Why? What did he say?

For something similar (to Winterton) they probably would.

For a comment that requires some interpretation to make it racist then they wouldn't.

But then again I'm not putting the UK government on a par with the government of WA

[QUOTE=MartinLuther]

For a comment that requires some interpretation to make it racist then they wouldn't.

QUOTE]


Why not?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3383589.stm

Why?

What?

Why should they? If it's not racist - why should they?

Ahh I think I'm there now....

The Australian media may put institutionalised racism in the spotlight.

Some alleged racist remarks are all in the eye of the beholder.

And powerful politicans who hold a large proportion of the state's budget are not on a par with UK politicians because........the population is smaller?...so therefore they can morally abrogate decency and ethical standards??

You may be there, but you're nowhere near me...

Where's the evidence that the Aus media are less likely to report this than the UK media. I provided evidence that UK politicians do make racist remarks - this obviously ruffed your, and arkon's, feathers you both having previously insinuated that Aus politicians are more racist than UK politicians.

Some remarks that are not racist can be made racist by anyone who has a bias. To be clear, someone who holds the opinion that Australian politicians are racist (or that Australians are racist) can make any statement sound racist by a convoluted (and biased) thought process. I'm sorry, but I prefer to work with facts rather than conjecture.

Personally I think that the UK government is on a par with the federal government (with the allowance that Aus pollies are less polished than their UK counterparts). I find that the MPs in my state government to be of a poorer quality than those found at the federal level and poorer than those found in the UK's assemblies. I admit that I know little of the WA government and I am willing to take on faith (until I have more info) your assurances that they are on a par with the UK government. You are obviously very lucky in WA. I have at no point suggested that powerful politicians should morally abrogate decency and ethical standards. If you look back over the thread you will see that it was me that highlighted the deplorable behaviour of Ms Winterton, a post with which you've taken umbrage.

Yeah and what I'm saying, is that we change sometimes and find a silver lining in the most unexpected places. If we weren't dreamers we wouldn't have tried to make a new life in another land.

Ahhh, that's what you were saying. I didn't get that from your first post to me. Thanks for clarifying.

Completely agree - there is a pattern developing here(!)

I think that you just want a fight.

You seem to want evidence when it argues against your point - very much like a certain other poster on here (you're not him in disguise are you?).

But you are happy to provide "conjecture" when it suits you...

"Personally I think that the UK government is on a par with the federal government"

"I find that the MPs in my state government to be of a poorer quality than those found at the federal level and poorer than those found in the UK's assemblies"

Come on, mature your argument and your philosophy - do you like facts or do you like conjecture?

Because your comments which I've quoted above are certainly conjecture - unless you've somehow managed to quantify the performance of UK and Australian politicans at federal and state level.

My posts were littered with terms which were suggestive - based on my feelings. I'm not going to apologise to you for that. But the posts also had evidence - the John Brogden and Alan Carpenter case studies.

I assume that you are non-white, have successfully provided evidence of "patronising" racism and ever-so-subtle exclusion?

Or perhaps you have even experienced something negative that can't be explained by anything other than discrimination but is just so subtle that it could never be proved in any official capacity?

Take your convenient-when-it-suits-me scientific proof requirements to another poster. Eventually you may realise that all things in life can't be proved or evidenced.

Tried to give you some karma for that excellent reply. People are too quick to want physical proof of something when they don't like what your trying to say. Many of my views on Australia are based on my experieces here and the feelings they then invoke in me, trying to quallify each remark with some kind of proof is just silly.

I think that it touched a raw nerve because of a few incidents - one in particular - which occurred early last year in the UK. It was a classic situation which any teacher who has experienced a normal UK comprehensive will relate to....

I was standing in a corridor on a break duty and I looked into a classroom and saw a child in there sratching something pornographic onto a table with a compass. I went in and as I did so he quickly put the compass into his pocket.

When I spoke to him about what he'd be doing his response was...

"No I didn't do that", to which I then replied "Yes you did" (No, I didn't etc etc).

Then I said...."But I saw you with my own eyes"

And his response?

"Prove it"

And I just couldn't prove it. I saw him do it but I knew that in that particular school it was basically a 14 year old kid's view against my own.

Things have changed so much that authorities are seemingly powerless without proof or evidence. Typically, parents of delinquents would say "Prove that my son did that" You'd respond with "A teacher saw him do it" and the response would invariably be "Well, that teacher might have it in for my son. Just because he says that he saw him do it doesn't mean that he did do it"

My experience is that apologists for certain types of behaviour often hide behind the need for "proof". A professional opinion, a witness - without corroboration - is largely useless.