Comments on: Henson free, but police captives of politics

By: nick

nick — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

jimmy sharratt, maybe you can’t ever dispel doubt the one hundred percent you demand, but you can dispell dispel.

By: david

david — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

After watching all the Hoo-Haa about Henson and other issues in which Commissioner Mick Keelty has recently been involved, it seems to me the most dangerous thing you could do is to stand between Commissioner Keelty and a Press Photographer.

By: Rachael

Rachael — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

If you are in Sydney you are invited to attend a public forum on this topic which has been organised by Watch On Censorship and the National Association for the Visual Arts (NAVA) at the Museum of Contemporary Art, 140 George Street, The Rocks, next Thursday 12 June from 6 - 8pm. ‘Art Censorship: The Bigger Picture’ will feature a panel of speakers including Hetty Johnston, Clive Hamilton, Ian Howard and Julian Burnside (plus one other speaker TBA from the gallery sector.) The evening will be MC’d by Margaret Pomeranz and the discussion will be chared by David Marr. All welcome at this free event. More information on the NAVA website at http://www.visualarts.net.au.

By: jimmy sharratt

jimmy sharratt — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

This is shit writing and a shit concept.

I don't like the rhetoric, as witnessed by his rhetorical question and answers. A FAQ page is a good place for an author to have a Q & A session with themselves. When this occurs in literature the author appears lost and/or confused.

The use of personal plural pro-nouns "But let’s not gloat" attempts to include me in the opinion piece despite any objections i might have.

The use of "No doubt" and "undoubtedly" seems like an attempt to give the writing some gravitas but actually comes across as condesending. I don't think you can dispell doubt by saying its not there.

As for the actual content, It seems to me to gist is that the police shouldn't take note of reported potential crimes if they're reported by a lobbyist and that they shouldn't disclose their activities if those activities are going to be reported by the media. ridiculous.

By: Robert

Robert — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

an AFP spokesperson has also made a link between the arrests and the draconian anti-terror powers they have been given, suggesting that if weren’t for these powers the arrests would not have been possible and our kids would be at (even more) risk — can Crikey follow up on this and ask how the special powers were used, and establish that they were in fact necessary to make the cases

By: Dave Liberts

Dave Liberts — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

The Haneef case was a superb example of why the police should limit their discussions with the media and politicians should simply shut up while investigations are ongoing - everyone who got too involved (other than Beattie, who limited his involvement to why the Feds had leaked details of a supposed terror attack in Queensland to the media before discussing them with the Queensland government) wound up just looking stupid (yes, Kevin Andrews, I’m thinking of you, also Abbott and Ruddock looked like pillocks too). The Henson case has not exactly been helpful for cops or politicians wishing to offer a running commentary either (no one’s answered my question of why Kevin “let’s just let kids be kids” Rudd is allowed to parade his teenage son in front of the media rather than try to let him just be a kid, but that’s another story). The lesson for politicians should be obvious, namely practice lines such as “Look, that matter is currently under investigation by police and it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to comment other than to say that if the police need resource or legal changes then we’ll obviously consider that carefully”, but I fear that they just won’t be able to restrain themselves, and they’ll continue to look silly when their early predictions of definite guilt fall over a couple of weeks later.

By: Venise Alstegren

Venise Alstegren — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Jimmy Sharratt: I’ve been looking at my Shorter Oxford English Dictionary: Oxford 1993, Ed. Lesley Brown, and I am unable to find a verb ‘to gist’. I’m probably all the things you accuse Greg Barns of being, a condescending peasant, ‘let’s not gloat’, etc. However, what is one to make of an argument based on a writer’s linguistic ability, rather than the content is, for me, an act of shocking condescension. You sound like a thug.

Also, your spelling stinks.

By: Venise Alstergren#2

Venise Alstergren#2 — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Nick: I love your dispellation of dispel.

Cheers

By: staf

staf — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Why is the AFP being so politically active? What are their motivations? I just don’t understand it. Its not like anyone is challenging their funding arrangements. Sure people like Ms Johnson can dump negative hype on them, but that’s nothing new to the police force. Besides, if we had had this discussion over the past few weeks without Henson’s images being locked away, I would have called it healthy for our democracy, and for Ms Johnson’s cause. Thoughts?