Monday Forum: March 19, 2018

This entry was posted in Open Forum. Bookmark the permalink.

1,604 Responses to Monday Forum: March 19, 2018

1 5 6 7
  1. zyconoclast

    The FBI — ‘Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity’ — Still Working on Diversity
    The nation’s top federal law enforcement agency is overwhelmingly white, and its top officials acknowledge that’s “a huge operational risk.

    Indeed, 10 months before being fired as director of the FBI by President Trump, James Comey called the situation a “crisis.”

    “Slowly but steadily over the last decade or more, the percentage of special agents in the FBI who are white has been growing,” Comey said in a speech at Bethune-Cookman University, a historically black school in Daytona Beach, Florida. “I’ve got nothing against white people — especially tall, awkward, male white people — but that is a crisis for reasons that you get, and that I’ve worked very hard to make sure the entire FBI understands.”

  2. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    I (and others here) chat with him occasionally,
    Do you? I’ve been a bit shy to intrude on his personal space, but you guys have known him for much longer. The OT is a step once removed.

    Calli, Deadman contacted me via Sinc to offer to help me with some Latin interpretations I needed to check. His input was very useful. I am reminded here now to see if he has anything further to add re the Latin used in Gildas’s ‘De Excidio et Conquistu Britanniae” and to thank him once again for his scholarly comments. I am happy to field to him any messages you may have for him.

    I’ve already told him how much we miss him here and that we trust his son is doing well after all of the problems with his school.

    Sinc, Arky would like me to have his email. It’s fine by me if he has mine so he can ask me whatever it is that he needs to know. Depending on what it is, I’ll answer it. 🙂

  3. Diogenes

    Peter Alley, who unsuccessfully ran as the Labor candidate for Dr Gillespie’s NSW Central Coast seat of Lyne, had attempted to bring the challenge in the High Court as a common informer.

    The court has this morning found Mr Alley’s challenge invalid.

    Breaking news, from the Oz

    The High Court is hallucinating again. There is nothing in the act that specifies who may or may nor refer a member of parliament …

    The whole of the Act is below

    Short title.


    No. 28 of 1975
    An Act to make other Provision with respect to the Matter in respect of which Provision is made by section 46 of the Constitution.

    BE IT ENACTED by the Queen, the Senate and the House of Representatives, as follows:-
    1. This Act may be cited as the Common Informers (Parliamentary Disqualifications) Act 1975.*


    2. This Act shall come into operation on the day on which it receives the Royal Assent.*

    Penalty for sitting when disqualified.

    3. (1) Any person who, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, has sat as a senator or as a member of the House of Representatives while he was a person declared by the Constitution to be incapable of so sitting shall be liable to pay to any person who sues for it in the High Court a sum equal to the total of-

    (a) $200 in respect of his having so sat on or before the day on which the originating process in the suit is served on him; and

    (b) $200 for every day, subsequent to that day, on which he is proved in the suit to have so sat.

    (2) A suit under this section shall not relate to any sitting of a person as a senator or as a member of the House of Representatives at a time earlier than 12 months before the day on which the suit is instituted.

    (3) The High Court shall refuse to make an order in a suit under this Act that would, in the opinion of the Court, cause the person against whom it was made to be penalized more than once in respect of any period or day of sitting as a senator or as a member of the House of Representatives.

    Suits not to be brought under section 46 of the Constitution.

    4. On and after the date of commencement of this Act, a person is not liable to pay any sum under section 46 of the Constitution and no suit shall be instituted, continued, heard or determined in pursuance of that section.


    5. Original jurisdiction is conferred on the High Court in suits under this Act and no other court has jurisdiction in such a suit.
    —————————————————————————— —


    1. Act No. 28, 1975; assented to 23 April 1975.

  4. Arky, it’s kind of a busy week for me. Let’s try for November.

  5. Arky

    Let’s try for November

    There is no try.
    Only do.
    Let’s say April.

  6. zyconoclast

    Is your spin class too young, too thin and too white?

    After a few committed months of hot yoga at a studio in New York, Christina Rice had found her niche. So when the studio announced that it was offering teacher training, she signed right up.

    It was only when she arrived with her mat that she noticed something striking.

    There were 54 other women and men in the 10-week course, and not one of them looked like her. She was the lone African American in the class.

  7. zyconoclast

    WABC television executive officially resigns months after ‘reverse racism’ and discrimination lawsuits are filed against her

    WABC News Director Camille Edwards announced she was leaving in an email
    Edwards had been named in a lawsuit claiming discrimination, filed by a sports reporter who said that she wasn’t promoted because she was white and female
    Edwards was on leave since December, reportedly dealing with family issues

  8. Getting chased down a garden path by a sweaty old bloke who wants to do unmentionable things to me sounds just great, Arky. We could film it and submit it as a re-enactment in the Pell trial.

  9. stackja

    #2666586, posted on March 21, 2018 at 12:16 pm

    street gangs of South Sudanese youths has been ‘nightmare’ for community


  10. struth

    struth … you are feeding the troll

    Yes I know, but to me they are like naughty teenagers who’s thoughts aren’t completely formulated yet.
    They are smart arsed like a dumb teenager who when they get a bit of straight talking back at them fold, as testes and Rae did last night.
    You don’t expect a know nothing teenager to not talk back, but as I said to Rae last night, he should just go home, as the adults are talking here.
    They had no answer when pressed and Testes gave himself away as being on the public teat for his white son’s education through race based “scholarships” which he quickly back peddled on.
    To me they are exactly like teenagers, you know, a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, but like teenagers, think they know it all.
    Every now and then you just need to call them out on it.
    I won’t let their bullshit stand on certain issues.
    Notice Monty’s insane ramblings about Russia gate I don’t get too involved in, I just laugh.
    But when racists come in talking shit, and accusing others of racism, they need to be told.

  11. Myrddin Seren

    classical_hero @ 2:29

    Officially the UK is a Fascist state. Count Dankula was found guilty of causing “gross offense”.

    The latest

    While awaiting sentencing, Court has ordered that I meet with a court social worker for an assessment as to whether or not a Restriction Of Liberty Order will be placed on me. This would involve a GPS tracking device being attached to me and me being placed under house arrest.

    He put up a silly Youtube video of his little dog being ‘Literally a Nazi’.

    The one way train ride to the ‘re-education camps’ draws ever closer.

  12. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    James Packer resigns from Crown Resorts due to ‘mental health issues’

    Come to me my corpulent child.
    Pay me an exorbitant fee to fix you.

    LOL. If Dr. Stimpy didn’t exist we would definitely have to invent him. 🙂

  13. Arky

    Getting chased down a garden path by a sweaty old bloke who wants to do unmentionable things to me sounds just great, Arky.

    Oh good.
    April then.
    Start by doing a bit of walking to build up your base fitness.
    Get some Ks under your feet.
    Don’t overdo it and get injured though.

  14. OldOzzie

    Judith Sloan: Hypocrisy of the Grattan Institute is very taxing

    Is there a new tax or a higher tax (or an ugly apartment building, for that matter) that the folk down at the Grattan Institute don’t love?

    Ever since this government made some major changes to reduce the generosity of the superannuation system, the Grattan Institute has been patting itself on the back. It has even used the changes it supported as part of its pitch for more donations.

    Now we have the proposal by Labor to ditch cash refunds for franking credits. The Grattan Institute has shown almost unbridled enthusiasm for the policy. Without knowing the full story because no one can — the $1.6 million transfer balance cap only came in on July 1 last year and there is no tax information for the relevant period — two mid-level analysts are happy to call almost everyone who is receiving cash refunds wealthy.

    According to them, part-pensioners are well-off, with lots of assets including their homes. Mind you, the value of their assets is tested to qualify for the Age Pension, but who cares about the details. They will lose out from Labor’s policy but, again, who cares? Sure, they have worked hard and saved hard to accumulate what assets they have, but they have to be punished.

    It is worth pointing out at this stage that the implied capital value of the Age Pension is more than $1m and there is no longevity risk in the product.

    And then there are those really wealthy people with combined assets of $3.2m within the superannuation cap and maybe some other taxable superannuation and non-superannuation assets. They really need to be punished although they won’t be because they will be able to rearrange their affairs to continue to take advantage of franking credits.

    It’s best simply to ignore all the mumbo-jumbo from Grattan. They don’t seem to know what they are talking about. For example, the claim is made that “almost 20 per cent of pension payments go to those with assets of more than $1m”. But the current asset test for couples is $837,000 with a home. For non-home owners, the asset test is $1,040,00 but let’s face it, there are precious few of them. In other words, the Grattan analysts are working off out-of-date information. The bottom line is that removing cash refunds for franking credits will hit middle-income mums and dads, some part-pensioners and others just above the qualifying limit. The wealthy will simply not be hit.

    A bit like the members of the industry super funds who will not be affected by Labor’s proposal because Bill Shorten and Chris Bowen would never upset their union mates running those industry super funds.

    But here’s the real point: the Grattan folk appear to be failing to disclose a fundamental conflict of interest. Because Labor will exempt not-for-profits and charities — they will still get cash refunds — the Grattan Institute is a direct beneficiary. (The tax-free unions also stand to benefit.)

    And we are talking substantial sums. Recall that the Victorian government and a Labor federal government simply gifted $30m for the establishment of the Grattan Institute outside the context of any competitive bidding process. In 2016-17, the institute received $2.585m in interest and dividends; the previous financial year, the figure was $2.797m.

