Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter



Nov 25, 2011

Coba Point residents back Flannery in 2GB spat

Residents of the Sydney riverside retreat of Coba Point have backed environmentalist Tim Flannery in his bitter climate spat with 2GB presenter Ray Hadley and a dissenting neighbour David.


Residents of the Sydney riverside retreat of Coba Point have backed environmentalist Tim Flannery in his bitter climate spat with 2GB presenter Ray Hadley and a dissenting neighbour David.

And notes of a crucial August rendezvous between David and Flannery, compiled by the former Australian of the Year’s anthropologist wife Alex, appear to lend weight to the Professor’s version of events.

Hadley and David have accused Flannery of hypocrisy because he purchased a house close to a river while simultaneously warning about sea level rises stemming from global temperature increases. They say the professor pilots a polluting boat and regularly speeds through “no wash” zones around Berowra Waters.

This week Hadley has repeatedly called Flannery a “low bastard” on his high-rating 2GB mornings show after his attention was drawn to a Crikey item quoting from the November edition of Quarterly Essay.

A letter penned by Flannery in the storied journal accused the duo of cooking up a plot to discredit him. Flannery wrote David had told him that he had once worked for Hadley and that the “slander was based on a completely manufactured story”.

Flannery said that David had admitted to him in the face-to-face meeting that the shock jock was “out to get” him because he was “on the other side of the fence” on climate change.

But this week David, 39, claimed point-blank on Hadley’s program that he had never met or worked for the presenter.

Coba Point resident Bruce Foot, who owns a substantial chunk of the inlet, told Crikey this morning that his close neighbour, whose wife’s name is Hope Martyn, told him directly that he once washed and detailed Ray Hadley’s car.

“To hear himself say on radio the other day that he didn’t work for Ray is an out and out lie and that’s what’s so shocking,” he said.

Foot said David had previously “parroted the Andrew Bolt line on climate change” over a few beers at a neighbourhood get-together.

He told Crikey that Flannery had bought his house in 1997, well before he began agitating to curb climate emissions due to prevent sea level rises and that David was no-longer working for Hadley but was now “selling papers”. Foot added that another neighbour, Stu, had also been directly told by David that he worked for Hadley.

According to Hope Martyn’s Facebook page, David and his wife moved to Coba Point in September 2009. On her public wall, Martyn includes a link to a podcast of her husband speaking on Hadley’s show.

“How imbarrasing!! [sic],” she wrote. “So typical of Dave though …”

Tim Flannery’s wife’s notes of the mid-jetty encounter in August appear to confirm that David indeed stated that he once undertook “car detailing” for Hadley. According to the notes, David says Hadley had called him and that it was all a setup. The notes make for compelling reading:

21.viii.11 Sunday afternoon

Tim pulls up at pontoon — v crowded with debris — revs motor to reverse.

Man appears on verandah, shirtless, comes down pulling on sweater.

T calls out: Are you David? I’d like a word.

Man walks down, diffidently but expecting us (?) Tells barking dog to be quiet.

Man & T meet mid-jetty.

T: Are you David?

Man: Yes.

T: You’re the caller David who called Ray Hadley?

D: That’s me.

T explains visit. D is barely coherent [does he have a speech impediment?] T asks re call to 2GB?

D, matter of factly: They called me … They had it all arranged. I just called in.

D: … You’re on the other side of the fence [re climate change], they [2GB] hate you, they’re out to get you. I didn’t call them, they called me.

Alex (surprised): Why would they call you?

D (flatly): I work for them.

A (politely): What is your work?

D (softly): Card [incoherent]

A (gently): Sorry?

D (clearly): Car detailing. I do car detailing for them at 2GB. I know them all.

T (firmly, fairly): Well, we’d like the podcast permanently removed rom the public domain. Could you ask Ray Hadley to do that.

D (hesitating, uncertain): Well, I won’t see him for another fortnight, another two weeks.

A (quietly): You’re a newcomer here. We don’t do this sort of thing to each other. We’re a small community & just respect each other’s privacy.

