Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Lifestyle

Tax time headache?
Let us crunch the numbers

Titanic Tickets!

By johnboy 10 April 2012 26

titanic

With the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic coming up this week it’s hard to say whether it’s the media or the public with more interest in the photogenic event anniversary.

It could really only be overdone with the introduction of zombies.

But fear not, Canberra will not miss out on the global nostalgia kick!

Supa Productions is bringing Titanic The Musical to the ANU Arts Centre.

As a special treat we’ve got a double pass going for the show to be won by one of our paid subscibers.

To win you need to be financial and express your interest via the contact form before 5pm today.

Available dates for the double pass are below, please nominate which date you’d like in your entry:

    Wednesday 18 8pm
    Thursday 19 8pm
    Friday 20 8pm
    Saturday 21 2pm or 8pm
    Wednesday 25 8pm

For those paying for their tickets it’s running from 14 April to 5 May.

titanic poster


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
26 Responses to
Titanic Tickets!
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Bramina 11:25 am 14 Apr 12

HenryBG said :

Bramina said :

I thought he made a good point – that the regulators had dropped the ball on updating regulations. At no point did he say that there should be no regulation.

I’m sorry, but if you are at all familiar with the IPA or Chris Berg’s themes, then you will understand than any story about failures in regulation are intended to cast aspersions on the entire idea of democratic government.

Context.

The Titanic was not operated by the government. The government did not mandate a maximum number of seats in lifeboats nor a maximum number of lifeboats.
The Free Market (context: The IPA loves the Free Market because it cures all ills) operators of the vessel chose to provide a number of lifeboats adding up to too few seats. They chose to use poor quality rivets instead of welding. They chose flimsy plates instead of better-quality steel. They chose a design which led to rapid, catastrophic failure of buoyancy. They chose to sail an “unsinkable” vessel full-steam-ahead through iceberg-infested waters.

None of these choices were mandated by an interfering government, which indicates *more* regulation is required: a polar opposite to the IPA’s idiotic, faith-based ideology.

I’m quite aware of the IPA’s stance and ideology. Often I agree with them. Not so much in this case. Regulators can play an important role in protecting consumers.

But private risk management can also play an important role. It was absolutely in the interests of White Star Line not to loose ships, and if that was not possible, not to kill too many passengers in the process.

Whether government should regulate something or leave firms to manage their own risk is a complicated issue that deserves honest discussion about the relative merits of each approach.

Tooks 7:45 am 12 Apr 12

SnapperJack said :

I was a bit upset to see the producer on WIN News revealing the ending. Surely if you are promoting a play or movie you shouldn’t spoil the experience by acting as a spoiler. It reminds me of when the Daily Telegraph revealed that the dog dies at the end of Red Dog.

Thanks for the Red Dog spoiler, imbecile.

HenryBG 12:32 am 12 Apr 12

Bramina said :

I thought he made a good point – that the regulators had dropped the ball on updating regulations. At no point did he say that there should be no regulation.

I’m sorry, but if you are at all familiar with the IPA or Chris Berg’s themes, then you will understand than any story about failures in regulation are intended to cast aspersions on the entire idea of democratic government.

Context.

The Titanic was not operated by the government. The government did not mandate a maximum number of seats in lifeboats nor a maximum number of lifeboats.
The Free Market (context: The IPA loves the Free Market because it cures all ills) operators of the vessel chose to provide a number of lifeboats adding up to too few seats. They chose to use poor quality rivets instead of welding. They chose flimsy plates instead of better-quality steel. They chose a design which led to rapid, catastrophic failure of buoyancy. They chose to sail an “unsinkable” vessel full-steam-ahead through iceberg-infested waters.

None of these choices were mandated by an interfering government, which indicates *more* regulation is required: a polar opposite to the IPA’s idiotic, faith-based ideology.

Bramina 9:28 pm 11 Apr 12

HenryBG said :

davo101 said :

HenryBG said :

Nice article on ABC’s The Drum from Chris Berg about the Titanic.

Did you know that the fact the owners of the Titanic had insufficient lifeboats on-board is proof the event was an example of *government* failure, and therefore we should have less regulation and more free-market?

Wow! Classic IPA logic. The Government sets a standard for the minimum number of life boats forcing the pure and innocent White Star Line to not install enough for everyone.

I strongly urge everybody to read the article, to better understand the mentality productive members of our society are up against at the moment.

The IPA have gone completely insane.

Which is a shame because they used to oppose equivalent dingbattery from the communist/Greens with good evidence and analysis, but it appears they no longer have the capability to provide that function.
Which means the dingbats are winning, whichever side they choose to align themselves with.

I thought he made a good point – that the regulators had dropped the ball on updating regulations. At no point did he say that there should be no regulation.

This is how I read the article:

Most accounts of the Titanic say it had too few lifeboats because the White Star Line wanted to keep the decks clear or was too cheap.

But the Titanic didn’t carry enough lifeboats because the 20 year old regulations said that ships over 10,000 tons displacement had to carry 10 lifeboats (the Titanic’s displacement was about 40,000 tons).

Incidentally the largest ship 20 years previously was the 10,000 ton SS City of New York which the Titanic nearly collided with steaming out of Southampton, but I digress.

The regulators didn’t update the regulations because they thought lifeboats were for ferrying passengers from one ship to another. This seemed reasonable since ferrying passengers from sinking ships had prevented major loss of life on the Atlantic for 40 years. They failed to foresee that a ship would sink so rapidly that another ship would not have been able to assist.

Up to now this is pretty much fact.

Berg’s point is that when government regulates industries they tend to comply with the regulations instead of complying with the goal of the regulation. As Berg says “At the accident’s core is this reality: British regulators assumed responsibility for lifeboat numbers, and then botched that responsibility.”

That sounds absolutely reasonable to me. Certainly not off the wall crazy like you say.

Bramina 8:24 pm 11 Apr 12

SnapperJack said :

I was a bit upset to see the producer on WIN News revealing the ending. Surely if you are promoting a play or movie you shouldn’t spoil the experience by acting as a spoiler. It reminds me of when the Daily Telegraph revealed that the dog dies at the end of Red Dog.

Oh thanks!

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site