    Now most of these sums would be dividend income. So assuming, say, that $2m in dividends was received in 2016-17, up to 3/7ths of this amount could be made up of cash refunds from investments in fully franked shares. Needless to say, refunds for franking credits are also big money spinners for universities, more generally.

    So every time you read a “let’s slap on another tax” advocacy piece from the Grattan Institute — universal land tax, anyone? — just bear in mind that the folk who work on this benefit from an arrangement that they want to eliminate for other people. Some might call it doing good work; I call it hypocrisy.

    From the Comments

    Is it true Lucy and Malcolm are involved with the Grattan Institute?

    – BS instead of going after retirees & pensioners what about taxing unions as companies and stop wasting our money on the Graton Institute. An also end the wrought of Union Fees being tax deductible

    You will save your $5B

    – An organisation that can only survive on government hand-outs (Grattan) must be taken seriously when contributing to left rated ideological debate, eg there must be more government dollars spent on climate clods, more wastage on indigenous support, more freeloading public servants…..but less support for anyone who has actually contributed to the economy over decades and is now in a vulnerable retirement position.

    To the super clods who say that this is a brilliant move that pitches the young vote against the old age vote — I have simple outlined to my children that if they are silly enough to vote in a union rorter party, they will be the big loser. Oops, Shorten there goes 6 votes.

    – Judith sloan, I am a Chartered Accountant, your comments are 100% accurate !!

    I could give you 40 actual examples of precisely what you are refering to in respect of who this tax will disadvantage!

    Please do not stop !! For the sake of all Australian!

    The clincher here is this……..”It is worth pointing out at this stage that the implied capital value of the Age Pension is more than $1m and there is no longevity risk in the product…..”

    That needs to be repeated again and again!!

    – All this information that The Australian’s commentators gift to the public and can be used by the Libs. And what happens? Nothing!! Look at the article today from the President of the Business Council of Australia. The Libs couldn’t run a chook raffle!

    Great analysis Judith. These hypocrites need to be called out day after day until the noise generated results in changes to the tax-free status of “charities” & “not for profits”. The majority of such organisations are anything but what their title states – just like Gillard’s AWU workplace safety association.

    – Half of Australia pays no net tax. Surely they are a better target for Shorten’s tax grab then self funded retirees who are no drain on the public purse and don’t even get a health card like all the taxpayer funded pensioners.

    Have you ever reached into the pockets of a naked man?

    – Again Bill’s plan isn’t about the money. It’s main aim is to cause a generational conflict and get Bill into the Lodge. The punters won’t wake up until after the event and discover the so-called benefits don’t exist.
    Bill’s whole career has been one of misinformation and duding those he claims to support.
    eg: Cleanavent, Rudd, Gillard , Rudd etc

    The Gratten Istitute has simply morphed into a pro Labor propaganda unit set up at taxpayers cost. Its figures are grossly misleading reflecting on the incompetence of its staff.

    That’s why the PM’s wife is a director. How odd is that?

    She and her husband are both lefties. Grattan is an adjunct to the ABC another taxpayer funded Labor PR unit.

    they are also, as employee’s of the Grattan Institute, entitled to massive FBT allowances having everything from car, home mortgage, school fees, etc, etc paid for like a salary sacrifice arrangement thereby minimising their tax

  15. Bruce of Newcastle

    Writing, as I was before the pagebreak, of smashing Blackberries with hammers and bleach bitting everything in sight, it reminds me of another Dem story which has gone quiet.

    A History Of Alleged Intimidation And Tampering In House Hacking Case Marked By Witnesses’ Silence (18 Mar)

    Soon after the House of Representatives found that Democratic IT aide Imran Awan and his family made “unauthorized access” to congressional data, Imran hurriedly vacated his house, renting it in February 2017 to a former Marine. Imran angrily told his new tenant, Andre Taggart, that he was homeless and to refuse any certified mail in Imran’s name, Taggart said.

    A lawyer contacted Taggart about some items Imran left behind in the house and threatened to sue if he didn’t return them, saying he’d accuse Taggart of theft, Taggart said. The equipment included Blackberries and “hard drives they look like they tried to destroy,” as well as laptops and “a lot of brand new expensive [printer] toner,” he said. Based on his military training, they appeared to Taggart to be government equipment, and he called the police.

    The Capitol Police and FBI arrived to collect the computer equipment, and Taggart moved out of the house in May, he said. In late August, Taggart felt that there was enough distance between Imran and his family that it was safe to tell his story publicly.

    Federal agents arrested Imran at the airport in July trying to fly to Pakistan, and charged Imran and his wife with bank fraud involving money they wired overseas.

    However, months later, authorities have not charged the couple with the more serious “unauthorized access” described in the IG’s investigation and backed up by server logs. Capitol Hill officials involved in oversight of the case say the reason is that Democratic employers are acting like “hostile victims” and are refusing to press charges.

    So the Democrats are refusing to cooperate with the police despite one of the Awans in custody and the other fleeing to Pakistan. I wonder why they are so reticent?

    Given the stuff coming out about Chinese money and Congress one gets the impression that Mueller is looking at the wrong countries, as well as the wrong party and wrong Presidential candidate.

  16. DrBeauGan

    Mental Diversity!!!

    At last.

    We’ve had it for yonks, stimpy. Why should anyone be denied a PhD just because they’re stupid?

  17. Arky

    Oh Monty.
    I like to stop every lap and punch out some push ups.
    So if you can’t do many push ups build up to at least 30.
    Just do as many as you can for three sets every day.
    But warm up your shoulder joints first with some arm rotations.

  18. OneWorldGovernment

    Mark A

    I just checked my email today and I see that Sinclair sent me your e-address the other day.

    Presumably he sent you mine.

  19. Arky

    And do them with proper form.
    I don’t want you whinging that you blew a disc out in your back or some shit like that.
    Take some fucking personal responsibility man.

  20. Arky

    Also when I run I don’t like talking. It distracts from wheezing, groaning and swearing.
    So keep your big flappy gob shut.

  21. Bruce of Newcastle


    Benghazi hero unloads on McCabe, Comey for what they ‘tried to pin on him’ and his team: ‘worst scum of human’

    Paronto unleashed a fiery Twitter takedown of Obama-appointed Deep State agents Andrew McCabe, James Comey, and John Brennan. And they’re going to need some aloe to nurse those sick burns.

    The whole article at the included link is most interesting.

    Paronto is the U.S. Army Ranger who was part of the CIA Special Forces that responded to the 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya.

  22. Stimpson J. Cat

    We’ve had it for yonks, stimpy. Why should anyone be denied a PhD just because they’re stupid?

    No we haven’t.
    Lesbianism is not a Mental Illness.

  23. Knuckle Dragger

    God I loved the smashing Testes and Rae (Sock 1) got last night. Didn’t even have to get involved, largely. Rounded up and circled nicely like a mob of sheep, and then got spun around so hard they fell over. Brilliant.

    Struth is quite right. If I’m to be called a racist, I have every right to either demand why this is so, or provide evidence to the contrary, or point out falsity of an argument.

    This is the problem. If I lived in a city or a large town and had never had the considerable contact with regional and remote Australia and Australians as I do, I would have to take the word of idiots like Testes as gospel, as I would the word of Dtarneen the Scot. Fortunately I know better, and can accurately point out the truth in these matters – or at least the large majority of them.

    The more light that get shined on these frauds, the better off we’ll all be.

    Well done those men.

  24. Arky

    The only thing I don’t like about that vid is that all army PTI’s are gaywads, and the dude locks his arms out at the top too hard. You can fuck your elbows up doing that.

  25. OldOzzie

    Judgment in the balance

    Dyson Heydon
    The Australian

    Sometimes it is said that the work of judges should not be criticised because it is not open to judges to defend themselves. But there are defensive techniques open to ­judges. Judges may, for example, rely on support from others, such as professional organisations, academics or politicians. A further technique of judicial self-defence was employed in Victoria last year.

    It involves recourse to the law of contempt. It arose out of a guilty plea in 2016 by Sevdet Besim to having done acts in preparation for, or planning, a terrorist attack. His plan was to drive a car into a randomly selected police officer at the 2015 Anzac Day commemorations in central Melbourne. His goal was to kill or seriously injure the officer, behead the officer, seize the officer’s gun and use it to kill or seriously injure as many people in the area as possible.

    The maximum penalty is life in jail. The accused was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment. A non-parole period of seven years and six months was fixed.

    The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions embarked on an uncommon and difficult course. She appealed to the Victorian Court of Appeal on the ground that the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The argument took place on June 9, 2017. On June 23 the Court of Appeal ­allowed the crown appeal and ­increased the sentence to 14 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 10 years and six months. The present concern arises not out of that sentence but from the aftermath of a statement apparently made during oral argument on June 9 by the chief justice. She said there was an “enormous gap” ­between NSW and Victoria in sentencing for terrorism offences. She said that was because in NSW less weight was put on the personal circumstances of the offender and a more “tough on crime” approach was taken. Another judge called the gap “extremely worrying”.

    On June 13 — that is, while judgment was still reserved — The Australian published an article about the appeal. It was headed: “Judiciary ‘Light on Terrorism’ ”. It referred to statements attributed to federal ministers Greg Hunt, Michael Sukkar and Alan Tudge.

    What the ministers said, as ­reported, was attacked almost ­immediately. This reaction tends to weaken the often-asserted idea that judges should be immune from criticism because they are not adequately defended by political leaders. In turn, the Prime Minister and three other ministers expressed support for the beleaguered ministers.

    The Court of Appeal requested the attendance of the ministers and of persons responsible for the articles on June 16. What then took place is recorded in a judgment of the court on June 23 indicating that it would not procure the institution of contempt proceedings.

