Unapologetic insolence from an aging subversive

Unapologetic insolence from an aging subversive

Monday, 1 October 2012

Alan Who?



Images courtesy of Andrew Bolt

























The media is full of Alan Jones’ non-apology.

Why?

His "apology" if anything reveals him as a silly obsessed old man. Obsessed with himself - that is.  Why does any journalist give this shrill old Queen the time of day?

Perhaps they’re suffering from collective amnesia. They’ve forgotten that he was a strong supporter of Pauline Hanson. They’ve forgotten his adventures in London. They’ve forgotten that he made up stories reflecting badly on the ACT police when there weren’t as many trucks at his convoy of no confidence as he’d commanded.

They’ve forgotten his innumerable brushes with the courts. They’ve forgotten that he was largely responsible for the Cronulla riots. They’ve forgotten his unsuccessful venture into television.

They’ve forgotten his comments in 2000 called “outrageous and offensive” by the NSW Administrative Appeals Tribunal. It found that Jones had breached racial vilification provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act when in April he made comments about an Equal Opportunity Tribunal award to an Aboriginal woman who had been discriminated against by a Dubbo real estate agent.

They’ve forgotten that he makes a living out of hate and vilification.

Perhaps they should close the loop and ignore him completely. This is standard treatment for an Id-obsessed child.

It would work with him, I’m sure.

Update - 

This graphic from First Dog is brilliant.








































Update - This is timely.

Update - Even his own have dropped him.


9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Jones may lack tact, but was the comment incorrect?

1735099 said...

Jones exact comment - The old man recently died a few weeks ago of shame. To think that he had a daughter who told lies every time she stood for Parliament.
Jones made two statements. The first one relates to John Gillard. He died of an illness that he'd been suffering from for a long time. He was very proud of his daughter. He did not die of shame.
The second relates to Gillard's statements in parliament. She has never lied to parliament. If she had, you can bet that the opposition would have been all over her like a rash. She did break a promise, which she made before she knew she would be leading a coalition with the Greens, who made a carbon price a condition of their support. Campbell Newman has made a virtue of breaking many election promises, the most notable being that he wouldn't sack public servants.
Does that make him a liar, or someone who broke a promise? Do tell.
BTW - the comment was not only incorrect, but could only have come from a person who lacks any understanding of ethical behaviour.

Anonymous said...

"She has never lied to parliament"
Thats faith for you. "Knowing" something that you have not seen or heard or touched, or even tested its veracity.
"He died of an illness that he'd been suffering from for a long time. He was very proud of his daughter. He did not die of shame."
You have personal knowledge of this illness and the cause of his death?????

1735099 said...

"Knowing" something that you have not seen or heard or touched I can read. Heard of Hansard?
You have personal knowledge of this illness. I know as much as the parrot.

Anonymous said...

Hansard.....obviously just like all the Courts of this land no untruths have been recorded, no truth has been left unrecorded and personal Doctors of relatives of Parliamentarians have there dignoses recorded in Hansard.....you dick head.
I think the parrot is better placed than you to be better informed on the matters about which we speak. Sorry to put a damper on your ego.

1735099 said...

personal Doctors of relatives of Parliamentarians have there (sic) dignoses (sic) recorded
Ignoring the spelling and grammar mistakes, that still makes no sense.
you dick head (sic)
Even when you attempt abuse, you get it wrong....
I repeat - Gillard has never lied to parliament. If you believe she has, show me when and where - you're the one making the assertion.

Anonymous said...

Forever the shool teacher/head master. Okay, Richard Cranium, "Gillard has never lied to parliament" is your assertion. Show me where I asserted that she had lied to parliament.
If you actually read every word recorded in Hansard and blindly believe that everything recorded there is the truth, and the whole truth, then you have all the requirements to be a religious zealot,ie unquestioning and unfaltering faith in the unbelievable. I merely indicated you are not in a position to accurately make that statement and the diagnoses of the Doctors of relatives of Parliamentarians is not in Hansard and there fore you could not have gained the knowledge from that source. Your belief that something is correct does not make it so.

1735099 said...

Forever the shool (sic) teacher/head master(sic)
I was never a headmaster (one word, by the way). The term is “principal”.
Show me where I asserted that she had lied to parliament.
Back tracking now? You intimated that Jones’s comment was correct. He called Gillard a liar. That’s pretty clear.
My reference to Hansard has obviously gone right over your head. It records every word spoken, and every motion carried. You can’t tell me that if the PM had lied on the floor of the house, the opposition wouldn’t have challenged her. If you read Hansard, you won’t find an instance of that. Hansard is the best tool available to establish the fact – that’s why I quoted it.
you are not in a position to accurately make that statement
(About the cause of John Gillard’s death). And Alan Jones is? Give me a break.
Your belief that something is correct doesn't make it so. Absolutely, but in this, I'm not the one making the assertion - it's you and your mate the Parrot.

Anonymous said...

with the content of my posts sgown in there entirety (for a change)please indicate where I intimated thatJones was correct. I can find where I asked if the comment was incorrect, but you have been making assertions that are an indication that you are a little paranoid when your "facts" are questioned. I have not asserted that the claims by Jones are true, I have questioned them, which is more than you do in your push to enshrine the Labor assumption of being correct at all times, even though history will prove otherwise.
The fact that Hansard is a word by word record of what is stated does not indicate that it records truth. Much the same can be said of court records, and even a lay person such as yourself should understand that. For the opposition to attack the Prime Minister on the truth of what is stated in House, it would have to be politically wise to do so. The one thing we do know is that pollies give answers without information required by the question.....even you should know that.

Blog Archive