Poirot, I don't get you, Mr Walker wrote a report and made recommendations. If he intended that he recommendations included a trial he needed to state it clearly, if for no other reason, to avoid being misunderstood. Or is the Government expected to mind read what he 'really meant'. How convenient.

Walker was caught out with his pants down, just like Gillian Triggs. Reality sucks, doesn't it.

CH,

We are supposed to be dealing here with people in the top echelon of jurisprudence. I mean, are you trying to tell me that this piss-weak govt didn't understand what was written?

I mean really!

"But Mr Walker couched his recommendation in the report as an extension of existing powers that require a person be convicted in a criminal trial first.

He said on Thursday it was "absurd" and "ridiculous" to suggest he meant the existing power should require a conviction but the extension should not – as Mr Abbott has done.

He did not specifically mention the need for conviction in the key recommendation because it went without saying, he said."

I mean, how thick "is" this govt?

And even if they haven't got the brain cells to work it out for themselves, they have counsel to assist them.

But this wasn't a case of Walker not being clear - it is a given that the rule of is law is integral to our democracy. Who in blazes "in their right mind" would think otherwise?

"Walker was caught out with his pants down, just like Gillian Triggs. Reality sucks, doesn't it."

Pathetic!...nearly as pathetic as Abbott revealing his prime motivation in misrepresenting Walker's report.

Yesterday, he stated something along these lines:

When asked about the right of accused terrorists to a criminal trial, Abbott replied:

"But what if they get off!"

You might be comfortable with this govt misrepresenting official reports to trash the rule of law...I'm wondering how you'd react if you were to be accused of something and were confronted with that attitude?

Remember Dutton's famous words:

"You don't need too much evidence. It's an administrative decision".

Keep frothing at the mouth Poirot. Your Abbottphobia certainly could not be doing your health much good. I wonder if anyone has done a health measure on selective rage.

"Keep frothing at the mouth Poirot. Your Abbottphobia certainly could not be doing your health much good. I wonder if anyone has done a health measure on selective rage.'

Lol!....another superb 1 1/2 line runner run-by posting.

I know you think Abbottototophobia is roolly clever - that's about your limit in the wit department, isn't it?

Not so much a "froth" as a perpetual feeling of disbelief that this mob of L-plate fascists can actually be taken seriously by "some" in this country.

Poirot,

Try that one on in the private sector and you will very soon learn that it is not the CEO who should be mind-reading the writer of the recommendations wondering what he meant, then and later.

I agree with POIROT on this specific issue. Any Minister who arbitrarily or capriciously divests 'any' citizen of their nationality, without first permitting proper judicial examination, is clearly wrong. That examination can be quite properly achieved 'In absentia' (within our existing legal framework), particularly if the accused individual fails to voluntarily return home, to face charges.

Don't get me wrong. I loath these mongrel ISAL maggots, but if we're to resort to these extreme measures 'without' proper judicial scrutiny, well as a nation, we're even more buggered than I believe we already are ! No single individual, Minister of the Crown or otherwise, should possess so great a power, as to arbitrarily remove a persons Nationality.