Foxy,

Your link is typical of the ABC's blatant bias. Because the journalist would get fired for expressing his biased opinion, what he does is find someone with the similar opinion then grant him an glowing reference coupled with uncritical airing of his opinions, throw in some unfounded allegations, and fail to give any glimmer of consideration of the contrary opinion.

What he failed to mention is that the allegations of assault on the asylum seekers was a lie, and that many sailors felt traumatized with having to retrieve the bodies of women and children.

Dear Shadow Minister,

It is such a shame that you don't provide us with
evidence to substantiate your claims that the
accusations made were a lie. Equally the entire
government denials, as well as its
secrecy at the time, simply showed the damage their
hard-line policy was doing to the Australian Navy's
reputation.

The asylum seeker's
claims should not have been ignored - and the secrecy, denial, and
attempts at brushing
the accusations aside - only did more damage. Hence John
Ingram's disgust at having the navy used for political
purposes - when it's their job to protect people.

ABC biased?
I've heard that sort of logic previously.
Usually from people whose views are not worthy of
consideration.
I am surprised to hear it from you.

I look forward to our next discussion. I have nothing further
to add to this one.

Shadow my dear boy, your daily consumption of No News Ltd putrid swill as penned by their collection of rubbish writers, masquerading as journalists, such persons as the barely literate Andy Bolt, the joke Akerman and the token female 'Bubbles' Devine is causing you mental hallucinations. You are now guilty of believing their distorted fabrications, continually repeating them, ad nauseam.
For example you say "As for the ABC, with 85% of its journalists being either labor or greens supporters" is that a No News Ltd fact! What percentage of the gutter press are conservative supporters. 100%.

Beach, when are you going to stop sitting on the fence and really start to put the boot into the left of center parties like Labor and the Greens. Not forgetting that you claim to be a political moderate! You must fine it difficult at these election times not to come straight out and urge people to vote for your beloved Pauline and her One Nation ratbags.
Can we now take it that the Labor Party is no longer run by Fabians, but rather by a Fabian-inspired elite, and you managed to slip in one of your favorite old chestnuts, Senator Waters and her office. No mention of those wonderful VLAD laws you are so fond of, you must be slipping.

Foxy,

Firstly the information was published a month or so after so please look it up. Secondly the ABCs assumption that navy personnel that had rescuing 1000s of asylum seekers for years in a well trained and respectful manner without a single incident, suddenly went rogue, as reported by the people smugglers with clearly vested interests in defaming the naval personnel, and not confirmed by anyone else. Yet the ABC assumes the worst and reports it as fact.

The inquiry found that there no basis for this and that the testimonies of the personnel involved were consistent with accidental burns on the motor exhaust which was unprotected. And the navy has never given answers to such allegations without an investigation, and neither do the police. So no secrecy here.

As for the bias of the ABC, it is clear from the complete absence of discussion on subjects that don't reflect its "progressive" agenda for example the endless articles on the asylum seekers, their stories, their feelings on Nauru etc, but an almost complete silence on the 1000s dying at sea.

Paul,

I can imagine the spittle on your screen, almost as though you had forgotten your meds. PS the results for the Australian were about 50/50. unless you include Graham Richardson etc as conservatives.

If you want real news and analysis, don't waste your time on the ABC or SMH.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I wasn't going to continue with this discussion.
However I feel obliged to do so because you
are making claims without any evidence to
substantiate your claims.

This reminds me
of the Howard Government's accusations of
desperate asylum seekers threatening to throw
their children into the sea. He added that -
he didn't want "people like that."

Problem was, it wasn't true.

This time around it was the asylum seekers
accusing the navy of brutality while forcing
their boat to turn back to Indonesia.
Which you claim is a falsehood. I have found
no evidence of that. You have failed to provide
any. However the government at that time also
denied the claims outright. Their
stance is very similar to your own. The claims
are not only denied but those making them are
depicted as less credible because they have
vested interest in not being truthful. After all
they are attempting to come to this country
"illegally." Therefore of course they must lie.
What appears to have been overlooked is the
common denominator - that is the lack of
transparency and the refusal to get to the
bottom of serious allegations when they are made.

There are several troubling aspects of this saga.
There appears to have been no attempt by
Australian officials to interview those making
those claims. Secondly is the refusal to reveal
precisely what did happen when the asylum seeker's
boat was turned back under a policy opposed by
Indonesia, and how some asylum seekers came to
suffer burns.

The danger of blanket denials in the face of
accusations and total secrecy as an article in
The Age points out - is that inadvertently
it encourages less than best practice by those on
the "front line," because they do not appear to be
held accountable. And as he adds - "If the
operational imperative of secrecy concerning "on water"
matters is considered paramount there should be a
mechanism to investigate claims promptly by a third,
independent party, with the findings then made
public."