Foxy, "The following link may be of interest.."

...of interest as a red herring to draw discussion away from this, that was being discussed,

"30 accused of child sex abuse"
http://www.pressreader.com/australia/the-west-australian/20170603/281578060625597

Foxy,

Yes, it all should be in his file. Do you know anything at all about single others ? And why do you believe every yarn that you hear ? Evidence is more than yarns. Let's see his file.

And please don't 'explain' that there isn't one: of course there would be, and in any case, if not, how do you know anything except the yarns ? Not good enough.

Joe

Joe (Loudmouth),

We've covered all of this in past discussions
giving you names, links and so on. None were
acceptable to you so I won't re-hash it all here.
I thought that this time however when you have
media focus on this 100 year old Stolen Generations
survivor who recalls his own experiences you may
just accept the man's word for what happened to
him.

You asked me why do I accept "yarns?"

Well "yarns" as you call them go far back in the
reaches of time. They are part of our oral tradition.
As man, in whatever habitat, developed the art of
speech, he began to explore his environment and to
penetrate beyond the immediately observable in an
attempt to give meaning to life.

These "yarns" include a vast multitude of narratives
which have their origin in an oral tradition,
were handed down and ultimately transferred to stone, or
clay, parchment, papyrus, or paper. They came from
every settled spot on earth at the dawn of man's imagination.
They are timeless and universal and therefore a fit
heritage for us all.

Taken all together, they offer, in their oft-repeated
and constantly varying examination of human vicissitudes,
a general explanation of life.

People believe in the Bible and other Holy
Books - Which also could qualify as "yarns."
Others need "evidence" before they believe.

Each to their own

Foxy,

It has been explained to you and ors many times before that memory is nothing like a tape recorder. What happens each time something is 'recalled' is that it is reconstructed. Bluntly, what was 'seen' or 'experienced' at the time was interpreted through the senses and experience (incl values for example) of the receiver. Over years, what happens to us overlays and redefines what is 'stored'.

That is what happened to Hilary Clinton where she 'remembered' a version of a dangerous landing and reception in Europe and related it in detail as such. But news videos became immediately available that proved to her obvious shock and utter disbelief that her clear and faultless memory (of that event anyhow) as entirely wrong, the opposite of what happened. Hers was a normal human failing, a natural flaw where the brain reconstructs history. Remember too that Hilary is intelligent and a highly trained lawyer and should be far better at accessing 'memory'.

What is 'remembered' may bear little relationship to what happened at the time. Where there were traumatic events, such as rejection and problems in families, the accounts of children especially who had fragile, developing egos to protect would need corroboration.

However, where there are exact documents from the time and easily available, for what possible reason would you and activists be so determined to deny their existence and reject them out of hand? Journalists are slovenly where they do not refer to and prefer documentary evidence that is available, if only they might heave their spreading rear end down to the public desk and ask.

I suppose I could have added the obvious, that activists (religious fundamentalists like Islam too) go to great pains to school children in their particular view of history, and are always out to create false memories by repeating their narrative and mantras over and over.

Even where messages are obviously false and are countered by facts, the activists' propaganda is still successful because the target remembers the was some 'problem' or 'truth' or 'something'.

So, trumpet 'Stolen Generations' often, and the taxpayer-funded national broadcaster has been most obliging in that respect and has provided many, many forums and mentions by 'authoritative' figures (such as the smug Jones on Q&A) and there WILL be many coming forward who earnestly believe that they were 'Stolen' or their rellies were or thousands of others were. The ABC has talking heads in sinecures all paid for by the taxpayer, who have specialised in spruiking 'anti-' messages for decades. They even teach it in (Play)school.

The fact-making ABC has plenty to answer for. Come to think of it, if one tireless researcher who posts to OLO can find 'first sources' information for South Australia, where the bloody hell were all of those very well paid 'fact-finding'(what a joke!) ABC celebrity journalists? Yeah I know, leftist whinging is easier. It is fact-free for a start.

Foxy,

Surely you're not that stupid. As Leoj points out, oral memory is extremely faulty. I'm not sure what a four-year-old would remember accurately 96 years later, but I can't remember anything at all before I was about seven, and a lot of that, between say seven and twelve, was probably reconstructed much later.

Rumours are not evidence. Hearsay is not evidence on its own. Yarns are not evidence. Grievances are not evidence. Stories are not evidence on their own. Fairy tales are not evidence. Bar-fly accounts may not be evidence.

Files may be pretty solid evidence. Correspondence may provide a backing for evidence. Records from hospitals, police, schools, social workers, etc. may provide pretty solid evidence, even after a century. It will be there. Put it all together and you might have a case. Somebody has to have the integrity and the courage to look for it.

He's a nice-looking old fella, but he does look to me like what they used to call a 'quarter-caste', i.e. his mother was what they called a 'half-caste', probably cast out from the local patriarchal society, a prey to every man in all the local groups, so probably staying around Tennant Creek. Living and working in Tennant Creek. Where there would have been extremely few work opportunities for young 'half-caste' women, except the obvious. A hundred years ago. No single-mother benefits back in 1917-1921, not until 1971, when - lo ! - the 'Stolen Generation' ceased.

And his mother could have married that white bloke: that wasn't illegal - what was frowned upon was 'consorting', casual liaisons, as they were called politely. I was accused of 'consorting' in the early sixties, I wasn't actually, just good friends, and anyway it was legal by then.

Try to think issues through, Foxy, don't believe every sob-story you hear.

Joe