Below is a link to a story in Andrew Bolts column today.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/raped-toddler-who-should-have-been-stolen/news-story/b9ef90a9100275b70f0d8a38dec8c299

Frankly I am ashamed and disgusted that this occures in Australia.

I believe the parents should be charged to the full extent of the law and sterilized so either cannot beget anymore children/

To hell with religion, race, tradition or any other damn thing, it is simply outrageous and should not be tolerated. I would not rule out capital punishment.

How much longer do we put up with this abuse. I recall that the report called 'Little children are Angels' referred to this type of abuse.

u can blame race politics Banjo. One wonders how many agencies receiving massive amounts of tax payer funded money in these towns do anything useful other than promote 'culture'. See that vulgar Indigenouus loud mouth woman on abc the other night. Our billion dollar abc contribute to child abuse while banging on about 40 year old cases in the Catholic church.

Dear runner,

"Massive amounts of money into these towns"?

How about this town?

"A MELBOURNE man allegedly raped his own infant daughter and along with his housemate, made and distributed pornography of the 10-month-old."
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/melbourne-man-and-friend-charged-with-raping-baby-girl-extradited-to-nsw/news-story/3be555107ac5042464b332c775febffc?nk=a510a410891962eaf4136e598154ee33-1519197188

This poor thing was only 10 months old.

Sad, very sad.

//while banging on about 40 year old cases in the Catholic church.//

Because child abuse is OK if it was done 40 years ago by Catholics?

Well that's disturbing.

If people didnt drink alcohol and swallow drugs, what a great world tw'd be.

Simple solution here folks, outlaw alcohol.

//Simple solution here folks, outlaw alcohol.//

Because that worked so well in the US....

SR,
Do you have any info about the trial of the blokes? I can only find about their arrest.

SR and Toni,

Both cases are horrific, but I think the point that Bolt is trying to make is exactly the one I heard from a woman aboriginal elder about a year ago on Radio National (ABC):

Two of the issues that the aboriginal rights campaigners are pursuing are the high rates of aboriginal incarceration, and the high rates of aboriginal children being removed from their parents. I believe that the figures are such that 2x as many children are presently removed as during the "stolen children" times, and aboriginals are incarcerated at 10x non aboriginal rates.

However, the other major problems are the high rates of child abuse and domestic violence in aboriginal households which I believe is about 30x the amount in non aboriginal houses.

The resulting pressure on magistrates not to administer jail except in extreme circumstances, and on child services not to remove children except in extreme circumstances. The result is that perpetrators of domestic violence and abuse are often given a slap on the wrist and sent home, and victims of child abuse are often left with their abusers far longer than non aboriginal families.

This is the worst Hobson's choice that I have seen.

God, so many unicorns !

A two-year-old is raped in Tennant Creek. BUT look over there ! Some bloke in Melbourne ! Some Catholic pederasts years ago !

So a two-year-old getting raped isn't so bad, and anyway, it was done by a Blackfella, so that lightens the 'offence', doesn't it ? And the poor bloke might have Foetal Alcohol Syndrome too, brought on by colonisation. So he's hardly responsible at all, is he ?

So we punish no-one instead ? We let these offences continue ? Especially if it might well be part of someone's 'culture' ? Or is there a sort of scale of offences, and therefore a scale of punishments, tempered and reduced by all manner of possible excuses ?

Joe

//So we punish no-one instead ? We let these offences continue ?//

According to the article the offender was arrested and charged. Details of the outcome of the trial were not provided.

Hi Toni,

Yes, and just wait for the 'mitigating circumstances'. A few years ago, that bloke - if he was found guilty - would have been strung up without delay. And fair enough. A two-year-old, for Christ's sake. What do you reckon are her chances of reaching five, or ten, or adulthood ? And how many more like her are out there, in never-policed 'communities' ?

Joe

One issue that hasn’t been raised anywhere, not that I have seen anyway.
The family of this child are blaming Child Protection for not acting on reports put in on this child.
My question is, why did no family member step in and just take the child if the situation was so bad? Culturally it is appropriate for the grandmothers, aunts or older sisters to take on a child who is not being properly cared for, or in danger.
No one with any integrity at all would leave a vulnerable family member in gross danger and simply sit back and wait for the government to act.

