Why Abbott’s sex life is my business
There’s only one circumstance in which I consider the sexual lives of politicians to be my business, and that’s when they legislate about what goes on in other citizens’ sexual lives.
Failed Prime Minister Tony Abbott operates from a platform that is largely based on his personal morality, drawn from Catholic dogma. This morality advocates traditional heterosexual monogamous marriage, and argues fiercely that this is the only circumstance in which children ought to be raised.
Abbott supports the current Marriage Act with the amendment added by John Howard specifically to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.
Same-sex marriage will, in Abbott’s view, destroy what he perceives as the “sanctity” of monogamous heterosexual marriage.
Abbott foisted the notion of a plebiscite on same-sex marriage on his party, a completely unnecessary, extremely expensive and likely barbaric exercise in which citizens vote on whether or not other citizens are permitted to legally commit themselves to each other in marriage.
As health minister in the Howard government, Abbott refused Australian women access to the morning after pill because his personal morality is offended by abortion, and even the morning after is considered abortion by Abbott. RU 486 had been declared perfectly safe, and was widely used in many parts of the world. Abbott directly interfered in the sexual lives and futures of women who did not wish to have a child, by denying us access to this drug should we need to use it, thus restricting our options in the event of unplanned pregnancy.
Abbott has paraded his wife and his daughters as evidence of his personal morality: he is a traditional, heterosexual married male, and therefore we assume him to be upholding monogamy as a significant value in our society and in his personal life.
Tony Abbott has made it his business to comment on, criticise and exercise legislative control over the sexual practices and commitments of Australians. If he is not living up to the ideals he demands are enforced, if Abbott is himself desecrating the perceived sanctity of monogamous marriage by infidelity with a married woman, I have a right to know about that hypocrisy.
If Tony Abbott would care to lose his interest in controlling the sexual practices of adult citizens, I will be more than happy to lose my interest in his. Until then, everything Tony Abbott does that can be seen to affect the sanctity of the ideals he espouses and imposes is my business, and yours, and everyone else’s.
This article was originally published on No Place For Sheep.
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
1,436 total views, 8 views today
162 commentsLogin here Register here
Jennifer, the other two which come to mind are when Tony stated that his daughters would not be having the Gardasil vaccine to protect them against cervical cancer, then some years later boasted about his ‘virgin’ daughters while simultaneously parading their beauty. He’s a very, very confused man…
Very apt points …. it is interesting how very often those on the extreme right who want to legislate a morality for all are all too often seen to come up short when it comes to their own personal lives. Happens all the time in American politics and religion …..
If you were to go back through my comments since this site started, I said I felt very sorry for his wife, this is why, the look on her face
told it all. And at the time, I could not say he was in bed with Credlin, although it must have been know about, some members of the LNP knew it and now using it to defame him, thank goodness. What a spider’s web we weave, good bye Tony.
Hi, Jennifer. Good article implying many things. One of those things (I’m a male so I am a little ignorant about female things), I have fathered three good boys, I thank my beloved for her desire and for her suffering to have the children.
Let’s see, we are of traditional heterosexual monogamous relationship without the church crap.. Boy, I didn’t know those terms in my youth. After our family was born, I had a vasectomy. My wife had done all the heavy lifting, so I decided it was time to do my bit. Now, according to the church to which Abbott satisfies his guilt; can having a vasectomy be considered “abortion”? Can the ‘morning after’ pill be truly considered ‘abortion’? Can “Casting one’s seed upon the ground” be considered among these religious nutters as a form of abortion? Can any of the birth control methods offend the Almighty Church? And hypocrite Abbott?
You mean if Abbott held the same beliefs toward same sex marriage as you do, you’d be comfortable with the Prime Minister having a sexual relationship with his Chief of Staff?
That’s not the way I see it. I think Jennifer is simply pointing out his hypocrisy.
I was born in a different era. No, I am not at all comfortable with that. I love my wife and have stayed true to her. You could say that I married the girl just like the girl that Dad did. The kids are grown up and fine men, thanks for asking.
Abbott has also tried to restructure Medicare in the past to remove funding for abortions: http://theconversation.com/lets-be-clear-on-tony-abbotts-attacks-on-abortion-10263
I am conflicted about this. I agree the hypocrisy of Abbott is galling and you have only mentioned a fraction of it. Abbott has spoken about the evils of contraception and abortion but notably leaves out premarital sex in which he freely partook, unprotected of course. He has spoken about his daughters’ virginity (cough) as a “gift” to be treasured yet had no such rules for himself.
There is no doubt that it was a Rasputin like relationship as far as dependence and decision making was concerned. That is sufficient reason to question. I am concerned about the “collateral damage” further speculation causes.
I detest the gossip about people’s private lives, especially their sexual lives, that happens to people in public life. I don’t like it for movie stars, pop stars, nor politicians. In politics, particularly where it implicates women, it just opens a can of worms. Gillard was defacto / living in sin, with an apparently gay hairdresser, she was ‘barren’ Clinton had an affair. Now Mrs Clinton can’t be seen for what she stands for truly because her husband had an affair. The list goes on an on.
I completely get your point about Abbott being a hypocrite. However, as this is all speculation relating to his marital bed, we don’t know if he is or not. It must be awful for the relatives and friends of both of them as well as the pair of them, if it is just innuendo to sell a book.
The backlash on social media today has been more about Credlin than about Abbott. It has been more to do with Credlin’s influence on Abbott rather than the buck actually stopped with him, with the decisions he made. I defended Credlin on Twitter today and it has been implied that I am a RWNJ, questioned if I stood up for Gillard as well, called pathetic and also a misandrist. The hatred out there is pretty ripe today. I guess when Gillard said “It stops with me” some people didn’t take any notice.
I would rather a politician be a two bit philanderer with good policies than have a faithful one who has harmful policies.
The parade of the family and credlin was not to show his religious morality but parading his women in an attempt at a rebuttal of gillard’s misogyny tag.
After a discussion about ‘hatred’ the conclusion was the wife, daughters and female chief of staff meant the misogynist was not.
My reason for his sex life being a concern, revolves around the hypocrisy of a yobbo, poofta-bashing christian sniffing after vaginas with a condomless prick whilst espousing the wonder of virginity
Yep! And I feel ‘safe’ in that agreement.
But there’s no ‘predicting’ as to the ‘meaning(s)’ people give to both the spoken and written word(s).
Could it be the case that humans always make ‘meanings’ or ‘explanations’ because it’s an inescapable part of ‘human nature’? An innate desire to ‘explain’, ‘rationalise’ and the like when confronted by what they perceive to be a ‘problem’?
Come on people , where is the proof, Niki Savva’s husband works for Malcolm Turnball, I’m no supporter of Tony Abbott but really , this is all about damaging Abbotts reputation to make Malcolm look good. Savva apparently said on Insiders that Bronwyn Bishop wanted to make a “grovelling apology” over her chopper ride but Abbott’s office wouldn’t let her , if you believe that I’ve a bridge I’d like to sell.
