Now that Kevin Rudd is firmly ensconced as Australia’s Prime Minister elect, it’s worth looking at the social democratic party his ALP most resembles: Tony Blair and Gordon Brown’s ‘New Labour’. Just as Blair was Thatcher-lite, Rudd is Howard-lite, with the crucial difference that Rudd appears – at least superficially – to be even more of a big government conservative that Howard. He reminds me – with his relentless ‘on-message’ rhetoric and carefully scripted ‘socially conscious’ Christian conservatism – of Tony Blair in his prime, a type that some of my Oxford friends deride as a ‘trendy vicar’.
One of Blair’s enduring political legacies was his nanny-statist determination to ‘make people behave’. This found its expression in the creation of some 3000 new offences since New Labour took office in 1997 – more than the sum total of offences in UK law until that point. However, more than simply rushing to lock more people up for more stuff, Blair began to intervene in his citizens’ lives in ways that are spookily Orwellian. The most meretricious of these interventions is undoubtedly the ‘anti-social behaviour order’, or ASBO for short – although talking CCTV runs a close second.
ASBOs are civil orders, not a criminal penalty. This means they don’t appear on an individual’s criminal record – at least initially. However, breach of an ASBO is a criminal offence punishable by a fine or up to five years in prison. Crucially, their civil status means there is no objection to the use of hearsay (the UK abolished the rule against hearsay in civil proceedings in 1995). Oh, and then there’s the definition, under section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Anti-social behaviour is ‘behaviour which causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more people who are not in the same household as the perpetrator’. As you’ll appreciate, it’s entirely subjective.
ASBOs are used against all comers, sometimes in circumstances that would be hilarious if they weren’t so downright Orwellian. There’s the autistic kid prevented from using his trampoline, for example, or the woman ordered to stop answering her front door in the buff. Other jurisdictions have followed Britain’s lead (notably Ireland), and I’m concerned that Rudd is just the type to do something similar in Australia, particularly as he’s already equivocating on the Northern Territory Aboriginal intervention front. Professor Ian Loader, one of my tutors, found himself fielding questions on ASBOs when he visited Australia last year. He expressed concerns to me that a Blairite government could well follow Britain’s lead on the ASBO front, even if they’re rebadged in some way.
Although some of the British criminologists who opposed ASBOs from the get-go are now beginning to retreat – in part because Blair’s Britain is so relentlessly statist – I think it’s important to remember just what these things are, and to argue in a principled way for their abolition.
Oh, and to point out that when Peter Garrett suggested that, once Labor got in, it’d ‘change everything’, Australians probably won’t experience the sort of change that Garrett has in mind. Instead, you’ll get a dose of Blairism, Rudd-style.
There’s a temptation, when confronted with the issue of abolition, to seek to finesse one’s answer. It’s easy to say that yes, the ASBO in its current form should be abolished and replaced with something else that achieves the same effect – without derogating from fundamental rights, say, or overusing the criminal law. Or, alternatively, to argue that the ASBO should be modified in such a way as to render it less Orwellian, less punitive. I was sorely tempted down that path, but after much thought rejected it in favour of a maximizing argument.
My argument has three strands. The first is normative: I am philosophically opposed to placing this much definitional power in the state’s hands, and am willing to tolerate some social disorder in order to preserve personal liberty. The second is legal: ASBOs involve fairly serious injustices, particularly with criminal consequences following on from civil orders. As an added corollary, overuse of the criminal law ultimately derogates from its effectiveness. There is a strong case for making criminal sanctions our ‘sanctions of last resort’.
My final strand is empirical, and as such is always open to falsification. I’m simply not convinced that ASBOs are fit for the purpose for which they were designed. The law is a broadsword, not a scalpel, and using it in this way may well be ineffective. My third strand is thus an alternative to the first: the first argues that even if ASBOs ‘work’, they should still be abolished. The last argues that they don’t work, and should therefore be abolished.
Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State and Utopia and FA Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty inform my philosophical position. In brief, both scholars seek to confine the state to a relatively limited sphere, in Nozick’s case even more limited than Hayek. They do this as anti-perfectionist classical liberals. That is, they argue that to trust the state (or any large, wealthy body, like a corporation enjoying monopoly or monopsony power) with great power over the individual is to invite abuse of that power. The best we can hope for is to confine the state, both substantively and procedurally, and so delimit the scope of any abuse.
There is no doubt that ASBOs do confer great power on the state, and do so without preserving some traditional procedural safeguards. That they have been used against protesters, eccentrics and the mentally ill is evidence of the abuse of state power. As Andrew Ashworth has pointed out, section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (UK) adopts the ‘elephant’ approach to definition: an ASBO can be imposed with respect to behaviour ‘likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress’. As he goes on to argue, the orders can be [and have been] used against:
[U]npopular types, such as ex-offenders, loners, losers, weirdos, prostitutes, travellers, addicts, those subject to rumour and gossip, those regarded by the police or neighbours as having ‘got away’ with crime.
Of course, what Ashworth neglects to mention is that – this treasury of strange ASBO uses aside – many ASBOs (perhaps even the majority) have worked to improve a sense of community security. It is important for libertarians to remember that we too would find it irritating to live in an estate plastered with graffiti, or to have a next-door neighbour who turns his council house into a rubbish tip, or to be ‘sledged’ by teenagers on our way to the pub. Getting such people moved on is often a blessed relief for the community left to enjoy its ‘quiet life’.
It is also well to remember that until relatively recently – before Stephen Leavitt’s ‘abortion reduces crime’ discovery began to kick in – crime rose steeply during the 1960s and 70s, and people – particularly the poor – felt less secure for good reason. In that sense, conservative arguments about social dislocation and family breakdown due to rapid erosion of traditional values carry some weight. It is this phenomenon that led left-leaning criminologists like Jock Young to argue that we should ‘ake crime seriously’, in part because the poor bear its brunt. However, before we indulge in the (now common) romanticising of communitarian cultures, I should point out that they may be very ugly places in which to live.
Over time, I’ve come to believe a regime that respects individual rights more than group rights is preferable, in part because it provides room for individuals to flourish without having to pay too many ‘dues’. It may be that – even if ASBOs ‘work’ – we should be willing to tolerate some level of social disorder, rather than giving the state or local vigilantes such extensive power of definition when it comes to other peoples’ lives. In this, I am stating a normative preference for individual rights over group rights, and I appreciate that Razian perfectionists conceive of both state power and the individual’s role in it very differently. For them, the ASBO is less of a rights or justice concern.
