Luciferase, I am offended by your characterisation of my considered post. I am not a "shock-jock apologist", nor am I twisting anything. I have given what I believe is a reasonable basis for the view that the PM's home arrangements are a legitimate subject for public curiosity, and why it is not unethical to ask her about them.

If you find flaws in my premises or my reasoning I'd be happy for you to point them out, as I always am when people show me why I have made a twat of myself with something I've said.

On the other hand, if you're going to flounce off in a huff muttering then I'll have to assume that you can't find anything to falsify the propositions, which means your last comment is simply abusive.

Which is it?

Why is it ok to ask the PM about the sexual habits of her defacto lover?
That question is rude and nobody else's business!

Imagine if any 'shock jock ' had asked Janette Howard or Therese Rudd if they were lesbians , beause none of the rest of us could imagine how they could possibly want or have heterosexual sex with either of those PM's?

It is a very disgusting question to ask any PM, regardless of her/his gender .
I am glad the disgusting idiot was sacked, and no judge would uphold his comments...

Suse, if I asked you, then yes, it would be rude and you'd be perfectly at liberty to tell me to rack off.

But you are not PM. Circumstances alter cases.

As for a hypothetical Judge, I think there's a public interest case that could be run.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/divided-demoralised-done-20130614-2o9kz.html
A link that is thought provoking, long but worth the read, and in my view supports my so called, [by the few] rantings about my party.
After reading it, maybe the reason our Prime Minister has declared war on the sexist front, and dragged out the right to life debate, in a country that has had no current debate on this subject.
Fellow Males *BE WARNED* any views we hold about those actions, about our unwanted Prime Minister will brand us!
So easy for the PC /FEMINIST MONSTER to feed on men at such times as these.
Sattler, bet your boots some of his loudest opponents *never heard the interview* made it clear his question came from us men, not him.
Gays are again being used , an unwed woman living with a bloke not seemingly very masculine can both not be married, and beleive Gays should not be,but too see people sacked for asking her such a question.
Men and women of good faith please do not let PC takeaway our rights to be what we always have been, cheeky.
And lady,s, be careful what you say about anyone if this minor question to a total failure like our PM is so evil, truth will be watching.

if any 'shock jock ' had asked Janette Howard or Therese Rudd
Suseonline,
Mrs Howard & Mrs Rudd were at the time traditionally married to the PM. There's no logical point in questioning them. Janine Howard in particular however has had to endure a lot of nastiness from the ignorant lefties for no reason whatsoever other than being the wife of the PM. This Tim fellow is not married to the PM & hairdressers albeit not necessarily are generally queer or of some other form of sexual orientation. The shock jock did hang on like a ferret on a mission & I think the PM handled the interview very well. If only she were that competent in important matters.

Suse, I reckon Sattler’s questions were of poor form, even within the sexist/gender-oriented political climate which Gillard had promulgated.

None of that sort of stuff should be part of our political carry-on.

But should he have been sacked for it?

No bloody way!