The latest Roy Morgan face-to-face poll has Labor’s two-party lead up to 58.5-41.5 from 56.5-43.5 a fortnight ago. Labor is up 2.5 per cent on the primary vote to 49 per cent, the Coalition is down 1.5 per cent to 36 per cent and the Greens are steady on 8.5 per cent.
Reflections on the Miracle of Democracy at Work in the Greatest Nation on Earth
655 Comments
All banter aside I give you much credit for your comment – particularly the first part.
onto new thread
Why would you commission Roy Morgan to do a poll when you can get a decent market research company like AC Nielsen or Newspoll?
No-one commissions his political polls, he just publishes them himself to draw attention to his market research business.
I’m intrigued as to why Morgan polls always have such a Labor bias, including his phone polls, compared with the other pollsters. Doesn’t Morgan himself lean to the right, in which case how does it happen?
Re Adams comment on Abbott:
He has real problems with women, and I doubt at his age he’ll ever get over them.
Roxon, Macklin and especially Gillard just rub their hands in glee at the thought of facing him.
Happy with the boys club; not at all happy in a modern democracy, or even a modern corporation these days.
I’d pay money to see him and Gail Kelly in the same room!
The problem with the libs leadership is that their little swinging voter group is the WA contingent – I don’t see the rusted-ons changing anytime soon.
No Bishop = no leadership.
In the same way that Palin revealed McCain’s ineptness, so too with Bishop and Turnbull.
I’m also going to give Mr Morgan a big congratulations on publishing a much more reasonable set of commentary points that bear some relationship to the actual polling:
Given the drivel that is normally served up this is a massive improvement, regardless of it’s headline grabbing potential or otherwise.
Well morgan has ruined the weekend for quite a few fibs.
Those who haven’t read this in the OO today its worth a chuckle
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24646889-31501,00.html
I must admit I thought that, too.
DA JA VU!!!!
I’ve lost count but this must be about the 100th poll with the ALP a long way in front.
I think for good reason for while the economy is looking shaky, at present the debate is not about what the Government has got worng or what the opposition would do but some small issue about who’s predictions are gloomier and did the PM have a chat with President Bush, interestingly we always knew when PM Howard had spoken to President Bush so what is the different.
I’m fast becoming bored with the narrow debate we are having, this country faces several very serious issues yet we have a Government doing just okay and an opposition that seems clueless.
wasn’t Morgan that had the most accurate poll on the eve of the nov 2007 election ?
Must of been a fluke.
Anyway the trend must be worrying for the LNP
So Malcolm Turnbull’s strategy of attacking Ken Henry and the G20 gaff seem to have failed. Time he discovered the main game of ideas rather than innuendo. I’m sick of him adding to the fear about the economy which is self-fulfilling.
the cane toad was at the Advertiser when dear old Bob Whitington was the head crime reporter, Bob became like a surrogate dad to me during the worse times of my life, before he died Bob would spend hours, cuppa in hand, telling me stories about the goings on at the Advertiser, what he said about the cane toad isnt printable, Bob was a rare thing–a journo with uncompromising principles, i dont think the cane toad has improved with age.
The reason we always knew Howard had spoken to Bush was he called a press conference before the leak could get to the papers and carried on like a puppy that just got it’s tummy rubbed.
Triton “Am I unreasonable in believing that a leak did occur?”
Yes and NO Triton , depends on th levels Has th alleged leak been internationaly pased around , yes , Does any World Leader care th moron Bush MAY hav had th mickey taken out of him , No , Would Bush hav been briefed that rudd was calling soecificaly about th G20 , yes , does that mean Bush would hav had to hav known what th G20 is in advanse of Rudds call , yes , Does that mean th Bush does not know about G20 occured in th phone call , impossible , would a dilomat savy PM make such a slip anyway , impossible , Was there any reason for ANY Labor or liberal PM to leak such an insult on a US POTUS , impossible , Has Rudd unamgigously denied it , yes , Will most voters believe rudd does not lie , yes , so th story is buried by many gravediggers angles
Could rudd or a lkientenant hav made a smart ar.se comment after th call saying Bush did not understand th diplomatic/econamic value of G20 in assisting th current markets crisis PRIVATELY BUT AFTER th call to his trusted captins , thats possible but its not relevant (except that mitchell was there & may may hav picked up those vibes in after dinner drinks vibes and then embellished , possible , but that just would mean after dinner drinks vibes will in future talk about cricket and no politcs and no future invitation to Chris Mitchel …but it still means th actual story is false n omatter which trail one goes down
Of course Overseas Leeders will follow one of these trails and also conclude th story is false ….but wish with a chuckle it reely was true
Rudd like all governemtns makes mistakes , including i tink th Managed Investment sector , but PhoneyGate is not one and has no where to go to so will dies , and will not even be in voterdss minds come 2010 electons and nor should it
Judith it amazes that toad is employable at all.
I’m sure he has made others employable with his columns of bile over the years. Sadly, he “reaches” (if that is the word) many working people who actually belief his rubbish. For fib-tv to give him a voice is truely beyond the pale.
If even half of the controversies detailed about him in Wikipedia are true he is no way in any position to pontificate to all and sundry the way he has over the years.
Still murdoch and others at limited news must know what low life piers is and that is exactly why they employ him. Says so much about yank murdoch.
duh thats …unemployable over the years
More drivel from Morgan, obviously. Interesting that Shanahan has admitted Bishop is a liability for the Libs. I agree.
Another great result (though not surprising), confirming the trend away from the Liberals. Labor is re-writing the book on government popularity, while all the Liberals, with no apparent idea of fronting as an attractive alternative, can only bitterly try to undermine the new and phenomenally popular government.
Turnbull’s days must surely be numbered if this trend continues. Another couple of results from different organisations confirming the trend and the numbers will be being counted. At this rate it’s only a matter of time before “leadership speculation” again dogs the Liberals.
Only this time it will be different because with Turnbull they fired the last remaining bullet in the chamber.
Ahem, Bob has never held me in his hand!
Michael Pascoe gives the Nation a slap around the head and tells it to htfu.
http://business.smh.com.au/business/cop-a-dose-of-harden-up-20081114-66nl.html
GP, you’re back!
No 18
Cuppa, instead of positing an endless load of blather, perhaps you would elucidate your attack strategy if you were the leader of the opposition. As all we seem to get is that the opposition should merely be government lapdogs, never criticising, never asking questions and certainly never suggesting any incompetence.
“Labor is re-writing the book on government popularity, while all the Liberals, with no apparent idea of fronting as an attractive alternative, can only bitterly try to undermine the new and phenomenally popular government.”
Meaning it would be better to try and undermine an old and unpopular government?
GP – Its a call to sack her. Bolt agree on his hun blog.
The wolves are howling…..for allbull too.
I still say tip will be back…or more accurately attempt to be drafted
What, and help the Liberals? Now I know you’re not being serious.
No 24
Now I know you have no argument, just facetious blather.
GP, you’re an admitted Liberal, here grasping about for ideas to help you out of the plight. Sorry, I will do nothing to aid the likes of you (Liberal). Call that facetious if it makes you feel better, but that’s the reality.
Why would ANYONE need to help anyone who is supposed to be as brilliant as allbull.
He has read the back of the corn flakes box he knows it all – just ask him.
tip to be drafted if allbull does not make traction by mid march 2009. After that the election is just too close. Much much policy work to be done
fibs turning nasty again when they don’t get their own way
The Opposition’s job isn’t to undermine the Government. It’s to keep them accountable and present an alternative.
By attacking the public service, going around in circles during Question Time, taking their lead from the media, having a complete lack of alternative policies, supporting the Government in passing legislation and then criticising it the next day they’re undermining themselves and they’re spitting in the face of the people who elected them.
I would start by apologising for WorkChoices and promising never to do anything remotely like it ever again. I would then admit that anthropogenic climate change is real and support the immediate introduction of a CPRS. I would agree that the GFC required immediate measures such as the bank guarantee and the stimulus package, and I would stop talking down confidence and trying to provoke a run on the funds. I would agree that the maintenance of the surplus requires revenue measures like the medicare levy, the luxury car tax and the alcopops tax, and stop obstructing them in the Senate. Then, after about three terms, I might have some expectation of being taken seriously.
SNIP: Abusive comment deleted – The Management.
Well, Adam has answered Yes to my question.
Well I’m sure the Opposition would love the Government to do everything they wanted them to do as well. Although I suspect even if that happened they’d find something to complain about.
GP,
They could try being reasonable.
The constant over-egging and nit-picking just makes them look stupid. Turnbull could quite reasonably say that we (the Libs) believe the government has made some errors, but this is a time of crisis so we won’t make big deal over it, oh and by the way just remember it was the Howard government that bequeathed the economy in such good shape that if we all pull together we’ll pull through far better than almost any other country. He would look statesmanlike in a crisis and he could use the time productively to lead a root and branch review of the Coalitions policies.
Instead you can see their desperation to clutch at any straw to try and score a point. It’s working as well for them now as Burkegate and Scoresgate worked for them last year. Now it’s even more counter-productive because people are worried about the economy and can see these charlatans talking it down.
They aren’t going to win the election 2 years out, but they’re making a damn good fist of losing it.
By pretending that the only options are “government laptop” and “careless, self-indulgent and dangerous BS” you’re showing who is actually intellectually incapacitated.
There is a difference between being a lapdog and providing an alternative
Spot on OZ! And all the polling agrees with you.
Government laptop? Is that one that can only connect to government sponsored, kid-friendly websites?
The public have answered this in every poll over 20 months.
I pray the fibs continue doing exactly what they are doing now and retain mesmerelda in her currently position.
The voters have the fibs number and continue to reject it
No 38
Oh dear, what a mess Conroy has himself in….
iiNet chief, Michael Malone, has labelled him the worst Communications minister in 15 years.
Well, golly, a lot of people label the Howard government as the worst ever.
Hah, I’m looking at potential laptops in another window.
*lapdog.
GP, I’m not sure whether Conroy is a whole lot worse than Richard “world’s biggest luddite’ Alston, who also had plans to censor the internet, including a plan to make email forwarding illegal.
Alston and Coonan hold the blue ribbon for incompetent do nothing teco ministers.
No 41
Really, obviously they must only entail the delicate petals reading this blog because the Australian people voted for Howard four times in a row.
No 44
Oh please dave. Under Conroy, we face the very real threat of total internet censorship a la China. Alston and Coonan did have a similar policy on the books but in a fit of sanity, abandoned it.
GP at 40
And there is a perfect example of the utter failure of Turnbull. You need to pick you battles, not just go in all guns blazing every day in the hope someone in the government gets hit by the shrapnel when you blow yourself up.
Instead of taking on the government over the GFC (when everyone wants it to be a politics free zone), attacking the RBA and Treasury (who have more public trust than any politician) or tossing on about who said what to whom after George called (which no one cares about) he is letting a gold plated opportunity pass.
If for the last few weeks he’d stood shoulder to shoulder with Rudd on the economy but belted Conroy every chance he got he’d be a mile in front of where he is today.
” Interesting that Shanahan has admitted Bishop is a liability for the Libs. I agree.”
bronwyn or julie?
“iiNet chief, Michael Malone, has labelled him the worst Communications minister in 15 years”
Who? Oh, a person with a conflict of interest.
There’s a reason you’ve been quiet lately GP
1998 he lost the popular vote
2001 Tampa, 9/11, Children Overboard
2004 “record low interest rates”
No 48
ALP hacks would argue both. I was referring to Julie.
No 49
Bob1234 are you saying that you agree with China-style internet censorship?
No 50
Cuppa, stop finding someone else to blame for the incompetent campaigns run by the ALP.
GP – look at the scoreboard in the polls plus which side of the parliament the fibs are sitting because they are going to be there for a long time to come.
Get used to it and get over it.
Really, obviously they must only entail the delicate petals reading this blog
Obviously you’re not being serious again. Does Alan Ramsey read this blog? Who knows, but this is how he described it:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/howards-cronies-should-join-him-in-the-wilderness/2007/11/25/1195975868447.html
Yes GP, you should know better than to criticise Conroy’s ridiculous filtering plan… look at the polls!
No 54
Alan Ramsey is a well known leftie hack writing for Fairfax. It’s no secret, don’t put up on a pedestal as if he were some voice of objective reason. What next, you’re going to give me Philip Adams?
No 55
As I’ve said many times, the polls are meaningless unless we’re close to an election.
Unable to contest the point he made, so ignore it, and shoot the messenger instead. Liberal mud-thrower approach as ever.
So Nathan Rees has nothing to worry about – that’s a relief!
No 59
Unfortunately for O’Farrell, unless he can replicate the current figures in 2 years time, there’s really no point engaging in a running commentary.
Doesn’t mean that Nathan Rees still heads to worst NSW government in history.
*sorry, should read “doesn’t mean that Nathan Rees does not head the worst government in NSW history.
pity you didn’t tell brenda that. It won’t save allbull either – come mid march 2009 if he has made no traction he has gone as well.
And all the time the fibs are fuming on the opposition benches.
…but the polls are meaningless RIGHT !
Actually I agree with GP up to a point. To have expected Nelson to turn around the polls in less than a year against a new government headed by a man who had been humungously popular for a year already was plainly ridiculous. If that’s the only reason thet axed him they’re even bigger fools than I thought. I gather the real reason they axed him was [SNIP] [SNIP] [SNIP] goat [SNIP] [SNIP] vicar [SNIP] [SNIP] [SNIP] [SNIP] appliance [SNIP] bronwyn [SNIP] [SNIP].
