shannonsays.com

"Business as Usual"?

 "We have just got to react calmly and continue with our business as much as possible as normal."

That was Tony Blair in response to the recent attacks in London.

But from what I have been reading it seems that it is anything but "business as usual" in London, and it is far from "business as usual" or calm here in Australia.

In the last week we have been inundated with ideas and plans on how our Governments and authorities intend to respond, including increased number of CCTV cameras in our capital cities, random bag searches on public transport, a National ID card,  questioning students who borrow "terrorism books" from libraries, and we'll probably even hold a national security convention.

That doesn't send a message that it is "business as usual" does it?

It really says that we should suspect everyone, (and everyone should suspect us) as being a potential terrorist, until they can prove otherwise.

Now I understand that people are nervous, and that we expect our politicians and leaders to implement measures that protect our well being and safety.  But it appears to me that in the space of a week our politicians have latched onto this nervousness and fear and are talking about a stack of measures almost just for the sake of doing something... anything. 

But many of these so-called "security measures" have the potential to do nothing more than further eroding the levels of trust we have in one another.  And they are particularly dangerous here in Melbourne, where we have such a diverse mix of cultures and ethnicity's.

We'll end up looking at each other with sideways glances and increased suspicion, hardly a healthy way of living together, and hardly business as usual.
 

Defamed by a Crossword

Yesterday a NSW Supreme Court jury found that Sydney business identity Abe Saffron  had been defamed by the clues and solution to a crossword puzzle published by the Gold Coast Bulletin over two days in January last year.

Saffron's lawyer Clive Evatt,told the jury that defamatory statements could take many forms: "oral, written, cartoons, the cinema, burning an effigy, statues, waxworks... this one is a crossword puzzle."

According to the evidence clue number three down read: "Sydney underworld figure, nicknamed Mr Sin (3,7)."

The following day, the solution to that brain teaser was published: "Abe Saffron." The two imputations pleaded came straight from the clues:

(a) The plaintiff is a Sydney underworld figure

(b) The plaintiff is nicknamed "Mr Sin"

Evatt said that people are more likely to believe defamatory statements; "They can make a person's bad reputation even worse." He said that it was "a serious matter" to describe someone as Mr Sin, because it says "his activities are of an amoral nature."

The jury didn't entirely agree. It found that being called Mr Sin was not defamatory, but to be described as a Sydney underworld figure is....  The damages are yet to be decided.

So who is this guy anyway?  After a  quick search on the internet I found out that he has been dubbed Mr Sin because his behaviour has been consistently bad over many years; he has an unsavoury reputation; was convicted of tax evasion over a 13-year period, served 16 months imprisonment, and there have been adverse findings against him by various Royal Commissions and inquiries since 1951.  So what type of reputation he is trying to protect is anyone's guess.  Or maybe that's what his lawyer meant by "making a bad reputation, worse"

But it got me thinking about other Crossword Clues we could have."Disgraced Former Businessman", "Infamous Sporting Star", "Colourful Sydney Racing Identity" or "Aging Rocker".  Try googling any of those...

Any other suggestions?

The Sydney Shandy

From the SMH:

Respondents were asked whether they were "very comfortable, mildly comfortable, mildly uncomfortable or very uncomfortable with drinking recycled sewage, including toilet water, that is treated to drinking-water quality". Only 12 per cent said they were very comfortable, and a further 17 per cent were mildly comfortable. Sixty-eight per cent were uncomfortable.

But respondents were more open to drinking recycled water if it was mixed with rainwater in Warragamba Dam. Some 48 per cent supported the "shandying" option, while only 44 per cent opposed. Six per cent neither opposed nor supported the option, and 2 per cent said they were unsure.

The "shandying" option?  Hopefully this "Sydney Shandy" has a good bouquet, is easy on the palate and, ahem, a low viscosity.

(via Imagining Australia)

From the SMH:

Respondents were asked whether they were "very comfortable, mildly comfortable, mildly uncomfortable or very uncomfortable with drinking recycled sewage, including toilet water, that is treated to drinking-water quality". Only 12 per cent said they were very comfortable, and a further 17 per cent were mildly comfortable. Sixty-eight per cent were uncomfortable.

But respondents were more open to drinking recycled water if it was mixed with rainwater in Warragamba Dam. Some 48 per cent supported the "shandying" option, while only 44 per cent opposed. Six per cent neither opposed nor supported the option, and 2 per cent said they were unsure.

