Dyskusje "podroznikow" na forum

[Gość: Tomek]

Czesc,

chcialbym tylko zwrocic uwage, ze prawie w kazdym watku pojawiaja sie posty
obrazajace, bluzniace i wulgarne w stosunku do innych. Nie jestem
przewrazliwiony, ale obrzucanie sie blotem, wyzywanie od glupich,
niewyksztalconych, nieobytych i rzucanie tzw. miesem nie wplywa budujaco na
ksztalt dyskusji, w niczym nie pomaga.

Jest to forum w pewnym sensie ograniczone, nic sie tutaj nie otrzymuje
materialnego , nie widzi sie twarzy, nie zyskuje sie tytulow, jedyne co to ze
pewni ludzie moga innym zazdroscic dalekich podrozy, inni staraja sie czegos
konkretnego dowiedziec, wiec sensu stricto nie jest to forum ktore ma
decydowac o zyciu lub przetrwaniu gatunku wiec nawet przyjmujac iz walka o
egzystencje usprawiedliwiala by zezwierzecenie dyskusji dochodzimy do wniosku
ze tutaj nie potrzeba sie gryzc.

Jedyne co mozna osiagnac przez schamienie watku jest niechec innych ludzi do
wchodzenia na te forum. Taka niechec osiagnalem juz ogladajac program "Prosto
w oczy" i juz go z internetu nie sciagam.

Nie pozwolmy by to forum osiagnelo dno.

Pozdrawiam, zycze owocnego korzystania z doswiadczen innych i dyskusji na
temat.

Tomek

[Gość: solaris_1971]

Zgadzam sie z Toba w zupelnosci. Doadm, ze na portalu wakacje.pl jest podobnie.
czy znasz moze jakies inne ciekawe strony dla podroznikow ?

[Gość: Kagan]

No coz, na tym forum prawda nie jest mile widziana. Jak sie napisze prawde o
Australii czy Nowej Zelandii, to sie zostaje obrzuconym stekiem wyzwisk przez
osoby myslace typowo zyczeniowo, albo agentow biur podrozy, ktorzy maja interes
w tym, aby ludzie podrozowali nawet do tak nieprzyjemnych miejsc jak Austtralia
czy Nowa Zelandia... :( Co ciekawe, ci eksperci nigdy nie pokaza skad pisza,
skad latwo wyciagnac wniosek, iz ich wiedza jest z drugiej albo i trzeciej reki,
i stad ta ich wrogosc do osob, ktore znaja sytuacje na antypodach z wlasnych
doswiadczen!
beautifulnz.blox.pl/html

[besir1]

jaka prawda??? Ty jeszcze w ogole wiesz , co oznacza to slowo? Bez przerwy
wypisujesz bzdury , podajesz klamliwe informacje i Ty cos piszesz o prawdzie?
Jakos nikt inny nie podziela Twoich doswiadczen ( procz Twoich klonow rzecz
jasna) wszyscy pisza o zupelnie innych doswiadczeniach, ale Ty uwazasz , ze
jestes jedynym majacym racje. Cos takiego w popularnym jezyku nazywa sie zwykla
arogancja!!! Przestan juz pieprzyc o tej nienawisci Australijczykow do
Polakow ...3/4 Australijczykow w ogole nawet nie wie co to jest ta Polska".
Jednoczesnie wypisujesz takie bzdury, a przy okazji teksty pelne rasistowskich
zapatrywan. Tu podam Ci inne okreslenie na takie zachowanie - HIPOKRYZJA!!!
Do tego wszystkiego obrzucasz ( zupelnie zreszta bezpodstawnie) kraj , ktory
Cie przyjal, kraj ktory chyba nie wystosowywal do Ciebie imiennych zaproszen, a
to juz zwykla podlosc. Juz pare razy ci pisalem - to jest forum dla ludzi
zainteresowanych turystyka! Ludzie chca otrzymac na tym forum praktyczne porady
jak poruszac sie w swiecie, jak wykorzystac swoj wolny czas i swoje pieniadze w
taki sposob, aby przynioslo im to maksymalna przyjemnosc i satysfakcje. Ty
robisz wszystko, aby w tym zaszkodzic.

[kaganowski]

Zastanow sie, kto tu jest szkodnikiem? Czy ja, przestrzegajac np. przed
chamstwem australijskich celnikow i pogranicznikow, czy ty, wypisujacy
propagandowe klamstwa o owej australii, aby tylko sciagnac wiecej potencjalnych
klientow do swego biznesu?

