Saturday, June 18

Blind faith of a public servant

The Grinder has a work colleague who notes every instruction and every movement in his little blue book. The diligence is brought about from an inability to trust. Too many times he’s been burnt; employers, peers, and ex-partners have all done him over.

Today I was sickened by the latest revelations in the Weekend Australian’s report on the Eugene hit-run enquiry. I admit to not following the details too closely but have been watching the police copping it sweet for a variety of shortcomings since the enquiry started.

Being public servants, officers are bound not to speak out; their terms of employment forbid it. They can only go ahead and hope that by sticking to the rules and doing the right thing that it’ll always come out in the wash.

During the last couple of weeks we’ve seen witnesses open up and profess all matter of evidence that trained and experienced police officers failed to introduce to the Eugene McGee trial.

There’s a critical difference in the circumstances of gleaning evidence for an enquiry compared with a police investigations - the implications. Witnesses are a lot more willing to come forward when the consequences don’t involve a term in gaol.

Unfortunately, these officers have no public representation other than what the police department release. Of course the department reports to its minister who answers to public opinion. Fat chance any of these guys will be batting for the sergeants and constables in the field – there are more important big picture issues for them to consider such as their own hides.

Back to today’s article in the paper. It now appears there was an edict from the DPP that the police were not to arrest suspects of major crash investigations because it “created an expectation in the minds of victims that prosecution would follow”.

For weeks the public have been led to wonder why Eugene McGhee wasn’t arrested immediately when found cowering at home after killing cyclist Ian Humphrey. The senior officer in the case, gagged by his employer, is at the centre of the mud slinging and some of the mud is beginning to stick.

Now comes the nauseous part: the DPP has turned the instruction around by saying there was no ‘formal direction’, more an understanding, with ultimate discretion left to the individual police officer.

Fetch my little blue book; I think I’m going to blow chunks.

Thursday, June 16

Love that 'Can do' attitude

Crevasse ends blind climber's Mt Everest assault

BRISBANE: A blind Australian adventurer's bid to conquer Mount Everest ended when he fell down a crevasse his guide forgot to tell him about.
Gerrard Gosens is back home in Brisbane nursing cuts, bruises and a dislocated shoulder after falling just over three metres into the ice crevasse, more than 7000 metres up the world's highest peak last month.
"My new Sherpa, Pemba, forgot I am blind”

The five questions most feared by men

1. What are you thinking about?

2. Do you love me?

3. Do I look fat?

4. Do you think she is prettier than me?

5. What would you do if I died?

What makes these questions so difficult is that every one is guaranteed to explode into a major argument if the man answers incorrectly (i.e.,tells thetruth).

Therefore, as a public service, each question is analyzed below, with possible responses.

________________________

Question # 1: What are you thinking about?

The proper answer to this, of course, is: "I'm sorry if I've been pensive, dear. I was just reflecting on what a warm, wonderful, thoughtful, caring, intelligent woman you are, and how lucky I am to have met you."

This response obviously bears no resemblance to the true answer, which most likely is one of the following:

a. Baseball.

b. Football.

c. How fat you are.

d. How much prettier she is than you.

e. How I would spend the insurance money if you died.

Perhaps the best response to this question was offered by Al Bundy, who once told Peg, "If I wanted you to know what I was thinking, I would be talking to you."

___________________________

Question # 2: Do you love me?

The proper response is: "YES!" or, if you feel a more detailed answer is in order, "Yes, dear."

Inappropriate responses include:

a. Oh Yeah, ****-loads.

b. Would it make you feel better if I said yes?

c. That depends on what you mean by love.

d. Does it matter?

e. Who, me?

______________________

Question # 3: Do I look fat?

The correct answer is an emphatic: "Of course not!"

Among the incorrect answers are:

a. Compared to what?

b. I wouldn't call you fat, but you're not exactly thin.

c. A little extra weight looks good on you.

d. I've seen fatter.

e. Could you repeat the question? I was just thinking about how I would spend the insurance money if you died.

_______________________

Question # 4: Do you think she's prettier than me?

Once again, the proper response is an emphatic: "Of course not!"

Incorrect responses include:

a. Yes, but you have a better personality

b. Not prettier, but definitely thinner

c. Not as pretty as you when you were her age

d. Define pretty

e. Could you repeat the question? I was just thinking about how I would spend the insurance money if you died.

