dream journal haven't you ;) (and now legal in all states and territories - just to keep it on topic of nanny state laws dubiously 'protecting' consenting adults :p )
Boards
-
Hot Topics
Topics: 14361 Comments: 120840
-
Girls Ask
Topics: 1355 Comments: 14709
-
Guys Ask
Topics: 2425 Comments: 17234
-
Couples' Corner
Topics: 2405 Comments: 12737
-
Swingers Lifestyle
Topics: 794 Comments: 5154
-
Fetish & Fantasy
Topics: 1148 Comments: 6957
-
Hot Travel
Topics: 622 Comments: 2145
-
LGBT
Topics: 156 Comments: 1150
Forum help
-
Something related with that
-
Going somewhere & want to hook up?
-
Hasn't that topic been posted before?
RHP's popular dating tool
-
Where the heck did that topic go?
Discover what RHP is doing offline
-
RHP member's RL secrets
reply
like
Share