Let's face it, Q & A is always stacked with Labor/Green supporters. The panel generally talks over or cuts short any voice of reason expressed by the usually one token conservative.

Last night's program was appalling. That old witch Miriam Margolyes is absolutely disgusting. Self proclaimed 'dyke' and Palestinian activist, her inclusion guarantees the panel will not be unbiased. When the panel received a question from the audience regarding why there wasn't an I'll Ride with You campaign for Jews who are the target of racist verbal attacks, Margolyes immediate reply was 'Because no one likes Jews' then she launched into an anti-Zionist anti-Israel tirade blaming all the violence in the middle east on Israel. Miriam Margolyes should stay in Britain if she hates the Government here so much.

Much of the program seemed to be a platform for Andrew Leigh, Labor's lowly Shadow Assistant Treasurer to introduced himself to the public. Perhaps he was auditioning for Bill Shorten's job, but of course no one will ever make that comparison as they did when Turnbull appeared.

To put it in a nutshell, you'd have to deaf and blind or a staunch Labor / Greenie to not see how unfair and one side this program is. The ABC is so supportive of Jillian Triggs, never giving an inch of attention to her bad timing... surprise, surprise, I wonder why? Talk about biting the hand that feeds you, the ABC should be ashamed.

Lol!...

"Let's face it, Q & A is always stacked with Labor/Green supporters. The panel generally talks over or cuts short any voice of reason expressed by the usually one token conservative."

Did you catch QandA when Turnbull was on recently?

It was dubbed the Malcolm Turnbull Show...because hardly anyone else got a word in.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/malcolm-turnbull-turns-qa-into-the-malcolm-turnbull-show-20150217-13gja5.html

"Watchers declared Monday night's episode the 'Malcolm Turnbull Show' but fellow panelists seemed happy to listen as Mr Turnbull dominated air time to discuss leadership speculation, the controversial Human Rights Commission report into children in detention and the nation's debt."

But really...this govt is such a joke...did you catch Abbott's "8 Flag" presser today?

Gawd help us.....he's doing the satirists out of a job.

"Much of the program seemed to be a platform for Andrew Leigh, Labor's lowly Shadow Assistant Treasurer to introduced himself to the public. Perhaps he was auditioning for Bill Shorten's job, but of course no one will ever make that comparison as they did when Turnbull appeared."

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/qa-questioner-revealed-as-former-liberal-staffer-20150303-13tt5f.html

"The Q&A audience member who asked a Labor frontbencher if he had "sold his soul" by changing some of his policy positions has been unveiled as a former Liberal staffer who worked for cabinet Minister Bruce Billson until the end of last year.

Candice Lester confronted Labor's junior Treasury spokesman Andrew Leigh on Monday night and asked why he was once in favour of a small Medicare co-payment, deregulated university fees and an increase of the pension age but opposing all policies in opposition.

"Would you say you've sold you soul? Or simply changed your mind? And if you've changed your mind, why?" Ms Lester asked."

Yup...Q&A stacked to the rafters.... with...er...um...former Liberal staffers passing themselves off as ordinary everyday members of the public.

ConservativeHippie

Mr Abbott should really dispose of the tax payer funded latte sippers who purely stroke the ego of the regressives. That Jewish lady was simply a hater of the God of Israel which is a pre requisite to be part of the trendy (albiet disgusting) left.

Vintage Poirot... point out that two people out of how many in that audience were not part of the Labor/Green rent a crowd as proof the balance is not stacked against the conservative. Avoid any comment on the wicked anti-Semite witch or the stacked panel.

Oh yes, there was one a Malcolm (closet lefty)Turnbull was allowed to get a few words in edgewise.

Avoid the real message that the ABC is essentially the Labor/Green mouthpiece and the panel is typically very biased to the Left perspective. But in Poirot's world the ABC and Triggs are not the least bit partisan.

Dear ConservativeHippie,

Why such an outburst against BAFTA Award Winner
and calling-a-spade-a-spade- actress, Miriam Margolyes?

And, what does her sexual orientation have to do with
anything?

"Q and A," was full of political discussion on a variety
of subjects on Monday night, and all of the panelists expressed
their opinions freely as they always do. If you didn't
like something that was being said by a panelist you could
always change channels.
But your attacks are somewhat over the top.
You need to lighten up a tad.

By the way - Ms Margolyes did also say that -

"Anti-Semitism is a rotten thing it's an ignorant, stupid,
horrible thing, as is anti-Muslim feeling. They have to
be together..."

As for her comment on our PM being a "tit," in response to
a question from the audience?- She could have said an
entire range of derogatory remarks. From jerk, airhead,
bird-brain, boob, bonehead, buffoon, dingbat, doofus,
dumbass, to putz, and many more.

She chose "tit," which means
the same thing - a fool or idiot.
And she is entitled to
her opinion. You obviously don't agree with it - however she
merely expressed what so many people are thinking -
on National TV.
Making the evening program even more memorable.

Next week Annabel Crabb is going to host "Q and A," with
an all woman panel. Germaine Greer, Julie Bishop, and
other "worthies." It promises to be the program of
the year. You can watch "The Bolt Report," on Sunday
morning instead (for your news "without bias"). ;-)

BTW: Dykes in Holland are so strong that they keep back
the ocean waves. Cool - yeah.

Dear ConservativeHippie,

"Criticising Israel is not anti-Semitic and saying
so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium
and international sanction - out of all proportion
to any other party in the MIddle East - is anti-Semitic,
and not saying so is dishonest."
(Thomas Friedman, 2002).

CH,

Does it ever occur to you that the reason Lefties stand out on Q&A (or any show) is that they've got something relevant and substantial to say - not the vacuous spiteful tripe that tends to emanate from the right.

And as far as "the govt of Israel" is concerned - they're a mob of slaughtering bastards.

They represent about 23% of Israelis and about 9% of Jews worldwide - ergo they do not represent Jewish sentiment or morality.

Criticising Netanyahu's diabolical regime is "not" criticising Jews per se.

This is the first time I felt a condescending attitude directed toward me from Foxy. When did I say I watch the Bolt report or suggest that Bolt is not biased. I dislike biased one eyed reporting and commentary. That's why it's sometimes hard to swallow comments made by the regular extremist on this forum... extremists on both sides of the political spectrum.

I found Miriam Margolyes annoying so much so that I did end up changing channels. So it's okay for Miriam to call a spade a spade and if that includes saying no one likes Jews, it's not okay for me to call a spade a spade and point out she comes on the show with a predetermined agenda. She might be a good actress and have her own opinions but why does the ABC invite her on the show? Because she shares the ABC's views on everything. I had no opinion of this women before the show, I even had to look up who she was. She succeeded in a matter of minutes to make me hate her.

People on this site were so offended by the name calling of Gillard yet they regularly say much worse things about Tony Abbott.

It annoys me that my tax dollars are supporting the agenda of the ABC to drive us back to a Labor government. I just feel a government funded TV station should try to be less biased. But that's not going to happen with the ABC, its out of control.

ConservativeHippie, you're rather eager to misattribute to antisemitism what is far more likely to be down to experience (as Miriam's Jewish herself). And if she thinks Israel's actions have undermined the aituation where antisemitism's socially unacceptable, why shouldn't she say so?

She did not blame all the violence in the Middle East on Israel.

You absurd claim that she shares the ABC's views on everything is far more likely to be that you disagree with both her and the ABC a lot. But the point of Q&A's panel selection is to get a wide variety of opinions.

Any objective assessment shows there's very little bias at the ABC.

I found Miriam Margolyes refreshing and honest in that program, but I realise that her sort of blunt appraisal of situations is not to everyone's liking.
I doubt she was being anti-Semitic though, given that she is Jewish!

Certainly anyone who viewed the whole show would have worked out where she was coming from.
I look forward to next week's QandA too Foxy, although I doubt most of the posters to this forum will like it at all.
In fact, I am wondering why any if them watch such an obvious leftyfest station as the ABC....obviously they just like to whinge about something...anything.

On reflection I realised I used the wrong choice of words when I referred to Miriam Margolyes as anti-Semite. But that does not negate the fact she is another ABC lefty ring-in.

Dear Conservativehippie,

I must say it is very hard to take any claims of bias from someone so far to the extreme right as you are mate. From there everyone else must be a pretty shade of pink.

To focus on Miriam Margolye's sexuality and to spit out the anti-Semite label further marks you as one of those quite nasty right wingers, the type who thinks their point of view is the absolutely correct one and bugger the rest.

The sad thing is that these aren't really your views are they? They are what you deem to be the rightwing playlist and you regurgitate them for all you are worth.

This is patently evident in your actions of personally attacking Miriam Margolyes because you see any criticism of Israel as requiring immediate rebuttal.

But why? How do you think you have manage to adopt such a mantra? As a Jewish lady Miriam has far more invested in the question of Israel than you but I guarantee she would have far more class than to immediately dive to the gutter like you did.

Cont...

Cont...

Perhaps you are Jewish, perhaps you have a deep connection to that part of the world, perhaps you have lived there for an extended period, but somehow I doubt it.

How, even after the slaughter of so many people in Gaza in the last conflict, have you decided that you will brook no criticism of Israel?

I personally know several Jewish people who are in quite deep despair over the actions of the Israeli government as is evidently Miriam Margolyes.

