The Children Overboard issue develops

[^ Pando]

Yes, that is my recollection, Andrew. The spin by Reith and then Howard was to paint these people in as poor a light as possible. To pain them as villians, BAD people who shouldn't be allowed in Australia.

They were attempting to enter Australia illegally, and they put their children at risk in doing so.
That is beyond dispute.
Of course they shouldn't be allowed into Australia if that is the way they choose to do it.
Like it or not, we are allowed to have immigration laws and we are allowed to enforce them.

 

[JK]

Don't even try to pretend that Labor isn't trying to get political points out of this.

Course they are but did they make it an issue now?

No.

Who did?

A public servant with no political ties.

 

[et]

What was that loud bang I heard about 15-20 minutes ago? I think it was N.Hindmarsh's head popping! :lol:

:lol: I'm glad all my time reading this thread wasn't wasted.

 

[JK]

My statement here:
A lot of people, including myself, couldnt care less how the children - and the adults for that matter - got in the water. I'd still back Howard over a bunch of lousy queue jumping illegal immigrants.

You are not backing them against 'lousy queue jumpers'

You are backing him against the defence advisor to Peter Reith and many others who say that the information was relayed to the Government. The government even admitted Reith knew but shielded the PM, now we know the PM definitely knew and has lied for three long years.

The 'lousy queue jumpers' you speak of are not even a point in this argument, nor is immigration policy.

The issue is that the PM stands accused of lying to the electorate and covering up that lie with all the resources of government.

 

[^ Pando]

Getting your kids to a better country where they can grow up in safety, have an education, have healthcare, have job prospects, have a civil society...etc.

Yeah - child abuse for sure :roll:

Paying people smugglers to put your children on a leaky boat with little food, water or sanitation, and no guarantee of actually making it or any guarantee of being allowed to stay even if you make it.

Yeah, child abuse for sure.

There are no job prospects, education, healthcare or civil society if you are dead.

 

[Sheros los Deros]

Just before the 2001 election, John Howard got on national radio and said: "I certainly don't want people of that type in Australia, I really don't"

It seems the PM said that after being told the photos were not a true representation of the events.

If he's talking about the dimwits that willingly risk their childrens' lives trying to jump the queue into Australia, I don't want them here either...

Yeah, damn refos escaping from a war torn country in fear of their lives. Do you reckon if your family was in danger or suffering in a hellish country, you might be desperate enough to do something reckless? Perhaps take a risk offered by unscrupulos people smugglers for a better life?
Its very easy for you to judge, Jimbo, you don't have to walk in the shoes of these people.

 

[King of the Hill]

Then is Mike Scrafton lying?

Possibly.

WHY?

He is not political and has no interest in Liberal or Labor.

How on earth do you know that?

 

[JK]

Yes, that is my recollection, Andrew. The spin by Reith and then Howard was to paint these people in as poor a light as possible. To pain them as villians, BAD people who shouldn't be allowed in Australia.

They were attempting to enter Australia illegally, and they put their children at risk in doing so.
That is beyond dispute.
Of course they shouldn't be allowed into Australia if that is the way they choose to do it.
Like it or not, we are allowed to have immigration laws and we are allowed to enforce them.

This has nothing to do with enforcement.

It is about distorting facts to assist in an election and covering the lies up.

 

[^ Pando]

Don't even try to pretend that Labor isn't trying to get political points out of this.

Course they are but did they make it an issue now?

No.

Who did?

A public servant with no political ties.

A former senior advisor? No political ties?

 

[JK]

Then is Mike Scrafton lying?

Possibly.

WHY?

He is not political and has no interest in Liberal or Labor.

How on earth do you know that?

Oh for gods sake :roll:

For the clearest picture of his political background look at ABC local radio transcripts of todays interview.

I can't be bothered searching for a reference on a point that WOULD HAVE ALREADY BEEN MAKE 1000 TIMES by the other political party already! Sheesh!

 

[^ Pando]

This has nothing to do with enforcement.

It is about distorting facts to assist in an election and covering the lies up.

Do you think that this ONE issue won the election for Liberal?

 

[JK]

There are no job prospects, education, healthcare or civil society if you are dead.

Exactly why you should leave places that can make your kids dead and head to a better place.

Reminder: this thread is about whether the PM lied and engaged in a massive cover-up not immigration policy or comparative morals.

 

[JK]

Don't even try to pretend that Labor isn't trying to get political points out of this.

Course they are but did they make it an issue now?

No.

Who did?

A public servant with no political ties.

A former senior advisor? No political ties?

Seconded from the defence department thankyou.

The amount of bullsh!t being thrown up to distort the issue is amazing.

 

[King of the Hill]

A public servant with no political ties.

Anyone can work in the public service and be a member of no political party but still have their own prejudices that they cant deny. That's why the speaker of the house in parliament etc comes from the government - so that their prejudices are known and their bias declared.

Some are good at it, like Neil Andrew. Others are bad, like John Aquilina. But at least everyone knows whose side they are on in the first place. There is no such guarantee when it comes to the public service.

 

[JK]

This has nothing to do with enforcement.

It is about distorting facts to assist in an election and covering the lies up.

Do you think that this ONE issue won the election for Liberal?

Having worked on the campaign, having seen the build-up of propaganda and the fact the coalition abandoned other campaign issues for the one of border protection, having seen the scare campaign take hold, seeing big pictures of johnny boy with the statement 'we will decide who comes into this country and the manner in which they arrive', etc...

Having seen all that I know it contributed.

Refugees, so called 'border protection', was THE issue. This was a part of it.

 

[King of the Hill]

Refugees, so called 'border protection', was THE issue.

So the electorate decided the Liberals have a better policy on border protection? How dare they!

 

[JK]

A public servant with no political ties.

Anyone can work in the public service and be a member of no political party but still have their own prejudices that they cant deny. That's why the speaker of the house in parliament etc comes from the government - so that their prejudices are known and their bias declared.

Some are good at it, like Neil Andrew. Others are bad, like John Aquilina. But at least everyone knows whose side they are on in the first place. There is no such guarantee when it comes to the public service.

As thick as a brick is too kind a statement.

Come back when you have something substantial! Go and provbe your political bias statement - the Government has so far failed but I am sure your towering intellect with succeed.

And the speaker is from the Government because they have the numbers. In the Senate the government gets the spot through custom but this is unusual. In the NSW Legislative Council (upper house) it goes to a vote so often cross-bench or opposition people get it. Currently Labor has it but that can change.

 

[millersnose]

Yeah, damn refos escaping from a war torn country in fear of their lives. .

indonesia is war torn??

 

[JK]

Refugees, so called 'border protection', was THE issue.

So the electorate decided the Liberals have a better policy on border protection? How dare they!

They can decide what they want - they should not be lied to and have that covered up.

 

[King of the Hill]

As thick as a brick is too kind a statement.

Come back when you have something substantial! Go and provbe your political bias statement - the Government has so far failed but I am sure your towering intellect with succeed.

Dont you understand the point I am making?

My point is that this bloke can have his own political preferences deep down. Just because he hasnt declared them doesnt mean they dont exist.

By your logic, no journalist has any political bias (whether they be working for Fox News or the Green Left Weekly) simply because they have no "political ties" or claim to be impartial. Mate, it's not a hard concept to grasp.