The alien invasion marches on

Barcham 17 July 2013 72

It’s been a while since I reported on the invasion of Canberra from parts unknown, so it pleases me that another youtube video has been uploaded capturing some phoenix lights from the mothership.

You’ll notice none of our peers have yet picked up on this story, for some reason it remains a RiotACT exclusive.

Fish


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
72 Responses to The alien invasion marches on
Filter
Order
DrKoresh DrKoresh 9:30 pm 20 Jul 13

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

milkman said :

Fortunately Kevin Rudd, beloved leader of our Labor stronghold town, has solved the problem for us. All boat people will now be sent to PNG for processing, and if found to be a genuine refugee resettled in PNG.

Yep, what a total dirtbag.

+1 Bring back the witch!

dungfungus dungfungus 6:38 pm 20 Jul 13

IrishPete said :

milkman said :

Fortunately Kevin Rudd, beloved leader of our Labor stronghold town, has solved the problem for us. All boat people will now be sent to PNG for processing, and if found to be a genuine refugee resettled in PNG.

Wouldn’t this require legislation? Mr Rudd may have forgotten he doesn’t have a majority in either house. Obviously he will have the support of the Right on this, until the election, when they may change their minds and do something else. So unless he recalls Parliament to pass this legislation, is it just a bit of a thought bubble.

IP

Judging by a lot of negative comment from the MSM already, Rudd’s latest thought bubble will last about another 7 days. He may try to recall Parliament to pass the required legislation thinking he can wedge the opposition if they oppose him but until all the detail is on the table I can’t see Abbott supporting it and I wouldn’t expect he could be justifiably critisized for that.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 5:11 pm 20 Jul 13

milkman said :

Fortunately Kevin Rudd, beloved leader of our Labor stronghold town, has solved the problem for us. All boat people will now be sent to PNG for processing, and if found to be a genuine refugee resettled in PNG.

Yep, what a total dirtbag.

bigfeet bigfeet 4:07 pm 20 Jul 13

Thumper said :

It seems that President Rudd has decided that the legalities of it all mean exactly nothing.

I predict some very lengthy and costly High Court challenges.

IrishPete IrishPete 3:54 pm 20 Jul 13

milkman said :

Fortunately Kevin Rudd, beloved leader of our Labor stronghold town, has solved the problem for us. All boat people will now be sent to PNG for processing, and if found to be a genuine refugee resettled in PNG.

Wouldn’t this require legislation? Mr Rudd may have forgotten he doesn’t have a majority in either house. Obviously he will have the support of the Right on this, until the election, when they may change their minds and do something else. So unless he recalls Parliament to pass this legislation, is it just a bit of a thought bubble.

IP

Thumper Thumper 2:34 pm 20 Jul 13

It seems that President Rudd has decided that the legalities of it all mean exactly nothing.

milkman milkman 12:10 pm 20 Jul 13

Fortunately Kevin Rudd, beloved leader of our Labor stronghold town, has solved the problem for us. All boat people will now be sent to PNG for processing, and if found to be a genuine refugee resettled in PNG.

bundah bundah 11:20 am 20 Jul 13

Well all the toing and froing,while entertaining,is now entirely academic given that Ruddie has said that any asylum seeker who arrives in Australia by boat will have no chance of being settled in Australia as a refugee.

Nothing quite like appealing to the masses with the election looming!

dungfungus dungfungus 10:32 am 20 Jul 13

Well, now that PM Rudd has announced that he is not extending Australian residency to anymore boat travelling asylum seekers, all our discussions appear to have been in vain.
The silence is eerie.
Can anyone give me the name of the radio station that this often referred to Alan Jones chappy broadcasts on?
I would like to hear what he has to say about it because there is bugger all reaction on this site.

bigfeet bigfeet 9:24 am 20 Jul 13

Dilandach said :

For your benefit:

MIGRATION ACT 1958 – SECT 228B

Circumstances in which a non-citizen has no lawful right to come to Australia
(1) For the purposes of this Subdivision, a non-citizen has, at a particular time, no lawful right to come to Australia if, at that time:

(a) the non-citizen does not hold a visa that is in effect; and

(b) the non-citizen is not covered by an exception referred to in subsection 42(2) or (2A); and

(c) the non-citizen is not permitted by regulations under subsection 42(3) to travel to Australia without a visa that is in effect.

(2) To avoid doubt, a reference in subsection (1) to a non-citizen includes a reference to a non-citizen seeking protection or asylum (however described), whether or not Australia has, or may have, protection obligations in respect of the non-citizen:

(a) under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol; or

(b) for any other reason.

So you can’t start ignoring that as much as you like, it is there in black and white and specifically mentions it applies to those entering Australia with the intention to seek Asylum. Seeking Asylum is not illegal and never has been. Entering Australia without valid travel documents is however. You’re confused on law versus conventions we’re signatories to.

And you are confused about the definition of ‘illegal’. Nowhere does that section say that entering Australia without valid travel documents is illegal.

There are no offence provisions created within that particular section that anyone can breach.

It may be semantics, but the law is very much about semantics.

DrKoresh DrKoresh 10:52 pm 19 Jul 13

Dilandach said :

DrKoresh said :

I’d like to hear what gave dungers and Dilandach’s antecendents the right to come over to this country, presumably on a boat, and then deny that luxury to other people. The answer, of course, is nothing, but I’d still like to hear their justification for it.

