How to stop gamblers gambling?

I think there is an institution doing this, educating people not to gamble or if they gamble, helping them with their gambling problems. But it seems that they are not very effective. If what I read is true, there was an article posted in TRE claiming that a Town Council has found the perfect and most effective solution. The article from The Alternative View said, ‘Town Council removes stone tables at Circuit Road void decks to “stop” illegal gambling.’ It also posted a photo of the concrete chairs and tables at the void deck completely demolished. If this was a hoax, please correct me. But it seemed genuine.
 
Hehehheh, now I am staring at the Marina Bay Casino. And a bright idea comes up ala the Town Council solution to gambling. Will it happen?
 
Actually I have a better solution. No need to waste money destroying the concrete table and stools at the void deck. A simple solution would be to glue some nails on the stools so that the gamblers would have a painful time sitting on them. The solution is cheaper and the table and stools need not be destroyed. See, clever or not? This is not a million dollar solution ok. I no super talent.
 
But more seriously, just place a few cards on the table telling the gamblers that they could gamble in cool comfort in the two classy casinos, why sweat under the void deck right? The only thing that is keeping the gamblers away from the casinos must be the entrance fee. Just make it cheaper or free and they will not be found again creating a nuisance at void decks and the residents will also be very happy too.
 
What is the point of having not one but two casinos? For people to gamble right?
 
What do you think? Can or not?

Kopi Level - Yellow

Tokyo Contaminated & Not Fit for Habitation, Doctor Says

Tuesday, October 14, 2014 2:14

All 23 districts of Tokyo contaminated with radiation, worse than at Chernobyl after the accident, and blood cells of children under ten are showing worrying changes; the WHO, the IAEA & the Japanese government cannot be trusted.

by Susie Greaves

In July 2014 Dr Shigeru Mita wrote a letter to his fellow doctors to explain his decision to move his practice from Tokyo to Okayama city in the West of Japan [1]. In it, he appeals to their sense of duty to answer the anxieties of parents in Japan who do not believe the information coming from the authorities. He says “I must state that the policies of the WHO, the IAEA or the Japanese government cannot be trusted.” and “if the power to save our citizens and future generations exists somewhere, it does not lie within the government or any academic association, but in the hands of individual clinical doctors ourselves.” ....

Please read full articles here: http://christmichael.wordpress.com/2014/10/14/tokyo-contaminated-not-fit-for-habitation-doctor-says/

Kopi Level - Yellow

RN + H3 – The elixir of life?

Health supplements are doing great business today with the baby boomers ready to splash out their silver dollars to look good and younger for another few days. The hair gets the black treatment, the skin gets the pull and the massage, the dentures replaced by implants, and liposuction for the ugly body fats. And Guardians, Watson and all the pharmacies are lined with all kinds of formula drugs and nature’s wonder extracts to make one live again, like a young lad or lass, bountiful of energy.

There is yet, unfortunately, no elixir of life that would double the lifespan. RN + H3 will shorten the lifespan by half instead. The combination is really potent and effective. Within a matter of weeks, it could hasten the system to react frantically with the production of massive antibodies, every cell and organ going on overdrive, going haywire, to counteract the effects of RN + H3. It is something like the whole system going mad, through a self regulated chemotherapy regime, to kill the presence of RN + H3.

RN + H3 will be neutralised at all cost, but not after doing enough damage to shorten the lifespan of the regime. The uncontrolled and over reaction of the ‘chemotherapy treatment’ plus the excessive production of antibodies by the cancerous organs that have lost all sense of balance and propriety, doing strange things that they should not be doing, will result in more harm than good, will kill the system in double quick time while desperately trying to save it.

The RN + H3 combination is deadly. It can do more damage than by any means that would normally take years to do any harm. This combination will do all the harm within a matter of weeks and the patient is dead without knowing, but still walking like a zombie high on steroids. The game is over.

No, RN + H3 formula is not the elixir of life. It is the anti thesis, the anti climax of sort. It will shorten the lifespan quicker than any drugs could do. It draws out all the defensive mechanism and drives them mad, reckless and causing more harm than good to the system.

RN + H3 formula is a controlled drug and must be prescribed by specialists. Accidental consumption is dangerous. See a doctor quick if consumed by accident.

Kopi Level - Yellow

Poll - Sneaky Raymond and his despicable masters

There is this Raymond and several others that have been residing in this blog to do nothing but to attack me personally. They act and hide like thieves, knowing that what they did was shameful and unethical and morally low down. Apparently they must have some backings from people or organisations that are of the same shady character, shameful and despicable.

Would you vote/support such people or organisations? You can indicate your feelings on the Poll I have created on the top right of this page.

Redbean

Over billing is not overcharging and is not an offence

I keep pondering over this statement and keep asking myself if it makes any sense? Is over billing overcharging? And why is overcharging an offence and over billing is not?

The Sunday Times gave nearly one page to Salma Khalik’s article with the title, ‘High court slashes SMC’s claims, calling them EXORBITANT, UNREASONABLE’.  I like the big fonts and bold treatment of the words exorbitant and unreasonable. I wonder if there is a deeper meaning to it. Other than slashing down the high bills, there were no penalties for overcharging. Oops, correction, it is over billing, not overcharging. I am so tempted to look at all the dictionaries to see if there is any difference or similarities between the two words.

Susan Lim was found guilty for overcharging the Brunei royalties $24.8m for 7 months of work. She was fined $10,000, suspended for practice for 3 years and to pay cost to SMC. SMC took Susan Lim to task for overcharging. And Susan Lim’s husband took the SMC to court for overcharging. Sorry, it is over billing. The word overcharging keeps bugging me and I could not shake it off. 

Ok, Susan Lim did some work for her client and sent her a bill for her services. In the SMC case, they took Susan Lim to court and won and sent her a bill, not for services rendered but for time and effort spent on the case. So it was not a case of charging a client for services. I think this is the difference between over billing and overcharging.

Now, how much did the SMC over billed? Four cases were highlighted in Salma’s report. 1. from $900,000 to $180,000, 2. from $235,000 to $22.000, 3. from $42,000 to $5,000 and 4. from $150,000 to $70,000. These add up to $1,327,000 and cut to $277,000.

In the same report, Salma mentioned that last year a bill of $1m was cut to $370,000 and last month a bill of $1.3m was slashed to $317,000. I will not try to rationalise the numbers but just using the last two numbers, the two bills came to $2.3m which ended up as $687,000 or an over billing of $1,613,000, or about 220% of $687,000.

In Susan Lim’s case, the court ruled that there is ethical ground not to overcharge a client. I quote, ‘Overcharging can still occur even if there is a prior agreement on fees as ethical obligations of a doctor must “prevail over contractual obligations”. I am not sure if a court would make a similar ruling on overcharging when lawyers over billed or overcharged their clients.  Would ethics be an important factor in legal billings? The decision by the court is between the SMC and Susan Lim.

Would it be over charging if the case is between the SMC and their lawyers when it becomes the lawyer billing the SMC for services rendered? So far the most authoritative body, the Law Society had made a statement that over billing is not overcharging and is an acceptable or normal practice. There is no wrongdoing involved. So the court just slashed the bills and end of story. No penalties or fines or suspension of practices are warranted.

Would the SMC sue its legal representatives and those who stood as witnesses for overcharging? If these parties accepted the court’s decision, there is no more case to follow up, I think, end of story. What if these parties continue to demand payment from the SMC?

Kopi Level - Yellow