There is so much politicking on this issue it is unbelievable. Surly, it is no surprise that when you get a few thousand politicians and bureaucrats into one spot, nothing happens other than self promotion. Remember these people like to talk, don’t like decisions and will run a mile from responsibility and accountability.
The whole process shows a lack of understanding of human nature and why we change.
There is no doubt that we need to remove catastrophic emissions as we need to remove a dependence on non-renewable energy. Even if you believe the climate change sceptics, this holds truth for our collective future.
There are three ways to get people to support the required changes. Make inappropriate emissions and the use of non-renewable energy illegal and subject to goal time. Secondly, give people an incentive to use renewable energy. Thirdly by shaming people into changing.
Option 1 is good for business which hides behind corporate fire walls. Option 2 is a commercial decision by savvy operators in that wind, thermal, solar and hydro power can and should be supported by everyone so that the high emissions and/or non-renewable energy suppliers are financially undercut and sent bankrupt. The third option is for everyone but needs to be fair dinkum.
The power of the market is the only thing which will change the current situation!
Everyone, even politicians, will choose to buy energy from suppliers who do not chuck rubbish into the air and actively and transparently pursue renewable energy sources providing they are commercially equitable. We as a nation cannot support a ‘dig it up’ culture in the face of obvious climate dysfunction and we as a nation can and should lead the world by example.
It could be argued that Australia has the world’s strongest economy and are in a position to lead the world. What’s stopping us? To say we shouldn’t be first is rubbish and denigrates us as Australians.
If every Australian was to show the world just how serious we are by giving $50 per year for 3 years to removing our dependence on non-renewable energy sources it would shame the USA, China and India and effectively remove their politicking positional strategies. Imagine a world-publicised event where Australians are seen as aware, savvy and generous of their time and money. Wow.
We are a successful and fantastic nation of only 21 million people and are in a position to lead the world’s attitudes and actions.
All we need is the impetus driven by a brilliant, serious, successful, known, respected and devoted Australian.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
STEPHEN DOWNES AND THE HERALD SUN
We own a restaurant. Mon Ami Restaurant and Gallery is an ‘awarded’ restaurant which has been fortunate enough to enjoy a 90+% average occupancy for the last 6 years and has been subject to a number of very positive reviews including ‘Melbourne’s Best’ by the Herald Sun on the 31st of May 2009. Our website [monamirestaurant.com.au] has several of these reviews/awards listed.
We had never had a negative review until Mr. Downes went to press in the same Herald Sun.
Contrary to every other review or opinion, Mr. Downes defamed and castigated our restaurant, my partner and me by name, when he published his opinions on the 31st March 2009. It is so malicious and vitriolic and so opposite to any other review or customer opinion that it beggars belief. We can’t help but assume some other motive other than a desire to produce an honest and balanced report.
Our customers who read the Herald Sun dismiss Mr. Downes as a joke but there must be others who read his words and believe them or, even if they don’t trust all the comments, are dissuaded from booking at Mon Ami. Worse, because of the way the internet works, Mr. Downes’ vitriol is inexorably and permanently linked to my name and our restaurant.
Even the Herald Sun seems to treat Mr. Downes as a joke. As mentioned, just eight weeks after his review, within which he labels us as possibly the worst restaurant of all time, the Herald Sun through another review summarised us a ‘Melbourne’s Best’.
Unfortunately, the print thieves then take Mr. Downes words, in whole or in part, and republish them on their own website. This exacerbates any misrepresentations and indeed further damages our previously excellent reputations. Mietta’s website is one such example.
It is appalling that the Herald Sun [HWT – News Corp] supports Mr. Downes and his views by publishing his material and providing him with legal counsel to fend off subsequent objectors.
This complicity by HWT is evident by the fact that Mr. Downes reported within his review that he found a 12cm piece of metal in the food – as long as a small kitchen knife! The legal counsel for HWT refused to provide the object and photos of it in situ despite having already gone to press and accusing us to a reading audience of 1.5 million people. We contacted the health department and asked them to investigate Mr. Downes’ claim and we have also involved Police in the matter.
If such an item ever existed we needed to know. If something had disintegrated in the kitchen without our knowledge then it was Mr. Downes’ responsibility as a professional [sic] reviewer to inform us so that we could ensure others were not similarly affected. His negligence put others at risk. We believe he wanted to go to print for self gain as both victim and saviour.
We are disappointed that people accept the Downes’ style of journalism when overwhelming evidence from other reviews and customers shows his words as wrong, malicious and defamatory.
Our society does not need this low level of journalism.
We had never had a negative review until Mr. Downes went to press in the same Herald Sun.
Contrary to every other review or opinion, Mr. Downes defamed and castigated our restaurant, my partner and me by name, when he published his opinions on the 31st March 2009. It is so malicious and vitriolic and so opposite to any other review or customer opinion that it beggars belief. We can’t help but assume some other motive other than a desire to produce an honest and balanced report.
Our customers who read the Herald Sun dismiss Mr. Downes as a joke but there must be others who read his words and believe them or, even if they don’t trust all the comments, are dissuaded from booking at Mon Ami. Worse, because of the way the internet works, Mr. Downes’ vitriol is inexorably and permanently linked to my name and our restaurant.
Even the Herald Sun seems to treat Mr. Downes as a joke. As mentioned, just eight weeks after his review, within which he labels us as possibly the worst restaurant of all time, the Herald Sun through another review summarised us a ‘Melbourne’s Best’.
Unfortunately, the print thieves then take Mr. Downes words, in whole or in part, and republish them on their own website. This exacerbates any misrepresentations and indeed further damages our previously excellent reputations. Mietta’s website is one such example.
It is appalling that the Herald Sun [HWT – News Corp] supports Mr. Downes and his views by publishing his material and providing him with legal counsel to fend off subsequent objectors.
This complicity by HWT is evident by the fact that Mr. Downes reported within his review that he found a 12cm piece of metal in the food – as long as a small kitchen knife! The legal counsel for HWT refused to provide the object and photos of it in situ despite having already gone to press and accusing us to a reading audience of 1.5 million people. We contacted the health department and asked them to investigate Mr. Downes’ claim and we have also involved Police in the matter.
If such an item ever existed we needed to know. If something had disintegrated in the kitchen without our knowledge then it was Mr. Downes’ responsibility as a professional [sic] reviewer to inform us so that we could ensure others were not similarly affected. His negligence put others at risk. We believe he wanted to go to print for self gain as both victim and saviour.
We are disappointed that people accept the Downes’ style of journalism when overwhelming evidence from other reviews and customers shows his words as wrong, malicious and defamatory.
Our society does not need this low level of journalism.
PRINT JACKALS
What sort of world do we live in where people try and live their past glories by merely transcribing other people’s written work? Take the internet. Someone writes something, right or wrong, then the ink-jackals steal that work and republish it on their own website. They may even try to justify this theft as ‘doing a service’ in the interests of ‘spreading the word’ and indeed hope that people will read their website and give them credit by association. Sad people.
But what happens if the original material is wrong, defamatory and/or creates disunity or sedition? Does the ink-jackal escape scrutiny and punishment because he or she is just re-publishing others work? One would hope not.
In my opinion, the actions of the print-jackal are far worse than the original perpetrator. The author may be guilty of defamation, negligence at torte or even endeavoring to create dysfunction or riot through misrepresentation but, the print-thief is far worse because he or she doesn’t have the knowledge or the plain guts to research or write something themselves but instead chooses to hide behind someone else’s persona and just re-publish others works.
It is a sad indictment on our society that we accept this drivel.
In our case we do not accept it and will force remedy by exposing the theft and shaming the thief.
But what happens if the original material is wrong, defamatory and/or creates disunity or sedition? Does the ink-jackal escape scrutiny and punishment because he or she is just re-publishing others work? One would hope not.
In my opinion, the actions of the print-jackal are far worse than the original perpetrator. The author may be guilty of defamation, negligence at torte or even endeavoring to create dysfunction or riot through misrepresentation but, the print-thief is far worse because he or she doesn’t have the knowledge or the plain guts to research or write something themselves but instead chooses to hide behind someone else’s persona and just re-publish others works.
It is a sad indictment on our society that we accept this drivel.
In our case we do not accept it and will force remedy by exposing the theft and shaming the thief.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
CREATING A SUPPORTIVE SOCIETY
At what point do we as a society admonish the fools whose sole objective is to foster their own ego and/or pockets without a care as to the emotional, societal or financial damage they cause?
We could be talking about global politics [Zimbabwe for example], how our kids are brought up at home and school , people doing horrible things in our lovely city at night, pontificating politicians or indeed those who write so-called reviews. All these people seem to get their jollies from creating misery as all seem to denigrate and castigate rather than build and support.
We love to pontificate about Robert Mugabe and his evil and malicious empire-ette but at the same time readily accept the fact that our kids develop their ego or spot in the world by stomping on some other kid. Go figure. Likewise, there are people in our society who want to see others fail; they thrive on any show, press or reviews which castigate and destroy. The reviewer actually makes a living out of pandering to these people. Not much of a life me thinks.
Despite negative press about ‘Ego’, it is undoubtedly the most important thing we possess. It defines us as individuals, our place in the world, how we perceive others and eventually how we actually treat others. A strong ego forges our way through the world because we are comfortable within our own skin and don’t ‘need’ to prove ourselves at the expense of others. A fractured ego, on the other hand, hurts, destroys and reduces our world to their base level.
For years during management training we used to separate out two group members and ask the remainder to hide something in the room. We then invited the first person back in to find the ‘thing’. A rolled newspaper was used to hit him every time he went in the wrong direction and time taken was recorded. Anger and stubbornness prevailed. We then invited the second person back into the room to find the same ‘thing’ after it had been re-hidden in the same spot. This time he was ‘clapped’ every time he went in the right direction. Joy and laughter prevailed. The ‘clapped’ person always took half the time to find the ‘thing’ and it still works even if you know what’s coming. The obvious moral is - support people to achieve and they will but castigate people for being rat-bags and they will be.
What’s happened to our society that allows the rolled newspaper approach? Simple, there is an entrenched culture of ‘me me me’ at any physical, emotional or financial cost. A culture we must change if we are to survive. Mugabe is about ‘me me me’, the school bully is about ‘me me me’ and the reviewer is about ‘me me me’. Every time we delve onto the wrong side, we denigrate our own ego – we chisel a chunk off – we become ‘less’. Whacking someone down to the level of one’s own fragile ego does nothing for the whacker or the whackee.
As a possible solution why don’t we ask all 19 year olds to perform say 50 hours of community service and have everyone from then on complete just 10 hours a year; at least until they become the recipient of that service themselves. Wow! A trillion hours of ‘giving’ a year for the benefit of our community plus the immeasurable benefits to each individual through and by the development of empathy, thought and understanding of others.
We need to change.
We could be talking about global politics [Zimbabwe for example], how our kids are brought up at home and school , people doing horrible things in our lovely city at night, pontificating politicians or indeed those who write so-called reviews. All these people seem to get their jollies from creating misery as all seem to denigrate and castigate rather than build and support.
We love to pontificate about Robert Mugabe and his evil and malicious empire-ette but at the same time readily accept the fact that our kids develop their ego or spot in the world by stomping on some other kid. Go figure. Likewise, there are people in our society who want to see others fail; they thrive on any show, press or reviews which castigate and destroy. The reviewer actually makes a living out of pandering to these people. Not much of a life me thinks.
Despite negative press about ‘Ego’, it is undoubtedly the most important thing we possess. It defines us as individuals, our place in the world, how we perceive others and eventually how we actually treat others. A strong ego forges our way through the world because we are comfortable within our own skin and don’t ‘need’ to prove ourselves at the expense of others. A fractured ego, on the other hand, hurts, destroys and reduces our world to their base level.
For years during management training we used to separate out two group members and ask the remainder to hide something in the room. We then invited the first person back in to find the ‘thing’. A rolled newspaper was used to hit him every time he went in the wrong direction and time taken was recorded. Anger and stubbornness prevailed. We then invited the second person back into the room to find the same ‘thing’ after it had been re-hidden in the same spot. This time he was ‘clapped’ every time he went in the right direction. Joy and laughter prevailed. The ‘clapped’ person always took half the time to find the ‘thing’ and it still works even if you know what’s coming. The obvious moral is - support people to achieve and they will but castigate people for being rat-bags and they will be.
What’s happened to our society that allows the rolled newspaper approach? Simple, there is an entrenched culture of ‘me me me’ at any physical, emotional or financial cost. A culture we must change if we are to survive. Mugabe is about ‘me me me’, the school bully is about ‘me me me’ and the reviewer is about ‘me me me’. Every time we delve onto the wrong side, we denigrate our own ego – we chisel a chunk off – we become ‘less’. Whacking someone down to the level of one’s own fragile ego does nothing for the whacker or the whackee.
As a possible solution why don’t we ask all 19 year olds to perform say 50 hours of community service and have everyone from then on complete just 10 hours a year; at least until they become the recipient of that service themselves. Wow! A trillion hours of ‘giving’ a year for the benefit of our community plus the immeasurable benefits to each individual through and by the development of empathy, thought and understanding of others.
We need to change.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Respect
RESPONS E TO ‘LAWS A LICENCE FOR VIOLENCE’ PAGE 1 THE AGE SATURDAY APRIL 25TH 2009
No one under 60 should be allowed to have a drink, smoke, be able to cuss in public or go out with loose persons of the opposite gender. Otherwise, fear capital resolution by big brother.
Please.
How can people be so wrong about the reasons we have a degree of violence on our streets? If I may be so blunt, alcohol is not the problem, it is merely the catalyst! I am 61 and admit to having been mildly whacked on a few occasions in my life [as have most other brain dead boys] but I have never hit anyone nor lost my cool nor done anything except lie down and become vaguely incoherent. Booze has never been the ugly demon which incited me against my will to carve my initials into someone else’s head.
Most people have a drink or lots with no harm to anyone. However, with some people, their inherent life problems surface with the consumption of perhaps just a couple of anti-inhibiting drinks. Likewise there are groups of sad people for whom going out to create trouble is seen as a valid night out; and they may not have even had a drink! Indeed, prohibition in America proved that controlling the ‘catalyst’ was a failure.
What’s left? We could shoot all people accused of heinous alcohol fuelled crimes, but then who decides heinous and who’s going to shoot them? We could close down Melbourne and turn it into a fourth world city with machine guns and arm police with portable small range nuclear weapons? We could put up checkpoints on the city fringe where you have to show positive psychological profiling results to be able to party? We could put up pictures of Brumby and Kennett at the city entrances so that people could expel their anger by throwing a few missiles at their politician of choice?
But on the other hand, we could teach our society to respect everyone and really enjoy the diversity. Enjoy the yobbo, enjoy the bogun, enjoy the poonce, enjoy the bum, enjoy the bigoted argumentative dropkick, enjoy the ‘my poo don’t smell’ silver spoon irrelevant and, hardest of all, enjoy the accountant [just kidding].
It all starts from respect. Everyone has a different trigger to fire off that ‘ah ha’ moment wherein we realise just how important it is to respect everyone.