Just watched PM Agenda. Now they want to brand Obama as a “leaker”. Now let’s see here. Bush and Obama meet and that meeting is leaked. Bush and Rudd talk on the telephone and that is leaked. The common denominator is?
That was suppose to be kept secret Adam
A agree with GP in some ways on Conroy, but the absence of a clear alternative that the average voter can discuss at a barbecue this weekend, clearly and simply presented by the leader of the opposition, is equally as damning. How hard can it be to mount a campaign against censorship in a western democracy?
Is ‘teh leak’ really more important than the future of IT in the 21st century in this country.
As soon as the opposition takes the future of the country seriously (and it’s not that hard to have more vision than the government has exhibited thus far) then the LP will be back in the game.
This current game of “could’ve, would’ve, should’ve” is primary school stuff and I’m sure it worked for Turnbull and Bishop there too. It’s time they grew up and presented an adult alternative.
Not hard for The Greens. It’s been Senator Ludlum who’s been pursuing the issue, first in Senate Estimates then during QT.
Meanwhile the Coalition has been all “We’re going to wait for more detail and the results of the trial before we say anything”.
Like the Coalition is going to come out for free access to kiddie porn for all. I don’t tbhink they’ll fall for that one.
phonegate doesnt seem to have done Rudd much damage overseas.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24651099-601,00.html
On PM Agenda today Robb argued that Rudd should go over there to “listen”, not “advise”. Well, we now know the low esteem Robb has for our country and its influence in world affairs. This man is a sick joke.
69
up for a chat Adam?
Do you really think the government can stop the transmission of kiddy porn?
Should they also be stopping us from buying cars that speed, for example?
I’m all for the pursuit of kiddy fiddlers, but surely it’s possible to put the point of view that filtering the net isn’t going to be possible and that the funds devoted to the filter should be diverted to education apprehension and treatment?
It seems like a Sunday school solution to me, but I’m prepared to be wrong.
Gary Bruce, I’d assume Robb only thinks that Labor leaders should listen rather than advise. Turnbull, of course, the world should listen to.
Exactly ltep 73.
I’m not an expert on the technical side of this debate. The question of principle seems to me to be: why should the internet be the only form of communications media which is exempt from any kind of censorship? People talk as though we currently have no censorship in this country, which is nonsense. There are all kinds of things which it is illegal to publish or broadcast, and other things which it is illegal to make available to children. This is true of cinema, TV, radio, print, theatre, artworks, etc. Why is the internet so special, except that it is the medium of choice of the inner-city elites who apparently think they are exempt from the law? I don’t know whether Conroy’s current proposal is a good way or a bad way of bringing the internet within the same standards that apply to all other forms of communication, but I don’t see how it can be objected to in principle.
Oh, of course they are! That’ll be why they sacrificed Half-Nelson on the altar of polling results, and will do the same to U-Turn-bull in short order unless he can “turn things around”.
Funny how Liberals can say one thing while doing the other. No wonder they genuflect at the feet of the dissembling Howard.
Are people arguing for no internet censorship or a better way of executing the censorship?
“Why is the internet so special”
immediate acess to porn etc in there bedroom for a child
To believe most Liberal or Labor voting parents would not wish porn & worser being prevented from kids acess is a Censorship belony argument Questons ar technical , standard levels and statutory independence
Th qualities of Conroy ar a diferent issue again
Adam, you’ve missed a lot of the debate.
Things which are illegal in other forms of media, like child porn, are also illegal on the internet. However, the “filter” doesn’t simple block “illegal” material, which is already illegal. It blocks material the Department views as “unwanted”.
Unlike other forms of media censorship and classification which are subject to deliberation by the Classification Board and a public process, the list of “unwanted sites” is to be kept a secret, as is the rationale for determining what sites are to be put onto it – other than saying that they are “unwanted”.
The internet is not “so special”. Things like “child pornography, depictions of bestiality, material containing excessive violence or sexual violence, detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use, and/or material that advocates the doing of a terrorist act” are already prohibited online.
The filter is flawed for two reasons. It attempts to enforce those rules in a very naive way which will do very little in preventing access to things like child pornography, bestiality and other illegal content and it’s costs will be literally thousands of false positives and significant impacts on network quality. The other reason is that it goes further than simply censoring what the Classification Board says should be prohibited and adds its own list of thousands of “unwanted’ sites. Which, if Fielding has is way, could include websites about euthanasia.
Yes, Robb reckons Rudd should listen and not advise at the G20.
The Fibs are just DYING with jealousy. I love it
Then take the computer out of the bedroom.
I agree Ron. What that has to do with the policy is beyond me. Argue against a policy by all means but whether you like the person introducing that policy on behalf of the party is irrelevant to the policy debate.
As for your Glen-like response to the polls GP they DO matter, they show that your side has gone BACKWARDS since the election. But I hope the opposition, like you, ignore them as much as possible, because I dont want them to improve any time soon
75 Adam – fair enough. I agree with that principle.
Technically, I thinks it’s going to be bloody expensive to keep up with people who have a commercial interest in circumventing it, and guess for me that had overshadowed the principle.
The war on drugs has hardly been an overwhelming success, but maybe the community support for a particular level of censorship might render the exercise a bit more successful?
(Then take the computer out of the bedroom.)
Exactly, children’s use of computers should be limited to a family room so that there is continual contact between parent and child. If the kids don’t like it – tough luck.
Ahh, if only it were that simple.
No 69
Adam, it’s a testament to Conroy’s obscene argumentative style that he equates opponents of the censorship scheme with child paedophiles.
It’s been suggested that Conroy, as a leading member of the ALP Right, was instrumental in designing the policy.
Also, the fact that he lied about the scope of the filter prior to the election and the fact that lied again in Senate Estimates when stating that countries like Sweden and NZ had mandatory internet filtering are a reflection on the Senator, not the policy.
I know this has been mentioned before but kudos to peter hartcher in the SMH for pointing out Turnbull’s poor poll performance. AT LAST someone in the MSM willing to tell it like it is:
“As for the Opposition Leader, Malcolm Turnbull: he started out as a grown-up, offering positive suggestions and reasoned critiques, but he and his front bench are regressing. They have developed an undiscriminating anger towards the Government, incapable of telling an important issue from mere detail, falling into the old trap of becoming lost in a mindset of oppositionism.
Turnbull has wasted the opportunity of his honeymoon as leader. The risk is that against Rudd’s Captain Reasonable he becomes Corporal Cranky.
The voters have noticed. As Rudd’s poll numbers have soared, Turnbull’s have declined to the point where the Coalition is barely any better off than it was under the hapless Brendan Nelson.
Rudd is plainly emerging as the grown-up leader the country craves. He could do with better support from his Treasurer. But Turnbull’s descent into immature oppositionism starts to recall the Joseph Heller line: “When I grow up I want to be a little boy.”
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/peter-hartcher/in-sensible-grownups-we-trust/2008/11/13/1226318833723.html
No 86
It is that simple. If you’re the parent, you do whatever is necessary to ensure your child is doing the right thing on the internet.
There’s nothing difficult about it. I grew up in a household were the computer was in a public space. There’s no need for a kid to have a computer in his or her bedroom anyway.
If you don’t think that goes far enough then purchase your own software filter. If you’re worried that your kid might bypass the system then connect to an ISP that already offers ISP-level filtering and the only way to bypass it would be to imitate you and have knowledge of your password. If you can’t keep that a secret from your horny teenager than that’s an issue you should sort out rather than taking the rest of us (Including the significant proportion of internet users who don’t have children) for the ride.
No 88
Agreed, Oz.
Andrew at number 83,
It’s like the line that Julia has been running in Question Time this week:
The party votes on a policy, then the parliament. If it gets past blame the party and the parliament. Besides, the personal attack on Conroy adds nothing to the debate on the policy, absolutely zilch.
GB, you are kidding. Don’t tell me the Murdoch media are trying to brand Obama as a leaker as well?
Rudd denies leak. Bush denies it was said. Limited Newspaper journo silent.
Hmmm, some around here should be wearing serious egg it seems!
The second part of that particular comment was more relevant.
Calling out Conroy for misleading the electorate prior to the election and further misleading parliament in Senate Estimates is not a “personal attack”.
“As I’ve said many times, the polls are meaningless unless we’re close to an election.” – GP
That’s the born to rule attitude I love – I see a trouncing coming next election! Ignore the people, suffer the consequences.
For goodness sakes (internet restriction) parents have got to take some responsibility, sheesh!
91 – You know as well as I do that not all parents are that responsible. Nor are all parents in a position to constantly monitor their children. As I said if only it were that simple.
Yes of course they are, but the internet is different to other media in that it comes straight into your house without any mediation between producer and consumer. In this it is unlike TV and radio where content is mediated by broadcasters to conform with the law. So the question is, who stands between the child porn producer in Belarus and my computer? Currently, no-one. Australia has no control over the producers or the broadcasters of this material. The only places it can be mediated, as I understand it, is by the ISP – which is what I understand Conroy is proposing. And it’s not just a matter of supervising children. *No-one* should be viewing this material. Now, we can of course argue about *what* should be on the list.
Than that is the fault of the parents. If the parents are too irresponsible and lazy to “protect” their children from things that they themselves don’t see as appropriate than the blame lies squarely on their shoulders. Not on the government and not the rest of the country.
The silly thing is, no matter what type of filtering you use, anyone will be able to bypass it. I’ve previously listed half a dozen methods of bypassing the governments proposed filtering system. So even if the filter does come into play parents are going to have to accept responsibility anyway. Except now they’re also going to have to accept far slower speeds, far more sites taken down than should be, a secret blacklist and the filtering of legal material as well.
Just a question of principles:
Are the anti-filter posters also FOR the removal of any censorship on books, film, television and art?
No – this is not a gotcha – I’m just interested in fleshing out the debate.
What is the principle, or are there in fact several?
“Things like “child pornography, depictions of bestiality, material containing excessive violence or sexual violence…..are already prohibited online.
AND
The filter is flawed for two reasons. It attempts to enforce those rules in a very naive way which will do very little in preventing access to things like child pornography, bestiality …”
You can not hav th argument both ways
Internet Access IS avaiulable to child pornography, bestiality so lets not cloud that fact Kids in this generation ar internet savy , they grow up with it
Queston is can parents 24/7 prevent such easy access Well in a perfect fantasy world yes , in a reel hectic world No
We hav numerous Laws to protect children …because they ar children Its governemtns role to do so and it does recognising Parents can not always be at a chiilds side every second
Those that want a censor ship free zone for kids to access porn etc , based on there objections against perceived “Censorship” , just say so and don’t hide behind red herrings
The proposed filter has a far broader scope than any Classification Board style censorship on literature and film. It’s an apples and oranges comparison.
The first thing you need to understand is that you can’t “accidentally” stumble across child porn. Have you ever accidentally come across it? I’ve been on the internet for years, as have friends and colleagues, and no one has stumbled across child porn. The ACMA (the regulator) has a blocklist of 1300 sites. Out of the billions and billions on the web. But the government’s blocklist is expanded to over 10,000. What are those extra 9000 “unwanted sites”?
It is not simply the government’s goal to block child porn, though they enjoy hiding behind that argument. If the government was serious about child porn they’d spend the hundreds of millions this filter costs and find the people making it and distributing it.
To answer your question, a national mandatory ISP-level filter is NOT the only way to block porn, child or otherwise. As has already been stated software method and opt-in ISP services already exist.
Ron, I can’t understand a single thing you said.
However I did manage to notice that you failed to address my point that putting the computer in a public place, using a software filter or an opt-in filtering service providing by an existing ISP are all better options than a mandatory ISP-level filter.
Well they should take the computer of the power point and lock it up in the main bedroom if they can’t organise supervision.
We are all expected to accept slower net speeds because parents can’t find ways to take proper responsibility.
Ridiculous!
Oz, I’m not arguing for this internet censorship, I’m arguing against some of the arguments being used to oppose it. Some arguments are probably very valid, particularly the technical ones, but my limited knowledge makes it hard for me to comment on those. You seem to making some very good points on that.
That to me seems to be unrealistic. Could it be done?
People are talking as though the sole issue is stopping children watching stuff. Children don’t want to watch child porn, or bomb-making instructions, or incitement to racial hatred – *adults* do. Adults do *not* have an absolute right to watch anything they like. It is illegal for them to watch this stuff on TV, and that law is enforced. The question is, how can the law be enforced on the internet?
Fair enough. I try and stay away from the “Rudd will censor the media and turn us into communists” lines because there are honestly so many real reasons why this such a terrible idea hyperbole isn’t necessary.
I ask once again. Are we arguing against internet censorship or are we arguing against the method being proposed?
The law is already being forced, exactly the same way as it is for videos, dvd’s, cd’s and literature.
If an adult is caught purchasing it or accessing it they are arrested. If they are caught in possession they are arrested.
The ACMA already blocks illegal websites when it finds them by working with the AFP and the internet hosts to shut them down.
I am arguing against both the scope of the government’s proposed censorship and the way it is being implemented.
The delusion here is that the “filter” is actually going to stop people accessing child porn. Get that ridiculous notion out of your minds and you’ll understand that it’s a pathetic, knee-jerk reaction to appease conservatives within the Labor Party and shore up conservative votes.
No it isn’t, because those things are bought in shops, so the law can be enforced at that point. The internet goes straight from overseas producer to my computer.