Even Razian perfectionists may find aspects of the law underlying ASBOs concerning, however. The procedure itself is civil, but breach results in criminal sanctions with the potential for a heavy sentence (five years). The civil nature of the proceedings also abrogates the hearsay rule, although – to be fair – recent changes to the law of evidence in criminal proceedings (under the Criminal Evidence Act 2003) would probably permit considerable hearsay into ASBO hearings, were they criminalized.
It’s also worth pointing out that the House of Lords has construed the ‘standard’ issue narrowly in light of the European Convention on Human Rights, at a level commensurate with ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. In this, the Court in McCann seems to have developed a peculiarly English version of Dixon J’s ‘reasonable satisfaction’ in Briginshaw v Briginshaw, which is meant to operate at an intermediate point between ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and ‘balance of probabilities’. In Briginshaw, the High Court held that where a civil matter involves allegations of criminal conduct, fraud or moral wrongdoing that may lead to grave consequences for the defendant, the judicial approach should be closer scrutiny of the evidence.
Such quasi-constitutional protections – derived wholly from EU instruments, in this case Article 6(2), which allocates the persuasive burden of proof to the Crown beyond reasonable doubt in criminal matters – must be deployed with caution. It is possible to argue that ‘reading down’ provisions such that the Court undermines parliament’s explicit intent represents a form of judicial legislation that should not occur in a jurisdiction where parliament is so thoroughly supreme.
ASBOs have also led to imprisonment for offences that carry no custodial tariff, notably prostitution. Soliciting in the designated area leads to breach, and very often to custody, despite the fact that prostitution does not attract a custodial sentence, and hasn’t since the enactment of section 71 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 (UK). This is justified on the grounds that ASBOs are meant to be protective of the community, rather than punitive in their treatment of the ‘party who is breached’, although it is very tempting to say ‘offender’ at this point.
The imprisonment of prostitutes and beggars following breached ASBOs is emblematic of New Labour’s mission creep while in power. Since 1997, some 3000 new criminal offences have been created, quite apart from the regulatory regimes of which the ASBO is a small part. In economic terms, it is not efficient to prevent all crime, however compelling pious political statements about eradicating all crime may be. There comes a point when the marginal cost of deterring one additional theft is greater than that of an undeterred theft. As shocking as it may sound, the same logic applies even to murder and rape – there comes a time when allocating further resources to prevent serious crime is not Pareto-optimal – that is, it will not make any one person better off without also making someone else worse off. If this seems too coolly rational, consider that no society invests all or most of its resources in crime prevention, and recall that history is littered with cruelties perpetrated by societies boasting bloated police forces and an obese institutional state apparat.
In light of this economic reasoning, Jonathan Schonsheck argues that where non-criminal processes are as successful or more successful in reducing the incidence of a given action to a Pareto-optimal rate than criminal processes, and – this is important – are less coercive and intrusive than criminalisation, the state should prefer them. The ASBO, which has burdensome requirements and a sting in its breaching tail clearly fails Schonsheck’s ‘coercion and intrusion’ test. It is borne of a set of political values that – to quote Stuart Macdonald – not only have a ‘benevolent view of state power’, but are also strongly perfectionist and – I submit – illiberal in practice. It also stands in stark contrast to the fanfare with which the Government introduced the 1998 Human Rights Act, complete with Jack Straw’s classically anti-perfectionist speech, which included more than a few references to ‘the potential for the state to misuse the power vested in it’.
I argued earlier that – even if it ‘works’ in a utilitarian sense – the ASBO should be abolished. My strong suspicion, however, is that ASBOs are not fit for purpose. That is, they don’t ‘work’; they don’t make communities safer or solve social problems. At best, they move the problems geographically, especially with respect to prostitution, begging and would-be suicides. At worst, they exacerbate or bury problems, a phenomenon noted by charity for the homeless, Crisis, at least with respect to begging. Beggars and homeless people are shunted from district to district, and there is anecdotal evidence that some deliberately breach their ASBOs during autumn, because prison is warmer than the stoops outside shopping centres during winter.
Hard data are hard to come by, although a few figures are starting to trickle in. Andrew Ashworth notes that some 42% of ASBOs are breached, while MacDonald notes that they seem to be a vehicle for fast-tracking ‘problem’ young people into custody. Similarly, Scott Campbell in an early study (2002) found that 60% of those ‘ASBOed’ had mental health problems.
The ASBO’s failure to work as a true preventative is perhaps best assayed by the emergence of the ‘CRASBO’, a post-conviction ASBO (one wonders which acronym factory New Labour uses – some of these are truly dire). Although the CRASBO has the merit of imposition after sentence, it is also imposed in addition to sentence, raising the spectre of double punishment. Recent research by Elizabeth Burney suggests that some three quarters of all ASBOs are actually CRASBOs. That they appear to be more effective post-sentence strongly suggests lack of fitness for purpose, although it also suggests that the traditional criminal sanction isn’t doing a great deal of good either.
In light of this failure, one wonders what will come of the ‘control orders’ introduced pursuant to the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. These share many characteristics with ASBOs, particularly restricting movement or activities and a similarly civil procedure and concomitant criminal consequences for breach. Should they fail, the consequences are likely to be considerably more serious than broken windows in poor housing estates.
By way of contrast, it’s worth pointing out that the Queensland equivalent of the CRASBO, a ‘Parole Release Order’ under sections 160-160H of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) makes any such orders part of the sentence, not in addition to it, and normal rules of evidence and proportionality apply. Like the CRASBO, terms restricting the movements of an offender often form part of a Parole Release Order; it’s also common for drugs offenders to submit to urine testing regimes. As with CRASBOs, breach of Parole Release Orders result in custody, and some of the rhetoric supporting their use is undoubtedly slanted towards community protection rather than punishing the offender. The crucial difference is their locus within the criminal law, not outside it.
That other common law jurisdictions have proven able to tackle similar social problems to those present in the UK without (a) engaging in exaggerated statist control over individuals, (b) derogating from fundamental legal procedural rights or (c) misusing through sheer superfluity the instrumentalist power of the criminal law suggests that the ASBO should be sent on its way. This is not to pretend that Australia is some sort of rights paradise or that English society is an utter shambles. It is instead to reassert the law’s limitations, and to accept that in some cases it doesn’t work very well. Perhaps, too, it should remind us – in Benjamin Franklin’s famous quip – that those who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
117 Comments
It’s simply amazing that something like that would be considered let alone put into place. From my reading of the situation it’s simply a mechanism whereby anyone can be castigated on the say so of someone else for whatever reason. This is somewhat like a postmodern Salem, Massachussets. There might be advantages. Can I have participants in reality shows, Australian Idol contestants and anyone who’s ever been to Hillsong locked up?