Mine happened when I was playing golf with a slow old codger about 40 years ago. Being young, fit, angry, pushy and without patience I somewhat less than subtly urged him to move his ass a little quicker. Sometime later I found out that he had ‘no’ legs but played on tin equivalents. In an instant, I learned respect.
The key is to recognise and enjoy respect. It’s nice to be humble.
No one under 60 should be allowed to have a drink, smoke, be able to cuss in public or go out with loose persons of the opposite gender. Otherwise, fear capital resolution by big brother.
Please.
How can people be so wrong about the reasons we have a degree of violence on our streets? If I may be so blunt, alcohol is not the problem, it is merely the catalyst! I am 61 and admit to having been mildly whacked on a few occasions in my life [as have most other brain dead boys] but I have never hit anyone nor lost my cool nor done anything except lie down and become vaguely incoherent. Booze has never been the ugly demon which incited me against my will to carve my initials into someone else’s head.
Most people have a drink or lots with no harm to anyone. However, with some people, their inherent life problems surface with the consumption of perhaps just a couple of anti-inhibiting drinks. Likewise there are groups of sad people for whom going out to create trouble is seen as a valid night out; and they may not have even had a drink! Indeed, prohibition in America proved that controlling the ‘catalyst’ was a failure.
What’s left? We could shoot all people accused of heinous alcohol fuelled crimes, but then who decides heinous and who’s going to shoot them? We could close down Melbourne and turn it into a fourth world city with machine guns and arm police with portable small range nuclear weapons? We could put up checkpoints on the city fringe where you have to show positive psychological profiling results to be able to party? We could put up pictures of Brumby and Kennett at the city entrances so that people could expel their anger by throwing a few missiles at their politician of choice?
But on the other hand, we could teach our society to respect everyone and really enjoy the diversity. Enjoy the yobbo, enjoy the bogun, enjoy the poonce, enjoy the bum, enjoy the bigoted argumentative dropkick, enjoy the ‘my poo don’t smell’ silver spoon irrelevant and, hardest of all, enjoy the accountant [just kidding].
It all starts from respect. Everyone has a different trigger to fire off that ‘ah ha’ moment wherein we realise just how important it is to respect everyone.
Mine happened when I was playing golf with a slow old codger about 40 years ago. Being young, fit, angry, pushy and without patience I somewhat less than subtly urged him to move his ass a little quicker. Sometime later I found out that he had ‘no’ legs but played on tin equivalents. In an instant, I learned respect.
The key is to recognise and enjoy respect. It’s nice to be humble.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Frequent Flyer points
Trying to bring Qantas to task
I took Qantas to court. Just me, no solicitors and no legal support. Naïve? Yes, because I lost this round.
I get really upset when I perceive a dysfunction and nobody seems to care. In this case the dysfunction is massive, effecting some 4.3 million people. Yet everyone just accepts the problem as part of life. No curable problem is a part of life – it is in fact a challenge to overcome.
The problem that everyone just accepts is Qantas selling more and more ‘Frequent Flyer Points’ whilst knowingly unable to meet demand for points holders to use those points for flights.
In my case I wanted to book an international flight 5 months in advance anytime over a four week period requesting one ticket from Melbourne, Sydney, Singapore, Hong Kong or Bangkok to any city in Europe. Qantas state in their brochure, “ .. in case your first choice is not available have an alternative …” I gave Qantas literally thousands of options for them to honour my request. There were no seats available.
Qantas continually ramp up their sales of points as part of various loyalty programs developing a massive contingent liability on the company with the full knowledge they can’t service even their current levels of frequent flyer debt.
Truly, an advertising mess that has become uncontrollable.
The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in their multi-page decision effectively vindicated Qantas because Qantas stated within their ‘Terms and Conditions’ that they in effect did not have to honour frequent flyer obligations because of reason ‘x’ and/or reason ‘y’.
I still believe Qantas are in breach of various parts of the Fair Trading Act including the sections on unfair terms and conditions. Yet, VCAT don’t seem to agree despite the fact that those breaches are easily provable.
When I first asserted some force on Qantas through VCAT I did indeed include an attack on their terms and conditions but was talked out of pursuing this line by a senior member of VCAT because it would take too much court time. In the end, VCAT handed down its negative decision based on the very terms and conditions they advised me not to pursue.
I, like some 4.3 million others, have lots of unusable points. For the average person, using points for domestic travel costs more than just buying a ticket – it is senseless but suits Qantas. Using the points for international travel has some financial merit but when demand far outstrips supply they are of little use.
Yet Qantas still sell loyalty points through ever increasing emotive advertising.
I wonder if I can publish my own terms and conditions, which say in effect that I am not responsible for anything and that anyone who deals with me does so at their own peril. If Qantas have immunity then so can I!!
I haven’t finished this pursuit of Qantas yet.
I took Qantas to court. Just me, no solicitors and no legal support. Naïve? Yes, because I lost this round.
I get really upset when I perceive a dysfunction and nobody seems to care. In this case the dysfunction is massive, effecting some 4.3 million people. Yet everyone just accepts the problem as part of life. No curable problem is a part of life – it is in fact a challenge to overcome.
The problem that everyone just accepts is Qantas selling more and more ‘Frequent Flyer Points’ whilst knowingly unable to meet demand for points holders to use those points for flights.
In my case I wanted to book an international flight 5 months in advance anytime over a four week period requesting one ticket from Melbourne, Sydney, Singapore, Hong Kong or Bangkok to any city in Europe. Qantas state in their brochure, “ .. in case your first choice is not available have an alternative …” I gave Qantas literally thousands of options for them to honour my request. There were no seats available.
Qantas continually ramp up their sales of points as part of various loyalty programs developing a massive contingent liability on the company with the full knowledge they can’t service even their current levels of frequent flyer debt.
Truly, an advertising mess that has become uncontrollable.
The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in their multi-page decision effectively vindicated Qantas because Qantas stated within their ‘Terms and Conditions’ that they in effect did not have to honour frequent flyer obligations because of reason ‘x’ and/or reason ‘y’.
I still believe Qantas are in breach of various parts of the Fair Trading Act including the sections on unfair terms and conditions. Yet, VCAT don’t seem to agree despite the fact that those breaches are easily provable.
When I first asserted some force on Qantas through VCAT I did indeed include an attack on their terms and conditions but was talked out of pursuing this line by a senior member of VCAT because it would take too much court time. In the end, VCAT handed down its negative decision based on the very terms and conditions they advised me not to pursue.
I, like some 4.3 million others, have lots of unusable points. For the average person, using points for domestic travel costs more than just buying a ticket – it is senseless but suits Qantas. Using the points for international travel has some financial merit but when demand far outstrips supply they are of little use.
Yet Qantas still sell loyalty points through ever increasing emotive advertising.
I wonder if I can publish my own terms and conditions, which say in effect that I am not responsible for anything and that anyone who deals with me does so at their own peril. If Qantas have immunity then so can I!!
I haven’t finished this pursuit of Qantas yet.
Bread at the table
Where does bread fit into a meal?
In short, bread has no part in a real meal. Controversial?
We continually read so called ‘critiques’ of restaurants wherein the reviewer castigates the chef/proprietor for not providing substantial free bread of such quality that some deity would feel comfortable returning to the flock just to sample the heavenly aroma.
Unless one is woofing a sandwich and needs to keep the middle bit actually in the middle, bread is a waste of stomach space. Space, which should and could be used for real food.
Bread is a filler, a carbohydrate packer, something to have if you have run out of dinner and need to ‘fill up’. My ex-wife’s mother-in-law used to trot out the bread, butter and jam after the meal so that all those hungry farmer types could fill every crevice to overflowing.
Bread is in part responsible for our current obesity problem. People are encouraged to quaff packers, such as bread, on a constant basis to fill-up and avoid that terrible threat to sanity – feeling peckish. May I suggest that feeling a ‘little’ hungry is a good thing! At the very least, it shows the body is working and consuming calories.
In my opinion as a restaurateur [obviously not shared by advertising companies], one should endeavour to ‘dine’ by consuming enough food and beverage to firstly remain relatively sober and secondly to be able to repair to the after event without the aid of a fork-lift.
Good food does not require bread unless it’s part of the dish.
Unfortunately, we are all weak when some ill informed restaurant puts good bread in front of us. We eat it.
At our little restaurant we make our own bread without preservatives and serve it with house-marinated olives and some variety of pesto. No fat. However, we do not give it away but list it as a side dish. There are no complaints, bread consumption has dropped dramatically and people are asking for more entrees. All proving that we don’t really need it.
Bread is just a filler when you can’t afford the real thing.
Savour the flavour of real food. Don’t suck the rest of the gravy with bread, ask for a teaspoon! Enjoy cheese on the merest cracker. Don’t inhale a chunk of bread with a little cheese flavour – that’s a waste the cheese. Don’t fall victim to societal norms, which dictate bread must be consumed with things such as pate de fois. We currently serve pate with sauté mushrooms and walnuts. No bread!
Finally, show some constraint when awaiting your entrée; don’t woof the table. Maybe request a little bowl of olives and perhaps savour a super dry sherry. Let the flavour of the olives and the sherry roll around your tongue and sparkle the taste buds for the first event.
Savour things in small quantities for their flavour, texture and endorphin releasing pizzazz. Enjoy the eating experience, don’t woof it.
[On the other hand, a ‘chip butty’ is really really yummy]
In short, bread has no part in a real meal. Controversial?
We continually read so called ‘critiques’ of restaurants wherein the reviewer castigates the chef/proprietor for not providing substantial free bread of such quality that some deity would feel comfortable returning to the flock just to sample the heavenly aroma.
Unless one is woofing a sandwich and needs to keep the middle bit actually in the middle, bread is a waste of stomach space. Space, which should and could be used for real food.
Bread is a filler, a carbohydrate packer, something to have if you have run out of dinner and need to ‘fill up’. My ex-wife’s mother-in-law used to trot out the bread, butter and jam after the meal so that all those hungry farmer types could fill every crevice to overflowing.
Bread is in part responsible for our current obesity problem. People are encouraged to quaff packers, such as bread, on a constant basis to fill-up and avoid that terrible threat to sanity – feeling peckish. May I suggest that feeling a ‘little’ hungry is a good thing! At the very least, it shows the body is working and consuming calories.
In my opinion as a restaurateur [obviously not shared by advertising companies], one should endeavour to ‘dine’ by consuming enough food and beverage to firstly remain relatively sober and secondly to be able to repair to the after event without the aid of a fork-lift.
Good food does not require bread unless it’s part of the dish.
Unfortunately, we are all weak when some ill informed restaurant puts good bread in front of us. We eat it.
At our little restaurant we make our own bread without preservatives and serve it with house-marinated olives and some variety of pesto. No fat. However, we do not give it away but list it as a side dish. There are no complaints, bread consumption has dropped dramatically and people are asking for more entrees. All proving that we don’t really need it.
Bread is just a filler when you can’t afford the real thing.
Savour the flavour of real food. Don’t suck the rest of the gravy with bread, ask for a teaspoon! Enjoy cheese on the merest cracker. Don’t inhale a chunk of bread with a little cheese flavour – that’s a waste the cheese. Don’t fall victim to societal norms, which dictate bread must be consumed with things such as pate de fois. We currently serve pate with sauté mushrooms and walnuts. No bread!
Finally, show some constraint when awaiting your entrée; don’t woof the table. Maybe request a little bowl of olives and perhaps savour a super dry sherry. Let the flavour of the olives and the sherry roll around your tongue and sparkle the taste buds for the first event.
Savour things in small quantities for their flavour, texture and endorphin releasing pizzazz. Enjoy the eating experience, don’t woof it.
[On the other hand, a ‘chip butty’ is really really yummy]
Free public transport
Alleged conversation between John Brumby and Steve Bracks
JB: Hey SB, did you read The Age last Sunday?
SB: Nah, don’t read.
JB: Some idiot wants to make public transport free!!
SB: WHAT!! They can’t do that ….
JB: Hang on SB, stop frothing and take one of your little calm pills.
SB: Yeah, thanks JB, that’s better.
JB: If we did make it free we couldn’t continue to blame Kennet for the systems failings.
SB: Yeah, and our new car parking taxes would go phut.
JB: And the enormous revenue from parking inspectors would go down.
SB: Hang on JB, I’m feeling queasy again.
JB: Worse, SB, we’ve got a great bureaucracy to deal with cars, cars and more cars.
SB: Yeah, and we get such great publicity out of being martyrs to the system.
JB: I know, we’ll fix it – we’ll make sure all the single issue groups get major publicity.
SB: Yeah, the debate will go on for years and the FREE message will be lost lost lost!!
JB: You’re my hero SB.
SB: Pssst JT, you don’t think the voters realise that we don’t actually do anything.
JT: Nah.
JB: Hey SB, did you read The Age last Sunday?
SB: Nah, don’t read.
JB: Some idiot wants to make public transport free!!
SB: WHAT!! They can’t do that ….
JB: Hang on SB, stop frothing and take one of your little calm pills.
SB: Yeah, thanks JB, that’s better.
JB: If we did make it free we couldn’t continue to blame Kennet for the systems failings.
SB: Yeah, and our new car parking taxes would go phut.
JB: And the enormous revenue from parking inspectors would go down.
SB: Hang on JB, I’m feeling queasy again.
JB: Worse, SB, we’ve got a great bureaucracy to deal with cars, cars and more cars.
SB: Yeah, and we get such great publicity out of being martyrs to the system.
JB: I know, we’ll fix it – we’ll make sure all the single issue groups get major publicity.
SB: Yeah, the debate will go on for years and the FREE message will be lost lost lost!!
JB: You’re my hero SB.
SB: Pssst JT, you don’t think the voters realise that we don’t actually do anything.
JT: Nah.
Making luck at university for Australia
I feel sorry for two groups of people. People who can’t realise their potential because they can’t afford education and Australia, because it wastes that potential.
The sooner everyone realises that our future will not be about digging up stuff and selling it, the better.
Unfortunately moving on from the digging-up-stuff syndrome requires thought and intelligence and people using that intelligence creating new ideas and turning them into something sensible; for the good of Australia.
To get those people they not only need education but they need to apply their expertise to new ideas with commercial results.
Higher education needs to be free-ish to attract potential. It’s a simple fact of life that people with money do not have all the brains. God spread brains around. Unfortunately potential realisation and ability to pay seemed inexorably linked.
Once we accept that we need research and development, leading to anything but digging-up-stuff, we also realise that the only way that’s going to happen is if we focus all of our countries brainpower into making it happen.
Now, no one in their right mind would or could just give up time and money just for R&D unless there is a reward.
In this case it’s terrifyingly simple. Create the opportunity for University graduates to add a validated R&D year to their degree in return for cancellation of HEX fees and international recognition.
Obviously it’s not a ‘swan around’ year and would need to be controlled. But what an opportunity!
Imagine groups of students at their learning and cognitive best focused in groups for 12 months just to develop new ideas and perhaps turn those ideas into commercial reality.
Thousands of brains making luck. Wow.
The sooner everyone realises that our future will not be about digging up stuff and selling it, the better.
Unfortunately moving on from the digging-up-stuff syndrome requires thought and intelligence and people using that intelligence creating new ideas and turning them into something sensible; for the good of Australia.
