More crap from the Scum..

The Herald Sun has another great 'informative' story in the paper today.

Aside from continuing to report the false line that protesters are wanting to " "sue" white trespassers" for entering Camp Sovereignty, they are starting on the line of how much it is costing the taxpayer to control the site. And of course they are implying that it is the fault of the Fire watchers that this is happening.

So lets take a look at this for a second. A couple of weeks ago, we had a fully functioning campsite which was supporting the Scared Fire and all those required to look after it. We were also providing for the first time, a place in Melbourne where people – Indigenous and non-Indigenous – could come and expereince true Aboriginal culture, for free, right in the heart of Melbourne. It was a place attracting thousands of visitors and it was completely self-sufficient.

The Council could have seen this as a brilliant opportunity and maybe invested some of the $300 million dollars it has earmarked for an Aboriginal Cultural Centre for the small stone hut we were asking for as a shelter (which someone is designing for us as we speak) for the Fire Keepers and set the site up permanently. The benefits for Melbourne could have been huge.

Instead they've taken down the fences which were doing a great job of security and are now spending all this money on a security team, who aren't doing a very good job if the truth be known.

And while we're on cost, let's look back at the Scum article which has some great claims in it about cost. Firstly, they estimate between $20,000 and $40,000 in welfare for those on site. It doesn't say for what duration that cost is for, nor does it say for how many people they're counting for. Given that the Herald Sun has absolutely no idea about how many people on camp might be on the dole, we can safely say that that figure is entirely made up for the pure intention of perpetuating the sterotype that the people there are just 'dole-bludgers'. This is typical muck-raking journalism and should be condemned for the panic-inducing crap that it is.

Secondly, the security fee is probably about accurate, but as previously noted, would have been completely unnecesary if the fences had been allowed to remain.

Thirdly, up to $5000 for removal of tents, shelters and debris and rejuvination. Again this figure must have been plucked out of thin air and we would love to know how they came to this figure?

Finally, up to $20,000 in barristers fees. Given that there hasn't been any decisions made by the Court on costs yet, how can they make this scurrilous claim?

It's obvious the Herald Sun are on a war path here, but the question begs to be asked – how long will it take for the mud to begin to stick to their own faces?