Channel 7′s Riley insensitive

Tony Abbott has a private conversation with senior Army Officers in Afghanistan and a low life reporter from Ch 7 trolls through tapes of the conversation hoping to find something to make Abbott look bad.

Aha! See here…he says “..shit happens” during a conversation about casualties. Maybe if we edit the tape so the public can’t see the Army Officers agreeing with Abbott then people may think he is talking about a specific death and then we can accuse him of being insensitive.

Well, that worked a treat, didn’t it?. Tabloid TV thrives on comments taken out of text so they start leading news items like Abbott accused of being insensitive and setting up polls on websites that asks Do you think Abbott was insensitive?

Well, no. I don’t think Abbott is insensitive but I do I think Riley is. He selectively edits a tape of a private conversation taking two words out of context, links it to the death of a digger and then tries to suggest Abbott is insensitive.

Riley, or Ch 7, then make it worse by seeking the opinions of parents of deceased diggers by asking if they think Abbott saying the words Shit Happens is insensitive. No context and a suggestion that Abbott is talking about the death of their son brings about the predictable result.

The fact that Abbott isn’t talking about their son is not mentioned.

Have they no ethics at all?

It quickly became obvious that Abbott wasn’t being insensitive, so to try and maintain pressure on him the media changed the line of attack to ‘What he said was OK but now the story is all about Abbott’s reaction to Riley ambushing him”

Look at him…stunned mullett…a man who can’t think of a reasonable answer to Riley’s below-the-belt attack can’t possibly be considered for PM.

When I watched to interview I was speechless with rage at Riley’s unethical, immoral and biased behavior and I can only imagine Abbott, being the actual target, felt it more so. You can almost see him thinking – what on earth is this scruff on about?

Abbott should have just turned and walked away. He didn’t and his reaction, or lack of it, gives the loony left something to salivate over for another day or so. However, I do think you’ll find that the general populace will see Abbott as a victim of poor journalism and Riley as a biased, unethical scruff.

At least, that’s how I see it.

39 Responses to Channel 7′s Riley insensitive

  1. Cav says:

    I can read minds…

    Abbott was wavering between two alternatives.

    “Should I deck him or headbutt him?”

  2. roly says:

    With you all the way Kev. Syl thought I was going to bust a blood vessel or at least kick the shit out of the telly. 7 National News is off the air in my place for a while.

  3. 1735099 says:

    Kev
    None of this would have emerged as an issue if the visit to the troops hadn’t been recorded.
    It’s worth asking why politicians of both sides feel the need to get themselves photographed in war zones.
    The answer, of course, is obvious, but the process cheapens and demeans the soldiers. If politicians were fair dinkum about showing support, they would visit without hype and fanfare. These visits are also a tremendous waste of precious resources when security etc is factored in.
    Abbott likes having yippee shoots but apparently is sensitive about being filmed. This contrasts with Howard and Rudd who didn’t feel the need to do this, and Gillard seems to follow the same practice.
    How soldiers are truly regarded by our political masters becomes obvious when you look at how DVA works. Remember how Vietnam Vets were greeted on RTA towards the end of our involvement. They were dropped like hot spuds by both sides of politics when public opinion turned against the war – particularly galling for those who were Nashos, and had no choice.
    If anything, this demeaning use of diggers for political advantage has got worse. Nothing is beyond the pale these days, even the grieving faces of the NOK at ramp ceremonies and funerals.
    I wonder if these same NOK get a say as to whether or not they want to be splashed all over the national media.
    Ethics?
    Since when was ethics a part of federal politics? Remember Jo Bjelke-Petersen and Albert Field?

  4. PeterW says:

    Good ol’ partisan bobby red-herring shooting his ignorance-gun from the hip again.

    “If politicians were fair dinkum about showing support, they would visit without hype and fanfare.”

    Abbott made a point of visiting Afghanistan without attendant media – the clip was shot by Defence PR presumably because they felt the need to record/publicise Abbott’s visit.

    “Abbott likes having yippee shoots but apparently is sensitive about being filmed.”

    Abbott was invited to witness a firepower demonstration so he could be shown the effect of various weapon systems being discussed in the context of the controversy surrounding support to Australian patrols such as the one during which Jared MacKinney was killed.

    At the end of the demo he was invited to fire a couple of weapons. Rudd would have broken a nail and messed his hair, Howard always showed little interest (good idea if his bowling is anything to go by) and Gillard would have fallen back onto her ample arse.

    From the footage shot by Defence PR, for its purposes not Abbott’s, it looked like he handled a rifle well – good on him for taking the time to a) visit the area and b) for being prepared to seek on-the-ground advice to better understand all the issues surrounding the fire-support controversy.

    “…when you look at how DVA works…”

    Yawn, red-herring.

    “Remember how Vietnam Vets…”

    Another all-together too predictable off-topic Red-herring.

    “I wonder if these same NOK get a say as to whether or not they want to be splashed all over the national media.”

    Yes they do and always have had a say – they have the option of conducting a private funeral away from media scrutiny or accepting the Australian Government\’s offer to bury their son/brother/husband with the ceremony of a military funeral.

    “Jo Bjelke-Petersen…”

    The best premiere Queensland has ever had! But as usual yet another red-herring.

    Bobby red-herring’s post is 249 words of off-topic drivel in which he tries, like scum-sucking Riley, to make political capital out of a soldier’s death.

    Typical.

    • 1735099 says:

      Peter Whatever accusing someone of partisanship is about as credible as Mussolini calling Hitler a tyrant. Still – it’s good for a laugh.

      As for Abbott making a point – the only point he was trying to make was that he was one of the boys – both in his choice of language and his macho behaviour. It was always going to backfire. He could have declined the invitation to fire the weapons, or ask not to be filmed.

      “Presumably” – you’re adept at both assumption and presumption. It must be gratifying to be allowed special entre into all the arrangements around these visits.

      “Good on him…”

      Of course, when a Labor pollie visits it’s for the PR. When a Liberal does so it’s “to better understand all the issues surrounding the fire-support controversy”.

      But if Peter Whatever says so – it’s not partisan. You can only be partisan if you support the “wrong” side.

      “Yes they do and always have had a say” – of course, you’d know, with that special entre you have. It certainly wasn’t the case forty years ago as the mother of one of my mates killed in Vietnam reminded me last Anzac day.

      Perhaps things have improved. The army PR machine is certainly slicker these days.

      “to make political capital out of a soldier’s death…”

      This is the biggest red-herring of all. If your favourite pollie makes a goose of himself cloak it in patriotism. That’ll do the trick.

      As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, the story is a beatup. My point (which obviously went right over your head) is that any political presence in a war zone these days is “making political capital” of the soldiers. To introduce Vietnam into the issue is far from irrelevant.

      It provides a very clear historical example of how soldiers were treated in an unpopular war and lays bare the grubby and cynical state of our national discourse about military intervention then and now.

      Little has changed.

      By the way, a “premiere” refers to a film, a “premier” to a politician. Get it straight, otherwise you run the risk of making a bigger goose of yourself than Abbott.

  5. PeterW says:

    Laughing boy Bobby red-herring has re-loaded his “ignorance-gun” and is still firing wildly and inaccurately from the hip despite choosing a ‘belt’ with a ratio of three rounds of red-herring to every phosphorus-tipped ignorance round.

    Down range of “laughing-boy” his carefully constructed straw men are collapsing under the weight of his own fire. Several ricochets have buried themselves in his AB booted feet and red-herring rounds are streaking wildly through the sky as his comprehension barrel warps even further.

    Bobby’s first burst slayed his own straw man located at a range of National Socialism and Fascism somewhere close to his own totalitarian heart.

