andrewlighten.com

Anyone in Victoria has no doubt heard about this:

Two Victorians charged after their baby daughter allegedly swallowed ecstasy are free on bail after a court appearance in north Queensland this morning.

- Baby ‘swallowed ecstasy’
- Cairns court bails parents
- Child emerges from coma

The couple, who cannot be identified under Queensland child protection laws, showed no emotion as they appeared in Cairns Magistrates Court charged with grievous bodily harm and possessing a dangerous drug.

The man, 24, had short, brown hair, a tattooed right wrist and wore jeans and a white buttoned shirt. The woman, 22, had dark, bobbed hair and wore three-quarter-length jeans, a loose green top and thongs.

What the hell is wrong with these people?

1. A 10 week old baby does not pick up and swallow a tablet. Heck, our 19 month old wouldn’t swallow a tablet, or even half a tablet. It had to have been ground up. Regardless of what state the tablet it was in, this was deliberate fed to the child.
2. What else had the baby been fed? If your tiny brain thinks “Hey, I’ll give the baby some ecstasy! That’s an excellent idea! What could be wrong with that?” what else have you done? Used beer instead of baby formula? And you know when you first gave baby some really easy to digest cereal and you mixed it with water — did you maybe go with Vodka instead?
3. Not sure where you live, but where we live, thongs are probably not suitable clothing for a court appearance.

When I took this photo I got challenged for the first time ever.

I had parked across the road from the garage and shot from inside the car. The lady who owns the garage came over the road and said “Can I ask why you’re taking this photo?”. I said it was simply for personal use. Her reply was “Make sure it stays that way.” It wasn’t quite rude, but wasn’t far off it.

I was a little miffed, but didn’t want to cause a scene, so I politely indicated again that it was purely personal. She went on to explain that someone else had taken a shot of the garage from a different angle — one that didn’t show it was a garage at all — and used it in some of their own advertising material. She said there was a legal battle afterwards regarding ownership of the image.

I can’t quite understand her point of view. It’s a building that’s in plain public view. There isn’t even a footpath between the road and the garage; it’s on the shoulder of the road, and it’s a bit rich to claim no-one can capture images of a building that’s in such plain public view. It might have been polite of the other photographer to ask permission to use the image, because it is private property, but it’s a bit of a blurry line.

I certainly didn’t like the way I was presented with a negative situation just because I was taking a photo. I’d like to go back and get a better shot, but I’ll do it early one morning before anyone is there.