    Proceedings on June 16 began with a statement being read out. After criticising what the ministers said, it concluded: “This morning is not an occasion to debate whether … contempt has been committed. That may be for another court to determine. Rather, it is an opportunity for those ­involved to inform the court of any relevant matters they wish before we determine whether to refer the publication for prosecution for contempt of court.”

    It will be seen that whatever the Court of Appeal debated, it seemed to find repeatedly that contempt had been committed.

    The ministers were in a very difficult position. It is usually ­regarded as permissible, indeed as right and proper, for politicians to debate matters of public interest like criminal sentencing and communicate with their constituents about these matters. On the other hand, for the ministers to be charged with contempt, let alone convicted, would have created ­immense problems for their future careers and possibly for the survival of the government.

    What did the Court of Appeal actually say that provoked the ministers’ statements? And what did the ministers actually say that provoked the reaction by the Court of Appeal? Strangely, these are very hard questions to answer.

    The court quotes a few of the ­offending ministerial phrases in passing. But its judgment does not at any stage ­appear to have conveyed to the interested public in a full and ­coherent way, in context, what the ministers said or what the newspaper reported. Was it perhaps thought their language was too horrid to be repeated? Nor did the Court of Appeal set out the passages in the transcript of the June 9 hearing on which the ministers’ statements were based ­(securely or not). Yet it seems one or more of the ministers said the judges were “divorced from ­reality” and were “hard-left activist judges”, conducting “ideological experiments”, who had “eroded any trust that remained in our legal system”.

    The substantial silence of the Court of Appeal about what it and the ministers said is not compatible with the idea that litigation is to be conducted in public. It is not compatible with the idea that ­intelligible reasons must be given for decisions. It is not compatible with the idea that reasons must be capable of being read in their own right without having to go to other sources like a newspaper article that might not be easy to find or a court transcript that may or may not be available. The Court of ­Appeal’s reasons are partial in the sense that they are neither complete nor freestanding. Thus, they are not easy to follow or evaluate.

    The ministers can perhaps be criticised on three counts. First, they did not consult any primary source revealing what the Court of Appeal judges said on June 9. However, as will be seen, had they tried to consult the best source — the transcript — they would have been told it was not available. It ­remained unavailable at least until after the article was published.

    Second, can one say worse of what the ministers said than that for the most part it was a collection of tired and demotic slogans? For example, for judges to be described as “divorced from reality” is scarcely novel. Some judges would wear as a badge of pride the title “hard-left activist judge”. Indeed, it is truthful to call some judges that, though people do not normally think in this way of the Victorian Court of Appeal, for more reasons than one. The proposition that among members of the public there is little trust in the legal system is to some extent true. To ­assess a statement that the Court of Appeal had eroded that trust ­depends on knowing precisely what they said.

    Third, it might have been better for the ministers to have abstained from comment until the appeal was over. What judges say in judgments matters more than what they say in ­debates with counsel. Similar criticisms perhaps can be made of the newspaper people, though they might be thought unfortunate so far as they were only ­reporting what was, if not what Talleyrand would have called an event, at least a piece of news.

    The federal solicitor-general began by reading a statement by the ministers. They said they intended to make legitimate comment but not to undermine public confidence in the judiciary. They said they did not intend to suggest the court would not apply the law or to pressure the court. They expressed regret for their language. This was not good enough for the Court of Appeal. It repeatedly noted that there was no apology or retraction.

    The solicitor-general then conceded that terrorism and sentencing were not among the portfolio responsibilities of the ministers. But would the court’s response have been different if terrorism and sentencing had been among the portfolio responsibilities? Can ministers not speak about any topic of public interest, whether or not it is within their portfolio ­responsibilities, subject perhaps to the prime minister or cabinet ­deciding otherwise? Cannot any person within the Queen’s peace in Australia discuss matters of public interest like the merits of what appellate judges say in the course of public hearings?

    Later the solicitor-general said he had instructions from one of the ministers that he was content ­expressly to withdraw one statement attributed to him about “hard-left activist judges”.

    Later still the solicitor-general said he now had instructions on behalf of all ministers to withdraw that remark as well as the statements about “ideological experiments” and “judges being divorced from reality”. The court said this followed “the court expressing doubt, scepticism, even incredulity at what was being said on behalf of the ministers”.

    This is a disturbing passage. First, the office of the solicitor-general is one of the highest in the country. Its occupant is the principal non-parliamentary legal adviser to the federal government, and conducts all major constitutional and other civil litigation for the government. Its current occupant is of great probity, skill and reputation. Was this incredulity directed at him? Second, to be incredulous is to experience an incapacity to ­believe a proposition. It is legitimate for a court in argument to express doubt and scepticism. But does not the time for deciding whether one is incapable of believing a proposition, and for expressing that state of mind, come only after the process of receiving all relevant materials and hearing all argument has been concluded, not in the middle of the process?

    The court then recorded that senior counsel for the newspaper people stated the ministers had given unsolicited statements over the period of one hour to the journalist. He also said the transcript of the June 9 hearing had not been obtained or sought before publication. Research by the court after June 16, while not contradicting what senior counsel said, ­revealed that the newspaper had in fact ­inquired as to the availability of the transcript on June 13, the day of publication, and had been told that it was not available. Senior counsel for the newspaper people then apologised for and retracted the publication. After the hearing, the ministers followed suit.

    The language of the Court of Appeal in its June 23 judgment on contempt repeatedly asserted that there was an actual contempt.

    To take one of many examples, the court stated that the delay by the ministers in apologising for and retracting the statements “is most regrettable and aggravated the contempt”. The court continued by saying it “accepts that the ministers have sufficiently acknow­ledged and accepted their contempt … and sufficiently purged their contempt”. Again, are these passages not findings of contempt, as distinct from statements of a prima facie position? The ministers cannot have aggravated or purged their contempt unless they had earlier committed it.

    Is it not a serious thing for a court to assert, while protected by judicial immunity, that there actually had been a contempt of court, a serious criminal offence, at a time when no charges had been formally laid, the evidence was ­incomplete, no sworn or affirmed testimony had been received, and the proceedings of June 16 had begun with an assertion the court would not on that day ­“debate whether contempt has been committed”, thus precluding any contribution from the ministers or the newspapers on that subject?

    The court’s words were: “The court states in the strongest terms that it is expected there will be no repetition of this type of appalling behaviour. It was fundamentally wrong (— another finding of actual contempt). It would be a grave matter for the administration of justice if it were to reoccur (sic — and yet another finding of actual contempt). This court will not hesitate to uphold the rights of citizens who are protected by the sub judice rule.”

    This language left the impression that the ministers and the newspaper had been guilty of contempt despite the absence of the usual safeguards a prosecution for that crime would have afforded.

    What exactly was the contempt that troubled the court? The statement read out on June 16 made various vague complaints. One was failure to respect the doctrine of separation of powers. Another was failure to understand the ­importance of the judiciary being independent. These complaints do not necessarily involve illegality. If one peers through the fog gene­r­ated by the court’s failure to set out either what it said on June 9 or what the article said on June 13, it seems the court raised or hinted at one view on sentencing terrorists, while the ministers asserted another. But judges continually criticise politicians — convincingly or not. They do it in judgments, in submissions they make to government, in public speeches, in statements issued by the Judicial Con­ference of Australia. Why can’t politicians criticise judges — convincingly or not? One aspect of the responsibility borne by politicians is to identify defects in all three arms of governments and seek to remedy them — not just those of the legislature and the executive.

    Underlying the court’s language may be the idea that it is dangerous to criticise the judiciary because over time this tends in an incremental, perhaps subliminal, way to undermine public confidence in the ability, integrity and sense of responsibility of the ­judicial branch, so as to encourage governments to increase controls over the judicial branch, and thereby reduce its independence.

    This idea is complex. It may be right. But it is controversial. ­Assuming it to be right, it might be said the danger will increase where the criticism is not answered.

    It is notable that the court did not ­endeavour to answer the ministers’ criticisms. It considered ­instead whether to punish the ministers for making them. It used the hearing of June 16, which it ­initiated, to deter anyone contemplating criticisms in future when it said: “It is expected that there will be no repetition of this type of appalling behaviour.” But it did not in any way directly refute the truth of what the ministers said. Is this because it thought the truth was ­irrelevant?

    The hearing before the court was not in fact dedicated to ­abstract questions about the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary. It was directed to whether proceedings should be instituted against the ministers for contempt of court which, if successful, could have led to their imprisonment, to heavy fines and certainly to the destruction of their political and probably their post-political careers. What sort of contempt of court did the court have in mind?

    On one reading, the primary concern of the court seems to have been the sub judice rule. Under the sub judice rule, contempt is committed by comments on pending proceedings that carry a real risk of being likely to prejudice the trial of an action. The vices it seeks to deal with arise most intensely where there is a trial by jury. Perhaps they also arise, one hopes very unusu­ally, before junior or inexperienced judges. The prosecution appeal before the court did not ­involve trial by jury. It was not a trial. It was not an appeal from a jury trial. It was an appeal from a sentencing judge to the apex court in Victoria. It was heard by three of that court’s most senior and ­experienced judges. Even if the sub judice rule applies to appeals, it is safe to act on Lord Salmon’s view that judges will not be influenced by what is said in the media, and that if they were so influenced they would not be fit to be judges.

    The June 16 statement expressed a concern that the statements were improperly made in an attempt to influence the court’s decision-making process. It is highly unlikely that any minister would make that attempt in relation to the three judges concerned because that minister would know the three Court of Appeal judges had more than enough stomach to adhere faithfully to their task whatever the ministers said.

