Roger Dec 16, 2023 11:08 AM
Quiggin is a proven imbecile
Also a Prof of Economics at UQ.
This is the problem.

He’s academic who proved that Qld’s wealth (such as it is) is created in the south-east corner, & that the regions contribute more or less nothing.

To his mind “wealth” is money in the hands of the govt. Money in non-govt hands is “you didn’t build that”

His logic: Qld’s wealth is generated from two sources: (1) stamp duty, and (2) payroll tax.
Most payroll tax is paid by corps from their brisbane office, so “brisbane generated”
Most stamp duty is on house sales in Brisbane/Gold Coast.

The only contribution of the regions is to drag the south-east “economic powerhouse” slightly backward.

Roger
Dec 16, 2023 11:24 AM

Let’s not inflate Mz. Wilkinson beyond her importance.

She’s not even a cheap tabloid journalist.

I have the deepest admiration for my learned friend Richardson’s self restraint in not responding to that line.
So many responses available to him.
In the end, I think leaving the line hanging in the air was the best possible way to deal with it.
Of course, this is the core of the problem.
The veteran journalist (read “fading TV star”) looking to gain some serious j’ism cred before the curtain falls on the career. Like most ‘crash or crash through’ escapades, the former option seems to have won out.
Speaking of crashes, that brings us to Angus Llewellyn.
Until now he has convinced everyone at Ten that he is the smartest guy in the room.
I think there will be a little bit of revision of Mr Llewellyn’s “alignment to network goals and values” shortly into the New Year.
I see mattress and Laz-E-Boy infomercials in Mr Llewellyn’s future.

Kevin M

Winston , I like most of your contributions, but honestly, why do you keep reigniting this nonsense?

I don’t believe he has single thing worth contributing, because he’s a complete dunce. He’s like an unwanted appendage, unwanted add-on to people’s comments. He would be much better off heading over to the furniture store.

Let it be. What does it matter? It has been going on for such a long time that it had lost all of its edge, just slinging mud.

He’s unable to because after so many years of nursing, he overloaded with estrogen and now identifies as a spiteful old woman. S/he can’t help itself. I answered his stupid question yesterday clearly in the affirmative.

Over to you, Kevin M.

What is your ‘viable’ solution, Dover?

No Israel?

There was an old man of Australia (Tennis Elbow),
Who felt at a loss (and a failure),
Due to the texture,
And limp architecture,
Of his formerly alleged fine genitalia.

Flushing quite hotly and pinkly,
He said “How can I put this succinctly ?
It was once sublime,
But the passage of time,
Has left it all shrunken and wrinkly”.

Small edit required.
Even though one of the writers was Ben Elton I do believe. A Left winger but funny as Marty’s contributions.

On Fox Cricket, Adam Gilchrist just invented the eunuch-English version of nightwatchman — “nightwatcher” — less he offend the fascist language police.

Enough!

We still have –

– Blackout (Bowen)
– Blackboard
– Black looks
– Man Overboard
– White wash
– Black & Decker (whoops)
– Desmond Decker (whoops)
– And some others, thank goodness

KevinM Dec 16, 2023 1:27 PM
Over to me what?

That’s answer enough.

Sheridan’s article in today’s Oz provides a salient reminder of the offers to the Palestinians in 1979, and particularly the Oslo Accords negotiated by Ehud Barak (with enormous concessions by Israel) in the 1990s, were totally rejected by leaders such as Arafat.

Many have forgotten those inconvenient facts.

Barking Toad: Here you go:

Late on Wednesday night, Sydney barrister Sue Chrysanthou SC was seen at the Glebe foreshore foraging for native foliage for her rescue possums. It was the night before the high-profile silk would guard the interests of her client, Lisa Wilkinson, who would be cross-examined in a defamation trial.

