PDA

View Full Version : Pauline is back! Would you vote for her?



ER
25-02-2009, 10:19 AM
THE MEDIA: Pauline Hanson will attempt to win a seat in the Queensland parliament at the March 21 state election. ...

If you are / were elligible to vote in this election would you vote for Pauline?

Mods Please insert a poll here! Possible answers:

YES
NO
I AM NOT SURE YET
I DON'T CARE

bergil
25-02-2009, 10:31 AM
THE MEDIA: Pauline Hanson will attempt to win a seat in the Queensland parliament at the March 21 state election. ...

If you are / were elligible to vote in this election would you vote for Pauline?

Mods Please insert a poll here! Possible answers:

YES
NO
I AM NOT SURE YET
I DON'T CARENot in a pink fit! :hand:

Basil
25-02-2009, 10:32 AM
I won't be voting for her, but I will enjoy watching The Little People get their knickers in a knot misrepresenting what she is saying. Hell, this post will probably get misrepresented. Funny Little People (FLP).

Desmond
25-02-2009, 10:33 AM
Is she attempting to win a seat or just line her pockets?

Capablanca-Fan
25-02-2009, 01:52 PM
I won't be voting for her, but I will enjoy watching The Little People get their knickers in a knot misrepresenting what she is saying. Hell, this post will probably get misrepresented. Funny Little People (FLP).
Yeah, what he said.

antichrist
25-02-2009, 02:16 PM
I won't be voting for her, but I will enjoy watching The Little People get their knickers in a knot misrepresenting what she is saying. Hell, this post will probably get misrepresented. Funny Little People (FLP).

I also get the same pleasure when I see Hansonites having estuasy(?) when she appears. An old mate of mine is like that - she can do no wrong - he would lick her boots if she asked him to.

Kevin Bonham
25-02-2009, 03:07 PM
Mods Please insert a poll here!

Do you want it to be a public poll or secret ballot?

antichrist
25-02-2009, 03:08 PM
Do you want it to be a public poll or secret ballot?

If it is a public poll can Pauline claim so many dollars per vote obtained - just like she did in that election and had to refund the money?

MichaelBaron
25-02-2009, 03:35 PM
I do not consider Paulines involvement in politics to be "funny" Hitler too was regarded as funny at first.

antichrist
25-02-2009, 03:38 PM
I do not consider Paulines involvement in politics to be "funny" Hitler too was regarded as funny at first.

When Pauline first showed her nose all those never-ending (and me never-stop-loving) Nazi docos were on SBS, and there was Hitler 100"% and in comparison Pauline was a joke - I was never worried over her after that. I used to tell that to my Hansonite mate and he wasn't happy - he fought Hitler.

Mke, what is the difference people stooping for Pauline and people stooping for a false religion (aren't they all false?)

ER
25-02-2009, 03:52 PM
Do you want it to be a public poll or secret ballot?

Oh hi Kevin thanks for answering this! In respect and faith to our democratic system of exercising political opinion and electing our representatives in a secret ballot procedure I would choose the second option. Secret Ballot please, thanks! Fellow chatters who wish to openly express their opinion on this matter publicly can always use the thread!

Basil
25-02-2009, 04:16 PM
and we're off! :lol:

antichrist
25-02-2009, 04:44 PM
Why was Pauline Pantsdown left out of it ? - "she" was my favourite

Capablanca-Fan
25-02-2009, 04:52 PM
This poll presumably is about first preference votes. Layba made a huge deal that the Libs and Nats did not make her last as a matter of course, then did much the same with their "just vote 1".

Kevin Bonham
25-02-2009, 04:56 PM
If it is a public poll can Pauline claim so many dollars per vote obtained - just like she did in that election and had to refund the money?

That conviction (which also resulted in imprisonment) was thrown out on appeal.

antichrist
25-02-2009, 05:03 PM
That conviction (which also resulted in imprisonment) was thrown out on appeal.

Sounds like Jesus hung up on the cross - martydom. That must have got her a lot more fans

Kevin Bonham
25-02-2009, 05:05 PM
This poll presumably is about first preference votes. Layba made a huge deal that the Libs and Nats did not make her last as a matter of course, then did much the same with their "just vote 1".

"Just vote 1" was Peter Beattie's strategy at state level in 2006. By this stage One Nation was all but a spent force in Queensland, holding one seat (which it retained) and contesting only three others. Hanson herself had left the party and did not contest the election.

antichrist
25-02-2009, 05:09 PM
"Just vote 1" was Peter Beattie's strategy at state level in 2006. By this stage One Nation was all but a spent force in Queensland, holding one seat (which it retained) and contesting only three others. Hanson herself had left the party and did not contest the election.

So they were hansonites without hanson, like Christians when JC did not return. An opposite of "I would not join a cub if they would accept my membersip"

Capablanca-Fan
25-02-2009, 05:46 PM
"Just vote 1" was Peter Beattie's strategy at state level in 2006. By this stage One Nation was all but a spent force in Queensland, holding one seat (which it retained) and contesting only three others. Hanson herself had left the party and did not contest the election.
Not so—he used that strategy for the 2001 election (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=1822), resulting in a rout.

Kevin Bonham
25-02-2009, 07:51 PM
Not so—he used that strategy for the 2001 election (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=1822), resulting in a rout.

I had forgotten it went so far back, but even so, in 2001 One Nation in Queensland were already on the skids as a force. Their 1998 winners had left the party, and although they still polled over 8%, they only won three seats.

As it turned out, Labor's "just vote 1" didn't help One Nation win a single seat in the 2001 election. In the three seats they won in 2001, Labor finished second so Labor preferences were not distributed.

Paul Cavezza
03-03-2009, 10:46 PM
"pauline"... god...

Kevin Bonham
04-03-2009, 08:02 PM
I wonder if the poll result (Pauline currently polling an unusually healthy 3/19) would be different had those voting yes been aware she was being tackled by the great political mastermind Warwick Capper. :rolleyes:

Rincewind
04-03-2009, 09:43 PM
I wonder if the poll result (Pauline currently polling an unusually healthy 3/19) would be different had those voting yes been aware she was being tackled by the great political mastermind Warwick Capper. :rolleyes:

I thought he failed to register in time.

eclectic
04-03-2009, 10:08 PM
I thought he failed to register in time.

true
looks like he did not have his eye on the ball
:confused:

Kevin Bonham
04-03-2009, 10:53 PM
I thought he failed to register in time.

Correct. Capper is a non-starter. It seems to have been a publicity stunt for the (cave)men's magazine who were pushing it.

Trent Parker
04-03-2009, 11:35 PM
I won't be voting for her, but I will enjoy watching The Little People get their knickers in a knot misrepresenting what she is saying. Hell, this post will probably get misrepresented. Funny Little People (FLP).

"I dont like it/ when you turn my voice about/" :lol: :lol:

ER
15-03-2009, 10:53 PM
THE MEDIA: Raunchy photographs of a teenage Pauline Hanson have been sold to the media by a man who is thought to be an old boyfriend.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/5390984/hansons-exboyfriend-sells-raunchy-pics/

Spiny Norman
16-03-2009, 06:40 AM
Hanson denies that the pics are of her. Probably a Photoshop job.

ER
16-03-2009, 08:13 AM
We 'll see how it goes! There are many sides (and interpretations) of the story!

ER
16-03-2009, 08:16 AM
If the vote in the actual elections goes as this Forum's poll does she win the seat?

Capablanca-Fan
16-03-2009, 08:44 AM
Hanson denies that the pics are of her. Probably a Photoshop job.
And provides convincing reasons why they are fake (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hanson_its_not_me/). One doesn't have to be a Hanson voter to agree with Andrew Bolt:


These pictures should never have been published in the first place, even if they weren’t fake. I doubt they would have been, either, had they been of, say, a Rudd Government minister. But Hanson is fair game for anything, including jail for a crime she did not commit (http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/feature_stories/article_1446.asp?s=1). Outsiders speak up at their peril.

