Gender Politics

Federal Government – Question time and the gender ‘card’..

It is only fools and idiots who attack the person rather than the behaviour.

Men and women are not equal!  And, thank God for that.

Women think differently and do some things better - and that is a good thing.

Men think differently and do some things better - and that is a good thing.

The world would be a sad place without both sides of thought.

I have run project teams all over the world and have always attempted to maintain a 50/50 gender split.

One is like water and the other sand.  Individually strong in some respects but also easily moved aside.  You can easily move water aside and kick sand into the air but, mix them up in the right proportions and ‘they’ become a strong and resilient force.  Yet sand and water together remain separate, identifiable and unique - not homogenous but working together to become that force.  A partnership

Apart from remaining unique the second criteria is respect where that respect is a God given right for everyone.  Without necessarily agreeing, respect each other and respect each other’s opinions.  It’s actually quite easy and cathartic to assume you will like and respect someone before you meet them!

Perhaps our political leaders need to learn to enjoy our differences and the inherent strength of working together.

Jon Langevad

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

It seems that banks and commercial leasing agents and business brokers and probably anyone with a pen and disregard for the law include in their many and various contracts, terms and conditions which are clearly in breach of various acts.  

When pressed on the phone they quote these conditions endlessly espousing that they are ‘published’; presumably with the thought that mere publishing gives them credence.  They obviously ignore their illegal nature.  This would seem to be gross misrepresentation with the employee and the company being joint and severally responsible.

When it comes to the crunch these illegal conditions will be read down and be as if they were not in the contract but the question remains. “Why are companies including terms and conditions in their contracts they know are illegal and quoting them over the phone as binding?”  There can be only one reason and that is to confuse the customer through a misrepresentation of the facts.

The customer loses money and time forcing companies forcing them to comply with the law.

It seems that the regulatory bodies like ACCC, ACIC and ACMA ignore this practice so to protect myself I now publish my own terms and conditions which Banks, Estate agents and Business brokers Etal [BEBE] must comply just because I have published!  Just 6 of the 7,312 as an example …

1. All BEBE’s must immediately answer my phone calls with a real person with no menus to navigate;

Fine .. 100 Penalty units

2. All BEBE’s must instigate training for all employees to make them realise that we are the customer and that they are not doing us a favour;

Fine .. 100 Penalty units

3. All BEBE’s will accept anything I request, do and say as law and will action any requests forthwith;

Fine .. 200 Penalty units

4. All BEBE’s will immediately remove any confusing, illegal and misrepresentative term or condition and immediately subjugate themselves to my 7,312 published [elsewhere] Terms and Conditions remembering that they must be legal because I have published them. [Keep in mind that even though ‘elsewhere’ is somewhat obtuse and confusing does not mean you can ignore them]

Fine … 300 penalty units

5. All BEBE’s agree that we may change any or all terms and conditions at any time without your consent or knowledge or acquiescence and they still must comply without reservation:

 Fine … 400 Penalty units

6. All BEBE’s agree that any phone communication may be recorded by us for litigation purposes and that may not do the same; 

Fine … 400 Penalty units

Penalty unit = $195 to be paid into my personal ‘collections’ account [the collections department is specifically enabled to collect fines from BEBE’s]

Jon Langevad

CHANGE OF GOVERNMENT

We all from time to time focus on minutia rather than the big picture because it’s easy and allows our addled brains a respite against life’s major challenges.  Golf is the perfect ‘escape’ as it requires absolute concentration on hitting a very small white ball and blocks out all other issues affecting our lives.  The golf driving range is positively therapeutic.

This is a necessity for us mere mortals but I question as to whether or not it is appropriate for our Government to continually focus on relatively small issues rather than platform our country into a strategic future as a world player.

Our leaders should be galvanising our country towards a common ‘world’ future yet what we see is continual bickering over minutia through somewhat cringe-worthy  behaviour as demonstrated every day in Parliament and picked up by the media in sound and video ‘bites’.

There is no doubt that the current Federal Government has lost people’s confidence through a litany of economic, financial and human mistakes.  Mistakes which should not have happened at this level with so many smart people ready, willing and able to analyse, plan and action an almost mistake proof Government.

Our country will engender a change in Government in September because we have lost faith; and for good reason.

But, to what?

