Drivers Cop A Con Job

Only a few days ago, Queensland Police Commissioner Bob Atkinson was citing failure to keep the State road toll below 300 for the year as a reason to slap down law-abiding drivers who take a single drink:

Police Commissioner Atkinson yesterday said a reduced (blood alcohol) limit should be "on the table" for discussion, after admitting a high-profile campaign had failed to keep the state's road toll below 299. Mr Atkinson said Queensland could not afford to rule out a tougher alcohol driving limit...

"It would effectively mean you couldn't have a drink," he said. "You couldn't even have a stubby of light beer."

This week, he's admitting the road toll target was a furphy:

QUEENSLAND'S top cop has admitted the state's Below 299 road toll campaign was always unrealistic... Police commissioner Bob Atkinson said the state's road toll had only once fallen below 300 in the past 53 years.

No mention in the story of the top cop's con job regarding the politically-driven zero blood alcohol push.

-- Nick

Drunk On Power

The 'debate' in Queensland over lowering drink driving limits is a cynically transparent exercise by the government.

With the dopey complicity of the Courier-Mail and other media outlets, they've been priming the pump for a couple of weeks:

One third of drink drivers caught more than once
Robyn Ironside
October 25, 2009 11:00pm

QUEENSLAND's drink drivers are failing to learn their lesson as the number of repeat offenders grows steadily each year, in the absence of promised deterrents. Of the 29,913 drink drivers caught in Queensland last year, 10,393 or 35 per cent had been booked at least once before

Then yesterday Police Commissioner Bob Atkinson pretended he was simply responding to public debate when he suggested the driving blood alcohol limit in Queensland should be reduced to zero.

But Atkinson opened his mouth and put his foot squarely in it:

Mr Atkinson said Australia could look to Scandinavia, which had far lower road tolls per head of population than Australia. The alcohol limit in Sweden is .02 and in Denmark .05. Their road toll deaths per 100,000 were four, Mr Atkinson said, compared to eight in Queensland.

The Danish BAC is the same as Queensland's. Their experience plainly indicates factors other than the BAC affect the road toll.

It's also intellectually dishonest to cite figures per 100,000 head of population when you're trying to make one point in your favour (even when you accidentally give the game away) and raw figures when trying to make a different point in your favour:

Last night, Queensland's road toll was sitting at 294 deaths – about a quarter of which have been alcohol- related – and was expected to climb to 340 for the year.

What does this mean per 100,000? The raw figures are meaningless. In fact they may be completely decieving since Queensland has a high population growth rate meaning more drivers on the road every year.

Meanwhile, the government grant monkeys are gibbering with delight:

The director of the Queensland University of Technology Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety, Barry Watson, said yesterday he thought it was inevitable that Queensland would eventually enforce a zero limit.

So regardless of any evidence to the contrary on the worth of lowering the limit, he's already backing his paymasters...

Dr Watson said it was difficult to estimate how effective a move to zero would be. He backed Mr Atkinson's concerns about needing more research, saying his centre did not have accurate figures on how many drivers in fatalities had blood alcohol levels of 0.05 per cent but the number was not large.

... but he'll have some of that cash anyway, thanks...

"But (lowering the limit) could have a broader effect," Dr Watson said. "So it may have a greater impact for people between 0.05 and 0.10 who have tried to limit their alcohol but miscalculated."

... and we'll ignore the fact that the state has repeatedly denied and discouraged people from using available breathalysers to adequately measure their BAC before driving.

A tow truck service operator then weighs in:

Spokesman for peak motoring body the RACQ Gary Fites agreed it was time to debate the proposal to lower the drink-drive limit. "Let's talk about it, let's look at it – everything should be on the table for discussion."

He acknowledged a large number of drink-drivers in court would have readings just over 0.05. "This could change if we lowered the limit – but we might not be convinced this is the most cost-effective way to reduce the road toll."

What Mr Fites is convinced of or not is irrelevant. The RACQ has sold its membership's right up the river to government without a fight too many times before. They'll be a doormat again and like it.

As will the population of Queensland when, after a wide ranging and vigorous debate /sarc, the Bligh Labor government reduces the limit to .02 instead of zero.

This is purpose of Atkinson raising this:

"It would effectively mean you couldn't have a drink," (Atkinson) said. "You couldn't even have a stubby of light beer."

It's part of the softening up so the populace will accept a smaller excrement sandwich that they'll be grateful for it not being bigger.

The State Opposition fired back late in the day with suggestions that current laws might be more stringently enforced and punished. They - and the currently 60% of ordinary Queenslanders who are against lowering the limit in a news.com.au poll - will undoubtedly be falsely accused of 'supporting drink driving' in the days to come as the media dutifully trots out tragic parents and families of drink driving victims who, let's face it, would sell every last bit of freedom they have to get their loved ones back.