But why you?

The word hate has only been used three times on this thread up until now, all by some of the true haters, yourself and runner; our right wing Bill and Ben. Just look at this comment from you;

“She succeeded in a matter of minutes to make me hate her.”

Mate I don't think there are too many people I hate, it takes a pretty vile human to earn that from emotion me, but you have managed to find it within minutes. It speaks volumes.

I suspect it isn't just her criticism of the government of Israel is it. Another thing that upsets most extreme right wingers of your ilk is outspoken, direct and forceful women, and Miriam certainly is that. Nor should we forget the fact of her being open about her sexuality, something which always has your lot sucking on lemons. There are probably a few more but those three strikes has earned your hate 'within minutes'.

Miriam Margolyes is now an Australia citizen and I think the place is better for it. Perhaps you taking an intern-ship with the American Tea Party might improve the place even further.

The blame argument has got out of kilter.
What on earth would you expect Israel to do when Hamas fires thousands
of rockets into Israel ?

If the Victorians were firing rockets into Sydney what do you think
NSW would do ?

For gawds sake join the real world !

The blame argument has got out of kilter.

What on earth would you expect Gazans to do when Israel fires tens of thousands of 88mm artillery rounds, tank rounds, mortar rounds, missile strikes, 500lb JDAM bombs into Gaza? On top of that the Israelis continue a brutal land, sea, and air blockade against international law and directives from the UN?

If the Victorians were fires tens of thousands of 88mm artillery rounds, tank rounds, mortar rounds, missile strikes, 500lb JDAM bombs into Sydney On top of continuing a brutal land, sea, and air blockade against international law and directives from the UN what do you think NSW would do ?

For gawds sake join the REAL world!

The blame argument is a big part of the problem! There are people on both sides who don't want peace, and their actions convince people on the other side to continue the violence, thus giving them an excuse to continue the violence.

Going by his track record, Netenyahu appears to be one of those people who doesn't want peace.

And IIRC it was the annexation of territory that Miriam criticised, and that's not something that the Palestinians provoked.

amazing with such a small percentage of feminist/lesbians in Australia how our propganda machine (ABC) always manage to find one for the panel. Usually they have come from stuffed families and now expect everyone to listen to their spew.

Runner "...stuffed families..."?
What do you mean by that?
How do you know what sort of family she has?

What a terribly UN-Christian comment to make from one who puts himself out there as a holy cut above the rest of us...

runner, a large proportion of the population, including many males, are feminists, so it's pretty hard to make a case for them being overrepresented. As for lesbians, maybe they are overrepresented on the ABC (they do tend to make a lot of noise) but in this instance Miriam's comments had nothing to do with her sexuality.

The poison dwarf Miriam Margolyes is a bigot.

However, she has learnt well that if you choose the right people to be racist about, and support the politically correct causes, you won't be prosecuted under section 18c, but will get a large coterie of left whinge air heads fawning over you.

I'm always intrigued how RWNJ's present themselves as somehow a cut above the rest.

Here's runner and SM critiquing a person who doesn't agree with their politics - and what are we presented with?

"...Usually they have come from stuffed families and now expect everyone to listen to their spew."

Lovely stuff, runner...you're a class act.

And from the irrepressible SM...

"The poison dwarf Miriam Margolyes is a bigot."

Yes, folks, if you want to get down in the gutter on a forum, just engage a few select righties - and pretty soon that's exactly where the rhetoric will be heading.

How's it going for you, SM? It can't be easy having your dream govt turn out to be such a shambolic joke.

Did you hear the latest? The LNP are set to commemorate International Women's Day by holding it at a "men only" club in Brisbane.

Which is obviously provocative and purposeful (or it could just be dense, but I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt).

I watched Q&A the other night, and although Miriam Margolyes comments were forthright they were not extreme, and at the time I could not see any problem and still can't. Then again it might depend where on the political spectrum one sits, with some of our Forumites sitting well to the right of Genghis Khan, any comment might be interpreted as "leftwing". Hi Runner, hi Shadow.

Steele - you don't know diddily squat about me, my background, my political thinking, religion, or anything else. You are so wrong on so many counts, you have no idea.

Who keeps track of when the word hate is expressed? Haven't you noticed how many on your side of the fence hate Abbott obsessively? Don't you hate Tony Abbott? There are other ways of expressing hate without using the word and you are being dishonest in expressing displeasure over my use of the word. I also don't hate many people in this world but if I do hate someone that's my prerogative and I have every right to share those feelings if I feel the need.

If it's possible to love at first sight why do you think it's farfetched to feel hate for someone within minutes of gleaning their personality, demeanour, self righteousness, and appearance. Miriam Margolyes completely turned me off, she disgusted me, she angered me, and I couldn't stand watching her. Okay I could have chosen another word than hate, I don't know what that word might be, but I went for shock value and you took the bait hook line and sinker. You can have her.

You and I have different points of view on most topics but from your posts to me, I don't see how you're behaving any differently to what you accuse me of.

I've said it before and I'll say it again -
the art of reasoned, intelligent argument is
a skill not easily acquired. Arguments are
something we all confront at some time and no
matter how petty the gripe I'm sure that it is
possible to argue in a logical manner. Of course,
when the right buttons are pushed all theories
go out the window and we react.

I wish that I could argue on a mature, intelligent
level all of the time instead of an emotional one.
And much as I do try -
there are moments when I'm tempted to use the "F"
word, and just simply say "F... off," to someone who's being
particularly mean and nasty.
Our responses in the heat of the moment are the ones that
get us into trouble. However, they're also possibly
the remarks that make forums a bit more interesting.
As long as they don't cross the line and turn into
abusive behaviour.

No one likes or supports an abusive, illogical debater.
Subsequently, they're the ones that get binned (ignored).
We get enough creeps that we have to deal with on a
daily basis - we don't need to put up with them on
a forum such as this one.

Note to self - read your posts before posting.

Cheers.

'We get enough creeps that we have to deal with on a
daily basis - we don't need to put up with them on
a forum such as this one.'

Yea Foxy quite a few seem to make it on Q&A

Dear runner,

I should have clarified things a bit more.
I've used the wrong terminology.
What I actually meant to say was that we
deal with "obnoxious" people in our daily lives,
(a better term than "creeps" - I think), and that
we shouldn't have to deal with this sort of
behaviour on a forum like this one. It's their behaviour
that I was referring to - not them as people, after all
none of us really know all that much about each other -
and what we are as people. We can only judge from the
posts we read. And they're often not a good representation
anyway.

cont'd ...

As for the people on "Q and A?"

Of course we're not always going to like
everyone who features on the panel.

However ...

What makes the show interesting, at least for me,
is the wide mix of panelists from a wide variety
of backgrounds and a pretty good mix of people in the audience
who together make it an entertaining evening that you don't
get anywhere else. I regard it as a rather unique program
and well worth supporting. There's nothing else like it.

Poirot and Paul,

I notice that neither of you are able to challenge me on the points I raised.

A) Miriam Margolyes is a bigot. Her own language on Q&A (and plenty of other racist comments) condemns her. While you two might support racism as long as it is left whinge nut job approved, rational humans don't.

B) The Abbott government is still far more competent than the 6 yr rolling train wreck that was Labor.

SM,

Fascinating the way you always attempt to present yourself as a mature poster...when it's clear that you're anything but.

I'm not going to get into the semantics of what does or does not constitute bigotry....I didn't really look far beyond your "poison dwarf" comment.

And as for this...

"B) The Abbott government is still far more competent than the 6 yr rolling train wreck that was Labor."

Guffaw!

Shadow, I refer you to my comment on Tuesday. What you assume to be bigotry and racism is far more likely to be the result of observation and experience, as she is Jewish.

And the Abbott government is so incompetent it hasn't even got last year's budget through parliament yet - though considering how bad their budget measures would be for the economy, that's probably just as well. Everything that Labor did badly in their 6 years, the Abbott government have done worse.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Let me get this straight. You're calling
Miriam Margoyles a bigot. But it was -
one of your own party members, Senator Brandis
who stated quite clearly that it was OK
to be a bigot. I take it then that you disagree with
Senator Brandis?

BTW: I wouldn't finger-point at Labor too much,
if as you say it took them six years to stuff things up.
The current government has certainly improved on
that time span. And they haven't stopped yet.

I still think creepy is a more accurate term Foxy. You were right the first time. Whether it is an ethicist who believes bestiality is ok or someone with a sex change operation you can guarantee that the creepier the bigger applause the person will get on Q&A. Maybe it is a theraphy program in disguise to make everyone feel good no matter how little morals you have except of course for conservatives who are always painted as the bad guys. Thats what is so amusing when they get some Islamic woman (Government funded) from uni on speaking about the religion of peace knowing quite well in many Islamic country she would be shot for her views. More air time is given to Abbott punching the air 30 years ago then the latest bloke or woman walking out on their families to declare that suddenly they are gay.

Dear runner,

Our language reflects our view of the world
and so it is always changing. New words are being
added all the time as discoveries are made in
medicine, science, and technology. And words for
things no longer in use are dropped from our everyday
language. In the same way, new words are used for
sociological changes (changes in the way society
functions today). The word "gay" has a totally different
meaning today, And very few people today would refer to
non-Christians as "heathens" "pagans" or "non-believers."
These terms are nowadays mostly used as an
exaggerated joke to make fun of the old ideas.