Not just any trial. This litigation, brought by Bruce Lehrmann against Network Ten and Wilkinson, must be irresistible fodder to feature in a streamed TV series about this saga. The protagonists range from two prime ministers and an office cleaner called Carlos to this slightly unkempt but super-smart silk. Until the Binge series arrives, we are left to watch court 22A in Sydney’s Federal Court building where the Brittany Higgins-Lehrmann debacle returned to where it all started, on The Project in February 2021.

When Wilkinson left The Project in November last year, complaining she had been relentlessly targeted by sections of the media, she said: “I’m not above criticism. Far from it. I’m human, and I don’t always get it right. None of us do. But by god I’ve tried.”

Whether Wilkinson, a journalist for 40 years, and Ten tried hard enough is why the former host was back in front of a camera – this time on the Federal Court’s live-streamed YouTube channel, where close to 20,000 people tuned in to learn whether she and Ten behaved reasonably in publishing the extended interview with Higgins.
The outcome of this trial is an opportunity, in this chaotic #MeToo age, to be reminded of what good journalism looks like in he said-she said stories where lives can be wrecked if an allegation of rape is untrue – or unprovable.

When Higgins went to the media ahead of formalising a police complaint, her story turned into a media juggernaut. Many journalists appeared uninterested in learning if there was another side to the story. Even as evidence has emerged of inconsistencies in Higgins’s version, some journalists still are uninterested.

Did Ten and Wilkinson fall into that camp? Justice Michael Lee didn’t waste any time when Wilkinson finally entered the witness box for cross-examination by Lehrmann’s barrister, Matthew Richardson SC. Lee must have been one hell of a barrister; his questions to witnesses as they have recounted their versions have invariably been more astute than those asked by counsel. It was no different on Thursday morning.

Richardson had no success extracting a concession from Wilkinson that by applauding Higgins’s bravery in her televised Logies speech – just eight days out from a criminal trial – people would have understood that the journalist believed Higgins’s unproven allegation. Richardson was right of course given the criminal trial was delayed for three months, with ACT Supreme Court Chief Justice Lucy McCallum castigating the speech for prejudicing a fair trial.

But Wilkinson wouldn’t have a bar of the bleeding obvious, saying she was simply celebrating Higgins’s courage.

Lee then stepped in. “Would you accept, Ms Wilkinson, that a woman would not be showing unwavering courage if she made a false allegation of rape?”
“Sorry, your honour, I’ve got to think about that question.”
When Lee repeated the question, Wilkinson said: “Yes, I accept that.”
“Right,” continued Lee. “Well, doesn’t it follow that if you say that someone is showing unwavering courage, it means they’re making a true allegation of rape against a guilty man?”
“Yes,” she agreed. No pause required.

The first part of the trial concerned Ten and Wilkinson’s truth defence. If the judge decides that, on the balance of probabilities, a rape occurred, they win.
They have a plan B if that defence fails. It’s called qualified privilege. They will have to show there was a public interest in publishing the sexual assault and cover-up allega
tions, and that their journalism was reasonable in the circumstances.

Wilkinson has clearly decided that her interests don’t necessarily align with Ten’s because, for the purposes of the Defamation Act, the qualified privilege defence applies to each publisher separately, and they are both treated as publishers of the contested allegations.

It is possible that Ten could fail to make out the defence while Wilkinson succeeds. But not the other way around because, in layman’s terms, Wilkinson says that if there were stuff-ups, others were responsible for them because she was just the host. That’s why Chrysanthou is there.

Some lawyers have a passion for Beethoven, French wine or fashion. Chrysanthou has a passion (apart from rescuing small animals) for section 30 of the Defamation Act. Those who say the qualified privilege section has never been successfully argued by a major media company are wrong. Chrysanthou has used it when representing media companies – and won.

The court will take into account the extent to which The Project interview distinguishes between “suspicions, allegations and proven facts”.
In the first minute of the interview, Wilkinson says: “Tonight, claims of rape, roadblocks to a police investigation and a young woman forced to choose between her career and the pursuit of justice. And it happened right in the heart of our democracy.”