Glorifying a culture above the lives of kids.

Big Nana - Simple answer is it is easier to blame the white man for everything especially with the amplification of Politically Correct.

The white man is to blame for not doing anything (that we know),
The white man will be blamed if he does anything.

Big Nana & Phillip,

Is it possible that many Aboriginal people - far from being oppressed by colonisation - believe that colonisation means that this Big Government will henceforth take responsibility for all of the sorts of tasks that parents - and 'communities' - usually have ? That colonisation represents, in their eyes, some sort of liberation from all social duties ? Beauty ! That a major function of the government also includes giving out money for effectively unlimited grog, while some other part of 'government' looks after their kids ? And, of course, that kids are their property, like their dogs, to do with as they wish ?

So self-determination, in that paradigm, means telling some government person what they should be doing. It doesn't mean, in this view, the opportunity to do more for yourself, and to take more responsibility - as Noel Pearson advocates - for your kids ?

How long is this going to go on for ? Another couple of ghastly generations ?

Joe

Dear loudmouth,

The reason I raised the horrific incident in melbourne was not to lessen what had happened in Tennent Creek but to counter this from runner;

“One wonders how many agencies receiving massive amounts of tax payer funded money in these towns do anything useful other than promote 'culture'.”

There is a hell of a lot of money spend in Melbourne not only on policing and medical services but also on culture, some of it completely esoteric to the wider population like ballet.

When we traveled around OZ over a decade ago it really struck home to me the disparity of services within some Aboriginal communities. There was one small town which had over 50% more residents than mine here in Victoria. It had a single nurse and no policemen. There had been a police station built 3 years before we visited but had never been staffed.

From memory our Victorian town had at the time 3 policemen and a doctors clinic with 4 doctors practicing. Although life here is pretty good there are certainly some families dealing with violence and sexual assault within our small community. Luckily there are strong social services to address these things when they occur.

I understand that remoteness can bring its own challenges and costs but there is a strong argument that communities facing disfunction should have the attention and resources that would meaningfully address the issues. Our State Government recently spent over $160 million dollars revitalising just one suburb of a large town near us.

The question I had for myself was of all the money supposedly given to Aboriginal communities why did that particular police station not get manned for 3 years?

Steeleredux, I have no idea the size of your town but in the north every town of any size has police stationed there. Fitzroy Crossing in the Kimberley only has a population of 1200 but they have a fully manned police station plus a 50 bed hospital with doctors, nurses and even a renal dialysis unit.
And something that most people seemed to forget. White people living in these areas have no better access to services than the black ones do. In fact, in areas like health and education, the really remote people, like those on cattlestations and pearling farms have less services than aboriginal people living in remote communities. They have to provide their own housing, electricity , water, airstrip and teach their own children, unless they have enough children to qualify for a state paid teacher, but even then they have to provide the house for the teacher. Things that no aboriginal communities have to worry about.

Dear Big Nana,

Perhaps it is more of an issue in the NT.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-17/remote-aboriginal-residents-police-governments-tussle-funding/9334278

There was certainly a lot of police put in during the intervention but in many places they have been withdrawn.

Also I didn't realise that pearling camps and cattle stations run to populations of over 200 people. If they do then perhaps there is a case for policing in them too.

SR,

Only in your fevered imagination have you made any case. The concept of evidence seems to completely elude you. Neither the interrogation of Mair or the search of his property could link in any way his actions to UKIP.

The 1000 odd sex attacks by migrants in Cologne was major news especially after authorities tried desperately to cover it up. This news plus the savage attacks in Europe were probably the nail in the coffin for the remain campaign, and stripped Merkel of her comfortable majority, and given this background claiming that Farage's commentary was the issue that triggered the murder of Cox is laughable.

SR,

The reason that the services in these remote communities are so bad is not because there is no money spent on them, but that no one with skills wants to go there.

An acquaintance of mine did a stint as a school principle some years ago and had a contract for 2 years at a much higher salary than he would have got in Sydney. He left after 6 months after discovering that there was little to nothing to do, and that he had to endure weekly attempts to break into his house. Getting bashed one night for the $50 in his wallet was the final straw.

In the news some time ago was a nurse that had served a small community for several years that was beaten to death for her Ute.