The same as derogatory words describing a person's
race, religion, or gender, are classed as 'outmoded' words
that are no longer acceptable to most people.

'The same as derogatory words describing a person's
race, religion, or gender, are classed as 'outmoded' words
that are no longer acceptable to most people.'

Yeah I know Foxy its only the lefties who are allowed to say Gillard had a big bum (Germain Greers) or call Abbott a tit. That is acceptable I take it. It certainly gives the audience and Jones a sleazy snigger. Double standards seem ok!

Dear runner,

Your remarks can't be taken too seriously.
when all you're doing is indulging in
finger-pointing - to only one-side of politics.

I am trying to
keep this conversation on an even-keel
because I'm not interested in engaging in
a mud-slinging contest. I could list
all of the sexist things Mr Abbott (and his
ministers) have said and done over the years.
But I shan't.

As far as "Q and A" is concerned? I like
the program. You don't.
I watch it. You don't have to.
It's that simple.

Cheers.

Dear ConservativeHippie,

You wrote;

“Steele - you don't know diddily squat about me, my background, my political thinking, religion, or anything else. You are so wrong on so many counts, you have no idea.”

I think my friend you might find that is exactly the point.

You have been on OLO for well over 8 months. In that time you have posted nearly 300 times. If we consider, at a conservative estimate of 150 words per post, you have offered up 450,000 words detailing your political thinking, your religious perspective and your background. Now I appreciate I might not have been exposed to a fraction of your pontifications, perhaps a tenth, but that is still 45,000 words detailing your thoughts and perspectives.

Yet you, within minutes of listening to MM decided to hate her.

I will grant that after learning she was indeed Jewish you walked back your anti-Semetic label but that was all you were prepared to concede.

In the space of about 200 words from her your overwhelming emotion was hate. Sorry I don't buy any “I went for shock value” crap. You said it and you meant it, full stop!

You asked;

“Don't you hate Tony Abbott?”

Nope.

I am distressed that such a man is my prime minister and the I consider him a embarrassment, but I certainly don't hate the man. That kind of hatred seems mainly generated from your side of politics for people like Julia Gillard.

You wrote;

“I don't see how you're behaving any differently to what you accuse me of.”

Again that is exactly the point, imitation is my wont, if you don't like it don't do it because I'm happy to return it in spades.

Wow Foxy,

The freedom of speech debate went right over your head.

Firstly Brandis did not say that it was OK to be a bigot, he said that one had the right to be a bigot, that saying something offensive should not be automatically criminal. However, it does not shield one from the other consequences such as being fired for harassment or being generally shunned by society.

Because the poison dwarf's bigotry is PC suddenly it's OK?

What if someone said that no one likes aboriginals and that the racism directed against them was entirely their fault, is that OK? the only difference is that I have swapped Jewish for aboriginal in what MM said.

"People don't like Jews..." Miriam Margolyes, come off it Shadow put it in context. You are definitely trying to beat the drum, when there is no drum to beat. The Liberal Josh Frydenberg spoke straight after Miriam Margolyes and he did not express the slightest outrage at her comment, in fact he did not comment at all on what she had said. Again I stress put it in context and listen to every word the woman had to say, and not just the first half dozen.

<<the only difference is that I (SM) have swapped Jewish for aboriginal in what MM said.>> Not true Shadow, you have also swapped the words "people don't" for "no one", there is a difference in meaning.
<<that no one likes aboriginals>> SM. I do not agree with that, but if you had said "People don't like Aboriginals" I would agree.

Steele, thank you for taking such a strong interest in my "pontifications" to OLO. I'm surprised that you haven't been able to get past your own strong opinions enough to see that most of the time I am actually fairly moderate although I do have opinions on climate change, immigration, Islam, and corporal punishment that are always regarded as 'extreme right' by those who have the opposite view.

If you regard me as an example of the extreme right, does that make you extremely Left? Probably not in your world, because you are on the side of good, and the deniers and pragmatists are evil. You probably think you views are those of the majority and the way the world should be. Perhaps a world that would consider Miriam Margolyes a good prospect for Prime Minister.

I realise my meagre 300 contributions pale in comparison to your 824 since January 2014 (125,000 words by your estimation) and that we basically will never agree on most important issues. So let it be, I'm not trying to change your thinking. You might be disappointed to learn that I've actually been on OLO since 2011 but because of a new computer, a new email address and a lapse of memory with my password, I had to open a new account with a new name last year.

As for Miriam Margolyes, I can't stand the woman and I cannot undo that for you. Feel free to have the last word, I'm done.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I'm pleased that you do admit to what Senator
Brandis said.

Because, after-all -

Senator Brandis did say that "People do have a right
to be bigots, you know." And he said that in regards
to the Bolt case. However the point being made here is
that Miriam Margolyes is therefore entitled to express
her opinion and should not be judged (according to
Senator Brandis - as in the Bolt case), for it.

I'm glad that you do understand the concept of freedom of
speech afterall.

Fascinating how the right-wingers here constantly bleat the accusation that anyone who critcises the PM or his govt hate Tony Abbott.

These are the same folk who wobbled around the forum shrieking "Juliar" ad nauseam and thought the "ditch the witch" episode was great fun!

We have seldom seen a debacle on the scale of this govt - and it will be a long time (hopefully) before we're treated to a shambles on this scale again - from either party.

The latest revelation is that Tones and Peta instituted a "rule" that no Labor appointees would not be rehired.

How puerile is that from the "adult" govt. No matter the expertise and capacities of the appointee - it they were appointed by Labor, they are persona no grata.

You couldn't make this stuff up.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/abbott-must-stop-sacking-labor-appointees/story-fnp85lcq-1227250552716?utm_content=SocialFlow&utm_campaign=EditorialSF&utm_source=TheAustralian&utm_medium=Twitter

Persona "non" grata....(sheesh!)

Lol!...another typo....perhaps I should go back to bed and get up again : )

".... that no Labor appointees would be rehired."

Foxy,

Again the fundamentals of the issue about freedom of speech escape you.

Having the right and freedom to do something does not remove anyone else's freedom to criticise what you say and take whatever actions are available to them against you.

MM has the right (which she exercises) to be a bigot. I exercise my right to call her a bigot and a poison dwarf.

Paul, as MM echos the views of that other arch racist Lee Rhiannon I fully expected you to come to the defence of MM's bigotry.

P,

Before you get on your soap box. AP is doing exactly the same in QSL and Rudd and Juliar did much the same after Howard.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Actually you don't have the right to call her names -
without producing evidence to substantiate your
claims. Freedom of speech does have certain limitations.
A person's freedom of speech is limited by the rights
of others - for example their rights to maintain their
good reputation. All societies, including democratic
ones, put various limitations on what people may say.
And we do have laws covering libel and slander. Therefore
you need to produce evidence proving that Miriam Margolyes
is a bigot (and a dwarf) before you make any such statement.

I watched the program and what she stated was based
on facts. Therefore your statements are erroneous and
not factual.
And the "dwarf" one in particular is a very slanderous one.

You should get better acquainted with what freedom of
speech actually is.

Foxy,

I see that while the concept of free speech has slowly started to sink in. However, you obviously have a sketchy knowledge of the law. I am free to call MM a bigot, and MM has the right to sue me for slander if what I have said is factually incorrect and she can prove it. I would love MM to try and show how "no one like Jews" is not a racist comment as she would lose badly.

As for calling her a poison dwarf (A selfish, untrustworthy, deeply obnoxious or evil person of diminutive size, whose ostensibly non threatening appearance allows them to fulfil their predisposition for causing unprovoked pain and suffering) I believe I have got that to a T.

Dear Shadow Minister,

No. Miriam's comment are not racist. But yours
are slanderous.

And she would
not lose in court on your reliance that her comment
was wrong. They're not. They are based on facts,
and on her own experiences.

Miriam's comments come in the wake of
anti-Semitic terror attacks in Paris and Copenhagen
and anti-Semitic incidents being on a record-high in
the UK, and so on which prompted Israeli PM Benjamin
Netanjahu to invite European Jews to come and live in
Israel.

If you don't find anything wrong with your "dwarf"
description of Miriam Margolyes - then I guess there's
nothing more to be said afterall you still insist on referring
to our former PM Julia Gillard as "Juliar."

Foxy,

What MM said is easily interpreted as racist, and in proving defamation the onus is on her to prove not only that she didn't mean what she said to be racist, but that it was unreasonable for anyone to do so. As I certainly was not the only person to do so, the chances of a successful defamation suit would be very slim.

If you don't like poison dwarf, how about Toxic Gnome, pestilent pixie or best of all Malicious Gargoyle.

SM,

"If you don't like poison dwarf, how about Toxic Gnome, pestilent pixie or best of all Malicious Gargoyle."

I'm so glad you've returned to regular political commentary in the General section.

I kinda miss all those carefree days in the school playground...but reading your childish name calling brings it all back so vividly.

Thanks, Shadow Minister, we can all depend on you to take us straight back to Grade 3.

Dear ConservativeHippie,

Moderate? Rubbish! Your own words betray you I'm afraid.

Just look at your opening post.

“That old witch Miriam Margolyes is absolutely disgusting.”