Jagger, do a bit of Googling and save yourself from further embarrassment.
Try this link as an opener.
“Married to political columnist Niki Savva, a critic of the Abbott administration whom Peta Credlin campaigned to have sacked from The Australian newspaper”
BTW, how cheap is your bridge? And are you aware that ‘fraud’ is still punishable?
It goes beyond just Abbott being hypocritical. If he is having an affair with his Chief of Staff, there are moral, legal and national security issues involved. Moral, in that there would be a power imbalance: superior to subordinate. Legal and national security, in what was said during “pillow talk”? As CoS Credlin would have access to nearly everything, yes, but what wouldn’t she have access to?
It was not the Left but Abbott’s own ministers who complained about the influence Credlin exerted, that Ministers themselves could not access Abbott, that many issues had to be micro-managed by herself. Then to top it off we have Credlin taking over the role usually reserved for the partner of the PM such as accompanying him to official dinners, and certainly not the role of a public servant. Then of course private holidays taken together. While chief of staff certainly has a job to do in being primary aid to the PM, it should not be forgotten that she was still a public servant whose first loyalty is supposed to be Australia.
Michael, am I allowed to respond to Trish Corry’s posts without being accused of ‘picking’ on her? Hilarious as that may be. Talk about being ‘precious’.
Yes I know, it’s beyond your control.
Blind Freddy,his deaf dog and me…in convo’ says..”oh paleezzzzze …it was obvious …..simple as that”!!! ….oh, but there’s more…much more than that, in the CAULDRON of LNP corruption > >>> >> boiling bubbles of troubles JMHO!!!
Not really. In both the technical and practical senses. Not then employed by a government or by an ‘agency’ and well out side of the constraints that normally apply to public servants.
Its endemic. All serfs to be regulated and to obey laws…the politicians and bureaucrats to do as they please, and to be above the law for any of their wrongdoing. This isn’t “conspiracy theory” but facts based on my own, and my colleagues’ years of experience.
In this day and age, whether they were doing the beast with two backs is entirely their concern. However, the issue is how an unelected person appears to have undue influence over our PM and hence our democracy. Makes the concept of us living in a representative democracy somewhat farcical. And that is the issue.
Matters Not , a hero in his own mind , Savva’s husband has worked and been an advisor to the LNP, he may not have liked Abbott but he reappeared when Turnball took over, as for the fraud comment you would know all about it , you’re the biggest fraud on this site.
Jagger, help is available. Do not despair, Ring now. Don’t delay.
I refer you to your comment of March 6, 2016 at 10:30 pm:
“where is the proof, Niki Savva’s husband works for Malcolm Turnball? ”
Provided! By the link.
You sook that is all you got.
Jagger, take on Matters Not at your own peril.
The parade of his family and Credlin may have been an attempt to refute the misogyny tag; it may also have been a deep need to confirm in his own mind his preferred heterosexuality.
Michael Taylor , as I said Matters Not is a hero in his own mind ,anyone who has to link the Daily Telegraph to their post cannot be taken seriously. Tony Nutt and Vincent Woolcock are best of mates and were seen together at Turnballs swearing in.
The only person abbott loved,was himself.mark
Peta seriously overacts her part, Alan just isn’t the Marrying Type, it is a pity that the Chopsticks Day date the Chinese arranged with Putin in the lodge on the Island on the lake near the Great Wall didn’t work out because Vlad is a closet family guy.
My concern is less with whether or not they had a sexual relationship but more over his apparent dependence on her. If she really did say that she would not have left Abbott because he could not manage without her the clear implication is that she, as an unelected individual, was using him as a mouthpiece for her policies.
Niki Savva has identified a relationship that was disfunctional and dangerous and whether they were having an affair or not is beside the point. Credlin has said publicly that she got Abbott into office and that he couldn’t operate without her : those statements alone are sufficient to show that something very unhealthy was going on.
I feel sorry for Margie who was sidelined at every possible opportunity and has so far maintained a dignified silence.
Abbott has no future in Australian public life and it demonstrates a character defect that he still thinks that he has a ‘contribution’ to make. Mind you, he understands contribution in a different way to the rest of us.
Abbott is the true representative leader of this mob in power. I want Abbott back leading the Liberals as soon as possible. Today would be good.
How does this piece help?
As health minister in the Howard government, Abbott refused Australian women access to the morning after pill because his personal morality is offended by abortion
I don’t think this is true. There was a possible health risk with RU486. It wasn’t covered by PBS until 2013.
But Mr Abbott said he would accept the advice of health experts on drugs such as RU486 if he was elected prime minister, after having blocked access to the abortion pill when he was health minister in the former Howard coalition government.
“When I was in government, we invariably accepted the advice of our technical advisers,” he told reporters in Adelaide.
“This is now before them and that would certainly be the way I would operate.”
I have to say I’m torn on this topic. I agree with Trish that we have no right to know what goes on in another person’s bed, even if that person controls our country’s future. On the other hand, massive hypocrisy over sexual matters in someone who makes laws on such things is surely an important thing to know about.
In the USA the most stridently homophobic politicians and preachers are very often found to be deeply closeted gays themselves. Should their exploits be publicised? I’ve never been comfortable with them being outed even though they have done so much to hurt millions of other people. At the same time I must admit to feeling a certain satisfaction in the harm coming home to the one who caused it.
There is something of the same in the case of Abbott. Perhaps he is having, or has had, an affair with Credlin, or perhaps it isn’t so. I don’t like the dirty feeling I get when thinking about it. However I do feel a small tug at the corners of my mouth when I think of all this loon’s damage coming home to roost.
As Trish reminds us, much as we’d like the weight to fall on Abbott, a lot of it is falling on Credlin, Margie, and the daughters. Perhaps we might feel angry at Credlin for her part in the damage wrought upon Australian society, but Margie and her daughters are surely blameless. Even Credlin may well be innocent of hypocrisy, much as I think it unlikely.
In the end, there is plenty to condemn Abbott (and Credlin) for without needing to go there.
@matters not 10:42
Actually I think this government has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that fraud is not punishable at all, no matter how blatant or obvious it is
Is ‘torn’ the magic word to allow you to go on about it?
Savva’s husband works for Turnbull. A poster above makes this point. How hard is that to assimilate?
It is the relevant copulation diary on this matter.
Anything else plays into the hands of Turnbull’s fake gentility. Other than being useless recrimination, it is campaigning for Turnbull.
Turnbull is worse than Abbott, because he is more likely to keep in power an odious pack of liars and crooks.
Bring back Tony! I want Bill to look as good as possible. That’s the predicament.
you’re right, of course – the more prominent Tony Abbott is, the better Bill Shorten looks !
Hi Carol, yes, absolutely, he associated the vaccine with what he perceives as promiscuity before marriage. Awful.
