Forced child migration 'bigger abuse scandal than Savile'

The forced migration of UK children overseas was a bigger sex abuse scandal than that of Jimmy Savile, ex-prime minister Gordon Brown has said. Mr Brown told the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse that the 2,000 surviving British child migrants who suffered abuse should be compensated. He said the mass transportation of 130,000 British children overseas was "government-enforced trafficking". Across 50 years, the children were sent to ex-colonies such as Australia. The transportation programme began in the 1920s, partly to ease the population of the UK's orphanages in the years after the First World War, and to give "lost" children the chance of a new life in Britain's colonies.

But children continued to be be sent abroad until 1974.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40669699

Good item , Thorin..

I have written a couple of threads on this very same subject a couple of times previously...
(It is the Australian and Canadian gov'ts leading the investigations - not the British, by the by..)

One of the worst paedo's happens to be the late Viscount William Slim, war hero and GG to Australia, who is still being disgracefully defended by some sections of the British "establishment" and his wastrel no-hoper children.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:William_Slim,_1st_Viscount_Slim

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t19891-british-establishment-hides-major-sexual-pervert

Each time, though, a couple of those usual odious suspects from the Flopcave have entered the fray, attempting to excuse British authorities of these virtually_criminal activities, and trying to deflect attention by referring to unrelated Australian and American issues..

Let's see if those same ratbags enter this thread next  (Fortunately Stormee is long gone, so that's one mongrel who who crash this time..).        

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/feb/24/child-migrant-programme-slavery

http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/fact-sheets/fs124.aspx

If the children were in orphanages, where were their parents at the time?

Oh, and you didn't exactly conduct yourself very well on that other thread Wolfboy, so perhaps it's best not to draw attention to it.

Raggamuffin wrote:If the children were in orphanages, where were their parents at the time?

What has that got to do with then what happened to many of them?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:If the children were in orphanages, where were their parents at the time?

What has that got to do with then what happened to many of them?

The article says that some were told their parents were dead, or were sent without the consent of their parents. If they had parents, why were they in orphanages?

It seems that the abuse happened after they got to Australia.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


What has that got to do with then what happened to many of them?

The article says that some were told their parents were dead, or were sent without the consent of their parents. If they had parents, why were they in orphanages?

It seems that the abuse happened after they got to Australia.

Again what has that got to do with then what happened to many of them?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The article says that some were told their parents were dead, or were sent without the consent of their parents. If they had parents, why were they in orphanages?

It seems that the abuse happened after they got to Australia.

Again what has that got to do with then what happened to many of them?

One of the issues is whether or not they were deprived of their family. If they were in an orphanage, where was their family anyway?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Again what has that got to do with then what happened to many of them?

One of the issues is whether or not they were deprived of their family. If they were in an orphanage, where was their family anyway?

That is another issue, but again, what has that got to do with then what happened to many of them?

The question is - who is to blame for the abuse? the ones who abused them in Australia or the ones who sent them out there? How could anyone here know they would be abused once they were over there? Did they know it was happening and continued to send children to Australia?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

One of the issues is whether or not they were deprived of their family. If they were in an orphanage, where was their family anyway?

That is another issue, but again, what has that got to do with then what happened to many of them?

It's not another issue at all. This isn't just about abuse, it's also about why they were sent there in the first place.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

That is another issue, but again, what has that got to do with then what happened to many of them?

It's not another issue at all. This isn't just about abuse, it's also about why they were sent there in the first place.

So after 3 times asking you cannot answer.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not another issue at all. This isn't just about abuse, it's also about why they were sent there in the first place.

So after 3 times asking you cannot answer.

I've just told you what it has to do with it. Now stop trolling and discuss this properly before you ruin yet another thread.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

So after 3 times asking you cannot answer.

I've just told you what it has to do with it. Now stop trolling and discuss this properly before you ruin yet another thread.

1) I will do as i Please.

2) You are not a moderator

3) You could not answer my question

4) This is a debate forum and you do not get to dictate

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I've just told you what it has to do with it. Now stop trolling and discuss this properly before you ruin yet another thread.

1) I will do as i Please.

