# The Bolt Report



## OzWaveGuy (7 April 2011)

*The Bolt Report*

Ten has confirmed it will launch a new Sunday morning program, The Bolt Report, hosted by Herald Sun journalist Andrew Bolt on 8 May.​
I see this as a positive move for Bolt, someone needs to be asking the tough questions esp on the frivolous Climate debate - will he have a good lineup of guests that want to the take on the tough questions?


----------



## Purple XS2 (7 April 2011)

OzWaveGuy said:


> Ten has confirmed it will launch a new Sunday morning program, The Bolt Report, hosted by Herald Sun journalist Andrew Bolt on 8 May.




Tried and true formula from the USA: get the loudest and most populist ratbag money can buy, and schedule a regular TV show. It'll probably go very well. I wonder if the show will go in for the mutual shouting sessions so popular on the US airwaves?

I don't doubt Bolt will ask the hard questions, but nothing so hard as his hearing.


----------



## ColB (7 April 2011)

OzWaveGuy said:


> *The Bolt Report*
> 
> Ten has confirmed it will launch a new *Sunday morning program*, The Bolt Report, hosted by Herald Sun journalist Andrew Bolt on 8 May.​
> I see this as a positive move for Bolt, someone needs to be asking the tough questions esp on the frivolous Climate debate - will he have a good lineup of guests that want to the take on the tough questions?




Not a good timeslot as it will conflict with my lycra clad cycle into Carlton for a latte. 

I'll record the program as I like the no-nonsense style of Andrew Bolt and at least it will be fairdinkum journalism *not the crap posing as current affairs dished up to us at 6.30pm weekdays*


----------



## Julia (7 April 2011)

Should be interesting.  If he is to have credibility he will have to include guests with views which oppose his own.  If he's not up for that, he will be laying himself very open to criticism.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (7 April 2011)

He's quite watchable, and speaks well, but extremely fixed and rigid in his thinking.  I think he's part aborigine also.


----------



## sails (7 April 2011)

Julia said:


> Should be interesting.  If he is to have credibility he will have to include guests with views which oppose his own.  If he's not up for that, he will be laying himself very open to criticism.




I would think that he would revel in having guests with views that oppose his own.  But whether guests with opposing views would want to take him on is another thing...

It has the possibilities of being an interesting and entertaining half hour.


----------



## IFocus (8 April 2011)

Purple XS2 said:


> Tried and true formula from the USA: get the loudest and most populist ratbag money can buy, and schedule a regular TV show. It'll probably go very well. I wonder if the show will go in for the mutual shouting sessions so popular on the US airwaves?
> 
> I don't doubt Bolt will ask the hard questions, but nothing so hard as his hearing.




Absolute ratings winner for Ten really shows how bad their ratings have been traveling lately expect it to follow the US Tabloid format possibly shock jock. 
Great platform for him to have his political rants and to talk over the guess who don't agree with his agenda.

His behavior on insiders is generally rude with little political intellectual insight to the political landscape I am forever disappointed when there is so much material for a right winger such as himself to work with.

I wasn't surprised at the news coming from the current case before the courts how badly and completely wrong his research was into the parents of the aborigines he was bagging. 

Still hope he proves me wrong.


----------



## white_goodman (8 April 2011)

IFocus said:


> Great platform for him to have his political rants and to talk over the guess who don't agree with his agenda.




so youve condemned him to Bill Oreilly status before its even started..

it makes me wonder who the nutter really is...


----------



## Calliope (8 April 2011)

IFocus said:


> Still hope he proves me wrong.




That shouldn't be difficult. You usually are.


----------



## white_goodman (8 April 2011)

Calliope said:


> That shouldn't be difficult. You usually are.




omg you dont get it, people on the left are correct by default cos they have a moral emotional crusade and are better human beings..

you right wing nut job


----------



## derty (8 April 2011)

white_goodman said:


> so youve condemned him to Bill Oreilly status before its even started..



Well that is better than Glenn Beck status. 

Lets see where he ends up.


----------



## IFocus (9 May 2011)

Interesting thought you would be all falling over yourselves with gushing praise for Bolts 1st program bring balance to the political debate.

What a flop had Latham on with Kroger, insightful analysis of the political landscape?  


Yep he is a tosser.

"The Bolt Report: all Bolt, no report"



> Not having seen every attempt at television current affairs in Australia, it is impossible to judge The Bolt Report  the worst. But surely it comes close.






> Bolt's skill is to write the outrageous and craft an agenda, often based on "facts" which are little more than fantasy.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/blogs...t-no-report-20110508-1ee9g.html#ixzz1LrFJGJKP


http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/blogs...report-all-bolt-no-report-20110508-1ee9g.html


----------



## medicowallet (9 May 2011)

He seemed extremely nervous, his Sympathetic NS was in overdrive, dry mouth etc.


I think his show will improve a lot over the next few weeks.

I just can't see him attracting labor politicians if he treats them poorly, so perhaps he needs to tone down in the interviews and be tough with the monologues.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (10 May 2011)

medicowallet said:


> He seemed extremely nervous, his Sympathetic NS was in overdrive, dry mouth etc.
> 
> 
> I think his show will improve a lot over the next few weeks.
> ...




Have to agree here. I almost thought reading from the autocue disrupted his natural rhythm - as you say, in a few weeks he should improve and adjust.

I think some labor politicians will go on his show, at least to defend themselves perhaps after the next several weeks. If they can convince Bolt with sensible logic on policies (and that goes for any politician not just labor ones) then they may achieve  some good mileage.

We all know AGW warming is a dud and anyone spouting climate policy (esp Labor) to address the CO2 "pollution" (besides planting trees and cleaning up other real problem areas) is going to get toasted because of the dependency on budget (eg tax) to solve a non-problem.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (10 May 2011)

IFocus said:


> Interesting thought you would be all falling over yourselves with gushing praise for Bolts 1st program bring balance to the political debate.
> 
> What a flop had Latham on with Kroger, insightful analysis of the political landscape?
> 
> ...




Let's get Tim Flannery on instead, a wonderful man with insight and logic


----------



## noco (10 May 2011)

OzWaveGuy said:


> Let's get Tim Flannery on instead, a wonderful man with insight and logic




I doubt we will see Flannery, Gillard, Swan, Combet or Ross Gaurnet on his programe. They would be too scared to tell their lies to Bolt. He would have their guts for garters.

As for Insiders I would sooner listen to Bolt than that idiot Socialist left wing extremist David Maher. That man is an ignorant monomaniac.


----------



## drsmith (10 May 2011)

After attracting Mark Latham to the show, can he get that other party faithful, Kevin Rudd ?


----------



## Logique (10 May 2011)

Only came on at 4:30pm here as a repeat. Populist? Unlike global warming I suppose. All the little  kiddies learning it from the Little Green Book in the schools. Challenge the orthodoxy?  How's the next class down looking.



> From *Noco*: As for Insiders I would sooner listen to Bolt than that idiot Socialist left wing extremist David Maher. That man is an ignorant monomaniac.



Quite. Bolt's no good, but this Bubble Boy is? The wider world is a mystery to the hapless Maher.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 May 2011)

The last time I watched Ch 10 they had ads for Winnieblues.

Is it possible to get a podcast?

gg


----------



## drsmith (15 May 2011)

This is really only light entertainment basking in the ALP government's current woes.


----------



## drsmith (15 May 2011)

The show that followed (Meet the Press) offer somewhat more substance with some interesting interviews. Warren Truss spoke well, but the interview with Tony Windsor was the highlight. Three points from his interview were,

1) A reference to life and death (health) with regard to the government losing it's slim majority.

2) Leans against the government means testing the private health insurance rebate on the basis that it might impact on the balance between public and private health in regional areas. Door not totally shut here, but has voted against it twice when intrduced by the Rudd government.

3) Considers a carbon tax to be the most effective means to manage carbon (dioxide) emissions. Rest of the world context important in his decision here.


----------



## Julia (15 May 2011)

drsmith said:


> 3) Considers a carbon tax to be the most effective means to manage carbon (dioxide) emissions. Rest of the world context important in his decision here.



There's a piece in today's "Sunday Mail" on Rob Oakeshott as follows:


> Independent Rob Oakeshott has revealed he still believes 'a carbon tax places too great a cost' on families and an emissions trading scheme is a better option.
> 
> Mr Oakeshott, the man who helped deliver Julia Gillard the keys to the Lodge, will be pivotal to Labor securing parliamentary support for a carbon tax.
> 
> But Mr Oakeshott said his position had not changed and he would prefer an ETS.  That could spell trouble for Ms Gillard as she attempts to secure support for a carbon tax.




So it may yet not  happen.


----------



## explod (15 May 2011)

Julia said:


> There's a piece in today's "Sunday Mail" on Rob Oakeshott as follows:
> 
> 
> So it may yet not  happen.




Notice Oakshot used the word "prefer"; as quoted of course.

Without Gillard's minority Guvmint he would cease to exist as any force so she has them over *her barrell *so to speak.

If you think this Gov't led by Gillard is going to fall I think you are all dreaming.  Yes it may be a w..k but unfortunately the alternative under the Pope's right hand lad would be a shemozzle. 

IMHO


----------



## noco (15 May 2011)

explod said:


> Notice Oakshot used the word "prefer"; as quoted of course.
> 
> Without Gillard's minority Guvmint he would cease to exist as any force so she has them over *her barrell *so to speak.
> 
> ...




explod, "PLEASE EXPLAIN"!!!!!!!! why you believe the 'alternative' under the Pope's right hand lad would be a 'shemmozzle'. Are you refering to one of his Cardinals?
What a load od codswaddle.
Glllard will be very fortuante to still  be the lodge at Xmas. Suggest she accept Tim's proposal and marry him at the lodge ASAP as she has no answer for Abbott. He has her well and truly bluffed.


----------



## Glen48 (15 May 2011)

Sounds like it should go on for a few yrs  or until the next election????


----------



## IFocus (15 May 2011)

drsmith said:


> This is really only light entertainment basking in the ALP government's current woes.





Watched the Insiders I like to gain an insight (which I got) not a political rant (which I don't need).


----------



## Calliope (15 May 2011)

IFocus said:


> Watched the Insiders I like to gain an insight (which I got) not a political rant (which I don't need).




So did I. It was a one-sided political rant. Which I don't need. However I got an insight into the left wing bias of the Fairfax press, and also into how Abbott has Gillard rattled.


----------



## Macquack (15 May 2011)

noco said:


> Abbott. He has her well and truly bluffed.






Calliope said:


> Abbott has Gillard rattled.




The two leading Liberal party cheerleaders on ASF are trying to beat up Abbott's talent.

Gillard has Abbott "well and truly" covered, it is the Australian people that she should be concerned about "rattling".

Back to Bolt, it is his superior smirk that gets my ire. He doesn't actually have to say anything for me to just want to punch him in the head.


----------



## noco (15 May 2011)

Macquack said:


> The two leading Liberal party cheerleaders on ASF are trying to beat up Abbott's talent.
> 
> Gillard has Abbott "well and truly" covered, it is the Australian people that she should be concerned about "rattling".
> 
> Back to Bolt, it is his superior smirk that gets my ire. He doesn't actually have to say anything for me to just want to punch him in the head.




Macquack, it's a shame you can't face the facts old boy. For you to consider violance towards Bolt, he must really be getting under your skin with the truth. Suggest you take a cold shower, a Panadol and lay down.
Bolt is like a breath of fresh air after having listened to the ABC and most of the media for months with their biased attitude against the Coalation.


----------



## LifeChoices (15 May 2011)

noco said:


> Macquack, it's a shame you can't face the facts old boy. For you to consider violance towards Bolt, he must really be getting under your skin with the truth. Suggest you take a cold shower, a Panadol and lay down.
> Bolt is like a breath of fresh air after having listened to the ABC and most of the media for months with their biased attitude against the Coalation.




I think Bolt is an OK entertainer, couldn't listen or read his crap all day though - If you dig a bit deeper most of his ideas are, how should I put this..... half baked.


----------



## sails (15 May 2011)

Macquack said:


> The two leading Liberal party cheerleaders on ASF are trying to beat up Abbott's talent.
> 
> Gillard has Abbott "well and truly" covered, it is the Australian people that she should be concerned about "rattling".
> 
> Back to Bolt, it is his superior smirk that gets my ire. He doesn't actually have to say anything for me to just want to punch him in the head.




Never mind, Macquack.  We have to put up with the droning voice much more than you have to put up with Bolt's smirk.  And you don't have to tune in.  The droning voice comes on whilst watching the news, although the remote gets a good work out these days as punches are not allowed...

At least Bolt is voicing the concerns of the growing number of Aussies who feel conned and ripped off by Gillard and Swan.  And from Abbott's speech, it is clear he is also listening to voter sentiment.


----------



## Calliope (15 May 2011)

Macquack said:


> Back to Bolt, it is his superior smirk that gets my ire. He doesn't actually have to say anything for me to just want to punch him in the head.




Whatever he has, it must be working. He has you rattled. Why is it that whale lovers usually resort to violence?


----------



## OzWaveGuy (15 May 2011)

I think he can sometimes be quite rude in his interviews and this can turn people off, but I have to admit - he regularly asks the tough questions when the MSM lap dogs just repeat whatever they are told. More tough questions pls and dig into the answers - way too much fluffy spin from politicians and AGW alarmists in general.


----------



## explod (15 May 2011)

noco said:


> explod, "PLEASE EXPLAIN"!!!!!!!! why you believe the 'alternative' under the Pope's right hand lad would be a 'shemmozzle'. Are you refering to one of his Cardinals?
> What a load od codswaddle.
> Glllard will be very fortuante to still  be the lodge at Xmas. Suggest she accept Tim's proposal and marry him at the lodge ASAP as she has no answer for Abbott. He has her well and truly bluffed.




Half the time Abbot cannot even stammer his words out, and when he is stammering you just know he is twisting it.   And having been brought up in the same ilk I can vouch for the childhood programming that gets in the way of objective thinking and decisions, and the Pope is the head of all that.  However that is all of topic.  Meet you on the Abbot for Prime Minister thread.


----------



## white_goodman (15 May 2011)

for those that missed latest showing

http://www.megavideo.com/?d=RWF6EJ41


----------



## white_goodman (15 May 2011)

just reminds me how unlucky this country is never to have had costello as PM...

destroys Howard, Abbot, Rudd and Juliar


----------



## wayneL (15 May 2011)

Macquack said:


> ...me to just want to punch him in the head.




Is Macquack actually Mark Latham?


----------



## Julia (15 May 2011)

OzWaveGuy said:


> I think he can sometimes be quite rude in his interviews and this can turn people off, but I have to admit - he regularly asks the tough questions when the MSM lap dogs just repeat whatever they are told. More tough questions pls and dig into the answers - way too much fluffy spin from politicians and AGW alarmists in general.



Agree.  If Andrew Bolt achieves nothing more than this, his program will have done the country a service.
I haven't seen it yet.  Not on in the regions, apparently.


----------



## sptrawler (15 May 2011)

Well I haven't seen it but from the sound of this thread I must tune in.


----------



## sptrawler (15 May 2011)

O.K season pass on tivo just programmed, hope it's as good as you say.


----------



## IFocus (16 May 2011)

OzWaveGuy said:


> I think he can sometimes be quite rude in his interviews and this can turn people off, but I have to admit - he regularly asks the tough questions when the MSM lap dogs just repeat whatever they are told. More tough questions pls and dig into the answers - way too much fluffy spin from politicians and AGW alarmists in general.




I have only ever seen him push his agenda and talk over people when they don't follow his script.