Completely irrelevant to the discussion. Playing the man instead of the ball. It’s clear that you’re incapable of having a debate without wanting to delve into personal backgrounds for the purpose of gaining a perceived advantage in what ever point it is you were hoping to make. Let me know when you’re going to talk like an adult and we’ll be good to go but until then perhaps it’s best if the topic remained on aliens of the anal penetrative type.

🙂

Oh FFS, pull your fecking head out and give me a good answer to my question. You should be in Parliament with the way you duck and dodge questions, you’d fit right in with Rudd, Abbott, Scott Morrison and the rest of the scum.

dungfungus dungfungus 6:41 pm 19 Jul 13

Mysteryman said :

DrKoresh said :

I’d like to hear what gave dungers and Dilandach’s antecendents the right to come over to this country, presumably on a boat, and then deny that luxury to other people. The answer, of course, is nothing, but I’d still like to hear their justification for it.

Presumably their ancestors arrived before the Migration Act 1958.

Don’t presume or take anything for granted when you try to debate the mad doctor.

tuco tuco 5:45 pm 19 Jul 13

Dilandach said :

tuco said :

Dilandach said :

I’d be hard to identify my political leanings.

Waiting for the election? With an L.

Voted greens last time actually.

That’s nice. Not as exciting as you indicated previously, but no doubt it felt good.

dungfungus dungfungus 4:46 pm 19 Jul 13

DrKoresh said :

I’d like to hear what gave dungers and Dilandach’s antecendents the right to come over to this country, presumably on a boat, and then deny that luxury to other people. The answer, of course, is nothing, but I’d still like to hear their justification for it.

My antecedants on both sides of my family certainly came on ships (I don’t think air travel was available in the 1800s but you could of course dispute that too). They were actually convicts and I am told by descending relatives that they wouldn’t wish that “luxury” on anybody. Many perished on the long voyages while being held below deck. They used to teach us in detail about this at school 50 years ago but I guess these days children are only taught about the “British Invaders”.
After serving their sentences they worked hard (no social security then you know) to conrtibute something to their new country, raise a family etc. That was their justification.
I could give you a lot more detail but you have already made your closed mind up that there is “nothing”.
Please now crawl back under your rock.

Dilandach Dilandach 4:42 pm 19 Jul 13

DrKoresh said :

I’d like to hear what gave dungers and Dilandach’s antecendents the right to come over to this country, presumably on a boat, and then deny that luxury to other people. The answer, of course, is nothing, but I’d still like to hear their justification for it.

Completely irrelevant to the discussion. Playing the man instead of the ball. It’s clear that you’re incapable of having a debate without wanting to delve into personal backgrounds for the purpose of gaining a perceived advantage in what ever point it is you were hoping to make. Let me know when you’re going to talk like an adult and we’ll be good to go but until then perhaps it’s best if the topic remained on aliens of the anal penetrative type.

🙂

Dilandach Dilandach 4:36 pm 19 Jul 13

tuco said :

Dilandach said :

I’d be hard to identify my political leanings.

Waiting for the election? With an L.

Voted greens last time actually.

Mysteryman Mysteryman 4:36 pm 19 Jul 13

DrKoresh said :

I’d like to hear what gave dungers and Dilandach’s antecendents the right to come over to this country, presumably on a boat, and then deny that luxury to other people. The answer, of course, is nothing, but I’d still like to hear their justification for it.

Presumably their ancestors arrived before the Migration Act 1958.

dungfungus dungfungus 4:33 pm 19 Jul 13

jakey106 said :

2 years ago my house mates and i saw something similar we recorded it and put it up on youtube here is the video that i took. Sorry about how shaky the camera is we didn’t have a tripod and zooming in was a bit of a challenge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGnMFCtMKH4

This isn’t exactly the same as the video in the OP and I think I can explain what you were seeing. While bushwalking recently, I found a small electronic device (35mm x 15mm) housed in a clear plastic case. It had 3 x button batteries, a tiny circuitboard and an LED. There was a simple sliding switch on one side. These devices are harmless and are probably available on the net (I haven’t checked).
It was attached to the remnants of a balloon.
I took it home and snapped open the case to replace the spent batteries and then turned it on. It immediately emitted random patterns of red, blue and possibly other colours in high light intensity.
On a clear night, the lights from this device would be visible for miles and if attached to a balloon it would go wherever the wind was blowing in different directions and speeds depending on the stratas.
If the lights appeared static this would mean the balloon would be tethered.
Your mystery lights have been solved.
I will now prepare to face cyber interrogation and abuse from the usual suspects.

DrKoresh DrKoresh 4:09 pm 19 Jul 13

I’d like to hear what gave dungers and Dilandach’s antecendents the right to come over to this country, presumably on a boat, and then deny that luxury to other people. The answer, of course, is nothing, but I’d still like to hear their justification for it.

IrishPete IrishPete 3:51 pm 19 Jul 13

Jim Jones said :

Drawing comparison to Jewish refugees has nothing to do with Godwin’s law. I suggest you brush up on your internet lore (as well as your history and knowledge of Australian law).
.

It’s what I thought when I read it. You are sailing very close to the wind.

However, it is acceptable to make comparisons with Nazism (and related issues) when it’s not hyperbolic (my paraphrasing of the “rules”).

IP

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site