The "shandying" option?  Hopefully this "Sydney Shandy" has a good bouquet, is easy on the palate and, ahem, a low viscosity.

(via Imagining Australia)

The Ultimate Test: The Ashes

The much anticipated First Ashes Test is almost upon us.  It is panning out to be a genuine contest, a rarity in recent Ashes Tests.

The beauty of this Ashes campaign is the level of confidence displayed by the poms.  They're a cocky lot this current team, unlike the timid and divided mobs that they have hobbled together to face the Aussies in the past four series'.  Michael Vaughn, Andrew Flintoff, Steve Harmison, Marcus Trescothick et al fancy themselves against Ricky Pontings World Champions. Afterall, they did beat the might of Bangadesh in a two game series....

We'll see.  But surely, pound for pound, player for player, the Aussie line up looks the better of the two?

It's interesting how the Ashes stir up the Australian "colonial inferiority complex" against England.  We always feel like the underdog against the Mother Country.  That's why beating England (at anything) is a big deal.  And beat England is something we do with almost boring regularity.  We have continually thrashed England at cricket since 1989, but we don't pity them or will them on towards putting up a contest.  A perfect Ashes series is Australia 5-0, every game won inside four days.  Contest, bah!  Let's see Warne bowl six "Gatting Balls" every over.

So here's hoping that the Aussies will win, and prick the balloon of this British buoyancy.

Free! Legal advice for Schapelle Corby

As Schapelle Corby prepares to again protest her innocence in a Bali court, Peter Faris QC takes a look at what her defence team should be doing:

Schapelle Corby and her lawyers were recently given an opportunity by the Appeal Court to call more evidence to establish her innocence. They now say they need an adjournment for two weeks. Here's some of the evidence an innocent person would (and should) collect over those two weeks.

Her character. Most people would not have the knowledge or contacts to be able to obtain such a large quantity of marijuana. She should give sworn (truthful) evidence that she has never used drugs, never associated with people who do and that she is completely opposed to drug use. Her friends and family should all give evidence that corroborates her.

Her family and friends. They should all give evidence that they didn't own the drugs and that Schapelle was not being used to move drugs for them. In particular, the sister and her Indonesian husband should give evidence that they don't use marijuana and that drugs were not destined for them, either as a gift or for sale.

The board and bag. What is the history of purchase? Who owned it? Had Corby ever used it? Had she ever taken it overseas before (and to Bali before)? Why did she need it in Bali? Do the sister and husband have easy access to similar boards?

Luggage packing. Who packed her luggage prior to this trip? Who packed the board? Most importantly, who had access to the board? All her family and trip-friends should be called. Evidence should be led that when they saw the bag before check-in at Brisbane it was not “pregnant” – that is, there was obviously nothing packed in it. Who carried the bag at any time between packing and check-in? Did the weight and size seem normal?

The airports. Subpoenas should be issued (either in Indonesia or within Australia) to obtain the airline records of rosters for the relevant baggage handlers at Brisbane and Sydney international airports. All these people need to be subpoenaed to give evidence so that the allegations can be put to them. Alternatively, her lawyers should request that the Australian Crime Commission investigate each of these handlers and call them in for compulsory evidence. It's probably too late to get the airport videos – that should have been done on day one. In Indonesia, the baggage handlers and other staff with access to the baggage should be identified and interrogated. The backgrounds of the “lying” airport staff who gave evidence against her should be investigated.

The marijuana. This should be tested in Australia to determine its origin.

You'd think Corby's team of hack-lawyers would have come up with it themselves, instead, they have become just another sideshow act in the Corby Circus, a line up that includes her profiteering family, an infamous mobile phone salesman, a salivating media throng other assorted other hanger-on-erer's.

Anyway, the whole lot are about to be paraded around again in a couple of weeks.  But the question needs to be asked, do we still care?

Sydney's Fashion Police

Found this in last weeks Reader:

"An undercover Louis Vuitton detective has unearthed a fake European bag racket operating out of the well-to-do Sydney suburb of Dover Heights, after getting wind that Jacqueline Sharon Feilich's Tupperware party was not selling Tupperware. Police raided the party and found 53 fake French bags with an original "street value" of $250,000. Feilich was fined $5,500 and placed on a good behaviour bond."