    His second was lobbed harmlessly into the stop-butt of irrelevance. Abbott doesn’t try to “be one of the boys” he is one – lifesaver, volunteer fireman, athlete and so on. His commitment to his community and his attitude to those who serve is summed up well by a former CO of SASR, Brigadier Jim Wallace AM who said of Abbott:

    “There are few public figures who have so spontaneously and personally demonstrated to me such natural empathy for soldiers, gratitude for their role and sympathy for their sacrifice. I think it is reprehensible that this slur should be levelled at anyone, on any side of politics, and least of all Tony Abbott, knowing his high regard for soldiers.”

    Abbott’s “natural empathy for soldiers, gratitude for their role and sympathy for their sacrifice” stands in vivid contrast to the snivelling contempt in which those of the left hold us, be we former service men and women or currently in uniform. A casual observer of Bobby red-herrings’ constant Vietnam this and Vietnam that would be surprised he hasn’t warmed to someone with Abbott’s sincere “high regard for soldiers”. But those who visit here regularly will know history challenged Bobby has only one eye and it has a caste firmly to the left.

    Third burst over range control’s heads with “…to be allowed special entre into all the arrangements around these visits”.

    Once upon a time I did have special entre into such visits, be they very senior officers or politicians. The visitors have very little control over their itineraries. They request a visit and sometimes ask to see particular activities or facilities – if the trip is approved Defence plans the visit, local units accept or reject elements of the trip, escorts are briefed and Defence PR usually turns up with a video and / or still camera person and writer if the visitor is sufficiently important and they feel they can get some media mileage out of the event.

    Once on the ground the VIPs are guided around the locations being visited, they are given briefings by a range of people ranging from the Formation Commander or unit CO to a digger operating a bit of kit, questions are asked, answers given, lunch eaten and the VIPs move on. I have never heard of any VIP requesting not to be photographed by Defence PR personnel – not even a bunch of People’s Liberation Army General’s trying out Steyrs at Portsea – the sight of which surprised the hell out of me when I wandered up to the range to do some job or other.

    As a footnote: Channel Seven’s technical staff have boasted they had to go to great lengths to pull Abbott’s comments from the tape. The audio was recorded by the camera’s effect mike not by a dedicated directional mike being held close to the gaggle of people in shot. Abbott’s comments were quiet and clearly intended for those close to him not a wider audience.

    At the time of Abbott’s visit the questions surrounding the fire-support available to Australian operations in Afghanistan were flying thick and fast. It’s no wonder he, as the alternative PM, was given a demonstration of said fire-support and an opportunity to fire a couple of weapons.

    As I wrote earlier, I’m pleased Abbott took the time to visit and improve his knowledge first hand. That he saw, smelt and heard the effect of weapons in the field will stay with him. We can hope that if he gets the top job he will recall his day on an Afghan hillside when pondering the wisdom of military deployments in the future.

    Bobby’s fourth burst is straight through his Boots AB. “You can only be partisan if you support the “wrong” side.” You do Bobby. It’s in your DNA. The evidence is in every post you contribute.

    Fifth burst over the stop butt and into the wide blue yonder. “’Yes they do and always have had a say’ – of course, you’d know, with that special entre you have. It certainly wasn’t the case forty years ago as the mother of one of my mates killed in Vietnam reminded me last Anzac day.”

    As you live in the land of make-believe Bobby red-herring here’s a link to a document entitled: “Debunking the Myths – Family support following a death on deployment.”

    http://www.dva.gov.au/aboutDVA/publications/corporate/vetaffairs/2010/Documents/Vol26No4_6.pdf

    To support my contention families have a choice regarding military funerals here’s a quote:

    “How does Defence assist with funeral arrangements?
    The Bereavement Support Team discusses the funeral options available to a family, including what level of military ceremonial support they require. Funeral arrangements follow the family’s wishes.
    When there is an entitlement for a funeral at Commonwealth expense, Defence will cover the reasonable costs of a military or private funeral service. This is currently capped at $12,500 and includes a commemoration in the form of a niche and plaque at a crematorium or headstone at a cemetery.”

    Clear enough? Note the phrases ‘funeral options’, ‘family’s wishes’ and ‘private funeral service’. As far as I’m aware this assistance has been provided since a decision was made to routinely repatriate Australian war dead in the late 1950s or early 60s. Perhaps you can a) elaborate on the circumstances surrounding the funeral of “one of my mates killed in Vietnam” and b) provide references to documentation to support your claim “It certainly wasn’t the case forty years ago…”

    When this subject was dealt with on all my subject one courses the kind of support offered did not change over the years, when I had to assist my RSM in some of the arrangements made for military or private funerals I was always impressed by the care and attention shown to the wishes of the families of the deceased soldiers, sailors or airmen involved. Most chose a military ceremony, a few did not, but all were treated with the utmost care and even tenderness by the officers and padres appointed to the task.

    Bobby red-herring’s last few faltering shots were coaxed out of a weapon so abused by the poor quality ammunition he uses it can now only fire the occasional single under-powered round all of which fall harmlessly onto the ground to lie spent amongst the detritus of Bobby’s shattered ‘Boots AB’.

    It is a good thing that pollies visit troops on operations. They need to feel the heat / cold, breath the dust, smell the air, measure the distances, eat the food, try out a stretcher, wear the amour, see, hear and smell the ordnance etc. They need to talk to people on the ground, hear their opinions and look into their eyes.

    Anything less is a dereliction of their duty.

    The only things here which are ‘grubby and cynical’ are Bobby red-herring’s ignorant claims and his history challenged referrals to Vietnam.

    Premieré = ‘the first’ and ‘best’. Joh to a tee!!!!!

    Mmmmm, nice Cabernet too….

  6. PQ says:

    BZ, PeterW. Well said.

  7. 1735099 says:

    To extend Peter W’s ballistic metaphor, he’s shooting blanks.

    “Abbott doesn’t try to “be one of the boys” he is one – lifesaver, volunteer fireman, athlete and so on”

    Well, goody gumdrops – that qualifies him as PM material, does it?
    I’d have more confidence in a national leader who was less inclined to use ignorance and paranoia to garner support. Any idiot with two working arms and a trigger finger can fire a weapon. It does appeal, I guess, to the gunshop cowboys in the population.

    “Once upon a time I did have special entre into such visits, be they very senior officers or politicians.”

    Come on, drop a few names – you know you want to.

    My original post was about soldiers being used as political collateral. Despite your endless references about how well the army manages funeral arrangements, (no doubt driven amongst other things by the backlash created by the disgraceful treatment of Vietnam Veterans) this practice continues.

    These days it’s finessed and tweaked, but diggers are still used to curry favour with foreign regimes, that would drop us like hot spuds if it suited them. The only war in our history in which Australians have participated which bore any relation to our national security was WW2.

    In that conflict, it took a Labor PM to stand up against the old drunk to bring our troops home to defend our soil. The Yanks would behave no differently than Churchill did if it came down to a choice between their national security and ours.

    As for that corrupt old bastard, J B-P….

    I had the misfortune to encounter him when he visited my school in 1973. I was standing behind a row of kids with Cerebral Palsy, lined up to meet hm. He was obviously extremely uncomfortable in the presence of kids with disabilities, and moved quickly down the line, without meeting anyone’s gaze, or speaking to any of them.

    Near the end of the line, one of his aides whispered something in his ear. My guess was that she reminded him that these kids had waited in the hot sun for a long time, and were excited to be meeting the Premier.

    He paused and spoke a few words to Peter, a sixteen year-old with spastic quadriplegia sitting directly in front of me. He said, and I quote –

    “Have you been out in the sun today, laddie?”

    Apart from the fact that we’d been waiting in the sun for an hour, which rendered the question nonsense, the inference that this lad resembled a potted plant was not lost on Peter.