Where are the people we can rally behind to drive our country.  People such as Hawke or Fraser who were/are statesman and did indeed represent  Australia with charisma and leadership.  Orators of some skill able to garner opinion and turn it into something positive.  The skill-sets of Obama, Thatcher, Clinton and Blair are awe inspiring and as world leaders are able to create change by unifying their nations.

No one in their right mind would agree with everything they did but there is no doubt they delivered for their respective countries.  Hawke, when we won The America’s cup was fantastic, because he almost single handed expressed what we were all feeling – a slightly larrikin pride in our country as Australians.  He had the ability to galvanise all political persuasions on the big issues, such as whipping those pesky Americans, and he did it with grace and humour.  Read some of Menzie's speeches to see similar statesman humour and listen to the power of Obama when he speaks.

We will elect a new lot in September and we will expect better Government yet I wonder whether or not we will get the leadership our country really needs.

The bickering minutia set is on all sides of politics with everyone playing the media game of the 5 second destructive sound bite.  The Prime Minister with her misogynist attacks was perfect for a 5 second destruction as was Abbot’s Julia the liar campaign.  Unfortunately both were rubbish and did and have tarnished both ‘leaders’ with a 10 year old bully mentality of low intellect.

Politicians try to excuse this behaviour by saying that parliament debate is vigorous .  Vigorous is hitting a white ball, debate is supposed to be intelligent, intellectual and demanding of logic and clear thinking.  Now think of question time.

We are better than this.

Mr Abbot will be our next prime Minister leading our country into a strategic future.

The question is, ‘Can he remove himself from the minutia set and rise above dysfunctional behaviours and become the leader and statesman we all want and need’?

At the risk of trivialising this issue watch Rowan Atkinson move from bumbling idiot to ‘becoming’ Johnny English the secret agent in seconds.  A transformation with obvious links to Mr Abbot.

Goodwill in life and business

One of the most misunderstood concepts in business concerns our perceptions of ‘Goodwill’.

Perhaps good will means that one thinks good things about someone else and we ‘will’ our positive thoughts and actions so that others get warm and fuzzy - just from our mere brain waves.  Nice!

On the other hand, perhaps it’s how we view ourselves through someone else’s eyes?  Perhaps we have spent years being nice to someone so that they in turn think good things about us?  In this case we have spent time and effort doing whatever it takes to make others think nice things of us.  Good!

For example, families and friends take real work to remain family and friends and dare I say the development of mutual goodwill is a key ingredient.  The bonus is when all of a sudden those obviously recalcitrant family dropkicks respond with equally magnanimous gestures, we have indeed developed goodwill and the world is a joy and we bathe in those esoteric warm and fuzzy self gratifications.

This is also the case in business.

We spend time and effort and money convincing others that they should spend their discretionary dollar with us and not that horrible bloke down the street.  In effect, we are developing goodwill.

In rather blunt terms - in business and in life goodwill can be defined as that ….

“Intangible benefit of reputation relative to that benefit being of value to another party.”

When this applies to a business the ‘goodwill’ component is the value of the reputation of the business.  This may result in increased revenue and may even result in long term benefit.  We hope!!

On the contrary, an empty premise has no goodwill from clients but may have a measure of ‘value’ based on its location, neighbours, etc.  However, a premise in distress has negative goodwill because its reputation has been sullied.  Logical, really.

When selling a business, goodwill is not an accounting sum associated with excess earnings.  Whilst accountants will want to put a quantifiable figure on goodwill, there is far more involved.

For a business sale, there can never be guarantees of future income streams because there are a myriad of factors outside of the control of the seller to even be able to logically or legally guarantee. Therefore, excess earnings as a determinant of business value is a nonsense.  It is merely one factor of many.

When buying a business, of far greater value is the way in which customers view their relationship towards the premise, its reputation and indeed their willingness to continue that relationship without having to rebuild a reputation from scratch or far worse, from a negative.  Bloggers as real and vitriolic customers have changed the face of goodwill in business – for the better!!

In essence, goodwill boils down to the willingness of people to continue a relationship with the new owner.  The business may have great excess earnings but has just blotted its copybook by poisoning the neighbours.  On paper it’s worth dollars but in reality worth squat because of the salmonella cookies.

When buying a business the only consideration is, ‘can I be successful ‘.  To do that the value of committed clients is crucial and has a dollar value.  That value cannot be logically calculated albeit bloggers have made that much easier by their transparent and public opinions.