Why did you find her disgusting? Because she is a “Self proclaimed 'dyke' and Palestinian activist”.

This is something a Bill Heffernan or Cory Bernardi might come out with though not many others within the Coalition would stoop to such an attack. They are solidly identified as the far right in parliament and your diatribe puts you firmly in their camp.

You may well take a moderate stance on a few issues but what you posted reveals is your default position and frankly my friend it ain't pretty. And yes the vast majority of people would rightly judge your comments as deeply conservative and belligerent.

If you really don't think this is a fair assessment it might be time for a little introspection.

Bite me

Dear Shadow Minister,

You do have a way with words.

However, its best to remember
that an ignorant person's summations are never accurate,
because they unconsciously translate what they hear
(or read) into something they can understand.

However, don't let that deter you. Our current
PM has shown us - in politics, stupidity is not a
handicap.

Miriam Margolyes was much better as the Spanish Infanta. She should stick to her day job.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T-LxE4Pr3Q

Used by the ABC to spice up Q&A, Miriam was a comedienne out of her depth and irrelevant. You couldn't find a worse gig for her. Inappropriate casting, sack the manager who thought it was a good iudea.

In the ABC environment her presentation inevitably comes across as one of those stereotypical, people-hating, ponderous, dinosaur lesbian feminists of the previous Millenium, with the U-Haul trailer behind full of baggage. They give the impression that they would always be digging holes under all who come into contact with them. It only takes one in a work group to make life miserable for everyone.

However, I like to think that given the right opportunity -absolutely NOT current affairs or political comment - where Miriam could be entertaining as in her acting roles

Like all media outlets, the ABC uses people. Anyone who believes the promise by a journalist that they will be treated fairly and sympathetically is very naive indeed. The show's compere Jones, leaves no doubt that he is the ring master and it is all amusement, a circus, for the bored couch-bound.

There is not a lot of work for entertainers in Australia. Honestly now, how many actors and stand-up comedians can a small population with centralised media outlets support? Unfortunately, many like Ms Margolyes they are reduced to accepting gigs (Q&A) that their agent would usually refuse out of hand.

otb,

You tritely typecast Margolyes - as would be expected from OLO's leading faux defender of feminine honour (although I note that if she'd been a teenage girl yelling racist insults at the footy, you'd have been out of the blocks defending her with gusto).

The thing is that many people who have played comedy roles "surprisingly" have a brain and can think and act in contexts outside the boundaries of their profession.

Other than that, your little commentary was entirely within your usual orbit.

Dear Shadow Minister,

“Dwarf”?

Really?

At 155cm she is tall enough to serve in the Australian Defense Forces;

“The minimum height requirement for entry into the ADF, without shoes, is 152cm. Pilot and Aircrew candidates are also required to meet specific anthropometric measurements.”

And she is only marginally shorter by an inch or two than your now defunct Liberal poster child, 'Mr' Campbell Newman.

What is interesting is that when one types in Miriam Margolyes into Google there in the sidebar of Chrome is her height.

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=miriam+margolyes&oq=miriam+margolyes&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.13240j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8

Do the same for another slightly diminutive politician John Howard and there is his height – 176cm.

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=John+Howard&oq=John+Howard&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i59j69i65j0l3.1043j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8

But try Campbell Newman and everything else is there except for his height.

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=john+howard&oq=john+howard&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i65j0l4.4743j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#q=campbell+newman

It appears he is very coy about the actual measurement, so coy in fact that it took some rather determined digging to prise it out. Just under 160cm it seems.

It is plain from your obvious fixation with Miriam's height (you have raised it 5 times in just 7 posts) and from Campbell's obvious reluctance to reveal his own dimensions that you Liberals have a real issue with short people. Why do you think that is? Does it not fit with the 'born to rule' mentality? Indeed there are real echoes of an 'Aryan race' type complex.

Here is the difference, to person with Miriam's confidence it doesn't matter a fig, but to some one like Campbell (and it appears Liberals like you) it is obviously an embarrassing issue.

You really are a superficial lot aren't you mate.

Poirot,

It was the wrong gig for Margolyes, wrong panel and wrong audience too, made worse by stuffed suit Jones acting the patronising ring master as he does.

Q&A is very tired, predictable and boring and it shows. The production managers were only thinking about spicing up a flagging show. It flubbed.

Dear SteeleRedux and Poirot,

I think it was Albert Einstein who said -

"The difference between stupidity and genius
is that genius has its limits."

With that thought in mind anyone who can persist
in trying to demean Miriam Margolyes can't be
very bright.

Imagine trying to imply that this veteran of stage
and screen, an award-winning actress who's achieved
success on both sides of the Atlantic is second-rate.
When she is in fact still going strong and her
background is totally impressive as are her credentials.

I shan't list them all here simply because I would run over
the word limit. The following website is worth
a read:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0546816/bio

You get the impression that the plum ABC jobs are sinecures for life. There is very little mobility for that $1,3 billion put into the ABC annually.

Margolyes and other talent who come to Australia for any length of time, should be picked up by lateral recruitment and encouraged to create new shows and set new directions for the ABC.

The ABC should not be a sheltered workshop for employees for the whole of their working lives and especially where they are being paid big money.

Foxy,

Thanks for your explanation as to why you usually get details wrong.

Poirot,

A little rich coming from you.

P.S. Abbott's legacy already exceeds both Krudd and Juliar together.

Dear Shadow Minister,

There you go. You've again proven my point.
You've translated what you've read into what you
could understand. Onya!

As for Mr Abbott? - according to an American
think-tank - he has exceeded all of the leaders
in the Western World by a mile. (In incomptetence). ;-)
Ah, the things we do for fame!

Now for those really interested,
here's a list of the panelists most frequently appearing
on Q and A, as of 24 November 2014:

NAME PARTY TIMES

Tanya Plibersek Labor 20
Christopher Pyne Liberal 20
Malcolm Turnbull Liberal 20
Bill Shorten Labor 16
George Brandis Liberal 15
Barnaby Joyce National 15
Joe Hockey Liberal 13
Penny Wong Labor 13
Janet Albrechtsen The Australian 12
Craig Emerson Labor 12
Graham Richardson Labor 12
Julie Bishop Liberal 11
Sophie Mirabella Liberal 11
Greg Hunt Liberal 10
Christine Milne Greens 10
Greg Sheridan The Australian 10
Chris Bowen Labor 9
Tony Burke Labor 9
David Marr The Guardian 9
Kelly O'Dwyer Liberal 9
Judith Sloan The Australian 9
Amanda Vandstone Liberal 9
Tony Abbott Liberal 8
Germaine Greer Author 8
Lindsay Tanner Labor 8

A rather eclectic group.

Au contraire, SM....I couldn't begin to approach your OLO mantle as King of the Kiddie Names.

"P.S. Abbott's legacy already exceeds both Krudd and Juliar together."

For ineptitude...yes....

SR,

I missed your diatribe on how MM at just over 5' is a giant. Perhaps for Hobbits, but when she leaves the Shire she is short, fat and ugly. However, if you had missed my previous posts you would have seen the definition of poison dwarf which describes her to a T.

(A selfish, untrustworthy, deeply obnoxious or evil person of diminutive size, whose ostensibly non threatening appearance allows them to fulfil their predisposition for causing unprovoked pain and suffering)

"(A selfish, untrustworthy, deeply obnoxious or evil person of diminutive size, whose ostensibly non threatening appearance allows them to fulfil their predisposition for causing unprovoked pain and suffering)"

Great stuff, SM.

On the strength of that, I think we can promote you to Grade 4!

Shadow, a bit rich calling Lee Rhiannon an "arch racist", I clearly recall the days when a young John Howard was an ardent supporter of the all white South African Springboks Rugby tour of Australia. I also recall the contentment of your parties founder 'Pig Iron' Bob Menzies in seeing Aboriginal people denied citizenship and forced to live in rusted humpies on the outskirts of country towns. In my view The Liberal Party has a long tradition of racists in their ranks, I just named two!

Shadow, as you can not quote Miriam Margolyes correctly, did you actually watch the program? You quote MM as saying "no one like Jews" when in fact she actually said "people don't like Jews" there is a difference. Maybe you base your comments on second hand info from someone like Piers Arkerman from your favorite publication Murdoch's 'Daily Telecrap' or did you get it from Shock Joke Jones, another favorite of yours.

Ms Poirot, Paul1405 is name calling again.

Dear ConservativeHippie,

No. if Paul was really name calling -
it would be a hell of a lot more
unprintable than what he's doing right now.
And under the circumstances he's being polite.

Besides, it's not what they call you,
it's what you answer to. ;-)

Dear Shadow Minister,

A “diatribe”? Hardly. It was a methodical deliberation of you and your party's preoccupation with height. Your fellow far right-winger who dipped his oar in earlier went after her for her sexuality while you had gone after her for her stature.

One of your odious ilk famously called the Prime Minister of this country 'deliberately barren'. As despicable as his comments were as this was at least there is some notion of her having made a choice.

Miriam chose neither her stature nor her sexuality. To attack people for things of a physiological nature, things they can not change, is desperately low even for your side of politics. But you and ConservativeHippie decided to do exactly that which speaks volumes about both your characters. At one level this was just reprehensible bullying on another it flagged irrational hatreds and deeply poisonous personalities.