To get those people they not only need education but they need to apply their expertise to new ideas with commercial results.
Higher education needs to be free-ish to attract potential. It’s a simple fact of life that people with money do not have all the brains. God spread brains around. Unfortunately potential realisation and ability to pay seemed inexorably linked.
Once we accept that we need research and development, leading to anything but digging-up-stuff, we also realise that the only way that’s going to happen is if we focus all of our countries brainpower into making it happen.
Now, no one in their right mind would or could just give up time and money just for R&D unless there is a reward.
In this case it’s terrifyingly simple. Create the opportunity for University graduates to add a validated R&D year to their degree in return for cancellation of HEX fees and international recognition.
Obviously it’s not a ‘swan around’ year and would need to be controlled. But what an opportunity!
Imagine groups of students at their learning and cognitive best focused in groups for 12 months just to develop new ideas and perhaps turn those ideas into commercial reality.
Thousands of brains making luck. Wow.
Restaurants as public toilets
Why do people assume they have the right to enter onto private property and use the toilet just because that toilet is located in a restaurant?
Perhaps it’s all part of the me-me-me society in which the only thoughts some people seem to have concern their own needs and wants whilst showing little respect for the needs or indeed rights of others.
Considerable sums of money go into buying and or building restaurants to attract customers who pay for the services the restaurateur provides. Part of those services is use of amenities including toilets which the proprietor pays to have cleaned or indeed clean themselves. The simple fact of life is, that cost needs to be returned through customer purchases.
When a person has the temerity to walk in to a restaurant just to use the toilet they not only demonstrate a complete lack of thought for the restaurateur, they clearly label themselves as me-me-me people.
Restaurateurs are not evil people holding the world to ransom over using a toilet, just sick of people without thought for others assuming they have the right to access private property for their own bodily functions.
The solution is simple. Buy something – anything. Become a customer! Either that or advertise your own residence as a public toilet.
Perhaps it’s all part of the me-me-me society in which the only thoughts some people seem to have concern their own needs and wants whilst showing little respect for the needs or indeed rights of others.
Considerable sums of money go into buying and or building restaurants to attract customers who pay for the services the restaurateur provides. Part of those services is use of amenities including toilets which the proprietor pays to have cleaned or indeed clean themselves. The simple fact of life is, that cost needs to be returned through customer purchases.
When a person has the temerity to walk in to a restaurant just to use the toilet they not only demonstrate a complete lack of thought for the restaurateur, they clearly label themselves as me-me-me people.
Restaurateurs are not evil people holding the world to ransom over using a toilet, just sick of people without thought for others assuming they have the right to access private property for their own bodily functions.
The solution is simple. Buy something – anything. Become a customer! Either that or advertise your own residence as a public toilet.
Buying a restaurant
[Response to article by Mark Abernathy]
Reference: Article written by Mark Abernethy in the November – December Restaurant and Catering Australia magazine titled, ‘Sale Away’.
“Jon Langevad specialises in the hospitality industry having spent some 30 plus years advising to and working within businesses to build strategic directions, re-establish spatial orientation, build marketing plans, develop financial imperatives, set customer service initiatives and put in place staff training. Currently he and partner Ulla Hiltula acquire restaurants in trouble and turn them around before on-selling. Their current business is Mon Ami in Fitzroy. They practice what they say in buying and selling businesses, owning and working in restaurants as well as advising others through a consulting approach.”
There are many very high profile Chefs who have managed their businesses to closure [and continue to do it again and again seemingly with the medias blessing], just as there are many dreamers who know little about the restaurant industry but also take many innocent people with them into bankruptcy. With so many restaurants and so little average margin to play with, it takes a great deal of expertise to make a profit. Sure, there are always exceptions but exceptions do not create a trend.
Therefore the NUMBER ONE thing a person contemplating buying a restaurant business should consider is whether or not they have the expertise in all areas of the business. It is not good enough just to be able to cook or just be nice to customers or just to be good with numbers. Most of the time restaurants are very small businesses and demand of the owner a high level of multi-skilling. Generally the businesses are too small to buy the expertise needed thereby requiring a hands-on approach. Obviously being able to commercially recognise and/or cook something edible is pretty important for a restaurant as is the ability to provide the environment where people will want to eat that less than burnt offering as is the ability to continually control cash flow. So, given these critical predetermining factors, what’s next?
There is always a balance between the cold hard accountants view of a business and the wildly optimistic ‘lifestyle’ view. In short, if you focus exclusively on the financial building blocks of a business then you will not succeed. If you focus on the lifestyle a business may provide, you will not succeed. Mr Abernethy’s article seemed to focus on the ‘building block approach’ as key to success. I personally do not believe this to be the best way.
Firstly, do not focus on the bottom line! Sounds strange doesn’t it, but it’s true nevertheless! Instead, focus needs to be on the things, which create the bottom line. Good systems do the rest. We are not computers; we are people capable of much greater things than continually focussing on individual financial components. Sometimes it’s comfortable to discuss minutia but discussing the qualities of a raisin does not make a good fruit cake.
Secondly, do not focus on the lifestyle things, which a prospective business may provide to the owner if successful. Although obvious it’s hard not to and is as bad as the ‘block people’ approach. You know what you want out of life and what that will cost. Figure it out then leave it in some accessible corner of your mind until the things, which will create the opportunity to realise your desires, are in place and working.
Thirdly, accept that life is too short to do anything, which creates little passion. So yes, buying and running a restaurant business is about passion and desire and making mistakes and enjoying life. But doing it with one’s feet absolutely grounded in reality.
A restaurant is one of the trickiest businesses to establish, run, buy or indeed sell because nearly one hundred percent of the time it’s personality driven. The personality of the owner [even if the business is managed], the personality of the manager, the personality of the sommelier or indeed the personalities of anyone with whom clients interact. People go out to enjoy the experience of dining, it is not a personality free retail purchase and this makes the value of the business directly linked to people. Indeed, personality can also be extrapolated to a physical environment as when we take over a restaurant we tend to change it to reflect us and what we think will be more successful.
Therefore, the fourth decision to be made is, ‘If I buy this business will it be successful with my personality stamped all over it?’ Instinct is a marvellous thing, it must feel right. The challenge must be palpable.
Now comes a little broad but telling number crunching albeit we are yet to delve into any number nitty gritty; this will come later. Fifthly therefore, figure out what you think the business can do with you at the helm. Be realistic if not a trifle pessimistic. Here, you are planning for success, not failure nor wishy washy I’m not sure or maybe thinking. At this point ignore what the business is currently doing albeit basic costs, style of menu, client numbers, pricing structure and opening times are important. [A customer buys once whereas a client is loyal and buys many times. Always focus on clients.] Be prepared to walk away if the results dont feel right or wont enable your chosen lifestyle.
Now, sixthly, establish what the business is currently doing. If there is not a significant gap between what you believe the business can do and what it is currently doing, walk away. The risks are too great for a ‘personality driven’ business. There must be significant potential.
I can’t stress this enough. Because you are buying a ‘personality driven’ business, potential is the mega purchasing criteria. What the business is currently taking in revenue is merely an indication of potential and unfortunately is directly linked to the current owner. Be careful of goodwill components. There is nothing inherently wrong with goodwill [it’s what we all develop in our respective businesses as a saleable quantity] but it is a pointer to revenue, not a guarantee. As personality is also linked to a physical environment, changing the way a business looks effectively invalidates so called goodwill making potential even more important. Despite the above paragraph, there is nothing wrong with buying a business’s potential! This is the punt we all take whether establishing, buying or selling a business. Just be aware that there are no guarantees and no free lunch [pun intended-sorry].
So, the first few questions you need to ask are:
· Does it feel right?;
· Am I going to enjoy the challenges?;
· Will my personality create success in this business?’;
· Will the projected figures enable my desired lifestyle?;
· What is the potential of the business over its current takings?;
· What are the risks?.
If you are still passionate, then comes the due diligence. Things like the lease with its terms and conditions, normalised books, exact and individually itemised bills of sale, changeover periods, inventory, client lists, etc. This is the boring bit but also critical. [We advise on, buy, work and
sell restaurants for a living and in order to make the ‘boring bit’ more palatable have developed a little spreadsheet which takes into account most of the variables including risk, ROI, COS, EBIT, staff and comes up with a business valuation. In our own business we complete a P&L inclusive of trend analysis every week. Broad brush maybe, but critical.]
If the seller or the agent can not answer all questions, walk AWAY.
I believe the emphasis on buying a business needs to move away from the ‘block people approach’ to ‘the jigsaw people approach’. [Block people build business success by creating solid foundations whereas jigsaw people create business success by bringing together the various elements of success ã] The jigsaw first approach is infinitely more suited to buying a restaurant than the block first approach. Unfortunately it is also harder, more intuitive but very satisfying. It’s a bit like playing golf. The block approach to golf can be likened to honing skills on the driving range – important, intrinsically satisfying and restorative because of
its simple and singular focus. [If life gets a bit much consider the therapeutic value of smacking the crap out of a couple of hundred golf balls at the local driving range] The jigsaw approach to golf focuses on the golf course as the challenge with all the variables such as wind, rain, grass, sun, bunkers, roll, etc all needing to be taken into account to be successful.
We all need both approaches in our lives depending on the situation. Restaurateurs need both in abundance but, when buying a business, need to be jigsaw people ‘first’. The intensity of competition will not allow a block approach.
Reference: Article written by Mark Abernethy in the November – December Restaurant and Catering Australia magazine titled, ‘Sale Away’.
“Jon Langevad specialises in the hospitality industry having spent some 30 plus years advising to and working within businesses to build strategic directions, re-establish spatial orientation, build marketing plans, develop financial imperatives, set customer service initiatives and put in place staff training. Currently he and partner Ulla Hiltula acquire restaurants in trouble and turn them around before on-selling. Their current business is Mon Ami in Fitzroy. They practice what they say in buying and selling businesses, owning and working in restaurants as well as advising others through a consulting approach.”
There are many very high profile Chefs who have managed their businesses to closure [and continue to do it again and again seemingly with the medias blessing], just as there are many dreamers who know little about the restaurant industry but also take many innocent people with them into bankruptcy. With so many restaurants and so little average margin to play with, it takes a great deal of expertise to make a profit. Sure, there are always exceptions but exceptions do not create a trend.
Therefore the NUMBER ONE thing a person contemplating buying a restaurant business should consider is whether or not they have the expertise in all areas of the business. It is not good enough just to be able to cook or just be nice to customers or just to be good with numbers. Most of the time restaurants are very small businesses and demand of the owner a high level of multi-skilling. Generally the businesses are too small to buy the expertise needed thereby requiring a hands-on approach. Obviously being able to commercially recognise and/or cook something edible is pretty important for a restaurant as is the ability to provide the environment where people will want to eat that less than burnt offering as is the ability to continually control cash flow. So, given these critical predetermining factors, what’s next?
There is always a balance between the cold hard accountants view of a business and the wildly optimistic ‘lifestyle’ view. In short, if you focus exclusively on the financial building blocks of a business then you will not succeed. If you focus on the lifestyle a business may provide, you will not succeed. Mr Abernethy’s article seemed to focus on the ‘building block approach’ as key to success. I personally do not believe this to be the best way.
Firstly, do not focus on the bottom line! Sounds strange doesn’t it, but it’s true nevertheless! Instead, focus needs to be on the things, which create the bottom line. Good systems do the rest. We are not computers; we are people capable of much greater things than continually focussing on individual financial components. Sometimes it’s comfortable to discuss minutia but discussing the qualities of a raisin does not make a good fruit cake.
Secondly, do not focus on the lifestyle things, which a prospective business may provide to the owner if successful. Although obvious it’s hard not to and is as bad as the ‘block people’ approach. You know what you want out of life and what that will cost. Figure it out then leave it in some accessible corner of your mind until the things, which will create the opportunity to realise your desires, are in place and working.
Thirdly, accept that life is too short to do anything, which creates little passion. So yes, buying and running a restaurant business is about passion and desire and making mistakes and enjoying life. But doing it with one’s feet absolutely grounded in reality.
A restaurant is one of the trickiest businesses to establish, run, buy or indeed sell because nearly one hundred percent of the time it’s personality driven. The personality of the owner [even if the business is managed], the personality of the manager, the personality of the sommelier or indeed the personalities of anyone with whom clients interact. People go out to enjoy the experience of dining, it is not a personality free retail purchase and this makes the value of the business directly linked to people. Indeed, personality can also be extrapolated to a physical environment as when we take over a restaurant we tend to change it to reflect us and what we think will be more successful.
Therefore, the fourth decision to be made is, ‘If I buy this business will it be successful with my personality stamped all over it?’ Instinct is a marvellous thing, it must feel right. The challenge must be palpable.
Now comes a little broad but telling number crunching albeit we are yet to delve into any number nitty gritty; this will come later. Fifthly therefore, figure out what you think the business can do with you at the helm. Be realistic if not a trifle pessimistic. Here, you are planning for success, not failure nor wishy washy I’m not sure or maybe thinking. At this point ignore what the business is currently doing albeit basic costs, style of menu, client numbers, pricing structure and opening times are important. [A customer buys once whereas a client is loyal and buys many times. Always focus on clients.] Be prepared to walk away if the results dont feel right or wont enable your chosen lifestyle.
Now, sixthly, establish what the business is currently doing. If there is not a significant gap between what you believe the business can do and what it is currently doing, walk away. The risks are too great for a ‘personality driven’ business. There must be significant potential.
I can’t stress this enough. Because you are buying a ‘personality driven’ business, potential is the mega purchasing criteria. What the business is currently taking in revenue is merely an indication of potential and unfortunately is directly linked to the current owner. Be careful of goodwill components. There is nothing inherently wrong with goodwill [it’s what we all develop in our respective businesses as a saleable quantity] but it is a pointer to revenue, not a guarantee. As personality is also linked to a physical environment, changing the way a business looks effectively invalidates so called goodwill making potential even more important. Despite the above paragraph, there is nothing wrong with buying a business’s potential! This is the punt we all take whether establishing, buying or selling a business. Just be aware that there are no guarantees and no free lunch [pun intended-sorry].
So, the first few questions you need to ask are:
· Does it feel right?;
· Am I going to enjoy the challenges?;
· Will my personality create success in this business?’;
· Will the projected figures enable my desired lifestyle?;
· What is the potential of the business over its current takings?;
· What are the risks?.
If you are still passionate, then comes the due diligence. Things like the lease with its terms and conditions, normalised books, exact and individually itemised bills of sale, changeover periods, inventory, client lists, etc. This is the boring bit but also critical. [We advise on, buy, work and
sell restaurants for a living and in order to make the ‘boring bit’ more palatable have developed a little spreadsheet which takes into account most of the variables including risk, ROI, COS, EBIT, staff and comes up with a business valuation. In our own business we complete a P&L inclusive of trend analysis every week. Broad brush maybe, but critical.]
If the seller or the agent can not answer all questions, walk AWAY.