I deliberately avoided referring to Credlin in this piece so that the focus is on Abbott, where it belongs. I’m not a fan of Credlin at all, but I have profound objections to her being blamed for Abbott’s lunacy. He’s a grown up. He held the most powerful political job in the country. He exerted huge influence over ordinary lives. If he is enslaved by demeaning desire for a woman other than his wife,whatever form that desire takes, he is responsible for that, no one else. I want leader who isn’t vulnerable to being enslaved. By anyone.
Super fit men like Abbott need an outlet for their pent up frustration it would not surprise me if Credlin and he were involved in a sexual relationship in the least. I only wish that I saw 10% of his action, lol.
In the words of many a judge, if it goes to character I will allow it. Jennifer Wilson raises some very valid points, among them:
“Failed Prime Minister Tony Abbott operates from a platform that is largely based on his personal morality, drawn from Catholic dogma. This morality advocates traditional heterosexual monogamous marriage, and argues fiercely that this is the only circumstance in which children ought to be raised.”
Tony Abbott has judged others on the basis of sexual orientation. He sought to deny women RU486 effectively impacting our reproductive lives. Abbott exploitatively used his daughters as PR emissaries when it suited him.
I agree with what George Baumann has said [elsewhere], it’s usually the woman who pays the price for sexual indiscretion, yet in this case I believe Credlin was sacked for her bombastic incompetence rather any extra-curricular sexual activities. So if Abbott has indeed committed adultery I think we ought to know about it, not because we are interested in salacious gossip, but because it goes to character, honesty and integrity, all in short supply where this man is concerned.
I wasn’t sure really what to make of Niki Savva’s book .
Was it a “get square” with Tony to make Malcolm look good or something else .
On reading parts of it, it seems more to destroy Credlin , make Tony in some ways seem a victim to her cunning ways and part of the Liberals problem were all her, not the motley crew stuffing things
A few excerpts
In 2013, the prime minister of Papua New Guinea, Peter O’Neill, wanted to meet then opposition leader Abbott. Credlin wouldn’t “allow” the meeting. Abbott asked his international affairs adviser, Mark Higgie, if he could “convince Peta” to allow the meeting. Her response was “it’s not going to happen” and it didn’t
Credlin also forbade forbade household workers at Kirribilli House from ordering food for Margie at the official residence. “She made it her business to manage Kirribilli House as well.
But she also insisted that staff at Kirribilli could not order food for Margie or shop for meals (even family ones), despite the Abbotts residing at the official residence.”
“Credlin made herself indispensable to him. She would do his make-up, fix his hair, feed him food off her plate, let him sip wine out of her glass, bake him biscuits (especially if another female staffer had made some for him, too), then stand where she could eyeball him as he performed. He would look to her for approval, so he would know when he was doing as required or not,”
It was pitiful to watch. In every encounter, he accepted Credlin’s word above the word of others. In almost every conflict, she was the one he sought to placate. There was a pattern. She would have a meltdown, storm out, and he would feel compelled to go after her to mollify her or make sure she was all right. She never had to apologise for her behaviour, while others – from cabinet ministers down – were counselled to seek her forgiveness.”
I guess one Question would be “How do you manage a country if you can’t even manage a Chief of Staff?
Neil of Sydney , what do you say to that ?
“Neil of Sydney, what do you say to that?”
I’ll save Neil the trouble. His answer will be:
Interest rates were higher under Keating. Labor locked up 2,000 children on Nauru. Gillard killed the vehicle manufacturing industry in the country. Under Labor, unemployment goes through the roof. Labor trashed the budget. Rudd went to a strip club in New York. The GFC didn’t happen. You lefties are stupid. The moon landing was a hoax. Carly Simon was singing about Kevin Rudd in her song ‘You’re So Vain’. Tony Abbott would have won the 2016 election.
Now what was the question again?
Seriously, Francesca, we need to know more about the ‘character’ of Abbott?
Well, I don’t.
Again, it is campaign push-back for Turnbull, against Abbott’s rumblings. Savva is married into the Turnbull clan.
How do we get rid of Turnbull? Abbott might well help. He might be our biggest aid.
Let’s encourage the bastard.
“but I have profound objections to her being blamed for Abbott’s lunacy.”
With Labor you have Caucus that can bring the Leader back on track
Where were the spineless Ministerial colleagues and front bench in the Liberal Party room putting Credlin in her place .?
Credlin got to do what she did because a spineless Abbott and a bunch of wimpy colleagues allowed it to degenerate to that.
Credlin spoke, they ran,, gutless weak bastards they were
According to The Australian, Credlin at one point brazenly texted the newspaper’s editor-in-chief Chris Mitchell demanding Savva be sacked – a request that Mitchell did not heed.
Apparently she also tried to get Peter van Onselen sacked too.
It adds another level to this when Credlin thinks she can have journalists sacked if she doesn’t like what they write. This isn’t just about an inept PM but a woman who was drunk with power.
Indeed! We wuz robbed. After all he was elected Prime Minister.
Bishop the Elder deserves another go as well. Let others fight the terrorists. She belongs in the Chair.
Mal Brough and Stuart Robert should be immediately reinstated.
It’s Time to reset the clock. Everyone should get a second chance. Even the ‘adults’.
Bring back Team Australia. Captain’s picks, knighthoods and the like.
Who’s in Government now? Rephrase: who is the frontman for the pack of gangsters now?
How do we get rid of them now? How could they be destabilised further?
The stories in Savva’s book, which have been confirmed by those involved, detail how atrociously Credlin treated Margie, including retrieving a bunch of flowers she had thrown away, and then giving them to Margie with a thank you note. She treated her like dirt and purposely kept her away from her husband.
Spot on Jennifer,
You reap what you sow.
Cairns and Morosi here we go again. Lol..Morosi won defamation cases about their affair – but Cairns later on admitted there was sexual relationship.
People should have zero concern about using this to attack the LNP, Abbott and Credlin. Personally, I hope it leads to both couples being divorced. That’s Tough Love for ya!
“He that lieth down with dogs shall rise up with fleas”
Neil of Sydney , what do you say to that ?
I find the stories hard to believe. But there is nothing worse than having a control freak in charge of things. If Credlin was as bad as the rumours say i can understand why they got rid of Abbott. Apparently Rudd was the same. He also had some young members of staff which drove everybody nuts as well as Rudd driviing everybody nuts
I suspect that Abbott himself would be OK to work for but since there are so many rumours about Credlins control freak behaviour some of them have to be true.
Rumors of a Abbott affair were curculating before he was ever elected. Gillard didn’t use them in the political battle. Of course the current LNP team see no boundaries now that they clearly want Abbott out of the way.
I can see the validity in Ms Wilson’s argument and the wish that others’ eyes could be opened to his total unsuitability as Prime Minister.
Regardless, whether a person is a hypocrite or someone upholding their genuinely held beliefs though, no one should have the power to impinge on the personal life of any other rational, consenting adult.
So for me, Abbott’s hypocrisy is irrelevant. It doesn’t impact on his validity as a ‘moral authority’ on these issues. He never had any. And not just because he’s a wanker.
Hard one, but on this: unless a law is being broken, it’s not my business.