But the opposition is right - if 35% of drink drivers are repeat offenders, one could slash drink driving by that amount simply by taking them more permanently off the road.

However, being genuinely tough on offenders is harder than clamping further down on the law-abiding, and infinitely easier than making driver training as tough as it is in Denmark where, let's not forget, they have half the Queensland road toll with the same BAC as Queensland has right now.

So, come the New Year and the new .02 level, enjoy your one cold light beer on a summer day road trip or at a Sunday afternoon barbeque. You'll be able to look back on it with nostalgia in another few years time when there's suddenly a 'debate' on going all the way to zero.

The only remaining question to ask is: when the limit is zero and the road toll hasn't fallen by the 25% of fatal crashes that 'involve' alcohol, what will government do then?

-- Nick

Why Not Just Kill Yourself Now?

Australian Greens leader Bob Brown is openly homosexual.

He undoubtedly feels oppressed by Australian Christians who disapprove of homosexuality.

But he has this to say about those who want to debate the issue of Muslim immigration into Australia:

"(It's) a pretty despicable comment," he said. "We are seeing a far right, pretty disgusting point of view."

The 'despicable comment' is the suggestion that ghettos are bad and people should be allowed free speech:

(Kevin) Andrews said the issue of a growing Muslim population was a topic that had to be discussed. "To have a concentration of one ethnic or one particular group that remains in an enclave for a long period of time is not good," the Liberal backbencher told Macquarie Radio Network today. "You should be able to talk about it ... it's ridiculous if you can't talk about any subject."

There's a delicious irony that Islam's disapproval of Bob's sexual preferences extends to imprisonment (Saudi Arabia) and execution (Iran).

Of course, these countries are under Sharia law and that will never be the case here (which is probably what the Brits once told themselves).

-- Nick

It's A Reason, Not An Excuse

Mark Steyn nails the Hollywood Loves Paedophiles scandal in his inimitable style and also makes some insightful observations of the star of the show:

Let us stipulate that Roman Polanski has memories few of us would wish to bear. He is the only movie director to have had three generations of his immediate family murdered – his mother, by the Nazis; his wife and unborn child, by Charles Manson's acolytes. The only reason he didn't wind up with his parents in Auschwitz is that, when he was 8, his father cut a hole in the barbed wire of the Warsaw ghetto and pushed his son out.

In a movie, the father would either die or survive for a tearful reunion with his boy. But after the war Polanski's dad remarried, and the new wife didn't want young Roman around. By the age of 13, the pattern of his life was set: That hurried escape through the wire of the ghetto would be only the first of a series of hasty exits.

Steyn then goes on to skewer one of Polanski's biggest boosters:

Harvey Weinstein, the man behind the pro-Polanski petition, rejects the idea that Hollywood is "amoral": "Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion," he told an interviewer.

Let us agree that Hollywood bigshots have "compassion" for people in general, for people far away in a big crowd scene on the distant horizon, for people in a we-are-the-world-we-are-the-children sense. But Hollywood bigshots treat people in particular, little people, individuals, like garbage.

Still, the little people still get to vote - with their wallets when it comes time to choose which flick they'll plump for in the multiplex.

And while Weinstein fondly imagines his moral compass is the best in town, his business judgement is also today called into question:

Mira-Maxed Out: Disney announced today that Miramax will be undergoing a restructuring that will reduce the amount of films the studio releases per year. This year, Miramax has only released four (with one more — Everybody’s Fine — to go), so there’s not a whole lot of room for downscaling. That sound you hear is Harvey Weinstein indulging in the only thing he can afford right now: schadenfreuede.

-- Nick

Full Circle

As a Who's Who of the international entertainment industry support their famous paedophile pal Roman Polanski, recently arrested after 30 years on the lam, an Australian magistrate feels obliged to mention the passage of years between crime and punishment have nothing to do with his imposition of next-to-no punishment on a lesser known local:

The significant time that had passed since the offence had no bearing on the sentence, (Sydney Magistrate Leslie Brennan) said. "Some 21 years later the matter has resurfaced," Mr Brennan told the court.

But, inexplicably, he adds:

"It was probably always on the mind of the young boy."

Indeed.

In fact, the homosexual assault by paedophile teacher Damien Vance, in which he 'incited' a 14-year-old boy to an act of mutual masturbation between February and October 1988, could have had far more damaging results than being 'on the mind' of the victim.

It may have - perhaps even has - left the now 35 year old with a whole range of psychological disorders including paedophile tendencies, homosexuality, sexual and social dysfunction, depression, sleep disorders - and the list goes on.

Yet Vance received a two-year good behaviour bond.

That his teaching career is now over is neither here nor there. The punishment is manifestly unequal to the crime.

At least the obscurity of this case may allow its victim some closure. No such luck for those who have the misfortune of being the sex toys of the rich and famous.