    Taken by itself, the court’s stress on the sub judice rule suggests its reaction might have been much milder if the offending opinions were expressed after the proceedings were over. But the court indicated the timing was immaterial. They said the statements “purported to scandalise the court … by being calculated to improperly undermine public confidence in the administration of justice” in the particular appeals. This is a second type of contempt.

    Despite criticisms of this type of contempt by Murphy J, in Australia prosecutions have succeeded in recent times. In contrast, this type of contempt was obsolescent in England and Wales and in Nor­thern Ireland even before it was ­recently abolished by statute.

    To prove this type of contempt, it is necessary to establish one of two things. One is a real risk as distinct from a remote possibility of undermining public confidence in the administration of justice. It is highly questionable whether that could have been established in this case beyond reasonable doubt. The material may have been discourteous. But it fell short of scurrilous personal abuse of the judges. It was rather a criticism of the thinking that leads to relatively light sentences. It was criticism that was strong in the sense that it advocated a sharply contrasting position. But strong criticism is not of itself contempt. The remarks do not allege personal partiality. They do not reveal personal dislike. They reveal only dislike of a particular approach.

    The other way in which contempt through scandalising the court can be established arises where the defendant aims to lower the authority of the court or its judges. The ministers denied that aim. The Court of Appeal did not say it did not accept that denial. And the Court of Appeal gave no reason for concluding the denial should not be accepted. It would have been difficult to establish the remarks were not made bona fide.

    Were the proceedings before, at and after the hearing on June 16 a waste of time? Were they a public embarrassment? The court, with a degree of self-approbation, twice described the June 16 hearing as involving a “stern discussion”. The court’s summary of the discussion suggests that in a sense that seems to have been true. And there is nothing wrong with stern discussion. But the discussion was conducted on incomplete materials. It and its outcome smeared the reputations of the ministers in a confusing way. The ministers escaped from prosecution. But they did not escape from the slur involved in being alleged to be, and in some degree being found to be, guilty of contempt. The court did not ­articulate how the conduct could have been a contempt or why it was. Was the court’s concluding observation ringing rhetoric or was it only fustian? Was the language and behaviour of the court wholly virtuous? Or was it only shrill, petulant and precious? Was the tone only tinny? Could it be said the court’s conduct in fact tended to support the truth of one or two of the ministers’ statements? Above all, was the performance not marked by absurdity? For, like judges the world over, members of the Victorian Court of Appeal do not agree with other judges unless they think it is right to do so. They do not feel overborne by other judges. Why, then, should anyone think they would be affected by some cliches uttered by politicians in the course of a long-running ­debate between those who think convicted terrorists are punished too harshly and those who think they are punished too leniently?

    There are many admirable Australian judges, with respect. But Australian courts have several faults. Some judges lack the ­capacity to have merited appointment. A few are unjustifiably rude. A few are bullies. Some are appallingly slow, through inefficiency or laziness or indecisiveness. Some are insensitive. Some are ignorant. Some are undignified. As a result, some judicial work is poor. The whole system is rotten with ­excessive delay, some of which, but certainly not all of which, ­judges are responsible for. It is in the public interest for these failings, whether they are widespread or not, to be exposed with a view to their eradication.

    But how can they be exposed by critical contributions in public debate if the Victorian Court of Appeal’s opinion is representative? For if contempt is to be found in a statement creating a risk that confidence in the ­administration of justice will be lost, it is no defence that the statement happens to be true. On that approach, public criticism cannot extend to the judiciary. That outcome cannot be justified by ­appeals to judicial independence. For, as has been said, “there is a difference between judicial independence and stopping work at lunch time”.

    Now it is true the ministers did not criticise the judiciary for any of the faults recorded above. It would go too far to say the Court of Appeal would actually threaten contempt against politicians who criticised a judge for rudeness, ­inefficiency, insensitivity or ignorance, for example. But did the court, in threatening contempt proceedings, create an atmosphere inducing those with legitimate complaints to feel unable to make them without risking public embarrassment and possibly criminal sanctions?

    The goal of contempt of court rules is to increase respect for the law. Respect for the law has been said to be a core condition of ­judicial independence. Even if the court’s intention in doing what it did was to vindicate respect for the law, can it be said that what it did in fact actually engendered less ­respect for the law?

    In Scotland, the Lord President once said that restraint should be employed in relation to prosecution for scandalising the court “lest a process, the purpose of which is to prevent interference with the administration of justice, should degenerate into an oppressive or vindictive use of the court’s ­powers”. Might that have happened, or did it happen, in the Victorian Court of Appeal in this case?

    Where judges seek to preserve judicial independence in response to political criticism by threatening use of the contempt power, do they actually strengthen the hands of those who oppose judicial independence?

    Dyson Heydon is a former justice of the High Court of Australia. This is a revised version of a paper given in January in London to Policy Exchange, Judicial Power Project. A full version may be viewed at

  26. C.L.

    Stan Grant makes it official: Aung San Suu Kyi now evil because Muslims:

    Aung San Suu Kyi can’t be the messiah we want her to be.

    The opening salvo made me laugh:

    Have we expected too much from Aung San Suu Kyi?

    The West has long had a messiah fantasy: a belief in the power of a charismatic individual to carry the hopes of his or her nation.

    This messiah would bring freedom and democracy to previously despotic regimes.

    The list is long: Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, Paul Kagame in Rwanda, in recent times Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan.

    As New York Times reporters Amanda Taub and Max Fisher pointed out in an article last year:

    “The simple story of a crusading leader who will transform a nation rarely works out that way.”

    See, for example, Barack Obama.

    The Rohingya crackdown raises a critical issue: what sort of nation does Myanmar wish to be?

    A non-Muslim one. Next question.

  27. Leigh Lowe


    #2666614, posted on March 21, 2018 at 12:42 pm

    Ay caramba:

    Myer posts $476 million first-half loss, with no dividend for shareholders.

    You know what this means?
    This year’s annual report will be chock-full of coquettish soft-porn pictures of Jennifer Hawkins to distract from the financials.

  28. OneWorldGovernment


    Thank you for your posts.

    Thank you for your bolding

    Thank you for including comments to articles.

    And bolding some of the comments.


  29. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    The only thing I don’t like about that vid is that all army PTI’s are gaywads, and the dude locks his arms out at the top too hard. You can fuck your elbows up doing that.

    Army PTI’s – known, irreverently as “muscle mechanics.”

  30. DrBeauGan

    Lesbianism is not a Mental Illness.

    I guess you’re the expert, but it looks like one to me. If a chick gets turned on by another chick, she has to have some wires crossed somewhere.

  31. Baldrick

    Scroll the oily shafted sockmeister Troll.

  32. OldOzzie

    Di Natale’s callous histrionics

    Greens leader Richard Di Natale’s blaming inaction on climate change for the bushfires and cyclone that have savaged parts of the nation is irrational and offensive for Australians who have suffered devastating property and livestock losses. Senator Di Natale stepped up his cynical posturing yesterday, likening the Turnbull government’s policies to the US National Rifle Association’s refusal to acknowledge the need for gun laws to prevent mass shootings. A former general practitioner, Senator Di Natale should have more empathy with people than to play politics with their suffering.

    In South Australia, the Greens are showing scant regard for democracy following the electorate’s firm rejection of the Weatherill government’s discredited renewable energy target. The 50 per cent RET delivered soaring power prices and compromised supply. A new report by the Australian Energy Market Commission has confirmed renewables-based power is making the national grid unstable and less secure, with outages almost trebling in three years. Despite the electorate’s rejection of Labor, South Australian Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young says the party will use its votes in the SA upper house to fight any moves by the Marshall government to wind back the renewables push. The Greens also want to block the new government’s plans to pass legislation to facilitate Malcolm Turnbull’s national energy guarantee. Unlike the Greens’ hot air, the NEG offers a responsible, rational approach to affordable energy while reducing emissions to meet Australia’s obligations under the Paris Agreement.

    Senator Di Natale and his party have shown they lack the policies and expertise to make a constructive contribution to the nation. Late-season bushfires and cyclones are nothing new on our torrid continent. In March 1899, Cyclone Mahina claimed 400 lives on Cape York. The previous year, 1898, saw disastrous bushfires in Victoria.

    Instead of trying to score points on the back of great suffering, a party interested in the environment would do better to focus on issues such as hazard-reduction burning and responsible tree clearing in bushfire-prone areas.

    From the Comments

    – Mr Di Natale was a medical practitioner before becoming a politician so his lack of empathy for persecuted white farmers in South Africa and people of the fire devastated town of Tathra is appalling. Also for a medically trained person to be capable of believing that the Government of his country can do anything to control its weather is truly amazing.

    – His comments on visas for South African farmers is racist. He would have no problem accepting people being racially persecuted if they were non white, but somehow for him being persecuted for being white is not possible.

    – Don’t understand why this goose gets so much airtime. Surely the way to get rid of him is to ignore him;not report his every irrelevant and biased view.

    The Greens seem to have a logic not dissimilar to Pagans of old, sacrifices have not been made to appease the Climate Gods. They are so engrossed in their beliefs that they cannot tell that these recent events are weather. And they lack sympathy or care for those that have been adversely affected by these events.

    – Wasn’t it the greens that banned controlled burn offs to reduce fuel load?

    – Time to ditch the ‘obligations’ under the mass manipulation of the Paris agreement. Names of cool travel destinations, particularly with historical significance mask the emptiness of the deliberations they name.