Did Wilkinson and Ten properly interrogate Higgins’s claims? What information did they rely on when putting those claims to air? Did red flags emerge? Did they pursue them or ignore them? Did they fairly report what members of the Morrison government told them? Did they deal fairly with allegations by Higgins against Linda Reynolds, Fiona Brown and Michaelia Cash? Why didn’t they mention a contemporaneous Department of Finance email that confirmed Brown had taken all appropriate steps to protect Higgins?

Did they put the right questions to Lehrmann, giving him enough time to respond to the grave allegation? Did Wilkinson and producer Angus Llewellyn properly investigate how Higgins’s photo of her bruised leg, which she claimed happened during the alleged rape, survived the so-called death of the phone? What steps did they take to authenticate it?

Wilkinson agreed that, as early as January 20, 2021, after receiving a timeline from Higgins’s then boyfriend, now fiance, David Sharaz earlier, she believed there had been an “extraordinary cover-up” involving Reynolds, Cash and prime minister Scott Morrison. Did that early belief become an obstacle to Wilkinson, and/or Ten doing the appropriate checks on a story that ensnared not just Lehrmann but a prime minister, two ministers, a chief of staff, an ALP senator and others?

Did it lead Wilkinson into inappropriate coaching of Higgins designed to confirm Wilkinson’s belief of a serious systemic cover-up? When Wilkinson appeared to assume, along with Higgins, that it was sinister for two staff from the prime minister’s office to turn up a few days later in Brown’s office, Richardson said: “I want to suggest to you it was completely unreasonable for you to draw the inference that that meant something sinister.” Wilkinson responded: “I know how politics works, Mr Richardson.” How did that assertion affect the quality of her journalism?

It was striking how often Wilkinson gave evidence about how Higgins felt. Asked to point to facts that supported Higgins’s claims that she felt her job was on the line, Wilkinson said “the words that were being said were possibly different to the way they were being perceived” by Higgins.

“What you’re doing, Ms Wilkinson, is drawing a distinction between what you believe Ms Higgins felt and what was actually said to her. Is that correct?” Richardson put to her.

“Yes, I’m reading between the lines,” Wilkinson said. “Maybe I’m just attuned to reading between the lines a little more than you are, Mr Richardson,” she said when probed again. Did reading between the lines enhance or undermine her journalism in this story?

The court heard that Wilkinson told the Project team editing the interview that she wanted extra material included to help shield Higgins from allegations that her motives were anything other than noble.

The forensic Richardson pointed Wilkinson to a comment Sharaz made to her in the presence of Higgins in their five-hour meeting: “I said to Britt ultimately, ‘What do you want out of this? Well, I want Bruce to forever have it difficult getting a job like it’s going to be difficult for me.’ ” Wilkinson agreed she didn’t probe Higgins or include it in the program.

When Wilkinson said “I’ve got her in my sights” – alluding to Reynolds – during the five-hour meet and greet with Higgins, did that suggest Wilkinson had made up her mind about Reynolds being part of a cover-up?

The overriding question remains this: did Wilkinson and Ten become crusaders for Higgins or did they remain objective when investigating and publishing the Higgins story?

Wilkinson’s first day in the witness box was not without a laugh. Richardson put to her that she was captured by her source, that she was committed to supporting Higgins’s version and thrilled by the commercial appeal of her version.

“Don’t make me sound like a cheap tabloid journalist, Mr Richardson,” the former Project host shot back. Many regard The Project as tabloid TV journalism. But whatever one thinks about her journalism, Wilkinson is most certainly not cheap. She’s reportedly still receiving her rumoured seven-figure salary.

The judge will have the last word on the reasonableness of Ten’s and Wilkinson’s journalism. But bigger issues will remain unresolved, the central one being what to do about the unruly #MeToo movement that was destined to capture those journalists, criminal prosecutors, HR heads, politicians and others in positions of power who want to be part of something bigger than their day job.