I believe the emphasis on buying a business needs to move away from the ‘block people approach’ to ‘the jigsaw people approach’. [Block people build business success by creating solid foundations whereas jigsaw people create business success by bringing together the various elements of success ã] The jigsaw first approach is infinitely more suited to buying a restaurant than the block first approach. Unfortunately it is also harder, more intuitive but very satisfying. It’s a bit like playing golf. The block approach to golf can be likened to honing skills on the driving range – important, intrinsically satisfying and restorative because of
its simple and singular focus. [If life gets a bit much consider the therapeutic value of smacking the crap out of a couple of hundred golf balls at the local driving range] The jigsaw approach to golf focuses on the golf course as the challenge with all the variables such as wind, rain, grass, sun, bunkers, roll, etc all needing to be taken into account to be successful.
We all need both approaches in our lives depending on the situation. Restaurateurs need both in abundance but, when buying a business, need to be jigsaw people ‘first’. The intensity of competition will not allow a block approach.
Corkage - charging the customer
[Response to RCAV and Minister]
After reading your article about the Minister requesting a meeting to discuss corkage, my initial and overriding impression was to be wary of the politician seeking an avenue to garner votes by ‘inventing’ a contentious issue about which he/she can pontificate at length.
The issue is, enough ’pontificating’ and a perceived problem will develop into a real problem - to the detriment of the industry. My advice, for what it’s worth, is to dissuade any ‘beat up’ of the BYO issue by anyone, because it’s really a non-event.
Why? Because any corkage charge is a commercial decision by an independent operator to retrieve some of the costs involved with BYO. Whatever that charge happens to be, it’s no one’s business except the operator and their customer. If the customer perceives the BYO charge to be excessive then they will go somewhere else! It is a free market, a free economy and end of story. Our little restaurant doesn’t allow BYO because we have invested a great deal of money and time in selecting appropriate wines, methods of service, advertising, etal and want a commercial return from selling booze.
On the other hand we may bend that rule a little if a person has a ‘special’ bottle we can’t replicate. In this very rare instance we charge $15 corkage per bottle because those are our full costs and on this we make little money.
Restaurants need revenue from the sale of booze to survive!
An opinion, judging on years of experience and in general, people who want to make BYO an issue don’t want to pay for wine in a licensed restaurant yet they want the restaurant to except them. Those people should buy a BBQ for their back yard and stay there.
Wendy, I am sorry to say that I believe the whole BYO ‘issue’ is dribble [no pun intended], albeit dangerous dribble unless people are made aware of all facets of the argument. What politician has ever made an argument transparent? We are professional restaurateurs with a significant investment in premises, food, booze etal and, most importantly, are a private business. We decide what we serve and the dollar value of that product. If customers like it they will come on in. Politicians may try to make a name for themselves by suggesting a popular price [without knowledge] and offering some glib comment like, “Well, if a restaurant charges more than $5 corkage I believe it to be wrong – go somewhere else”. In this case I believe a case could be argued that the politician would be responsible for his/her popularist dribble and indeed for any bankruptcies and/or angst caused through such an irresponsible comment.
Wendy, for better or worse, my background is in finance [MBA etc] and have consulted around the world to business’s challenged by stupidity. Personally, we survive the quiet times by controlling what we do and offering value added services, including food and booze. We are not here as a philanthropic institution offering our place for nothing – as we would if we offered BYO. We also offer our expertise to others silly enough to try and make a quid through food and booze with one of our axioms being not to price compete but to add value through other means such as service, premises, etc. Following on from this tenet, everyone needs to charge an appropriate rate for all services, actions and products given costs, location, etc. If a customer doesn’t like it or can’t see the value they will go somewhere else.
After reading your article about the Minister requesting a meeting to discuss corkage, my initial and overriding impression was to be wary of the politician seeking an avenue to garner votes by ‘inventing’ a contentious issue about which he/she can pontificate at length.
The issue is, enough ’pontificating’ and a perceived problem will develop into a real problem - to the detriment of the industry. My advice, for what it’s worth, is to dissuade any ‘beat up’ of the BYO issue by anyone, because it’s really a non-event.
Why? Because any corkage charge is a commercial decision by an independent operator to retrieve some of the costs involved with BYO. Whatever that charge happens to be, it’s no one’s business except the operator and their customer. If the customer perceives the BYO charge to be excessive then they will go somewhere else! It is a free market, a free economy and end of story. Our little restaurant doesn’t allow BYO because we have invested a great deal of money and time in selecting appropriate wines, methods of service, advertising, etal and want a commercial return from selling booze.
On the other hand we may bend that rule a little if a person has a ‘special’ bottle we can’t replicate. In this very rare instance we charge $15 corkage per bottle because those are our full costs and on this we make little money.
Restaurants need revenue from the sale of booze to survive!
An opinion, judging on years of experience and in general, people who want to make BYO an issue don’t want to pay for wine in a licensed restaurant yet they want the restaurant to except them. Those people should buy a BBQ for their back yard and stay there.
Wendy, I am sorry to say that I believe the whole BYO ‘issue’ is dribble [no pun intended], albeit dangerous dribble unless people are made aware of all facets of the argument. What politician has ever made an argument transparent? We are professional restaurateurs with a significant investment in premises, food, booze etal and, most importantly, are a private business. We decide what we serve and the dollar value of that product. If customers like it they will come on in. Politicians may try to make a name for themselves by suggesting a popular price [without knowledge] and offering some glib comment like, “Well, if a restaurant charges more than $5 corkage I believe it to be wrong – go somewhere else”. In this case I believe a case could be argued that the politician would be responsible for his/her popularist dribble and indeed for any bankruptcies and/or angst caused through such an irresponsible comment.
Wendy, for better or worse, my background is in finance [MBA etc] and have consulted around the world to business’s challenged by stupidity. Personally, we survive the quiet times by controlling what we do and offering value added services, including food and booze. We are not here as a philanthropic institution offering our place for nothing – as we would if we offered BYO. We also offer our expertise to others silly enough to try and make a quid through food and booze with one of our axioms being not to price compete but to add value through other means such as service, premises, etc. Following on from this tenet, everyone needs to charge an appropriate rate for all services, actions and products given costs, location, etc. If a customer doesn’t like it or can’t see the value they will go somewhere else.
Corkage
[Response to RCAV and Minister]
After reading your article about the Minister requesting a meeting to discuss corkage, my initial and overriding impression was to be wary of the politician seeking an avenue to garner votes by ‘inventing’ a contentious issue about which he/she can pontificate at length.
The issue is, enough ’pontificating’ and a perceived problem will develop into a real problem - to the detriment of the industry. My advice, for what it’s worth, is to dissuade any ‘beat up’ of the BYO issue by anyone, because it’s really a non-event.
Why? Because any corkage charge is a commercial decision by an independent operator to retrieve some of the costs involved with BYO. Whatever that charge happens to be, it’s no one’s business except the operator and their customer. If the customer perceives the BYO charge to be excessive then they will go somewhere else! It is a free market, a free economy and end of story. Our little restaurant doesn’t allow BYO because we have invested a great deal of money and time in selecting appropriate wines, methods of service, advertising, etal and want a commercial return from selling booze.
On the other hand we may bend that rule a little if a person has a ‘special’ bottle we can’t replicate. In this very rare instance we charge $15 corkage per bottle because those are our full costs and on this we make little money.
Restaurants need revenue from the sale of booze to survive!
An opinion, judging on years of experience and in general, people who want to make BYO an issue don’t want to pay for wine in a licensed restaurant yet they want the restaurant to except them. Those people should buy a BBQ for their back yard and stay there.
Wendy, I am sorry to say that I believe the whole BYO ‘issue’ is dribble [no pun intended], albeit dangerous dribble unless people are made aware of all facets of the argument. What politician has ever made an argument transparent? We are professional restaurateurs with a significant investment in premises, food, booze etal and, most importantly, are a private business. We decide what we serve and the dollar value of that product. If customers like it they will come on in. Politicians may try to make a name for themselves by suggesting a popular price [without knowledge] and offering some glib comment like, “Well, if a restaurant charges more than $5 corkage I believe it to be wrong – go somewhere else”. In this case I believe a case could be argued that the politician would be responsible for his/her popularist dribble and indeed for any bankruptcies and/or angst caused through such an irresponsible comment.
Wendy, for better or worse, my background is in finance [MBA etc] and have consulted around the world to business’s challenged by stupidity. Personally, we survive the quiet times by controlling what we do and offering value added services, including food and booze. We are not here as a philanthropic institution offering our place for nothing – as we would if we offered BYO. We also offer our expertise to others silly enough to try and make a quid through food and booze with one of our axioms being not to price compete but to add value through other means such as service, premises, etc. Following on from this tenet, everyone needs to charge an appropriate rate for all services, actions and products given costs, location, etc. If a customer doesn’t like it or can’t see the value they will go somewhere else.
Cakeage - charging the customer
Perhaps it’s time to tell people the truth about the facts of life regarding them wanting to bring their own food into a restaurant and ‘expecting’ the restaurateur to serve it, suffer the costs, suffer the loss of profit on lost sales and – be happy about it.
The afternoon presenter on 774 Auntie shared her rather biased attitude expressing that she had the right to bring a cake into a restaurant and have it served by the restaurant. Her bias was obvious by the tone of her voice and the way she asked people questions and cut them off if she didn’t agree. Plus she had the last word that further exacerbated the problem. The type of perception her delivery and the bias this creates is very dysfunctional and very harming.
It is indeed a pity when a person in a quasi influential position perpetuates the perception that people have a right and a privilege to bring-their-own-food into a restaurant, a business selling food for a living. It is not a God given right to demand a restaurant lose money on serving their cake just because they created it. Unfortunately the initial introduction to ‘being able to bring your cake into a restaurant and expecting the restaurant to serve it’ epitomized the martyrdom / oh-woe-is-me syndrome common to people making a point at someone else’s expense – literally.
A few simple facts:
Each and every action by staff in a restaurant costs money – whether that is serving a cake or opening a BYO bottle or whatever. Unless a profit is made, or at least breakeven is achieved, on each and every action then that ‘loss’/’profit’ must be made up on someone else’s meal - this can’t happen, because the gross margin is too slim on food and alcohol. And worse, the restaurateur never makes a profit from lost dessert sales.
We make and serve food and serve alcohol in order to make a profit on all aspects of the sale. In this way we stave of bankruptcy. Note the number of failed restaurants who devolve into price competition and/or don’t understand basic full cost accounting and you will see why cakeage, as a concept, is so important. We charge $6 per head for cakeage and actively discourage BYO anything [excepting perhaps a genuinely very rare and expensive wine which we can’t replicate and which our customer wants to share with friends in which case we charge $15 corkage]. These prices cover our costs and provide a very small return for our effort. They do not provide a reasonable profit or return on investment.
Why would anyone invest $150,000 for no return? Why would anyone work for a living for nothing just because people want to use their expertise or investment but dont want to pay for the service? No way.
If anyone needs to rationalize the issue then accept the fact that a restaurateur can not take responsibility for someone else’s food being served by their staff. What happens if a customer has a ratsack fetish and laces their chocolate wonder in order to teach Aunty Maud a lesson? What happens if Aunty Maud takes a turn after taking home some of the masterpiece and falsely blames the restaurant for the entrée instead of the cake?
We have years of experience in this area and know that 99% of the time people want to bring cakes and wine into a restaurant not because of altruistic motives but because they want their cake but don’t want pay for it. May I suggest the alternative is that people ask the restaurant to provide a cake and be prepared to pay an appropriate ‘dessert’ price per head. Otherwise they could stay home and do it themselves.
Unfortunately, the restaurant industry whilst rewarding suffers from the ‘customer expert syndrome’ in that people, because they cook at home and can open a bottle of wine, they believe they are restaurateurs in waiting and expert. A professional restaurateur needs to provide an overall experience for customers - something we all continually work on. This experience starts with the most important aspect - the restaurateur building ambience, feel and hopefully a desire in potential customers to want to come in the door – all at significant expense and involving a range of disciplines from architecture to interior decorating to marketing to financial management to crossing your fingers. Then we need to provide appropriate service which should exceed the demands of those few punters. My partner, Ulla - the nice half, provides this extremely hard aspect by balancing needs, service, servitude and the expectations of really nice people intent on enjoying the experience with the unthinking and obstreperous.
Then we need to sell something to pay for all the above. Food, the final part of the equation, is not the most important aspect of the total experience but it is the one which will drag people back after the second or third visit. It doesn’t have to be Haute Cuisine but it does have to blend with the total experience. [Something which the average food writer misses most of the time] Just for food, the restaurateur then needs to add on expertise in food laws, Council By-Laws, hygiene, record keeping, keeping food in pristine condition and they need to be an artist in presentation.
The ‘total experience’ is what going to a restaurant is all about – it is not just about feeding your face! This even applies to McDonalds where they go to a great deal of trouble to reach the hearts and minds of kids. How many kids really really want to go to McDonalds but don’t eat the food? It’s the experience.
Even wanting to BYO food or wine into a restaurant which has made such a substantial investment in time, money and expertise is insulting to the restaurateurs, diminishes their return on investment and shows a complete lack of respect for the effort the restaurateurs have made for people to enjoy. It also shows quite clearly that these people do not understand the ‘experience’ concept.
Tell people to go and enjoy an experience, a total experience. The alternative is perhaps take-away in front of the TV, with their own cake. Have their cake and eat it too!
The afternoon presenter on 774 Auntie shared her rather biased attitude expressing that she had the right to bring a cake into a restaurant and have it served by the restaurant. Her bias was obvious by the tone of her voice and the way she asked people questions and cut them off if she didn’t agree. Plus she had the last word that further exacerbated the problem. The type of perception her delivery and the bias this creates is very dysfunctional and very harming.
It is indeed a pity when a person in a quasi influential position perpetuates the perception that people have a right and a privilege to bring-their-own-food into a restaurant, a business selling food for a living. It is not a God given right to demand a restaurant lose money on serving their cake just because they created it. Unfortunately the initial introduction to ‘being able to bring your cake into a restaurant and expecting the restaurant to serve it’ epitomized the martyrdom / oh-woe-is-me syndrome common to people making a point at someone else’s expense – literally.
A few simple facts:
Each and every action by staff in a restaurant costs money – whether that is serving a cake or opening a BYO bottle or whatever. Unless a profit is made, or at least breakeven is achieved, on each and every action then that ‘loss’/’profit’ must be made up on someone else’s meal - this can’t happen, because the gross margin is too slim on food and alcohol. And worse, the restaurateur never makes a profit from lost dessert sales.
We make and serve food and serve alcohol in order to make a profit on all aspects of the sale. In this way we stave of bankruptcy. Note the number of failed restaurants who devolve into price competition and/or don’t understand basic full cost accounting and you will see why cakeage, as a concept, is so important. We charge $6 per head for cakeage and actively discourage BYO anything [excepting perhaps a genuinely very rare and expensive wine which we can’t replicate and which our customer wants to share with friends in which case we charge $15 corkage]. These prices cover our costs and provide a very small return for our effort. They do not provide a reasonable profit or return on investment.
Why would anyone invest $150,000 for no return? Why would anyone work for a living for nothing just because people want to use their expertise or investment but dont want to pay for the service? No way.
