Child sex abuse scandal

[Bulletguy]

 

Britain sent thousands of children whom they'd lied to by telling them they were orphans to Australia, to be used in forced labour and subjected to physical and sexual abuse. Britain exported white British children as migrant labour in an attempt to expand it's Empire building white British colonies. The abuse had been made known to the Government for years, but did nothing.

 

The inquiry has now begun

 

https://www.channel4.com/news/inquiry-into-children-shipped-abroad

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39099778

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39078652

 

Oliver Cosgrove, who was selected to be sent to Australia in 1952 at the age of three, travelling when he was just four. There he was subjected to sexual and physical abuse throughout his childhood at the hands of the Christian brothers who ran the school he attended.

 

https://www.channel4.com/news/abuse-survivor-speaks-out

[Guest pelmetman]

Bulletguy - 2017-02-27 9:33 PM

 

 

Britain sent thousands of children whom they'd lied to by telling them they were orphans to Australia, to be used in forced labour and subjected to physical and sexual abuse. Britain exported white British children as migrant labour in an attempt to expand it's Empire building white British colonies. The abuse had been made known to the Government for years, but did nothing.

 

The inquiry has now begun

 

https://www.channel4.com/news/inquiry-into-children-shipped-abroad

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39099778

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39078652

 

Oliver Cosgrove, who was selected to be sent to Australia in 1952 at the age of three, travelling when he was just four. There he was subjected to sexual and physical abuse throughout his childhood at the hands of the Christian brothers who ran the school he attended.

 

https://www.channel4.com/news/abuse-survivor-speaks-out

 

"The abuse had been made known to the Government for years, but did nothing."

 

Sounds familiar *-) ........

 

 

[thebishbus]

Not just the Government though , this was reported on years ago.

 

Brian B.

[RogerC]

Been known about for ages and ages.....books have been written and enquiries/investigations held and ongoing in Australia. Apparently to date over 1800 paedophiles are, or have been being dealt with there.....although apparently a number of the clergy have (yet again?) been dealt with leniently by the legal process or left to the church to deal with.

Whilst this is a horrendous thing to have happened and those who committed those despicable acts (if still alive) should be brought to book.  However I hope that those looking into the why/wherefore this was carried out will look and consider the 'social climate' back then ....it apparently went on for somewhere in the region of 350 years!!....and not judge the actions of those times against the values held today.  

[Bulletguy]

RogerC - 2017-02-28 3:35 PM

 

Been known about for ages and ages.....books have been written and enquiries/investigations held and ongoing in Australia.

 

Yes the sexual and physical abuse had been going on for years but what shocked me even more, it bears similarities to the Lebensborn programme of Nazi Germany. Why else were they only sending white children there?

[RogerC]

Bulletguy - 2017-02-28 4:40 PM

RogerC - 2017-02-28 3:35 PMBeen known about for ages and ages.....books have been written and enquiries/investigations held and ongoing in Australia.

Yes the sexual and physical abuse had been going on for years but what shocked me even more, it bears similarities to the Lebensborn programme of Nazi Germany. Why else were they only sending white children there?

Like I said previously IMO it would be wrong to judge those responsible by imposing today's standards and more considered dealings with children however it was according to the Child migrants trust (CMT):

.......certain groups of children were excluded as countries would not accept handicapped or black children, for example. 

......so yes there was an element of racial profiling 'but' looking more into Lebensborn I feel that there is only a very tenuous comparison between the two, that of profiling.  However Lebensborn was intended to provide a population to dominate whilst exterminating those considered unwanted/not of pure extraction.

In the UK case I feel the only comparison is that of wanting to populate and as CMT states:

One of the earlier motives of the schemes had been to maintain the racial unity of Britain's Empire.

It was not a selective breeding programme which was the case with the Nazi SS which is a sinister undertaking rather than an attempt to, bearing in mind the difference between racial issues then and now, retain a structural balance in relation to the already existing population.