Steeleredux, I wasnt talking about police on cattlestations, I was talking about those people having to provide their own housing, electricity, water, airstrip and housing for any teacher they qualify for.
Unlike aboriginal people in remote areas who have been provided all those services for groups of people that sometimes number in single figures.
I haven't heard of any police stations in the wider community for a town of two hundred residents, but then I haven't lived down south for nearly 50 years, so perhaps these places do exist.
Nor do I know of any mainstream towns with very small populations who have visiting specialists, in all disciplines, from Paediatricians to surgeons, who visit on a regular basis, to save remote residents having to travel to a major town.
And, as has been mentioned already, finding staff for these tiny communities is very difficult. There is little to do for anyone not interested in camping or fishing, it is very dangerous at times and staff often have to be evacuated for their own safety.
And despite the fact that we now have over 50,000 aboriginal people with university degrees, none of them seem to want to go and work where they would actually be helping their own people.

I live in a community of over 3600 residents.

We have no school, no police & no ambulance. There is a small school 20 kilometres away, but our kids aren't in it's catchment. They have to go to another 23 kilometres away, catching a bus at 7.45 to get there.

There is a day police station 22 kilometres away, but the only 24 hour manned station responsible for over 10,000 square kilometres is 27 kilometres. It has 3 officers, but only one patrol car at night.

Just this week in a similar sized nearby community a man lay injured for 3 hours waiting for an ambulance. I waited 2.5 hours for one when I had my last heart attack. Perhaps I am becoming more mellow. With my first I drove myself to hospital, knowing how long it often took to get an ambulance.

Just how I knew my first one was a heart attack I have no idea, but I knew the last one was fairly mild, so did not bother getting the car out. In retrospect I should have, as I now have lung damage, which could have been avoided.

Hi Big Nana,

In defence of the " ..... over 50,000 aboriginal people with university degrees, none of them seem to want to go and work where they would actually be helping their own people...." if one looks at the Census data for small 'communities', even one as big as Wadeye, from one Census period to the next and so on, one can see that yes, Indigenous graduates are indeed out in remote 'communities' at one time, but have tossed it in by the next Census.

Perhaps, as in the case of Shadow Minister's school principal friend, they get pissed on, roughed up and spat out. Perhaps they represent threats to the big-frogs-in-little-ponds of the clans and families that rule the 'communities'. And most likely, they are not from those 'communities', and are more likely 'southerners' and from the cities, to which they have every right to return and pick up the pieces of lifelong careers. 'Southerners' owe 'northerners' nothing. 'Northerners' are no more 'their people' than they are to any other Australians, except that, in a formal sense they are fellow-Indigenous - under the same Flag, so to speak.

Joe

There is a simpler solution, 'NOT MY PROBLEM'. I've helped raise two model kids and bring them up as fine, respectful adults. I'm sorry, but other peoples kids are their responsibility, end of story.

rehctub - Sorry to say but you might think it is "end of story" but if one of the degenerates does something to one of your, the story continues.

It does not matter how careful a person is things can get out of hand very quickly because another person is not as responsible as yours are.

Hi Phillip,

So how can government - if they have any role at all in intra-family responsibilities - put pressure on parents to do the right thing, the human thing, and look after their kids properly ? Well, there are carrots and there are sticks. Carrots have been tried for decades and, if anything, probably strengthened the mistaken notion that 'colonisation' and 'self-determination' meant that government agencies would do everything that all hitherto human societies required parents to do. I get the idea that people in remote 'communities' love colonisation for that reason. And so many government agencies have done little but reinforced that illusion, generation after generation.

So how about sticks ? Governments could withdraw funding, say, Family Allowances, from parents who don't sen their kids to school. When I was a kid, parents could be fined or jailed for letting their kids truant. Notes to teacher are famous. How do governments get across that welfare payments are CONDITIONAL rights, more like privileges, payable if people had done everything reasonable to avoid the need for them, and only then if they observed basic rules, like sending kids to school. I'm not suggesting jailing useless parents, or fining them, but simply cutting back on their entitlements which are, after all, made with the implication that those parents will do the right thing.