Really, Neil? Those stories came from the mouths of Liberal politicians. I thought you believed everything they say.
Jan, asylum seekers aren’t breaking the law either, yet I have a strong interest in their welfare.
Michael Taylor ,
What are you Nostradamus?
Not far of the mark mate 😀
Sleaze and politicians have always played in each others’ hands. What’s new? Abbott was thrown out by his own party and for his retaliation, this story has been brought out. The Liberal Party are not creative.
Nah. Neil’s just an easy book to read.
As do I, and please don’t think I’m ‘having a go’ at Ms Wilson. But leaving aside our Asylum Seeker Policy does appear to be breaking international law, we’re discussing the personal life of two consenting adults.
It’s a complicated issue, and I found it difficult to elucidate my thoughts. I just think (and this is very roughly worded), using Abbott’s hypocrisy on an issue that most progressives consider should be no one else’s business, gives some validity to the argument that maybe if he did hold the “moral high ground”, he may have some legitimacy.
So we have Credlin texting Mitchell, trying to get News Corp journalists sacked and we have Rupert texting for Abbott to sack Credlin – looks like Roop won the day, finally.
Neil of Sydney
You say “I find the stories hard to believe.”
Mate, if it was written by a Labor cronie you may have some believability but, this was written by one of your mob .
“Savva – a former adviser to both John Howard and Peter Costello – adds depth and details to the picture of a prime minister who had ceded much of his power to his chief of staff, who was told by her he could not do his job without her, and who appeared to believe that was true.
In government Abbott held a meeting of cabinet ministers in his office and one of them told an off-colour joke about submarines. “Credlin stood up and stormed out of the room. A distressed Abbott took off after her. She walked back in a few minutes later, with Abbott following closely behind her. The prime minister addressed his bemused colleagues, saying: ‘I think we owe Peta an apology.’ He turned to the towering inferno beside him. ‘Sorry, Peta,’ he said. A couple of them, including Joe Hockey, chimed in: ‘Sorry, Peta.’ Credlin then launched into an angry lecture, telling them they were the reason the government was doing so badly among women.”
And bugger me, there’s not a mention of Rudd, but good of you to throw that in
Some of the phrases here reveal a purpose largely gossip, not political assessment.
‘Reap what you sow’ and all that could come from Cory Bernardi.
It would be better left as the speciality of such a type.
When I heard long ago that Credlin had tried to get journos at The Australian sacked I thought that a very good sign.
There should be more of it. Dissension among arseholes does fair-minded interest no harm.
While reactionaries make much of morals, they mean the token and dogmatic type, the socially exclusionary kind. They have limited capacity for moral nuance.
That makes organisation their strength. When they themselves undermine that strength, they should be encouraged.
Well one thing Savva has done is keep Abbott in the news.
Having read several of the tawdry episodes contained in the book I can say one thing. If I had been Margie Abbott there would have been a showdown and Credlin would have been very firmly reminded of her position. It astonishes me that no-one had the guts to do that in the party room but she sure as hell wouldn’t be telling me what I could and couldn’t do. Bullies bring out the worst in me.
Abbott has kept Abbott in the news.
[Regardless, whether a person is a hypocrite or someone upholding their genuinely held beliefs though, no one should have the power to impinge on the personal life of any other rational, consenting adult]
Abbott was PM. He is a representative of Australia. Allowing deceitfulness of any kind is a bad idea – you’d end up with Berlusconi types running our parliament.
He is also a traditionalist. Other politicians have resigned when caught out in affairs.
For me, it is all about the hypocrisy. I don’t normally care about politicians personal lives (until they start lying about it), but when they make such a big thing of their so called goodness and use it to attract votes, an example needs to be made, so that hopefully fewer pollies will use the happy family façade. It is also an example of a lack of control caused by testosterone, the same testosterone that makes him a warmonger type.
well when this idiot of a prime minister is doing while in parliament it indeed is our business
these idiots are supposed to be above reproach and doing this we need to know
had we known what abbot was about then we would never have voted him in
Anyone who didn’t know what Abbott was about hadn’t been paying attention. The fact that “we” voted him in is a sad indictment of the lack of interest most Australians have in politics. You either had to be ignorant or on the make to vote for him and the same applies to Turnbull.
Wish to let you know how mightily I savoured your rhetorical nuggets conveyed with a singularly arresting parlance in the following:
“Dissension among arseholes does fair-minded interest no harm.
While reactionaries make much of morals, they mean the token and dogmatic type, the socially exclusionary kind. They have limited capacity for moral nuance.
That makes organisation their strength. When they themselves undermine that strength, they should be encouraged.”
Or as League Legend Jack Gibson put it, “Played strong, done fine!”
For some reason, I am reminded of Sebastian Love & the Prime Minister in “Little Britian”.
For those not familiar with this obviously biased show – NoSy comes to mind – the following pen sketch might ring bells
“Sebastian Love is the Private Secretary to the Prime Minister. He has an obvious crush on the Prime Minister, although he denies it. Anyone who, he thinks, is a rival for the Prime Minister’s love he will treat badly, for example, the Prime Minister’s wife and other senior aides and politicians.”
Whatever trouble Abbott & Credlin have got themselves into, political or sexual, they appear to have contributed equally to their fall from grace. Jennifer admits she concentrated on Abbott’s short comings (no pun); at 10.22am yesterday, Trish is upset with this type of gossip particularly “where it implicates women” and Miriam at 7.44am, links Credlin, Margie and the daughters together as all having to carry the load of Abbott’s faults.
To leave Credlin out of the history or to paint her as misused is to beg the question: who controlled whom and how and why and how often.
What was that?
Did you hear that?
Ducks quacking in the wings?
We’ll just have to be patient and see what they look like if they walk across the stage.
@Michael Taylor “Nah. Neil’s just an easy book to read.” – channelling Pete & Dud there Michael?
Neil of SydneyMarch 7, 2016 at 1:03 pm
“Well one thing Savva has done is keep Abbott in the news.”
You think that’s a good thing ?
Now if it was for helping the needy , aiding the sick, bringing world peace , maybe
but, screwing his C.O.S ?
that’s worthy ?
Geez Neil, I worry about you
He doesn’t deny anything, does he
Still the 3 word slogans
He’s one Tones
“Stop the bullshit”
Most press releases have a contact listed ‘for further details’ and so on. Does this one?
This release is simply going through the motions.
One wonders if Savva has more evidence and is just waiting for an outright denial before pouncing. If so, she will ensure bigger sales.
This article fails on the basis of its opening premise, which is not supported by the rest of it:
Abbott has not legislated anything regarding anyone’s “sex” lives. This premise is a total strawman. Frankly this article strikes me as a poor attempt to justify/rationalise the last one.
It also strikes me as curious that we all seem to be prepared to accept Abbott’s alleged affair as fact. I know first hand how gossip and innuendo taken as fact destroys lives. I am living it. I will not accept or tolerate it in any context. It is pathetic.