    He turned to me, and whilst Jo was still in earshot, said “He’s stupid”.
    To my eternal shame, I said nothing. I should have agreed with him in a loud voice.

    Peter went on to graduate in Economics at U of Q and works for ABA.

    Jo Bjelke-Petersen only escaped conviction and jail because the jury foremen at his perjury trial in 1991 was a member of the Young Nationals. He escaped a retrial because at age 81, a compassionate prosecutor considered him too old.

    His extortions, as Premier, are estimated to have amounted to $6 million.

    Sounds exactly like Peter W’s idea of the perfect pollie.

  8. PeterW says:

    “Well, goody gumdrops – that qualifies him as PM material, does it?”

    In many ways it does. Combined with his many trips to remote Aboriginal communities and his work for charity it shows he’s not just an empty suit like Labor’s ex union-organiser drones or the ignorant carbon-hating inner-city loonies put forward by the Greens.

    “Any idiot with two working arms and a trigger finger can fire a weapon.”

    Yes Bobby red-herring, you are living proof of that ‘truism’.

    “Come on, drop a few names – you know you want to.”

    Says poor ol’ Bobby red-herring who, now out of any sensible on-topic rounds, desperately reaches for a red-herring whizz-bang which fizzes uselessly in his hand whilst he exploits the alleged discomfort of a child he describes as “a sixteen year-old with spastic quadriplegia” in one of his fairy tales.

    Very poor form Bobby.

    Lets see how his disjointed squib of a pyrotechnic responds to any of the queries posed above.

    Does he respond to the request that he “elaborate on the circumstances surrounding the funeral of “one of my [his] mates killed in Vietnam”?

    No, clearly not – looks like that’s just another made up yarn.

    Does he respond to the request he “provide references to documentation to support your [his] claim “It certainly wasn’t the case forty years ago…” regarding ADF support to the families of those killed on deployment?

    No, in the absence of any support his claims are shown to be more false memories.

    Red-herring and straw-man count for Bobby red-herring’s latest pitiable post, including his usual gratuitous references to WW2, panicy old Curtin and Vietnam, and his bullshit story about Queensland’s finest ‘Premieré’, is around 20 and climbing.

    What next? Perhaps another fairy tale in which a ‘conservative’ ignores him or something.

    The only blank cartridges in use here are the ones Bobby’s scrounged up after the bottom of the magazine fitted to his “ignorance-gun” fell off.

  9. 1735099 says:

    Peter W’s been reading from the Andrew Bolt handbook of “show me proof”.
    I don’t have to show you anything – once again Peter Whatever, your bias is so all-encompassing that it blinds you to any consideration of fact or history.
    Apart from the fact that I have a regard for the privacy of others, whether or not you label anything you disagree with as “alleged” is immaterial. Forget my anecdotes if you choose, but try disregarding the historical record.
    Try these facts for starters -
    1. Jo Bjelke-Petersen’s government was amongst the most corrupt in this nation’s history. Read the report of the Fitzgerald Enquiry and tell me this corruption was “alleged”.
    See – http://www.cmc.qld.gov.au/data/portal/00000005/content/81350001131406907822.pdf
    2. John Curtin fought (and won) a battle with Churchill about the return of the 7th Division in March 1942.
    See – http://john.curtin.edu.au/1940s/intouch/cablegramwar.html
    3. Vietnam Veterans were largely disowned on their return to Australia during the term of the Gorton – McMahon government. The disregard/neglect continued after Labor gained power, but both sides of politics were complicit. Wasn’t a Labor government in power when the “Welcome Home” march was staged? So untidy, isn’t it? Having said that, whilst many present didn’t show Hawke respect when he took the salute, at least we didn’t have to witness the spectacle of saluting the leader of a party which sent us off to war and then disowned us when we returned. That would have been a bit much…..
    See Ian Bryant’s address – http://austradesecure.com/radschool/Vol30/Pdf/Viet%20Vets%20Day%20Addres.pdf
    An extract – “Most of us recall the immense damage that was done to fine young men by those spineless community and political leaders who purported to speak in our name. We Vietnam veterans are determined that the same must not be allowed to happen to another generation of servicemen and women who, like us, served their country faithfully and with honour.”
    Obviously, in your eyes, Bryant is also fond of “red herrings”.
    Either challenge these historical facts or pull your head in. Name-calling and abuse doesn’t cut it.
    You have also completely ignored the thrust of my first post, that of the universal misuse of Australian soldiers by both sides of politics in the cause of grubby partisan politics.
    The fact that you seem to regard these issues as “red herrings” speaks volumes of your bias and ignorance.
    Sticking a label on an argument because you can’t deal with it is simply intellectual cowardice.

  10. roly says:

    May I point out that the topic is about Abbott and Riley none of the other stuff that both of you have rattled on with. There were some good points on both sides but they had nothing to do with the introduced topic.
    Just for the record I was at the welcome home march in Sydney, this march was organised by a couple of Vietnam Veterans and not by Bob Hawke who was only invited out of protocol. The reason he didn’t get my salute:- He was president of the actu when the Jeparit and the Boolooroo were stuck in Australian Ports through his orders.

  11. PeterW says:

    “Peter W’s been reading from the Andrew Bolt handbook of “show me proof”. I don’t have to show you anything…”

    So be it – your fairy tales are seen by all to be nothing but fabrications created to support your sad ignorant misrepresentation of history.

    “Read the report of the Fitzgerald Enquiry…” Another red-herring and completely off topic like the rest of your posts. I have read it – it’s an unsurprising wordy list of trivialities and suppositions which has nothing to do with Mark Riley or Channel Seven – the topic of this thread.

    “John Curtin fought (and won) a battle with Churchill about the return of the 7th Division in March 1942.” Red-herring – nothing to do with Mark Riley or Channel Seven – the topic of this thread. That Curtin was an alcoholic panic merchant who ceded Australia’s sovereignty to a corn-pipe smoking narcissist is not moot.

    “…Vietnam Veterans were largely disowned on their return to Australia…” Red-herring – nothing to do with Mark Riley or Channel Seven – the topic of this thread.

    ““Welcome Home” march…” Red-herring – nothing to do with Mark Riley or Channel Seven – the topic of this thread.

    “…whilst many present didn’t show Hawke respect when he took the salute…” Red-herring – nothing to do with Mark Riley or Channel Seven – the topic of this thread.

    “See Ian Bryant’s address…” Red-herring – nothing to do with Mark Riley or Channel Seven – the topic of this thread. But you just can’t help hoisting yourself on your own petard can you Bobby re-herring.

    Let’s see what Ian Bryant wrote – firstly his description of Menzies’ Australia:

    “The 1962-1972 Vietnam Campaign history that we Veterans share has a backdrop of an Australian society that seems no longer to exist. Then, most were prepared to undertake their military duty – after all, the institution of National Military Service had only been absent from our society for five years before its re-introduction in early 1965. Then, a man could still count on a handshake to seal an agreement; politicians could still be publicly held to account; a nation could be expected to support its military forces in the field, as the experiences of Korea, Malaya and Confrontation showed. And strong moral concepts of right and wrong were still clearly visible within Australian society and community, despite the new concept of television starting to push the boundaries of public acceptability. We took responsibility for our actions, and the handout was a rarity.”

    Sounds pretty good to me. Now his description of Australia after years of the left’s treasonous slander and defamation of Australian’s serving in Vietnam:

    “…after some of our biggest combat actions, our troops were repatriated home at night, return home marches were plagued with demonstrators, our leading opposition politicians consorted openly for and with the enemy: and while returned veterans were disowned by RSL and community leaders alike, the majority of our people remained silent. Despite the fact that our combat reputation and humanitarian actions throughout our participation in Australia’s longest war remained unsullied, the more irresponsible of the media attempt still to sensationalise events taken out of context or simply misquoted without apology.”