What’s even sadder if you consider this, along with the normalisation of torture, the relative indifference to the suspension of habeas corpus because of terrorism and the curtailment of perfectly legitimate political criticism for the same reason – is that people in general are apathetic. Does this indicate a decline in the ethos necessary to democratic life? A funtioning democracy requires a certain vigilance amongst the citizenry. Trouble is, it also facilitates self-indulgence, which, if it goes too far, makes people unfit to govern themselves.
One thing’ for certain is that ‘community’ is not generated by laws but by interpersonal behaviour and attitudes. Unfortunately politicians and many others simply don’t understand this. See a problem, make a law. Trouble is it’s an approach that backfires. If you introduce laws that cannot be enforced the result is that people lose respect for the law in general.
If Kevvie tries that on here I reckon there should be a bit of a brawl about it. I volunteer.
Oustanding post Skeptic.
Check out the talking CCTV, Adrien. You’ve never seen anything like it… oh, and the ‘ASBOwatch’ link, with a real treasure-trove of nutty ASBOs.
I hadn’t meant to get all analytical so soon after the election, but Rudd’s so like Blair it’s spooky – even some of the mannerisms (like the neverending rhetorical questions) are similar.
Great having some snotnose brat tut-tut-tutting jaywalkers. That’ll work. Memo to minister: this scheme is properly filed under – Rock, Nothing a good one won’t fix.
If Kevvie was made in the same factory as Blair does that mean he will slowly morph into a gargoyle looking freak? Actually I think Kevvie’s one of the garden gnome models. Have him grow a small beard and put a pointy cap on him. Stick him in the grass.
Mr Rudd:
1. Where are these razor gangs?
2. When will you restore States rights?
3. When will you repeal the ASIO Act?
Adrien 99% of people are indifferent to these things because it does not affect their lives in any way. It is THAT simple. I would say most people don’t even know about these laws.
I lived in England when Blair became the leader of the Labor party after the sudden death of John Smith. Unlike Rudd, Blair has an amazing harizma and rhetorical skills that easily match those of Bill Clinton – but with some substance. And Blair now has huge achievements to his credit, most important of which is peace in Northern Ireland. And how Blair and Brown has managed to tranform the old Labor party into the New Labor in a matter of months was phenomenal.
It is interesting if Rudd can emulate any of this.
This issue brings me to mind of Rafe’s formula for liberal society which is:
1. Rule of law
2. Free market
3. Firm morality
The third is the least discussed and most benighted aspect of liberal society ironically because of liberal society. People are free-er to move geographically, to live how they wish and to believe what they wish and, whilst I’d loathe to have it any other way, that leads to a potentially fragmentary culture.
What common morality can be said to be shared by a staunchly traditional member of a Church, an enthusiastic participant in some new offshoot Christian cult like the Exclusive Bretheren, some non-Abrahamic cult like the Hare Krishna movement, non-Christian and currently demonised traditions like Islam and various forms of secular lifestyle like scientific aetheism, neo-paganism, non-spiritual bohemia and hedonistic consumerism? To deploy a strong moral code is to make an imposition. In the absence of such however you can get a form of contemporary tribalism whereby lack of consideration even blunt discourtesy to strangers becomes normal.
Hence Blair’s make people behave legislation.
Of course you can’t legislate for social harmony. Deploy talking CCTV cameras with kids scolding pressured adults for spitting or running red lights and the reaction will be hostility, ironic detachment or simply vandalism. Imagine the reaction of an adult labouring to honour a mortgage, pressed with several deadlines in a highly competative industry and having a bad day; the adult, late for a meeting, jaywalks and, hearing some kids saying some PR nerd’s version of moral admonishment goes ballistic with a cricket bat. Not so hard a scene to imagine.
I believe many of the arguments that are addressed by political means these days are more properly placed in the realm of ethics. Unfortunately there’s a strange absence of will to empowerment in the private field. People will happily throw a tantrum when the latte they order comes as a cappucino but when they witness daily gross rude behaviour they’ll remain silent until, in private, they’ll rant about ‘someone’ doing ‘something’. The someone is almost always the government. The something is almost always the law. And neither is equipped to deal with the problem.
A few weeks ago I recommended this elegant book which is not so much, as the title infers, an etiquette guide as a short work on practical philosophy. The author considers the problem of the explosion of legislation, the tendency to hyper-competative, brutally ruthless workplaces and the like and suggests the ressurection of ettiquette might address these problems in a small fashion.
As she argues morality is both intrusive and so varied that it is difficult to rely on as a social glue. But if the key is not glue so much as lubricant, manners go a long way. The difficulty as she infers is that our received ettiquette comes from aristocratic society in which a pyramid society is rigidly enforced via a set of proscribed behaviours by which one’s place is constantly reinforced. This is for obvious reasons inappropriate in a democracy.
One of the episiodes she relates to is her address at a Rotary Club meeting. She’s quite honest and amusing about the antiquated atmosphere of the club and its quaint aesthetics but as she says such organisations are great sources of actual community coherance, free association for the prupose of doing public works and good manners.
Perhaps what’s needed is a new 21st century version of the Rotary Club, a fresh manifestation of something that, whilst not strictly political helps compliment and refine the body politic.
Boris – Adrien 99% of people are indifferent to these things because it does not affect their lives in any way. It is THAT simple. I would say most people don’t even know about these laws.
Speaking as someone who’s frequently founf himself in the 1% I can’t say I’m unconcerned. A crowd is a nasty thing. Most people by definition are in the crowd. But a free society means that people have a right to be weird. These sorts of laws potentially erode a persons capacity to be different. They are so broad as to provide the opportunity for use by the bullying majority. But they also take away ourresponsibility to sort ourselves out in a civil manner. I find myself these days to be daily appalled by the venality that passes for acceptable behaviour but still I’d be strongly opposed to laws such as these here.
And how Blair and Brown has managed to tranform the old Labor party into the New Labor in a matter of months was phenomenal.
Blair’s New Labour was based on the Hawkeating model. We’re exporters of refined goods for once.
Adrien you are right about the tyranny of the majority. But this is the side effect of democracy. I wonder if there are any remedies. The only one I know is based on constitutional constraints such as US bill of rights. But with 99% majorty even this can be overturned…
Well I’d say that’s it’s a side-effect of human nature that gets countered by politics. The tyranny of the majority was much more terrifying in the Nazi state than in a democracy because in a democracy the minority position is safeguarded and given room and opportunity.
The remedy isn’t just constitutional restraints but also vigilance against laws such as these and an ethos that tolerates diversity. I see people every day I don’t approve of for a variety of reasons: they dress badly, they rev up their cars, they screech into their mobiles, they buy Britney Spears records blah blah blah. But I don’t dream for a second that I should ban them. There are people who don’t see a problem with this, politicians tend to belong to this group disproportionally. So vigilant opposition is required.
