With the last few years of wet summers and winters, the fuel load in the bush has grown to levels not seen for many years, and those living in rural areas have been pleading for action to be taken by the RFS and other authorities to reduce the danger to their houses and their lives.

Under Labor, the greens have had a free hand to make fuel reduction back burning, or clearance of trees near properties nearly impossible without a signature from God.

While Brandt tries to blame this all on climate change, he should look a little closer to home.

Anyone who prevents back burning or clearing or fuel reduction in general is a moron who should be made to pay for their idiodic idealistic stupidity. If it can be proven that some home owners did in fact get told not to clear bush fire fuel then they should take the very bureaucrat to court for compensation.

To answer your question SM, in a word NO. But I will say that the do nothing policies of the conservatives on climate change will in the future lead to catastrophic weather events that will indeed result in not only the loss of property but the loss of life.
It will be cold comfort for the victims of these catastrophes when the reality is realized that conservative governments once again got it wrong. Conservatives in Australia have a proven track record at getting things wrong so it will come as no surprise.

SM, there is a fine line between responsible, and contributing to.

In this case they have definitely contributed to the problem.

Greens should live in a cave somewhere, no phone, no power and definitely no car. At least then they would be true greenies.

<< Under Labor, the greens have had a free hand to make fuel reduction back burning, or clearance of trees near properties nearly impossible without a signature from God. >>

Really SM?

Can you please corroborate this statement.

Ludwig:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/environmental-rules-slammed-port-stephens-area-under-flames-was-about-to-be-backburned/story-fni0cx12-1226739899780

Paul,

If Australia had never emitted one gram of CO2 the level would have dropped from 400ppm to 399ppm. Australia going it alone with the world's greatest carbon tax does nothing. Adam (fire) Brandt was simply being an opportunistic weasel along the lines of Fred Niles claiming it was due to abortions.

Shadow Minister you stoop here to be as wrong as Brant was.
It is a fact, those of us who have served in bush fire brigades will know, winter burning has been crippled by greens but too by red tape and paper work.
By the folk who move in to the bush, not understanding fires and build in the tree line or near it.
Try dozing a fire break and watch the protests, not greens more likely middle class Liberals
Yes greens wrongly have stood against proper action to stop or lessen bush fires, not as you feebly try to link only under Labor but your side two.
My state is in your hands.
The cuts to funding for National Parks And Wildlife for winter burning are massive and recent.
I however think you deserve points for muck raking as Brant does and too for using the very real grief of so many.
Sadly so many more to come, for your benefit.
It is a truth that most prevention burning is done by 3 groups two have had massive cuts stopping the being effective, Forest and Parks, trained and including the best rough country fire fighters.
Volunteer bush fire hands locked behind their back by red tape paper work and acts that make it too hard to bother pre-summer burning.

Instead of trying to get political mileage out of this
tragedy and blaming any particular political group
we should be looking at who takes the ultimate
responsibility for land and bush management in this
country. We need a federal fire service that actively
polices both private and public land to make tough,
often unpopular decisions to burn off both private and
public spaces. It's clear that we need to fund a federal
initiative to actively manage fire risk by reducing
flammable load. Bushfire agencies could be brought together
to share and learn from research.

SM, I agree with you in so far as Australia acting alone would achieve little in affect on climate. It will take a concerted effort by the whole world to stem global warming. What Australia can achieve by acting, is using our relatively considerable voice to lobby other greater powers like the US and China to take action. We need to lead by example.
The vested interests, big oil, big coal and big business which opposes climate change science are in themselves not guided by any kind of anti science rather by their greed for profits. These big polluters know too well that to take action on climate change will be a cost on them and they wont have a bar of that. The big polluters of the world would much rather see ordinary people suffer through catastrophic climatic events than see their profits diminish.
This particular bushfire outbreak in NSW at the moment cannot be directly linked to climate change. What it does serve, is to highlight that if nothing is done on climate change we will in the future have to be prepared for this and other climatic catastrophes which will occur more often, and be more severe than they have been in the past.
There are those on your side of politics who agree with the science of climate change. Malcolm Turnbull is one who believes climate change is real and requires decisive action now. Australia would be taking a very different approach with Turnbull as PM.

Paul,

Australia is an insignificant nation in world affairs no matter how relevant our various PMs have considered themselves, most of the world's people don't care a fig for Australia's opinion, even if they know where it is.

Australia is however one of the world's greatest polluters; we supply much of the coal that China burns.
If we stopped all coal exports then we would be making a major contribution to reducing pollution.

Belly,

Given that any natural disaster such as drought excess rain, floods, fire, earthquakes, etc set the greens baying at the moon, I thought I should put in something to balance the sanctimonious finger wagging from the far left whingers.

The issue is not just back burning, you can get fined for clearing a fire break around your house without permission, which is virtually impossible to get. At the time of the last fires in Victoria, a man was fined $100 000 for clearing trees around his house on his own land, and was the only one in the area not to lose his house.

The greens clearly value saving a small strip of vegetation over the lives and property of rural Australians, which is why the Greens party is a swear word outside of the cities.

Paul, having worked in various countries overseas, the reality is that Australians generally have a better idea of what is happening in PNG's government than the rest of the world knows of Aus, and I could go for months without a single sighting of any news of Aus without getting it from the net.

The thought that Aus has a " relatively considerable voice" is laughable, and the concept that unilateral action is going to help negotiations in the future is like thinking that showing your hand in a poker game is going to improve your chances of winning.

What perhaps none of you are aware is that there is a disagreement,
to put it politely, between the RFS and National Parks.
It is about the methods of fuel clearance.
I don't understand the details except that the NP&WS don't want to be told.

Until the state government comes down on one side or the other the dispute will continue.

SM,

" At the time of the last fires in Victoria, a man was fined $100 000 for clearing trees around his house on his own land, and was the only one in the area not to lose his house."

Yes, I remember that story.

Of course, you being such a spinner has found it necessary to double the fine.

He was find "$50,000".

......with another $50,000 taken up in legal fees..

Yes, you can still make the same point.....but you might prefer to stick to the facts.

For once.....

Paul1405,
When you tell other countries what they should do they very
smartly tell you to go back and tell your Vienna politicians to look after the Danube first !

Yes, of course the Greens are responsible. DIS

Grrrrr....

"fined"

Is this the story?

http://livingwiththebush.org/dp/book/export/html/13

Article 1 - the religion is settled

Artictle 2 -'Australia is one of the world's worst polluters'

Obviously people have not travelled to countries where rubbish lines the streets, the rivers have no undrinkable water and sewrage runs in the streets.

This nice little dogmas are really only for the naive.

Come on fellers, the national park service is, & always has been a joke. Anything useful they ever do is exceedingly conspicuous among their useless activities. It is as infested with greenies as are the parks with feral weeds & vermin.

It is the loss of forestry, & the forest service, & their control of dangerous bush that is the start of the problem. Then the handing over of swathes of forest to the clowns in national parks that finished the job.

Since the takeover, national parks have not only stopped maintaining the fire trails, allowing them to become barely passable due to erosion, but they have dug trenches through some trails & dragged logs across others, to stop access.

On some resort islands, management who took over maintenance of walking tracks in parks, which the parks service no longer did, have been threatened with prosecution, if they touch anything at all.

