Yesterday, the conversation was spread far across the front page, with readers coming in to chat (and argue) over Charlie Lewis’ look into the competing rights of workplace bullying investigations, Bernard Keane’s piece on controversial senator Fraser Anning’s place in Australia’s more widely broken system, Chelsey Potter on Sam Dastyari’s limelight thirst, and Helen Razer’s trashing of SBS’ latest poverty porn.

On workplace bullying regulation 

Laurie Patton writes: Unfortunately we have allowed the meaning of the term bullying to be widened in common usage to include behaviour that is not actually bullying in a legal sense but is nevertheless socially unacceptable. Perversely, this leads to situations where managers acting unreasonably defend themselves by arguing it is not bullying. It may not justify dismissal, but it might justify some other form of remedial action by the employer.

On Fraser Anning and the banking royal commission

Dr Shaheena Rana writes: The 50 Muslims killed in a terrorist attack on a school in Afghanistan once again reiterates the point that Muslims are the largest victims of terrorism. Fraser Anning’s insinuation that there is some sort of conflict between Islam and Australia is ludicrous to say the least. Australian Muslims, like all Australians, abhor extremism and terrorism. Anning’s statement that Muslims are a drag on the economy is laughable. The Prophet Muhammad said that a Muslim must get an education even if he/she has to go to China (which in those days was very far). My family are devout Ahmadi Muslims – my husband and I are practising doctors and my sons are studying law and medicine respectively – hardly a drag on the economy!

On Sam Dastyari’s Relevance Deprivation Syndrome

Kyle Hardgraves writes: An interesting article concerning the after-life of politics, extending the theme for males who have had automative positions for decades and find themselves in retirement with the only decisions of the day being what to do regarding going for a walk or watching TV. As to some of the remarks concerning Howard, his political career was all but over sometime between 1984 and 1988. He even had a newsletter during that time. As to how I became a recipient I can’t I recall, but it really was quite extreme. Then, little-by-little (with extensive tutoring, I suggest, having had Andrew Peacock, his nemesis, dispatched to a non-political post) Howard became popular, if that is the word. The remainder is history.

On SBS’ Filthy Rich and Homeless’ surplus of empathy

RoRo writes: I feel your frustration – what good are a bunch of rich people sleeping on cardboard in front of television cameras for a night going to do for the tens of thousands of Australians in “temporary” or indeed no housing? Not unlike the CEO sleep out. Can you get much more patronising to anyone who has been homeless? From my experience you basically get two weeks in a motel through emergency housing organisations and then you’re on your own, they’re stretched that thin.

Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and cock-ups to [email protected]. We reserve the right to edit comments for length and clarity. Please include your full name.