Dear Belly,

Mary Jo Fisher has admitted to being guilty that's
why she has to resign. Mr Thomson has not (yet).
Therein lies the difference. And it is a big one.
The presumption of innocence.

Also, if Thomson (and Slipper) were to resign - the
Liberals want a By-election. Whereas for Fisher
resigning they simply want to replace her with
another Liberal. Is that considered ethical politics?

SPQR

<< “Branded” to me seems to imply two things i) It is applied from outside & ii) It is handicap. >>

Well, my original usage would yield ‘yes’ to both i) and ii).

The problem with using examples to illustrate a particular point about a particular section of society is that you must be able to apply that example across the board, to give fair argument. What you’re implying is that no other members of our community use leverage of any sort to obtain employment – people whose great-grandparents were Aboriginal, for instance; single parents; long-term unemployed seeking to be given a ‘fair chance’ to get back into the workforce. C’mon SPQR, it is human nature to use whatever is to hand to get a leg up. If the system is able to be rorted, it will be. That is not to say that your friend was right, just that she was clever.

I would also add that (regardless of the actual outcome) her ploy to use her ‘ex-refugee’ status could be perceived to be a liability as much as an asset, depending on the views of the person responsible for employing her.

As to the reference of CEO’s instructing their organizations << to set aside positions for persons who identify as “refugees” >> I cannot confirm or deny this, but I will comment that, based on your brief description of the situation, it seems they are following edicts imposed by a system that clearly does not work.

Which brings me full circle and suggests that we need to come up with a different solution.

And if my proposal is so lacking in intellect, then by all means propose a solution yourself. I would be glad to read it, digest all its implications and debate its merits.

I am a patient person.

Scribbler,

The answer to this post is the same as in the other.

Coming by boat with no paper means that the onus is put on the dept of immigration to prove that the "refugees" aren't genuine, and given that 30% are initially assessed not to be genuine, yet the courts grant 99% asylum shows how successful this is.

Given that there are millions displaced and hundreds of millions in areas of threat, the number of those that would be happy for a fully paid house, schooling, medical, and spending money is virtually limitless. Taking 100 000 a year or more does not mean that even more will still come by boat, and no one other that the greens have entertained this concept.

The solution is in labor's term "break the business model". The only proven solution includes off shore processing among other measures.

The reason so many are unemployed after so long is because while there are some refugees with skills, many are illiterate, unskilled non English speakers, who without great help are close to unemployable.

Lexi,

There has been a 3 year inquiry by the legally appointed authorities into the HSU which unequivocally said that Thomson committed various crimes of fraud, theft, and generally behaved corruptly. The time for the assumption of innocence has long passed. The only reason Thomson is not serving 5-10 years is because Labor and the union stacked FWA has shielded him for so long.

MJF was involved in a very minor incident, which given the circumstances did not even result in a conviction being recorded. But the moment there was a repeat offense she was gone. The comparison with Thomson leaves Labor extremely wanting.

SM,

<< The reason so many are unemployed after so long is because while there are some refugees with skills, many are illiterate, unskilled non English speakers, who without great help are close to unemployable. >>

Yet, under my proposal this problem is eliminated. So your argument is?

<< Given that there are millions displaced and hundreds of millions in areas of threat, the number of those that would be happy for a fully paid house, schooling, medical, and spending money is virtually limitless. >>

No doubt. Which is why there would have to be a system established to, quite literally, ‘funnel’ asylum seekers. Nowhere previously did I say that it still would not require a system of processing. But it would be quicker, more humane, and better for our own economy (satisfying the ‘what’s-in-it-for-me?’ mentality) if we greatly expanded our quota and, instead of spending millions incarcerating thousands on or off shore while investigating their claims for asylum, we set about integrating them immediately whilst utilizing any skills or labour they can bring. As far as your inference of ‘free’ housing, medical care, education and spending money – well, no. They would work for it, just as everyone else does.

I do not doubt that your 99% would still be granted asylum eventually anyway, but under my proposal they are better equipped to successfully take up new lives in this country than under the present system.

What does surprise me is that the logistics of my proposal haven't been considered, illustrating reaction rather proaction. My invitation to SPQR is extended to you too, SM: propose a solution of *your own* so we can engage in proactive debate rather than reactive argument.

I’m sorry I feel compelled to resort to clichés, but you can’t make an omlette without breaking some eggs. And another, more apt: Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

<< The answer to this post is the same as in the other. >>

Ditto.

I am afraid this lady has been in Parliament and out, displaying her unsuitability to be there for years.
Liberals, world class mud throwers, are and always have been better at protecting their own.
SM would be aware two more unsuited for office still vote for them every sitting.
Also, think about it, Slipper soon to be found to have done nothing wrong, is being subjected to a set up.
Within the heart of some charges against Liberals are fraud always.
The spring removal of Gillard will refocus spotlight on Abbott.