If Blair-Lite is Australia’s future, then I’d suggest a close study of Fabian Tassano’s Mediocracy blog, which has featured many analyses of the original.
Watch out Boris, remember the story that runs like this…
They came and took away the Jews, but i didn’t worry because I am gentile.
Then they came and took away the offspinners, so Rafe was gone but I was ok because i bowl seamers.
And so on
And then they came to take me and there was nobody left to help.
Or something like that.
Rafe you are right. But what’s the solution?
.Just as Blair was Thatcher-lite, Rudd is Howard-lite, with the crucial difference that Rudd appears – at least superficially – to be even more of a big government conservative that Howard.
Oh please , Sl let’s not get ahead of ourselves here. Blair praised Maggie and told the people that her legacies were lasting ones. Brown has said pretty much the same. They said this although being what they are- lefties- they never really meant it.
running on a plank of repudiating labor market reform is hardly Balir like.
“If Kevvie tries that on here I reckon there should be a bit of a brawl about it. I volunteer.”
It would have to be the states anyway, and since most of the state labor governments have been in power for a long time and haven’t tried it yet, and since law and order has never been less of an issue than it is now, I think we are pretty safe.
Great original post, BTW.
Check out the “hate speech” legislation in Victoria!
Blair’s much vaunted peace in Northern Ireland had a great deal more to do with financial support for the IRA drying up after 9/11. All those New Yoik Irishmen who’d been happy to pop a dime into the tin ‘for the widders an the orphans’ suddenly appreciated what terrorism felt like and stopped.
Agree that Blair is an impressive speaker, which Rudd isn’t, although Rudd writes his own. Blair had Alistair Campbell, quite possibly the greatest spin-doctor post-Goebbles.
SL, sorry you are mistaken on a few counts. First of all, the landmark Good Friday Agreement was signed in 1998, 3 years before 9/11. This was the turning point. This resulted from a long trend of declining IRA support.
But more importantly, you confuse the objective reasons (declining IRA support) with subjective reasons. Nobody in their sound mind would say that everyone was in the mood to fight and here came Blair and single-handedly made peace. Sure there were right conditions for peace and a degree of willingness on all sides. But to translate that into solid agreements and arrangements takes both huge political will and skill. This is what Blair should be rightly credited for.
Sorry to come over all realist, Boris, but the Good Friday Agreement achieved very little in the years immediately after it was signed, as this list of terrorist attacks in the UK indicates. Within 12 months of the agreement, the catastrophic Omagh Bombing took place – probably the worst terrorist atrocity ever carried out in the name of Irish Republicanism. You’ll note, though, that nothing IRA-ish took place after 9/11. Blairistas love to claim credit for the drop in IRA/Splinter Group attacks, but it is not fair or reasonable for them to do so.
I hadn’t intended for this to become a thread about the IRA, or to suggest that Blair’s government was entirely without merit. That said, he achieved very little as Prime Minister apart from proving his capacity to retain power, and drew Britain into the catastrophic mess in Iraq (which has cost 173 Britons their lives). The economy did well without him – although to be fair he left the bulk of Thatcher’s monetary and union reforms intact. Britain would have listed even more badly had he not done so.
Britain isn’t exactly in a healthy economic state under these two, Sl.
Despite or rather in spite of the economy doing the better than the rest in Europe (the big players) over these years of labor, they still managed to scrape together a budget deficit. The threw everything, including the kitchen sink at health and ed but they are still a mess.
They raised taxes by stealth and they still managed to spend more than they took in.
In fact, its the City that is holding thm up. Take away the financial markets and these guys are really in the shit soup.
SL, I still believe those who put in place the peace process should be credited for it. The process was started by John Major and embraced by Tony Blair. To me they deserve credit for it.
It is wrong to say that Good Friday agreement achieved little. I remember Omah bombing. It was done by a splinter group unhappy at the IRA opportunism in signing the agreement. I remember my hawkish Israeli friends giving it as an example of the failure of the peace process. But in the end, it did work, even if 9/11 helped.
IRA was losing grass roots support long before 9/11. In addition, the London’s statement that the UK has no strategic interests in Northern Ireland took a lot of steam out of their support base.
Of course there was also the devolution in Scotland and Wales. Sorry it was off topic.
Yair I forgot the deficit, JC. I know a lot of British people are stunned at where all the money goes – this government is raking it in tax-wise (GST is 17.5% over here, with similar income tax rates to Australia). The UK also has pretty punitive inheritance taxes (and an equally arcane legal regime for avoiding same). It just seems to disappear, and no-one can work out where. Education is even more busted than the NHS, although both are hideously expensive line items in the UK budget.
Agree that many ordinary Irish people were over the IRA and its various offshoots – I’m wondering to what extent rising prosperity facilitated this. Both Eire and Northern Ireland are doing well economically these days, and Eire has always had a solid educational tradition on which it could rely.
SL
They have tipped in 1.7 trillion pounds into the NHS since they have been in government and it still stinks.
They now have more administrators than teachers in Ed.
Brown has been a disgrace in fiscal policy after doing the hard yards and hopefully will be defeated next time.
I think the only simialrity between Rudd and Blair apart from being liberal anglo-catholics 9 which means they don’t know whether they are arthur or martha0 is that they did/will adopt the best of what they inherited/ will inherit and discard what is not good.
I thought howard and rudd were quite gracious in their speeched .
Rudd did as I expected in praising Howard for his public service.
Homer it is an end of an era and probably time for you to change your moniker. We don’t know what is happenning with CL and most people have no clue what it means.
CL’s still alive and kicking – at least I can tell punters that – but he’s on extended blog hiatus and also took (recently) a lengthy holiday. I’d like him back around these parts, too, but that’s up to him. Maybe just ‘Bring Back CL’?
It is never an end of an era Boris and most certainly should not be the end of CL’s blog.
Anyone notice what’s going to be Rudd’s undoing. It was there yesterday if you looked for it. It ain’t politics.
He ordered the cabinet/parliamentary party to go to schools and report back.
This is why his party members hated the little bureaucratic prick. These people are adults and their getting told to go to school and report back just after a big win. It as though he’s the school master.
He won’t last two years as the party will hate him so much they’ll get rid of him.
“He won’t last two years as the party will hate him so much they’ll get rid of him.”
Wanna bet, JC? Granted this was a silly thing to say, and granted Rudd is a control freak not greatly loved. But in politics you don’t need to be loved (“if you want a friend, get a dog”) – you just need to be admired, respected, feared at least a little and above all, be able to get results. On the personal side, Rudd’s great personal strength is his missus who will help keep him grounded and human. He’ll be around longer than two years, baring the proverbial “political bus” that can come along at any time.