The parks service has become as nasty & vindictive as a spoilt brat, more interested in limiting public access to parks, than maintaining them. It is a bureaucratic mess, past it's time. It should be closed, & anyone above ranger chucked on the dole que, & the whole thing, including rangers passed to forestry, who could at least reduce the fire threat.

An insightful and accurate post, Hasbeen.

Parrot,

Sorry, I posted this earlier in the wrong thread.

Trust you to try and nit pick one irrelevant factoid and try and make it the main issue.

Whether the man was fined $20k, $50k or $100k for taking rational action to protect his family and property, the point is that he was punished for doing the right thing simply because of stupid laws put in place by city based morons that value their ideals more than human life.

That this man's house was just about the only one standing is proof that these regulations are idiotic, and the moronic greens that pushed this through should be horse whipped.

Shadow Minister you understand my view about greens.
Words much like yours can be seen in an existing thread.
That thread, quite rightly, started to hold Brant to account for his use of the fires for political gain.

My words about the cuts to both fire fighting and preventive fire control come from a proven source.
I had Forests NSW and NSW Parks briefly under my wing as a union official, about 12 months.
Using the best research people and lawyers I fought against *a deliberate intention* to remove, without replacing, fire fighters from those two groups in this state.
They are the best, parks even has the Helicopter drop in crews we sent to America to help fight their fires.
NSW Parks HQ is burdened by PC and totally not understanding what cuts do on the ground.
*We need to use what we have free from PC and government cuts*
I have been inside Parks office, under a Labor and Liberal office.
It reeks of self interest and positions given on sexual orientation race sex and like any such selection process puts lard heads without ideas in job.
Foxy has a thought that may well be the answer.
But I *beg* that the truth be considered, first stomp out the not in my back yard anti controlled burns middle class, get laws that see them penalized for interfering with winter burns.
You would think it is a simple task, to build treeless fire breaks around all groups of homes.
Try it! not just greens but all classes want a home under the trees.
Take them to the ashes of lost homes see the graves of past dead by fire.
Our first people burned and we think we know more than them.
After the fires and rebuilding drive around and see the trees growing along side the house.
Mine do but in an Island of grass not bush.

Folks,
The only weapons in the firefighters armory are back-burning and fuel reduction. At the moment the fuel on the ground is at record levels so much so that the standard measurement tools cannot calculate it.
The green are responsible for this fuel and therefore responsible for the fires.

Belly,

I cannot dispute your experience, and agree with you to some extent. These lard heads compete to prove themselves more PC, and the job becomes irrelevant.

God save us from well intentioned idiots.

Runner,

Globally we are at about number 11 output per capita (more than the USA) and as a country, was number 17 globally out of 186 countries back in 2005.

I don't know why you are so concerned about this - Abbott will make it all go away won't he, and show it to be the biggest scam in all of human history - even bigger than religion?

Thanks for the requested corroboration, SM.

However, there is nothing in that article that backs up your statement:

<< Under Labor, the greens have had a free hand to make fuel reduction back burning, or clearance of trees near properties nearly impossible without a signature from God. >>

The article mentions ‘do-gooders and greenies’. It doesn’t mention the Greens at all.

It is quite amazing that we haven’t learnt our lessons over the last few decades of devastating fire-storm events.

Back burning is not the answer. The answers are to not live in or near tall Eucalyptus forest, where fire can sweep through the canopy, and embers can travel considerable distances from the forest to buildings, and to build houses and everything else out of non-combustible materials, as far as is possible.

Hazard-reduction burning only achieves so much. You can’t easily back-burn or hazard-reduce the canopy in a tall eucalypt forest. And if you manage to reduce the fuel load in the ground- and mid-strata, you will still have an oil-rich leafy canopy capable of carrying a fire-storm.

Hazard-reduction thus can actually produce a false sense of security.

The amount of back-burning that would be needed is huge. There's not enough man-power. And we only have a relatively short window of time when it is not too wet or too dry or too hot or too windy….

Basically, you would need to do a great deal of back-burning in the small time windows when the conditions are just right, and nothing at all other times. This makes it very difficult to do on the scale that is needed. And then as I say: it could all actually be simply giving us a false sense of security.

The view of a resident "know all"
"The green are responsible for this fuel and therefore responsible for the fires" Do you have any evidence, or is another one of your "verbals". Given your past history I'm sure you are an expert at manufacturing the evidence, so please give us some.

May I beg the fine female posters to forgive me for what I am about to say, and know I do not think it is a rule.
NSW Parks,not unusual in its inability to bypass the office politics and let the out door workers get the job done.
Is IN FESTERED with women managers who spend more time putting warnings in mens toilets to wash hands and adjust dress before leaving.
*Any attempt to review why indoor staff numbers are getting higher,and out door one less are ignored.
Best fire fighters for bush fires come from there, best controled burn fighters too.
Again these folk men and women camp for weeks in show grounds and such hundreds of klms from home.
And Parks is starving them to death, forcing them to not fight fires.
We every one of us, must understand the greens alone are not the reason for these now common fires.
We guiltlessly ceded ground to PC, and uninformed folk, some of them wonderful, and our forests burn.
Every pre Summer EVER DONE sees some loverly mum complain about the butchery of the nice green trees, the ash on her washing and little Johny asma.
Seen in print her words rarely get answered as PC has its hands around our throats and truth is not a wanted factor.
Half a cenurary ago my worst memory offire lives.
A loverly old house owned by thelast liveing sole born there burned to the ground.
Scholl kidsstarted that fire the house was notinsuredandits last resedent ended itslife in an old folks home, the out door toilethad a boiling tin , it best discribes the anti burningfolk in my view.
Have we all given a bit to help, weshould.

Belly Oh dear, them there are fighting words!
"IN FESTERED with women managers who spend more time putting warnings in mens toilets to wash hands and adjust dress before leaving." Oh dear.
You would have been safer saying "Doing their make up, to look pretty for their husband, and thinking what they will cook for his dinner when he gets home from a hard days work."
Belly how 1950's are you?

On the contrary Paul, Belly was making fair comment on the unfortunate outcomes of affirmative action targets and the despised 'positive' affirmative action in public service agencies. You likely know that but still went for the cheap PC point.

It took courage for Belly to say what he did. He knew he would certainly be the subject of a politically correct snipe in return, which in a way proves the point he was making.

As a contractor for an international company it was usual in publicly funded agencies to encounter poor decisions and failing systems following affirmative action appointments. What else could it be called where the selection criteria had been re-jigged, 'suitable' applicants encouraged to apply and HR was there to ensure that affirmative action targets were met? The engineer who had managed water distribution for example had been replaced with a generalist studies woman who could not answer the most fundamental questions about the function she was responsible for.

They regarded themselves as 'communicators' and 'people managers', but constantly de-motivated their 'teams' with poor decisions, including elevating their mates to jobs. There was considerable churning through positions through pursuit of ambition. Most never stayed in one place long and were not interested anyway.

Whereas most women in senior roles in private companies could usually be relied upon to have the relevant skills set and a record of successful performance.

Belly how 1950's are you?
Paul1405,
At least Belly is a male, something your confused hybrid type will never understand.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20958060

Regardless of whether climate change has a hand in the fires or not, there will always be fires and a ground up review of all fire mitigation practices is needed, at personal and governmental levels. There are a lot of truths in this thread to be considered.

