Why can't anyone else see it? I have several pieces in here dealing with dogs and kids and each piece says essentially the same thing.
I really don't know how to put it another way.
In this instance, a Border Collie, not typical of the breed of dog that bites, bit a 3 year old on its cheek, just below the eye reportedly. The child approached the dog while it was "eating a sausage". Mistake # 1
A vegetable knows not to get between a dog and its food. I can with my two; I'd expect most owners can with their respective dogs, and even then it's with a little caution.
But a stranger? Add to that the age of this particular stranger and the fact that at 3 years, ignorance replaces fear or caution - with quite often disastrous consequences.
In this case nearly the loss of an eye.
The dog undoubtedly will now be destroyed. This is no rabid pitbull I should add (owned by an equally rabid, or at least wannabe, meathead). This is a Border Collie. Classically intelligent (for a dog - which puts it head and shoulders above the average rugby league player), friendly, calm, the epitome of man's best friend. Now to be destroyed or at the very least labelled as a dangerous dog.
This innocent animal to pay the price for the incompetence of others. Nothing was reported concerning the whereabouts of the owner or the parents for that matter. The incident was just a quick soundbite at the behest of the station managers who are concerned with the truth and facts as much as the average lawyer. "Quick - another dog attack - get it out there; who cares how it happened, just report that a kid was bitten, that'll get the handwringers going"
And so the (becoming) old-age question remains: Where were the parents? Those who are ultimately responsible for the brat, who at 3 years of age should never be more than an arm's length from them. Mistake # 2
Tuesday, November 09, 2010
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
HMMM...LET'S NOT BE HASTY
It seems I may have been premature in my accusation of Brett Stewart (though I'll reserve my right to re-judge at a later stage if needs be).
His trial began today and the salient facts are:
The 17 year old had some redness around her vaginal area (Stewart stands accused of forcing his tongue into her mouth and digitally penetrating her). That is apparently all the physical evidence.
However, the accused's mouth and fingers were swabbed and no trace of the girl's DNA was found to be present. This in and of itself doesn't guarantee an acquittal obviously but that combined with the following certainly brings the veracity of the girl's story into doubt.
The girl has been receiving treatment for "psychosis" and "hallucinations". This is quite damning.
Maybe Mr Stewart isn't as typical a rugby league player as I thought (though he was on the piss all that day and was asked to leave the bar).
Nevertheless, innocent til proven guilty and all that so...
Watch this space.
His trial began today and the salient facts are:
The 17 year old had some redness around her vaginal area (Stewart stands accused of forcing his tongue into her mouth and digitally penetrating her). That is apparently all the physical evidence.
However, the accused's mouth and fingers were swabbed and no trace of the girl's DNA was found to be present. This in and of itself doesn't guarantee an acquittal obviously but that combined with the following certainly brings the veracity of the girl's story into doubt.
The girl has been receiving treatment for "psychosis" and "hallucinations". This is quite damning.
Maybe Mr Stewart isn't as typical a rugby league player as I thought (though he was on the piss all that day and was asked to leave the bar).
Nevertheless, innocent til proven guilty and all that so...
Watch this space.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
THE MIGHTIEST OF ALL BLACKS?
Of course I'm referring to the New Zealand All Blacks, those all-conquering chaps of the international rugby world.
The first team in the history of the Tri-Nations tournament to do a clean sweep, that is to win every game they played.
Though they almost didn't make it; the Wallabies under Robbie Deans (a Kiwi, and the ex-coach of the mighty Crusaders Super 14 team) have finally under Deans tutelage been whipped into a team resembling something worthy of attempting to claim the next World Cup (next year whoop whoop!)
And to be fair, if it wasn't for the inaccurate boot of Matt Giteau, the Aussies would have beaten the Blacks.
That said, Henry (the Blacks coach) had made 5 changes to the team, and most noticeably, Dan Carter was out with an ankle injury. Carter is the kingpin of the side.
But, given that all the silverware is already in the closet (Bledisloe, Tri-Nations) Henry is obviously giving his men a run in order to build an unbeatable team for the 2011 World Cup.
Are they they best ever? A matter of opinion between men with more knowledge than I but one thing's for sure, they have steamrolled all before them so far.
Roll on the Cup. Godwilling, I'll be there for it.
The first team in the history of the Tri-Nations tournament to do a clean sweep, that is to win every game they played.
Though they almost didn't make it; the Wallabies under Robbie Deans (a Kiwi, and the ex-coach of the mighty Crusaders Super 14 team) have finally under Deans tutelage been whipped into a team resembling something worthy of attempting to claim the next World Cup (next year whoop whoop!)
And to be fair, if it wasn't for the inaccurate boot of Matt Giteau, the Aussies would have beaten the Blacks.
That said, Henry (the Blacks coach) had made 5 changes to the team, and most noticeably, Dan Carter was out with an ankle injury. Carter is the kingpin of the side.
But, given that all the silverware is already in the closet (Bledisloe, Tri-Nations) Henry is obviously giving his men a run in order to build an unbeatable team for the 2011 World Cup.