    “…our leading opposition politicians consorted openly for and with the enemy …”

    Now who would that be? Yup Whitlam’s deputy, your favourite ‘Commie’ Cairns with his open support of North Vietnam. [See the scumbag Cairns (centre) sharing a platform in the Sydney Town Hall with representatives of communist North Vietnam (whose visit to Australia he sponsored), surrounded by Viet Cong flags and a huge picture of dictator Ho Chi Minh: http://www.newsweekly.com.au/pics/2010/jim_cairns_1973.jpg ]

    As early as 1966 Whitlam and his cronies like Uren saw opposition to the war as electorally expedient so they ramped up opposition to Australia’s commitment regardless of the harm they did to the servicemen and women involved. They spurred on and revelled in the hatred whipped up by the media with their atrocious lies about “baby killers” and “rapists” and made no attempt to restrain the dogs they had unleashed.

    But it fell to a Liberal Prime Minister, John Gorton, to order the first withdrawal of Australian troops from Vietnam. He also put into train the legislation to end conscription which was eventually introduced to parliament by Whitlam. Gorton’s feckless Liberal Party successor as PM completed the disengagement – not Labor as many of the left claim.

    “…the more irresponsible of the media attempt still to sensationalise events taken out of context or simply misquoted without apology.”

    Mark Riley et al follow in the filth filled footsteps of Burchett and the rest of the disloyal tools of the left at the ABC. That Bobby red-herring tries so energetically to continue Riley’s work puts him firmly in his camp.

    “Obviously, in your eyes, Bryant is also fond of “red herrings”.” You obviously don’t read what you write before posting, if you did you might have realised what a stupid line that is. But then again… However, it’s obvious to other readers of this blog that you’ve misrepresented what Ian Bryant wrote in order to fire a few weak pathetic shots at the ‘evil conservatives’.

    “Either challenge these historical facts…” Which facts? That Labor and the left “consorted openly for and with the enemy.” Or that “the more irresponsible of the media attempt still to sensationalise events taken out of context or simply misquoted without apology.”

    Nothing you’ve posted has any relevance to the thread’s topic including the special pleading you are now engaging in with your plaintive cry that we have “completely ignored the thrust of my first post”. Your first post was nothing more than a snivelling attack on Tony Abbott. Followed with the ludicrous assertion that the ADF’s ceremonial support of those killed on deployment “is a demeaning use of diggers for political advantage.”

    Every claim you’ve made has been shown to be baseless, from Abbott’s motives for visiting Afghanistan to your statement that “any political presence in a war zone these days is “making political capital” of the soldiers.”

    “Sticking a label on an argument because you can’t deal with it is simply intellectual cowardice.” Yes Bobby – as the hat fits you so well, you might as well wear it.

  12. PeterW says:

    “May I point out that the topic is about Abbott and Riley none of the other stuff that both of you have rattled on with…”

    I know roly, but poor ol’ Bobby red-herring just keeps on diggin’ that hole he’s at the bottom of…

  13. roly says:

    Thanks for that pic PeterW, my old copy was hanging in tatters from my dartboard.

  14. 1735099 says:

    “your fairy tales are seen by all”

    As seen by Peter W, through his befuddled bias. Your denial of fact and offhand dismissal of primary sources indicates that you are incapable of accepting anything recorded which disagrees with your view of the world.

    To dismiss the Fitzgerald report as “trivialities and suppositions” is a good example.

    It was the most thorough inquiry of its kind in Australian legal history, covering 238 sitting days, hearing 339 witnesses, receiving 2304 exhibits and resulting in 10 indemnities against prosecution.

    In the lead-up, Snr Sgt Harry Burgess and Assistant Commissioner Graham Parker had admitted corruption and resigned, Lewis had been stood down as Police Commissioner and bagman Jack Herbert was arrested in London and subsequently granted an indemnity.

    By the time it was over, Commissioner Lewis was tried, convicted, and jailed on corruption charges. He was later stripped of his knighthood and other honours. Bjelke-Petersen ministers Don Lane and Austin were also jailed. Another former minister, Russ Hinze, died while awaiting trial.

    Bjelke-Petersen escaped conviction by the skin of his teeth.

    And Peter Whatever describes this history as “trivial”, putting his bias in stark relief.

    My “fairy tales” as you call them, are more credible than your biased rants…

    “That Curtin was an alcoholic panic merchant who ceded Australia’s sovereignty to a corn-pipe smoking narcissist”

    Adjectives don’t alter history. You can abuse Curtin and Macarthur all you like, but that doesn’t alter the outcome. Using your logic, Churchill could also be described as “panicky” when he refused to allow Australian diggers to return to defend our country, or Menzies when he asked us to be invited to send troops (including conscripts) to Vietnam.

    But Peter Whatever wouldn’t do that of course, stuck as he is in his juvenile “goodies” and “baddies” narrative.

    “the left’s treasonous slander and defamation of Australian’s serving in Vietnam”

    The legal definition (from Oran’s dictionary of the Law) defines treason as a citizen’s actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation].”

    During the Vietnam War, we were deployed in a divided country to eliminate an ideology. What “foreign government” was making war against Australia? If no Australians had been deployed in SVN nobody would have been “making war” against Australia. What “injury” was done to the “parent nation?”

    The concept that the “left” as you call it was injuring the “parent” government is dodgy to say the least. By your definition, anyone voting Labor in 1969 was treasonous.

    As you point out, our disengagement was an initiative of a coalition government. They had seen the writing on the wall, that wall being firmly located in US foreign policy.

    There was “injury” done to 500 Australians KIA and 3629 WIA during our deployment. Perhaps if the resistance to the war had been more successful earlier this “injury” would have been considerably less.

    You are, it seems, incapable of acknowledging the sacrifices of these men whilst at the same time being objective about the legitimacy and the conduct of the war. In this, you are in good company, as pointed out by Ian Bryant.

    This incapacity to simultaneously acknowledge and honour the veterans (including the conscripts who had no say in their participation) whilst at the same time recognising that the war itself was a mistake is telling. To abuse those with a conviction in opposition of the war, then and now, is to deny the democratic values we were told we were defending.

    Sassoon says it well –

    The anguish of the earth absolves our eyes
    Till beauty shines in all that we can see.
    War is our scourge; yet war has made us wise,
    And, fighting for our freedom, we are free.

    Horror of wounds and anger at the foe,
    And loss of things desired; all these must pass.
    We are the happy legion, for we know
    Time’s but a golden wind that shakes the grass.

    As he says “war has made us wise”. Take Sassoon’s advice in his second verse and move on.

    As for old mate Tony – his losing of the plot on-camera has had an outcome in today’s poll.

    I have one experience in common with Tony – we were both taught by Jesuits.

    He would be well-advised to remember one of their driving principles – their objective to produce wisdom and a deep sense of reverence rather than marketability or a narrow orientation towards a specific career.

  15. PeterW says:

    “And Peter Whatever describes this history as “trivial”, putting his bias in stark relief.”

    It is trivial Bobby red-herring – the only people who found Fitzgerald’s report anything other than entirely predictable had been living under a rock for 50 years. And it, like everything else you post, is a red-herring.

    You’re pathologically incapable of contributing to any discussion without gratuitous references to Vietnam – you’re as predictable as a Queensland copper taking a bribe in the 70s.

    “Churchill could also be described as “panicky”…”

    Nice defence of Curtin… Oh wait, you didn’t defend him – you just introduced another red-herring.

    “The legal definition (from Oran’s dictionary of the Law) defines treason as a citizen’s actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation].”