[Gość: Z boku]

Wydaje mi sie ze tu jest calkiem spokojni. Poczytaj forum wakacje.pl.
A tak swoja droga to chyba nie ma zadnej alternatywy :(

[Gość: bar]

alternatywa jest pl.rec.turystyka.* (tramping lub zorganizowana)
ale juz chyba malo kto umie korzystac z grup, co widac po ilosci postow...

[besir1]

moze powinienes zaczac ostrzegac przed soba samym? Wyjezdzam pare razy do roku
i nigdy jeszcze nie spotkalem sie z "chamstwem" australijskich celnikow. Takie
zachowanie byloby dla nich zbyt bliskie utracenia niezle platnej pracy.
Zapominasz natomiast wspomniec o swoim chamskim podejsciu do tych ludzi - stad
i bywaja w stosunku do Ciebie zlosliwi. Calkiem jak w tym fragmencie o
sciaganiu przeze mnie potencjalnych klientow....musielby to byc wylacznie
wlasciciele duzych biur architektonicznych :)

Chamstwo australijskich celnikow

[Gość: Kagan]

Widac, ze o Australii nie masz najmniejszego pojecia! W tym kraju jeszcze zaden
urzednik nie stracil pracy za chamskie zachowanie wzgledem obywatela. Nawet
osoby, ktore zamknely w obozie dla nielegalnych imigrantow szereg obywateli
australijskich nie poniosly za to zadnych konsekwencji, a niektorzy z nich nawet
dostali nagrody od pani minister. Australia NIE jest panstwem prawa, rzadza tam
bowiem potomkowie kryminalistow i osob odpowiedzialnych za ludobojstwo na
Aborygenach, wiec czego niby oczekiwac na granicy austtralijskiej, jak nie
chamstwa i dyskryminacji ze wzgledu na kraj urodzenia?

[nocnylot]

To po co tam ciagle siedzisz, skoro tak ci sie nie podoba? Masochista jestes?
nl

[kaganowski]

Nie siedze na stal w "oz", ale mam w australii bliska rodzine, wiec ja czasem
odwiedzam. I niestety mam wtedy do czynienia z chamstwem australijskich
pogranicznikow i celnikow. Stad stanowczo odradzam podroze do australii w celach
turystycznych. Co innego, jak ktos musi tam leciec, np. w sprawach biznesu czy
rodzinnych. Ale jako cel wyjazdu turystycznego australie mozna polecic tylko
100% masochistom, ze wzgledu na chamstwo tamtejszych celnikow i ogolna nienawisc
tzw. tubylcow, czyli anglosaskiej wiekszosci (na tle rasowo-etnicznym) do Polakow!

[besir1]

zapomniales wspomniec jeszcze o chamstwie wlasnym.
...no jasne - nie mam pojecia o Australii i bardzo to widac ....rzecz jasna
dowodem jest tutaj moja opinia - calkowicie odwrotna do twoich wymyslow.
Wiesz - slowa typu "nienawisc? brzmia zabawnie w ustach rasisty takiego , jak
Ty.

[Gość: Kagan]

Rasizm jest niebezpieczny, gdy rasistami sa osoby u wladzy, czy chocby owi
urzednicy na granicy australijskiej. A tobie wyraznie musi placic rzad
australijski za te cala oszukancza reklame... A faktem jest, ze naturalizowani
obywatele australijscy, a szczegolnie nienablosoaskiego pochodzenia, sa gorzej
traktowani na granicy austtralii niz anglosasi. To jest nie tylko nieetyczne,
ale nawet sptzeczne z prawem australijskim! Wniosek? Australia NIE jest panstwem
parworzadnym, a takowe lepiej omijac, bo mozna byc tam wsadzony do wiezienia
albo obozu koncentracyjnego bez wyroku sadu, co sie zdarzylo ostatnio p. Rau
(naturaliowanej obywatelce australijskiej pochodzenia niemieckiego) i pewnej
naturalizowanej obywatelce pochodzenia filipinskiego! Linki w nastepnym poscie!

[Gość: Kagan]

www.smh.com.au/news/national/cornelia-rau-the-verdict/2005/07/17/1121538868891.html?oneclick=true
SIX MONTHS IN A QUEENSLAND PRISON

Travel was once Cornelia Rau's career. Until her first serious crack-up in 1998,
she was a fine Qantas air hostess. Then travel became part of her pathology: a
schizophrenic woman of immense energy, on the run from her family, from mental
hospitals and from Australia. She caught planes, she hitched, she took terrible
risks on wild jaunts through Thailand, South America and Europe. She turned up
dishevelled on the doorstep of family friends abroad; she was rescued by
Australian officials in far-flung cities; more than once her parents hauled her
home.