It is indeed a sad chapter in the lives of many but as awful as it clearly was there is really no comparison between it and Lebensborn.  The children sent abroad were not bred for that purpose whereas Lebensborn was a programme to produce great numbers of 'the master race'...... something entirely more sinister.

[Bulletguy]

RogerC - 2017-02-28 5:27 PM

 

......so yes there was an element of racial profiling 'but' looking more into Lebensborn I feel that there is only a very tenuous comparison between the two, that of profiling.  However Lebensborn was intended to provide a population to dominate whilst exterminating those considered unwanted/not of pure extraction

 

It was not a selective breeding programme which was the case with the Nazi SS which is a sinister undertaking rather than an attempt to, bearing in mind the difference between racial issues then and now, retain a structural balance in relation to the already existing population.

 

No i know.....but it certainly has dark undertones to it of that. British colonists raped and murdered thousands of indigenous Australians in the Black War. 150 years later and they send thousands of white British children off there after lying to them about being orphans. Those children would eventually become adults and have children of their own, few if any at all with indigenous Australians who by now had been "corralled" into compounds and today account for just 3% of Australia's population. Sounds a bit like the white immigrants who stole the land from the indigenous Native American after kicking them off.

 

A bit off topic but if interested in more on the Lebensborn programme, Anni-Frid Lyngstad, the auburn haired singer in ABBA is a Lebensborn child. Some years ago i saw a documentary about how a German news reporter had traced the man who fathered her. The German news guy contacted ABBA's management but Anni-Frid knew absolutely nothing about it so you can imagine the shock she had. Eventually she agreed to meet him and a meeting was arranged.

 

An article here on it; https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/jun/30/kateconnolly.theobserver

 

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?89716-Frida-of-Abba-a-Lebensborn-orphan

[RogerC]

Bulletguy - 2017-02-28 6:56 PM

RogerC - 2017-02-28 5:27 PM......so yes there was an element of racial profiling 'but' looking more into Lebensborn I feel that there is only a very tenuous comparison between the two, that of profiling.  However Lebensborn was intended to provide a population to dominate whilst exterminating those considered unwanted/not of pure extractionIt was not a selective breeding programme which was the case with the Nazi SS which is a sinister undertaking rather than an attempt to, bearing in mind the difference between racial issues then and now, retain a structural balance in relation to the already existing population.

No i know.....but it certainly has dark undertones to it of that. British colonists raped and murdered thousands of indigenous Australians in the Black War. 150 years later and they send thousands of white British children off there after lying to them about being orphans. Those children would eventually become adults and have children of their own, few if any at all with indigenous Australians who by now had been "corralled" into compounds and today account for just 3% of Australia's population. Sounds a bit like the white immigrants who stole the land from the indigenous Native American after kicking them off.A bit off topic but if interested in more on the Lebensborn programme, Anni-Frid Lyngstad, the auburn haired singer in ABBA is a Lebensborn child. Some years ago i saw a documentary about how a German news reporter had traced the man who fathered her. The German news guy contacted ABBA's management but Anni-Frid knew absolutely nothing about it so you can imagine the shock she had. Eventually she agreed to meet him and a meeting was arranged.An article here on it; https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/jun/30/kateconnolly.theobserverhttp://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?89716-Frida-of-Abba-a-Lebensborn-orphan

Sorry but it looks very much like not letting the truth get in the way of a bit of Brit bashing.

I don't agree one bit that the relocation of children to Aus was anything like Lebensborn.  That was a concept from the outset to bring about a master race and the extermination of those of 'polluted' blood lines.  

As for the 'thousands' you refer to.....sorry but from a little research that is just more exaggeration delivered as truth.  There is evidence of 306 Aborigines killed with an allowance for error of 100% making a possible 600+.  Add to that the attacks on settlers, their homes and stock and they lost 223 people.  So altogether, combining losses on both sides it is still only around 1000 (give or take % of error).

