Navy intercepts seventh boat of asylum-seekers in two months

[Q.]

..What a load of crap Psyber. Do you think refugees have bottomless pockets to pay for lawyers? Maybe there wouldn't be such a need for 'champions of the downtrodden' if the post-modern facists such as yourself weren't so intent on treading on them.

Are you really dense, Shrek, or is it just the dissembling game you play?
I didn't suggest the the alleged refugees had unlimited money, though some have had enough to get here. What the lawyers get is called "publicity" - a form of advertising, which generates money from other dissident do-gooder groups, and support from people who donate to the "cause".

Do you really think they are totally altruistic?

If you didn't rush into abusing people you diasagree with so quickly you may be able to work out what they are saying!

Who you trying to wind up Psyber? Had a good laugh at that one.

Dissidents... please

[Q.]

Do you think refugees have bottomless pockets to pay for lawyers?

No, but apparently the Australian tax payers do.

The hard-line policies we have implemented (which have disregarded international law) is what has cost tax-payers more money. Hasn't ever reduced the number of asylum seekers either.

[Psyber]

Add 'do-gooders' to the list
(Does that mean you're against people who do good things, or are the opposite people 'do-badders').

I see "do-gooders" as those who make a profession of it as a form of self-aggrandisement, in contrast with those who do good works without seeking the publicity.
[I bet I've donated more to charity than many of them, via the Salvos and the Little Sisters of the Poor.]

The "dissident do-gooders" Quichey are the professional protesters who dress themselves up as doing good works - they embrace a series of public campaigns for the currently fashionable protest group for their own grandeur, and revelling in the aggro, while pretending it is for the public good. You can pick them by their moving on to the next one each time.
They are there because they enjoy the aggro of the dissidence, not primarily to do good.

[Psyber]

On par with being abusive then?

Are you implying I was being abusive Psyber?

You did call me names instead of focussing on the issues of the debate...
A classic bullying tactic.

[The Big Shrek]

..What a load of crap Psyber. Do you think refugees have bottomless pockets to pay for lawyers? Maybe there wouldn't be such a need for 'champions of the downtrodden' if the post-modern facists such as yourself weren't so intent on treading on them.

Are you really dense, Shrek, or is it just the dissembling game you play?
I didn't suggest the the alleged refugees had unlimited money, though some have had enough to get here. What the lawyers get is called "publicity" - a form of advertising, which generates money from other disssident do-gooder groups, and support from people who donate to the "cause".

Do you really think they are totally altruistic?

If you didn't rush into abusing people you diasagree with so quickly you may be able to work out what they are saying!

Well Psyber, that was a nice sneaky little edit! I was waiting for you to pull out your advertisment argument.

Name a firm or individual that represents refugees pro bono. I'm sure you'll look one up before posting on here, but in truth you wouldn't know any. It would generate far more business for a firm to sponsor a bloody football team than refugees.

I have never in my life heard of people donating money to a law firm either.

There are plenty of altruistic lawyers Psyber. Perhaps not the ones you associate with though.

[Q.]

Add 'do-gooders' to the list
(Does that mean you're against people who do good things, or are the opposite people 'do-badders').

I see "do-gooders" as those who make a profession of it as a form of self-aggrandisement, in contrast with those who do good works without seeking the publicity.
[I bet I've donated more to charity than many of them, via the Salvos and the Little Sisters of the Poor.]

The "dissident do-gooders" Quichey are the professional protesters who dress themselves up as doing good works - they embrace a series of public campaigns for the currently fashionable protest group for their own grandeur, and revelling in the aggro, while pretending it is for the public good. You can pick them by their moving on to the next one each time.
They are there because they enjoy the aggro of the dissidence, not primarily to do good.

Why would you worry about an insignificant minority who protest for sake of protest? Or do you tarnish groups like GetUp with that same brush. The dissident label is redundant. It is healthy to question the State.

[Psyber]

Well Psyber, that was a nice sneaky little edit! I was waiting for you to pull out your advertisment argument.

Name a firm or individual that represents refugees pro bono. I'm sure you'll look one up before posting on here, but in truth you wouldn't know any. It would generate far more business for a firm to sponsor a bloody football team than refugees.

I have never in my life heard of people donating money to a law firm either.

There are plenty of altruistic lawyers Psyber. Perhaps not the ones you associate with though.

1. Editing? I just quoted the bit I was responding to..
2. Individuals benefit from publicising themselves too.
3. You know people donate to funds set up for popular causes, and administrators spend it, possibly under advice?
4. I agree there are altruistic lawyers - I was staying with one in Adelaide last week while house-hunting.
He doesn't seek publicity for his charity and Church work.
I tend to suspect the motives of those who appear to do only the "good" that gets the publicity.

[The Big Shrek]

Still haven't told me any names of people who represent refugees.

The publicity argument is silly because it just doesn't make financial sense.

Perhaps we should label doctors as money grabbing for holding the state to ransom over a pay rise?

[Psyber]

Add 'do-gooders' to the list
(Does that mean you're against people who do good things, or are the opposite people 'do-badders').

I see "do-gooders" as those who make a profession of it as a form of self-aggrandisement, in contrast with those who do good works without seeking the publicity.
[I bet I've donated more to charity than many of them, via the Salvos and the Little Sisters of the Poor.]

The "dissident do-gooders" Quichey are the professional protesters who dress themselves up as doing good works - they embrace a series of public campaigns for the currently fashionable protest group for their own grandeur, and revelling in the aggro, while pretending it is for the public good. You can pick them by their moving on to the next one each time.
They are there because they enjoy the aggro of the dissidence, not primarily to do good.

Why would you worry about an insignificant minority who protest for sake of protest? Or do you tarnish groups like GetUp with that same brush. The dissident label is redundant. It is healthy to question the State.

And also to question those who are always questioning the state?
I'd also question the aptness of your use of "insignificant minority" there.

[My wife, who was one of the early members, ultimately left the Campaign for Peace in Vietnam in the later stages, because she was disenchanted by the violence and provocativeness of a significant percentage of the group in the later stages. Particularly those who threw caltrops under horses hooves in the name of Peace, and bricks at police to promote a forceful response, when the police were not being violent.]

[Q.]

And also to question those who are always questioning the state?
I'd also question the aptness of your use of "insignificant minority" there.

[My wife, who was one of the early members, ultimately left the Campaign for Peace in Vietnam in the later stages, because she was disenchanted by the violence and provocativeness of a significant percentage of the group in the later stages. Particularly those who threw caltrops under horses hooves in the name of Peace, and bricks at police to promote a forceful response, when the police were not being violent.]

Yes, question everything!

Violent radicals are most definitely an insignificant minority amongst today's community advocacy groups...sorry, dissidents.

[Psyber]

Still haven't told me any names of people who represent refugees.
The publicity argument is silly because it just doesn't make financial sense.
Perhaps we should label doctors as money grabbing for holding the state to ransom over a pay rise?

Another personal attack to divert the focus?
Fair pay commensurate with CPI and AWE movements has always been the AMA's line, but last time I checked the medical profession was at only 64% of parity with that now compared to 1973, well behind the lawyers and even more behind the administrative bureaucrats. Medicos tend not to use publicity very well and many still work the 80 hour week in public and private.
That's why there is a growing shortage of doctors - their kids see it and make other choices, as do their friends.

[Psyber]

... Violent radicals are most definitely an insignificant minority amongst today's community advocacy groups...sorry, dissidents.

Have you got figures to back that assertion??

[The Big Shrek]

Still haven't told me any names of people who represent refugees.
The publicity argument is silly because it just doesn't make financial sense.
Perhaps we should label doctors as money grabbing for holding the state to ransom over a pay rise?

Another personal attack to divert the focus?

No, but you swept on it to avoid answering the question again.

Doctors earn plenty. Most lawyers are around $50 to $80k. The striking specialists were asking for over $500k.

[Q.]

... Violent radicals are most definitely an insignificant minority amongst today's community advocacy groups...sorry, dissidents.

Have you got figures to back that assertion??

Ahh, touche. Have you got figures to say otherwise

Having been part of couple in Adelaide and having studied recent large protests interstate I would come to that conclusion observationally and anecdotally. The violent troublemakers are few and were not even associated with (insignificant) groups such as The Melbourne Alliance for Civil Disobedience Co-ordination and Mutiny.

[mick]

Still haven't told me any names of people who represent refugees.
The publicity argument is silly because it just doesn't make financial sense.
Perhaps we should label doctors as money grabbing for holding the state to ransom over a pay rise?

Another personal attack to divert the focus?

No, but you swept on it to avoid answering the question again.

Doctors earn plenty. Most lawyers are around $50 to $80k. The striking specialists were asking for over $500k.

Most lawyers earn $50 -$80k give me a break you really are pulling yourself now. In the first couple of years after graduating - perhaps. My brother is a lawyer in the commonwealth public service paid >$120K, another cousin of mine is a barrister, doing very nicely indeed (by the way he acted for some highly publicised illegal immigrants pro bono when he was starting out about 5 years ago, for experience and publicity) another cousin in his early 30s is an IP lawyer in Sydney getting > $400 K. It is a far easier life to be a lawyer or accountant, less hours, less chance of being sued, less personal involvement in the well being/ survival of other human beings. Most lawyers I know (and I know a lot) would spend close to $100K per year on grog, entertainment and travel alone.

[mick]

Illegal immigrants not asylum seekers, name one person in the current government who would publically endorse your fanciful notions. What has really changed since Howard in real terms?chipping around the edges like the changes to work choices.

Wrong. 97% of applicants from Iraq and 93% of applicants from Afghanistan seeking asylum without valid visas in Australia in 1999 were recognised as genuine refugees. Under Australian law they were found to be eligible to stay in Australia. Generally, 84% of all asylum seekers are found to be legitimate refugees and are able to stay in Australia.

In 1999 that's 10 years ago! I still say again if you are genuine and you have made it outside of Iraq or Afghanistan to safety, why to they then not apply for asylum through the proper channels? I would have no problem with accepting them after the usual checks, but to turn up illegally in a boat and present the Australian people with a fait accompli. This is so unfair on those who do things the correct way.

