Peccavi

That is a strange comment, but I rather like you! (Frankly I don't have long here left-I just don't feel well. That is NOT intended to be set to violin music, I'm just telling you that as far as I am concerned at least; you are going to be able to rabbit on ad nauseum fairly soon!!)

Like it or not, in law it does not. Preconceived opinions could result in what has happened. You cannot use 'he was a bad lot, so he deserved it', as a defence. It certainly was not used in the court case because it cannot be, but it was used somewhat more subtly.. A police officer can deal with someone who has no record-and still get injured or killed. It is sadly the nature of their job. God! Here we go again! 'Gun fight at the OK Corral' your preference? Of course not! The rationale is that 'he deserved it he was bad'. Police are thriving on this public opinion! It empowers them, and they are armed! It sets a very dangerous precedent. The jury? It depends on the skill of Barristers/ the interpretation of the law (it can be quite flexible)/ the summing up by the Judge/ and the individual bias of jurors (they are fallible humans the Court system knows this). Justice (no....I am NOT referring to this case) is sometimes not done. So many times that goes unchecked, and on many occasions investigation has shown a miscarriage of justice. How can that possibly be if the Court system is functioning well? .........and the 'highly trained officers' defence? No. Not like it used to be. Pressures of recruitment/ good officers having left the force because they spend more time with paperwork rather than policing, have led to a force like so many others, that is not what it used to be. Of course there are good officers, they know who they are,.and they also know who are not, but like any other system they cannot speak up. This good guys vs bad guys thing has very blurred edges but the focus is solely on bad guy Duggan. At the very least, there are questions to be asked, but because he's 'bad' let's ignore that and concentrate on the heroes and the villain.

And get over why it's not being answered? It may well be in the 'archives', but none of us shirks discussion on a discussion forum. We pass opinions/ give responses etc., that's the nature of it-so why not just answer? If this is to be used by those who defend all things Australia, with the retort, 'how long were you in Australia?' (ergo: what would you know?),-and that IS done, then why the coyness when it is done in reverse? Just answer-ain't no biggie. Is it? This is the 'PIO two step'-each 'side' protecting its own. Such fun.

Really liked your post! The highlight though I can't agree with. Again, -since posting last I had someone say 'why would you leave Australia for this ....'. This time I got angry (I think I scared them!). We ended up having a good conversation. Tbh I would like to see a bit more pride in country, but as wozname said 'patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel'. It is. 'Patriotism' like religion has excused countless deaths historically.............and yes! the British Empire were damn good at that! Cronulla? This is incredibly sad, and true. And yes,- I am going to use it to show that this resentment is still manifest. Crikey!! What an example! Showing British patriotism by referring to a yearly concert where it is implicit to turn up in 'uniform' and behave like a plonker!........it's fun. My God. So it is. And it was necessary. Why the causal resentment because of this injustice is then denied, is beyond me. Ooooo I know. The thousands who watch this globally every year only do so so that they can say 'look at those idiots'.

This (I think!) is what jen85 is referring to. A bank account for yourself opened in anothers name. It can be done, but it can lead to all sorts of problems. Strewth! I think these banks make it up as they go along! You CAN open a bank account in the UK from overseas in your name, but you can only deposit. You cannot withdraw funds from that account until on UK soil. That's the money laundering potential area. You can do it through any bank that allows it. Yorkshire/Clydesdale-Barclays (minimal £5,000 deposit for them). The moral is that the damn thing is a lottery! Like every other 'service' it seems, today. Two different staff members will give different advice, never mind branches!

They are UK charges. Perhaps I wasn't clear, God knows I was tired and stressed! Proof. How do I prove that this stuff was left in my house and not added? Also delivery of household goods was end of November-I doubt they are liable now. I appreciate the suggestion fifi, but you can bet your boots they/their insurers will turn me down because I can't prove it was left. You're right Cez-UK charges. ....................and early this morning (UK-Friday), they have sent me an email knocking £70 off the delivery cost with the statement "does this help?" !!! It IS a ripoff-even close to a scam. Look at some of those costs...currency conversion 10 quid?!! My dilemma now is twofold, I cannot and will not pay those charges, and have no choice but to surrender the boxes: 1) I need to approach some sort of watchdog, because: 2) I do not know what will happen if I refuse to accept the boxes? It IS like being held to ransom. But I need to find out where I stand if I surrender the boxes. Arrives on the 16/1. One week free storage. .......then £12.50 PER DAY??!! (Have I read that correctly?? It's copied/paste). It's a nightmare.

