Jacinda Arden, the Darling of the left, as expected couldn't resist the chance to virtue signal at the pacific forum by rubbishing Australia's efforts on climate change. Of course this smug sanctimony was a red rag to a bull for Allan Jones who indelicately suggested that Morrison shove a sock down her throat.

The left whingers and twitterati sprung into life and accused him of misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, bigamy and psoriasis, and even Turnbull puffed up his chest. His boss took decisive action and threatened to fire him for the 16th time, and a few advertisers temporarily moved their accounts while his listener base increased again.

SM,

Well, he IS made of the stuff you would wipe off your shoe, using his bully-pit to rant as he pleases. Thankfully, over here in SA, I can't hear him.

Joe

yeah its ok for the abc to depict Abbott having sex with a dog or an aboriginal woman dropping a t rd on a whitie but then scream bullying when Jones tells Ardern the truth in a forceful way. One standard for socialist and then want to apply another standard for those who expose the idiotic beliefs of the left.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Why have you even posted this?

What you have just done is prefaced with the reasons why his actions were apparently justifiable, implied that Arden's level of smug sanctimony was far greater than that of Jones which is patently untrue, and then diminished the transgression by calling it 'indelicate'.

Are you really that thick that you can't work out the difference between telling her to put a sock in it and saying someone should shove a sock down her throat?

You side of politics is rife with misogynistic dinosaurs telling our then PM she was deliberately barren etc, but I'm not sure any would have thought to go as far as Jones. Why do you think people have gotten upset with the language?

Why are you excusing it?

Runner,

As a centrist, a fast-dying species, I'm happy to suggest that Jones, Jeremy Corbyn, and most others at both of those extremes, are all turds. Between them, they encompass pretty much all of the attacks on women, Jews, immigrants, etc. that any ratbag would ever want.

Are their vile comments potentially incitement to launch attacks on innocent people ? We'll see :(

Joe

Dear runner,

You have availed us with your sexual hangups for what seems like eons but I didn't think you would ever deliver your fetishes with made up sexual fantasies like "abc to depict Abbott having sex with a dog".

I can find no evidence that this ever happened which kind of turns this into wishful thinking on your behalf.

The question really then becomes why? What in you mind has driven you to picture Tony having sex with a dog?

Not that it would change you mind about him as you have no problem with embracing Alan Jones' indelicate past either.

Just curious old chap.

I think Alan Jones was upset because Ardern got one over ScuMo putting her in the good books with the Pacific Islands leaders on the global warming / climate change issue.

Pacific Islands leaders have got ScuMo over a barrel on the global warming / climate change issue and will play Australia off against China to squeeze every cent they can get out of Australia under the threat of letting China establish a military presence in the South Pacific.

I really like ScuMo's feeble attempt to turn the tables claiming China is a bigger culprit of CO2 emissions than Australia in order to get the Pacific Islands nations to turn their ire against China instead of Australia. I think ScuMo is too slow to realise that the Pacific Islands nations intend to screw Australia for everything it can get before turning to China anyway.

Suggesting violence towards a female leader and
ally of Australia is a step too far.

Alan Jones has crossed the line this time by
telling our PM to "shove a sock" down the throat
of Jacinda Ardern's throat. But it turns out
that this wasn't the worst of it.

New audio aired on Media Watch last night has revealed
even more concerning comments made by the 78 year old
broadcaster. He spewed a shocking attack against
the NZ Prime Minister - saying that Scott Morrison
should get tough with a few "backhanders".

He called her a lightweight, someone who
doesn't have a clue,
a complete clown, a swallower of the climate change
"hoax" and finally - a joke.

As a result his employer haws issued a warning (again).
And major advertisers have deserted Jones in droves.
Companies like - Anytime Fitness, ME Bank, Bing Lee,
RSL Art Union, Amart, Mercedes Benz, Snooze, Bunnings,
Total Tools, Big W, have all withdrawn their advertising
from Jones' program.

Jones has a history of having problems with women leaders.
His attacks on former PM Julia Gillard, Premier Gladys
Berejiklian and Sydney Mayor Clover Moore are well known.

As someone stated - fancy being a business and sponsoring
this vile man.

His behaviour should not be defended or excused.
The man needs to seek professional help.

SR,

Considering the glee that you and other left whingers displayed in defending an actual physical assault on Fraser Anning, the rampant hypocrisy and high dudgeon you display between the semantic difference between AJ exhorting SM to shove a sock down her throat and the presumably more acceptable version of the saying of shoving a sock in her mouth is laughable.

I am not surprised that because dear Jacinda is female you and other left whingers automatic assume that any criticism of your holy cow by a male is automatically misogyny.

