- If you could be bothered to call an ambulance at 3am you should be bothered to be transported. I don’t care how trivial it might be, more than likely we got out of bed for this call out
- If the patient can tell you that they are short of breath in one full sentence then they more than likely not short of breath
- If the patient complains of neck pain they shouldn’t complain of discomfort when a hard collar is applied, it’s just something we have to do
- If the patient does something they know makes them sick then they shouldn’t expect much sympathy from Ambulance and Triage
- If you feign unconsciousness you give us free reign to inflict pain to wake you up
- Don’t be surprised when Towies beat us to motor vehicle accidents
- Don’t call for an Ambulance then dislike being asked so many questions about your condition. If we didn’t ask we would not be doing our job properly
- Don’t call us and then apologise for calling us once on scene
- Your general practitioner can actually do more for you when it comes to trivial matters
- If you're in police custody don't tell us your "I'm innocent" sob story. We're not interested and we'll only side with the police anyway.
Saturday, March 07, 2009
General Ambulance Rules
Sunday, February 08, 2009
Petty Partisan Political Point Scoring
Or for the sake of brevity, the 4P’s. Mostly used to accuse a political party of having not so noble motives for their actions.
Most recently we have had Kevin Rudd accuse Malcolm Turnbull of the 4P’s. This was due to Turnbull’s decision to oppose the bill in the Senate and therefore delay it’s implementation. Rudd, in a 5-minute press conference, managed to refer to Turnbull getting out of the road of this bill at least 7 times.
As a general rule, though, it seems that he who accuses another of the 4P’s is in fact perpetrating the 4P’s themselves. There aren’t even any points to be scored in opposing this Bill so Rudd’s accusation is unfounded. In ‘Yes, Minister’ parlance this would be a “courageous decision” by Turnbull. As in it is so courageous it might even be disastrous to ones political aspirations. So how can he be trying 4P’s when his decision is particularly unpopular? Therefore his motives must nobler than Rudd is trying to portray.
Meanwhile, Rudd is scoring his own political points by appealing to our greedy nature and dishing out cash to those apparently most in need of a one off cash bonus. Any long-term consequences the nation might face as a result of this bill are ignored. It is after all the job of the opposition to review what the government is doing. To pass a bill virtually sight unseen would be irresponsible of them.
This is a big deal and Rudd is trivialising the Bill by expecting the opposition to let it through. As if the decision to pass it would be inconsequential. Considering all the work the previous government did to get this country out of massive debt it shouldn’t surprise or annoy anyone that the now opposition wants to review this piece of legislature.
Most recently we have had Kevin Rudd accuse Malcolm Turnbull of the 4P’s. This was due to Turnbull’s decision to oppose the bill in the Senate and therefore delay it’s implementation. Rudd, in a 5-minute press conference, managed to refer to Turnbull getting out of the road of this bill at least 7 times.
As a general rule, though, it seems that he who accuses another of the 4P’s is in fact perpetrating the 4P’s themselves. There aren’t even any points to be scored in opposing this Bill so Rudd’s accusation is unfounded. In ‘Yes, Minister’ parlance this would be a “courageous decision” by Turnbull. As in it is so courageous it might even be disastrous to ones political aspirations. So how can he be trying 4P’s when his decision is particularly unpopular? Therefore his motives must nobler than Rudd is trying to portray.
Meanwhile, Rudd is scoring his own political points by appealing to our greedy nature and dishing out cash to those apparently most in need of a one off cash bonus. Any long-term consequences the nation might face as a result of this bill are ignored. It is after all the job of the opposition to review what the government is doing. To pass a bill virtually sight unseen would be irresponsible of them.
This is a big deal and Rudd is trivialising the Bill by expecting the opposition to let it through. As if the decision to pass it would be inconsequential. Considering all the work the previous government did to get this country out of massive debt it shouldn’t surprise or annoy anyone that the now opposition wants to review this piece of legislature.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Side Effect of Success
Australia has been the world’s best cricket playing nation for over a decade. In all forms of the game we have been dominant. Now, a lot has been made of the ‘downfall’ of Australian cricket. Yet this was always going to happen sooner or later.