    A great description which fits the left’s actions and words like a glove. See roly’s comment regarding “when the Jeparit and the Boonaroo were stuck in Australian Ports.” Treason pure and simple, instigated by the CPA led SUA.

    As a Sydney Morning Herald editorial of the day made clear “The Seamen’s Union is Communist-led, and the reason for its tactics is perfectly clear. Mr Elliott and his colleagues are less concerned about the welfare and employment opportunities of their members than they are trying to ensure the triumph of Hanoi.”

    “…the triumph of Hanoi.”

    But as Oran’s Dictionary of the Law is American let’s look at how Australian Law defines treason. Section 80.1 of the Criminal Code, contained in the schedule of the Criminal Code Act 1995, defines treason as follows:

    A person commits an offence, called treason, if the person:

    (e) engages in conduct that assists by any means whatever, with intent to assist, an enemy:

    (f) engages in conduct that assists by any means whatever, with intent to assist:

    (i) another country; or (ii) an organisation; that is engaged in armed hostilities against the Australian Defence Force;

    (h) forms an intention to do any act referred to in a preceding paragraph and manifests that intention by an overt act.”

    Let’s put a couple of phrases together: ‘A person commits an offence, called treason, if the person engages in conduct that assists by any means whatever an organisation that is engaged in armed hostilities against the Australian Defence Force.’

    Hmmmmm. Organisations like the North Vietnamese Army or Viet Cong perhaps…

    “But it’s the ‘Criminal Code Act 1995’” you shriek Bobby, “…the war was in… well, years ago when I was abused by a conservative…” Okay, so lets look at the act which applied during the Vietnam War.

    Treachery is defined by the Crimes Act of 1914:

    (2) Where a part of the Defence Force is on, or is proceeding to, service outside the Commonwealth and the Territories not forming part of the Commonwealth, a person shall not assist by any means whatever, with intent to assist, any persons:

    (a) against whom that part of the Defence Force, or a force that includes that part of the Defence Force is or is likely to be opposed;

    (3) A person who contravenes a provision of this section shall be guilty of an indictable offence, called treachery.

    Penalty: Imprisonment for life.

    Even clearer…

    “By your definition, anyone voting Labor in 1969 was treasonous.”

    Pedestrian drivel Bobby red-herring – just another red-herring. Can’t you keep on topic for more than three words?

    “You are, it seems, incapable of acknowledging the sacrifices of these men…”

    No bobby, it’s you who has the inglorious track record of using the Vietnam war for your own base political ends. This thread was about Abbott and a so-called ‘journalist’ called Riley. It had nothing what so ever to do with Vietnam, but in order to make your snivelling attack on Tony Abbott YOU invented a story about… Wait for it… Vietnam. Why, because you have nothing else to offer. It’s pathetic really.

    “As he says “war has made us wise”. Take Sassoon’s advice in his second verse and move on.”

    Well Bobby I guess you are the exception that proves Sassoon’s point. But it is time you moved on, even if it’s just to rid blogs like this of your irrelevances. Try living in the 21st Century with the rest of us, Vietnam is a tourist destination with beaches, fascinating streetscapes and nice restaurants in this century – it’s quite nice, better than Bali.

    “I have one experience in common with Tony – we were both taught by Jesuits…” There are many things the Jesuits have to be ashamed of – your scant education is just one.

  16. 1735099 says:

    Fascinating stuff -

    “the only people who found Fitzgerald’s report anything other than entirely predictable”

    and

    “you’re as predictable as a Queensland copper taking a bribe in the 70s”

    This can mean a number of things –

    1. Peter W thinks it’s OK for coppers to take bribes.
    2. Everybody knew that Bjelke-Petersen’s government was corrupt.
    3. Anything that shows Jo Bjelke-Petersen in a bad light is called “predictable”.

    Which of these meanings is intended?

    Answer this simple question – Given the report of the enquiry, and the criminal convictions of some of his ministers, was his government corrupt? “Yes” or “No” will suffice.

    “Nice defence of Curtin… Oh wait, you didn’t defend him – you just introduced another red-herring”

    Not really – I was making a polite enquiry as to why you regard the same behaviour as “panic” when exhibited by a Labor PM and something else entirely when exhibited by a Conservative. The fact that you avoided the question by sticking a label on it shows you don’t have an answer, and your description of Curtin is simply bile.

    “when the Jeparit and the Boonaroo were stuck in Australian Ports”

    My comments on Vietnam are labelled “irrelevant” by Pater W when I introduce them to the discussion, but apparently Vietnam becomes suddenly relevant when introduced by another reader (in this case Roly).

    Funny that….

    As to your meanderings about treason – if the actions of the maritime unions at the time were treasonous, why didn’t the Federal police proceed against them?

    Perhaps the fact that Union action was more tokenistic than real that the ACTU did not endorse it, and that it had minimal operational effect may have had something to do with that.

    Proceeding against the SUA may also have precipitated an industrial backlash for the then Coalition government that it didn’t have the stomach to fight.

    At least Labor’s rhetoric was backed up by its political activity. Back then, the Coalition trumpeted its support for the troops, but didn’t follow up with any meaningful or consequential action.

    As I’ve said before – not much has changed. Irrespective of which side of politics is in power the diggers are political collateral.

    “just to rid blogs like this of your irrelevances”

    That’s not your call.

  17. roly says:

    1735099, you should be a journalist, apparently they and yourself know the whole truth about everything. You and Don Tate belong to the same club…..give up PeterW, you cannot convert anyone that only sees one side of a fantasy.

    • PeterW says:

      “…give up PeterW, you cannot convert anyone that only sees one side of a fantasy.”

      True roly, but what sport it is…

  18. PeterW says:

    “This can mean a number of things…”

    Or it could mean that the late 60s and 1970s was a period during which the corruption of police was well known from Fremantle to Rockhampton. Anyone who mooched about Fortitude Valley during the 70s was exposed to the obvious relationship between some notorious ‘coppers’ and the proprietors of the seedy clubs down-town. A couple of days leave in Sydney usually involved a night or two in the ‘Cross’ where a similar relationship between police and the thugs at the doors was obvious as it was in St Kilda. Who can forget ‘nifty’ Neville Wran and New South Wales’ SP bookies either. But then poor old fact challenged Bobby red-herring has probably never heard of the above or Roger Rogerson et al or been allowed out after 6pm in the nasty side of town for that matter. He probably didn’t read tabloid newspapers either which explains his puritan like surprise at the trivial revelations of the Fitzgerald report.

    “’Nice defence of Curtin… Oh wait, you didn’t defend him – you just introduced another red-herring’ Not really – I was making a polite enquiry as to why you regard the same behaviour as “panic” when exhibited by a Labor PM and something else entirely when exhibited by a Conservative.”

    If Curtin was in the dock on a shop-lifting charge he’d be heading for the gallows with Bobby’s rigorous defence. That Curtin ceded Australian sovereignty to McArthur isn’t a moot point. Curtin was a MacArthur lapdog and surrendered Australian sovereignty and control of Australian forces on our own territory, he refused advice from his General Staff and allowed MacArthur to waste Australian Soldiers in unnecessary assaults on Gona, Buna and Sanananda.

    In the words of military historian Gavin Long: “…during the Curtin-MacArthur era, the Australian Government had made a notable surrender of sovereignty when no Australian government would have so completely surrendered control of its forces in its own territory to a British commander and staff.”

    In Long’s view, “…a strange aspect of this alliance of an Australian government and an American commander was how far apart were their views on international and local politics. So complete was the surrender of sovereignty that MacArthur from the outset appointed Americans to lead every branch of his staff even though there were several highly qualified Australian Army specialists who had the additional advantage of ‘recent and varied active service.”

