Wash your mouth out with soap Andrew Bolt

In his editorial at the front end of his Bolt Report show on Sky last night, Andrew Bolt said the following in the context of a verbal critique from Celeste Barber (whoever the hell she is) about the recent bush fires:

At least the Prime Minister’s money is getting to victims.  Barber’s is not.

NO no no no no no no no no no no no no.

It is not the Prime Minister’s money that the Prime Minister is splashing about.  It is taxpayer money.  Perhaps some micro fraction of the fund comes from the income tax the Prime Minister pays, but the billions being shower are certainly not the Prime Minister’s.

Wash your mouth out Andrew.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to Wash your mouth out with soap Andrew Bolt

  1. Archivist

    That’s a bit harsh. You know what he means.

    He doesn’t mean, nor does he believe, that the Prime Minister is personally forking out the cash from his own pockets.

    It’s just a shorthand way of saying ‘the money that the Prime Minister allocated’.

  2. And the reality is that most of the donated money is just spinning around somewhere collect dust, or is that interest? The NSW RFS is not allocating the donated money to those in most need, because their rules state that the money must go to purchasing equipment. I doubt that people donated so that the RFS could buy new gear some years down the track.

  3. @Archivist

    That’s a bit harsh. You know what he means.

    TAFKAS know’s what he means. Archivist knows what he means. Not every viewer of his show knows what he means. There are One Nation and Jacqui Lambie Network voters and viewers out there.

    To call out these thing is very important. It is more than just sloppy language. Much like assertions that the Prime Minister runs the the country when more accurately and at best he runs the Government only (except when the bureacuracy runs the government).

  4. billie

    wow, short fuse much?

    said to my partner at the time about the entertainer, that I’ll bet this ends up a nightmare for someone as too much was going into the marketing of the events (look at me!) and nothing at all into the details.

    I’m not happy to be right

  5. Archivist

    Much like assertions that the Prime Minister runs the the country when more accurately and at best he runs the Government only (except when the bureacuracy runs the government).

    Fair enough. I agree with that.

    Leading on from that, worse than the notion that politicians hand out ‘their’ money is the pernicious idea that the government “runs the economy”. No it doesn’t.

    “The economy” is a thing that would exist, one way or another, if there was no government at all.

    I’ve met public servants who tell me they are involved in “energy” or “communications” or “transport.” They are not. Invariably, the job description of those public servants is to either monitor or regulate the industries they think they are “in”.

  6. shatterzzz

    Bolt’s pendulum is swaying more left these days and would have known exactly what he was saying .. his maaate, Scotty from Marketing isn’t scoring too high on the pub test circuit so he tried to throw in a bit of support!

  7. kae

    Barber didn’t check who would be getting the money when she chose the NSW RFS as the recipient.

    The money is tied up as it is supposed, by the charter of the organisation, to go to buying equipment for NSW rural fire brigades, not to those who have suffered loss in the bushfires.

    The NSW RFS is governed by a trust and they have rules and regulations as to where their taxpayer and donations are spent, they must account for all spending.

    Those bleating about the money being held up need to understand that it is Barber’s fault that this has happened as she must not have checked where the donations were going, and is clueless about Trusts and organisations (and didn’t check it out). It wouldn’t be an issue if the money was a small amount, but many donated thinking it would go to those who suffered loss, not the brigades. Unfortunately, the rules can’t be changed after the fact. This is why there is a legal issue, the money won’t be released to NSW RFS until, I think, the distribution of the money is sorted out.

    And good luck with that!

  8. kae

    ^^^ The NSW RFS is governed by a trust and they have rules and regulations as to where their taxpayer monies and private donations are spent, they must account for all spending.

  9. Wil

    The NSW government must be rubbing their hands together at this. The more she gives, the less allocation the RFS will get in the next budget.
    Btw, is their a cutoff for those who are insured and will receive both insurance payout and gifted dollars from all the money raising funds?
    Or is there a government body who will determine who gets what.
    I think it will probably be a waste of time and money to insure property if relief goes to those who were not astute enough to pay insurance. You will get paid anyway.

  10. Buccaneer

    Sadly, I’d take Scotty from Marketing over Anthony from Hand job Heaven.

    And Barber got so many donations because it was going to the RFS, she’s responsible for leading people down the wrong path if she thought and led people to believe it would go to victims.

    Stopped reading Bolt years ago.

  11. Those bleating about the money being held up need to understand that it is Barber’s fault…

    A person tries to do some good and is stymied by bureaucracy. The RFS could simply release the money to another organisation that can distribute it without red tape. The money was donated in good faith, it is ostensibly being withheld in bad faith.

  12. Archivist:

    Leading on from that, worse than the notion that politicians hand out ‘their’ money is the pernicious idea that the government “runs the economy”. No it doesn’t.
    “The economy” is a thing that would exist, one way or another, if there was no government at all.

