Yes, Mike. Sadly, I have to agree.

From the letters in today's The West Australian.

It is a real tragedy that things have come to this but when one sees what has happened with the breakdown of society and law and order in other parts of the world over the past few decades (especially the US and the UK) anyone who believes that "Australia is different" and "it can't/won't happen here" is either seriously deluded or an outright liar - politicians take note.

And, as far as "law and order" goes - when you have countries (like the US, the UK and now Australia) where "laws" have become merely "suggestions" to be ignored if people don't like them (the social media restriction laws for under 16's is the latest example) then the breakdown of society continues and accelerates.

So glad I'm getting towards the end of my life and not just starting out because things are only going to get worse (if that's possible).

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2025 at 5:23pm:

How many jihadis are going to hand in their guns?

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2025 at 9:20pm:


Lucky you, society though has changed.  There are too many loonies around now.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2025 at 9:25pm:


So what changed and who changed it?

Was it Al Grassby?

Are you saying Albo is wrong diversity hasn't made us stronger? 

Back in the 1970s with White Australia Policy people could afford to buy a home the wife could stay at home to raise the kids.

You could leave your house and car unlocked even drive Aussie made Monaros Toranas Falcons Chargers maybe even a Kingswood with a father who wouldn't let you drive it.

Bondi Beach shooter’s same-day gun buys ‘should have triggered alert’
Sajid Akram bought three high-powered guns on the same day despite terror links and in breach of national firearms rules that should have stopped him.

Diversity uber alles.
Diversity to death.

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2025 at 5:23pm:



Society does not have to change to take in ALL differing circumstances... if Nazism etc showed us nothing else - it showed us that clearly - and the comparison is very apt.

On the contrary, societies have the RIGHT to refuse to accommodate to things that are not compatible with them... again to look at the example of Nazism - that does not mean that societies have an absolute right to decide, without proper or due process and as a matter of doing right, what is not compatible with its aims and intents....we all know that Nazism CHOSE to reject Jews, in keeping with the long-held prejudice against them in Europe, but then took that to the extreme for no valid reason.  Jews, in the main, are NOT troublemakers and bring considerable talent to any country in which they have opportunity to thrive.

On the other hand, when it is clear that a specified group carries with it  an entrenched set of values that dictate that group will be anti-social and antithetical to the ways of that country, it is the right of that country to dismiss them - remigrate them or deport them, and in extreme cases where persons of that group are generational, choose to exile them.

That situation is made even worse when any single group brings with it supremacism of its religious or other based ideology - at which point it is the absolute right of any country to self-defend and to defend its citizens by removing that ideology from its shores. 

Further, it is the absolute right of a country to reject any acceptance of such groups within its borders.

It is really that simple.

Frank wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2025 at 10:11pm:



In a land of total gun control, a citizen of India without even permanent residency in Australia is given licenses for at least six firearms? When his son, who lives with him at thd same address, is known to have ties to an Isis cell?