Twenty notifications in barely two years. Wouldn't that constitute dereliction, the abandonment of parental duties ? Do parents have 100 % rights over their children ? Yes, of course, if they do the right thing. And if not ? If one of their kids is raped, beaten, starved and/or neglected ? Have those parents lost their rights to 'own' those kids ? DO they 'own' their kids ? No, the kids themselves do. Nobody else does, but the government is, after all, in loco parentis of last resort - it has obligations to protect all citizens, of any age.

[TBC]

[continued]

So how many strikes should parents have ? At what point can - or should - government agencies take children into care, take them away if you like, 'steal' them, and permanently ? Should the fostering process be extremely short, in preparation for permanent adoption ? Of course, each case would have to go before a magistrate with arguments for and against passionately proposed.

But whose rights should be primary - the parents, the kids' or the government's ? I'd suggest: the kids'. The parents are stewards, carers, WHEN they do the right thing, but they have no absolute rights, no 'ownership' of children.

End of rant.

Joe

Criminal action occurs in all societies and in this case a baby is alleged to have been raped. As SR pointed out the same offence occured in Melbourne quite recently. However, from what I can find out, it appears that child sex is a frequent occurence in aboriginal communities.

Adults having sex with minors was mentioned in the report 'Little children are Angels' as did the number of kids, and even babies, that have to be treated for Venerial Diseases in Aboriginal communities.

There must be medical evidence that could be ferretted out that would give an accurate picture of child sex and VD rates and I suspect it would surprise. It may be called STD these days.

With all the social problems facing the aboriginal people one would think that there would be less talk of self determination and push for specific seats in Parliament or a governing body. We have recently been hit with a heap of calls to stop taking kids from families, when it appears we should be taking far more for their own protection.

As ATSIC showed, these people are far from capable from running any sort of governing body. The polys we have now leave much to be desired.

Banjo, with regard medical confirmation on rates of stds in aboriginal kids, you would be surprised at how difficult it apparently is to obtain.
Even Bess Price, as an elected minister couldn’t get that information.
And of course, the known cases are only the tip of the iceberg. The majority of cases wouldn’t be known because kids aren’t tested for stds.
I was working in the Paediatric dept of the Royal Darwin Hospital when the government intervention was introduced, and one of the measures taken was a mandatory health check on all children in remote communities. It was a great idea and picked up a huge number of chronic illnesses in these kids, including rheumatic heart disease, however, when it was suggested that these health checks should include an std check, the reaction was violent rejection. By all aboriginal organisations and some non aboriginal organisations.
It was said to be too traumatic etc. however kids were having blood taken to check for iron deficiency anaemia so I failed to see how the taking of a bit of extra blood would have hurt.
From my 30years experience of working with aboriginal children in the north, I learned that regardless of which party was in power, child Protection workers are so overwhelmed by their caseloads that they could only focus on reports where actual physical or sexual damage had occurred. Kids being neglected or at risk were way down on the list.
And the burn out rate of these workers is horrific.

Big Nana,
I'm sorry that you have to be the bearer of bad news, but not surprized that the news of denial was political. The same as the states not collecting data on FGM from hospitals. They don't want to know. Sad when kids can be saved with polys being honest and facing problems.

I suppose the best we can hope for is that,at some point, enough info will leak out, through social media, that will embarrass governments to act. Sad that kids continue to suffer needlessly and the perpetrators of the crimes get a slap on the wrist at worst.

Here's a wild thought. Seeing as how all the abo's problems began with and are the result of the white man, I'm wondering if the solution might be so very simple and would satisfy the blacks, the greens, the whites and any number of other colours who want to also join in.
History has told us that the abo's were quite happy and lived very well for centuries before the white man came along. OK so the answer is so simple and obvious. We stop giving ANY assistance of ANY kind. Now because we are guilty of being the reason for ALL their problems, we must sever any contact with them altogether. The final act of goodwill and independence is to allow, no, assist them to go back to the bush and their traditional lifestyle and culture, because it was so important and relevant to them. The evidence has been staring us in the face all these years yet no-one picked up on it. All the problems will immediately stop once they are back in the bush able to continue living as they have always done. Then everyone will know exactly where they stand and we will all be happy again.