[The Big Shrek]

Still haven't told me any names of people who represent refugees.
The publicity argument is silly because it just doesn't make financial sense.
Perhaps we should label doctors as money grabbing for holding the state to ransom over a pay rise?

Another personal attack to divert the focus?

No, but you swept on it to avoid answering the question again.

Doctors earn plenty. Most lawyers are around $50 to $80k. The striking specialists were asking for over $500k.

Most lawyers earn $50 -$80k give me a break you really are pulling yourself now. In the first couple of years after graduating - perhaps. My brother is a lawyer in the commonwealth public service paid >$120K, another cousin of mine is a barrister, doing very nicely indeed (by the way he acted for some highly publicised illegal immigrants pro bono when he was starting out about 5 years ago, for experience and publicity) another cousin in his early 30s is an IP lawyer in Sydney getting > $400 K. It is a far easier life to be a lawyer or accountant, less hours, less chance of being sued, less personal involvement in the well being/ survival of other human beings. Most lawyers I know (and I know a lot) would spend close to $100K per year on grog, entertainment and travel alone.

That shows how much you know ha! Most barristers don't break even until 10 years after they start. Biggest load of crap I have ever read.

[Q.]

Illegal immigrants not asylum seekers, name one person in the current government who would publically endorse your fanciful notions. What has really changed since Howard in real terms?chipping around the edges like the changes to work choices.

Wrong. 97% of applicants from Iraq and 93% of applicants from Afghanistan seeking asylum without valid visas in Australia in 1999 were recognised as genuine refugees. Under Australian law they were found to be eligible to stay in Australia. Generally, 84% of all asylum seekers are found to be legitimate refugees and are able to stay in Australia.

In 1999 that's 10 years ago! I still say again if you are genuine and you have made it outside of Iraq or Afghanistan to safety, why to they then not apply for asylum through the proper channels? I would have no problem with accepting them after the usual checks, but to turn up illegally in a boat and present the Australian people with a fait accompli. This is so unfair on those who do things the correct way.

I doubt the numbers would have drastically changed, if anything the percentage of acceptance would have increased because we have since been shelling the crap out of those countries - makes for a pretty genuine refugee claim.

Repeating myself... In countries where Australia has no diplomatic representation there is no standard refugee process and therefore there is no 'queue' to jump. Asylum seekers are then forced to travel to other countries to find protection, some choosing to make a fairly perilious journey to Australia having had families and communities pool together resources in order to pay smugglers.

International law requires that asylum seekers should not be penalised according to the way in which they enter a country.

[mick]

Illegal immigrants not asylum seekers, name one person in the current government who would publically endorse your fanciful notions. What has really changed since Howard in real terms?chipping around the edges like the changes to work choices.

Wrong. 97% of applicants from Iraq and 93% of applicants from Afghanistan seeking asylum without valid visas in Australia in 1999 were recognised as genuine refugees. Under Australian law they were found to be eligible to stay in Australia. Generally, 84% of all asylum seekers are found to be legitimate refugees and are able to stay in Australia.

In 1999 that's 10 years ago! I still say again if you are genuine and you have made it outside of Iraq or Afghanistan to safety, why to they then not apply for asylum through the proper channels? I would have no problem with accepting them after the usual checks, but to turn up illegally in a boat and present the Australian people with a fait accompli. This is so unfair on those who do things the correct way.

I doubt the numbers would have drastically changed, if anything the percentage of acceptance would have increased because we have since been shelling the crap out of those countries - makes for a pretty genuine refugee claim.

Repeating myself... In countries where Australia has no diplomatic representation there is no standard refugee process and therefore there is no 'queue' to jump. Asylum seekers are then forced to travel to other countries to find protection, some choosing to make a fairly perilious journey to Australia having had families and communities pool together resources in order to pay smugglers.

International law requires that asylum seekers should not be penalised according to the way in which they enter a country.

Don't we have diplomatic representation with Pakistan or Indonesia ? Queue jumpers pure and simple.

[mick]

[/quote]That shows how much you know ha! Most barristers don't break even until 10 years after they start. Biggest load of crap I have ever read.[/quote]

From this website http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/ProductsbyCatalogue/BBEE6F5171AF5C4BCA256942001553B1?OpenDocument

From the document which is from 2001-2 that is 7-8 years ago.

"The Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales recorded the highest average incomes per solicitor practice ($1,330.1m and $1,316.8m respectively). New South Wales also recorded the highest average barrister practice income. The New South Wales value of $412,200 was markedly higher than the next largest average barrister practice income, $274,100 for Western Australia. Tasmania recorded the smallest average income per barrister practice at $161,500 as well as per solicitor practice at $724,100.
At the end of June 2002, 79% of all solicitor practices were located in capital cities. Capital city practices averaged a return per solicitor/barrister of $134,600 in 2001-02, compared to practices in non-metropolitan areas, with an average of $102,900. The average operating profit margin was 30.1% for capital city practices and 27.5% for other practices"

I reckon they would be getting a bit more in 2009.