YES response

Originally posted by Treefern: ↑

I don't need to read the report, Scott. I read the summary page. That's what they're for. Anything that isn't on the summary page isn't worthy enough in the eyes of the researchers to report as a finding. That's what it's for.

If you don't think the summary page is a valid document, then why did you link the summary page and not the report itself? Didn't you READ the summary page Scott? If you have something in the 375-page report that you think contradicts the finding on the summary page of said report, post it or stop telling lies.

The only reference to indigenous neglect paints a very different picture to the one you were asking Hot Copperians to swallow. Contrary to your own seemingly grossly inaccurate assertion, Indigenous children are SEVEN times more likely to be abused or neglected than non-Indigenous children. That's not ambiguous, Scott, and it's not nuanced. It's a big fat fish across the face. Indigenous kids get way more abused and/or neglected than non-Indigenous kids. This is YOUR link, Scott.

Which bit of the report do you think contradicts that FACT? Or were you just telling lies and hoping nobody would open it?

Expand

ok..... so admit that you can't be bothered to be fully informed on the important findings of the report. each page has its own "summary".... by your attitude and comments it seems you didn't even open the link but took what I posted as the whole.... what lazy ignorance (wilfully ignoring) you display.

its the breakdown of that single stat that anyone interested would learn,

but since you want to stick with that single stat..... yes Aboriginal kids are removed from their parents much more often than non-Aboriginal kids.... reasons include reports by doctors at hospitals and other mandatory reporters for issues that do not necessarily reflect risk but are identified through presentation. the bias against Aboriginal parents the takes over when welfare staff visits and makes "reasonable" assumptions due to statistical indicators that Aboriginal kids are at higher risk - a self fulfilling circular argument.

so kids taken into foster care where they become vulnerable to the risk of abuse when carers are selected on need without appropriate profiling.

the kids on the street are repeatedly picked up by police because of community fears that kids will commit offences, not because they have committed offences. then placed in "detention" (prison) where abuse is almost assured/certain.

other kids go to the local petrol station for a cold drink. truckies and other travellers have been picking up kids for sex for many decades (see reports). outback has always been a fairly lawless place. I'll leave the rest to your imagination.

have you read this far treefer? or switched off already thinking I'm writing bs? yes there are many ways kids can be abused in a great many ways, Aboriginal kids far more likely (7x) than non-aboriginal kids. not necessarily associated with poor parenting.

now wake up to yourself and read the report.