Hi Alt Rave,

I think that has been suggested many, many times and the number of people who have done just that, over the past fifty years, has been:

0

Loudmouth, I've always suspected that. I'm not very good at sarcasm but I thought it was worth a try. I find it incomprehensible that we are being attacked for highlighting the plight of the abo's, and then we are attacked for actually helping them. Anyone who has now read these posts and still believes we should not have removed these children from their homes is well beyond reasoning with. They obviously have some other selfish agenda. I do not involve myself with the customs and habits of another culture until or unless there is some kind of anti social behaviour which affects a more vulnerable person within that community or others outside that community. Honestly it may be a throw away comment, but I don't see any other way that ticks all the boxes. I believe the govt should seriously consider the idea of returning ALL those people who claim to be abo's back to their natural and cultural home lands. If nothing else you would quickly see all the wannabees scurry for cover at the thought of having to live in the bush, without all the comforts and conveniences of the white man's world. They would not be allowed to make contact with any white fellas and visa-versa. Everyone should be happy then. No free housing or handouts or benefits, as it seems they do not want any of these things.

Hi Alt Rave,

Back in the 1920s, a movement was initiated here in Adelaide by probably-well-meaning whites to set up a Black State, probably in Arnhem Land, only for 'full-bloods', and for all whites except health workers, teachers and administrators to be kept out - an 'inviolate' State. It garnered not a single Aboriginal supporter except David Unaipon, the bloke on the $ 50 note, who, being 'full-blood', saw himself as the Premier of this 'State'. The idea had died in the arse by 1930.

But hope springs eternal. These days, it would be a 'radical' initiative. Somebody should suggest it to Michael Mansell or the W.A.R. ratbags.

Joe

Loudmouth I agree. You might get objections from some who say 'I come from the area now called Adelaide, therefore I want to settle back where I came from'. Now my answer to that problem is, they are nomadic and can settle anywhere so there are always those who will cop the short end. They will have to take a hit, 'for the greater good' as they say. But come on, let's face it, they are not assimilating as all the 'experts' predicted. Govt policies are counter productive and are causing more harm and damage than good. We have thrown billions at them only to have the pollies and their mates steal it by re-directing large amounts so the abo's got a fraction of the funding allocation. Between you and me, that alone would be enough to piss me off. Having said that, I believe this was the reason for the funding in the first place. It was never intended to really do any good for the abo's. Think about it. Why is so much money being wasted on one particular group? What the homeless and destitute white folk are too proud to get assistance? Remember, we are all AUSTRALIANS, so if we are going to help one group, we can't just cherry pick, we must help ALL those in need. Otherwise the govt's current policy is in fact, 'discrimination'. They are discriminating against the white fella's. And to think, we used to have a 'white Australia' policy.

Alt Rave,

Not too many Indigenous people in the 'south' are nomadic: after all, it's not genetic. They have been familiar with Western living for 150-200 years now. It's THEIR way of life too :) If you draw a line across Australia between farming and pastoral districts, maybe what you declare might be truer for 'northerners' but not 'southerners'.

South of that line, and around major towns in the north, you would find very much settled Indigenous people, including the great majority of the 54,000 university graduates. Call it what you like, they have by and large assimilated themselves over those five or six generations and wouldn't have any more idea of how to be nomadic than your ancestors or mine. And chances are that they wouldn't be getting any more assistance than you or me.

In fact, they ARE Australians, with Indigenous ancestry.

Yes, I agree, everybody should get benefits only on the basis of need. And those in dire need, like the poor little girl who is the subject of this thread, should get all the assistance that she is entitled to as an Australian citizen: her useless parents should have no more rights over her than any other Australian parents in similar circumstances. Does that mean that she should be taken into care ? I certainly hope so.

Joe

Loudmouth, I agree with you on the plight of the little girl and all those like her. I must pull you up on a point of clarification. I have discussed this point before, at length. The 54,000 university graduates you mention is a factual error. I refer only to 'real' or full blooded abo's, not the wannabees. The true definition of an abo of any race is that the mother and father must be pure bloods of that race. The true and total number of actual and real abo's by now would be less than the number you quote as being uni grads. So unless these uni grads are ALL pure blood abo's, this number is a serious overreach. I would go so far as to say that the total number of indigenous original inhabitants, ie; aborigines, would be way less than the 54,000 you quoted graduating uni. You are on the money with the rest of your post.

Alt Rave,

As to your definition of 'Aboriginal': 54,000 it is, until you're crowned Life Dictator. Until next year, when it may well go up to 58,000. If you don't like it, no problems, you can just kiss my hairy arse.

