"And using such as this, sitting with the very person who was tasked with ensuing HONESTY and crafting questions to Deceive a parliamentary inquiry."

Belly, I'm still trying to see where the deceit lay other than that they had colluded. Wasn't the intent to give the ombudsmen the opportunity to expose some stuff that the others didn't want exposed?

Antiseptic's point about the damage to the role when the ombudsmen steps outside procedure in his own role makes sense, however when it comes to disgust at the behaviour of pollies those who play the system to muffle or silence messages they don't want heard bother me a lot more than the actions of Hanson-Young in this instance.

The Greens are a challenge to your side of politics just as One-Nation has been to the coalition. There are a bunch of reasons for that, the main parties are not radical enough for some, the spin and lies put out by the majors will disgust enough others that the more direct approach of the extreme parties will have some appeal. For some it will be a single issue where the majors approach is utterly unacceptable.

R0bert

RObert colluded? from one tasked with honesty.
Is the fact you see greens as Labors enemy's your reason for not seeing this as wrong.
Tell me Friend,if it was a LABOR member and the now forced out of office man?
Would the blood and entrails still be dragged on the streets by your side.
And if one of yours by my side.
Be assured, I think as I do because NO PUBLIC SERVANT/POLITICIANS should have acted this way.
Is demanding honesty to be seen as partisan?

"Is the fact you see greens as Labors enemy's your reason for not seeing this as wrong."

I really don't think so. Maybe you should be asking yourself if you'd be as bothered if it was a deceit that hurt the coalition rather than Labor. I don't really see the Greens as Labors enemy in the same way I didn't see One Nation as the Coalitions enemy.

I don't think the extremists tend to do well except where the major parties are clearly failing to find way's of addressing their constituents concerns. Labor has failed to come up with humane ways of dealing with refugee's, it's environmental policies have not been seen as credible, they failed to address issues such as same sex marriage etc. The coalition had failed to address the real concerns many felt about extremes of PC and aspects of multiculturalism that were not working for much of their constituent base. They had not dealt with many of the concerns about free trade and the impact on local jobs. That gives scope for more extreme parties to put simple messages which resonate with those concerns. Rather than seeing those parties as the enemy they should be seen as a feedback mechanism which tells you about the issues you've either not addressed or have not done so in a way that works for your voters.

The answers the more extreme parties come up with may be wrong but that does not make the concerns irrelevant.

The actions of the ombudsmen and the Greens senator do appear to be wrong but compared to the antics of Julia and most of the other's making up the front benches of both sides of parliament it seems a pretty small wrong and seemingly done to bring about good.

R0bert

RObert you can be seen mate to be on the back foot here.
Using Silly Gillard and Labors wrongs is the evidence.
See it is unrelated to our subject, even if true.
Now you show under standing.
Greens and one Nation both extremes in my view became trouble for both sides.
Goggle Abbott's role, in killing that party, unclean actions.
Greens are assisting to dig their own grave.
I believe totally your side and mine will take them on.
In fact in the service of all voters.
Preferences should not end up with them.
No more, bet on it, than three elections and they are powerless forever.
They climbed on the back of discontent last time but not the next, the DD to follow, and it will, is going to return senate to wishes of most voters.

*R0bert*

" ... Belly, I'm still trying to see where the deceit lay other than that they had colluded. Wasn't the intent to give the ombudsmen the opportunity to expose some stuff that the others didn't want exposed? ... "

..

*R0bert*

" ... The actions of the ombudsmen and the Greens senator do appear to be wrong but compared to the antics of Julia and most of the other's making up the front benches of both sides of parliament it seems a pretty small wrong and seemingly done to bring about good. ... "

Indeed the OmbudsPerson was allegedly right up the guvment over issues with administrative processes to do with the Asylum Seeker centres and I suspect they are pleased to be rid of him in favor of some "Yes" person.

Incidentallly, I am told that the singles in the centres are not allowed to have any "rumpy pumpy." I wonder if one of *Belly's* labour parties mates would care to provide them a V.I.P. card for the *Guvna's Pleasure* in Sydney and other parts before they let them loose int he community?

(Oh, I also acknowledge a great interview by John Mendalo (a former head of the immigration department at the time of fraser from memory, who largely debunked a lot of the propagated myths on this issue) with Jim Middleton recently and note that plane arriving Asylum Seekers are already processed in the community.))

I also acknowledge some good work by Alan Jones on 7:30 in the defense of free speech. He was challenged on the grounds of using abusive language and bringing down the office of the prime minister.

I can but say that some of you people really do need to be dealt with harshly, (and you make me sick) for advocating this kind of vile deceit. What brings down the office is when they do things like locking up children indefinitely without charge or trial, in circumstances proven to produce adverse mental health outcomes. Consequently, this makes them child abusers in my mind, and worthy candidates for verbal abuse, amongst other things.

As for you *Pork Belly* (and re:churlish I am in part a peasant at heart) I would but say, keep trying mate.

For me, (and to stand on my soap box for a moment) I have scored so many points and received so much kudos, that I felt obliged to burst my own bubble, by revealing some rather personal details of both a medical and criminal nature, for I am but a flawed and imperfect person and do not wish to be thought of otherwise.

..

As for *Foxy Loxy* she has always been good for keeping my ego in check, and I value and respect that.

..

As for *Lexie,* did you like the Hamas Palestina - Yahoodee prisoner exchange? Superficially, and in the absence of a better vantage point, it appeared to me to be most brilliant.

..

Re this thread again, and opinions aside, can anyone actually elaborate on what some of the legal grounds are for dismissing a politician? Obviously falling out of favor with the head of ones party is obviously one, but what else?