But then, every blogger may love a certain business but it still doesn’t work for whatever reason.  May I say that the value of the goodwill is still strong and doesn’t change but the overall business value is mitigated by a straight revenue valuation.

So, goodwill is esoteric, unknowable and incalculable yet it has value because it means customers will come and try the new person in the new business.  A head start on bankruptcy.

There is an issue developing with the way we treat people who read what some may call subversive material.

When I was a lad I read everything I could about homemade firearms with a view to building something which went bang!  You remember, a penny bunger down a lump of pipe with a ball bearing thrown in on top – point it at the fence and wait - only to suffer the ignominy of a hiding from Dad when a large hole appeared.  Or, reading up on how to make a boat only to launch an old door off Black Rock beach and float to glory.  Half a mile out and it dawned on our collective pea brain that we were heading into the shipping lane faster than we could paddle back to shore. Rescued by a fisherman and another hiding.  How about reading up on making a bow and arrow only to have my best ‘friend’ shoot me in the face – quivering arrow embedded in my cheek and, you guessed it, another hiding. This is normal boy’s stuff, adventure and projectiles. 

There were a plethora of books available for boys to ponder over and discuss what would be considered by today’s moral police to be subversive and indeed even anarchistic as well as deeming those evil tomes for corrupting the minds of boys leading them into the paths of terrorism and world domination!

Can you imagine what one of moral turpitude could write about my antics as a boy?  “Terrorist plot foiled by fisherman when youths caught in shipping lane on homemade boat waiting to sink American container.  These same despots have previously been caught developing home made weapons of mass destruction designed to inflict maximum damage. They have also been caught with terrorist instruction manuals. They should be immediately jailed for the rest of their horrible and unchristian lives!”

 Sounds like a big call for a couple of 10 year olds somewhat lacking in a sense of self preservation and an overinflated sense of adventure with no allergies or colds or disease or, brains.

The exampled news article from the moral high ground person was created from the very dark side of their own thoughts and desire to sell news papers turning a couple if idiot 10 year olds into perpetrators from the ‘axis of evil’.

I have read part of David Hicks book yet I don’t think I will be developing any desire to go and follow some passion in another country through and by just reading his book.  I can remember reading books by Dennis Wheatley as a kid on the occult and being fascinated but I don’t think I will be buying a pointy hat any time soon.  At our school we had a church service every morning – 2400 sessions of attempted indoctrination - yet I have no desire to pursue a role as a religious do-gooder. 

I have read the bible dozens of times and indeed have a couple of those inculcating tomes floating around the house somewhere.  Does this mean I am a religious extremist with views taken from a collection of part phrases?  Not bloody likely.

As I am scrawling this I am looking around at our library.  Right there in front of me is another mine of information allowing me to research possible malfeasant targets.  This incendiary publication is innocently called the ‘The White Pages’.  I can slobber over this whilst wearing my pointy hat and thinking of my antics as a “despot youth reading unchristian terrorist instruction manuals such as Popular mechanics”.

Then there is the internet.  That terrorist inspired publication, The White Pages’ is on-line!  God help us all.

This week a person was arrested for reading ‘subversive’ material and accused of a crime because someone somewhere deemed the material subversive and of Al Qaeda origin.  Every bloke should therefore be arrested who had read the White Pages, Popular Mechanics, The Bible, any thriller novel or has seen any ‘action’ movie over the last 50 years.

Mao Tse Tung tried to remove Chinese culture by removing books. Stalin and Hitler did the same. These delightful despots believed that if you removed people’s ability to seek information then you gain control.  The sad thing is that they nearly pulled it off and worse, their idea of censorship is still alive and well in today’s challenged dictatorships.

It has been proven time and time again that people will seek information and then disseminate what they think is right and what is wrong.

There will always be people who read into a sentence just what they want to hear and make judgements based on no fact.  Take the fictitious article written about my attempts to sail to glory as a 10 year old - nothing to do with reality.  It’s not the act but the reporting which creates angst.

It’s not what people read, it’s how they interpret it. What’s more, if too many books have been burnt then the total picture is not available and people will make decisions on limited and possibly spurious texts.  Not good.

I was lucky because as part of my 2400 church services we discussed all religions on equal terms with an overriding agenda not to judge.  Obviously, as a Presbyterian school, the preference was to guide us into the true light of that belief, but not at the expense of intellectual understanding.