On March 17 last year, she slipped away from the psychiatric wing of Manly
Hospital and stripped her account of $2000. She was off again. But within days
something happened that would shape this story from beginning to end: she lost
her new passport issued at the German consulate in Woollahra a few weeks
earlier. To replace it would risk alerting her family and see her forced back to
hospital. Somewhere on the road to far north Queensland she stole another. It
was Norwegian and useless to her. By late March, Rau was trapped.
AdvertisementAdvertisement

What happened next has a definite if warped logic to it: a woman turned up at
Cape York in the middle of the rainy season calling herself Anna Brotmeyer or
Anna Schmidt. She said she was a German backpacker who had overstayed her time
in Australia. Driven eight hours down the rutted road to Cairns, she announced
first to the police and then to the honorary German consul that she wanted a new
passport and wanted to go home.

The 10-month saga of this woman's mistreatment at the hands of the Immigration
Department is so rich in appalling detail it is easy to lose sight of the simple
strategy that lay behind it all: to leave Anna behind bars, her health failing,
until she revealed the details needed to issue those fresh papers. This approach
was not invented for Anna. We're talking standard practice here: the
recalcitrant remain locked up until they co-operate, forever if necessary.

Everything depended on the Germans. This is not just the story of how the
Immigration Department failed a very ill Australian resident, Cornelia Rau. It's
also the story of a clash of bureaucratic cultures: between the scrupulous
Germans and their insistence on hard evidence, and the sloppy Australians who
never found a shred of evidence to support the only plan they ever thought up to
solve this mess: to deport to Germany the woman known as Anna. Cornelia was
German, of course. Anna was not. Anna was a mad woman's delusion. Australian
officials believed in her to the end.

And if the result was cruel, what does that matter? Isn't having an Immigration
Department that's known to be nasty, dilatory and inflexible as much part of the
deterrence system as putting the navy into the Indian Ocean and building
detention prisons in the desert? Isn't this how Australia sends a message to
refugees and would-be illegal immigrants across the world: don't try it on?

ANNA was flown down from Cairns by Queensland Police Air Wing on April 5 last
year and taken to the Brisbane Women's prison. In his report published last
week, the former commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, Mick Palmer,
wrote: "She was not a prisoner, had done nothing wrong, and was put there simply
for administrative convenience." Prisoners report that was Anna's mantra through
the months ahead: "I have done nothing wrong."

The Immigration Department did not move swiftly. It was a couple of days before
Ben Stoneley, the compliance officer responsible for liaising with detainees in
prison, went out to Wacol to visit Anna. She gave him the same messy, incomplete
biography she had given the police and Iris Indorato, the honorary German consul
in Cairns: she was German, had grown up on a farm near Dresden but the hippie
lifestyle she led as a child left her unsure of her parents' names or her own
date of birth. She thought she might be 25. She claimed her lost passport was in
the name Schmidt.

Immigration already knew Anna's story was fundamentally flawed. Stoneley had
confirmed that none of the various permutations of names Anna had given -
Schmidt, Schmitz, Brotmeyer - turned up on the department's database of
movements in and out of Australia. Palmer wrote: "Australia has one of the most
effective Movements databases in the world." If a name doesn't appear there,
then the name is false or that person has never travelled in and out of the country.

Palmer says this should have alerted Immigration Department staff "at an early
stage that there was something strange about this situation and that more
thorough assessment was called for". Instead, Anna was left to come to her senses.

Stoneley waited three weeks before visiting her again. After that inconclusive
meeting, he did not visit her at Wacol for another five months. This was, Palmer
noted, a breach of Departmental Instruction 244 that requires case officers "to
undertake monthly personal visits with detainees".

Debbie Kilroy from the prison reform group, Sisters Inside, met Anna and began
to lobby Stoneley on her behalf. Anna had come to Kilroy in great distress. "I'm
not supposed to be here. I don't know what's going on. I haven't done anything
wrong." According to Kilroy, Stoneley explained that Anna would be held "until
she gives better information on her identity". He told Kilroy they needed
"honest" information.

After a month, Immigration sent Anna an application form for German papers. The
Germans had already dismissed the shabby biography Anna presented up in Cairns.
Now Anna made a pathetic attempt to comply with the republic's bureaucratic
demands. She could not even fill in her own date of birth. The German consulate
in Sydney advised Immigration not to bother lodging the application as it was so
obviously incomplete.

