General Chat

You cant talk about my Uncle Nick like that!

He's a lovely bloke when you get to know him!


xxxxx mick

So I've just been reading up a bit on it all. ;)

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2820434.htm

He wasn't married. She wasn't married?

So ... normally ... no wrongdoing, nobody's business.

The thing is that there's no way to *prevent* the media publishing such a story -- if it is true. If it's false, sue 'em, which he did.

But -- she was a government employee, low on the totem pole: a server in the parliamentary restaurant?

But -- somebody in that position isn't really under the authority of a Premier. Although maybe he could get a server fired if he complained about bad service.

So it all came out just because she decided to go tell the media about it?

Puts him in a bad position either way, if it's true. ;)

Deny it, even if it's true.
Acknowledge it, and admit to messing around with such an obviously crappy person, which doesn't reflect well on him, just in terms of being a good judge of character / not being a total sleaze himself.

So what's the deal? Diddee or didntee?

The TV station that broke the "story" seems to be admitting he didn't?

From Auntys post

However she felt it was her beholden duty to come clean on the matter.


Nothing to do with making money out of her story maybe then ??

Just her duty as a "good "citizen ?

I am having a giggle.

While we are debating this very deep and meaningful subject of whether a politicians private life should be a meal for the media, there is an advertisement on the left side of my screen. This completely naked man with his hands definitely not placed on his head, is accompanied by the message, "cover yourself from just $1.65 a day".

The word is she did not seek any payment for "her story". Whether that changed as the plot thickened, I am not sure.

You have the facts correct as reported. It all came out, as I said, when the partner decided to hit the politician over the head with a magazine.

So *she* was the one committing adultery (or at least cheating), and he (the Premier) was merely the accomplice?

And the wronged partner (her partner, I gather? you're being cryptic) got stroppy. Or, I wonder, pretend to?

Well, at least it wasn't in the US. Somebody mighta got shot. ;)

Hi All

I'm going to put my ten pennyworth in....

John Terry allegedly had an affair. Did it affect his ability as a footballer? No. Did it affect his ability to be captain of Chelsea or England? Only the rest of the team can decide. Is it anything to do with us? No

xyz politician had an affair. Does it affect his ability to be a politician per se ? No. Does it affect his ability to do his job? Only if he was set up. Is it anything to do with us? No

The sooner we stop reading/watching/listening to this rubbish in the media, the sooner the media will stop publicising it and the better for us all.

Sue x

I do sometimes wonder if someone who cheats in his personal life is also then capable of cheating in his professional career?? Thoughts?






(By the way Janey, I really disappointed my mother. Her dearest wish was to see me wearing an Army bonnet............oooops I became an Anglican!)


Cx.

Well ... I couldn't care less about Tiger Woods, for instance. Rich boys playing around. bfd.

John Terry? There is a certain public aspect though, no? He is representing the country in a way. Although it's still all private money, isn't it, these football club things?

But that private money comes from all the people who pay for tickets and gear, and the products that advertise and sponsor the teams. The consumers. I can't think of any reason why consumers' voices shouldn't be heard! And if they aren't happy which who is representing them, then advertisers and sponsors might want to take notice.

That's the free market at work! ;)

Politicians? Once again, that's personal -- personal to the voter.

A politician's job requires integrity. Someone who cheats on a spouse is usually lacking in integrity, as well as opening themself up to blackmail and other pressure.

So I do get to have my personal preference, which is not to vote for someone who doesn't meet my standards for integrity.

And how am I to know whether the person meets that standard if the media don't tell me??

It may not matter to Person X (especially if they are French) that their head of government is a dog (at least in France the blackmail risk would be lower). If it matters to me, that's my business! ;)

But Janey, do you trust the integrity of the media?

Right enough, Janey - the market will, indeed, decide. And if Tiger Woods stops selling whatever, no doubt he'll be dropped by that very same market.

Everything comes from private money eventually - should we be worried if the CX of Walmart isn't quite the family man? Or his chief accountant? Or his book-keeper? Or one of his check-out staff?

I'd suggest that a politician's job requires intelligence and political savvy, much more than it requires monogamy.

I guess we'll just have to agree to differ on this one

Sue x

haha, Teresa. Of course not!

But that's the free market. ;) It applies to information and communications too.

If the media actually lie, then there are recourses. If they tell us all about Politician X's pecadillos but cover up Politician Y's, well same thing, free market. Them what owns the medium controls the message.

But let's, uh, assume perfect competition.

If what the media report is actually true -- if Politician X actually did do something I find demonstrates a lack of integrity, by my own personal standards -- I want to know about it.

So the same has to apply to other people and their standards. If someone would not vote for a politician who had done anything at all that they disapprove of, then they're entitled to know, I think.

At least they're entitled to ask. Politicians, like anyone else, can decline to answer, and people can draw whatever conclusions they like.