    There is no suggestion Churchill acted in a similar way in his dealings with the US – to the contrary he cajoled and nagged it before during and after the war. If Bobby has the time he should read Field Marshall Sir Alan Brookes’ diaries – they reveal the falsehood in his claim Churchill acted like Curtin.

    “…but apparently Vietnam becomes suddenly relevant when introduced by another reader (in this case Roly).”

    Roly didn’t introduce Vietnam as a subject – he commented on the subject after it had well and truly been thrashed, twisted and abused by Bobby red-herring.

    “Proceeding against the SUA may also have precipitated an industrial backlash for the then Coalition government that it didn’t have the stomach to fight.” “Back then, the Coalition trumpeted its support for the troops, but didn’t follow up with any meaningful or consequential action.”

    Poor Bobby red-herring is demonstrating his ignorance of history again. In 1966 the communist leaders of the Seamen’s Union of Australia (SUA) defied Federal Government agreements and directives to crew the Australian National Line ships Boonaroo and Jeparit on voyages to Vietnam.

    The Federal Government threatened action in the Industrial Court, the SUA caved in and the Boonaroo sailed to Vietnam on schedule. A later voyage of the Jeparit was also manned by SUA members after the Federal Government threatened to use naval personnel to crew the ship.

    When the Boonaroo was chartered and loaded with ammunition for a second voyage in 1967 the SUA traitors refused to man the ship again so it was commissioned into the RAN and made the trip crewed by naval personnel. A similarly loaded 1967 voyage of the Japarit was crewed by a mixture of naval and civilian personnel later that year.

    So much for ‘coalition’ inaction – the Federal Government showed careful restraint in 66 and 67 and ended the SUA’s treasonous delays on the re-supply of Australian forces in Vietnam by the quiet commissioning of the two ANL ships into the RAN.

    In a series of “meaningful and consequential actions”: the SUA was rolled in the industrial court and forced to crew the first trip of the Boonaroo, forced to crew the Japarit when it’s members’ tender convictions were trumped by the risk of losing their jobs to naval personnel and lost any further influence on the resupply of Australian troops in Vietnam when the ships were commissioned into the RAN.

    Job done – Conservative Government = 4 – Leftist SUA = 0.

    Here’s that quote from the Sydney Morning Herald editorial of the day again: “The Seamen’s Union is Communist-led, and the reason for its tactics is perfectly clear. Mr Elliott and his colleagues are less concerned about the welfare and employment opportunities of their members than they are trying to ensure the triumph of Hanoi.”

    “…Irrespective of which side of politics is in power the diggers are political collateral.”

    Seems to me the tale of the Boonaroo and the Japarit illustrates rather well that it’s the actions and words of the dissolute left which is first to see “diggers as political collateral”.

    • 1735099 says:

      “Anyone who mooched about Fortitude Valley during the 70s”

      I had better things to do with my time in the 70s. “Mooching” is obviously right up Peter Whatever’s alley.

      And I’m waiting for you to explain why you believe police corruption is OK, and whether you think Jo’s regime was corrupt.

      Your references to Neville Wran and Roger Rogerson remind me of the way many twelve year olds react when caught red-handed smoking behind the dunny – diverting but irrelevant. “But sir – Billy and Brian were doing it all the time last year”.

      Tell it to the Padre, Peter Whatever.

      And you still can’t tell the difference between an historical event, and an interpretation of history.

      To clear it up for you –

      Curtin bringing the 7th Division home against Churchill’s demands – historical event.

      Long’s view of the relationship between Macarthur and Curtin – historical interpretation.

      His interpretation, coming from an Anglophile of the first order, is unsurprising – but it is simply that, an interpretation.
      Here’s another interpretation – Arthur Fadden (from the other side of politics) is quoted as saying that Curtin was “one of the greatest Australians ever” (Geoffrey Serle, For Australia and Labor. Prime Minister John Curtin, John Curtin Prime Ministerial Library, Bentley, 1998, p. 31)
      Bob Menzies also had an interpretation – “John Curtin confronted by a martial and difficult world grafted a pragmatic approach on to the historic beginnings of his party and so made a fine place in Australian history.” (Menzies, Afternoon Light; Some Memories of Men and Events, pp 125 -6, 128)
      Unlike Peter Whatever, Artie Fadden and Bob Menzies were men enough to recognise greatness in a man without agreeing with his political viewpoint. It’s also worth noting that between 1940 and 1943 Curtin took a slim majority of 641 votes after preferences in his seat of Fremantle to an absolute majority of nearly 23,000. That’s another series of interpretations of course – 22359 of them.
      “The Federal Government showed careful restraint in 66 and 67” – is another example of an interpretation.
      As is “the then Coalition government didn’t have the stomach to fight”.
      Got it yet?
      “diggers as political collateral”
      It wasn’t the SUA who cynically used the fear of an ideology to garner political support to send young Australians to fight in South Vietnam.
      It wasn’t the SUA who filled the streets of Australia’s cities in unprecedented numbers in 1970 in direct action against the war.
      You could argue whether it was this action and the growing momentum of public opinion against the war that forced the hand of the coalition to begin the withdrawal, or that they were simply taking their foreign policy directives from Washington. The first reason was probably more honourable, the second more pragmatically convenient. You choose.
      Those diggers who returned to Australia (particularly after 1970) copped it coming and copped it going. They were betrayed by their government by being sent to war in the first place, and by the active hostility of many who couldn’t distinguish between the soldiers and the politics of the cause on RTA – used as collateral by both sides.
      This simplistic view of the war showed a national incapacity to analyse and separate ideology from humanity – unforgivable.
      You can’t have it both ways, Peter Whatever. Either you deny these historical events or you deny the principles of democracy that we were told (and many believed) we were fighting for. The result of the 1972 federal poll defined public opinion at the time.
      “Seems to me the tale of the Boonaroo and the Japarit (Sic)…”
      It’s actually the “Jeparit” – a Gromiluk word. Your carelessness with small things is matched only by your incapacity to distinguish between fact and opinion.

  19. PeterW says:

    “And I’m waiting for you to explain why you believe police corruption is OK, and whether you think Jo’s regime was corrupt. “

    Yawn – what was that comment of Bobby ‘spellcheck’ red-herring’s? Oh that’s right: “Peter W’s been reading from the Andrew Bolt handbook of “show me proof”. I don’t have to show you anything…”

    “I had better things to do with my time in the 70s.”

    Obviously walking around with his eyes open wasn’t one of them, nor could he be bothered keeping abreast of current affairs.

    “…diverting but irrelevant…” Oh the irony… Ha ha ha ha….

    “And you still can’t tell the difference between an historical event, and an interpretation of history.” More red-herrings, no wonder the north sea fishing grounds produce such poor catches these days, Bobby ‘spellcheck’ red-herring has trawled the place clean.

    Historical events: Curtin surrendered Australian sovereignty and control of Australian forces on our own territory, he refused advice from his General Staff and allowed MacArthur to waste Australian Soldiers in unnecessary assaults on Gona, Buna and Sanananda.

    Historical interpretation from a dissolute leftist’s point of view: “Jo Bjelke-Petersen’s government was amongst the most corrupt in this nation’s history.”

    “…coming from an Anglophile of the first order…” Ad hom… how predictable.

    But as Bobby ‘spellcheck’ red-herring sees fit to dismiss Long’s well founded opinion of Curtin because he’s “an Anglophile of the first order.” Lets look at his history interpreting poster-boy Geoffrey Searle. Surely Bobby ‘spellcheck’ red-herring wouldn’t mine a quote from a hagiography written by someone steeped in Labor politics would he?

