What Naomi Anderson writes about "freezing" and the human condition makes sense. However, I feel much of the criticism of Mirrabella concerns glasshouses and stones.

I happened to switch to Q & A just as Simon hit the desk. With no context and not knowing who he was, my first thought was that the *headdesk* and accompanying snort were a theatrical response to whatever was being said. Sophie Mirabella seemed to be leaning back and twisting to get a better look at Simon. The whole thing was resolved very quickly. How much time has been frittered away analysing SM's split second response? I loathe her politics, but this is silly.

'With no context and not knowing who he was, my first thought was that the *headdesk* and accompanying snort were a theatrical response to whatever was being said'

Must admit Candice I first thought it was another stunt which would be fully in line with the Getup clowns.

Mirabella's critics come from a desperate rusted on supporter base for a terribly incompetent and deceitful government. Any stunt to gain a point and to cover the shame of such idiotic stunts such as Emerson.

I saw the incident and the look of disgust on Mirabella's face says it all. She moved as if she did not want to be 'contaminated' by being touch by this man in obvious distress.

She showed no concern for his welfare. Basically if he had to depend on her giving him lifesaving treatment, he would have died.

What Mirrabella did at the time is miles less relevant and miles less worrying than what she says and believes. It is surprising that the Coalition still allows her to represent them in public debates.It's hard to believe that she is not a net negative for them.

My view is that Sophie Mirabella was so focused on scoring points against the government, every time she torrents from her stridently manipulative mouth, no matter what the question, that she had no free emotional capacity left to react to something of a personal nature on the spur of the moment.

Politics for her is about winning, by hook or by crook. One has to grudgingly concede that she never failed herself in that regard. From published material she seems to have been well prepared in her previous life for her current role.

Why do we end up paying good money for a dubious role model for our young women?

I don't think Sophie Mirabella deserves cristicism for her reaction to this event - who knows how we'll react when something like that happens?

There are far more relevant reasons to criticise her, many of which were made clear by her comments on the night.

I'd call this a storm in a teacup but that's to attach too much importance to it. Perhaps a drizzle in a thimble gets it about right.

I can understand criticising a politician for
their politics but not for their reaction to
an unfortunate and unexpected incident.

I watched
"Q and A," on Monday evening and saw the incident
unfold and in fairness to Sophie Mirabella -
(loathe her politics) - I think what happened
took some time to register for many of the panelists.
I thought that Simon was acting at first.
Greg Combet's was the first to react quickly.
Even Tony Jones seemed a bit confused.

Much ado about almost nothing.
I watched the qanda programme in its entirity.
When Simon dropped his head onto the desk my immediate thought was this is and quite rightly so his way of showing disbelief at the question and answer being discussed.
Greg Combet appeared to be the first panelist to notice Simon was obviously in trouble, the rest followed suit.
Unfortunately Sophia Mirabella is not liked by Labor supporters, and quite rightly so, her probable reaction was possibly a normal reaction at the quite unusual incident, this was seized upon by her detractors as evidence of her lack of empathy or kindness.
Sophia Mirabella at every opportunity trumpets reiterates Tony Abbots
rhetoric at all possible public occasions, she should be banned from such popular TV shows as completely and utterly unproductive/boring.

Being awoken by Greg Combet would have made me think I'd woken up in the Undertakers office.

I think one of the saddest things to come out of this is that the poor guy's situation has been sidelined. The big thing that happened in the episode was his 'headdesk' incident - not anybody's reaction to it. The reason she has been put in the firing line is that she was nearest. Some see disgust (at an unwell man or at a perceived political stunt), others see confusion. I suspect much of that is in the eye of the beholder rather than the face of the lady herself.

>>I suspect much of that is in the eye of the beholder rather than the face of the lady herself.<<

Lady? Sophie Mirabella is no lady: he is Tony Abbott in rather unconvincing drag. In keeping with the 'Mad Monk' idea I usually think of him as the 'Nutty Nun' when he's bewigged and befrocked.

Cheers,

Tony

Whatever we think of the participants, we seem to be avoiding the issue that Naomi raises.
That issue is where do we stand?
Will we be like the Priest and the Levite who passed by avoiding the injured man or like the Samaritan who went to the man's aid.
If we can not see who is our neighbour then we each have a big problem.

Dear Atman,

If Greg Combet reminds you of an undertaker?
Well at least he has good reflexes and
reacts quickly in a crisis. I know I'd get
help if I needed it sitting next to him.
Not so sure about the trout pouting Sophie M.
or the be-whiskered walrus (forget his name)
sitting at the other end.

cont'd ...

BTW - with the damage the Libs are causing
we do need undertakers in the Govrnment to
bury them.

I believe the major problem people had was with the look of revulsion on her face, nothing more and nothing less.

I for one am prepared to treat her response in the way she would have if it was Gillard in her seat responding the same way.