Loudmouth,

I don't think you can accuse me of not posting on topic for the vast majority of this thread.

As mentioned, you deploy BTT when you're under the pump.

"I really do like Foxy, she has such good heart, and so rarely slags anybody else, she always seems to see the bright side, and the good side of people. I hope she doesn't mind my expressions of admiration for her - they are genuine and honest. I hope I never inadvertently hurt her feelings with any comment."

I don't for a moment consider your "end of post" endearments to Foxy to be genuine.

Who does that around here?

And why, in that case, are your over-the-top endearments limited to one female poster?

I genuinely like a few people of the opposite gender around here - like Paul - and in the old days, Squeers and bonmot. I wouldn't have dreamed of ending my posts to them in the manner that you end yours to Foxy. As a way of displaying your respect, it comes over as a cheap send up of Foxy and her sentiments...that's how it looks to the rest of us.

So excuse me if I'm butting in to something that doesn't concern me personally, but for years I've watched you do it. Foxy, is kind and thoughtful - and even a little vulnerable in her style - she addresses almost every post as "Dear Someone-or-other".

Hers is a genuine respect harking back to courtesies displayed in letter writing.

There is certainly no need for anyone on this forum to ridicule anyone else by ending posts as if you're writing to your lover.

Hi Poirot,

'I don't think you can accuse me of not posting on topic for the vast majority of this thread.'

And then you go off-topic. So yes, I can. Not that that is inconsistent with your usually mode of posting.

So: BTT. What other options are there besides (a) rigid controls, or (b) open borders ?

Over to you :)

Cheers,

Joe

Poirot,

Firstly thanks for noting the effort I make in being concise and accurate, but I am puzzled by your acceptance of another poster whose main objective appears to post childish and inflammatory drivel to troll others, yet focus on my comment which is verbal kick in the nuts to remind him that others can play his game. (at least I used a play on the word pedophilia which translates to child love)

Secondly to answer your second query:

"Could you enlighten me as to why this clause is included in the legislation for mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse?"

The answer is simply that it isn't, and the claims from the activists asserting this are erroneous and most of them know it.

Notably, even before the border force law, if a doctor on the mainland reported the specifics of a child abuse case to the press, he would most likely be struck off and possibly jailed.

The doctors and workers are still obliged to report the details of instances of child abuse to the authorities such as their superiors, and police and child services both in the detention centres and if they choose on the mainland for which they cannot be prosecuted.

Where they can now be prosecuted is where the activists within their ranks feel that they can run to the press with unsupported claims of widespread child abuse, torture etc.

Thanks, SM.

Although I do believe the Border Force Act is merely a fancy way of saying "Let's not tell Australians what's really happening over there".

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

In fact, I'm reminded of the Catholic Church's policy of investigating its pedophile priests - which was to move them about and do not much at all to address the problem...keeping it "in house" - and denying victims compensation if they report abuse to the police.

When you've got something to hide, and you've got the power to do so, you set out to make things as opaque as possible.

Perhaps you're right about your duels with the other poster and my failing to critique him in the same manner...but he tends to post in a humorous manner much of the time

Whereas your descent into schoolyard banter presents more of a contrast with your more serious content - so is more noticeable.

Okay, I'm done with poster analyses for today.

Cheers

Hi there FOXY and POIROT...

I read that most recent extract you (FOXY) sent LOUDMOUTH, and certainly the comments contained therein didn't paint us (Oz) in a particularly good light concerning our alleged treatment of asylum seekers ? If everything that was stated is correct, where exactly are we going wrong with our screening and vetting processes ?

I can share with you both some details on the number of people we had cause to arrest as part of a Task Forces Operation, in which I was involved, in a particularly high Muslim enclave, in a South Western Sydney suburb a few years ago.

During the post arrest enquiries, it was revealed that many of those in custody were formerly asylum seekers. Who in reality turned out to be nothing other but wanted criminals 'on the run' from, not only their own country of origin, but crimes committed in other places whilst in transit en-route to Australia !

Extradition enquiries ? Forget it ! Australia would have no truck in 'trying' to extradite these people back to their own country. Most have no extradition policy with us in any event, and others - possibly to face execution by sword ? In any event I suspect they wouldn't want them back anyway ?

The point is FOXY and POIROT, many of these alleged asylum seekers are at best fraudulent, at worst criminals ? Somewhere our vetting and assessing processes are failing. Anyway that's the problem ? Do either of you have any suggestions ?

Personally, I believe trained police could be deployed to 'vet all' potential asylum seekers, not public servants who (through no fault of their own) have little interrogative training or language skills, in detecting orchestrated subterfuge and deception. Even then, I'm not suggesting it would prove 100% more effective, because of language constraints, but it might prove a better 'strike rate' as it were ? At the moment our screening methods are failing us miserably.

As I indicated earlier, do either of you have any suggestions please ?

Poirot,

For a moment there I thought you might have a flash of comprehension. If snide comments against the coalition is what you regard as funny, then I am all out.

Do the customs and immigration have anything to hide? You bet, just as police investigating drugs or murder keep their cards hidden to avoid alerting those they are tracking or preventing drug felons from avoiding detection.

And almost without exception, those calling for blow by blow details of the counter people trafficking trade are those that are determined to frustrate the prevention of this depraved trade