The Children Overboard issue develops

[^ Pando]

yes, indeed it is.

You should there fore discuss this as citizens of democratic civilisations do, as you just did by mentioning it then.

What are you trying to say here? :|

 

[ibeme]

Bob Carr doesn't even blink when it comes to lying and mis-leading, he's so used to it now.

John Howard is a lot more crafty.

 

[millersnose]

so what did howard actually say that didnt actually happen?

 

[andrew flap]

What I mean Pando is, that despite the fact that you and I differ on many issues (as evidenced by the threads of late), if you don't like Mr Carr's actions, then talk about it, raise hell, write letters...etc.....you get my drift. In short, convince people he should be thrown out of office.

I was not aware of the particular promise Mr Carr made so, I cannot comment but, if you think he lied and you think it's significant, use the democratic process. I'm sure you already know this stuff, I'm not being condesending, just clarifying as best I can my point.

Sorry if I was vague before.

I posted the article originally to stir up discussion.

 

[millersnose]

i would have thought that as a member of the labour party you would remember well andrew

or do you only remember liberal events?

 

[^ Pando]

What I mean Pando is, that despite the fact that you and I differ on many issues (as evidenced by the threads of late), if you don't like Mr Carr's actions, then talk about it, raise hell, write letters...etc.....you get my drift. In short, convince people he should be thrown out of office.

I was not aware of the particular promise Mr Carr made so, I cannot comment but, if you think he lied and you think it's significant, use the democratic process. I'm sure you already know this stuff, I'm not being condesending, just clarifying as best I can my point.

Sorry if I was vague before.

I posted the article originally to stir up discussion.

I've done exactly what democratic civilisations do when they aren't happy.

I didn't vote for him. Not everyone has to be a political activist.

 

[andrew flap]

No Millers, I don't.....sorry.

 

[ibeme]

so what did howard actually say that didnt actually happen?

Sometimes it's what isn't said that is more of a contributing factor, particularly when you know that the public's perception is skewed by previous statements.

 

[andrew flap]

inded Pando, not everyone has to be a political activist. What one does is a matter for personal choice.

I'm not an activist either. Certainly, I have opinions and express them, I vote and stay aware, discuss and do my bit for my chosen party.

I don't wave flags or signs or street march or do exteme rubbish either.

 

[millersnose]

so what did howard actually say that didnt actually happen?

Sometimes it's what isn't said that is more of a contributing factor, particularly when you know that the public's perception is skewed by previous statements.

was that question too difficult?

 

[Anonymous]

i think they were thrown there

after the boat was scuttled

Do you have any proof of this?

no

The actual evidence from the people who were there says otherwise.

oh really?

i havent read any report on how the boat began its journey underneath the waves

do you have a link?

There is no evidence to say that anyone scuttled the boat.
As I said, the evidence presented says otherwise:
Chief of Defence Force (CDF) Opening Statement to the Senate Enquiry into a 'Certain Maritime Incident'
(from the Dept of Defence website: http://www.defence.gov.au/cdf/statement2.cfm )

In part:
MY BEST RECOLLECTION OF THE CONVERSATION WAS THAT HE REFERRED TO " PEOPLE " HAVING BEEN THROWN OVERBOARD. IN THE CONVERSATION COMAST MAY HAVE REFERRED SPECIFICALLY TO A CHILD OR CHILDREN HAVING BEEN THROWN OVERBOARD, I CANNOT NOW REMEMBER PRECISELY. I ASSUMED THAT THE INFORMATION HAD COME THROUGH THE CHAIN OF COMMAND, OBVIOUSLY INITIATING WITH THE COMMANDING OFFICER OF THE ADELAIDE, COMMANDER BANKS.

AFTER RECEIVING THIS INFORMATION I TELEPHONED MINISTER REITH. MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT I SAID TO HIM THAT I HAD BEEN ADVISED BY COMAST THAT SIEV 4 HAS BEEN INTERCEPTED AND PEOPLE HAD BEEN THROWN OVERBOARD. I DO NOT RECALL PRECISELY WHETHER I SAID "PEOPLE" AND/OR "CHILDREN". I CERTAINLY SAID "PEOPLE".

LATER THAT DAY I WAS ADVISED... THAT EVERYONE WAS SAFELY RESCUED. THE DETAIL OF HOW THEY CAME TO BE IN THE WATER WAS NOT RAISED.

...ON 10 OCTOBER IN THE AFTERNOON, MINISTER REITH TELEPHONED ME ABOUT THE RELEASE TO THE MEDIA THAT AFTERNOON OF CERTAIN PHOTOS THAT HE HAD IN HIS POSSESSION. I TOLD HIM THAT I HAD NOT SEEN ANY PHOTOGRAPHS.

ON THE NIGHT OF 10 OCTOBER COMAST TELEPHONED ME AT HOME ABOUT THE MINISTER'S APPEARANCE ON THE "7.30 REPORT", WHICH I HAD NOT WATCHED. HE TOLD ME THAT THE MINISTER HAD RELEASED SOME PHOTOGRAPHS BUT HAD CONNECTED THEM TO THE WRONG EVENTS.

HE SAID THAT THE MINISTER HAD CONNECTED THE PHOTOGRAPHS TO CHILDREN BEING THROWN OVERBOARD ON 7 OCTOBER WHEN THEY DID NOT RELATE TO THAT EVENT.