Success needs stability with a solid core of players. Having this will give the best chance for success. Unfortunately, it means that there are few changes made to the team lineup. The fewer the changes the less opportunities for younger players to gain experience. This leads to a lack of depth when the solid core decides to give the game away.
Success needs stability with a solid core of players. Having this will give the best chance for success. Unfortunately, it means that there are few changes made to the team lineup. The fewer the changes the less opportunities for younger players to gain experience. This leads to a lack of depth when the solid core decides to give the game away.
So what happened to Australian Cricket?
Retirements Post Ashes 2007
- #1 Fast bowler – Glen McGrath
- #1 spin bowler – Shane Warne
- Long time opening batsman – Justin Langer
- Middle order batsman – Damien Martyn
More recent retirements
- Revolutionary wicket keeper/batsman – Adam Gilchrist
- Other opening batsmen – Matthew Hayden
There are six of Australia’s finest retiring in the space of 2 years. No wonder our team is struggling at the moment, that’s over half the core players that have helped us be so successful over the past decade. Now we have too many young and/or inexperienced players trying to make it all at the same time.
It was good while it lasted. But supporters should not be downcast. Instead be happy that we experienced Australian cricket at it’s best. Now we get to see the next generation develop before our very eyes.
Although perhaps now Cricket Australia won’t rest on their laurels next time we have an extended period of success. Even a great team needs some rejuvenation.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Already Married
I am continually fascinated by stories of long term couples either breaking up awaiting a marriage or having the long awaited wedding. They usually go along the same lines as a recent story in the Daily Telegraph’s “Confidential” pages (21/1/09).
Rugby League player, Craig Wing, has split with his ‘partner’ of 10 years, Zoe Foster. It is reported that Ms Foster was tired of waiting for a marriage proposal. It all sounds fair enough so far, no bloke should take 10 years to propose to the girl he loves.
However in the next paragraph it is reported that Ms Foster is now moving out of their Bronte apartment. This changes things. These two were cohabitating, which means they were married under common law, they just didn’t have the wedding. By law they had the same rights as any married couple would have had. So why would she be hanging out for a wedding? Perhaps if she lived a bit further away he would have proposed to be closer to her.
Men being men, if we’re being given something without going to any extra effort then the girls shouldn’t expect any extra effort. As in, if you’re living with a fella, don’t expect him to propose any time soon. Why??? Because you are married already. One can only assume that the man is already getting what usually comes with a marriage as well, so why bother with the wedding?
Some men do end up proposing, perhaps reluctantly, and the girls get all excited about the big wedding even though they have been married for many years according to common law.
Some people consider cohabitation to be like a trial marriage. However this is a contradiction in terms. If you listen to Phillip Jenson’s sermon series “Love, Sex & Marriage” (he acknowledges that the order is wrong), he states that a marriage is for life, therefore by it’s very nature it cannot be temporary.
Rugby League player, Craig Wing, has split with his ‘partner’ of 10 years, Zoe Foster. It is reported that Ms Foster was tired of waiting for a marriage proposal. It all sounds fair enough so far, no bloke should take 10 years to propose to the girl he loves.
However in the next paragraph it is reported that Ms Foster is now moving out of their Bronte apartment. This changes things. These two were cohabitating, which means they were married under common law, they just didn’t have the wedding. By law they had the same rights as any married couple would have had. So why would she be hanging out for a wedding? Perhaps if she lived a bit further away he would have proposed to be closer to her.
Men being men, if we’re being given something without going to any extra effort then the girls shouldn’t expect any extra effort. As in, if you’re living with a fella, don’t expect him to propose any time soon. Why??? Because you are married already. One can only assume that the man is already getting what usually comes with a marriage as well, so why bother with the wedding?
Some men do end up proposing, perhaps reluctantly, and the girls get all excited about the big wedding even though they have been married for many years according to common law.
Some people consider cohabitation to be like a trial marriage. However this is a contradiction in terms. If you listen to Phillip Jenson’s sermon series “Love, Sex & Marriage” (he acknowledges that the order is wrong), he states that a marriage is for life, therefore by it’s very nature it cannot be temporary.