The same cannot be said for other doctrines which attempt to blind and demand adherence to what is a very small section of life.

Therefore, the issue is not what they read but what they DON’T read.  Balance in everything is good whereas dictated opinion is bad.  Take ‘Reds under the beds’ and ‘George Orwell’s1984’ as examples.

I personally don’t think it an issue that someone reads a subversive document.  Every Christian, Muslim, Mormon, Christian Scientist or orthodox Jew could also be accused of subverting another’s chosen true way if all we had to judge on was the specific written word of each doctrine.

Every one of those believers who decry other’s beliefs should also be arrested and jailed as was the person downloading alleged Al Qaeda subversive material.

Perhaps not a good thought as this act alone is heading towards Hitler’s idea of a free world.

I personally have been threatening to read the Koran.  It’s about time and like Popular Mechanics, The Bible and the White Pages, it’s an obvious terrorist book designed to subvert the masses into a proletarian uprising.

Can you imagine how the same writer who wrote the fictitious article on me as a floating kid could perceive this wanton act.

“Brainless dropkick youth previously guilty of terrorist plots grows up to continue his life of subversion and anarchy by downloading and indeed even reading the other side’s religious text!  His intentions are obviously Armageddon generated from the axis of evil.  God Help us all”

Yep, if that drivel is what we believe and those beliefs guide our actions then truly, ‘God Help us all’.

Jon Langevad   

BURDEN OF PROOF

I find a worrying trend in business and indeed within our legal system, a trend which undermines the very heart of our society. 

A basic tenet of ‘justice’ is that an accuser has to prove their accused is guilty.  It is not up to the accused to prove their innocence. 

In reality, it may be quicker for the accused to establish an alibi and circumvent the process.  However, the accused does not have to prove innocence and it makes perfect sense in that the accuser must have a proper case in order to accuse else there is no capacity to accuse.

Innocent people are left alone to enjoy without having to defend spurious action.

Fast forward to business.

Big companies seem to be trying to reverse that process especially when they are in a position to alter someone’s capacity to enjoy life.  For instance banks, communications companies or indeed any company we deal with.

The reason is obvious in that it’s far cheaper for a company to accuse without proof and sit back and wait until the accused proves they are innocent.  And, they must prove it or suffer withdrawal of some service.

This reverse thinking has also infected our legal system in services such as the ‘Financial Ombudsman Service’ or FOS.

For example, when a financial institution does the wrong thing and one is forced to engage FOS as an independent third party to help defend oneself, the burden of proof to maintain innocence often rests with the accused rather than the financial institution. 

Given this dysfunction, it also follows that accusing without merit carries a responsibility to return the injured party back to the position they were in prior to the fallacious accusation.  Otherwise the innocent party would have paid in some way for defending their innocence. 

Most of the time this cost in its simplest terms will be time.

Time is the one thing we can never replace and it is utterly wasted when we are required to protect our innocence against fallacious claims.

Using the FOS example, you have been accused of something and you must spend time proving your innocence as its charter is specific in that it requires both parties to conciliate and negotiate and you do indeed prove your innocence perhaps spending 50 hours doing so. 

So, the burden of proof was shifted to the wrongly accused and what’s more, the innocent party has spent time defending the wrongful action.  Time they can never get back and time virtually stolen by the accuser.

Yet FOS deem that the wrongly accused or indeed even a winning persons time has no value and will not direct compensation.

For example, a bank does the wrong thing which drastically effects our capacity to live as we had before their illegal action, we are forced to go to FOS to protect our interests and spend hundreds of hours defending ourselves against the banks illegal actions then at the end of the process the bank walks away with not even an apology whilst we have lost the one thing we cannot replace, time.

Not only have we lost our most valuable resource but we have lost our legal right to the burden of proof remaining with the accuser.  So, in effect, we are paying to have our legal rights removed.

Big business is laughing because their costs are reduced whilst the people they accuse suffer.

Doesn’t seem fair and it is most certainly against the meaning of the Westminster system of law.

Jon Langevad

EDUCATION - One person’s semi-educated opinion.

There seems to be a lot of discussion about education with every Minister trying to sound as though it was and is their life’s work to do ‘something’ about every minority interest group wanting to push their own agenda.  The result is a confused debate stuck in minutia.

There is no point in discussing teacher underperformance / pay or disability payments or indeed anything unless, the first question is asked and we all agree on the answer.