T (gently): It’s OK, leave this to me. (firmly, fairly): OK David, the decent thing to do is to get the podcast removed. It’s untrue & it’s dangerous. That’s all.

We leave.

On air yesterday, Hadley said his wife’s car had been detailed by Garry Smith Detailing in Haberfield and that his was occasionally “dry washed” by someone called Sharon in the 2GB car park. But enquiries over David’s presence at either company drew a blank.

Today, he dedicated his weekly Daily Telegraph column to lambasting Crikey, which he described as “Media Watch on steroids” and (perhaps cynically) as a “bastion of truth and justice”.


We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola


Leave a comment

65 thoughts on “Coba Point residents back Flannery in 2GB spat

  1. Son of foro

    Watch it! Hadley’s from western Sydney!

  2. Damien

    Where are all the Rayniacs who invaded Crikey a couple of days ago?

  3. Suzanne Blake

    One person here is out to save their reputation, gong, pay check and future earnings.

    Motives are clear to me.

  4. Enkl

    Let’s accept that the transcript is accurate. It is nevertheless clear from the 2GB records that David did indeed call in unsolicited.

    If Hadley were to sue Crikey for the publication here of David’s alleged statement that “They had it all arranged.”, then “truth” would not be available as a defence. Given that you were already aware of that, no other defence is possible either.

    What were your lawyers thinking of in letting you publish this?

  5. B.Tolputt

    As I’ve said earlier, I REALLY hope Hadley does take it to court. The more digging (you know, actual journalism) that occurs, the less credible his source comes out to be. We’re now down to this man’s word against those of Flannery, his wife, and the guy’s own neighbours.

    Did no-one learn how dangerous it is to rely on sources without checking them out from Hanson’s electoral challenge?

  6. heavylambs

    Flannery bought in up there when he was at The Australian Museum in Sydney,long before he picked up the public cudgels for climate …

    How stupid is Hadley not to do some basic background? If he fielded the call from David and simply ran with it,how credulous is he to take an unknown individual at his word over such an issue? How uninformed is Hadley to not know that rapid large storm surges and swells [which will be potentiated by underlying sea-level rise when acting on open coast] do not affect upper estuarine stretches like Berowra Creek at Coba? If he is so concerned about AGW and what he thinks is groundless alarmism,you’d think he’d do some research,or get a flunkey to do so…

  7. John Bennetts

    This pretty well restores my opinion of Flannery. I had suspended my judgement pending further in formation.

    And that, dear friends, is why I buy Crikey.

  8. Lord Barry Bonkton

    Guilty , would be the call. Hadley should loose his job and Tim should sue the lying twat . Lucky we have “Bastion of Truth and Justice ” in Crikey.

  9. John Ryan

    Yes Suzanne that might be Hadley

  10. michael r james

    How does a car detailer like David get to own property on Coba Point?
    Unless it is more Cajun-bogan than Upper-Northshore/Pittwater?

    Also, though I guess he would claim there is nothing hypocritical about it but somehow I doubt Hadley still lives in Western Sydney instead of somewhere with harbour views? Or even a weekender in said Pittwater/Palm Beach as many of these shock-jock one-percenters do.

  11. John Ryan

    And of course Suzanne we know that 2gb and the commentators never lie problem is picking the truth out of the distortions and lies they disseminate.
    Which are are not very good at either have you ever got anything right

  12. Suzanne Blake

    @ michael r james

    Ray Hadley lives at Dural, so NW Sydney

    Ray Hadley has Flannery on toast and Flannery need to learn that when you are in a hole, stop digging.

  13. 2dogs


    I am no lawyer but I fail to understand under what law Crikey could be taken to court over in`s very well balanced coverage of this story over the last 3 days. They have stuck to reporting facts and quoting sources from both sides of the argument as well as providing web links.
    Could you perhaps point out to us which laws you believe have been broken in the reporting of this story in its entirety?

  14. Enkl

    The problem here is not that Hadley relied on David as a source, but that Flannery did.

    Flannery should not have relied on David’s (alleged) claim that 2GB had solicited his call without attempting to check it, and without giving Hadley a chance to respond before publication. IMO, Flannery has defamed Hadley.