Desmond
16-03-2009, 10:02 AM
David Oldfield speculated that the Hanson team may have been behind it all, for the publicity.

Ian Rout
16-03-2009, 10:14 AM
Does this do Ms Hanson any harm? I expect that whether people think it's fake or real they would be more likely to vote for her because they think it's fake or real respectively.

Kevin Bonham
16-03-2009, 12:53 PM
If the vote in the actual elections goes as this Forum's poll does she win the seat?

No. Depending on the distribution of votes between the other parties the figure she needs to win will probably be somewhere in the range 30-40%, more likely in the upper end of that range.

No party will distribute preferences to her so she probably needs to lead on primaries by a few % and hope enough exhausts that they don't catch her.

pax
16-03-2009, 12:57 PM
An old mate of mine is like that - she can do no wrong - he would lick her boots if she asked him to.

Are they black leather knee-high boots worn with fishnets and a provocative pose? :eek: :eek: :eek:

Garvinator
16-03-2009, 01:05 PM
No. Depending on the distribution of votes between the other parties the figure she needs to win will probably be somewhere in the range 30-40%, more likely in the upper end of that range.

No party will distribute preferences to her so she probably needs to lead on primaries by a few % and hope enough exhausts that they don't catch her.
This is offered up for information from google searching:

http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2009/02/pauline-hanson.html


The announcement that Pauline Hanson is going to contest the Queensland election has created a flurry of news stories. Parties having been lining up to say they will not direct preferences to her.

The silliest reporting of the day goes to any journalist who has reported Greens Leader Ronan Lee saying the Greens will not do a preference deal with Pauline Hanson. Good luck to Ronan Lee and Greens for getting some publicity by joining the bandwagon. But isn't reporting about news? The Greens not directing preferences to Pauline Hanson falls under the category of the bleeding obvious. Was there ever a hope they would direct preferences to Hanson?

But everyone has missed the story. Queensland uses optional preferential voting. Not directing preferences to Hanson isn't what matters. Under optional preferential voting, Pauline Hanson would probably have won the seat of Blair at the 1998 Federal election. Instead, the Federal use of compulsory preferential voting allowed all the other parties to gang-up against her. Ganging-up is a strategy much hard to choreograph under optional preferential voting.

Let's look at what happened in Blair in 1998. Hanson led the race on primary votes with 36.0% of the vote, followed by Labor 25.3%, Liberal 21.7%, National 10.3%, Democrats 3.6, Greens 1.8, and 1.3% divided between 3 other candidates.

After the exclusion of the five lowest polling candidates, the percentages were Hanson 37.2%, Labor 27.7%, Liberal 23.1% and National 11.9%.

Then out went the Nationals putting the Liberal candidate ahead of Labor and giving the percentages Hanson 38.9%, Liberal 31.8%, Labor 29.3%. Then Labor was excluded, having recommended preferences to the Liberal Party, producing a final result of Cameron Thompson (Liberal) 53.4%, Hanson 46.6%.

The AEC published full preference flows for Blair at the 1998 election. Overall, 74.9% of preferences flowed to the Liberals, and only 25.1% to Hanson. The individual party preference splits between Liberal/Hanson were National 82.6%/17.4%, Labor 74.5%/25.5%, Democrats 69.9%/30.1%, Greens 67.1%/32.9%.

If Hanson contests Beaudesert, or any other seat, winning will require her to lead on the primary vote, as she did in Blair. If Hanson polled 36.0% again, she would have a reasonable chance of winning under optional preferential voting because of the significant number of voters who do not direct preferences. These votes would simply exhaust, making it harder for whoever finished second to pull ahead of Hanson on preferences.

The 2001 Queensland election was the first where the Labor Party ran a 'Just Vote 1' strategy, and this greatly increased the incidence of Labor voters not directing preferences. It also greatly increased the incidence of '1 only' votes for other parties.

So looking at the 2001 election, how did Labor's preferences flow between National and One Nation/Independent candidates in seats where Labor preferences were distributed? The following table shows figures for these seats.

Callide 2001 - to NAT 11.7%, to ONP 12.4%, exhausted 75.9%

Darling Downs 2001 - to NAT 7.8%, to IND 12.3%, exhausted 79.9%

Hinchinbrook 2001 - to NAT 10.5%, to ONP 9.5%, exhausted 80.0%

Warrego 2001 - to IND 15.2%, to ONP 10.0%, to NAT 6.4%, exhausted 68.4%

If those figures of Labor 75% exhausted had been repeated in Blair in 1998, Hanson would have won the election. So if Hanson leads in Beaudesert and Labor finishes third, Labor will have to do more than exhaust preferences, as Hanson would still lead. They may have to actively direct preferences to the LNP.

If you look at the primary votes for Beaudesert based on redistributed results from 2006, National led with 49.2%, Labor 39.4 and Greens 11.4%. Given past voting patterns, you would expect that Hanson would draw more votes from the LNP than Labor, which raises the possibility that Labor would lead on primary votes. This raises the real possibility of Labor winning the seat because of the LNP and Hanson splitting the conservative vote but not swapping prefernces.

That was a scenario that allowed Labor to win the north Queensland seat of Burdekin at the 2001 election. Labor polled 36.7%, National 22.7%, the City-Country Alliance 20.9% and One Nation 19.7%. Of the CCA and ONP preferences, 60% exhausted, preventing the National Party from closing Labor's lead. It would be that sort of scenario that will be concerning the National Party.

Finally, a comment on a few people who say Hanson is only running for the public funding. There is one difference between the Commonwealth and Queensland Electoral Acts. At Commonwealth elections, funding is paid on votes received. In Queensland, it is an entitlement based on votes received, but it is only paid on receipts. If Pauline Hanson spends nothing on her campaign but gets enough votes for funding, she gets nothing because she didn't spend money on campaigning.

Kevin Bonham
16-03-2009, 01:28 PM
Yes, I had seen Antony's article on that. There is also an Independent candidate , Keith Gee, who some people think will poll a fair few votes, which may reduce the target figure needed by the others.

Interesting (and a bit disconcerting really) that we have got to the stage where dodgy photos supposedly of a female election candidate are splashed across front pages of so-called newspapers (even if only crappy ones like the Herald Scum) as if genuine when they are more or less certainly fakes. Although Hanson is a celebrity candidate rather than a serious one, we may see this kind of thing used against other female candidates in the future.

Basil
16-03-2009, 01:43 PM
Although Hanson is a celebrity candidate rather than a serious one, we may see this kind of thing used against other female candidates in the future.
I'm not so sure. The treatment of candidates would certainly (IMO) be different. The respect afforded Hanson (rightly or wrongly) is far lower than would be afforded Maxine McKew for example.

Just because something is freely avalable on the internet doesn't make it OK for it to be republished and 'in ya face' when you turn the page in the Sunday paper. However, this no doubt is the excuse that Murdoch is touting in this instance.

Would the Sunday papers show an image of a decapitation? No. Why not? Well, because just because something is freely available on the internet doesn't make it approp... :wall:

pax
16-03-2009, 03:43 PM
Would the Sunday papers show an image of a decapitation? No. Why not? Well, because just because something is freely available on the internet doesn't make it approp... :wall:

There is a lot of unnecessary and inappropriate stuff in the nightly TV news. I could do without, for example, cameras being shoved in the faces of relatives of someone who has just be seriously injured in a boating accident and similar.

Basil
16-03-2009, 04:08 PM
There is a lot of unnecessary and inappropriate stuff in the nightly TV news. I could do without, for example, cameras being shoved in the faces of relatives of someone who has just be seriously injured in a boating accident and similar.
Agreed. None of that changes the validity of my claim that Hanson is possibly treated differently (worse) than other candidates might be.

