Good to see you got the message JL Deland. I meant what I said. All of it.

Don't apologise for your 'failings'.

If you arrive on OLO via the 'discuss' page, your next destination, whether you like it or not is the page that includes the 'Users Currently Online' display. I assure you there is no dedication involved or necessary in noticing who may have been online. There it is, in front of your eyes, whether you want to see it or not. Should it matter to you, rest assured nobody can tell what you may have been looking at by virtue of seeing your transit of the OLO firmament. One can only infer, and then not necessarily correctly.

"Anyway once again you have inspired an emotion in me that I am struggling to find words for."

I don't understand. Any number of 20 year old Aussie blokes may well have been required to jump out of the back of a Herc (or a Caribou, or whatever) just because they were told it was a lawful order! (With a parachute, of course.) So what's the problem with some illegal immigrants being required to do the same thing on a static line drop?

No detention behind razor wire. No profit for privatized prison operators. No profit opportunity for the 'legal' fraternity here in Oz. Straight back to the start point. No collection of $200, no passage of 'Go". Just flying hours for the RAAF. Isn't that how it should be? After all, these particular 'applicants for admission' weren't prepared to first flee to any other country for temporary refuge from 'persecution', and then take their chances as to where they would end up. No Siree, they were going to come direct, and to the destination of their choice!

Besides which, i do exagerate. Of course it would be negotiated wherever possible for a more gentle repatriation, especially for those not of 'jumping age'. Just as long as its understood that the 'Nishimura principle' applies with respect to Australian policy with respect to intended "boat people' arrivals.

Forrest

"After all, these particular 'applicants for admission' weren't prepared to first flee to any other country for temporary refuge from 'persecution', and then take their chances as to where they would end up. No Siree, they were going to come direct, and to the destination of their choice!"

I don't think you have the thorough understanding of your subject in this case that you usually seem to. Most of the refugees on SIEVX were women and children who were desperate to reunite with husbands and fathers already in Australia, so obviously they would come directly, as would you in that situation.

It is wrong to imply that refugees country-shop and choose to come to Australia. The majority of refugees that have arrived on our shores have barely heard of Australia, let alone had any real appreciation that this is supposed to be the land of milk and honey, as you imply. If they had been studying up on the best destinations to head to, do you think they'd choose to come to a country that was going to throw them straight into detention, lock them up and leave them there indefinitely?

Boat people invariably leave their homelands in a hurry or in secret and usually have no choice but to rely on people smugglers to get them to safety. Those who end up in Indonesia can't apply for asylum there, as it is not a signatory to the Refugee Convention and won't allow them to stay. This is the reason why, until the advent of the Upstream Disruption Program, most of the asylum seekers who made it to Indonesia ended up coming on to Australia.

Believe it or not, the only country the majority of asylum seekers really want to live in is their own.

Kipp “Siev enquiry must be held,to find the facts why people seeking a safe and better life (like Col Rouge), where allowed to perish!”

No inquiry needed

The Simple answer is

the arrogant swill brought disaster upon themselves by attempting to enter Australia through a deserted beach on a dark night in total disrespect of Australia’s laws

whereas I and many, many others, waited in line for our interviews and visa applications to be accepted….

Bronwyn “Most of the refugees on SIEVX were women and children who were desperate to reunite with husbands and fathers already in Australia,”

They too could have waited in an orderly manner and exercised some respect for the right of Australians to decide who comes here.

Those “Women”, by putting themselves above the migration laws of Australia’s and disregarding the safety of their children, demonstrate their total unsuitability for entry or migration

Bronwyn,

You say:

"I don't think you have the thorough understanding of your subject in this case that you usually seem to. ...".

You could well be right. My only direct contact with asylum seekers has been with such as have come to Australia legally via the refugee process to which Australia has subscribed over the years. I have had no direct contact with such as have been involved in illegal immigration and subsequent mandatory detention.

You also say:

"Most of the refugees on SIEVX were women and children who were desperate to reunite with husbands and fathers already in Australia, ....".

That's where I have difficulty. I presume I'm right in thinking that most of those husbands and fathers had come to Australia in exactly the same manner, just on different, and earlier, boats which had mostly come from Indonesia? If that is largely the case, can you see why I suspect the existence of an unholy alliance between an Australian immigration lawyers lobby and foreign people-smuggling racketeers in exploiting this plentiful supply of human misery? Was this unholy alliance effectively engaged in a dare and double-dare contest over Australian immigration and refugee policy at the short and long term expense of Australians at large?

Did the Australian 'Upstream Disruption Program' set out to use this particular boatload of women and children as an object lesson in the dangers of boating, with the deliberate intent of sinking it on the high seas?

Or did the unholy people-smuggler/immigration lawyer alliance set out to deliberately sink this vessel right under the nose of Australian intensive surveillance with the intent of guilt-tripping Australia into acceptance of yet more illegal immigrants?

My money would be on the latter! So I'd be damned if I'd like to see any more taxpayers' money go their grubby way by means of any judicial inquiry into this tragedy.

Whatever the truth, this traffic seems to have stopped. Let's keep it that way or it could become a flood.

Thanks for your courtesy, and time. 1:55:34 AM!

Unfortunately a few drops of rain have just fallen tonight, and I feel a flood coming.

Forrest Gumpp “Whatever the truth, this traffic seems to have stopped.”

I agreed with everything you wrote

However, I heard on this mornings news radio and I hate to advise you, a boat was intercepted today near Ashmore Reef and the occupants transferred to Christmas Island.

What happens when the weak willed take up the reigns of power..

the predatory criminals (both boat owners and prospective illegal entrants) seize their opportunity.

from his post, maybe ozzie heard a similar news report...