I agree. By the same logic, extremely violent and ‘adult’ TV programs should be allowed to run at any time of the day because it’s up to the parents to stop them watching it. I’m no fan of a mandatory filter, but for goodness sake an ISP level filter of some kind is needed as the pathetic software ones just don’t cut it, and far too many parents don’t have the know how to install or maintain it.
Tell me what shops you can buy child porn in?
The police wiretap, bait and use surveillance to find people who are distributing or in possession of illegal material. The exact same methods are used online.
Gary Bruce @ 71, Hockey was just on the 10 news saying exactly the same thing word for word, it looks like thats going to be the attack of the weekend while Rudd is over there rubbing shoulders with the world leaders.
THEY ALREADY EXIST.
If they’re worried about their kids seeing naked women and they can’t be bothered finding out how to stop them seeing naked woman then they shouldn’t be letting their kids on the internet.
None, because the law is being enforced. Thanks for confirming that point.
Not if it is being produced in Belarus they don’t. The internet flows directly from overseas servers into your computer – surely you know that.
*gone*
THEN WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?
OK – i’ve worked out ‘that phone call’. This is what happened – trust me. Rudd goes to answer the phone and he says ‘hi George, its Kevin – let’s talk about G20′. And Bush has been flicking through a magazine while he waits for Kevin and doesn’t quite hear him properly and says ‘what’s that?’ (as in what’s that your saying). Then (stay with me here) Kevin has a bit of a chuckle to George and says ‘for a second there I thought you didn’t know what the G20 was but it was just a bad line…’ With just a bit of lateral thinking on the meaning of the phrase ‘what’s that?’ it turns a gaffe into a hearing problem.
The government wants to make it mandatory. It’s currently opt-in.
So does a mail-order.
My point is simple – If you want a stop child porn, beastiality etc. good on you. A mandatory ISP level filter will not achieve that goal and will have a lot of consequences that you don’t foresee.
His problem is that since ISP level filters exist people can choose to use them if they want. It shouldn’t be mandatorily forced onto the rest of us. Where is the research that shows there is a need or wide demand for this filter? What happened to evidence-based policy? Why should ACMA or the Minister have the power to determine what is acceptable for us to access?
For further information on the ridiculous filtering plan visit the blog of EFA Chairperson Dale Clapperton ( http://defendingscoundrels.com/ ) or visit the blog ‘Somebody Think of the Children’ (http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/)
In particular, for discussion on the types of material that would be blocked by the filter, this makes for good reading:
http://defendingscoundrels.com/2008/10/conroy-misleads-the-senate-on-.html#more
what did you say ?
Extraordinary scenes at the Oppo Organ as Dennis Shanahan declares Julie Bishop to be hopeless:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24647513-17301,00.html
I realise this and am against that, however the arguments that are seemingly trotted out include that there is client software available, and that parents should be more responsible etc, which IMO are complete rubbish
Umm, I know bugger all about the technical operation of the WWW, however, I have recently heard that the current WWW is about near to bursting and there is work nearing completion that will render the current WWW a thing of the past. Oz, do you know anything about this? And wouldn’t such a development render the filter legislation redundant?
As far as I can make out, the proposed legislation looks like government trying to keep up with a technology advancing more rapidly than they can understand. A position with which I have some sympathy.
HSO, I assume you are referring to IP addresses running out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_address_exhaustion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6
I think you’re talking about a shortage of IP addresses, Harry, which Dario is linked too.
Brief summary:
Every computer, mobile phone, PDA or server connected to the internet has a unique IP address that identifies them. IP addresses are currently assigned using a method called IPv4, This has been around for a while but people are a bit worried because it is limited to 4.5 billion addresses.
Because so many people are using the internet these days, they’ve come up with a replacement called IPv6 which has a possible 3.4×10^38 (a lot) of addresses.
That doesn’t have much to with directly with the filter. However you asked:
“And wouldn’t such a development render the filter legislation redundant?”
The filter itself is already redundant. The technologies and methods that the government is going to use in implementing the filter are already being used by countries with far more resources than Australia, like China. Chinese people bypass the filter everyday. There are free ways to do it and more effective ways that cost < $10 a month.
The millions of Chinese and Iranians bloggers and jouranlists are bypassing the filter everyday why is the government pretending that this is going to deter those in search of child porn etc.
So Robb is saying Australian Prime Ministers should be seen but not heard. Or that when we go overseas we should cringe because we are simply not good enough to have the right to express our own position.
Robb is living in past; well not really he only says what he says to try and undermine Rudd’s performance and trip.
Thank Robb for
1. drawing attention to Rudd’s trip
2. drawing attention to the fact that Rudd will be putting his own ideas to the forum
3. that Rudd has the strength and courage to put these positions (as Robb is implying that we are all too lowly to have a position)
4. that Rudd is still dealing with the financial crisis
You would think they would change the subject to something like fuel watch or grocery watch rather than highlight Rudd’s deeds.
Robb us a bit like Homer Simpson on this. I expect to hear ‘doh!’ any minute now.
Thats right. But if they did that he would then say they should have spoken up and that they are duds etc.
Robb is just about at the end of his race. His best days and ideas are long gone. Robb is of the same vintage of ruddock, he of the living dead of berowra. They represent the past of the “pig-iron” bob party and are blocking new blood and new idea which may see the fibbers get back into government.
There are very few people less technically competent than me, but nonetheless I would like to add my cents worth to the discussion of the ISP filter.
Currently there are laws against several classes of sites on the WWW and their access by adults, and there are genuine concerns in the (predominantly technically illiterate) general community about childrens access to some sources of information, predominantly but not confined to, porn. There is also concern in the general community, and in Police/Security services about access to sites that assist and or incite terrorism and lawlessness.
When cases go to trial under current leglislation to prosecute a case against a person for unlawfully accessing a site such as a kiddyp##n site, a great deal of effort must be expended on proving that the access was not accidental, and proving it to a jury that is made up of people as technically illiterate as me. Perhaps a side consequence of this legislation is a purposefull attempt to sidestep the necessity of this burdensome element of proof.
There can be little doubt that the vast majority of adults with children under about 19 yoa would be firmly convinced that the legislation is a good thing, and would see it in the terms of Adams outline above. There can also be little doubt that the technologically savvy and the Libertarian will hate it, but I suspect that in Macarthur, Limdsay, Eden Monaro etc there are many more of the former than the latter, who will be dismissed as inner city godless greens.
I stil find it amazing that anyone would believe a word Robb says after his inelligible candidate scam in the past election. As Keating said of Howard “He has form”.
Well said Socs
I’m sort of watching the hit n giggle cricket having a beer and watching the european stockmarkets atm, but you raise excellent points.
The feature I cannot get out of my mind is how the likes of robb gets to babble, attack and carry on in media interviews etc but I cannot recall in recent times where he is ever challenged on ANY of the nonsense he pumps out.
Why is that? All of the political players should be given access to spruke and then be grilled. That is just not happening.
Simple questions – so what is your policy ? How would that work? Where is the detail and costings ?
Old fashion ideas indeed.
I can’t believe people are still banging on about the “Internet Filter” – guys it’s pure politics as I have stated before.
The Govt. don’t give a toss about legislation being passed or not. In fact they hope that other parties will oppose it. Why have the Libs been so mute on the issue? They know a wedge when they see it.
The Greens on the other hand are being played for suckers, its about time they realise what politics is all about.
lefty e
The OO have been hammering Bishop for a while now. They know they (the Libs/OO) don’t have much chance with her as Treasurer. There is someone in the Libs with considerable experience with the economy who would make the voters think the Libs were credible. I’ve forgotten his name, it’s been repressed, but that’s who the OO want back. He’s underemployed at the moment.
That is going to win the Liberals stacks and stacks of votes. Telling people that we should participate in a world conference, but not TALK, just LISTEN!
Yep, the Fibs are going sensational!
I think we’re stuck with the Internet Filter. It’s pure Howard Gold. Rudd gets to play out his puritanical urges, which are even more highly developed than Howard’s, and anyone who disagrees with him is a kiddie porn sympathiser. It’s also anti-elite intellectuals. It’s a wedge combined with a straw man and finished off with a twist of dog whistle.
At least it is slightly more relevant than Ron Boswell’s idea of the Coalition regaining power by talking about abortion.
Diogenes, Cossie will only take the leadership, in two more years preferably IMO.
For the record, on the internet filter, I am 100% with Oz and Ltep on this one.
ha ha ha the fibbers have probably forgotten his name as well.
They have forgotten everything thing else , had it genetically removed viz :
- Loyalty to country
- Loyalty to party its members and self
- honesty (spelt with small h in the party of “pig-iron” bob.
- integrity
- humanity (children overboard and detention centres still stain their so called brand
name and the so called journos who were compliant in these crimes)
- many acts of omission and commission by failing to act in the national good.
OZ “The first thing you need to understand is that you can’t “accidentally” stumble across child porn.”
Get reel , kids know there is porn , kids look for th forbidden
OZ “It is not simply the government’s goal to block child porn, though they enjoy hiding behind that argument.”
That’s conspiracy theorist nonsense Where’s your evidence
OZ : “a national mandatory ISP-level filter is NOT the only way to block porn, child or otherwise”
Its th only National way , covers all , and that is subject to th people , to Parliament
Th questions of transparency , accountability , standards levels , technical issues , independence , no of sites blocked , filters ar subsidiary issues requiring resolution
Instead you ar using these details to camouflage your reel objections: Govenemtn involvement , blaming Parents and objection to censorship (as if kids hav such “rights’) , rather than th over riding principal of protection of kids
Blaming parents is political poison.
I think the government should take all the money they are going to spend on this, and give it to the Australian Federal Police so they can hire another 50 people to look for online crime.
Whatever system is invented, hackers will figure out a way to get around it, and will sell the information to those who want it.
ShowsOn @ 143
At least it is slightly more relevant than Ron Boswell’s idea of the Coalition regaining power by talking about abortion.
Yeah, its a bit late for that. Now if the Senator’s parents (and those of his dead wood colleagues) had considered it the Coalition just might have had a show in 2010!
LOL!
You’re lucky you made this abortion joke BEFORE internet filtering starts.
There would be several ASIO officers at your house now if the filter was in place.
That’s a problem in our society. Kids are not taught any discipline. What’s wrong with setting up the computer in an open room, like the main living area or the family room? Nobody is going to check out porn sites in front of their parents.
What’s wrong with taking some responsibility (instead of the government doing everything) and wheeling the computer off into a locked room if an adult is not home?
I realise that “filtering” the internet is impossible, I am possibly one of the only people here that have network system engineer certification from Cisco, Microsoft and Apple and have worked for major ISP’s.
I am interested in the politics, which given that this is a politics blog is the main game.
There are many people, including the sensational parts of the MSM, who see the internet as an evil thing, the thing that is causing all the ills of our society. These people are more likely to vote for the conservative side of politics.
That is why I am certain this is pure politics – we tried to do something but we were voted down by (insert wedged party).
and roy comes to the crease
Hong Kong and the whole Eurozone have fallen into technical recession with two consecutive quarters of negative growth.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7728649.stm
It’s easier blaming someone else when your child does something wrong.
“The Government” is anonymous and abstract enough, so there’s no reason not to blame it.
The AFP have international jurisdiction?
You and I both know that not all parents will do that. What exactly is unreasonable about filtering out certain things given that the same is done for TV & radio etc?
Ru
The internet is our society’s Pandora’s box
Both sides have well thought and believable arguments-bit like a religous debate really.
My kids have unlimited access to the internet-anything offensive they find they tell us.That said I know of kids with WAP enabled mobiles who surf etc virtually all day.
As a side point how do you block satellite transmission?
Why do you need international jurisdiction to police crimes taking place in Australia?
The AFP doesn’t need it to police drugs being sent to Australia from overseas, why would they need it for child pornography?
Kids go out looking for child porn? I suggest that if our young children are actively seeking out such illicit content we have a much bigger problem on our hands.
Of course we all know that it’s not children looking for child porn which means you’re full of crap.
I think the government knows, through the Department, exactly what everyone with a half a brain and any experience with networks knows – the filter is rubbish. So why are they ploughing ahead? A wedge issue, you’re right. But I think it’s aimed squarely at the the Liberals. The Greens aren’t in any danger as the people opposed to the net filter exceed their ~8% base at the moment and Ludlum’s made it his sort of pet project so he’s building up a profile and getting some experience. Might be a net benefit to them. The Libs will end up capitulating and looking like idiots, again.
That’s all good fun in political terms but back on Earth it’s going to be us who have to deal with the mess it creates.
What I hate most about these issues, child porn ect, is the partisan ideological stance most people take. The fact is most people don’t want children used/abused to make child porn and want something done to stop it from happening. All people no matter what their ideology should be supporting sound measures to stop this abuse. Get rid of politics and find some real solutions!!!!!!
You do realise that the internet connects overseas, right?
More police policing it.
A filter – which is a piece of software – will be bypassed eventually. We need to pay more people, which is expensive, but more effective in the long term.
You don’t seem to understand. The filter has no comparison with the classification that goes in TV and radio. I’ve detailed the stark differences several times before in this thread. Please read them and also some of the links ltep posted earlier and we’ll all be on the same page.
People also need to understand that the internet is not the same as television and radio. Does that mean different rules should be applied? No. But it does mean that the way we go about ensuring safety and the like has to be done in a much more precise and structured way than is being proposed.