MetroMick:
If he keeps playing out those games by ordering around adults like they were kids he’s fucked. No one admires people like that. They just end up hating the boss and undermining him at every turn.
organization theory these days tells you that it is the worst possible way to run a team. Fear and loathing doesn’t work.
JC, your point is amply refuted by a moments’ reflection on the outgoing PM. Viscerally hated by most of his colleagues and many of those who voted for him.
JC,
in politics you keep people in as leaders even though you hate them because they win.
you get rid of them the minute they look like losing.
My guess is he will continue to look like a winner even when he isn’t ( like Keating and howard).
He great problem is the probability of a recession or slowdown soon unless he acts on fiscal policy
Agree, FDB. It was after all Howard’s colleagues who described him as “a lying little rodent” and “mean and tricky”. And for the record JC, the dynamics of a political party, especially one in government, bears little comparison to those of an office workplace. (You’re a graduate of Adien the Amateur Analyst’s school of political commentary aren’t you?) Oh, and I notice you haven’t taken up my offer of a bet to back up the assertions flowing from those loose lips of yours. Umm?
OT: Does anyone know what’s happened to LP and Troppo? Both sites are borked. LP has a backup site going, but their main one seems to be haddit and the backup’s really slow. Troppo has just vanished.
SL – LP’s upgrading to a new server, which is taking forever. It’s been maybe 3 weeks now. Troppo’s been fine (or as fine as the poor jinxed buggers have ever been) till today – I’d say their server’s down again.
Hey, don’t speak too soon – not so long ago it was us! Touch wood we’ve had a pretty decent run lately.
Rudd is now squeaking on about workers rights and he and the ACTU are making noises about any delay to repealing WorkChoices.
Funny, the ACTU and Rudd are directing the senate how to vote – what happened to the mandate given by the voters for balance of power?
“Funny, the ACTU and Rudd are directing the senate how to vote – what happened to the mandate given by the voters for balance of power?”
Wow, bullying the senate and taking it for granted. Where have I seen that before?
Hmm, PJK?
Minchin makes the point that the Libs had a mandate yet the ALP blocked the senate every time
If Rudd starts getting up himself the honeymoon will be over real soon.
On election night Rudd said he was for conciliation and ending the bad old days of dispute between factions.
Today he referred to James Hardie as that company despite Combet saying that both he and the late Banton held no bad feelings to JH.
Rudd needs a minder.
“If Rudd starts getting up himself the honeymoon will be over real soon.”
Wasn’t that meant to happen in April sometime?
Face it Rog, Rudd has ample time and opportunity to prove his worth, thanks to the arrogance, divisiveness and out-of-touch bullshit that’s been raining on our heads for the last decade. I’ll make it real simple for you – nobody EVER liked Howard, as a man or politician. That they can now try to forget him is a massive relief, and they’ll look kindly on Rudd pretty much regardless of what he does for a long while to come.
rog,
if the senate rejects rud’s workchoices bill we would have a double dissolution.
“what happened to the mandate given by the voters for balance of power?”
Rog, mate … WorkChoices was political poison, the punters have spoken (look what happened in Dawson). As for the balance of power, well, the Greens may yet have that in their own right come July 1 next and their IR policy has even more anti-WorkChoices than Labor’s!!!! You lost son. You lost fair and square. In fact, it was a thumping. Skip aggravation and denial – move straight to acceptance and get on with life, there’s a good Tory.
The ALP only have an eight seat majority so far. Work Choices was the final item on a list of things which pissed off a broad spectrum of people.
I doubt Howard was ever really popular as opposed to least unpopular. Comparative advantage amongst used car salesmen. He lost the primary vote in 1998 (even though Hewson won it in 1993 with a much more dry agenda) and thus almost lost office after 2 years. He only trounced Latham and Keating because of their unpopularity – much how Rudd beat him.
Never admit Howard was popular Michael. The tories will keep this bullshit going for years.
Rudd will have to negotiate with the Senate, the voters did not give him carte blanche to both houses. If he goes with the greens he will incur additional costs and he doesnt want a wages blow out. The RBA will be very quick to hike % if he does.
There will have to be give and take on WC
Wages blowout? You’ve been gulled by some idiot Keynesians.
it will cause unemployment. High wages do not lower the value of money. They just stop markets clearing at a certain rate.
WorkChoices was a killer – but to be fair to Rudd, he worked damn hard and played his cards very well. Howard didn’t. Previously Howard had been content to let obsolete institutions wither on the vine (some journo called this the rotting pier approach, but I can’t recall which one or where) – but with IR he didn’t, he went for the kill and failed.
Whether the honeymoon ends sooner rather than later depends on his ability to keep his party under control (reasonably good right now) and whether the economy continues to perform – with a 50% of US recession that may be harder.
I have to admit that Homer was right and I was wrong, Howard lost Bennelong.
I doubt there would be a double-dissolution on WorkChoices. Rudd is cautious – you can’t know what’ll happen in the Senate at a double-dissolution.
The anti WC campaign was a sophisticated media campaign, thats all it was
we haven’t had a wages blow-out since 1979 so it would take a brave man to forecast one now.
If fiscal policy isn’t tightened then indeed wages wil rise but that is only because labour is in short supply.
There will only be a double dissolution if the senate rejects rudd’s legislation and I cannot see that.
US debt markets a saying the US will have a recession but US sharemarkets are saying only a slowdown if that.
Who is right?
“Tracy” lives in semi rural/regional seats up the east coast of Australia, where the biggest swings were.
#48 – and it worked. If you want to tell people they have never had it better, they have to believe you.
Jeez, Rog, give yourself a break. If the senate blocks the repeal of WC, as Homer says we’re talking double dissolution. This would see y’all losing even more seats.
R.E.A.L.P.O.L.I.T.I.K. – the bitter pill of opposition. At least try not to chew on it mate!
So rog your arguement seems to be that WorkChoices is a good thing, that it was only killed off by a slick media campaign, and that the Libs have every right to block changes in the Senate. Tell you what sunshine, I’ll have a bet with you. I’ll bet you that in the end the Libs will not block Labor’s changes in the Senate. Further, I’ll bet you that they will dump WorkChoices just as surely as they are dumping opposition to ratifying the Kyoto protocol. If you make the bet big enough, I’ll even offer odds? What do you say?
And Mark, it is incorrect to say that “The ALP only have an eight seat majority so far”. The AEC site currently gives the ALP 83 seats and the Libs, Nats and Independents 60. That is a majority of 23 with 7 in doubt. In the unlikely event they all went to the Coalition, that would still give Labor a majority of 16 (and both Windsor and Katter will sometimes vote with them). I think what you mean is that Labor has 8 more than the number they needed for a hung Parliament, 75?