  15. david

    Hadley will get his dues, time and truth are not on his side.

  16. Suzanne Blake

    @ 2dogs

    Flannery risks being sued and Crickey a retraction. There may have been legal letters exchanges, giving x hours to remove from internet.

    The biggest issue at stake is Flannery’s credibility, loss of future income etc

  17. Enkl

    @Michael R James

    “How does a car detailer like David get to own property on Coba Point?”

    David is not a car detailer.
    He is self-employed, and has been since leaving school.
    He has never cleaned a car other than his own and his parents’.

  18. Quarisa Donny

    Wait for it ….. thats right the sound of silence from Hadley,s supporters hoping that David has a replie that can discredit the community of Coba point and make them in league with climate change ..2gb hadley and his minions need to apologise to the Flannery,s and check out their facts..

  19. Quarisa Donny

    @S Blake
    Sounds like the hole was dug by David, Hadley couldn,t help but peer in to it and fell dragging his supporters behind him and now is trying to save himself by using you all as a life line…

  20. negativegearmiddleclasswelfarenow.com

    Sydney :- the daily telegraph, whittaker, hadley, jones, akermann, and others

    no doubt – sounds like the 1%’s right wing zoo to me.

  21. 2dogs

    @ SB and ENKL

    When ENKL states: “What were your lawyers thinking of in letting you publish this?” I can only assume that there is a breach in the law that is so obvious that an armchair critic who gets all his legal expertise from Law and Order can see that Crikey does not have a legal leg to stand on.
    I am asking ENKL, with all his knowledge in legal matters, to point out to me specifically what particular law(s) have CLEARLY been broken to the point of it having legal implications on Crikey (of course keeping in mind that The Quarterly Essay lawyers who were also not “thinking” when they published the story and will be subject to the same).

  22. B.Tolputt

    Not at all, truth is a defence as is publishing an “honest opinion”. Flannery reported on David’s statements and, given the weight of evidence, I would posit that David’s retraction under pressure would not be viewed as credible. Based on those statements, Hadley’s claims that there was no setup because David called in are not convincing. It doesn’t take a criminal mastermind to say “call up at time X and we’ll chat on air about Flannery”.

    Flannery already has the evidence to backup the publishing of claims made by David (witness to the statement & corroborating evidence from neighbours) which can serve as the basis for an honestly held opinion regarding it being a setup. Hadley would have to prove them false or, at the very least, lacking credibility in order to extract damages from the proceeding. With 2GB’s star witness having been caught telling a different story to his neighbours than claimed on radio – I think Hadley would be hard up doing it legally… hence his sticking to radio on the matter.

  23. Hewett Michael

    It amazes me that a ‘news organisation’ such as Crikey reports things that aren’t true. Take this one,”They say the professor pilots a polluting boat and regularly speeds through “no wash” zones around Berowra Waters”. Now did Hadley say it or did David? Well David made the claim, does Flannerys boat pollute? Unless he rows it, yes. Does he speed, David claimed it, not Hadley. Hadley repeated Davids claim but attributed that claim to David. Does Flannery have that property at Berowra? Yes of course, he admits it. Is it fair to question why a person that preaches to us about rising sea levels would purchase a property on the river? I think it is, don’t you?

    Now if Crikeys journalists were any good, why haven’t they checked to see if David has actually worked for Hadley? Flannery has claimed David did, Flannery claims David said he did but to Hadley, David said he never has. Why hasn’t Crikey checked if David did? If Flannery can find David, Why can’t Crikey? Flannery could give you Davids name. Why haven’t you checked out Flannerys claims and reported those without checking to see if Flannery is telling the truth?

    The media is under a lot of scrutiny at the present time, one of those reasons being because of perceived imbalance in reporting. Crikey’s reporting is extremely biased and certainly does not report both sides before deciding who is telling the truth. I was always told this was a left wing rag, now I know it for myself. Understand this Crikey, if the government and greens have their way, the same scrutiny that they want to apply to newscorp, will be applied to you. That means you will have to check on and reprt both sides in your articles. Won’t life be great for you then?