I have to agree with you. I recall that sweet boy Darcy though having a track record for violence being selected for the Olympic team on stringent conditions: he was to return to Australia once his event was completed. He had staying power didn't he? He got nowhere in the event, and then went holidaying in Europe. (And this was after declaring bankruptcy so he did not have to pay out on his last victim). Gotta hand it to the kid. He stayed. (And don't ask me what that has to do with anything. You and I both know we can come up with any amount of this crap). Not as I write this, that much is obvious! But thanks for the advice 'mate'. I went one better than 'stop watching'. How very true Skani. The poster made a very balanced couple of posts. Did you miss that? It is isn't it? And its par for the course. I too took what you describe for nearly 40 years. It usually came from those Australians with a vacant lot between their ears. It happened a lot. What I find different about Australia is that the media there never quits this. Every week, (not everyday), every week there is this incessant 'my Daddy's biggeran' yours'. And guess what? I have had a lot of the 'you must be mad to come back to the UK' mob. Only one person (in a Doctors surgery!) told me it was a very good decision. Just one person so far. Why? Because of the usual mantra: UK-pits/Australia-paradise. And I'm sick of it. I can't get away from this droning even in the UK!

I had my packing done for my return to the UK. The packer missed a cupboard which I discovered afterward. I decided to ship the goods separately. Two boxes-one medium (and I mean medium about 2'x1') and a small box 1'x1'. Even shipping was exorbitant, nearly $400, and a friend paid for it. I have now heard from the receiving company here. These are the charges they have levied: Terminal Handling Charge - £55 Import Docs - £75 Import Service Fee - £15 Currency Adjustment Factor - £10 Haulage to destination - £180 Customs - £100 Usage of Duty Deferment to pay VAT/Duty to Customs 1.5% or £35 of total Duty/VAT outlay (whichever is greater) Tail-lift for Delivery (if required) £45 Timed Delivery (if required) £45 Once the goods have unpacked in the UK, we have 7 days free storage in the warehouse, after this storage is charged at a rate of £12.50 per wm per day (minimum of £30) so your soonest assistance would be most appreciated. The value of those goods would be £100 max! (I had no idea about all this-the boxes were sent at the last minute-the day before I left Australia). Those charges will be £470!! That is nearly half the cost of shipping my entire (but small amount) of household goods! It's out of the question. I cannot afford that, I have sent them an email suggesting that I will have to surrender those boxes. It's turned into a nightmare. Is this normal? It's a fees and charges feeding frenzy! Should there be all these charges, and at this level? Any advice would be appreciated. These boxes arrive on 16/1.

Silly again. That isn't oversensitivity! it's the irritation of having to continually swot at a blowfly!

Yes we are. It sets a very dangerous precedent, but no one seems to care because this man 'deserved it'.

(Replying to paulv). Damn me! That was my first reaction. It sounded so bitchy! Oooohhh alright then!

I reckon that a 'sensitive soul' would be 'sensitive' enough to have some awareness of how they actually think and feel by virtue of being 'sensitive'. You do not have that problem.

I did say silly... It's a discussion forum. We respond,.........and,..and,....sometimes we even disagree... I'm not 'down on 'Oz'. I have been open on returning forums about my reasons for returning,-and will endorse the right of anyone to do the same, without the Bazfactor incessantly turning up with the same old chant. Just quit the sensitive/nerve thing-it doesn't become you.

Here too Nikey. I'm told this village has its own little microclimate. Yesterday I walked down to the front in a blouse and waistcoat thingy.