Unlike you though the one thing ConservativeHippie has going for him is that he isn't set on digging his hole any deeper, indeed he was prepared to withdraw at least one of his remarks. You however have chosen to double down. This labels you as irredeemably nasty, an infliction that will probably last the rest of your life.

You have my sympathy.

This sir is a diatribe.

SR,

The left whingers are really a vacuous lot. You worship MM not because she is a towering intellect, but because she is a celebrity that mindlessly echos every left whinge meme, and therefore every turd that drips from her lips must be held up and extolled as a jewel of exquisite wisdom.

When I called her a poison dwarf, not only did the meaning and implication of the term whiz over your heads, but in reflexively leaping to her defense you seem more aggrieved by the reference to her height than her viperous nature.

SR you are the most laughable when you hop up on your moral soap box, not just because of the flimsy nature of your position, but also because of your rank hypocrisy. The left whingers here have thrown insults around like confetti against all aspects of physical and other characteristics and not once have I heard a peep from you.

If and when you direct your childish finger wagging in more than one direction I might see you as more than a puffed up bullfrog and take you seriously.

Come on Shadow, admit it! You didn't actually watch the program did you. You remind me of that errant school boy, who on failing to read the assigned novel, is now attempting to answer the complex exam question using cryptic notes borrowed at the last minute from the class dummy.

That's right Foxy, I have been somewhat circumspect following my enforced stay on the sidelines earlier this year, complements of the 'One Who Must Be Obeyed', for calling a fellow poster a wombat or some such name. Conserve Hippy I am yet to assign an appropriate marsupial to you, would you like to take your pick?

I believe if you run for political office, you are fair game for all and sundry to poke fun and worse, and need a thick hide. In fact, I'm all in favor of returning to the good old days, where would be polys are forced to make their pitch, on soapboxes, on the street corners. The voters not hearing what they like, should be free to pelt the would be poly with an appropriate assortment of rotten fruit and vegies. Tar and feathering is another option.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I am beginning to think that you are pulling
our legs in this discussion.

From someone
who's always been so articulate in the past
your current diatribe must surely be a joke.

I'm sure that you are fully aware of the fact
that using insults ruins one's ability to
present a good argument worthy of consideration.
Of course, when someone insults the focus shifts
to the insult, not the issue, in a discussion.
Perhaps that's your intent in this discussion.
To shift the focus.

Well Congratulations - you seem to have succeeded.
But it does lower your own stature quite a bit
as a good debater, I'm sorry to say.

My suggestion to you in future is to improve your
language - because this time it's completely and
utterly lacking of any value.

BTW: Most people who do admire Miriam Margolyes,
don't admire her because she's a "celebrity"
(whatever that means to you), but because she's
a great character actress of stage and screen.
As all of her awards indicate. She has had a long
and distinguished career - and I find it quite
remarkable that someone like yourself, who has in the past been
able to argue rationally and intelligently now finds
it necessary to stoop to arguing on such an emotional,
and abusive level.

I guess in this case your anonymity does help.
However you should change your moniker from "Shadow
Minister," to something more appropriate if this
trend of yours is going to continue.

Dear Shadow Minister,

How on earth does a person, who is so obviously bereft of any ability to discuss and properly address the points Miriam was making that you chose instead to attack her physical stature, ever come to the conclusion that you could call anyone else vacuous?

I suppose it means we can add to the list, you sir are also bereft of shame!

My God what a hide.

And to add insult to injury you try on this rubbish;

“When I called her a poison dwarf, not only did the meaning and implication of the term whiz over your heads”.

Having a German father-in-law I am quite aware of what a Giftzwerg is and during his war years in Berlin it was attached to Goebbels , again because of his stature. There is obviously a case for deeming that individual as poisonous but you offered nothing about Miriam did you. You just wanted to sink the boots in and poison dwarf was just an added touch which undoubtedly prompted a little self-congratulatory slap on your back. It was puerile and designed to have others dismiss what Miriam was saying, particularly her 'tit' comment which would have got right up your nose.

You also state unequivocally that “The left whingers here have thrown insults around like confetti against all aspects of physical and other characteristics and not once have I heard a peep from you.”

Well mate if they are like confetti how about producing a couple, particularly those that have come from any of those you deem left-wing on this thread. Should be pretty easy since they are 'strewn' around everywhere.

Hi SteeleRedux,

I have already exposed Shadow as not having actually watched the pertinent episode of Q&A on the ABC Monday last. I offer as evidence to this fact, that Uncle Rupts Channel Nickelodeon (aka Liberal Party policy channel) was showing re-runs of 'Poky Pig Cartoons' at the very time Q&A was being broadcast by that horrid ABC. It is a well known fact that our Shadow, and any other serious Liberal will always choose Porky over Tony Jones, any day, its a commandment from him on high to do so, not God, Uncle Rupes that is, amounts to the same thing for a serious Liberal like Shadow, how else do you expect these lads to keep up with the latest Tony Baloney Liberal Party policy if they do not watch their fair quota of 'Loony Tunes Cartoons' The Mad Monk insists!

There you go Shadow, I helped you out.

SR,

For someone that supposedly knows what a poison dwarf is, (A Giftzwerg is an individual who rubs people the wrong way - one who is loud, rude and constantly angry. In a word: obnoxious.) you addressed the stature which is largely incidental and spectacularly failed to address the "poison" which is the primary thrust of the meaning. Hence your appearance of being vacuous.

As for shame, I was called shameless for criticizing the status of the PM when Juliar was befouling the position, yet all the same left whingers that were tut tutting me are now doing exactly the same. I call a spade a spade.

MM is a gay lesbian leftist PLO supporter actor. All that is missing from her left whinge credentials is being black and Muslim. And while for greenies and far left whingers that makes her close to messiah status and beyond criticism, for conservatives she is just another mindless windbag of shallow PC concepts.

"....I call a spade a spade."

No you don't...what you do is reach into your easily accessible primary school banter - and instantly we're transported to a playground circa 1970-something.

That's how come we get rubbish like this served up ad nauseam by you:

"You have Back handed Brandt,
Rip off Rhiannon,
Mendacious Milne,
Shifty Sarah HY,
Lying Ludlam,
Slippery Whish Wilson"

Absolute puerile witless garbage...something you seem to think is "clever".

Dear Shadow Minister,

Couldn't do it?

Okay forget a couple, let's make it just one instance of those you deem left wing on this thread having picked on a physical characteristic or someone's sexuality to denigrate an individual on the 'other side of politics'.

Remember now apparently they are strewn around like "confetti" so they should be easy to find.

SR,

I am tired of your simplistic no risk tactic of fixating on a tiny detail and then asking me to "prove" myself. Put your money where your mouth is and tell me I am wrong, and then I will happily show you up.

Firstly the term poison dwarf is primarily a slur on a person's nature not stature.
Secondly I said that insults against "physical and other characteristics" not "physical" were hurled around like confetti.
And finally before you nail your colours to the mast I will give a hint at some phrases previously used such as "mincing poodle" and "Fatty O Barrel".

As you have fixated on my use of the word dwarf, I take it that you concede the poisonous nature of MM.

Come off it Shadow, Fatty O'Barrel morphed into Bozzy Barry after he took that $5,000 corrupt bottle of 'Penfolds Plonk' from you know who. You defiantly know, the one he couldn't recall taking before the ICAC! Anyway Fatty, Bozzy, what ever we want to call him is history, and was replaced by The Corruption Party with Bugsy Baird from the Liberals North Shore Mafia.
I still maintain you never watched Q&A last Monday night and are now winging this whole argument. Am I correct? Yes I am!

Dear Shadow Minister,

Here you go again, calling me simplistic when you are the one who can't appreciated that attacking a person because of a perceived physical deficiency over which they have no control is wrong.

Ultimately if you want to call MM poisonous because she referred to your poster boy as a tit then so be it, after all this is an opinion site. You have presented zero evidence to support your contention and so the rest of us have every reason to regard it purely as petulance. But this is entirely different to trying to denigrate someone in the manner you did and we were right to expose it as juvenile, school yard bullying which when exhibited by a grown man speaks directly to your character.

Further to try and convince us that MM's height had little to do with you choosing the label 'poison dwarf' is just inane.

Finally it is really quite childish to react to being asked to furnish a single piece of evidence for a sweeping statement by saying 'well prove to me it isn't true'. If they were indeed strewn like confetti then you would have posted one immediately, you haven't because they aren't, full stop.

Fox, "Most people who do admire Miriam Margolyes, because she's a great character actress of stage and screen"

Lets not take the adulation too far. I don't know about a 'great' actress. To be great and there is a lot of competition, you would expect flexibility across the range of roles. She is a good comedienne with a script and in the narrow confine of the roles that suit her. I can't say that she is creative, as in the flexible actor, comedian, and screenwriter, Rowan Atkinson.

Mangolyes needs a script and direction. She is not very funny as a stand-up, being uncomfortable outside her predictable monologues, examples, 'being a lesbian' and 'Dickens' literature'. In fact, without a script she very rapidly lapses into the tiresome, predictable, smug, carping bore.

That is a common fault of visiting Pom 'experts' (and would-be Poms) who like to flaunt their education for the cringing leftist colonial drongos. Cringe-worthy, forever needy Oz leftists licking their feet - both licker and licked with feet of clay.