Meanwhile, let's put the fire out.

Until about 20 years ago public service department heads were permanent positions, held by people who had worked their way up through the department, gaining experience and knowledge. The middle managers under them had also risen through hand-on experience. (The weakness in this system - a tendency to be static - 'we've always done it this way'). DH's were mainly men, because they had started work in the days when there were few women in the professional workforce.

Then politicians introduced the SES system, where DH's were on contract. Previously they could give fearless advice, based on expertise, now they were caught - they often didn't know enough to understand the advice from their staff below, and they had to placate their Ministers or risk losing their job.

The overt justification for this was that 'management' was a career in itself - get your MBA, then work up through the system, hopping from one department to another for promotion. People with no specific expertise were appointed at middle management levels too. (there is a point below which you must have expertise, in the hands-on positions; there are tensions within agencies where specific expert advice meets non-specific management)

This change coincided with more women entering the professional workforce. So there are both women and men working in middle/senior management in the new system whereas managers under the old system were predominantly male. (Inexpertise is shared by both male and female managers today).

To attribute cause and effect: more women caused current management trends is false correlation. It was about political control.

Re the comment 'women managers who spend more time putting warnings in mens toilets to wash hands etc. "

This again is false correlation. Health signs are part of the OHS system. Some good points wrt occupational safety, but the actual process is designed (by lawyers) as a financial risk minimisation policy for government. Managers don't put up signs because they are women, but because they are instructed to. (I doubt the managers put up the signs - someone from Human Resources will do that, again under instruction.)

The add fits perfectly.

Some posters go on about so-called climate-change scientists and academics telling us about the reasons for global warming. But would they listen to the emergency personnel on the ground?
I was reading the news on 'Zite' today and found this quote from a large group of Aussie volunteer firefighters back in 2007: "... the United Firefighters Union’s national secretary wrote to then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd:

On behalf of more than 13,000 firefighters and support staff in Australia, I write this open letter to request a review of Australia’s fire risk… As we battle blazes here in Victoria, firefighters are busy rescuing people from floods in Queensland. Without a massive turnaround in policies, aside from the tragic loss of life and property, we will be asking firefighters to put themselves at an unacceptable risk.

Firefighters know that it is better to prevent an emergency than to have to rescue people from it, and we urge state and federal governments to follow scientific advice and keep firefighters and the community safe by halving the country’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2020."

I would think they would have a better idea on the issues of global warming and firestorms than anyone else...

So true Belly, but it does get worse.

With the bureaucracy loving bits of paper, we have in Parks, & up here where water resources was given to the Environ department along with Parks & Dept. of Agriculture, by that fool Beattie, a great proliferation, yes an infestation of young ladies who have done an environmental science degree.

This course is designed for dummies who can't add up, but they get a BSc if they have managed to regurgitate the course notes. You can imagine they gravitate to the environment department.

We got a couple of quite nice young lady graduates replace our experienced district water resources officer a while back. We most definitely got half the brain power for twice the wages bill. I'm sure I saw one of them throw a twig in the river at one meeting, to see which way it flowed.

Fortunately they have disappeared these last 3 years. Probably at a desk in the city, where they can feel comfortable with a computer, rather than out in the nasty bush. We all know for most of these people the environment is something we talk about, not go out into.

We used to be kept up to date with departmental thinking & planning. Now we are kept in the dark, both about the future, & about why we are paying for district officers who are never seen.

Yep belly, infested is the right word.

We all desperately hope that the people of NSW
will avoid a similar fate to the one that some
Victorians experienced when a heatwave hit
Melbourne prior to 7 Feb. 2009. It was those
who had the least capacity to insulate themselves
from it that suffered the most.

Victoria recorded 374 deaths, a 62 percent increase
compared with the year before. When Black Saturday arrived
Melbourne's temperature soared but it wasn't just the
heat that claimed lives - the devastating fires took 173 souls
and whole communities.

We might be a nation prone to bushfires - but why would anyone
want us to not discuss the possibility of a link with
climate change and future possible predictions of what
could be in our future. We need to discuss the possibility of
having more bushfires - and how to deal with them.
Doing anything less is irresponsible.

Wendy Kramer summed things up rather aptly when she said:

"Whether or not it's unseemly for Green politicians
to raise the spectre of future cataclysmic climate
change when bushfires are still raging out of control,
there's no doubt that many of us who looked up to bruised
and belligerent skies swirling with ash and a drift of
incinerated gum leaves had to wonder 'is this what the
future will be like?'"

Yes Belly the PC has gone to dangerous in some circumstances.
A copper told me how the appointment of light small women has made
some jobs quite difficult.
They try to pair a male with a female officer but
it is not always possible. Some of the people they deal with realise
the male police will divert to protect the female police and so gives
the crims the advantage.
I asked about a pub brawl, he just rolled his eyes and shrugged.

Love me or loath me truth holds value for me, a 1945 model I think young and learn new things every day.
Self praise is no recommendation but I was a heart and sole Union official.
It hurt to see men and women of National Parks trodden on by the Hob nailed boots of PC grade males and females, who cared nothing for the wreckage even workplace self harm and suicides.
My words Paul shine a spotlight on why we never will see eye to eye on politics.
IF WE HAVE THE GUTS to promote on ability, about the same numbers of women will rise to the top, BUT THEY WILL BE THE BEST NOT THE WORST.
My anger knows no bounds fires brand new ones are threatening not just homes but to kill again.
I could write a simple list numbering no more than 20 wishes and wants,that would have almost every fire fighter support, and stop future fires.
The enemy of truth Political Correctness will/would again forget these days *and kill fire management that works.
Paul think before you condemn an honest mans thoughts.
I have had a young female member break down and cry in my arms, because she reported *Public Homosexual acts in front of her in daylight* but her team leader a woman laughed and told her to toughen up!
MY MEMBER WITNESS SUCH ACT IN THE TENS, MY VISIT TO POLICE SAW ME TOLD ANY ACTION THEY TRIED IN THAT PARK MET WITH ANTI GAY CLAIMS AGAINST THEM, PC and I dislike each other.

That is an interesting remark Bazz.

I have been told by my policeman uncle that having women in the force has made life easier for the men in many ways, especially with dealing with women and children's issues in the community, but also the female officers are known to calm down some violent offenders in violent situations much better than the male officers.

If women have to accept male midwives, then men should have no problems dealing with female police officers...

Suzie on Line said;
women in the force has made life easier for the men in many ways,

Yes, that is very true and I have heard that a few times.
The difficulty is they never know what the next job is.
Even an "obvious" domestic may turn out to be a very violent confrontation.

I don't know what the solution is, but the health and safety rules
if they apply to police, would handicap the job allocation.
I hope that they make it very clear to women joining up what they may face.
One female inspector that I know did the Kokoda Track easily and I
don't think any crim would stand much chance against her.

Suseonline, "If women have to accept male midwives, then men should have no problems dealing with female police officers"

Are midwives called upon very often to grapple with their 'clients'?

Good luck with talking woman to a crystal methhead with a weapon, or to the OMG bikies who stormed the police station on the Gold Coast to threaten the police inside. Or using the 'feminine side' to respond to the bomb threats they are directing at individual police and the minister. I'd take the last mentioned very seriously.

