Thread: Uluru at peace.

If it had been the French or the Dutch there would be no Aborigines left to argue who owned a rock in the middle of the continent.

The French would have mined it to oblivion & the Dutch would have made Edam Cheese out of it. There is a point. Is the rock composed of Copper & Gold & other rare Minerals?? Interesting to see what they dig up after the gates are shut for good. Drilling machines boring into the walls & the top, "Hey what about the ban on climbing" "Ah Boss, that for white phellas only. Excuse me, I have to go up & place the charges for the next blast. Now where is that "Climbing Chain?"

Cynical? Moi?

Originally Posted by 4bee

The French would have mined it to oblivion & the Dutch would have made Edam Cheese out of it.

And neither would have given a stuff about Dreaming and cave paintings, the Harbour Bridge would have been a tower, water would have been brought south from the tropics ( bloody good idea IMO ) and Dan Andrews would be facing the guillotine. I'm not saying what I think of that last prediction. Educated people are free to guess.

Originally Posted by Tombie

What’s done is done. Move on.

Whats done can be undone, people power.

Originally Posted by blackrangie

Whats done can be undone, people power.

Really? Undo the Bourke Street Massacre. Better still, bring my wife back to me from her liver cancer. Can people power do that? I try, every night, and I can't seem to manage it. I await your help.

You need to think before you speak. I tell myself this, but I don't usually listen.

Originally Posted by johntins

Why not? Any creek or river allows you to cross private land, as no waterway can be owned by an individual. Did you not know that?

That doesn't make a lot of sense - yes, waterways are owned by the Crown but you don't have a right to access a waterway by crossing private property. As an example, there are plenty of riverfront properties in Melbourne but you can't access the Yarra by going through someone's place.

Originally Posted by Arapiles

That doesn't make a lot of sense - yes, waterways are owned by the Crown but you don't have a right to access a waterway by crossing private property. As an example, there are plenty of riverfront properties in Melbourne but you can't access the Yarra by going through someone's place.

But you can access vast areas of this country on PARs

Originally Posted by johntins

Really? Undo the Bourke Street Massacre. Better still, bring my wife back to me from her liver cancer. Can people power do that? I try, every night, and I can't seem to manage it. I await your help.

You need to think before you speak. I tell myself this, but I don't usually listen.

Your examples are not in context at all to be fair.

Apologies if any offence caused regarding your interpretation of my positivity, maybe i could have been more clear.

Trying to be positive and yes if enough people want it, and show it, "it" in context can be reversed.

Originally Posted by Arapiles

That doesn't make a lot of sense - yes, waterways are owned by the Crown but you don't have a right to access a waterway by crossing private property. As an example, there are plenty of riverfront properties in Melbourne but you can't access the Yarra by going through someone's place.

I didn't say you could. I was trying to point out that the Crown overrides personal ownership, which Tombie did in a better way.

However, I would add that all those Yarra frontages are unable to prevent me from accessing them from the water, at high tide downstream of Dight's Falls.

Err, of course the Yarra ain't tidal above Dight's Falls. The same rules apply of course. Waterways belong to us all.