These links are so irresistible aren't they? We are ALWAYS talking about those on the lower end of society aren't we Simmo? So up come the links. If we were to discuss the utter corporate greed that abounds-and then put up links-that would engender the 'Lefty nonsense' thing wouldn't it? As I said: it is cowardly. If 'above' someone one can get a damn good kick in- to the head. But if below someone, all so many do is look up to them, literally and metaphorically. They are to be admired, don't you know.

Oh come on! surely you can do better than that? (I'm actually not being sarcastic bion). Every time you have no answer, you come up with this sensitivity thing. It's silly.

This one merits an answer. I was not defending the man, I was talking about the levity over a death. Don't impose this odious reasoning on me. Read what I wrote.

Talking about patterns......... Gawwwdd! Will it never end? This can and has been validly levelled at those who are always ready to take a shot at returnees....eh Baz? It has been suggested that it occurs because so many need to qualify that their decision to go to Australia was the right one,...eh Baz? (One poster who routinely disparaged returnees became one himself two years later, and had the good grace to post and apologise, admitting it was more his need to endorse his decision to settle in Aus ((it was here or 'another place'). Don't keep coming up with this text book tripe. It has been the accusation de jour for a while.

He's right: "Conveniently, too, TV shows are shifting our glare away from the real villains of modern Britain. Where are the shows about the wealthy tax-dodgers who deprive the Exchequer of £25bn each year, even as millions have to both pay their taxes and be pounded by austerity? What about the bankers who plunged the world into economic catastrophe and continue to thrive as others suffer the consequences?" But look at the letters and it's clear that as a society we are gutless little bullies. We ignore the powerful adroit and consumingly greedy, and concentrate on giving a good kicking to those at the lowest end of society. Because we ARE cowards. The wealthy take far more from you (you=general), but you defend and admire them. I suspect you would. Surely a positive is the endorsement of long held views about 'these people'. BS! Comedy/acting or not-that show is designed to stereotype. (God! I love that! The 'it's just a joke' defence!). BOTH are designed to show up those who are always easy targets. No. I won't try to 'suspend my fears'. I don't have them. I hold this type of garbage in utter contempt. Don't mistake that for holding the people depicted in contempt. I may well not like some of them, but loathe this kind of peeping Tom intrusion into their lives. (Of course they may have done it for payment. Big surprise). I do. Owen is correct in his view of those vacuous bastards who exploit others in the hope they can win a fecking BAFTA. I would like to see how this plays out with a job for him. You could even validly argue it wouldn't have happened if this 'documentary' hadn't gone to air. When they make one about "Greed Street" and show the sterile slime who have become wealthy on the backs of the poor-I might then watch this programme. With a sick bag handy for watching the first. How the wealthy must laugh at the capacity of those of the lower strata keeping each other in line, whilst they enjoy their feckless lives.

Sunrise leads on this. It never misses an opportunity to have a dig at the UK. Both its male host and its programme bosses are fixated on this, but the level of maturity is clear when a person with a one syllable name is referred to by two syllables as 'Kochie'. I suppose we should make allowances for immaturity.... ......and I don't shirk the word: animosity toward the English (and it is the English)-is race-racism. However, this is endemic; it's a general attitude which is a little amusing when you look at the main demographic of settlement. And just as predictably: it's denied, or rationalised. The last week I was in Australia the C9 equivalent male host referred to: 'let's get the weather for this great country of ours'. The big naming comes in at every level, but it does not show maturity, it shows the opposite. I think you will find that the poster was not being hard on herself... ...and I for another DO find this incessant petty putdown 'ethic' very offensive. No. On this scale? It's Australia. Yes. This is true. I recall those Sunrise presenters looking a little blank when the Olympics had been going for some days. Poor souls.

I refuse to watch it. I have no idea why we are so hellbent on getting our faces on TV that we participate in something that is intended to show us in a bad light. I don't believe for a moment that this programme has gone to air to show struggling Britain. If that were the case they could come up with any amount of evidence to support that. Instead they have concentrated on one street. This is like the Australian TV series "Houso's". A programme designed to show all public housing tenants in the worst possible light.

