Don Dale Centre videos on 4 corners: treatment of children in custody (Northern Territory)

Remove this Banner Ad

What a terrible appointment. Cory Bernardi is 100% correct.

Anyone in charge of a Royal Commission MUST be impartial and be seen to be impartial. Whether he can control his preconceived opinions is irrelevant. His previous position and his previous comments means that he should automatically be disqualified from the position. How can anyone deny that this should be the case?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I knew who worked with disabled people in the '90s. I of the men was mentally and physically disabled and a survivor of the Basil Stafford centre:

http://www.ccc.qld.gov.au/research-...icial-misconduct-at-the-basil-stafford-centre

Physical and sexual abuse of clients by staff caused it to be closed down.

Mistreatment of vulnerable people in facilities meant to care for them has been depressingly widespread since these places were invented.

Politicians don't want to put money in and they don't want to be responsible when things go wrong.
 
What a terrible appointment. Cory Bernardi is 100% correct.

Anyone in charge of a Royal Commission MUST be impartial and be seen to be impartial. Whether he can control his preconceived opinions is irrelevant. His previous position and his previous comments means that he should automatically be disqualified from the position. How can anyone deny that this should be the case?

Oh Lakeside- Im not denying its the case that people in charge of this case should be perceived to be impartial. As such Im not a huge fan of Mr Gooda as he has made his feelings quite public, which given the previous judge was turfed due to concerns over impartiality, why would we put Mr Gooda in except for nothing other than a massaging and stroking of egos, and a perception of appeasement.

i just dont believe that Cory is the guy who should be the one persecuting the requests for impartiality, as his well known partiality towards the Conservative side of life creates a negative perception of anything that he tries to say from the silent majority.
 
Oh Lakeside- Im not denying its the case that people in charge of this case should be perceived to be impartial. As such Im not a huge fan of Mr Gooda as he has made his feelings quite public, which given the previous judge was turfed due to concerns over impartiality, why would we put Mr Gooda in except for nothing other than a massaging and stroking of egos, and a perception of appeasement.

i just dont believe that Cory is the guy who should be the one persecuting the requests for impartiality, as his well known partiality towards the Conservative side of life creates a negative perception of anything that he tries to say from the silent majority.
So what you're saying is that you agree that Mr. Gooda shouldn't be in charge of the Royal Commission which is what we and probably most people agree on. But you disagree that Cory Bernardi should be the one pointing it out? Why does it matter who points it out if they are correct?
 
No idea? Yep, that's what I thought.
It's a straw man.

"With us or against us!"

"Hoods and straps or nothing!"

And your insinuation that you cannot point out a problem without a comprehensive solution is a debating trap.

It's obvious that strapping a kid down for two hours with a bag over his head isn't acceptable.
 
What a terrible appointment. Cory Bernardi is 100% correct.

Anyone in charge of a Royal Commission MUST be impartial and be seen to be impartial. Whether he can control his preconceived opinions is irrelevant. His previous position and his previous comments means that he should automatically be disqualified from the position. How can anyone deny that this should be the case?
That Morrison and Turnbull could not see this is testimony to their removal from normality.
People so cut off from social norms have no right to lead.
 
That Morrison and Turnbull could not see this is testimony to their removal from normality.
People so cut off from social norms have no right to lead.
I suspect that Morrison had little to do with it. Turnbull has a history of making quick decisions without consulting his peers (almost as bad as Rudd). That can work in business but not when you're part of a team.
 
You still haven't answered my question. Geez, it's like talking to a child. What is your suggested alternative?
You're basically trying to dig out a false dichotomy. "Oh! You think THAT is the answer? PFFT!"

What methods do they use in other states? Where in other states is it acceptable - or even legal - to strap a minor down with a bag over their head for two hours?

Anyone with a shred of human decency can point out that what happened was wrong. In fact, people in the field in other jurisdictions agree it is wrong.

CLUBMEDhurst might be the one to discuss alternatives.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

What method did you use then to stop people from spitting on you?

When I got spat on, all the crook's mates would laugh. I would give the offender a pat down and whilst doing it, would wipe all his slag back on him.
Usually got even louder laughter from his mates, a mumbled, '****ing dog campaigner', then they'd continue on with their business. The individual wouldn't do it again.
 
You're basically trying to dig out a false dichotomy. "Oh! You think THAT is the answer? PFFT!"

What methods do they use in other states? Where in other states is it acceptable - or even legal - to strap a minor down with a bag over their head for two hours?

Anyone with a shred of human decency can point out that what happened was wrong. In fact, people in the field in other jurisdictions agree it is wrong.

CLUBMEDhurst might be the one to discuss alternatives.

I find that amazing, do you think they'd get on national television or print and cheer it on?