    Far too many of our politicians and bureaucrats think the ‘economy’ is just a spreadsheet which requires a deft hand on the controls to give optimum performance.
    Their ignorance lies in the fact they vastly overestimate their intelligence at predicting the outcomes they try to produce.
    None of them have IQ to understand their efforts to force the levers of input and output to deliver what they want are making the problems worse.
    To let go of the controls and allow the economy to stabilise is too much for the massive egos inhabiting our corridors of power. They must keep interfering or they lose their cushy sinecures.

  13. Rokdoktor

    I completely agree with TAFKAS’s assertion that the funds should be identified as “taxpayer’s money”. In fact, if it were possible, all announcements/advertising/billboards that refer to government spending (State or Federal) should be worded to include the phrase “taxpayer’s money”. How many of us have seen a roadside billboard stating “This section of Highway X upgraded by the Federal Government” (or words to that effect) and ground their teeth, knowing the phase should be “This section of Highway X upgraded by the AUSTRALIAN TAXPAYER”. The population should never be allowed to forget the real origin of the funds that makes our society function.

  14. Lee

    Those bleating about the money being held up need to understand that it is Barber’s fault…

    A person tries to do some good and is stymied by bureaucracy.

    Yes, she tried to do good but don’t forget it was other people’s money.

    In any event she should have checked up on any rules and protocols re donations to the RFS before she started.

    I lost any sympathy for after her disgraceful, partisan carrying-on the other day, at what was supposed to be a charitable event. And not all those who were there or donated were just Labor or Greens voters.

  15. Terry

    How very unlike Leftards to preside over a cluster-fuck borne of (sometimes) good intentions.

  16. Yes, she tried to do good but don’t forget it was other people’s money.

    In any event she should have checked up on any rules and protocols re donations to the RFS before she started.

    Of course it’s ‘other people’s money’, that’s the whole point. Other people’s money is not being used for what they intended. And why should she have checked? How many people in an attempt to aid others first think, ‘I wonder what bureaucratic processes are involved and how many specific document I should read and personnel I should contact before commencing my efforts?’. She is not a public servant who lives by rules and regulations.

    Why didn’t the RFS alert her to how it operated so that she could change where the money was going? Why can’t the RFS transfer the money elsewhere? She did something out of good faith and now ostensibly she and all those who donated in good faith are being punished and made to feel bad. This is not how charity should work.

  17. jupes

    There are One Nation and Jacqui Lambie Network voters and viewers out there.

    So you are saying that all One Nation voters are morons? Only morons vote for Malcolm Roberts or Mark Latham? FMD name two better, more informed or gutsy politicians than those two. Who the fuck do you think you are, you pretentious git.

    That being said I don’t understand why anyone would vote for Jackie Jaquie, (except to protest against the stupid uniparty candidates on offer).

  18. Northshore Redneck

    A person tries to do some good and is stymied by bureaucracy. The RFS could simply release the money to another organisation that can distribute it without red tape. The money was donated in good faith, it is ostensibly being withheld in bad faith.

    Well said bemused

  19. Shaun

    Taxpayer’s money should never be mentioned as “the government gave” “buses will be free on NYE” “the Prime Minister gave” “the government funded” “free education” “free medical” and all the other uses you can think of which dilute the meaning. A big problem is a lot of politicians and others actually believe the money is theirs, they made it and if it wasn’t for government it wouldn’t exist. The best quote I heard was “the government will match dollar for dollar all donations from the taxpayer”

  20. Shaun

    The RFS is a govenrment organisation, so it doesn’t have any money. All money the RFS has is taxpayers money. It is allocated form the budget of governments who have sourced it from taxpayers. If the RFS is given a lot of money in donations, the government will just simply roll back their allocation from the budget so they can use more of taxpayers money on something else. Imagine the government now giving money back to the taxpayer because it’s budget was hit and didn’t require the excess funds.

  21. Squirrel

    I assume AB’s economically-worded comment was, as much as anything, push back against a high-profile member of the “let’s kick ScoMo” band-wagon – an individual whose followers probably include a lot of mummys (yummy and oherwise) who are “passionate about climate change” so long as nothing gets in the way of their inviolable right to drive themselves and their spawn around in honking-great fossil-fuel powered SUVs.

  22. Rayvic

    It is understood that the money raised by Celeste Barber will not be going to RFS member welfare as she wished , but to a trust fund for RFS equipping (?). Hopefully the RFS will use this to update some of its equipment — that the NSW government promised but conveniently neglected to do, apparently giving preference to tearing down sports stadiums and rebuilding them to more prominent flashy standards, and to completely unnecessary movement of the Powerhouse Museum to Parramatta.

  23. Robber Baron

    Bolt. Surely Australia can find another fake conservative that has the disciple to ask questions, and not talk over the guest.

  24. Nob

    There’s an awful lot of money sloshing around in charities and little information about where it’s going.

    Years ago, I played some charity gigs for a certain children’s unit at a certain hospital.

    I was talking to a surgeon from that hospital and he said “oh god not the kids unit again”
    I asked him to Please Explain.