    Bill Leakes cartoon of Abbott knocking over a similarly semonising Green politician while actually running to fight a fire remains the nest comment on this

  33. Rae

    God I loved the smashing Testes and Rae (Sock 1) got last night.

    Ha ha. Very droll, Knuckle Fu Dagger, very droll.

  34. Stimpson J. Cat

    So if you can’t do many push ups build up to at least 30.

    If you have married an Asian you should be alternating with slant push ups.
    Also known as incline push ups.
    Then one leg ups, then one arms, and claps.

  35. Dr Faustus

    The memo said ‘do not congratulate’ Putin. Trump did it anyway.

    The President’s tone drew a rebuke from Republican Senator John McCain, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who wrote on Twitter: “An American president does not lead the Free World by congratulating dictators on winning sham elections.

    Fucking A.

    The best way to serve the Free World would have been to ignore Putin altogether.
    Failing that, Trump should have told him straight up: “You’re a poo poo bum hole who cheats at elections and I’m not going to call you President any more. Ever. So there.

    von Metternich would have done that.

  36. Ben Shapiro at The Hill just fired a kill shot at the Cambridge A phony scandal:

    What’s genius for Obama is scandal when it comes to Trump

    No, he didn’t. He mischaracterised a Guardian piece about the Obama campaign openly motivating its supporters to turn out to vote through sharing positive content with their permission. To compare that with CA secretly using a gargantuan data breach to spread lies through massive ad buys (probably in illegal co-ordination with the Trump campaign) is completely off tap.

  37. Stimpson J. Cat

    I guess you’re the expert, but it looks like one to me. If a chick gets turned on by another chick, she has to have some wires crossed somewhere.

    Like my esteemed colleague Dr Alex Jones says, “They are turning the freaking frogs gay. ”
    What makes you think this stops at frogs?
    Have you not turned on your television set?
    Even Monty’s are not immune.

  38. Macbeth

    On the ‘Blue Rinse’

    Between Piccadilly and Berkley Square,
    I saw a crone with purple hair.
    She must have had the bluest rinse
    That ever was, before or since.
    Between Berkley Square and Piccadilly,
    I saw a crone. She did look silly.

  39. Stimpson J. Cat

    Ben Shapiro at The Hill just fired a kill shot at the Cambridge A phony scandal:

    Ben Shapiro could never fire a kill shot.
    Children aren’t allowed to play with guns.

  40. Arky, I don’t respond to JC’s attempts at grooming, and you’re not going to have any luck either.

  41. OldOzzie

    PAUL KELLY – Voting Green: the alternative medicine wears off

    The Greens are an ugly sight under pressure. This is a party deluded by hubris, confused about its strategy, consumed by a moral vanity that wearies most people, and it has now been taught a crucial lesson about the power of the Labor Party as a progressive force.

    Batman may yet become a turning point. It shows Victorian Labor able to repeat the performance of NSW Labor in the inner city and deny the surge of the Greens.

    It throws into doubt an orthodoxy of our politics — that inner Sydney and Melbourne will finish up owned by the Greens, thereby forcing federal Labor governments down the track into governing alliances with them.

    The message from Batman is that Labor will accommodate the growing regional and cultural diversity of Australia and retain its historic mission as a majority governing party. This result aligns Ged Kearney with Anthony Albanese and Tanya Plibersek as Labor progressives with superior appeal and better delivery capacity than the Greens.

    The question posed by recent poor results is whether the Greens have peaked. The related question is whether their vote is falling as a trend.

    It will take time for an­ ­answer since the Greens will probably poll better with a federal Labor government forced into mainstream policies and less able to play progressive beauty contests.

    Green hubris is tied to Green moralism. The party lectures people about how they must live and is intolerant of others who don’t embrace its ideology. These are not traits that appeal to the Australian character. In Batman the Greens preached about Adani and refugees — they spoke to their community of partisans but failed to reach out and persuade.

    Former Greens leader Bob Brown famously said: “We are not here to do a Don Chipp and keep the bastards honest. Our job is to replace them. I think there’s an inevitability about the Greens becoming one of the major parties. I read history. So the change I am talking about is not unprecedented.”

    Today’s leader, Richard Di Natale, has championed an ambitious agenda for the Greens to become a party of government over a generation — winning up to 25 House of Representatives seats, but also insisting the party can retain its progressive principles.

    Such dreams remain a fantasy. It is 20 years since the emergence of climate change as a dominant political and moral issue. The Greens have consistently demanded extreme emissions reduction policies but have lost their voting momentum. Their dilemma is obvious: if they stand by ideological gesture, they won’t be taken seriously; but if they run realistic policies, how do they differentiate from Labor and Liberal?

    Former Labor minister Greg Combet nailed the Greens in 2014: “They have wrecked carbon pricing and climate change policy twice in this country — once when they voted with (Tony) Abbott to finish (Kevin) Rudd’s scheme and the other by insisting on targets that are economic lunacy.”

    This week Di Natale revealed the purest Green reflex under pressure — go extreme on climate change. He told the Senate: “The government has been doing everything it can to slow this country’s transition to renewable energy and Australians are bearing the brunt of that failure” — pointing to the fires in NSW’s Tathra, Bega and in southwest Victoria, and the Darwin cyclone.

    This typifies the big lie about climate change. The climate is changing and global emissions reductions are essential to address this. It is, by definition, a global issue. Australia, responsible for 1.3 per cent of global emissions, has a role to play as a constructive, contributing citizen. But claims that if Australia alone were doing more our bushfires and cyclones would be curbed is ludicrous.

    Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg said: “As 1.3 per cent of the world’s emissions and a signatory to the Paris Agreement we play our part in the world’s collective action. It is dishonest in the extreme to suggest that Australia’s policies are responsible for extreme weather events … here or overseas.” Such Green dishonesty is endemic and rarely called out.

    Suggestions from the Greens that the Turnbull government has culpability for the fires is cynical, ideological posturing. If you want an excuse to be disillusioned with a party, it’s hard to beat.

    The Greens’ climate change policies are irresponsible and reckless. They advocate a 90 per cent renewable target by 2030, binding emissions reductions each year to 2050, and net zero or negative emissions within a generation. This reflects a disregard for the national economy and our living standards.

    After their poor showing in South Australia and Tasmania — the Greens polled a weak 6.6 per cent in SA at the weekend compared with 8.7 per cent four years earlier — how did the Greens respond? By threatening to veto Steven Marshall’s new Liberal government’s support for the Turnbull government’s National Energy Guarantee. It was a message of sabotage on the first working day post-election.

    This is significant because SA is the lead drafter and lead parliament for the National Electricity Law. Under the Australian Energy Market Agreement all national energy market legislation can be amended only with agreement of the Council of Australian Governments Energy Council, but it is the SA parliament that gives effect to new policy by passing the required bill.

    This is called an “application of laws” model where one parliament passes a primary law and others pass a law that applies the SA law in their own jurisdiction. As far as can be ascertained no COAG authorised policy changes have been blocked in the SA parliament since this process began in 1996.

    Frydenberg says: “In a situation where the NEG has the overwhelming support of the COAG Energy Council, it would be unprecedented and irresponsible in the extreme for the SA upper house to block this important and historic national reform. The SA parliament’s role is one where they are required simply to implement the will of the COAG Energy Council.”

    The Greens will probably act in their usual role as climate change wreckers, in Combet’s immortal branding. The NEG is vital as the integrated climate and energy policy Frydenberg and Malcolm Turnbull plan to take to the next election. But its future will not depend on the Greens — that would mean certain doom.

    Its future depends on Labor. And Labor, while drawn to the merit of bipartisanship, has two reservations — it worries the model retards competition by entrenching the market powers of the big players, and tips the scales against renewables.

    The moral, again, concerns the limited utility of Green politics. Witness the classic from Di Natale yesterday when he compared the government’s position on climate change to that of the US National Rifle Association, which refuses to talk gun control after a massacre. Mathias Cormann, with restraint, merely said the government was taking effective action in accord with its Paris pledges.

    The Greens cannot stomach compromise policy that seeks to balance competing economic and climate interests, the art of good government. In reply, Di Natale drew a link between the Adani mine and the bushfires via climate change. His logic: if you want to curb bushfires, halt Adani.

    In reality, Australian climate change policy can no more curb fires in Tathra than it can in California. Such twisted logic plays to the ideological base of the Greens yet it confirms them as a protest party with an extreme vision that limits their electoral footprint.

    Protest parties thrive because of disillusionment with the main parties and scepticism about the political system. Yet the Greens are producing their own sceptics. Voting Green is a form of therapy — it can make you feel better. But it won’t make any material difference to your life, your country or your planet.

    From the Comments

    – The opening paragraph of Paul Kelly’s article summarises what the Greens are. This group cause nothing but disharmony in their incessant attacks on our nation and it’s people. To them Australia is a zoo without bars and we are responsible mightily for causing climate change. As someone who is a patriot, who is thankful to live in such a wonderful first world democratic nation, I find De Natale and his group an insulting. Their never ending tales of woe are wearisome.

    – Western Australia loses $4.5 billion of its GST every year to mendicant States.

    – And not only that , but our Iron Ore and LNG Gas Exports finance Greens inner city voters.

    – To what extent is the survival of the Greens dependent on the survival of Josh Frydenberg?

    Josh has only average sparkle and appeal, like too many of his ministerial colleagues. How much clearer might choices be if he were to isolate subsidies for renewables, not the renawables themselves, as the crime against the economy, the cause of accelerating increases in electricity prices?