  24. CliffG

    Isn’t it time to stop treating these powerful radio shock-thugs like they’re some kind of a joke? They are exploiting public airwaves, not their own property, to influence huge numbers of people with baseless, or worse contrived personal attacks, vicious diatribes, disinformation, arrogance and abusive and unacceptable on air language? Why do we just nod and do nothing? Can’t action be taken to stop this?
    There should be an inquiry of the kind currently running in the UK into the appropriation of radio airwaves, especially in Sydney. These people can’t be allowed to just shred people’s lives and reputations in the way they do with impunity.
    It’s a national disgrace.
    Mind you it also seems to say something about the general thuggery of Sydney that so many people seem to enjoy these abominations as fun and entertainment. Kyle has a million listeners. What does that say about his audience? But to justify it as “popular” says nothing about the damage it is doing, both to individuals and their families as well as to the quality and demeaner of public debate and information.

  25. CliffG

    These radio thugs can rip into whomever they choose. But the minute someone tries to set the record straight they scream,”I’ll sue you!” They are gutless lying cowards, hiding being bullying and threat. Isn’t it time Australia stood up to them and turned off their mikes?

  26. Enkl


    Defamation, of course. The defamatory claim, attributed to David, is that David’s initial on-air call to Hadley was solicited by Hadley.

    Consider the possible defences to a defamation action in respect of the initial publication of the claim by Crikey on Tuesday …
    Truth? No, the detailed 2GB logs prove the claim to be untrue.
    Opinion? No, the claim is a matter of fact, not one of opinion.
    Unintentional? No, the claim was the main point of the article.
    Trivial? No, the claim had clear potential to damage Hadley’s reputation.
    Political debate? Probably not, the claim does not relate to a matter of government policy.
    Further, a message left on Hadley’s phone would not satisfy the test for having made a reasonable attempt to seek a response from Hadley.

    So, Crikey’s Tuesday article was probably defamatory.
    Hadley’s response on Wednesday morning, in which he detailed information from the 2GB logs to prove the claim false, should have led Crikey to at least publish the details of his rebutal, if not acknowledge the falsehood of the claim and apologise.

    To repeat the claim today in this form is even more clearly actionable, because Crikey was fully aware that it was untrue, so even the previously dubious political debate defence is not available.

  27. Tom McLoughlin

    Hadley sounds like a whiner. Just like Bolt and Jones – all three of them are whiners.

  28. 2dogs


    *Sigh* I still fail to see how this is the HUGE legal blunder that you are making it out to be.
    Deformation is defined as follows:
    The publication of any false imputation concerning a person, or a member of his family, whether living or dead, by which (a) the reputation of that person is likely to be injured or (b) he is likely to be injured in his profession or trade or (c) other persons are likely to be induced to shun, avoid, ridicule or despise him.

    Having reread the original Crikey article the only way that I can see Crikey getting into legal trouble is if the conversation between Tim and David never took place as they have simple reported what others have said in a fairly factual manner. The only possible “false” component to the story would be the following:
    “Flannery did his own investigation. He found an address for “David” and made a house call.”

    I believe that how Crikey laied out this article well within the law (ohh is that Law and Order on TV right now?)

  29. heavylambs

    ENKL,it seems like David had a story for Hadley when he rang in and a story for Flannery when confronted on the pier… so Flannery,if misled by David, has nothing to answer for. You seem to be indifferent to the fact that it was Hadley who started this boofheaded intrusion into someone’s private life. Hadley chose to air unchecked claims in a manner deliberately designed to belittle Flannery. Just a shitty piece of gossip,followed by the preposterous sound of Hadley trying to claim some high ground with his manufactured outrage and staged man-of -the -people rubbish when Flannery said “enough!” So you can quit lawyerin’ and get informed.

  30. Matthew of Canberra

    If hadley really did call “dave” then I suspect flannery’s pretty safe. Take it to court, and somebody’s going to be requesting phone records. Who called who is basically at the root of this dispute, and that’s something telstra can sort out pretty easily.