In the case of the Jones' Q&A circus of which she was part, Mangoles was the victim. Albeit probably willing through the monumental ego of her celebrity (actors, LOL), but a victim of outrageous miss-casting nevertheless.

Which leaves the only real question, which is why the ABC's producers hand-picked Mangolyes for that circus, when there must be hundreds of more qualified people for the gig and who are not reduced to smouldering (mouldering?) away in the corner of the panel making faces and rolling eyes, only to emerge with the childish, "Tit!"?

Honestly now ABC, if Mangolyes has a certain talent, why not give her some proper contract work worthy of her abilities? Spice up ABC production and not just one of Jones' circuses with performing animals? Then again, that might not be possible where there isn't the planned staff mobility and continuous improvement that are so valued in private industry and the seriously well paid jobs are sinecures for life.

Miriam Margolyes is a veteran of stage and screen.
She is an award-winning actress who has achieved
success on both sides of the Atlantic. Winner of
the British BAFTA Best supporting actress award
and numerous other awards. She has major credits
during her long and celebrated career - and
Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II awarded Miriam
the OBE for her services to Drama.

The following link is worth a read - it lists some
of MM's achievements as an actress:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0546816/bio

Fox says Miriam got the gig because through her celebrity and her gong from QEII. LOL

No, the producers of Q&A were the ones who quite deliberately and coldly typecast her by setting her up for that inappropriate gig.

Why would the Q&A producers set out to do that though and is it their usual modus operandi - to provide circus entertainment for a dumbed-down audience? Perhaps so. It is a colossal waste of some of that $1.3billion PA take from the Aussie taxpayer though.

This is how the talent should and could have been used to give the Taxpayer better value for money (BBC),

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVaPPGTlHZ4

-The Graham Norton Show: Series 14 Episode 17 - BBC, is very funny. Shows how personalities like Miriam can perform when given the right support and environment.

Which to repeat the only real question, what was the real motivation, the secondary gain of the ABC's producers when they slotted Miriam Mangolyes for that Q&A circus?

'Which to repeat the only real question, what was the real motivation, the secondary gain of the ABC's producers when they slotted Miriam Mangolyes for that Q&A circus?'

probably the same as giving Singer a plug for bestiality otb.

"No, the producers of Q&A were the ones who quite deliberately and coldly typecast her by setting her up for that inappropriate gig."

What a load of old codswallop passes for discussion on this forum.

otb...do you do a song and dance act every time a comedy act or writer turns up on Q&A?

Qu: - What's an "inappropriate gig"?

Ans: - Anything that gets up otb's nose.

LOL, it can't always be about your sequinned, pear-shaped self, Poirot.

Miriam Margolyes has the limelight and no, you cannot share it.

BTW, when are you going to threaten another of your walk-outs to star on Twitter?

BTT

I have always found actors & actresses are rather thick people, when not spouting words produced by someone somewhat brighter.

I recently saw Harrison Ford being interviewed on an American chat show, & was very disappointed to find he is as thick as a boot. I guess it was rather naïve of me to expect him to be anything like some of the characters he has played.

It is equally disappointing to find that most of the current crop of Australian actors & actresses particularly, are as thick as 2 boots when speaking their own thoughts. The fact that they can spout someone else's words, in an interesting way, when guided in their presentation by a good director, is no indication they have a solid thought in their pretty heads.

In fact it may be the case that the emptier the head, the easier it is to direct the actor. Why anyone would be interested in their personal thoughts eludes me completely

I see this thread still contains all the usual guys who are jealous no one wants to hear their own judgemental views on Q&A!

Runner brings up his second most popular subject on OLO that never has anything to do with the subject matter, but he likes the sound of it.

Miriam did a great job and is a highly intelligent woman, something that obviously threatens some blokes.

I look forward to tomorrow night's Q&A, and I'm sure all the ABC haters on this forum will avoid it of course......

So sorry, otb....have I interrupted your latest tilt at hysterically critiquing your chosen female?

I know how much you enjoy such flights of fancy.

Don't recall you being so scathing of that dreadful leftie, Ben Elton - and he was much more energetic in his panning of the great Tones.

But he's a bloke - and we all know you save your most passionate denunciations for the ladies.

Suse,

Shadow, Beach, Runner, Hasbeen and Our Tone, will all be tuning in to Q&A tomorrow night. Providing there are no 'Loony Tunes' being re-run on 'Nickelodeon' at the same time. Can you confirm?

p/s I think they all missed last weeks show, and have been winging it on here ever since.

Yes indeed Paul, I can see all those 'righties' glaring at the apparently left-leaning ABC show Q&A, peeking at it from behind a door, frothing at the mouth, right eye twitching, desperately adjusting their right-sided dress pants!

They will return to OLO's pages the following day beating their chests about the obvious 'bias' (AKA views foreign to their own) of the Q&A panel members, most likely the female ones too.

It still amazes me how they can bring themselves to watch it?

I'm finally beginning to understand the reasons for the
criticisms of Miriam Margolyes.

She's not their type.

She's not inflatable. ;-)

Lol Foxy :)
I like your style!
Cheers,
Suse.

The elephant in the room is that the ABC's producers patronised and demeaned Miriam Margolyes by setting her up to play a certain role in Jones' circus.

As shown by her comedic acting record and by the clip I linked to earlier (BBC), Margolyes talent was ignored and wasted by the ABC. The ABC producers had their own secondary agenda to serve.

It was the ABC who set her up in an entirely inappropriate situation: wrong content, abysmally wrong compere, wrong panel and wrong audience. All to frame her - with the smug ringmaster Jones setting it up - as the stereotypical carping left lesbian who could reliably take up offensive positions, thereby adding spice, controversy, headlines hopefully, to a flagging show that ran out of ideas a long ago.

Of course Margolyes was obviously uncomfortable and did not completely play the role the producers wanted, but as a serious actor and visitor (invitee) she shouldn't have been put in that situation anyway. The ABC's producers know better than that. It is unethical, both to the talent and to the public who happen to pay for the ABC and deserve better.

As said earlier, since Mangolyes has certain talents and skills, why not give her some proper contract work worthy of her abilities? Something that applies her lifetime of experience and can spice up ABC production, introducing much needed creativity and new directions?

If the ABC isn't just frivolously using and abusing talent like Mangolyes, why doesn't it lever some time for her to tell Dicken's stories in her own way to children? Of course that could mean a little less work for the perennials in its children's shows, but most of them have had a jolly good run.

However the ABC is a sheltered workshop that provides sinecures for life for the chosen ones. The whole place needs a complete shake-up.

SR,

I see that having your bubble pricked you have retreated back to pomposity and childish finger wagging. Next you descend into irrationality by calling me a bully when the person to whom I have directed my invective is not on the thread and will in all likelihood never read this.

While MM is a doyen of the stage, she is an actress and far left whinge in a profession in the UK where being conservative would have doomed her to obscurity. Her views that I have seen so far are cut and pasted from the far left song book and has all the depth of other celebrities such as Brand, Kardashian and Paris Hilton.

If she was 6' I would not have used the term poison dwarf, but some other term, but given her garden gnome like appearance, the term had delicious sting that got the left whingers on this thread foaming at the mouth. (the same hypocrites that think her use of the word tit is appropriate)

My primary beef with MM is surprisingly not with her vacuous insults, but with her extreme anti Israel stance, as having grown up with several ex Israeli friends whose families fled from persecution in Europe to settle in Israel to be subjected to horrific violence from the far from cuddly PLO that happily targeted school buses and defenseless civilians.

Try again, SM...

We don't honour the memory of those Jews and their Holocaust experiences by backing a psychotic land-grabber and slaughter-monger like Netanyahu.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2015/03/anti-netanyahu-rally-draws-huge-crowd-israeli-city-150307222711606.html

"Tens of thousands of Israelis have gathered at a Tel Aviv square calling for Benjamin Netanyahu to be replaced as the prime minister in national elections scheduled to be held on March 17.

Police gave no official figures, but Israeli media said that about 30,000 people attended the rally on Saturday, which was held under the banner "Israel wants a change."

The rally's keynote speaker was Meir Dagan, a former Mossad chief, who recently criticised Netanyahu's conduct and called him "the person who has caused the greatest strategic damage to Israel"."

Poirot,

Middle eastern politics is complex.

All that does is underline that the Q&A producers set out to use and abuse an actor's celebrity to spice up their flagging show.

The Q&A producers had no intention of any worthwhile analysis and discussion of the middle east. They knew that Mangolyes is touring Oz very shortly and took advantage of her need for publicity to set her up for some superficial throw-away comments to generate controversy and hopefully headlines (or at the very least to set off the chattering self-indulgent twits of the Twitterati with their fatuous part sentences).

This is what Mangolyes should be interviewed about,
http://miriammargolyes.com/events/the_importance_of_being_miriam_australian_tour_16th_march_24th_may_2015

"A passionate discovery of words and music.
On this world premiere Australian tour, internationally renowned actress Miriam Margolyes brings to the stage some of literature's best known characters. Lady Bracknell, Mrs Malaprop, Jane Austen's Lady Catherine de Bourgh, and Mrs Corney and Mr Bumble from Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist, are amongst the unforgettable figures brought vividly to life by the award-winning star of stage and screen in The Importance of Being Miriam."

