Abbott has thrown hundreds of those porkies around, some people can find explanations for each and every one of them.
A wise person knows when to hold their tongue also.

Abbott today threw a bride at the ABC, he will lift the parliamentary ban on ministers attending Q&A if they shift the program to the news channel. Sounds like he got some facts from a wise man of law.

Persons should always be careful of checking their facts, especially when it involves so many people it would be easy to make a fool of yourself.

Poirot,

Epic failure. Three recent posts all on the same topic.

SM,

You took issue with me because I wrote this type of thing:

"You're the fellow who keeps on telling me that 90% of the people think this - and 90% of the people think that....and by chance they all seem to hold exactly the same views as Shadow Minister!..."

You then followed it up with:

"Is false and you know it. Shame on you."

When it turns out it isn't "false" at all - all of a sudden you claim:

"Epic failure. Three recent posts all on the same topic."

(Actually, one is from this thread - and two are from the paying people smugglers thread - so I assume that meets your hastily conceived criterion for "a variety of topics?)

In any case, I didn't mention anything about multiple topics - I addressed your habit of picking a percentage out of the air to support your argument.

I produced the goods (see post above) - but it's fascinating to watch you attempt to move the goal posts.

@doog, Saturday, 11 July 2015 11:29:18 AM

That is not right.

It was the Chairman of the ABC who wrote to the PM suggesting a move of Q&A to the News division from the Television division where it is now.

It is hoped that the relocation will improve Q&A.

Given that it was only polite for the PM to reply, what should he have said? His response was polite and cooperative. Perhaps tabloid hacks are scrounging to make something out of what was a fairly innocuous reply.

@Suseonline, Saturday, 11 July 2015 11:23:20 AM

That is some Kangaroo Court you run to hold a man responsible for a banner held up behind him. He is one of those despised 'white' men, so as a rad fembot of the previous Millenium you would want to be wearing his balls as earrings as well?

Rumour has that he once glanced at his watch while a 'Wonderful Womyn' was berating him (and all and sundry). What part of his anatomy should be removed for that?

To give Julia Gillard her due, she (inadvertently) hammered the nails into the coffin of feminism with her gender (and Class) wars that were totally rejected by the electorate.

Gillard had had a dream run, courtesy of a public that is always over-kind to women, but she blew it. She didn't have the goods and more importantly, her selfishness and ambition always got in the way.

Dear Suse,

There's nothing wrong with your memory concerning
our former female Prime Minister. Any well-informed
person would agree with you:

http://www.independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/a-fair-go-for-prime-minister-Julia-Gillard,5196

"Never in our country's history has a national leader faced
so many demands and attacks on so many multiple fronts."

"On top of the usual irrelevancies that women in positions
of prominence have to endure - like her dress sense, her hair
styles, her shoes and so on - she also faced a barrage of
conservative disapproval over her childlessness, her atheism and
her marital status... To this day she is the butt of snide
remarks and innuendo about the cost of her new home, her
domestic situation, and her lack of religious convictions..."

"Yet sadly, seldom in the media is this perpetual pressure
and harassment given the critical attention it deserves."

One of the options at hand does not make a done deal. I say it stays where it is. In any case all televisions have channel dials. So you will have to wait a couple of months to find out.

Q&A may take a bit of shifting given it's popularity. It's up to the ABC board to make any decisions on programming. No doubt there will be several voter choices involved. We can't have pressure from pollatition effecting any outcomes, that would be seen as stifling freedom of press. So for Abbott to tie MP's lifting of boycott to shifting channels is quite suspect. So why not continue the boycotting, it's Abbott's decision. Then again he hasn't been known for his decision making.