If anyone needs to rationalize the issue then accept the fact that a restaurateur can not take responsibility for someone else’s food being served by their staff. What happens if a customer has a ratsack fetish and laces their chocolate wonder in order to teach Aunty Maud a lesson? What happens if Aunty Maud takes a turn after taking home some of the masterpiece and falsely blames the restaurant for the entrée instead of the cake?
We have years of experience in this area and know that 99% of the time people want to bring cakes and wine into a restaurant not because of altruistic motives but because they want their cake but don’t want pay for it. May I suggest the alternative is that people ask the restaurant to provide a cake and be prepared to pay an appropriate ‘dessert’ price per head. Otherwise they could stay home and do it themselves.
Unfortunately, the restaurant industry whilst rewarding suffers from the ‘customer expert syndrome’ in that people, because they cook at home and can open a bottle of wine, they believe they are restaurateurs in waiting and expert. A professional restaurateur needs to provide an overall experience for customers - something we all continually work on. This experience starts with the most important aspect - the restaurateur building ambience, feel and hopefully a desire in potential customers to want to come in the door – all at significant expense and involving a range of disciplines from architecture to interior decorating to marketing to financial management to crossing your fingers. Then we need to provide appropriate service which should exceed the demands of those few punters. My partner, Ulla - the nice half, provides this extremely hard aspect by balancing needs, service, servitude and the expectations of really nice people intent on enjoying the experience with the unthinking and obstreperous.
Then we need to sell something to pay for all the above. Food, the final part of the equation, is not the most important aspect of the total experience but it is the one which will drag people back after the second or third visit. It doesn’t have to be Haute Cuisine but it does have to blend with the total experience. [Something which the average food writer misses most of the time] Just for food, the restaurateur then needs to add on expertise in food laws, Council By-Laws, hygiene, record keeping, keeping food in pristine condition and they need to be an artist in presentation.
The ‘total experience’ is what going to a restaurant is all about – it is not just about feeding your face! This even applies to McDonalds where they go to a great deal of trouble to reach the hearts and minds of kids. How many kids really really want to go to McDonalds but don’t eat the food? It’s the experience.
Even wanting to BYO food or wine into a restaurant which has made such a substantial investment in time, money and expertise is insulting to the restaurateurs, diminishes their return on investment and shows a complete lack of respect for the effort the restaurateurs have made for people to enjoy. It also shows quite clearly that these people do not understand the ‘experience’ concept.
Tell people to go and enjoy an experience, a total experience. The alternative is perhaps take-away in front of the TV, with their own cake. Have their cake and eat it too!
Taxing city parking
[An alleged conversation between Bracks and Brumby]
JB: Cripes SB, we need money real quick to fund our token promises and we need to be seen to be doing at least something.
SB: Well JB, we have to come up with a new tax. Something which seems sensible and gives us bucket loads.
JB: I know, how about taxing car parking in the city and saying it's to reduce traffic congestion?
SB: Hang on JB, people know that doesn't work.
JB: Who cares! Let's do it anyway and label anyone who complains an 'enemy of the earth' or better, a 'congestion lover'.
SB: Good good, we’ll trot out a few kiddies with colds and vaguely suggest the ambulances can't do their job and we're sweet.
JB: Whoops, aren't we doing the same as that insurance company HI-something by knowingly issuing false statements?
SB: Hey com'on JB we're the Government, they can't touch us. And remember JB, be a good little politician and don't answer any questions.
JB: SB, I am having a tinge of conscience, perhaps we should actually do something positive for Victoria?
SB: Don't be stupid. Just think how well we’ve done with unjustified Land Tax
JB: You're my hero.
JB: Cripes SB, we need money real quick to fund our token promises and we need to be seen to be doing at least something.
SB: Well JB, we have to come up with a new tax. Something which seems sensible and gives us bucket loads.
JB: I know, how about taxing car parking in the city and saying it's to reduce traffic congestion?
SB: Hang on JB, people know that doesn't work.
JB: Who cares! Let's do it anyway and label anyone who complains an 'enemy of the earth' or better, a 'congestion lover'.
SB: Good good, we’ll trot out a few kiddies with colds and vaguely suggest the ambulances can't do their job and we're sweet.
JB: Whoops, aren't we doing the same as that insurance company HI-something by knowingly issuing false statements?
SB: Hey com'on JB we're the Government, they can't touch us. And remember JB, be a good little politician and don't answer any questions.
JB: SB, I am having a tinge of conscience, perhaps we should actually do something positive for Victoria?
SB: Don't be stupid. Just think how well we’ve done with unjustified Land Tax
JB: You're my hero.
St Kilda Sea Bathes
This is an open letter to anyone who gives a toss about Melbourne and the feeling it had as ‘the world’s most liveable city’ and is willing to give more than just lip-service and/or pontificating-political-rhetoric to one of the worst shams of the last few years.
There is no doubt that St Kilda is a focal point for both Melbournians and international visitors alike yet we allow the mess that is the St Kilda Sea Baths complex to continually devolve to yobbo-scurity.
It doesn’t take the wisdom of Solomon to see and understand that, apart from the pool and gym, the complex is not generating the interest it should; and it’s on a prime Melbourne landmark site.
A good proportion of the complex is empty [years after it was supposed to be ‘snapped-up’ by switched on commercial operators], one restaurant has just re-opened after a long long time empty, and the central courtyard is now completely devoid of character with just one bar designed for a very youngish market and a few scattered tables in a vast character-free space. Only a few months ago, the hard to find stairs to the top level were urine infected and filthy. I haven’t been back since.
Melbourne had such a great opportunity to create a venue, which could have reversed the character of St Kilda back to its halcyon days. Yet we managed to leave it to the aforementioned pontificators and have ended up with a space designed seemingly exclusively for a younger bar trade rather than international visitors, couples and families looking for that essential ‘Melbourne’ experience.
Perhaps it’s a mid-fifties [me, not the date] disillusionment, but I can’t help getting angry and disappointed when I see such an abandonment of common sense, responsibility and commercial nouse driving our decision processes. As an example, our St Kilda Festival has unfortunately lost the quirkiness, which made St Kilda appealing. It has devolved to a band-driven and alcohol fuelled teenage extravaganza. Perhaps if we brought back the multitude of ‘quirky’ acts
which appeal to more than a very small target market we may re-attract families and lose the drunks - through lack of interest.
My better half and I are not puritan, but actually enjoy a drink, enjoy eating out and give it our best shot to enjoy life. We swear occasionally, avoid reality TV, make bad decisions, jaywalk, do ‘stuff’ and get obstreperous over what we see as avoidable problems. We currently run Melbourne’s most appealing restaurant [of course] and, as a result, can at least see some of the opportunities associated with a successful and focused ‘Sea-Baths’. Despite the appalling design/construction/personality, we believe it isn’t too late to resurrect the shemozzle that is the St Kilda Sea Baths.
The question is simple, do we want a major tourist, national and local complex directed at a specific and small target market or do we want something which will help focus Melbourne as a liveable city for the greater number of target groups?
Can you imagine the central area within the St Kilda Sea-Baths area evolving [not devolving] to a multi-national collection of say fifteen restaurants? Each outlet seating only about thirty people but forming part of a cohesive and synergistic area aimed at attracting all types of people to eat, drink and enjoy life through a cosmopolitan experience? Think Venice, Paris, Rome or indeed anywhere where people gather to enjoy being alive – as a couple, group or family. Think multi-cultural music, think organised transport allowing Dad to have one too many, think of enjoying experiences with other people, think of those halcyon days of wine and romance where having a good time with your partner was more important than just trying to get laid after
a couple of beers, think of remembering a great experience long after the event, think of making a fool of yourself trying to dance with zero talent, think of watching the sunset, think of the emotive side of life, think of going to bed happy as a clam, think of that roving violin player whom you hoped would never come near – but did, think of the menu which started involuntary salivation, think of feeling special …. think of enjoying life!
Big ask for a rotten little sea baths at the end of a cheap street? Perhaps not! It can happen but it will take a bit of vision and a whole bunch of commitment. Look at the current ‘thing’ and you can see the result of past apathy.
There is no doubt that St Kilda is a focal point for both Melbournians and international visitors alike yet we allow the mess that is the St Kilda Sea Baths complex to continually devolve to yobbo-scurity.
It doesn’t take the wisdom of Solomon to see and understand that, apart from the pool and gym, the complex is not generating the interest it should; and it’s on a prime Melbourne landmark site.
A good proportion of the complex is empty [years after it was supposed to be ‘snapped-up’ by switched on commercial operators], one restaurant has just re-opened after a long long time empty, and the central courtyard is now completely devoid of character with just one bar designed for a very youngish market and a few scattered tables in a vast character-free space. Only a few months ago, the hard to find stairs to the top level were urine infected and filthy. I haven’t been back since.
Melbourne had such a great opportunity to create a venue, which could have reversed the character of St Kilda back to its halcyon days. Yet we managed to leave it to the aforementioned pontificators and have ended up with a space designed seemingly exclusively for a younger bar trade rather than international visitors, couples and families looking for that essential ‘Melbourne’ experience.
Perhaps it’s a mid-fifties [me, not the date] disillusionment, but I can’t help getting angry and disappointed when I see such an abandonment of common sense, responsibility and commercial nouse driving our decision processes. As an example, our St Kilda Festival has unfortunately lost the quirkiness, which made St Kilda appealing. It has devolved to a band-driven and alcohol fuelled teenage extravaganza. Perhaps if we brought back the multitude of ‘quirky’ acts
which appeal to more than a very small target market we may re-attract families and lose the drunks - through lack of interest.
My better half and I are not puritan, but actually enjoy a drink, enjoy eating out and give it our best shot to enjoy life. We swear occasionally, avoid reality TV, make bad decisions, jaywalk, do ‘stuff’ and get obstreperous over what we see as avoidable problems. We currently run Melbourne’s most appealing restaurant [of course] and, as a result, can at least see some of the opportunities associated with a successful and focused ‘Sea-Baths’. Despite the appalling design/construction/personality, we believe it isn’t too late to resurrect the shemozzle that is the St Kilda Sea Baths.
The question is simple, do we want a major tourist, national and local complex directed at a specific and small target market or do we want something which will help focus Melbourne as a liveable city for the greater number of target groups?
Can you imagine the central area within the St Kilda Sea-Baths area evolving [not devolving] to a multi-national collection of say fifteen restaurants? Each outlet seating only about thirty people but forming part of a cohesive and synergistic area aimed at attracting all types of people to eat, drink and enjoy life through a cosmopolitan experience? Think Venice, Paris, Rome or indeed anywhere where people gather to enjoy being alive – as a couple, group or family. Think multi-cultural music, think organised transport allowing Dad to have one too many, think of enjoying experiences with other people, think of those halcyon days of wine and romance where having a good time with your partner was more important than just trying to get laid after
a couple of beers, think of remembering a great experience long after the event, think of making a fool of yourself trying to dance with zero talent, think of watching the sunset, think of the emotive side of life, think of going to bed happy as a clam, think of that roving violin player whom you hoped would never come near – but did, think of the menu which started involuntary salivation, think of feeling special …. think of enjoying life!
Big ask for a rotten little sea baths at the end of a cheap street? Perhaps not! It can happen but it will take a bit of vision and a whole bunch of commitment. Look at the current ‘thing’ and you can see the result of past apathy.
Station Pier lost to Melbourne
The other day, the actual gateway to the Station pier, Melbourne’s sea gateway, was locked and guarded with a sign that said [paraphrased] no cycling, no skateboarding, no going near the ships, no vehicle access and no anything [sic] on sailing days.
Everyday is a sailing day.
We have managed to repress and indeed even regress a part of Melbourne, which should be vibrant and alive.
And please don’t use ‘Terrorism’ as an excuse. Firstly, it was not an issue when the pier redesign was botched and secondly, how much difference does anyone really believe it will make to a committed terrorist to be told to get off their skateboard? Please. The day we let these murderers without God or legitimacy of cause [9/11 and M11] rule our lives in fear that something just may happen, we have lost. Melbourne is not a concentration camp and should not have a sea entrance, which gives that impression.
Personally, I have tootled around a good bit of the world, watched machine gun toting police in Paris guard rubbish bins, had a very large black man stick the barrel of a handgun in my face in Hollywood, walked through airports in gun-crisis [Los Angeles everyday] and, as a consequence, really believe Australia is a fantastic place to live – let’s not ruin it as a result of a political and media driven scare-mongering frenzy!
We are restricting access to a public place [Station Pier] because of an assumed threat but, we as Australians, can not and will not live in fear of something which may or may not happen at some time to someone. If our politicians and sales driven media have their way we would be terrified to leave the space under our desks for fear of being blown up, shot or generally maimed by the murderous hordes invading our naïve and pristine environment. This scare mongering is the real terror! The actual terrorist act is frightening but the fear that something may happen is the real and true face of terror.
It will take a switched on politician to say to their constituents, “take all the precautions you need but enjoy life – don’t let threats pervade your existence – don’t succumb to ‘terror’ – be aware but enjoy life”.
Closing down our sea-gateway to tourists and locals will never stop the committed murderer but by restricting access it does send the message that we Victorians are scared and that the murderers have already won.
Political Party ‘1’: “Our Party doesn’t believe people want to continually live in fear of something which may or may not happen and will strive to have some common sense re-instilled into how we perceive ourselves and the way we conduct our lives. As a starting point we will endeavour to create a Melbourne Sea-Gateway that is welcoming, attractive and provides a focus for Melbournians and visitors alike. Whilst taking all appropriate precautions we will open up Station Pier and create …..”
Political Party ‘2’: “Your Party is inviting terrorism into Australia”.
Political Party ‘1’: “Our party deals with reality, not assumed threats and most certainly does not want Australian’s to live in fear. Being cognisant of world events and taking appropriate steps does not mean living in a cardboard box! We all live through the fear and possibility of having an accident whilst driving [I assume far greater than the ‘terrorist attack’] yet still manage to enjoy the experience and enjoy life. Our Party will support the recreation of that great Australian trait. Let the media beware of irresponsible by-lines and desperate journalism.”
This may be an opportunity to create a difference and even if, God forbid, something does happen it will have reminded Australians that they do indeed have resilience, will not live in a cardboard box, accept life as it comes and are not afraid to take action when necessary - whilst all the time enjoying life.
Please, create a Melbourne-unique pier infrastructure which will bring back fisher-people, rubber-neckers, walkers, cyclists, skateboarders, bladers – all people who want to enjoy life through things such as cafes, quasi museums, displays, market stalls, people selling Ophelia’s, tours, water taxis, sailing schools, jet ski hire, dive schools under the pier, a tourist tram terminus at the wet end of the pier, buskers, soap-box people – the list goes on.
We all know that vision, taking responsibility and decision making is not the forte of politicians or councils but surely someone out there can see the opportunity we are all forsaking through collective apathy? Surely someone has the clout to create the impetus for a Melbourne-specific-community-impactful-development? Surely someone can see that if we leave it to the people who rate process, the normal political excuse for not actually doing anything, well above results it will never happen?
Come on Melbourne, it’s not that hard nor does it need to take that long. If I can see the problem and the solution then so can everyone else.