    Is anyone taking bets on whether that will happen? Flannery doesn’t sound to me like he’s backing down, and he’s a smart fellow. So we’ve got two sets of meticulous notes, but all the independent witnesses are (apparently) backing flannery, and his story is starting to check out. If a call register shows hadley (or his staff) calling this “dave” guy, then I’d say somebody will be pretty well covered in egg. Ray? How about it? Dave? Want to vindicate yourself?

    I honestly can’t see flannery telling a fib like this. Not when he could have ignored it, without anyone really caring. He’s apparently pretty annoyed by the invasion of privacy, though. It’s possible that “dave” is telling porkies, but to know for sure we need to know if he has ever been called by ray hadley, the radio station or its staff.

  31. Matthew of Canberra

    “Truth? No, the detailed 2GB logs prove the claim to be untrue.”

    They’re not a patch on phone records. Try to remember that they’re just somebody writing stuff on a piece of paper. Who’s to say when it was actually written? They’re sort of a witness statement, but we now have a second witness who made notes about what “David” said. Ok, SHE might have written those last night – but you can’t prove that, just as you can’t prove that the “meticulous notes” are accurate. It sounds great on radio, but real evidence lies in the GENUINELY meticulous billing systems of telecommunication providers. They don’t miss anything, and they’re properly independent.

    So … how would a feisty, independent “gossip site” go about getting those phone records?

  32. RomanJohn

    Suzanne Blake a Ray Hadley fan. Who would have ever thought. It must be his incredibly forensic mind.

    Suzanne, Dural is renowned for its high priced real estate, don’t try and play the “Hadley still a battler” line.

  33. Tomus Barava

    I’ve just listened to Hadley’s rather bizarre attack on Flannery and Crikey.
    Available here:

    What got my interest was the schedule of events that Hadley read out from his EP’s diary, at around the 5 to 7 minute mark of his whine.

    1 Hadley got an email from Bruce 11.04am
    2 Hadley’s staff contact Andrew Bolt to verify Bruce’s accusations 11.28am
    3 Hadley gets an unsolicited call from David 11.43am

    Now I need a shower.

  34. Hewett Michael

    Absolutely Enkel, you have summed it up beautifully. The media enquiry, yes let’s have it, if it’s findings result in laws requiring balance in reporting, Crikey will be subject to it as well so they will have to go to extra lengths to be balanced. It also occurs to me that Flannery seems to have wanted to keep his property on the river to stay a secret. Why? Unless it’s embarrassing for him showing his perceived hypocrisy.

    In the dialogue supposedly from Flannerys wife it seems odd to me that David would just spell out all of the alleged plans of David, Hadley and 2GB. Wouldn’t oyu normally keep those plans secret if they were true, would you just admit you were complicit in trying to slander someone? I don’t think so, That account is odd, you just don’t spill the beans to the person you supposedly are attacking publicly. I think a lot of commenters on this page should actually think about the story rather than rushing to judgement without giving thought to the story, just attacking a radio commentator because of his conservative leanings. I am middle of the road politically, a swinging voter but even I can see there is more to this story.

  35. Suzanne Blake

    @ Tom McLoughlin

    Hadley will rout Flannery, he will make it his mission. He has no time for so called professionals who tap into the taxpayer in a hyprocritical manner

  36. Suzanne Blake

    @ Matthew of Canberra

    Flannery would not be happy he has been exposed, so he could not help himself. He just assumed that Hadley would not hear about it, and that the callers to his show mid year would be found again. Calculation error on his part

  37. Suzanne Blake

    @ RomanJohn

    Hadley started with zippo, from a butchers family. I have no idea how small or big his house at Dural is. He works 6 days a week for most of the year, which is rare.

    I listen at times from a regional area, and I have to say, he checks his facts, which is why he will win this battle and war.