Are they they best ever? A matter of opinion between men with more knowledge than I but one thing's for sure, they have steamrolled all before them so far.
Roll on the Cup. Godwilling, I'll be there for it.
HELLOOOO - NICE OF YOU TO KEEP UP!
There are several pieces in here dealing with alcohol abuse and I unapologetically make no excuse for my contempt towards those who sink piss like it's going out of fashion then behave like an animal towards some innocent bystander on the street.
I've made mention of how this disease has extended it's reach to the fairer sex (females have now overtaken males in thwe statistics appertaining to alcohol induced violence). It would seem in their quest to be regarded as equal to males (an absurd and asinine claim) these intoxicated females are turning on one another with a ferocity not seen since...well, ever actually. I was going to say since neanderthal times but even then the males did the vast majority of the fighting.
So, the authorities decided to mount an operation with the intent of cracking down on said alcohol-fuelled violence.
In one weekend, something like 1500 arrests were made and the police are left shaking their heads in stunned amazement.
So, blah, blah, blah followed as one would expect, with "experts" giving their considered opinions on the reasons why it has become such a problem (nobody asked me, though - or read this blog, where they would find the answer).
And today Andrew Scipione, the police chief was on talk radio and low and behold, the penny finally dropped (the very penny I first posted here years ago). "I open the paper", he says, "and I can't turn 3 pages without seeing full page spreads offering all kind of alcohol at bargain basement prices".
Yeah, dead on, Andy, welcome to the class - nice of you to join us!
I've made mention of how this disease has extended it's reach to the fairer sex (females have now overtaken males in thwe statistics appertaining to alcohol induced violence). It would seem in their quest to be regarded as equal to males (an absurd and asinine claim) these intoxicated females are turning on one another with a ferocity not seen since...well, ever actually. I was going to say since neanderthal times but even then the males did the vast majority of the fighting.
So, the authorities decided to mount an operation with the intent of cracking down on said alcohol-fuelled violence.
In one weekend, something like 1500 arrests were made and the police are left shaking their heads in stunned amazement.
So, blah, blah, blah followed as one would expect, with "experts" giving their considered opinions on the reasons why it has become such a problem (nobody asked me, though - or read this blog, where they would find the answer).
And today Andrew Scipione, the police chief was on talk radio and low and behold, the penny finally dropped (the very penny I first posted here years ago). "I open the paper", he says, "and I can't turn 3 pages without seeing full page spreads offering all kind of alcohol at bargain basement prices".
Yeah, dead on, Andy, welcome to the class - nice of you to join us!
MORE HEROES
Those of you who have had a passing interest in this blog thingy will remember the two Gregs. I of course speak of Greg Bird and Greg Inglis.
In case you don't I'll give you a quick reminder. Mr Bird was the "hero" who thought it would be heroic to smash a glass in his girlfriend's face, leaving her with significant lacerations, then proceeded to tell the police that his mate did it.
Ultimately this dopey girl refused to press charges, instead claiming she was trying to hurt herself and in the course of protecting her Bird somehow smashed the glass into her face. Victims of domestic violence the world over must be horrified at this woman's behaviour and that it has set their cause back years.
Greg Inglis, on the other hand, allegedly gave his piece of ass (for surely that's all these women must be to these "heroes") a tasty shiner. That's all I have ever heard about this case, which is disturbing in itself. Another beaten woman feeling like she was responsible perhaps?
Anyway, these two fine examples of mankind are back playing rugby league and being lauded like some sort of supermen.
So the moral of the story? In Australia, as long as you are a "sports star" it would seem you can get away with almost anything.
However, there may just be some justice. Brett Stewart, another idolized player was in court recently facing charges of indecently assaulting a 17 year old girl on his way home after a night on the piss. I certainly hope this girl sticks to her guns but judging by recent events, I wouldn't put money on it.
In case you don't I'll give you a quick reminder. Mr Bird was the "hero" who thought it would be heroic to smash a glass in his girlfriend's face, leaving her with significant lacerations, then proceeded to tell the police that his mate did it.
Ultimately this dopey girl refused to press charges, instead claiming she was trying to hurt herself and in the course of protecting her Bird somehow smashed the glass into her face. Victims of domestic violence the world over must be horrified at this woman's behaviour and that it has set their cause back years.
Greg Inglis, on the other hand, allegedly gave his piece of ass (for surely that's all these women must be to these "heroes") a tasty shiner. That's all I have ever heard about this case, which is disturbing in itself. Another beaten woman feeling like she was responsible perhaps?
Anyway, these two fine examples of mankind are back playing rugby league and being lauded like some sort of supermen.
So the moral of the story? In Australia, as long as you are a "sports star" it would seem you can get away with almost anything.
However, there may just be some justice. Brett Stewart, another idolized player was in court recently facing charges of indecently assaulting a 17 year old girl on his way home after a night on the piss. I certainly hope this girl sticks to her guns but judging by recent events, I wouldn't put money on it.
Friday, September 10, 2010
BOO HOO
Bill Crews is a 26 year old policeman - or rather, he was. The unfortunate fellow got shot it the head during a drug raid in Towelhead-land just south west of Sydney city.