@backyard Bob – A wink is as good as a nod. . . . . ., and, if you missed the wink, you haven’t been paying attention.
Matters Not ,the hero in his own mind, are you feeling embarrassed today. Nikki Savva today admitted her husband works for Turnball, I won’t wait for an apology , I wouldn’t expect it from you.
Seeing it was Mardi Gras, this fits the spot
A genuinely wonderful moment between Lib MP Trent Zimmerman & @billshortenmp at #MardiGras2016. #WeCanDoThis #AusPol
Backyard Bob, don’t you think his adamant refusal to allow marriage equality counts as him using the law to interfere in other people’s sex lives?
I have to agree with your point about gossip and innuendo, though. It does feel rather inappropriate. It is the sort of thing conservatives do, not progressives. I know it is difficult to resist the schadenfreude, especially considering the steadfast wickedness of Abbott and his actions in hurting millions of Australians. If there was proof he was conducting an illicit affair while denouncing other people doing the same, then perhaps it would be relevant, but we only have very convincing gossip. That’s not proof.
I have been the subject of hurtful, malevolent, untrue gossip. I’m sure those who believed it honestly thought it was true, but it wasn’t. They were being manipulated by a sick person. I have absolutely no doubt the current gossip about Abbott is manipulation by those in the LNP intending to hurt him and undercut any support he might have to challenge Turnbull’s government. By believing in the gossip without proof we are playing into the hands of the LNP party machinery as it happily grinds one of its own underfoot. Sure, the victim is an utter shit who I’d love to see get his comeuppance, but I’d like it to be for all the horrible things he did to people, not something that can’t be proven.
No, unless logic and the meaning of words has been suspended in this universe.
Being able to call yourself “married” and all of the important symbolism that holds for many people has nothing to do with anyone’s “sex life”. The conflation of those two things strikes me as irrational and insulting as when people conflate marriage with procreation. In other words I find the characterisation of an intimate relationship as “sex life” to be somewhat demeaning.
I find Abbott’s position on marriage equality repugnant, but then I found Gillard’s position repugnant for the same reason (the imposition of a personal view of marriage upon a population). No-one’s “sex life” is being impeded by Abbott or this Government.
As for Abbott’s potential hypocrisy – I believe BOM likes to forecast the chance of storms over the summer period.
Who posted this? March 6, 2016 at 10:30 pm
Despite a link demonstrating same. Actually the one and same person who today posts March 7, 2016 at 6:00 pm :
What a difference a day makes. Shakes head. ?
Well it is a ‘democracy’ and people can change their minds.
the deluded self proclaimed intellectual tried his patronising crap on me……
he ran off with his tail growing.
it was in the david icke thread
There is still a bully boy club on this forum. Private messages are used to align themselves and then launch disparaging attacks with out identifying details.
Same tactics. The usual short memory, gullible and plagiarising individuals.
wannabe ginger ninjas
We already know Abbott is a hypocrite without an affair with Credlin. He was in a sexual relationship before marriage. For many years he believed that he fathered a child in that relationship and he walked away from the woman and the child because he was too young to be tied down in a committed relationship.
I have been writing for this site for approaching three years. Are you suggesting that I am part of some secret gang who message each other to plan our attack on commenters? Your assertion about some sort of “bully boy club” is wrong. People disagree with me all the time. They sometimes criticise what I write and I listen to their criticism and learn from it.
Lee, Abbott;s reason for abandoning his girlfriend was that he wouldn’t be able to take advantage of the Rhodes Scholarship gifted to him by Dyson Heydon if he was lumbered with partner and child.
Not you Kaye
our last conversation went well.
Jeffrey, all the writers here are independent of each other, and they can write what they want, within reason. If there are private messages of collusion between the writers then it’s news to me. It’s news to all of us. What do you know that we don’t?
Can’t answer your question.
But I do recognise the hypocritical posters.
While Dyson Heydon’s role was important in the sense he was a necessary link in the chain, that explanation is not sufficient, particularly in the time Abbott was gifted his. Rhodes Scholarships were always shared around (still happens today) with the established Churches always in the queue and expecting to have a ‘turn’. When Abbott received his, he clearly wasn’t the best candidate given the ‘criteria’ – not someone with the best academic record, (his was rather poor) and his athletic prowess was not remarkable, and so on, but he had two important things on his side.
First, he was ‘Catholic’ and it was the turn of the Catholics to have one of their own rewarded in the Rhodes stakes, Second, he had an influential Father Costello on his side as a vocal, and active sponsor.
Yes Heydon was important in ‘stamping’ the decision but the ‘outcome’ had deep roots.
How? What evaluative ‘measures’ do you bring to bear? Really interested to know.. And I ask as someone who is certainly not part of any ‘club’. To quote Marx:
To avoid the idle chit chat, I’ll get to the point.
I read the forum every few days or weeks. Last I spoke with you and another bloke on this forum, you were both disrespectful, I still believe the premise of your argument was wrong.
I see similar antics continue on other irregular posters and I consider you both need to be called out on it.
jeffrey at 10:56 pm:
Yes I think I remember that. Not! ? As I have argued consistently, I have no control over the ‘meaning’ anyone gives to my words. If in doubt, there is always the option of asking for clarification. But you go on:
Possibly. But I am not sure what meaning you give to the word ‘disrespectful’
For your information, I always try to challenge ‘views’. And then re-challenge same. It’s how I clarify my own. You know test ideas by having others show me where I am in error.
What’s your approach to ‘doubt’? Or is that a silly question?
A patronising attitude can be considered disrespectful.
Maybe re read the thread in question and see it from a different perspective. Im certain you will recognise that it has nothing to do with challenging perspectives.
and if others care to check it out, they can see for themselves that your attitude continues.
Dec 24th 2015 10:12pm.
jeffrey, if you want others to “check it out” I think they’re going to need more info.
Backyard Bob, at the risk of coming off as pedantic as you, “people’s sex lives” doesn’t necessarily refer to people indulging in the sex act, but things associated with their sexuality, for example marriage. In fact I misquoted Jennifer. She actually said “sexual lives” which sounds even more like she means aspects of their lives associated with their sexuality. As for finding it insulting and demeaning when people conflate sex and marriage, if you re-read your comment I think you’ll find you were the one doing that in your very protests.
Jeffrey you are right about Matters Not,the hero is his own mind, my opening comment on the topic was about the truth of the allegations of Abbott and Credlin having an affair “where’s the proof” , Savva had an axe to grind with both of them and her husband works for Turnball who stands to gain by slandering them, the fact that Savva on National TV said that Bronwyn Bishop wanted to give a “grovelling apology” to the electorate shows she is careless with the truth.
Yeah and once again he offers a condescending attitude, nothing more and then runs off.
I must disagree. I think you misunderstand MN. His questioning style does not come from some feeling of superiority. He asks people to explain what they mean in a rather unique way but asking does not equate to belittling. And he does it to all of us, not just newcomers. I appreciate his insight and he makes me think about what I am writing and how others may perceive it. Don’t take it personally. I think his comments are made in good faith.
