Martyn Smith writes: Re. “Tony Abbott’s uni past gets another guernsey” (yesterday, item 10). Andrew Crook’s article on Abbott’s early days at university is an eye-opener and it reminds me of the Bourbons, who “learned nothing and forgot nothing”. This is clearly the case with Tony Abbott.
If we should elect this man to be our country’s leader and representative we should be afraid, very afraid because Andrew Crook has shown us the real Tony (not the nice man filleting fish etc) and undoubtedly the “real Tony” will show himself once in power. Purportedly a large majority of Australians love him and will vote for him, they should be careful what they wish for!
Don Cummins writes: Re. “After a phenomenal peak, is Andrew Bolt in decline?” (yesterday, item 3). How interesting it was to glance through the list of people who have paid to “defend free speech”. And how embarrassing to see that I know (and even like) a few of them. Which part of the judgement didn’t they read?
Bolt lost because he was factually wrong about the people he traduced. It’s a fundamental that if you are going to attack private people in a mass circulation paper that you research your topic wider than Google.
Niall Clugston writes: Re. “Nobel winner puts pressure on lazy reporting” (yesterday, item 13). Couldn’t Ben Sandilands article be reduced to three words? “We don’t know.”