2) You are not a moderator

3) You could not answer my question

4) This is a debate forum and you do not get to dictate

You're not actually debating though are you? You posted some stuff with no opinion of your own, and since then all you've done is try to cause an argument. I can only conclude that you're so bored you're just spamming the forum with random articles for the sake of it, and you have no interest in the subjects at all. Andy was right about that.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Good item , Thorin..

I have written a couple of threads on this very same subject a couple of times previously...
(It is the Australian and Canadian gov'ts leading the investigations - not the British, by the by..)

One of the worst paedo's happens to be the late Viscount William Slim, war hero and GG to Australia, who is still being disgracefully defended by some sections of the British "establishment" and his wastrel no-hoper children.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:William_Slim,_1st_Viscount_Slim

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t19891-british-establishment-hides-major-sexual-pervert

Each time, though, a couple of those usual odious suspects from the Flopcave have entered the fray, attempting to excuse British authorities of these virtually_criminal activities, and trying to deflect attention by referring to unrelated Australian and American issues..

Let's see if those same ratbags enter this thread next  (Fortunately Stormee is long gone, so that's one mongrel who who crash this time..).        

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/feb/24/child-migrant-programme-slavery

http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/fact-sheets/fs124.aspx

Thanks Wolf.

If the British authorities sent them to Australia in good faith, the Australians are the ones at fault for not looking after them and for allowing them to be abused.

Raggamuffin wrote:If the British authorities sent them to Australia in good faith, the Australians are the ones at fault for not looking after them and for allowing them to be abused.

So sending children off without their consent is now okay to you.

You cannot make it up.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:If the British authorities sent them to Australia in good faith, the Australians are the ones at fault for not looking after them and for allowing them to be abused.

So sending children off without their consent is now okay to you.

You cannot make it up.

That's why I asked where the parents were, but you preferred to troll the thread rather than address the point.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

So sending children off without their consent is now okay to you.

You cannot make it up.

That's why I asked where the parents were, but you preferred to troll the thread rather than address the point.

All can see what you said and that you exonerated the British authorities from this appalling crime

This thread was clearly started with the intention of causing some kind of commotion with the Brits/Aussies, and is therefore spam. Didge has contributed nothing other than copying and pasting from an article, and thanking Wolfboy for abusing other posters.

I shall leave him to cause another argument in an empty thread.

Raggamuffin wrote:This thread was clearly started with the intention of causing some kind of commotion with the Brits/Aussies, and is therefore spam. Didge has contributed nothing other than copying and pasting from an article, and thanking Wolfboy for abusing other posters.

I shall leave him to cause another argument in an empty thread.  

Again you are not a moderator and its you creating trouble on this thread with your unfounded accusations and tantrums.

One of the posters from ADO days was a victim of this very thing, being sent to Australia as a child after the war. So I have a very good understanding from the experiences he told on the forum. Forget his name now, but he was very knowledgeable about history.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Again what has that got to do with then what happened to many of them?

One of the issues is whether or not they were deprived of their family. If they were in an orphanage, where was their family anyway?

I think your question is very pertinent.  Why were they sent there?   Back in those days nobody really gave a toss about child welfare, in that the abuse was widespread, even in our schools.    Most kids back then suffered all kinds of abuse from being beaten at school, sexually abused by people in authority, dumped in institutions, socially excluded for things we consider the norm these days, such as being pregnant out of wedlock, the list is endless.    Perhaps some of those kids were the product of unwanted pregnancies and the parent(s) thought they'd have a better life.  And you can bet that someone, somewhere, was making money from it...which was probably the root of it.

Just remembered the posters username, Oldman. He later came back to the UK. This happened to him and his siblings. Think his little sister suffered abuse when in Australia.

Raggamuffin wrote:This thread was clearly started with the intention of causing some kind of commotion with the Brits/Aussies, and is therefore spam. Didge has contributed nothing other than copying and pasting from an article, and thanking Wolfboy for abusing other posters.

I shall leave him to cause another argument in an empty thread.  

I don't think so, Raggs. I think it's a good thread, born of good intentions. Didge is just trying to shed some light on the subject.