    – The same Greens who insist we heed climate science go into full science denial mode on energy, making unrealistic claims for renewables and spreading fear of atomic energy. If Liberal and Labor had more backbone they could leverage this issue to expose the hypocrisy of the Greens.

    – Paul Kelly you should do your homework on climate change. There has been no significant, measurable warming in 20byears.

    Yes, Paul Kelly, please read Jo Nova’s science blog.

    As Kermit the Frog once sang, “It’s not easy being Green”

    How true!!

  42. Arky

    Arky, I don’t respond to JC’s attempts at grooming, and you’re not going to have any luck either.

    JC was trying to choke you to death with steak.
    I’m trying to entice you into becoming a physically better man so those around you no longer have to gag at your repulsive presence.
    You will comply because deep down you want to.
    Get yourself sorted.

  43. struth

    The biggest interference with the Trump / Clinton election came from Australia.
    Australian corrupt criminal politicians handing over millions of our hard earned tax dollars to Hillary.
    We were the largest tax donors of all.
    And the Labor party who received a slap on the wrist by the left wing U.S. deep state for actually flying over their to actively campaign for socialism.

    You can’t make this comedy up.
    The left again, have this amazing inability to look at themselves.
    In all things.
    And this is always their undoing.
    Hypocrisy is born from this.
    Always look at what a left is accusing others of, because they are doing it, but just much much worse.
    In all things.
    This theory is beyond question.
    It applies to everything, everywhere, from racism to accusing others of not caring for the poor.
    Virtue signalling is all that matters.

  44. I’m trying to entice you into becoming a physically better man so those around you no longer have to gag at your repulsive presence.
    You will comply because deep down you want to.

    Are you actually Pell?

  45. thefrolickingmole

    But what if Monty like having people around him gag at his repulsive presence?

    He could be Australias Otto Sump.

  46. OldOzzie

    GRAHAM RICHARDSON – Minor parties trampled during March of the majors

    March has proved to be a horrible month for the Greens and the personality movements masquerading as political parties.

    The Greens are in a dreadful position. Driven by bitter division, they are scrambling for a seat at the political table after the worst result in two decades in their spiritual home, Tasmania. From five seats to two in a chamber of 25 was well short of the result they had hoped for.

    The Tasmanian Greens have a leader whose name would not register with 99 per cent of those who read this. There are no Browns or Milnes around who can provide a beacon for Greens voters. The party was further marginalised when both the major parties declared they would not be part of a coalition agreement with it.

    The Greens were in for an even bigger hammering on Saturday. In South Australia, they could manage only a miserable 6 per cent of the vote in the state election. Having hovered about 10 per cent for the past 20 years, this was a real blow, but it was nothing compared to the by-election result in the Melbourne electorate of Batman. Internal ructions again intruded into the Greens campaign.

    The so-called watermelons are led by Hall Greenland and senator Lee Rhiannon. They are throwbacks to an almost forgotten far-left tendency that should have been dead and buried when the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. In NSW they have been finally thwarted by upper-house MP David Shoebridge, but trouble will no doubt continue.

    Even the gift by Labor — its plan to abolish the rebate component of the imputation credits system — couldn’t save the Greens in Batman. Bill Shorten had been clever: he made sure a left-wing woman with a touch of celebrity was selected as Labor’s standard-bearer. Ged Kearney was the perfect candidate and she managed a 3 per cent swing to her.

    The Greens are quite simply out of touch. Their leader announced in January that his main priority this year was to change the date of Australia Day. And then the party that wants to ban Barbie dolls viciously slandered newly elected Liberal senator Jim Molan. As my favourite saying goes, the mob has worked them out.

    Over the past three months so little has been seen or heard from Pauline Hanson that I am inclined to believe she has entered a nunnery. Her silence had led to One Nation’s poll numbers dropping alarmingly.

    Jacquie Lambie bombed out of the Tasmanian election, failing to win a seat. Cory Bernardi didn’t blow out a candle in his home state of South Australia, nor did his candidate make any mark in Batman, where the Liberals did not run a candidate.

    The biggest catastrophe among the smaller parties, though, must have been the results gained by Nick Xenophon and SA-Best. From 30 per cent just four weeks ago to 14 per cent last Saturday is one of the biggest campaign stumbles I have ever seen. Xenophon, a person I really like, never had the broad mix of policies that would indicate to the public what he stood for.

    Where do we go from here? Australians don’t like the major parties much, but when they put the minor parties under the microscope, they don’t like them much either.

    From the Comments

    – This writer is really stuggling!!

    richo, did you read Paul Kelly’s article, so you could get some ideas !!??

    Go away, you are a relic that needs to be burried!

    – If ditching all the minor parties is required so that an elected government ( of either hue) can govern then so be it . It will be a small price to pay for a much better Australia .

    – Heard Ged Kearney on TV joyfully saying she will go, and live in the Batman Electorate if that is what the costituents want .

    Puts Dreyfus to shame, he flatly refuses to live with his constituents, and yet in his latest news blog he has the absolute gaul to refer to Isaacs as “our community” .

    Get off the grass Mark you cannot use that term unless you are part of that community, otherwise, to do so is highly contemptible, and downright insulting !!!!

    Do us all a favor go and stand for the seat you live in !!!!

    – I think that the mob would like the major parties more if they were able to govern and execute the policies they were elected to perform. The minor parties have for a long time, made that difficult if not impossible. Be it ALP or LNP, if they were able to govern effectively, you would at least know what they were capable of!

    – am sick of the continual obsessie focus in The Australian on party power struggles rather than policy. It is bad enough that they exist, but they simply are not News: they are more like the weather (something that it always there and can be used to fill space, but is rarely actually interesting.) For years it has been all Costello/Rudd/Gillard/Rudd/Abbott/Turnbull/Joyce and now we have to put up with stories on Di Natali and Xenaphon too.

    Sen Richardson has been much better than most commentators in talking about other things too. Nevertheless, Editors: enough is enough already! What only making leadership and other celebrity gossip the main article only 50% of the time?

    No one on the scene at the moment commands like the greats of both Labor and Liberals. On both sides we’ve got the second stringers. I just hope for strong performers on both sides to emerge.

    – I think it’s fair to say Australian voters don’t like politicians much .sadly we are stuck with this hopeless lot until the next visionary emerges. I fear though that the media has tilted the scales somewhat making it difficult to look past the much needed charisma that seems to be a prerequisite.

    I am not waiting for a visionary. I just was an effective economic manager. I do agree that the media focus on the personality of the leader is both annoying and damaging to good government. I hated Keating, but a readily admit he did a good job with the economy.

  47. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    God I loved the smashing Testes and Rae (Sock 1) got last night.

    Quite amusing watching Testes getting hunted from pillar to post, until, with a final scream of “racist” he disappears up his own arse, and it’s even funnier watching Grogarly/Rae (Sock 1) begging someone – anyone – to please play with them, and the pitiful gratitude when someone does play with them. Good night was had by all.

  48. Stimpson J. Cat

    The best way to serve the Free World would have been to ignore Putin altogether.

    Funnily enough Barry congratulated Putin in 2012.
    But he’s Black so it’s different.

  49. Diogenes

    Frydenberg says: “In a situation where the NEG has the overwhelming support of the COAG Energy Council, it would be unprecedented and irresponsible in the extreme for the SA upper house to block this important and historic national reform. The SA parliament’s role is one where they are required simply to implement the will of the COAG Energy Council.”

    What ? Why is this twunt still in Parliament as he has no frikken idea as to what the job a parliament is ?

  50. C.L.

    The President’s tone drew a rebuke from Republican Senator John McCain, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who wrote on Twitter: “An American president does not lead the Free World by congratulating dictators on winning sham elections.”

    Dwight Eisenhower congratulates Ngo Dinh Diem (who won 98.2 of the vote in 1955).

  51. notafan

    Well yes

    I thought the WMD ended up in Syria

    Tony Abbott

    Verified account

    1h1 hour ago
    Just read K Rudd’s attempt to rewrite history. Back in 2002 Rudd was quite unequivocal Saddam “possesses WMD” he said then. “That is a matter of empirical fact”. 1/2

    Tony Abbott

    Verified account

    1h1 hour ago
    Saddam was a menace and removing him was right. The aftermath of the successful invasion was mismanaged but that’s hardly Australia’s fault. 2/2

    Is there a shadow of a doubt that Saddam used wmd on the Kurds?

  52. Stimpson J. Cat

    He could be Australias Otto Sump.

    We need to stop him before he forms the League Of Fatties.

  53. Boambee John

    #2666585, posted on March 21, 2018 at 12:15 pm
    Arky, it’s kind of a busy week for me. Let’s try for November.

    Interpreted: Spending all day on the Cat recounting my latest wet dreams takes up a lot of time. I can run with you after I have been to Malmo.

  54. testpattern

    This is the very sensible E6 in the Reforms to the Native Title Act Proposal Paper

    ‘Introduce a new section into the Act allowing for historical extinguishment over areas of national, state or territory parks to be disregarded, where the parties agree, for the purposes of making a native title determination’

    Sensibly, Rio supports this.

    ‘Rio Tinto supports E6, and welcomes the opportunity to comment further on any proposed amendments in the interests of ensuring certainty for all parties.’

    Farmers however are still resisting change –

    ‘national parks and conservation land are gazetted for the benefit of all Australians. These areas are being set aside for the common good, and should be owned and managed by the State. Many State regimes for National Parks now make provision for joint management by Indigenous Australians in any event.’