Garvinator
16-03-2009, 06:12 PM
Agreed. None of that changes the validity of my claim that Hanson is possibly treated differently (worse) than other candidates might be.
I am certain that had Hanson been from one of the main parties then she would have been treated differently as the papers would have not been so keen to print the photos as the papers would have had to deal with the whole party machine, lack of party scoops, snubs etc that comes with offending a political party.

ER
16-03-2009, 11:39 PM
THE MEDIA: Ms Hanson, who is standing in the Queensland seat of Beaudesert for the March 21 election, told reporters in the Gold Coast hinterland town on Monday, the photos are not of her.
"(Legal) papers have already been served on News Limited, Channel Seven and Channel Nine," she said.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/5392537/hanson-denies-racy-photos/

Basil
16-03-2009, 11:49 PM
THE MEDIA: Ms Hanson, who is standing in the Queensland seat of Beaudesert for the March 21 election, told reporters in the Gold Coast hinterland town on Monday, the photos are not of her.
"(Legal) papers have already been served on News Limited, Channel Seven and Channel Nine," she said.
I hope she takes 'em to the cleaners. Bottom-feeders!

Mischa
17-03-2009, 12:00 AM
Pauline...Queensland...a perfect match?

Mischa
17-03-2009, 12:00 AM
sorry didn't mean it just had to say it...wish it had ben ACT...?

Kevin Bonham
17-03-2009, 12:03 AM
I am certain that had Hanson been from one of the main parties then she would have been treated differently as the papers would have not been so keen to print the photos as the papers would have had to deal with the whole party machine, lack of party scoops, snubs etc that comes with offending a political party.

That may well be correct. Hanson has no significant organisation behind her and is therefore a much easier target.

It will be interesting to see what exactly she sues for and how that goes.

Desmond
17-03-2009, 08:44 AM
I hope she takes 'em to the cleaners. Bottom-feeders!And if it turns out that Oldfield was correct and this was a stunt baked by the Hanson team...?

Basil
17-03-2009, 09:06 AM
And if it turns out that Oldfield was correct and this was a stunt baked by the Hanson team...?
Then she won't be able to take them to the cleaners :eh: If she turns out to be culpable, we can talk about that now or later if you like. She will be suitably vilified and hoisted on her own whatsit. Stick it alongside Hawke cheating on his wife. Throw her in the slammer. Whatever. I find her irrelevant and her actions boring. The real story (for me) is the newspaper group.

The newspaper group remains a bottom-dweller for publishing in all instances.
Either it knew the pix were fake, in which case it is part of the mindless hysteria and importantly part of the con.

Or it believed the pix to be real. In that case,
- the news value was negligible
- the likelihood of embarrassment to Pauline H and her family is very high
- I maintain double standards exist between how these pix were handled compared to say identical pix of Maxine McKew

Bottom dwellers. Stinking, farking, bottom-dwellers.

Mephistopheles
17-03-2009, 12:07 PM
Some observations...

1. The photographs are almost certainly fakes. As published, even the colour balance is not consistent with film formulations from the '70s. If you are old enough, take out some of the photos that you have from that era and tell me that they look even remotely like the ones published. And that's before you even take into account the huge problems with Johnson's story.

2. This whole thing will help rather than harm Hanson. I'm surprised that more people haven't made this observation. Real or fake, the photos affirm Hanson's "victimhood" and victim status is a definite vote winner.

3. I'm reasonably certain that a newspaper would treat any female politician (even from a major party) similarly; the main difference being that the paper would almost certainly verify the "product" considerably more rigorously than they have here.

4. I actually tend to buy the "you're a public figure and therefore fair game" argument. I also tend to buy the "if you publish it you definitely run the risk of having your pants sued off" argument. If an outlet publishes pictures then it does so at its own risk. I would have thought that this was obvious.

5. Gunner talks about whether or not we should have this kind of thing shoved in our faces. My reply to that is that you can choose the media that you wish to subscribe to, read, watch or what-have-you. If the story were genuine then it would be in the public interest for a fair slice of what we term "the public". Even now, the meta-story about the photographs' authenticity is most definitely in the public interest. I, for one, have little objection to cheesecake images finding their way into a news story but, at the same time, I can't say that they are terribly enjoyable when they feature a model who bears some resemblance to a wrinkly, conservative, fringe politician.

6. This is all an object lesson in something that sex columnist, blogger, broadcaster and author Dan Savage has referred to on a number of occasions - compromising material about ordinary people is being manufactured all the time due to technological advances and we're kidding ourselves if we don't think that it will not somehow escape into the wild. I would have thought this was also very obvious but it doesn't seem to stop anyone from doing it. Taking photographs of one's genitalia (for the sake of argument) for the benefit of one's better half may seem like a good idea right up until the relationship sours and said photographs find their way onto the web. That photographs (allegedly and probably not) taken in the '70s can emerge surely illustrates the dangers implicit in the uses to which our camera phones, video cameras, etc. are put.

7. Wouldn't vote for her in a pink fit. Mind you, I wouldn't voluntarily visit Queensland in a pink fit, either.

Capablanca-Fan
17-03-2009, 12:13 PM
But if this were a female Labor candidate, you can be sure of loud protests of sexism, and rightly so. Yet Hanson is somehow seen as fair game for petty attacks on her dignity and a jail term for a crime she didn't commit.

Mephistopheles
17-03-2009, 12:25 PM
But if this were a female Labor candidate, you can be sure of loud protests of sexism, and rightly so. Yet Hanson is somehow seen as fair game for petty attacks on her dignity and a jail term for a crime she didn't commit.
If this were a female Liberal candidate, you would be sure of similar loud protests. Hanson has, to an extent made herself fair game by trading in the various sideshow currencies of celebrity rather than presenting herself as a serious candidate.

Basil
17-03-2009, 12:38 PM
This whole thing will help rather than harm Hanson. I'm surprised that more people haven't made this observation. Real or fake, the photos affirm Hanson's "victimhood" and victim status is a definite vote winner.
I think you're right. Not that this excuses the newspaper's actions in publishing what they believed were personal, private and intimate images.


3. I'm reasonably certain that a newspaper would treat any female politician (even from a major party) similarly; the main difference being that the paper would almost certainly verify the "product" considerably more rigorously than they have here.
If they would take time to verify for another person, then a double standard applies? If smutty photos of Maxine McKew surfaced, they would publish? Really? On what grounds? Get real.


5. Gunner talks about whether or not we should have this kind of thing shoved in our faces. My reply to that is that you can choose the media that you wish to subscribe to, read, watch or what-have-you.Fair enough.

Mephistopheles
17-03-2009, 12:47 PM
If they would take time to verify for another person, then a double standard applies?
In this particular case I don't, as it happens. Hanson is much more a celebrity than a politician and will tend to be treated as such, including the publication of celebrity nudes, which is as common these days as flies in November.


If smutty photos of Maxine McKew surfaced, they would publish?
I would hope so. She's not in my size or style but she is undoubtedly worth a bit of an ogle. Far more so than Pauline, in any case.


Really? On what grounds? Get real.
The chap from (IIRC) the Telegraph was speaking on 2UE yesterday morning and was unequivocal about the fact that similar photographs of any female political figure would be published. A shame I can't remember his name although he was interviewed by Steve Price at around 11am.

Capablanca-Fan
17-03-2009, 12:49 PM
Hanson has, to an extent made herself fair game by trading in the various sideshow currencies of celebrity rather than presenting herself as a serious candidate.
Not so. Yes, there is a celebrity aspect, but this hardly justifies smutty photos ostensibly from 20 years ago which have nothing to do with the policies she advocates.

As you say, they probably help her, by reinforcing some people's opinion that the media have no answers to her policies so have to resort to demonizing her. Yet her economic policies are quite leftist, which the media might realize if they stopped to analyse rather than sneer.