The account of those 'whites' colonists you comment on needs to be taken with the following extract from 'The Conversation'...(an Australian publication) in mind:  

 We should also remember the British dead, most of whom were transported for trivial offences, only to meet their deaths in a strange land at the hands of an even stranger enemy. Some had never held a gun, much less fired it into an Aboriginal camp;

....so not in the strictest sense were they colonists just unfortunates that were subject to transportation to the penal colony to serve their sentences.

One can not compare these things with today's standards as it was colonisation by those willing to go and penal servitude to a great many others.  Exploration and conquest was the order of the day and despite what we think today we can't rewrite history nor should we decry the behaviour of those gone before when such activities were deemed to be the order of the day.  A multitude of countries committed what we today would consider atrocities even barbarism but such is the world they lived in.  Thankfully with our standards today this activity is a thing of the past but we still have a few exceptions with a few despots/dictators doing as they please. 

[Bulletguy]

RogerC - 2017-02-28 11:00 PM

 

Sorry but it looks very much like not letting the truth get in the way of a bit of Brit bashing. I don't agree one bit that the relocation of children to Aus was anything like Lebensborn.  That was a concept from the outset to bring about a master race and the extermination of those of 'polluted' blood lines.  As for the 'thousands' you refer to.....sorry but from a little research that is just more exaggeration delivered as truth.  There is evidence of 306 Aborigines killed with an allowance for error of 100% making a possible 600+.  Add to that the attacks on settlers, their homes and stock and they lost 223 people.  So altogether, combining losses on both sides it is still only around 1000 (give or take % of error).

 

The Black War was Tasmania, occupied by Aborigine some 40,000 years before white colonists moved in. At the time there was estimated to be around 3-7000 at the point of colonisation but virtually all wiped out from the Black War. A number of historians have described it as genocide and if that's "Brit Bashing".....tough. It doesn't take much to go back through history to see we are not as squeaky clean as some flag waving patriots want to believe.

 

Regards Lebensborn i did state that this present scandal (which began in the early 50's) "has dark undertones to it of that". Let me put it another way. Look at the photographs of the kids being carted off. Where are the black children? There is none yet we still "owned" plenty of Empire "bits" back then.

[RogerC]

Bulletguy - 2017-03-01 12:00 AM

RogerC - 2017-02-28 11:00 PMSorry but it looks very much like not letting the truth get in the way of a bit of Brit bashing. I don't agree one bit that the relocation of children to Aus was anything like Lebensborn.  That was a concept from the outset to bring about a master race and the extermination of those of 'polluted' blood lines.  As for the 'thousands' you refer to.....sorry but from a little research that is just more exaggeration delivered as truth.  There is evidence of 306 Aborigines killed with an allowance for error of 100% making a possible 600+.  Add to that the attacks on settlers, their homes and stock and they lost 223 people.  So altogether, combining losses on both sides it is still only around 1000 (give or take % of error).

The Black War was Tasmania, occupied by Aborigine some 40,000 years before white colonists moved in. At the time there was estimated to be around 3-7000 at the point of colonisation but virtually all wiped out from the Black War. A number of historians have described it as genocide and if that's "Brit Bashing".....tough. It doesn't take much to go back through history to see we are not as squeaky clean as some flag waving patriots want to believe.Regards Lebensborn i did state that this present scandal (which began in the early 50's) "has dark undertones to it of that". Let me put it another way. Look at the photographs of the kids being carted off. Where are the black children? There is none yet we still "owned" plenty of Empire "bits" back then.

What are these 'dark undertones' you refer to?  Racial profiling as we know it today?  Possibly yes but:....

First point that comes to mind is during the child relocation times there were, should you care to check, very few 'blacks' in this country therefore where were they?  Not here.

Also read my previous post:

according to the Child migrants trust (CMT):

.......certain groups of children were excluded as countries would not accept handicapped or black children, for example. 

Surely that and the low numbers of blacks living in the UK at the time accounts for the lack of their children in the photos?  