That was in mid-May. From time to time, the immigration office in Brisbane
talked about this case but essentially Anna was just left out at Wacol, parked
in a women's prison. Palmer is scathing about the failure to get her out of
there, to review her case, to think afresh. But the department plodded down the
only course it ever chose to pursue: prove the woman German and deport her.

In mid-June, the Australian embassy in Berlin was asked to lend a hand.
Diplomatic efforts to identify Anna would drag on into August. In these months
of absolute inaction, Anna's behaviour deteriorated dramatically.

Prisons everywhere face the problem of distinguishing bad behaviour from mental
collapse. Anna's behaviour had been odd from the beginning. The first doctor to
examine her at Wacol put this down to her being "a stranger in a strange land".
By May, Anna had been two months without medication for schizophrenia and was
showing distressing signs of what prison records called "unusual behaviour and
poor hygiene". She paced; she stared; she hoarded food; her moods swung about;
she wouldn't wash.

Was she to be treated or disciplined? A psychologist from the Prison Mental
Health Service saw no evidence of mental illness and when Anna's behaviour
deteriorated further in June, she began to be disciplined by being placed for
days at a time in "separate confinement". She was extremely distressed.

Finally on August 10 a psychiatrist, Dr Dominique Hannah, was called in and
after only a few moments with Anna realised something was badly amiss. She
reported: "The behaviour of Ms Brotmeyer had been becoming increasingly bizarre
and her presentation was consistent with a psychotic disorder." She recommended
Anna be taken to hospital for assessment.

Ten days later Anna f

[Gość: Kagan]

C.d. historii p. Rau
Was she to be treated or disciplined? A psychologist from the Prison Mental
Health Service saw no evidence of mental illness and when Anna's behaviour
deteriorated further in June, she began to be disciplined by being placed for
days at a time in "separate confinement". She was extremely distressed.

Finally on August 10 a psychiatrist, Dr Dominique Hannah, was called in and
after only a few moments with Anna realised something was badly amiss. She
reported: "The behaviour of Ms Brotmeyer had been becoming increasingly bizarre
and her presentation was consistent with a psychotic disorder." She recommended
Anna be taken to hospital for assessment.

Ten days later Anna found herself - once again - at Brisbane's Princess
Alexandra Hospital. As Cornelia Rau she had been treated there for about a month
in 2002. No one recognised her now. But the grim irony was that somewhere in the
hospital were already the records needed to identify this woman's profound
mental problems.

Anna brought few records from prison to assist the clinicians, but she did bring
two prison guards who had to remain in line of sight at all times - despite
clinical staff being advised: "Ms Brotmeyer was not at risk to herself or
others." Palmer believed the presence of those guards "hampered" Anna's
assessment. The department's top priority, it seems, was not her health but
making sure she didn't do a runner.

Prison medical staff were aghast when Anna returned on August 26 with her papers
stamped: "Does not fulfil any diagnostic criteria for mental illness." Anna was
soon back in confinement, again for failing to wash. Dr Hannah, due to visit her
at this time, was turned away by the prison "for operational reasons". Palmer
was very critical of this: "Only in the most extreme circumstances should
essential medical treatment be deferred."

Immigration's hopes of deporting Anna at any moment were now beginning to fade.
From the moment of her arrival in prison in April - with her papers marked "For
deportation tomorrow" - everyone seemed to assume she was going at any day. Even
in August, the staff at Princess Alexandra were under the impression she would
be "repatriated to Germany on discharge from the unit".

Palmer birched the Immigration Department for not correcting this
misapprehension which he believed contributed to the failure of proper care for
Anna.

The truth was that after holding this woman in prison for nearly six months,
Immigration frankly didn't have a clue who she was or a hope in hell of
deporting her. Shortly after emerging from hospital, Anna rang the German
consulate in Brisbane and on September 17, Ursula Sterf and Detlef Sulzer
visited her at Wacol. Nothing came of it. In Palmer's words: "She repeats her
story but provides insufficient details to allow for the issuing of a German
passport."

What now? Palmer is amazed that the officers dealing with Anna's case hadn't by
this time begun to consider the possibility that she may be Australian. Anna
sounded Australian and knew an awful lot about the country for a backpacker. But
all the way to end, the Department of Immigration never focused on the
possibility that the woman they had on their hands was anything but a German
backpacker who had outstayed her visa.

Palmer accuses the department of rigid thinking and "an entrenched culture fixed
on process and apparently oblivious to the outcomes being achieved". He points
to poor sleuthing, poor records, poor case management and overwork. He was
particularly scathing that the department was oblivious to the plight of an
innocent woman housed for so long in a prison.