The Q&A producers are cynical and superficial. Q&A is circus entertainment. Clownish. The panels and the public deserve better. The taxpayer's $$, 1.3billion of those dollars forcibly taken from the public as taxes, should deliver much better programs than that.

The ABC needs new blood and routine, regular job mobility.

"Q and A," is a talk show - but not the usual
talk show where the host of the show is in
full control and merely interviews
his chosen guests.

On "Q and A" its the audience that
asks the questions. And that makes the show
unique. "Q and A" is its website tells us
is about democracy in action.

It's live to air - which
means that its happening as viewers watch and
the show is all about encouraging people to
engage with politics and society.

We know - that it doesn't matter who you
are or where you're from - everyone can have a go and
take it up to our politicians and opinion makers.

Here's a few quotes from panelists who have been on
the show:

From Jonathan Biggins, actor, director, singer, writer,
and comedian:

"The great joy of "Q and A, is ... the thrill of sitting
next to Barnaby Joyce..."

From Tim Wilson, Policy Analyst and Director of the Institute
of Public Affairs:

"Q and A is a weekly reminder that its questions are
as important as the answers..."

From Brendan Gale, Australian Rules football Administrator
and former player:

"Thanks Q and A for a true people's parliament."

And of course -everyone seems to agree -
that Tony Jones manages difficult situations
with diplomatic flair.

Due to time constraints - "Q and A," cannot provide
an "in-depth analysis" on any given issue. The panelists are
required to keep their answers brief and allow others to
have their say. But then any regular viewer of the show
would be well aware of this - and the show's format.
It's the diversity of opinions and the fact that it is
live to air - that makes it worth watching.
As Miriam Margolyes showed us last Monday night when
she said what so many of us thought on national television.

Looking forward to this evening's show - with an all woman's
panel, celebrating "International Woman's Day".
Should be a memorable evening.

Yawn, another international year of [insert the dozens of options].

Been done to death.

Lazy journalism. Just rolling the arm over for the usual circus. Another of the ABC's and Q&A's rituals for the converted, living in a rut. Production and scheduling that are as predictable as a hamster wheel.

However if they really, really must do 'women' over and over, what about one day recognising that women differ, women have choice and women go through many transitions in their lives. BY CHOICE. It isn't just the narrow confines of career that Australian feminists dictate for women.

Now back to the Q&A producers' cynical use and abuse of Mangolyes' celebrity. Fat lot the ABC cared about her skills and learning and what she could have contributed, given the right programming and interviewer.

Poirot,

So Netanyahu is "a psychotic land-grabber and slaughter-monger"? On a par with Hitler then?

So what do you think of Hamas that is unelected and enforces a regime of fear in Gaza. This includes regularly executing anyone in Gaza that challenges their regime, gays etc, deliberately targeting Israeli citizens incl kidnapping and murdering Israeli school children, and starts a war with Israel and using its civilians as human shields.

If you compare what is happening in the west bank to Gaza, then you get some idea how a government that actually cares for its people behaves.

By any standards Netanyahu is far more civilised than Hamas.

otb,

"Now back to the Q&A producers' cynical use and abuse of Mangolyes' celebrity..."

Sorry....?

You seem to have missed the fact that you're waffling on to yourself about that.

No-one else is interested.

SM,

I think it's crystal clear what Netanyahu represents - and, if you cared to do your research, you'd know that he's done everything he can to undermine peace efforts with the Palestinian Authority - even after Hamas ceded power to them.

How many civilians, men, women and kids does a bloke and his army have to massacre in cold blood before the eyes of world, before you recognise he's the problem - not the solution.

There aren't many armies that the West admires who have chased defenceless civilians up and down the streets of their ghetto, fired on schools, hospitals and UN designated safe compounds with advanced weaponry - slaughtering and blowing these people to smithereens - 600 children among the 2,000 massacred in Netanyahu's insane effort last year.

Compare him to the likes of Hitler? I didn't do that, you did.

And, let's face it, if you're talking about demented evil aggressors - if the cap fits...

Here's what they did directly in the wake of their slaughter-fest...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2739781/Israel-fire-largest-West-Bank-land-grab-30-years-soldiers-swoop-1-000-acres-Palestinian-territory.html

"Israel’s decision to grab nearly 1,000 acres of Palestinian land to build settlements was condemned by David Cameron yesterday as ‘utterly deplorable’.

Israel announced on Sunday that an area of the West Bank, near existing settlements at Etzion, south of Bethlehem, has been designated as ‘state land’ which means it can be used for homes for Israelis.

The move came days after an indefinite ceasefire brought an end to weeks of conflict in Gaza during which more than 2,100 Palestinians and 73 Israelis were killed."

(Most of those Israelis killed were soldiers)

'I think it's crystal clear what Netanyahu represents'

actually its crystal clear what people who will use kids as human shields represent Poirot. The haters of Israel (especially the God of Israel) have swallowed the propaganda left right and centre. What they fail to realise is that even if all of Israel's land was given to the Arabs that then the West is then in the sights of these terrorist. Talk about being blind.

runner,

Explain to me....in UN-designated safe compounds, the people in charge texting coordinates - in one case 33 times - and in another 17 times - to avoid the frenzy of missile attack...that the Israelis deliberately targeted both sites, killing and maiming the cowering occupants...that that is using using "kids as human shields"?

Speaks volumes that you as a Christian can't bring yourself to condemn the mass slaughter of defenceless civilians by advanced weaponry....I mean even just a teensy bit.

runner,

Any commentary of the fact that Palestinians have been squeezed into a ghetto - and their kindly masters have imposed a kindly blockade - and have refused to allow salary to be paid to Palestinian govt workers.

I mean, hello?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/05/gaza-blockade-must-end-un-first-step-settlement

"This was a major concession by Hamas, opening Gaza to joint control under a consensus government that did not include any Hamas members. The new government also pledged to adopt the three basic principles demanded by members of the International Quartet (UN, US, Europe, Russia): non-violence, recognition of Israel, and adherence to past agreements. Tragically, Israel rejected this opportunity for peace and has until now succeeded in preventing the new government’s deployment in Gaza.

Two factors are necessary to make the unity effort possible: at least a partial lifting of the seven-year sanctions and blockade that isolate the 1.8 million people in Gaza; and an opportunity for public sector workers on the Hamas payroll to be paid. These requirements for a human standard of life continue to be denied. Instead, Qatar’s offer to provide funds for the payment of employees was blocked by Israel and access to and from Gaza has been further tightened by Egypt and Israel."

(Okay, BTT - I'm done with this subject)

Twenty four year old Harry Potter actress and UN
Ambassador Emma Watson - is one of many young women to speak
out on the importance of spreading awareness
and making a difference on issues that still affect
many women today. She spoke out on International
Women's Day - which has been around since the 1900s.
She stressed that "women around the world still face
serious issues, including violence (Australian of the Year,
Rosie Batty is perfect proof of that), wage inequity, and
biases about gender roles.

Watson commented on how "it's just so overwhelming and
humbling when men want to show their support..."

It does as she said - "spread awareness and it does make
a difference."

Here's to the men who are capable of giving - more than
just empty ignorant words.

Fox,

So now you are going off about Emma Watson?

"Mission Control calling Fox, come in Fox".

BTT - which is about the ABC's flagging Q&A circus.

P,

Sometimes I wonder if you have no logical filter on what you read or post. So in your world:

The Israelis invaded Gaza to chase unarmed civilians down the streets?

The 2000 rockets fired from Gaza was a cultural event?

Videos of rockets being fired from civilian areas is faked?

Reports of Hamas arms stores in hospitals and schools by humanitarian organisations were fake?

It would be laughable if it was not so sad.

SM,

Here's a pic of Israel's ceaseless expansion since the UN partition of 1947.

http://twitter.com/DavidRomeiPHD/status/574933606692470784

Notice it's presently munching away at the West Bank.

It's pretty much a full time job - grabbing land, bulldozing Palestinian houses, olive groves etc...but hey....someone's gotta do it.

When you say 2,000 "rockets" - you should point out that comparing them to Israel's advanced weaponry is like comparing a firecracker to a Howitzer shell.

There were no "rockets' being fired from those hospitals during the recent Gaza invasion - or from UN-designated compounds - but they were targeted anyway - as were ambulances carrying the wounded.

Over 2,000 Palestinians killed - over 10,000 severely injured...in the space of a few weeks. Hospitals severely damaged, whole areas reduced to rubble, water supplies - gone, etc....

It would be something if Netanyahu hadn't stymied peace efforts - what he did was to fuel the fire.

"Q and A," celebrated "International Women's Day,"
last night and as our Foreign Affairs Minister
Julie Bishop pointed out (and Emma Watson in my
earlier post) - this celebration is very relevant
today. At least to those of us who realise that
women around the world still face serious issues,
including violence, wage inequity, and biases about
gender roles. The evening on "Q and A," proved to
be a memorable evening with an impressive women's panel,
and a female hosting the show. The questions from the
audience were insightful - and led to a great discussion.
Well done ABC!

Yes, I really enjoyed the program last night too Foxy.

A panel of fine women, of which I have to say that Julie Bishop also contributed to very well.
I do wonder though why she won't actually call herself the feminist that she so obviously is?
Maybe she is towing the conservative line too closely in order not to upset the 'boss'?
I had to laugh at some of the tweets written about that subject!

