I’m not on Twitter. Don’t follow anybody therefore, including Mark Latham.
But I was watching Andrew Bolt this evening (Thursday) and he said he was banning Latham from ever again appearing on his show for something he tweeted. I forget exactly how he described it; something like a disgraceful homophobic slur, which Latham had since taken down.
Bolt didn’t say what the tweet was. I find this annoying. If you are going to go on air and ban someone for life; it must be for something quite awful. Yet you refuse to say what it is? I don’t find that at all satisfactory.
I am never ever going to admit that person into my presence again. Why? I won’t say. Did he murder somebody? Throw an old lady into oncoming traffic? Commit child abuse? The why matters if you are going to condemn someone. Inuendo doesn’t do it. What did he tweet that was so beyond the bounds of civil society is the question. I, personally, found the mysterious info in the UK’s Daily Mail.
First, reportedly, Latham’s tweet was “in response to gay Labor MP Alex Greenwich slamming him [Latham] as a disgusting human being.” Strong words. A rejoinder to be expected. The rejoinder was somewhat fiery.
According to the Daily Mail, Latham wrote: “Disgusting? How does that compare with sticking your d*** up a bloke’s a*** and covering it with s***?’”
Reportedly, One Nation leader Pauline Hanson was not best pleased with Latham.
My own view. I’m torn. Supposing Latham had written: Disgusting? How does that compare with sodomy. Would Latham have been so disowned by polite society? I don’t know. Maybe he would. But certainly his particular wording was confronting. At the same time, the actual act of sodomy is itself confronting and prone, I understand, to spread diseases.
These days we see two men marrying to the acclaim of those around them and blot out what that means. Look, I don’t even know what most male homosexuals do. Maybe sodomy is a rare feature of their intimate interactions. But it does go on. I know that. That’s why AIDS spread within the male homsexual community. So if it goes on and is OK, why is it beyond the pale to describe it in graphic terms?
Mind you, I prefer graphic terms to be reserved for graphic novels, which adults can read if they want to. My conclusion. Social media is a sewer. Latham should have been less graphic but in context of responding to an outrageous slur on his own character he committed a forgivable lapse; not a capital offence. Bolt and other Latham critics should endeavour to be less self-righteous. Those using social media, if they must, should endeavour to be civil and to never to use it when they feel under the weather, drunk, drugged or otherwise ill-disposed or indisposed.
Why was Latham called a disgusting human being, and why is it ok to slander someone like that? Should we consider the sentiment and meaning, or allow ourselves to be swayed by whether fashionably acceptible terms are used? Which is worse – to be accused of being a disgusting human or to hear a decription of homosexual sex.
It was said that the SSM vote would have failed if critics had just described homo sex acts and the health outcomes. Normal people would have been so disgusted any sentiment towards a yes vote would have been lost.
Latham was accurate and if anything left out some details. Excuse me while I go puke.
Bolt proves to be flimsy once again. It was only a week ago he was making a reproachment with Latham. Yes it was graphic, probably unnecessary and I dare say born of anger. But it’s social media. It is a sewer. There’s plenty of worse things out there than that. Is it unbecoming of a political leader? Absolutely. Punishable by eternal damnation? No.
I have heard second or third hand that this a rather clinical description of what gay men do.
Perhaps the navy types on here can elaborate.
As a libertarian people can, up to a point, run their own races. However the Gaystapo can kiss my arse. ( just a figure of speech not to be taken literally).
.
I don’t know what the fuss is all about.
The gay guy attacks Latham for a meeting at a church when a bunch of gays turn up and thought they could be violent against the people attending the meeting.
The gays were violent and now this gay guy is able to say what he wants to Latham?
Latham is plain langauge hits back – as Lizzie brilliantly said purpose and function of your genitalia.
It is what it is.
I do not know why there is more disease.
A graphic description, but one that does make one ask why devotees of said practice have “Pride”.