That question is – “Where do we want Australia to be in say 20 years?”

If the agreed collective decision is “She’ll be right, mate” then we tootle along as we have and we will all stand back aghast in 20 years when our country falls into third world status with loud protestations from the newly unwashed such as, ‘Not my fault mate, I wanted a new drinks fountain for the 8 year olds 20 years ago and that would have made the difference, but no one listened.  Now look at them at 28 and they are water deprived and illiterate’.

However, if we decide that we want Australia to lead the world in thinking, ideas and a really positive outlook on life then we need to make a few decisions – starting at the pointy end.

There are only two guiding parameters.  Firstly, everyone has a potential to create greatness and secondly, greatness can only happen if we provide the channels through which those magical thoughts can be turned into something special.

To provide those channels we need to accept the fact that an investment is required with all of us needing to contribute to make our country something special.

I have personal opinions as does everyone else but as I am writing this, then ..

Firstly, we do not spend time instilling into our little blighters a thinking ethic.  Sounds a bit harsh telling a four year old that thinking is a good thing until the alternative is realised.  Kids need to do kids things like suck the dog’s tail and live in a fantasy world and have extremes of emotion and know there’s always a hand to hold.  But they also need to experience the joy of thinking and accomplishment.  Personally, I think I realised I was part of the human race about the time I turned 30 and had to go back to school to get my degrees.  But I’m a bloke so I’ve got an excuse.

Therefore, I believe, we need to spend a huge amount of time making sure that when all our little pre-human poo machines turn 6 or 7 they have a joy of learning instilled into them which will enable them to focus and turn the mundane into the great.

Some will say that it’s the parents responsibility, and it is in part, but we cannot abrogate our responsibility as a society because it’s far far too important and, it has to happen early in life.  And, believe it or not, parents are ill equipped because they are actually just learning on the job.

Therefore, if we as a society accept the need to give our kid-ettes a leg up then we need to invest money, time, effort and drive into making it happen.  This is not about endless debate or trials or test cases or any other time wasting initiative actively sought by spotlight seeking minorities doing anything to stick their mono-syllable utterance machines in front of a microphone.

But it is about our Government [remember the ones who are supposed to represent us and do what the majority want] declaring war on ‘average’ and giving our brats and brat-ettes from 4 to 7 a boost into the future through focusing on the joy of learning stuff.

And, I bet there is an absolute plethora of talented people out there who can make this happen quickly, easily and with little politicking.

When we achieve this bunch of kids sneaking up on the age of reason actively seeking new challenges, then it will be a self fulfilling enigma machine because drive will come from within their buzzing and exponentially expanding brains - not from the outside from someone with a big learning stick.   

This should be free to all.

Now, given all the stuff in the middle is accomplished and we are seeking benefit for Australia then we also have a right to expect payback for all the freebies.

Our new and inspiring education machine is now spitting out people with trade qualifications, diplomas, degrees and doctorates at the peak of their intellectualism, creativity and ability to see the impossible as, possible.

 Yet, we shake their hands make them wear a funny hat and say see you later. “She’ll be right”. 

We have looked at the best start and the middle bit supporting a self fulfilling prophesy, now we need to focus on the prophesy bit.

Can you imagine the payoff for all this free education being as simple as giving a year back to the society which supported their success.  And what’s more, as we have instilled a thinking ethic at the almost human stage, these educated thinking machines will be champing at the bit to start their careers with a bang.

That bang is simple.  The first year out of education and prior to awarding a qualification, everyone would be required to join a think tank and work with like minded people to create ‘something’ for the benefit of our country.  Obviously, not everyone will be able to achieve a brain snapping moment but as long as everyone improves something it will snowball with a self fulfilling result – greatness.

Start with a vision to make Australia great, focus on creating a thinking ethic in little tackers, support that thinking / learning right through the education system and let it culminate in think tanks and outcomes and ‘greatness’.

How hard can it be?

Jon Langevad MBA

PS: Critical issues:

We need people who can channel the excitement of learning  – purge the dross.

Education should be free with the same investment in every kid.

Parents may choose a different school with that investment linked to their kid.

Develop and channel learning through the NBN for isolated kids.

Support kids with disability / different abilities to succeed.

Kids who fall out of the system need a hand to hold – not everyone will succeed 100%.

Everyone at any age needs that hand to hold at sometime – this should also be built in.