WHAT! ARE YOU SERIOUS!? I thought I was on THE AUSTRALIAN internet!?
You’re missing the point that if someone downloads child porn to their computer HERE in OZTRAYIA, then a crime has been committed HERE. That is the point where it is policed, that is what the filter is designed to block.
Yes Dario, but all parents should. The problem is that internet speeds will be slowed considerably.
Umm, Generic Person certainly set the cats running, don’t you think, bludgers?
Here we are on a thread about the latest Morgan face-to face results, with the advantage back to Labor, and the argument is about internet filtering policy? Meanwhile, the ANZ announces another 1,000 jobs gone, the G20 meet in Washington to try and address the GFC, and I’m never going to be able to retire. Another grand child born today. Poor little tacker has got Lib. voting parents. Could grow up to be another Generic Person, alternatively the next Coalition PM.
It’s already effectively been bypassed. There are only a certain number of ways to implement a filter like this. Every single one of those methods has huge holes. Those holes are published on the internet and so are steps that can be taken to take advantage of them.
I agree. We have a problem – child porn. A lot of might not get made in Australia, but we seem to be huge consumers. The Government’s method of making themselves look like they’re dealing with the issue is this filter. It will have no impact on the consumption of child pornography. But it will reassure voters that they’ve tried.
The way to stop child porn is to track down and jail the people that make it and jail the people who consume it. Spending millions on a make-believe cure that simply creates a veil around the problem is a complete mis-allocation of resources.
G.P. is grown up!? PROVE IT!
Studies have been done that show the filter is rubbish. It’s extremely insensitive and non-specific. And it’s really easy to get around. Start up a kiddie porn site but let all the sickos know you are using a code, eg kid = seaweed, and porn = Helsinki. How is the filter going to pick up seaweed Helsinki?
And why is everyone freaking out about kids looking at porn on the internet anyway? Where is the evidence that removing it improves anything? Obviously the illegal stuff already is illegal and the Feds can track users and prosecute them. It you’re online downloading illegal porn everynight, you can hardly expect anyone to believe you went there by accident.
I wouldn’t mind GP in parliament. Opposition leader though, not PM.
“Mr. Speaka’, point of orda’! The Government’s remarks on this topic are completely and utterly obscene!”
HSO, that’s about the fifth time that GP has roamed in to begin a diversion onto internet filters. I am amazed at how successful the Liberal Party talking points are around here.
I understand quite well. The filter doesn’t have to be the same as TV or radio, but those are examples of censorship/classification that currently exist in Australia, so a filter would be by no means unique, and any attempt to brand it as such incorrect.
Sure, but there should be more people doing this. That’s where the money should be spent.
I think he’ll end up in the Senate. Do you honestly think he could ever represent someone other than his own self interest?
Great, well once those kiddies accidentally stumble on that kiddie porn the AFP will be there to bust em. I feel so much safer.
But they won’t
WONDERFUL!
That settles it then.
I’ve tried to mention this point as well.
We all use the internet here, obviously. Have any of you come across so called “illegal” stuff online by accident? Child porn, beastiality etc.?
You don’t get there by accident.
Now kids viewing porn is another thing. On TV we have watersheds. But any kid (and probably most kids) have stayed up late and watched SBS and seen a bit of naughty stuff. No doubt kids see naughty stuff online. In fact, 90+% of children under 18 have seen pornography online. Are we saying that all these kids are going to be some kind of social screw ups for the rest of their lives?
Parents might have problems with their kids seeing naked women and the like be it on TV and the internet. That’s their right. However, adults, are also entitled to view certain things as well. So censoring the lot is going to appease a few people and leave the rest in the dark.
That’s particularly silly since there are already far more appropriate ways of stopping your kids watching porn than a mandatory ISP filter and the best one is still computers in a public place.
Well, talking about the pathetic Libs is pretty boring. Nothing wrong with a good honest debate about the filter.
Sorry, forgot to add my /sarcasm
Diogenes: “It’s (filters) is also anti-elite intellectuals.”
Exactly , just like OZ yous objections ar based on OZ quote “because its mandatory”
Yous want unlimited freedoms even for kids on th Net This failed philosophy of th children of th hippie communes of free love ins , and freedoms for any to do all and everything , hides behind disengenous red herring arguments of “detail” …but this is your reel tale , kids freedoms as a lynchpin of extremist Libertarian baloney , and without regard to children as victims
.
As for blaming Parents , then lets abolish laws for business selling porn to kids (Parents can take sole responsibility) ..lets abolish Laws selling grog to kids Parents can take sole responsibility ..lets abolish Laws of Retailers selling cigarettes to kids (Parents can take sole responsibility)
Society via its Government invokes Laws to protect kids irrespective of Parents Issue should be how to implement , not whether to do it , and Statutory Independence under Parliament guidelines done Nationally seems more appriopriate If more funding is needed on technology then that’s a subsidiary issue and not an excuse to say it cann’t be done , science historicaly has proved otherwise
And individual families can put their own filtering software on their PCs if that is what they want.
The government could mandate that a CD with filtering software be included with EVERY PC sold in Australia if they want.
But the filter is stupid. I mean, why are phone sex lines legal, what’s stopping a 12 year old from calling one of those all the time?
Sorry, forgot to add MY /sarcasm
There is a very big difference between the kind of porn available on SBS and that online
It’s completely unique. Unlike with film and literature, it will block legal content. Unlike with film and literature, it will be at the discretion of the Department and the Minister. Unlike with film and literature, the block list will be secret. Unlike with film and literature we won’t know what the guidelines for having something blocked are. Unlike with film and literature it will represent a degradation in network quality. Unlike with film and literature, there will be plenty of false positives.
You don’t accidentally stumble on it.
Nah, the caps gave it away
I don’t know how many more disappointments I can take in one day. First the news that Obama is considering Hillary for SOS, and now this.
[FEDERAL sports minister, Adelaide’s Kate Ellis has been offered $30,000 to strip for a men’s magazine.
Zoo Weekly asked the minister for youth and sport to pose, but she rejected the offer today, the magazine said.
“We’re naturally sad that she’s turned down a shoot and deprived her constituents of a much needed morale boost in this global recession.”
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24651520-5006301,00.html
So you have no problem with a filter, just the material that will be filtered?
The fact it will likely block legal content seems to be a pretty good argument against it.
I’d argue that what should be legal films ARE banned by simply saying they are illegal!
AND they join an ISP that offers the highest level filtering.
The last government put a free filter online. I think 30,000 people downloaded it. Clearly there is a demand for this stuff…
‘phonegate’ anyone? anyone?
Oz, do you have any ideas about how this problem might be addressed? I have a related interest in the pro anorexic sites that kids use. It is a complex area and there’s no simple solutions. Perhaps we don’t know what the answers are?
awww, come on … come out and play …
Does TV block legal content?
Sure, I’d go further and say a DVD included with every PC.
But forcing people to install something on their computer they don’t want is silly.
Incidentally, I doubt this ISP filter would be legal if we had a comprehensive free speech clause in our constitution.
I do not mean it would be a right to have access to child pornography, I just mean that it is likely that the potential for this filter to block LEGAL material in an attempt to block illegal material would be seen as an infringement of free speech.
Do you block legal content on the TV station you own?
I cried as well. For both.
My problems are numerous and have been stated several times, including the post you quoted from.
Look the way to “solve” this issue is very simple. State the problem. State solutions to the problem. Analyse the solutions and do a cost-benefit analysis and see which are the most effective and then implement them.
Now the “problem” the government is fixing is complicated. They want to stop child porn. They want to block all porn. They want to block further, undefined “unwanted” material.
Is the best way to deal with child to put up a costly filter and say you’ve dealt with the problem when everyone in the industry has stated that it will do nothing to stem to accessibility of child porn? No, of course it.
Is blocking pornography a problem? For everyone? For some families and their kids it might be. Just like for some families letting their kids watch raunchy “sex line” ads is a problem. If so, they should take the issue into their hands and do some of the numerous things we’ve talked about.
Is blocking “unwanted” material a problem? No. The problem is that we seem to have Minister using the “Think of the children!!!” hysteria to tack on something that doesn’t belong in a democracy – executive control over what we see, hear or read with no oversight or accountability.
Seems GP tossed a mangy cat in a cage amongst a pack of dogs.
Yes… yes I do. Call me Kerry
First shouldn’t we consider that banning child porn itself is treating a symptom. Specifically, the reason child porn is illegal is because the acts conducted to create it are illegal. So the material itself is a documentary record of illegal acts.
So of course it is essential that there is stringent policing of the actual materials, but there also must be a concerted effort to find the people manufacturing the material. The internet filter deals with the material, but not its manufacture.
Enough on the internet already. Anyone would think they’d stumbled on a blog for IT weekly. Let’s talk about how hopeless Bishop is and who would make a better Opp. Treasurer. I’m willing to argue from the fibs side.
GP is a filter, a strange inverted sort that lets all the crap IN, time to pump the bilge and move on from this one
Actually, it appears this will not be the case unless chosen by the user
http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/10/13/no-opt-out-filtered-internet
So you can either choose to have illegal material filtered out (and why not), or a larger list
Lay off the cats, Thomas. The three legged one and the Chinchilla would object. They fancy themselves, much like Malcolm Fluffballs,
before retiring tonight I ask the question again
how do you block satellite transmission?
remember the internet is not just carried on some submarine cable. lol
case closed re a “filter”
Booooooooooring
Incidentally, commercial TV is self regulated. The TV industry (i.e. representatives from the TV stations) decide what content they are willing to show (of course they can’t show Refused Classification material).
That is the system that should be in place for films. I see absolutely no need for the OFLC to have anything to do with classifying films. All they do is waste a few million dollars a year on fees to lawyers.
It depends what problems we define. The government wants to define the problems as child porn and pornography in general.
So as I said above, the filter will not stop people getting access to child porn one iota. There is no technically feasible way, sort of disconnecting the internet, to stop people distributing child porn online. And even if you did pull the plug people would go lo-tech and share bootleg VHS’ and the like. Going after the people that make it and the people that consume is the solution.
More in relation to what you’re asking about anorexia. Say I’m a dad and my teenage girl is looking up anorexia websites, and I’m worried. What the government, and Xenophon (I think) would like to do is simply block every single website on the internet that mentions anorexia. Now as you could tell there would be huge issues with that like the enormous amount of false positives and immense speed slowdowns associated with searching and filtering through the sites. But remember this wouldn’t just block it for my daughter, but for EVERYONE in the country.
An alternative is to use a program like “Net Nanny” which, if you tell it too, will block websites about anorexia, or you specifically highlight which websites you want blocked and let the rest through. But you can also see problems with this. What’s to stop the girl going to the library or something to look up the websites?
So this is getting a way from the issue of filtering a bit, but I think the only way to deal with these kind of issues is to address the root cause. eg. Why is she looking up anorexia websites? Is she being teased? Rather than simply making myself feel better with a bandaid solution.
With the Star Wars program perhaps?
So if ever Kate was paid to make a video bouncing around in a wet K07 t-shirt, we couldn’t see it because it would filtered out?
We may as well bloody join the priesthood?
That is of course true. The government does have the power to restrict TV content under the communications power should it so choose.
Nah, it would be there
But is it boring? If Shanahan states boldly and loudly that she’s a gona then it’s not too far into the distant that she’ll either fall on her sword or be pushed and then who…
btb has anyone seen the new magazine ‘The Week’ edited by David Salter, ex ABC. He was on 747 talking about the new publication. It’s supposed to be a distillation of the news of the week – all the best op ed pieces in one mag. Guess who headed the list in week one? Mr Glen Milne.
Incorrect. Further details emerged last week that even the “opt-out” blacklist will contain thousands of sites on top of what the ACMA deems illegal. This includes websites the Minister says are “unwanted” or “inappropriate”.
Again, a huge issue is that unlike with film, tv, books, radio etc. what’s allowed and what isn’t allowed is not determined by the Classification Board but by bureaucrats and politicians. We don’t know what they’re blocking and we don’t know why they’re blocking it.
Finland also tried a filter. The list was eventually leaked. It included not only legal pornographic sites, but non-pornographic completely benign websites as well. When you have a secret list with zero accountability and zero transparency the room for error is there.
That’s enough from me on the filter.
774 (radio that is)
about as realistic as “filtering” the internet.
I again propose the three legged cat, aka, Placido di Moggio for Shadow Treasurer, the greatest Treasurer there never was; and the Chinchilla, Edwina, as Shadow Minister for Julie Bishop. She’s blonde, blue eyed, stares and stares and stares, and ain’t got a lot to say. Occasional utterances. No one notices. That’s about it for the Opposition for the moment, I reckon.
OZ “You don’t accidentally stumble on it (porn) ”
This is th second time you hav used th most unsubstantiated statement I’ve ever seen posted
No , kids do not find Net porn kids by accident , they actualy look for it , kids ar kids On planet earth kids do inquisitive /naughty things seeking out what they should not
Society (via Govenment) is there to protect them from adults , whether extremist Libertarians like it or not
Then we hav th repeated claim this is some sort of sinister ’secret’ Govenment conspiracy George Orwell 1984 type argument , almost claiming a “Mary Poppins” may get blocked
Then th false argument Oh legal content will be blocked…who says so , and which pollie is that silly , no th argument is another silly one
Then there’s th spurious argument Oh there ar “alternatives”…red herring , you do not believe th principal in th first place because quote “its mandatory”
Then there’s th spurious argument : its th Parents responsibility , tell me you want grog laws sales to kids abolished seeing Parents can also take responsibility there
Technology another excuse …solve it , do not hide behind it
Th right to no censorship does not extend to kids , and if somwe adults ar denied porn , bad luck
There is a desirabel place for libertarian views , but Net prevention of child porn is taking that view to th extreme , based SOLELY on it being mandatory that ALL kids get blocked from chold porn and that is th REEL objection …this view of kids freedom to self devil themselves is far beyond community and most parents standards
Obama’s all for it.