Hollow condemnation from a lot of 'em for mine. I reckon half of them deep down don't really give a stuff.
 
When I got spat on, all the crook's mates would laugh. I would give the offender a pat down and whilst doing it, would wipe all his slag back on him.
Usually got even louder laughter from his mates, a mumbled, '******* dog campaigner', then they'd continue on with their business. The individual wouldn't do it again.
I have personally found that pulling their shirt over their head is the first step to nullifying the situation/threat.
 
It's a straw man.

"With us or against us!"

"Hoods and straps or nothing!"

And your insinuation that you cannot point out a problem without a comprehensive solution is a debating trap.

It's obvious that strapping a kid down for two hours with a bag over his head isn't acceptable.

As a way of not getting spat on?
 
It took me less than 10 seconds to find an answer to Lakeside Swan's question. I simply entered "are spit hoods used in NSW" into Google and this was the first link: http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-27/use-of-spit-hoods-at-wa-juvenile-jail-under-review/7665106

In NSW, JJ staff wear a face mask and spit hoods are illegal.

Rather than having this petty argument, couldn't one (or preferably both) of you taken this small amount of time to actually find out? Both of you have SOME validity to your argument (on one hand, staff DO need to be protected and on the other, whether spit hoods are legal or not, leaving a young person in a spit hood and restraint chair for almost 2 hours is reprehensible), but you were just yelling past one another and not actually having any sort of constructive discussion.
 
It took me less than 10 seconds to find an answer to Lakeside Swan's question. I simply entered "are spit hoods used in NSW" into Google and this was the first link: http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-27/use-of-spit-hoods-at-wa-juvenile-jail-under-review/7665106

In NSW, JJ staff wear a face mask and spit hoods are illegal.

Rather than having this petty argument, couldn't one (or preferably both) of you taken this small amount of time to actually find out? Both of you have SOME validity to your argument (on one hand, staff DO need to be protected and on the other, whether spit hoods are legal or not, leaving a young person in a spit hood and restraint chair for almost 2 hours is reprehensible), but you were just yelling past one another and not actually having any sort of constructive discussion.
Consider me chastised.

I already thought they were illegal, as it was mentioned in an article on the ABC.

It is funny seeing LS try to bully his way around, sliding from argument to argument every time he is backed into a corner.
 
Leaving someone for 2 hours restrained and shackled may sound tough but if it's necessary well so be it. He's obviously made some bad decisions to get himself there (in jail and secondly restrained) so he must learn that with his actions that sometimes there will be consequences that aren't always to his liking.
 
While I'm not getting my jollies off to a bunch of kids being punished, like some of the posters in this thread.
I do still think what I've seen so far is a beat up. Lawyers trying to make names for themselves, and money, while 'Making a Murderer' is currently so popular.


I've watched up to the interview with Colin Rogan.
I know this man, and I know the son. If anyone wants some 'hearsay' details send me a message.

There is a reason that Kenny went from foster home to foster home.

I'll watch the rest of it later, when I have time.

I'm not defending anything about this, yet. I know that the entire system was ****ed and just getting worse.
But I really doubt that I'm going to see professional fighters beating up kids, as some have stated happened, in this thread.
 
Your selective listening has caused a failure in your comprehension of the program, assuming you've seen it at all.
I mentioned twice in my post that I haven't seen it all yet.
 
While I'm not getting my jollies off to a bunch of kids being punished, like some of the posters in this thread.
I do still think what I've seen so far is a beat up. Lawyers trying to make names for themselves, and money, while 'Making a Murderer' is currently so popular.

I've watched up to the interview with Colin Rogan.
I know this man, and I know the son. If anyone wants some 'hearsay' details send me a message.

There is a reason that Kenny went from foster home to foster home.

I'll watch the rest of it later, when I have time.

I'm not defending anything about this, yet. I know that the entire system was stuffed and just getting worse.
But I really doubt that I'm going to see professional fighters beating up kids, as some have stated happened, in this thread.

I think that you are missing a good point from the program and that is the sentencing of Aboriginal children.
In the program there was a first offender for car theft, not sure that a white boy would be in detention for a first offence of that kind and being treated in the manner he was.

As has been confirmed this seems to have been happening for some years and nothing has been addressed to date and if it took a program such as 4Corners to bring to the attention of all us then well done to them.

Not sure I would agree that it is about Lawyers making a name for themselves and can't see how you got that from only seeing part of the program, how is that relevant?

For me it showed not only that there wasn't sufficient training of staff but there seems to be something lacking in the original selection of staff.
What characteristics or attributes were they looking for?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Don Dale Centre videos on 4 corners: treatment of children in custody (Northern Territory)

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top