Tony Abbott has done it. He has stopped the boats.

[Bobj]

Only when paid for and when people know that its comedy.

Trying out a comedy in airport or airplane will land you in trouble. And impersonation is not comedy, but a crime.

 

Impersonating a king, Arthur???:wink:

 

Cheers, Bobj.

[Parley]

the minute they got in to power they changed the name of asylum seekers arriving by boat from Unauthorised maritime arrivals to Illegal maritime arrivals - says it all really

 

Yes. It does say it all.

[Parley]

And you don't get it. It is illegal to cross a border in order to work illegally or for other economic reasons but not illegal to claim asylum.

 

Er yes it is illegal to enter illegally to claim asylum. This has been pointed out to you many times, even quoting to you Article 31 but you still deny it.

Very frustrating.

 

The wording refers to them entering illegally, which is why the government uses this terminology now.

[Paul1Perth]

Let's hope that the powers-that-be have taken note of what has happened to Britain. That country has lost it's identity because of uncontrolled immigration. The wishes of the British people were totally ignored by Tony Blair and Co. The (real)Brits are horrified at what has happened to their country. No wonder people are fleeing.

 

It was happening a long time before Tony Blair and Co.

[ArthurPendragon]

Impersonating a king, Arthur???:wink:

 

Cheers, Bobj.

Just checked with him and he is fine with it :biggrin:

By the way, that was a good one.

[Paul1Perth]

Damn, I missed bagging post 1000. Still, I can always wait and get post 10000.

 

But back to the subject matter.

 

Don't you think it's just a teensy weensy bit ironic that you justify emigration out of the UK by saying that the UK govt have ruined the country by allowing immigration? Could a Syrian argue that his country used to be a paradise until the govt ruined it by letting in all those Jordanians/Iraquis/ [insert favourite scapegoat nation here].

 

A Syrian probably could and would use those arguments to say why his country is now in the mess that it's in. Issues about where my eldest would have had to go to school and the way our nearest small town (Hyde) was changing certainly influenced our move out here.

[ArthurPendragon]

A Syrian probably could and would use those arguments to say why his country is now in the mess that it's in. Issues about where my youngest would have had to go to school and the way our nearest small town (Hyde) was changing certainly influenced our move out here.

I think xenon4017 could have used this analogy - A Palestinian migrating to Syria and then cursing all the other migrants for the mess.

[Paul1Perth]

It's getting wide coverage in the French language press as well. One was giving warnings about the need to take care when in Australia, but didn't blame Australia directly, just that many young folk let their guard down when there. But we've had a few in Perth in recent years as well. Not in the same time frame though. Anyhow Australia is generally known for its high level of assaults and sexual crime, although not actual murder.

 

Where did you get that one from Flag? You come out with some tripe mate. Where is that "fact" generally known? If you say somewhere like India mate then they need to start looking in their own back yard first.

 

[Paul1Perth]

I don't get this whole thread - how can anyone think not telling the public what is happening is ok??? Tony has stopped the boats??? Has he really? Does he prove it to anyone? No - he just says he has and we are supposed to believe him - yeah right

 

I'm sure the press would be on hand to let us know if any had came in. They used to love giving us daily updates of how many had arrived when the Labor Government were in power, along with pictures.

 

I think it's accepted by all sides, including a lot of people that would have loved him to fail, that he has stopped the boats.

[ArthurPendragon]

[/color]Where did you get that one from Flag? You come out with some tripe mate. Where is that "fact" generally known? If you say somewhere like India mate then they need to start looking in their own back yard first.

 

 

India has a bigger population and Indians protested against sexual violence, which led to the world wide media focus. India's per capita figures aren't that bad compared to lot of other countries that think they are better off.

[Paul1Perth]

India has a bigger population and Indians protested against sexual violence, which led to the world wide media focus. India's per capita figures aren't that bad compared to lot of other countries that think they are better off.

India's per capita figures would be pretty low as the women who do get assaulted would be too scared to report it. Only reason the world wide media focus happened was their was a crime so horrific, where the guys obviously thought they could get away with it, that it was a step too far for even the Indians to turn a blind eye to.

[ArthurPendragon]

India's per capita figures would be pretty low as the women who do get assaulted would be too scared to report it. Only reason the world wide media focus happened was their was a crime so horrific, where the guys obviously thought they could get away with it, that it was a step too far for even the Indians to turn a blind eye to.

 

The world wide focus happened because of the protests. There are worse things happening all over the world. I have been in India and been to India frequently.