Well, in Poland at least.
Thanks Oz, for you answer. Much appreciated,
Now Abbott still on about phonegate on Lateline. FFS what a joke.
now we’re talkin’… let’s for arguments sake take Turnbull out of the equation. Put Costello in as leader and Hockey as deputy and treasurer – that could work.
que? mr fawlty
Now Abbott still on about phonegate on Lateline. FFS what a joke.
What’s he saying?
Do you honestly think children seek out CHILD pornography?
I think society and government are two separate things. Government doesn’t necessarily work on behalf of society.
We HAVE “grog laws”, and children buy alcohol every day. This doesn’t help your argument at all.
The objection is that it WON’T WORK, and is thus a big waste of money that could be better spent paying AFP officers so that they can have better person power and technology to find the real criminals, the people who make the illegal content in the first place.
Dunno, my ears haven’t stopped bleeding yet
Was there some particularly riveting Lateline tonight, was there?
sorry Ron, there may be a good point or two in there, but I can’t for the life of me understand you. Did you come off the Chatsworth Estate?
Anyone?
Leigh Sales intro claiming Labor retaining AWA’s despite Rudd declaring them ‘dead and buried’.
Keep reading his posts. Sooner or later you figure out where the fullstops are meant to go, which makes things easier to understand.
Shows
one of he best investments would be in “bots” that would track and maintain OLAP cubes on based on set criteria.eg word,image,syntax strings etc.
This would allow a real time analytical environment to allow prosecution much quicker, also police etc could also use as a database for research,trends etc.
So, Shows On and Oz, given what you’re saying, are you able to influence the policy makers?
Seems they are going to allow existing AWAs only to be reatined indefinitely. Can’t say I’m surprised, but I disagree with the move.
Dammit, I missed Lateline.
What was Abbot carping on about?
Is this kind of like spyders like how search engines work?
These are the sorts of things I agree with, the AFP need resources so they can stay ahead of the technology curve, and they need money to train officers so they have the skills to outwit the people peddling this stuff. THAT is a better place to put the money.
Dario is in another time zone because Abbott’s just on where I’m watching.
“Do you honestly think children seek out CHILD pornography?”
In your world , kids just seek out on th internet th latest Shakespeare , and all th other non naughty things of life Which Century backwards ar you in
“The objection is that it WON’T WORK”
No , th objection from th poster was it was quote “mandatory” An extreme libertarian view Now if youyr objection is on functionality , then argue technology solution because surely cost would not be a consideration with children unless you want a AFP sitting on every home post box
Well I hope the fine print is ONLY IF THE EMPLOYEE WANTS IT.
The mad monk is making a goose of its self on LL if you can get away from the current nonsense
LEIGH SALES: What’s your party doing wrong Tony?
TONY ABBOTT: Well, nothing Leigh
Hahahahahahahahahaha
The key word was CHILD Ron, that is why it was all in capitals.
Yes, both parties must agree
He was on in the intro, which is what I was talking about earlier
Well in practical terms this is a minor change.
Most employees will be wanting more money given that inflation is 5%
Most employers will want changes to conditions to get that. So doesn’t that mean they would have to go to a statutory agreement, not an AWA?
Possibly, I guess it would depend on whether their agreements were written with and indexing to inflation. I can just see this as being a big thorn in the side going forward. There’ll be no new AWAs which is the most important thing I suppose.
Unfortunately the extent of my influence is writing a letter to the Minister and my local member, which I have done, and trying to share some of the facts and details around.
There are quite a few campaigns up and running and industry (internet service providers) are firmly against the idea so I have some hope the Government will see reason.
Abbot is getting slaughtered by Emerson over the fact that Turnbull’s gone backwards in the polls.
close,but no cigar
basically “intelligent” applications that allow terrabytes to be crunched in a short time,they ultimately lead to the creation of a “database” that can be inetelligently examined (slice and dice) as opposed to “data mining” which is just data extraction in a set format.
OMG. I think I just had a techno- generational spyder short circuit my entire understanding of politics. Shows On, a tutorial is required for the WWW challenged.
He is isn’t he. His heart just isn’t in it.
Emerson usually starts a bit wobbly in an interview but once he gets warmed up does a good job.
“The key word was CHILD Ron, that is why it was all in capitals.”
so ShowsOn , thats playing with words , at what age under th age of consent ar you happy for access to internet of child porn
My point was those under th age of consent ar Net savvy , and seek out info including what they and society believe they they should not view
you ar either for it or not , you ar either against its mandatory implementation (as OZ is) or you ar not , you ar either for technology solution (if needed) or do not want a internt block , or say no opinion if you don’t want to , but not disengenuouus
Emerson to Abbott on Phonegate: “You’ve already had the inquiry apparently, in your own bedroom”
HAHAHA.
“You’ve already had the inquiry already have you, Tony? What, in your bedroom?”
Emerson you legend.
Ah you win Dario.
Sales to Abbott: “Pipe down Sherlock”
GOLD
The conflict of interest problem for the WA Libs have begun. Wonder if they will have as much problem as the early Howard years. Hope their ministerial guidelines are nice and loose.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/14/2420480.htm
Night, bludgers.
My influence is less than that, because my local member is a moron.
When you go to Google.com and search for something, the reason it only takes 0.5 seconds to find thousands of relevant webpages is because Google have huge servers that constantly scan the internet to associate certain webpages with common key words.
NEVER Ronster, it is ILLEGAL content that shouldn’t be accessed by anyone. It is a record of criminal activity.
btwt
a mobile service provider can run porn seperate to the net
do we filter mobile content next?
90% Clean Coal test plant in Qld on Lateline looks promising…
Why did that guy from Goldman Sachs testifying to the U.S. congress call executive salaries “compensation”? Is that what they do to make it sound like they were paid for being hit by a car?
As GP would say, it’s obscene
O.K. I haven’t actually gone to bed yet. I think my husband hates Pollbludgers, but I cheer him up otherwise. Anyway,Shows On, yep I understand that. One of the great bug bears for the organisation I currently work in, is the age of the server. It’s old, has to deal with enormous traffic, sophisticated traffic., and we’ve no money to replace it.
If it works it’ll be alright, but the trial for this one plant will finish in 2015. It’ll be decades before we manage to retrofit the majority of our coal plants and it might be too late.
As I understand it, existing AWAs can be retained as long as BOTH parties are in favour. But no new AWAs can be created.
This seems to suggest that AWAs will gradually die out over time as people move from their present job to a position with another employer. .
Does anyone see it differently to that?
And it is based on AWA’s as defined by the 1993 Workplace Relations Legislation
#267
that’s how I understood it and i think voter land will live with that so long as it is explained to them. Problem is that it can be so easily claimed that AWAs are still around and gov. hasn’t shredded them as promised. gov.will have to spend large sums of money educating people re workchoices lite. Upside is that opposition have no room to move on this -
Darn, that sounds right. I can just see it being a sore point for the Government. Given the economic situation an argument can probably be made that it would be detrimental to have renegotiations of these contracts hanging over business & employees heads.
And here is the ABC News item, re AWA’s.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2008/11/14/2420517.htm
Oz really am going to nip off to bed now, but you need to keep in mind, not only have we the capacity to kill ourselves and the planet, we also have the capacity for the creation of music and poetry, the exploration of the universe (check out the tarantula nebula) and a whole lot of creative stuff interpersonally. I’ll give credit to Kennett in Victoria for not ripping apart Mental health, and to subsequent State regimes for building on that.
The irony of the human race.
gotta love the monk on the telly, he’s so enthusiastic, just can’t help taking up the spade and digging a hole for himself, Emmerson was rather impressive.
#271
The middle can live with that outcome – extreme ends of pol. spectrum won’t be happy but if both unions and business can walk away believing they’ve won some concessions isn’t that the point of the exercise?
Probably. It will just go down as a ‘non-core promise’ I guess.
268
{And it is based on AWA’s as defined by the 1993 Workplace Relations Legislation}
I’m a little confused by this. I always thought AWAs were a Howard invention. I guess I was wrong.
According to the ABC story I linked to, it will be Workplace Agreements based on the 1993 IR Act.
And this is the telling bit.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/14/2420341.htm?section=justin
So much for dodgy AWA’s remaining.
Rather than referencing the articles about Gillards speech, its here:
The most relevant parts of the speech to this debate are:
“After considering that feedback, I have decided that old Act agreements, such as old 1993 IR Act agreements, AWAs, ITEAs, s170LK and LJ agreements, will continue to apply until such time as a new agreement is made. Of course after the nominal expiry date of such agreements, parties can bargain in the new system.
To balance this, I confirm that the National Employment Standards will come into effect on 1 January 2010 for all employees and will override any inferior conditions. This will ensure that employees on sub-standard AWAs made under Work Choices will receive the full benefit of the NES.”
So, miners in W.A. will get to keep their AWA’s for as long as both parties agree to it. A lot of those AWA’s will be gone soon as the mines here shed staff which is already happening.
The restrictions on arbitration are dissapointing, but lots depends on the exact wording of the legislation about how this can be accesed.
The dispute settling stuff looks good to me. That will curtail a lot of the casual bastardry that employers get away with now even where agreements exist.
Link didnt post??
http://mediacentre.dewr.gov.au/mediacentre/Gillard/Releases/AddresstotheAustralianLabourLawAssociation.htm
at what age under th age of consent ar you happy for access to internet of child porn
ShowsON “NEVER Ronster, it is ILLEGAL content that shouldn’t be accessed by anyone”
We ar in agreement Th same issue for instanse arises with allowing cocaine to be freely available to under th age of consent AND relying on Parents to police its prevention Instead our government mandates its illegal whether Parents like ot or not and whether Parents ar responsible or not Furthermore th Govenment removes choise and makes it mandatory for all supported by all means to enforce such mandatory prohibiton
Likewise with internet porn accessible for children Th question is NOT should it be mandatory prohibition , but how to achieve it (as I suspect 90% of public support mandatory prohibition) Whereas OZ opposes mandatory prohibiton and represents a minority view I feel
IF one supports mandatory prohibton , whether th proposal comes from th average Conroy or not , th issues ar technology implementation (& if tech improvements ar required to achieve it) , standards levels , accountability & independence of censors , sites criteria , and adequate oversite thereof (afterall we hav ASIO with sectrets but hav oversite)
I would argue there is no excuse in allowing perceived current (if any) technical dificulties from persuing a National blanket for children to ptrotect them from adults This is not a “puritan” trick or an attack on Libertarian ideals but a defence of decensy standards for those not old enough to make an informed judgement , and if by chanse some Adults miss out on viewing I hav no sympathy and nor woud most parants
There ar other chalenges th Net throws up , but they ar not an excuse either to act on this one , and if th pollies by chanse tink its politcal capital then th public do not irrespective
No 155
Under the current cybercrime legislation, it is possible that an Australian committing a cybercrime in a country that has no anti-cybercrime laws, will come under the jurisdiction of the AFP.
I hav grave fears , despite Governmetn good intentions , that unscrambling Howards W/C via “agreements ” to extend after expiry …with 1993 IR reqirements will still leave an unsatisfatory pudding for workers not in a reasonable negotiting position , particularly in non unionised industries To stand any chase of a successful “FAIR” changeover I el draclonian penalties will be needed for non complianse , because th post arrangements ar both a disincentive and minus to employwrs currntly beneftting from th unfair W/C’ arrangements
Problem is it will arise in an election year
Generic Person
agree , we could even get Skase back to ‘oz’ these sleeze merchants on kids will move to where they cann’t be legaly attacked , with there sickly infested computers being transportable
No 218
Ron, all politicians are “that silly” when it comes to the internet, because most of them have no idea what on earth they are actually talking about when it comes to the technical feasibility of imposing a blanket filter on all users. They cast the argument as a wedge, accuse opponents of supporting paedophilia and other rancorous nonsense, but fail to recognise that their noble desire to suppress access to child porn actually results in a slippery slope into suppression of all sorts of other “unwanted material”.
The very fact that Conroy continues to dodge and weave any serious question on this filter is evidence that he has no real intention of engaging in a mature debate on the issue. Instead, he is ramming it through under the guise that he has consulted with the industry (even though the vast majority of industry participants are opposed to his proposal). Chief of iiNet, the third largest ISP in the country, has called Conroy the worst communications minister in 15 years – and that’s saying something when considering the likes of Alston.
No 170
Why, thankyou. How flattering.
No 260
Exactly right. Opponents of the filter are not arguing FOR child porn – that’s Conroy’s infantile hysterical talking point. Opponents are merely arguing that there are superior ways of achieving the same ends.
