A sad event that only harms the cause

I don't like to say it, but I am glad that I missed the ceremonies at the Tent Embassy today. That way I managed to avoid the dramas at the nearby restaurant, The Lobby. Now am I defending the comments by Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, that were used as the incitement for a couple of hundred protesters heading to The Lobby to encircle the building and act in such a manner that security forces were needed to remove Prime Minister, Julia Gillard and Jugears Abbot? Most definitely not. But when will protesting groups get it into their heads that acting like thugs only does harm to your cause?

We saw the same thing back in the 1990s following the election of John Howard. There was promptly a protest on the lawns of Parliament House, driven by the union movement. I know - I was there. And like the majority of attendees, I was down the slope, watching the stage which included the rather odd sight of the then-Secretary of the ACT branch of the Community and Public Sector Union, dancing and singing. Like the majority of those attendees, I knew nothing about the drunken antics of a much smaller group of protesters who decided to literally bash down the doors into Parliament House, an even smaller group of them decided to break into a shop and loot it. At one point I did get a bit bored and had a wander around including going by the courtyard where the drama occurred. I couldn't see exactly what was happening but something clearly was and the sheer volume of eskies and discarded beer cans made it rather obvious that whatever was happening was most likely alcohol-fuelled. However I never so much as even suspected an attempted invasion of Parliament House was occurring. But because I was there at that protest, for a long time I was referred to by non-supporters of the union movement at work as 'one of those Parliament House invaders'. This behaviour by a small proportion of the attendees damaged the entire point of the demonstration against then-pending changes to industrial relations. It made the entire union movement look bad. Nor did it help for a small, radical faction to start pushing hard to have the union movement pay all legal fees for those charged for that invasion of Parliament House. The entire point of that demonstration was badly compromised.

I suggest that the 40th anniversary of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy and the worthwhile things it stands for, will now be overshadowed by the actions of a minority, compromising the potential good that could have come out of the event.

the REAL Excess Baggage

Alleged 'reality television' programs seem to go through phases. Obviously weight loss is the current preferred flavour. The newest addition to the stable is the WIN/Channel Nine program, Excess Baggage. This 'reality' sees a group of overweight 'ordinary' people all paired up with an overweight 'celebrity'. Naturally the winner shall be the pair who lose the most weight.

What gets me is this idea of featuring celebrities. In whose mind at least, are some of these people celebrities? Let us have a quick squiz at some of the line-up.

There's a former Australian Rules footballer who retired some twenty years ago. While Dipper is a big personality, was a damn good footballer and well known to Aussie Rules fans of his era, how exactly does that make him a 'celebrity'? What proportion of the country will have a clue who Dipper actually is? I suggest not a lot.

We have a paparazzi photographer who thinks he is a Mohawk Indian with a fetish for psychedelic colours.

Best of all, my favourite, is the international celebrity in the ranks. That's right folks, we have the ex-husband of a pop star. How much bigger can you get than the bloke that Britney Spears gave the boot to via a text message? Answer: much, much bigger. Let us put this into perspective. Kevin Federline was a broke, occasional backup dancer when he met Britney and they hooked up. When the marriage ended, Federline did pretty well out of the deal, now on huge alimony payments that mean he doesn't even have to do the occasional work these days. So he sits around, blowing that alimony on food and drink as is obvious from the size of his gut. Of course there was also his impressive career as a rapper. What a flop that was. He probably should have then tried out for the US diving team as he sure had the nosediving gig right. Yet he is still going by that stage name of K-Fed. Briefly aligning himself with the professional wrestling world to help promote his debut album probably didn't do his credibility much good either. This is a 'celebrity'? This is a 'celebrity' that is worth importing into the country? This is something that the public supposedly want? Oh pluh-eeeze.

For my money, the only saving grace would be that of the program host, the still delectable Kate Ceberano. But even Kate's attractions are going to struggle to get me there. There is probably some grass growing somewhere around my place worth watching.


Hey WIN - I've got some news for you. The REAL excess baggage is the numbnuts who approved this crap.
 
Here endeth the rant

It is official - Kyle Sandilands is a fuckwit

Sydney DJ and television personality, Kyle Sandliands has been causing waves for some years now. And they're usually sewerage-ridden stinking waves too.

Exactly why is he ever made a judge on things like Australian Idol and whatever other sad excuse for programming thinks it is a good idea to pick him up? Since when did spouting arrogant verbal shit on radio airwaves somehow make him an expert on any aspect of entertainment - other than spewing arrogant verbal shit of course.

Now apparently, in the Sandilands world, it is some sort of crime to even report what others are saying about his programming, to be subjected to all manner of abuse on the air without so much as a chance of comeback.

Why oh why are sponsors still defending this dickhead? Holden at least had the guts to say enough is enough and dump him in the wake of this latest crap. But what about the others, huh? And what about station management?

I would call Sandilands an arrogant fucking tool, but that would be an insult to sexually active, arrogant adjustable spanners everywhere.

But. Not. The. Cricket.

We have just seen a very exciting, two-Test cricket series played between Australia and South Africa.

So here's my rant. With all of these wonderful, new free-to-air television stations available in Australia, why is that the only people who were able to see the televsision coverage were those with pay-tv connections? What happened to previous governmental assurances that free-to-air sport would remain free-to-air? But there is plenty of room for crap so-called comedies and old programs that ceased to be interesting or amusing years ago. Even thirty-year-old Leyland Brothers docos are being broadcase. But. Not. The. Cricket.