  55. mh

    As the enemies of the First Amendment unleash a full court press on the investigative press to set the precedent through case law to make censorship the new law of the land and shutdown anyone questioning the manufactured narrative. Censoring someone disseminating the media quagmire for truth like Mike Adams or Alex Jones based on the pressure from a leftist political fog is A clear and present danger to the future of the first Amendment and ultimately the websites themselves.

    This video include London’s muslim mayor attacking America’s first amendment – in Austin, Texas. The same muslim mayor who has campaigned to prevent the US President from entering the UK.

  56. OldOzzie

    WSJ – What Went Wrong at the FBI

    After 9/11, the bureau lost its law-enforcement ethos as it tried to become more of an intelligence agency.

    Americans have grown increasingly skeptical since 2016 of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an institution they once regarded as the world’s greatest law-enforcement agency. I spent 33 years in a variety of positions with the FBI, and I am troubled by this loss of faith. Many lapses have come to light, and each has been thoroughly covered. But why did they happen? The answer is a cultural change that occurred in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

    For reasons that seemed justified at the time, the bureau set out to become an “intelligence driven” organization. That had unintended consequences. The FBI’s culture had been rooted in law enforcement. A law-enforcement agency deals in facts, to which agents may have to swear in court. That is why “lack of candor” has always been a firing offense. An intelligence agency deals in estimates and best guesses. Guesses are not allowed in court. Intelligence agencies often bend a rule, or shade the truth, to please their political masters. In the FBI, as a result, there now is politicization, polarization, and no sense of the bright line that separates the legal from the extralegal.

    Part of making the FBI more like an intelligence agency was the centralization of case management at headquarters in Washington, rather than the field offices around the country. With this came the placing of operational decisions in the hands of more “politically sensitive” individuals at headquarters.

    The 9/11 investigations and related matters were the first to be moved from the field to headquarters. But the trend culminated with the investigations into Hillary Clinton’s emails and Russian election interference—both run from headquarters as well. Levels of review—and independent judgment—were eliminated. Thus, we learn that Peter Strzok —who held the relatively high rank of deputy assistant director of counterintelligence—was himself conducting interviews in both politically sensitive investigations.

    After 9/11 there was much talk of the negative consequences of a “wall” between criminal and intelligence investigations. There was always—it was part of our culture—a discussion about how to proceed at the outset of a counterintelligence or terrorism investigation. To seek a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, with its lower standard of probable cause, when one would ultimately pursue a prosecution was considered an abuse of FISA. It is still an abuse. To shade the truth in a FISA application—as occurred with the “ Steele Dossier”—is characteristic behavior of an intelligence agency, not a “swear to tell the truth” law-enforcement organization.

    FISA was never intended as a tool to pursue Americans. It was to be used to gather intelligence about agents of a foreign power operating in the U.S. The aim of this monitoring was to produce intelligence for our national decision makers. It was not intended to be used in criminal prosecutions. If an American is suspected of operating as an agent of a foreign power, that individual should be pursued under the Espionage Act, a criminal statute. The fruits of that monitoring could then be used in court for a prosecution. The use of FISA to target a U.S. citizen is the most egregious abuse uncovered so far.

    As former FBI Director William Webster repeatedly told us agents: “We must do the job the American people expect of us, in the way that the Constitution demands of us.” All actions and decisions must once again be viewed though that prism. The Justice Department inspector general and others are now looking at specific alleged abuses.

    Perhaps Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s firing is a start. Mr. McCabe’s statement, in response to his firing, that “the big picture is a tale of what can happen when law enforcement is politicized” is, ironically, true.

    What is needed is much more—a renewal of the FBI’s culture. When the smoke clears from the current controversies, Director Christopher Wray must help the bureau turn the page on this intelligence chapter and get the bureau back to the law-enforcement culture of fact-finding and truth-telling that once made us all so proud.

    Mr. Baker is a retired FBI special agent and legal attaché.

  57. OneWorldGovernment

    Love this

    Melania takes a stumble on WH lawn, but it’s Trump’s reaction that takes many by surprise

  58. John Constantine

    Stratford had an interesting write up on:

    Melting the cashbergs.

    Pointed out that America’s technology companies had been booking the profits from their intangible intellectual property overseas (under the obamination) and now under the Trumpnado hundreds of billions of tech capital can slosh back into America in time for the artificial intelligence and robot revolution.

    Notice how google and facebook aren’t actively working against the Trump policy to let them bring their money home?.

  59. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    Dwight Eisenhower congratulates Ngo Dinh Diem (who won 98.2 of the vote in 1955).

    Much good it did Diem – the Americans condoned the coup that removed Diem, which, in hindsight, they now acknowledge as one of the biggest mistakes they ever made.

  60. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    I just checked my email today and I see that Sinclair sent me your e-address the other day.

    I’m hoping Sinc has it reasonably automated. It must be pretty wearing being a constant go-between.
    One day maybe everyone will have a code they can key into to send off to others who want contact and leave Sinc out of the loop. Something like that, anyway, and obviously subject to revision. You have to feel you can trust someone to engage in email chit chat with them, extra to this site.

    However, meet ups with like-minded Cats and Kittehs at external events etc. can be good and you need emails to arrange those, with care taken to avoid letting possible stalkers know where you will be.

  61. John Constantine

    Stratfor, not spellchecked Stratford.

  62. Arky

    Let’s face it Montgomery.
    I’m the only hope you have of not sliding into a permanent state of Subaru driving, fat farming, floppy titted lesbianism.
    If you could have done it by yourself you would have by now.
    You do want to be a better man don’t you?
    No longer have to push that fat curtain up before coitus?
    No longer keep the missus awake with your fat-induced sleep apnea pig snoring nocturnal cacophony.
    Think clearer, work better, root longer and harder?
    Get yourself sorted before it becomes too late.

  63. OneWorldGovernment

    #2666658, posted on March 21, 2018 at 1:28 pm

    WSJ – What Went Wrong at the FBI

    After 9/11, the bureau lost its law-enforcement ethos as it tried to become more of an intelligence agency.


    You should know that you are in trouble when the WSJ starts writing against you.

  64. thefrolickingmole

    What this blog needs is an Andrea and her assegai to keep order.

  65. John Constantine

    The trouble with State parks is that they are unmanageable.

    Just locked up and dumped onto the shoulders of the community that has to deal with the fires and pest animals that spill out of them.

  66. struth

    Everyone on about the greens.
    They are an irrelevance afforded air time by a socialist media.

    If only Bernardi could get that much. (it’s partly his fault he doesn’t).
    They are not driving policy.
    How could they be?

    You could wipe the greens from the political map and all of the sabotage of our power, the killing of our industries,etc would still be happening.

    It is with our majors and their total capitulation to the U.N. on Climate.
    Can I ask why we are in a Global socialist organisation at all?
    Why are we agreeing to their socialist agenda aimed, and brazenly admitted , to bringing down the. west?

    The Greens are just over exposed nut jobs.
    Our real problem is the capitulation to the global Socialist U.N.

  67. testpattern

    Today is the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. #IDERD

    We look forward to the day when racists have been eliminated. Internationally.

    ‘School students from Holroyd High School, Pymble Ladies College and Sydney Boys High School have spoken powerfully about multiculturalism, belonging and racial discrimination…the UN had set 21 March as the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to commemorate the events of 21 March 1960, when police opened fire on a peaceful anti-apartheid demonstration in Sharpeville, South Africa, killing 69 people.’

  68. thefrolickingmole

    We look forward to the day when racists have been eliminated. Internationally.

    Little blackberry fetish man isnt into self awareness is he?

  69. OneWorldGovernment

    Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare
    #2666663, posted on March 21, 2018 at 1:30 pm

    I just checked my email today and I see that Sinclair sent me your e-address the other day.

    I’m hoping Sinc has it reasonably automated.


    I may disagree with Sinclair about different things and that is okay.

    But I went to RMIT before he was there. LOL.

    I trust Sinclair and would prefer he is the arbiter.

    Even if he comes from RSA.

  70. Arky

    Now is the time Monty.
    I have 25 kilos to drop.
    If you wait too long I’m not going to fuck about helping you.
    Hurry up.

  71. testpattern

    ‘World’s last male northern white rhino dies’

    Alas poor Cokebottle

  72. Leigh Lowe

    We look forward to the day when degenerates from stone-age cultures can’t be challenged and weeded out racists have been eliminated. Internationally.
    FIFY dickhead.
    PS … what colour are you and your tribe today?

  73. OneWorldGovernment

    #2666673, posted on March 21, 2018 at 1:36 pm

    Today is the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. #IDERD

    We look forward to the day when racists have been eliminated. Internationally.

    ‘School students from Holroyd High School, Pymble Ladies College and Sydney Boys High School have spoken powerfully about multiculturalism, belonging and racial discrimination…the UN had set 21 March as the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to commemorate the events of 21 March 1960, when police opened fire on a peaceful anti-apartheid demonstration in Sharpeville, South Africa, killing 69 people.’

    The minimum estimation of Muslim killings over 1400 depraved years is in the order of 100’s of millions.

    The so called ‘Crusade’ was to stop the far ken animals.

  74. struth

    Dear STRUTH,

    Post-election analysis is always sober reading for political parties. History is written by the victors, flattering the outcomes of those who win and diminishing the significance of those who lose. Yet the objective analysis should reveal that this election was not a triumph for major parties. Quite the contrary.

    Let me use the most recent South Australian election by way of example.

    In losing government, Labor suffered their second-lowest primary vote in decades (33.8%) and the Liberals recorded their second-lowest ever (37.5%) to win a bare majority of seats.

