Re: Barrie Baker’s letter – Warrnambool does indeed have a harbour, by Oxford dictionary definition, also it has been recognised by historians, scientists and geologists. Take it as a given. Sand build up in the harbour results from the predominantly SW-WSW swells carrying sand as suspended particles, some of these fine and greyish in colour and predominantly formed by the erosion of calcarenite formations – basically eroded limestone formations. This was noted shortly after the breakwater was built, and associated dredging began way back in the late 1890s. Dredging of the harbour area has been an ongoing operation to provide safe navigable waters, today these costs are met by the owner of the land and seaway, state of Victoria through grants applied for by the Local Port Manager, the city council. In the future if an enclosed harbour was to be built dredging costs could be met by the state with users of the much-improved facility also contributing. Lifestyle and economic benefits for our bay users would be far enhanced when you consider the current situation, however some people just keep their heads firmly stuck in the sand. Current users of the boat ramp and inner harbour area include recreational boat users, pro fishermen, Coast Guard, Water Police, yacht club sailors, horse trainers, swimmers etc, now they all can hardly be described as lazy as they contribute so much to our local community and economy, some also enhance the safety of the local waters. We believe without a doubt that an enclosed harbour would be a boost to tourism & local environment, the economics would soon be apparent to the hospitality/tourism operators.
Steve Tippett, Neville Dance, Rodney Blake, Warrnambool
The Victorian State Government has invested over $2.3 million into the Warrnambool Racing Club over the last few years. Now they need to start putting their money on 'the right thing' in 'the right place'. The answer is purpose built training facilities at the Warrnambool Racecourse.. it's a win/win.
Teresa O’Brien, Killarney
I was interested to read the many diverse but general discussion points made by Rev Father Brendan Lee in his mid-week musings, (The Standard, October 17) re anger, but not convinced by the unreasonable comparison with recent events at Sydney Opera House. His points about anger and murder, using phrases such as "angry mobs", and suggesting that educated and concerned protestors shouldn't have expressed their feelings since gambling and state monies had contributed to building the Opera House, was rather narrow in my view. His article showed sins of omission. Christ was angry when shaking the temple walls to rid a house of prayer from the gamblers counting their money. That was anger. Brendan failed to say that the Opera House officials concerned did approve of 'simple' colorful decor, similar to, as he had pointed out, colorful patterns which occurred on previous occasions to highlight unique Sydney events. Brendan failed to say it was the extra demands by the race organisers to add live gate barrier draw numbers and jockey colors, to advertise information specifically relevant for gambling, dividends, bookies' odds etc. That was the problem. Then public anger was invigorated by Alan Jones demanding that a senior woman be sacked from her job, using disgraceful, bullying, aggressive, nasty, disrespectful language in public. Brendan Lee failed to mention that this was the cause for immediate public anger, the causal chain of events which led to respectful protests - not the "angry mobs" which Brendan was hinting at as a possible social outcome. I was disappointed that his summary seemed to be if gambling finances state buildings, so "He who pays the piper calls the tune" and the public shouldn't be complaining. There were many spiritual reasons why thousands of concerned people protested the advertisements. Promoting mass entertainment and gambling is somewhat different to respecting heritage and art and culture. I felt Brendan omitted the real issues.
Julie McErlain, Port Fairy
Safe schools program concerns
In reference to Joanne McCarthy's article (The Standard, October 6), I take issue with some of the statements contained in it. Dealing with religious freedom, she claims that conservatives have made ‘strident demands’, a derogatory term which implies that such demands are reasonable, which they certainly are not. She fails to mention that the subject matter of the complaints relate to the safe schools program, which is a course designed by Ros Ward, a self-professed Marxist activist, and an LGBTI group. It was put forward as an anti-bullying program. Ros Ward has since admitted ‘it has nothing to do with bullying’ – her words. In the program, students as young as 13 years are taught homosexual practices and encouraged to question their gender. Joanne McCarthy implies that parents can withdraw their child from such classes, but unless changed recently, they cannot do so. She questions whether ‘children are even been taught radical LGBTIQ theory’, when clearly they are. Parents should be questioning their school authority as to what their children are being taught and protesting if they are unhappy with what they are told.
Jim Hanrahan Warrnambool