I often wondered why Tupperware was undergoing a renaissance.  I thought it might be because all the mum's who bought the plastic kitchen tub's in the 70's and 80's just needed new lids to replace the lost ones. 

Now the truth is out.  Wonder what else is sold under the guise of Tupperware?

Any tip offs?

Is Your Boss a Psychopath?

It's Monday, so it seems appropriate to take the test and find out if your boss really is a psychopath...

Whatever the result, he/she couldn't be as bad as this lot.  But if they are, help is at hand.

The Car Dealer & The Blogger

One of the cool things about having your own website and blog is that you can vent your spleen whenever you like, and take aim ot whoever you like.  But spare a thought for Mr English and domain name registrar Go Daddy.

Mr English is a disgruntled customer of Hunter Holden, a car dealership on Sydney's lower north shore. This follows a run-in last February after his car, which he'd left for servicing, was stolen from the Hunter premises. Adam Kaplan, director of Hunter Holden, placed the matter in the hands of his insurers and arranged a replacement vehicle for English. The insurer sought to settle the claim without an admission of liability and offered to pay Mr English the indemnity value of the car at the time of loss.

But Mr English wasn't happy with that offer, and this being the dotcom age and all, he decided to take his customer complaint one step further and established a website called www.hunterholdensucks.com which included an invitation to “share your comments about Hunter Holden Automotive.”

Surprise, surprise, Kaplan wasn't all that impressed, so he successfully sought a court injunction in June to close down the website. That was later upheld in the NSW Supreme Court in Adam Kaplan & Anor v The Go Daddy Group Inc & 2 Ors, where Justice White said that English had established the site for "the purpose of disparaging the second plaintiff, its business and products," referring specifically to the word “SUCKS” that was displayed in large letters across the top of the website.

But what about free speech? Well, that argument didn't wash with the judge because "the name of the website and the comments posted on it do not relate to matters of public interest or concern.” In other words, English's website must remain shut down.

The moral of the story? Be careful what you blog. As for Hunter Holden's website (same address without the word "sucks"), it boasts of their customer service but does make one unusual admission: “We know we are not perfect, but we will always take action when things go wrong.”

(via Crikey)

Sydney's Most Exclusive Magazine

So when is exclusive, exclusive?

Sydney high fliers who are feeling a bit cut off or marginalised now have a publication just for them, a magazine that wears its dollar signs on its sleeve. It's called 100k+ and is created for people who want more – or so says the blurb.

The mag equips the modern-day arriviste for aspirational living with articles on personalised concierge services (very handy when you're working those 50-hour weeks), how to drink whiskey and where to get that MBA. But, according to some folks who have seen it, half of the magazine is dedicated to its real purpose – and the big advertising bucks – senior executive jobs that start at, you guessed it, $100K+.

So, where do you reckon you can you pick up the little mag that aims high?  Well, 100K+ is available at 250 select Sydney newsagents for , wait for it, just $4.95! Or if that seems just a little too haphazard, you can take out the 12-month $100 Platinum Career Investment subscription.

But here is the funny bit.  Proving that exclusivity ain't what it used to be,  if you're in the right place at the right time – namely, one of Sydney's 500 best cafes, car washes and gyms – you can pick it up for free...

(And it could only happen in Sydney!)

...But he hit me first

Whilst stopping short of suggesting that "they got what was coming to them", Cameron isn't too far from it:

"As the death toll of the London bombings continues to rise, I can't help thinking about the Downing Street Memo and wonder if, deep down inside, Tony Blair, George W Bush and John Howard, are starting to realize what they have started. Are they connecting the dots? Was this part of a collateral damage assessment when they made the decisions in 2002/2003 to invade Afghanistan and Iraq? When they were carefully duping the public about the justifications for attacking these countries, did they genuinely believe they could prevent the fight being brought to our streets indefinitely?

And Tony agrees;

"It's almost crocodile tears to listen to Tony Blair sombrely express his condolences.  He knew the consequences of his actions in Iraq.  What did he expect, defeat Saddam and it would all be over, and we'd live happily ever after?"

It is a dangerous and simplistic bow to pull, gentlmen. 

Is it really relevent to debate this issue along the lines of "who hit who first"?  Of course not.  But since you started it, what did come first?  The bombings of American military in Africa, Saddam Hussein in Kuwait, the relentless suicide attacks in Israel, Bosnia, September 11 or the invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Join the dots now...

(Alan Singer joins the conversation here)