Posts by Peter Cresswell
-
Island Life: On the waterfront,
Email Web
"__Click the little picture to get a larger version and__ . . ." realise that this project and "human scale" live in different parts of the city.
I fear that Don Christie is right.
-
Field Theory: One man with 18 feeds,
Email Web
Even one man with eighteen feeds should surely have noticed a Grand Final over in Melbourne at which 100,012 spectators showed up and shouted themselves hoarse?
Shame the wrong team won this year's AFL Grand Final. :-/
-
Hard News: The Policeman at the Dinner Table,
Email Web
Yes, very good Tim. I obviously needed more coffee.
-
Hard News: The Policeman at the Dinner Table,
Email Web
"In any case, the vast majority of people on the DPB are paid to support kids that they already have, not to have new ones."
No, they're paid for both.
And in answer to Michael, who says, "__if Peter is going to imagine the benefits of the poor not being "paid to breed", I'm going to imagine the violence of the desperate and starving which will counter it__," might I point out that there's no need for either violence, desperation or starving to accompany the end of the DPB.
All that's needed is the simple statement that no new DPB recipients will be accepted after six months, and that the DPB itself will cease once the children of all existing recipients reach school age.
That shouldn't be so hard, should it?
-
Hard News: The Policeman at the Dinner Table,
Email Web
"BTW, are you, or anyone you respect getting some of that Working for Families gravy?"
No. Are you?
-
Hard News: The Policeman at the Dinner Table,
Email Web
Michael, do you even have any idea of what so called "rampant Randism" would look like?
And might I point out that the chief victims of your "systemic disadvantage" were the the children of parents who were paid to have them, and who then went on to kill them.
How about that "systemic failure," huh?
And speaking of elephants in the room, how about the one addressed in this press release, currently number on reading at Scoop: 'Welfare and Violence - The Elephant In The Room'
-
Hard News: The Policeman at the Dinner Table,
Email Web
Michael, do you even have any idea of what so called "rampant Randism" would look like?
And might I point out that the chief victims of your "systemic disadvantage" were the the children of parents who were paid to have them, and who then went on to kill them.
How about that "systemic failure," huh?
-
Hard News: The Policeman at the Dinner Table,
Email Web
Matthew, you ask, "What needs to change that would have prevented this latest tragedy?"
Well, read my response. You don't expect to be spoon-fed, do you? ;^)
-
Hard News: The Policeman at the Dinner Table,
Email Web
Russell, you also say: "__You're citing an increase in recorded violent crime and steadfastly ignoring what that crime is. In 2007, there were 6252 additional violence offences recorded. 5810 of them were reported incidents of family violence. There's an elephant in the room trying to get your attention.__"
Well, in 2007 there were 52,883 recorded violent offences in total, of which reported incidents of family violence were 11%.
So my point is: there are other elephants in this jungle as well? 52,883 of them, to be precise, including 51 homicides so far this year. Violent crime that's been trending up since 1999. That's the wider picture I was talking about above.
How about that elephant, hmmm?
BTW, it's true that Austin Hemmings was killed when he interceded without foreknowledge in a domestic dispute, but he wasn't part of that dispute; he was killed by someone who appeared to have no compunction about taking a stranger's life.
That's the bigger issue I'm trying to address -- people who have no compunction about taking a stranger's life, and how the various ways the agencies of law deal with them appears not to be discouraging them, but the reverse.
I'm asking what the last straw is for people. If fifty-one people murdered this year isn't enough, then what is?
If asking that question is in your eyes the the equivalent of "your average tantrum," then so much the worse for your judgement, I say.
You might be content to rest on your "it's only domestic violence" defence, and claim the government is already doing all that it can so don't worry, but here's the thing: like the attack on New York's Central Park jogger all those years ago, which provoked outrage that eventually helped lead to a change in focus for NY law enforcement, the killing of Mr Hemmings has made people angry, and they want to see something change.
Public reactions have to start somewhere, and they don't always match the proximate cause of that to which they're reacting. The straw that finally breaks the camel's back isn't always from the same crop as all the straws the that have for so long been weighing the camel down.
Consider for example the truckers' protest recently that shut down the country's main streets -- all that anger wasn't just over the rise in road user charges; it was directed at a government that is perceived as being bossy, nannying and not listening. The overnight raise in the road user charge was simply the last straw; the proximate cause for which people said "Enough!" and got out there in support of the truckers.
What I felt when I heard the news of this murder was the same: "Enough!" and I felt sure my readers would feel the same.
I've had enough of New Zealanders being killed, and all the excuses that say "nothing can be done," "it's all too difficult," and now (apparently) "it's only domestic violence so don't worry."
-
Hard News: The Policeman at the Dinner Table,
Email Web
MICHAEL: Eugenics? Please. Hyperbole never helps an argument. And you being offended by the facts doesn't alter them.
RUSSELL: There are two separate issues here.
You say that "not a single thing" I suggest would have prevented the murders in question. Well, the murders I have in mind are those to which I refer: the fifty-one committed so far this year, and all the others like them still to be committed.
I disagree with you that "not a single thing" I suggest would prevent them. There you are. We disagree.
But more important to my mind is not the concrete details of crime prevention, of which neither you nor I are experts, but the primary issue I'm trying to raise: that the focus of the law must change. That the status quo is not working. That it's time to say "Enough!"
We may differ on the concrete details, but I'm surprised you appear to dismiss without argument this second point - the need to say "Enough!" And I'm disappointed you and your readers appear to think the status quo is good enough.
It's not.