This on-line paper is now archived for perpetuity in the
National Library
of Australia
Friday, 2nd January 1998
Associated links:
Search entire news archive by day |
Search entire news archive by text |
Definitive Lifestyle Guide to over 5000 Australian webs |
Global Web Builders Gold |
The Kid's Locker Room |
World Wide Websters |
George Soros makes his intentions clear.
In an article in the Financial Times (original here) George Soros, the billionaire who would depose the might of the Asian financial markets, has written to the Financial Times making this statement:
"I propose setting up an International Credit Insurance Corporation as a sister institution to the IMF. This new authority would guarantee international loans for a modest fee. The borrowing countries would be obliged to provide data on all borrowings, public or private, insured or not. This would enable the authority to set a ceiling on the amounts it is willing to insure. Up to those amounts the countries concerned would be able to access international capital markets at prime rates. Beyond these, the creditors would have to beware.."
A copy of the article is kept for perpetuity here.
Let us remember this is the man who Dr Mahathir Mohammad, the President of Malaysia, described in less than glowing terms for his involvement in creating the Asian currency meltdown.
Now he wants to control our money supply together with the IMF.... hey, the horse is out of the stable blokes - we all know about your plans with MAI - but this takes things just a bit too far!
What the President of Malaysia things about George Soros.
The Weekly Canberra Column:
"Considering that we are constantly told that Aboriginal Australians are a disadvantaged group, it is hardly surprising that State intervention was and is required to remove children from an environment that is unhealthy and unpromising for survival, let alone success. On the one hand we are told that Aboriginal Australians have a high infant mortality rate, yet on the other hand we are asked to feel guilty for removing children from their families. If the choice is between death and foster care, then there is really no choice for a civilised society."
Why native title should be extinguished.
All but absent from the debate over Native Title, in the major cities at least, is some appreciation of what is happening in the bush. It is not difficult to understand why farming families feel frustrated. Misrepresentation is rife. Farmers have suddenly become “pastoralists” (with its silvertail connotation), and are portrayed as foreign, fabulously wealthy or both. When it has been pointed out that many of the properties vulnerable to Native Title claims are family farms, and battling ones at that, it is argued that such properties are marginal and should be turned into national parks anyway!
The leasehold property run by our correspondent and her husband has been in their family for three generations. Two Native Title claims have already been issued on behalf of Aboriginal groups unknown in the area. She has, understandably, asked that her identity be withheld.
Here is an extract from the article:
"In 1993, we were told by then Labor Prime Minister, Mr Keating, that pastoral leases extinguished Native Title it was widely reported that an amount in excess of Au$1 billion was allocated to the Aboriginal Land Fund as compensation for this. I have since read that this Au$1 billion plus will return Au$45 million annually to the Aboriginal community. If this is so, Aborigines should be well placed to purchase all the land they desire in Australia.
"Last year the High Court gave its Wik decision, which turned all this upside down, for in spite of Mr Keating’s assurances in 1993, Native Title prevailed on our land."
Making the
news" -
Subject: Comments on Australian
News of the Day RE:Trivia
Nice to see you're putting photos of good looking, ordinary people up on your web site, instead of the usual glamour media personalities that appear with regular monotony in all the mainstream media.
I don't mean to be picky, but the name of the local community newspaper I run at the moment is The local Bulletin not The Local Gazette. (Good name for a local paper - I may just use it for the next one that I intend to start shortly.)
Barry Sampson Searle
Your local **** stirrer now residing in the Federal seat of Blair
Subject: A different Look At The Death Penalty
To The Editor,
It is easy to see how little our Leaders know and how hypocritical they
are, when ever, the reintroduction
of the death penalty is mentioned.
As others have said in these pages, the matter has been raised on so
many occasions it would be difficult to number.
Without even mentioning the number of times it must be
raised in Party Rooms, let us look a little beyond that and contemplate
how many shocking senseless murders are committed without any remorse by
the KILLERS, after which, the matter of the Death Penalty is raised on
each and every occasion by people from every walk of life, let alone the
family of the victims.
The absolute HORROR of parents and
loved ones left to face the aftermath of some well known and publicised
infamous murders, could not possibly be imagined by others not involved.
This horror is amplified by the loved ones knowledge that
even if found, the Killers will never face anything like the shocking deaths
of their innocent victims.
What also sickens me to the core, is the callous hounding
of the loved ones left behind by the Media feasting on their grief and
suffering. How many times have you seen a media rep, shove a mike into
the face of a grieving parent and ask, "HOW DO YOU FEEL"?
But let a person who voices the views of the majority
of the people in relation to the Death Penalty and the Media start howling
like a pack dogs at their masters directions.
The matter of the Death Penalty will never be introduced
by the major parties for the simple reason the Party rules are against
the introduction of the death penalty regardless of what the vast majority
of the Australian Public might want and will NEVER be given a chance to
voice an opinion.
Let me now fill you in on some FACTS. I have worked in
a maximum security prison and this is what happens. I have listened to
prisoners on remand discussing their situations and known the Prisoners
Rules when dealing with Crimes Against Their Prison Codes.
Surprise, Surprise they
apply "Bashing" (Corporal Punishment) and "Killings"
(The Death Penalty) for breaches of their codes.
Can you imagine? it actually works, few prisoners break
these rules for fear of their safety and LIVES.
If these rules imposed by their fellow inmates control
the people actually in prison, why would it not serve as a deterrent on
the same people outside the prison?
How often do you hear about murders committed by prisoners
shortly after their release.
No doubt there will always be varying degrees of murder
and there will always need for consideration of motives and cause, which
might result in lesser penalties, however the DEATH PENALTY should be there
to discourage the callous, senseless, vicious murders to often committed
these days particularly against innocent defenceless children and other
victims.
To amplify my reasoning to a greater degree, it is common
knowledge INSIDE that if you are imprisoned for a second armed holdup you
would be liable to serve some 15 to 20 years in prison, but if you were
to murder the witness's you would have a greater chance of not being detected
in the first place and if you were, the charge of murder would apply and
if convicted, you may well be out within 10 years.
Who was it said, " THE LAW IS AN ASS "? How many
times have we heard Politicians "TRUMPET" truth in sentencing, or a Sentence
to fit the crime?
Anyway, only the States can change State Law, at the moment!
Tony Fitzpatrick
Invariably the matter of the death penalty is raised
at some point BY THE MEDIA.
A team of New Zealand researchers led by Dr Nigel Dickson from the University of Otago have found that women who have sex before the age of sixteen regret losing their virginity more so than men. Love is rarely the motive according to the report which appeared in the British Medical Journal.
Men apparently sought their first sexual experience out of curiosity while women out of peer pressure. Many women who had sex before the age of fourteen say that they were forced into it.
The researchers analysed the sexual experiences of 477 men and 458 women born in Dunedin between 1972 and 1973.
The median age of the first sexual experience was 17 for men and 16 for women.
More than 54% of women as opposed to just 16% of women felt that they should have kept their virginity longer.
"Whatever the explanation, these results show that a substantial portion of young women regret early intercourse," said Dr Dickson.
Have a good one.
Return to Australian National
News of the Day
See GLOBE International for
other world news.