The criminal justice system has evolved to produce rules of evidence and procedure designed to ensure a fair trial to accused persons while protecting society’s need to deter crime. It is predicated on balancing those interests. Whatever Lee decides, the idea that The Project interview was the most appropriate way to deal with a rape complaint is, frankly, the biggest joke of all.

JANET ALBRECHTSEN
COLUMNIST

JC
Dec 16, 2023 1:36 PM

The Blog’s self appointed Milk Monitor as funny as never. Paranoia, yes.

thefrollickingmole
Dec 16, 2023 1:47 PM
New South Wales might suffer blackouts if ‘we’ didn’t all cut our power usage during very hot periods.

Keep in mind this will be AFTER they have hit big power using businesses with “stop production” orders.

In the Weekend Australian today –

CEOs embrace a Nuclear dawn, warn on rushing power shift (to Ruin a Balls)

But bigger issues will remain unresolved, the central one being what to do about the unruly #MeToo movement that was destined to capture those journalists…

Hello…

As I wrote yesterday, Wilkinson wasn’t captured by Higgins, she was captured by ideology.

A reminder that power tools (especially power saws) should be respected:

Yesterday had to bring back a friend’s ute to Sydney. Like us, he has a farm in the Central Tablelands, & managed to almost sever a finger with his power saw. Regional hospital could not do the complex operation & he was ferried by ambulance to major Sydney hospital. Operation done that night – but still unsure if it will be successful.

It doesn’t need to reach parity with the US to render what you propose a fever dream. It just needs to be able to make such a decision very painful for it and its allies in the region.

Yeah, we’ve seen their high tech equipment in Yemen. Frightening.

That scum are only good at one thing. Killing and terrorizing defenseless civilians.

The vendetta can stop in an instant – it just requires the cessation of the personal attacks on me, my family, and my profession either by himself or his partner Sancho.
Simples.

90% of these so-called attacks are initiated by this former nurse. Examples, earlier today, when the appendage decided he would get involved with something that had nothing to do with him. Then his lover (Driller) decided to enter the game. Lying whitetrash filth, he’s always attacking my work etc. He just doesn’t like it when it’s thrown back at him in spades. Stiff shit.

We Don’t Need Three More Stinkin’ Rate Cuts

DAVID STOCKMAN
DEC 15
?
“Jerome Powell is not completely the blithering idiot he seems. Actually, playing the role of chairman of our monetary central planning agency would have done that to anyone— even Einstein.

After all, we are talking about monetary Mission Impossible here. There is an infinitely complex and opaque $26 trillion economy in America, which is deeply and intricately interwoven with a $105 trillion global GDP. As such, the US economy operates far, far beyond the reach of any would be state administrator, planner or economic czar.

In part that’s because the “incoming economic data” on the Fed’s dashboards is unreliable, incomplete, noise-ridden and frequently undecipherable. Likewise, its tools of policy implementation and control are crude, wobbly and generally unfit for purpose.

So the Fed is pleased to pretend it is precisely and scientifically pursuing macroeconomic “goals” with respect to inflation, full employment and general maximization of prosperity, thereby bestowing the greater good on main street America. But that’s a ruse. In fact, what it actually does is to periodically bend over when Wall Street hands it the proverbial bar of soap.

Yesterday occasioned the latest ignominious episode of this monetary whoredom when Powell pivoted on a dime with respect to rate cuts, thereby flushing down the memory hole his own position of just two weeks earlier. As Zero Hedge noted,

One day after the Fed’s bizarre, unexpected pivot, many are struggling to wrap their heads around what happened: what exactly changed in less than two weeks for Powell to go from telling the market it was “premature to conclude with confidence that we have achieved a sufficiently restrictive stance, or to speculate on when policy might ease” to suddenly warning that rate cuts are something “that begins to come into view, and is clearly a topic of discussion out in the world and also a discussion for us at our meeting today.”

