Something vital has been missed here. If Stockland wants to develop the land it owns in Lonsdale Lakes then it is also in its interests to support a viable SLSC. If it is part of this community then it, like other Point Lonsdale residents, should be free to give generously according to its ability, just like the rest of us do when the annual Doorknock Appeal comes around.

The article unhappily misrepresents local concerns by making Stockland appear indispensable. Stockland may have put itself in the forefront of discussion about local development, but when are we going to hear some serious discussion from them about the potential impacts of rising sea levels upon their grandiose plans? This issue will not go away, and in the meantime, as Stockland considers its stewardship of Lonsdale Lakes, I won't complain about its support for the PLSLSC. But I will qualify that in what I say below.

Still, the PLSLSC and Rip Rumour should slow down a bit and not be too hasty in their judgments about those who are uneasy about Stockland's sponsorship. They might just provoke people like me, who are committed supporters of their local SLSC. The unease is various and it is not helpful for the PLSLSC if concerns and opposition to Stockland are merely avoided by appealing to the "market logic" of such sponsorship.

Stockland shows "good citizenship" by supporting the SLSC and the Rip View Classic. Thankyou Stockland. But why do you have to present yourself on the day as if you are the de facto owner of Point Lonsdale? That is the basis of my reservation. On the day you should act as a privileged guest. But that's not how you displayed yourself on that day.

Stockland! The SLSC and the Rip View Classic, as Point Lonsdale events, were here long before you appeared on the scene. And I think that if Rick Aitchison's views are accurately reported in this article, then he misses this point too. If you don't believe me, take a look at the photograph on page 35 which shows one of the winners crossing the line under ... your "Stockland" banner.

What? That banner over the finish line should have been the PLSLSC Banner. It doesn't do the image of Stockland any good to displace the PLSLSC at that crucial point. It's just a mythic piece of grandiose marketing garbage. And you as a erstwhile responsible steward should send such garbage into the WPB.

The PLSLSC and Stockland were not the only ones embarrassed by that banner and others displayed on every side. We all were embarrassed. Isn't it time for all of us to grow up and stop adapting to this childish game which allows, for instance, a surf life-saving club to sell naming rights to its event because, as Mrs Thatcher put it "there is no alternative". There are lots of alternatives. Get real. Leave the mythology behind. Deal with reality; stop trying to transform our minds by your realty.

That is the problem President Aitchison did not address. It is Stockland's embarrassment - not the PLSLSC's. And Stockland would look less embarrassing, and less childish, if it assumed its proper place in the background with the rest of the community. Such an egotistical marketing strategy leaves much to be desired. And it is embarrassingly at odds with the underlying ethic of self-denial which has always been basic to surf life-saving.

Why should Stockland want to "own" the Rip View Classic because it has become a major sponsor? If it want's such close identification with the Swim Classic why not put in a team of swimmers. But the corporate mindlessness that assumes that it owns the classic is self-defeating. The PLSLC should not sell the name and if Stockland understood public trust it would never require it. As it is simply views the swimming event as an advertising ploy. It should leave it alone. It should respect the integrity of its own desire to support a local event. No matter how widespread this marketing approach is, it is not necessary, it is not in the interests of the PLSLSC, it is not in the interests of Stockland, it is not in Point Lonsdale's interest. It is demeaning a valuable annual event. It reduces Point Lonsdale to a place of mindless speculation needlessly cluttered by mindless advertising banners.

Am I going on too much about this? I don't think so. The problem is not with Stockland support. It is with the manner in which Stockland policy demands that sponsorship include signage rights. I suspect that Stockland's rating among locals - which by all accounts is very low - would improve somewhat if its support for such an event was quiet and humble. But is it willing to listen to the market of public opinion about its conduct? That is also the point As it is, Stockland continues to make itself look silly and immature by requiring its mind-numbing banners be displayed far and wide on the beach and in the main street on the day. One banner would have been sufficient to let the fact be known. What an utter waste!

Is that so? I didn't see them. My thoughts here are not part of that action. I wonder how those dissenters saw their actions? I would like to know. But sadly, Rip Rumour didn't see fit to ask them and instead only reported on the concerns of Councillor Val Lawrence.

Should Council ever consider preventing local citizens from handing out leaflets on that or any other day? Perhaps Council will make an exception if they have Stockland advertising on the back of them? How absurd. Why should Point Lonsdale have to suspend public discussion of controversial issues like the plans Stockland has put forward to transform the local community simply because crowds have flocked to the area for the day? Stockland doesn't own the day! What sort of Borough is this if our elected representatives are suggesting that lawful protest and dissent be suppressed and restricted because it is a big event? Come off it!

It is a bit of a worry. The Rip Rumour article has now deepened my embarrassment for what is happening in this place. That is certainly not caused by those opposed to Stockland. And Councillor Lawrence misreads the embarrassment. The embarrassment, Cameron Alderson's statement notwithstanding, is caused by the signage on the day that downplays the ethic of self-denial - basic to the PLSLSC - in the interests of Stockland childish self-promotion. Let Stockland make PLSLSC Banners with a tiny corner reserved for their own logo and maybe a proportion of this self-induced embarrassment would dissipate or at least be seen in its rightful proportion.

Councillor Lawrence appears to be of the "there is no alternative" school and I would just ask her to reflect upon what I have written. Any visitor who happened upon Point Lonsdale village on that day would have been forgiven for thinking that the place was called "Stockland" - there were simply far too many "Stockland" banners littering the finish line. And as for litter I saw no leaflets or postcards on the ground.