Why not accept the fundamental honesty and practicality of what Bazz is saying though, which is horses for courses? Otherwise others will come back with examples where the prevailing political correctness of feminism dominated political policy results in multiple ambulances on the scene to move a patient because s/he is larger or access is inconvenient, but could have been handled by two men?

As your life ebbs away you wouldn't be thinking, "Oh joy, isn't affirmative action wonderful, it took two ambulances with two paired genders to get two men with muscle to move me to the ambulance.....",

then

"Drat, that took too long! Make that just one coroner and the constable is now helping drag me out of my own house in a body bag".

Women and men are equal but they are different too. Vive la différence!

Little policewomen in NSW have equality, goes under the name 'GLOCK'.

Yes, pull out the glock and find yourself knee deep in paperwork.

I'd be happy to work with onthebeach's logic, on one condition: it applies to men as well as women.

If there are some jobs women shouldn't be in, then there are that are clearly inappropriate for men.

I'd put investment banking high on the list of jobs where men should be banned. My evidence:
www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/04/iceland200904. You have to pay to download this (it's worth it!) (See next post for a sample).

The male behaviour that got the world into the GFA is far more dangerous to us all than the problems if it takes two female Paramedics to lift a patient.

Who decides? well, men can determine areas women should be excluded from, as long as women have the final say on what men can and can't do.

Wall Street on the Tundra:

"Back in 2001, as the Internet boom turned into a bust, M.I.T.’s Quarterly Journal of Economics published an intriguing paper called “Boys Will Be Boys: Gender, Overconfidence, and Common Stock Investment.” The authors, Brad Barber and Terrance Odean, gained access to the trading activity in over 35,000 households, and used it to compare the habits of men and women. What they found, in a nutshell, is that men not only trade more often than women but do so from a false faith in their own financial judgment. Single men traded less sensibly than married men, and married men traded less sensibly than single women: the less the female presence, the less rational the approach to trading in the markets.

One of the distinctive traits about Iceland’s disaster, and Wall Street’s, is how little women had to do with it. Women worked in the banks, but not in the risktaking jobs. As far as I can tell, during Iceland’s boom, there was just one woman in a senior position inside an Icelandic bank. Her name is Kristin Petursdottir, and by 2005 she had risen to become deputy C.E.O. for Kaupthing in London. “The financial culture is very male-dominated,” she says. “The culture is quite extreme. It is a pool of sharks. Women just despise the culture.” Petursdottir still enjoyed finance. She just didn’t like the way Icelandic men did it, and so, in 2006, she quit her job. “People said I was crazy,” she says, but she wanted to create a financial-services business run entirely by women. To bring, as she puts it, “more feminine values to the world of finance.”

Today her firm is, among other things, one of the very few profitable financial businesses left in Iceland. After the stock exchange collapsed, the money flooded in. A few days before we met, for instance, she heard banging on the front door early one morning and opened it to discover a little old man. “I’m so fed up with this whole system,” he said. “I just want some women to take care of my money.”

You are right Suse, men should & can deal with female cops. Unfortunately so can the male crooks, all too easily.

Our cops tell me that apart from the odd butch lady cop, who can get very nasty, too many lady cops hesitate just that bit too long, before using the Taser or gun, endangering themselves & their fellow officers.

Evidently our bikie gangs have quite enjoyed being policed by ladies.

Is Mise is right OTB.
A gun shot bullet stops someone just as easily if shot by a male or a female police officer, surely?

If you don't know the difference between a male midwife attending to a woman post birth, and a female midwife, then you aren't very bright.

It's all very well having a male Doctor or Obstetrician checking you briefly during pregnancy or labour, as opposed to getting down to the 'nitty gritty' of pre and post natal long term care needs.

Give me a female police officer to protect me in a violent situation any time!

Cossomby, "If there are some jobs women shouldn't be in, then there are that are clearly inappropriate for men"

A strawman.

I do not say that there are occupations or jobs that women should be excluded from per se. What I question as you very well realise, is the futility and unintended negative consequences of designing the courses for the horses, so to speak. It is the extremes of feminist PC that are folly.

Maybe you could Google to discover the rather obvious logical flaws in your, "The male behaviour that got the world into the GFA is far more dangerous to us all than the problems if it takes two female Paramedics to lift a patient". It is enough for me to ask if you would accept that flawed rhetoric if it was you waiting for the second ambulance.

Suseonline,

I'm glad that you see the wisdom(?) of my post but aren't you also aware that the gun is not appropriate because the criminal will take it off her and use it against her.

Haven't you read as much by posters who don't believe that potential rape victims should be allowed effective protection?

Is Mise, I doubt the average woman in the community could keep hold of her gun as easily as a well trained policewoman, do you?

I have also read of many instances where criminals have taken guns from male police officers too, so I doubt their gender makes much difference in the heat of the moment.

I am sure they all do their best, just as do all the wonderful men and women fighting the fires in NSW.
None of us are under any illusion that most females are not as strong as most males, but that is not to say that they can't work together very effectively in most jobs.

Suseonline, "A gun shot bullet stops someone just as easily if shot by a male or a female police officer, surely?"

You ask and answer your own questions. You want a total ban on firearms, so you will argue endlessly anyhow, regardless how trivial, frivolous and impossible your challenges might be.

You deliberately avoiding the crux of the matter which is that the threat of the gun, or perhaps a tazer (which has limitations), is likely the woman's only means to handle the situation. She is limited in her capacity to grapple with the offender, who also knows that.

The reality is that offenders already have the drop on police officers attending an incident. The videos I linked to in previous threads - OMG shootings on the Gold Coast - shows that.

Other posters are wasting their time responding to you aren't they? Because your mind is already made up on bans and nothing will convince you otherwise.

To the original topic, no they didn't cause it, but by god did they contribute! As a farmer with a family farm that shares a border with a National Park (that has been burnt out a few years ago) and the daughter of a person that had a small fire on "Black Saturday" I am constantly frustrated and angered at the lack of protection we are able to give our livelihoods and incomes.
Not allowed to put in fire breaks along road side, cut down tress thicker then a certain width, not to mention the "native grasses" and protected animals and tree etc. etc. The roadside weeds cost us thousands spraying out the seeds they spread all over our crops and pastures.
It is in a farmers best interest to look after the land they are farming and whilst I agree we must do more to protect some species of plants, animals and trees I also believe that it needs to be done in a way that is safe to everyone. Not so long ago the best way to stop a fire was at a road where the farmers had put firebreaks both sides, now the roadsides start fires with low cars and sparks from power lines, providing the fire with waist height grass to go wherever it likes.
I'm pretty sure even firebreaks on private property around a house are not allowed

Those who are against people being allowed to defend themselves should consider not asking for help if in a situation of need. we could have a system like we have with blood types. we could have positives & negatives dog tags or bracelets. If you believe people should not be allowed to defend themselves then you wear a negative bracelet so that after you have been stabbed or shot the ambulance officers don't need to take you to a hospital. if you don't like wearing a negative bracelet you could always opt for the word moron to be tatooed on your forehead.

Good plan Individual.

I would go even further and say that those who mock and rant and rave about academics and university trained people should have "NFR" tattoos on their foreheads...just to ensure no University trained medical personnel ever help them either...

