This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

The Voice

Instead of just locking up the kid we could give weekend detention to the kid and one parent, they could get to talk to each other and whinge about missing out on their fun.

That might cause a rethink on not taking it to extremes next time
 
Last edited:
Sir R but if the parents did care what their precious darlings were up to then there wouldn't be this dilemma. I personally think that they don't give a rats what these scum are up to.
 
Instead of just locking up the kid we could give weekend detention to the kid and one parent, they could get to talk to each other and whinge about missing out on their fun.

That might cause a rethink on not taking it to extremes next time
Certainly a good option but then that would be infringing on the elders rights and if a 1st people is involved then forget it.
 
The problem with the justice system is communities want revenge urged on by politicians looking for votes compounding the problem further.
Personally if I were the victim then I wouldn't want revenge, just the consequences rectified in full at no cost to me.

It's a case where I think socialising the cost actually does have a lot going for it, since if government starts bleeding cash then that'll put pressure on the politicians to find better solutions.

What I wouldn't be happy with is incurring the cost personally, including by means of claiming on insurance given too many claims leads to premium rises and worst case ending up uninsurable.

Compensate for the damage, including consequential costs, and that shifts the focus from revenge to one where government sees it has no option other than to find real solutions.
 
I don't advocate revenge but more along the lines of "these citizens of the world" must be made to pay, pain and payment.
Perhaps a stint in the armed forces with an old school Sgt blowing in their ears would be a good start.
 
This will probably be followed by the other Labour states and territories. Create another form f government, that only one race can be involved in and vote for.

I wonder whether other nationalities can start forming a similar representation.

 
This will probably be followed by the other Labour states and territories. Create another form f government, that only one race can be involved in and vote for.

I wonder whether other nationalities can start forming a similar representation.
I would be surprised if it isn't unconstitutional and as you say wouldn't it be discriminatory, if other sectors can't have the same access to political process?
 
I would be surprised if it isn't unconstitutional and as you say wouldn't it be discriminatory, if other sectors can't have the same access to political process?
It would only be unconstitutional if argued within the jurisdiction of the State constitution.
The Federal court and high court have always shown a reluctance to get involved in State matters.
Mick
 
I would be surprised if it isn't unconstitutional and as you say wouldn't it be discriminatory, if other sectors can't have the same access to political process?

Cant see how there is no transfer of power it will be a representative body advising government on policy etc they won't quite have the same power as the zillion corporate professional lobbyists sitting around in ministers offices but who knows maybe someone will listen (doubt it).
 
I think it will have to be Federal legislation, possibly State reps.
 
I still reckon it will be a case of "show me the money"!!!
 
I still reckon it will be a case of "show me the money"!!!

TBH most of the elite Aboriginals backing the no vote have made massive amounts of $ from the industry there is little or no transparency a Voice that had to be transparent would have highlighted that.

Still good luck to SA who knows where it will go.
 
TBH most of the elite Aboriginals backing the no vote have made massive amounts of $ from the industry there is little or no transparency a Voice that had to be transparent would have highlighted that.
Or maybe the elite Aboriginals that were backing the Yes vote would have been making more, who knows, there are plenty of elite Aboriginals on both sides.
Not so many in the regions, as usual, nothing much changes, just the narrative.
 
Or maybe the elite Aboriginals that were backing the Yes vote would have been making more, who knows, there are plenty of elite Aboriginals on both sides.
Not so many in the regions, as usual, nothing much changes, just the narrative.
One thing is a certainty, both sides, those that have the "smarts" knew how to increase their private wealth, while those in the country areas still live as they have over the decades.
 
Or maybe the elite Aboriginals that were backing the Yes vote would have been making more, who knows, there are plenty of elite Aboriginals on both sides.
Not so many in the regions, as usual, nothing much changes, just the narrative.

The no voters (Mundine / Price) were ardently dead against transparency, Pearson who had up $700 mil pass through his hands for various projects wasn't bothered wonder who was worried about the skeletons.

BTW nothing to do with narrative IMHO at the moment there isn't one other than Price squealing from the sidelines.
 

Just because you said yes does not make you free of biasness. Instead of looking at the issue as them versus us, or yes vs no, how about looking at it as Australian's helping each other.

Greed is not just a white person's disease. And modern Australian Aborigines are just as diverse as the rest of the Australian population.

We should be one country under one federal government. The referendum showed that the majority of Australian's do not want to have another tier of government, especially one that they have no say in. The current federal and state governments have not accepted the peoples voice and are now trying to sneak in the change that was voted against.

The only disadvantage that Aboriginal people are going through at the moment is from poor planning and spending, from both sides. The Australian taxpayer already gives handsomely to health, education and infrastructure for aboriginals in the bush. On top of that there is mining royalties, land ownership, and large reserves of cash.

One country, one voice.

 
Just because they don't think the same way as you do, doesn't mean you have to constantly bad mouth them, a constructive way forward will never be found if everyone adopted that attitude.
I'm quite sure we can post up endless miss spent or lost funds associated with aboriginal ventures, but then it all becomes a finger pointing game of bad mouthing, which is exactly what we are trying to move away from.
All that has been shown so far is 40% of the population agreed with the constitutional path, 60% disagreed with it, another way forward needs to be found.
Having the 40% bad mouth the majority, does more damage than good IMO.
But it does appear to be the goto method of the left, on most issues ATM.
The My way, or the Highway, seems to be alive and well in the cult.
 
Last edited:
Hear, hear
 

What totally kills you argument is 3rd world conditions and the absolute dysfunction that exists within Aboriginal communities.

Reality is a real bitch.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...