Having spent the last few months working in NZ and having been subjected to her well meaning incompetence and mindless prattle almost makes me long for the venal Juliar

Dear Foxy,

I've never liked Alan Jones and I have always had a very low opinion of his view of the world. But then can we blame him for the sort of person he is? When I first started work I hated the bullies in the office who were mostly managers but as time went on and news began to leak out about things like child sex abuse in private secondary schools, etc., I began to realise that these bullies were probably victims themselves and were taking out their anger on those whom they could exert power over. So I think we need to take account of the circumstances that someone like Alan Jones may have experienced but we are unaware of.

Foxy,

"Jones has a history of having problems with women leaders.
His [justified] attacks on former PM Julia Gillard, Premier Gladys
Berejiklian and Sydney Mayor Clover Moore are well known"

Fixed it for you.

personally I think if Ardern is going to continue to butt in on Australian matters she should put a sock in it. She should be governing her own little state.

Dear runner,

You are just plagiarising Alan Jones. And if you had been through the same sort of things that Alan Jones has been through during his life you would probably say the same yourself.

Dear Mr Opinion,

Alan Jones has led a very privileged life.
He's always courted the rich and the powerful
to ensure his place in their arena. He thinks
of himself as a force to be reckoned with
due to his links to power.

That may probably put him in a position of
advantage. It's a pity that he doesn't take
personal responsibility for his own actions.
He's been called out many times to no avail and
I dare say his vile behaviour will continue.
He's too set in his ways to change now.

Is Mise,

I did not ask for you to fix anything.
And I would appreciate your sticking to your
own comments and not interfering with mine
in future. If I needed your assistance I would
have asked for it.

Thank You.

Dear Foxy,

Personally, I think he is an arrogant know-all-know-nothing snob who likes bullying people for the purpose of inflicting cruelty. I think he has an undiagnosed psychological history that can be traced back to his very early childhood, which I suppose he should be pitied for rather than criticised. One thing for sure: he is definitely not going to heaven!

(PS I think there are more than a few characters on OLO that would fit the Alan Jones model as well.)

Love it, thought about such a thread then thought better of it
After all how could we talk about pants down without getting smutty
Best known for his interesting attachment to that London toilet block
And that smutty well worn joke about two buckets of ice and those post game footballers
Offensive? yes without doubt
But only about as much as the truly loony rights branding of modern progressives as lefty's
The man spouts shameful things and the truth is even his sponsors have had a gut full of him
History will not be kind to this walking propaganda machine for the very lost very right

Dear Shadow Minister,

You write;

“the rampant hypocrisy and high dudgeon you display between the semantic difference between AJ exhorting SM to shove a sock down her throat and the presumably more acceptable version of the saying of shoving a sock in her mouth is laughable.”

Oh that is just pitiful.

I have never heard of a saying remotely like saying 'shove a sock in her mouth'. In all my years it has always been couched as something you are told to do to yourself as in 'put a sock in it mate', not something you ask another to do to someone else.

You even went with it as the title to this thread trying to downplay yet another reprehensible rightwinger showing his true colours.

Keep your revisionist claptrap to yourself.

Alan Jones will be history soon. Although he's right most of the time, getting too cocky is showing yourself the door !

Dear individual,

Well mate he has been in trouble for being a little too cocky in England some time ago.

Or was that what you were alluding to, if so you can show yourself the door.

" made up sexual fantasies like "abc to depict Abbott having sex with a dog"."

It wasn't Abbott - it was Chris Kenny. But runner's point remains valid.

As to the Pacific Islanders whinging and Ardern's enabling of it, someone ought to point out some of the facts to all and sundry. Namely that their self-seeking assertions that their homelands are being lost to rising sea levels is utter rubbish.... as in untrue. Study after study shows the majority of these pacific islands are either completely stable or actually growing in size. They aren't sinking, seal levels aren't wiping them out. In the few islands where there are problems, its almost always caused by the islander's themselves.

A politician with cojones would tell then some home truths. But to do so would call forth the hoards of alarmist know-nothings, and we don't have anyone around who will stand up to that type of hysterics. There's never a Trump around when you need one.

Alan can not be held to account, after all he is the one pillorying others
Then weeping as he rightly becomes the target
Runners defense of the man is very funny
And dare I say some here do not even know much about him, have seen them rant about some who share much with our mouth from the south
AJ will not be behind that mike for much longer but will rant on at Sky/Fox the home of ugly twisted truth

SR,

Because you are ignorant of venacular, does not justify your position. There is such a thing as google.

"What's the origin of the phrase 'Put a sock in it'?
This is a colloquial British phrase that originated in the early 20th century. It is generally used when someone is being so noisy as to annoy others. The imagery behind the phrases is that putting a sock in whatever was causing the noise would quieten it down. What that thing was isn't known. There are suggestions that this may have been the horn of an early gramophone or, more straightforwardly, the raucous person's mouth."

