DISCRIMINATION THEN AND NOW

Typically Alex Blackwell (Peter FitzSimons – what they said 23 Sept) thinks every movement started and stopped with her generation.   Try telling that to those in the 60s who had to fight for bank/building society loans; tell that to counter staff who suggested that I get a signature from a son for a store account, I was helping him through University (my reply was NO followed by a letter to the Managing Director of the firm); tell that to a person in the 60s applying for a new position only to be told when giving the name of MY school , “that position was filled”; tell that to a person refused a housing loan because of responsibilities (two sons)…and no discrimination laws then to help.
Alex Blackwell just stop and think: Who did the preparatory work so that you could even think of pressing your case for proper pay and inclusion? Who did the hard yards so that you may write the drivel expressed in your FitzSimon column? Who wrote letters ad infinitum to rectify a situation? Who helped change the position of women needing a guarantor?
It didn’t happen overnight – it happened a couple of generations ago and was the result of work by the agitators then – not now.

Advertisements

ABOVE THE LAW

“The world has been stood on its head here in Canberra” SMH 14 Sept. about the continuing saga of Liberal Party members thinking that the law of the land does not apply to them and Michaela Cash doing her impersonation of the “wicked witch” in the SMH 4 Sept)
Once the electorate thought that, with all the wealth of Australia behind them (commercial and big business) we could trust the Libs but that the ALP were a nasty lot with no real background and beholden to those “dreadful” unions, but we are finding out that with so many in the State and Federal ranks indulging in funny business our faith has been blasted.
Scandals about donations, big contracts being awarded mysteriously under the pretence of “commercial in confidence” and unsolicited tenders which have not been advertised but strangely went to wealthy backers…
Makes you wonder what the world is coming to… and who to trust certainly not people of good background and unimpeachable friends.

Different laws for Indigenous

“Different laws for Indigenous will make matters worse”. I heartily agree with the writer in Letters SMH 25 July. What next – different laws for, say, my ancestors who when they “arrived” would have outnumbered the locals and now when you see the names of those claiming aboriginality they must now outnumber them even more (look for the number of Mc, Mac, O’ etc)  and have a culture and heritage of many, many years..
When all the talk about the Referendum started it was about “recognition” and even then I didn’t know what it meant because we all know (unless we never went to school or read anything) that the original people were here from about 65,000 years ago – so what did “recognition” actually mean.
And the demands expand daily until now I hear claims for areas of land to be recognised and separate to the rest of Australia. If this continues if/when we have the referendum I will definitely vote “NO”….  I wait for the day when I hear an Indigenous person say “I am Australian”.    I am six or seven generations Australian and my g-g-children then are 9-10 generations and came from Irish stock.  However I do not call myself Irish Australian – I am Australian and that’s it.  And I look forward to the day Indigenous people do not claim tribal names but simply Australian.

The amazing Donald Trump

Is this how Donald Trump conducted his business interests prior to becoming President of the USA? Lies, obfuscation, mind-boggling mind-switches, vindictive staff relations, constant staff turnover…how on earth did he become a billionaire. Oh yes! He confused and bewildered his business opponents but for how long will this system work in diplomatic/political circles.
Will someone remind me – what were Nixon and Clinton taken to task for – impeached for?

Right or wrong in t he UK

Things are certainly different in the UK if we can believe the media reports on the suicide of the Nurse in the Duchess of Cambridge case.
Reportedly two stupid young radio people, Australian, rang through to a London Hospital, spoke to Nurse “A” who passed the call on to Nurse “B” who then divulged confidential information about a patient.
Nurse “A”, with a history of depression and suicide attempts then suicided supposedly leaving a note “allocating guilt” to the two Sydney radio people and also saying “make them pay my mortgage”.
Strange, very strange. Nurse “A” did not divulge confidential information, she has a history and she seems to think that the hospital can “make them pay her mortgage”.
It looks like an attempt to lay a guilt on two distant people. Of course, somebody has to pay the mortgage and why not two distant Australians even though Nurse “A” made the fateful suicide decision herself over something that had not even happened (divulging information)
Are those the “facts”? Then lawyers for the naive young Australians should be able to make mincemeat of the demands.