Pray it away
I REALLY enjoyed watching the Pride parade on November 22. The only upsetting part was the the Sisters of Perpetual indulgence Holding up a poster saying Jesus is Gay!
I thought that was rather defamatory and unnecessary. Why does Jesus need to be dragged into the parade and ridiculed? What was the intent behind carrying that poster?
Christians are generally peaceful and do not take offence. Would the organisation defame the head of other religious groups, like Buddhist or Muslims?
Generally the term gay is used in a derogatory manner in cultural context to refer to something distasteful, vulgar or out of character. Hence, I felt the poster was insulting or unnecessary and didn’t really achieve anything.
Newcastle St, Northbridge
MAYOR John Carey is adopting a short-sighted approach by proposing junior sporting clubs pay for non-Vincent residents to use facilities (Voice, October 25, 2014).
Does he not understand that many Vincent residents play junior sport in other local government areas, that are not provided here in Vincent?
I am on the committee for Inglewood Little Athletics Centre, which uses a City of Stirling oval for no charge, and a significant proportion of our junior athletes are Vincent residents.
There is no Little Athletics facility in the City of Vincent. If Vincent starts charging non-residents, will Stirling start charging me and other Vincent parents? Can I recoup that charge from Vincent because it doesn’t provide a Little Athletics facility?
I have seen at other athletics clubs that where councils charge for junior sporting facilities, fees go up and parents are forced to spend large amounts of time fundraising instead of focussing on running their club and helping their athletes.
Don’t be petty: let the children have their sport.
On a side note, much of the feedback in support of the Mary Street Piazza was from non-residents. That didn’t seem to bother the mayor when it was supporting one of his pet projects.
Vincent St, North Perth
Very poor form on trees
FOLLOWING your article (October 18, 2014) I have been asked a number of questions but two dominate: why should Halliday Park be on the City of Bayswater’s heritage list and why is putting Bayswater in charge of tree protection like putting a paedophile in charge of the children’s picnic ?
First, Halliday Park is the oldest Park in Bayswater, named after the first president of the local roads board (the equivalent of the mayor today), it contains the war memorial, flag pole and rose garden and is enclosed on the east side by a colonnade of alternately placed 100-year-old wonil (WA peppermint agonis flexuosa) trees.
The space comprising the park is used for lacrosse and has historically been used for many community events, like carols by candelight at Christmas.
For more information on the role of Halliday and Halliday Park in the history of Bayswater may I suggest reading the city’s own history book Changes They’ve Seen.
By not including Halliday Park in the heritage list, the city is failing it fiduciary duty to the citizens of Bayswater.
The city has a responsibility to preserve heritage and amenity. The proposal to cut down seven mature trees in the park, without public consultation—which failure to have Halliday Park on the heritage list facilitates—and without a plan is a complete joke.
Now the second point: the city has managed to plant and kill about five wonil trees planted in the north-east corner, next to the children’s playground, to celebrate the Halliday family; the city has removed wonil trees from the south-west corner of the lacrosse field and they have not been replaced; the city has removed “pine” trees from the western banks of the park resulting in erosion; the city has started ring-barking the London Plane trees in nearby Rose Avenue Park; and the wonil trees planted in Mills Park have been planted far too close to the footpath and in one instance within the vehicle access way.
Bayswater city council has very poor form when it comes to planting and looking after trees.
Rose Ave, Bayswater
Put brakes on bad idea
THE Greens’ call for a one-metre exclusion zone from bike riders is been ridiculous. To enforce this law would be near impossible because where there are narrow roads, vehicles parked on the road side and there is no room to move, how are your going to have a metre zone?
Yes! All need to take care when approaching cyclists, as should cyclists. But on many occasions bike riders do not take sufficient care to protect themselves and other road users, including pedestrians.
All cyclists should wear helmets, high-visibility vests, flashing lights and bike mirrors so they can see what’s behind them. Cyclists do speed at high speeds these days and some do swerve in and out of traffic, ride in and out between parked vehicles, etc.
Bike cyclist groups can’t always blame the car drivers but there are some at fault or don’t take enough care. Cyclists should have a speed restriction placed on them, say 40km on all roads.
All cyclists and bikes should be registered so they can pay for more bike lanes. Currently they are paying nothing towards road use or for better bike lanes.