    Oh dear, a quick ‘Google’ reveals, rather unsurprisingly, that history interpreter Geoffrey Searle is noted as being “active in the Melbourne University Labour Club” and “active in the establishment of the Victorian branch of the Australian Fabian Society”. He was also closely associated with leftist comics like ‘Meanjin’ and ‘Overland’.

    The Fabians, that rings a bell, I wonder what they spend their time doing?

    “The Australian Fabians (also known as the Australian Fabian Society) was established in 1947. Inspired by the Fabian Society in the United Kingdom, it is dedicated to Fabianism, the focus on the advancement of socialist ideas through gradual influence and patiently promoting socialist ideals to intellectual circles and groups with power. The Australian Fabians have close ties with the Australian Labor Party, also known as the ALP. This is evidenced by the number of past Australian Labor Party Prime ministers, federal ministers and state premiers who were active members of the Australian Fabians while in office. The current Patron of the Australian Fabians is former Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam.”

    Whitless Whitlam is the Fabians’ patron? Oh dear, it doesn’t look like Bobby ‘spellcheck’ red-herring’s socialist history interpreter is all that credible when it comes to ‘historic facts’ about Curtin – the phrase ‘fawning deferential nonsense’ springs to mind.

    That ‘they call me Artie’ and Menzies spoke kindly about Curtin is testament to the innate politeness of those conservative members of parliament. Their words and deeds stand in stark contrast to that of the back stabbing members of Curtin’s own party and a union movement which, until Hitler invaded it’s beloved Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was quite happy to try and stymie Australia’s war effort with strikes in the coal fields, on the docks and by sabotaging ship loading (sound familiar) and repair.

    “It’s also worth noting that between 1940 and 1943 Curtin took a slim majority of 641 votes after preferences in his seat of Fremantle to an absolute majority of nearly 23,000. That’s another series of interpretations of course – 22359 of them.”

    If that’s worth noting, then it’s also worth noting the (historical) fact that Curtin won the seat of Fremantle after ‘electorate’ shopping his way around the country. He failed three times to get up, including an earlier disastrous stab at Fremantle. But as usual Bobby cherry picker ‘spellcheck’ red-herring fails to pass on a few other facts about Curtin’s up and down parliamentary career. Fremantle rejected Curtin again in 1931 so he was forced to avail himself of one of the office boy jobs Labor reserves for its failed candidates. But just like ‘incy wincy’ Curtin tried again and was re-elected to the Labor stronghold seat of Fremantle, but again with a very thin majority. It was a wobbly old seat in Federal Parliament though and he nearly lost again in 1940 when he was saved by a few postal votes and preferences from an unendorsed right-wing candidate. Unremarkably his vote during the height of the war increased as voters in Fremantle, long left in the shadows by Canberra, rejoiced in the fact their local member was PM.

    So what has Bobby ‘spellcheck’ red-herring contributed with his latest fantasy filled ‘historical interpretation’? Sadly it’s nothing really except to remind us Curtin’s biographer wrote a lovely little hagiography, that Curtin was so desperate for a seat in parliament he tried and tried again, just like ‘incy wincy’ to get his snout into the trough and that the union movement’s disgraceful behaviour during the Vietnam war had it’s genesis during Australia’s darkest hours. He’s reminded us the Second World War saw the treasonous left employ strikes in the coal mines, strikes on the wharves, the theft and sabotage of essential materiel and disruption and delay in shipyards – anything they could get away with which would disrupt Australia’s war effort.

    Must make you proud Bobby ‘spellcheck’ red-herring. What a legacy you of the left in Australia have to shame you and your loathsome ideology now and forever.

    “You can’t have it both ways, Peter Whatever. Either you deny these historical events or you deny the principles of democracy that we were told (and many believed) we were fighting for.”

    What a load of clap-trap. Deny the principles of democracy! Try not to go out into the sun without a hat Bobby, it shows when you do.

    “…the 1972 federal poll defined public opinion at the time.” As did 1975, a glorious result apart from Fraser. Big Mal, Australia’s fourth worst PM, though Gillard is trying hard to push him further down the list.

    “It’s actually the Jeparit”. Oh no, a typo, well Bobby ‘spellcheck’ red-herring sometimes ‘shit happens’.

    Like: “the story is a beatup [sic]” and “to the gunshop [sic] cowboys.”

    By the way pedant, you missed: “…panicy [sic] old Curtin and Vietnam…” and ‘sic’ is not capitalised and is contained within square brackets not parentheses.

    “Your carelessness with small things is matched only by your incapacity to distinguish between fact and opinion” – there’s that hat being worn snuggly by Bobby pedant ‘spellcheck’ red-herring yet again.

    • 1735099 says:

      Peter W

      If the best you can do is to resort to name calling, repeat yourself, and meander off to a discussion of the Fabian Socialists, – you’ve obviously run out of ideas. Excessive use of adjectives is also a sure sign of a lack of substance, and bound to earn you a “fail” at Journalism 101.

      The thought of Peter W ploughing through my previous posts to find an error is hilarious.

      “As did 1975, a glorious result apart from Fraser”.

      Whoops, Peter W remembers Fraser is a “baddie”, but ploughs on regardless.

      “latest fantasy filled ‘historical interpretation”
      “treasonous left”
      “loathsome ideology”

      Are you sure you haven’t worked in a pickle factory at some point? Your incapacity to analyse is made up for by your talent for sticking labels on things. I guess it beats logical discourse.

      I’m still waiting for your simple “yes” or “no” as to whether you believe police corruption is OK, and whether Bielke-Petersen’s government was corrupt.

      As to Curtin – he brought the 7th Division home (fact, not interpretation). Maybe that’s one of the reasons he turned his electoral fortunes around. Australians then as now tend to put their national security ahead of kowtowing to foreign governments. (Interpretation, not fact),

      The Fabians – how did they get into this? Of course Peter W was scrambling to find another negative to get stuck into Curtin, and discovers that one of the authors of a treatise about his life was in the Fabian Society. I wonder was he a boy scout also, or maybe a member of a gardening club? These socialist are sneaky – they hide in the strangest places.

      The Fabians are a broad church, and have gone through a series of iterations since their formation in 1884. Amongst other things, they lobbied for the introduction of a minimum wage in 1906, for the creation of a universal health care system in 1911 and for the abolition of hereditary peerages in 1917.

      Dangerous people with dangerous ideas these Fabians – imagine having the effrontery to advocate a minimum wage!

      Their relevance to this discussion is marginal to say the least. Your reference to the Fabian society wouldn’t be a red herring of course…..

      BTW – “Jeparit” is not in my version of Word’s checklist. I just know how to spell it.

  20. Bob says:

    As an old bloke with little to do but read this entertaining discourse, I have come to the conclusion that if Kev typed into his heading,”Nothing to Report” we could get two or three pages of heated arguement, with Bobby taking one side and everyone else taking the adversarial view. I’d still return for a read and a giggle. I’ve learned so much about Vietnam and Government.

  21. roly says:

    My anti-spam word today is MOVE, to pull an old cliche ” It’s Time”…..couldn’t agree more Bob…LOL

  22. PeterW says:

    Oh dear, Bobby pedant ‘spellcheck’ red-herring is in a tizz…

    He claims, claims, claims I’m repeating myself, myself, myself… Perhaps he’s confused and disorientated as his ad nauseam references to Vietnam and his conscription woes echo, echo, echo endlessly around inside his empty head, head, head.

    He also doesn’t like wonderful, gorgeous, superb, interesting, beautiful, exciting adjectives – poor soul, they are the spice of life. Or is it that the lack of substance and shame he feels as a member of the treasonous left with its loathsome ideology has removed his word appreciation bone?

