Reasons you will hate me

She is a slimy fucking cow. I was going to post this when there was talk of her being the "perfect" PM.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1363623.htm
"I don't have the exact number"

Also, if you are going to read the transcript attached in Ms Fits' post note her squirmy change from "we" to "the Department". See, if it goes well, it is "we", if it is going badly, it is "the department".

And, my hit prediction: "the ABC are biased" will hit news.ltd bolt-like opinion pieces.

What is even more shocking than Vanstone's comments were that the ALP has called for a royal commission into mandatory detention. What is the ALP come to? Has invisible Kim Beazley found his balls? And he has even come out and criticized the Government's budget. He and the ALP are almost acting like an opposition as opposed to being another branch of the redneck, I mean Liberal Party. What next the, ALP and Librals agreeing to increase funding to health and education instead of slashing it like they both have over the last 20 years?

Fitsy, the interview you've linked to looks like a different one from the one you've quoted from. Do you have a link for the "thrown from a moving car" interview?

Here's a cute play on words that might appeal to Kimbers: You need a royal commission when you're dealing with a Royal Cunt.

PS: my blog is No.1 again on Google for "amanda vanstone is a cunt".

*nude happy dance. The Fug, I believe*

hang on

I'm an ALP member, i fucking hate vanstone and I detest the government's stance on asylum seekers - but there is no way what he said was in jest.

That was a serious journalistic fuck up - if the car was moving then more power to him - but you can't slip shit like that in unless there's fact behind it.

It's the sort of hyperbole we hate Bolt for.

I'm prepared to be flamed about this, but Eastley fucked up, royally.

I need to read the paper. Apparently it is the same interview and the offending part was removed from the transcript:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/ABC-accused-of-bias-over-poortaste-joke/2005/05/12/1115843312374.html?oneclick=true

Of course it's outrageously biased to criticise a government over such a trivial error.

*reiterates previous swears*

No, if you heard it, he said it as a figure of speech to suggest the degree of irresonsibility with which DIMIA disposed of the woman in Manila.

They took her there, dumped her and we'd have never heard about it again. Until some big mouth has blabbed about the error to the Rau inquiry.

Wait till you hear it. It was a perfectly valid choice of words. Except Vanstone was clever enough to pretend that it was meant literally.

Yes: the only mistake Eastley made by saying it was to give an opportunity to The Royal Cunts, and their Bat-Winged Monkeys (thanks Darp) like Tim Blair, to distract people from the actual issue.

I'm sure he's kicking himself, so he really needs that tongue kiss.

*reiterates previous swears*

I've heard it - he shouldn't have said it.

I wouldnt give a fuck other than the fact it gives dicks the opportunity to knock the ABC - and Eastley - who is otherwise an excellent journalist.

Crikey reports that it has been ripped out of the transcript, but damn if I not not impressed that you got this up on a blog.

Good job.

And yes, she is a slimey toad.

Madame Fits,
Fine work. Finally, some takes it to Vanstone, this government, tongue firmly placed anywhere but Amanda!
I've had a few thoughts on the matter myself:

http://antonyloewenstein.blogspot.com/2005/05/got-it-in-one.html

I heard the original on AM. It was unfortunate that Vanstone and her fans will use the off-the-cuff comment in the way they have to try and obscure the real issues. Instead of the interviewer trying to withdraw, it may have been better for him to elaborate his thought process which I'm sure in the context of the interview was something like "well, for all you and your department know, she could have been parachuted in". I'm actually offended that the interview has been edited - I'm sure it will get an airing on MediaWatch.


What I found astounding in the interview was that, up until the interjection, Vanstone's pre-planned tactic to camouflage the incident was by questioning why Mr Duffin took SO LONG to contact Australian authorities (she repeated this later in the day in parliament).

AMANDA VANSTONE: "I understand, from conversations that have been relayed to me last night that Mr Duffin recognised this was the woman, I think… or the woman identified herself to him, I'm not sure which that is, but from a TV program, on Sunday.

Mr Duffin… but let me just make this point, it is entirely up to Mr Duffin and the nuns and Ms Alvarez when they choose to contact the Australian embassy, but I'll just make the point that if they had been contacted on Sunday, if Ms Alvarez wanted to be back in Australia and seeing her children, she could be here now.

Now, I don't know what's happened between Sunday and now with Mr Duffin or the nuns, or Ms Alvarez."

Then the denial:
"TONY EASTLEY: So you're criticising the way Father Duffin is handling this?

AMANDA VANSTONE: No I'm not. No I'm not, I'm not"

immediately followed by a repetition of the accusation:

AMANDA VANSTONE: " I'm simply making the point that apparently Mr Duffin did connect who this woman was, and that the Australian Government was looking for her. And we have… we have no record of him or the nuns or Ms Alvarez contacting us. "


Let's get the issues in perspective. Eastley was unprofessional, but Vanstone was appalling, disgraceful and disgusting.

Madame Fits,
Fine work. Finally, some takes it to Vanstone, this government, tongue firmly placed anywhere but Amanda!
I've had a few thoughts on the matter myself:

http://antonyloewenstein.blogspot.com/2005/05/got-it-in-one.html

Fitsy: Did you get this from the ABC website transcript before this portion was deleted? The only place I've found the censored section in full (apparently) is on Tim Blair's blog. Bizarrely he says he got it "via the Dept. of Immigration". I've copied and pasted it from Blair's to my blog, since - if the D of I is free to distribute it - it must be public domain. And no-one should have to visit Tim Blair's blog.

It wasn't a good comment to make, but it did quite neatly sum up the way the government has treated this woman.

Tim Blair is one to crow about transparent agendas and journalistic ethics. He's like John Howard's glove puppet. Be interesting to see how long he lasts at the Bulletin. I don't think Uncle Kerry will be to impressed if they lose 10% of their circulation again this year.

Andrew Bolt's column on this issue was interesting today, although if the Hun had a bit more intellectual honesty, it would have been headlined "Gook Bitch Has Only Herself to Blame".

Amanda Vandstone will probably lose her position as minister in this portfolio for this (even though she wasn't in at the time.)

In other news, I think some of the people in the BB house used to read your blog - PASH PARTY!

Rex in the City has written about his attempt to get a copy of the uncensored transcript from the DoI. Apparently they're a bit selective about who they'll give it to.

Just shows how frustrating it is to interview Vanstone if someone as calm and collected as TE loses his cool.

I remember when Vanstone used to appear on Good News Week and be resonably funny and a bit self deprecating. She's turned into a complete and utter pig with lipstick now.

It's annoys the living bejesus out of me how pussy-whipped these journos are. I want a royal commission into this...

I remember the day when the BBC's Jezza Paxman asked Michael Howard the same question 18 times in a row until he answered it (and they wonder why he didn't get voted back in). That's why Paxman is a global legend and Eastley is an a jizzstain. Even though I hate the sorry f***er, well done on Vanstone for making the bugger backtrack.