And BTW, when did I “admit that Howard was popular”? Don’t think I have, ’cause I’ve never believed it. I’ve never believed he was “loved” like Hawke was – just that the punters thought he was the best bet at the time.
Who is right?
The RBA has a bob each way hinting at a future inflation that is excessive and hard to control.
Rudd will have to keep a look out for Tracy.
C’mon rog … you reckon that WorkChoices is great and that the Libs will block it in the Senate as they have every right to do (despite the huge mandate given to Labor on Saturday). I say it is political poison that the Libs will back away from quick smart in the post-Howard era? Place your bet rog. Odds on offer if you make the wager big enough?
No Mick, I said it would be negotiated, give and take.
Negotiations are based on presenting opposing views and seeking agreement betwen both sides, something that Rudd promised. Both sides have to prepare their case, Minchin started his on election night.
At the end of the day there will be some IR reform, its only the Greens that want it chucked out completely.
#47 I was surprised when Howard appealed to employer groups to defend WC, Ridout said they wouldnt as they were a-political. It seemed that the Libs had been totally unprepared for the media campaign against WC.
Yeh sure, I bet $1,000 that I am right and I will give you 5 days to settle.
Ridout wouldn’t know her arse from her elbow. I don’t care how much more money she has than me. Unless she wants to give some to me or the LDP.
Why didn’t they support the 30/30 tax reform?
Idiots.
There have been six double dissolution elections since 1901. But as far as I can see there has only been one joint sitting leading to the passage of the legislation. A double dissolution election couldn’t happen for some time either, so if Mr Rudd can’t get his legislation through the senate (before 2.5 years time), he is sitting on a huge broken promise.
The long and the short of it is that some compromise with the liberals will have to be nutted out. Unless the ALP can bribe the Nationals in a separate deal (not too difficult actually). The Greens won’t compromise on immediate abolition and Mr Rudd has said he won’t compromise with them either.
“At the end of the day there will be some IR reform … “ Nice dodge and switch rog, but in fact what we are talking about is the winding back of Howard’s IR changes, aka WC. And you were arguing that the Libs had a mandate to block Labor’s changes. That’s crap – they do not. But, in any case, WorkChoices is now dead and as good as buried and I’ll bet you that this ends up being the Liberal’s position as they re-invent themselves post-Howard as the ‘Not Howard’ Liberal Party.
Seems like another offer of a bet is going begging. What’s a bloke got to do to get a bet on here? It couldn’t be the case that Catallaxians have more mouth than ticker, could it? I reckon I’ve thrown up a good dozen offers to bet (a few to JC, at least one each to Jason, JC, Sinkers and Adrien) and no takers. Talk is cheap folks ….
rog – well yes. There is a market for ideas; WorkChoices was a very big idea and the Libs didn’t prepare the groundwork nor did they sell it very well. The unions were slowly dying off by themselves and should have been allowed to drift off into irrelevancy.
No Michael there probably will be some reform. (Thankfully). The Act is flawed, IR law experts have difficulty in applying it and it attacks Federalism.
MF – for as long as you are an apparently unemployed and pseudonymous poster, you can’t expect anyone to take a bet with you. In any event your bets are ambiguous, and I already have a climate change bet going.
Sinkers, what makes you think I’m either unemployed or pseudonymous? In the words of a great Catallaxian, where’s your evidence, fella? (Or as I would say, wanna bet?)
And rog, I missed your comment, #58? You want to bet that the Libs will back WorkChoices by opposing Labor’s proposed changes in the Senate? $1000, straight up and down, five days to settle after the Senate vote is taken? If so, you are on!
I bet that Mick is a wanker, thats another $1,000 he owes me.
Crikey, this got derailed in a hurry… please keep it polite, folks – ’tain’t the open thread, and I’m writing an essay so can’t supervise much. Just on the bets front, in the past people have donated to a favourite charity. JF Beck had contacts with one that kept online records, so people could see who’d paid up, and how much.
FDB
Howard didn’t send his colleagues out to schools. Personally I would have told him to go fuck himself.
What a bureacratic little pissant.
#59 – the point was more that the Libs were totally unprepared for the slick media campaign prepared by the ACTU – despite plenty of advance warning.
MF – I’m sure you’re parents didn’t name you “F” – although I’m sure you got called “F” from time to time, perhaps all the time. The fact that you hang around here, all the time during normal working hours, indicates that you have heaps of spare time, so on balance unemployed. No doubt you can produce evidence consistent with being employed and I’ll be happy to see it.
So rog, are you accepting the bet as outlined in #65? Yes or no will do.
Sorry SL – what are we supposed to be discusing here? “‘anti-social behaviour order”, yep, and we have Mr Anti-social right here – encouraging people to gamble. tsk, tsk.
Hey Sinkers, what are you so cranky about. And what’s this business about flinging around the insults and untrue statements, and they demanding that I prove they are not false! Ugly stuff. Has Howard’s end upset you pet? Don’t worry, I reckon he is only guaranteed a minimum of 10 years in power .. it’ll pass soon enough. For the record Sinkers, I have a good source of income from gainful activity and I am who I am. Get over it.
If people are going to drop money (even a gorilla or three) over petty stuff, least I can do is make sure the dosh goes somewhere where it’ll do some good…
LOL. me cranky, never. minimum 10 years? I think Rudd himself will be gone in 9 max. whether the ALP is gone in nine, I don’t know. No party is going to keep leaders around for too long after Saturday. That’s assuming he wins further elections and doesnt get bumped off by his colleagues before that.
I’ve already asserted that I am right, so you owe me. Whats more, I also bet that you will welsh on the deal, another lay down misere.
“No party is going to keep leaders around for too long after Saturday.”
I think you’re right Sinkers.
They’ll be on the lookout for someone who can tell a joke and sound natural, for starters. Eleven years of the second-most boring speaker ever, followed by the most, is an unpalatable prospect. I believe that when a leader is fun to listen to, people get more interested in politics and policies. This can only be a good thing.
“No party is going to keep leaders around for too long after Saturday.”
I think you’re right Sinkers.
They’ll be on the lookout for someone who can tell a joke and sound natural, for starters. Eleven years of the second-most boring speaker ever, followed by the most, is an unpalatable prospect. I believe that when a leader is fun to listen to, people get more interested in politics and policies. This can only be a good thing.
The Greens won’t compromise on immediate abolition and Mr Rudd has said he won’t compromise with them either.
That will be a very interesting episode when it happens. If the Greens stalemate Rudd then WorkChoices will stay by default, if they do a deal they’ll have ‘sold out’. Welcome to the grown-up playground kiddies.