Still, at least they don’t have it on their tongues.
Don’t mention “Rimming” or “Bug catching”.
Might scare the kids who think it’s all rainbows and marching.
Latham was just telling how it is!!
Bolt and Pauline should wake up and see it how it is instead of kicking the shit
out of Latham
Check out the tongue-bathing Bolt gave Latho just a few days ago. One might even resort to gay sex acts acts as metaphors to describe the reception Bolt was giving Andrew.
Interesting ending, all things considered.
Bolt is such a phony. Says ‘mate’ with the hardest of Ts. He’s like Mike Moore from Frontline. Bet he can’t say gday, either.
Gidday, I’m Andrew Bolt. Welcome to Frontline.
Latham wrote the truth.
When the parade comes to a stop and the celebrations are over, the degradation remains.
And all those in the media who excitedly promoted it know this; it can’t be glossed over.
Latham wrote the truth.
That’s the problem….
It was generally acknowledged at the time that Oscar Wilde’s court case for criminal libel against the Marquess of Queensberry went quite well for Wilde, as might be expected given his talent for witticisms, until Queensberry’s lawyers produced hotel bedsheets bearing blood and faecal stains.
The jury found the blood and faecal stains disgusting.
It is not 1895 any more.
No, it’s 1984.
Pauline has also proved to be a PHONy.
My fear for Bolta is that one day, while sipping tea and eating cucumber sandwiches in the front drawing room, he will hear something just too scandalous and clutch at his pearls with such mortified vigour that he chokes himself.
Would it be disgusting to mention the body crumpled on the floor, the bulging eyes, protruding blue tongue, the damp stains and biting acrid stench of piss and shit?
It’s the hypocrisy that gets me. Why is Greenwich allowed to make such offensive and inflammatory comments without consequence, but Latham is censured and cancelled for biting back?
The Left are constantly saying vile things about their opponents, yet the minute anyone else says anything half as bad, it’s an uproar. It’s Orwellian, it really is. And damn scary for where our society is rapidly heading.
How many times now has Blot banned Latham? We’re up to two, although Latham may have been originally banned by Blot following the former’s banishment from Outsiders.
Greenwich is a disgusting entity and I’m not just referring to his blatant homosexuality. He must never be forgotten nor forgiven for his role in the “up to birth” abortion abortion he foisted on NSW with the connivance of the now unlamented former NSW coalition government in 2019.
The hypocrisy of those baying for Latham’s blood (for merely stating the bleeding obvious, even if in rather gratuitous terms) is infuriating, to say the least.
Experience handing out HTVs in the recent NSW election, and the result, tells me that Latham has solid voter support. A lot of ocker and bogans, but we need them now. The support is not uniform but enough to get his One Nation 3 upper house members. And he is in for another 8 years. Going forward, this episode won’t harm his appeal.
And please note that the Frontline episode alluded to above was a parody of the insincere use of “mate”. The 3 seasons are available on Netflix. Watch it if you want to see wokeism constantly parodied and defied. It’s a sad reminder however of a now overwhelmed Aussie sense of humour.
Who was it said ‘In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act’?
I dont get all the fuss – aren’t our homosexual bretheren out and proud?
When I heard that there had been a rapprochement between Blot and Latham, which probably happened at Pell’s funeral, I thought…well…..I might start watching Blot’s Sky programme once again. And I did. He was good last week, after the Melbourne Nazi performance, rightly denouncing the dead man walking, John Pussotto, and calling out the left’s incessant hypocrisy about violence. But, but, but he slowly began to drive me up the wall again with his mumbling, and his incessant interruptions of guests, and so on. So, when I heard about Latham’s tweet yesterday, I prayed that Blot might have the good sense to either ignore it or just say, well yes, Latham’s tweet was crude, rude and so on but much worse is said by prominent progressives on Twitter and it was Greenwich who first called Latham “disgusting”. But no, like Blot always does, he joins in with the mob, feigning sanctimonious outrage, forgetting that it is called free speech, something he supposedly treasures, except, and herein lies the rub, he doesn’t. In a sense he’s worse, far worse than a progressive, because he stabs his own in the back. He’s no different to John Pussotto vilifying and piling on Moira Deeming. Blot is a star dickhead, a fake, a fair-weather friend. I didn’t watch Blot’s programme last night, because I thought that I won’t give him any airtime and I will now never watch him again. This time I haven’t just washed my hands of him, I’ve dried them, and I’ll never soil them again.