Mephistopheles
17-03-2009, 12:52 PM
Not that this excuses the newspaper's actions in publishing what they believed were personal, private and intimate images
I missed this earlier. Gunner, you have to admit that people who allow others to capture (and keep!) personal, private and intimate images have only themselves to blame when they are published, whether that publication be on teh interwebs or by a newspaper.

The only extant photographs of me, "tackle out", were taken when I was younger than 5. I strongly suspect that this is the way that everyone should be if they wish to avoid coming a cropper later on. I do believe that I gave this point an entire paragraph in my original post.

Mephistopheles
17-03-2009, 01:01 PM
Not so. Yes, there is a celebrity aspect, but this hardly justifies smutty photos ostensibly from 20 years ago which have nothing to do with the policies she advocates.
Irrelevant. Any "dark secrets" from politicians' pasts are almost certain to be dug up, even if they are completely unrelated to those politicians' policies and that is the way of the world. Live with it.

What makes Hanson a target is that she has marketed herself as a celebrity as much as a serious candidate. I probably meant "made herself a target" rather than "made herself fair game" in my original post. In any case, bad luck, Donald Duck. If she thinks that she can bolster her electoral chances by being a "celebrity" then she can just suck it down if it backfires and I honestly don't think that it has done so here. I can only assume that she is quite delighted with the way things are panning out, even if she is unlikely to be elected in any case.


As you say, they probably help her, by reinforcing some people's opinion that the media have no answers to her policies
Nobody knows what her policies really are, I'll wager. I doubt that there are no answers to them as there were plenty of answers to her original One Nation Party's policies.


so have to resort to demonizing her. Yet her economic policies are quite leftist, which the media might realize if they stopped to analyse rather than sneer.
If that is the case then she is still essentially One Nation, who were "Old Labor" - social conservatism coupled with a protected and somewhat nationalised economic system.

None of the above changes the fact that she's a dribbling fool, however, regardless of her policies or a bunch of nudie photographs. What quite a few people don't realise is that many are actually repulsed by her public persona, which is no more than a function of her celebrity status.

Basil
17-03-2009, 01:34 PM
The chap from (IIRC) the Telegraph was speaking on 2UE yesterday morning and was unequivocal about the fact that similar photographs of any female political figure would be published. A shame I can't remember his name although he was interviewed by Steve Price at around 11am.
If you say you heard it, I believe you. Whether I believe the talking head is different matter. Whether the talking head knows what he is talking about (and what he would do live-to-air) is a different matter again.


Gunner, you have to admit that people who allow others to capture (and keep!) personal, private and intimate images have only themselves to blame when they are published, whether that publication be on the interwebs or by a newspaper.
No I won't. I will concede that people take risks of being taken advantage of a la Craig McDermott, but the ONLY PEOPLE TO BLAME for the publication of the images are THOSE THAT PUBLISH THEM!

Garvinator
17-03-2009, 01:53 PM
So what seems to be the consensus at the moment, that the pictures are a complete fake, or of a girl who is not Pauline Hanson?

Capablanca-Fan
17-03-2009, 02:01 PM
So what seems to be the consensus at the moment, that the pictures are a complete fake, or of a girl who is not Pauline Hanson?
A fake.


the ONLY PEOPLE TO BLAME for the publication of the images are THOSE THAT PUBLISH THEM!
Agreed!

Mephistopheles
17-03-2009, 02:42 PM
No I won't. I will concede that people take risks of being taken advantage of a la Craig McDermott, but the ONLY PEOPLE TO BLAME for the publication of the images are THOSE THAT PUBLISH THEM!
Let me employ an analogical argument...

I am a keen cyclist and have just purchased an expensive steed upon which I rely for about 70% of my transport needs. Quite regularly, I take a calculated risk and briefly enter a premises without security my vehicle to a handy telegraph pole. I do so with the implicit understanding that an unscrupulous person may well steal it. To be honest, if someone steals it then I have only myself to blame because the simple expedient of securing it would have made that theft nearly impossible (especially given the brevity of my absence).

Likewise, if you entrust compromising photographs, film, video, artifacts (or whatever) of yourself to a third party then you can hardly claim not to have considered the possibility that they might pass them on or publish them unless you are entirely bloody dim.

To be entirely honest, Howard, all the moral outrage in the world does not change my message one bit.

Do not allow a lover to keep incriminating materials (e.g. photos, film or video) because there is a strong possibility that they will one day no longer be your lover. Given that, there is a very strong possibility that they will one day no longer be in any kind of cordial relationship with you. You may never become famous but you can still be hurt if that material ends up all over the web so just don't, OK?

[The advice above is not actually specifically for Howard]

[additionally]

In practice, nobody takes it for granted that people will behave decently or even lawfully. We still lock our cars and our houses, have bars on our windows and safes in our walls and to do otherwise is almost universally derided. I think that the same thing applies to our deepest, darkest personal stuff.

Mephistopheles
17-03-2009, 02:46 PM
A fake.
I think that the enquiry was about the construction of the fake rather than whether it was a fake.

If the Herald-Scum photo experts say that it has not been manipulated then it probably hasn't. I'm currently plumping for the idea that it was some generic cheesecake shots of someone who bore a passing resemblance to a young PH and they were noticed and put forward as the real deal. Mr Johnson made $15k from the sale, which provides a reasonably strong motive of itself quite apart from any political considerations.

Basil
17-03-2009, 03:44 PM
Likewise, if you entrust compromising photographs, film, video, artifacts (or whatever) of yourself to a third party then you can hardly claim not to have considered the possibility that they might pass them on or publish them unless you are entirely bloody dim.
Stupidity is not a crime. I can't believe you are raking responsibility away from the perpetrator to the person who put things in temptation's way!! That is such a lefty's apologist's attitude!

A destruction of your position occurs when photos or jewels are left in the keep of a truly trusted loved one and a robbery occurs! Where do you lay blame then? Can the publication ccur? Surely publication of an image can't be dependent on whether the bastard was a gilted lover of a thief.

ER
17-03-2009, 04:01 PM
The whole discussion, interesting and informative as is, doesn't seem to have improved/deteriorated Pauline's position in the related poll! :lol:
Hmm I think there was one more NO vote but I am not sure!

Capablanca-Fan
17-03-2009, 04:02 PM
Stupidity is not a crime. I can't believe you are raking responsibility away from the perpetrator to the person who put things in temptation's way!! That is such a lefty's apologist's attitude!
Of course. One major plank of the Left is that crime is the fault of "society", so victims are held responsible, and sometimes even prosecuted when they defend themselves. Once it was "women ask for rape", but now it's "people ask to be robbed", or "people ask to have their intimate confidential photos smuttily displayed".

Mephistopheles
17-03-2009, 04:36 PM
Of course. One major plank of the Left is that crime is the fault of "society", so victims are held responsible, and sometimes even prosecuted when they defend themselves. Once it was "women ask for rape", but now it's "people ask to be robbed", or "people ask to have their intimate confidential photos smuttily displayed".
Oh dearie, dearie me. It really doesn't take you boys too long to start saying "the left" and then flinging straw men around with reckless abandon. Keep those things away from naked flames as they'll start a fire.

[dons flamethrower]

This is a matter of simple common sense, guys. Women don't ask to be raped but they may well engage in behaviour (e.g. walking around back streets, alone and after dark) that increases their exposure to the danger of being raped. People don't ask to be robbed but assuming that everyone else is as honest as the day is long while leaving your house unlocked grossly increases the odds that you shall be robbed.

I'm not talking about moral right and wrong here - I am saying that I have little sympathy for the just plain idiotic. People are unscrupulous quite a bit of the time and if you don't allow for that then you either believe that the pixies regularly come down to sprinkle magic fairy dust over everyone, are not sufficiently risk-averse or are simply stupid. My point in this regard is a warning more than a judgement and was always just that.