When checking details online about just what had been happening, I found a link via baggygreen.com.au, which is merely a re-direction to nine-msn, which promised video highlights. Except that even the video highlights were not licensed to be shown.

Fair suck of the sauce bottle!

Thank goodness for ABC radio and the Grandstand radio coverage lead as ever by Jim Maxwell. It was a first-rate coverage, even allowing for my distaste for Geoff Lawson and his broadcasting. Honestly, at times I think Lawson will only be happy if bowlers get to decide when a batter is out, not umpires, and batters are forbidden from hitting the ball. I was a bowler, in my own very modest way, and I hated batters when I had the ball in my hand, but even I wasn't as over-the-top as Lawson gets sometimes.

Incidently, what a gem Farnie de Villiers has turned out to be as a commentator! I near wet myself laughing when he became particularly animated, referring to an English cricketer as a 'real smart-arse' in that thick, Africaans accent. I sincerely hope someone brings him out to do commentary on the next South African visit Down Under.

Yet more on Constable Plod

A little while ago I was posting about some fun and games with ACT Policing. One of my problems was that I had been named as a complainant against another person who was arrested by the police, yet I had not made any complaint at all. In response to my request for information on what this alleged complaint actually was, to my considerable surprise, a repeated insistence was made that I had to go through Freedom of Information processes in order to obtain that information. Yep, that's right, I was not allowed to know what this complaint was that I supposedly made against another person, that police used to arrest him.

So I went and made my application for this information under Freedom of Information from the Australian Federal Police.

As it happens, the police subsequently informally confirmed via email that I had not made any complaint, but also stated that any person who speaks to the police made be deemed a complaintant even if they haven't actually made a complaint against someone. How ridiculous is that!

The FoI documents recently arrived and the made very interesting reading.

As previously noted, Constable Plod was indeed monitoring this blog and copies of my posts were included in the police file. Nice to have fans! And if they are still reading, well, chaps, as for all the unkind things I had to say about Constable Plod and his mates - I meant every bloody word of it!

Where things became quite alarming was to see in these police records, the number of factual errors and subtle changes to things reported to them through this affair. Even more alarming again was to discover what may only be described as a blatant lie by one of the officers concerned.

The honesty and integrity of all the officers involved in this affair simply have to be questioned.

I considered posting all details of this and naming the officer concerned. But I am passing it all to the Ombudsman instead. The AFP's Professional Standards area clearly are not taking my concerns seriously. For example, why on earth do the AFP issue someone with a history of violence towards others, with a document identifying me as being a complainant against him, when they admit that there was no complaint made at all?

These documents have just lowered my opinion of ACT Policing even further.

Will the fat cats turn?

The end result of the Fair Work Australia hearings last night was pretty much as predicted. Quantas has been told to get its planes back in the air and the unions told to go back to work. The two sides to the dispute have 21 days to resolve their differences although either side may apply for an extension.

What has not been resolved is the intractability and hypocrisy of a senior management regime that gleefully accepts obscenely large pay rises while essentially refusing to negotiate pay rises for staff. In the case of the pilots' union, they aren't even asking for a pay rise.

For the thousands of people stranded around the world by Alan Joyce's heavyhanded descision to ground the entire Quantas fleet, this is no doubt a good decision and I entirely empathise with them. I dare say I would have been one very unhappy camper if I had been one of those stranded.

There is however a significant point that Joyce has won. Under these orders, the unions no longer have the right to take industrial action which places the position of power firmly on the Joyce side of things. This despite the fact that Joyce's action on the weekend caused fair more disruption than any union industrial action of the past couple of months. While I would certainly not want to see a return to the bad old days when it seemed every other day some union or other was striking because there was too much butter on the sandwhiches or some similarly silly thing, the only power the working stiff really has is that of collective action. With that removed, their bargaining position immediately becomes that much weaker.

So far we have not heard any opinion from the institutional investors who hold such important blocs of shareholder votes. How are they responding to the damage that will surely be done to share prices in the wake of Joyce's actions on the weekend? Are they going to continue to back their fat cat mate or will they start turning on him?

So much for unity

In the midst of this Quantas bru-ha-ha and the tragic deaths of four more Australian soldiers in Afghanistan (which I am leaving along – let the families grieve), another small event has gone virtually unnoticed. In the face of still-terrible approval ratings, a member of the Gillard government (apologies as I missed their name) has come out claiming Prime Minister Gillard has the full support of caucus and the party.

Now when did we hear that sort of blather before? Back when the Howard government was facing increasing public unrest, we tired of hearing statements like that about party unity under Howard. It seemed for a while there that any statement by that government to either parliament or the media had to include some reference to them being “a team.” Some two months before the November 2007 election, Joe Hockey vehemently declared on ABC radio (I happened to be listening at the time) that the party was 100% behind John Howard. Yet shortly after the election which not only saw the Howard government toppled but saw Howard lose his own formerly-blue ribbon seat, Hockey was quick to join the rush of former government ministers claiming they had not really supported Howard but had been telling him to stand down. So much for unity.

Are we now seeing a repeat within the Labor ranks?

The situations are of course quite different. Howard had a Menzies-esque autocratic hold on his government for 11 years. Gillard on the other hand only achieved her position through political assassination of her predecessor, Kevin Rudd and coming within a hair’s breadth of losing the subsequent election. In the circumstances, given how the approval ratings of Gillard and the government in general are rivalling those that were used as justification for Rudd’s removal.

I find it very hard to believe that the unity within the Labour caucus is any better than that which really lay behind Howard’s ‘team’.