Maybe re read his comment from dec 24th 2015. And see it from a different perspective.
i certainly have not read everything he has written, but I am yet to read anything from him that could be described as profound or insighfful.
Jeffrey and Jagger, get a room.
Delete you rcomment
Edited by Carol Taylor, blog sub-owner and el supremo. Please Jeffrey use language with a tad more imagination than a 14 year old behind the school toilet block.
Kaye Lee, let’s just say we agree to disagree.
One of MN’s particular hobby horses is that people’s perception of words, or the meaning they attach to comments, differs. Social media leads to a lot of misunderstandings so I find that a valid and worthwhile point. He also has personal experience of working in government particularly with Kevin Rudd and in the field of education that has offered us a view from the inside.
I hope this goes part way towards explaining what I think has been just such a misunderstanding.
Jagger, the book states that it was ‘the perception of’ the fact that Abbott and Credlin were having an affair. The fact that you leave your wife behind and take your Chief of Staff on a European skiing holiday is bound to fuel speculation. As Abbott himself said, would Credlin have been treated this way if Peta had been Peter. I ask Abbott, would he have taken his Chief of Staff away on holidays if he had indeed been a Peter and not Peta.
It is the perception of the fact which was the problem, the undue influence, the attempts to keep Margie Abbott away from not just the spotlight, but away from Abbott himself, the usurping of the role of the wife of the Prime Minister on even vice regal occasions. That’s a problem and one which Abbott chose not to deal with. One could infer that he chose Credlin against his wife. After all, it was his choice that Credlin accompany him to formal dining, to New York to meet Murdoch and numerous other occasions rather than his wife. That above is mistress versus wife which is fine if it’s not Australia’s Prime Minister and not a staffer versus the PM’s wife. This is indeed a problem.
There is no misunderstanding.
he offers up a condescending know-all insulting attitude and then doesnt back it up.
there is a reason he needs to be called out.
When you choose to make the excuses, you allow him to continue with same demeanor.
There is no need to drag this out. Address the issue and deal with it.
At a celebration dinner party the evening after Mr Abbott’s election victory, businessman Alf Moufarrige hosted a celebration at his plush Hunters Hill home in Sydney. Arriving guests saw place settings for the entire Abbott family arranged on one table. When they next looked, the settings for Margie and the girls, which had included specially created laminated placemats, featuring photos of the Abbott women, were gone.
Disappointed Abbott staff, there with their own partners, who had been looking forward to congratulating Margie and the girls for their efforts during the campaign – as well as hoping that Margie would become a regular fixture in the PM’s schedule – asked what had happened. The response: an edict from Mr Abbott’s chief of staff.
Before he flew out to the Margaret Thatcher lecture in October last year, an excited Mr Abbott told a friend: “I am being taken to the south of France. I don’t know where – it’s a surprise.”
“News broke that a villa had been rented. He was going to spend time there with Credlin and a couple of other former staff. His wife, Margie, who had accompanied him to London … flew back home on her own. He flew to Paris. He spent his 58th birthday in France with Credlin”
PS jeffrey, I HAVE been addressing the issue. You are entitled to disagree. Consider me dealt out.
There was no need to have dealt yourself in.
Carol Taylor if all these perceptions are true , then we must conclude that Brian Loughnane and Margie Abbott didn’t think it important , so they must have approved of their spouses behaviour.
Kaye Lee, I always felt that Margie was once of Abbott’s best assets giving the impression of being a normal down to earth lady. It was Abbott himself who chose the macho imagine and chose to keep Margie well away from Canberra. One might blame Credlin, but the choice was his. The matter of course is about undue influence, the inability of Abbott’s own ministers to be able to provide advice.
“There was no need to have dealt yourself in”.
This is an open forum. Whatever you say here is visible to everybody. If you don’t like people engaging in your arguments with other commenters then perhaps you should refrain from it completely.
Jagger, as a good Catholic wife, I doubt that Margie would have had much choice in the matter. As far as Lougnane goes, and this is purely speculation, perhaps he would have been happy with that Ambassadorship to the Holy See that Abbott recommended him for. Convenient was is not, Credlin in Canberra as Sex Discrimination Commissioner and her husband sent “abroad”.
Carol, I find myself wearing two hats in this discussion. Of course, as a voter, my concern is about how this relationship affected government but I cannot completely divorce my feelings as a wife. I too admire Margie Abbott and she and her daughters worked damn hard to help get Tony elected. To then discard her and actively keep her away from functions and to refuse to let staffers help her is inexcusable. Yes, it was Tony’s weakness that allowed that to happen but Credlin should not be exonerated.
Did you you read the comments from dec 24th?
Or is this a blind argument?
The issue I have brought up is the condescending attitude, that is what could be termed as troll like behaviour.
You as the owner/moderator should call him out on it and not defend him.
people can contribute wherever they like.
Does that mean I am dealt back in 😉
Carol Taylor , do you not also find it convenient this book is being published now, with the obvious power struggle in the LNP, only Turnball has anything to gain politically.
That is entirely up to you.
do have to reiterate?
address the issue!
My complaint refers to attitude and behaviour on the 24th dec and then he does it again on this thread and instead of recognizing this you defend him with out acknowledement of the intial complaint.
Did it ever occur to you that I disagree with your complaint?
Your disagreement is non sense.
My complaint is his condescending attitude to myself on the 24th dec, he applies the same condescending attitude to others.
so therefore your disagreement has no value.
like I have stated re read his comments on the 24th
address the issue.
this not a question of does he/does he not have this condescending attitude, neither is it a question of interpretation, his written word says it all.
You think my point of view is nonsense and I think your complaint is nonsense. I also think David Icke is a weirdo. There are other commenters who have berated me/us for not defending MN, a valued contributor, against attacks, not that he needs any help. Are we done yet?
Once again that is your choice.
matters not could probably speak for himself.
akin to pell saying “I disagree with your complaint about my collegues.”
Now you are moving into the the realm of the ridiculous. Enough!
Once again ‘enough’ is entirely your choice.
it is matters not that needs to address the complaint.
Why not copy & paste the offending comments of 24th?
Including yours, of course.
I’d like to, but I am not certain as to how to do it.
I have offered commencement time and date of the offending attitude and the thread was mostly to do with david icke.
So that this can be brought to a halt, this is Matters Not’s comment of 24/12 that is causing all the angst:
Most would agree that there is nothing offensive or abusive about the comment. Cutting yes, but nothing more than that.
The matter is now closed.
No it is not.
the comments from matters not continue in the same thread..
Address the complaint, do not obfuscate with a partial redition and then declare that the problem is solved.
I asked for this not to be dragged out. I have better things to do.
address the issue.
Tell me, what would you like done?
You asked us to look at Matters Not’s comment of 10;12pm 24/12/2015.
This has been done. There is nothing wrong with it and the matter is closed.
We have better things to do too.
Any further comments from you about this will be deleted.
