Coalition with questions to answer
Crikey readers weigh in.
Dec 14, 2012
Crikey readers weigh in.
Dylan Taylor writes: Re. “Brough justice: Mal can’t slip the net on Slipper campaign” (Wednesday). Does anyone believe that the same journalists who have been pursuing Julia Gillard with “still more questions to answer” will assiduously apply the same principle to the opposition?
Wanna bet? I think the story will soon be buried under the debris of the silly season. That’s journalism in Australia today.
Unless Four Corners decides to abandon the poor suffering cattle and sheep and take on the LNP, whose ham-fisted attempts at conspiracy are only matched by their arrogance, the crooks and conspirators in this saga will be carrying on regardless and the Bolts and Joneses will be telling us the Prime Minister has “questions to answer”. Strewth!
Peter Rosier writes: Re. “Peter Slipper case: why Mark McInnes is grinning” (yesterday). Your piece on Michael Harmer overlooks a salient reference by Justice Rares in the case to that of the Bar Association of NSW v Clyne — a matter that went to the High Court. Clyne, representing a client in the old Matrimonial Causes Division of the Supreme Court (I’m old enough to remember) opened a case with allegations against a solicitor, Mr ER Mann.
In the course of the case, Clyne produced no evidence whatever of the matters alleged. After a tortured ride to the High Court, Clyne was finally struck off the roll of barristers for such a blatant attempt to mislead the court and poison the evidence, and there he remained as the scourge of protected tenants and the tax man. It is difficult to think that the NSW Legal Services commissioner won’t at least have a read of the judgment in Ashby v Slipper.
Niall Clugston writes: Re. “North Korea risks sanctions to signal its greatness” (yesterday). As a recent visitor to North Korea, I don’t agree with Danielle Chubb that the rocket launch is mostly about demonstrating “greatness”.
The first motive is defence. North Korea has developed nuclear bombs and now apparently could hit US territory. Obviously the regime has no desire for another war of self-destruction, but wants these weapons as a deterrant.
The idea that it can be pressured into giving them up is fanciful. Disarmament hardly helped America’s enemies in Iraq and Libya.
Secondly, rather than being a “gross misdirection of resources”, launching satellites could be a way for the country to use its comparative advantage in rocket technology to earn much needed imports.
Chubb counsels not to “look at the country in fear” but rather be “very concerned”. Alternatively, instead of threatening war or economic blockade against a mostly harmless population, why can’t we live and let live?
Powered by Taboola