Banjo,

did you not read the part where I don't give a flying fig what some idiot who thinks himself so important as to dare make decisions for those who have not empowered him to do so.
The Mabo was a rubbish bit of political contrivance, which at best should have been relegated to the rubbish bin and not allowed to be even considered.
These people are morons, they are like the wind, blowing one way one minute and another the next.
Common law should be expunged and replaced with common sense, now that would be something.
The Politicians and their mates would have a hell of a time manipulating words and forming laws to their benefit.
Every major decision the govt makes, someone, normally the minister responsible, comes away with a financial gain, somehow.
Basically they don't care if the public suffers as long as they benefit from the decisions and laws they introduce.
Think about it, those of you who think that pollies and their mates are squeaky clean, they're not!
They are the worst offenders of insider trading today.
We're led to believe it's the stock brokers.
WRONG!
It's the pollies and their mates.
Who are the first ones to know about something new coming out or being started?
That's right.
So somehow they are benefitting from things like this whole black farcical of a joke.
Banjo, you believe a convenient lie, I'll stick with the truth.
Tell me something, seeing as your so invested in this whole blacks and pollies in bed together thing, how is it that when most pollies begin their political carriers, they're pretty much broke.
Yet when they come out of politics, they are very much wealthier than when they went in?
And no one had better say "because they got paid" or you will get a good reaming from me, so don't say anything.
When you've figured it out, get back to me with the only answer.

.

Dear Loudmouth,

.

You wrote :

« As I've tried to point out many times, the colonial authorities here were instructed from London to recognise - and protect - the rights of Indigenous people to carry on their relationships to the land, to hunt, gather, camp on, etc., and this was specifically written into pastoral lease documents - at least down here in South Australia »

You have, Loudmouth, and I have replied that written instructions from London (as, for example, the so-called “secret instructions” given to Lieutenant James Cook to negotiate the purchase of land from the “natives” if there were any) served as proof of official protocol, not necessarily to be taken seriously – a sort of tongue-in-cheek instruction.

You will, perhaps, recall that I posted a link to an article by Douglas Pike, Professor of History, University of Tasmania, formerly Reader-in-History, University of Adelaide, entitled « Introduction of the Real Property Act in South Australia ». In it, he provides a vivid description of the mayhem that reigned from 1836 through to the 1860s in the property market in the new colony, due to the squatters, speculative investments by UK residents in land in South Australia (which they never saw), and the buying and selling of land locally in SA, independently of the colonial authorities :

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AdelLawRw/1961/4.pdf

I also posted a link to an article indicating that, in the new colony of South Australia :

« For many years there were conflicts between the pastoralists and Aborigines. As their tribal lands were gradually taken over the Aborigines lost their natural food supplies. When they killed sheep or cattle the pastoralists retaliated by killing the Aborigines »

Here is the link once again :

http://www.southaustralianhistory.com.au/overview.htm
.

I don’t think there’s much point in going back over all this once again, Loudmouth. We have already expounded our arguments and produced our evidence and don’t seem to be getting anywhere.

If you and ALTRAV don’t mind, I’m signing off this thread and look forward to future exchanges with both of you on some other subject of mutual interest.

.

And gentlemen...What of the Death Penalty - Should this ultimate punishment be revisited for certain atrocious crime(s)?

YES!

Hi Banjo,

Wish you were here ! Then you might have a more accurate idea of what the hell happened here in the past, instead of getting it from Dr Google.

For example, even now, Aboriginal people in SA have the right to go onto pastoral leases - leases, not freehold - to carry out traditional activities such as hunting, gathering, camping, etc. Those rights were written into every pastoral lease issued after 1850.

Joe

.

Dear Loudmouth,

.

You wrote :

1. « Wish you were here ! Then you might have a more accurate idea of what the hell happened here in the past, instead of getting it from Dr Google »

I haven’t been back to Adelaide for a few years now, Joe. One of my lifetime friends lives there and I visit him whenever I return to Australia. He has a PhD in history from Queensland University and was a Rhodes scholar. His interest is in the history of what used to be known as the Church of England in Australia (now the Anglican Church).

Google didn’t write those articles, Joe, anymore than it wrote your posts here on OLO. Are you suggesting I should not value your posts either, simply because I get them through Google too ?

So far as I can judge, I have no reason to believe that the authors of those articles to which I posted a link are any less reputable than I consider you to be on the same subject. Check them out and see for yourself.

2. « … even now, Aboriginal people in SA have the right to go onto pastoral leases … Those rights were written into every pastoral lease issued after 1850 »

That’s correct, Joe, but, as you may know, the legislative and legal system in the new colony of South Australia created in 1836 was in a terrible mess and officially declared invalid until the Colonial Laws Validity Act was passed by the UK parliament in 1865. Its long title is "An Act to remove Doubts as to the Validity of Colonial Laws", and that is exactly what it did.

Because of serious doubt regarding the legal status of the Torren’s Real Property Act 1858 (designed to provide certainty of title to land), very few pastoral leases were registered from 1836 through to the 1860s, as I indicated in my previous post. Legal advisers in the colony urged people "not to bring their lands under the Act" but "to take Counsel's opinion in England".

.

(Continued …)

.