Paul,

In our legal system, there is the presumption of innocence - in this case, surprisingly, of station owners, missions, governments et al. In other words, if you wish to assert some dreadful wrong, you have to find the evidence - those whom you accuse don't have to do a damn thing.

As the Romans had it - 'Asseritur gratis, negatur gratis': what is asserted freely, can be ignored freely. If you assert something, it's up to you to find evidence, it's not up to the 'defence' to provide the 'prosecution' with the evidence. Anybody can ignore you and tell you to piss off, and take your BS whinge somewhere else.

Joe

Paul1405,
You have provide ample evidence over the years that you don't have the integrity to be impartial !

We know who the ignorant person is, mhaze, and Joe has told him to piss off. We live in hope.

Hi once again Joe,

I can't be bothered talking to the redneck racists who invariably come up with the notion that there is "nothing to see here". Like with Queensland, there is no argument from the WA government concerning the validity of the claim, its not contested. The presumption of innocence does not apply for the reason the WA government admits liability brought about by wrongs created by two separate acts of the WA parliament.

As yet no one has addressed my opening post, the matter is not being defended. Is the WA government wrong to seek settlement?

I didn't take offence with your; "Anybody can ignore you and tell you to piss off, and take your BS whinge somewhere else." As I took it to be a general statement that applies only when something is denied in law.

Dear Paul,

I'm not a lawyer so I don't know the legalities
involved in this case. However, if the Queensland
government settled then perhaps they have a chance in WA?

That's why I brought up the Lingiari case - it showed
that sometimes with enough courage and determination you
can win.

I wish them every success. And yes, I know I'll be
described as a "bleeding heart", or worse. But at least
I've got a heart and it beats regularly on all days with the
letter "D" in it. And I don't suck all the energy and
optimism out of everyone on this forum.
(smile).

Hi Foxy,

For years when anything concerning Aboriginal Australians has been brought up on the Forum, the 'Usual Suspects' have been quick to deny or under score any past wrong doing. They retreat to a position of demanding evidence, or simply bring up some personal anecdotal story of how well off Aboriginal people are/were as a justification for their position. In this specific case two governments have chosen, after advice, to not contest the facts. Does this not indicate that there was substantial injustices committed in the past using the protection of the law.