Comments for en-gb 30 Sun 01 Mar 2015 08:44:17 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at BryantObsessed Prof Dobson chose a foolish media topic to welcome his award as Australian of the year. as soon as the the countries media and news agencies point camera's and microphones at him he chooses the topic of "changing the date of Australia Day".how frivilous. how trivial. how utterly useless as a public debate.Symbolism is not policy. and is only a means to an end. but we've lost sight of the end goal.Aboriginal leaders should not drift from the core topic of Aboriginal Affairs - the ever widening gap between aboriginal people and the rest of australia citizens on most social measures - mortality, crime, health, education, etc. lets hope Dobson starts to speak with more eloquence on aborginal issues that actually matter. Mon 26 Jan 2009 23:20:06 GMT+1 gongdonkey Never mind "Australian of the Year" - what about "Australian of the Century" ......... just has to be Sir Les Patterson, Cultural Attache to Great Britain ?Good on yer, Les ! Mon 26 Jan 2009 15:35:47 GMT+1 BryantObsessed This post has been Removed Mon 26 Jan 2009 10:04:30 GMT+1 Julialucas This post has been Removed Mon 26 Jan 2009 06:55:06 GMT+1 dudeDavros Chris Lilley is a legend. I think his comedy goes down so well (especially in Australia) because his characters are the kinds of people you really experience walking down an average Australian street. I could watch Summer Heights High over and over. David Sat 24 Jan 2009 14:24:10 GMT+1 busby2 Nick BryantWith the UK in the midst of a recession, I would be interested to know what the situation was in Australia and I hoped your blog might shed some light on what is going on in Australia. Instead all we have is this very lightweight piece on the Australian of the Year which surely is nothing more than a ridiculous popularity contest which is surely of little interest to British readers on a BBC website which we licence payers pay for. Fri 23 Jan 2009 14:33:59 GMT+1 expatlancastrian I've met many "larrakins".Over the years it's a word that's mellowed in it's meaning.My favourite larrakin is (was) a mate who has since died. He was 20 or so years older than me. I met him through his wife, and my wife, they worked together. He was a down to earth bloke, no pretentions, liked a beer, he was a "tradie" a house painter. He would do anything, yes anything, to help you. With his wife they made me, my wife, my kids welcome in their home. They made me feel at home in Australia.All of that was 40 years ago and on Monday 26/01/2009 I celebrate 40 years of life in Australia with a heap of my friends. Rich and not so rich, they are all my mates and have made my life in Australia such a rewarding experience. The best 10 quid I ever spent.I just wish Charlie were here to enjoy it with me. A good "larrakin" mate. Thu 22 Jan 2009 05:38:52 GMT+1 dennisjunior1 Nick:Congrats to whomever is the Australian of the Year....~Dennis Junior~ Wed 21 Jan 2009 05:30:34 GMT+1 wollemi 'Worst Australian'.....there is the annual Ernie Award for sexism.The original 19th Century meaning of 'larrikin' was negative - akin to delinquent, anti social, gang type behaviour. Sometime, maybe around WW1(?), it changed to mean possessed of an irreverent humour aimed at deflating self importance. Roy and HG with their take on the Sydney Olympics, complete with their own stuffed mascot, were a pair of larrikins.Or Craig Lilley's take on the search for Australian of the Year Tue 20 Jan 2009 05:17:19 GMT+1 pciii So to summarise the great larrikin debate: they do exist and they are annoying, but they can't surf. Yep, can think of a few Aussies who fit that description, not much to be proud of there though.On to the Australian of the year, seems like they've done a good job over the years - a nice balance of populist and high-brow choices. I note the winners are chosen by panels (sounds like a QUANGO) rather than popular vote. Reckon Warne would have won by now if that wasn't the case.Personally I think that Shaun Micallef of Newstopia desrves a mention as well as Chris Lilley. There isn't much domestic telly that doesen't revolve around 'gritty' crime dramas or soppy family sagas so these guys stand out.Supposedly it goes agains the Aussie spirit, but does anyone have any nominations for worst Australian (be it person or organisation) of the year? Tue 20 Jan 2009 03:07:13 GMT+1 Carltonblue Larrikin a myth? You've got to be joking. Go around to any workplace lunchroom and you'll here Aussie larrikins at work (or play).The myth is that we're all bronzed and surf. But many are still larrikins - that is they like a joke, whether practical, pulling on one's leg or having a go at someone in a laughing manner when they get something wrong. Tue 20 Jan 2009 02:23:14 GMT+1 Freakontheguitar The problem with awards like this is that there is no clear measure to define who is the best. It is an issue when you compare works of art. Is Michelangelo a better painter than Van Gogh? Is Hugh Jackman a better actor than Russell Crowe? The answer is a matter of tasteWith something like the Australian of the Year competition it is even worse: you are comparing painters with actors, tennis players, writers, cricketers, environmentalists, feminists, swimmers, scientists and peace activists (to name a few). How can you ever say who is better? And why does it have to be someone who happens to be in the public eye?I am not against the Australian of the Year competition. It is an honour to win the title, and those who win usually deserve it.But it is no dishonour not to win it, because it is not just the Australian of the Year, but also those other 20 million inhabitants of Australia that make this country what it is. Tue 20 Jan 2009 02:07:54 GMT+1 KennethM Mr G is a hero Mon 19 Jan 2009 21:08:48 GMT+1 jakeincanberra I disagree with the previous comment that a 'larrikin' is 'an essential part of the national character'. I think a better characterisation would be to say that it is an essential part of the Australian mythology. This, to me, is one of the problems of the 'Australian of the Year' (and Australia Day in general). It is too easy for people to perpetuate the myth that we're a nation of bronzed, blokey larrikins who are all surf-lifesavers in our spare time (and thus make the implicit suggestion that anyone who doesn't fit in to this mythical mold of an 'Aussie' is somehow 'un-Australian'). I'm a bit sick of this 2 dimensional view of Australia.What about recognising the contribution new migrants make to our 'national character'? We're a country comprised of people from 231 different places (beautifully depicted in Michel Lawrence's photographic book 'All of Us'). I'd prefer an Australia that was inclusive of everyone within our population: indigenous people and both recent and past migrants from all parts of the globe.It'd be nice if every now and then we could go beyond the stereotypes and recognise that the 'true' Australia is much more complex than any one character. Mon 19 Jan 2009 21:00:29 GMT+1 Evan I just have to clarify your definition of a larrikin. In no way is a larrikin a 'boisterous, loutish, or otherwise badly behaved young man'! A larrikin for the benefit of all non-Aussies, is a character, a rogue, a bit of a 'lad', causing trouble but all in the name of fun.For an example of this is, think back to WW1... Australian soldiers had the the utmost disdain for British officers and the high command and would disregard all their commands when not in the field of battle, all the while taking the mick, acting the goat or being a larrikin. But when duty called were the best soldiers of the whole war. Not exactly the character traits of a 'boisterous, loutish, or otherwise badly behaved young man'.It's an essential part of the national character and not understanding that is to not understand Australia. Mon 19 Jan 2009 16:52:26 GMT+1