If you are a Christian (god believer). Then What happens to you is “gods will” Get on with life.
If you are an atheist (non god believer). Then what happens to you is “your fault or ability” or do unto others as they do to you. Get on with life.
If you believe in nature, physics and chemistry. (Non god believer). Then matter can not be created nor destroyed. ONLY TRANSFORMED. Then use what you need not what you want. Get on with life.
I can not fix my own life. How can I fix yours.

 

Copyright © 2000 - 2011 Printed and authorized by Joe Rossi 87 Findon Road, Woodville South 5011.

 

Australian Hotel Association

South Australian Branch,

Adelaide        SA       5001.         

From: Mr. Joseph Peter Rossi,

Email: joerossi48@optusnet.com.au

Face Book & Web: jp-rossi-political-sa.info

 

Date  16/03/2011.

Reference:

1)   .Irresponsible Management and laws.

2)   .Irresponsible Signs displayed in Hotels.

3)   Irresponsible Australian Hotel Association lobbying for safety laws.

4)   .Irresponsible Legislation by Rann Labor Government.

 

Dear Sir/ Madam,

 

Here in is a letter I have sent to radio 5AA Leon Byner on

06/03/2011.and a copy to the Honourable Premier, South Australia Mike Rann MP. Minister for Social Inclusion.

 

I am absolutely annoyed at the irresponsibility of your organisation about the lack of discipline and conduct towards problem gamblers and Alcoholism. I place the blame directly at your organisation First and to Premier Rann second.

 

1)   I tried to get your email address over the internet and got only your application for sports fund. No office telephone number or office email address.

2)    I tried to get your contact details from the counters of Hotels and none had your information.

3)    I looked for drunken warning signs with penalties and none were displayed in any hotels foyers or rooms.

 

I find this completely unsatisfactory for your responsibility to fellow man and in particular to the future general of our children and do not forget even your children future partners.

 

The letters read as follows with only the salutation names changed. I also direct the same contents to you with the hope of a reply to answer the allegations.

 <<<<<     =====     >>>>>.==========          ========è

 

Date 06/03/2011.

 

Reference: Increase in Hotel Crime.

Topic: I alleging Security Guards am no more than Manikins.

 

Dear Honourable Premier,

I was at the same local hotel pokier venue 25/02/2011 at 7.00pm.

 

There was the same security guard who I approached to enquire about last night’s abusive threatening action of a drunken patron.

 

He informed me that the police had called in later that night. Had spoken to the offender and the offender was barred from the hotel premises for a minimum of 3 months.

 

As for his lack of action in my opinion was that he had asked the person to leave while in another room. That not antagonising a person was the best solution to avoid further escalation of the situation.

 

I agree with him as regards avoiding escalation. What I do not agree is the lack of legal power for the security guard to give legal but lawful direction with the power of commencing prosecution actions in their own rights.

 

Radio 5AA Leon Byner who is about the same age as myself and may remember that in the 1960’s there were fisheries and gaming wardens. (These were civilians gazetted with the power of prosecuting offenders under specific section of legislation.)

 

There are traffic parking inspectors, council health inspectors who are all civilians not POLICE officers that have the power to prosecute and fine offenders.

There is absolutely no reason why Security Guards can not be treated the same and given the same powers.

 

I personally have been directly involved with

1)    Bank holds up.

2)     2 Post office hold ups.

3)    2 physical assaults

4)    1 verbal threat.

5)    Last night witnessing 1 hotel drunken patron directly threatening 3 hotel employees, 1 security guard and any other patron near by whom so much as indicated disapproval of his presence.

 

Leon Byner indicated to me on talk back while the Minister of Police Honourable Kevin Foley was in the station studio, that the suggestions of minimum fines was previously raised looked in to and not workable.

 

May I direct you to read some of the legislations enacted in the 1950 and 60’s before Premier Don Dunstan year a and you will find

1)   .Civilian fisheries inspectors,

2)    National Parkes & wild life inspectors

3)    Sewer inspectors,

4)   Parking inspectors,

5)   Council health inspectors

6)    Council building inspectors

 

Just to mention a few who once had the power to issue on the spot fines.

Even the present road speed radar operators are not police officers.

 

The voter therefore can not be hood winked by sweet talking politicians that nothing can be done to curtail violent behaviour in clubs and pubs.

Those security guards can be given more power and protection by allowing them to issue on the spot fines, with the ability to dispute the offence in a court.

 

Name and shame was the in thing in the 50’s and 60’s. Crime was low because of it.

 

Same techniques should be implemented again now.

 Tonight I went to every hotel bar, room and cranny to inspect what signs were displayed to WARN patrons of their responsibly and penalties for non – compliance. There were plenty for the HOTEL MANAGEMENT a few about under age persons in the gambling rooms BUT NONE FOR DRUNK patrons.

 

You Premier as Minister for Social Inclusion consider this option seriously.

Thank you.

 

If you have any queries or need further explanation please do not hesitate to contact me as above.

In conclusion, I await your considered opinion on this topic.

 

Yours faithfully, Joe Rossi. 06032011.

<<<<<     =====     >>>>>.==========          ========è

Letter Number 2 read:

 

Reference: Increase in Hotel Crime.

Topic: I alleging Security Guards am no more than Manikins.

 

Dear Honourable Premier,

I was at the same local hotel pokier venue 25/02/2011 at 7.00pm as mentioned in my previous letter (Email) of 06/03/2011.

 

Leon Byner on 5AA indicated and asked if the Security guard directed the drunken patron to leave the hotel and if the patron had done so then the problem would be over and there was no further danger or need for fear of him.

 

I totally dispute this theory.

The Hotel security guard also expressed that it was none of my business to speak to you over the matter.

 I have no doubt that the Police Minister and shadow Minister would have identical views. In theory that is true. In practise this is what happens.

 

(1) Patron gets drunk, (2) loses his mental discipline and picks an argument.

(3)  Leaves premises still drunk and drives a car home (4) swerves on the road, may go through red light or crashes in to another vehicle or pedestrian.

Minimum 1 injury maximum 7 injured persons.

 

Therefore it is not the end just because a drunken patron leaves the premises.

 

I again questioned the security guard as to what punishment the drunken patron would incur.

Reply: None of my business. None of his now that the patron is barred from that hotel.

 

My question is: If I attended another near by hotel that same patron may be there doing the exact same thing. That is not good enough for my safety and enjoyment of social activities with that type of threat.

 

It would be identical to a speeding driver knowing a radar trap is on Port Road then drives on Findon Road. Problem shifted but not solved.

 

Such people that show aggression when drunk would for sure show aggression when driving. If financial penalty is a proven deterrent for speeding motorist so too it would be for drunken patron in clubs and pubs.

Just because the hotel manager is required to eject drunken patrons under the law so too are their lives threaten for having the courage to dare tell a drunken patron to leave the premises.

 

I say not good enough just shifting blame and relocating problems with out solving them.

 

There must be automatic2 financial penalties for disobeying hotel management instruction by drunken patrons, ONE for being drunk and 1 for disobeying orders

Reason a drunken patron that is mentally composed to follow instructs may very well be similarly composed to hire a taxi or drive a car in a composed manner.

A drunken patron that is mentally NOT composed to follow instructs may very well be NOT composed or inclined to hire a taxi or drive a car in a composed safe manner

 

You Premier as Minister for Social Inclusion consider this option seriously.

Thank you.

 

If you have any queries or need further explanation please do not hesitate to contact me as above.

In conclusion, I await your considered opinion on this topic.

 

Yours faithfully, Joe Rossi. 07032011.

<<<<<     =====     >>>>>.==========          ========è