Moving on, I also agree with didge that the immediate wrong is in the doing of the illegal act. The abuse of the children. Now, in law it is recognized that there can be multiple causes of an event...proximate cause, concurrent cause, etc. Each of them must be dealt with separately and in their own way. They are not meant to compete with one another, but dealt with individually.

Institutional causes (unwanted children, troublesome children, etc.) are of particularly concern because institutions (as opposed to criminal wrongdoers): (1) require a different perspective; and (2) they can too easily be lost in the never-neverland of red tape: commissions to study; experimental answers; low-priority, etc.

So you're both right. But that's no excuse. Treat them as two separate problems, and approach each accordingly.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:This thread was clearly started with the intention of causing some kind of commotion with the Brits/Aussies, and is therefore spam. Didge has contributed nothing other than copying and pasting from an article, and thanking Wolfboy for abusing other posters.

I shall leave him to cause another argument in an empty thread.  

I don't think so, Raggs.  I think it's a good thread, born of good intentions.  Didge is just trying to shed some light on the subject.

Moving on, I also agree with didge that the immediate wrong is in the doing of the illegal act.  The abuse of the children.  Now, in law it is recognized that there can be multiple causes of an event...proximate cause, concurrent cause, etc.  Each of them must be dealt with separately and in their own way.  They are not meant to compete with one another, but dealt with individually.

Institutional causes (unwanted children, troublesome children, etc.) are of particularly concern because institutions (as opposed to criminal wrongdoers): (1) require a different perspective; and (2) they can too easily be lost in the never-neverland of red tape: commissions to study; experimental answers; low-priority, etc.

So you're both right.  But that's no excuse.  Treat them as two separate problems, and approach each accordingly.

+1

Great post Quill

Catch you later

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

One of the issues is whether or not they were deprived of their family. If they were in an orphanage, where was their family anyway?

I think your question is very pertinent.  Why were they sent there?   Back in those days nobody really gave a toss about child welfare, in that the abuse was widespread, even in our schools.    Most kids back then suffered all kinds of abuse from being beaten at school, sexually abused by people in authority, dumped in institutions, socially excluded for things we consider the norm these days, such as being pregnant out of wedlock, the list is endless.    Perhaps some of those kids were the product of unwanted pregnancies and the parent(s) thought they'd have a better life.  And you can bet that someone, somewhere, was making money from it...which was probably the root of it.

Thank you. I'm pleased that someone has seen the relevance of the point I raised. If one of the issues is that they were parted from their families, I would ask whether their families were worth having. It would be interesting to know more details of why these children had been abandoned to orphanages.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:This thread was clearly started with the intention of causing some kind of commotion with the Brits/Aussies, and is therefore spam. Didge has contributed nothing other than copying and pasting from an article, and thanking Wolfboy for abusing other posters.

I shall leave him to cause another argument in an empty thread.  

I don't think so, Raggs.  I think it's a good thread, born of good intentions.  Didge is just trying to shed some light on the subject.

Moving on, I also agree with didge that the immediate wrong is in the doing of the illegal act.  The abuse of the children.  Now, in law it is recognized that there can be multiple causes of an event...proximate cause, concurrent cause, etc.  Each of them must be dealt with separately and in their own way.  They are not meant to compete with one another, but dealt with individually.

Institutional causes (unwanted children, troublesome children, etc.) are of particularly concern because institutions (as opposed to criminal wrongdoers): (1) require a different perspective; and (2) they can too easily be lost in the never-neverland of red tape: commissions to study; experimental answers; low-priority, etc.

So you're both right.  But that's no excuse.  Treat them as two separate problems, and approach each accordingly.

Didge hasn't shed any light on it, he's hardly made any comments about the actual subject at all. He soon changed his tune about the "immediate wrong" of the abuse didn't he? That's because he wanted to start another argument.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I don't think so, Raggs.  I think it's a good thread, born of good intentions.  Didge is just trying to shed some light on the subject.

Moving on, I also agree with didge that the immediate wrong is in the doing of the illegal act.  The abuse of the children.  Now, in law it is recognized that there can be multiple causes of an event...proximate cause, concurrent cause, etc.  Each of them must be dealt with separately and in their own way.  They are not meant to compete with one another, but dealt with individually.

