The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Trouble on the street > Comments

Trouble on the street : Comments

By Peter West, published 18/8/2011

This generation of kids grows up less supervised than any before it making unlawful and disorderly behaviour more likely.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Perhaps the rich want to keep the poor where they believe they should be, this also includes many religious bodies who expound wealth on the hierarchy and keep the masses in poverty, but things can change, if we look at a recent wedding $400,000 for a wedding dress, this would seem I am sure to a poor person, materialism at its worst, they are correct, this breeds hatred, we only have to look at many now defunct European Royalty Heads that have rolled over the years, the poor eventually wake up to the excesses that these people command or the life style they are accustomed to.

Also we read about corrupt Governments, Politicians, Rich people, Film stars,etc, who seem to be able to do what ever they want and get away with their actions, George Bush, Tony Blair, John Howard should all be up on war crimes but this will never happen, so I ask why when there is so much corruption in the world the poor in their own way try to be as corrupt as their superiors, but unfortunately they are held to accountability where the others are not.
Posted by Ojnab, Thursday, 18 August 2011 3:31:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't know, Ojnab: I was working once at an Aboriginal community which had 40 hectares of grapes - we were pruning in the depths of winter, bleak days. On a Friday morning, at about 10.30, we noticed the Aboriginal chairman of the council, our boss, driving off to a neighbouring town, as he did every Friday. We knew he was going off to the pub and the TAB. I said something like, 'Well, if we're out here, he should he here too.' But all the other blokes said something like, 'Well, if he can take days off, we should be able to as well.'

Not much indignation at corruption there, Ojnab: more like simply wanting what others have, no matter how. Wat Tyler rather than Marx, don't you think ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 18 August 2011 5:05:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with Loudmouth when he says

<But the question of class exploitation is unavoidable: the possible exploitation of the under-class by a professional class, funded from outside that relationship by governments, who take the advice of those professionals through their peak bodies.
Is it healthy ? Is it necessary ? Is it too late to repair the
damage?>

I agree. I think the solution lies squarely in the hands of government to apprentice every unemployed school leaver, refugee,or able bodied person and turn them into tradesmen and women.

Stop privatising. Redirect welfare billions and start training those disaffected youth. Real jobs, not mickey mouse, pull weeds out, work for the dole schemes. A government run National Railway would and did employ and train young lads fresh out of school by the thousands.

I believe Loudmouth hits the nail on the head when he says that professionals and business interests do advise the government to bring in already trained, cheap labour. In earlier times there was a law that any business that had over 100workers had to employ apprentices. The government itself trained thousands of school leavers to be excellent tradesmen who benefited this country and still do, but that is being tossed out the window with privatisation.

The solution lies in the hands of governments. Backed up by the community at the ballot box for implementing these schemes.
Posted by CHERFUL, Thursday, 18 August 2011 6:21:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So whatever happened to the helicopter parents everyone was complaining about so recently? It's not just Catholic schools that text parent's mobile phones if a child is absent from school without explanation - my daughter's public high school does this, and I would expect this would be policy for all public highschools in NSW. In school, this is one of the most supervised generations of children ever.
As for single mums: they are out working now once their child is over 8 years old (thanks John Howard for that), so never mind access to dads - they may not see their mums much either. Most parents work (particularly in cities with expensive mortgages, which essentially require 2 incomes for a family): and it will always be easier in a family if there are two parents around to juggle everything. Families have been struggling with work/life balance since the 1970s, and still don't get concessions from most employers, including the public service. Sometimes kids are left alone after school due to parent's work hours, though most parents will do whatever they can to prevent this.
Of course there are some kids out there who go off the rails. They are not always from poor households either, though poverty increases the chances of problems.
The science and evidence has been in for a while now: if you seriously want to prevent problem youth and crowded jails in future, government commitment to early intervention is the answer - preferably identifying problem parents while in hospital just after baby is born, and providing immediate services to follow them home.
Posted by Johnj, Thursday, 18 August 2011 10:38:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12487#215752

csteele, thank you for proving beyond reasonable doubt that fatherlessness is the cause of these problems today.

you see we also had the same problem in 1923, all be it for different reasons.

you have coveniently forgotten a little thing that occurred between 1914 & 1918 called WW1 in which an entire generation of young fathers were slaughtered for king & country. Single motherhood was rife in 1923, with all the same social problems it has always caused.

One wonders why feMANazis armed or forwarned with this historical data went ahead with social engineering that they knew in advance was destined to cause child abuse, neglect & chaos.

& what is the bet that none of the fauxMANistas or other closet communists dare to try replying to this?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12487#215731

Loudmouth, excellent comment Joe, obviously you have been reading some of Noel Pearson's great articles in the OZ.

when it comes to "social talkers" there are no doubt some idealistic fools genuinely trying to "do the right thing" at the coal face, the problem is with senior managment & the academia who train them to fail.

we will make a centrist, moderate out of you yet.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12487#215794

CHERFUL, correct in between 1945 & 1965 our education system was second to none at all levels, comrades Hawke & Keating destroyed it, Howard cut the funding a little more, worsening it a bit but most of the damage was done by closet communists.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12487#215813

Johnj, true & a cheap way to do this to go back to the tax/welfare system & family laws that we had between 1945 & 1965, promote happy, harmonious marriage for life as well as the family, extended beyond the nuclear as the primary social unit.

One wonders why socialists have promoted ANTI social policy? communists have promoted ANTI community policy?
Posted by Formersnag, Saturday, 20 August 2011 1:31:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Csteele, I was rummaging through the census data for 1911 and 1921, prompted by your mention of the Melbourne riots during the police strike in 1923 and extracted this data for you…

The conjugal condition for all persons in the Commonwealth of the Australia "(Exclusive of Full-blooded Aboriginals)" for 1911, includes:

Never married - 2,783,543 (62%)
Married - 1,469,622 (33%) Widowed, 191,743 (4.3%)
Divorced - 4500 (<0.1%) Not stated - 5597 (0.13%) Total - 4,455,005

The data for Melbourne and suburbs is:
Males:
Never married - 171,054 (62%)
Married - 97,630 (35%)
Widowed - 8783 (3%)
Divorced - 346 (<0.1%) Not stated - 143 (<0.13%) Total - 277,956

Females:
Never married - 182,786 (59%)
Married - 102,818 (33%) Widowed - 24,694 (8%)
Divorced - 475 (0.15%) Not stated - 242 (<0.1%) Total - 311,015

Which we can compare (after one World War and the influenza pandemic) with…

The conjugal condition for all persons in the Commonwealth of the Australia "(Exclusive of Full-blooded Aboriginals)" for 1921, includes:

Never married - 3,176,180 (58%)
Married - 1,998,662 (37%) Widowed - 237,821 (4.4%)
Divorced - 8528 (0.16%) Not stated - 14,543 (0.27%) Total - 5,435,734

The data for Melbourne and suburbs is:
Males:
Never married - 204,936 (57%)
Married - 142,696 (40%) Widowed - 10,628 (2.95%)
Divorced - 717 (<0.2%) Not stated - 523 (<0.15%) Total - 359,500

Females:
Never married - 223,281 (55%)
Married - 150,198 (37%) Widowed - 31,878 (7.8%)
Divorced - 961 (<0.24%) Not stated - 647 (<0.16%) Total - 406,965

[Please note the percentages and any rounding errors are mine]

In summary, from 1911 to 1921, the figures for widowhood and divorce did not change significantly. But the married proportion of the population increased by 5%.

Whatever the causes of the Melbourne riots 'fatherlessness' was not one of them.
Posted by WmTrevor, Monday, 22 August 2011 6:21:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy