SA Footy

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:

Jimmy_041 wrote:

Booney wrote:

Jimmy_041 wrote:What is the basis of being "conservative"? It is a misnomer - As people get older they ask why something should be changed instead of "just because".

My generation ( 1965-1980 ) is driving change, not denying it.

Am I "denying change"? I dont remember denying change. I said I'll question why. If someone cant elucidate why then why should I agree to it? I would only deny change if the reasoning was either a lie, non-existent or insufficient to support the change (we should eat beef sandwiches now because we've eaten ham sandwiches all week)

Actually, when you look at the polls your generation is more "conservative" than the next generations proving my point. A broad statement - I know, but as broad as "My generation ( 1965-1980 ) is driving change, not denying it."

Its why Labor and the Greens want the voting age to drop to 16.
(I'll support that if they are also treated as adults under the laws they vote for (ie) adult jail for 16+. See how enthusiastic they are when there are consequences)

Yep it's the newer generations that are likely to stay Labor than become conservative
I don't see the 65-80 bracket driving change

They're too busy driving onto the O-Bahn track

Wedgie wrote:

Jimmy_041 wrote:

Wedgie wrote:Either way it's a poisoned chalice that virtually nowhere in the world wants.
Forking out tens of mill for gather round, SoO, motor racing and the latest rumour of a Wallabies v British Lions game is a different kettle of fish as these events bring in more cash than they cost.

Agree. I've never been to the Cwth games anywhere and wouldn't pay to go to anything if in Adelaide

British & Irish Lions tours are fantastic
Apart from Oz, I've been to 2 in NZ and 1 in South Africa
The Brits & Irish are fantastic tourists. May as well shut Wales down for the entire tour

Bugger, not a Wallabies game, just an invitational NZ & Aus side against the Lions. Shame as I'd go if it was a Wallabies games.

Might be a better game

Jimmy_041 wrote:

Wedgie wrote:

Jimmy_041 wrote:

Wedgie wrote:Either way it's a poisoned chalice that virtually nowhere in the world wants.
Forking out tens of mill for gather round, SoO, motor racing and the latest rumour of a Wallabies v British Lions game is a different kettle of fish as these events bring in more cash than they cost.

Agree. I've never been to the Cwth games anywhere and wouldn't pay to go to anything if in Adelaide

British & Irish Lions tours are fantastic
Apart from Oz, I've been to 2 in NZ and 1 in South Africa
The Brits & Irish are fantastic tourists. May as well shut Wales down for the entire tour

Bugger, not a Wallabies game, just an invitational NZ & Aus side against the Lions. Shame as I'd go if it was a Wallabies games.

Might be a better game

I’m off to Melbourne next week

The lunches & dinners could be the highlight

A 13-year-old intellectually disabled child in state care was prescribed a birth control implant at the request of the Child Protection Department because of “ongoing” sexual abuse while in residential care.

The SA Civil and Administrative Tribunal has ordered the child be returned to her initial foster carer, despite concerns of a toxic, dysfunctional relationship, because she was suffering “more significant and ongoing harm” while in residential care.

In their reasons for returning the child to the foster carer, who had acted as her mother since she was three, the Tribunal noted the child had been sexually abused at least six times while in a government accredited facility by as many as four different people.

The abuse was so frequent and “ongoing” that the child had a contraceptive device planted in her arm to prevent her getting pregnant at the request of her carers.

She was also using drugs while at the care facility, throwing herself into traffic and repeatedly being sent to hospital for mental health checks.

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/truecrim ... 6dcc8dbf13

Booney wrote:A 13-year-old intellectually disabled child in state care was prescribed a birth control implant at the request of the Child Protection Department because of “ongoing” sexual abuse while in residential care.

The SA Civil and Administrative Tribunal has ordered the child be returned to her initial foster carer, despite concerns of a toxic, dysfunctional relationship, because she was suffering “more significant and ongoing harm” while in residential care.

In their reasons for returning the child to the foster carer, who had acted as her mother since she was three, the Tribunal noted the child had been sexually abused at least six times while in a government accredited facility by as many as four different people.

The abuse was so frequent and “ongoing” that the child had a contraceptive device planted in her arm to prevent her getting pregnant at the request of her carers.

She was also using drugs while at the care facility, throwing herself into traffic and repeatedly being sent to hospital for mental health checks.

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/truecrim ... 6dcc8dbf13

Heard that on radio. That's just completely ****** and incomprehensible

Sent from my SM-G781B using Tapatalk

Booney wrote:A 13-year-old intellectually disabled child in state care was prescribed a birth control implant at the request of the Child Protection Department because of “ongoing” sexual abuse while in residential care.

The SA Civil and Administrative Tribunal has ordered the child be returned to her initial foster carer, despite concerns of a toxic, dysfunctional relationship, because she was suffering “more significant and ongoing harm” while in residential care.

In their reasons for returning the child to the foster carer, who had acted as her mother since she was three, the Tribunal noted the child had been sexually abused at least six times while in a government accredited facility by as many as four different people.

The abuse was so frequent and “ongoing” that the child had a contraceptive device planted in her arm to prevent her getting pregnant at the request of her carers.

She was also using drugs while at the care facility, throwing herself into traffic and repeatedly being sent to hospital for mental health checks.

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/truecrim ... 6dcc8dbf13

FMD what is wrong with people?

gadj1976 wrote:

Booney wrote:A 13-year-old intellectually disabled child in state care was prescribed a birth control implant at the request of the Child Protection Department because of “ongoing” sexual abuse while in residential care.

The SA Civil and Administrative Tribunal has ordered the child be returned to her initial foster carer, despite concerns of a toxic, dysfunctional relationship, because she was suffering “more significant and ongoing harm” while in residential care.

In their reasons for returning the child to the foster carer, who had acted as her mother since she was three, the Tribunal noted the child had been sexually abused at least six times while in a government accredited facility by as many as four different people.

The abuse was so frequent and “ongoing” that the child had a contraceptive device planted in her arm to prevent her getting pregnant at the request of her carers.

She was also using drugs while at the care facility, throwing herself into traffic and repeatedly being sent to hospital for mental health checks.

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/truecrim ... 6dcc8dbf13

FMD what is wrong with people?

State care for the vulnerable in SA is a ****ing joke - always has been / unfortunately probably always will be

What could possibly go wrong.........

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/messenge ... 17b65a859c

From what I hear, some couples are put through the wringer when trying to foster kids.
The reasons are very aligned to the problem.

Jimmy_041 wrote:What could possibly go wrong.........

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/messenge ... 17b65a859c

From what I hear, some couples are put through the wringer when trying to foster kids.
The reasons are very aligned to the problem.

Have done some work acting for foster carers/prospective foster carers and they can be treated by the scum of the earth by the Department who then has the gall to turn around and wonder why there is a statewide shortfall of foster carers.

It's one of the last things left that truly outrages me.

Couldn't give a **** about vulnerable children or improving outcomes. Just pure political/public service arse covering.

jo172 wrote:

Jimmy_041 wrote:What could possibly go wrong.........

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/messenge ... 17b65a859c

From what I hear, some couples are put through the wringer when trying to foster kids.
The reasons are very aligned to the problem.

Have done some work acting for foster carers/prospective foster carers and they can be treated by the scum of the earth by the Department who then has the gall to turn around and wonder why there is a statewide shortfall of foster carers.

It's one of the last things left that truly outrages me.

Couldn't give a **** about vulnerable children or improving outcomes. Just pure political/public service arse covering.

Having worked for the Department, the rules that are in play in Australia are detrimental to Foster parents and their continuity to the children. The rules are around "reunification" as apparently that provides the best chance for the child to thrive. I didn't agree with it - and I only worked in IT there. But you can see it in practice as well. The US is different, where you see more adoptions because kids are taken from their biological parents if they make too many mistakes with their Department.

Of course what that means here is that a foster child is taken from foster parents if the parents and Department agree that they can successfully reunify the household. Often that doesn't work and the child is sent to foster parents (often different ones). This causes angst for foster parents and disrupts the child (more importantly).

I think the system is broken personally.

gadj1976 wrote:The rules are around "reunification" as apparently that provides the best chance for the child to thrive.

My wife, a mandatory notifier in early education says this is such a double edge sword.

Yes, the best case scenario would be for families to be reunited and live happily ever after.

But what if a family has demonstrated time and time and time again that they aren't capable of caring for a child?

In any instance, in any capacity, it's awful.