"Those who are against people being allowed to defend themselves should consider not asking for help if in a situation of need. we could have a system like we have with blood types. we could have positives & negatives dog tags or bracelets. If you believe people should not be allowed to defend themselves then you wear a negative bracelet so that after you have been stabbed or shot the ambulance officers don't need to take you to a hospital. if you don't like wearing a negative bracelet you could always opt for the word moron to be tatooed on your forehead.
Posted by individual, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 11:08:36 PM"

This is what I love about OLO.

Both ends of the evolutionary spectrum are consistently on display.

Girls, let's see whose idea gets more sensible support, yours or mine. Can some OLOer's please oblige ?

individual,

I recall there existed a certain German regime during the 1930/40's who had a penchant for marking certain people via tattoos and other means.

It turned out that they rather frowned upon as a scourge - and after a suitably lengthy dust-up, were dispensed to the annals of history.

(Although,judging by a few posts of yours in days gone by, you appear to believe that their leader gets a raw deal in the reputation stakes)

I see my words about SOME women in the workforce are being twisted to say something else.
And too that, in any walk of life selection on merit, fences down all able to apply as many women as we now get will rise to the top.
THINK! are my words not in some cases unleashing the blind Political Correctness I warn of?
How many of us truly understand how hard if not imposable it is to winter burn our bush.
And how many are willing to admit just doing that, burning to protect both the bush and humans brings down a shower of pc fans/uniformed tree dwellers waiting for fire to kill them, it will.
Once as soon as conditions let them volunteers gave up their afternoons and weekends and burned , a cold burn the bush.
Do we know our system of OHXS puts the safe burn responsibility on the head of those volunteers and they stay in the shed under the weight of paper work that kills the fire before it is started but brings death in fire storms to our forests and some humans

Belly,

Here is a speech by a great man who also struggled against the monster of political correctness. Just sit back and listen,

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/charltonhestonculturalwar.htm

Well, here's a turn up for the books.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/24/nsw-bushfires-army-blamed

"The federal government is taking very seriously reports that Army training sparked the biggest of several bushfires, a day after firefighters averted potential disaster in Blue Mountains and Hunter regions."

"Blue Mountains mayor Mark Greenhill spoke to ABC.

I would have hoped on a day like that which was a dry day, a hot day, with the winds - the Australian military would have known it was not a good day to be igniting.

The fire has caused great concern to my community, great damage to my community and it just shouldn't have happened."

So on a very hot dry day, even though there was no complete fire ban in place, the army decides to train with munitions.

Dumb.

Poirot, possibly these army bods were wearing their jungle GREENS at the time. It would fit in nicely with the title of the discussion. Are the Greens responsible for loss of property due to fire? Absolutely, we can now all agree.

Bit out of date there, Paul, the Amy now wear camoflauge.

Is Mise, How do you know that? "the Amy now wear camoflauge." You can't see them, they are camouflaged. Now if there were dressed in yellow chicken suits, I could understand it, that would be a different john dory.

Not on a winner with that, Paul1405...

"You can't see them, they are camouflaged."

If you can't see them it would be because they were wearing invisibility cloaks, à la Harry Potter. As opposed to being camouflaged (as in concealed).

However, since the camouflage they wear is a Disruptive Pattern uniform, to 'fit in nicely with the title of the discussion' it might have expand to become: Are the Distruptive Patterns of the Greens responsible for loss of property due to fire?

I don't know what Amy wears. Probably whatever takes her fancy.

Now you do know what a smart arse remark is, you just made one.

OTB have no sound until a trip to PC Doctor.
I saw that Poirot few know every Army range has live ammo in the ground, so bush fire and walking around them is a risk.
One of so many fires it plays little roll in this thread.
I am sickened to report last month a fire fighter went to prison for lighting many fires.
Another just caught and then the two 8 year olds.
Along with an 11 year old and 16 year old our fires are more than often the work of *piro maniacs* a term PC seems to have smothered.
Hate to say it.
But our true fire danger period has not yet arrived.
IF ONLY we can see the true job of bush fire fighters is burning the bush in cold fires not fighting fire storms.
Climate change is real more fires will come harsher and more damaging we must confront that.
And understand, read the Murdock press big money and interests are prepared to lie to stop true action.

Belly,

"But our true fire danger period has not yet arrived."

Precisely.

The fire season extends, leaving less and less time to prepare, especially after sufficient rain followed by warmer and dryer conditions.

http://world.time.com/2013/10/23/australias-epic-wildfires-likely-affected-by-climate-change-no-matter-what-prime-minister-says/?iid=gs-main-lead

"Abbott is partly right — wildfires are part of the landscape in Australia, and scientists haven’t yet said whether man-made warming played a specific, detectable role in these fires. Such climate-attribution studies can take years. Records in Australia on wildfires aren’t very deep, which makes it difficult to make judgments about what’s normal and what’s not. But scientists have studied how warming might make wildfires in Australia more common and more destructive. A study published last year in the International Journal of Climatology looked at fire-danger data from 38 sites around Australia between 1973 and 2010, and found that 16 of them showed a significant increase in fire weather. (None of the sites showed a decrease.) The study also found distinct increases in fire risk during the spring and autumn, meaning the fire season was getting longer.

Another study, published in 2007, found that Australia was experiencing increases of 10% to 40% on fire-prone days between 1980 to 2000 and 2001 to 2007. A third study, published in 2012 in the journal Ecosphere, predicted that climate change will cause dry parts in the middle latitudes and Australia to experience more fires in the future."

Belly, "OTB have no sound until a trip to PC Doctor."

Thanks for the courtesy of letting me know. I hope it is only a minor fix.

http://theconversation.com/what-firefighters-say-about-climate-change-19381

"One of the most interesting things we found in talking to the emergency service workers was an overwhelming acceptance and concern that climate change was already affecting Australia, based on their personal experiences with disasters.

As a Western Australian fire officer told our research team, we need to “get the scientists, who have a lot to share about climate change and climate change adaptation, talking to the operational people” - a suggestion backed by many of our interviewees."

"In the same year, the United Firefighters Union’s national secretary wrote to then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd:

On behalf of more than 13,000 firefighters and support staff in Australia, I write this open letter to request a review of Australia’s fire risk… As we battle blazes here in Victoria, firefighters are busy rescuing people from floods in Queensland. Without a massive turnaround in policies, aside from the tragic loss of life and property, we will be asking firefighters to put themselves at an unacceptable risk.

Firefighters know that it is better to prevent an emergency than to have to rescue people from it, and we urge state and federal governments to follow scientific advice and keep firefighters and the community safe by halving the country’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2020."

Belly should be able to shed some light on the Greens under-cutting Labor to get support from unions.

There is no surprise the Union supports the Bandt and the Greens for deals done:

<The vocal firefighters union is backing Greens MP Adam Bandt for re-election at the September ballot, joining the National Tertiary Education Union in supporting the party's sole lower house member.

The United Firefighters Union supported Mr Bandt at the 2010 election when he first seized Melbourne from Labor's grasp.

UFU national secretary Peter Marshall – who is a member of the Australian Council of Trade Union executive – said Mr Bandt had been a loyal advocate of firefighters as well as being the union's lawyer for a decade.