His interview of Abbott was just pathetic no hard questions there.


----------



## sails (16 May 2011)

IFocus said:


> I have only ever seen him push his agenda and talk over people when they don't follow his script.
> 
> His interview of Abbott was just pathetic no hard questions there.




LOL - like Kerry O'Brien used to with labor interviews?  Now you know how very frustrating it is.  Thank goodness for Bolt.  He is rattling all those who have denied labor bias in the ABC.  We have had to put up with it for years and so now it's your turn...


----------



## OzWaveGuy (16 May 2011)

IFocus said:


> I have only ever seen him push his agenda and talk over people when they don't follow his script.
> 
> His interview of Abbott was just pathetic no hard questions there.




I'm not certain what his "agenda" actually is, but I'm yet to see him talk all over people to the extent where his opponents can't actually say what's on their mind. I do however like the logic he uses in "peeling back the onion layers" to expose the reality of ones answers - this style I like. Many including the ABC will let a deeper question opportunity slip by.


----------



## dutchie (16 May 2011)

Julia said:


> Agree.  If Andrew Bolt achieves nothing more than this, his program will have done the country a service.
> I haven't seen it yet.  Not on in the regions, apparently.




Sunday afternoon at 4.30pm on TEN?


----------



## sails (16 May 2011)

Considering it's only Bolt's second week the results are pretty good.  As time goes on, he can only improve.  It was good to see both Costa and Costello on the last show.



> Thanks very much again: In only our second week we’ve beaten Insiders, despite its advantage in having Julia Gillard and a 10-year start:
> 
> The Bolt Report Ten 174,000
> Insiders ABC1 166,000
> ...




Source: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...sun/comments/first_goal_reached_in_two_weeks/

Between Abbott, Bolt, Alan Jones and Hadley, I believe many Aussies feel there are people out there voicing their concerns for this country.


----------



## Knobby22 (16 May 2011)

sails said:


> Considering it's only Bolt's second week the results are pretty good.  As time goes on, he can only improve.  It was good to see both Costa and Costello on the last show.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Insiders and Bolt are on different timeslots. Bolt is against Alan Kohler on his business program. Good on him for stirring the pot, I just hopes he follows the facts. He is known for distortion.


----------



## IFocus (16 May 2011)

OzWaveGuy said:


> I'm not certain what his "agenda" actually is, but I'm yet to see him talk all over people to the extent where his opponents can't actually say what's on their mind. I do however like the logic he uses in "peeling back the onion layers" to expose the reality of ones answers - this style I like. Many including the ABC will let a deeper question opportunity slip by.





Getting payed to push the anti climate change argument is a starter..........


----------



## Logique (16 May 2011)

IF, there's an article in today's Australian, examining a couple of decades of Fed Govts, it says Labor have been the best in restricting spending as % of GDP. 

The Insiders: Lenore and Laura were there to ride shotgun on poor Stuchbury.

Bolt Report: what is with that background, big red letters. What is it, the Nuremburg Rally? Just so wrong. Could you make the letters any bigger Andrew?


----------



## wayneL (16 May 2011)

IFocus said:


> Getting paid to push the anti climate change argument is a starter..........




1/ Substantiate please

2/ Do you not think that Gore, Hansen et al are getting paid to push the pro AGW argument?


----------



## IFocus (16 May 2011)

wayneL said:


> 1/ Substantiate please
> 
> 2/ Do you not think that Gore, Hansen et al are getting paid to push the pro AGW argument?




Bolt got pulled up on the insiders a while ago when he failed to declare don't have a link, BTW attacking Bolts credibility which = 0 latest court case just confirms that point but will give him 100% for sheer arrogance.

Not interested in the climate change argument as it has stopped raining in Perth and we will run out of water summer 2011/12 + hottest summer months on record. Hopefully the weather will change.

PS thanks for the spelling correction thought it looked odd.


----------



## IFocus (16 May 2011)

Logique said:


> IF, there's an article in today's Australian, examining a couple of decades of Fed Govts, it says Labor have been the best in restricting spending as % of GDP.




I take it you're messing with my head about the Australian didn't see the article 

The budget just released has real fiscal restrain of holding spending growth below 2% some years at 1% but you wont see that in the Australian or on the Bolt.


----------



## Logique (16 May 2011)

IFocus said:


> I take it you're messing with my head about the Australian didn't see the article



No mate not at all. The Howard Govt sent out plenty of middle class welfare too. Especially leading up to the Rudd election.


----------



## wayneL (16 May 2011)

IFocus said:


> Bolt got pulled up on the insiders a while ago when he failed to declare don't have a link, BTW attacking Bolts credibility which = 0 latest court case just confirms that point but will give him 100% for sheer arrogance.
> 
> Not interested in the climate change argument as it has stopped raining in Perth and we will run out of water summer 2011/12 + hottest summer months on record. Hopefully the weather will change.




1/ So not substantiated.

2/ You brought up it up and then dodge the issue.


----------



## sails (9 September 2011)

For anyone interested to hear Peter Costello -  he will be on the Bolt Report this Sunday:



> On The Bolt Report on Channel 10 on Sunday: Peter Costello, Michael Costa, Dr Andrew Phillips and, joining me in the studio to talk about September 11 and more, the Opposition’s foreign affairs spokesman, Julie Bishop. Plus: has the ABC given Julia Gillard a secret weapon?
> 
> Sunday, at 10am and 4.30pm.




http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...uriermail/comments/the_bolt_report_on_sunday/


----------



## sptrawler (9 September 2011)

IFocus said:


> Not interested in the climate change argument as it has stopped raining in Perth and we will run out of water summer 2011/12 + hottest summer months on record. Hopefully the weather will change.




Hope you weren't one of the people who bagged Barnett for the pipeline idea.
Actually $12billion cost doesn't look like much, when you compare it with $40-$50billion N.B.N.
Water we need to survive, internet we managed for a long time without it.
Yet funnily we put more value on the internet.


----------



## IFocus (10 September 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Hope you weren't one of the people who bagged Barnett for the pipeline idea.
> Actually $12billion cost doesn't look like much, when you compare it with $40-$50billion N.B.N.
> Water we need to survive, internet we managed for a long time without it.
> Yet funnily we put more value on the internet.





I absolutely was one of the people who bagged the idea. 

1st you have to build the pipeline, expensive..............then you have find the energy get it to pumping stations and pay for it to move the water 1000's of Klms, really expensive. 

All for 2 million waste full end users living in an urban sprawl housed in Mac Mansions.


In engineering terms at the time the whole idea was bizarre.


----------



## sptrawler (10 September 2011)

IFocus said:


> I absolutely was one of the people who bagged the idea.
> 
> 1st you have to build the pipeline, expensive..............then you have find the energy get it to pumping stations and pay for it to move the water 1000's of Klms, really expensive.
> 
> ...




Why do you think they are pushing so hard for the gas hub at Broome. They will use gas to pump it and its not if but when.
At the time it was only an idea but as usual it all was blown out of context.
Reliable water down the West coast would cause a real boom.
As for expensive, the N.B.N is expensive and produces nothing. Now that is bizarre


----------



## Happy (10 September 2011)

sptrawler said:


> ...
> Reliable water down the West coast would cause a real boom.
> ...




I like the idea of pumping water, should climate change we can always pump water the other way.

As for mac-mansions using it and throwing out, I liked another idea of cleaning waste water as cheaper option or as complimentary to desalination.

After all there is a lot of water, problem is location and impurities.


----------



## Tink (29 September 2011)

Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt has lost his racial vilification case in the Federal Court of Australia.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/true-colours-20110928-1kxb0.html#ixzz1ZHRC2cg0


----------



## sails (29 September 2011)

Some people are concerned that this ruling will harm healthy debate in this country:



> "Institute of Public Affairs director John Roskam said today's ruling would harm healthy debate in Australia.
> 
> "It's going to have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and it's more likely to create racial intolerance,'' he said."





From the Herald Sun by Stephen Drill: Ruling agsinst Andrew Bolt will harm healthy debate say libertarians


----------



## Calliope (29 September 2011)

sails said:


> Some people are concerned that this ruling will harm healthy debate in this country:




I don't have much time for extreme right Andrew Bolt or extreme left David Marr, but in this instance I think Marr is right. Bolt shot his mouth off without checking the facts.



> Bolt was wrong. Spectacularly wrong. In two famous columns in 2009 he took a swipe at "political" or "professional" or "official" Aborigines who could pass for white but chose to identify as black for personal or political gain, to win prizes and places reserved for real, black Aborigines and to borrow "other people's glories".
> But Bolt's lawyers had to concede even before this case began in the Federal Court that nine of these named "white Aborigines" had identified as black from childhood. All nine came to court to say they didn't choose this down the track but were raised as Aborigines. Their evidence was not contested by Bolt or his paper.





Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...h-the-facts-20110928-1kxba.html#ixzz1ZI0F4aRx


----------



## sails (29 September 2011)

Ironically, the same day that Bolt is pulled up for his comments, WA MP Carol Martin, first indigenous woman is to announce her resignation after being vilified as a *"toxic coconut"*.  



> The dispute over the gas hub has created ugly tensions in a community that prides itself on being laid-back. Ms Martin was named last week in an anonymous 10-page newsletter as "brown on the outside and full of the milk of white man's money" on the inside for not opposing the proposed gas hub.
> 
> Her name appeared on a list of nine Kimberley Aborigines, including former Australian of the year Patrick Dodson, under the heading "toxic coconuts".
> 
> Ms Martin said it was the worst slur against her in public life, and she would sue the authors if they could be identified.




From the Australian by Paige Taylor: Coconut slur the last straw for WA MP Carol Martin 

And more today: MP Carol Martin's serve for 'a mob of bludgers and liars'


----------



## sails (29 September 2011)

Calliope said:


> I don't have much time for extreme right Andrew Bolt or extreme left David Marr, but in this instance I think Marr is right. Bolt shot his mouth off without checking the facts...[/url]





I'm not so sure about Bolt's "extreme right" label.  I understand he worked for the Hawke Government for two election campaigns and also understand he was behind Gillard when she first became PM.  I think Bolt's seemingly right leaning is more a leaning away from the debacles in this government than him being fully right wing in his beliefs.  

And the Murdoch media were fully behind ditching Howard and going to Rudd in 2007 and yet they are now labelled a right leaning media.  I think the Australian Murdoch media leans with the opinion polls.

Anyway, this is from Bolt's blog today: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/.../comments/column_why_cant_i_be_free_to_speak/


----------



## Calliope (29 September 2011)

sails said:


> Anyway, this is from Bolt's blog today: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/.../comments/column_why_cant_i_be_free_to_speak/




Poor old Andrew now feels that he is a martyr to the lost cause of freedom of speech. I don't think he would have lost the case except for his scrappy journalism. His research was flawed, and easily discredited.


----------



## Julia (29 September 2011)

Calliope said:


> I don't think he would have lost the case except for his scrappy journalism. His research was flawed, and easily discredited.



 This point was made on "7.30" last night which also reported that the judge said his verdict should not be interpreted as a veto against discussion of the topic, but rather a reflection of Andrew Bolt's article containing misinformation and 'inflammatory' language.


----------



## basilio (29 September 2011)

Julia said:


> This point was made on "7.30" last night which also reported that the judge said his verdict should not be interpreted as a veto against discussion of the topic, but rather a reflection of Andrew Bolt's article containing misinformation and 'inflammatory' language.




Which is the key criticism of the overwhelming  majority of Andrew Bolts writings. 

It is also why people who continue to quote Andrew Bolts columns should consider whether they are just supporting 'misinformation and inflammatory language' versus evidence based research and  a considered approach to the story.


----------



## noco (29 September 2011)

I believe a lot of this has been taken out of context as to what Bolt may or may not have referred.

I have a niece who has a Filipino mother and an Australian father. If and when she marries perhaps an Australian white man, is she still regarded as a Filipino or a quarter cast Filipino?

Surely when one passes the 50/50 mark, they must become the predominant race one way or the other. 

So the point is if a person is 1/10 th Aboriginal, are they Aboriginal or white Australian?


----------



## OzWaveGuy (29 September 2011)

basilio said:


> Which is the key criticism of the overwhelming  majority of Andrew Bolts writings.
> 
> It is also why people who continue to quote Andrew Bolts columns should consider whether they are just supporting 'misinformation and inflammatory language' versus evidence based research and  a considered approach to the story.




So questions and quotes like:


By how much will the carbon tax forestall the worlds temperature?
Are man's CO2 emissions driving global temperatures? if so, by how much?
Carbon dioxide is not pollution

you of course would consider this as misinformation since you cannot answer them as it would show how the AGW alarmist have been using misinformation for years.

Your post is incredibly hypocritical.


----------



## Calliope (29 September 2011)

OzWaveGuy said:


> Your post is incredibly hypocritical.




Indeed it is. Misinformation, inflammatory language and outright lying are the preferred tools of the alarmists and environmental protesters.


----------



## drsmith (29 September 2011)

OzWaveGuy said:


> you of course would consider this as misinformation since you cannot answer them as it would show how the AGW alarmist have been using misinformation for years.



The simple responses to those questions don't tell the whole story, but they do offer more insight than stuff such as this,


----------



## basilio (29 September 2011)

Your quite right folks I was targeting Andrew Bolts contributions to the climate change conversations. They are basically misinformation and inflammatory.  But he is an absolute master at his work which is reflected in it's impact on many people including a lot of forum members.

For anyone interested in the dissection of Andrew Bolts climate change misinformation check out
http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Scientific-Guide-to-Global-Warming-Skepticism.html


----------



## nomore4s (29 September 2011)

noco said:


> I have a niece who has a Filipino mother and an Australian father. If and when she marries perhaps an Australian white man, is she still regarded as a Filipino or a quarter cast Filipino?




How is she any less Filipino because she marries someone of a different race?


----------



## drsmith (29 September 2011)

basilio said:


> But he is an absolute master at his work which is reflected in it's impact on many people including a lot of forum members.



Bolt's arguments are simplistic and as a consequence can be in part misleading. He takes advantage of that, but at the same time, I hope you didn't close your eyes when you saw the image above.


----------



## basilio (29 September 2011)

drsmith said:


> Bolt's arguments are simplistic and as a consequence can be in part misleading. He takes advantage of that, but at the same time, I hope you didn't close your eyes when you saw the image above.




The government runs an advertisement to get across some simpler big pictures issues of how man produced CO2 is  creating climate change that needs to be addressed.  One of the suggested solutions is the development of non carbon based renewable  energy supplies.  This is done in a short ad. where you have to simplify a message without destroying the main idea.

There is an abundance of evidence, analysis and detail in climate change research. That is the place to look for making sure CO2 is not shown as grey when it's colourless or other such distractions.

___________________________________________________________________

Regarding Andrew Bolts capacity to be honest. Somehow a few readers in this  forum have accepted the judges finding that Andrew basically lied through his teeth when trying to create a case against Aboriginals who chose to be seen as aboriginals. David Marr did an excellent job of dissecting just how dishonest Andrew Bolt was. *(Even Andrews  lawyers had to start by agreeing the basic assertions Andrew made were just untrue*.)  

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...lt-trifled-with-the-facts-20110928-1kxba.html

It beggars belief that they would now like to defend to the death Andrews capacity for fair and accurate research on climate change issues. And this is in the face of almost all the scientific community that studies this issue .

But no; Andrews nonsense and clever verbal deceptions are accepted as Gods word against the alarmists and anti Galilieo scientists. Perhaps we need a court case to actually investigate Andrews dribble, compare it to evidence and come out with a similar finding ? ( I would really like to see this happen...)