    Bobby pedant crystal-ball ‘spellcheck’ red-herring claims, erroneously as usual, that I’d ploughed through his previous posts looking for errors. But no Bobby, wrong again, tediously wrong, awfully wrong, they had been noted when your incoherent posts were first read, but as they were as trivial as the findings of the Fitzgerald Report, and did not change the meaning of the text, were not worth mentioning.

    “Peter W remembers Fraser is a ‘baddie’…” Yes Bobby is right, I don’t think much of Fraser. His disloyalty to Gorton followed by his watery performance when his government had a majority in both houses is unforgivable. However, even his latest sojourn to the left can be forgotten for a moment or two whilst I rejoice in the sumptuous memory of the look on Whitlam’s face as he stood blustering with rage on the steps of Parliament house after being sacked by his GG. What a blessed memory and of course the subsequent election result was even sweeter.

    But I digress and nearly forgot to remind Bobby pedant crystal-ball ‘spellcheck’ red-herring why the Fabians popped up. Readers will remember my quote from military historian Gavin Long regarding Curtin’s surrender of Australia’s sovereignty of it’s own forces. Long wrote: “…during the Curtin-MacArthur era, the Australian Government had made a notable surrender of sovereignty when no Australian government would have so completely surrendered control of its forces in its own territory to a British commander and staff.” As a side note, Long was appointed general editor of what became known as ‘Australia in the War of 1939–1945’ – the official history of Australia’s involvement in World War II in March 1943 by Curtin’s War Cabinet.

    But Long’s observations didn’t sit well with history challenged Bobby pedant crystal-ball ‘spellcheck’ red-herring who sought to dismiss Long with the ad hominem attack: “His interpretation, coming from an Anglophile of the first order, is unsurprising…” Bobby pedant crystal-ball ‘spellcheck’ red-herring followed up with a quote from his favourite ‘history interpreter’, Geoffrey Serle, in the vain hope readers of this thread would accept Serle as a completely detached and impartial biographer whose words should be given greater weight than Long’s. Unfortunately Serle was revealed as anything but impartial because of his long and enthusiastic association with the left including being “active in the establishment of the Victorian branch of the Australian Fabian Society”. The Fabians are well known for their love affair with the discredited ideology of socialism, then and now.

    Curtin was a prolific writer for the ‘Socialist Newspaper’, a far left rag ‘The Timber Worker’ and the ‘Westralian Worker’. Serle writes warmly of Curtin: “Curtin was a product of the Victorian Socialist Party and the Victorian labour movement, a radical socialist internationalist…” Both Serle and Curtin are ‘comrades’ steeped in ‘socialism’ so it is little wonder Serle writes so glowingly of Curtin. Can Serle be seen as a more detached and impartial ‘history interpreter’ of Curtin than Long? I think that question is no longer moot – he cannot.

    “As to Curtin – he brought the 7th Division home…”

    Bobby pedant crystal-ball ‘spellcheck’ red-herring repeats this phrase over and over again without qualification, he’s obviously run out of ideas (again).

    Let’s see what Serle says of the decision to request the return of the 6th and 7th Divisions: “General Sturdee, chief of the General Staff, forcefully advised Curtin to bring the divisions home and to the War Cabinet threatened resignation if his advice was not followed. Curtin’s chief public service adviser Frederick Shedden firmly agreed. Backed unanimously by War Cabinet and caucus, Curtin followed the formal advice and days and nights of bitter cable exchanges with Churchill followed.”

    Hmmmm….. The CGS and ‘Curtin’s chief public service adviser’ “forcefully advised Curtin to bring the divisions home”. So not the flash of inspiration by Curtin that Bobby pedant crystal-ball ‘spellcheck’ red-herring would have us believe, but a decision taken by the War Cabinet after ‘forceful advice’ and the threatened resignation of the CGS.

    Journalism 101 – no such course in Australia. But it’s just like Bobby pedant crystal-ball ‘spellcheck’ red-herring to look to the US for his inspiration rather than Australia. But just like his reference to ‘Oran’s Dictionary of the Law’ his latest red-herrings are as irrelevant to this thread as his first snivelling attack on Abbot.

  23. Cav says:

    Is anyone keeping score?

    • 1735099 says:

      Not me Cav, but I’m having a good time. Not a lot of entertainment in St George this week.

    • Bob says:

      Yeah Bobby scored in Vietnam at age 23.

    • Bob says:

      Kev ammend that to read “scored in Bangers at age 23″.

    • PeterW says:

      I am Cav.

      At the latest count Bobby pedant crystal-ball ‘spellcheck’ red-herring has yet to win a point and is foundering like the ‘Mary Rose’ in a squall.

      Most of the damage he’s suffered is self inflicted. You know, ideological gun ports left open in a heavy rational sea, too much ‘leftist’ baggage on the top deck, no one aloft in the rigging and so on.

      He’s not able to discern that (not historic) fact because of the foam flecked turbidity of his arguments, but foundering he is, though as usual he’s failed to notice the heaviness of his bloated bilge – a circumstance we have observed in every post he’s contributed to this and other blogs (I love an analogy – especially a nautical one as much as an adjective or two).

  24. 1735099 says:

    Irrelevant rationalizations, no points of substance, more opinions and interpretations, and still unable to decide whether criminal corruption is OK……..
    Can do better?
    Probably not.

  25. roly says:

    All good entertainment, come on Kev find us another good topic.

  26. PeterW says:

    Bobby pedant crystal-ball ‘spellcheck’ red-herring’s exhausted his limited ability to defend his egregious defamation of Tony Abbot, the topic of this thread, and has retired like 7’s skulking toad Riley into inglorious silence.

    But wait, do I read argument anew from Bobby pedant crystal-ball ‘spellcheck’ red-herring?

    No – false alarm, it’s just a small flurry of throwaway words adrift on a webpage.

    Oooooh look though AN ERROR!!!!! “rationalizations [sic]”, looks like Bobby’s not only fond of using irrelevant references which pertain only to the USA, but he’s also under the sway of their awful spelling conventions.

    As we all seem to have an Australian military background let’s use the Macquarie Dictionary as an authority coupled with the advice provided to us in ‘The Australian Defence Force Publication 102 (ADFP 102)—Defence Writing Standards’.

    “3.1 Australian English—as distinct from American or British English—is reflected in the particular meanings Australians give to words and in the kinds of contexts in which they use them. There are different interpretations of words that reflect a separate Australian culture and identity. The Macquarie is accepted as the Defence standard for Australian language. Writers in the Defence Organisation are to use this dictionary as the spelling and usage reference when preparing documents. As a general rule, writers should use the first spelling given in the Macquarie, for example, judgment (not judgement) and acknowledgment (not acknowledgement).

    3.2 Common Australian usage reflected in the Macquarie dictates that the ‘s’ spellings in certain words be used in preference to ‘z’ spellings, for example: computerise not computerize, rationalisation not rationalization, realise not realize, familiarisation not familiarization.”

    What was that Bobby pedant crystal-ball ‘spellcheck’ red-herring wrote about detail? Oh yes, I remember: “Your carelessness with small things is matched only by your incapacity to distinguish between fact and opinion.”

    What a pompous twat.

    • 1735099 says:

      ‘The Australian Defence Force Publication 102 (ADFP 102)—Defence Writing Standards’.

      I was discharged in January 1971.
      You (and the army) can upstick ‘The Australian Defence Force Publication 102 (ADFP 102)—Defence Writing Standards’ arsewards.

      “defamation of Tony Abbot”

      You better learn to spell your hero’s name.

      “pompous twat”

      Run out of ideas again?

      How do you feel about Bjelke-Petersen’s corruption?

  27. PeterW says:

    Yawn, yous are even more borrring and irrelllevunt then ussuwal Bobbie pendant crystall-borll ‘spellchick’ redd-huring.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

  • Facebook