Everyday is a sailing day.
We have managed to repress and indeed even regress a part of Melbourne, which should be vibrant and alive.
And please don’t use ‘Terrorism’ as an excuse. Firstly, it was not an issue when the pier redesign was botched and secondly, how much difference does anyone really believe it will make to a committed terrorist to be told to get off their skateboard? Please. The day we let these murderers without God or legitimacy of cause [9/11 and M11] rule our lives in fear that something just may happen, we have lost. Melbourne is not a concentration camp and should not have a sea entrance, which gives that impression.
Personally, I have tootled around a good bit of the world, watched machine gun toting police in Paris guard rubbish bins, had a very large black man stick the barrel of a handgun in my face in Hollywood, walked through airports in gun-crisis [Los Angeles everyday] and, as a consequence, really believe Australia is a fantastic place to live – let’s not ruin it as a result of a political and media driven scare-mongering frenzy!
We are restricting access to a public place [Station Pier] because of an assumed threat but, we as Australians, can not and will not live in fear of something which may or may not happen at some time to someone. If our politicians and sales driven media have their way we would be terrified to leave the space under our desks for fear of being blown up, shot or generally maimed by the murderous hordes invading our naïve and pristine environment. This scare mongering is the real terror! The actual terrorist act is frightening but the fear that something may happen is the real and true face of terror.
It will take a switched on politician to say to their constituents, “take all the precautions you need but enjoy life – don’t let threats pervade your existence – don’t succumb to ‘terror’ – be aware but enjoy life”.
Closing down our sea-gateway to tourists and locals will never stop the committed murderer but by restricting access it does send the message that we Victorians are scared and that the murderers have already won.
Political Party ‘1’: “Our Party doesn’t believe people want to continually live in fear of something which may or may not happen and will strive to have some common sense re-instilled into how we perceive ourselves and the way we conduct our lives. As a starting point we will endeavour to create a Melbourne Sea-Gateway that is welcoming, attractive and provides a focus for Melbournians and visitors alike. Whilst taking all appropriate precautions we will open up Station Pier and create …..”
Political Party ‘2’: “Your Party is inviting terrorism into Australia”.
Political Party ‘1’: “Our party deals with reality, not assumed threats and most certainly does not want Australian’s to live in fear. Being cognisant of world events and taking appropriate steps does not mean living in a cardboard box! We all live through the fear and possibility of having an accident whilst driving [I assume far greater than the ‘terrorist attack’] yet still manage to enjoy the experience and enjoy life. Our Party will support the recreation of that great Australian trait. Let the media beware of irresponsible by-lines and desperate journalism.”
This may be an opportunity to create a difference and even if, God forbid, something does happen it will have reminded Australians that they do indeed have resilience, will not live in a cardboard box, accept life as it comes and are not afraid to take action when necessary - whilst all the time enjoying life.
Please, create a Melbourne-unique pier infrastructure which will bring back fisher-people, rubber-neckers, walkers, cyclists, skateboarders, bladers – all people who want to enjoy life through things such as cafes, quasi museums, displays, market stalls, people selling Ophelia’s, tours, water taxis, sailing schools, jet ski hire, dive schools under the pier, a tourist tram terminus at the wet end of the pier, buskers, soap-box people – the list goes on.
We all know that vision, taking responsibility and decision making is not the forte of politicians or councils but surely someone out there can see the opportunity we are all forsaking through collective apathy? Surely someone has the clout to create the impetus for a Melbourne-specific-community-impactful-development? Surely someone can see that if we leave it to the people who rate process, the normal political excuse for not actually doing anything, well above results it will never happen?
Come on Melbourne, it’s not that hard nor does it need to take that long. If I can see the problem and the solution then so can everyone else.
Cattlemen and high country leases.
[Alleged conversation between John Thwaits and Steve Bracks]
JT: Hey SB, we’re in trouble.
SB: Don’t you worry JT, leave it all to Uncle SB.
JT: No, no no SB not your fantastic slight of hand job with the Land tax rip off nor your beautiful city car parking money grab nor even your fantastic wage increases for hospitality workers which cost thousands of jobs.
SB: Then JT it must be really serious …. Votes!!
JT: Got it SB, even with our unsustainable election promises we are still losing votes
SB: Alright alright JT, let’s do something which will bring on board all those swinging ‘green’ voters and as long as only a few people lose their shirts, that’s alright.
JT: I know, I know, I know, let’s ban high country grazing for farmers.
CATTLEMEN AND HIGH COUNTRY LEASES
[Alleged conversation between John Thwaits and Steve Bracks] [cont]
SB: Great galloping man from snowy river JT, we can’t do that, they’re part of our culture and it’s been going on forever and the farmers are in trouble anyway.
JT: Yeah I know SB, we all know there’s no real damage to the high country as proven by the fact that they have been at it for decades, but SB, you know the tree huggers are many with lots of votes and they outnumber the cattlemen thousands to one.
SB: JT, are you sure the Greenies want one of our national icons wiped out, we know they can be somewhat narrow in their thinking and single bloody minded, but perhaps JT this is a bit of a long horseshoe throw?
JT; Think Votes SB, we’ll scratch up a bit of scientific evidence showing a few blades of trampled grass, zoom in on a cattle path or two and based on that evidence alone suggest disaster is imminent. Then we’ll trot out a few intelligent looking greenie types to nod knowingly and the smoke screen slight of hand will be complete.
SB: You’re right JT, bugger our Australian heritage, hail the Greenies and bugger the cattlemen, let ‘em sell insurance for a living, we need votes!
JT: You’re my hero SB.
SB: Pssst JT, you don’t think the voters realise that we don’t actually do anything.
JT: Nah.
JT: Hey SB, we’re in trouble.
SB: Don’t you worry JT, leave it all to Uncle SB.
JT: No, no no SB not your fantastic slight of hand job with the Land tax rip off nor your beautiful city car parking money grab nor even your fantastic wage increases for hospitality workers which cost thousands of jobs.
SB: Then JT it must be really serious …. Votes!!
JT: Got it SB, even with our unsustainable election promises we are still losing votes
SB: Alright alright JT, let’s do something which will bring on board all those swinging ‘green’ voters and as long as only a few people lose their shirts, that’s alright.
JT: I know, I know, I know, let’s ban high country grazing for farmers.
CATTLEMEN AND HIGH COUNTRY LEASES
[Alleged conversation between John Thwaits and Steve Bracks] [cont]
SB: Great galloping man from snowy river JT, we can’t do that, they’re part of our culture and it’s been going on forever and the farmers are in trouble anyway.
JT: Yeah I know SB, we all know there’s no real damage to the high country as proven by the fact that they have been at it for decades, but SB, you know the tree huggers are many with lots of votes and they outnumber the cattlemen thousands to one.
SB: JT, are you sure the Greenies want one of our national icons wiped out, we know they can be somewhat narrow in their thinking and single bloody minded, but perhaps JT this is a bit of a long horseshoe throw?
JT; Think Votes SB, we’ll scratch up a bit of scientific evidence showing a few blades of trampled grass, zoom in on a cattle path or two and based on that evidence alone suggest disaster is imminent. Then we’ll trot out a few intelligent looking greenie types to nod knowingly and the smoke screen slight of hand will be complete.
SB: You’re right JT, bugger our Australian heritage, hail the Greenies and bugger the cattlemen, let ‘em sell insurance for a living, we need votes!
JT: You’re my hero SB.
SB: Pssst JT, you don’t think the voters realise that we don’t actually do anything.
JT: Nah.
The destruction of Victoria's seaside gardens
We were travelling through Lorne a little while ago when we noticed the increasingly ruinous changes to the once heritage seaside guesthouse property, ‘Erskine House’.
There is no doubt we are a product of our history, the choices we make as well as those made for us. But when a representative government ignores that history and makes choices on our behalf for the benefit of a private developer it’s a sad reflection on us all.
Bracks government gave Erskine House to private developers.
Consequently that unique heritage seaside garden property has been destroyed. It has been crammed with short life span cheek and jowl units and the ugliness continues with more and more plastic units and what looks like a new and massive function centre; all of which overshadow the original guesthouse.
The lovely old property that was Erskine House at Lorne was in near original condition sitting on what could have been the last of the great seaside garden properties. A walk back in time to an elegant past where grass tennis courts, putting greens, massive lawns, ancient pines and indeed multiple croquet lawns were important. A time of repairing to the terrace for an afternoon repast.
It’s sad that we accept losing our history.
There is no doubt we are a product of our history, the choices we make as well as those made for us. But when a representative government ignores that history and makes choices on our behalf for the benefit of a private developer it’s a sad reflection on us all.
Bracks government gave Erskine House to private developers.
Consequently that unique heritage seaside garden property has been destroyed. It has been crammed with short life span cheek and jowl units and the ugliness continues with more and more plastic units and what looks like a new and massive function centre; all of which overshadow the original guesthouse.
The lovely old property that was Erskine House at Lorne was in near original condition sitting on what could have been the last of the great seaside garden properties. A walk back in time to an elegant past where grass tennis courts, putting greens, massive lawns, ancient pines and indeed multiple croquet lawns were important. A time of repairing to the terrace for an afternoon repast.
It’s sad that we accept losing our history.
Gordon Ramsey - irrelevant
I have a problem! It must be me, because I don’t understand why Gordon Ramsey has a following. We run a restaurant and watch the show spasmodically because we need to keep abreast of trends. the program is an absolute blight on all of us because we accept that dysfunctional drivel.
Have we devolved to such a point where we believe Ramsey is entertainment? What sort of people watch this crap and believe it’s a normal way to deal with life and people? What happened to respect and empathy for others? Does anyone still believe that change is brought about by ‘offensively’ swearing and berating people?
I could go on about Ramsey’s attitude but I believe it is best left ignored. The watching audience attitudes, which make this so called ‘show’ a success, are far more worrying. It seems to me that we are inexorably heading towards a society based on ‘me me me’ without consideration for the other person.
Ramsey makes money by parading himself at the expense of others, politicians try and create a power base by parading themselves as well as denigrating any and everything the opposition does, boxers try and actually hurt others so they can win, drivers believe they own the road and everyone else is there to be abused and they ignore red lights, pedestrians walk in front of traffic expecting cars to stop, people seem to believe others are there just to sustain their own existence and so called current affairs programs have really bottomed out by focusing on the same people that believe this paragraph is rubbish.
The swearing by Ramsey is indicative. Not necessarily because of the swearing but because it was aimed at the person and not their behaviour. I am a Chef, do not swear [unless I cut another chunk of a finger], do not get stressed and try to support others to succeed. I don’t yell and don’t panic. I am exactly the same as every other reasonable Chef. Stressed people do not perform! [Remember ‘Chef’ translates as ‘Chief’ – how many CEO’s do you see acting like Ramsey?] Normally I do not replace adjectives with swearwords because I prefer to use English to discuss a point. Obviously there are exceptions, the other day two girls ran off without paying the bill – as I tried to find them I did indeed mutter a few obscenities. [if anyone sees two slightly dumpy and loud mid 20’s girls, one of whom is French, let me know]
Beware the person who speaks loudly with passion because someone somewhere may actually believe their message. Ramsey is not the only one – what about the brain dead politician who believes that teenagers behaviour will change by limiting the number of passengers in their cars. What drivel. Speed does not kill – inexperienced and/or bad drivers do! But it’s much easier for politicians to pontificate on an abstract issue ‘speed’ than to focus on the real cause ‘people’.
There is a certain part of our society that is loud and replaces adjectives with expletives. Why? I believe because they have trouble identifying who they really are. If you don’t know who you are then you cannot interact with others without trying to force your opinion through being the loudest and the most vulgar. A gross generalisation? But worthy of discussion.
Enjoy other people, don’t judge, have an attitude of gratitude, respect everyone and everything and take personal responsibility. Next time you walk down a narrow and crowded footpath, look at how people challenge ‘right of way’. People who are not comfortable with themselves demand ‘their’ space because they would feel inferior if they allowed a person walking the other way a bit more space. ‘Mine mine mine!’ I have great pleasure in giving way to the weak, the disaffected and the stupid. The day people believe inappropriate behaviour such as the footpath challenge or Ramsey’s method of dealing with people is the norm we are all in trouble.
Have we devolved to such a point where we believe Ramsey is entertainment? What sort of people watch this crap and believe it’s a normal way to deal with life and people? What happened to respect and empathy for others? Does anyone still believe that change is brought about by ‘offensively’ swearing and berating people?
I could go on about Ramsey’s attitude but I believe it is best left ignored. The watching audience attitudes, which make this so called ‘show’ a success, are far more worrying. It seems to me that we are inexorably heading towards a society based on ‘me me me’ without consideration for the other person.
Ramsey makes money by parading himself at the expense of others, politicians try and create a power base by parading themselves as well as denigrating any and everything the opposition does, boxers try and actually hurt others so they can win, drivers believe they own the road and everyone else is there to be abused and they ignore red lights, pedestrians walk in front of traffic expecting cars to stop, people seem to believe others are there just to sustain their own existence and so called current affairs programs have really bottomed out by focusing on the same people that believe this paragraph is rubbish.
The swearing by Ramsey is indicative. Not necessarily because of the swearing but because it was aimed at the person and not their behaviour. I am a Chef, do not swear [unless I cut another chunk of a finger], do not get stressed and try to support others to succeed. I don’t yell and don’t panic. I am exactly the same as every other reasonable Chef. Stressed people do not perform! [Remember ‘Chef’ translates as ‘Chief’ – how many CEO’s do you see acting like Ramsey?] Normally I do not replace adjectives with swearwords because I prefer to use English to discuss a point. Obviously there are exceptions, the other day two girls ran off without paying the bill – as I tried to find them I did indeed mutter a few obscenities. [if anyone sees two slightly dumpy and loud mid 20’s girls, one of whom is French, let me know]
Beware the person who speaks loudly with passion because someone somewhere may actually believe their message. Ramsey is not the only one – what about the brain dead politician who believes that teenagers behaviour will change by limiting the number of passengers in their cars. What drivel. Speed does not kill – inexperienced and/or bad drivers do! But it’s much easier for politicians to pontificate on an abstract issue ‘speed’ than to focus on the real cause ‘people’.
There is a certain part of our society that is loud and replaces adjectives with expletives. Why? I believe because they have trouble identifying who they really are. If you don’t know who you are then you cannot interact with others without trying to force your opinion through being the loudest and the most vulgar. A gross generalisation? But worthy of discussion.
Enjoy other people, don’t judge, have an attitude of gratitude, respect everyone and everything and take personal responsibility. Next time you walk down a narrow and crowded footpath, look at how people challenge ‘right of way’. People who are not comfortable with themselves demand ‘their’ space because they would feel inferior if they allowed a person walking the other way a bit more space. ‘Mine mine mine!’ I have great pleasure in giving way to the weak, the disaffected and the stupid. The day people believe inappropriate behaviour such as the footpath challenge or Ramsey’s method of dealing with people is the norm we are all in trouble.
Buy Australian
Price competition is a fact of life. Get away from the media driven rubbish concerning short grabs of shell shocked food company executives defending spurious reporter claims and get to the real problem.