THAT NIGHT I ALSO RECEIVED A CALL FROM THE CHIEF OF THE NAVY, VICE ADMIRAL SHACKLETON, WHO GAVE ME THE SAME INFORMATION AS COMAST.

THE FOLLOWING DAY, I HAD A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH MINISTER REITH ABOUT PHOTOGRAPHS. I TOLD HIM THAT I HAD BEEN ADVISED THAT THE PHOTOGRAPHS HE HAD PUT OUT DID NOT DESCRIBE THE EVENTS HE PORTRAYED ON 7.30 REPORT.

AS THE MATERIAL DID NOT SATISFACTORILY RESOLVE ALL THE ISSUES IN MY MIND ON THE EVENING OF SUNDAY 24 FEBRUARY 2002 I ARRANGED THROUGH MARITIME COMMAND IN SYDNEY FOR THE SHIP TO TELEPHONE ME. I THEN SPOKE TO CMDR BANKS.

WE DISCUSSED THE EVENTS OF 7 OCTOBER 2001, AND HE INFORMED ME THAT HE WAS SURE THAT NO CHILD HAD BEEN THROWN OVERBOARD. I QUESTIONED HIM CLOSELY TO TEST THE BASIS FOR HIS ASSURANCE.

...I WAS CONVINCED THAT, DESPITE THE INITIAL REPORTS TO THE CONTRARY, IN FACT NO CHILD HAD BEEN THROWN INTO THE WATER FROM SIEV 4 ON 7 OCTOBER 2001.

I CALLED THE PRIME MINISTER IMMEDIATELY. I INFORMED THE PRIME MINISTER OF MY CONVERSATION WITH CMDR BANKS. I SAID TO HIM THAT I WAS NOW PERSUADED THAT NO CHILD HAD BEEN THROWN OVER THE SIDE FROM SIEV 4, AND THAT I WOULD HAVE TO MAKE THAT INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. THE PRIME MINISTER THANKED ME FOR THE ADVICE...

And on it goes...
Basically, there is no evidence that the boat was scuttled as you claim, and the allegations that children were thrown overboard have been discredited by the Commander of the HMAS Adelaide.
And the photographs were dodgy.
As best, it was a stuff up... at worst, the place was being stunk up by someone at, or near, the top.

Is Mr Scrafton lying?

well he says no children werew thrown into the water

they clearly were

why is the issue

and it seems the boat was sinking and the childrens parents seem to have thrown them into the water to lessen the risk of them drowning

who scuttled the boat?

Not as clear as you think.
No evidence that the boat was scuttled.

 

[Jimbo]

So what did Howard not say that actually happened then?

 

[sunny]

The infamous "no child will live in poverty" thing from Hawke was actually just a verbal stuff up by Hawkie in that particular campaign speech at the Opera House launching the ALP's '87 election campaign. What was actually meant, and was apparently properly intimated in the accpanying public documents about the policy, was that by 1990 there would be no FINANCIAL need for any child to live in poverty, which was the aim of the policy Hawkie was announcing.

As far as our mate Johnny goes, there is no question that he is one of the biggest liars in Australian political history- quite a feat- but a crafty liar nonetheless, even to a point where someone as politically savvy as myself finds it hard to get into too much of a lather over most of his fibs. He has always got some kind of excuse for his lies.......dating all the way back to when he reneged on the Fraser governments promised "fistful of dollars" tax cuts after the '77 election, essentially saying that those were the tax cuts of Phil Lynch as Treasurer and that he was not bound by them.

 

[millersnose]

well the evidence would be at the bottom of the sea i guess

how did it sink?

and if the children were not put into the water by their parents then who put them there?

 

[Jimbo]

What was actually meant ... was that by 1990 there would be no FINANCIAL need for any child to live in poverty, which was the aim of the policy Hawkie was announcing.

That would be the policy which was replaced in 1991 by "the recession we had to have," right?

 

[^ Pando]

Just going from memory, Bob Carr did cop a big public backlash on his backflip and backflipped again by introducing a cash back scheme. I can't remember exactly how it worked. I think you had to have an account with the motorway, and pay at least $100 up front, then apply for your money back.

Old Bob has done more backflips than the Russian gymnastics team. :lol:

 

[^ Pando]

Wasn't Paul Keating's "L.A.W. law" speech about tax cuts as well?

 

[andrew flap]

millers, I think you miss the point.

Maybe the boat sank because of sabotage, maybe it didn't.

The point is that the Australian public were told that asylum seekers were maliciously chucking their kids in the water to force the navy to rescue them and there fore get onshore to make a refugee claim. The contention in the article is that this was not the case and the PM and others knowingly mislead the public into believing something they knew was to be false, to be a fact.

The issue is not the boat, it's the information given to the people and the timing and manner it was given to us.

 

[Jimbo]

Wasn't Paul Keating's "L.A.W. law" speech about tax cuts as well?

I believe so

 

[ibeme]

so what did howard actually say that didnt actually happen?

Sometimes it's what isn't said that is more of a contributing factor, particularly when you know that the public's perception is skewed by previous statements.

was that question too difficult?

No. Was my response too difficult?

Deception takes on many forms. Based on these claims, John Howard chose to let the public believe less than accurate, but a more sinister version of events, despite being advised otherwise. They failed to inform the public that the photos were taken after the boat had sunk, despite common belief to the contrary.