----------



## Gringotts Bank (29 September 2011)

Bolt was convicted yesterday of racial discrimination, as you're all aware.

I know of people with red hair who regularly get ribbed for an aspect of their appearance that is outside of their control.  They get called 'Bluey' or 'red nuts' or 'fanta pants'.  This is the same process.  Why is it ok?  They are regulary discrimintaed against in the dating scene.  Is this ok also?

disclosure: I do not have red hair.  Only my avatar.


----------



## drsmith (29 September 2011)

basilio said:


> The government runs an advertisement to get across some simpler big pictures issues of how man produced CO2 is  creating climate change that needs to be addressed.  One of the suggested solutions is the development of non carbon based renewable  energy supplies.  This is done in a short ad. where you have to simplify a message without destroying the main idea.
> 
> There is an abundance of evidence, analysis and detail in climate change research. That is the place to look for making sure CO2 is not shown as grey when it's colourless or other such distractions.



I see.

It's OK for one side of the debate to mislead.


----------



## IFocus (29 September 2011)

basilio said:


> Which is the key criticism of the overwhelming  majority of Andrew Bolts writings.




Yep and he profits from it as well, he is a class 1 tosser. 

We will get to see what a peoples champion he is once Abbott becomes PM.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (29 September 2011)

I can feel another Basilio book post about to be published.

It's interesting that Basilio pontificates on the asserted wrongs of others but laps up and regurgitates the propaganda of "dirty carbon" scare campaigns and claims it's perfectly all right.

I'm just amazed at how you contiune to post here with a straight face - your own posts have zeroed your credibility and with a hypocritical position you wave the finger at others. This is why the left has sunk into such a unrecoverable position.


----------



## IFocus (29 September 2011)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Bolt was convicted yesterday of racial discrimination, as you're all aware.
> 
> I know of people with red hair who regularly get ribbed for an aspect of their appearance that is outside of their control.  They get called 'Bluey' or 'red nuts' or 'fanta pants'.  This is the same process.  Why is it ok?  They are regulary discrimintaed against in the dating scene.  Is this ok also?
> 
> disclosure: I do not have red hair.  Only my avatar.




As Calliope and Julia have pointed out it was really shockingly badly researched journalism.

I followed the trial and was surprised like everyone else that Bolt didn't even know that some of the people he accused had full blood parents etc. 

He hadn't even met or interviewed people he made attacks on.

He looked like a complete dick.

Remember he wrote articles in the public domain saying nasty things about people or as a judge put it containing misinformation and 'inflammatory' language.


----------



## basilio (29 September 2011)

OzWaveGuy said:


> I can feel another Basilio book post about to be published.
> 
> It's interesting that Basilio pontificates on the asserted wrongs of others but laps up and regurgitates the propaganda of "dirty carbon" scare campaigns and claims it's perfectly all right.
> 
> I'm just amazed at how you contiune to post here with a straight face - your own posts have zeroed your credibility and with a hypocritical position you wave the finger at others. This is why the left has sunk into such a unrecoverable position.




*Lay off the abuse Ozzie*. It's offensive and down right nasty.

It also poisons this forum for any constructive discussions.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (29 September 2011)

I'm not saying he shouldn't have been convicted.  And I agree Bolt often seems to go off half cocked.  Just wondering where the line gets drawn.

Julia Gillard gets her huge nose, huge butt, horrible dress sense and red hair lampooned in every newspaper cartoon.  Is that ok?  Is that not vilification?

Is it ok to make fun of an aborigine in the same way?  

Or is it not ok to make fun of anyone?

Food for thought.

I don't have the answer.


----------



## IFocus (29 September 2011)

Gringotts Bank said:


> I'm not saying he shouldn't have been convicted.  And I agree Bolt often seems to go off half cocked.  Just wondering where the line gets drawn.
> 
> Julia Gillard gets her huge nose, huge butt, horrible dress sense and red hair lampooned in every newspaper cartoon.  Is that ok?  Is that not vilification?
> 
> ...




I guess politicians are fair game although I notice that even conservative commentators are becoming uneasy with some of the Gillard stuff.

If its really good satire I think any thing goes but draw the line at vitriol and hate.

I am a white protestant male so any thing I say about another culture or race would be classed unlawful.


----------



## Calliope (29 September 2011)

IFocus said:


> As Calliope and Julia have pointed out it was really shockingly badly researched journalism.
> 
> I followed the trial and was surprised like everyone else that Bolt didn't even know that some of the people he accused had full blood parents etc.
> 
> ...




My point about Bolt's clumsy research was the it gave the judge a free kick, and gave him the opening to hand down a decision based not on racial discrimination, but on a perceived misrepresentation.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (29 September 2011)

basilio said:


> *Lay off the abuse Ozzie*. It's offensive and down right nasty.
> 
> It also poisons this forum for any constructive discussions.




The only thing offensive is the drivel from your posts that in your mind you believe to be fact...



> It beggars belief that they would now like to defend to the death Andrews capacity for fair and accurate research on climate change issues. And this is in the face of almost all the scientific community that studies this issue .




Andrew does not undertake climate research as such - he simply asks the right questions that neither you or so called climate scientists are willing to answer. No employed scientist will debate Bolt in public or establish the impact on temperature the Carbon tax will have without being laughed out of the room.



> The government runs an advertisement to get across some simpler big pictures issues of how man produced CO2 is creating climate change that needs to be addressed




That's right, no big picture agenda here. lol, yet you think it's ok the Gov to run an ad campaign and to lie to the public...



> There is an abundance of evidence, analysis and detail in climate change research. That is the place to look for making sure CO2 is not shown as grey when it's colourless or other such distractions.




As I previously said - your posts are clearly hypocritical and thus you lack credibility and conviction on climate change issues since you simply choose to avoid answering the pertinent questions and have done so for months. Yet you're happy to unload on Bolt on a range of topics, but then cry foul and claim it's offensive for anyone to pull you up. Get over it.


----------



## tothemax6 (29 September 2011)

Tink said:


> Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt has lost his racial vilification case in the Federal Court of Australia.
> 
> Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/true-colours-20110928-1kxb0.html#ixzz1ZHRC2cg0



Courts dispense law, but not justice .

I think ultimately there is no doubt we will end up in a 1984 style world. Freedom is merely a concept people talk about, and pretend they have, despite the clear evidence that they are not free. No person in authority, be they judge or politician, honestly believe freedom is a virtue whatsoever. Controlling other peoples actions via threat of force is their version of 'what's right'.
It is a severe case of cultural cognitive dissonance, that people can simultaneously believe in freedom of association, and freedom of speech, whilst believing that discrimination is unlawful and libel and 'vilification' are legitimately crimes.

Just remember, 2+2=5.

On the whole race thing, it is true that it is hilarious when people who look more or less white refer to themselves as 'aboriginal'. Were the 'ab original' people of this land descended from whites in any way? Of course not, but following the rule 2+2=5, an aboriginal can be anything as long as you declare it with enough fervor. 

Indeed, short of perhaps Ernie Dingo, I can't remember seeing a single representative of 'the aboriginal people' on TV who actually looked like an actual aboriginal person. 
What a farce.


----------



## Macquack (29 September 2011)

tothemax6 said:


> Indeed, short of perhaps Ernie Dingo, I can't remember seeing a single representative of 'the aboriginal people' on TV who actually looked like an actual aboriginal person.
> What a farce.




So using your logic, if you don't have blond hair and blue eyes you can't be Swedish?

Freedom of speech implies a freedom for honest and factual statements not a "protection" for loud mouthed lying bullsh*t artists like Andrew Bolt to mouth off with no consequence.


Andrew Bolt Statement


> ''This is a terrible day for free speech in this country,''
> 
> ''It is particularly a restriction on the freedom of all Australians to discuss multiculturalism and how people identify themselves,'' he continued. ''I argued then and I argue now that *we should not insist on the differences between us but focus instead on what unites us as human beings*. Thank you.''




What a laugh, Bolt must have forgotten what he was in court for.


----------



## Julia (29 September 2011)

IFocus said:


> As Calliope and Julia have pointed out it was really shockingly badly researched journalism.



Kindly don't misinterpret what I said earlier.  I absolutely did not make any claim about the quality of Andrew Bolt's journalism.  I simply, paraphrasing from a radio report, reported what the judge apparently said.  That does not equate to my saying that it was "shockingly badly researched journalism".

I'm somewhat taken aback to hear this evening in a follow up radio discussion that the judge made distinct mention of what amounted to vulnerability on the part of followers of Andrew Bolt.  The interpretation of the Ethics commentator here was that Andrew Bolt's followers were not capable of appropriately evaluating e.g. racism for themselves, and as a result Mr Bolt had a greater duty to be careful in the way he expressed himself than  someone writing for a publication with a lesser circulation.

Now, there's something very wrong here.  If this Ethics commentator has correctly reported the judge's remarks, why should there be one standard for Andrew Bolt and a different standard for someone writing for a minor regional newspaper?

Further, I don't believe the ASF Left should get too carried away about regarding this slap in the face for Andrew Bolt as carte blanche to rubbish anything he says about anything, something that has already happened on this thread.

i.e. we have the judgment about the aboriginal comments, and voila, we may automatically conclude that everything Andrew Bolt has ever said about climate change or anything else is totally invalidated.

Rubbish.  Just get a bit of perspective before you draw such silly conclusions.

Objectivity is a much undervalued commodity imo.





Gringotts Bank said:


> I'm not saying he shouldn't have been convicted.  And I agree Bolt often seems to go off half cocked.  Just wondering where the line gets drawn.
> 
> Julia Gillard gets her huge nose, huge butt, horrible dress sense and red hair lampooned in every newspaper cartoon.  Is that ok?  Is that not vilification?



Excellent point.
We seem to have evolved the issue of racism to a quite disproportionate degree so that hurt or offence is inferred quite unreasonably.
The cartoonists lampoon politicians in a way that they would never apply to any race issues.
Why?


----------



## Sean K (29 September 2011)

Personal identity, family, extended family, associations, cat lovers, dog lovers, religion, collingwood supporters, essendon supporters, community, society, state, country, alliance, axis, add in anything in-between and plus!

The more we define each other as different, the more we will be at conflict.

Overpopulation is the key. The Earth will cull us at some point.


----------



## sails (29 September 2011)

Interesting questions from Neil Mitchell of 3aw to Geoff Clark on this issue:

http://www.3aw.com.au/displayPopUpP...ytalk.com.au/3AW/AUDIO/290911_Geoff_Clark.mp3


----------



## Sean K (29 September 2011)

sails said:


> Interesting questions from Neil Mitchell of 3aw to Geoff Clark on this issue:
> 
> http://www.3aw.com.au/displayPopUpP...ytalk.com.au/3AW/AUDIO/290911_Geoff_Clark.mp3



Missing 'plug-in'


----------



## OzWaveGuy (29 September 2011)

tothemax6 said:


> I think ultimately there is no doubt we will end up in a 1984 style world. Freedom is merely a concept people talk about, and pretend they have, despite the clear evidence that they are not free.




I'd like to clarify this and add my input since there is a lot of fear around on free speech atm: 

We are all free and there's no such thing as a 1984 style world. Why? It will only exist if you choose to make it exist. The Government (aka public servants) need to contract with you in order to establish jurisdiction. It is impossible for a legal fiction to contract with a man or woman. They can only contract with a "person" - another legal fiction. Therefore, to do this, one must redefine the english language.

Government Statutes and Acts will usually only apply to the legal fiction named as a person - eg your name in UPPERCASE. How do we know this? *The Act Interpretation Act 1901* says so in section 22:

(1)  In any Act, unless the contrary intention appears:

                     (a)  expressions used to denote persons generally (such as "person", "party", "someone", "anyone", "no-one", "one", "another" and "whoever"), include a body politic or corporate as well as an individual;

                    (aa)  individual means a natural person;​
Both a "person" and a "natural person" are both legal fictions, the difference being a natural person is a legal fiction with a living man/women as the sole shareholder, but considered as a trustee by the Government to establish legal jurisdiction and a liable party.

Many plain english language terms are redefined throughtout the acts.

It is simply contract law being used to enforce government rules, and government rules only apply to government employees and agents - aka "persons"

Andrew Bolt was not found guilty of anything, his legal fiction MR ANDREW BOLT was, and as such, he is the liable trustee of the legal fiction.

Next time you ring up a bank or utility company and they ask you to identify yourself, you reply " my name is OzWaveGuy", then they reply "can I have your full name/legal name please". You scratch your head and think "I just gave my name". They are in fact after your legal fiction name MR OZWAVEGUY to establish legal joinder otherwise they should not deal with you, but they usually will since most are confused by this questioning of names.


A couple of well established Maxims of Law:
*"The Contract makes the law"*​*"He who questions well, learns well."​*


----------



## bellenuit (30 September 2011)

Macquack said:


> So using your logic, if you don't have blond hair and blue eyes you can't be Swedish?




Macquack. I can't see the relevance in that comparison. Being Swedish is a matter of citizenship not DNA.

Being aboriginal Australian is a matter of DNA, not citizenship. If both parents are aborigines, then you are 100% aboriginal Australian, if one is an aborigine and the other is 100% a non-aborigine, then you are 50% aboriginal Australian, if three of your grandparents are 100% non-aboriginal and the fourth is 100% aboriginal Australian, then you are 25% etc.

If you are 1% aboriginal Australian and want to identify yourself as being culturally aboriginal Australian, then that normally is a personal choice and not an issue to anyone else. The problem is when the government positively discriminates in favour of aboriginal Australians. If aboriginal Australians become entitled to some benefit or other purely because they are aboriginal Australians and that benefit is paid by the tax payer, then surely the tax payer is entitled to know whether that person is genuinely an aborigine. So where does one draw the line. 100%, 50%, 25%, 10%?

I don't know the full details of the Bolt case, but I cannot see how questioning a person's ethnicity should be regarded as racial vilification, when that person appears to be not really a member of that ethic group. Government largesse isn't infinite, so someone must draw the line somewhere.


----------



## GumbyLearner (30 September 2011)

What would he say...if he was taken away from his parents?

I'm an individual?
I'm a citizen of the world?
They abused me?
The state knows more?

The grass is always greener....on the other side? 



Let's acknowledge all the people of this great country.


----------



## wayneL (30 September 2011)

bellanuit][QUOTE=Macquack said:


> So using your logic, if you don't have blond hair and blue eyes you can't be Swedish?




Macquack. I can't see the relevance in that comparison. Being Swedish is a matter of citizenship not DNA.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks MacQuack, another pearl for my PhD thesis. 

Not all ethnic Scandinavians have blond hair and blue eyes either, there is variability. However all ethnic Scandinavians have fair skin. 

I agree with what kennas said above, these definitions only serve to separate, rather than unite.

I also agree with Julia, the left are getting a bit carried away.


----------



## Tink (30 September 2011)

Its about time journalists became more accountable for what they write as fact, and Bully Bolts day has come. 

As for his freedom of speech cry - oh please.


----------



## breaker (30 September 2011)

bellenuit said:


> Macquack. I can't see the relevance in that comparison. Being Swedish is a matter of citizenship not DNA.
> 
> Being aboriginal Australian is a matter of DNA, not citizenship. If both parents are aborigines, then you are 100% aboriginal Australian, if one is an aborigine and the other is 100% a non-aborigine, then you are 50% aboriginal Australian, if three of your grandparents are 100% non-aboriginal and the fourth is 100% aboriginal Australian, then you are 25% etc.
> 
> ...