 

I can give you examples in England where more horrific things happened. And i think in England too the women are scared to report it.

[h=4]In the UK[/h]

 

• Two women are killed by their partner every week in England and Wales. Of all female homicides, 40% are killed by gendered violence.

• The UK police receive a call every minute about domestc abuse,89% of which are about a woman being abused by a man.

• Only 24% cases of domestic violence are actually reported,

• http://www.womensaid.org.uk/domestic_violence_topic.asp?section=0001000100220041&sectionTitle=Domestic+violence+(general)

 

[Paul1Perth]

The world wide focus happened because of the protests. There are worse things happening all over the world. I have been in India and been to India frequently.

 

I can give you examples in England where more horrific things happened. And i think in England too the women are scared to report it.

In the UK

 

 

 

• Two women are killed by their partner every week in England and Wales. Of all female homicides, 40% are killed by gendered violence.

• The UK police receive a call every minute about domestc abuse,89% of which are about a woman being abused by a man.

• Only 24% cases of domestic violence are actually reported,

• http://www.womensaid.org.uk/domestic_violence_topic.asp?section=0001000100220041&sectionTitle=Domestic+violence+(general)

 

 

 

If I was a woman and had the choice of which country to live in it out of the two it would be the UK every time. I don't think you could even start to compare women's freedoms and rights in the UK with what goes on in India.

[ArthurPendragon]

If I was a woman and had the choice of which country to live in it out of the two it would be the UK every time. I don't think you could even start to compare women's freedoms and rights in the UK with what goes on in India.

If I were a women and given a choice, It would be India always. I know my children will care for me when I get old. I know I'm in the world's largest democracy with a great future ahead. I know that I'm part of a great civilization that built cities as part of Indus valley civilization when most of the world was in cave. I also know that my nation gave religions like Buddhism and Jainism which recognized human and animal rights long long before it became a fashion in the rest of the world.

And I don't think a country that's better than India only for the past 200-300 years can brag about it.

[Paul1Perth]

If I were a women and given a choice, It would be India always. I know my children will care for me when I get old. I know I'm in the world's largest democracy with a great future ahead. I know that I'm part of a great civilization that built cities as part of Indus valley civilization when most of the world was in cave. I also know that my nation gave religions like Buddhism and Jainism which recognized human and animal rights long long before it became a fashion in the rest of the world.

And I don't think a country that's better than India only for the past 200-300 years can brag about it.

 

They would have to as the state wouldn't. If your kids didn't look after you it would be a pretty miserable life.

 

200-300 years is a long time and I'm not trying to brag.

[ArthurPendragon]

They would have to as the state wouldn't. If your kids didn't look after you it would be a pretty miserable life.

 

200-300 years is a long time and I'm not trying to brag.

Why should the state look after you? I don't want a nanny state.

Out of the 300 years, 200 were from plundering other states. so you can't brag.

[Paul1Perth]

Why should the state look after you? I don't want a nanny state.

Out of the 300 years, 200 were from plundering other states. so you can't brag.

 

The sate should help in the UK because you've hopefully been working and paying in to the system. So you aren't going to starve to death in your old age and depend on handouts from your kids and family. Your kids shouldn't be expected to have to look after their olds, they have their own life to live.

 

Every country was "plundering" in those days. Much the same is still going on today. India had it's own fair share of plundering I'm sure.

[jasepom]

I think the fabric of the country changing is not a good thing. We have majority of European ancestry in Australia and also many many migrants from around the world. If Australia keeps immigration levels balanced then that's good as there are benefits of migration from other countries. But what happens when migrants pour in from one country ? That's happened in the Uk with polish migrants and it's changed with many areas losing its identity. And people do fear that happening in Australia.

 

So yeah controlled migration is very important but people like to use the racist card and say equal opportunities to everyone. Migration is great for everyone and it's worked in Australia.

[MARYROSE02]

I guess life in India is great if u r middle class (& upper caste), but I would not fancy life at the bottom, especially compared to UK. Children still work in factories, little more than slaves, and untouchables are worse than slaves.

[ArthurPendragon]

The sate should help in the UK because you've hopefully been working and paying in to the system. So you aren't going to starve to death in your old age and depend on handouts from your kids and family. Your kids shouldn't be expected to have to look after their olds, they have their own life to live.

 

Every country was "plundering" in those days. Much the same is still going on today. India had it's own fair share of plundering I'm sure.