There is the oft-related tale of the young lady who broke up with a boyfriend who, despite her express wishes, continued to attempt reconciliation. In response, she arranged for a photograph to be taken of herself and her new paramour engaging in a particular sex act. She sent the photograph to him with a "leave me alone" note and (people being people) he promptly sent it to her parents. It's an extreme example but it does show that you should never, ever simply trust in the decency of other human beings.

Basil
17-03-2009, 04:51 PM
Oh dearie, dearie me. It really doesn't take you boys too long to start saying "the left"
Hey, I called it first! I want the credit. I waited patiently for my opening. I deserve it!


and then flinging straw men around with reckless abandon.
Oh no you don't. The only deflecting here is yours. The publisher is responsible for the publishing. Any other spin is axiomatic dribble!

Mephistopheles
17-03-2009, 05:28 PM
The only deflecting here is yours.
What deflecting have I done? I have made it abundantly clear that my point was not in the form of a moral judgement but a warning and a reflection upon the intelligence of those who seem to maximise the risk of harm coming to them.

[edit, addition]
In this case, it should be up to the courts to decide whether the publication of the photos is lawful or actionable at law. I should imagine that it is, given that they are likely fakes.

Basil
17-03-2009, 05:37 PM
What deflecting have I done? I have made it abundantly clear that my point was not in the form of a moral judgement but a warning and a reflection upon the intelligence of those who seem to maximise the risk of harm coming to them.
You have attempted to make the subject of the photograph responsible for its publication in a title over which she has no control, when among other statements, you offered this at post#55

Gunner, you have to admit that people who allow others to capture (and keep!) personal, private and intimate images have only themselves to blame when they are published, whether that publication be on teh interwebs or by a newspaper.
--------------------------------------------

We still lock our cars and our houses... and to do otherwise is almost universally derided.
In many places, not. In those places, where a vehicle is stolen, is it the fault of the keeper who failed to lock? You haven't answered my question where images are entrusted with someone and those images are subsequently stolen (from a locked house :wall:)

Mephistopheles
17-03-2009, 05:46 PM
You have attempted to make the subject of the photograph responsible for its publication in a title over which she has no control, when among other statements, you offered this at post#55

--------------------------------------------

In many places, not. In those places, where a vehicle is stolen, is it the fault of the keeper who failed to lock? You haven't answered my question where images are entrusted with someone and those images are subsequently stolen (from a locked house :wall:)
I have probably been terribly imprecise in my expression in that regard. The colloquial "only themselves to blame" is not at all true in any formal sense and I'll admit that straight off the bat. I was merely attempting to express (in my own inarticulate fashion) my intolerance of stupidity.

Your question is, of course, far more complex than you have imagined. I only entrust things to people who, are in my estimation, worthy of that trust. If I hand $10000 to a loved relative who is known to be careless and forgetful and I subsequently find that he has had it stolen then I am probably going to be angry with the people who stole it but just as angry with myself for trusting someone so foolishly, even though there was no malice on his or her part.

Overall, if you engage in a course of action that is likely to put you in the poo then, I'm afraid, I have little sympathy for you on that count, regardless of whether the person that dropped you in the excrement was reprehensible or otherwise.

Clear as mud?

[edit, addition]
There are bad people out there and if we do nothing to guard against them then we can only expect them to gain from our foolishness. That's why banks have screens, cameras and (occasionally) armed guards rather than a big pile of money lying in the middle of the floor.

[further addition]
I had my own car broken into when I failed to lock it one time. I live in a dodgy street with dodgy people on all sides. When I discovered that some youths (presumably from the outer suburbs, trying to get home) had broken in and attempted to "hotwire" the vehicle by snapping the indicator off and playing with the wires inside, my first response was "little bastards" followed, in short order by, "well I was a bloody idiot for not locking the thing".

Are you starting to get where I'm coming from on that basis?

ER
17-03-2009, 06:01 PM
With all due respect to participants in this discussion, could you please focus your points to the thread's topic? I know your references are indirectly related but latest developments in the case such as:

THE MEDIA: Experts say photos aren't Pauline
Reporter: David Richardson
Broadcast Date: March 17, 2009
A man who claims he took nude photos of Pauline Hanson says he is not lying but has admitted he may have the wrong Pauline.
http://au.todaytonight.yahoo.com/article/5402794/none/experts-say-photos-arent-pauline

allow for more direct inferences rather than hypothetical ones! :)

Basil
17-03-2009, 06:02 PM
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y105/scene66/smilies/pmsl.gif

Your question is, of course, far more complex than you have imagined.

Basil
17-03-2009, 06:05 PM
With all due respect to participants in this discussion, could you please focus your points to the thread's topic?
Quite. I shall try very hard to desist from any further off-topic discourse seeing as you have asked politely - twice! Here, have a piccie.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y105/scene66/smilies/threadjacked.gif

Mephistopheles
17-03-2009, 06:05 PM
I thought that it had been established that the photographs were far from genuine in any case. There even appears to be a change in eye makeup between the two shots, something that a pair of amateurs fooling around in a hotel room would be hardly likely to do. This indicates that even Mr Johnson's current account of proceedings is very likely at odds with the facts.

Mephistopheles
17-03-2009, 06:06 PM
Quite. I shall try very hard to desist from any further off-topic discourse seeing as you have asked politely - twice! Here, have a piccie.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y105/scene66/smilies/threadjacked.gif
Surely, Howard, threadjacking implies intent. I would call this "thread drift", which some forums tolerate and I leave it to the moderators to decide upon whether it is acceptable here.

Basil
17-03-2009, 06:11 PM
Surely, Howard, threadjacking implies intent. I would call this "thread drift", which some forums tolerate and I leave it to the moderators to decide upon whether it is acceptable here.
Yes OK! There's also willful perpetration of drift after the drift has been point out, which borders more on the jacking than the drifting. In any event, the pic was the only one I had. Humour Watson - not intended as factual. In any case, I am as culpable as anyone for the jack/ drift.

Now we're arguing about -jack and -drift :wall: Quick - back to you Elliott! http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y105/scene66/smilies/help.gif

ER
17-03-2009, 06:16 PM
lol thank God, Howie did not use a "Tread JaKed" type of caption! :lol: Carry on regardless gentlemen! BTW Mephistopheles will be included in my list of "10 must read chatters"!

eclectic
17-03-2009, 06:19 PM
mephistopheles sure is one faust poster! ;)

ER
17-03-2009, 06:36 PM
Certainly not exactly Goethean though! He neither shows any evil traits, nor he comes across as a soul for sale character! :) Am I getting out of topic here? :doh:

Garvinator
17-03-2009, 07:17 PM
did someone mention clocks :doh: :lol:

Kaitlin
17-03-2009, 07:18 PM
Politicians should be trained from a very young age.. much like Royality ..then we can see as they grow up wether they are complete idiots or not and thus decide if we want to vote for them.

I used to think that everyone should be listed on the internet and you should be able to vote for anyone at all ..not just who they tell you you can vote for, but Ive changed my mind on this..as not everyone gets to be an actor on Tv or on DVDs.

ER
17-03-2009, 07:31 PM
Now we're arguing about -jack and -drift :wall: Quick - back to you Elliott! http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y105/scene66/smilies/help.gif

Drifting
On a sea of forgotten teardrops :owned:

Kevin Bonham
17-03-2009, 07:39 PM
There doesn't seem to be any serious discussion about the original thread topic (whether or not people would vote for Hanson) going on so thread drift of the sort that has occurred to the various topics raised by the Hanson nude fakes is fine.

Basil
17-03-2009, 07:53 PM
Right. As I said I'm really not fussed about Pauline Pantsdown. I say the newspaper behaved badly. Which of you slope-back, half-baked, ineffectual drips is with me?