In 2011, Mr Bandt successfully introduced legislation to the federal parliament that removed the onus of proof for Commonwealth employed firefighters that contracted certain types of cancers.

Mr Bandt's laws passed because he secured support for the bills from Labor and the Coalition.

''With the firefighters compensation, he put aside his ego and got tri-partisan support for the bill,'' Mr Marshall said.

''Clearly our loyalties lie with Adam.''

Studies have shown that rates of cancer are higher in firefighters because of exposure to chemicals.

Several states have introduced similar legislation – in Victoria the Greens are pushing for the laws, with the Labor opposition giving in-principle support, but the government is yet commit.

The firefighters support follows news that the NTEU would spend $1 million on a pro-Greens election campaign. The NTEU is frustrated with billions of dollars worth of Labor cuts to the sector and Mr Bandt has been a vocal critic of the $2.3 billion cut to university funding.

Labor's candidate for Melbourne, Cath Bowtell, is a former assistant state secretary of the NTEU.>

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/firefighters-union-backs-bandt-20130621-2omjh.html

OTB it is actualy a forum rule *do not divert threads*
To do so by such a lurch away from the threads path? just to score points?
May I say start a thread.
Poirot yes saw that, we rural livers nearly never see town brigades at bush firers.
Truth is Forest Parks and volunteer bush fire brigades do the job.
Any list not written in the PC ink that stops bad fires needs to address line of command issues.
Bosses from the top down cover their own body parts always.
So what to do?
One man inspect place to be burned and he gives the go ahead,his job rely,s on him getting the cold burns done,it now seems not letting it is the duty.
Leave fire fighters to do the on the ground job take the paper work away.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-26/nswfire-warnings-disaster-relief-winmalee-meeting-bushfires/5047638

""When I found out people were having entitlements stripped from them that they would have had previously, I was livid."

"Labor Senator Doug Cameron said it is the first change to federal disaster relief eligibility since 2007.

"I just can't understand why, on the day that people were being ravaged by fire, that, you know, regulations were being brought out by the Federal Minister that diminished the rights of residents in New South Wales and in the Blue Mountains," he said."

Wonderful caring LNP govt with a faux firey at the helm.

Baahh!

Belly, "OTB it is actualy a forum rule *do not divert threads*
To do so by such a lurch away from the threads path? just to score points?"

You cannot see that I was responding to Poirot's post preceding it? If my reply is a 'diversion' as you claim, why isn't Poirot's?

Not long back one of our most conservative of forum posters, Individual, was calling for the army to be called in to put the fires out, something I said was a bad idea, the conserves poo hoo'd me for saying so. Now it has come to light that its not The Greens who are responsible for the fires in the Blue Mountains but some Colonel Kink fool and his band of bods from the army.
It begs the question; Why is that the conservative posters on the forum consistently get everything wrong. Everything from saying "Abbott a good bloke." to "Climate change doesn't cause cataclysmic disasters." You would think the law of averages would kick in and the conservatives would get something right. But, no, nothing right at all. Then again the conservatives have always been consistently wrong from saying the Vietnam war was right to climate change science is bunk.
Please none of the conservatives post an answer to my question as it will surly be wrong. Let the progressive thinkers put up the right answer.

Just for the record, every Army range does not have live ammunition in the ground, in fact most of them do not.

....just the ones that set fire to the bush and destroy a couple of hundred homes.

What did these Rambo's think they were doing? Silly question, these Rambo's don't think they follow orders. I think the Army should be made pay for their stupid folly. There goes a few hundred million they normally waste anyway.

Paul,

Fire is a natural phenomenon, if it wasn't the army, it would have been something else, such as lightning. We have had a cycle of 6 years of heavy rain and humidity and the undergrowth has had a chance to grow like never before. The hot dry weather was inevitable, and while the fire was inevitable, the consequences of loss of life and property could have been avoided if home owners were allowed to clear a safety zone.

The only ones preventing this safety barrier have been the greens. The blood is on their hands.

SM, please read before you post. "if it wasn't the army, it would have been something else, such as lightning" or an arsonist or a kid with a box of matches.
"We have had a cycle of 6 years of heavy rain and humidity" don't forget high temperatures as well. With Abbott and the like minded, and their do nothing policy, please prepare for even more cataclysmic weather events as the planet warms.
You started this discussion with condemnation of The Greens. now it has been established that it was army boneheads (most of whom vote Liberal) that caused the fires, will you now condemn them. Why don't you say as well people living in timber houses in bushland deserve to have their homes destroyed by fire, silly people.
"The only ones preventing this safety barrier have been the greens." where is your evidence. "The blood is on their hands." The only ones at this stage with blood on their hands are Liberal voting army boneheads, in the future it may well be do nothing political fools like Abbott with blood on their hands.

Paul,

Did you ever study physics?
Live ammunition in the ground does not start fires, it may explode if there is a fire but until then it just lays there doing nothing.

With typical Green's exaggeration you blame Defence for all the fires although it is 77 kilometres from Marangaroo to Springwood,

Three homes were lost to the Marangaroo fire not
"..... and destroy a couple of hundred homes." as you rather exaggeratedly claim.

Your other wild claim, as you desperatedly clutch at straws: "Now it has come to light that its not The Greens who are responsible for the fires in the Blue Mountains but some Colonel Kink (sic) fool and his band of bods from the army."

The Army was responsible for one fire but not the others (Hunter Valley??) they had nowt to do with the stupid policy of most councils in making it extremely difficult for people to clear dangerous scrub and trees from their properties.

The 'Black Saturday' fires in Victoria amply demonstrated that Green's influence in society is an evil thing that has cost lives and the Greens have blood on their collective hands, no matter how much they attempt to weasel out of it

Paul here is the Rural Landholders Guide to Enviromental Laws in NSW, I'm not sure if it wins or looses you your argument, but it is relevant. Enjoy.
http://www.edo.org.au/edonsw/site/pdf/pubs/rural_landholders_3rd_ed.pdf
Is Mise
<Live ammunition in the ground does not start fires, it may explode if there is a fire but until then it just lays there doing nothing.>
Maybe not but it does prevent immediate fire fighting efforts. I get that the Army has to train in such conditions, as war isn't going to take a day off for heat and wind however if the ARMY had measures in place to stop any resulting fires to get out of control crisis would have been adverted. But maybe the Army are not allow firebreaks either.

Bec,

It was live firing that started the fire not un-exploded rounds or bombs.
I've persona;;y set the bush on fire at Holdsworthy range in NSW, firing .50 cal Browning machine guns using tracer ammunition but we always had a fire truck standing by; so no problem.

Bec is mise is quite right and highlights a truth that should not be ignored.
Fires in firing ranges are nearly always fought by the Army for obvious reasons.
No answers to fire in this event, it was one of a great many, look if you wish at the idiots of all ages who lite them.
But ignore the dry bush at your peril, we should question what if any impact climate change plays in the rising number of them.
Bush fire season has not yet started if we look at past years events and timing.

Bec,

Thanks for the link, its all about responsible and sustainable management of bushland, that is the philosophy of The Greens. There is nothing preventing a landowner clearing around their property as per the act. One of my sons lives in the bush, has legally cleared around the house and most of his land was cleared years ago. like so much of our native bush was cleared for farming with little regard for the environmental consequences, in today's more enlightened times we have better management practices.
Some however, for their own ignorant and/or selfish reasons would wind back to clock 100 years and call for open slather.

