It is quite impossible that with the review and extensive advocacy services that complaints haven't been lodge and investigated previously. I am wondering what the results of those complaints were, since any that were upheld in courts would have been used by the ABC to boost its report.

Of course if complaints were not upheld, then that would also be taken by tabloid journalists of 'proof positive'(sic) of 'gubbermint' wrongdoing. Heads they win and tails they win too!

Could it be that the treatment that is excessive even over-kill to us is representative of the essential, practical first action steps required to handling offenders? Bearing in mind that the 'child' may be 17 yrs with a history of serious offences.

With coffee, slippers, a comfy gas-operated ergonomic chair and the air-conditioning quietly humming away on warm and coming from occupations that stressed education and trust, it is hard for me to imagine what serious offending would land a youth in gaol. Try as I do to imagine what it must be like for police and prison officers to handle dangerous repeat and drug affected offenders I could never understand what it must be like.

But even with my ignorance of the seamy side of life I know from press reports that even serious crime committed by determined adults does not automatically result in a custodial sentence.

As usual, the trail of innocent lives wrecked, talking about the forgotten victims and their families of these cruel and persistent offenders, is forgotten by the ABC and hand wringers.

That is not to say that ill-treatment of offenders is warranted. Absolutely not, however it is a plea for the ABC not to follow the lead of tabloids and prefer sensationalism, 'shock, horror', over the balance it should demonstrate.

Some discussion of best practice for handling and restraining violent offenders who might self-harm would have been obligatory for balance one would have imagined.

Is there an election in the wind for the NT? There is a rush of 'human rights' stories and Malcolm Turnbull is bending over this way and that.

Well firstly, im going to admit that my previous post was a little over the top.

However, in order to have a balanced discussion about topics, one must be able to accept that all sides of the argument be put on the table, otherwise it is pointless.

It seems that whether we discuss indigenous issues, immigration, both legal or illegal, Muslims/Islam or even welfare, there are those who see what is going on, and those who simply choose to ignore the facts. Of cause it doesn't help when government mi misters and the like also clearly cant see the facts, although I suspect they can, they just choose not to.

My opinion on this type of forum is that unless you are willing to be proven wrong, then you should not contribute because you will only turn to personal insults, or leave.

Let's face it, an opinion is only your view, and if someone can provide credible evidence to disprove your view, then you should accept that.

Hi Poirot, Suse and Foxy.

I understand your sensitivity about the personal attacks you often receive from the real lunatics on the forum. These people basically have no argument, and hate anyone who is not "them", and that hatred will manifest with personal attacks on those they disagree with. I read all your posts, but only a fraction of the lunatic right, soon get the gist of what they have to say in a couple of lines.

Maybe I'm lucky in that I don't take the forum all that seriously, after all its not Federal Parliament, or State Parliament, its not even the local council chamber, it more like the Sydney Domain on Sunday afternoon in 1970, and I'm listening, booing, cat calling, "Webster" along with, at times, 1,000 other people. I totally disagreed with the pseudo Nazi but reterned many a time to join in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Webster_(orator)

rehctub,

Did you read benk's posts? For instance,

[benk]"I thought that the story contained glaring omissions about the context of decisions" and,

"We need a mature discussion about a complex issue".

Well said that poster, I thought.

Just to say in advance though, that while the Royal Commission is under way it will be the usual political gamesmanship by the activists and cynical politicians with their own secondary agendas to serve and the media will be after headlines.

When the Commission finally reports there will be SFA interest from any of them.

But at the end of it all the well-intentioned, ethical professionals and others who are presently working hard to improve things will have to pick up the pieces and carry on as before.

A lot of the statements are leaning heavily toward conspiracy facts.

ttbn,

Actually, it's not a dummy spit...it's a reaction to the odium on this forum. I have to ask myself are these the type of people and opinions I wish to spend my time interacting with?

You're a particularly nasty poster (and I've been here a while, so I'm in the position to make a reasonable comparison), but you are tops at hypocrisy. This is what you wrote on the Hanson thread in the articles section:

"...It's sad to see someone so on the outer that they don't realise that it is votes that put politicians in or out, not vicious abuse and childish tantrums."

This from the guy who called o sung wu a "knob-headed idiot" - and myself a "pig" the other day because he hasn't the intellectual facility to keep things civil.

.....

Foxy,

You are always trying to see the good in people - the problem is reading page upon page of bigoted frightened and (often) abusive rhetoric is a bit wearing over time....it dulls one's positive outlook.

Suse,

It took me a while to get into my stride on twitter....once I did, I found it most rewarding. It's is an entirely different experience, albeit communications are done with a limit of 140 characters. Sharing articles, videos, pics, commenting, retweeting things that you think are important add to gaining like-minded followers while still being informed.

And it's not a matter of closing one's mind to opposing opinion. I often interact with folks who disagree on twitter as long as it's kept civil. Often, however, folks on twitter of a similar ilk to many on OLO immediately become abusive - and on twitter it is very easy to stop that. Instead of sitting there attempting to reason with the person who doesn't wish to be polite or wishes to pollute your timeline with odious commentary - you simply "Block" them. You Block them and they're gone from your timeline forever.

Paul

You are right - the only way to handle some of the commentary here is not to take it seriously.....or not to take it all.