Posts by Nick D'Angelo
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
BTW - I should point out (further to my comments above) that I was in no way involved in the Getacross rally or it's organisation. I really was just a local who wandered up to see what was happening. The organisers in their speeches made it very clear that the plan was to ask Wayne the Transit Boss to let them cross, but if he said No then they weren't going to do anything illegal like crossing the Bridge. This was disappointing for me personally, but I figured the plan was to rally a mass of people to the gates of the Bridge, unable to cross, and get those images on the nightly news.
I was on the Bridge fairly quickly and started motioning and yelling for people to stay or move over to the clip on lanes
My 'helping' like that was simply due to my seeing that Getacross had no Marshalls in place (since they hadn't planned to cross the bridge illegally) and a bit of crowd control was required (blame it on my years as an event manager, and my experiences in the Springbok Tour protests).
-
David Slack :I'll just say this: they didn't need to close the centre lanes, and the fact that they did leaves me thinking there was a tactical cynicism to the decision.
My thoughts too. I was on the Bridge fairly quickly and started motioning and yelling for people to stay or move over to the clip on lanes, I was walking just behind the Works Truck that was furiously trying to drop orange cones across the lanes. The guy putting down the cones was yelling at the throng "Get on this side you dumasses!" - by which he meant the centre lanes. I was puzzled so I asked him directly "You mean you want us in the middle, NOT the clip on lanes?" and he said "YESSS!" in an exasperated tone.
So I then motioned for people to move off the clip ons and on to the centre lanes instead, but by now it was too late - there were masses of people all gleefully cycling/walking up the Bridge.
This begs the question: What was their fallback position if protestors DID storm the bridge? It seems they wanted on us on the centre lanes, not the clip ons (see this picture here - there was another row of Bridge staff further up the Bridge also trying to move the crowd into the centre lanes). Maybe they planned to move us into the centre lanes, allow traffic onto the clip-ons, and then we'd be penned in so we could be arrested?
No, I can't believe that - that would be very dangerous.
As I walked back down the bridge to Curran Street I commented to those around me (several times, since the crowd was changing and we all seemed to be musing the same thought: 'Wow, I can't believe they let us take over the Bridge') that I felt allowing us to use four lanes and thereby blocking off ALL vehicle access north was deliberate. I suggested then, and still believe, that the plan was to create traffic chaos because that would not play well on Talkback radio on Monday morning.David Slack: One more thing - Nick D'Angelo, thanks for that intelligence you slipped me for passing on to the crowd. Excellent.
He's referring to the word I put in his ear during the speeches at the rally that morning. I live in the area and at 7am on Sunday morning I tried to drive over the bridge via the Curran St on-ramp. But it was already blocked, so I had to turn back and get on at Fanshawe Street (Victoria Park). As I approached the Bridge I saw that they had closed off the two clip on lanes with orange cones, so all vehicles had to use the centre lanes. I presumed then that they were planning to allow the clip-ons for the Getacross rally at 9am.
But when I drove back across the bridge at about 7.40am all the cones had been removed and traffic was flowing over all lanes.
So ... did they change their minds? Or were the cones laid out (in the early morning) as some sort of practice run?
If the Transit Boss has already said they're going to need a new/better plan next time then he shouldn't mind telling us now what his plan yesterday was. It seemed very loose. -
As an addendum to Grigg's post I should also note that they also allowed 'club promoters' such as myself to flourish. We could book the venue for a very nominal fee and then run our own 'one-off' club night at their venue. If you tried booking another club for the same thing they'd charge you an arm and a leg. Upfront.
Simon, Tom & Co 'got' what a onenighter was and allowed myself and many others to stage them there over the years. That mine were hugely successful helped of course, but they also supported lesser/more obscure genres that pulled fewer numbers but were still considered part of clubland's rich tapestry.
I did my first one with Manuel Bundy in ... in ... 1991? called Disco Inferno which was a 70s funk/disco revival. In 1994 I got married and booked the club for my wedding after-party. To pay for my honeymoon I charged punters to come into Box (calling the party Retro - the first of the 80s revivals) whilst my guests enjoyed the private luxury of Cause Celebre. By midnite the Box was jammed and Tom asked me what I wanted to do. Ever the capitalist I said let 'em into Celeb. So we did. My parents had no idea and thought all those drag queens were my friends (as they became, actually) and the (unknowing) punters complimented my wife on wearing a wedding dress to a club.
-
Wow - I've already had two people tag themselves on my Facebook collection. I think the power of the interweb (and a very nice day) explains why this year's rally was bigger than last years...
-
Re this morning Harbour Bridge crossing:
photo's here: http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=108677&id=759152494&l=ed1dde0204
blog here: http://cheapsexandotherstories.blogspot.com/2009/05/im-on-bridge-muthafukkers.html
-
Oh, and also Bob Frisbee kinda sold me last Friday on his theory that the best version of 'I Feel Love' is the original album version.
It's more concise but I'm a sucker for the twisted Patrick Cowley 15 minuter, although the last five for are great for ending the party and sending everyone home.
I had a 12" mix that was either 16 or 18 minutes long (can't remember exactly but it was looonnngg) and I too used it to clear the club when I DJ'd in the 80s. I thought it was a valid remix (not just a loop of the original) but it did go on. By the 3rd quarter it was just a dub beat with Ms Summer really moaning her heart out. Being the 80s the ladieez loved that bit, vamping it up, but it just kept going and going and going and even they would have to give up and clear the floor. At which point the song would kick in again and you could see their anguish: do I get back on the floor or do we call it a night? If they came back on the floor we'd freeze the lighting patterns ~ it was 5am FFS!
-
And finally, over at The Hand Mirror, Ms Enid Tak-Entity's electrifying Feminist gets a wax, anaesthetises crotch with feminism. Ouch.
Yes, I read that the other day. It was fascinating. And then it led me to this (**NSFW**) and then on to this. Not directly of course, there were a few other pages/sites in between all three.
As I just commented on another thread, the web is quite a wacky place - it's breadcrumbs can lead you anywhere ...
Your Listener column was the only one I really bothered to read (aside from Bradford's Hollywood when I was a kid) the others I would just skim.
-
Heh heh
I didn't chase this, it came to me, like whatever those floaty things at the beginning of Forrest Gump were (I forget). I am constantly amazed at where I end up whilst surfing the web (surfing? I'm blown hither and yon like a plastic shopping bag).
Why, only this afternoon I happened upon this - leading me to think Damn! There is still money to be made on the web!
After Facebook and You Porn I thought there were no new ideas left. (!) -
Since it's Friday afternoon I'd thought I'd just throw this in:
Russell I love your PAS website (yours too Mr Grigg), and I appreciate the effort you put in to it, but by crikey doesn't it knock your efforts for six when this guy gets 10 million hits!
-
One of the things that bugs me about media reporting around rape is the much much higher reporting of false allegations, as opposed to coverage of genuine ones.
Jonathon Coleman discussed this issue with a woman from Rape Crisis yesterday on the Radio Live News at Noon Hour show; in relation to the Police in Hamilton yesterday charging a woman with wasting their time (for laying a false rape complaint).
Coleman's angle was 'doesn't it make it harder for genuine complainants to be taken seriously when women make false allegations?' but the woman (from Rape Crisis) was having none of that and launched straight into how hard it is already for women to be taken seriously when alleging rape.
She said that Police themselves have said they think 60-80% of rape complaints are false, and if they're coming from that mindset then it's hard already for women to be taken seriously.