You are right we see it here in mining where near white aboriginal dictate sacred sights they wouldnt have a clue.
I grew up with aboriginals in Willcannia in the early 70s ,so I could claim I am one


----------



## macca (30 September 2011)

One thing that amazes me how any criticism of white anglo saxon traditions is perfectly OK but if there is any criticism or lampooning of other races, religions, attire, traditions then all hell breaks loose.

A very simple example: On St Patricks day a local talk back radio asked for Irish jokes, people rang up with all the old Irish idiot jokes. Then an Irish tourist rang up and asked is it OK if I tell some Aboriginal jokes ? Ummm ............... NO !


----------



## wayneL (30 September 2011)

Tink said:


> Its about time journalists became more accountable for what they write as fact, and Bully Bolts day has come.




Does that only apply to right wing journos?



> As for his freedom of speech cry - oh please.




Voltaire had the right idea.

I somehow think if the same happened to a left wing journo, freedom of speech might be more considered.

Objectivity please.


----------



## Sean K (30 September 2011)

macca said:


> One thing that amazes me how any criticism of white anglo saxon traditions is perfectly OK but if there is any criticism or lampooning of other races, religions, attire, traditions then all hell breaks loose.
> 
> A very simple example: On St Patricks day a local talk back radio asked for Irish jokes, people rang up with all the old Irish idiot jokes. Then an Irish tourist rang up and asked is it OK if I tell some Aboriginal jokes ? Ummm ............... NO !



Depends somewhat on the intent of these satires and pokes. I tell an Irish joke, but I still genuinely love Irish people. I tell an Aboriginal joke and I'm not so sure.


----------



## McLovin (30 September 2011)

macca said:


> One thing that amazes me how any criticism of white anglo saxon traditions is perfectly OK but if there is any criticism or lampooning of other races, religions, attire, traditions then all hell breaks loose.
> 
> A very simple example: On St Patricks day a local talk back radio asked for Irish jokes, people rang up with all the old Irish idiot jokes. Then an Irish tourist rang up and asked is it OK if I tell some Aboriginal jokes ? Ummm ............... NO !




I think you'd probably offend the Irish more by referring to them as Anglo-Saxon than by telling a few Irish jokes.


----------



## Tink (30 September 2011)

Wayne, that applies to all journalists.

His freedom of speech wasnt the problem, it was the way it was said, and the Judge has said that, but of course he wont admit that but goes off in another direction, causing more division, saying that he wants unity.


----------



## macca (30 September 2011)

McLovin said:


> I think you'd probably offend the Irish more by referring to them as Anglo-Saxon than by telling a few Irish jokes.




So we just laugh it off yet others are "Outraged at this scandalous slur"

Why don't they just laugh it off ?

If we went to court about an irish joke would we win ?


----------



## McLovin (30 September 2011)

macca said:


> If we went to court about an irish joke would we win ?




Yes, if you can prove 1) That the act of telling the joke was reasonably likely to insult, offend or humiliate and 2) It is done because of the race, colour or (as in this case) ethnic origin of the other person or group.

All of this also needs to be done in a public place too.

Personally I think you'd struggle to prove (1) in most instances by telling an Irish joke, unless there was a culture (such as in a workplace) of making derogatory comments about the Irish.


----------



## moXJO (30 September 2011)

Kiwi's must have a case by now heard one on tv the other night


----------



## Calliope (30 September 2011)

Macquack said:


> What a laugh, Bolt must have forgotten what he was in court for.




We all know why Bolt was in court. It was because the left were out to get him, and allegations of racial vilification, no matter how flimsy, stand a better chance of succeeding in the Federal court than libel or defamation.


----------



## Sean K (30 September 2011)

moXJO said:


> Kiwi's must have a case by now heard one on tv the other night



Can sheep raise a court case?


----------



## wayneL (30 September 2011)

Tink said:


> Wayne, that applies to all journalists.
> 
> His freedom of speech wasnt the problem, it was the way it was said, and the Judge has said that, but of course he wont admit that but goes off in another direction, causing more division, saying that he wants unity.




So you can say anything you like, so long as it's said in a certain way? 

Rot!

We all know we have an activist judiciary in Aus and NZ; and people of the left are curiously silent about left wing journalistic outrages.

As to the judgement. I am one eighth Teutonic, but the rest is Anglo Saxon. Supposing I identified as a German and someone said... actually you are more of a Pom, ethnically.

Have I been racially vilified? No! Preposterous!

This is tantamount to what has happened here.

Whether Bolt is exactly accurate or wise is a different matter entirely, but to deal with this under racial vilification statutes is an outrage and truly a blight on our purported liberty.

You cannot seriously accuse


----------



## Knobby22 (30 September 2011)

wayneL said:


> As to the judgement. I am one eighth Teutonic, but the rest is Anglo Saxon. Supposing I identified as a German and someone said... actually you are more of a Pom, ethnically.




Actually the Angles and the Saxons were German tribes so maybe you could argue it. :




wayneL said:


> Whether Bolt is exactly accurate or wise is a different matter entirely, but to deal with this under racial vilification statutes is an outrage and truly a blight on our purported liberty.





I have been away so am coming fresh to this.

In my view Wayne's statement above is the salient point. 

Bolt should be in trouble for getting his facts wrong (as he often does) however it should have been dealt with using other laws such as defamation (which are over strong in this country and would have easily succeeded).

By using the racial vilification law, they have succeeded in strengthening it, which was the plan of the left. This has affected free speech to our detriment. 

The law can now be expanded to take in sexual,religous or any other vilification they can think of. I hope this goes to the High Court because this law is wrong. 

...and Bolt should start thinking with the whole of his brain and start doing some research before he types his gutter column.


----------



## IFocus (30 September 2011)

Plenty of smoke and mirrors going on here simple fact is Bolts articles were shockers from any journalistic point some thing that has been covered though the press.

This point alone casts doubt on much of Bolts contentious views particularly his loose use of facts which during the trial his defense didn't not try to defend.

As for the freedom of speech ex editor of The Age Michael Gawenda makes the obvious point



> Here's the thing about the Bolt saga. Bolt's columns should never have been published and I do not think Bolt or the Herald Sun can justify their publication, essentially because they were riddled with inaccuracies. Commentary doesn't have to be "balanced" or even "fair" but it has to be factually accurate. Commentary, even for a polemicist like Bolt, can't be a piece of fiction. What's more, I believe the editors of the Herald Sun should have pulled the columns because they were nasty and badly argued. To have done so was their right. And they should have done so even if Bolt, as a consequence, would have painted himself a martyr to free speech ”” strange how these free speech martyrs more often than not have the loudest megaphones and huge audiences.






> Bolt's offence was an offence against journalism and really, should not have been judged by a judge under the Racial Discrimination Act.






> Bolt committed the offense of producing bad and shoddy journalism. His editors should have saved him from himself. They should apologise for having failed to do so.




http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3071066.html


----------



## McLovin (30 September 2011)

wayneL said:


> So you can say anything you like, so long as it's said in a certain way?
> 
> Rot!
> 
> ...




While I'm inclined to agree that what happened was nothing more than sloppy editorial and factual inaccuracies, I don't see how the judge in applying s18C could have found any other way. It has nothing to do with an activist judiciary, when that canard gets tossed around it sounds like blaming the ref for losing the match.


----------



## moXJO (30 September 2011)

IFocus said:


> Plenty of smoke and mirrors going on here simple fact is Bolts articles were shockers from any journalistic point some thing that has been covered though the press.
> 
> This point alone casts doubt on much of Bolts contentious views particularly his loose use of facts which during the trial his defense didn't not try to defend.
> 
> ...




from that article



> I don't want judges and lawyers deciding what is acceptable journalism and what isn't. I don't want judges and lawyers having any more say than they already have ”” through defamation laws, contempt proceedings, suppression orders ”” in deciding the limits of free speech. Why should they? There is nothing from my experience of judges and lawyers to suggest they have any great love or commitment to journalism, nor any special understanding of what is  good journalism or even how we might define the public interest.


----------



## wayneL (30 September 2011)

McLovin said:


> It has nothing to do with an activist judiciary, when that canard gets tossed around it sounds like blaming the ref for losing the match.




Did you read the judgement?


----------



## McLovin (30 September 2011)

wayneL said:


> Did you read the judgement?




Yes. How does the judgement go against s18C? That section was left deliberately broad during its drafting that the threshold for what constitutes a breach of it is fairly low.


----------



## wayneL (30 September 2011)

McLovin said:


> Yes. How does the judgement go against s18C? That section was left deliberately broad during its drafting that the threshold for what constitutes a breach of it is fairly low.




Broad enough to allow/encourage judicial activism?

Broad enough to allow almost anything to be interpreted as racial vilification?

Come on McL, when the judge starts giving personal opinions and that forms the basis of judgement, it's activist.


----------



## McLovin (30 September 2011)

wayneL said:


> Broad enough to allow/encourage judicial activism?




Sure it is, but I don't see it in this case. It seems fairly straightforward application of the legislation, which he didn't draft. Judicial activism generally means when the courts try to "legislate from the Bench" it's hard to accuse this decision of doing that. The Parliament left the legislation broad.



wayneL said:


> Broad enough to allow almost anything to be interpreted as racial vilification?




Absolutely. And I think it's far too overreaching for that reason, but like I said it wasn't drafted by the Judiciary. 

It also raises the question of where is the line drawn between "public interest" or political speech (the former which is dealt with in s18D and the latter is an implied right in the Constitution) and racial discrimination.



wayneL said:


> Come on McL, when the judge starts giving personal opinions and that forms the basis of judgement, it's activist.




From what I read he used the ordinary person test not his own personal opinion. Does it not seem reasonably likely that a fair skinned aboriginal would be offended, insulted or humiliated at being accused of identifying as aboriginal for no other reason than good career opportunities?


----------



## wayneL (30 September 2011)

McLovin said:


> From what I read he used the ordinary person test not his own personal opinion. Does it not seem reasonably likely that a fair skinned aboriginal would be offended, insulted or humiliated at being accused of identifying as aboriginal for no other reason than good career opportunities?




Well it would be a matter of opinion as to what ordinary people might think; and what truly constitutes an aboriginal, if fair skinned as per my analogy above. 

These people wouldn't be the first to claim _x_ for career opportunities. Were they truly offended, embarrassed that a valid point was made, or expediently feigned offense for political purposes?

Taking offense has become an industry in Australia, convened by dystopian bureaucrats, leftist apparatchiks and blindly supported by their tribal (in the political sense) acolytes.

This law is Orwellian in nature, it's a bad law and should be repealed.

If it is so broad, the judge equally could have equally given the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## Julia (30 September 2011)

I've never read Andrew Bolt's article that's the subject of this thread.
Does anyone have a link to it?


----------



## McLovin (30 September 2011)

wayneL said:


> Well it would be a matter of opinion as to what ordinary people might think; and what truly constitutes an aboriginal, if fair skinned as per my analogy above.




Of course it's a matter of opinion, any decision delivered by a judge is an opinion. When you have a full bench you even get concurring and dissenting "opinions".



wayneL said:


> These people wouldn't be the first to claim _x_ for career opportunities. Were they truly offended, embarrassed that a valid point was made, or expediently feigned offense for political purposes?




So then he should have proven it, no case to answer then. The test is whether the act (articles) would reasonably cause offence to a person from that group. By making sweeping statements he left himself open to this sort of case. His factual inaccuracies were really just the cherry on top. 



wayneL said:


> If it is so broad, the judge equally could have equally given the benefit of the doubt.




It's broadly biased toward the person bringing the complaint (which I disagree with), as I said in my last post. To have ignored the legislation and "given the benefit of the doubt" would have been a far more obvious case of judicial activism. Like I said the phrase "judicial activism" is used far too often for "I don't like the judgement".


----------



## Calliope (30 September 2011)

There seems no doubt that Clark's mission was mainly about Bolt. It appears he not easily defamed.



> Mr Clark was charged in 2000 with two counts of raping a 16-year-old girl in January 1981 - but those charges were later dismissed.
> 
> In 2001 he was publicly accused in Melbourne newspapers of further rape allegations but he was not charged by police.
> 
> ...










http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mo...fter-andrew-bolt/story-fn7x8me2-1226152207508


----------



## Struzball (30 September 2011)

I don't understand why the media is considered a credible source when it comes to racial villification, but it's fine for them to say whatever they want about just about anything else???

I don't know anythign about this article(s), but geez... are opinions illegal??


----------



## Julia (30 September 2011)

My thanks to gg for sending me the article in question.

Couldn't Andrew Bolt have equally made his point in principle without specifically naming any of the individuals, thus drawing attention to what's surely a genuine concern, but without putting himself in such a vulnerable position?


----------



## LifeChoices (30 September 2011)

Julia said:


> My thanks to gg for sending me the article in question.
> 
> Couldn't Andrew Bolt have equally made his point in principle without specifically naming any of the individuals, thus drawing attention to what's surely a genuine concern, but without putting himself in such a vulnerable position?




I'm not answering your question, just going to vent a little:

I don't like Andrew Bolt. I've listened to him over the years and some of the things he says are quite entertaining. I think he's only good for those cameos on talk shows like Rove, where he says "something outrageous"

He's rabid, on a mission and predictable. I don't think his radio personality is real an he doesn't deserve all the attention he gets in the social media.

I love listening to local social commentators on am radio and I'm a big big fan of Tom Elliot


----------



## McLovin (30 September 2011)

Julia said:


> My thanks to gg for sending me the article in question.
> 
> Couldn't Andrew Bolt have equally made his point in principle without specifically naming any of the individuals, thus drawing attention to what's surely a genuine concern, but without putting himself in such a vulnerable position?




It wouldn't really change much. Sort of like saying "Muslims are terrorists" instead of "Joe is a terrorist because he is Muslims are terrorists".


----------



## basilio (30 September 2011)

Julia said:


> My thanks to gg for sending me the article in question.
> 
> Couldn't Andrew Bolt have equally made his point in principle without specifically naming any of the individuals, thus drawing attention to what's surely a genuine concern, but without putting himself in such a vulnerable position?




There would be a case for discussing whether some people were claiming to be aboriginal to gain some  extra advantage because of  particular laws or benefits that were given to aborigines rather than the fact that they had always been raised as such .

Andrew Bolt decided to prosecute his argument by identifying particular aboriginal  people to make the point.  The trouble was two fold.

1) He made a series of either deliberate or incompetent errors in his journalism to paint the people in a particular light to suit his argument.

2) He used his particular skills of  mockery, sarcasm and belittlement to ensure everyone who read the story *as presented* would believe the people were pretty low opportunists.

These 2 points were at the heart of Judge Bromberg decision and he did make it clear that people do have a right to discuss racial questions - they just can't use distortions or lies and inflammatory language as part of a "hand on heart " free speech  excuse. (_And that is written into the Racial Discrimination act as well)
_




> Freedom of speech is not at stake here. Judge Mordecai Bromberg is not telling the media what we can say or where we can poke our noses. He's attacking lousy journalism. *He's saying that if Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun wants to accuse people of appalling motives, he should start by getting his facts right.
> 
> Bolt was wrong. Spectacularly wrong. In two famous columns in 2009 he took a swipe at "political" or "professional" or "official" Aborigines who could pass for white but chose to identify as black for personal or political gain, to win prizes and places reserved for real, black Aborigines and to borrow "other people's glories".*
> *
> ...




In the end Judge Bromberg has basically said  Andrew Bolt was  lucky he wasn't facing 9 defamation cases because essentially his misrepresentations and journalist style laid him open to that possibility.