Considering your earlier support of actual criminal assault, your reasoning is dismal.

This is yet another left whinge effort to hyperbolize an offensive comment into something that no rational person would believe was ever intended.

Given that Jones is by far the most popular radio host, advertising slots vacated by virtue signalling companies will be quickly filled by others. Firing Jones will simply mean that the revenue he generates will simply move to whoever next employs him.

Dear Shadow Minister,

“Criminally assaulted” by a youngster gently cracking an egg on his scone? Give me a break.

This is what Arnold Schwarzenegger said when he had one thrown at him with force;

http://youtu.be/zw97LIBGbR4?t=89

Stop being so bloody soft.

At to “put a sock in it” try googling a little further mate. It seems the origins were probably WW1 possibly referring to practicing buglers.

Quote;

The story about the gramophone has been so widely reproduced that it’s unsurprising people accept it. It’s a plausible tale that instantly produces a delightfully comic image of some grumpy parent stuffing hosiery into the horn to muffle the kids’ noisy records. Pre-electric gramophones lacked volume controls and I’m told they could be loud enough that finding some way to minimise the sound was desirable. But the evidence suggests the story came into being as a well-meaning but misconceived attempt to explain the origin of an existing saying.

The first examples of it appear in 1919, virtually simultaneously in the UK and Australia, rather late for it to be connected to gramophones, which had by then been around for some time:

"The expression “Put a sock in it”, meaning “Leave off talking, singing or shouting”."
The Athenaeum (London), 8 Aug. 1919.

The need to define the expression suggests it was then new in the UK. Two further early appearances point to its true source. The first is from an Australian newspaper article that humorously conflates many items of wartime services slang.

"There was only time for a dixie of gunfire and a hurried dig-in-the-grave, no chance of pozzy and rooty at the Cain-and-Able to-day. It had begun to rain, and some chaps called out: “Send it down David!” But others shouted: “Put a sock in it!” And, after a lot of grousing, we started off."
The Port Macquarie News, 14 Jun. 1919.

Cont..

Cont..

The second is from a novel set in the trenches of the Western Front in France in 1916. Frederic Manning — an Australian — was there during his service with the King’s Shropshire Light Infantry. The text as he wrote it could not be published in his lifetime because of the authentic bad language it contained:

  “I’m not miserable, corporal,” said little Martlow: “We’re not dead yet. On’y I’m not fightin’ for any fuckin’ Beljums, see. One o’ them buggers wanted to charge me five frong for a loaf o’ bread.”
  “Well, put a sock in it. We’ve ’ad enough bloody talk now.”
The Middle Parts of Fortune, by Frederic Manning, 1929.

These two citations strongly suggest an origin among servicemen in the First World War, and explain how the expression got into Civvy Street simultaneously in Britain and Australia in 1919 — it was carried to both by homecoming soldiers.

End quote

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-put3.htm

"put a sock in your mouth" means in the 1940-60s "shut your gob" in other words "shut up" stop talking. What you are saying is offensive to not mind your own business.

'You are just plagiarising Alan Jones'
true Mr Opinion certainly nothing new under the sun. Mind you put a sock in it was a very common saying for anyone over 25 growing up in Australia. Such false hurt feelings. Even the NZ PM showed a bit of class in her response rather than the loud mouthed vulgar leftist virtue signallers.

Her father died of shame
Put her in a sugar bag and throw her in the sea
Giver her a few good smacks
Shove a sock down her throat
And outside that London toilet block, no officer that is not what I was doing
Enough said

SR,

Thanks for expanding the etymology of the phase "shove a sock in it"

Now that we have cleared up that AJ was exhorting Scott Morrison to get Jacinda to shut up rather than to assault her, we can put this into context.

What is still interesting is that you consider criminal assault acceptable as long as it is "gentle"? Does this apply to sexual assaults such as a gentle fanny grab, or does this only apply to assaults on male conservatives?

You know what is funny about all this?
Everyone is acting as if all this is some kind of surprise and all the players are acting out of character.
I've got news for y'all, let's not forget who/what we're talking about.
POLITICIANS!

Dear Shadow Minister,

Trying it on yet again I see.

You write;

“Now that we have cleared up that AJ was exhorting Scott Morrison to get Jacinda to shut up rather than to assault her, we can put this into context.”

No, if he were doing that he would have exhorted SM to ask Prime Minister Adern to 'put a sock in it'. Instead he said he wondered if “Scott Morrison had been fully briefed to shove a sock down her throat”.

