Ned Kelly Found

[jcxr]

There is a house that Ned and his family lived in at Beveridge

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by pottery beige

how cool.. any idea where??.. wouldnt mind a chunk for my bar...

I know where, but I ain't telling

[DJR-351]

Originally Posted by pottery beige

how cool.. any idea where??.. wouldnt mind a chunk for my bar...

Got an old skull sitting on mine.....

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

I know where, but I ain't telling

Cmon mate, stand and deliver.

I couldnt get "bail up" to make sense.

[Neale]

heres a pic of Neds place at Beveridge

http://www.flickr.com/photos/58991066@N00/2491288805/


Also here is what is regarded as the most historicaly correct movie (well TV series) about the Kelly's. I have it, its long but worthwhile watching.

http://shop.abc.net.au/browse/produc...oductid=798232

[jcxr]

Originally Posted by Neale

heres a pic of Neds place at Beveridge

http://www.flickr.com/photos/58991066@N00/2491288805/


Also here is what is regarded as the most historicaly correct movie (well TV series) about the Kelly's. I have it, its long but worthwhile watching.

http://shop.abc.net.au/browse/produc...oductid=798232

Renovators delight......

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by Neale

heres a pic of Neds place at Beveridge

http://www.flickr.com/photos/58991066@N00/2491288805/

That is in fair better condition than the one near Benalla

[jaydee]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Cmon mate, stand and deliver.

I couldnt get "bail up" to make sense.

Thats what the bush rangers used to say instead of "This is a stick up".

I believe it comes from when a dog would bail up a roo or a pig and that meant he'd been wrapped up like a bail of hay, boxed into a corner with no where to go.

I will stand corrected but thats what has been explained to me by some old bushys I knew a long time ago.

[jaydee]

Originally Posted by Velociraptor82

I'm glad that Ned's remains are now free from the walls of pentridge. However I am also curious to find out what happened to his head. I'm guessing it was most likely souveneered when his remains were moved from the old Melbourne goal. But I like to joke that it was put on top of Tower Bridge alongside William Walace. lol

We have all made stupid mistakes and also done stupid things to escalate an issue caused by injustice and I think the the story of the Kelly gang is just that, escalation. It is a controversy opinon that seems to be accetped by most experts in this area but obviosly opposed to by members of the government and police force fearful that more people would stand up to them if Ned was branded a hero.

As I understand it begins with Ned being arrested for horse steeling in his teens. At the time the poor farmers couldn't afford to mark their livestock and there was little fencing. Often a horse would wonder onto the land of a rich farmer who would then brand the horse as his own. Upon finding this out Ned then stole the horse back but was caught. Since the horse was marked with the rich guys label. Ned was charged.

A little later on it was apparent that one of the officers (I get the officers names mixed up) had developed an interest in Ned's sister however she was not. One night he called on her drunk trying to force his intensions on her, swinging his gun around. The family were able to subdue him but not before he shot his own hand. Ned's family treated the wound trying to advoid any repocussions however sadly it didn't stop him from running back to the police station and telling everyone that Ned Kelly had shot him. Ned wasn't even there. However this started the man hunt that resulted in the shootout at Stringybark creek. After that Ned figured that the police force was already trying to kill him so what difference does it make to rob a few banks. He wrote the famous Jerildrie letter to spite the governmenthe destroyed morgage papers which made him a hero of the people. Those people would never turn him in, even for 8000 pounds.

Sorry for the dodgy placename spelling.

Bit like a fishing story, the fish just got bigger and bigger.
Sorry but in my books he was just a common criminal.

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by jaydee

Bit like a fishing story, the fish just got bigger and bigger.
Sorry but in my books he was just a common criminal.

i agree, i do not mean to offend anyone who thinks good of him, but i cannot think of him as anything else. if anything i should think highly of the kelly gang. steve hart was my great, great uncle. one of his sisters was my great grandmother, but that doesn't make me believe he wasn't a criminal

history is littered with people who claim to be victimised. maybe some were unfairly, however i would think that most of the so called victimising was probably warranted though. personally i do not care if the coppers go outside the law to catch someone, providing they get the right person. for sure we need laws to protect the innocent, but if ned was not a model citizen, i don't care how they tried to get him. i cannot agree with ned robbing banks because he believed he was unfairly targeted. in all seriousness if someone was not a criminal they would not change their law abiding activities because they were victimised. it is more likely they were victimised because their activities were not law abiding

i would not call him iconic as such. i would call him infamous. in my opinion he was infamous for 2 reasons only
1. because he wore armour (either he was too scared to face the cops without it, or he just wanted to take out as many as possible. hardly the stuff of heroes). there were other bushrangers back then, but ned was the most celebrated . . . because of his armour. he is instantly recognised because of it and of course, it sells memorabilia
and 2. for some reason the powers that be thought it proper to teach us about criminals in primary school, rather than real australian history. because of this many generations of young australians were brought up learning about his actions, which may or may not have been glorified

