dutchroll Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 A logical thinker would realise that interviewing around three million people in Melbourne would not be a very productive way of catching the few thousand illegal immigrants. I was in the military for 16 years. My observations and that of many of my colleagues were that when working for the Government and dealing with bureaucrats in the Defence Dept, logical thinking rarely entered into discussions or planning at higher levels. It's much the same in other departments, and I would think in a quasi-military one like ABF it would be near identical. The attitude which leads to these things is ultimately passed down by Government/Ministerial directives. How the Prime Minister could be blamed for this when the ABF commander already has taken responsibility for the concept and strategy of this operation, consigned it to the dustbin, and will do better in the future says a lot about how up to speed some people are. In Government, from personal experience, who takes responsibility and whose fault it really was are two entirely different things. The fault of the PM and in particular the Minister (Dutton) most likely lies not directly with them, but in the rhetoric they use. I wish I could explain how amazing the "domino" effect is when a Minister starts talking "tough", and how this filters down through the ranks. You get instantaneous chest-beating and a palpable change in attitude as you go further down. Until you get to the poor sods who actually have to carry out these orders sitting around scratching their heads saying "Well how the **** is this going to work? What idiot thought this up?" There are some streams of people being brought in to the country using methods such as student visas, and employed as cheap labour, and particularly in Melbourne you can see the population bulging in vocations like taxis, restaurants etc, so there is a definite need for border checking. The British do it well. We do have border checking. This was never going to be "border checking". The British have an illegal immigrant problem which makes ours look trivial! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 I don't belong to any political Party Turbs. Abbott spins all the time in collusion with the Murdoch press. He has meetings with them all the time, but won't allow HIS parliamentary party to appear on the ABC which is managed by Mark Scott appointed by Howard which he wants to micromanage as well. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank marriott Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Nev, are you suggesting the ABC Q&A programme has no political agenda? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted August 29, 2015 Author Share Posted August 29, 2015 Border Force cost $10M to rebrand customs and immigration, that's $10M that didn't produce a single arrest or investigation. The political agenda is that this gov can't govern, it's a fiasco of a magnitude we haven't seen since McMahon. The long term damage Abbott and co are doing to the Liberal party is going to take years to undo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oksinay Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 Its interesting that you lot ignore the involvement of the Vic state government whose operation this was. Bias doesn't even begin to describe some of the views expressed. And unfortunately this will prevent a discussion of the real threats to our freedoms being proposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 I rarely watch it.( Q&A) I know the form of it " Live to air" and the tweets are displayed and the audience is picked in proportion to the voting % out there . It's a populist show with no great depth politically. It has an audience of around 600,000 I understand. I don't believe it should be interfered with by governments as it looks bad. It tends to be anti government generally, whoever is in power. It's the government who is scrutinised. Part of the deal of governing. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted August 29, 2015 Author Share Posted August 29, 2015 Its interesting that you lot ignore the involvement of the Vic state government whose operation this was. I am sure that they had no idea that the ABF had planned on making it a big operation, usually the cops just telephone immigration if they catch an illegal in a sweep [ATTACH]47699._xfImport[/ATTACH] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank marriott Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 Interesting view, not mine, but I'll stop there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 And unfortunately this will prevent a discussion of the real threats to our freedoms being proposed. What are those? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 More LWL crap, how was this different to a breath / license check while driving? or a ramp check in a aircraft? If you have nothing to hide no problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 Frank, Tony said "Open and Accountable". Do you think he is? They duck scrutiny and there is always a reason for that. I don't like politics on this forum but it seems to crop up a lot and generally just results in Labelling rather than discussion. Pointless. Techy's just done it again proving my point..Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 More LWL crap, how was this different to a breath / license check while driving? or a ramp check in a aircraft? If you have nothing to hide no problem. How is illegal checking (as it was originally worded) different from legal checking? I'm afraid I can't really help you there. Just a LWL (apparently), so I'm not very bright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmick Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 Border Force cost $10M to rebrand customs and immigration, that's $10M that didn't produce a single arrest or investigation. Come on, they had to change the name to suit the TV shows. I think Leather Jackets, Hats and Riding Boots and heaps of stuff on the utility belt - WOW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted August 29, 2015 Author Share Posted August 29, 2015 and the black uniform will attract community minded people that really care about protecting our endangered native species and a few Sturmabteilung Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 Frank, Tony said "Open and Accountable". Do you think he is? They duck scrutiny and there is always a reason for that. I don't like politics on this forum but it seems to crop up a lot and generally just results in Labelling rather than discussion. Pointless. Techy's just done it again proving my point..Nev Have a look at your own post #23, spelling and all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willedoo Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 I guess what they had planned just wouldn't be a good look in this country. Black uniforms and stopping people in the street for ID checks is a bit retro. Germany has trialled that previously, but the idea died out in the mid 40's. One issue that was mentioned was how the operation would have worked. There would be only three methods: -stop everybody (not very practical but the most effective) -stop a small number at random (not very effective) - racially profile, eg. stop people of Middle Eastern or Asian descent ( opens a can of worms) The third alternative wouldn't be well received among our Chinese tourists who make up a large portion of our foreign tourism income these days. The second alternative would be next to useless, and the first alternative would go down like a lead balloon with the population at large. To their credit, they dropped a bad idea very quickly. I don't know how accurate the figure is, but one of the commentators said the percentage of visa breaches is a fraction of one percent of population. In that case, a lot of people would see random ID checks of the population as a bit of an overreaction. It makes one wonder if it was seriously thought to be an effective measure, or if it was more of a political flag waving 'Look, we're making you safe' type of descision. It probably doesn't matter anyway, as common sense has prevailed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 Apparently some people here think there's nothing inherently wrong at all with the concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted August 29, 2015 Author Share Posted August 29, 2015 For some reason, conservatives love fascism when they haven't got it and regret it when they get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2tonne Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 I wonder how many who complain about the "nanny state" in Australia would think this ABF action sounded reasonable? It seems along the same lines as the ASIC, something to make the ignorant masses feel safer but in reality achieve nothing (other than cost money and waste time). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 Apparently some people here think there's nothing inherently wrong at all with the concept. Last time a policeman asked me for ID I showed him my driver license and went on my way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Methusala Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 Most of us have a fairly clear idea of the powers and responsibilities of the police. Not sure at all regarding those of the ABF. Please explain? Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willedoo Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 Most of us have a fairly clear idea of the powers and responsibilities of the police. Not sure at all regarding those of the ABF. Please explain? Don Well, that is a valid point. Most countries have been experiencing an increasing militarism of the police forces, probably necesary to some degree with the type of crime and terror threats these days. What is a concern is the same thing happening with other government agencies. If Australian citizens have to be stopped in the street to provide ID, that's really the role of the police and not other paramilitary agencies of the government. I still remember a few years ago when the Queensland Transport Department inspectors (scalies) wanted the State Government to give them the right to wear and use sidearms. If a truckie didn't stop, they wanted the right to chase them with guns. The government politely told them no. That sort of thing is best nipped in the bud early. Leave it to the police is my opinion. That's what they're for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 They don't do immigration though, that's a Federal task. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octave Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 Last time a policeman asked me for ID I showed him my driver license and went on my way. So how would you prove that you are legally entitled to be in this country? Do we have to start carrying our birth certificates or citizenship papers around with us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litespeed Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 It is complete crap that all this is Ok. The if you are doing no wrong-you have nothing to fear is just a standard facist line to appeal to the braindead. Since when was it Ok for you to be stopped and demanded to prove ID in public. It is not driving which has specific laws and hence a need to prove your licence. Walking in public is not a crime. Operations of this sort are not even strictly legal for the police-you must be under reasonable suspicion of a crime, otherwise to stop you is not legal. The Border force- black shirts have special laws with very little scrutiny and greater power than any police force and even far more than ASIO. We do remember what happened last time the Howard govt tried this stuff--- Dr Mohammed Haneef- ring any bells? Or the Mentally ill Aussie kept in dentition for years? If you don't see this as a major right turn to the dark side- the government has a job for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts