Response to "a serious risk"

In The West today, a surgeon has been banned from surgery because he "poses a serious risk to his patients" (Surgeon 'a serious risk to patients', 24 Sep 2012).

The State Administrative Tribunal would not allow him to act as a specialist, even under strict conditions. Audits of his clinical notes were not suitable protection for his patients. Why not? "Because the events creating the risk will already have occurred by the time of the audit."

A sensible decision!

How many industries are operating under licences which depend on post-disaster audits? Oh, we're sorry about that toxic plume heading towards the groundwater... Too late. The disaster has occurred.

When an essential operating condition has been breached, how often is the culprit forced out of business? Never? The damage is done, the company provides a public apology... then back to risky business as usual.

Perhaps there will be a fine -- a small cost to the company. Accountants will have measured the cost of prevention against the cost of the fine. Varanus, anyone?!

Setting a licence condition does not prevent a disaster. Closing the business -- post-disaster -- at least will prevent a second disaster. Confiscation of all of a company's assets to remediate the disaster... is worth doing. But the disaster has still happened.

The State Administrative Tribunal has shown us what to do: If there is a severe risk -- prevent it.

It's too late -- after a disaster -- to wring our hands and hope it won't happen again.

We need to act before the disaster has happened.

We need to prevent activities which pose a major risk. Not allow the risk then act sorry afterwards.

Insist on one hundred percent prevention. Rather than a post-disaster measure of how bad it really is.

====
Problems ? Solved

Speaking of morons...

The state government treats the public like morons, with its "big picture" advertisements. Oh yeah, sure, there's an integrated plan to all the big spending projects round town. So why is traffic congestion so horrendous?!

You'd think that a "big picture" would include planning for travel between the various environmental disasters. You'd be wrong.

You'd think that a "big picture" would make allowances for the large numbers of people who are quite happy with the current city size. Or even smaller. You know... "sustainable size". You'd be wrong.

The government sees only one "big picture". And that picture is painted by big money.

Then there's The West Australian and its treat-them-like-morons advertising for its new Insider magazine.

First, the letter i, in a big black box. Repeated on several pages. Over many days. With a gradual reveal of the name. Followed by the excitement of... Bugger, it's Packer again.

Turns out, it's a glossy magazine of rich -- and wannabe rich -- man's wank. You're too important to close your own eyes? So you need to buy a £67 Eye Mask? This magazine is for you. You'd like to know what gift will buy favours with a powerful CEO? This is for you.

You think that a slow reveal of your product will attract the moron readership to the new magazine -- which comes with the paper, like it or not? Good grief.

Then, for a different type of moron, there's the My Office article.

This boss works at the office for ten hours each day. Then he works at home. But gosh! he really would like to spend time with his children... Sometimes, he  actually takes the boys to school! (Though the baby girl is left with his wife.) They travel to school by train, presumably, since he takes the train to the office "every day".

He has an "executive assistant" who is never far away. What immense job satisfaction she must have! Every day -- at precisely 10am and 2:30pm -- she brings the boss his espresso macchiato. And that, it seems, is her most important job for the day.

This boss also brags about his organisation's Happy Working environment. Truly. I didn't just invent that name.

"This means no fixed desks or static work environments."

Now look at the photo of the boss's office.

One large fixed desk. Perhaps three metres long. You have to wonder why... it's mostly empty.

The desk is between the boss and his worker drones. Aahh... This is my space, it shouts. Keep out! That desk is for the boss. Only for the boss. That is definitely a fixed desk.

Well, I guess flexibility is for employees. Not for the boss. He is far too important to be flexible.

Still, you have to sympathise.

With a fixed desk. Cut off from close contact with employees. This boss is probably Not Happy Working.

Poor man. The suffering you accept, for money and power.

While the rest of us morons just grin, kowtow and bear it.

Counter-productive in the cafe

Your problems? Solved. email nick leth at gmail dot com. No worries. Now.

What is it with the new style of cafe service: The paper serviette comes sitting under the cake.

Okay, it means that the serviette does not blow away in the wind. That's nice. Especially with cafes expanding into the great outdoors. (Footpath rental must be cheap.)

What it also means, is that the serviette comes to my table -- covered in cake!

The cafe provides you with a square of somewhat absorbent paper. To wipe sticky cake off your fingers, I guess. And that square of paper is already dirtier than your fingers! With sticky cake that is just sitting on your plate!

Okay, perhaps the waiters / waitresses / waitpersons are fumble-fingered. Or dirty. A lawyer has told the cafe, Do not allow anyone to touch the serviette! Other than the customer, that is. So you sit a piece of cake on the serviette, to stop if blowing away.

Come on now! That is ridiculous. I want my serviette to be delivered clean. Un-caked. Please allow me to be first to soil the serviette.

Use a peg if you must. Peg the serviette to the plate. Just don't sit a slab of sticky cake on top of a serviette that I expect to be clean.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems. Agamedes Consulting: Support for your thought. email nick leth at gmail dot com

Schools and Intake Areas

Parents are angry. Their child will not be able to attend the public school of their choice. Of the parents' choice, that is. Young kids are unlikely to have an opinion either way.

Parents are angry. Why? Because children who live nearer the school will get enrolment priority.

You live near the school, you enrol at the school. You live in the school catchment area, you are guaranteed a place at the school.

It's parents who live in the catchment area for a different school who are angry. They would rather drive their children to a distant school. Rather than have their children attend their own local school.

Is there something wrong with your local school? And you just can't be bothered trying to get it fixed? You'd rather be angry than active?

Stop whinging. Do something useful. Act now to improve your own local school.

State Prostitution Bill

Look, I know this is an old one. But it has to be said.

State politicians are debating the Prostitution Bill. Again. 

It's time to stop debating the Bill.

Just pay it.