For change to occur in shopping we need one of two things to happen. Firstly, no food. Secondly, give people the option of shopping by buying Australian products and giving our own growers the chance of achieving profit through scale.
The process is simple. Force the food retailers to organise their shelves to help us select both Australian and even more importantly local produce. This would require at least two isles dedicated to us helping Australia survive as a dig-it-up economy.
We own a restaurant and continue to buy the best products we can from around the world because our clients deserve it. However we, like everyone else, are confused as to where products originate. We want easy choice when we go to the market a couple of times a week.
Make it easy for people to buy quality Australian products and I am sure they will – so will we!
For change to occur in shopping we need one of two things to happen. Firstly, no food. Secondly, give people the option of shopping by buying Australian products and giving our own growers the chance of achieving profit through scale.
The process is simple. Force the food retailers to organise their shelves to help us select both Australian and even more importantly local produce. This would require at least two isles dedicated to us helping Australia survive as a dig-it-up economy.
We own a restaurant and continue to buy the best products we can from around the world because our clients deserve it. However we, like everyone else, are confused as to where products originate. We want easy choice when we go to the market a couple of times a week.
Make it easy for people to buy quality Australian products and I am sure they will – so will we!
Buy Australian
Price competition is a fact of life. Get away from the media driven rubbish concerning short grabs of shell shocked food company executives defending spurious reporter claims and get to the real problem.
For change to occur in shopping we need one of two things to happen. Firstly, no food. Secondly, give people the option of shopping by buying Australian products and giving our own growers the chance of achieving profit through scale.
The process is simple. Force the food retailers to organise their shelves to help us select both Australian and even more importantly local produce. This would require at least two isles dedicated to us helping Australia survive as a dig-it-up economy.
We own a restaurant and continue to buy the best products we can from around the world because our clients deserve it. However we, like everyone else, are confused as to where products originate. We want easy choice when we go to the market a couple of times a week.
Make it easy for people to buy quality Australian products and I am sure they will – so will we!
For change to occur in shopping we need one of two things to happen. Firstly, no food. Secondly, give people the option of shopping by buying Australian products and giving our own growers the chance of achieving profit through scale.
The process is simple. Force the food retailers to organise their shelves to help us select both Australian and even more importantly local produce. This would require at least two isles dedicated to us helping Australia survive as a dig-it-up economy.
We own a restaurant and continue to buy the best products we can from around the world because our clients deserve it. However we, like everyone else, are confused as to where products originate. We want easy choice when we go to the market a couple of times a week.
Make it easy for people to buy quality Australian products and I am sure they will – so will we!
Bill Henson - photographer defamed
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR AGE NEWSPAPER REGARDING ARTICLE ON BILL HENSON
I read the article about Bill Henson exhibiting works of a ‘controversial’ nature wherein we learnt he was being accused of heinous crimes by a bunch of ‘concerned’ citizens.
Whilst there is no place in our society for anyone who takes advantage of the vulnerable, it must also be recognised that there are certain accusers for whom the world holds nothing but threats and problems about which they are forced to act through their own sense of indefatigable moral turpitude – or indeed just to create political advantage. It could also be said that the perceived threats to our collective well being lurk within the same minds which seem to relish the demeaning behaviour of people like Sam Newman and Gordon Ramsey.
I am currently sitting in bed with laptop surrounded by artworks including five nude women, one nude bloke [sans genitals thank God] and 10 frolicking maidens plus of course she who controls the boudoir resplendent. Add in two camel bedside lights and Jock, the stuffed bed minding dog with his own personality and you get the picture. There are the accusers out there for whom our bedroom would be akin to a Victorian Madam’s house of financial gain and finger point us for perceived crimes against their idea of the moral high ground. Right!
Some accusers can’t see beauty in an object because of their inability to disseminate art from the murky end of their own clouded mind. One day we may see the ‘offending’ art and make up our own minds.
I read the article about Bill Henson exhibiting works of a ‘controversial’ nature wherein we learnt he was being accused of heinous crimes by a bunch of ‘concerned’ citizens.
Whilst there is no place in our society for anyone who takes advantage of the vulnerable, it must also be recognised that there are certain accusers for whom the world holds nothing but threats and problems about which they are forced to act through their own sense of indefatigable moral turpitude – or indeed just to create political advantage. It could also be said that the perceived threats to our collective well being lurk within the same minds which seem to relish the demeaning behaviour of people like Sam Newman and Gordon Ramsey.
I am currently sitting in bed with laptop surrounded by artworks including five nude women, one nude bloke [sans genitals thank God] and 10 frolicking maidens plus of course she who controls the boudoir resplendent. Add in two camel bedside lights and Jock, the stuffed bed minding dog with his own personality and you get the picture. There are the accusers out there for whom our bedroom would be akin to a Victorian Madam’s house of financial gain and finger point us for perceived crimes against their idea of the moral high ground. Right!
Some accusers can’t see beauty in an object because of their inability to disseminate art from the murky end of their own clouded mind. One day we may see the ‘offending’ art and make up our own minds.
GM foods and restaurants
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR – SATURDAY’S AGE PAGE 8 – TOP CHEFS COOK ..
I am concerned at the emotive, hate mongering and blatant grab for differential advertising that two Melbourne Chefs exhibited when they were quoted as saying in relation to a campaign for not serving GM foods, “We want to .. separate ourselves from the establishments that don’t care” and the other urging a boycott by saying, “If people close their restaurants because there are no customers”. One would hope that their managers and/or shareholders agree with them because these are strong sentiments that could backfire onto the business.
Pardon me, but this comes across as two blokes with all the rights in the world to say how they feel about GM and to do what they like in their own establishments but to impose their opinion onto others, by engendering hate and boycotts based on rather spurious information, is bad form. It’s amazing how certain groups resort to low end hate campaigns to get their message across when the world has moved on. The chef’s in question are made to look like somewhat silly when you read the whole article as well as remember that apparently twenty five Nobel Prize winners and about 3400 scientists have expressed support for GM crops as a safe way to improve both agriculture and the environment. [5 second search unveiled this information]
Personally, I would rather use product which has been developed to withstand insects without destructive and poisonous chemicals and as long as we support the so-called human disease of unlimited population growth we need ‘tough’ food which can be grown in what have been traditionally non-food growing areas. I wonder if our Chefs support continuing hunger in third world countries? I would think a far bigger problem concerns GM development companies owning the seeds by creating sterile plants and forcing farmers to buy a new lot each year.
We have been genetically modifying food and products and dare I say people for umpteen years by selective breeding – cognisant of all the implications regarding both moral and commercial choice. Selective breeding of sheep, cows, goats, roses, cotton and thousands of others has helped the normal process of survival of the strongest. How many future mothers going through IVF would want to choose the best genes they can from the available pool? Answer – all of them!
Apparently we now have the capacity to speed up the process of natural selection and gene strengthening through manipulation at the beginning rather than waiting a few decades for a similar effect. The article itself is quite clear in conveying support for GM crops worldwide yet we still have this by-line grabbing campaign by Greenpeace and two Chefs seemingly determined to create hate and business advantage for themselves.
As I said, bad form.
I am concerned at the emotive, hate mongering and blatant grab for differential advertising that two Melbourne Chefs exhibited when they were quoted as saying in relation to a campaign for not serving GM foods, “We want to .. separate ourselves from the establishments that don’t care” and the other urging a boycott by saying, “If people close their restaurants because there are no customers”. One would hope that their managers and/or shareholders agree with them because these are strong sentiments that could backfire onto the business.
Pardon me, but this comes across as two blokes with all the rights in the world to say how they feel about GM and to do what they like in their own establishments but to impose their opinion onto others, by engendering hate and boycotts based on rather spurious information, is bad form. It’s amazing how certain groups resort to low end hate campaigns to get their message across when the world has moved on. The chef’s in question are made to look like somewhat silly when you read the whole article as well as remember that apparently twenty five Nobel Prize winners and about 3400 scientists have expressed support for GM crops as a safe way to improve both agriculture and the environment. [5 second search unveiled this information]
Personally, I would rather use product which has been developed to withstand insects without destructive and poisonous chemicals and as long as we support the so-called human disease of unlimited population growth we need ‘tough’ food which can be grown in what have been traditionally non-food growing areas. I wonder if our Chefs support continuing hunger in third world countries? I would think a far bigger problem concerns GM development companies owning the seeds by creating sterile plants and forcing farmers to buy a new lot each year.
We have been genetically modifying food and products and dare I say people for umpteen years by selective breeding – cognisant of all the implications regarding both moral and commercial choice. Selective breeding of sheep, cows, goats, roses, cotton and thousands of others has helped the normal process of survival of the strongest. How many future mothers going through IVF would want to choose the best genes they can from the available pool? Answer – all of them!
Apparently we now have the capacity to speed up the process of natural selection and gene strengthening through manipulation at the beginning rather than waiting a few decades for a similar effect. The article itself is quite clear in conveying support for GM crops worldwide yet we still have this by-line grabbing campaign by Greenpeace and two Chefs seemingly determined to create hate and business advantage for themselves.
As I said, bad form.
Destruction of Elsternwick golf course
Dear Councillors,
One of the absolutely beautiful and unique aspects of Melbourne, which separates it from lesser cities, is the swathe of golf courses which not only provide a so-called ‘green belt’ but recreational facilities for all parts of society.
God’s game can be enjoyed for a reasonable sum on public golf courses. Not all of our people can afford to join one of the manicured private golf courses or indeed want to. Many retired people, young people and indeed just daily hackers want to be able to play on a casual basis on a medium length nine hole course. Remember the game of golf is made up of units of nine holes.
Elsternwick golf course is unique. It is not only over a hundred years old and hence of historical significance but remains in suburbia within a green precinct incorporating not only the golf course but a sports oval or two, tennis courts and, separated by a road, a much used park.
The proposal we saw for Elsternwick golf course will destroy most of its charm by turning it into a modern concept park with a driving range and six par three holes. Japan needs driving ranges because they don’t have affordable land for the real thing. Other countries need driving ranges because they want instant gratification, plastic grass areas without puddles and plastic 1000-year-life ball buckets negating having to actually walk anywhere.
Now don’t get me wrong, because I quite enjoy the different challenges a driving range provides. As a matter of fact I was turning into a driving range junkie for a while there, but at the end of the day we practice hitting golf balls to actually play God’s game – the driving range is not an end in itself. No golf courses = no need for practice ranges.
Australians have grown up with an innate right to play and enjoy sports such as golf, tennis, cricket and a host of other games. Remove the ability to play these sports and they will disappear.
There are driving ranges at Sandringham and Middle Park. There is no need for another practice range in Elsternwick – especially when it would be destroying one of the last historic nine hole public golf courses to build it.
The changes to Elsternwick golf course are not a golfer’s solution; they are a dollar focused developer’s solution. Elsternwick golf course still has a natural beauty and remains free of concrete paths, plastic flower boxes and other un-natural rubbish. Preserving natural beauty is a whole lot cheaper than maintaining a heavily manicured plastic park.
This natural beauty is the space within golf was meant to be played. Look at Royal Melbourne – it is one of the world’s best golf courses because of its natural appeal; as is St Andrews in Scotland. We need to resist the temptation to corporatise nature or we risk destroying our way of life. Just look at what happened to tennis. We lost our national identity of grass court tennis because we acquiesced to other parts of the world, for Grand Slams, who couldn’t play on grass. How weak are we. At least the English and French stuck to their national identity.
Now, on the down side. There is no doubt that preserving our heritage costs money and time and commitment. Only those people dedicated to keeping Melbourne’s ethos and character in tact along with commercial pragmatism should be in seats of influence.
Look at what stupid people did to one of the last historic seaside gardens at Erskine House in Lorne. They gave these beautiful historic gardens to developers to build horrible massed units for someone’s personal gain.
We take over bankrupt business for a living and turn them around; so I am cognisant of financial considerations balanced against commercial necessities. But I am also very aware of balancing those two ‘corporate’ requirements against the need to achieve a solution within the needs of our environment, history and social needs.
The dreadful building at Lorne’s Erskine House was driven by a greedy developer bent on short term gains for his shareholders when, given even a modicum of thought, could have been a showplace for Victoria and profitable. I personally dread what’s going to happen to Mt Buffalo Chalet given the track record of the current government,
The same goes for Elsternwick Golf Course. It does indeed need some work to bring it to a level where people will salivate to be given the opportunity to play there. This is not huge money but needs to be achieved by greenkeepers, gardeners and artists – not corporate focused people seeking short term financial gain. For example, there needs to be more bunkers but drained and cared for.
Can you imagine the credibility restoring a Victorian [circa not state] garden/golf course for the people of Melbourne will give the council for the City of Port Phillip. I would have thought that after the flack the council has and is receiving over the controversial triangle site it would be very positive for it to be seen preserving something rather than destroying it.
On the pragmatic side, there is an enormous opportunity to develop the current pro-shop, car park area into something special with financial returns capable of possibly sustaining upkeep costs of the course itself.
Imagine something like the pro-shop at Sandringham golf course; a quasi heritage two level building built partly below ground level over a large underground car park housing golf course management requirements including green-keeping etal plus a public, quality and accessible [financial and physical] bistro overlooking the golf course. The footprint would not require one blade of grass to be removed and if built with the same sympathy as the Kiosk at the end of St Kilda pier, would prove Port Phillip council as one of vision, forethought, empathy and indeed downright common sense. A financial success, a heritage success and a people success.
Further, imagine the golf course preserved as a ‘country tract’ albeit with heritage inspired wrought iron tee-side seating, the odd bit of appropriate sculpture springing up around the park, a much publicised current technology infra-red movement sensor system to dissuade destructive people at night, a proper watering system for tees, greens and cut grass areas, proper and heritage course markers, natural Australian plants, bushes and flowers all over the place, a small lake built within existing course parameters to sustain the course and fencing of an appropriate colour and design to reflect the heritage nature of the project.
Unfortunately, all of this requires thought and a desire to do the right thing by the people of Melbourne. I am sure the Port Phillip council would be up to the job.
One of the absolutely beautiful and unique aspects of Melbourne, which separates it from lesser cities, is the swathe of golf courses which not only provide a so-called ‘green belt’ but recreational facilities for all parts of society.
God’s game can be enjoyed for a reasonable sum on public golf courses. Not all of our people can afford to join one of the manicured private golf courses or indeed want to. Many retired people, young people and indeed just daily hackers want to be able to play on a casual basis on a medium length nine hole course. Remember the game of golf is made up of units of nine holes.
Elsternwick golf course is unique. It is not only over a hundred years old and hence of historical significance but remains in suburbia within a green precinct incorporating not only the golf course but a sports oval or two, tennis courts and, separated by a road, a much used park.
The proposal we saw for Elsternwick golf course will destroy most of its charm by turning it into a modern concept park with a driving range and six par three holes. Japan needs driving ranges because they don’t have affordable land for the real thing. Other countries need driving ranges because they want instant gratification, plastic grass areas without puddles and plastic 1000-year-life ball buckets negating having to actually walk anywhere.