The issue is his contributions are condescending, with a presumptious judgement as the underlying context of of his debate. He then does not conclude the debate with any respectful acknowledgement.
Once, against myself, is no big deal. But he continus the same and continues the same on others.
like I’ve said, I call him out on it.
as far as what can you do?
Maybe just recognise and acknowledge the complaint.
The rest is up to matters not.
You could delete all my comments, and then you’d have a winning argument without any contest.
jeffrey, I am not sure what one has to do to be considered having acknowledged your complaint. What you want is for everyone to agree with you. If you think your comments have made you a winner then fine. You win. Feel better?
Previously you have stated that yourself and others have had to defend this individual.
obvious then that this is not an isolated complaint.
in reference to your comment about winning. You need to re read what I wrote. Your comprehension skills have failed you.
jeffrey, I will draw your attention to our Disclaimer (which you can read in full via the link below our header):
After calling someone here a “fckhead”, I’d suggest that you’re on shaky ground.
Having [re]read the discussion thread jeffrey is speaking about I have to say, in my view, Matters Not was indeed somewhat condescending and oblique in his posts, and sometimes adopts a pedagogic air that can “invite” perceptions of condescension. I should know, I’m prone to such dynamics myself.
But often effects and consequences aren’t what we intend. Lack of correlation between what is offered and what is received is very often out of our control. In fact, it’s ultimately entirely out of our control, and whilst there are certain ways in which we can seek to minimise the fracturing of meaning, it involves an awful lot of work. An awful lot. It makes my head hurt to think of just how much.
jeffrey, relax mate, you’re being overly sensitive, imnsho.
Backyard Bob, at the risk of coming off as pedantic as you,
I would say the only thing at risk in the employment of that particular sentence is intellectual integrity. Naughty!
“people’s sex lives” doesn’t necessarily refer to people indulging in the sex act,
I perhaps should have made myself clearer on that front by adding that this article begins and ends with a flawed premise. The article ends with:
If Tony Abbott would care to lose his interest in controlling the sexual practices of adult citizens[…]
You can construct an argument around the meaning of “sexual lives” if you like, and I might be passingly persuaded by it, but I would contend that “sexual lives” in combination with “sexual practices” makes my argument more cogent.
I will concede, however, I should have made that argument using the exact phrase in the article. 10 demerit points for me.
Jeffrey, I think you need to get over yourself. Matters Not can be direct in his manner, but that can be very useful.
One of my most valued friends can always be relied upon to tell me if something I say doesn’t make sense, or if my breath smells, or if I look like shit. Some people think she is rude, but I don’t; she is blunt and honest. That’s far more important to me than the way so many of my other friends will always tread lightly to avoid hurting my feelings. What’s the use in not knowing when I’m making a mistake? I’m not so insecure as to need people to overlook my errors.
Your harping on about taking offense at what Matters Not said sounds a lot like insecurity. This is an open forum. People will say things you don’t like. I’ve felt insulted by people who I later found out hadn’t intended any harm at all, and who subsequently became friends. I’ve also been genuinely insulted by others who I have dismissed from my interest as being beneath my response. I have sometimes responded intemperately to people (and have often regretted it). On odd occasions I’m sure some of my more hurried replies come off as blunt or even insulting. (It generally isn’t intended as so.) People don’t always have the time to spend ministering to others’ egos. Forgive me if that sounds rude. I’m simply stating a fact.
😀 Heheh Backyard Bob, I concede too. It was a bit of a stretch.
In fact, in my original post I was agreeing with you. I’m still not entirely sure why you sought to pull at the sex thread, but maybe Tony hasn’t been having sex with Peta. Maybe that’s one point of hypocrisy we can leave off Tone’s long list.
As I said before, I’m uneasy about spotlighting the private sex lives of hypocrits in office, no matter how good it feels to catch them out.
People don’t always have the time to spend ministering to others’ egos. Forgive me if that sounds rude. I’m simply stating a fact.
That might well be the most important thing stated in this discussion. It’s possible in one-on-one scenarios to develop a greater awareness of an individual’s ego-based sensibilities, but when one is faced with multiple interlocutors the best you can do is just be authentic to yourself and hope for the best. My feeling is that if everyone approached things that way there’d be less problems with perceived personal injury.
Of course I’m not referring to instances where someone calls you a smelly can of half eaten 6 month old baked beans left in a wheelie bin that hasn’t been emptied for 12 years. I can’t tell you how many times that’s happened to me. I mean, seriously, I really can’t ……..
As I said before, I’m uneasy about spotlighting the private sex lives of hypocrits in office, no matter how good it feels to catch them out.
At times it may well have utility to point to a politician’s hypocrisy regarding certain moral stances they take (and that can be done with regard to Abbott on certain fronts). I think this has been true in some cases for Republicans and religious leaders in the States. My problem with this current commentary is that a fact not in evidence is being assumed to be such, and frankly on extremely flimsy grounds. Allegations exist. Rumours exist. Such things are easy to construct.
Food from a fork? Jesus wept. If one were inclined to do one could easily decide that a bromance was occurring between two guys at the local pub, because every time Nev goes to the chip machine he brings back his chips, tears open the packet and places it on the dry bar for Bob to share with him. Pair of flippin’ poofs! No, no, he doesn’t just share his finger food as often happens in bars, he puts EXTRA salt on the chips, so, you know, that right there….. uh, huh? Yeeeahhh….
I hate hypocrisy. It’s one of my greatest bug bears. I spend days in a state of self-loathing when I catch myself at it. Seeing this commentary unfold reminds me of all the garbage the Right threw at Gillard over her partner. “Of course he was gay! That’s why she never married him! How can you not see that?” etc etc. For me it’s in the same category and if we’re not better than the salacious loons of the Right, then what are we?
I prefer to deal with things as fact when they are established as such, and not before.
I completely agree.
I can understand the temptation, especially when considering someone like Abbott who loves to put others down, but two wrongs don’t make a right (although three lefts do).
I cannot help but feel sorry for the Margey seen in the photo attached to this article. Why suffer such a fool as Abbott? Why allow Credlin to demean her?
While I know the buck stopped with Abbott coz he was in the power position as the former, failed PM, I also consider what Margey was and is still reaping out of the festering environment. Economic security for herself and career opportunities for her daughters amongst other factors.
Unfortunately, people like Margey, who fall into line with degenerates like Abbott and his RWNJ’s, are incrementally responsible for the bad things that are happening to our beautiful Australia and our people’s common good. Those at the top cannot achieve such destruction without that assistance along the way.
Yes, I think Carol Taylor’s earlier post about the agony of the long-distance housewife Margie resonated with me also. I think she would have busted her guts to be a good wife and mum, and for little more than a kick in the teeth for it. Once again Tony, this 2016, not 1946.. by his behaviours is he known, as much as his self serving blather.
I’m disappointed by this article in that it’s more emotional and about you ( one dimensional).
You don’t seem to be looking at the context of the prevailing political reality. Abbott isn’t the root cause of the issues that really concern you, it’s the party and more specifically how these patriarchal bone heads get there ( see the Weekly on Iview for this week ).