Palmer wrote: "The fact that a person's liberty had been taken seemed to be
accepted simply as a 'matter of fact' and a result of the person's own doing and
circumstances brought about by their actions." Under the department's own rules,
prison is only ever to be "a last resort" for immigration detainees, and only
used until alternative arrangements can be made. Anna had been in the Brisbane
Women's prison for six months. "Had proper processes been adhered to," Palmer
wrote, "she might not have been there for more than a week."

This is a country where public servants can, on their own authority, send people
to prison for long periods. No magistrates, no judges. As Palmer pointed out,
these are "exceptional, even extraordinary powers" and he found it a matter of
great concern that immigration officers were expected to exercise them "without
adequate training, without proper management and oversight, with poor
information systems, and with no genuine checks and balances".

Palmer does not address a deeper scandal: that the department has been at
loggerheads with the courts for years over a fundamental question. What test
must officers apply when holding people in detention for any length of time?

Is it enough to "reasonably suspect" the person is unlawfully in Australia, or
must officers be much, much more certain?

Immigration believes reasonable suspicion is enough. Giving evidence to a Senate
estimates committee earlier this year, the Immigration Minister, Amanda Vanstone
and her then department head, Bill Farmer, argued for maximum leeway in the
hands of their officers. Vanstone told the senators that immigration detention
is "lawful up until the time you discovered that your suspicion was incorrect".

But that is not what the courts say. In 2003, a full federal court of three
judges headed by the Chief Justice of the court, Michael Black, unanimously
declared that suspicion is not enough. The department must know someone is
unlawfully in Australia to hold them for any length of time. But the Immigration
Department continues to work on a day-to-day basis in defiance of that ruling.

In Anna's case, officers may have had reasonable grounds to suspect she was
unlawfully in Australia in the very early days of the saga - though even that is
open to question - but they certainly never established she actually was
unlawfully in this country. It was only ever suspicion.

Palmer does not get involved in this stand-off between the department and the
courts, but he hints very strongly that as the weeks went by, and absolutely
nothing was discovered to sustain the department's suspicions, that Anna should
have been released.

One of Palmer's principal findings is this: "Officers should not only have
continued inquiries aimed at identifying Anna; they should also have continued
to question whether they were still able to demonstrate that the suspicion on
which the detention was originally based persisted and that it was still
reasonably held."

They did not. Instead, it was decided to transfer Anna to Baxter detention
centre in South Australia - not an imminent deportee now, but a long stayer.

Anna was once again in the punishment cells when her case officer, Stoneley,
arrived on September 30. It was their first face-to-face meeting since May.
Documents provided to the Palmer inquiry by the Queensland Government record
that Anna was "teary and feeling sad because she had been in the detention unit
for so long". She refused to sign the notice of intended transfer Stoneley
handed her.

A few days later, Anna was restrained by prison officers and 10 milligrams of
the sedative diazepam was administered to her intramuscularly. Next day, another
10 milligrams was administered orally and she was placed in restraints. Taken to
Brisbane Airport, she was flown on commercial flights first to Adelaide and then
Whyalla where a van was waiting to take her out to the camp.

Zobacz "besir" jak sie traktuje w australii...

[kaganowski]

... osoby mowiace z nieaustralijskim akcentem, nawet jak sa obywatelami australii:
www.smh.com.au/news/national/cornelia-rau-the-verdict/2005/07/17/1121538868891.html?oneclick=true
"This is a country where public servants can, on their own authority, send
people to prison for long periods. No magistrates, no judges. As Palmer pointed
out, these are "exceptional, even extraordinary powers" and he found it a matter
of great concern that immigration officers were expected to exercise them
"without adequate training, without proper management and oversight, with poor
information systems, and with no genuine checks and balances".

Palmer does not address a deeper scandal: that the department has been at
loggerheads with the courts for years over a fundamental question. What test
must officers apply when holding people in detention for any length of time?

Is it enough to "reasonably suspect" the person is unlawfully in Australia, or
must officers be much, much more certain?

Immigration believes reasonable suspicion is enough. Giving evidence to a Senate
estimates committee earlier this year, the Immigration Minister, Amanda Vanstone
and her then department head, Bill Farmer, argued for maximum leeway in the
hands of their officers. Vanstone told the senators that immigration detention
is "lawful up until the time you discovered that your suspicion was incorrect".

But that is not what the courts say. In 2003, a full federal court of three
judges headed by the Chief Justice of the court, Michael Black, unanimously
declared that suspicion is not enough. The department must know someone is
unlawfully in Australia to hold them for any length of time. But the Immigration
Department continues to work on a day-to-day basis in defiance of that ruling."