People will get it eventually.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Have We Hit A New Low?
A vocal portion of the population is making noise about some proposals from parliament.
Night Spot Lockout
In an effort to curb alcohol fueled violence the NSW govt proposed various rules for pubs and clubs. Such as a 2am lockout, a closed bar for 10 mins each hour, no cocktails past midnight and only plastic glasses. Police suggest that most of our street violence occurs when people exit nightspots filled with alcohol in the early hours of the morning.
Action groups are being formed and are petitioning the govt against these new laws. They are fighting for their right to get drunk basically. Although they would word it differently. Perhaps, fighting for their right to drink responsibility. This is a joke because if people were able to drink responsibly we wouldn't have so much violence late at night. There is obviously a problem with people's ability to drink responsibily.
It’s true that governments sometimes become overly legalistic and people should be allowed to make stupid decisions, but when did it get like this? Some say that due to RSA training the pubs and clubs are “controlled” environments. This is a delusional statement as people still drink too much regardless of how well trained the staff are. Plus the clubs are in it for the money, they charge a motza for drinks and make a lot of money the more people drink.
People will drink anyway is another interesting argument. It’s used in defiance of any laws introduced regarding alcohol, including the Alco pop tax. It shows people’s immaturity when they persist in harmful lifestyle choices regardless of the sanctions placed on them.
Topless Bathing
Proposed by Rev Fred Nile. He apparently represents all Christians but I’m not sure how many actually take him seriously. It was rather poor timing on his part when everyone is worried about a ‘global economic crisis,’ topless bathing issues are rather low on the agenda.
It is argued by topless bathers that “man boobs” are more offensive than a bare female chest. This may be the case but doesn’t make it right to go topless. There are specific nudist beaches all around Sydney, but that isn’t enough for some it appears. They want to be immoral around families with little kids at Sydney’s most populated beaches. Of course the examples given in the Daily Telegraph show two footloose and fancy-free British backpackers who are far away from their real life and far away from any repercussions of their actions.
Just another thought, with all the hype about breast cancer awareness it might be considered irresponsible of women to fight to go topless in Australia’s harsh sun.
Night Spot Lockout
In an effort to curb alcohol fueled violence the NSW govt proposed various rules for pubs and clubs. Such as a 2am lockout, a closed bar for 10 mins each hour, no cocktails past midnight and only plastic glasses. Police suggest that most of our street violence occurs when people exit nightspots filled with alcohol in the early hours of the morning.
Action groups are being formed and are petitioning the govt against these new laws. They are fighting for their right to get drunk basically. Although they would word it differently. Perhaps, fighting for their right to drink responsibility. This is a joke because if people were able to drink responsibly we wouldn't have so much violence late at night. There is obviously a problem with people's ability to drink responsibily.
It’s true that governments sometimes become overly legalistic and people should be allowed to make stupid decisions, but when did it get like this? Some say that due to RSA training the pubs and clubs are “controlled” environments. This is a delusional statement as people still drink too much regardless of how well trained the staff are. Plus the clubs are in it for the money, they charge a motza for drinks and make a lot of money the more people drink.
People will drink anyway is another interesting argument. It’s used in defiance of any laws introduced regarding alcohol, including the Alco pop tax. It shows people’s immaturity when they persist in harmful lifestyle choices regardless of the sanctions placed on them.
Topless Bathing
Proposed by Rev Fred Nile. He apparently represents all Christians but I’m not sure how many actually take him seriously. It was rather poor timing on his part when everyone is worried about a ‘global economic crisis,’ topless bathing issues are rather low on the agenda.
It is argued by topless bathers that “man boobs” are more offensive than a bare female chest. This may be the case but doesn’t make it right to go topless. There are specific nudist beaches all around Sydney, but that isn’t enough for some it appears. They want to be immoral around families with little kids at Sydney’s most populated beaches. Of course the examples given in the Daily Telegraph show two footloose and fancy-free British backpackers who are far away from their real life and far away from any repercussions of their actions.
Just another thought, with all the hype about breast cancer awareness it might be considered irresponsible of women to fight to go topless in Australia’s harsh sun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