"I've (Is Mise) persona;;y set the bush on fire" Well what can I say. I see why you defend the army boneheads who are reasonable for so much destruction.
"it is 77 kilometres from Marangaroo to Springwood," Google Maps, is that an army thing?
"The Army was responsible for one fire but not the others (Hunter Valley??)" How lucky for those who's homes were destroyed by those others.

Paul,

Is one of your sports boxing?

You sure know how to duck and weave!

Thanks for the correction there guys, I did know that it was a fired rounds that started the fire, but I was mislead to believe that there where live rounds on the ground as well. Its just a pity that there was no massive firebreak to contain any possible fire within Army range.
Paul you are right, there is nothing in that guide to directly stop people clearing, but neither does it directly allow people to clear land.
It is just one of the pieces of tape you must go through to get permits, only to have them rejected. I am pleased that your son was able to clear around his house and make it safe. My family was unable to do so because we selfishly wanted to use what land we could to provide ourselves with an income, so we could feed ourselves and our children. We had in years past put our firebreaks on the road side, which was then common practice. That we can no longer do, and it took its toll when the fires came 7 years ago. I still can't get over the horror expressed at the tree full of bees that had been burnt down on our property whilst we stood and wondered how the heck we where going to pay the bills. We felt sorry for the bees too, but it was a small thing in the scheme of things.

Paul,

We all know that even if Aus had reduced its emissions to zero in the last 6 years, the CO2 level in the atmosphere would have been almost identical. The climate change in Aus is going to happen whether there is a carbon tax or not. The question is whether one puts mitigation policies in place to save lives, or not.

The army caused one fire through carelessness and should ensure that it never happens again, but the reality is that there were over a hundred fires some caused by natural circumstances, and there will always be fires if the conditions are right.

These fires have been matched in the past by huge fires. The main ingredients are fuel load and hot dry weather. We can't control the weather, but can control the fuel load, if we scrap the greens stupid legislation.

Paul as you know, and as half the world knows climate change is real.
As we both know reducing our emissions does impact on the whole.
Not always in ways SM can, or wants, to see.
We are soon to confront a world doing much more than us.
But we too may face barriers to our over seas trade, as emissions and actions may see country,s not taking action boycotted.
In time, have no doubt, within this Liberal Government, putting a price on carbon will be called for.
And too in time it will again be Liberal policy,s.
It is a measure of *Tony Abbott* that he is still in election mode head kicking and insulting #even on the international stage#
A basic truth Labor was defeated, not its policy,s, time will see a huge reversal of public voting intentions as it become clear just what a petty little man we have elected.

SM, "The army caused one fire through carelessness and should ensure that it never happens again." that is a bit wishy washy , you expect these army boneheads to "ensure". I want them held responsible and made to pay. Should you not apologise to The Greens for the malicious accusations. An while we are in the apolodising mode David Johnston should get out there and say sorry on behalf of those military boneheads who caused such catastrophic destruction.
"Under Labor, the greens have had a free hand to make fuel reduction back burning, or clearance of trees near properties nearly impossible without a signature from God."
What has Barry been doing in NSW for the past couple of years? Sitting on his hands.
Don't worry Belly, cracks are already appearing in the Abbott facade. and its only 50 days in, give him a year. Turnbull is already sharpening the knife. PS, Turnbull is a committed believer that climate change is real, and he has stated in the past his parties policy is all smoke and mirrors.

SM,

"These fires have been matched in the past by huge fires. The main ingredients are fuel load and hot dry weather...."

Care to enlighten me when fires "of this magnitude" have been recorded in mid October?

You might also like to tell us the new timetable for fire preparation, controlling the fuel load and back burning - if indeed the season is extending?

Extended fire seasons - sufficient rain followed by lengthy warm dry spells....prognosis confirmed in this instance.

Bec_young mum of 2, "We had in years past put our firebreaks on the road side, which was then common practice. That we can no longer do,"

Agree. We lost a lot of fencing. We changed to fire breaks on the inside of the fence line, which sacrifices expensive fencing, and reduces the area for stock grazing.

You will not be convincing any of the 'progressives' on here, who have PC points to score and are always happy for others to pay for their idealism.

Paul,

No one has accused the bonehead greens of starting the fires, only making the consequences worse. Yes the military should pay for the damage directly caused by the fire they caused, and the councils that instituted the idiot legislation preventing home owners from protecting their houses should also be made to pay.

In one of the councils in Sydney, a home owner requested to remove a tree bough from a road side tree that stretched over his driveway, the council reviewed it and refused. The bough fell and damaged a car, and the owner successfully sued the council. The council's attitude has notably changed as a result. The same should be applied to bush near residential dwellings.

Personally I would like to see the green councillors that pushed this moronic policy publicly flogged.

<I want them (the Army) held responsible and made to pay.>

Agreed, but who's back pocket will that come out of?

<You might also like to tell us the new timetable for fire preparation, controlling the fuel load and back burning - if indeed the season is extending?>

Not sure about the city but here in the country we do what fire protection we are allowed all year round...because there is always a first time. This "I was going to do that next weekend because you said nothing would happen this week" attitude is just irresponsible and annoying. (Not meaning you in particular, it just seems to be the current mood)

Leading economists have over-whelmingly rejected Tony Abbotts climate change policy and backed carbon pricing.
Front page today's SNH.
The Coalitions scheme will cost taxpayers $2.88 billion over 4 tears without compensation as was the case with Labors carbon pricing scheme.
As long as the big polluters in business are not taxes Abbott is satisfied.

Parrot,

Please get off your soap box. A week or two of hot dry weather in October is not unprecedented, the 6 year stretch of nearly continuous wet weather (after the climate hysterics were predicting permanent drought) meant that an abnormally high fuel load had accumulated, and huge fires were almost certain.

My gripe is primarily with criminalizing homeowners that try to take reasonable precautions to protect their property.

Back burning every 7 years may work well under normal circumstances, but in circumstances where fuel load has increased way beyond normal rates, these need to be reviewed, and the call should be made by the RFS and not a greenie pin head pencil pusher living safely in the city.

SM evidence please.
"Personally I (SM) would like to see the green councillors that pushed this moronic policy publicly flogged."
SM I though you would be more the hung, drawn and quartered type. None of this nambe pambe public floggings. Please reserve a front row seat for SM. Oh! by the way, don't forget to bring you knitting. LOL
Remember, evidence please.

Paul,

"SM evidence please."

Well, you're wasting your time with that request.

Shadow Minister doesn't deal in evidence.

He deals in partisan spin.....and various wobbly rants garnished with kiddie names.

Poirot. too true SM does post many a rant without the slightest of references. I done mind anyone posting their opinion,but then present that opinion or unsubstantiated claim as fact, is a stretch. I wonder if SM can relate to my quip about bring the knitting.

Paul,

You say "evidence please" but don't specify for what.

You earlier asked me to provide a link, and I did. There was a similar discussion with comments from various people after the Victorian fires. None of this is new, and is common knowledge.

Are you seriously going to try and pretend that the Greens oppose the regulations that prevent bush clearance around houses?