 

The state should help when you are down and out. Not when you don't want to work. Its not a question of handout, but a question of children being there for the parents. Kids should make time to look after their parents. The me and me only culture will lead to uprooted children and other problems.

 

Not every country was plundering during those days. It was mostly European countries. And during the last 400 years of plundering was on an industrial scale, more like a virus than like a symbiotic relationship.

 

In Roman times, if you accept the Roman empire as your overlord, you were pretty much left alone. Those who tried to plunder too much had to face constant revolt.

 

I didn't see India or China plundering during their history. They kept to themselves.

[Parley]

Can we keep this thread about Australia please ?

[flag of convenience]

I think the fabric of the country changing is not a good thing. We have majority of European ancestry in Australia and also many many migrants from around the world. If Australia keeps immigration levels balanced then that's good as there are benefits of migration from other countries. But what happens when migrants pour in from one country ? That's happened in the Uk with polish migrants and it's changed with many areas losing its identity. And people do fear that happening in Australia.

 

So yeah controlled migration is very important but people like to use the racist card and say equal opportunities to everyone. Migration is great for everyone and it's worked in Australia.

 

And before the Polish immigrated in numbers the same was said about migrants from the Sub Continent and Caribbean. In the case of Poles they look the same and their kids soon become so just with another language.

 

The fabric has changed and will change far more in the case of Australia. European ancestry is and will be less a future factor. I don't see it as an issue, especially in a settler country in the Asian region.

[flag of convenience]

I guess life in India is great if u r middle class (& upper caste), but I would not fancy life at the bottom, especially compared to UK. Children still work in factories, little more than slaves, and untouchables are worse than slaves.

 

Life on the bottom is hardly the state to be anywhere in the world. Only looks to be getting worse as well.

[MARYROSE02]

The state should help when you are down and out. Not when you don't want to work. Its not a question of handout, but a question of children being there for the parents. Kids should make time to look after their parents. The me and me only culture will lead to uprooted children and other problems.

 

Not every country was plundering during those days. It was mostly European countries. And during the last 400 years of plundering was on an industrial scale, more like a virus than like a symbiotic relationship.

 

In Roman times, if you accept the Roman empire as your overlord, you were pretty much left alone. Those who tried to plunder too much had to face constant revolt.

 

I didn't see India or China plundering during their history. They kept to themselves.

 

Try telling that to Tibet, for just one example.

 

And why do you say that all the European countries did was to rip off their colonies, leaving nothing in return? If we did nothing else in India, we gave them their rail system. Take a look at the size of the British army in India at the time of the Raj. Miniscule in terms of the size and population of India. 100,000 white troops, 250,000 sepoys and a white civil service of about 20,000, I believe. If all they were doing was 'plundering' then they would have needed an army ten times bigger to control India and there would have been constant revolt.

 

Most of the former colonies went to rack and ruin because of their own incompetence when they became independent. Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada. Why aren't they all broke as a result of British 'plundering?' Zimbabwe was feeding not just itself but exporting food to all of its neighbours at the time of independence in 1980. Now look at it.

 

The Romans invaded, conquered, and enslaved Britain, just as the Normans five hundred years later, and in between we suffered constant invasion, conquest, plundering, from Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes. Of course, unlike so many countries today, we are not ashamed of that part of our history, and we do not constantly blame those countries for our troubles. It is the complete opposite; we are actually PROUD of our Roman and Norman heritage, Roman roads (built to better move armies around) Norman Castles, (built to better control the native English) the Domesday book (a record of everything the Normans could take from us??)

[MARYROSE02]

And before the Polish immigrated in numbers the same was said about migrants from the Sub Continent and Caribbean. In the case of Poles they look the same and their kids soon become so just with another language.

 

The fabric has changed and will change far more in the case of Australia. European ancestry is and will be less a future factor. I don't see it as an issue, especially in a settler country in the Asian region.

 

I don't know why being a 'settler country' has any relevance. Just about every country in the world has been 'settled' (i.e. invaded, conquered, enslaved) at some point. I guess Britain has been a 'settler country' for all of its history, and, as I said in another post, we are proud of our own history of suffering invasion and conquest. Why don't the present day 'settlers' in Britain have to acknowledge and thank the original owners of the land, the way we have to do for the Aborigines? I understand, it is pretty difficult to separate 'conquered' from 'conquerors' of course. I think my own name is Norman in origin, which would make me one of the 'conquerors?' Wasn't Andrew Bolt making much the same point, I wonder, talking about 'light-skinned' Aborigines?