Jimmy_041 wrote:What could possibly go wrong.........

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/messenge ... 17b65a859c

From what I hear, some couples are put through the wringer when trying to foster kids.
The reasons are very aligned to the problem.

Getting to the "reasons" I was alluding to

They avoid great candidates because, lo and behold, the kid may do well (survival is the first target) and may not want to be reunified

This is a tough one for us as foster carers, we live, not in constant fear, but a nagging worry that our girls will be taken from us to live back with “family”.

There is no way in hell that them going back to live there would be beneficial, but we have heard horror stories of settled children being taken from their stable carers, returned to biological family and then the same cycle of disfunction occurring.

The children re removed again and not placed back with their original carers.

It’s a nightmare…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Booney wrote:

gadj1976 wrote:The rules are around "reunification" as apparently that provides the best chance for the child to thrive.

My wife, a mandatory notifier in early education says this is such a double edge sword.

Yes, the best case scenario would be for families to be reunited and live happily ever after.

But what if a family has demonstrated time and time and time again that they aren't capable of caring for a child?

In any instance, in any capacity, it's awful.

1000% Boon. It's a huge issue.

An example but by no means what happens every time. A family harms their child and the child is put into foster care with family "A". They then promise to behave themselves and the kid is taken from Foster family "A" for the means of reunification.

Further down the track, the family mistreats the child again and when they need foster parents, Foster family "A" has taken another child in. So the Department sends the child to Foster family "B". Then next time it's Foster family "C" and "D" .... there is no continuity for the child themselves whilst the reunification is sought.

What I heard from counsellors (and I do NOT speak for all of them) was that reunification benefits the parent or parents who harmed their child, not the child themselves.

There's a lot of horror stories about foster carers (no offence intended to the good ones like Jase) so it would be a very difficult thing to juggle especially as it's so politicised.

Wedgie wrote:There's a lot of horror stories about foster carers (no offence intended to the good ones like Jase) so it would be a very difficult thing to juggle especially as it's so politicised.

Worse horror stories in respect of residential care being the alternative.

Not the position DCP takes though.

gadj1976 wrote:

Booney wrote:

gadj1976 wrote:The rules are around "reunification" as apparently that provides the best chance for the child to thrive.

My wife, a mandatory notifier in early education says this is such a double edge sword.

Yes, the best case scenario would be for families to be reunited and live happily ever after.

But what if a family has demonstrated time and time and time again that they aren't capable of caring for a child?

In any instance, in any capacity, it's awful.

1000% Boon. It's a huge issue.

An example but by no means what happens every time. A family harms their child and the child is put into foster care with family "A". They then promise to behave themselves and the kid is taken from Foster family "A" for the means of reunification.

Further down the track, the family mistreats the child again and when they need foster parents, Foster family "A" has taken another child in. So the Department sends the child to Foster family "B". Then next time it's Foster family "C" and "D" .... there is no continuity for the child themselves whilst the reunification is sought.

What I heard from counsellors (and I do NOT speak for all of them) was that reunification benefits the parent or parents who harmed their child, not the child themselves.

It's a horrible set up. After heavily researching and talking to people in the system we decided to take the overseas adoption route (local adoption was basically non-existent). We brought our boy home from South Korea as the COVID Pandemic hit in March 2020 (3 year process prior for final outcome). We are in a unique adoptive community now and regularly catch up with others. Whilst overseas adoption is drying up, the local adoption is at record levels. Sadly this number is single digits, but it is changing little bit. The system is so under resourced for what is needed unfortunately.

I take my hat off to you Jase for what you do

WTF is it with people wearing pyjamas out in public.
Seen it a few times recently with both males and females wearing them at shopping centres and kids sports.

amber_fluid wrote:WTF is it with people wearing pyjamas out in public.
Seen it a few times recently with both males and females wearing them at shopping centres and kids sports.

Snap. I was thinking the same thing this morning.

I mean, there's a big difference between zero F***s given and then there's "I wear my jim-jams to Foodland"

amber_fluid wrote:WTF is it with people wearing pyjamas out in public.

Just saw a bloke wearing what appeared to be his wife's pyjama pants and loafers at the petrol station.

He was in a jovial mood. Looked across at me and pretended to squirt petrol into his mouth before filling up. Strange unit.