Comments on: Not a proud Aussie

By: frank

frank — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 05:07:04 +0000

@ matthew

please don’t you the name matthew if your posting stupidity, my name was matthew, but now its not because of you.

frank

By: admin

admin — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:34:32 +0000

Johno, I didn’t mean to cause offence, but the southern cross symbol has unfortunately been hijacked by the racist “fuck off we’re full” and “if you don’t love it, leave” brigade. I’m sure you can find a way to incorporate a southern cross into a tattoo that means something to you without looking like one of those losers – just gotta be creative

By: johno

johno — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:55:54 +0000

I actually like the southern cross tattoos and intend to get one.
for me it signifies Australia as a free nation and without the union jack.
majority of peoples ancestors came on ships using it to navigate, ok a few yobbos in the city might have them and be overly patriotic but the tatt has been around for a long time, just suddenly people seem to take a dis liking to it, I’d prefer a tat that signifies something over one that is just a pile of ink, I’m a country lad and have used it many times to navigate out in the bush at night

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 03:40:41 +0000

Matthew – I should also say, before this dissolves into just one area of the filter….

Refused Classification (RC) content is NOT necessarily illegal content. This is the big issue here – what the government is talking about is stopping the Australian public from accessing RC information, which includes legitimate topics such as euthanasia, abortion, drug use etc. This is what they do not say in all their bleating from the pulpits, and therefore all the general public associates with RC is child porn, where in fact this is highly untrue.

Anything that has not been classified by the OLFC technically falls under the banner.

By: admin

admin — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 03:40:00 +0000

Suggestions – absolutely. How about paying for additional law enforcement officers, who can help track down and prosecute the real offenders? Even 5 additional full time federal police dedicated to online crime would cost a fraction of what the filter will cost, and would be far more effective at actually stopping the stuff from getting out there in the first place.

Then spend some more on a widespread education campaign telling parents how can ensure that their children are safe online. Supervision and education are the asnwer – things like not giving out their personal details, not agreeing to meet with people they meet online and coping with online bullying. Address the real immediate dangers to children online.