Which brings me to Sky. I will continue to subscribe to Sky because I enjoy Credlin, Kenny, and particularly Outsiders. As Tom says, I think Sharri is pretty good, she’s doing real journalism, not just opinion. But Sky needs to tread carefully here. Most viewers of Sky see right through progressive bullshit, progressive wokeness, and progressive hypocrisy. Most of us see Latham as the victim here.
We watch Sky because we want to see it call out hypocrisy, not join in the pile ons of people who upset the left. And this is clearly what happened last night. We do now have some choices, there is ADH TV, which she should all get behind, and there is TNT Radio.
The kiddies in USA schools have been shown graphic details of how to perform homosexual acts. I think this is abhorrent. Apparently me saying this means I am a homophobe. Good! I’m okay with that. It seems you can’t criticise anybody these days without having an …ism lable attached to you.
Then we have this hypocrisy. The progressives, LGBQ+ whackos and the media villify Latham for what has been shown to kids in USA schools – yet they are all for the sex education in schools. Nah. F@#k orf!
Latham was crude no doubt. Call him out for that if you must. But that is all.
The truth is that sodomy is a disgusting act in my opinion. I don’t care who I offend by stating that. Latham was stating the obvious in graphic detail. That is all.
“The truth is that sodomy is a disgusting act in my opinion. I don’t care who I offend by stating that”.
I agree.
Maybe school sex ed should include “Deliverance”.
Greenwich on ABC RN this am. PK too horrified to read Latho’ tweet, Greenwich not willing to address the content, too righteous. He’s focused on qwerty and how mean we all are. Terrible call by Pauline.
What Latham described may have been disgusting, but the actual act is far more disgusting.
Whenever I see Bolt in recent years he always rambles on slowly, in a low voice (as though the wheels are turning in his head, thinking of what he will say next. At least that’s how he looks), almost to the point of incoherency, and here I am thinking, “talk a bit faster, raise your voice, and get to the bloody point, man!”
I don’t recall him being like that years ago on Channel 10.
@ RickW:
“Latham wrote the truth.
That’s the problem….”
And it has been that way in this penal colony since 1788.
“Whenever I see Bolt in recent years he always rambles on slowly, in a low voice (as though the wheels are turning in his head, thinking of what he will say next. At least that’s how he looks), almost to the point of incoherency, and here I am thinking, “talk a bit faster, raise your voice, and get to the bloody point, man!””
Yep.
Love is Love, 😉
Which part of what Latham said is untrue? Are gay men protesting “No, this is not what we do?” Of course not. They’re “proud” about it. And if it’s not untrue, what’s wrong with saying what happens? I mean, I could describe normal heterosexual acts and they might seem yucky to some who are young and innocent. So might the glorious act of giving birth. Or open heart surgery. So what’s morally indefensible about describing sodomitic acts?
I’m no chastity angel – I’ve sinned against the sixth commandment many times, God forgive me. But I’ll name my sins every time I go to confession, and not pretend that they’re anything but disgusting and something I want to avoid in the future.
Kudos to Latham. Shame on those who reproach him. And let’s all pray for each other. We are all weak and need each other’s prayer to gain strength, especially against this darkling plain.
A rant. This personal tiff is bloody unimportant regardless of who you are.
