What About The Children?

[the_great_she_elephant]

I am amazed and disgusted that in all the indignation over what Gillian Triggs should or shouldn't have done or who said or didn't say what to her, not ONE SINGLE POLITICIAN  except, finally, Malcolm Turnbull, has commented in any way on the contents of her report..

She found that  over a 15-month period from January 2013 to March 2014, spanning both the Labor and Coalition governments  there were 233 recorded assaults involving children and 33 incidents of reported sexual assault. 

If these findings are true - and as far as I know nobody has so far disputed them -   then what is going to be done about it? Who had the duty of care? who is going to be held responsible. What measures are going to be put in place to stop this abuse happening in future?

Both Gillian Triggs and George Brandis are astute and comparitively wealthy adults able to instruct top  legal practitioners to protect their reputaions - but who is going to protect the safety of these children? How many more children have been abused since March 2014? Is a child perhaps being abused in a detention centre  even while you are reading this post? 

Surely to goodness after all that was learned from the Children In Care Royal Commission this report cannot simply be put in a "don't want to know" basket while both sides of Pariament try to gain political mileage out the motives of the Human Rghts Commissioner or the behaviour of the Attourney General.

At some point -though probably not in the lifetime of this government  or even  the one that follows it - there will inevitably be a Royal Commission into the treatment of children in detention centre. what do you imagine its findings are likely to be?

[j*oono]

Sorry Vic.  Meant to reply, not kudo.  I think that eventually Tony Abbotts and Julie Bishops lies will catch up with them one day.  They completely contradicted what came out from Brandis himself.

[vicr3000]

I think you will see change.

The next president will NOT be on a fixed term.

It will be a yearly renewable contract or at the whim of the govt, as it should be.

[vicr3000]

Maybe, but you can add those to the list of not charged or convicted.

To the perps who abused.


The only person who may be convicted, and I say May is the person who interacted with the detainee who died.

[the_great_she_elephant]

---

@vicr3000 wrote:

So all in all, the whole thing is a waste of money.

---

It doesn't have to be. Vic. After all the mud slinging that has gone on I doubt whether Abbott will feel able to address the situation, but if Turnbull does depose him then I think (hope) that he might have the will follow it up. He did say "It's about the children." I hope he meant it. 

[the_great_she_elephant]

---

@idlewhile wrote:

Lol like spiders spinning lol

---

"Rock spiders" is the name they give to men who sexually abuse children - is that what your post refers to?

[idlewhile]

I think it  still is at the whim of the govt. It has no legal standing so it is a govt entity.

That is what  makes the actions of Triggs even more partisan, more politically and ideology driven, a deliberate act to wedge the govt.

The sooner she stands down  the  better, she must go and go soon.

[vicr3000]

From someone else which I thought was good.

she just displays an attitude of being superior to other lesser mortals, and always must be right.
e.g. Watch first 10 mins with her reading her opening statement and then Chairman says “it might help if you look at us rather than media” and she shoots back “I’m not looking at the media. I lost my concentration for a moment with the cameras going off. But if it helps I will look at you”.
And it is a bald-faced lie. She was regularly looking at them.
A long way later is stuff about, “I am not going to answer your question because I have given you all the documents”, etc etc
Not a professional, and not doing herself any favours.

[gleee58]

---

@idlewhile wrote:

I think it  still is at the whim of the govt. It has no legal standing so it is a govt entity.

It is an Independent Statutary Authority.

[gleee58]

---

@vicr3000 wrote:

From someone else which I thought was good.

she just displays an attitude of being superior to other lesser mortals, and always must be right.
e.g. Watch first 10 mins with her reading her opening statement and then Chairman says “it might help if you look at us rather than media” and she shoots back “I’m not looking at the media. I lost my concentration for a moment with the cameras going off. But if it helps I will look at you”.
And it is a bald-faced lie. She was regularly looking at them.
Not a professional, and not doing herself any favours.

---

No, it was not a bald faced lie. She spent almost every moment looking at the committe members not at the clicking cameras.

A long way later is stuff about, “I am not going to answer your question because I have given you all the documents”, etc etc

At which point in the proceedings did she say that?

If you don't have the time stamp number the questioner will do, and which part of the hearing.

[vicr3000]

That has NO power.

So it can be anything you like, all talk, no bite.

Let them gabfest and write as many reports as they like, it keeps them occupied and not sticking their noses in other things.

So whats the point ?



Time stamp ? It was later on. If you want the timestamp, you can watch the video again.


I am not interested in watching someone 'play' to the media like she was doing.

She should be an actor.