In case you weren’t aware, Peter Abetz, the state member for Soutthern River is the brother of Senator Eric Abetz.
http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/web/newwebparl.nsf/iframewebpages/Legislative+Assembly+-+Current+Members
No 281
It might well be a minority view because the majority view is not furnished with the technical knowledge to make a judgment one way or another. The majority view can only encompass the moral opposition toward paedophilia. Hence, I would comfortably assert that if most average, technically illiterate people were actually educated about the pitfalls of such a filter: i.e. slower internet, more expensive internet, ineffectual blocking of suppressed content, filtering of undefined “unwanted” material and so forth; those people would soon oppose the filter.
Actually try this link to his Parliamentary Entry.
http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Parliament%5CMemblist.nsf/WAllMembersFlat/Abetz,+Peter?opendocument
Generic Person
I agree with some of your points and not others
“They (some supporters of an internet block) cast the argument as a wedge, accuse opponents of supporting paedophilia and other rancorous nonsense”
I agree that not just a poor argument , its also quite low at peoples beliefs My understanbding of my opponents arguments is they ar based on Libertarian , tech deficiencys , cost or affexcting other content’
“The very fact that Conroy continues to dodge and weave any serious question on this filter is evidence that he has no real intention of engaging in a mature debate on the issue”
In my first post , i tried to get Conroy out of th debate , I tink he’s average and his approach to th issue lacking an intelectual base as i’ve not heard him take th trails I took in #281 or diferent trails others alternatively hav taken suporting an internet block
“pollies fail to recognise that their noble desire to suppress access to child porn actually results in a slippery slope into suppression of all sorts of other “unwanted material”.
Well we diverge here …maybe I for one realize pitfalls in innocently or by consequense
suppressing material that should not be suppresed at all Which is why in my #281 I mentioned standards levels , accountability and particularly “sites criteria” I seek to ban child porn access & its sexual variations , nothing else and ecxpect that should be th “sites criteria” I DO hav faith in th sensibleness of senior Labor and Liberla politicans to also see that as th only goal (despite th “idealog crazzies” on both sides)
“Slower internet & more expensive internet”
Well everything comes at a price I’d ectualy guess most parents would ear that price if informed , I would but thats an opinion
“filtering of undefined “unwanted” material ”
Agree as said , th sites and material require defining by a braod prectrum including all Party senior pollies so only th object is achieved
“ineffectual blocking of suppressed content”
this I believe is a technical issue (if required) to be overcome i’m in favour of a National blanket that IS efectual , and waste of effort implementing an ineffectual one , however everthing is solveable given resources and committment ( I put th view this way to avoid getting into a technical debate as th Net is still young & am unpersuaded either way of technical impossibilities either now or in future)
Quite apart from the particular right-and-wrongs of the current debate, does the Rudd Government have wowserish tendencies? Does the Rudd Government reflect a broader and growing wowserish tendency in western societies, and western governments, more generally? Is there a relationship between wowserism and the various attempts by western governments to control individual terrorists? (That is, the common denominator is a fear of uncontrolled individuals.)
The Dutch are quite close to closing their ‘coffee’ shops generally, as well as their red light window shopping arcades in several cities. The Dutch Minister for Youth and something-or-other has just launched a national debate on early teenage sexuality. (He doesn’t like it.) The French have been working at getting rid of street walkers from the very well-trodden trottoirs of Rue St Denis. Are these symptoms of the greying of the babyboomers?
Are there historical correlations with depressed/recessed economies and increases in social conservatism, and increased measures by governments to control individuals?
Clearly, governments are now taking on huge risks which have in the past fifteen years been passed along to individuals by both governments and corporations. Is controlling individual behaviour a sort of psychological necessity for governments in these circumstances?
GP for parliament? Well, I generally don’t agree with GP, but s/he, (or they?), can sometimes be a bit more coherent and cogent than Turnbull’s Troupe. So it might actually improve parliament to have GP there. LOL.
Ron, Conroy is indelibly linked to this debate. You can’t remove him since he’s the one orchestrating the imposition of the filter and calling anyone who criticises him, a paedophile.
Goodness me Ron, please learn how to type with some degree of coherency!
That aside, I’m sorry, but I do not have any faith in the sensibility of politicians when it comes to the internet. Why? Because the vast majority have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about, especially when it comes to the technical minutiae. On top of that, you have dolts like Conroy calling people paedophiles the instance they voice criticism; whilst Xenophon and Fielding argue for access bans on all sorts morally sensitive issues. Hence, the slippery slope well and truly exists and will occur under Conroy’s proposed scheme.
Clearly, there is a need to ensure that access to child p**nography is prohibited; but that is best done by injecting funds into cybercrime squads which more effectively target these insidious criminals. Furthermore, as Oz has reiterated several times, it is not like people accidentally discover this material – most search engines have algorithms in place which inhibit direct searches for these sites. In other words: a person has to actively seek the material beyond a mere keyword search. And even under a filter regime, there is absolutely nothing stopping a paedophile from getting the material via P2P networks which will be unhindered.
Wrong – most parents are not willing to bear the price – even when the price is zero. The previous Government provided free filtering software to parents through NetAlert, only 130,000 people downloaded it and only a few thousand were still using it a few weeks later. Many popular ISPs also offer opt-in filters free of charge and their subscription rate is very small.
Once again, neither the Government or the ISP industry itself can actually demonstrate that there is sufficient demand for a mandatory blanket filter.
Ron, the internet was never designed to be distributed via centralised hubs. The efficacy of its design is predicated on decentralised networks which is why circumvention of ISP-level filters is so easy, and cost-effective via cheap VPN providers. Conroy’s filter does not even encompass P2P, meaning that while, for instance, kiddyfiddler.com might be banned, the kiddyfiddler video would be unrestricted via bittorrent and other similar networks.
Basically: internet filtering doesn’t work and never will.
Conroy should also be sacked for lying & misleading parliament.
Ron, do you really think that everything is solveable given resources and commitment? Do you think the problem of how to turn lead into gold is solveable given resources and commitment?
the OO is having a last say about phonegate, actually it’s a dig at the Canberra press gallery and Turnbull’s pushing the story, what an about face.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24652969-16382,00.html
Since when do The Australian get to dictate what is and isn’t news?
Just a sort of April fools day joke gone wrong, was it?
From the article judith quoted
ahhh, now it makes sense!
OK, for interested Bludgers, this is the link to the original Phonegate story:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24549090-5013871,00.html
Having read the second story (linked above) and then re-read the original story this is what I can make out:
1. True, it was not a dinner. It was drinks, after a dinner elsewhere. Time: 10:40pm, Friday October 10.
2. The call was pre-arranged and solicited by Rudd. It was his idea. It’s possible that Rudd knew the exact time the call would come in. It’s also worthwhile considering that, as the POTUS most likely doesn’t make calls to an exact schedule, that the call may have come an hour or even two later. Probably not earlier as it was around 7am in Washington. Whatever the exact timing, it’s plausible that Rudd knew the call would come while his guests were in the loungeroom, having a drink while Rudd spoke to Bush.
3. One the guests (from other sources in the media) was Chris Mitchell, editor of the Australian. The original article makes no mention of who was there.
4. The report of the call is summarised as follows: Bush wanted a G7 meeting. Rudd argued for a G20 meeting, pointing out that, as the problem was global, the meeting needed to be more inclusive of a wide range of views, and it had to include China (upon whom we all depend). China had been bagging capitalism as a result of the meltdown. Rudd had spoken four nights before to Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao. The inference is that China’s jaundiced view of capitalism had been delivered diretly to Rudd, in Mandarin, but this is only inferred in the article. Whatever, China had to be at the meeting, and Rudd argued this case strongly. He was successful, even though Bush had been resistant to Rudd’s arguments for “the first third of the conversation”, as the meeting (which he is now attending) is of the G20, not the G7.
5. At one stage Bush reportedly “stunned” Rudd by asking “What’s the G20?”.
6. The rest of the article is commentary, some of it very flattering, as in:
and,
and so on.
All commentary was positive. The only additional facts presented involved the fact that Rudd had also spoken to “Japan’s Taro Aso, Indonesia’s Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and German Chancellor Angela Merkel before talking to Bush,” and some background material on previous negotiations regarding the GFC, plus a snippet about Rudd urging Bush, soon to be a lame-duck President, to leave a framework for his successor (then not known) to work with.
7. The only direct witness to the actual call listed by the article was “a Rudd staffer”. However, at one point there is this passage:
Whether this “one source” was the only source, or was another source for the article (implying there were multiple sources) is unclear.
8. Today’s article lays into the media for allegedly not reading the original story. A various stages it attacks the SMH, The Age, AAP, “one Sunday newspaper this week” and Crikey as organisations, as well as Laurie Oakes, Paul Bongiorno, Glenn Milne, Malcolm Farr and Michael Brissenden as individuals, for either playing “catch up” on the story, being hypocritical as regards revealing sources or being dupes of Turnbull. Malcolm Turnbull himself cops a serve for being:
My conclusions/observations/comments
Rudd would have been well-aware that the call would come while Mitchell was present. Who better to have as a witness, even a witness “after the fact” than the editor of a paper that “sets the news agenda” (whether it’s true or not and whether we like it or not), and which had been scathing in its carping criticism of Rudd in the past (e.g. Shanahan, Milne, Kelly… awww… the whole lot of ‘em for my money)? To me this is an unremarkable exercise of politics. Include your enemies even closer than your friends. Make them part of the secret.
As far as The Australian is concerned, it seems to have worked. It’s pretty clear who put Matthew Franklin up to writing the story, and who reported details to Franklin as to the background of the call, as well as possibly other details: Chris Mitchell, editor of The Australian and father to Rudd’s God son.
As for the rest of the controversy, the only piece of contentious or surprising news out of the two articles is the alleged Bush ignorance of the G20’s existence.
There have been many explanations of what Bush might have meant, if he actually said these words. He might have meant “Give me a list of the 20 countries” (there are actually only 19), he might not have understood Rudd’s words and may have been asking him to repeat himself. It could have been anything, including plain ignorance, or nothing much at all.
It seems clear that whatever the truth of this matter, making it public is not a breach of national security – either the US’s or Australia’s. As the rest of the conversation is now being played out in public in America, and as the decision to hold a meeting is hardly controversial (including the circumstances in which the decision was argued for and made), the calls for enquiries, AFP and Senate, do seem hugely over-egged. Add to this that Bush really is a lame-duck, both institutionally and politically, and it’s a storm in a teacup.
If the “What’s the G20″ passage had been excised, this would be an interesting, but unremarkable article. Even with its inclusion I’d hardly think any serious commentator or player – diplomatic or otherwise – would need to get excited about it. After all, we’re only talking about avoiding another Depression. A drinks joke or two about Bush hardly rate against the importance of the occasion.
That Turnbull is trying to condemn Rudd – and Australia’s – efforts at this important time, to picture those efforts as permanently “damaged goods”, tainted forever, as victim of the world’s diplomatic cold shoulder, all because of a single story, shows to me how much Turnbull really cares about the country, as opposed to the high regard in which he holds himself and his delusionary expectations of being PM by 2010.
Youtube for one has restrictions on somethings, last night I was looking at movie theme songs and saw in the side panel the pychio shower sense, as I’m someone who likes horrow fixs I clicked onto and it blocked me unless I was logged in! yes its a crusome sense but it is one of the most famous movie sense of all time.
mexican beemer 301
I can’t make any scenes (crusome or otherwise) of your last sentence.
Spam dropped 70% this week when the main offender was shut down.
http://www.money.co.uk/article/1001959-global-spam-falls-by-70-percent-as-hosting-firm-shut-down.htm
BB, you’ve summed it up in one blog, it’s a story that never was and without Turnbull’s idiotic twisting of it and peddling it to all and sundry it wouldnt have been any more than a pinprick, more fool the journo’s for swallowing it and blowing it out of proportion, i bet they’ll look hard and long at anything Turnbull tries to push for a while, why could we see it for what it was and yet those oh so savvy journos swallowed it whole?
Judith, I suppose that all the talking down of the Australian economy by Turnbull and the Murdoch papers is just some sort of a twisted joke too.
amigo ronnie, hillary 4 potus, sorry wrong job. Hillary 4 sos. Still in amigo land
I give it two weeks
diog, the pb photos at machu piccu look sensationally
Steve, where on earth have you got the idea i think Turnbull’s trashing the economy is a joke? my whole blog was about BB’s summary of phonegate, i dont mind wearing a dig for something i wrote and i despise Turnbull and what he has been doing, especially casting mud at Ken Henry and his department when Henry wouldnt play his little game, if your going to critisize me please do it on what i’ve written not on your interpretation of my scribblings.
Judith, I wasn’t having a dig at you. I was just saying that the whole phonegate thing seems to have just been a fun plaything for the Oz and it makes me wonder how seriously they treat other issues of more importance than who said what in a phone call.
actually Steve other than that first harmless article, that would normally hav’nt even got a second thought, until the article today, the OZ has pretty much stayed out of it all, there was some minor ramblings fron shanahan but only in the context of other digs he was having at Rudd, several journos including Crikey have commented on OZ’s quietness, i think thats because the OZ editor is the originator of the original piece, dont take this as i’m sticking up for the OZ, i cancelled my delivery last year just before the election thereby forgoing my favourite cryptic crossword.
peace.
How many different ways can one say the word’s “What’s the G20?” when emphasis and inflection are at play? Sure it can be said from a position of ignorance but it can also be said in a dismissive way as in “The G20 doesn’t hold weight with all of those 3rd world members – it’s the G7 that matters.’
If Bush did utter those words it’s not because he was ignorant of the G20. Although not the sharpest knife in the drawer Bush is not that dumb either. Arrogant? You betcha. Maybe it was arrogance and not ignorance that was behind his comment/question, What we do know is that Rudd wanted the G20 to meet and that is what is about to take place. Well done PM.