But one isn't referring - at least not at this moment - to the 13 year old girl vaginally and anally raped by a respected movie maker whose abscondment before sentencing ensured a vile-hearted media would drag the case back into the limelight on a regular basis throughout her adult life.

I'm thinking of Mackensie Phillips who, it was revealed this week, was drugged up from the age of 11 by her respected musician father, John Phillips, of The Mamas And The Papas, then raped by him at the age of 19 in a drug-fuelled stupor on the eve of her wedding. Papa Phillips then went on to continue raping his daughter for 10 years.

(Mackensie) Phillips said the sexual relationship, although she believes it eventually became consensual, was "an abuse of power" and "a betrayal" on her father's part.

A bit like the crime of teacher Damien Vance, really. But I digress.

Ah, such wonderful people, the famous - these cheap jongleurs who, once they have a movie or two or a couple of hit tunes under their belts, presume to tell us how to behave.

John Phillips always had a thing for a pretty young thing. Wikipedia:

While touring California with The Journeymen, he met his future second wife, the teenage Michelle Gilliam. Their affair finally forced the dissolution of his first marriage.

And he and his new wife moved in equally appreciative circles:

The Phillipses became Hollywood celebrities, living in the Hollywood Hills and socializing with stars like Jack Nicholson, Warren Beatty, and Roman Polanski.

What goes around, comes around.

-- Nick

What Do They Call These People

Here's a list of 100 celebrities who think there is nothing wrong with a man who drugs, rapes and sodomises a 13-year-old girl because they like his movies.

Just remember, when you're selecting a film to watch or an album to listen to, that Polaski raped a child.

-- Nora

All In A Day's Reporting

The UK Daily Mail reports British hospital management took a nurse off 'frontline' duty because she refused to hide her faith. No surprise that she's Christian:

A Christian nurse was taken off frontline duties after she refused to take off a necklace bearing a cross.

Management claimed it was for patient safety:

The hospital trust said today that necklaces were banned as there was a small risk that confused patients could grab them and cause injury.

and:

The policy was nothing to do with the cross itself which could be worn inside (not outside) her lapel

because:

"...the Trust considers the wearing of a necklace to be a risk, albeit small, within a clinical setting because patients, particularly those who may be confused, do sometimes grab for items when being moved."

so:

"If a member of staff asked if they could wear a crucifix pinned on their uniform lapel this would not comply with the same policy for the same reasons but it would be acceptable to wear it if pinned inside their uniform lapel or pocket."

In other words, the display of the crucifix is the offence as logic suggests a patient may be injured grabbing at a lapel with a crucifix on the inside as equally as grabbing at a lapel with a crucifix on the outside.

Better hide your opinions too. The same edition of the Daily Mail reports:

A Christian couple have been charged with a criminal offence after taking part in what they regarded as a reasonable discussion about religion with guests at their hotel.

Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang were arrested after a Muslim woman complained to police that she had been offended by their comments. They have been charged under public order laws with using ‘threatening, abusive or insulting words’ that were ‘religiously aggravated’.

The couple, whose trial has been set for December, face a fine of up to £5,000 and a criminal record if they are convicted.

Their offence was to state historical facts in the course of a discussion somebody else started:

It is understood that they suggested that Mohammed, the founder of Islam, was a warlord and that traditional Muslim dress for women was a form of bondage.

Meanwhile, yet again in the same edition of the Daily Mail, non-Muslims are instructed in matters of respect and consideration:

Home Office staff were officially warned not to eat in front of their fasting Muslim colleagues during Ramadan – in case it made them feel hungry. The advice came in a taxpayer-funded internal document listing do’s and don’ts during the Muslim holy month, which ends this weekend.

In unsurprising developments, a Muslim group takes offence at attempts not to cause offence:

The Muslim Public Affairs Committee, which claims to be fighting a ‘political jihad against Islamophobia’, attacked the document. It said: ‘It is designed to create more hatred in the hearts of non-Muslims.

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

-- Nick

Britain's Health Service Death Panels

US conservatives were shouted down over drawing attention to plans to include 'death panels' in the structure of Barack Obama's health care 'reform'.

American socialists said they were nothing of the sort, although the measures were quickly stripped from the proposed bill, where they were included not under medical considerations but as a means of keeping the down the inherantly crippling costs of a national health service.

Then the UK media got nasty when American conservatives said they didn't want a system like the British National Health Service.

But this is the BHS:

Rosemary Munkenbeck says her father Eric Troake, who entered hospital after suffering a stroke, had fluid and drugs withdrawn and she claims doctors wanted to put him on morphine until he passed away under a scheme for dying patients called the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP)... When a patient is put on the pathway the medical team looks for signs that they are approaching their final hours, which can include loss of consciousness or difficulty swallowing medication. But doctors last week warned semi-consciousness and confusion are a side effect of painkillers such as morphine if patients are also dehydrated. Palliative care experts... last week warned that the LCP can mask signs that a patient's condition is improving.

-- Nick