Desmond
17-03-2009, 07:54 PM
I would vote to never see her naked.

ER
17-03-2009, 08:06 PM
Right. As I said I'm really not fussed about Pauline Pantsdown. I say the newspaper behaved badly. Which of you slope-back, half-baked, ineffectual drips is with me?
Me, can I add my gf's vote by proxy? (PS she meets all the above criteria, plus she is a lefty)

Basil
17-03-2009, 08:36 PM
Me, can I add my gf's vote by proxy? (PS she meets all the above criteria, plus she is a lefty)
:lol:

Before we got side-tracked on ideas that PH might have deserved to have pictures that weren't of her published in a paper over which she has no control, I was banging on about double standards.

A few years ago, there was a mini stir/ scandal (of similarish proportions to this episode) concerning a a female newsreader caught in a slightly compromising pose. None of the mainstream papers would touch the story. They all had the good taste to leave it, the pictures and the innuendo well alone.

The Pauline pics? Shock-gate. Newsworthy merit? Zip. Private? For sure.

You people make me wanna baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarf!

eclectic
17-03-2009, 08:47 PM
the pictures were published in the public interest ie to get the public to show enough interest in them to help newspaper circulation

Kevin Bonham
17-03-2009, 09:33 PM
Right. As I said I'm really not fussed about Pauline Pantsdown. I say the newspaper behaved badly. Which of you slope-back, half-baked, ineffectual drips is with me?

Absolutely.

1. The photos should not have been published without adequate checking of authenticity. It is crystal-clear that this did not occur.

2. The photos should not have been published even if they were authentic. I say this not because I believe that politicians have an automatic right to privacy regarding such material, but because Hanson has not expressed any political views to which their existence is relevant. In contrast I have often argued that because of Tony Abbott's persistent pursuit of religious moralism, the publication and discussion of details of Abbott's past private life is very much in the public interest.

Having said 2, had it been the case that the photos were genuine, then it would have been one of those situations where the paper did the wrong thing but the wronged person also brought it on themselves - I agree with Mephistopheles about this.

Kevin Bonham
18-03-2009, 09:51 PM
Crikey editor Jonathan Green and blogger Margaret Simons have lodged a Press Council complaint concerning the publication of the photos. I expect it will be thrown out as they have no standing to lodge the complaint.

--------------------------

We wish to lodge a complaint over the publication on 15 March 2009 by News Limited Sunday newspapers of pictures purporting to be political candidate Pauline Hanson.

At the time of writing, it seems likely that the photographs published were not in fact of Ms Hanson. We nevertheless understand that at the time they were published the editors concerned believed that they were of her. The editors therefore made a decision to invade Ms Hanson’s privacy in a manner which we believe clearly breaches both the council’s Privacy Standards and Principles. We believe News Limited must be held to account for this, and that the principles concerned need to be the subject of an adjudication by the Press Council. That is the reason for this complaint.

We understand that under the Press Council’s Privacy Standards only the subject of an invasion of privacy can lodge a complaint. We regard this as a shortcoming in the process since Ms Hanson is unlikely to lodge a complaint, given that she says the photos are not of her.

We nevertheless believe that there are important issues to be considered, and adjudicated.

If we were able to lodge this complaint under the Privacy Standards, the section we would be using would be 1. Collection of personal information, which states in part:

Public figures necessarily sacrifice their right to privacy, where public scrutiny is in the public interest. However, public figures do not forfeit their right to privacy altogether. Intrusion into their right to privacy must be related to their public duties or activities.

Given that we cannot lodge the complaint under Privacy Standards, we fall back on the Press Council’s general statement of principles, particularly number 4.

News and comment should be presented honestly and fairly, and with respect for the privacy and sensibilities of individuals. However, the right to privacy is not to be interpreted as preventing publication of matters of public record or obvious or significant public interest. Rumour and unconfirmed reports should be identified as such.

We believe that News Limited has failed to respect the privacy and sensibilities of individuals in this case, and that there was no matter of public interest to justify the publication.

Other parts of the Press Council’s principles which may be relevant in this case, and on which the Council may wish to adjudicate, include 1., 2., and 7.

1. Publications should take reasonable steps to ensure reports are accurate, fair and balanced. They should not deliberately mislead or misinform readers either by omission or commission.

2. Where it is established that a serious inaccuracy has been published, a publication should promptly correct the error, giving the correction due prominence.

7. Publications have a wide discretion in publishing material, but they should balance the public interest with the sensibilities of their readers, particularly when the material, such as photographs, could reasonably be expected to cause offence.

However, it is Clause 4 and the privacy issue which we are most concerned about, and on which we specifically seek an adjudication.

We note that the Press Council can refuse to hear complaints when legal action is likely. We do not intend to take any legal action. If Ms Hanson takes action, it will be under Defamation, not privacy, since she says the photos are not of her. Remedies in law are not yet available for breach of privacy, due to the exemption of media under the Federal Privacy Act.

We think the possibility that Ms Hanson might sue for defamation should not prevent the Press Council from adjudicating on the important matter of privacy, particularly since it is the Press Council Privacy Standards that are the means by which media organisations gain exemption from federal privacy legislation.

We also understand that it is normal to require complainants to raise the subject of their complaint with the publication concerned before seeking Press Council action.

We would argue that this has, in effect, already been done. Both Crikey, the ABC Media Watch program and other publications have been “raising this matter”. On 17 March Crikey contacted News Limited’s Director of Corporate Affairs, Greg Baxter, seeking comment, and published the result.

We would therefore ask that this normal element of the procedure be waived in this matter.

We attach copies of the publication we are complaining about, and Crikey’s previous articles on this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Jonathan Green
Editor, Crikey.com.au

Margaret Simons
Media Commentator
Crikey.com.au

kjenhager
18-03-2009, 10:26 PM
Will the Herald Scum publish an apology ?

Kevin Bonham
18-03-2009, 10:31 PM
Will the Herald Scum publish an apology ?

Don't know, but it won't and shouldn't be nearly enough to just apologise. Hopefully they'll be going down bigtime for defamation whatever they do.

Unfortunately defo suits are not much of an impedement to some papers. They seem to figure getting sued for stuff like this to be worth it.

ER
19-03-2009, 01:55 AM
Would Herald Sun ask the guy who supplied them with the photos for their money back if it's proven the pics are fake?

eclectic
19-03-2009, 02:00 AM
Would Herald Sun ask the guy who supplied them with the photos for their money back if it's proven the pics are fake?

if as they wouldn't have known

ER
19-03-2009, 02:12 AM
if as they wouldn't have known
If actually wouldn't have known, do you think they would have paid him more than $15k?
I mean in this case the amount is calculated on merit of the subject involved or the (known/unknown) validity of the evidence?

eclectic
19-03-2009, 02:16 AM
If actually wouldn't have known, do you think they would have paid him more than $15k?
I mean in this case the amount is calculated on merit of the subject involved or the (known/unknown) validity of the evidence?

the big question: did they hope to recoup the $15K in increased newspaper sales and any derivative advertising revenue?

ER
19-03-2009, 02:26 AM
the big question: did they hope to recoup the $15K in increased newspaper sales and any derivative advertising revenue?
I don't think so, TheScene - my main QLD info source hasn't even touched the topic!

eclectic
19-03-2009, 02:37 AM
I don't think so, TheScene - my main QLD info source hasn't even touched the topic!

TheScene knew they would have been H.A.D. ;) ;)

Mephistopheles
19-03-2009, 06:23 AM
the big question: did they hope to recoup the $15K in increased newspaper sales and any derivative advertising revenue?
They definitely got the $15k back in circulation and advertising revenue, both from the masthead web site and the news.com.au portal.