Yes Abbott is clearly a monumental egotist ( narcissist?) as are most if not all those strive for and reach the political hights ( see organization theory and any on going organizations first Objective : It’s own longevity) .
As for being a sexual hypocrite, hmm aren’t most of us at times…we have to survive in a social world.
Let’s be absolutely clear, I consider Abbott to have been the Worst ( most divisive and most incompetent/inappropriate ) as both a minister and PM. And amongst the reasons, his view towards dictating to other people ( including women, gays, refugees etc) how they should behave. Or more importantly what human rights they should have.
Another point of contention in your piece is that Abbott’s political views are closer to that of the late Bob Santamaria (National Civic Council) whom he was an acolyte of, than just the Catholic church. Oh yes, most denominational Christians are more denominational than true Christian. By real Christian standards, as such some what duplicitous perhaps hypocritical. Certainly the Catholics are, but that’s a whole new philosophical argument.
But sticking to the topic Abbott is playing to a set audience i.e. the moral/social luddites in the current Conservative dominated Liberal party, branches and the great unwashed ( as in the pissed off who don’t know what they really want. Note the real difference between Turnbull and “the swaggering jock’s ” version . Not a lot if any outside of tokenism and slick.
BTW Abbott was panicked earlier about the possibility that he might be the father to a Canberra TV Camera man, it turned out not to be so. The case of the RU 486 he did relent due to public pressure ( probably told to by Howard).
One of the problems with being a representative is that there are times in which to represent. one has to vote against one’s own opinion to represent your constituents. Superficially that can be viewed as hypercritical but if he was acting in accordance with what he got elected for then it clearly isn’t.
Either way Abbott’s extra sex life is all but irrelevant to all but to the alter extremists.( the diametric other extreme bypassing the objective centre) .
I’m in no doubt that the country is better off without his “Footballer” ( crash through, captain’s choice) mentality and ineptitude. I could fill pages with his objective failing/inappropriateness for high representative office without mentioning this dreadful Titillating book.
Seriously were you going to vote for him prior to the book? I wasn’t and still won’t.
Given that there is no direct claim and unlikely to be any positive proof and one can’t prove a negative this whole topic is moot.
See the latest First Dog on the Moon for a seriously good chuckle on this topic.
In 2017 we have opened a new chapter on this hypocritical business. Barnaby Joyce, the Deputy Prime Minister has just been re-elected
in New England, and a large part of the responsibility for his win must go to the mainstream media who have deliberately refrained from outing Barnaby about his sexual predation towards young employees. Barnaby has got a young newly married staff member pregnant and she is due in February/March. The staff member has been “promoted” away from the area and her social media accounts have been shut down.
The press has ignored eye witness accounts to his daughters driving down the main street in a campaign vehicle, calling to people through a megaphone not to vote for their father and the tale of Barnaby’s wife driving over his clothes with a ride on mower. When someone is in this position of power, campaigning against marriage equality on the “grounds” of the “sanctity” of traditional marriage, then their private lives are, indeed our business.
Thanks Corruption Chaser,
for telling me what my gut and sense of morality was telling me about Bananaby’s family life or lack of it.
He is a piece of shit and I sympathise greatly with his wife and daughters.
RU468 is not “Perfectly safe” do a little bit deeper research.
Check out the side effects of RU468, far from a purfect drug.
Russell Wattie, you mean RU 486. Seems a pretty safe drug to me. Far, far safer than pregnancy.
Abdominal pain, uterine cramping, and vaginal bleeding or spotting for a week or two. Sounds like a strong case of menstrual cramps. To be expected when aborting an egg.
Less than 8% bled for a month. Annoying, but not a giant problem.
Less common are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, dizziness, fatigue, and fever. They don’t say for how long, but I’d expect it would be over a few days. Also annoying, but not a show-stopper.
They also say pelvic inflammatory disease is very rare. Yes, that one is serious, but what drug doesn’t carry risks? Have you checked out the even more scary risks associated with aspirin?
Honestly, for most women RU 486 is a safe and effective boon. As I say, it is much, much, much safer than full term pregnancy and giving birth, which still kills about 7 women per 100,000 births in Australia. And there are all the other risks from the 9 months of pregnancy itself… not counting the damage to one’s career.
Be careful of taking the propaganda of right-wing Christian Taliban at face value. Their primary interest seems to be in controlling women’s bodies, not in improving our well-being.
ME, it would seem you just might construct a reality that’s not shared by Russell Wattie. So where does one find the real reality? Surely, one doesn’t have to exercise judgment? And be human? LOL.
That’s right, keep drinking and look more of a dick.
OK, woah, so clever got me on a Typo, do you feel superior now?
I noticed you didn’t reprimand me with the 4.5 to 7.9% below? Why’s that Miriam? Let’s not mention what doesn’t fit tour narrative?
Between 4.5 and 7.9% of women required surgical intervention in clinical trials.
Now while that is a low percentage, would you like to be in that position, What would you be saying now, had Abbott’s government OKed RU486, and Six women from a Hundred needed Surgical intervention? That’s Six women, do you say oh, its ok for the rest, just take a hit for the team.
Gee, Russell, if you’re wanting people to take your message seriously, you should watch those “typos”. Like what’s Miriam”s “tour” narrative?
The point with Abbott’s refusal on RU486 (or RU468 if that’s what you were concerned about) was never that he was refusing it on safety grounds; the concern was that he was refusing it because of his own religious beliefs.
Russell Wattie, surgical intervention poses a higher risk than the use of RU486. So whilst it may not be effective up to 7.9% of the time, it does lower the risks for women between 92.1 and 95.5% of the time.
Wow, another touchy guy. Must be something going around.
No, Russell Wattie, I wasn’t reprimanding you. I couldn’t remember what was said about RU 486 in the article and comments above so I searched for it in the page. Because the number that I copied was wrong (468) it didn’t show, which had me stumped for a while. I have great difficulty remembering numbers myself. So my mention of the error was just a courtesy. (I like to know when I’ve made a mistake.)
The 4.5 to 7.9% sounds like a lot, but when you consider a third (33%) of all births in Australia already have surgical intervention as caesarean births, RU 486 still sounds like a win to me. And don’t forget “surgical intervention” isn’t necessarily something scary. It could mean just aspirating an incompletely aborted foetus. On the other hand caesarean always requires a knife and stitches and the attendant risk of infection.
I’m sure that Daniel O’Connor is still breathing a sigh of relief that Botty is not his father. And at the time of his conception, Botty was not a married man.
Whoa…this forum is a hangout for restless housewives and wannabe heroic political commentators. I love it! Disappointed that Jeffrey is in the sin bin without kiss and make up with Matters Not…a love story right there. Serious note, wonderful to read normal human POVs warts and all. Kaye Lee, inspiring as the rest of the team. Keep it up chaps, love youse all.
the last time I looked, I did not have a penis.
Thanks all the same.