Finns
I’m glad they turned out. When can we see them? You must be very pleased about Hillary being offered SOS.
It’s by no means clear that Clinton has been offered State. The media is speculating about it, just as they speculated about her being the VP nominee. The arguments against it are the same: whatever job she is in, she will upstage Obama, even without trying. The only suitably prestigious job that would get her out of politics is the Supreme Court.
The Ruddster would be pretty happy with Hillary as SOS. They seemed to hit it off and their policies are dead centre. Dunno that she’s got much interest in our part of the world though.
Actually, Hillary could use Rudd to help as a conduit to getting in with China.
Anyone else a bit nervous about what our wise and esteemed leaders are going to come up with this weekend at the G20 conference?
How many of the G20 leaders either wise or esteemed?
Argentina – Kirchner, populist lightweight, no and no
Australia – Rudd, towering genius, yes and yes
Brazil – Lula, old time lefty, maybe and maybe
Canada – Harper, minority govt Tory, no
China – Hu, corrupt stalinist gangster, no
France – Sarkozy, flashy populist, no
Germany – Merkel, low-key but effective, yes and maybe
India – Singh, actually quite effctive, yes and yes
Indonesia – SBY, must be polite about, maybe and maybe
Italy – Berlusconi, should be in jail, no and no
Japan – Aso, invisble LDP hack #8976, no
Mexico – Calderon, not bad, maybe
Russia – Putin, corrupt thug and bully, no
Saudi Arabia – chief bankroller of terrorism and oil blackmailer, no
South Africa – no-one in charge
South Korea – Lee, hopeless, no
Turkey – Erdogan, admirable moderate, yes
United Kingdom – Brown, has been right about the GFC from the start, yes and yes
United States – Bush, incompetent moron and lame duck, no
I did, in fact, say that with a hint of sarcasm.
But good on you for compiling that list.
By George, Bush was right. What’s the G20? There are only 19!
aahahahahahahahaha
By the way, could we divide that list into “left” and “right”? It could be done for the relative scale in the country but would be more difficult when comparing them on the international stage. Eg. Rudd is the “left” choice in Australia but compared to Brazil’s President he’s at least a centrist, if not right-wing.
Anyway, the majority of leaders there seem to be firmly in the right. But the whole GFC has turned historical right-wing economics on its head so we could get unpredictable outcomes.
Centre
The EU is the 20th. Dunno why France, Germany and Italy get a guernsey but Spain miss out. Seems a bit weird.
CNN reporting that it wasn’t offered, but that she was asked whether she would accept such an offer if it was made. Sounds like it will happen.
Now the story is that Bush gave Rudd the cold shoulder. LOL.
He’s also meeting with John McCain on Monday, apparently.
I assume that has more to do with gossiping about the campaign then any offers of positions.
This is of course the lame duck president who is as popular as a the flu.
Where?
326: Over at The Oz:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24655397-12377,00.html
Oh please
The most important people Rudd can meet with are not those associated with the current administration – it’s Obama and his people who matter most. If Bush is a bit miffed tough luck. These OO hacks really are full of their own self importance.
But this is more relevant than whatever GWB htinks:
http://www.theage.com.au/national/rudd-builds-bridge-to-obama-20081114-67d9.html?page=-1
Contrasts strongly with Howards last meeting with Bush, where Howard rolled on his back and let Bush tickle his tummy.
Definitely looks like Rudd is out of favour.
Yes, I’m sure according to the Oz Madeleine was stony faced and didn’t pat him on the back either…
I think there is something important about Phonegate. What on earth is Rudd doing having dinner with a low-life like Chris Mitchell. Doesn’t the man have standards? Burkey is one thing but Mitchell really is beyond the pale. It reflects very poorly on his judgement.
wonder what he taught him to fetch!
I think the Oz should run with that story
Our conservative friend David Spears contrasted Rudd’s Bush greeting with that of the Italian sleezy PM.
Rudd will no friends here getting an icy welcome from Bush.
Make that – Rudd will lose no friends here getting an icy welcome from Bush.
Ah, I thought the 20th member of the G20 was the editor of The Australian. Who will tell us what goes on if he is not there to LEAK it all?
The icier the better – who wants to be liked by Bush?
Shaun Carney sums up the Libs strategy. A good read.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/liberal-strategy–crash-and-burn-20081114-679z.html
Well Bush needs one friend, so he might as well pick the only other person in DC besides himself with less than zero influence on Obama.
Oh, this is too cute. From that story about the “brief handshake”:
The paper of which Mitchell is editor (and presumably has control over editorial content) now says Their Glorious Leader “was said” to have been at a “dinner party”.
1. The Australian gloatingly pointed, today, out that it was NOT a “dinner party”, but rather drinks after a dinner, and that anyone who said it was a dinner party (including those from “a Sunday newspaper this week”) were fools who had “clearly” not readhe original story.
2. Which leads me to believe that Chris Mitchell is either taking the weekend off and has let a “gullible” unprofessional hack, of the ilk of those taken to task in the other story today for singing Turnbull’s song, run his paper for him in his absence, or that he has been sacked along with Penberthy at the Tele.
Sounds like there are at least two camps at The Australian and that one of them is not happy with its editor, and is clearly not reading its own stories.
I broadly agree with BB’s analysis of the ‘phonegate’ story though im loathe to call it that. The politically impact is negligable. Probabaly the most relevatory aspect of the story was that it highlighted the incompetance of rudds office in orchestrating the leak in the first place. They had nothing to gain and yet proceeded anyway.
http://www.orble.com/rudd-phone-leak-highlights-political-incompetance/
On Rudds g20 trip i think its also interesting to note that hes one of the only heads of government thats meeting with the obama reps. dont know what to make of it, but there it is anyway. full list of who’s meeting albright and leech linked
http://thepage.time.com/obama-release-on-summit-representatives
GB @ 339:
Yes and no.
You need to read between the lines a little more deeply.
Last week Carney said that the Rudd government “occasionally appears to be knowing what it’s doing”, and yet today criticised Turnbull’s tactics only from the point of view of damaging the Liberal Party, not the damage they are trying to inflict on the country in order to get at Rudd.
In that light, Carney’s criticism of the Libs is actually pretty tame. It’s about them ruining their chances of winning the next election, not about any damage they are doing collaterally.
I don’t know who’s leading the Telegraph now but I’m sure they’ve kept their Liberal membership up to date.
Good stuff Shaun Carney – see, if you people read real newspapers like the Age, the SMH and the AFR, and ignored The Australian, you’d all be a lot happier, although you’d have less to bloviate about here.
Shanahan seems to be doing some morre damage control on behalf of his boss.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24652863-7583,00.html
A bit of twisting and turning going on here. My take on it is that the Oz were hoping the thing would be dead in a couple of days.
They let the thing loose and don’t know how to get the cat back into the bag without doing themselves (read Mitchell) any permanent damage.
The funny thing is, is that the other organs of News Ltd haven’t been let into the loop and are probably doing as much or more that the likes of the ABC & Fairfax to keep the life support system operating to keep the story alive.
To some degree, with quite a bit of help from the Coalition, the issue seems to be taking on a life of its own now. I bet the Oz is far more careful from here on about how they embellish a story for a little more impact than it really deserves.
BB – I got the impression Carney thinks Turnbull’s tactics are risky, unpleasant and will most probably fail.
This is the relevant gloating passage from today’s story in the Australian:
And a refresher from another story in the same paper today:
Mitchel might be ringing up the master of body language who can apparently analyse attitudes from a TV clip, and who writes about “dinner parties” when his editor has said it was “the dinner party that never happened”. If I ws him I certainly would, and I’d attach a rocket. Whoever wrote that “handshake” story has just made a total fool of his editor and of his newspaper.
Yeah, but only fail to win the next election. Not fail to calm down the crisis of confidence in our financial system.
Turnbull is quite prepared to risk extending the GFC as it affects Australia. By arguing that Rudd is hopelessly compromised over the Phonegate story, Turnbull is basically saying that Rudd (and Australia) trying to get world leaders to agree on anything is doomed – permanently – to failure, as (according to Turnbull) none of them will talk to Rudd. What a confidence-booster. The man’s not only an arrogant SOB, but he’s a wrecker who doesn’t care what harm he does to achieve his ends. It’s not really relevant whether he has a chance of success. What’s relevant is that he doesn’t care.
Looking forward to 8.30 Monday night on the ABC. I expect though, that a number of watchers will cringe at some of the presentation and attempts at cover-up and justification (read lies) that will be a feature of the production.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/navy-chief-torpedo-over-children-overboard/2008/11/14/1226318927477.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
I expect that Turnbull & Co would rather the public be concerned more about “phone gate” than take the trouble to question whether or not they have been “had” by Howard and his cohorts, many of whom are still in the Parliament.
The only way any of this would have relevance is if a) Bush was Obama or b) Kevin headed a conservative party in which case any friction would be very unnatural. I would be far more worried if Bush was back slapping Kevin because the last time POTUS did that Australia went to war.
Shanahan fails to get it:
Rudd did not self-aggrandize himself. The article came out with all the aggrandizement you’d ever need. In fact the article pointed out that Rudd “refused” to comment before it was published.
Apart from the “What’s the G20″ bit, the report covered a perfectly ordinary phone call from one world leader to another, pointing out that Bush had to be persuaded to up the meeting from one of the G7 to one of the G20.Rudd, along with others, managed to change his mind. That is not self-aggrandizement. That is fact.
It seems to me that it’s Chris Mitchell who’s doing the self-aggrandizement. He was there and he got one of his flunkies to write it up. The connection is too pat to be a co-incidence. “Look Mum, I was with the PM when the Prez rang!”.Shanahan confirmed Mitchell’s presence at the drinks at Kirribilli in his article today. Mitchell has never done this himself. His flunkie didn’t do it either.
So now we have Shanahan writing-up the report of the phone call as a scandal, when it wasn’t. Reports of phone calls between leaders are often in newspapers. We have him putting Mitchell at the scene, when Mitchell has pointedly declined to confirm that. We have The Australian writing plonking “we got the story and you didn’t” articles pointing out that it was drinks, not dinner, and all on the same day another writer at The Australian guilty of making the same mistake as the rest of the hack at the other news orgs wer criticised for making, calling it a “dinner party”.
Shanahan berates Media Watch for not covering the story behind the story. Why would they bother? It’s a total schemozzle from start to finish. MW is only 10 minutes long. They’d need a mini-series to do the whole f–k up justice.
This is a succinct explanation of how Howard & co operated. Unfortunately, Turnbull seems to think that it is good strategy. Once more of this comes out in the open, I think that people will be more awake to this sort of thing. A pity that the media are going to continue to be misled and keep on pushing the dishonesty that continually sprouts from the Libs.
You bet your life he does. One doesn’t get known as “the lying rodent” for nothing.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/navy-chief-torpedo-over-children-overboard/2008/11/14/1226318927477.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
With due respect but I though it was already on the public record that Peter Reith knew from advice that the photos were not has he protrayed them to be. I do hope the rest of the program isn’t just rehashed stuff we in here have heard all before.
Australian headline:
Any greeting short of French kissing was never going to be good enough …
With Fran Kelly being in charge of what material is included and what is excluded, I think you can be assured that it will be mostly rehashing already known information that isn’t particularly damaging to Howard’s legacy or the ex members of his Cabinet still in Parliament.
Let me remind you all that Mr Mitchell is the former editor of the Courier-Mail who published the allegation that Manning Clark had recieved the Order of Lenin and was a Soviet spy. The Australian Press Council said: “The newspaper had too little evidence to assert that Prof Clark was awarded the Order of Lenin – rather there is much evidence to the contrary. That being so, the Press Council finds that the Courier-Mail was not justified in publishing its key assertion and the conclusions which so strongly flowed from it. The newspaper should have taken further steps to check the accuracy of its reports. While the Courier-Mail devoted much space to people challenging its assertions, the Press Council believes it should have retracted the allegations about which Prof Clark’s supporters complained.” Robert Manne, former editor of Quadrant, wrote: “”It was clear that a couple of people saw him wearing a Soviet medal but there are many Soviet medals and I never thought that it was an Order of Lenin. But the Courier-Mail went from the assumption that it was an Order of Lenin to the assumption that he was one of the spies of the century. This was one of the most absurd pieces of journalism that Australia has ever seen.”
Just saw the Headline on Skynews … something like Rudds get cold greeting … LOL
so the Italian PM who said of the US President Elect “he has everything needed in order to reach deals with him: he’s young, handsome and even tanned.” gets a warmer greeting from an outgoing unpopoluar President ….geez thats really headline news
So will Skynews give us a handshake by hug account of each of the G20 leaders greeting by that master of diplomatic greetings Bush (did he give Merkel another neck rub?)
BB 550 – Well said.
Shaun Carney wrote:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/liberal-strategy–crash-and-burn-20081114-679z.html?page=-1
I’m sure it would be just as accurate / pertinent to point out the corollary: the Liberals have a born-to-rule complex. They genuinely believe that the Australian public made the wrong decision last year, that, after this brief hiatus, will return to their senses and restore the Liberals to their rightful place, and Labor to theirs.
Turnbull is often cited as a character of outsized ego. It seems that this problem is not confined to him but afflicts the whole party. Arrogance in believing that only they are fit to govern. Arrogance in the belief that the public got it wrong, while the Liberals were, have been, are, and will be right all along, if stupidly misunderstood on the odd, rare occasion.
