Crikey readers have their say on Abbott’s control of his minister, hiding the boats and the so-called climate change “debate”.
Climate change is not a belief
Mark Doyle writes: Re. “Climate change activist gets BHP board hot under the collar” (Wednesday). Just wondering if you could refrain from using the words climate “believer”. Say, for example, you take your kid or grandchild to the GP, who diagnoses measles, and you are referred to a specialist, who confirms the diagnosis.
You then decide to go to 100 people, and three of them, a dermatologist, a homeopath and a newspaper reporter, inform you that it’s not measles. Or you could just accept that the original diagnosis was based on science, a process of repeated testing and elimination, and that an evidence based treatment may be the best option.
My choice to accept the science is not a faith-based decision.
Other than that, keep up the good work.
Who is in charge here?
Tom Osborn writes: Re. “Abbott’s media HQ” (yesterday). The AFR story says Abbott’s press office, i.e. inside the PM’s office. But today on ABC radio Abbott mumbled something about needing to run everything through PM&C to provide a unified voice and avoid mixed messages. PM&C’s role is one of co-ordination and consistency. The PM’s office is not. It is about control. So where is the vetting happening?
Oliver Townshend writes: Re. “John Gay, Jonathan Moylan and a tale of two ASICs” (yesterday). You won’t get an appeal in the Gunns case, because it won’t succeed. ASIC would just be wasting its money, because there are so many mitigating circumstances. Gay had already made a decision to sell his shares once he found out he had cancer. He may not have followed the right process in organising it, but it’s the explanation for his low sentence. I doubt you’ll find a lawyer expert in this area willing to say the appeal will succeed.
Hiding the boats
Dean Ellis writes: Re. “Rundle: forget the kabuki act and nail Abbott on universities” (yesterday). Comrade Rundle writes: “Many people won’t care that they won’t be told about [boat turnarounds].” I beg to differ. If I voted for Abbott and his ludicrous policy (which I didn’t), I would be mightily pissed off at not being told of boats being turned around. This is because I would want my pound of flesh. I would want to know, out of pure sadistic spite, that my vote has caused the poor bastards on board these boats to get what they deserve good and proper.