Institutional causes (unwanted children, troublesome children, etc.) are of particularly concern because institutions (as opposed to criminal wrongdoers): (1) require a different perspective; and (2) they can too easily be lost in the never-neverland of red tape: commissions to study; experimental answers; low-priority, etc.

So you're both right.  But that's no excuse.  Treat them as two separate problems, and approach each accordingly.

Didge hasn't shed any light on it, he's hardly made any comments about the actual subject at all. He soon changed his tune about the "immediate wrong" of the abuse didn't he? That's because he wanted to start another argument.

Did I?

Show me where I changed my tune?

Nobody is buying your temper tantrums darling and its you constantly looking to derail threads.

Look at you now acting like a child

Answer Quills points not your silly childish views on me

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge hasn't shed any light on it, he's hardly made any comments about the actual subject at all. He soon changed his tune about the "immediate wrong" of the abuse didn't he? That's because he wanted to start another argument.

Did I?

Show me where I changed my tune?

Nobody is buying your temper tantrums darling and its you constantly looking to derail threads.

Look at you now acting like a child

Answer Quills points not your silly childish views on me

You suddenly decided that it did matter where the parents were, and that the lack of consent was an issue. You're still not contributing to the subject - you're just spoiling for a fight. Quill shouldn't have encouraged you IMO.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Did I?

Show me where I changed my tune?

Nobody is buying your temper tantrums darling and its you constantly looking to derail threads.

Look at you now acting like a child

Answer Quills points not your silly childish views on me

You suddenly decided that it did matter where the parents were, and that the lack of consent was an issue. You're still not contributing to the subject - you're just spoiling for a fight. Quill shouldn't have encouraged you IMO.

Did I?

Show me the post where you claim I said it did matter where the parents were?

Put up or jog on love

[quote="Raggamuffin"]

Original Quill wrote:
Didge hasn't shed any light on it, he's hardly made any comments about the actual subject at all. He soon changed his tune about the "immediate wrong" of the abuse didn't he? That's because he wanted to start another argument.

Yes, he has shed light on the matter. Look...you are talking about it.

As my previous post noted, there is no "immediate wrong", but concurrent wrongs.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You suddenly decided that it did matter where the parents were, and that the lack of consent was an issue. You're still not contributing to the subject - you're just spoiling for a fight. Quill shouldn't have encouraged you IMO.

Did I?

Show me the post where you claim I said it did matter where the parents were?

Put up or jog on love

Who else would give consent, dummy? If you can't debate properly, you should go and start a new thread about nothing and get yourself off this one.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, he has shed light on the matter.  Look...you are talking about it.

As my previous post noted, there is no "immediate wrong", but concurrent wrongs.

No he hasn't. He's just arguing and trolling.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:



Did I?

Show me the post where you claim I said it did matter where the parents were?

Put up or jog on love

Who else would give consent, dummy? If you can't debate properly, you should go and start a new thread about nothing and get yourself off this one.

So you could not produce the post

You pathetic lying wally ha ha ha

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Who else would give consent, dummy? If you can't debate properly, you should go and start a new thread about nothing and get yourself off this one.

So you could not produce the post

You pathetic lying wally ha ha ha

Have a look back, and you'll see. You'll also see how you've said nothing about the subject, unlike me.

You're a liar, and you're probably drunk again.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So you could not produce the post

You pathetic lying wally ha ha ha

Have a look back, and you'll see. You'll also see how you've said nothing about the subject, unlike me.

You're a liar, and you're probably drunk again.

So you want me to look back at this imaginary post you can see....

Priceless


You have just spoilt yet another thread with your temper tantrums

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Have a look back, and you'll see. You'll also see how you've said nothing about the subject, unlike me.

You're a liar, and you're probably drunk again.

So you want me to look back at this imaginary post you can see....

Priceless


You have just spoilt yet another thread with your temper tantrums

You spoilt it as soon as you started having a tantrum just because I asked where their parents were. At least Horatio understands the point. You don't because you're a moron.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:This thread was clearly started with the intention of causing some kind of commotion with the Brits/Aussies, and is therefore spam. Didge has contributed nothing other than copying and pasting from an article, and thanking Wolfboy for abusing other posters.

