The official figures clearly illustrates just how the corporations have been able to play one Australian state off against another. The figures show just how successful they have been, when the employers paid only $1.9 Billion costs in 2005-2006 compared with the workers share at $26.03 billion with the rest of society carrying the can back at a cool $29.49 billion.

My god, the death toll of 1790 killed directly and by work related diseases is higher than the road toll and more than all the troops we have overseas.

If we were losing 34 soldiers a week in Afghanistan we would be in deep mourning.
So why is this any different?
On top of that fully incapacitated or seriously wounded, (using the army analogy) of 39,510 or 780 a week would mean a catastrophic military blunder.
So why are we accepting such figures at the hands of our cowardly politicians and their corporate masters?

I’ll tell you why!!

Because no one pays attention, except for those bloody unions John Howard has taught us to despise.
As a result we have let ourselves become victims of the Corporations that Abraham Lincoln was so concerned about. Seems to me, he foretold the current events accurately, and what’s more the whole world ought to have another revolution, write a new Declaration of Independence and rip away the unbounded power these corporate ‘persons’ have taken upon themselves.

John Ward

Data From 'The Cost of Work-related injury And Illness for Australian Employers, Workers and the Community’. ISBN 978 0 642 32801 4 PDF

Year 2000-01 $billion 34 or 5% of GDP

In year 2005-2006 $billion 57.5 or 5.9 of GD

Thanks for the thread John, you will not win.
I took on such a task evidence clearly showed my workmates died early in big numbers.
As a result of long term exposure to cold tar, and fumes from traffic.
These road workers had a average exposure of over 20 years.
I could not get one inch of progress from the RTA, DMR both being the single identity with different names.
At one time [ how many may it be?] a truck roll over saw very dangerous poison and radio active matter in one load.
With food part of that load, 2 serving police men fell very ill, over 30 road workers had blood tests.
I was one of them, the RTA NEVER even told us the results!
They no longer existed three years later, I forced an investigation but they had been shredded.
Steel works cancer deaths and road worker deaths are bigger than any other workplace issue, any of them, true.
Working back we saw figures over 30% in roads alone dead of cancer.
You will not win, white wash is cheap honesty of little value to some
but thanks any way.
Consider this, in my workplace and time we went to at least 200 truck roll overs goods all over the road unknown even now what some of it was?

we allready discussed this issue on another topic[i was going to add this to that]

keep in mind,the purpose of incorporation is to shield individuals from personal liability or accountability to the public),..a corporation itself cannot be imprisoned.

Further,while a corporation might be fined or otherwise punished by a court,the people who made decisions can go elsewhere and continue as they have...just get a job elsewhere,the sanctions don’t follow him.

Corporations can further shield themselves by creating other corporations which they own and control but which protect the greater corporation from financial or legal liability.



A human..‘person’..has duties to perform in their society. A human..‘person’.can be called to serve on a jury as provided for in The Constitution.

No corporate‘person’is capable of fulfilling the obligations or duty of service to their country of an individual.

A human‘person’ dies..How long can a human‘person’be part of the workforce?How long can they provide for themselves and make their own decisions?

How long can a human‘person’keep death at bay? While a corporation might go belly up,or be bought or just end by a decision of those at the top,

a corporation,a corporate person’,has no natural lifespan and can,in principle,go on living forever..maybe a restructuring here and there or a name change but,none-the-less,the same legal ‘person’.

..however,there is also a legal flaw which should be addressed within the Constitutional framework of accepting corporations as‘persons’… a‘person’can’t be owned in the United States.

The idea of corporations as ‘persons’ was ‘found’ by the Court..doesn’t the 13th Amendment also apply to them?

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude,except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,shall exist within the United States,or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Now,go to any dictionary you can find and look up,in order,slavery and slave...I’ll wait.

No‘person’can own another person’in the United States.

Therefore,if a corporation IS a legal person’..under the protection and jurisdiction of The Constitution,..doesn’t that mean that they can’t be owned,..and that they cannot own other..‘persons’..i.e. – other corporations).