Now don’t get me wrong, because I quite enjoy the different challenges a driving range provides. As a matter of fact I was turning into a driving range junkie for a while there, but at the end of the day we practice hitting golf balls to actually play God’s game – the driving range is not an end in itself. No golf courses = no need for practice ranges.
Australians have grown up with an innate right to play and enjoy sports such as golf, tennis, cricket and a host of other games. Remove the ability to play these sports and they will disappear.
There are driving ranges at Sandringham and Middle Park. There is no need for another practice range in Elsternwick – especially when it would be destroying one of the last historic nine hole public golf courses to build it.
The changes to Elsternwick golf course are not a golfer’s solution; they are a dollar focused developer’s solution. Elsternwick golf course still has a natural beauty and remains free of concrete paths, plastic flower boxes and other un-natural rubbish. Preserving natural beauty is a whole lot cheaper than maintaining a heavily manicured plastic park.
This natural beauty is the space within golf was meant to be played. Look at Royal Melbourne – it is one of the world’s best golf courses because of its natural appeal; as is St Andrews in Scotland. We need to resist the temptation to corporatise nature or we risk destroying our way of life. Just look at what happened to tennis. We lost our national identity of grass court tennis because we acquiesced to other parts of the world, for Grand Slams, who couldn’t play on grass. How weak are we. At least the English and French stuck to their national identity.
Now, on the down side. There is no doubt that preserving our heritage costs money and time and commitment. Only those people dedicated to keeping Melbourne’s ethos and character in tact along with commercial pragmatism should be in seats of influence.
Look at what stupid people did to one of the last historic seaside gardens at Erskine House in Lorne. They gave these beautiful historic gardens to developers to build horrible massed units for someone’s personal gain.
We take over bankrupt business for a living and turn them around; so I am cognisant of financial considerations balanced against commercial necessities. But I am also very aware of balancing those two ‘corporate’ requirements against the need to achieve a solution within the needs of our environment, history and social needs.
The dreadful building at Lorne’s Erskine House was driven by a greedy developer bent on short term gains for his shareholders when, given even a modicum of thought, could have been a showplace for Victoria and profitable. I personally dread what’s going to happen to Mt Buffalo Chalet given the track record of the current government,
The same goes for Elsternwick Golf Course. It does indeed need some work to bring it to a level where people will salivate to be given the opportunity to play there. This is not huge money but needs to be achieved by greenkeepers, gardeners and artists – not corporate focused people seeking short term financial gain. For example, there needs to be more bunkers but drained and cared for.
Can you imagine the credibility restoring a Victorian [circa not state] garden/golf course for the people of Melbourne will give the council for the City of Port Phillip. I would have thought that after the flack the council has and is receiving over the controversial triangle site it would be very positive for it to be seen preserving something rather than destroying it.
On the pragmatic side, there is an enormous opportunity to develop the current pro-shop, car park area into something special with financial returns capable of possibly sustaining upkeep costs of the course itself.
Imagine something like the pro-shop at Sandringham golf course; a quasi heritage two level building built partly below ground level over a large underground car park housing golf course management requirements including green-keeping etal plus a public, quality and accessible [financial and physical] bistro overlooking the golf course. The footprint would not require one blade of grass to be removed and if built with the same sympathy as the Kiosk at the end of St Kilda pier, would prove Port Phillip council as one of vision, forethought, empathy and indeed downright common sense. A financial success, a heritage success and a people success.
Further, imagine the golf course preserved as a ‘country tract’ albeit with heritage inspired wrought iron tee-side seating, the odd bit of appropriate sculpture springing up around the park, a much publicised current technology infra-red movement sensor system to dissuade destructive people at night, a proper watering system for tees, greens and cut grass areas, proper and heritage course markers, natural Australian plants, bushes and flowers all over the place, a small lake built within existing course parameters to sustain the course and fencing of an appropriate colour and design to reflect the heritage nature of the project.
Unfortunately, all of this requires thought and a desire to do the right thing by the people of Melbourne. I am sure the Port Phillip council would be up to the job.
Retirement home challenge
RESPONSE TO ARTICLE IN THE SATURDAY AGE NEWSPAPER REGARDING AN ELDERLY PERSON IN A RETIREMENT HOME LEFT IN THEIR ROOM WITH NO AIR-CONDITIONING.
I am not writing about the situation which strands our parents without air conditioning in their so-called ‘retirement’ space because the outrage that incident engenders should be minor compared to the sadness of seeing us or our parents ‘live’ in a character free grey on grey bedroom for rest of life.
When I saw the photograph of that ‘expensive’ retirement room, I was appalled at the space into which we expect our parents to happily eke out life till dead. If we can’t do better than that then it’s a sad indictment on us all.
Developers want to maximise their returns so they squish as many bedrooms as possible into any given space and paint everything with job-lot grey paint. Then they tart it up with mere spin and call it luxury - wank.
This then is the challenge. The motto ‘Living in a bedroom is not a good thing’ defines the objective.
I am an idiot but still reckon I can design a replicable retirement unit into which anyone over forty with partner would love to live. It’s about design, spatial efficiency, character and walking into your space thinking, “I want to be here”. Just because you may need medical support does not change the design brief for this low care facility.
There are lots of us baby boomers who don’t want McMansions but want style within a small space. A space designed for living and, dare I say, entertaining whilst enjoying the company of your equally old cronies.
I see the saleable ‘units’ capable of addressing the needs of people from forty years old and up. Some with cars, some with golf carts and some with walking frames. Indeed, develop the character and I bet any pre-kid age group would be itching to live there as well.
Environmentally friendly, low footprint, cheap, efficient, character, liveable, efficient, inside-outside, accessible, landscaped, low maintenance, light filled, recyclable wastes, catchment water, free power, hi-tech, wall size TV’s, libraries, orthopaedic seating, air conditioning, fold out beds, kitchenette [inside/outside], space utilisation, work - bench, gravel courtyard, garden, trees, water feature, built in vacuum, sauna, outside seating
I am not writing about the situation which strands our parents without air conditioning in their so-called ‘retirement’ space because the outrage that incident engenders should be minor compared to the sadness of seeing us or our parents ‘live’ in a character free grey on grey bedroom for rest of life.
When I saw the photograph of that ‘expensive’ retirement room, I was appalled at the space into which we expect our parents to happily eke out life till dead. If we can’t do better than that then it’s a sad indictment on us all.
Developers want to maximise their returns so they squish as many bedrooms as possible into any given space and paint everything with job-lot grey paint. Then they tart it up with mere spin and call it luxury - wank.
This then is the challenge. The motto ‘Living in a bedroom is not a good thing’ defines the objective.
I am an idiot but still reckon I can design a replicable retirement unit into which anyone over forty with partner would love to live. It’s about design, spatial efficiency, character and walking into your space thinking, “I want to be here”. Just because you may need medical support does not change the design brief for this low care facility.
There are lots of us baby boomers who don’t want McMansions but want style within a small space. A space designed for living and, dare I say, entertaining whilst enjoying the company of your equally old cronies.
I see the saleable ‘units’ capable of addressing the needs of people from forty years old and up. Some with cars, some with golf carts and some with walking frames. Indeed, develop the character and I bet any pre-kid age group would be itching to live there as well.
Environmentally friendly, low footprint, cheap, efficient, character, liveable, efficient, inside-outside, accessible, landscaped, low maintenance, light filled, recyclable wastes, catchment water, free power, hi-tech, wall size TV’s, libraries, orthopaedic seating, air conditioning, fold out beds, kitchenette [inside/outside], space utilisation, work - bench, gravel courtyard, garden, trees, water feature, built in vacuum, sauna, outside seating
Doom and Gloom in Restaurants
RESPONSE TO PETER MONRO’S ARTICLE WITHIN SUNDAY THE 1ST OF MARCH TITLED ‘AS CRISIS BITES, DINERS SWAP CAFÉ FOR COCOON.
Some people depend on creating controversy and/or doom and gloom. This makes articles such as Mr. Monro’s dangerous because there is such a thing as a self-fulfilling prophecy and using emotive phrases like, ‘dining out is “splurging” or when referring to having a snack at a café, “to be out there flaunting our success” is inflammatory, wrong and inculcates the prophecy.
The quotes from Bernard Salt of KPMG are particularly awry. The way the article is written suggests he thinks that going out to a café or restaurant is seen as a retreat from core values and that we should be at home, sewing, knitting and preserving fruit.
Indeed, dining out with a friend or a bunch of friends does not signify you have lost your core values and if I have a choice between sewing, knitting and preserving fruit to enjoying dining out then I am sorry, but the knitted scarf will have to wait.
The whole point is that people should not create stories based on dodgy / misrepresented statistics or biased and/or ill informed opinion. I trust KPMG have no hospitality clients.
We own one of these horrible restaurant places wherein people purportedly lose their core values, fail in their fruit preserving duties and flaunt their success by having the audacity to enjoy a meal with a special friend. We offer a retreat for people where they can enter another world for a short time and be pampered and looked after whilst dining on smells, tastes and textures they would not normally get at home. Hopefully they leave happy, contented and have enjoyed an all too brief respite from their normal lives.
We think this is a good thing and so do our clients as we still enjoy a better than 90% occupancy.
Some people depend on creating controversy and/or doom and gloom. This makes articles such as Mr. Monro’s dangerous because there is such a thing as a self-fulfilling prophecy and using emotive phrases like, ‘dining out is “splurging” or when referring to having a snack at a café, “to be out there flaunting our success” is inflammatory, wrong and inculcates the prophecy.
The quotes from Bernard Salt of KPMG are particularly awry. The way the article is written suggests he thinks that going out to a café or restaurant is seen as a retreat from core values and that we should be at home, sewing, knitting and preserving fruit.
Indeed, dining out with a friend or a bunch of friends does not signify you have lost your core values and if I have a choice between sewing, knitting and preserving fruit to enjoying dining out then I am sorry, but the knitted scarf will have to wait.
The whole point is that people should not create stories based on dodgy / misrepresented statistics or biased and/or ill informed opinion. I trust KPMG have no hospitality clients.
We own one of these horrible restaurant places wherein people purportedly lose their core values, fail in their fruit preserving duties and flaunt their success by having the audacity to enjoy a meal with a special friend. We offer a retreat for people where they can enter another world for a short time and be pampered and looked after whilst dining on smells, tastes and textures they would not normally get at home. Hopefully they leave happy, contented and have enjoyed an all too brief respite from their normal lives.
We think this is a good thing and so do our clients as we still enjoy a better than 90% occupancy.
Work choices are now dead
I would like to congratulate our government on finally enacting the single most retrograde piece of legislation I can remember. They have managed to shift Australia back in time to the beginning of the 20th century and make us a laughing stock for the rest of the world.
We live within a global village and indeed one that is under significant financial stress. There is increasing unemployment and decreasing discretionary income yet our leaders believe we still only need to work Monday to Friday from 9am to 5pm. Any work outside of these hallowed hours is deemed so onerous that the severest of wage penalties apply.
When Kennett’s 24/7 wage parity applied we employed thousands of part time people in the hospitality industry in Victoria, costs remained stable to the weekday pricing model and business boomed. People could make a dollar, they could spend that dollar and the whole cycle worked.
Now, opening a hospitality business on Sunday is at best, marginal. Tourism is closing down because business can’t afford to open or they have to surcharge their bill. No part time work, no discretionary income and no dollar cycle, yet our leaders still exhibit their 9 to 5 mentality.
May I suggest that we bring these hard times on ourselves by enacting legislation such as this whilst listening to those who ignore the needs of business and the dollar cycle.
We are part of the world and that world runs 24/7. What stupidity allows us to think otherwise.
We live within a global village and indeed one that is under significant financial stress. There is increasing unemployment and decreasing discretionary income yet our leaders believe we still only need to work Monday to Friday from 9am to 5pm. Any work outside of these hallowed hours is deemed so onerous that the severest of wage penalties apply.
When Kennett’s 24/7 wage parity applied we employed thousands of part time people in the hospitality industry in Victoria, costs remained stable to the weekday pricing model and business boomed. People could make a dollar, they could spend that dollar and the whole cycle worked.
Now, opening a hospitality business on Sunday is at best, marginal. Tourism is closing down because business can’t afford to open or they have to surcharge their bill. No part time work, no discretionary income and no dollar cycle, yet our leaders still exhibit their 9 to 5 mentality.
May I suggest that we bring these hard times on ourselves by enacting legislation such as this whilst listening to those who ignore the needs of business and the dollar cycle.
We are part of the world and that world runs 24/7. What stupidity allows us to think otherwise.
Monday, April 6, 2009
A gaggle of Ophelias striding up the Yarra!
Great to see an article looking at ways to change Melbourne. [Age Saturday 4th April] Apart from the fantastic and immediately doable idea to run a .05 style campaign to curb violence and make it socially unacceptable, the other ideas were great. Will it ever happen? Not likely given the ‘let’s form a sub-committee mentality’ of our current Government.
We have multiple points of interest in Melbourne due to the drive of individual entrepreneurs yet what we need is a central focus to rewrite Melbourne’s view to the world. Jorn Utzon did it for Sydney, despite narrow thinking and short term politicians, and we can do it for Melbourne. For example, the wavy roof of Spencer Street Station is great but the station’s only half done and the new and disgusting concrete building next door really shows a narrowness of thought. And, whoever put a drop ceiling in the Flinders Street station really failed to recognize or celebrate the original vaulted space; as do other great railway stations in the world. What happened? At this point Government heads go down and feet start to shuffle.
Why can’t we build an ‘Ophelia’ the size of a 20 story building housing a modern art museum? Guggenheim eat your heart out. Money is almost irrelevant – despite dire Government predictions does anyone complain about the cost of Sydney’s opera house today? Indeed, why can’t we have a whole community of Ophelias striding from our illustrious bay right up the Yarra to the city with each containing something the public could use and celebrate. Bloody hell Melbourne, let’s get some really bright way out clever types to change yawning Melbourne as did Guggenheim for Bilbao or Eiffel for Paris. Send your letters to The Age by the million and show you want Melbourne to be fantastic.
We have multiple points of interest in Melbourne due to the drive of individual entrepreneurs yet what we need is a central focus to rewrite Melbourne’s view to the world. Jorn Utzon did it for Sydney, despite narrow thinking and short term politicians, and we can do it for Melbourne. For example, the wavy roof of Spencer Street Station is great but the station’s only half done and the new and disgusting concrete building next door really shows a narrowness of thought. And, whoever put a drop ceiling in the Flinders Street station really failed to recognize or celebrate the original vaulted space; as do other great railway stations in the world. What happened? At this point Government heads go down and feet start to shuffle.
Why can’t we build an ‘Ophelia’ the size of a 20 story building housing a modern art museum? Guggenheim eat your heart out. Money is almost irrelevant – despite dire Government predictions does anyone complain about the cost of Sydney’s opera house today? Indeed, why can’t we have a whole community of Ophelias striding from our illustrious bay right up the Yarra to the city with each containing something the public could use and celebrate. Bloody hell Melbourne, let’s get some really bright way out clever types to change yawning Melbourne as did Guggenheim for Bilbao or Eiffel for Paris. Send your letters to The Age by the million and show you want Melbourne to be fantastic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)