The general theme of the essay and the responses seems to cater to the "poor bugger me" syndrome. Where are these people referred to as aboriginal or of any other race? Were they mainly aboriginals confronting the police or are we tiptoing around the issue, ignoring the big black elephant in the room or say "aboriginal" three times and one will appear?
For crying out loud, aboriginals are just like anyone else of every other race. They have intelligence, presentability, opportunity, charisma, adaptive capabilities and every other characteristic that enables personkind - no, stuff you, mankind - to achieve to whatever level they can. But why should they? Well, most of them do! Take a look around, open the pidgeonholed minds and have a look at the aboriginal achievers who every day outnumber "park people" a little more.
What about the ones who don't? Why should they? Hang around on my bum in my subsidised or free accommodation and wait for the Sit Down Money to arrive. Watch lots of TV so I can hang with my homies in the hood and talk like my peeps in gangsta land. Lets get my sister pregnant for the Baby Bonus. Yeah this sort of people exist and I can personally name at least nine and they are all useless white turds who do nothing except suck up my taxes and terrify local residents.
These people referred to in the essay are not socially disadvantaged, they are over indulged and have had any aspirational incentives sucked out of them by old men in cardigans, women in overalls and lefty latte lovers who thrive on outrage and write letter to their MP's. The Macquaries fields "rioters" are the minority who attract disproportionate attention and detract from the advances that aboriginals have made.

So people are bad because they are poor, eh? Just exactly who is morally bankrupt here?

C'mon, maybe, just maybe, there are criminals who commit crimes and need catching and maybe, just maybe, our police should try and catch them.

Being a bad person who does bad things has nothing to do with being poor so don't blame the disadvantaged for being unable to distinguish between right and wrong, they don't need back-handed advocates.

"The common argument that crime is caused by poverty is a kind of slander on the poor." (H. L. Mencken

What a load of rubbish.How you live your life,rich or poor,is up to you.
I grew up in a very underpriviledged family.Most of us at some stage being state wards.I have 10 siblings,some of whom are hard working and honest,some of whom are scumbag criminals or druggies because they believe the world owes them something.Maybe if the powers that be made people work for what they are given,instead of all the handouts,we wouldn't have so many xxxxholes in the country.Personal responsibility seems to be non-existant in this day and age.It's a lot easier to blame
someone else and use your situation as a crutch than to get out and make a decent life for yourself.

“A fields day for the morally bankrupt conservatives”

I suspect the moral bankruptcy belongs to those who rioted.

I would further suspect most of those who rioted were more likely to vote “socialist”, than “conservative”.

This article seeks to lay the blame on everyone and anyone, except those who actually broke the law, destroyed their neighbours property and vandalized their own community.

The first rule of morality is

accountability.

When something is promoted as Morality but lacks “accountability” it is more commonly called “hypocrisy”.

As for “In hindsight, we can learn a lot about the riots, particularly the method in which a hierarchy of the “haves” and “have nots” is maintained.”

What distinguishes “haves” from “have nots” is

the “haves” possess

1 socially valuing attitudes, which reflect pride and care for where they live
2 moral responsibility and accountability for their own actions.
3 self respect and respect for the rights of others.
4 prudence and consideration in their conduct
5 respect for the law and the police.

What the Macquarie Fields rioters displayed was

1 Complete lack of respect for the rights or property of others
2 An endless capacity to weasel up excuses for their anti-social behaviour.
3 A selfishness verging on extreme hedonism.

Macquarie Fields is a product of the people who live there, not the people who live in peace in other suburbs or happen to vote for conservative prudence and self-responsibility.

The single biggest reason for the have-nots gravitating to less desirable areas is simple, "lowest cost denominator".

Those who work harder and can afford better (the supposed "haves") choose to live elsewhere, with some sense of safety, well away from the riotous behaviour of the “have-nots”.

Well said haygirl. The test is this life is not what hand we are dealt but how we choose to play it.

Col, I actually agree with much that you say here. Unfortunately, however, your customary bellicosity again detracts from your message.

This is particularly egregious (and very likely just plain wrong):

"I would further suspect most of those who rioted were more likely to vote “socialist”, than “conservative”."

Besides the fact that Australian voters aren't typically presented with that choice, I'd be surprised if many of the rioters vote at all. Many of them would be underage anyway, and alienated young people from the benighted suburbs are not generally known for adhering to civic resposibilities like enrolling to vote when they turn 18.

Yes, I thought this article was a bit of a bleat too - but there's no need to go overboard about it.

Being polite and honest can be a difficult task, as it is hard to reconcile the two at times – particularly in responding to the comments of my article. Therefore, I will begin by politely thanking everyone for their comments, as I am open to criticism and being challenged. Now in being honest, I would respond with a basic observation – never have I seen such pathetic, uninformed criticism which only proves that morally bankrupt arguments are abundant.

In terms of productivity, Sancho’s comment raises an important aspect regarding the way forward in addressing issues of poverty. Due to the scope of the article topic, I was unable to delve into methods of addressing disadvantage – which are not simplistic as we would all hope. If Sancho reread the article, it would be evident that deconstructing stigmatisations, reviewing welfare and social policy, and examining the riots as a social problem rather than solely a law and order problem – were suggestions.

I’m not sure where Sancho’s comment got the idea that money was ‘thrown’ at Macquarie Fields, considering education institutions, local community projects, transport services, employment services were considered under funded and deteriorating.

Shadow Minister’s comments were entertaining. Not once did I suggest that breaking the law was acceptable or should be legal, and I don’t think it would suit the interests of the Mac Fields residents, rather it would be in their interests to give young people in the region employment and educational opportunities.

Continued...

(author)