Wow Foxy, have you run out of reading material? You must have if you consider Paul's posts a good read.

I normally ignore his posts, but did read this one, after seeing your comment. How you could call that pile of hate filled vitriol good reading, I can't imagine.

I almost has to feel sorry for someone so bitter & twisted as this bloke, & I probably would if I did not find my self so disgusted by his hate.

Dear Hassie,

Come on you can't be serious.

I know that Paul was being facitious.

It was firmly tongue-in-cheek.

Did it strike a chord with you?

Dear Paul,

Did you happen to watch the "Insiders" this morning?

There were quite a few comments on the three ministers.
All of them agreeing that the men should have known
better. What happens next, I guess we'll have to wait
and see. I wonder if this will impact on the sentencing
of this terrorist? What a mess this has turned out to be.

I think it's a case of wanting to interfere, just like Abbott telling fair work to cut weekend penalty rates. Manipulation of the law, at arms length, does not apply to some.

Dear doog,

It is a bit of a worry though.

I believe that all three ministers are lawyers as
well so they really should have known better than
to comment on a case that's still pending.

Foxy,

Paul doesn't let reality interfere with his chicken little histrionics.

Given that punishments need to be proportionate, a senior judge would be very courageous to actually charge a sitting MP, triggering a constitutional crisis, for voicing valid concerns about the lax bail conditions for violent criminals. The risk for the judge would be if the charge was overturned in the high court on appeal his position on the bench would be untenable.

However, the judges are partially right in that they are bound within the lax bail laws set by the Andrew's labor government, and similarly the MP's should have been more careful.