Even Powell’s own mouthpiece, WSJ reporter Nick “Nikileaks” Timiraos, was confused remarking sarcastically after the FOMC “what a difference two weeks can make.“

So to reprise Wednesday’s post: Inflation hasn’t been vanquished, real interest rates are still deeply subnormal and $8 trillion of fiat money production since 2008 is more than enough for decades to come. So why is Powell even talking about rate cuts?”

So now, Junior Cokehead can have a go at David Stockman………………………….LOL

90% of these so-called attacks are initiated by this former nurse.

No.
You initiate everything.

If you evolve manners, it would all go away. Yes, it really is that simple.

These are the actions of a bully and a coward.

Oh Yeah
1. Killing a thousand people by a shot in the back of the head as a lesson to others. Enticement.
2. Chinese invasion through Melbourne airport using Jetstar and other commercial airlines.
3. Dirty injun stole mi petrol. It’s not racist, it’s just a thing.
4. Wants to see Bill Gates killed off.
5. Injuns are liars and ugly (unlike him)
6. Western politicians should be killed.

Just normal appendage discourse at the Cat.

But Wilkinson wouldn’t have a bar of the bleeding obvious, saying she was simply celebrating Higgins’s courage.

Lee then stepped in. “Would you accept, Ms Wilkinson, that a woman would not be showing unwavering courage if she made a false allegation of rape?”
“Sorry, your honour, I’ve got to think about that question.”
When Lee repeated the question, Wilkinson said: “Yes, I accept that.”
“Right,” continued Lee. “Well, doesn’t it follow that if you say that someone is showing unwavering courage, it means they’re making a true allegation of rape against a guilty man?”
“Yes,” she agreed. No pause required.

That was brilliant.
Trying to split that atom was never going to fly, but Lee skewered her beautifully.
Patriarchy 1, Metoo nil.

Sigh!

Now J.C has admitted on several occasions that he was a bully at school. He has perfected a way to abuse people on line while keeping his skin intact.

LOL. However, the bullying doesn’t work here. Too many Posters who fight back. In spades. Me being one of them. Junior Cokehead is simply paranoid and not a very good bully when it comes down to it. Just reverts to abuse. Sad really.

I realized that bullying never has to do with you. It’s the bully who’s insecure.

– Shay Mitchell

Bullies want to abuse you. Instead of allowing that, you can use them as your personal motivators. Power up and let the bully eat your dust.

– Nick Vujicic

Those figures have been close to the mark in previous conflicts and generally regarded as credible estimates.

I see you’ve ignored the percentage of civilian casualties caused by hamas etc rockets, by hamas shooting people trying to flee south, and most of all not civilians but terrorists including boys aged 17 and 18.

Not sure Egypt is anymore capable in that regard than Saudi Arabia.

Pardon my ignorance, gentlemen, but why is that so? Is it political, logistical or …?

You can’t make this up. Wilkinson must be from Mars.

Stephen Rice
Analysis

Weekend Australian

What planet is Lisa Wilkinson on?

Her interview with Brittany Higgins crucified Linda Reynolds’ Chief of Staff Fiona Brown, portraying her as an uncaring Liberal Party hack who, it seemed to suggest , helped cover up the rape of a young woman for political convenience.

Yet in the witness box at Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation trial this week, Wilkinson has claimed ‘The Project portrayed Brown as a ‘caring’ person who was ‘complimentary’ of her.

That will be news to anyone who has watched the program and certainly news to Brown herself, whose life has been turned upside down by the unproven – and almost entirely unchallenged – allegations levelled against her after a lifetime of distinguished public service.

……………………….

……………………….

What Justice Lee will make of Wilkinson and Ten’s defence against Bruce Lehrmann remains to be seen.

But she and her colleagues live on Mars if they think their treatment of Fiona Brown looks like fair and reasonable journalism.