[note that the ‘hand’ is far more than just monetary benefits – it is also emotional support]

Beware the vocal minority moving focus away from the real issues.

Ford Motor Company

Pardon me if I have missed the point but I thought Australia gave Ford Motor Company umpteen million dollars in exchange for longevity, new models and the creation of about 300 jobs – post GFC.  A contract. Now we believe our money went to the United States to prop up their ailing head office and Ford in Australia are downsizing and shedding some 330 jobs – a 600 job differential. Maybe I am being too simple but as a taxpayer, I want my money back for breach of contract and/ or perhaps a lien on the factory with a view to calling in the loan and installing someone good at crisis management – say for instance Jeff Kennett who is a proven whiz bang at pulling our State out of financial disaster.

Ford are obviously producing cars that few people want and they must have ignored their own market research to do that.  Why do we as taxpayers have to pay for this mis-management?

I know we have a Labour Government who is desperate to be seen keeping people in work but where do we draw the line. It seems we have paid millions to lose 600 jobs.  I just don’t understand.

Julia the liar and Tony the misogynist

Clearly, the behaviour exhibited by our Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition and their respective Ministers is unacceptable in any civilised, educated or social environment. As a collective they have lost any rational ability to debate, conciliate or create positive change. The mark of a child learning to argue or debate is for them to attack the person when losing the argument instead of focusing on the issue at hand. Our leaders have obviously reverted to child-like behaviours and, to be honest, it is quite sad.

Julia the liar or Tony the misogynist is irrelevant when it comes to running our country. In the first instance, the ground shifts in the real world and previously correct decisions become incorrect. In the second, it is painfully obvious that Tony is not a woman hater. Yet both sides continue to attack the other’s moral attributes in order, I presume, to gain brownie points from the unthinking. The media then fan the flames and the dropkick minority sense a spotlight moment and exacerbate the personal attacks. Q&A Monday week ago was a prime example of a vocal minority out of control.

If we respected everyone and everything without rancour we would not have this dysfunctional parliament and we would not have malcontents like Alan Jones feeding the frenzy to those incapable of sustained rational thought.

Response – ‘Heads on a platter’ by Colman Andrews and ‘It’s a tough job ...’ by Joanna Saville and ‘Food critic’s demise’ by Suzanne Carbonne.

Tuesday’s Epicure in the Age September 25 2012 and Wednesday’s Age in Entertainment 26th September 2012.

It is indeed a pity when self-devotion to the aggrandisement of the self proclaimed professional restaurant critic’s expertise [apologies to Dickens] is toppled by Joe the blogger blob. Food reviewers are crying foul as their level of self proclaimed importance and vitriol is replaced by the equally self proclaimed but now collective vitriol of the unsworn albeit anonymous masses. For years so called food writers have survived on sensation and the negative such as demonstrated by the dubious literary eulogies of ‘Close ‘em down Downs’ [Stephen Downs – since fired] or the recent court case against a Sydney newspaper when they had to pay out millions because of a ‘review’ [Mathew Evans – no longer reviewing] which closed a restaurant. Something about the pot calling the kettle black comes to mind.

If nothing else the Evans case solidified defamation and liable laws where food writers and I suspect bloggers can not just wax lyrical with impunity from their own egomanic distortions of the real world. Say or write something untrue and the doo doo bucket just got deeper. We, the beleaguered restaurateurs, have a precedent!

Coleman Andrews said in his article, “We have to write better and more intelligently...” when referring to bloggers as competition. May I ask, “Why hasn’t this been a guiding principle for any article written about anything, ever?”

We own two restaurants and suffer the same indignities by food writers and bloggers as everyone else yet we still enjoy blogger ratings of 92% and 73% which, in the first case, outranks nearly all the hatted restaurants for a dining experience. We have had extremely negative blogger reviews removed from Google and Urban Spoon from people who never dined at either restaurant - having to do this really sucks. A published review on one of our restaurants a couple of years ago castigated us when the reviewer made some ‘interesting’ claims about a piece of metal the size of a kitchen knife left in his meal but post publication refused to provide any evidence preferring to hide behind a legal wall [He has just been given the flick from The Herald Sun]. Fortunately, after nine years, our business is strong and it made no difference but I wonder what would have happened to a new venture?. If we had a legal precedent then, all would have been different. The key change is that food writers can no longer say what they feel like and feed the malcontents in print just to sell papers. It got harder. The same publisher as the ‘metal in the food’ review named us as one of Melbourne’s best restaurants just two weeks later. Doesn’t say much for ‘professional’ food writers me thinks.