Now, if I may re-word the old saying:
In fairness to Berlusconi, I think his comments were meant to be self-abrogating. He was saying Obama was like him when he said “he has everything needed in order to reach deals with him: he’s young, handsome and even tanned.” Tacky, impolitic and stupid yes, but not a hanging offense.
Look, it is a big deal – in the media and I guess MT and co will be pleased that they got to take a bit of shine off Kev’s trip. (can hardly blame em for trying, imagine being in their position?)
But it’s just not a big deal anywhere else (except, perhaps the bat-freak fringe) so who cares?… why are people here still going on about it?
When they announce whatever the hell it is they announce at the end of the g20 sleepover, will any of it matter? I doubt it (I doubt it matters much now anyway)
What’s the bet there’s a big smiley-faced, bum-grabbing love ya kid photo of Rudd and Bush by the end of the sleepover…
And the next newspoll will be = 1pt increase to Labor (Gaff fails to dent blah blah)
Who really give a monkeys?
358 Adam now the Curious Snail has found someone Ken Henry had a drink in a pub with and is running a daily circus act pretending he is some sort of advisor to Ken Henry.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24653873-952,00.html
just scanning the papers, the OZ has ignored the whole thing and all the others have published the same story word for word– doesnt any of them do their own writing or investigating to see if it’s true, i saw a video of it and it didnt seem any different to the other greetings, Rudd and Bush went into the meeting together.
if there was any frostiness {which i couldnt percieve} we can thank Turnbull for blowing it up sky high and the journo’s who played being his cats paws, i can tell you Joe voter wont give a damm.
lol – if you want a bit of a giggle = http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Yrra-WkpqeE
Good point, Judith.
Turnbull talks up the incident and Bush is forced to give Rudd the cold shoulder.
But what comes next? An election? Rudd resigns and hands over to Turnbull? The Labor caucus sacks Rudd? The conference ends up in a bar fight with Bush breaking a chair over Rudd’s head?
I hope Turnbull’s happy now, if this is what he hoped would happen. The more gullible at home reading this might well think they’ve got less hope now because of it. Beautiful. And all to no end.
Spam Box, pmsl, very very cleverly done, the whole family is in fits of laughter over it— thank you.
Just imagine how much material the MSM would have had if they wanted The Rodent in opposition?
- Never ever GST
- Children Overboard
- WMDs
- @rse licker
- Pre-emptive strike
- Obama a victory for terrorists
- For eff sakes Coconut committed war crimes
Every journo who has given phonegate space and oxygen needs to stick their head down the toilet and press full flush to clean themselves up a bit.
Looks like we are at the beginning of an all in brawl within The Canberra Press Gallery. They are so deprived of “off the record” and “background briefings” that they need to do thier jobs, they have to resort to eating each other alive.
“Journalists” who made their reputations by being on the teat of the Howard Regime are fighting for relevance as the new kids on the block start to get the cream.
Its just too delicious for words.
Ru
I think in times to come this will be known as the “grand outing”
The usual suspects have only enhanced there irrelevance.
the standard of reportage hopefully will improve
I thought it was a bit ironic that The Australian was calling Crikey a “gossip website” in the same article it was defend its decision to write a story about a party at Rudd’s house.
That’ll be the day
I think certain people are still hurting from the blog wars parts 1 and 2
Maybe they were trying to start a third one but no-one obliged
No 346
Why would I read the Melbourne Socialist Daily?
No 369
Centre, I’d like to see the argument that Howard committed war crimes, stand up in a court of law.
The truth is, it won’t stand up in a court of law.
No 372
The party at Rudd’s house clearly resulted in a damaging leak with the potential to cause diplomatic rifts. So yes, it’s more than mere gossip.
not if ‘it’ is indicted!
Then howard can sit,stand or lie.
GP
If we (well some of us) read the OO, the least you could do is read the Melbourne Pravda so you know what your Government says it’s up to and why it’s so good.
It was a rumour that was disproved. It very closely fits the definition of gossip. More so than Crikey
No 379
Since no-one has the intestinal fortitude to indict him, the claims about being a war criminal are heinous nonsense.
No 381
It has not been disproved. Rudd still refuses to acknowledge of the leak. As Annabel Crabb said:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2008/11/14/morgan-585-415-5/comment-page-8/#comment-216621
Sorry link to the Crabb report: http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/annabel-crabb/much-in-common-theres-no-denying-it/2008/11/14/1226318924738.html
On that basis are the claims that Saddam Hussein was a war criminal “heinous nonsense” as well?
what’s a DBO?
Howard has a better chance of being indicted for war crimes than George Bush, although it is almost zero. Australia is fully signed up to the ICC, but the US reserves the right to pull out unilaterally (What a surprise!).
Howard accused of war crimes over Iraq troop deployment
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/02/2262414.htm
Saddam was tried and convicted by an Iraqi court.
But NOT by the ICC! I thought every agreed that the trial was a rort.
Pol Pot never faced court did he?
“This really was world-class DBO, champagne DBO – the kind of DBO that makes even hardened reporters sit back, rub their eyes, and think, “Hang on. Am I going mad? Am I missing something here?”
GP – this relates to Crabb’s view of Howard denying the bleeding obvious over troop commitments to Iraq. Why did you quote it out of context?
Plus, we were calling Saddam a war criminal for years before he was convicted. It was one of the pretexts for invasion.
Who gives a stuff about Howard. He’s yesterday’s news and he and his former ministers have trashed the Liberal party. He’s suffered enough. Leave him alone.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/18/1090089035899.html
“PM may be targeted by criminal indictment: lawyer”
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1394137.htm
according to reports Rudd is the only G20 leader given the priviledge of holding his press conference in the same venue as the meeting tomorrow.
Tell that to the ABC.
Pol Pot was convicted by a Khmer Rouge “court” after he was deposed as leader.
Saddam’s trial was a bit of circus, but that was mainly his own doing. No-one doubted that he was guilty of the things he was charged with, which were not war crimes but crimes against his own people.
Of course Saddam was a war criminal. He started the war with Iran, which killed 900,000 people. He invaded Kuwait. He gassed the Kurds at Halabja.
I’m not denying that, I was pointing out that by GP’s definition we wouldn’t be allowed to call him one.
So on that basis the Coalition would be war criminals. They started wars with Iraq and Afghanistan leaving hundreds of thousands dead and millions displaced. They invaded both those countries. And they used illegal weapons.
No..no, he hasn’t. He has 10 years to go, at least. And even then he won’t have redeemed himself.
Yes, he’s been snubbed all right
The ABC is going to have a hard time tonight, deciding what to lead with on their TV news.
Will it be “Rudd snubbed by Bush”?
Or will it be “Rudd accorded honour in press conference venue”?
Decisions, decisions… only 2 hours to go, boys and girls. You have to make up your mind.
Imagine if Sarkozy was an aussie, the bludgers who pose as jurnos would be beside themselves lol.
“French President Nicolas Sarkozy has taken digs at US President George W Bush in recent days, toning down his pro-American stance as Bush prepares to leave office.
But ahead of tomorrow’s Group of 20 nations summit in Washington on the world financial crisis, Sarkozy repeatedly needled Bush over the Republican president’s handling of Russia’s war with Georgia in August and US economic policy.
Sarkozy, who helped broker a ceasefire agreement that ended hostilities in Georgia, underscored his different approach from Bush on Thursday when he received a French foreign policy journal’s award for “political courage”.
“When on August 8 someone had to leave for Moscow or Tbilisi, who defended human rights?” Sarkozy asked rhetorically, at a ceremony in the Elysee palace as he accepted the prize from Politique Internationale journal.
“Was it the president of the United States who said ‘This is unacceptable’? Or was it France which kept up dialogue?,” between Russian and Georgian leaders, said Sarkozy, who currently holds the rotating EU presidency.
“I remember the American president’s call the day before our departure for Moscow: ‘Don’t go there, they (the Russians) want to go to Tbilisi, they’re 40 kilometres away. Don’t go, (just) condemn it.’
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=666272
No 397
Rubbish Oz. By my own definition, Saddam Hussein is a war criminal.
was
or perhaps he’s the new Elvis?
Adam – Denial of the Bleeding Obvious( don’t get mad at me, you asked, I answered)
GP… normally dont get into these pedantic point thingys…. but you were indeed – a touch naughty there
Spam Box, thanks.
I don’t think there have been any recent sightings of Saddam at shopping malls, but I may be wrong.
All these silly lefty lawyers etc should spend their time pursuing real criminals like Mugabe, the genocidal regime in Sudan and the Burmese junta. Howard is a just a washed-up politician.
William
any response to your call for RWB debate on this site.
perhaps the silence means they are cowed by rudds achievements
that or they are truly empty vessels
Well nobody has come right out and denied it, so it must be true!
407 – indeed
I was at Abdul’s Exotic Lebanese Restaurant, Surry Hills, the other day and there was a guy sitting there who looked an awful lot like Gaddafi. Does that count?
By the way their falafels are THE BEST. nd as for the dish they coyly call “Coriander Potato”, I have died and gone to heaven.
(Have I committed an act of terrorism by saying this?)
this is the only mention of Rudd’s venue of honour i can find and then it’s tucked well into the reports of his ” frosty” reception, you’d better read it before it disappears into the stratosphere altogether lol.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24652969-16382,00.html
Have I committed an act of terrorism by using the word “terrorism”?
Been away for a few days, what’s all this? What is RWB?
sorry wrong link
BB, no because Gaddafi isn’t dead (sadly). Only spottings of dead people are newsworthy.
Rwanda Wheat Board
Your link is wrong, Judith, but it gave me another chance to read the OO’s plonking dismissal of other journalists (i.e. the one who got “drinks at Kirribilli” confused with “a diner party at Kirribilli” confused).
Now that their own journos are calling i a “dinner party” is this the New Reality?
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24655488-954,00.html
heres the right link
Grog
RWB=right wing bloggers
I hope they lead with that story, this issue is so close to many Australians.
I hope that the libs continue pursuing it, they should pursue it right up to the next election, make it their main focus, it will get them many votes , many many many votes.
“Rudd snubbed by Bush” would be a big positive for Rudd.
Hahaha quite possibly!
420. How do you call for them??
Ta for the link Judith. The most pertinent part:
Anyone recall Costello not being welcomed in US financial arenas despite his gaffe in 96? Exactly the caravan move on. Even more so when a new Pres comes to town. If Obama (or Hilary as Sec of state) comes to Australia before the next election will anyone seriously think this phone call leak has any political (or even diplomatic)longevity.
But oh well, I guess Insiders will give it another run…
“Mother Theresa snubbed by That-Austrian-Guy-Who-Kept-His-Family-in-the-Basement” would be a rough equivalent.
411
No – but if you keep it up… you may be in competition with Trevor Cook for will blog for food status
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/trevorcook/2008/11/09/sunday-lunch-al-aseel-greenacre/
Grog
well tarzan had a special call didnt he ?
I’m thinking the Liberals could have an ulterior motive for labouring (sic) this non-issue.
What is the first thing Labor was going to say in response to the Liberals beating up “phonegate”?
Labor would retaliate by reminding people of Johnny’s remarks of early 2007 connecting Obama & the Democratic Party with al-Qaeda.
This response was entirely, utterly predictable.
To the best of my knowledge the Liberals have never apologised for, or sought to distance themselves from, the insinuation cast by their esteemed hero.
In the face of what must (have been) considerable pressure to do so, they have deliberately chosen not to.
So do we assume they “own” the sentiment expressed by Howard? That they tacitly endorse what the rodent had to say?
If so, then upon the election of Obama would be the perfect time to reignite expression of that sentiment.
“The terrorist sympathiser has been elected. Let’s smear him with Howard’s comments.”
To make that happen, all they had to do was beat up the nothing story of “phonegate”.
I think that credits them with more strategic thinking than they are capable of. Shaun Carney is right – their strategy is simply to attack everything and oppose everything, regardless of logic and regardless of consequences.
This is the agenda for the G20 summit. There is going to be another one in a few months when Obama becomes POTUS so I wouldn’t expect much more than motherhood statements from this one.
The Ruddster did well by getting in on the ground floor with Obama.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/14/world-leaders-move-toward_n_144021.html
I wish I hadn’t brought up Abdul’s (cnr. Elizabath and Cleveland Sts., Surry Hills), because now I’ve got this craving for Lebbo food.
I live in the “leafy North-West”, but on rare forays into Inner East climes, I always stop at Abdul’s and load up with three or four vegetarian mixed plates to take home put inthe freezer, and consume (the idea is, over three or four weeks, but I scoff them all in the first). It reminds me of my art student days. It still does… younger and happier days… Abdul’s is cheap! Filling! Totally scrumptious! I’m getting that “thing” already.
Salty. Satisfying. Filling. Flavours upon flavours. Garlic. Humous. Tabouli that you could eat instead of a last cigarette at the firing squad. And “Coriander Potatoe”… the taste jowls are cramping at the thought. The saliva glands are… well… salivating, nay, gushing.
Oh, it’s too horrible. As long as there’s an Abdul’s I’ll want to go on living.
Remember the Tsunami Early Warning System (which of course was implemented after the Christmas Tsunami)? It looks like the G20 wants to bring in one for further GFCs. The potential to abuse your position politically or for financial gain if you were on that board would be enormous.