Eurovision a Quick Primer

Having been invited to my first Eurovision Song Contest Party I thought I'd do some quick research.

Apparently it all started in the 1950s. As part of rebuilding war-torn Europe the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), based in Switzerland, set up an ad-hoc committee to search for ways of bringing together the countries of the EBU around a "light entertainment program". At a committee meeting held in Monaco in January 1955, director general of Swiss television and committee chairman Marcel Bezençon conceived the idea of an international song contest where countries would participate in one television programme, to be transmitted simultaneously to all countries of the union.

The competition was to be similar to the existing Sanremo Music Festival held in Italy. It was seen also as a technological experiment in live television. In those days it was a very ambitious project to join many countries together in a wide-area international network. 

The concept, then known as originally as the "Eurovision Grand Prix", was approved by the EBU General Assembly in at a meeting held in Rome on 19 October 1955.

The first contest took place in spring 1956 in Lugano, Switzerland.

The current name "Eurovision" was first used in relation to the EBU's network by British journalist George Campey in the London Evening Standard in 1951.

As to who has won it the most? Surprisingly Ireland holds the record for the highest number of wins, having won the contest seven times—including three times in a row in 1992, 1993 and 1994.

France, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom are joint second with five wins.

Now that give me a little insight.

One way all men are Created Equal

Hearing and seeing the events that transpired in Federal Parliament the other day as the Member for Dobell stood up to speak for his political existence it was interesting to be a fly on the wall watching from a comfy spot in front of a television. It was worrying to realise during the speech how flimsy and lightly held the key principles on which our free society is based are are and how poorly defended they are by those charged with the responsibility of rising above their own base ambitions for power and success.

Regardless of how much or how little you may agree or disagree with Mr Thomson's defence, allegations or reason given in his explanation, one basic point was made and made quite validly, in the opinion of this writer and that is, the point that neither Parliament or the Media are the place for anyone to be tried, convicted and indeed found guilty. 


As the quote from Harper Lee's book To Kill a Mockingbird used by Mr Thomson states ". . . there is one way in this country in which all men are created equal – there is one human institution that makes a pauper the equal of a Rockefeller, the stupid man the equal of an Einstein, and the ignorant man the equal of any college president. That institution, gentlemen, is a court. […] Our courts have their faults, as does any human institution, but in this country our courts are the great levelers, and in our courts all men are created equal". 


In the case of Mr Thomson there has been:

Book Cover To Kill a Mockingbird

• no court involved, 
• no testing of evidence to any acceptable legal standard, 
• no judgement before an untainted open minded jury of reasonable men. 

There has only been a Fair Work report which has been criticised by all  for the time it took to produce, its quality and the many ways it leaves more questions open then it resolves. There have been no charges laid by any police authority and no charges based on any civil law or legislation. What has in fact come to pass is an almost unanimous taint of guilt liberally smeared by an opposition's belief  that its their best chance of bringing down a minority government;  a view supported by an equally self interested media wanting an early election because it's good for business.


From this has flowed an almost constant leaking of information to all corners of the media, information that is as yet unproven, unauthenticated information, documents and allegations by interested parties to a point where a fair defence for Mr Thomson in a proper legal sense has been rendered almost impossible. 


From this comes my view that basic rights like "habeas corpus", "the presumption of innocence" "equality before the law"  are from the situation of Mr Thomson shown to be  fragile and poorly defended as key concepts on which or legal system and free society are based. Like the treatment dealt out to certain Australians like those held as terror suspects by the US it seems that - how much our legal system is allowed to work for you - is more to do with the political ends of certain political parties and the media who support them than the notion that such concepts are not negotiable if democracy is to function properly. To quote Harper Lee again - "I'm no idealist to believe firmly in the integrity of our courts and in the jury system – that is no ideal to me, it is a living, working reality."

Why Mining Magnates Should not have Political Power

Black Orchids

An Australian Associated Press (AAP) report of 18 May 2012 reports that botanists say that a flora survey of the Bimblebox nature reserve near Alpha in Queensland is worthy of preservation. That is contrary to the view of mining magnate Clive Palmer who wants to develop the area for mining. In Mr Palmer's view the "former grazing property that's been degraded by cattle over 40 years [is] not worth preserving".

Bimblebox Tree

Mr Palmer, AAP reports, plans to develop his multi-billion dollar China First coal mine on the nature refuge, near Alpha in central Queensland. The National Parks Association of Queensland on the other hand says it has completed a flora survey of the refuge and that the opposite is true. The association, a non-government organisation that promotes the preservation and expansion of national parks, says the survey found more than 220 different types of plants in two days.

Bimblebox Forrest

It will be interesting to see if this will be another case of mining winning over conservation, of non-science over science. No doubt Mr Palmer will be calling to mind his large contributions and support he has already made to the ruling Government of Queensland?