There have been reports in the Australian media recently of the perils to travellers at Australian airports. This particular peril doesn’t come from terrorists or the like - it comes from thieves at security check in points, unwittingly assisted by airport security personnel.
Video footage has been released of thieves waiting at the other end of the x-ray machine conveyor belts, and taking the property of others. Rings, wallets, watches and the like are all required to be removed, and are easy for nimble fingered thieves to palm and hide without attracting too much attention.
The problem has been compounded by the increase in passengers having to remove their shoes, then later put them back on, and more incidents of passengers being double checked with metal detection wands, even after walking through the gateway metal detector. There are also random explosive tests, drug sniffer dogs, and others.
The results of all these scans is that the passenger’s valuables are sitting unsecured and unattended at the other end of the conveyor belt, usually out of sight of the passenger, sometimes for up to five minutes, and on occasion even longer. This gives thieves more than ample opportunity to steal the unaccompanied valuables.
Even laptops are more regularly being stolen, as thieves can make a quick getaway, and be out of the airport before security or police can be notified. Some security footage has shown thieves wearing long coats, sitting on the laptops, and hiding them under the coats, before walking off unnoticed.
While it is necessary and desirable for passengers to undergo such security, in a world fraught with the spectre of terrorism, it is clear that better systems is needed to ensure the security of passengers personal belongings.
Bill Henson’s claim that his pictures of naked preteens are art is not to be taken seriously - it is child porn, nothing less, and a pathetic attempt to use established art galleries as a false veneer for respectability. The fact that the web site showing the children’s photos was based off shore shows clearly that those involved were trying to ensure that Australian authorities could not close that down as well.
The photographer appears to have found a loop hole in the law. Such exhibitions are not officially classified, as art is considered exempt from censorship. The photos are then put on the internet, under the guise that they are simply reproductions of an endorsed art exhibition.
However, it should be remembered that no official authority is actually needed to endorse an art exhibition. Anyone can call anything they like “art”, without anybody having any right to challenge it. Art is a very subjective term, and art itself can be a variety of things to different people.
Some supporters of the preteen naked photos have stated that children were often painted naked in the past, and by some of the masters of painting. This is true.
However, in those days gone by, art galleries were the domain of a small minority, and the paintings themselves were the work of talented artists who had spent many years refining their craft. Those viewing were also generally well versed in the ways of the artists, and appreciative of the skills and beauty of the portrayal of such subjects.
Prior to the 1800’s, the legal age of consent in most western countries (including England) was 12 years old, and sometimes less. Such paintings were socially acceptable, and the subject’s participation perfectly legal at the time. In today’s society, the depiction of such subjects is not socially acceptable, and is also illegal.
Additionally, the subjects have not simply been hung in an art gallery, for the perusal of dedicated and probably sincere art admirers. They have been put on the internet, through an overseas location, where no end of perverts all over the world can do whatever perverts do when they look at naked pictures of 12 year old boys and girls.
The changing faces of technology have meant that society has had to take different approaches to such issues. Mr Henson seems to have found a way to peddle his illicit photos, by abusing the assumed morality of a probably respectable art gallery.
However, it should be remembered that he never meant for these photos to be limited to genuine art lovers. He wanted them to be seen on the internet, by all sorts of people who have probably no idea of where to find an art gallery, even if they did know what a gallery was.
His photos on the internet are a child porn site. They can not be viewed as anything else, despite his pathetic attempts to justify them as art.
There has been much debate recently about tax on diesel. This tax was introduced to fund the infrastructure for natural gas, but this infrastructure has never happened. So the question arises: why do we still pay the tax.
When diesel first became popular, it was because it was cheaper. It was cheaper, because it is less refined, so costs less to produce than other petrol does. This is also the reason that diesel vehicles are more expensive than petrol cars.
Many people opted to pay more for diesel vehicles, on the premise that the long term savings on fuel would be more economical. However, as the number of diesel vehicles has increased, so too has the greed of the oil companies and governments.
Knowing that people are locked in to using diesel, because of the large outlays for their vehicles, prices have soared, to a stage where diesel now costs more per litre than petrol, even though it is much cheaper to produce.
