M61A1

I think his point is that If you can afford to slip out the back door, go through several other countries, pay someone a heap to boat you to Australia and destroy any personal docs to get here, that your refugee status is extremely questionable. IMHO, if you arrive here that way, and get all stroppy about getting a roof over your head, free medical and food and start riots while they check your background, you should probably be sent home anyway, because if where you came from is better than that, you aren't a refugee.

That's crap, yes we have some unemployment, but we also have a lot of jobs our enemployed won't do, or are unwilling to skill themselves for. I believe, that in this country, if you don't have a job, you don't want one. Nothing to do with the "forrins" taking them.

They don't need to be put into tech trades, they could be used for logistics and disaster relief, put the highly trained ones in charge. The main benefits I see would be that they would then be in a disciplined environment, where if you don't show up 2 guys show up and stick you in the slots. Better to pay them for doing something, than money for nothing.

16K is only the start....factor in all the other perks & freebies, I reckon you'll end up with not much in it.

There are truckloads of jobs requiring minimal or easily learned skills, we have just made life difficult by requiring even the dumbest of jobs to require some sort of certificate. For example, I was stunned to find that my lazy ex-wife (who never kept a clean house BTW), worked as a cleaner and had a Cert-something in domestic cleaning. What crap.

What I think is missing is not so much the "skill", but more the desire to get off your arxe and work for a living.

Well, you tell Mr Clarkson that next time he's filming in Australia, he's welcome to stop in for a cuppa & a biscuit f he feels so inclined. My wife will probably even give a smoke if he wants one....but not in the house.

Don't care, still like reading his stuff. I think we'ed get along fairly well actually. I know he's deliberately not PC, but many of his statements are piss taking.

I reckon this be the start of a new argument.

Yes there are quite a few that believe that the new laws will not stand up in higher courts, that's one of the reasons the magistrates are making noises about it as well. Can do thinks he can tell the magistrates and judges to do unlawful things and it will all be ok, but it won't.

What it means is my wife bought half a dozen or so of his books in a bulk lot on eBay, and I found them good reading. What I've found, is that the ones who carry on the most about Clarkson (negatively), are the ones too stupid to realize that it is all tongue in cheek, they take him too seriously.

I am no fan of bikies, my problem is with the new laws. There are already laws to deal with criminals, use them. The govt continue to tell us that if you're not a outlaw bikie, you won't have anything to worry about. This is crap, there have been a number of people so far on record as getting unnecessary police attention, despite not being bikies. Anyone who has lived in QLD for some years, will know that our police (generally speaking) cannot be trusted to use discretion, and that they will use these laws against anyone that they don't see eye to eye with. Our premier can tell us we should trust them to do it right, experience tells me, that a lot of them are no better than the bikies that they're at "war" with. Just 2 different groups of thugs, one has the advantage of the premier backing them. When criminal gangs get smart enough to wear pin striped suits, drive Volvo's and own florist shops, maybe then, people will realise just how wrong the laws are, when they insist we outlaw pinstripe suit wearing Volvo drivers from owning florist shops. It's ok just trust us.

I quite enjoy reading some Clarkson, his not PC attitude it quite refreshing, he's mostly tongue in cheek though. The world needs more Clarksons.

Not to mention the allegations/name calling flying as well....

It was in the news, so not just his side of the story. I don't know him personally.

The reality is though, that you don't need to be a bikie, or a criminal to run foul of the new laws, all a cop has to do is say the he suspected that you belong to a criminal organisation, and he can lock you up for as long as it takes to get in front of a magistrate. Ask the Ex-soldier who has a few tatts, and believed that he had some rights, how it works.

That's exactly what my issue with the current laws is, when someone is unlawfully entering your property (within reason), you shouldn't need to be worrying about what you'll be charged with while someone is threatening you. Your case involving the beating up, should never have ended in court for the victim, in my view, someone who does that deserves the bullet in the back of the head as they drive away. In case of someone threatening you with a firearm, it's just not going to work, unless the intruder will wait while you get your weapon, then your ammo & load up, assuming you actually went through the red tape that it takes to have one at all. I understand what you are saying about the law, I just think it's inadequate by a long shot. Kids & women have no problems using firearms safely if they are taught, they are just another tool.

It does actually look a bit like a Phalanx. [ATTACH]47421._xfImport[/ATTACH]

Protecting yourself and your property is hardly an extreme concept, it has been quite normal through most of time, it's only fairly recently that management have decided we should rely on them as our protectors, and do nothing to help ourselves.

Could you explain "equal force", when the person taking your stuff is armed, and to call it successful would me a massive overstatement. Whether or not the reasoning you speak of as being "very sound" is actually so, is a matter of opinion, I afraid I'm very much on the other side of the fence on that one.

I though it pretty funny that FT thinks being a police officer will stop a so called " muslim uprising". Actually, what I want, is to be allowed to draw a weapon on a home invader, and use it if necessary, not phone the cops and wait. The concept of relying on people arrive after the fact, whether is after your death or after your stuff is gone, I find a bit silly. I'm not suggesting we stone someone for eating bacon. I'm pretty sure after it happens a few times, the home invasion thing will slow down. Cash Converters might go broke though.

Until the law changes, there's nothing a cop can do about it, they're busy with our perceived threat of bikies anyway. What they could do, is is put some power back in the hands of the public, give them the right to defend themselves and their property. I was reading about their "incentives" to solve crimes, I'm not interested in solving crime, I want it stopped, n Knowing who murdered you after you're dead is useless, or who took your stuff that you'll never see again. Knowing that the owner of the home you're about to invade will kill you , legally, has be a better deterrent that a cop that will show up the next day.

The only fears I have stem from our government.

My point exactly.....no-one here is going to change their opinion because of something someone here said.

I can give you an aviation related means to fix the problem, but I'm pretty sure that you'll call me "racist", not that it change my attitude one bit. I say it's pointless, because both parties here believe what they say, and have no hope of convincing the other. I doubt I will convince you that you're wrong, and you won't convince me that you're right.