The knock-on circulation boost will probably be sufficient to cover the inevitable defamation payout. In addition, the increased number of UBs to the News sites gives that company an excuse to puff its chest out and thumb its nose at Fairfax Digital.

News Corporation rarely makes mistakes and I have no doubt that the risks were calculated very carefully well before the photographs were published.

ER
19-03-2009, 08:15 AM
Have you examined the possibility of Pauline being backed by a strong team of legal eagles and gain millions of $ out of this case?

Basil
19-03-2009, 09:29 AM
They definitely got the $15k back in circulation and advertising revenue, both from the masthead web site and the news.com.au portal.
Yup.


The knock-on circulation boost will probably be sufficient to cover the inevitable defamation payout.
Nope. Depending on realisation and size of course.


In addition, the increased number of UBs to the News sites gives that company an excuse to puff its chest out and thumb its nose at Fairfax Digital.
MMMMMMMMM.


News Corporation rarely makes mistakes and I have no doubt that the risks were calculated very carefully well before the photographs were published.
Nope. I can assure you the other editors and organisations will be saying there but for the grace of God go I ... This is a PR and financial cock-up.

Ian Rout
19-03-2009, 10:19 AM
If it isn't Pauline, as now seems to be close to being agreed, next week's topic for Mr Murdoch's intrepid reporters can be to find out out who it really is.

I suppose it's too much to hope that it turns out to be somebody who really is now a politician.

Mephistopheles
19-03-2009, 10:44 AM
Nope. Depending on realisation and size of course.
I would be highly surprised if something as sensational as this didn't go very high up prior to publication. Given that it was on the portal site and the photographs were published by multiple Murdoch mastheads, I am fairly sure that it was approved from the very, very top (not Rupert but quite close) and financial fallout from any litigation was included in considerations.

It would be one thing for the Herald-Scum to walrus this up but quite another for the Herald-Scum, the Torygraph and NDM/news.com.au to all publish and be damned without careful consideration from someone in the parent organisation.

I do believe that I have some insight into this, as I have spent quite a bit of my recent working life at NDM.


Nope. I can assure you the other editors and organisations will be saying there but for the grace of God go I ... This is a PR and financial cock-up.
I can't say that you're even nearly correct here. This supposed "cock-up" already involves multiple editors and multiple subsidiaries of News Corporation and had oversight at a very high level. As indicated previously, I doubt that any expenses entailed in litigation would have been overlooked and the decision would have been made that the number of "bums on seats" was sufficient to justify the expense.

Kevin Bonham
19-03-2009, 12:39 PM
Have you examined the possibility of Pauline being backed by a strong team of legal eagles and gain millions of $ out of this case?

Damages for non-economic loss of reputation are capped at $250,000. I doubt she could claim for economic loss as she wasn't likely to get elected in the first place and there's no reason to believe this makes her less likely to be elected (probably more likely if anything, though I do not believe she will.)

antichrist
19-03-2009, 05:29 PM
Damages for non-economic loss of reputation are capped at $250,000. I doubt she could claim for economic loss as she wasn't likely to get elected in the first place and there's no reason to believe this makes her less likely to be elected (probably more likely if anything, though I do not believe she will.)

YOu must be enjoying this - it is your speciality area?

Do you think you could paw over the evidence in a disinterested fashon -that is without perving

ER
20-03-2009, 02:19 PM
Your last chance to place your preferences in the poll ladies and gentlemen!

Capablanca-Fan
22-03-2009, 10:20 AM
Herald Scum issues abject apology (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25222966-24218,00.html) for publishing photos submitted by someone now known as a con man, but of course they waited till after the election.

BTW, did she ever receive compensation for her wrongful jailing?

Garvinator
22-03-2009, 05:19 PM
Herald Scum issues abject apology (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25222966-24218,00.html) for publishing photos submitted by someone now known as a con man, but of course they waited till after the election.Sunday Mail (main Brisbane paper on Sunday for the interstaters) has now ran a main story revealing that Jack Johnson is a con artist and a whole lot of other information. Gives everyone a very clear idea of the power of the media. Can not help but get the impression that the 'media' were aware from the outset of this guys bona fides and decided to hide it in their own interest.


BTW, did she ever receive compensation for her wrongful jailing?I will do some digging and try and find out ;) will keep you posted.

Kevin Bonham
22-03-2009, 06:48 PM
Can not help but get the impression that the 'media' were aware from the outset of this guys bona fides and decided to hide it in their own interest.

I agree.

Just saying "sorry", however abjectly (and it was pretty abject) proves nothing; they've already had their fun and made their $$$.

I'd be more convinced of their contrition if they ceased publication for a week or two in shame.


BTW, did she ever receive compensation for her wrongful jailing?

Not as far as I'm aware. Beattie wasn't interested.

Capablanca-Fan
22-03-2009, 08:19 PM
Not as far as I'm aware. Beattie wasn't interested.
Is it up to him? Should be a matter of course for a wrongly jailed person to be compensated, not over-ruled because a media tart premier doesn't like the jailee's politics.

kjenhager
22-03-2009, 08:25 PM
Is it up to him? Should be a matter of course for a wrongly jailed person to be compensated, not over-ruled because a media tart premier doesn't like the jailee's politics.
Isn't the justice system supposed to be independent in any case ?

Kevin Bonham
22-03-2009, 09:18 PM
Is it up to him? Should be a matter of course for a wrongly jailed person to be compensated, not over-ruled because a media tart premier doesn't like the jailee's politics.

In Queensland at the time of her release (2003) there was no provision for compensation for wrongful imprisonment, unless the government wanted to make an ex gratia payment, which they weren't in the habit of doing. Presumably there still isn't. At the time Springborg stated that if he won office, he would pay her compensation.

I think that there should be such provisions everywhere, otherwise the idea that the justice system is reversible in case of error is severely undermined.

Capablanca-Fan
25-03-2009, 12:52 PM
In Queensland at the time of her release (2003) there was no provision for compensation for wrongful imprisonment, unless the government wanted to make an ex gratia payment, which they weren't in the habit of doing. Presumably there still isn't.
Statists never admit the state is wrong.


At the time Springborg stated that if he won office, he would pay her compensation.
Good. Even better if it wasn't up to him either.


I think that there should be such provisions everywhere, otherwise the idea that the justice system is reversible in case of error is severely undermined.
I agree.

Capablanca-Fan
25-03-2009, 12:58 PM
Melanie Phillips on the rise of the British National Party (http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=646), somewhat similar to Hanson but genuinely racist, and attracting support for much the same reasons:

...

Last week, the British National Party won a council seat in Sevenoaks, Kent.

This should make us all sit up and take notice. Kent is not ethnically-riven Tower Hamlets or Bradford.

True, it was a Labour seat on this council that fell to the BNP’s Paul Golding — a charming character whom the party once expelled for allegedly attacking another BNP councillor.

Yet suburban Sevenoaks is not some angry, marginalised working-class area but the placid Tory home counties. This suggests that receptiveness to the BNP’s odious ideas is now spreading into mainstream British life.

Around the country, the BNP is making an ever stronger political showing. Last month, it only narrowly failed to take a council seat in Bexley, South London, and last week it did well in wards in Yorkshire, the Midlands and Lewisham, another South London borough. It is also strongly tipped to win at least one European Parliament seat in the forthcoming elections.

The reason for its increasing success is obvious. Like all populist, neo-fascist parties, the BNP is opportunistically exploiting the failure by the political establishment to address issues of pressing and legitimate concern to the public.

It is making hay with the terminal alienation of the British electorate, not merely from the current Government but from the entire political mainstream. Many voters have concluded that ‘they’re all the same as each other’.

Labour is irredeemably incompetent and sleaze ridden. The LibDems (with the exception of their impressive economics spokesman Vince Cable) are irredeemably irrelevant. As for the Tories, although they are benefiting from the collapse of Labour’s support, there is precious little enthusiasm for them either.