I just do not think that a person who asks the public to elect them to a position of power gets to decide what questions they may or should be asked. That's up to the public.

And of course it is entirely proper to debate what the public should and should not ask!

Suzian, I've boycotted all sorts of things because of non-business related activities by business owners.

The former owner of the Domino's pizza chain was a member of Opus Dei and gave loads of money to anti-choice organizations. No Domino's pizza in my household.

The Curves fitness chain owner also donates heavily to similar outfits. I'll get my fitness at the Y, ta.

I boycotted South African wine before I was old enough to drink.

And so on and on.

My money, my preference my choice!


And sorry, but I find your characterization of my preference as relating to "monogamy" disingenuous. I characterized it as "integrity", and I'd be happy if you'd not distort that.

Your definition of integrity may differ from mine. And that's fine.

Sorry, Janey - I didn't intend to distort anything you said.

I don't think I was being disingeneous - I think we just have a different take on things.

Just as well we're all blessed with the ability of free thought - where-ever that may lead us.

Sue x

I feel like singing, sorry hope this is ok??

They call her Connie
they call her kim
They call her Mystic (viz)
They call her Dame........

that's not her name
that's not her name

(or is it?)

I have the same political views a Ghandi !!!!!!!!


Tell my OH that when i have a PMT day. LOL

Now that is a very interesting point Lorraine.

I wonder how our answers to the initial quiz would differ depending on the when we answered the questions.

Would a feral fit of hormonal imbalance change our positioning on the grid.

Wonder if that aspect was ever discussed before women were given the vote.

Of course men don't suffer from rampant hormones do they???!!!

EDIT. Did you click on "Media Coverage" on the left hand side. This opens into a screen which gives feedback on the site from around the world. Includes some mention of leaders who refused to be quizzed.

Janey, just by the way, the website in question, stores information of the information they recieve...They are scounting the universal opinion of the voting conscience, they have fact worldwide, the questions are biased and somewhat illegal, it's a suryey pollitically biased...If you take the test!!!!!!! beware your personal views are now public....Wanna try it, take the test and log back in, your computer now has an extra cookie...Too late after the fact, cheers Janey, and who do you WORK for again!!!!! By the way ,I'm not that stupid, ever heard of scopes....

N.B. Most of the board folllowers realise you have problems....

fAiRiEs r uS......N.B. Most of the board folllowers realise you have problems....

Not sure what you mean by this comment or why you have posted it? We're having a good civilised debate and a comment like that may be taken as being provocative

As for gathering information and being biased. Everyone, everything is biased to varying degrees.

Everything we read, hear and see 'invites' us to have an opinion and that’s not a bad thing. The bad thing is when we don’t research the opposite view! Until we do that we can’t make an 'informed' opinion

I remember writing a research paper (which involved eliciting student views by way of a questionnaire) at work to disseminate amongst students. I can’t tell you how many times I re-wrote those questions. Each time I did my professor pulled them to pieces and told me to stop asking questions based on 'my' views!! I could have killed him near the end.....but he was right

Cookies are downloaded to your pc whatever website you go to, so there’s no news there! You can remove them if you wish and you can run software that will remove 'ghost' cookies and temp files too if you're still worried about privacy

As for the sites questions being 'illegal'..Not sure how. I’m not a legal expert but if they are illegal I’d be interested to know why?

And back to my lovely MP Sir Nicholas Winterton. He has the right to be; a sexist, a racist, an over paid snob a thief of public money...I could go on.

But, when he is in the public eye, being paid by the public then the public also have a right to hold him accountable.

Every person in my mind has a right to think and do as they choose, but NOT at the cost of others.


Ginny
x

Personally not particularly bothered F(what a jumbled name)s. I would probably give similar answers at my front door. I stand by what I believe. Also, most of us have problems.


Now, moving on.


Point one. Going back slightly Janey - I think it's fine to say that people should have freedom to do as they please as long as no one is hurt in the process because it's no-one else's business but, the problem is, so many people DO get hurt in the drugs/pornography/sex scenario and then someone has to pick up the pieces. So often I have walked alongside despairing families who have said..."what could I have done to prevent this happening?"

I don't know if you have children, but it makes me think of getting kids to clean their teeth. Responsible parents don't give their children an option about teeth cleaning, they ensure that they do it. Why, because they know from experience that the lack of cleaning will end in pain. Now, if, when they are adults, those children choose not to clean their teeth, and have mega dental probs, their parents will know that they at least tried.........!

Hope that makes sense.


Point 2. Janey, what do you think about 'ingrained' voting (not sure what to call it). I have often heard it said that in such and such an area, if you put a donkey up as a candidate they would win. This seems to happen in certain areas where families have 'always' voted for a particular party despite the fact that the opposition offer something possibly better. Is that party loyalty or party blindness?


Why am I asking? I don't even LIKE politics? - lol


Cx.