In any case, I was very impressed by Yassmin and her passionate views on Muslim women, but less impressed by Germaine Greer and her silly comment to Julie Bishop re the Bali Nine men.

Good 'shew' IsMise.

That's the second time Paul1405 has taken the bait this thread. He really doesn't like being wrong but that can happen when you don't think (or check your facts) before you leap.

The ladies are now discussing this weeks Q & A; I think this thread has run its course.

See you all somewhere else exciting.

The 'ladies' are all narrative. That should be non-gender 'hens' anyhow, say the radical fembots in Sweden,
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/04/hen_sweden_s_new_gender_neutral_pronoun_causes_controversy_.html

Fox, "an impressive women's panel, and a female hosting the show"

Glad that wasn't seen as sexism.

That is the 'equality'(sic) of feminists. A podium and a leg-up, gratis.

The First World's comfortably well-off, educated middle class elite's talk fest and celebration of their own selfishness, self-obsession, materialism and self-entitlement. Crass. Hubristic. Totally dismissive of the choices, life transitions and experiences of all women apart from their own narrow interests - new Audis (what colour is 'in'?), restaurants, expensive shoes and the privileged lifestyle).

Each and every one of them would cut a perceived competitor's arm off at the elbow to get ahead, while blaming everyone else for their own personal failings.

Blind to the reality that it is other women, humanists especially, who are their staunchest critics. Why so? The feminist elite don't know and don't care and that says heaps about them.

Young women are running screaming from the nagging, controlling feminists and their U-Haul trailers of baggage. Young women have good reason to do that. It is called living their own lives without feminist guilt trips over career, and making their own choices about their own life transitions and happiness.

Dear Suse,

It was an interesting show and covered
quite a range of issues from the gender pay
gap, sexism, to the representation of women
in the media.

I can identify with Julie Bishop's take on
feminism and her feelings that her actions
and achievement should speak louder than
labels. She simply doesn't want to be stereotyped
or pigeonholed - and that's fair enogh.

Annabel Crabb pointed out in an article she wrote
in The Age newspaper:

"Julie Bishop not calling herself a feminist doesn't
get anywhere near my Top Ten Things That Keep Me
Awake All Night. She was sworn in as the only
female minister in a Cabinet of 18 blokes and turned
out to be better at it than any of them. That's what I
call service to women, whatever she chooses to call it."

You might find the entire article of interest:

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/annabel-crabb-im-proud-to-be-a-feminist-despite-my-regular-lapses-20150307-13wrw2.html

Dear Suse,

I forgot to add that I will try to get hold of
Roxane Gay's book - "Bad Feminist," it sounds
like a hoot. Annabel Crab gives it a thumbs up
when she writes -

"I am reading a book right now that makes me punch
the air with delight. It's called "Bad Feminist,"
by a funny, passionate, daggy, American writer and
Scrabble Champ called Roxane Gay. She had me at
"Scrabble Champ," really, but I love her personal
manifesto."

It's got me curious, especially after seeing the author
on "Q and A," last night.

Poirot,

Hamas had never wanted peace. After the last Gaza war it used most of its resources not on its people but on building an arsenal of about 10 000 rockets and building tunnels instead of housing.

In the war Hamas used or lost about 7000 rockets (I underestimated previously) each of which carries several kilos of high explosive and shrapnel that would kill dozens if they landed in a crowded area.

The problem for Hamas in their ambition to kill Israeli civilians is that Israel now has the Iron dome that shoots down the rockets, but some still get through.

As for the notion that acts of war by Hamas should only be met by similar weapons, this is ludicrous. If Israel would have fired 7000 rockets indiscriminately into Gaza thousands more would die.

Would you also have confronted the terrorist in Sydney with one policeman with a shotgun to be balanced?

Hello all,

I don't usually agree with ConservativeHippie, but last night's Q&A show was boring and predictable. Most people asking questions were women (are there really women and men?) - and there were not many alternative views last night either.

One of the previous Q&A shows had five different religious speakers - and so people watching got five very different views to hear. It was brilliant. Last night's show was TERRIBLE.

By the way:

1. The Andrew Bolt program is a joke - and why does he keep defending our prime minister - why can't Mr Abbott look after himself?

2. I am a vegetarian and I am for animal rights

3. We need to better protect our environment - it is vital

4. Major education and economic reform is needed, as there is too much unemployment at present - and will be in the future without change

5. We must stop complaining, realise we are generally fine compared to poorer countries and realise that efficient spending is required.

So I don't consider myself to be an extremist left wing or right wing person - I am simply seen as 'wrong' by some. I've had to push a strong case (as a result) on many issues and have been told I'm strange, weird, different.....

I will however be writing (wasting paper - awful) to the ABC for the first time to say something, re the Q&A program - and ask for improvements. An e-mail, may not get me a reply.

Dear Nathan,

Before you write to the ABC - you should be aware
that last night's program was the first time
they had an all-women panel, including a female
host. It was a one-of, special-event in celebration
of "International Women's Day," (Sunday, 8th March 2015).
"International-Women's Day," has been celebrated around the
globe since the 1900s. This is the first time that "Q and A,"
decided to celebrate it. Considering it relevant
today. It covered issues such as gender
pay gap, sexism, representation of women in the media, and many
other issues. Women around the world still face serious
issues including violence, wage inequity, and biases about
gender roles.

It is very overwhelming when men want to show their support.
It does spread awareness and it does make a difference.
All women, especially women like Australian of the Year,
Rosie Batty, whose husband murdered their young son, do
appreciate the difference that support from men can make.

'1. The Andrew Bolt program is a joke - and why does he keep defending our prime minister - why can't Mr Abbott look after himself?'

Just maybe Nathan he does not want a return to the handbag brigade which has gone a long way in sending this nation into bankruptcy. It was Shorten who helped knife Rudd remember. Don't forget that Bolt worked for the Labour party at some stage so maybe knows a little more than you.

Foxy,

"Women around the world still face serious issues including violence, wage inequity, and biases about gender roles."

So do other people.... except people such as the Queen, other women within the British Royal family, rich people in Hollywood and in Australia people, like Gina Rinehart - they may have some issues - but not financial ones. If I had to choose between giving two $20 notes to two homeless people in Australia (say one female and one male) or Ms Rinehart - Ms Rinehart won't be getting one cent from me. I chose this figure as I've been asked to give $20 from a homeless person when he approached me. I did give some money - just not $20.

We should stop focusing on humans 24/7 - and look much more at how people can work with and improve the planet we live in - not just a constant debate for the next how many years on what.....? A domination by the dollar sign, obsessing with averaged out figures or pay gaps, wanting an excessive lifestyle, more materialistic goods or another fancy car?

At present humans consider themselves to be number one. Humans destroy the environment for example and this was not discussed on last night's Q&A program. Women and men (all living species, including humans are affected by that). Humans need to calm down and stop rushing around.

We are exhausting ourselves in many ways as a result, and unless people have good quality calmed down debate, without bias (male or female), we won't see improvement at all.

Dear Nathan,

I can't argue with your logic.

Fox,

It was the the public 'discussion' of totalitarian countries, eg., North Korea. It was the public national broadcaster too.

Feminism has never represented the interests of all women. It never intended to, never will and they will never ask anyone outside of their circle. The interests of the very materialist and egocentric educated middle class women reign supreme - very obvious in the Q&A panel and audience.

It was the very last place on Earth that you might encounter a breast-feeding woman in the audience, and certainly NOT a breast-feeding indigenous mum in non-designer label clothing, from working class suburb.

Some things never change. As Fred Daly, a long-serving Labor* politician and Speaker of the federal Parliament used to say, "In a one horse race you can always back self-interest". The educated middle class feminists have self-interest in truck loads and that Q&A reeked of self-entitlement.

*Fred Daly, a long-serving Labor politician - Fred would be turning over in his grave at the materialistic greed of this lot.

I think that most ordinary, decent people,
would probably have thought that celebrating
"International Women's Day," (8 March 2015),
with questions from the audience on "Q and A,"
with an all-female panel
was a great thing. It was a step to reach Australians
on a personal level and counter anti "feminist"
prejudices. Annabel Crabb wrote in The Age article:

"I am a feminist because to be one seems perfectly obvious
and reasonable to me. I am a feminst because it bothers
me that women are more than 50 per cent of the population
and more than 60 per cent of university graduates
but somehow only
3 per cent of Chief Executives. I am a feminist because
it bothers me that a woman gets killed by a male partner every
single week and somehow that doesn't qualify as a tools-down
national crisis, even though if a man got killed by a shark
every week, we'd probable arrange to have the ocean drained."

"I am a feminist because it bugs me that we hear the phrase -
"working mum," but not "working dad."

And there's more at:

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/annabel-crabb-im-proud-to-be-a-feminist-despite-my-regular-lapses-20150307-13wrw2.html

Most modern women in the Western World don't put labels
on themselves. They just get on with their lives. They
don't place themselves on any "feminist" pedestal. They
merely support what they believe, in as Annabel Crabb does,
and try to do some good in the world.

What I do not understand is why some men appear so threatened
by having issues that affect women around the world
being discussed openly.
That is just so yesterday!