Sinkers, point taken on Rudd not being around in 10. On reflection, he is likely to go sooner. That was a rhetorical flourish from me to underline the point that he’ll be around for a while (I think the times will suit him) in response to JC’s stupid “he’ll be gone in two years” assertion.
And rog … can you cut to the chase and clearly and deliberately spell out the bet you want to accept. If it is the one outlined by me at #65 … you are on. I’ve never welshed on bet and don’t intend to start with you sunshine.
#65 is not what the bet is about, its just more evasion, you just cant accept that I am right.
Pay up or shut up.
Just so we are clear, you have 5 calendar days to pay up after which interest will be applied, at current Supreme Court rates. Compounding.
Being a battler (“soccer dad”) I cant afford to carry you.
Well you recently wlshed on a bet with me, metromick, you dishonest skunk.
Rog don’t trust him for a second. He won’t pay up and disappear if he loses.
rog … just one little point … what’s the bet that you reckon you and have had agreed to? You seem to be getting ahead of yourself here rog.
What bet JC? I say that you are a lying jerk and that you have squibbed taking each and every bet I’ve ever offered to you. But, you say that I “recently wlshed (sic) on a bet with” you. Since it’s recent, you have no trouble recalling precisely what it was about, and providing a link to it. (This’ll be good folks. The jerk is lying and is about to be caught cold at Like Adrien on the other thread.)
I bet 50¢ that Mickey will be unable to say anything useful or interesting ever.
Sorry make that 25¢. I don’t want to deprive Mickey of his entire annual income.
OK mick, I say I am right and you agree with me – yes or no? Shouldn’t take you too long to make up your mind, should it?
I am trying very hard to keep it simple but obviously in this instance my best is not good enough.
Dearie me, its more fun taking a mystery bet on the TAB. Gallopers, trotters or dogs. At least they pay up, go you good thing!
Say you are right about what exactly rog? You do understand how this betting thing works don’t you? We negotiate the actual bet, and the stake, perhaps even odds, and then agree on it. You simply saying you are right about something (which you don’t specify) followed by demands that pay you money is an approach to betting most people give up on at age five.
You simply saying you are right about something (which you don’t specify) followed by demands that pay you money is an approach to betting most people give up on at age five.
Well he trying to communicate with you on a level at which you’re compatent.
Really? we negotiate a bet?
Bang goes all your other ambit claims.
You’d be better off doodling some charcoal dwgs than trying to tell me how to suck eggs
I’m sorry Michael. I’m sooooo sorry. I was abusive and rude and I didn’t realise. I didn’t understand. Everyone please be understanding. Metromick is a human being and he needs understanding. He needs help.
A cursory analysis of his commentary on this thread shows this clearly:
Percentage of Metromick’s comments addressing thread topic: 0%
Percentage inciting to a wager: 84.6%
Oh Mickey how can I make it up to you? Please son. Get the help you need. And if that doesn’t help. This will.
Just to be clear, Micks not a journo in fact he wouldnt make a journos shoe laces.
Or earwax, his brushes with fame are on paper only, charcoal and watercolour.
More wishy more washy
He draws stick figures for a living and calls it ‘art’
Now that’s not Stalker’s Mickey F site. So which is it?
Pretty low, Rog.
Metro might be a twat but he should be allowed to remain anonymous if he wishes.
I agree. They shouldn’t have shown Jackie Kelly’s house on TV either, even if most of Penrith knows where it is.
Fucking disgraceful.
Umm I don’t think anyone has any evidence that that is really him. why would it be?
Okay then. Lame, petty and potentially fucking disgraceful.
Whoever the fuck “rog” is just has a bee in his bonnet about his Dear Leader getting turfed out on his ear.
FDB
Nanuestalker and rog between them have come up with two completely different candidates for MichaelF’s identity. Even I don’t know who the fuck he is and I’m the administrator.
what are you getting so worked up about? all they’ve done is use Google which everyone has access to.
#98 – I reckon you’re getting a little too upset about this FDB. After all if someone want to remain utterley anonymous on the internet all they can take steps to do so.
theres clingons on the starboard bow
starboard bow
starboard bow
theres clingons on the starboard bow
starboard bow
jim
its life jim
but not as we know it
not as we know it
not as we know it
its life jim
but not as we know it
not as we know it captain
star trecking across the universe
on the starship enterprise
under captain kirk
star trecking across the universe
slowly going forward
still cant find reverse
Sorry couldn’t help myself? Must be the Green eyed monster in me
Metro:
Ii was a little while ago and you welshed on a bet. Just skulked away like a mangy dog trying but unable to steal food.
Z
Fatfingers did the same to me on another site and he wasn’t even engaging in thread.
Fyodor and Nabakov had done that too.. Fyodor tried to publish Birdie’s place of work and it turned out to be the wrong person. That’s why Fyodor ( Rasputia) haven’t got along as I though it was lowest thing ever done.
So what Rog has done is not new and seems to be accepted practice by lefties.
I know Fathead’s real name by the way, but I wouldn’t publish it as I believe in the right to people owing their privacy however lefties wouldn’t even think of that as those fuckers have just shown.
Personally I think it was a good thing, metro Mick was outed after what he did to Sl. I wouldn’t do it, but it serves him right.
Jc – I recall that I criticised Fyodor for trying to out the turkey. I also think it’s lousy to use your real name on blog threads.
Jason – the reason it’s low is because it creates a bi-directional link between your moniker and your identity.
I don’t really care if people on these forums know who I am. What I don’t want is for people who google my real name to find my blog comments.
I imagine metro feels the same.
Umm may I remind people that nothing has been proven. This is like me claiming that Currency Lad is really Tony Abbot based on their similar views and CL’s strange absences. For all we know Michael F’s real name may not be Michael or have an F in it. There are dozens of Walkley winners.
I know Jason, it doesn’t look like Mick has been outed this time but in general I think there should be strong pressure not to do it.
“we negotiate a bet?” Yes rog, we negotiate the bet, or to be precise, we negotiate the terms of the bet … that is, what we agree precisely it is we are betting on. (Seems I do have to teach you how to suck eggs hey?) I set out my terms at #65, and all you’ve done is demand money for nothing. But in any case, it’s a moot point because by now I’m sure even you’ve noticed that the Libs are running away from WorkChoices at warp speed. As I said they would. Your talk about mandates and the Senate blocking Labor’s changes was shown to be meaningless hot air in less time then it takes me to expose Adrien’s latest mendacity.