Joe

Loudmouth, I can't see the relevance of your response to my post. You cannot be seriously suggesting that the wannabees are to be considered, Australian Aborigines? (just thought I'd use the proper english speak so you won't mis-understand the Aussie white fellas slang). Why you insist on going against your own elders orders is beyond me. So your too embarrassed to call yourself an Australian with mixed heritage. Your attitude is very immature and petulant. All thinking mature men will see that you are attempting to promote a wrongful view, possibly for some personal and selfish agenda. I don't know, but I guarantee you, you are wrong. I and millions of Australians are sick and tired of people trying to mis-represent themselves simply for the purpose of personal gain in one way or another. I'll say it again. If you have any other race in your ancestry, then you are an Aussie. We are not discussing what you feel like or what you believe in. No one cares about those factors when classifying someones race. If you were born in Australia, you are an Aussie, end of story. Oh and to quote a self styled narcissistic wannabee; 'you can just kiss my hairy arse'!

Alt Rave,

I'm not Indigenous: strictly British as far as I know, from convicts from all five corners of the Isles, although there just might be some West Indian convict in there as well. Even if I were Indigenous, I wouldn't have much time for 'elders', so many blowhards and phonies - yes, indeed, including many wannabes and Johnny-come-latelies. But often with quite big beards, though.

As to your ignorant remarks about graduates (you can't believe there could be such things as Indigenous university graduates, do you ? No doubt, you'll make some racist crack about that), if anything, the numbers are conservative. People are re-identifying all the time, that's been going on since the first Census in which Indigenous people were counted as Indigenous, 1971. There are re- and de-identifying processes going on all the time.

Joe

//But often with quite big beards, though.//

Beards are where wisdom is stored, Joe. Haven't you seen Gandalf? Or Dumbledore?

"There was an old man with a beard,
A funny old man with a beard,
He had a big beard,
A great big old beard,
That amusing old man man with a beard."
- Ted Lear, 'The Even More Complete Book of Australian Verse' by John Clarke

//I'll say it again. If you have any other race in your ancestry, then you are an Aussie.//

Sorry, Captain Nuremberg Laws, but there's a massive gaping hole in that logic. There's quite good archaeological evidence to indicate that Aboriginals had contact with other races prior to British colonisation, and good evidence for interbreeding. That means there could well have been a significant proportion of the pre-settlement Aboriginals with 'any other race' in their ancestry, which by your 'logic' means that they were therefore not really Aboriginal, but in fact 'Aussie'. Prior to Australia being a thing. Yeah, sounds legit... [sarcasm]

Loudmouth, you see that's what I'm talking about. Re-identifying? What a load of excrement. As for abo's (real abo's)and the true number of uni grads, I doubt very much there would be any more than two figures in number. ie; more like 54! I don't care if someone wakes up one morning and decides they want to be someone else. They can identify themselves to a rock for all the use it is because no one cares. In the real world they were born of a certain blood line and in a certain place, and they can't change that. If they don't like being called Aussies, too bad, they have no say in the matter. It's the law.
Toni, if I get your point are you agreeing with me? If they had other blood in them at any stage prior and were born in Australia, your right they are still Aussie but not abo by definition. Because of the mixed blood somewhere back in their bloodline. If you want to call Australia something else before colonisation, that's fine, but they are still of this country or land if this is where they were born. The definition of the word aboriginal simply means you are originally from a place or a race. We can't choose when we want a race to begin, only when it will end. The true abo will no longer exist shortly unless some pure bloods decide to commit to a pilgrimage with other pure bloods to keep the bloodline going. Otherwise they will simply meld into the total Aussie melting pot and simply become Australians, which is dictated by their place of birth. This is how it has always been.

Alt Rave,

I rest my case :)

And of course people can be Australian AND Aboriginal. Aboriginal is not a 'nationality' but a social, historical, ethnic reality. If one is raised (especially by an Aboriginal mother), has only Aboriginal brothers and sisters, cousins, grandparents, etc., if one is regarded by non-Aboriginal people, as Aboriginal, if that's all one has grown used to since birth, then one is Aboriginal. AND Australian. Quintessentially Australian, one could add. More Australian than you and me.