  38. stanny

    Under NSW defamation law truth is not a valid defense unless it is in the public interest.
    I think bringing people’s suburban locations into discussion as a pejorative point to attack an individuals credentials is pathetic and attempts some kind of outdated class warfare reverse snobbery. It is widely known that Hadley comes from a working class background and went to Macquarie Boys high in Dundas and drove taxis before becoming an auctioneer etc etc.
    Hadley travels widely throughout NSW and contributes his time to over 100 charitable events each year he just happens to have a different perspective to the Crikey readership which is very staunchly left of centre and very non empathetic. Crikey readers have great difficulty indeed understanding the other sides point of view which is hard to understand when you consider over six million Australians do not vote for left of centre parties each election.
    Hadley would be most unlikely to sue Crikey for what was a pretty shoddy poorly researched piece however, he will probably keep a close eye on Crikey for similarly poor journalism evident here in future.
    Flattery is a bit of a goose who makes more bogus or conflicting points about climate change science than anyone else and serves the AGW cause quite poorly I believe.

  39. DrChuckster

    Suzanne: Hadley’s mission is to make money out of every wingnut activist group on the far right. The last thing he’ll want to do is spend actual money on lawyers. I guess you’re doing all this astro-turfing pro bono?

  40. Lord Barry Bonkton

    MOC , spot on and so easy to work out who rang who and when. If Hadley is telling the truth , he should release them to the public for viewing .The longer he takes , the more likely he is hiding something ?
    RomanJohn , that’s Abbotts battler’s .

  41. Roberto Tedesco

    I blame rugby league for scrambling Ray’s Dural battler brain.

  42. Enkl


    “… they have simple reported what others have said in a fairly factual manner …”


    “… Flannery,if misled by David, has nothing to answer for. …”

    Not so. Although the defamatory claim is attributed to David, it was Flannery who published it. Liability rests with the publisher/s. Accurate reporting is no defence.


    “They[the detailed 2GB logs]’re not a patch on phone records. Try to remember that they’re just somebody writing stuff on a piece of paper. …”

    Agreed, phone records would be better, but the 2GB logs should have been enough to give Crikey pause. I believe that they are electronic, not paper based, and that the email and phone call records are logged automatically. I think that Crikey should have asked for copies of the logs and offered to publish the relevant extracts.

  43. colin skene

    The overriding view here, and was well known before, is that Ray Hadley makes his bucks by being a bullying boofhead. It’s great that Ray has provided a way for more people to learn of that, rather than having to sit through a minute of his diatribe on radio. For one with a sizeable ego such as Ray, what a burden that is to carry through life; despite the monetary success and media profile, most people think you’re an idiot.

  44. Enkl


    “Under NSW defamation law truth is not a valid defense unless it is in the public interest.”

    That changed in Jan 2006. All states now have uniform defamation laws. Truth is now a valid justification for a defamatory publication, even in NSW.

  45. Williamson Stuart

    I confess to being both Conservative and skeptical regarding climate change. I even blog with Bolt. Something is worrying me however, you see Andrew has censored me twice. It’s this very Hadley V Flannery issue where I seem to have hit a nerve, to the detriment of my free speech. What Andrew Bolt rejected, was roughly as follows.

    Ray Hadley could put an end to his spat with Tim Flannery in a trice. Lets see Daves phone statement showing an outgoing phone call on the time and date the radio interview was made. We could couple this up with “Meticulous Mike’s” version of events. Apparently Mike is the epitome of efficiency when it comes to this sort of thing. Also there was an air of “he who protsteth loudest” about the on air spray Hadley gave in response and Dave didn’t seem all that convincing in support.

    “Something smells like a dead cat on the side of the road” I mentioned in one of my censored Blogs to Bolt, I hope he didn’t bar me for quoting Keating.

    Anyway why isn’t Hadley waving this easily attainable proof around for all to see? You see if 2GB did call Dave it means Flannery is right because technically Dave is in their employ, as in being used for a story.

    Let’s see the phone bill Ray and don’t be a “low bastard” about it.

  46. david

    The troll Susanne B crawls up from under the bridge to flash its 5 cent troll lawyers degree, available from all troll offices under the bridge, produce pic of toxic tone, 5 cent fee waived.

  47. rubiginosa

    The legal scholars from 873AM are making me thirsty.

