[Archived] Unimportant Sensationalism

[jim mk2]

Everybody must realise by now that Jim likes to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. Note his judgement of Emerton that smithy highlighted.

Read the posts. After my initial scepticism I've been won over by Emerton and his performances in a Rovers shirt for some time.

Your defence of the use of the word "Paki" however makes you look ridiculous. Stick to the footy lad - it's a subject about which you have a smidgen of knowledge.

[gillibrand]

Carol Thatcher has been taken off the BBC for referring to a tennis player as a Golliwog off air, is that another word that is to be a no no ?

[jim mk2]

Carol Thatcher has been taken off the BBC for referring to a tennis player as a Golliwog off air, is that another word that is to be a no no ?

Depends on the context and the way it was said ; knowing Carol Thatcher she made the remark in a brusque and insensitive way.

It's a family trait.

[thenodrog]

Quite so dear boy.

Ooo errr How fey is that? Watch out! Jim's turning into Noel Coward!

Carol Thatcher has been taken off the BBC for referring to a tennis player as a Golliwog off air, is that another word that is to be a no no ?

Now that Byrom Supplies has shut it's might be.

It's a family trait.

Quite so dear boy.

[tony gale's mic]

To back up Neekoys comment.

Would you care to give the source for your comment?

I was out by two years but:

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s1933845.htm

[dave birch]

I was out by two years but:

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s1933845.htm

So you have based your argument on a two minute interview on the ABC in 2007, part of which quoted:

"It was 40 years ago this Sunday, and there'll be commemorations around Australia to mark the importance of a move which for the first time led to all Aboriginal people being counted in the census."

Counted in the census!

Where in your investigative experience, does it sayin that they were classified as "fauna/pests til 1969 when they were legally recognised as being humans. ...Unbelievable."

If, as you keep telling us, that you are about to become a doctor of Medicine, I would hope that you would do a little more research into what you are studying and saying before you are unleashed on the unsuspecting British public.

Australia became a country in its own right on 1/1/1901 and until 1948 all Australians were British subjects. Up to 1901 the country was governed by the British. Much of the elimination of the aborigines was done under the British flag, well before Australia became a nation. That is, between invasion day (as the aborigines like to call it) and 1901. OK things didn't improve much in the early 1900's but they did get better, albeit too late.

and you were out by two years!

Sorry, I was out by two mils with my scalple!

[tony gale's mic]

So you have based your argument on a two minute interview on the ABC in 2007, part of which quoted:

"It was 40 years ago this Sunday, and there'll be commemorations around Australia to mark the importance of a move which for the first time led to all Aboriginal people being counted in the census."

Counted in the census!

Where in your investigative experience, does it sayin that they were classified as "fauna/pests til 1969 when they were legally recognised as being humans. ...Unbelievable."

If, as you keep telling us, that you are about to become a doctor of Medicine, I would hope that you would do a little more research into what you are studying and saying before you are unleashed on the unsuspecting British public.

Australia became a country in its own right on 1/1/1901 and until 1948 all Australians were British subjects. Up to 1901 the country was governed by the British. Much of the elimination of the aborigines was done under the British flag, well before Australia became a nation. That is, between invasion day (as the aborigines like to call it) and 1901. OK things didn't improve much in the early 1900's but they did get better, albeit too late.

and you were out by two years!

Sorry, I was out by two mils with my scalple!

I didn't base what I heard on this, I'd read it at a museum I visited (think it was in Darwin) and also had heard this fact a few times before.

Still...more sources:

Aborigine Jackie Huggins remembers when she was regarded as part of Australia's native wildlife.

As a young girl, Huggins was not counted as part of the Australian population. Back then Aborigines existed only under the country's flora and fauna laws.

http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/australia2.html ...that's linked from a Reuters article.

Move forward a century, and things had changed little. Before 1967, Aboriginal people existed only under the Flora and Fauna Act. They were not counted as human beings in the census and no legislation was enacted with them in mind.

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2008/0.../story29817.asp

Learn a bit about your own country mate.

And hell, I'd never argue against anyone talking up brutality of the British Empire. But even after this, the issue of the Stolen Generations continued well after British rule. Even now talking to Australians I noted an attitude towards them from many otherwise decent people which would be considered unacceptable towards other races here and it made me and quite a few other folks I talked to decidedly uncomfortable. However, it's good that efforts are being made now to redress the balance.

[BiggusLaddus]

Depends on the context and the way it was said ; knowing Carol Thatcher she made the remark in a brusque and insensitive way.

It's a family trait.

It was used to describe a white lawyer, who has a daft hairstyle and does actually resemble a gollywog in my opinion.

Back to Prince Harry, he was talking to friends about a friend. It was a private matter and unless someone directly involved was offended by it, then no one else has any right to be. No words or even insults are unacceptable between friends unless the 'target' takes offense.

[BiggusLaddus]

It was used to describe a white lawyer, who has a daft hairstyle and does actually resemble a gollywog in my opinion.

Please ignore this bit, was talking nonsense having only half read the article. It was just coincedence that the lawyer in the case looked like an alibino gollywog.

My opinion on Harry still stands though.

[thenodrog]

Please ignore this bit, was talking nonsense having only half read the article. It was just coincedence that the lawyer in the case looked like an alibino gollywog.

It's not that ridiculous Don King is it? I've always thought that something must have seriously spooked him to leave his hair like it is.

[tony gale's mic]

This is brilliant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K21e7po1Sro

[gillibrand]

This is brilliant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K21e7po1Sro

You have a strange sense of humour!