topic Re: Why? in Community Spirit

Why?

***super_nova*** — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 06:51:10 GMT

Why would they do this?

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/mar/10/goodwill-letters-to-asylum-seekers-on-nauru-returned-unopened?CMP=ema_632

Re: Why?

debra9275 — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 07:01:00 GMT

I read about that the other day Nova, not sure that it was the same paper.. But I just thought it seemed cruel

Re: Why?

gleee58 — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 07:26:18 GMT

@***super_nova*** wrote:
Why would they do this?

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/mar/10/goodwill-letters-to-asylum-seekers-on-nauru-returned-unopened?CMP=ema_632

Because they can.

It's the way of the bully boys.

Re: Why?

poddster — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 08:17:45 GMT

I have to wonder who the letters were addressed to?

Inmate? Detainee? Asylum seeker? To whome it may concern?

Or were the y to have been distributed at random?

Oh and you mean they were organised to be sent?

Re: Why?

lionrose.7 — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 08:55:50 GMT

Read the link Poddy and it will tell you.

Re: Why?

poddster — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 09:36:21 GMT

I have a feeling that Mr. Burnside is missing his lucrative income of the past.

Re: Why?

the_great_she_elephant — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 09:44:24 GMT

@poddster wrote:
I have a feeling that Mr. Burnside is missing his lucrative income of the past.

You think he was using those letters to solicit money from the detainees?

Re: Why?

poddster — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 11:47:48 GMT

Trying to put pressure on Border Control and also a bit of advertising for future potential customers

Re: Why?

the_great_she_elephant — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:27:23 GMT

@poddster wrote:
Trying to put pressure on Border Control and also a bit of advertising for future potential customers

What have Border Control got to do with undelivered mail - they are not responsible for the day to day running of the detention centres?

Re: Why?

cherry*135 — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:35:12 GMT

@poddster wrote:
I have to wonder who the letters were addressed to?

Inmate? Detainee? Asylum seeker? To whome it may concern?

Or were the y to have been distributed at random?

Oh and you mean they were organised to be sent?

The letters were directed to people whose identity and boat number are known to Burnside.

Re: Why?

poddster — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:07:32 GMT

Of course they were, they are potential customers.

Re: Why?

poddster — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:10:58 GMT

I am a bit surprised and concerned that most people are unable to see through these diaphanous plots

Re: Why?

the_great_she_elephant — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:14:59 GMT

@poddster wrote:
Of course they were, they are potential customers.

1) Burnside didn't write the letters.

2) Nobody (except the writers) has any way of knowing what their purpose was, because the people responsible for running the centres didn't even bother to open them to check that there was nothing untoward in them, before chucking them into their little "oubliette."

3) The intentions of the writers have no bearing on the situation anyway.

.4) The letters were addressed to specific individuals,

5) The letters were not given to those individuals,

6) The people responsible for delivering them said they had been delivered.

Re: Why?

the_great_she_elephant — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:21:57 GMT

@poddster wrote:
I am a bit surprised and concerned that most people are unable to see through these diaphanous plots

I doubt it was a diaphanous plot. It was more likely either laziness, incompetence, callousness or deliberate cruelty. Whichever, it was a pretty disgusting thing to do to people who were so utterly powerless and dependant.

Re: Why?

the_great_she_elephant — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:30:08 GMT

Even in war, the Germns and Italians had more respect than this for the prisoners of war in their charge. The letters were censored at both ends and sometimes took weeks or even months to arrive, but relatively few of them got completely lost in the system.

I guess asylum seekers are not covered by the Geneva Convention.

Re: Why?

poddster — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 18:57:11 GMT

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:
@poddster wrote:
Of course they were, they are potential customers.

1) Burnside didn't write the letters.
He organised the letters to further his agenda , what ever that was

2) Nobody (except the writers) has any way of knowing what their purpose was, because the people responsible for running the centres didn't even bother to open them to check that there was nothing untoward in them, before chucking them into their little "oubliette."
Pointless point

3) The intentions of the writers have no bearing on the situation anyway.
Organised writers? the whole lot may have been written bu just a handful of writers.

.4) The letters were addressed to specific individuals,
Provided by the organiser to the writers.

5) The letters were not given to those individuals,
Perhaps it was recognised for the plot that it was.

6) The people responsible for delivering them said they had been delivered.
Covering their butt?

Re: Why?

i-need-a-martini — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 21:39:53 GMT

It's a cruelty that makes no sense.

It makes me wonder if ANY mail reaches these people. Afetrall, there is no way of telling if a letter is mailed from a stranger or a family member.

Does this mean that they don't get letters from wives, husbands, fathers, mothers?

Re: Why?

the_great_she_elephant — Sat, 14 Mar 2015 02:59:59 GMT

@poddster wrote:
@the_great_she_elephant wrote:
@poddster wrote:
Of course they were, they are potential customers.

1) Burnside didn't write the letters.
He organised the letters to further his agenda , what ever that was
He organised the letters, but since you have no way of knowing what was in them, saying it was furthering his agenda' is pure speculation. They could equally well have been furthering as many different agendas as there were different writers - or they could simply have been letters of support and encouragement from people who genuinely cared about the plight of detainees.

2) Nobody (except the writers) has any way of knowing what their purpose was, because the people responsible for running the centres didn't even bother to open them to check that there was nothing untoward in them, before chucking them into their little "oubliette."
Pointless point.
The very relevant point is that unless anything offered or suggested inthose those letters posed a threat either to nationl security ofr the safe and orderly running of the detention centres there was no lgeitimate reason to withold them. those responsible for theri delivery did not bother to ascertain whetheror not they posed any threat before dumping them.

3) The intentions of the writers have no bearing on the situation anyway.
Organised writers? the whole lot may have been written bu just a handful of writers.
3) what has the number of writers got to do with the fact that they were not delivered?

.4) The letters were addressed to specific individuals,
Provided by the organiser to the writers.
Regardless of who provided them, the names of each intended recipient was on each envelope, yet they were not delivered to the adressees.

5) The letters were not given to those individuals,
Perhaps it was recognised for the plot that it was.
Without even reading them to make sure? And you really think that makes it OK?

6) The people responsible for delivering them said they had been delivered.
Covering their butt?
Exactly - because because they knew what they had done was morally idefensible and quite possibly illegal

Re: Why?

polksaladallie — Sat, 14 Mar 2015 03:10:45 GMT

@poddster wrote:
I have to wonder who the letters were addressed to?

Inmate? Detainee? Asylum seeker? To whome it may concern?

Or were the y to have been distributed at random?

Oh and you mean they were organised to be sent?

I would advise you not to join Amnesty International. You would be asked to write hundreds of letters to strangers.

Re: Why?

cherry*135 — Sat, 14 Mar 2015 06:02:48 GMT

Post 4 - I would advise to inform yourself before commenting.