  48. 2dogs

    @ ENKL
    Thanks for your reply. After having reread some brief descriptions on Australian Defamation law I do conceded your point however it seems to be a fairly calculated risk (if the story is indeed untrue, it seems to me at the very worst Crikey could claim “unintentional defamation” and resolve the issue with a correction and apology).
    I would personally love to hear from the Crikey team how they go about weighing up potential legal consequences against stories that they report on. I believe that it would be very insightful for us all to read about how a newspaper navigates such issues (rather than rely on all the speculation that is going on).

    @ Matthew
    I do agree that it is very possible that Tim has been misled by David which is unfortunate as it is a mistake that Tim`s detractors will gleefully pounce upon.

  49. Jaydee

    We are missing the main point here Tim and Ray………..the sea level aint rising by catastrophic amounts at all. In fact, the most educated statement is 2.8mm world wide per decade with a certainty of plus or minus 2.8mm.
    I suspect Tim already knows that, thats why he didn’t sell his place:)

  50. Lord Barry Bonkton

    Over at The Power Index , details of the the shock jocks wages are out. Poor Ray has to battle on, on a mere $2 MILLION a year , while Jones is on a tidy $4 MILLION a year . Bloody Elitists , telling people how to think and telling half truths to the gullible while stuffing $$$$$$$$$ 56 , 000 a DAY in the bank. So jones gets about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$112 ,ooo a DAY .

  51. Matthew of Canberra

    “it is a mistake that Tim`s detractors will gleefully pounce upon.”

    What, you mean rather than just making %@!# up like they usually do?

    “Agreed, phone records would be better, but the 2GB logs should have been enough to give Crikey pause. I believe that they are electronic, not paper based, and that the email and phone call records are logged automatically. I think that Crikey should have asked for copies of the logs and offered to publish the relevant extracts.”

    What – all incoming and outgoing calls? Actually, they probably are (I expect their phone system’s pretty modern, being a company that’s wired for sound). But what we’re interested in here isn’t the call to the 13 number – there doesn’t seem to much doubt that “david” did call in. What we’re interested in is any calls to “david” from the station or its employees.

    There was an article about this business, on the SMH I think, that described the note-keeping arrangements, and I thought hadley described it as as diary. I can’t find it now. It seems to have fallen off the internet.

    I think you’re overestimating the likelihood of 2UE willingly participating in the scheme you describe. They seem to have a bit of a problem with crikey – in all of the ranting I’ve heard, not once has hadley mentioned the actual source of flannery’s letter – quarterly essay. That’s significant by its conspicuous absence. Why – is black inc better lawyered, or something?

    I actually hope this does go further, because I think I know how it ends. And I don’t like bullies.

  52. donttrustcrikey

    “Coba Point residents back Flannery” – so we at Crikey repaid them by naming them in print, so that they can argue with their neighbour, and possibly be dragged into a defamation case.

    “Tip off Crikey!” – and Andrew Crook will inform everyone who the tip off came from, and ignore every chance to protect a source.

    The bizarre thing about this case is that Crikey is basically attacking Hadley for colluding with David – and then doing the same thing themselves.

    Gutter journalism. Andrew Crook is a rat of the highest order.

  53. killerbees

    Sydney has a city of 5 million. Take away most younger people, people at work, many immigrants I would have thought, those who prefer watching TV, listening to music or those who just don’t listen to these types of programs and I would have thought the audience is fairly limited. Some over 65’s with limited disposable income as evidenced by their climate change ‘protests’.

    Perhaps the advertisers don’t think so; time to start a petition boycotting their goods and services until they cease their advertisement.

  54. Enkl


    “We are missing the main point … the sea level aint rising by catastrophic amounts …
    I suspect … thats why he didn’t sell his place”

    The main point of Hadley’s original segment was that Flannery had behaved hypocritically.
    The main point of Flannery’s letter was that David’s call had been a set up.
    You are still trying to defend Flannery, whereas I think most of us have moved on from that and are more interested in attacking (or defending) Hadley at this time.