They are seen as no more than ‘blue Labour’ on many social issues, devoid of any big idea to address the economic crisis and — as their relatively muted response to the Home Secretary’s extraordinary expenses scam suggests — up to their own necks in the same kind of fiddle.

At a more profound and altogether more explosive level, however, is the fact that all three parties not only refuse to address the issues that concern the public most deeply and emotionally, but also demonise those who express such anxieties as racists or fascists.

In particular, they have colluded in a refusal to acknowledge that nationalism — or attachment to one’s own country and its values — is a perfectly respectable, even admirable, sentiment.

Instead, anyone who maintains that British culture and identity are rooted in the history, language, literature, religion and laws of this country — and must be defended as such against erosion, undermining or outright attack — is vilified as a racist or xenophobe.

This effectively presents such people with a choice — between being demonised as racists and standing silently by as their culture evaporates.

For Britain is changing before our very eyes. As a result of the current rate of immigration, within half a century the projected steep increase in the UK’s population will be entirely made up of people not born in Britain — most of whom will have come from the Third World.

Meanwhile, the fanatically imposed doctrine of multiculturalism has brought about the erosion or denigration of Britain’s history, religion and identity, leaving generations of children — both indigenous and immigrant — appallingly ignorant of the common culture they need to share.

It is entirely reasonable to want one’s country to express its own culture through its institutions, laws and practices. Yet those who defend this principle are called ‘racist’.

Britain is witnessing an alarming growth of separate Muslim enclaves ruled by a parallel Islamic Sharia law. It is entirely reasonable to want one system of law for all. Yet those who say so are called ‘Islamophobic’.

...

The fact that all these issues are deemed to be beyond the pale gives the BNP its opportunity to pose as the champion of these legitimate concerns while concealing its true thuggish agenda.

For the BNP is truly a racist party which stands for a racially pure Britain. Pretending that it merely wants to preserve British culture, it actually believes that anyone who is not white or is a Jew will pollute that culture.

Its constitution says it is committed to ’stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration’, that it opposes any form of racial integration with non-European people — and restricts party membership to people of white Caucasian, Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norse stock.

...

But the real reason for the rise of the BNP is the white-hot fury among voters who feel abandoned and utterly disenfranchised by the entire political establishment.

What makes it ten times worse is that, since the BNP seizes upon genuine concerns, those in turn become demonised as ‘far Right’ ideas — which drives even more voters into the BNP’s cynical and menacing embrace.

But it is a mistake to denounce fascism as the province of the ‘far Right’. It is, in fact, the bastard child of Left-wing thinking. Indeed, even today some of the BNP’s own rhetoric is echoed in progressive circles.

For example, in the U.S., President Obama has been flirting with protectionism; while in Britain, the BNP’s denunciations of ‘greedy bankers’ are echoing across the political spectrum.

Britain — thank goodness — has a visceral aversion to fascism. But given the alarm and confusion of the times, the danger is that such vilification by liberals and the Left of genuine grievances and concerns could become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Kevin Bonham
25-03-2009, 06:06 PM
Melanie Phillips on the rise of the British National Party (http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=646)

[..]

Britain is witnessing an alarming growth of separate Muslim enclaves ruled by a parallel Islamic Sharia law. It is entirely reasonable to want one system of law for all. Yet those who say so are called ‘Islamophobic’.

I'd like to know what the facts behind this claim are. As I understand it there is some provision in UK law for cases to be arbited under Sharia (or for that matter Jewish) law with the agreement of all parties. That's not the same thing as "enclaves ruled by a parallel Islamic Sharia law." So what and where are these enclaves?

Far Right parties do often become more appealling to some in times of extreme economic instability, unfortunately.

Capablanca-Fan
25-03-2009, 09:52 PM
Far Right parties do often become more appealling to some in times of extreme economic instability, unfortunately.
Except that so-called "far right" parties, including Hanson's, have quite leftist economics such as protectionism.

Kevin Bonham
25-03-2009, 10:21 PM
Except that so-called "far right" parties, including Hanson's, have quite leftist economics such as protectionism.

Yeah, I know - and they get away with it even when those policies are actually very bad economics for the times concerned, because they tend to attract votes from those feeling so bewildered/angry/alienated/disempowered by the existing situation that any attempt at a rational response has long gone out the window.

I called them "far Right" above but there's a strong sense in which "far Right" doesn't actually exist and neither does "far Left". A good model I used to have for that was imagine that the simplistic left-right line is not a line but a circle. Go far enough towards one extreme and you start to come out on the other side, because extremes and authoritarianism so readily go hand in hand.

Also, racists and xenophobes are very rarely capos because if they were they would have one less thing (capitalism) to blame other races for.

Whether any of this is relevant to Hanson I'm not sure - these days she seems to attract attention as a political celebrity more than in support for her supposed views.

antichrist
21-04-2011, 01:35 AM
..............
Whether any of this is relevant to Hanson I'm not sure - these days she seems to attract attention as a political celebrity more than in support for her supposed views.

Well she almost got elected for her supposed views or lack of - you called that one wrongly.

There was a reason for Hanson, blame Marx: social change follows economic change.

and that economic change was the floating of the dollar in mid eighties by Keating and subsequent interest rate hike that let Japanese buy up the Gold Coast as well letting banks sending farmers down the tube.

Katter is another stalwart of those deserted farmers, not sure if Hanson ever was, she was against the Japs.

antichrist
21-04-2011, 01:35 AM
..............
Whether any of this is relevant to Hanson I'm not sure - these days she seems to attract attention as a political celebrity more than in support for her supposed views.

Well she almost got elected for her supposed views or lack of - you called that one wrongly.

There was a reason for Hanson, blame Marx: social change follows economic change.

and that economic change was the floating of the dollar in mid eighties by Keating and subsequent interest rate hike that let Japanese buy up the Gold Coast as well letting banks sending farmers down the tube.

Katter is another stalwart of those deserted farmers, not sure if Hanson ever was, she was against the Japs. And the White Aust Movement may have beaten her to the punch there.

Kevin Bonham
21-04-2011, 01:45 AM
[/B]

Well she almost got elected for her supposed views or lack of - you called that one wrongly.

Bulldust. That she almost got elected is clear but that does not tell you whether it was because of her views or because of her political-celebrity status. In fact the way Hanson attracts such a very high below-the-line vote is strongly consistent with a personality cult rather than voters being content to vote for her ticket of people with supposedly likeminded policies.

Furthermore what she almost got elected to was the NSW Legislative Council which has the sort of low quota where a celebrity candidate can almost get in on that celebrity status alone.

antichrist
21-04-2011, 01:55 AM
Bulldust. That she almost got elected is clear but that does not tell you whether it was because of her views or because of her political-celebrity status. In fact the way Hanson attracts such a very high below-the-line vote is strongly consistent with a personality cult rather than voters being content to vote for her ticket of people with supposedly likeminded policies.

Furthermore what she almost got elected to was the NSW Legislative Council which has the sort of low quota where a celebrity candidate can almost get in on that celebrity status alone.

But if I remember filling in my vote correctly she could not be voted for above the line as was non party, so then dumbarse supporters had to get 15 numbers straight with out repeat or omission, a pretty big ask for lowly educated disgruntled National Party voters.

They roughly know her policies without her having to declare such. You still called it wrongly though for different election

Kevin Bonham
21-04-2011, 02:14 AM
But if I remember filling in my vote correctly she could not be voted for above the line as was non party,

Wrong. At this election Hanson was the #1 candidate of a group so it was possible to vote for her above the line, which some of her voters did.


They roughly know her policies without her having to declare such.

They might roughly know her policies but that doesn't mean their votes are necessarily policy-driven.


You still called it wrongly though for different election

You provide no evidence for this wibble so I'll just ignore it.