    In the upper house, where only two-thirds of votes have been counted, the result for the majors is even worse. Labor received 29.7% whilst the Liberals topped the poll with 31.5% – a far cry from the 51.8% they won in 1993.

    The other parties secured a record 34%.

    This is pretty close to the wash up from the last Federal election.

    The Xenophon show did slightly worse than expected but is being panned for not winning lower house seats. His mob didn’t perform as expected but managing media-hyped expectations is different to dismissing a substantive and surging no confidence vote.

    The Australian Conservatives have been denigrated by self-interested cheerleaders who choose the superficial over the substantive in the quest for a headline.

    Whilst our 3.5% upper house vote is less than we wanted, it’s not a bad beginning for a rapidly growing grassroots movement in the startup phase. On those numbers it looks hard for us to retain an upper house seat but it was okay for a brand new political brand in a brutal five-way contest.

    Naturally the critics compare our first electoral outing to a previous party, Family First. Even then, the reporting misses some important facts because it gets in the way of some pundits’ wishful thinking.

    Politics has changed substantially in the past four years since the 2014 election, particularly in South Australia. Perhaps the best comparison to draw from this state election are the results from the last three federal elections because they include the major political disrupter of Nick Xenophon.

    In that time, the major parties’ federal upper house vote has declined from around 38% to as low as 27%. The Greens have gone from 13% to 6%. Family First went from 4% to 2.6%.

    With Xenophon’s return crack at state politics, those figures were pretty much repeated in the state upper house. The majors hovering around the 30% mark, Xenophon around 20%, Greens 6% and the Australian Conservatives actually improving upon Family First’s performance with 3.5%.

    With well over a third of upper house votes cast outside of Liberal and Labor, it’s hardly a sign that ‘minors’ are on the decline. In fact, quite the opposite.

    Now I know this is an imperfect analysis but it is being repeated all over the country. Minor and new parties are becoming major disrupters of the two party duopoly and are now established landmarks in Australia’s political landscape.

    The triumphal claims of commentators and major party advocates are a beat-up. In reality, they are on the cusp of losing a host of seats at future elections as the public’s appetite for new parties continues to grow.

    The reason is pretty simple. The major parties are failing the people. Their policies and practices are diminishing, rather than strengthening, our nation.

    Right now, discontented voters are casting their ballots in myriad different directions but eventually they will come together. I am betting that convergence will be outside of the Red and Blue teams and that will shake-up the political establishment like never before.

    Until next week,

    Cory Bernardi

    P.S – In this week’s Weekly Dose of Common Sense podcast, I offer further thoughts on the 2018 South Australian election and interview one of our candidates, reflect on Kevin Bailey’s Batman by-election battle in Victoria – and the ABC’s disgraceful ‘Tonightly’ slur on him, and respond to your questions about the plight of South African farmers. Tune in here or subscribe on iTunes.

    Share this comment online:

    Things that make you go hmm…

    Inner Melbourne’s elderly are told to give Batman a miss, Victorian fun police target Puffing Billy as News Ltd reviews the Vics’ fine on leaving your car unlocked and other nanny-state measures. Snake care becomes a crime in Queensland, a Brisbane Green councillor threatens landlords and a Queensland mum loses her cool. A cross-dressing Python cools on #MeToo as the Weinstein affair bars this Aussie feminist passion play.

    Chinese conservatives growl at this panther, Hawking for wealth redistribution and World Bankers join the global warming chorus. Putin closes in on Stalin’s record, United Airlines goes to the dogs, railing on doesn’t Czech out and freedoms of speech, religion and quiet clash in Rwanda. A swamped African minister shifts blame to ‘colonialism’, California makes a sneaky tax move, a Scots Greens MP fights to save ‘animal sentience’ and this rapper moonlights as a UN water expert.

  75. Rae

    What this blog needs is an Andrea and her assegai to keep order.

    Instead of the frolickinghole and his oily pole? What will the nasty Twitter roach do without you?

  76. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    ‘School students from Holroyd High School, Pymble Ladies College and Sydney Boys High School

    None of whom has ever been affected by reverse racism in their lives.

  77. struth

    We look forward to the day when racists have been eliminated. Internationally.

    Then grab a rope and head to the shed.

  78. C.L.

    I followed Abbott’s Twitter link (above) and found this:

    Tony [email protected]

    Wonderful to be at the opening of Goong Leak’s new restaurant at the Hardy Bay RSL. Great crowd of locals and blow-ins from Sydney all here to pay tribute to Goong and her late partner Bill.

    Nice pic. Good luck, Goong!

  79. testpattern

    ‘what colour are you and your tribe today’

    Hey Aqualung. Looks like you’re gonna be eliminated. Internationally. You’re a sitting target on your park bench.

  80. Stimpson J. Cat

    But I went to RMIT before he was there. LOL.

    Did you have to buy textbooks off teachers back then, or is only a recent innovation?

  81. OneWorldGovernment


    do you play “A Little Rae of Sunshine”?

  82. testpattern

    ‘The trouble with State parks is that they are unmanageable’

    Agreed. I was surprised to read such a submission from the NFF, which would seem to be based on knee jerk hostility to Firsts rather than their own interests.

  83. struth

    School students from Holroyd High School, Pymble Ladies College and Sydney Boys High School have spoken powerfully about multiculturalism, belonging and racial discrimination

    Really, you come here and quote Australian school children?

    I know you have zero self awareness but FFS.

    This fuckwit is a virtue signalling racist, a chronic liar.
    I’m actually becoming embarrassed for him.
    Watching this melt down is sort of uncomfortable…………………………………………………………..NOT!!!

  84. struth

    A great song.
    One of my favourites that I do play, (up until recently) was Cool Change

    I love Glen Shorrock’s work

  85. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    We look forward to the day when racists have been eliminated. Internationally.

    what a future, a planet of nothing but rocks and trees.

  86. OneWorldGovernment

    Stimpson J. Cat
    #2666695, posted on March 21, 2018 at 1:54 pm

    But I went to RMIT before he was there. LOL.

    Did you have to buy textbooks off teachers back then, or is only a recent innovation?


    There used to be a pub directly across the road and that is where folk used to exchange ideas.

    Funniest thing but back then, I applied and was voted onto the RMIT Student Representative Council.

    But I was like that ‘Stooges” bloke that said anyone that would allow me in is not worth dealing with.

    But I used to play billiards at the RACV Club.

  87. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    Melania takes a stumble on WH lawn, but it’s Trump’s reaction that takes many by surprise

    Nothing upsets leftist females like rae than a hot women with a powerful male. The politics of envy and jealous writ large.

  88. dopey

    Notice how it’s always “tackle” racism, as if it’s some raging beast.

  89. struth

    Leftism is envy, entitlement, laziness, hypocrisy and racism, all through a collectivist mindset.
    It’s politics cannot be followed without the ability to not self assess.
    It’s one of these or a combination that you are dealing with.

    The fear of competition is born from laziness , not wanting to self assess, and a sense of entitlement.

    The fear of free speech is born from laziness of the mind, entitlement and collectivism that brings on their totalitarian response.

    Their hatred of the rich is born of pure envy, laziness of the mind (where does wealth come from), hypocrisy, (they are much richer than many in poor countries).

    Etc Etc.

    This is just a theory I’m developing.
    But the racism is something to behold.
    I remember mentioning my long lost cousin’s leftism here, a while ago now.
    She was an uptight PS.
    She came into my house, with her mixed up kids and started with her left wing shit.
    She refused alcohol as she had some hang up with it.
    I talked her into only one.
    Bloody hell, the racism once she’d loosened up was astounding.
    I don’t think she’d take a holiday in Asia that’s for sure.

    Of all their faults and zero integrity, the most frightening is the racism.
    It can only be born of a collectivist mind, we believe in the individual.
    That’s why they are always on about it, the sick fuckers.
    They are dangerous pieces of shit.

  90. Zyconoclast

    New museum is flush with samples of water that has meaning in our lives

    British artist Amy Sharrocks asked and the people of Western Australia delivered.
    It was a strange request; bottle your tears, runoff from sprinklers, or any other water that has meaning in your life.
    Now the vast and unusual collection has gone on display.
    “We have 319 bottles so far of water, any water, in any bottle, that people have given us over the past year,” Sharrocks said.

  91. johanna

    Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare
    #2666493, posted on March 21, 2018 at 10:57 am

    We’ll draw a veil over the lies you told about Hubby 1.

    Tinta now has all the details she needs to clarify that no lies were told there. You have been previously asked to comply with blog rules about not trying to access personal data concerning other commenters should they rather unwarily leave themselves open to stalkers on some small point mentioned. Even more is that the case when the information sought concerns the privacy of a third person who does not come here. Fortunately you got nowhere.

    Ms diamond encrusted Perky Tits just can’t help herself.

    A while back, she flounced off, saying that she would never darken the door of this site again. I wish. But, her need for attention came to the fore, predictably, so she was back in no time.

    Again and again she has declared that she will not respond to my comments, but again and again, she can’t help herself, and keeps responding.

    Her poor husband. Imagine living with someone who throws down meaningless, emotional ultimatums all the time. I suppose that the rational response would be to seek peace and quiet elsewhere. 🙂

  92. The pay disparity between the Muckleford Thirds and the women’s league is duly noted.
    in breaking awfl news

  93. Geriatric Mayfly

    ‘Food shortages if farmers leave’
    Nationals MP warns resettling South African farmers in Australia could result in food shortages in their home country.
    The Oz

    Don’t know who this plonker is. I imagine that if SA farmers remain, once they are murdered and buried they will at least make good fertilizer and crops will flourish.

1 5 6 7

Comments are closed.