JC, where I come from, accusing a man of welshing on a bet would earn you a well-deserved hiding. As things stand you’ve got one coming and I’ll happily do the honours at the time and place of your choosing, you gormless little worm. Of course, you could delight your friends and my critics by proving that such a thing ever occurred. Except that it didn’t, which presents you with a major problem. You first claimed that this “welshing” occurred recently. Now you say it was a while back. Put up or shut up JC … what was this bet about? When? Where’s your link to it? Spineless toad. (And for the record, all I “did to SL” was respond to attempts to re-write history by proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that she perpetrated a deliberate fraud on the public and publishers, passing off anti-Semitic fantasy as being a true story for personal gain. You got a problem with that?)
We negotiate the terms of the bet …I must have nodded off, we have?
We have yet to agree on the substance of the bet, turnip head.
#65 is an ambit claim, extracted from thin air, a typical leftist construction with no basis in fact. You want me to negotiate on your ambit claim..
..you wish..
“Fatfingers did the same to me on another site”
I didn’t out you. You used to post under your real name (I think – I don’t have any evidence and I don’t care anyway) and then changed to your initials, which is hardly going anonymous. I thought you might be using a pseud to get around being banned at Jeremy’s site (not an unlikely possibility, you must admit) and thought it only fair to alert him. It turns out it wasn’t necessary – Jeremy didn’t know ‘real anon’ was ‘JC’, but didn’t mind what name you used since you weren’t banned. So what should I apologise for? Have you been hurt in any way?
“and he wasn’t even engaging in thread.”
Well, I was – my off-topic remark about you was an aside to the point I was making about the subject. But why let the facts get in the way of a good bitching?
Like him or hate him, Ironbar tuckey makes a good case for sticking to your guns.
Menzies did, he lost the PM to spend 6 years in opposition before winning 16 years and retiring on a high.
Metro:
Please! This angry Anderson look you’re trying to portray is really unbecoming even for a seedy little vermin like you.
You welshed the bet and now you’re trying to cover it up by preaching violence. That’s amusing.
I’m not going to go over pages and pages of threads to prove my point as it simply isn’t worth it.
You walked away from the bet.
And by the way, you had better make your first shot the best shot because you won’t get another.
My comment on the great ethical “outting” debate here:
http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=3297#comment-68149
JC, you can’t even loosely describe the substance of what this bet was meant to be about … because no such thing occurred. You lied, you made it up. And if ever our paths cross (blog drinks or some such) I put you on notice that I intend to give you a good old fashioned hiding. And for the record JC, I point you to the law of the land as it pertains to “provocation” – that is, if provoked, I am at law able to use reasonable force in response. I regard your baseless lie about me welshing on a bet as severe provocation. I am hereby warning you never to cross my path, because in such circumstances, I view your presence (without a retraction and an apology) as a severe provocation. In such circumstances, and having due regard to the law and this warning and the opportunities I have given you to put up or shut up, I intend to smash you into the middle of next week. You are a lying, gormless, spineless, completely dishonest and dishonourable little shit. You have it coming.
Metro
I waiting with baited breath.LOL Go away you stooge. And you had better have a good explanation why you attacked SL the way you did. think of an excuse pretty quickly because I’ll fucking rip your head off and shit down your neck, you pathetic little troll.
It only stopped when you were made aware that you seemed to be obssessing about her in some unnatural way…. for weeks
And don’t make me laugh…… that you finally found ethical vitures. You welshed on a bet and are now angry at the accusation yet you went for SL like a crazed serial obssessive.. You sordid little welsher.
Fats
It was pretty bad shit what you did. It was nosing around not minding your own business (agreed?).
Putting up my name on a thread when I am not using my name is outing someone, Fats. I can’t understand how you would deny the obvious. I really can’t.
Now why would you think I was banned? What would make you think I was banned other than your imagination. I actually quite like lefty and I think he doesn’t mind me. I think his politics sucks and being a Green supporter must mean he is brain damaged in some unfortunate way, but he is funny and sometimes also amusing in the way he tries to squirm out of corners. I respect that. J
Why is it likely I would be banned? There’s only one site I wouldn’t go near and I think we all know which one that is. Why assume I would be banned?
Have you hurt me in any way? What if it was someone else, Fats? What if you dropped my full name there and it wasn’t me?
Jeremy didn’t know ‘real anon’ was ‘JC’,
Yes he does. He knows my real name as I think it is actually courteous to inform a site owner if you’re not using your real name. He does know my name as I have told him.
I have already explained to you (and you don’t seem to get it) that I was using “first anon†as my moniker that day. I hadn’t been there for a very long time and I had forgotten my old one. I made people aware of this when I remembered and subsequently apologized along with an explanation.
I really don’t know what you don’t get here, Fatfingers.
1. You start meddling in things you have no business meddling in.
2. And you don’t want to understand the explanation.
I’m actually speechless that you don’t get it.
“And you had better have a good explanation why you attacked SL the way you did.”
Really JC … or what … rip my head off JC? You and whose army? Nominate the time and place mate and you are on. As for your blather about the bet – that lie has been totally exposed. As you have for being a spineless, gormless worm.
Oh and since you have brought the SL saga up again … nup, don’t have no excuses JC. Not one. I just did it because she is a serial liar and fraudster who was trying to re-write the history of her delierate and sordid hoax on the public for personal gain. For which she has not given a full accounting nor offered restitution. See JC, I just did it because I could. So, go ahead JC, make my day, every day if you like – do keep bringing it up and I’ll keep serving it up. There’s plenty more where that came from. Heck, I haven’t even touched on her lies about Gaita, her lies about her career as a journalist, her plagiarism, her sacking from The Courier-Mail. Do keep bringing it up JC. And you will do what exactly? When and where? You could base jump out of snake’s arse JC. Stupid twerp.
Klingons with a “K” barbarian.
You’re still obssessing over her aren’t you metromick.
What amazes me is how you seem to get upset with SL if I bring up the bet you welshed on. What does she have to do with it. What does sordid obssession above have to do with the bet you walked away from. Are you trying to get at me? Are you that pathetic?
I don’t even know why you hang around these parts. She’s a contributor here so why hang around Mr. Welsher?
Well well well (three holes in the ground), I go away to write an essay and this turns into an all-in mud wrestle. I don’t need to be insulted by Michael the serial stalker on my own thread, everyone needs to stop making random guesses about who other people are (and, much as he irritates me, that includes Michael). I know who he is, so do the rest of the blog admins.
Oh, and the endless posturing about bets taken and or ignored can stop as well, unless you’re all willing to (a) be clear about the terms of the bet and (b) stump up the money, either to each other or (preferably) a charity.
Since I do not have time at the business end of term to supervise this stoush, and I’ve asked nicely once for people to cut it, I’m going to close the thread.