Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all Show Posts made by this member. Note that you can only see Show Posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - LP

1
The Sports Desk / Re: Melbourne Storm
The Pacific Championship is the NRL equivalent of backyard cricket, it's a mostly worthless competition that attracts only parochial support.
2
Ladies Lounge / Re: AFLW Elimination Final 2025 Carlton vs West Coast
The AFL have sort of exposed the folly of the small / short AFLW competition with a number of clubs playing each other in consecutive weeks, it's time for the AFL to get serious about managing the AFLW and not just leave the competition in free fall.
3
Ladies Lounge / Re: AFLW 2025 Season
A work associate went to the Hawks / Norp game Friday night, he tells me he was astounded by the support for Norp, almost more than he has seen at some of the AFL team's games. He said for a Dawks home game the Norp fans probably outnumbered them 3 to 1.

 No surprise then they are doing so well.

I suppose for Norp they must look pretty good if they are pulling crowds that are a comparable fraction of the men.
4
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Shawny’s concerns about Victorian and Australian Governments
Quote from: PaulP – on
You have one disadvantaged group whose health outcomes are improved because of this policy, and other advantaged groups whose health outcomes are the same as a result of this policy.
I don't think anyone is genuinely disadvantaged, but I also fear the reason for the change is not really a reason at all!

If we first subset the health study by alcoholics, then subset the alcoholics by ethnicity, we will see biases appear but they aren't or may not be genuine biases as they are created by the selection of categories. If you remove the alcoholism from the figures and present the remaining data you have manufactured a bias that appears social or racist.

However, it could be argued if you swiftly promote someone to admission who you cannot yet begin treating, you will potentially be consuming a bed waiting for the opportunity to treat. In this case maybe someone is disadvantaged, but at the bare minimum you have created waste and inefficiency.

I would think in a resource stretched system the case for the "good of the many" suggests greater throughput.

I could be even more cynical, and suggest administrators see this as a way of getting increased funding, they need more resources to maintain or improvement treatment levels in the face of a "systematic bias"! ;) The Admins certainly know politicians won't make decisions that negatively impact their constituency.
5
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Shawny’s concerns about Victorian and Australian Governments
Quote from: DJC – on
LP, you know that I worked in Indigenous affairs for over 30 years and that's not how the system works.  For a start, what "Federal benefits" would they be claiming?  With some exceptions, like Abstudy, Indigenous Australians access the same Centrelink payments as everyone else.  Skimming Centrelink payments wouldn't be a very lucrative form of blackmail.

In my experience, the mob is very quick to expose anyone who falsely claims to be Indigenous.  For example, see Michael Mansell's rejection of Bruce Pascoe's claim of Tasmanian Aboriginal ancestry: https://tasmaniantimes.com/2020/01/bruce-pascoe-is-not-aboriginal/
Yes, I understand all this, and I do not want to hijack this debate. My point is more about the elimination of subjectivity in the assessment, not whether or not it is actually needed.

Quote from: madbluboy – on
If St Vincent's were making indigenous wait 3 times longer because they're indigenous then they should be shut down.
On the specific issue, like the St Vincent's study, there are stats and then there are damn stats and lies, which feeds back into my doubts. You can take the numbers and make them say whatever you want through flexible categorisation or cherry-picking categories that paint a picture towards your desired conclusion.

For example, I was made aware was one of the key reasons for waiting for treatment in general is alcohol abuse preventing immediate treatment. So if you have a small subset that is categorised differently because of the choice of category they will show up strongly despite there being no embedded systematic discrimination. The root of the problem is then not really the system, but the social driver that causes alcoholism. So if the group you analyse has a higher percentage representation in terms of presenting under the influence of alcohol they will show up strongly.

Alcohol is a great example because some ethic groups present with a greater percentage allergic to alcohol, if you analyse treatments that delayed or denied due to alcohol allergy, without listing the alcohol allergy as a cause, the numbers will show up as Asians being discriminated against.

Like most stats, the problems are not the numbers, but how the numbers get interpreted, the conclusions drawn and the politics. The sad thing is that the politicians and media know this, they just choose not to communicate it because clear explanations do not rate.
6
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Shawny’s concerns about Victorian and Australian Governments
Quote from: DJC – on
It is the point though because hospitals have taken steps to address a failure to care for a small and vulnerable cohort without any negative impacts on the care provided to everyone else.
The only concern I have over this is the question of who is indigenous.