Three hundred billion dollar submarines, Labor having better energy policy (PEP-11 and nukes) than the LNP and still shafting our friends in Japan with gas much to the detriment of our current account of import purchasing power, the ridiculous Voice no one can easily understand let alone explain how it won’t diminish the rights of non-Indigenous, bureaucrats trying to milk COVID-19 into COVID-Forever, Mark McGowan turning into a mini Hitler, we don’t have our civil liberties back after COVID, we have lost all ground on unexplained wealth, roughshod criminal trial processes rigged against defendants due to Laura Norder populism for the last 30 years, a 63% debt to GDP ratio, unaffordable housing cruelling our fertility rate and rising interest rates, collapsing commercial rentals, cats and dogs living together – how does this shitstorm in a teacup even bloody matter!
Spot on Cassie.
Let’s just hope Latho doesn’t apologise. I don’t think he will, but if he does, that will leave no one to vote for in any Australian parliament.
1. It distracts from your list.
2. It might possibly bring down a conservative politician.
I hope you’re wrong. Latham provides value, even if it is as much as he just won’t go along with everything (but he’s actually pretty well read too) and a lot of people agree with him even if they won’t openly admit as much because of toxic progressive hugboxing.
In natural sexual intercourse, the penis of the man penetrates the vagina of the woman and emits semen.
Is the account of this so disgusting that someone who correctly describes it should be banned from all future media interviews?
If not, why should an accurate description of male sodomitic sex be characterized as so reprehensible that the clinical narrator of these events should be censored?
Go, Mark Latham.
The Lathan thing is reminiscent of the Florida school board meetings where the left was attempting to defend keeping some frankly disgusting sexual books they had quietly infiltrated into school libraries claiming they were entirely appropriate for children.
Parents opposed to them then stood up and started reading from the books out loud, and promptly got booted from the meeting for indecency.
Dot
I agree -this is not even worht mentioneing and shows what we have been reduced to.
We are not teenagers with first time expeiences or living at home with mum and dad looking after us.
There are the questions which you have raised.
The 650k immigration and 6% basic wage increase – could some get me out of here – I cant pass that on to my emploees who are paid 20% what the big end of town pay or what the the indusry pays.
To stop this immaturity once and for all – Lathams comment still makes me piss myself laughing.
Dot at 12:40 pm. Precisely.
Good, too, to note several comments regarding free speech, which is very much under threat in Australia. The federal Attorney General refused to consider the idea when bad-mouthing Moira Deeming and the leading the Opposition by the nose! Voltaire, whether apocryphal or not, still remains essential: “I wholly disagree with what you say and will contend to the death for your right to say it”. Latham is guilty (perhaps) of bad taste and that is all: he can write what he likes. That applies to any and all of us.
Because it exemplifies weakness and division.
What Latham said was in reaction to being called a disgusting human. Why was he called that before his outburst? None of the news reports explain that part of their exchange.
Dave Pellowe (Facebook, Church and State Australia) says it well, imo:
The confected outrage at a vulgar but nonetheless true statement directed at a protected identity is belied by the complete indifference to excessively worse vilification BY the same identities.
Bigoted hatred & incitement to violence is wrong, unless the target is conservative?
Leftists have NO morality beyond subjective tribalism. They offer unholy inquisitions into crimes against their religious dogma & liturgy, while remorselessly torturing & burning at the stake anyone they summarily deem a heretic.
“Hate speech” is their code for blasphemy laws, but their own rhetoric is laced with hatred for all not in their political religion.
It has been noted above that Mr Andrew Bolt has taken offence to Mr Mark Lathams description of a sexual act between two…….Nah ! ….I think Mr Bolt has still got the shits because the possums were eating his roses …that is when he started to change his presentation ..bout the same time as when he
What are all the snowflakes gunna do when the shite REALLY hits home ??….Let the blackouts begin .
I see everywhere Latham is being described as a “Homophobe”.
Garbage.
A phobia is a fear.
Latham simply described male homosexual acts albeit in a crude manner.