If The Constitution applies to the Corporate'person’,..doesn’t that mean that the WHOLE Constitution applies to them?
http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2009/05/11/the-corporate-person/

<<Further,while a corporation might be fined or otherwise punished by a court,the people who made decisions can go elsewhere and continue as they have...just get a job elsewhere,the sanctions don’t follow him.>>i think enron is the case in point[see how its poisen has spread globally

<<Corporations can further shield themselves by creating other corporations which they own and control but which protect the greater corporation from financial or legal liability.>>witness hardies[re asbestosis]leaves behind an under capitalised arm behind and runs away to the netherlands

birth place of the bilderburgers[the 150 dudes natzie supporters who formed their boys type club of rome privatly in 44 and became quietly public in 54//[with plans now fullfiled to create the eu and take over politics via taking over usa,and bring in a global carbon tax..[it allready controled the banks]

This is an enormous problem, and can be fixed with one stroke of the Prime Ministerial pen. Kevin Rudd, on the 7th August 2006, while not yet leader of the Opposition, was heard to tell a supporter after delivering a public plea to support the Labor Party, because we are Christians too, that no one can overturn the Constitution without a referendum.

It has not only been overturned, it has been completely repealed by one simple section of one Act, S 39 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976. This gives one Judge power to decide who gets paid compo. Bernie Banton was kept at bay by Hardie’s lawyers until he died, because one Judge, is in control. These same Judges make Rules, like Mohammed made Rules for Muslims, and one of them is Order 46 Rule 7A Federal Court Rules. This allows a Registrar and a Judge, to deny access to court, to anyone who would like some justice.

Everyone, including a State and Federal government department has a duty to supply a safe workplace. This is a very old principle of the common law. Actions at common law saw safety barriers installed around unsafe machinery. Law is made just as effectively in a common law court as it is in Parliament. That is why the word court has no capital letter when it stands alone in the Ch III Australian Constitution. The abominations that atheists have foisted upon us, in pretend Courts, where a very highly paid public servant ( $6,000 a week) has robbed us of our dignity and rights at work, should be called to account.

The Labor Party has been infiltrated by lawyers. The Liberal Party is their natural home. All members of the 65% majority Christians in Australia should unite to request Kevin Rudd to give us back the Christian common law, abolished by State and Federal Parliaments since 1970, by simply repealing S 39 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 and letting the laws made by Paul Keating’s government be enforced, by anyone who has been harmed. Your Rights at Work, you betcha

The Unions did a lot of stupid things in the 70's 80's and 90's. They not only attacked big business but destroyed a lot of small business.I deal with dangerous tools every day,yet with all the OH&S regulation refuse to take on an apprentice since a workers comp claim can send me broke.The young people of today ,do not have a work ethic and in the tradition of our litigious society are often looking for the gravy train of an easy payout.

Presently the NSW Govt is recruiting more OH&S officers.This is just another way for them to increase revenue and further destroy small business in NSW.The size of Govt in this country must diminish comeasurate with their tax income.We cannot go into debt just to support non productive public servants.

The people of NSW will soon be that safe,that they will not have a job nor the means of putting food on the table.

http://forums.altnews.com.au/content/nsw-department-community-services-seeks-assistance-alternative-news-network

I am User #1.

Graham is this happening here?

sec 30 <<Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 30 Director-General’s investigations and assessment
On receipt of a report that a child or young person is suspected of being at risk of harm:>>>if this section is quoted someone has made a report[if no report then some one is making a spurilous claim[or abusing their power

<<(a)the Director-General is to make such investigations and assessment as the Director-General considers necessary to determine whether the child or young person is at risk of harm, or>>

ok read the line[the letter] is part of the assesment proces to determine IF A CHILD is at risk[by any postings made at the site]if no complaint[or no risk found]then better to have ered on the side of caution[unless no actual complaint is made [thus spurilous,criminal act or abuse of power may need be considered

<<(b) the Director-General may decide to take no further action if, on the basis of the information provided,the Director-General considers that there is insufficient reason to believe that the child or young person is at risk of harm.>>>see that a reason needs to be supplied[and a named complainant[ask that these be accertained to be real[egsistant]
<<Note.Under section 248, the Director-General may direct certain bodies,including the Police Service,a government department or agency,a public authority,a school, an area health service and a hospital to furnish the Director-General with information concerning the safety,welfare and well-being of a child or young person>>..as specific mention is NOT made re forum or news agency having a legal obligation to obey the order[it is volentary][and only a check of facts to acertain if action..may be required
details from
http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fullhtml/inforce/act+157+1998+FIRST+0+N#ch.3-pt.3-sec.30

"..as specific mention is NOT made re forum or news agency having a legal obligation to obey the order[it is volentary][and only a check of facts to acertain if action..may be required
details from
http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fullhtml/inforce/act+157+1998+FIRST+0+N#ch.3-pt.3-sec.30"

Thank you for all that OUG. The owner of Altnews was looking for more information as well. He has said that User#4 is in Canada and someone I have never had a discussion with online.