I only know what I saw on the news today and yesterday. I wasn't here and I can't comment on this case. But one thing I can say: I wonder if any one of us would post as we have, if this was our child? Yep! I know the responses I'll get to that about his nature/behaviour/family etc. It is so predictable I won't respond. I still say that it might be different if it was our child or that of friends. Would we then be so concerned about the inconvenience of riots, and making jokes about stealing televisions? Maybe if this lad had been born on the right side of the tracks our reactions might have been different? Okey dokey; take your shots!

Off topic for a sec. Yes I am lucky. I decided on a medi-MOT on Friday, and casually mentioned a slight and very occasionally occurring sharp pain in the right lung. Other matters were bothering me far more, but Doc' had me in an ambulance on a semi emergency basis a couple of hours later. It was the local non emergencies sick pit. Tests were 'inconclusive' so I was booked in to Lancaster Monday for a full service and tune. The right lung was clear, but the scan showed what nobody was expecting; a clot in the left lung. Be careful on long hauls folks. This time there were no symptoms (shortness of breath). If that had continued (no warning signs) the clot would have hit the heart or brain. Lights out is OK because I would not have known, but permanent disablement? I was lucky. So many others have so much worse to cope with. I relate this because even though I exercised every hour or so/drank plenty of water/wore those damned stockings.... You don't have to have a propensity for clots-the previous crop came from a clot originating in the calf of my leg and wending its merry way to my lungs-not this time,-it can happen to anyone. I don't want to frighten youse-but be aware. Sorry OP.

.........and it is commonly done,...and both Governments know it is commonly done and turn a blind eye. I suspect because the UKG is happy to depopulate, and the AusG is happy to have 'old country' migrants return. _______________________________ I returned after 37 years. For me personally (always the tedious qualifier) Australia no longer exists. As many have said-even after a long period; 'it's as if I never lived there'. I knew it was unlikely I would have regrets, because I did not return for people; I returned for places/history/and even dull---yes dull weather (without incessant blaring sun). And of course it's been Utopia!! NO. It hasn't. It was the correct choice, that much is glaring, but there have been huge problems that were totally unexpected and unnecessary, and are going to be stressful and draining to deal with. (And for good measure?-My air flight has scored me a nice little blood clot in the lung, confirmed yesterday. Non hereditary blood clots both lungs 2012, 6 month medication. Every precaution necessary on that flight and triple the price for insurance. I still copped it. Rat poison for life). Do I regret it? Not one jot. Pro Australianites will issue warnings about return. Pro UK'er's will tell you 'it's lovely'---or 'it has its problems but..'. The simple hard fact is that you will not get 'the truth'. You will get the opinion of the individuals bias. And my bias: Australia is nowhere near as wonderful as portrayed, and the UK is nowhere near as bad. All I can say is, go with your gut instinct.

I watched this episode for the first time ever, and felt damned angry! The programme is almost fraudulent. I'm not saying that the things they saw were not true, but that only one side is being shown-and the best side at that. It is sh.te like this that is at the core of the incessant competition Australia/UK. Both Governments and media have peddled this rubbish for years. Australia=Paradise/UK=Misery. It then leads to enduring perceptions that such a broad generalisation is a statement of fact. It is a broad generalisation and nothing more, and it has cost so many in so many ways dearly. Being fed this unrealistic rubbish and then finding out the hard way. I am not saying that people don't settle and love it; so very many do. What I'm saying is that whilst that 'coming to Paradise' message is peddled, unless you are lucky, you are inevitably riding for a fall. ..........and of course those who did not 'embrace the living dream' are not looked on well by those who have settled-because of that over marketing. Those who are happy and settled have no genuine perception how anyone cannot enjoy such a wonderful country-that being so 'because we love it/look at the programmes who show how lovely it is/even the Government/s loves it (the UKGov needing to offload as many as they can!). And this was a single Mum with an adorable son. I hope it all works out. So very many of us watching this erroneous programme could poke gigantic holes in so many parts that were shown-you almost want to shout a warning! I only wish that such programmes were required by law to show balance. This lass and her son may come good, or they may end up struggling, and she's across the other side of the world! Bloody infuriating loadacrap.