More dishonesty from Poirot ho hum. You're the one who supports violence without limit to force people to obey whatever government wants, remember? You're the one who thinks government automatically and necessarily knows better than society without needing to show reason or evidence, remember?

You ran away from answering how you disagree with shooting people to enforce the policies you favour, because you knew you'd prove you don't and you're contradicting yourself, like you are now, remember?

But if you persist in evasion, I'll persist in humiliating your dishonesty. If you're not lying, then then tell us at what stage short of shooting people do you renounce the use of aggressive violence to enforce the policies you support

<<He has said he does not want naval or customs personnel to have to look into the faces of drowned children.>>

Oh, the poor personnel could have their stomach upset!

If he's honest (a paradox, for he's a politician!), then why send naval/customs ships near Indonesia where those children drown? Keep the sailors home, then they won't see any drownings!

'as if you give two hoots for anyone drowned as they fled in desperation.

don't judge everyone by your own standard Poirot. Your dishonesty is on display for all to see. You call that debate! True I can't match your untruths.

Of course we need a Royal Commission into asylum seeker 'policy'. It is a good way to give some retired judges, & broken down law academics a nice retirement bonus, & find something for a host of useless bureaucrats to fill a few months.

It would be a great opportunity for all the bleeding hearts who want to spend our money on useless flotsam to do a lot of shouting.

Hell the ABC could fill the airwaves with how dreadful real Ozzies are for months.

Of course we must have one.

Hopefully a Royal Commission would bring down the verdict that we should return to the pre-Tampa bipartisan approach to the boat people issue.We did ourselves proud with the Vietnamese boat people. Admittedly there was a bit of guilt then for joining the US in an unholy war.

A bipartisan approach that de-politcises the boat people issue should wean the voters from the continual gladiatorial jousts aimed principally at demonstrating which side is better at ridding us of those unlovable things - illegals, queue jumpers, terrorists... - echoes of how the Chinese were vilified in C19.

Surely we have more pressing issues than a few thousand boat people a year. There are tens of thousands of asylum seekers who come in by planes. Admittedly these are not from the countries of the boat people. But there are hundreds of thousands of mainly home-grown homeless people ... Why are we such a mindless people, unable to lift our eyes above the opium muffins thrown at us by our political telly evangelists?

JKJ,

"You ran away from answering how you disagree with shooting people to enforce the policies you favour, because you knew you'd prove you don't and you're contradicting yourself, like you are now, remember?

But if you persist in evasion, I'll persist in humiliating your dishonesty. If you're not lying, then then tell us at what stage short of shooting people do you renounce the use of aggressive violence to enforce the policies you support"

What ARE you blathering about?

I wish I had a dollar for every time you've whipped out that generic piece of gobbledygook.

You know, the ones you keep in your vault of verbose and repetitive stock-response posts.