His last point is a punt about the future. The subtext is she got what was coming to her but this is hidden in words that on a surface level are dressed up to look broadly supportive of Helen.

I COULD-say its defeatest crapola but its much worse then that. Its like he’s trying to intimidate us and make us despair. By making like we have to take for granted (without blaming the culprits) that the evil malignancy of the left is some sort of diamond nano-rod supporting-column of ponderous girth, centred somwhere near the earths core.

But its not. They are weak. They are pathetic. No one person can beat them its true. But a mere handfull can take them down a bunch of pegs in a series of building waves.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I’m at two minds about Munns positioning here?

Is he speaking for the mass of depressed fatalists? Or is he REALLY on the side of the lynchers?

Munn is likely akin to some sort of young hanger-on and goon from Tammany Hall saying that “you can’t fight Tammany Hall.” You can’t fight Tammany Hall says the young goon with great implied-wisdom and assurance, even though he got off the boat from County Cork but two years prior and has just started shaving last June.

Its a wicked, or at least highly inappropriate, thing for Munn to be saying. Except in terms of an explicit act of soothsaying….. unpolluted by any number of other messages.

This was no neutral tea-leaf-reading in my view.

It might rather be like some teenage-Maffia-Minion rolling his eyes and saying “YOU CANNOT WIN!!!!!”.

If he wants to make a punt let him make a punt explicitly, and not connected with all these intonations of:

1. shifting the blame

2. snickering lynch-mob-appeasement.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
THE ANSWER TO THE PROBLEM.

There is nothing like a program of 360 degrees “arbitrary” sackings.

Draw a sphere around Phil and Monica. In your mind trace an organisational sphere around Monica and Phil.

One sphere for Phil. One sphere for Monica.

Who are their support staff? Their bosses? The people under them? The people on the same level as they are that they deal with in the course of a typical week?

Thats the hit-list. Thats your hit-list. If one cannot simply cut the funds off, then that list means an whole series of promotions for youngsters lower down in the food-chain. Because the people on your list ought to be replaced, just as soon as the reasonably competent youngsters to replace them can be found.

Replaced and a few weeks pay and your gone and off the public tit forever goodbye.

Now if we were able to do THAT…. then this endless vendetta (or at least this ugly ugly lazy lazy callousness) levelled at Helen would suddenly come to an abrupt end.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Its this sort of thing that Munn ought to have been focusing on. Ideas on how to stop the unmanly and hysterical-junkie-slut behaviour towards Helen.

Unmanly and hysterical junkie-slut behaviour levelled at Helen by the girls and boys of the intelligentsia and your (YOUR!!!!!!) A. (BLOODY!!!!)-B.C.

Thats what Munn ought to have been lending his shoulder too.

Some ideas on how to change things for the better.

Thats what he ought to have been helping out with.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Get it together Munn. Don’t try and be some sort of fucking arbiter of conflict-resolution. To resolve some things the only way is to say “WE WIN THEY LOSE”. No more wallowing in the alleged nastiness of the world. You just do your best to make the world a tiny bit less nasty instead of laying down that JIVE!!!!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I am inspired by Martin Walsh to remind you all of the words of the poets:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wlw2EMpIYes&mode=related&search=

(Vote GMB for Dobell)

I’m wondering if we can blame him for the elevation of Kevin Rudd.

Adams has been promoting Rudd like a constant drumbeat for years now.

As far as I know, he’s done nothing except host LNL for the past 18-20 years. Word is he’s hopeless and his producer does all the research.

- Brunton made an assumption he had no right to make and was correctly criticised

- Attard was excessively sneering when she questioned whether Helen D-D-D can be considered reliable but it wasn’t wrong to bring up the identity hoax

- Adams got off without being asked to apologise or provide concrete evidence that he attended some event in which Helen D said something that “chilled” him.

- Attard deserves rebuke for going easy on Adams but hard on Helen.

- Helen with have to wear question marks over her character due to the “Demidenko Affair” and perceptions of antisemitism for the rest of her life. This is unfair but so is life.

How convenient of them to complicate the issue with an irrelevancy, though, and then slander again the victim of the original slander. Yes, disgraceful.