No reason for the request of information has been given.

My caseworker last week said something to me about uploading photos of children online, something I have never done.

I don't even name the foster children I have or have ever had.

I doubt anyone from DoCS thought the owner of Altnews would actually Post the letter from them though.

its not a matter i would concern about..[a faximily;a fax] isnt an origonal document[and thus has no legal weight

[all documentation put out by docs must be at least an origonal letter, if not specificly presented to a given person by a specific docs member for an enumerated[valid] reason..[with id validations]..to have legal validity..

[in fact giving info sans..[without]..a fully legal reason may be commiting a crime..[no doudt the forum admin had such doudts thus put an extract of the FAX he got on line]this area that specificlly concerns children[and the location of their protectors/thus more kids, is wrought with loopholes so a/holes can pretend authority, by fear and fraud to acces info/or powers they would never be accorded in real life

you should have had enough interaction with the real docs not to be fooled by someone..sending a fax..lol..to obtain sensitive..[confidential info about kids,..ie re anyone..caring for their[the kids]..safty and well being,even your name/location etc is secret info,..as would be your other details

[if only to properly protect the kids..[from vexatious or vile-lent parentals/or other attempting via faxed deceptions to seek info to further their hopes/delusions of wreaking vengance or some other ill intent aimed at achieving info re the location of children or their carers

any legal stuff isnt done by fax..[i feel these faxes need be reported to police,..in the maxim of better safe than sorry..you know govt dont fax..it presents/in person..or sends a real investigator[if only to protect the kids]

"any legal stuff isnt done by fax..[i feel these faxes need be reported to police,..in the maxim of better safe than sorry..you know govt dont fax..it presents/in person..or sends a real investigator[if only to protect the kids]"

I wish I could think like you, for all my questions I keep asking the wrong ones or not seeing what needs to be questioned.

To add to the confusion is that the altnews site is in Queensland but the request is coming from NSW. Makes it a little more obvious that it is solely about me.

I suspect a user in a bad mood with me has made a false allegation to Queensland (actually I know this has happened, confirmed by my caseworker) and I do get that these allegations all have to be taken seriously.

No idea why these other users are being involved. No idea why if they believed it they have not come to my house and removed children from my care.

im looking at this as a work related injury[or attempt to injure you because of your work]..either way caring for children is relivant to discuss as its your job[ok you dont see it as a job/work, yet this harasment could lead to serious injury

the more i think on it the more sure im sure the fax isnt from the dept..[simply speaking they dont work that way,..were there a real issue they would order the police to notify moderators..[or have other more certain validation's]

were there any real issue the dept would simply read all your posts[any serious issues would be revealed simply by doing this,this fax just attempts to obtain special info,..not available to the public, for this reason it gets serious as an issue..not as a matter of fact]

clearly your being hasseld by virtue of your chosen occupation[causing un-nessesary stress..[and injury, ot only to your good name, but your mental peace of mind,[well being]..confirming that not all work related injury is physical and not all causes accidental

anyhow it is not a thing that worry can fix..[i understand gray has been in contact and would simply follow his advice on the matter]

you have no need to ask questions/nor answers[or even to give[waste] furher thought in this matter..as far as i can see[and i dont think moderators are fooled for a minute by this clumsey attempt to cause stess to you]

faulse accusations are just a part of the job,..as disempowered people attempt to spead their percieved hurt upon you or others simply trying to get on with their work

Truly weird but my mum e-mailed me today, my parents are building a house in Melbourne... exert from her e-mail:

"The tiles were laid today. Work and Safety won't allow us on the premises. They have employed 600 new people to police work sites.
When they build a house the whole section is completely enclosed with a high unlocked fence.
We can look but are not allowed inside unless the building supervisor is with us. Our builder goes at 6am and as he has 75 projects on the go so it would be hard to pin him down."

What is with that? Would drive me nuts not being able to see My Own house as it was being built.