I shall leave him to cause another argument in an empty thread.  

I don't think so, Raggs.  I think it's a good thread, born of good intentions.  Didge is just trying to shed some light on the subject.

Moving on, I also agree with didge that the immediate wrong is in the doing of the illegal act.  The abuse of the children.  Now, in law it is recognized that there can be multiple causes of an event...proximate cause, concurrent cause, etc.  Each of them must be dealt with separately and in their own way.  They are not meant to compete with one another, but dealt with individually.

Institutional causes (unwanted children, troublesome children, etc.) are of particularly concern because institutions (as opposed to criminal wrongdoers): (1) require a different perspective; and (2) they can too easily be lost in the never-neverland of red tape: commissions to study; experimental answers; low-priority, etc.

So you're both right.  But that's no excuse.  Treat them as two separate problems, and approach each accordingly.

To get the debate back on track

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:This thread was clearly started with the intention of causing some kind of commotion with the Brits/Aussies, and is therefore spam. Didge has contributed nothing other than copying and pasting from an article, and thanking Wolfboy for abusing other posters.

I shall leave him to cause another argument in an empty thread.  

I don't think so, Raggs.  I think it's a good thread, born of good intentions.  Didge is just trying to shed some light on the subject.

Moving on, I also agree with didge that the immediate wrong is in the doing of the illegal act.  The abuse of the children.  Now, in law it is recognized that there can be multiple causes of an event...proximate cause, concurrent cause, etc.  Each of them must be dealt with separately and in their own way.  They are not meant to compete with one another, but dealt with individually.

Institutional causes (unwanted children, troublesome children, etc.) are of particularly concern because institutions (as opposed to criminal wrongdoers): (1) require a different perspective; and (2) they can too easily be lost in the never-neverland of red tape: commissions to study; experimental answers; low-priority, etc.

So you're both right.  But that's no excuse.  Treat them as two separate problems, and approach each accordingly.

That's very well put. We see buck passing a lot when children have been systematically abused.
The Asian gangs blamed the girls and their upbringing....and to a certain extent so did the authorities, care homes turned a blind eye, when the whole sorry mess was addressed the obvious blame lay on the abusers themselves, but others had to take some responsibility of how this was allowed to happen in the first place.

Off topic I know, but your post highlights how the abuse of youngsters is still happening.

To Ragg's :

The British did not act in good faith --  their reasons were multi-fold but none were proper or honourable  :

Politics --  being seen to "do something"

Expedience --  one less thing for the guvm'nt to worry about

Economics --  shifting a potential problem onto other countries (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Rhodesia..)

And, worst of all -- pandering to their friends in various paedophile rings --  during the 1940s, many of the "paedophile rings" around the former colonies were organised and populated with expat' Brits in the foreign service/diplomatic corps/military/'charities' --  see my reference to the 'Viscount' William Slim above..


There is simply no way that you can blame the authorities in Canada, Australia and New Zealand for the actions of British authorities, charities and churches back at home..

Australian, Canadian and Kiwi governments have already recognised and admitted wrongdoings by gov't departments, authorities, charities and church groups in our countries...

The British gov't and "establishment" are still largely in denial, don't want to admit any wrondoing, and are probably basically scared of having to pay ££billions££ in compensation payouts...

Raggamuffin wrote:
This thread was clearly started with the intention of causing some kind of commotion with the Brits/Aussies, and is therefore spam. Didge has contributed nothing other than copying and pasting from an article, and thanking Wolfboy for abusing other posters.

I shall leave him to cause another argument in an empty thread.  

.
I haven't abused anyone who's here, in this thread...

Would you prefer it if I named those couple of floptards who attempted to derail the previous couple of threads on this same subject, Raggs ???

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You suddenly decided that it did matter where the parents were, and that the lack of consent was an issue. You're still not contributing to the subject - you're just spoiling for a fight. Quill shouldn't have encouraged you IMO.

Did I?

Show me the post where you claim I said it did matter where the parents were?