In my direct personal experience, I know of people claiming Federal benefits because the local mob declared them as members of the  mob, despite not have a drop of indigenous heritage. Then another segment of the same mob use access to those benefits as a form of blackmail, skimming "a donation" of the top in return for silence.

If we leave the classification of such matters to hearsay and opinion, the dark side of humanity will prevail, it has to be more formal.
8
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Shawny’s concerns about Victorian and Australian Governments
Quote from: DJC – on
You cannot sue for injuries suffered while committing a crime EOS.

If you managed to get the case to court, it would be laughed out by the judge and/or jury.

“Just how did you injure your leg Mr Smith?”

“I was kicking in the door so we could do a burg yer honour.”
You haven't committed a crime until you are found guilty, at least here in Australia.

When there is a settlement there is no jury, no judge and not many questions, it all happens across a desk.

My recommendation is you have a long long calm chat with legal aid before you jump at a defence.
9
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Shawny’s concerns about Victorian and Australian Governments
We are discussing two different things, you are talking about post criminal convictions, I'm talking about being sued long before or in the absence of any criminal conviction. Nobody given the sensible advice would take a civil case to court risking 30K+ in legal fees if the alternative was to settle for $10k.

If you want to see the same mechanism at play study Workcover, or study how the CCCP leverages people into become spies, it's all about risk management. Why do you think companies settle or people relent, because the risk on the other side of the equation is too great.

You'd be a dead set dud if you legally advised someone to risk $30K, $50k or there house to save $10k, and it is in that margin that blokes like Lennon worked because they can. I suppose if you have cash to burn you can stand the high moral ground.
10
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Shawny’s concerns about Victorian and Australian Governments
It's not that black and white, the law takes into account cause, so if the home owner contributes to injury even for someone there illegally they can be liable. These cases are usually settled long before any formal ruling, nobody in their right mind will risk their house for a punitive amount and lawyers know it.

Crooks want cash not a cellmate.
11
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Shawny’s concerns about Victorian and Australian Governments
Quote from: Gointocarlton – on
Thats a bit of a myth me thinks.
I do know of a business owner (and state level rifle shooter) who shot an intruder (wounded him the leg) who broke into his High St Northcote business in the 80s. Got off those chargers IIRC. Years later, was broken into again, again he shot the intruder in the leg but did some time for the second offence.
That's almost 50 years ago, and I've had a couple of encounters with a bloke called Pat Lennon that suggests otherwise.
13
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Shawny’s concerns about Victorian and Australian Governments
Quote from: Professer E – on
Be careful,vid your dog bites an intruder can't you be charged with assault by a dangerous animal of some such rubbish? Crazy world we live in
If you chase them out of your house and they trip and fall, they will claim injury and you'll be charged with assault and battery. The problem isn't really the crook or the law, the problem is the crooked lawyer.

So you might as well let the dog finish the job!
14
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Shawny’s concerns about Victorian and Australian Governments
Quote from: DJC – on
Our security service sign and “caution - dogs on premises” sign probably mean that I won’t have to decide about trying to retrieve a firearm.
These are the two important and under-rated aspects of security.

People install home alarms systems and cameras, then refuse to put up the signs provided by the security companies because they are "ugly". But the hard truth is the sign is a huge part of the deterrent, and it works.

The equal best option is a medium to large dog, small dogs are useless for defence and might only be marginally useful as an alert.

Years ago a relative was heavily involved in the first use of police dogs in Victoria, he could never understand why the program wasn't expanded more widely and faster. It was so successful when it first rolled out he had expected dogs to eventually be paired with every patrol. Unfortunately, opportunistic lawyers got involved and started suing the police for injuries incurred while resisting arrest.

If people want to have private security patrols in the local area, security with dogs is a much better deterrent than security with guns. A gun can only be used when in safe range, dogs can run someone down from hundreds of meters away, you can't hide from them, and they won't go through a wall or window and kill an innocent bystander!

When you watch a protest, the protesters harass mounted police, butt cigarettes on horses, throw projectiles at them, when the dogs are present the protesters give them a wide berth.

Finally, there are some specific cultural demographics that courtesy of long standing epigenetics are thoroughly petrified of dogs.
15
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Shawny’s concerns about Victorian and Australian Governments
Quote from: Professer E – on
Still can't believe you can't protect your own family on your own property.  Seriously, if people come onto someone's property with an intent to commit a crime common sense says you should be able to defend yours with zero legal repercussions.
It's gamed by savvy kids, if they know that you are prone to react they setup people with a tactic called swatting. That in particular is why females should never respond solo to calls for help even if they think it is someone they know.