The problem for a reviewer and indeed any ‘food guide’ publication is that bloggers are finding the cracks. If a reviewer gives a restaurant two hats but the blogger collective gives them a mediocre score then who is right? If democracy is alive and well then the bloggers must be heard and perhaps the hat system needs to be revised to remove inconsistencies.

As a restaurateur, my challenge is to provide a ‘product’ consisting of the design of a space where people want to be, service which surpasses expectations and food aimed squarely at our target markets. Add on to that, making a profit and getting time enough to play golf and go on one of those strange things called, holidays.

A ‘reviewer’ [as distinct from a blogger] needs a proven level of expertise, relevant qualifications and must be prepared to take responsibility as does a ‘trouble shooter’ or a ‘consultant’ for what they do. It is not good enough to just feed the face and pontificate in print when the reviewer can destroy a new business costing ‘someone else’ their invested capital whilst they retain their impunity and ignore contributing factors.

The blogger will be with us forever but hopefully will be seen as the uneducated and unprofessional opinion albeit, an extremely important opinion as our efforts as restaurateurs are laid bare by their comments and, others of like mind will listen and make decisions based on those bloggs. The challenge is to remove comments by bloggers of low intelligence or whom have not raised themselves above toilet humour or who think that writing something nasty will bring them closer to nirvana. The answer is that we can’t remove them in total but we must make sure the idiots are seen as idiots and we must also make sure everyone realises that bloggs are manipulated by people seeking advantage – like advertising the more money you spend the greater the impact.

The way to do this is to make sure future professional reviewers are and are seen to be expert, above complicit activity [see article on Downes by Suzanne Carbonne in The Age September 26th] and support restaurateurs, not destroy them [see Coco Roco Vs Mathew Evans].

The newspapers and glossies like Gourmet Traveller along with the rest of us are subject to pressure by media marketing companies and it really is a joke the amount of free publicity some people receive before opening, during opening and post opening their next big foodie venture [see Epicure and Gourmet Traveller current editions]. Or indeed, how the level of advertising in a particular publication translates into positive publicity or the level of kickbacks taken to give a positive review [see article by Suzanne Carbonne].

The reviewer must rise above this underworld of kick-backs, bribery and bulsch [euphemistic interpretation of doo doo] to become a guiding light - not a ‘critic’ but a professional ‘reviewer’. Not a reporter but a journalist with opinions based on expertise, qualifications and a recognisable face. Just saying you have eaten out for 20 years therefore you are a qualified reviewer is not good enough. This is blogger territory.

We don’t need the vitriol, we need reviewers who are seen as honest but supportive and delve into why a particular restaurant is doing what they are doing. The blogger doesn’t give a toss other than what’s put in front of them and neither they should as their experience is one dimensional. [But that singular view is of enormous importance because they are our clients and like it or not they will have very valid opinions albeit not necessarily right.]

The reviewer on the other hand must be ‘three’ dimensional and above the underworld of the holier than thou’s.

Sorry but I’m on a roll now – personally, as restaurateurs, we don’t pretend to offer multi-hat cuisine [with one cook/dishwasher it’s impossible] but we do offer reasonable food, great atmosphere and service. We rank at 93% on blog sites which means 93 people out of 100 liked our total product and had a great experience. Our ‘blogger’ reviews are for the most part,sensational and we are full most of the time. This is despite Mr Downes and despite the fact that neither of our restaurants has featured in any Good Food Guide [nine plus years in business] and we have no media company selling us and we do not give kickbacks and we do not advertise and we grudgingly welcome bloggers.

This is what the reviewer needs to focus on, a total product but from a professional point of view. It’s not all about the food! It’s about an individual restaurateur’s investment in a great experience and the review must be cognisant of the hopes and dreams and indeed strategies of all the people involved in the restaurant.

Let’s take the review up the food chain a few notches! [pun intended].

Jon Langevad MBA

Director Cafe Dansk Pty Limited

Trading as:

Mon Ami Restaurant & Gallery - 144 Nicholson Fitzroy 94173220

Deco Bistro - 49 Beach Street Port Melbourne 96461101

Langhill Consulting - langhill.net

Jon Langevad Photography – jonlangevad.com