[jaydee]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

i agree, i do not mean to offend anyone who thinks good of him, but i cannot think of him as anything else. if anything i should think highly of the kelly gang. steve hart was my great, great uncle. one of his sisters was my great grandmother, but that doesn't make me believe he wasn't a criminal

history is littered with people who claim to be victimised. maybe some were unfairly, however i would think that most of the so called victimising was probably warranted though. personally i do not care if the coppers go outside the law to catch someone, providing they get the right person. for sure we need laws to protect the innocent, but if ned was not a model citizen, i don't care how they tried to get him. i cannot agree with ned robbing banks because he believed he was unfairly targeted. in all seriousness if someone was not a criminal they would not change their law abiding activities because they were victimised. it is more likely they were victimised because their activities were not law abiding

i would not call him iconic as such. i would call him infamous. in my opinion he was infamous for 2 reasons only
1. because he wore armour (either he was too scared to face the cops without it, or he just wanted to take out as many as possible. hardly the stuff of heroes). there were other bushrangers back then, but ned was the most celebrated . . . because of his armour. he is instantly recognised because of it and of course, it sells memorabilia
and 2. for some reason the powers that be thought it proper to teach us about criminals in primary school, rather than real australian history. because of this many generations of young australians were brought up learning about his actions, which may or may not have been glorified

Mate, no offence, it's just some people have different views on him, Jesse James, etc.
We all have skeletons in our closet when it comes to family and it would still be cool to say you are related to him whether he's good or bad.
As you say, infamous is probably the best word to describe him.

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by jaydee

Mate, no offence, it's just some people have different views on him, Jesse James, etc.
We all have skeletons in our closet when it comes to family and it would still be cool to say you are related to him whether he's good or bad.
As you say, infamous is probably the best word to describe him.

none taken, you and i probably have similar views on him

it was cool in primary school telling people, although no one believed me, since my surname is not hart. there was a kid a year younger than me with the surname hart. we were related - and 2 others in my class were also. instantly 3 more family members (plus their siblings)

i am not sure if i am proud or not of my heritage. i guess i don't really care. obviously i did not know steve at all . . . . nor my great grandmother (hence why i cannot give a name, i am trying to find out which sister she was). obviously there is a family connection there which is good, but i won't pretend he was an angel. it seems people feel they can relate to ned in some way, so my name dropping of steve, was to suggest that my views are not based on the gang having no impact on my life at all

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

i agree, i do not mean to offend anyone who thinks good of him, but i cannot think of him as anything else. if anything i should think highly of the kelly gang. steve hart was my great, great uncle. one of his sisters was my great grandmother, but that doesn't make me believe he wasn't a criminal

history is littered with people who claim to be victimised. maybe some were unfairly, however i would think that most of the so called victimising was probably warranted though. personally i do not care if the coppers go outside the law to catch someone, providing they get the right person. for sure we need laws to protect the innocent, but if ned was not a model citizen, i don't care how they tried to get him. i cannot agree with ned robbing banks because he believed he was unfairly targeted. in all seriousness if someone was not a criminal they would not change their law abiding activities because they were victimised. it is more likely they were victimised because their activities were not law abiding

i would not call him iconic as such. i would call him infamous. in my opinion he was infamous for 2 reasons only
1. because he wore armour (either he was too scared to face the cops without it, or he just wanted to take out as many as possible. hardly the stuff of heroes). there were other bushrangers back then, but ned was the most celebrated . . . because of his armour. he is instantly recognised because of it and of course, it sells memorabilia
and 2. for some reason the powers that be thought it proper to teach us about criminals in primary school, rather than real australian history. because of this many generations of young australians were brought up learning about his actions, which may or may not have been glorified

Perspective goes both ways. He didnt wear armour all the time, just the once. He knew he was facing hundreds of representatives of British Law, and they were but a handful.

Theres no doubt he was probably not the best bloke to live next door too. But he was victimised, thats historical fact. Its not hard to draw that conclusion due to the overall treatment of Irish people in the colony at that time. Australias catholic schools were started by Irish groups as their kids were unable to receive an education at the English dominated schools, and that dates to the protestant catholic crap thats been going on in Ireland for centuries. Theres no doubt he was victimised, and no doubt he pushed back. As I said earlier its highly likely the family wasnt helped by their own attitudes toward British law and the establishment, further hindered by a convict father and the rumour spread by police that Ned was an informant.

Pouring fuel on a fire is hardly clever management.