REALLY didn’t appreciate the “Brothel fall-out” article in last week’s Herald and its explicit descriptions.
I found my 10-year-old reading it this afternoon.
I really thought that the Herald was one thing I could let her read without worrying about inappropriate content.
It was totally unnecessary and I’m really annoyed this was allowed to be published in a family newspaper.
THE “Brothel fall-out” story in last week’s Herald was just salacious crap.
There was absolutely no need for the quote describing in detail the sexual activity alleged to have occurred at this alleged brothel.
It’s not journalism. It’s smut. And “WARNING: adult content” is too cute by half.
You know exactly what that means for younger readers who are already bombarded with overt sexualisation of virtually everything these days.
Putting that in a newspaper normalises it even further.
And once again exposes them to matters they should be free from until they’re ready.
I am sure there are also plenty of other older readers like myself who could do without the intimate breakdown of some bloke’s alleged sexual activities.
Just like the “F*** you Brad” headline, the paper seems to screaming for attention these days.
You’ve already got my attention: the paper has come free in my mailbox and is about the city I live in so I’m interested. Don’t give me incentives to stop reading it.
I can handle the biases, the editorialising and the selective coverage – some of it is enjoyable and highly readable – but show me, and I am sure plenty of other readers, some respect.
OKAY, backup, you’ve gone far too low this time.
Who wants to read quotes from social media from a bloke who goes to a brothel in our local newspaper (“Brothel fall-out”, Herald, November 16, 2019).
So men have sexual needs, but the rest of the community doesn’t want to know the explicit details.
An explicit content warning is not good enough.
There can be no justification for including such detail in a local-interest article.
Please leave inappropriate social media comments out of print media that is delivered to our homes.
Adrian Street, Palmyra
ONCE again the City of Fremantle is trying to spin its way out of being accountable to residents for its actions (“Carles flames council over tipsite works”, Herald, November 16, 2019).
Council has claimed that “…Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service has never prevented it from removing vegetation and had even previously authorised the removal of waste by the council if certain conditions were met”.
Even Warnie would be impressed with this level of spin.
AQIS wrote to the city of Fremantle in 2005 stating that waste could be removed provided it was in accordance with the legislation dealing with quarantine sites.
This was in response to council wanting to sell the tip site to Pindan for about $20 million. The price tag for compliant remediation was close to $100 million.
Needless to say the city has not removed any waste, and is stuck with a site it cannot sell, or develop in a compliant manner.
AQIS has never been contacted by the city of Fremantle for approval to remove vegetation, so it is hardly surprising they haven’t “prevented” it.
All activities at this site are now subject to the Biosecurity Act 2015, which is administered by the federal department of agriculture.
Soil and vegetation are not to be disturbed unless in compliance with the act, which is not what the city is planning for its slash-and-spray charade.
Last month the DOA was still completely unaware that the city of Fremantle was planning the Epuron solar farm development on the quarantine site, and is now scrambling to assess the biosecurity risk that the proposed development poses.
They are certainly are not aware of any planned vegetation clearance.
Despite this, the city had obtained all necessary approvals from several state government authorities for Epuron to proceed.
Approvals were sought and received with no reference to the biosecurity risk in any of the project application documents, despite the city, its engineering consultants and the contaminated sites auditor having full knowledge of the serious health risks that residents will be exposed to.
The state government has also known of the quarantine risk since 2005, and its role in overlooking the quarantine status of this site should also raise eyebrows.
The city of Fremantle is still in complete denial that this site poses a serious health risk to adjacent residents if disturbed, with many back fences literally metres from quarantine waste.
The DOA has no record of being contacted by the City of Fremantle when spoken to just two weeks ago.
Families like mine in North Coogee are rightly distressed about the health and safety of our children, yet Fremantle council would have us believe we only need to worry about the “risk of wind-borne dust” migrating to residences. Where is the duty of care?
I see nothing
LAST week’s Herald story “Carles flames council over tipsite works”, contained concerned comment by Martin Lee and Adele Carles over the proposed development of a solar farm on an Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service site, formerly the South Fremantle tip.
Mr Lee made the point that approval was being sought “without once mentioning AQIS or the true nature of the location”. This apparent omission of important health and safety information with development applications is all too common, and reflects poorly on consultants who produce deficient expert reports, paid for by the applicant.
These reports, in turn, often seem to be accepted without question by local governments.
It manifests as a deliberate strategy of management-by- omission.
The sergeant Shultz response comes to mind – “I see nothing.”
The last thing the community wants manipulated by consultants and local government is health and safety.
In August this year I made a submission to the select committee inquiry into local government, on the strategy of management-by-omission.
These people are playing with our lives with such conduct and it needs to stop.
Have they no conscience?
Money Road, Melville