----------



## tothemax6 (1 October 2011)

Macquack said:


> So using your logic, if you don't have blond hair and blue eyes you can't be Swedish?
> 
> Freedom of speech implies a freedom for honest and factual statements not a "protection" for loud mouthed lying bullsh*t artists like Andrew Bolt to mouth off with no consequence.



1) non sequitur.
2) doublethink and outright insanity. read it again and self-medicate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance).

Here, I can jibber with the best of them:
"Freedom in general implies a freedom to perform actions which I like. Freedom is not a 'protection' for people I don't like to do things that I disagree with. In fact, in reality, 'freedom' means that if you don't do what I want, I can set a lion on you'. 

Just remember everyone, when you are struggling to comprehend the insanity of the world, just remind yourself that 2+2=5, and everything becomes clear and obvious .


----------



## sails (1 October 2011)

It seems that some from the left who would like to be rid of Murdoch media are the ones crowing the loudest about the Bolt judgement.

Is this really about Bolt or is this being used in a further attempt to silence any dissenting media?

There seems to be more personal attacks on Abbott and now Bolt rather than discussing their respective politics or opinions.  It is much the same on forums where those on the seeming greenie left will discredit anyone who disagrees with them on carbon tax rather than discuss said tax.

This seems to be another attack on the messenger rather than the message.  They give reason to think this is a concerted effort from the likes of GetUp.

Are you from GetUp, Basilio?


----------



## basilio (1 October 2011)

Sails et al.  Don't worry about what I  and other "watermelons" / "warmists" might be saying. 

Just focus on Judge Brombergs statements about Andrew Bolts  many gross  inaccuracies/lies in his work  and the language he used to try and blacken the people he was talking about.,

That is the issue isn't it ?


----------



## breaker (1 October 2011)

blacken the people he was talking about.,

Racist


----------



## IFocus (1 October 2011)

Mike Calton

"Nuts come out after the truth has bolted"



> The usual reactionaries have risen as one in defence of Andrew Bolt, the Melbourne columnist and village idiot, convicted on Wednesday for breaching the Racial Discrimination Act. An attack on freedom of speech, they howled. A dark day for democracy.
> 
> Since the verdict, Bolt himself has played the martyred victim, drenched in self-pity, a sickening spectacle.





This is the point



> The judge did not smother free speech. He skewered dud journalism.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/socie...-has-bolted-20110930-1l1al.html#ixzz1ZTxip0k8


----------



## basilio (1 October 2011)

Came across a short, excellent video story which explores the issue of what it means to be an Aboriginal and offers  3 perspectives 

Worth a look.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFtpybqBK0c&feature=player_embedded

(Actually sourced from Andrew Bolt's  blog site....)


----------



## breaker (1 October 2011)

So why do people with a splash of coulour choose to be part of that heritage and not the majority of their blood


----------



## Julia (1 October 2011)

basilio said:


> There would be a case for discussing whether some people were claiming to be aboriginal to gain some  extra advantage because of  particular laws or benefits that were given to aborigines rather than the fact that they had always been raised as such .
> 
> Andrew Bolt decided to prosecute his argument by identifying particular aboriginal  people to make the point.  The trouble was two fold.
> 
> ...




Having now read Bolt's article, I don't disagree with your comment above, basilio.

I think bellenuit has summarised the situation best in her post below:



bellenuit said:


> Being aboriginal Australian is a matter of DNA, not citizenship. If both parents are aborigines, then you are 100% aboriginal Australian, if one is an aborigine and the other is 100% a non-aborigine, then you are 50% aboriginal Australian, if three of your grandparents are 100% non-aboriginal and the fourth is 100% aboriginal Australian, then you are 25% etc.
> 
> If you are 1% aboriginal Australian and want to identify yourself as being culturally aboriginal Australian, then that normally is a personal choice and not an issue to anyone else. The problem is when the government positively discriminates in favour of aboriginal Australians. If aboriginal Australians become entitled to some benefit or other purely because they are aboriginal Australians and that benefit is paid by the tax payer, then surely the tax payer is entitled to know whether that person is genuinely an aborigine. So where does one draw the line. 100%, 50%, 25%, 10%?
> 
> I don't know the full details of the Bolt case, but I cannot see how questioning a person's ethnicity should be regarded as racial vilification, when that person appears to be not really a member of that ethic group. Government largesse isn't infinite, so someone must draw the line somewhere.


----------



## Calliope (1 October 2011)

basilio said:


> 2) He used his particular skills of  mockery, sarcasm and belittlement to ensure everyone who read the story as presented would believe the people were pretty low opportunists.




Whereas they were high-minded citizens.:dunno: We all know about Clark, and  as for Larissa Behrend, well she made a very nasty gutter remark about "fellow" aborigine Bess Price.



> LARISSA Behrendt was appointed to head the Gillard government's review of indigenous higher education on the same day it was revealed she used her Twitter account to describe watching bestiality on television as "less offensive" than Aboriginal leader Bess Price.
> 
> The high-profile indigenous lawyer was yesterday forced into a humiliating apology to Ms Price, an Aboriginal woman who supports the federal intervention in Northern Territory communities, after indigenous leaders expressed outrage at the comment.
> 
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-on-black-leader/story-fn59niix-1226039396368


----------



## Roberto (1 October 2011)

There has been nothing better over the last few years than watching David Marr comprehensively demolish Bolt's dim bigotries face to face on Insiders.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (1 October 2011)

Roberto said:


> There has been nothing better over the last few years than watching David Marr comprehensively demolish Bolt's dim bigotries face to face on Insiders.




Equalled over the last few years by watching Andrew Bolt comprehensively demolish Marr's dim bigotries face to face on Insiders.

They are of a kind, by pure chance on opposite sides of a debate.

gg


----------



## basilio (1 October 2011)

Interesting to see other examples surfacing of Andrew Bolt's misrepresentation of peoples views.

Martin Flanagan posted a story of how Andrew tried to give him a bad look.

*Bolt's barks of discontent lack bite*
Martin Flanagan


THREE years ago, Andrew Bolt wrote a blog post attacking my views on the origins of Australian football that began: ''Another Noble Savage myth pushed by journalists is disclosed.'' The problem was I did not hold the views Bolt attributed to me.

When a woman called Janine posted a quote from an article from the Victoria University magazine Sport and Culture, in which my views were accurately described, Bolt reacted angrily, telling Janine he would ban her from his blog if she kept making mischievous posts. He then attributed a second position to me - again one I did not hold - and bounded off like a kangaroo caught in the headlights to his next subject.

......I met Anita Heiss, one of the litigants in the Bolt case, seven years ago. She has a generous spirit and is frank and forthright. Coming from Tasmania, I am aware of the extent to which definitions of Aboriginality can become ultra-defensive and ossify. Here was a young woman who was proudly Aboriginal but totally open about her Austrian father's side of her family. To me, she represented a way forward, so I wrote about her.

*Bolt used the article. Other than her name, he got virtually everything about her wrong, including her skin colour and academic achievements, but no less important was the tone of the article, which opened her to ridicule and contempt.*

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/so...t-lack-bite-20110930-1l1bg.html#ixzz1ZUe82m7H


----------



## Calliope (1 October 2011)

basilio said:


> Interesting to see other examples surfacing of Andrew Bolt's misrepresentation of peoples views.




And it's not only Bolt. Another icon of the left, who has been rubbishing Bolt, has put his foot in it. Burnside's credibility is now down there with Bolt's.



> PROMINENT Queen's Counsel Julian Burnside has issued an apology to Tony Abbott after tweeting *"Paedos in speedos"* during a stream of critical remarks about the Opposition Leader on Twitter.




He said;







> "I really am genuinely sorry. I am critical of Mr Abbott on a number of grounds and I wouldn't want those criticisms to be diminished because people think I throw around utterly baseless, careless allegations."




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-on-twitter-slur/story-fn59niix-1226154571680


----------



## sails (1 October 2011)

Basilio, your postings and articles require some balance, imo.  Not everyone agrees with everything you say no matter how much you use enlarged fonts...

Is this being used to further the attack on free speech in this country?  Below are the viewpoints of other people:

 Mark Steyn: *Free Speech Disaster in Australia*

 Miranda Divine: *Bolt case has ominous echo *

George Brandis: *Section 18C has no place in a society that values freedom of expression*

From the Australian: *Assault on free speech should be offensive to all* 

Chris Merritt Legal affairs editor: *The Andrew Bolt decision means all of us have a problem*

Former Labor Minister Gary Johns:*Cultural identity open for discussion* 

Michael Connor: *Where is justice?*

Jason Morrison: *You can't say certain things anymore*

James Delingpole: *Freedom of speech is dead in Australia *

Christopher Pearson: *Repeal dusty sections of Racial Discrimination Act* 

that will do for now...


----------



## McLovin (1 October 2011)

sails said:


> Basilio, your postings and articles require some balance, imo.  Not everyone agrees with everything you say no matter how much you use enlarged fonts...
> 
> Is this being used to further the attack on free speech in this country?  Below are the viewpoints of other people:
> 
> ...




Does anyone really take Miranda Devine or Jason Morrison seriously?

I see that George Brandis is pretty much saying what I was up thread, that s18C is too broad.


----------



## sails (1 October 2011)

McLovin said:


> Does anyone really take Miranda Devine or Jason Morrison seriously?
> 
> I see that George Brandis is pretty much saying what I was up thread, that s18C is too broad.





And why does Murdoch have such a wide circulation?  Hmmm - that usually means people are buying it.  People choose what they buy to read.  Obviously you are reading with the minority...


----------



## McLovin (1 October 2011)

sails said:


> And why does Murdoch have such a wide circulation?  Hmmm - that usually means people are buying it.  People choose what they buy to read.  Obviously you are reading with the minority...




Because sheeple like being fed sensationalist tripe. And before you get your knickers in a knot about me being some left wing loony, I read the Australian, just like I read the SMH. I can't stand tabloids.


----------



## Julia (1 October 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Equalled over the last few years by watching Andrew Bolt comprehensively demolish Marr's dim bigotries face to face on Insiders.
> 
> They are of a kind, by pure chance on opposite sides of a debate.
> 
> gg



+1 x 10.
Might be Australia would be a better place if Marr and Bolt both simply disappeared.



Calliope said:


> And it's not only Bolt. Another icon of the left, who has been rubbishing Bolt, has put his foot in it. Burnside's credibility is now down there with Bolt's.
> 
> He said;
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-on-twitter-slur/story-fn59niix-1226154571680




He claims this was a mistake.  Really?   He is engaging in a discussion on Twitter about Mr Abbott and says


> he could not recall whether the message he was replying to was a comment from @RobertaWedge, asking: "@JulianBurnside Are sexist abbots like predator priests?"




to which he apparently directly replied:



> Paedos in Speedos




How could this be a mistake or unintentional as Mr Burnside claims?

Mr Abbott has sensibly declined to comment.

Given the sentiments expressed over the last few days about the right of people to feel offended, one would imagine Mr Abbott would have every reason to feel very offended indeed.

As perhaps Andrew Bolt himself might, on hearing himself being called "Scum" by some of those celebrating the court decision.  (from the link provided by Sails to the radio interview with Geoff Clarke, who for that matter, has undoubtedly offended many people in his time.)

So if we all start looking for reasons to be offended and decide to take the offending people to court, we are sure as hell going to need a lot more judges and court space.

The escalating public squabbling between journalists, lawyers and so called public intellectuals is unedifying to say the least.  "The Australian" has devoted way too many pages to responding to the virulent utterings of Robert Manne, and even today gives him a further right of reply.   As a reader of "The Australian" I would much prefer that they do their fighting in private.

What they don't seem to realise is how they are diminishing themselves by this silly and unproductive behaviour


----------



## Calliope (1 October 2011)

In previous tweets Mr Burnside had called Mr Abbott ''a crazed hypocritical zealot'' and
"a truly dangerous, unprincipled person: a liar and a hypocrite"

I guess we can work it out for ourselves who the unprincipled, lying hypocrite is.


----------



## todster (1 October 2011)

sails said:


> And why does Murdoch have such a wide circulation?  Hmmm - that usually means people are buying it.  People choose what they buy to read.  Obviously you are reading with the minority...




Most people dont care and dont read at all,the minority is the this forum and its posters.


----------



## Julia (1 October 2011)

todster said:


> Most people dont care and dont read at all,the minority is the this forum and its posters.



What rubbish.


----------



## todster (1 October 2011)

Julia said:


> What rubbish.




Yep 40000 members about 20 odd posters on this thread (usual suspects) cutting edge.
Julia you really need to get over yourself.
Rubbish indeed


----------



## IFocus (1 October 2011)

todster said:


> Most people dont care and dont read at all,the minority is the this forum and its posters.




Quite true most watch the 6.00pm news or the current affairs programs that show dramatic footage of lost dogs, print media has been in decline for some time.

I remember being around a work force of 300 + (Managers, engineers etc) less than 1/2 a doz were interested in discussions that we are currently having.


----------



## todster (1 October 2011)

IFocus said:


> Quite true most watch the 6.00pm news or the current affairs programs that show dramatic footage of lost dogs, print media has been in decline for some time.
> 
> I remember being around a work force of 300 + (Managers, engineers etc) less than 1/2 a doz were interested in discussions that we are currently having.




That was the point but i have a knack of winding some people.


----------



## basilio (1 October 2011)

> Basilio, your postings and articles require some balance, imo. Not everyone agrees with everything you say no matter how much you use enlarged fonts...
> 
> Is this being used to further the attack on free speech in this country? Below are the viewpoints of other people:  Sails




Well  they would say that wouldn't they ?

Forget what I say or my opinions.  They are irrelevant in this discussion

Andrew Bolt went before Judge Bromberg to defend the accuracy of his writing and the way he then expressed his views.

After carefully reviewing the stories and the evidence *Judge Bromberg* found that Andrew Bolt had basically made false statements about the 9 people and then trashed them on the basis of these false accusations. I highlighted and bolded *the judges finding*s to try and make it clear to anyone who actually can and will read English what Andrew Bolt was found guilty of.

The usual suspects just don't want to accept the possibility that they can't make up whatever they want and continue to get away with it under the  cloak of "free speech".  It would be all be a bit awkward if their writings had to be fact checked.

But don't worry.  If you all keeping yelling loud enough and long enough you can quite easily convince each other that Andrew was totally right all along  because, after all,

_*He's White, Bright  and Proud to be Right.. 

*_

(_Then you can all go out and send the judge to jail for getting it all so clearly wrong.._)


----------



## sails (2 October 2011)

Basilio,

I think you have completely missed the point I was trying to make.  This is more about the left using this as a further attempt to silence dissenting media in this country and little to do with Bolt.  

I am not defending Bolt on this issue, but what I find more disturbing has been the crowing from the left that one of the opinion writers of the Murdoch media has been found to have crossed the line in one or two articles.  That doesn't mean that every opinion expressed in a Murdoch rag is wrong either.

But, as it is the Murdoch media that the greenie left would like to see disappear off the face of this earth, the jubilation is not about Bolt, but something else to lay the boot into Murdoch media.

It is the attempts from the left to control the media and subsequent freedom of speech that is the most worrying issue, imo.


----------



## sails (2 October 2011)

todster said:


> That was the point but i have a knack of winding some people.





A little more reading would most likely help with spelling and grammar issues, Todster...

Time to get over yourself and stop throwing silly taunts.


----------



## McLovin (2 October 2011)

sails said:


> Basilio,
> 
> I think you have completely missed the point I was trying to make.  This is more about the left using this as a further attempt to silence dissenting media in this country and little to do with Bolt.
> 
> ...