Immediately it was assumed that one of said Towelheads, or should I say, alleged drug possession/dealing Towelheads was responsible.
And just as immediately talkback radio, television et al jumped at the chance to voice horror and outrage (woe is me, waste of a young officer's life, how dare they shoot at a police officer?...and here I'll digress for a moment. Police officers, and soldiers too in fact, have a weapon - several weapons in fact. And they're trained to use them, that is to say, the use of deadly force to protect or apprehend. I don't enjoy such security, so they are charged with its provision. I ask you, exactly whom else should be shot at? Me? You?).
And boy, did they milk it. A newspaper editor was stood down over daring to suggest that the death would shift more copy. Remember TV, radio, and the very medium in question, newspapers were all running this story as a headline. Just bear that in mind.
Cut to several days after the shooting, post post mortem as it were. It transpires that the bullet that killed poor Bill (that actually struck him in the neck, not the head as earlier reported - not that it matters a whole lot...) came from none other than a senior constable (a senior constable in the keystone cops it seems). The family of Bill have since told this SC that they don't hold him responsible. How nice. Apparently the SC went to the same target practice school as the bunch of cretins who took ten shots to bring down a 14 year old a few years back (see earlier post).
So there y'go. More sterling work from the Boys in Blue. Australia's finest.
***************************
Another example has also occurred lately; the case of a soldier killed during a firefight in Afghanistan, in which a claimed 30-odd insurgents were killed. More hand-wringing and woe is me (regarding the dead soldier - not the Taliban insurgents obviously). As alluded to above, but more so, if anyone is trained in the use of weapons it's a professional soldier; likewise said soldier is expected to use his weapon to kill the enemy.
Furthermore, this isn't World War One or Two. Conscription no longer exists in the western world. No-one held a gun to this fellows head. He joined the army of his own accord. Why, only he knows but one thing's for sure, once that first round whizzed past his head, he had (as defined in the ROE - rules of engagement) full authorization to return fire with the sole intent of killing the enemy - an enemy with a family, a mother, father, sisters and brothers perhaps.
If he was too slow/hadn't enough cover or was simply a poor shot then that's just bad luck. It's war. It isn't pretty. And whilst I empathize with his immediate family and friends over their loss of a loved one, I think we need to remember that in life, in certain occupations, the risk of death and/or serious injury is clear and present.
Prior to this piece, Washington State executed a rapist/torturor/murderer by lethal injection. So it would seem that human life isn't actually sacrosanct when it suits us. How wonderfully civilized, yes?
Immediately it was assumed that one of said Towelheads, or should I say, alleged drug possession/dealing Towelheads was responsible.
And just as immediately talkback radio, television et al jumped at the chance to voice horror and outrage (woe is me, waste of a young officer's life, how dare they shoot at a police officer?...and here I'll digress for a moment. Police officers, and soldiers too in fact, have a weapon - several weapons in fact. And they're trained to use them, that is to say, the use of deadly force to protect or apprehend. I don't enjoy such security, so they are charged with its provision. I ask you, exactly whom else should be shot at? Me? You?).
And boy, did they milk it. A newspaper editor was stood down over daring to suggest that the death would shift more copy. Remember TV, radio, and the very medium in question, newspapers were all running this story as a headline. Just bear that in mind.
Cut to several days after the shooting, post post mortem as it were. It transpires that the bullet that killed poor Bill (that actually struck him in the neck, not the head as earlier reported - not that it matters a whole lot...) came from none other than a senior constable (a senior constable in the keystone cops it seems). The family of Bill have since told this SC that they don't hold him responsible. How nice. Apparently the SC went to the same target practice school as the bunch of cretins who took ten shots to bring down a 14 year old a few years back (see earlier post).
So there y'go. More sterling work from the Boys in Blue. Australia's finest.
***************************
Another example has also occurred lately; the case of a soldier killed during a firefight in Afghanistan, in which a claimed 30-odd insurgents were killed. More hand-wringing and woe is me (regarding the dead soldier - not the Taliban insurgents obviously). As alluded to above, but more so, if anyone is trained in the use of weapons it's a professional soldier; likewise said soldier is expected to use his weapon to kill the enemy.
Furthermore, this isn't World War One or Two. Conscription no longer exists in the western world. No-one held a gun to this fellows head. He joined the army of his own accord. Why, only he knows but one thing's for sure, once that first round whizzed past his head, he had (as defined in the ROE - rules of engagement) full authorization to return fire with the sole intent of killing the enemy - an enemy with a family, a mother, father, sisters and brothers perhaps.
If he was too slow/hadn't enough cover or was simply a poor shot then that's just bad luck. It's war. It isn't pretty. And whilst I empathize with his immediate family and friends over their loss of a loved one, I think we need to remember that in life, in certain occupations, the risk of death and/or serious injury is clear and present.
Prior to this piece, Washington State executed a rapist/torturor/murderer by lethal injection. So it would seem that human life isn't actually sacrosanct when it suits us. How wonderfully civilized, yes?
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