    He said it’s vastly overfunded, they don’t actually have that many patients, there are more needy but less sexy areas (e.g. geriatrics) and the allocation of cash is overseen by well-meaning but incredibly naive people.

    they end up giving surpluses to some great sounding Third world charity and it ends up in the pockets of “some African dictator”. (His words)

  25. Nob

    Now in my previous example, this might be described in the books, if any donors ever look at them (they don’t) as “Humanitarian Aid” or “Save the Children” etc. All sounds great and you’d feel mean, and be accused of meanness, to even ask questions.

    And I suspect many involved worry that donations will dry up if donors know too much.

    When it came to bushfire relief, I gave money to a local group in my cousin’s town which was badly hit.

    They organised through Facebook.

    I knew mostly who the people involved were.

    They provided updated balance sheets of how much was taken in and who were the recipients.

    And, most importantly, they called a halt once they reached a certain point and closed the account to further donations.

    People are actually very generous, especially in response to big televised tragedies.

    This must be a big temptation – all that free money that can be written off under vaguely nice sounding causes.

    There are economies of scale of course and my micro charity principles probably don’t fit the big relief efforts.

    But I still stick with the surgeon’s advice:
    Give local
    Where you know the people involved
    And you know what the money’s being spent on.

  26. Nob:

    Years ago, I played some charity gigs for a certain children’s unit at a certain hospital.

    I was talking to a surgeon from that hospital and he said “oh god not the kids unit again”
    I asked him to Please Explain.

    I worked in a certain hospital in WA. $3 million to rebuild the childrens unit. Three years later, Admin took over the unit for administrative purposes. When I spoke to the charity, they said they didn’t care.

  27. When I spoke to the charity, they said they didn’t care.

    The charity didn’t care because they got their ‘administrative’ money, which why they exist in the first place. Non-profit my arse.

  28. Dianeh

    I didn’t put any money in Barber’s go fund me, even after a number of my friends were begging on Facebook.

    Two reasons,

    1. Who the fuck is Celeste Barber? “Look at me. Look at me” sprung to mind.
    2. Why is that much money going to the RFS when it should be going to victim relief? That was when it was at around 8 million. Apparently everyone read it thinking the RfS is something to do with victim relief and not fighting bush fires. Idiots.

  29. Mique

    Andrew Bolt finally lost me the other night when he attacked Pauline Hanson over her recent speech calling for Aborigines to start taking responsibility. It was an excellent speech, not racist in any way, and something that has needed saying for years. I’ve stopped listening to him.

  30. Andrew Bolt finally lost me the other night …

    He lost me several years ago when I could no longer stand his slow move to the Left. I expect Their ABC to soon announce a new host, Andrew Bolt.

  31. Gwendolyn

    Lee:

    I lost any sympathy for after her disgraceful, partisan carrying-on the other day, at what was supposed to be a charitable event. And not all those who were there or donated were just Labor or Greens voters.

    This might be an unpopular view but I like Celeste Barber. She makes fun of pretentious Instagram “stars”. What’s not to like about that?

    And if she ran a partisan charitable event, I think she did so to appeal to her audience and get them to open their wallets. All donations are good whether they come from people who love Mr Morrison or from people who hate him.

    And if you still think it was run in a partisan way, who’s organising the centre-right fundraising concert?

  32. Lee

    And if she ran a partisan charitable event, I think she did so to appeal to her audience and get them to open their wallets.

    Strange way to appeal to at least half the audience, mock, belittle and insult the PM they voted for, and by extension those in the audience who did so.

    Her performance was disgraceful and inexcusable.

    All donations are good whether they come from people who love Mr Morrison or from people who hate him.

    I agree, but it doesn’t excuse crass, partisan political behaviour by performers or people putting on the charity. I would not donate to a charity where that behaviour went on, but another one instead.

    Charities should keep their noses out of politics.

  33. Lee

    And if you still think it was run in a partisan way, who’s organising the centre-right fundraising concert?

    I don’t know of any.

    If there were/are any, would you approve of them using the occasion to blame the Greens for the bushfires, or say Albanese?

  34. Gwendolyn

    Lee:

    I don’t know of any.

    Then we have a problem.

    The left are showing us up.

    Why can’t we do a fundraising concert like that?

    If there were/are any, would you approve of them using the occasion to blame the Greens for the bushfires, or say Albanese?

    Yes, I would.

    Don’t get me wrong. She’s a comedian who uses her style of humour to raise money, and she raised a lot of it! Complaining about a few jokes at the expense of Mr Morrison makes us sound a tad precious.

  35. Val Majkus

    But I still stick with the surgeon’s advice:
    Give local
    Where you know the people involved
    And you know what the money’s being spent on.

    totally agree

  36. Tim Neilson

    Then we have a problem.

    The left are showing us up.

    Why can’t we do a fundraising concert like that?

    Because we don’t have to. We’ll donate to a charity. We don’t have to get a “free” concert in return.

Comments are closed.