In Europe, diesel is about 25% cheaper than in Australia. The oil companies state that it is higher in Australia, because the price is indexed to the Singapore price (the same old line they use for higher petrol prices). In Asia, diesel vehicles are far more popular per capita than in other countries, and oil companies tend to charge higher prices simply because they can get away with it. In effect, they are profiteering.
There is little regulation in many Asian countries. These over inflated prices are then passed back to the Australian consumer, simply because Australia happens to be in the same general geographic region. The Singapore index is not reflective of the world market.
Diesel is also more climate friendly than petrol. So why then doesn’t Penny Wong, Australia’s climate change minister, act on this rip-off by the oil companies? And why doesn’t the government axe the tax on diesel, which has never been used for the reason it was introduced?
About 90% of Australian people donate an average of $400 per person to charity each year. But how much do the charities use to help others, and how much do they use to help themselves? A survey by choice magazine last month showed some surprising results.
Of the 11 major charities surveyed, all with exactly the same questions, nine responded. Two, Lifeline Community Care Queensland and National Heart Foundation, refused to participate. Of the nine that did participate, most answered only selected questions, ignoring questions that didn’t suit them.
What became evident to Choice was that it is nearly impossible to compare the charities, given that they each use different reporting methods. There are no standardised reporting systems for not-for-profit organisations in Australia. There are such standards overseas, including the UK, Canada and New Zealand. In many cases, reporting and disclosure is voluntary, meaning charities do not have to reveal their financial situation if it doesn’t suit them.
Some of the major coordinating groups for charities stated that many charities figures are misleading, and many under-report the actual amount that is spent on administration, in a misleading attempt to appease their supporters. There are no regulations in Australia to prevent this, as happens in the corporate and private sectors.
My own experiences working with many charities, including winning the Vodafone World of Difference Award in 2006 for my work, is that the charities are largely run by unqualified people. In one major charity, that I will talk about in a later post, none of the managers at any level had any qualifications in business, accounting, management, social work, or any other tertiary field at all.
There were no internal audit procedures whatsoever. Product was sold each week, and the amount sold was routinely reported as lower than actual sales by the manager. The manager then claimed to have given away for free all the left over stock, claiming it was for promotional purposes. Because no reporting is required, no police or other action can be taken, as there are no records kept.
Most charities do not fall into this category, and such instances are usually the result of the greed of one, rather than the greed of the whole organisation.
However, Choice have called for greater accountability and transparency for charities, along with national compulsory guidelines for reporting and disclosure. It will be interesting to see if the new federal minister for charities, Senator Ursula Stephens, takes this on board or not.
In recent weeks, I have received several calls from persons claiming to be from my bank. They have told me that I have an account with them that is overdrawn. They have then gone on to instructt me, "for identification purposes", to verify my account number, by telling them over the phone. This is exactly what scammers who commit identity fraud do.
When I expressed my concern over their identity, these people become extremely aggressive. They refuse to give me their full name, the location they are calling from, a return number I can call them on, their supervisor's name, or any other details that might assist in identifying they are genuine. They also refused to tell me which bank account is overdrawn. They simply insist that I give out personal details, including home address, phone number and bank account details, on an unsecured and unsubstantiated phone line.
When I have refused, they have made threats that they will damage my credit rating if I don't divulge the personal information they demand. This is very intimidating.
I checked my bank accounts, and found they were all in order. So I called the bank, and tod them that maybe someone was trying to get information illegally. After about a 30 minute wait, the bank came back to me, and informed me that an account I had closed five years previously had not actually closed, and had accrued several hundred dollars of fees in that time. That was the debt they .had called me about.
Then the bank stated they were very disappointed that I had been so uncooperative with the person who had been unable to positively verify that they did actually work for the bank. Because I had been uncooperative, they had referred the matter to a collection agency, and recorded a bad debt on my otherwise unblemished credit rating.
Now, the bank has my mailing address, fax number, and email address, all securely recorded in my account details, along with my account number. Contacting me by any of these means allows me to see where the communication originated from. When I receive a call on my cell phone, I cannot even see what number the call has originated from, as the bank blocks this.
The ACCC, and Scam Watch, advise people not to give out such details over the phone, or even on the internet, if the email address is not known. Yet he banks insist on using these methods.
Surely there are more secure ways that the banks, and other organisations, could go about dealing with such matters.
CraigH
Comments (1)
Add Comments
Read More