Is your humour deliberate?


----------



## noco (2 October 2011)

sails said:


> Basilio,
> 
> I think you have completely missed the point I was trying to make.  This is more about the left using this as a further attempt to silence dissenting media in this country and little to do with Bolt.
> 
> ...




Yes Sails, you are dead right. You hit the nail on the head.


----------



## todster (2 October 2011)

sails said:


> A little more reading would most likely help with spelling and grammar issues, Todster...
> 
> Time to get over yourself and stop throwing silly taunts.




I have found good grammar and spelling do little to improve ones personality,you back it up.


----------



## wayneL (2 October 2011)

Let's not go down the personal attack route folks.

Pleeeeease.


----------



## orr (2 October 2011)

Just for a bit of back ground 

"We treat them the same as everyone else - couldn't be fairer." Queensland Premier, Joh Bjelke-Petersen - 1983"

For those who need to be reminded Lang Hancock is the father of Gina Rinehart who has a major interest in Channel 10 home for your Bolt Report . The following link is to a clip taken from the film 'Couldn't be Fairer', Supplied by the National film and sound Archive. Our history, the indelible Arm Band. 
  It conflates so much in just over two minutes( do you have the time?). Were Bolts rants just a job application? To a big fat fruit that hasn't fallen far from the tree.

http://aso.gov.au/titles/documentaries/couldnt-be-fairer/clip2/


----------



## sails (2 October 2011)

wayneL said:


> Let's not go down the personal attack route folks.
> 
> Pleeeeease.




Thanks Wayne and a good reminder to use the ignore facility which is something I don't like to do to posters who are prepared to have at least some sort of reasoned debate even though there are differing opinions.


----------



## sails (2 October 2011)

orr said:


> ...For those who need to be reminded Lang Hancock is the father of Gina Rinehart who has a major interest in Channel 10 home for your Bolt Report . The following link is to a clip taken from the film 'Couldn't be Fairer', Supplied by the National film and sound Archive. Our history, the indelible Arm Band.
> It conflates so much in just over two minutes( do you have the time?). Were Bolts rants just a job application? To a big fat fruit that hasn't fallen far from the tree...[/url]




Orr, yes I watched the clip and don't agree with Hancock's despicable ideas on this issue.  

But in your post you somehow assume that Gina Rinehart and Bolt would both share  the same opinions as Hancock - have I understood correctly?

As a grandparent I can assure you that kids don't always take on the same views as their parents, in fact, they can take the opposite in their adult years.

And also as a previous employer, I can also assure you that employees have their own opinions.  And Bolt is primarily employed by the Murdoch media and only has a half hour show with channel 10.  I have watched most of his shows and he is more into current politics.

I think you are reading too much into those associations of Gina and her father by a long stretch.  However, I think the left are trying their hardest to get rid of the Murdoch media using Bolt as an example.  I would think Bolt could actually have a field day suing the awful defamatory stuff I have read about him in the last couple of days and some can be found on his blog.

As I said in my last post, I don't think this is actually about Bolt.  I think this has become a convenient platform for the left to lay another boot into the Murdoch media to gain public support in an effort to silence the information they are willing to expose.


----------



## Knobby22 (2 October 2011)

sails said:


> As I said in my last post, I don't think this is actually about Bolt.  I think this has become a convenient platform for the left to lay another boot into the Murdoch media to gain public support in an effort to silence the information they are willing to expose.




Some truth in this, Newscorp are partly guilty as they should be giving him a junior reporter to check the facts/assertions or the editor should at least read the article and edit it.

He is willing to distort facts to make a point and should be brought into line because it is bad jounalism and will cost Newscorp a lot of court time if he keeps it up.


----------



## sails (2 October 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> Some truth in this, Newscorp are partly guilty as they should be giving him a junior reporter to check the facts/assertions or the editor should at least read the article and edit it.
> 
> He is willing to distort facts to make a point and should be brought into line because it is bad jounalism and will cost Newscorp a lot of court time if he keeps it up.





Knobby, to be fair, I think this is all over comments from just two articles.  Bolt must have written thousands over the years and yet so much fuss over just two?


And it seems that Geoff Clark had other reasons to go after Bolt.  It looks to me like it is an attempt to silence Bolt on wider issues:



> GEOFF Clark has admitted that he took part in a class action against Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt over the general "tone" of his opinion pieces.
> 
> Mr Clark said in an interview with the Herald Sun yesterday that Bolt's writing on a range of racial issues, not just the two articles reviewed in the court case, prompted him to take legal action.
> 
> "He's got a wide audience and, subject to what he says, that audience is swayed and he has a lot of influence," he said.




By Stephen Drill: Geoff Clark reveals why he went after Andrew Bolt 

Looks like a witch hunt to me...


----------



## Julia (2 October 2011)

sails said:


> It is the attempts from the left to control the media and subsequent freedom of speech that is the most worrying issue, imo.



I agree.  



todster said:


> Yep 40000 members about 20 odd posters on this thread (usual suspects) cutting edge.
> Julia you really need to get over yourself.
> Rubbish indeed






IFocus said:


> Quite true most watch the 6.00pm news or the current affairs programs that show dramatic footage of lost dogs, print media has been in decline for some time.
> 
> I remember being around a work force of 300 + (Managers, engineers etc) less than 1/2 a doz were interested in discussions that we are currently having.



OK.  I should have said that I don't know anyone at all who doesn't read quite avidly.
All depends on the social and work circle I guess.


----------



## IFocus (20 October 2011)

Marr is on the money here worth a read

Bolt's 'freedom of speech' crusade won't right his wrongs



> Andrew Bolt's martyrdom is now complete: twice in the next fortnight his popular column in the Herald Sun will be accompanied by a nearly unreadable ''corrective notice'' outlining his sins against the Racial Discrimination Act. And that's it.
> 
> Has he been fined for offending, insulting, humiliating and intimidating nine fair-skinned Aborigines? No. Does he have to pay them damages? No. Has he been warned off the delicate subject of whites identifying as blacks? Not at all.






> How else have Bolt and the Herald Sun suffered? Has the judge directed the paper strip the columns from its website? No. From its archives? No. Has he compelled the paper and its star columnist to apologise to the aggrieved Aborigines? Not even that. All Justice Bromberg has ordered to be done is publication of a 500-word notice in the paper and online setting out the nub of his judgment.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...-his-wrongs-20111019-1m80a.html#ixzz1bJTBWeKO


----------



## sails (20 October 2011)

IFocus said:


> Marr is on the money here worth a read
> 
> Bolt's 'freedom of speech' crusade won't right his wrongs
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...-his-wrongs-20111019-1m80a.html#ixzz1bJTBWeKO




So what exactly did Bolt do wrong?  Most of that excerpt is about what he didn't do wrong.


----------



## derty (20 October 2011)

sails said:


> So what exactly did Bolt do wrong?



The way I see it he wrongly accused a group of people of being frauds.


----------



## Calliope (20 October 2011)

derty said:


> The way I see it he wrongly accused a group of people of being frauds.




He was probably right, but they belong to a protected species. It is significant that the judge didn't ask for an apology. He probably knew where to draw the line after going through the motions, of a bad law.


----------



## Tink (22 October 2011)

No, his name was dragged through the mud, and they arent going to appeal  - speaks volumes.


----------



## basilio (22 October 2011)

Another side to the Andrew Bolt picture is coming out. A former girlfriend and fiancÃ©e who lived with Andrew for 6 years has come out to defend herself against a couple of cheap Bolt shots and another "rewriting history" episode. Quite fascinating.


> *
> Bolt from the past: a heartfelt history lesson to the man I loved*
> Suzanne Walshe
> October 22, 2011
> ...



.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/so...man-i-loved-20111021-1mcio.html#ixzz1bSExpsh8


----------



## sails (22 October 2011)

Basilio, Bolt must really worry you.  He is starting to get the same derogatory treatment from the left as Abbott.  Both of them must be doing a great job for the majority of Australians to be picked on like this...

Unfortunately for you Basilio, Bolt already has a good following and you will only be preaching to your own side with posts to try and make Bolt look bad.  Have you ever looked at his blog?  In fact, on his blog today, he has a response to the Fairfax article on his private life:



> On the other hand, my entirely uncontroversial relationship with a girlfriend more than a quarter of a century ago, before I met my wife, is now considered of such public importance that it is raked over by The Monthly, The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald so obsessively that the ex-girlfriend is even given a column of her own today to explain what a terrible person I have become since we parted, and how I lied when I said I didn’t remember being engaged to her.
> 
> What on earth are The Age and the SMH doing? Are they so blinded by hatred for an ideological foe that they will publish such stuff, even printing excerpts from private emails and private love letters I wrote when young?




Read more: *On Fairfax’s obsession with my private life*


----------



## wayneL (23 October 2011)

basilio said:


> Another side to the Andrew Bolt picture is coming out. A former girlfriend and fiancÃ©e who lived with Andrew for 6 years has come out to defend herself against a couple of cheap Bolt shots and another "rewriting history" episode. Quite fascinating.
> .
> 
> Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/so...man-i-loved-20111021-1mcio.html#ixzz1bSExpsh8




Oh Lord! A storm in a teacup that tickles basilio's G-spot.

Pffffft

What an insignificance.


----------



## Calliope (23 October 2011)

wayneL said:


> Oh Lord! A storm in a teacup that tickles basilio's G-spot.
> 
> Pffffft
> 
> What an insignificance.




You must remember that basilo judges others from the immaculate heights of his own purity.


----------



## basilio (23 October 2011)

Nah folks I have no problem with Andrew Bolts early girlfriend. In fact the picture she paints of the idealistic journalist she knew  is endearing.

And life changes. No probs with people  deciding a particular relationship was not for them.

The issue the girlfriend brought up was simply Andrews seeming dismissal/disrespect for her in (apparently) saying he was just a "minder for a belly dancer".  And in particular that he again seems to be rewriting history in his description of their situation.

Obviously you don't want to wax too lyrical about an old flame when you are now happily married with 3 children. Not a good look. Just would have been more sensitive and honest to give their earlier relationship more respect.

Perhaps the salient points that come up are are

1) Andrew can be unnecessarily nasty 
2) He has no problems with rewriting history where it suits him.

Which just echos what the judge said in his statement after the recent  trial.


----------



## wayneL (23 October 2011)

basilio said:


> Perhaps the salient points that come up are are
> 
> 1) Andrew can be unnecessarily nasty
> 2) He has no problems with rewriting history where it suits him.




Jeez! That sounds like just about everyone I know.


----------



## basilio (23 October 2011)

wayneL said:


> Jeez! That sounds like just about everyone I know.




Certainly could include a lot of people. 

I was being generous in my (under) statements. The ridicule and nastiness that Andrew heaps on targets in his articles is extreme. That was one of the comments made by the judge in his findings.

Also Andrews capacity to create whatever version of history he wants to justify his stories was also noted by the judge.

IMO the reality that a very nasty person who doesn't care about the truth is one of the most widely read columnists in the country is a  concern. 

Bit hey !  Quippy, nasty stories sell lots of copy. So purely from a business model we can see why Andrew is continuing his success.


----------



## wayneL (23 October 2011)

basilio said:


> Certainly could include a lot of people.
> 
> I was being generous in my (under) statements. The ridicule and nastiness that Andrew heaps on targets in his articles is extreme. That was one of the comments made by the judge in his findings.
> 
> ...




I might be prepared to accept that... if it wasn't so monumentally hypocritical.

The Grauniad and other left wing rags are full of writers of identical style and tactic; in fact it is the standard modus operandi of left wing commentators and politically/financially motivated "scientists" when faced with an insurmountable logical/scientific challenge.

In fact is this exactly what you are trying to do here? Dish up the Dirt on AB to discredit him?

Tell you what basilio, come back when your ideological masters are prepared to debate  sceptics and be open and honest with their data.


----------



## sails (23 October 2011)

On the Bolt report, Andrew speaks with Bess Price on extending the intervention and being called a “pet Aborigine”.  Interesting...


----------



## Knobby22 (23 October 2011)

Nice to see Bolt supporting a government program and standing up for the Aborigines.
He isn't a racist person and being right wing does not automatically make you a racist person. He is inclined to twist the facts and he should be made accountable when he does but David Marr of the left has similar behaviour. 

Sometimes Bolt can be good but sometimes he is lazy and trots out stories mostly written by overseas rabble rousers, changes a few words and publishes them Sometimes he doesn't check facts properly. He needs support staff if he is going to do everything he does. I think he may be getting help because I have noticed a bit of improvement.


----------



## drsmith (22 April 2012)

Today's Bolt Report was outstanding.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_bolt_report_today10/


----------



## drsmith (24 April 2012)

He's got a slot on Sydney's 2GB.

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment...lt-to-hit-sydney-airwaves-20120424-1xika.html


----------



## IFocus (25 April 2012)

Oh great another Liberal advertising spot dumbing down the nation with political vile and venom just like the US.


----------



## dutchie (25 April 2012)

IFocus said:


> Oh great another Liberal advertising spot dumbing down the nation with political vile and venom just like the US.




Its only a very small response to the other Labor advertising spots dumbing down the nation with political ineptness and national bankruptcy that are shown on the ABC and SBS!


----------



## banco (25 April 2012)

He's basically a performance artist.  I don't think he's actually an idelogue.  He just plays one on TV.


----------



## IFocus (28 April 2012)

dutchie said:


> Its only a very small response to the other Labor advertising spots dumbing down the nation with political ineptness and national bankruptcy that are shown on the ABC and SBS!





Again parrot fashion that you hear from the US about media bias if you show any signs of having a pulse you're a screaming Commo.

Politics has moved so far to the right these days


----------



## noco (28 April 2012)

IFocus said:


> Oh great another Liberal advertising spot dumbing down the nation with political vile and venom just like the US.




Not only are the USA laughing our this Green/Labor socialist goverment of Australia, the UK has got into the act as well.

They must also know we have an absolute clown in one Bill Shorten. Check out the link below.



http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/andrewbolt/index.php/couriermail/comments/sir_les_shorten/


----------



## IFocus (28 April 2012)

When Abbott gets in the world will really have some thing to laugh about


----------



## sails (28 April 2012)

IFocus said:


> When Abbott gets in the world will really have some thing to laugh about





For any mistakes Abbott has made, I don't think they have ever travelled so far as Shorten's...lol

And Shorten isn't even a leader...

Must be dissapointing when one of your own performs worse than Abbott...


----------



## wayneL (28 April 2012)

IFocus said:


> Politics has moved so far to the right these days




Ya reckon???

Maybe you've just moved so far to the left?


----------



## sails (28 April 2012)

sails said:


> For any mistakes Abbott has made, I don't think they have ever travelled so far as Shorten's...lol
> 
> And Shorten isn't even a leader...
> 
> Must be dissapointing when one of your own performs worse than Abbott...





Here you go, IF.  A few links which show just how much worse Shorten is than Abbott.  To the best of my knowledge, the occasional digs lefties have had at Abbott never reached these papers:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...nister-takes-brown-nosing-to-a-new-level.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...es-with-PM-without-knowing-what-she-said.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/27/bill-shorten_n_1459923.html


----------



## sails (28 April 2012)

sails said:


> Here you go, IF.  A few links which show just how much worse Shorten is than Abbott.  To the best of my knowledge, the occasional digs lefties have had at Abbott never reached these papers:
> 
> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...nister-takes-brown-nosing-to-a-new-level.html
> 
> ...