    Nevertheless, I think that your defence of Flannery is mistaken.
    Hadley’s accusation is that Flannery bought the property at a time when he was predicting severe coastal flooding within a few years. The science has moved on, and such rapid sea level rise is no longer predicted, but that was not the case when Flannery bought the property.

  55. Enkl


    “… Gutter journalism. Andrew Crook is a rat of the highest order.”

    Not so fast. What makes you think that Andrew Crook did not obtain permission from the people named to quote and name them in this way? Surely, for the story to have substantial credibility that was going to be necessary, and I am confident that that is indeed what he did.

    However, an interesting thought to ponder is what sorts of responses did he get from the other 43 residents? For example, “Bruce” who first emailed Hadley about the matter, would no doubt have taken a different viewpoint.

  56. Tomus Barava

    @Lord Barry Bonkton

    When I listened to Ray’s show the other night, he made a big deal of Flannery getting something like $180,000 a year for 3 days a week work.

    Yet if the figures you quote are correct, Ray makes nearly that amount in 3 days!

    I wonder how many of Ray’s listeners know he gets $56,000 a day to do his opiñata gig?

    Makes you wonder how many of those residents on Struggle Street, the ones who don’t make $23,000 a year, think of someone who gets double that for just a few hours on the radio each day?

  57. 2dogs

    Oh ENKL don`t feed the troll, do you know how long it is going to take him to mash a reply on the keyboard with 2 fingers?

  58. donttrustcrikey


    “What makes you think that Andrew Crook did not obtain permission from the people”

    Because of inside knowledge. He did not seek permission, and he ignored the demand to not name anyone.

    Perhaps this sort of journalism is how David was sucked in by Hadley – “let’s have a little chat”, then blindsided.

    Make no mistake, Cross could have handled this entirely differently, and left the names out – “One neighbour said” works just as well as naming that person.

  59. Williamson Stuart

    Oops a typo, the post for Williamson Stuart the date mentioned should be (28.11).

  60. 2dogs

    See over 15 hours. That really was quite inconsiderate.

    “Because of inside knowledge, He did not seek permission, and he ignored the demand to not name anyone..”

    We have a saying at this website my friend, “What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.” Yes to do what you have accused is not sound journalism at all however can you offer us some proof to back up your claim (other than “inside knowledge”)?

  61. Enkl


    “Because of inside knowledge. He did not seek permission, and he ignored the demand to not name anyone.”

    Sorry, to hear that. I take back my “confidence”.

  62. donttrustcrikey


    So what proof would satisfy you? BTW my nic is “DontTrustCrikey”, and I chose it very carefully.

    One option for you is to email the rat and ask him what sort of of permissions he obtained before going to press.

    It’s bizarre – I would have thought that Crikey would have higher standards, but this experience reads more like something from Murdochs rags.

  63. 2dogs

    @donttrustblabblabblab (oh I understand just how hard you though about that nic),

    “So what proof would satisfy you?”

    Why do you not start where Andrew left off. Present to us an annotated discussion that you have had with your “inside knowledge”, when and where it happened how the people are connected to the article (the people themselves and even yourself)?

    “One option for you is to email the rat and ask him what sort of of permissions he obtained before going to press.”

    No, because you are the one making the accusations that Andrew is acting in an unethical manner, hence the saying “What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.” (ironic isn`t it)

  64. donttrustcrikey

    2DOGS – Who are you to leap to someone’s defence like this?

    I’m not going to tell you who I am, or where my inside knowledge comes from. That is the essence of what I am so outraged about – no-one wants their name on the internet, or in the press, in the same way we use nic names here. For anonimity.

    Especially when it serves no real purpose. “One neighbour said” works just as well as naming that neighbour.

    Suffice to say, I know, you don’t. You have no role in this, except to defend something you know very little about.

    Again, I’m stating a fact. Cross did not seek permission. He was actually told in clear terms not to name anyone.

Leave a comment


https://www.crikey.com.au/2011/11/25/residents-of-coba-point-back-flannerys-story-in-2gb-spat/ == https://www.crikey.com.au/free-trial/==https://www.crikey.com.au/subscribe/

Show popup

Telling you what the others don't. FREE for 21 days.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.