Yes, sorry to burst your racist bubble, 54,000 Indigenous university graduates. Seventy thousand by the early 2020s. A hundred thousand before 2030, one in every four or five urban adults. overwhelmingly urban, two-thirds women, graduating from standard courses. Indigenous. Get used to it.

And anyway, my arse is hairier than yours, nyah nyah :)

Joe

Loudmouth you can't claim victory based on your example. I have been saying from my earliest memory on the topic, that the use of the word aborigine, in Australia has taken a different line than it's true meaning. Here we go around once more. Boy this is tedious and I'm getting dizzy. Forget all the introduced crap that has sprung up lately like 're-identification'. What? Did these people all go into witness protection and get new identities? If that's the case, I'll say no more on the subject. But, if not, they are all Australians first and foremost. As to their backgrounds and so on, that's not relevant in this discussion or my point. They cannot and must not call themselves abo's if they have foreign blood in their bloodline. Their bloodline might have ended at Terra-Nullius but during that journey is when the de-aborigination occurred. If we are to be thoroughly clinical about it. Fortunately we are not talking about what happened before they arrived in Australia. (although we should as it forms the base of this discussion) Being aboriginal normally means you are a native of that country. It can also mean 'born of that country'. But this is not the case here. The abo's have classified themselves as a race, so if we expound on that statement it follows that the word aborigine when used in reference to an Auusie abo, can only mean they are of pure blood. Anything else is a 'wannabee'. Whether you believe Elders or not is irrelevant. They have the floor and even though I think the whole thing is a joke I still have to sit back and try and enjoy the farce, er, sorry, I mean, show.

Loudmouth, I'm not letting you get away with your ridiculous and fanciful figure of 54,000 graduates. As I said you would be hard pressed to find 54,000 pure blood abo's, let alone all graduates. Now I do believe there is a reasonable chance that 54,000 wannabees might have graduated, but that also seems a bit of a reach when you look at the demographics and TRUE stats in each state. So the rest of the commentors are welcome to take your numbers on board. I am not.

Just a little quote from the Australian:

"Child protection authorities are overwhelmed by the scale of neglect and under-­reported sexual activity involving children in the Northern Territory, which has seen rates of sexually transmitted infections soar over the past decade and prompted one former minister to suggest the rampant abuse of minors can only be stopped by imposing a form of martial law.

Territory Families took just five sex abuse victims into temporary protective custody between 2012-13 and 2015-16 despite substantiating 232 abuse cases, according to data compiled by a royal commission.

The then minister, John Elferink, said yesterday that he felt “frankly, largely powerless” in the face of a “tsunami” of under-reported and under-recognised child welfare problems that no government then or now had the capacity or willingness to resolve.

“What’s the solution? We keep sticking Band-Aids on the amputation, hoping to Christ that it will stop the bleeding over time. But it’s simply not good enough,” he said. “Unless a child’s situation is truly bad or they are particularly young, there’s minimal chance that the child will see any form of government protection come their way.

“We would almost have had to have declared a state of emer­gency to deal with all the issues, which would have entailed enormous consequences. There’s no way, in the current environment, that you could create a state of emergency, which would be almost like declaring martial law, and so you’re stuck with all these compromise approaches.”

In the NT there are 190 cases of gonorrhoea in children under 16 last year, all but 1 is aboriginal.

Loudmouth, I imagine you've read Shadow Ministers post. I'm not going to comment on it because it speaks for itself and I want to use it to highlight another con the abo's have stuck Australia with. The 'Stolen Generation'. All the BS around these people being taken away from a sh!tty life to a better life, and they have the arrogance and gall to berate the white fella for giving them a life, let alone the best life they would ever have imagined if they had stayed where they were. Now if we can just shoot the greens, the soft cocks and the neuters, we go in take the children and disperse them amongst the white fellas, they can thank us later when they are adults and are safe, educated, healthy and free to move on with there lives, and not die of who knows what staying where they were with 'their' people. I see no other answer to this problem. All those moronic 'do-gooders' should be attacked physically and forced to never give an opinion ever again. Or the govt has to grow some balls and stop listening to noisy little piss-ant groups who only cause problems for an otherwise proper response to a problem. These people are emotional idiots and should never be given the chance to project their opinions ever again.