And here's another where  The UK Spectator has called Shorten's interview as "Interview of the year"

http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie/7810535/the-interview-of-the-year.thtml

Now what was that about Abbott, IFocus? 
 Did you know that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones?


----------



## drsmith (28 April 2012)

Labor doesn't have to worry about its glass house. 

It's been shattered from within.


----------



## IFocus (29 April 2012)

wayneL said:


> Ya reckon???
> 
> Maybe you've just moved so far to the left?




On social issues I have always been by any measure of the Coalition posters on ASF extreme left.

But as the wealth of our nation increases most get lazy until you get a "work choices moment" .


----------



## MrBurns (29 April 2012)

IFocus said:


> On social issues I have always been by any measure of the Coalition posters on ASF extreme left.
> 
> But as the wealth of our nation increases most get lazy until you get a "work choices moment" .




I didnt see anything wrong with Work Choices, so the boss can give you the sack, so what, surely you cant expect someone to keep you on if they don't need/want you.


----------



## sails (29 April 2012)

MrBurns said:


> I didnt see anything wrong with Work Choices, so the boss can give you the sack, so what, surely you cant expect someone to keep you on if they don't need/want you.




And, not only that, but Gillard's FWA has a clause that says a boss is guilty of any sexual harrasement claims until he/she proves  him/herself innocent...

Trouble for Gillard is that it might have backfired now on to Slipper.  I think she only intended it for those nasty bosses who happen to provide people with work...



> s. *361 Reason for action to be presumed unless proved otherwise
> *
> (1) If:
> 
> ...




http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...slipper_assumed_guilty_under_labors_laws/P20/

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fwa2009114/s361.html

http://www.deewr.gov.au/WorkplaceRe...view/Documents/ConfederationofACTIndustry.pdf


----------



## IFocus (29 April 2012)

MrBurns said:


> I didnt see anything wrong with Work Choices, so the boss can give you the sack, so what, surely you cant expect someone to keep you on if they don't need/want you.





Australia voted on Work non Choices and decided it was bad and for good reason.

I see Abbott is talking up shooting trade unions which is a wink and nod it all coming back but no doubt called some thing else so I guess round 2 has started.

Shame I have seen 1st hand the uncertainty and fear WnC created in the lower ranks it was horrible.


----------



## sails (29 April 2012)

IFocus said:


> Australia voted on Work non Choices and decided it was bad and for good reason.
> 
> I see Abbott is talking up shooting trade unions which is a wink and nod it all coming back but no doubt called some thing else so I guess round 2 has started.
> 
> Shame I have seen 1st hand the uncertainty and fear WnC created in the lower ranks it was horrible.





IF, "Fair Work" seems anything BUT fair.  The pendulum has swung too far the other way and will discourage people from running businesses and employing people, imo.

Even though I think Work Choices went a bit too far the other way, there was also a lot of scaremongering going on over Work Choices and I see you are still at it...LOL

I was an employer before Work Choices, and I can tell you it was ridiculous then.  We were unable to turn a profit (and I worked for nothing for several years while employees got all their entitlements).  I can only imagine how dreadful it must be for employers now under FWA especially with this presumption of guilt that I posted earlier at ASF today.


----------



## wayneL (29 April 2012)

IFocus said:


> Shame I have seen 1st hand the uncertainty and fear WnC created in the lower ranks it was horrible.




I guess about as much uncertainty as those who've risked it all and started a business... and employed those people.


----------



## Calliope (17 June 2012)

It should't be hard for Ms Gillard and her Green partners to manufacture millions of green jobs out of thin air, if she adopts the Obama definition of a green job. Saw this little gem on the Bolt report this morning.



http://news.thomasnet.com/green_clean/2012/06/14/good-news-you-have-a-green-job/


----------



## orr (18 July 2012)

This speaks volumes, of sense, As opposed to bolt

http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/07/12/all-media-outlets-are-now-under-severe-pressure/


----------



## MrBurns (18 July 2012)

orr said:


> This speaks volumes, of sense, As opposed to bolt
> 
> http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/07/12/all-media-outlets-are-now-under-severe-pressure/




Crikey is so left wing it could be run by the ABC.....I take no notice of it, subscribed once and the forums were worse than Q and A.


----------



## joea (7 August 2012)

This is from Alan Jones.

http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=13667

Hopefully it has not been posted before.
joea


----------



## sptrawler (7 August 2012)

Bolt needs to engage in meaningfull debate, not just pick a topic and hammer the poor bugger who disagrees.
I personally can't watch the show, it is just a case of preaching to the converted a bit like watching the morning show on ABC24, in reverse.
I would like one of the channels, to report unbiased information.


----------



## drsmith (20 January 2014)

The Bolt Report this year will be one hour.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...nts/bolt_report_back_and_bigger/#commentsmore


----------



## noco (20 January 2014)

drsmith said:


> The Bolt Report this year will be one hour.
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...nts/bolt_report_back_and_bigger/#commentsmore




I hope he brings on at 9am to compete against the Labor biased Cassidy on Insiders.

You will see Bolts rankings go up and the ABC show go down.

No fear no favours.


----------



## Logique (2 March 2014)

Bolt Report was brilliant this morning, watch the replay this afternoon.

A now one hour oasis of sanity from the week long biased blatherings of the ABC, SBS and Fairfax. 

Costa, Costello and Henderson carved them up. What a loss to public life is Peter Costello, but Tony Abbott is growing into the job, as his interview showed.


----------



## So_Cynical (2 March 2014)

Logique said:


> Bolt Report was brilliant this morning, watch the replay this afternoon.
> 
> A now one hour oasis of sanity from the week long biased blatherings of the ABC, SBS and Fairfax.
> 
> Costa, Costello and Henderson carved them up. What a loss to public life is Peter Costello, but Tony Abbott is growing into the job, as his interview showed.




I unfortunately watched about 3 minutes of it today...what a crock.


----------



## robusta (2 March 2014)

drsmith said:


> The Bolt Report this year will be one hour.
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...nts/bolt_report_back_and_bigger/#commentsmore




Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo


----------



## Calliope (2 March 2014)

So_Cynical said:


> I unfortunately watched about 3 minutes of it today...what a crock.




I never thought i would agree with you S_C, but Bolt is so predictably boring. The performances of he and Abbott this morning answered nothing and got nowhere. It would be better if Bolt would stop proselytizing and just ask probing questions.


----------



## banco (2 March 2014)

Calliope said:


> I never thought i would agree with you S_C, but Bolt is so predictably boring. The performances of he and Abbott this morning answered nothing and got nowhere. It would be better if Bolt would stop proselytizing and just ask probing questions.




Abbott only goes on there because of the lack of probing questions.


----------



## Julia (3 March 2014)

Calliope said:


> I never thought i would agree with you S_C, but Bolt is so predictably boring. The performances of he and Abbott this morning answered nothing and got nowhere. It would be better if Bolt would stop proselytizing and just ask probing questions.






banco said:


> Abbott only goes on there because of the lack of probing questions.




Yes.  Pretty much my comment earlier in the "ABC is Political" thread.


----------



## IFocus (3 March 2014)

Julia said:


> Yes.  Pretty much my comment earlier in the "ABC is Political" thread.




Predictably ......+1

This actually repeats some of your insightful comments  




> The Bolt Report: Andrew is back but he's missing the spark
> 
> Andrew Bolt is a happy man. But that’s bad news for The Bolt Report ”” the fact is, he’s better, sharper, hungrier when he’s got a left-leaning government to despise






> But poor old Andrew has one serious inhibition to happy reunion and communion with his peoples. He’s still fighting that big, red, shouty, cheap-as-chips Bolt Report set. The backdrop pulsates behind him; you fear at times he’ll be lost to a Dickensian spontaneous combustion






> This morning’s offerings were, in order of appearance, cleaning up for Scott Morrison on the Manus Island disturbance. Andrew had viewed the footage of detainees and reached the conclusion that none of those people “looked like people I’d want in Australia”. (Who actually needs refugee determinations anyhow?) Andrew was perplexed why The Left had not lamented for the asylum seekers who had drowned at sea, forgetting of course that they had lamented, at length. Manus, Andrew reasoned, was now saving the deaths at sea that Labor had point blank refused to prevent. (The fact that Labor established the current horror show on Manus, not Scott Morrison, was not mentioned by the host.)







> Then there was the “Morning Andrew” panel where everyone absolutely agreed with everyone else that, 1. Stephen Conroy was clinically insane; 2. Bill Shorten was weak for not diagnosing the clinical insanity and Taking Action; 3. Qantas should just bloody well fail if that’s what the market decides; and 4. All businesses with unionised workforces were doomed to fail because they employed people on salaries that were the same each and every week. (This was Peter Costello and Michael Costa, who presumably don’t get paid fixed salaries – their remuneration fluctuates along with share price movements.)
> 
> Gerard Henderson was then invited in a media watch segment to reflect on why the ABC and Fairfax and David Marr and Mark Colvin and an unnamed PM producer despise all Catholics who are real Catholics and not lapsed or liberal Catholics. (Let’s call this particular on-Zeitgeist conundrum The Eternal Why.)





http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/02/bolt-is-back-but-hes-missing-the-spark


----------



## noco (4 June 2014)

No doubt this link will prove The Bolt Report combined ratings for 10 am and 4 pm far exceeds the ratings of the ABC Insiders.

The show was so popular 10 decided to make it an hour long show.


http://www.crikey.com.au/topic/the-bolt-report/


----------



## sydboy007 (4 June 2014)

noco said:


> No doubt this link will prove The Bolt Report combined ratings for 10 am and 4 pm far exceeds the ratings of the ABC Insiders.
> 
> The show was so popular 10 decided to make it an hour long show.
> 
> ...




Does anyone actually watch channel 10 these days?  I thought they'd gone bankrupt already.


----------



## noco (4 June 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> Does anyone actually watch channel 10 these days?  I thought they'd gone bankrupt already.




I think there about 286.000  who watch the Bolt Report which is a lot more than Insiders.


http://australianconservative.com/2...rger-audiences-than-abcs-insiders-data-shows/


----------



## McLovin (4 June 2014)

noco said:


> No doubt this link will prove The Bolt Report combined ratings for 10 am and 4 pm far exceeds the ratings of the ABC Insiders.
> 
> The show was so popular 10 decided to make it an hour long show.
> 
> ...




So what? Honestly, who cares what the ratings are, unless you're a Ten shareholder?

FYI, if you can get a hold of the Oztam ratings for _this_ year you'll see that Insiders is beating Bolt. Your three year old data sample is well out of date.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 June 2014)

McLovin said:


> So what? Honestly, who cares what the ratings are, unless you're a Ten shareholder?
> 
> FYI, if you can get a hold of the Oztam ratings for _this_ year you'll see that Insiders is beating Bolt. Your three year old data sample is well out of date.




And of course we don't know these days in this world of PVRs how many people might record Bolt and watch Insiders later and vice versa. 

Do the ratings consider this possibility ?


----------



## McLovin (4 June 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Do the ratings consider this possibility ?




Yes, it does.


----------



## orr (4 June 2014)

Noco did I read the right article ?.... the report was from 2012

http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/11/21/bolt-beats-insiders-thanks-to-his-defender-lachlan/


----------



## Knobby22 (4 June 2014)

*The Bolt Report ratings have flopped* which is not surprising as how do you rant against Labor etc. every week when the Conservative are in power and people are more interested in what they do.

In the morning The Bolt Report again flopped, gathering just 95,000 metro viewers at 10am and 110,000 for the 4pm repeat. Insiders with 288,000 on News 24 and ABC1 was easily the best morning chat show. In fact Insiders had more viewers watching on News24 than watched the Bolt Report at 10am. Nationally, Bolt had 170,000 for the 4pm repeat and 145,000 for the 10am live broadcast. Insiders had 440,000 national viewers on ABC1 and News24.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2014/05/05/glenn-dyers-tv-ratings-a-big-night-for-everyone-but-ten/


----------



## sydboy007 (4 June 2014)

Knobby22 said:


> *The Bolt Report ratings have flopped* which is not surprising as how do you rant against Labor etc. every week when the Conservative are in power and people are more interested in what they do.
> 
> In the morning The Bolt Report again flopped, gathering just 95,000 metro viewers at 10am and 110,000 for the 4pm repeat. Insiders with 288,000 on News 24 and ABC1 was easily the best morning chat show. In fact Insiders had more viewers watching on News24 than watched the Bolt Report at 10am. Nationally, Bolt had 170,000 for the 4pm repeat and 145,000 for the 10am live broadcast. Insiders had 440,000 national viewers on ABC1 and News24.
> 
> http://www.crikey.com.au/2014/05/05/glenn-dyers-tv-ratings-a-big-night-for-everyone-but-ten/




Gosh.  I wonder if noco is somehow involved with determining the content 10 broadcasts?  Could be why their ratings are heading in a similar direction to the post budget confidence.


----------



## basilio (10 July 2014)

*Getting Andrew Bolt to unreservedly apologise.*

Ambitious? Impossible ? He is never wrong anyway? Not quite so it seems.



> Careless with the facts, Bolt on 19 May told 2GB's listeners that: "Tony Abbott was falsely accused of punching a wall next to the head of the student official when he was at university..."
> 
> He was talking in the context of student demonstrations that greeted foreign minister Julie Bishop and how sad it was that there had not been the same amount of condemnation that greeted the story about Abbott and his wall punching. Bolt went on:
> 
> ...




To cut a long story short (but it's well worth reading anyway)  Andrew Bolt received a very pointed letter from Ramjams lawyer  pointing out that his remarks gave rise to the imputation that his client had lied and there was a witness to say she had not lied.

He immediately unreservedly retracted his imputations..

Now was this just an oversight on his part ? Perhaps didn't know what had happened and made a boo boo?

Nah. Just another example of the lying manipulative wretch this excuse for a journalist is. 

The facts are that in September 2012 Andrew Bolt did an interview with Kroger on The Bolt Report where Kroger savagely trashed Barbara Ramajam. As a result of the interview Kroger, Channel 10 and the Australian were sued . The case was set for trial.  The defendants apologised  unreservedly. 

And still Andrew Bolt has the brass to keep  repeating proven, slanderous lies. 


> Andrew Bolt the latest to apologise over Tony Abbott's wall punch
> 
> *As long as pundits keep questioning Barbara Ramjan's account of the Abbott university wall punch, they'll keep having to give grovelling apologies*




http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...pologise-for-doubting-tony-abbotts-wall-punch


----------



## Tisme (1 July 2015)

"Bolt has quite a reputation for factual errors in his writing"

Interesting read


https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2011/october/1318315099/anne-summers/bolt-factor


----------



## Tisme (1 July 2015)

Gee the more I delve the more layers I find; astonishing really because I see him as two dimensional.

"Later, Stephanie Bolt, sister of right-wing Herald Sun blogger Andrew Bolt came out in defence of gay marriage on the Crikey website after she left a comment on his blog that was not published.


Ms Bolt said she was a lesbian who was married to her partner under Canadian law.

"It may seem naive, but having that certificate in my hand made me untouchable, secure, normal, and for those wonderful few weeks, I could drop the shield," she said. "It's disappointing beyond measure that my brother and others who share his views don't wish that for me and everyone else like me."


Tony Abbott has a lesbian sister too.... I wonder if their brother's drove them to it?


----------



## Macquack (1 July 2015)

Tisme said:


> "Later, Stephanie Bolt, sister of right-wing Herald Sun blogger Andrew Bolt came out in defence of gay marriage on the Crikey website after *she left a comment on his blog that was not published*.




If Bolt won't even publish a post from his own sister (what a dog Bolt is), then what chance has a Labor party supporter got of getting their comments posted?