Parrot,

The pot calling the kettle Black!

At least I don't lie.

That at least I don not lie.
We see it so often from SM a deliberate charge against his opponent of lieing.
The younger of us, one day will see both partys with a price on carbon policy.
We very well may, yes think it, Abbott dumped by his own party, not just or maybe at all because of his climate change is crap views.
But because he remains the man he always was, his over seas trip have seen him jump on the heads of his now powerless ALP victims.
He is fast emerging as this country,s G W Bush, or a reborn flying peanut Joe.
His words seem to come with pain and uncertainty after going in to a sausage maker.

Belly,

Yes, I reckon once in about every three or four posts he accuses his opponent of lying.

That's what you do when your argument has little substance.

SM,

http://nsw.greens.org.au/policies/bushfires

"The Greens believe that living with bushfire threat requires a coordinated approach that includes:

* planning of housing sites to avoid development in risk prone areas;
*strategically planned hazard reduction, including controlled burning, where and when climatic conditions allow it to be done safely and where it is consistent with maintaining the ecosystem;
*education and community awareness programs to reduce the incidence of arson; and
*a well funded and managed fire fighting service which can protect human life and homes and contain the spread of fires."

Let's see.....point 2 would be?....

"strategically planned hazard reduction, including controlled burning, where and when climatic conditions allow it to be done safely and where it is consistent with maintaining the ecosystem"

Parrot,

A) You can't count.

B) Yes, Lying is what you do when your argument has little substance.

C) "consistent with maintaining the ecosystem" = when hell freezes over, and "strategically planned hazard reduction" means you submit a doctoral thesis to remove the scrub, which is ignored for 6 months, and needs to be resubmitted several times at great personal expense by which time your house has already burnt down, or you have retired and moved.

SM,

I used to think, when I first came here, that you demonstrated a little mature intellectual merit.

Slowly over time you have disabused me of this view.

Sad but true.

Any info on firestorms recorded in mid October?

Poirot, Did you know every thing SM posts is a plain truth supported by "common knowledge." his truth, his knowledge.
"in one of the councils in Sydney, a home owner requested to remove a tree bough from a road side tree that stretched over his driveway, the council reviewed it and refused."
SM unless you can provide evidence for this statement, other than to claim its "common knowledge" I say you are making it up. Which council, when did it happen and how many Green members were on the council at the time, and how they influenced the council officers decision on the matter.
Just for you SM a link to The Greens NSW policy in question.

http://nsw.greens.org.au/policies/bushfires

"Are you seriously going to try and pretend that the Greens oppose the regulations that prevent bush clearance around houses?" can you support this with a reference to Greens policy, I think not.

Don't forget to bring your knitting.

Sunday saw me with a group of men eating lunch in a park, highly suspicious?
No an innovation.
Ham radio club meeting.
Hard to get enough in a room.
One was a senior fire fighter in say a government department.
From that group as is ham radio habit over half are ex fire fighters.
All agreed those fires this early are a concern.
All too found nothing surprising in this truth *fire bugs lite almost all*
The forest ground cover of dead and drying fuel is high,the current drought, yes it is back, in those areas, indeed mine and the out of session heat all came together .
Without rain soon my area will again be in the news.
Paul is nearer right than wrong, yes greens have policy,s that make fires worse.
Last year a plan to run power stations using the high stacks of wood left after logs are remove and timber mill waste was rejected by greens and Labor.
And it too will burn,in the bush it is left to rot in,it will burn for days.
And its sparks will be mother to many fires.
Remember please if we, all of us,entered any land to cold burn next winter radio shock jocks would get mums and dads from all sides ringing in to name us vandals.
Writing letters for local members and papers building pressure to see the next fire event is as bad as those we have just seen and will see before winter rescues us, maybe.

Belly,

Over here in SW WA we have had a a lot of steady rain.

It rained solidly all the way through September and well into October. We have record areas of undergrowth...and the minute we warm up which has already started this stuff dries out very quickly.

It's already too late for back burning as it's starting to warm up.

Not Green's fault.

Tell me, if fires of that magnitude start so early in the season, when does the back burning take place?

Because there hasn't been a window for back burning over here.

Paul,

There you go! you take one comment of mine and claim that none of my posts are supported. That is patently dishonest and by definition a lie. Obviously your debating skills are so feeble you have to lie, and try puerile ad hominem attacks.

I provided earlier in this thread a link to where the mayor of Port Stephens said almost exactly what I did, and an example of where someone was fined for creating a fire barrier on his own property which saved his house. While this is not absolute proof, this is more than sufficient to support my assertions. And while I have put forward some evidence for my point of view, you have provided nothing other than a vague and ambiguous policy statement, and the onus is on you to prove your position.

As for my comment on the action taken on the broken bough, I never claimed there were greens involved, nor is it relevant, as it was given as an example of where a council can be forced to consider the safety of residents over stupid regulations.

Parrot,

Firstly I care little for you opinion especially as it consists of ridiculing anyone that holds a contrary position, and your "Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk" comment places your maturity at a floor level which nearly every poster exceeds. I look forward to when you show even a modicum of intellectual rigour.

SM,

".....a modicum of intellectual rigour."

Like this, you mean?

"Parrot"

Yeah, I can see that you have the bar set at an unreasonable level.

I don't know if I can get that low.

Limbo, perhaps?

SM here is you post which I called you on

"in one of the councils in Sydney, a home owner requested to remove a tree bough from a road side tree that stretched over his driveway, the council reviewed it and refused. The bough fell and damaged a car, and the owner successfully sued the council. The council's attitude has notably changed as a result. The same should be applied to bush near residential dwellings.

Personally I would like to see the green councillors that pushed this moronic policy publicly flogged."

Does that not say the Green councilors at a Sydney Council where a tree bough damaged a car push a moronic policy that resulted in the cars damage, that's how it reads.. And you want them publicly flogged for that.

Now you say: "As for my comment on the action taken on the broken bough, I never claimed there were greens involved," So why do you want them publicly flogged, is it to feed your general dislike of The Greens.

Paul,

"Now you say: "As for my comment on the action taken on the broken bough, I never claimed there were greens involved," So why do you want them publicly flogged, is it to feed your general dislike of The Greens."

Hahahaha!

Looks like the Spin Master spun himself into a knot with that one.

Lol!

Paul,

I apologise. I did not sufficiently review what I wrote. The comment about public flogging referred to the first paragraph not the second, and conveyed a meaning that I did not intend.

As the regulations that punish people for taking sensible action to protect themselves, I personally oppose capital or corporal punishment, and the flogging would have to be metaphorical.

I can but dream.

"I don't know if I can get that low."

You have done it before, and no doubt will do it again.

Yes, dear SM,

...but only when I have to respond to you.

(although you gain a few brownie points for the decency of your last post to Paul:)

I'll play nice if you do.

It's rather confusing reading some posts and one has to constantly adjust as the terminology is wrong.

"Back burn" is a fire deliberately lit in the path of a CURRENT bush fire to deprive it of fuel.

"Hazard reduction burn" is a deliberately lit fire to reduce the fuel available to a FUTURE bush fire.

The two terms are not interchangeable.

"I'll play nice if you do."

Me too....

..........

Is Mise,

In that case, I've been using the wrong terminology.

I meant Hazard Reduction Burn