Put up or jog on love

Reading back on this thread, you've done to Raggs what you always do, poke and poke and repeat the same passive aggressive nonsense you seem to take great delight in doing when you want to start some aggro. Three times you've posted the same reply as she's tried to debate the point she's trying to put across. She's made a very good point that's relevant to the OP and you're trying to ridicule her for it.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

To Ragg's :

The British did not act in good faith --  their reasons were multi-fold but none were proper or honourable  :

Politics --  being seen to "do something"

Expedience --  one less thing for the guvm'nt to worry about

Economics --  shifting a potential problem onto other countries (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Rhodesia..)

And, worst of all -- pandering to their friends in various paedophile rings --  during the 1940s, many of the "paedophile rings" around the former colonies were organised and populated with expat' Brits in the foreign service/diplomatic corps/military/'charities' --  see my reference to the 'Viscount' William Slim above..


There is simply no way that you can blame the authorities in Canada, Australia and New Zealand for the actions of British authorities, charities and churches back at home..

Australian, Canadian and Kiwi governments have already recognised and admitted wrongdoings by gov't departments, authorities, charities and church groups in our countries...

The British gov't and "establishment" are still largely in denial, don't want to admit any wrondoing, and are probably basically scared of having to pay ££billions££ in compensation payouts...

I can certainly blame the authorities in Australia if they did nothing to stop the abuse - that's where it happened, is it not? Passing the buck to the British for that is beyond the pale. You're the ones who should be paying compensation because it was in Australia that the abuse occurred.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Thorin wrote:



Did I?

Show me the post where you claim I said it did matter where the parents were?

Put up or jog on love

Reading back on this thread, you've done to Raggs what you always do, poke and poke and repeat the same passive aggressive  nonsense you seem to take great delight in doing when you want to start some aggro.   Three times you've posted the same reply as she's tried to debate the point she's trying to put across.  She's made a very good point  that's relevant to the OP and you're trying to ridicule her for it.  

Thank you Horatio. You're right - he's being passive aggressive, and has contributed nothing to this thread.

You see, there are two aspects to this: The fact that they were sent abroad without consent of their parents, and the abuse they suffered in Australia. That is why I asked where their parents were. If they children were in orphanages, that would suggest they were orphans, or that their parents had abandoned them.

Raggamuffin wrote:You see, there are two aspects to this: The fact that they were sent abroad without consent of their parents, and the abuse they suffered in Australia. That is why I asked where their parents were. If they children were in orphanages, that would suggest they were orphans, or that their parents had abandoned them.

There is two sides to this...how and why could the government forcibly remove children away from this country and ship them off to Australia sometimes without parental approval or knowledge, and why were the children told they were orphans when many were not?

Obviously the abuse they suffered in Australia is the fault of the abusers, no question of that.......but why were they sent, as recently as the mid 70's in the first place?

I could see Raggs question as being very pertinent too...

(HT - 'pertinent ' - Word of the day! )

I think the op said since about 1920... so after WW1 and through/after WW2 when there would likely have been high number of orphaned children for a wide range of reasons...

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:You see, there are two aspects to this: The fact that they were sent abroad without consent of their parents, and the abuse they suffered in Australia. That is why I asked where their parents were. If they children were in orphanages, that would suggest they were orphans, or that their parents had abandoned them.

There is two sides to this...how and why could the government forcibly remove children away from this country and ship them off to Australia sometimes without parental approval or knowledge, and why were the children told they were orphans when many were not?

Obviously the abuse they suffered in Australia is the fault of the abusers, no question of that.......but why were they sent, as recently as the mid 70's in the first place?

I presume they weren't snatched off the streets, so I don't understand where the parents were in order to give consent anyway. If they weren't orphans, why were they in orphanages?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

There is two sides to this...how and why could the government forcibly remove children away from this country and ship them off to Australia sometimes without parental approval or knowledge, and why were the children told they were orphans when many were not?

Obviously the abuse they suffered in Australia is the fault of the abusers, no question of that.......but why were they sent, as recently as the mid 70's in the first place?

I presume they weren't snatched off the streets, so I don't understand where the parents were in order to give consent anyway. If they weren't orphans, why were they in orphanages?

Possibly some were in some sort of care after WW1 and WW2....that doesn't account for children still being sent as recently as the 70's though.
Many of the parents didn't give consent did they?