Have you read the drivel posted as comments on Bolts blog, Bolt writes them all himself.


----------



## Tisme (1 July 2015)

Macquack said:


> Have you read the drivel posted as comments on Bolts blog, Bolt writes them all himself.




I just did, ...you know I think you are right on both counts


----------



## Tisme (1 December 2015)

I woz tricked! I laid down in from of the telly on Sunday arvo for a rest and roused to a replay of Bolt!!!

I tried ignoring it (the drivel from a useless tit) but even my deadarm had to wake up and find the remote ....where the fcuk is that remote!!!  How a boy man could get his own soap show astounds and disappoints me.


----------



## drsmith (18 January 2016)

Andrew Bolt may lose his show.

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment...dly-cancelled-by-network-20160118-gm7xcm.html

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg..._bolt_report_and_my_future/desc/#commentsmore

Sliding ratings late last year may have been a product of being so negative on the Turnbull government.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 January 2016)

drsmith said:


> Sliding ratings late last year may have been a product of being so negative on the Turnbull government.




May also be because he's a w@nker.


----------



## noco (18 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> May also be because he's a w@nker.




They may perhaps allow him into that exclusive club where Bill Shorten has been a member for some time.


----------



## Macquack (18 January 2016)

drsmith said:


> Andrew Bolt may lose his show.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment...dly-cancelled-by-network-20160118-gm7xcm.html
> 
> ...




Poor old Andy's problem is that he was actually "popular" on the program "Insiders" because *at least 50% of the audience hated his guts with a passion*. Some "Guru" re-invented Bolt's perceived popularity into his own show, the "Bolt Report". First thing I noticed on his new show was the "wanker" (thanks SirRumpole) was trying to be nice and reasonable at the same time (f***ing impossible).

I will shed a tear of joy when Bolts is cast aside to the unemployment lines.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 January 2016)

Has it been mentioned that The Bolt Report was subsidised by Murdoch to the tune of $2 million per year ?

http://www.theguardian.com/media/20...uses-to-confirm-reports-show-has-been-dropped

If Ten did the same timeslot with say Laurie Oakes , it would give Insiders a scare I reckon.


----------



## noco (18 January 2016)

Macquack said:


> Poor old Andy's problem is that he was actually "popular" on the program "Insiders" because *at least 50% of the audience hated his guts with a passion*. Some "Guru" re-invented Bolt's perceived popularity into his own show, the "Bolt Report". First thing I noticed on his new show was the "wanker" (thanks SirRumpole) was trying to be nice and reasonable at the same time (f***ing impossible).
> 
> I will shed a tear of joy when Bolts is cast aside to the unemployment lines.




If Bolt goes he should grab Barry Cassidy and Tony Jones and take them with him...Those two are bigger w@nkers than Bolt.......They are out and out wealthy Fabians.


----------



## Macquack (18 January 2016)

noco said:


> If Bolt goes he should grab Barry Cassidy and Tony Jones and take them with him...Those two are bigger w@nkers than Bolt




NO ONE IS A BIGGER WANKER THAN *BOLTS*.


----------



## Tisme (18 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Has it been mentioned that The Bolt Report was subsidised by Murdoch to the tune of $2 million per year ?
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/media/20...uses-to-confirm-reports-show-has-been-dropped
> 
> If Ten did the same timeslot with say Laurie Oakes , it would give Insiders a scare I reckon.




So it was an infomercial.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 January 2016)

Tisme said:


> So it was an infomercial.




Where's the info ?


----------



## drsmith (18 January 2016)

Macquack said:


> Poor old Andy's problem is that he was actually "popular" on the program "Insiders" because *at least 50% of the audience hated his guts with a passion*. Some "Guru" re-invented Bolt's perceived popularity into his own show, the "Bolt Report". First thing I noticed on his new show was the "wanker" (thanks SirRumpole) was trying to be nice and reasonable at the same time (f***ing impossible).
> 
> I will shed a tear of joy when Bolts is cast aside to the unemployment lines.



He's biased but he's not unique in that regard. While I don't agree with everything he's said, he made some good points. 

Andrew's problem was that once he decided to be so negative about the Turnbull leadership, he didn't appeal to a broad enough spectrum and that would have impacted his ratings.


----------



## wayneL (19 January 2016)

Macquack said:


> NO ONE IS A BIGGER WANKER THAN *BOLTS*.




Define "wanker" in this context.

And how can one wanker be bigger than another?

Can you describe your own wankery? Are you a big wanker?

Where do you fit on the wanker spectrum?


----------



## explod (19 January 2016)

wayneL said:


> Define "wanker" in this context.
> 
> And how can one wanker be bigger than another?
> 
> ...




Agree Wayne,  a bit "surreal"  maybe "bonker"  would be better,  sort of rhymes with "bolter" hey


----------



## moXJO (7 June 2017)

Bolt bashes lefty protesters and the world feels right.
http://www.news.com.au/entertainmen...k/news-story/af82aa84bd058b125c4c009da52abcff

Man he gives it to them as well.


----------



## PZ99 (7 June 2017)

So he should. They should be charged and sentenced - just like the guy with the pie


----------



## Tink (7 June 2017)

Of course it was in Melbourne.

The Communist Greens don't believe in freedom of speech.

_Bolt was at Il Gambero restaurant in Lygon St to launch the book The Art of the Impossible: A Blog History of the Election of Donald J Trump by economics academic Steve Kates._


----------



## PZ99 (7 June 2017)

So far the assailants are unknown. So which particular Greens are you referring to Tink?


----------



## Tisme (7 June 2017)

moXJO said:


> Bolt bashes lefty protesters and the world feels right.
> http://www.news.com.au/entertainmen...k/news-story/af82aa84bd058b125c4c009da52abcff
> 
> Man he gives it to them as well.




So grown up Andrew gets some benign glue and sparkles thrown at him by some kids and his response is to beat the bejesus out of one? 

I would say Andrew has just made himself a target of every uni student who eva woz.


----------



## wayneL (7 June 2017)

Just kids having a bit of fun,  hey Tisyou?


----------



## basilio (7 June 2017)

Tisme said:


> So grown up Andrew gets some benign glue and sparkles thrown at him by some kids and his response is to beat the bejesus out of one?
> 
> I would say Andrew has just made himself a target of every uni student who eva woz.




Nah the Man clearly has*  MASSIVE STEEL BALLS.*  He'll be dining out on this story for ages. By next year there will have five,  Two hundred cm  commie, crypto fascists he had nut kicked and sent scurrying back to their candle lit caves.

Within a decade it will have been a a squad of pick handle wielding commie/muslim terrorists who he dispatched to the nether world with a flick of his imperious wrist.

I can't wait until he writes a column on his experience, his valour, his toughness and his determination to make sure he is taken seriously.


----------



## PZ99 (7 June 2017)

They'll probably use nuts and bolts next time


----------



## Tisme (7 June 2017)

wayneL said:


> Just kids having a bit of fun,  hey Tisyou?





We'll have to start calling Andrew "sparkles".

I won't be surprised if his victim doesn't press charges for excessive force.

I do think that older men should have some self control when it comes to physical violence, even in retaliation for young people being impudent and acting like the Chasers.


----------



## Tisme (7 June 2017)

basilio said:


> Nah the Man clearly has*  MASSIVE STEEL BALLS.*  He'll be dining out on this story for ages. By next year there will have five,  Two hundred cm  commie, crypto fascists he had nut kicked and sent scurrying back to their candle lit caves.
> 
> Within a decade it will have been a a squad of pick handle wielding commie/muslim terrorists who he dispatched to the nether world with a flick of his imperious wrist.
> 
> I can't wait until he writes a column on his experience, his valour, his toughness and his determination to make sure he is taken seriously.





I haven't kept abreast of the situation, but he must be a beacon to the Menzies/Calwell males in their final death throws pining for the good old days of giving a good beating to youth, wives, foreigners and the like to keep all of them in check for their impudence.


----------



## wayneL (7 June 2017)

basilio said:


> Nah the Man clearly has*  MASSIVE STEEL BALLS.*  He'll be dining out on this story for ages. By next year there will have five,  Two hundred cm  commie, crypto fascists he had nut kicked and sent scurrying back to their candle lit caves.
> 
> Within a decade it will have been a a squad of pick handle wielding commie/muslim terrorists who he dispatched to the nether world with a flick of his imperious wrist.
> 
> I can't wait until he writes a column on his experience, his valour, his toughness and his determination to make sure he is taken seriously.



I'd be pretty chuffed at having an excuse to punch the crap out of snivelling little cretins like that too.

Good job.


----------



## Ves (7 June 2017)

i think its hilarious u guys talk trash about Bolta. u wouldnt say this **** to him at lan, hes jacked. not only that but he wears the freshest clothes, eats at the chillest restaurants and hangs out with the hottest dudes. yall are pathetic lol.


----------



## Tisme (7 June 2017)

Ves said:


> i think its hilarious u guys talk trash about Bolta. u wouldnt say this **** to him at lan, hes jacked. not only that but he wears the freshest clothes, eats at the chillest restaurants and hangs out with the hottest dudes. yall are pathetic lol.





Yo he da man yeah. 

Saving cream and glitter FFS lol  


Has anyone ever seen Noco and Andrew in the same room?  just saying .......


----------



## orr (7 June 2017)

Wouldn't surprise me at all that this was organised to distract from Mr Anthony Fosters State funeral
Forster being a tireless campaigner against child abuse and thoughally desent human being ...
And then we have Bolt; antithesis of a decent human and  a full time apoligist for Catholic Church and _interestingly_ blithely indifferent of  Pell.


----------



## moXJO (7 June 2017)

Personally I think he didn't go far enough. Glitter is the genital herpes of the arts and crafts world and you find that $hit years after using it.


----------



## PZ99 (7 June 2017)

I would've propelled the pair of them onto the pavement with a punt up the posterior


----------



## noco (7 June 2017)

PZ99 said:


> I would've propelled the pair of them onto the pavement with a punt up the posterior




And a heavy boot on the head.....Bolt has set an example and we will see more of the same to come.


----------



## macca (7 June 2017)

Just how was he to know what they were going to do ? 

He is a right wing columnist who has criticised the softly softly approach to terrorism, I would think he is quite likely to be attacked one day by nutters who intend to do far more harm than put glitter on him.

I believe that everyone has the right to defend themselves should a group of people attack them


----------



## Logique (7 June 2017)

Tisme said:


> So grown up Andrew gets some *benign glue and sparkles *thrown at him by some kids and his response is to beat the bejesus out of one?
> I would say Andrew has just made himself a target of every uni student who eva woz.



If it was all so benign, why did the attackers hide their identity behind balaclavas.


----------



## Tisme (7 June 2017)

macca said:


> Just how was he to know what they were going to do ?
> 
> He is a right wing columnist who has criticised the softly softly approach to terrorism, I would think he is quite likely to be attacked one day by nutters who intend to do far more harm than put glitter on him.
> 
> I believe that everyone has the right to defend themselves should a group of people attack them





In fear of the own fear he generates to sensationalise his articles  ...That's self actualisation on a whole new playing field.


----------



## macca (7 June 2017)

Tisme said:


> In fear of the own fear he generates to sensationalise his articles  ...That's self actualisation on a whole new playing field.




After the events in the UK and here I find quite it quite puzzling that people think "nothing to see here" folks, just people getting killed by nutters, move on, move on..............


----------



## Tisme (7 June 2017)

macca said:


> After the events in the UK and here I find quite it quite puzzling that people think "nothing to see here" folks, just people getting killed by nutters, move on, move on..............




At the insistence of the govt and the counter terror experts we are urged to get on with our usual lives, which include larrikins doing what these young guys/gal did.

Some may say a good hiding of the Chasers would have stopped their rambunctious behaviour and many would like that.

If Andrew Bolt knew his commentary and announcement might cause student activists to turn up, as an agitator and celebrity himself he might have had enough common sense to ring forward and see if protesters awaited him. Is it all a setup...who knows.


----------



## moXJO (7 June 2017)

We could use a few more Bolts amongst our limp wristed society. Melbourne being ground zero.

Its time for righties to participate in time honored traditions.
Vive la nightstick


----------



## PZ99 (8 June 2017)

New footage 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-08/new-footage-of-andrew-bolt-assault/8601374


----------



## SirRumpole (8 June 2017)

PZ99 said:


> New footage
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-08/new-footage-of-andrew-bolt-assault/8601374




Old Bolty did quite well.  I Don't like him but I don't blame him.


----------



## PZ99 (8 June 2017)

I think he was being conservative!


----------



## wayneL (8 June 2017)

Like I said before... cretins.


----------



## Tisme (8 June 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Old Bolty did quite well.  I Don't like him but I don't blame him.





I'd like to see both of them get a hiding, but I still don't see Bolt being hit in the head.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 June 2017)

Tisme said:


> I'd like to see both of them get a hiding, but I still don't see Bolt being hit in the head.




No, it's nails that get hit on the head.


----------



## sptrawler (8 June 2017)

I actually thought, he acted like a normal self respecting person should act, when set upon.

We are so busy teaching everyone to roll over and pizz on themselves, that aggressors feel empowered to do whatever they feel like, the media and courts support that belief.IMO

Bolt reacted, as any person who doesn't want to be a victim, would react.
It has been forgotten, that the individual has the right, to protect themselves.

What if the "muppets" had petrol, and repeated the bus driver incident, of a few months ago?

No these days as Basilio eludes to, he is just "big noting" himself, he should have just accepted what was coming and rolled over quietly. 
Just become another evening news victim, and let the perpetrators have some air time to get across their views, because they are the important ones. lol


----------



## moXJO (8 June 2017)

Anyone  hear the story of 4Chan, antifa and eric Clanton. Funny stuff.


----------



## dutchie (9 June 2017)




----------



## Tisme (14 August 2017)




----------



## basilio (28 October 2020)

*“If It Wasn’t For Multiculturalism, Melbourne Would Have Had Even Less Than Zero Cases Today”: Andrew Bolt   *






“It’s all so predictable. Melbourne records no new COVID-19 cases and the latte-art, chardonnay sipping, leftist elite think it’s cause for celebration. But while you’re out buying your vegan donuts, consider this. How much lower could those case numbers have been today if Melbourne had ended its dangerous experiment with toxic multiculturalism?

If it weren’t for the housing commission towers crowded with non-English speakers from countries that do not share our values, Melbourne’s numbers could have been a third – even half – of what was recorded today.

If it weren’t for people with dark skin arrogantly drawing attention to themselves in Melbourne’s north and western suburbs, today’s numbers would have almost certainly been much, much lower.

It’s no coincidence that in the suburbs where multiculturalism is least prevalent – in Toorak, Canterbury, Brighton and Portsea – there was not a single case recorded. Not one. Nada. But of course those from immigrant backgrounds won’t understand what ‘nada’ means because they don’t speak English. Don’t even try.

And while the people in white suburbs are clearly doing the right thing, patiently waiting until they can be freed to go skiing in Aspen again, they are punished for the actions of those elsewhere. Selfishness writ large.








						“If It Wasn’t For Multiculturalism, Melbourne Would Have Had Even Less Than Zero Cases Today”: Andrew Bolt
					

"While you’re out buying your vegan donuts, consider this. How much lower could those case numbers have been today if Melbourne had ended its dangerous experiment with toxic multiculturalism?"




					www.theshovel.com.au
				





It’s time to admit that this experiment with multiculturalism has failed. If we don’t, we may well see Melbourne’s case numbers double tomorrow”.


----------