Additional information is here from the National Archives of Australia:

Child migration peaked from the 1870s until the start of World War I. The 1920s emigration to Canada and Australia was small-scale by comparison, and the post-World War II child migration to Australia was minuscule. Some 80 000 children were emigrated to Canada before 1914; and only some 3,500–4,000 child migrants were sent to Australia after 1945.15 Moreover, throughout the whole period – almost 100 years – the numbers of children emigrated were only a small fraction of the numbers of children in care throughout the United Kingdom.

As for the Black War.....yes of course it was Tasmania and the Aboriginies were there for however long before the colonials....that is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that penal servitude policy at that time was deportation and a great many of petty criminals, low social standing, destitute, illiterate etc people found themselves Australia bound.  Tasmania, under the colonial policies of the day was deemed to be a place for 'incarceration' meaning that it was hardly surprising that those sent there were of a, shall we say, less than civilised and sociably questionable characters.  Add to that the circumstances of the day (occasional reports of cannibalism) and one can readily see it was a recipe for disaster.

As for the Aboriginal population the 'estimates' are wide and varied so not at all reliable indicators.  Depending on where you look it was estimated that 'before' settlement commenced there were between 3000-15000 indiginous peoples.  As for their demise it was due to a combination of disease, what we today would refer to as socially reprehensible and illegal activity (kidnapping, beatings, rape etc etc) and war.  

What I don't get is your concentrating on the behaviour of peoples alive during times of discovery and the colonisation that was being conducted by the British, French, Portuguese, Spanish, Germans etc.  The Arab world centred around Dar es Salaam and the Horn of Africa was up to it's neck in slave trading until Wilberforce brought about it's end in 1833.  Basically all of the so called civilised world, and if one is to include the Arabs (and African blacks that sold their captives into slavery) parts of the undeveloped world as well was engaged in somewhat unpleasant activities........but that was then this is now and nothing can change what happened.  Ergo I see no point in singling out the UK for what is seemingly almost constant bashing for it's historical activities.

If you want to look at 'real' genocide and get inflamed about it look to the 'civilised' world and Rwanda.  800,000+ slaughtered in 100 days.  The UN stands by and watches, the US prevaricates deciding if the term 'genocide' applies while hundreds of thousands are massacred....an American Officer commented to the UN commander:

“and one American casualty is worth about 85,000 Rwandan dead.

So even today,  in modern 'civilised' times, when there are heinous crimes and atrocities being committed we (the collective we....those who wield the power) could do something about it but we don't.

As for the Black War being genocide....surely that is what I have just described above.  

Genocide:

It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.

One might venture that the Black War was not so much genocide as a clash of peoples from vastly different cultures looking to survive.  There are those who question the referring to it as genocide because it was apparently not policy to annihilate the Aborigines simply because they were Aborigines.  If one accepts that that is the case then it is simply 'war'.

I don't know of any 'flag waving patriots' that feel the UK is 'squeaky' clean as you put it.  I do however know a lot of people who understand that there was 'then and there is 'now' and decrying those long gone is not only to do them a disservice because their actions and activities are no longer acceptable it is an exercise in futility.   We can not alter the pages of history...but we can learn from them.  However in the process of doing so I do not see the need, or in some people, the desire to pillory those who acted within the bounds of acceptability/legality as it was decades and centuries ago.

[Bulletguy]

Roger.......too much to go through here and BBcode makes splitting quotes heavy work! Regards genocide, or specifically the use of the term, i suppose the reason it's still being argued over (re. Black War) is because millions weren't wiped out. But i don't see it like that. Where white migrants to Australia plus surrounding islands should be in a minority, they are far from that due to colonisation and Empire building. Don't you think that just 3% of Australia's indigenous remaining population is a rather sad reflection of that? It's just a little better than the Native American which stands at 2% (5.4 million) of the US population.

 

Of course 'we cannot alter the pages of history', and yes we certainly can learn from them......but we don't always seem to be making too good a job of that and as the oft quoted saying goes, 'history has a habit of repeating itself'.