________________________

Question # 5: What would you do if I died?

A definite no-win question. (The real answer, of course, is "Buy a Corvette and a boat").

No matter how you answer this, be prepared for at least an hour of follow-up questions, usually along the these lines:

WOMAN: Would you get married again?

MAN: Definitely not!

WOMAN: Why not-don't you like being married?

MAN: Of course I do.

WOMAN: Then why wouldn't you remarry?

MAN: Okay, I'd get married again.

WOMAN: You would? (with a hurtful look on her face)

MAN: ( makes audible groan )

WOMAN: Would you sleep with her in our bed?

MAN: Where else would we sleep?

WOMAN: Would you put away my pictures, and replace them with pictures of her?

MAN: That would seem like the proper thing to do.

WOMAN: And would you let her use my golf clubs?

MAN: She can't use them; she's left-handed.

WOMAN: - - - silence - - -

MAN: sh*t.

Rewarding behaviour

And it just doesn't stop.

Sydney train-injury man awarded $185,000 payout

SYDNEY: A Sydney man who hit his head on a pole while leaning out of a train carriage, fracturing his skull, has been awarded $185,000 in damages. Scott Grant sued State Rail for negligence over the incident in April, 1987, claiming the carriage doors were faulty and did not close when the train was moving.
Aged 14 at the time, Mr Grant had been sitting on the floor of the carriage with his legs, head and shoulders outside the doorway. He was hit in the head by a pole between Parramatta and Westmead stations. NSW District Court Judge Ann Ainslie-Wallace found Mr Grant and State Rail were equally liable for his injuries, effectively halving Mr Grant's $370,000 payout.
The judge said the way Mr Grant was sitting put him at risk of injury, but State Rail was negligent by failing to ensure the doors were working properly and could not slide open between stations. "It is plain that if the doors of the train did not close while it was moving, there was a risk to passengers of serious harm," she said.


And I meet people everyday who fail to understand the merits of covering their butts from this sort of thing.

Community service

Guys! Keep this number handy.

Unreal

Court awards drunken bikie $950,000 in compo
SYDNEY: Peter MacKenzie admits getting drunk, and letting his drunk mate ride his unregistered Harley-Davidson. However, a court ruled this week that he was entitled to compensation of almost $1 million - because he didn't know what he was doing. The Gilgandra man was left a quadriplegic when the motorcycle ran off the Newell Highway with him as a pillion passenger in December 2000. He sued the Nominal Defendant - a division of the Motor Accidents Authority which handles claims when a vehicle is unregistered - and they agreed his claim was worth $4.75 million. However, the trial judge took the rare step of finding Mr Mackenzie 100 per cent responsible for the accident - a decision the Court of Appeal said was unfair. Justice Roger Giles said Mr Mackenzie had had no intention of driving or riding when he started drinking and that an 80 per cent reduction was more "equitable".

I don’t think there’s much comment needed on this outcome.

Taxes hard at work

Study confirms value of new WorkCover approaches
ADELAIDE: A study examining gender-related issues in workers compensation, rehabilitation and return to work in South Australia, confirms much of the approach being taken by WorkCover to develop new approaches to injury and case management, according to WorkCover CEO Julia Davison.
The study, Gender, Workplace Injury and Return to Work, was conducted by the Working Women's Centre on behalf of the Women's Focus Group (a stakeholder group representing women's issues to WorkCover).
The report identifies a number of gender-specific issues impacting upon work injury and return to work outcomes including the nature of female employment; women's roles outside their work; the experiences they had while injured and receiving compensation; and a lack of awareness of family/work balance issues amongst service providers. It recommends improved data collection, improved analysis of and approaches to the needs of women and training for people providing services in the workers compensation arena.


Lack or awareness or lack or interest – I sometimes get the two confused.

Saturday, June 11

Traffic update

Looking for images?
This is to help the poor lost souls who have been referred here by their Image search. Obviously there has been some confusion. This normally not the sort of place for lude material such as women in miniskirts or tight shorts or miniskirts or tight shorts. But each to their own.

Friday, June 10

Sing along with Schapelle

Don't blame it on the Sunshine,


Don't blame it on the Airline,


Don't blame it on the Bali Nine,


Blame it on the Boogie.