There is a vast difference between the two and for you to be claiming any kind of equivalence is pretty ugly stuff. On top of that he 'exhorted' SM to 'get tough here with a few backhanders'.

Why are you defending this?

As to the egging you will recall you where happy that the Galah who recklessly rode his horse though an area with children and ending up delivering suspected spinal injuries to a woman was 'let off with a warning'.

So a bit of egg on a politician is far more a hanging offence? Hypocrite.

SR,

sorry, but if that is the level and demeanor of your argument, you are not playing with a full deck.
Trying to raise the level of seriousness to suite your arguments whilst attempting to down play everyone else's submissions that oppose your belief and the way YOU see things, and not being truthfull and realistic only loses you cred and followers.
Try arguing apples with apples, then we are ALL playing on the same and level playing field.

Dear ALTRAV,

Wow!

Is this finally a moment of self reflection from you?

Just look at what you have written. If you were to hold yourself to that same standard then this place would be far better for it. you might bring others with you.

Well done if that is what it is.

SR,

now you're just being a smart-arse.
It seems your strong point is to agitate and irritate.
I have noticed that you never consider the other guys opinions, and when you do it is in opposition.
You try to impress, but fall short.
I am forever questioning anything that is even remotely untrue or attempting to push a flawed argument or point.
But at least, I a prepared to always consider the reasons behind something, rather than the outcome itself.
Once something has happened it cannot be "un-happened", all we can do is look at the WHY it happened, and this is where we all differ, and in too many cases, go wrong.

It seems your strong point is to agitate and irritate.
ALTRAV,
Talk about that kind of character, Paul1405 has fallen off the radar or is he Mr Opinion now ?

SR so telling the truth makes you a smart arse?
Alan is a walking talking snearing propaganda machine
Hugely funny some do not even know the man yet fall at his feet

SR,

It is always amusing when the soapbox under the left whinger collapses. Only an idiot would actually believe that Jones was suggesting that Scott M actually physically assault the NZ show pony.

As for the greenie activist that got knocked on her arse when she tried to close the gate in front of a galloping horse (and was uninjured in spite of her attention grabbing claims). The reason that the rider didn't face any charges was because the accident was largely due to the greenie activist who didn't care a jot if she hurt the horse.

And you still haven't explained you hypocritical support of the criminal assault by eggboy.

SM,

good to see someone else telling it like it is, instead of twisting the truth by re-arranging the facts to suite their particular agenda.
Why do people have to lie, when the truth is so obvious?
Is it because they think they are dealing with a bunch of morons?
Well I've got news for them, they are the morons because people can see through the lies, they witnessed events just like the liars, and can't believe that someone would seriously try to pull the wool over their eyes to win a point.
Karma is a wonderful thing and it happens naturally.

As for the greenie activist that got knocked on her arse when she tried to close the gate in front of a galloping horse..
Shadow Minister,
That activist has been off the radar ever since, maybe the horse kicked her on the head & knocked some sense into her ?

Dear individual,

Lol.

So Anning gets lightly tapped on the head with an egg and you lot want to string him up with cries of serious assault but then you are championing someone on the other side getting kicked in the head by a horse?

God you lot are so piss weak it does my head in.

Grow a bloody spine why don't you, right now you are just laughable.

Steele Redux,
Thanks for proving it wasn't you that got kicked by the horse !

The expression 'put a sock in it' is as old as the hills. Anyone upset by it is a big girl's blouse. And now, virtue-signalling businesses are taking away advertising from Jones. What a piss weak country Australia has become. What piss weak people Australians are.

SR,

what's wrong old sausage?
Why are you so antagonistic towards some people and yet champion those who antagonise and promote those who are themselves antagonists.
It is you who is "piss weak" as you so nicely put it.
Firstly, it was not the tap on the head that got Anning annoyed, it was the fact that the kid was out to seek some 'YOU TUBE' fame by filming the incident, completely ignoring and defiant of ANY consequences, as you will note if you watched the video and the stupid kids focus on keeping the 'camera rolling' during the whole pathetic incident, and that he ended up with egg rolling down his back, and that was the real reason for his response.
Personally I was disappointing that Anning did not smash this moron into the ground, and instead his minders stopped him from dispensing some karma and education to this scumbag.
Now as for the maggot and the horse.
You know full well that SHE, was completely at fault, and a total fool and idiot at that.
I again was sorry she did not suffer long lasting injuries, so that the maggot would never forget what an idiot she was and reminded of it every day for the rest of her life.
So saying that Anning overreacted over a 'tap on the head', just shows how stupid you are to even suggest it.
And the horse incident, again you try to get mileage from a piss weak attempt at winning a false point.
I suggest you don't comment if you are going to mis-represent the facts/truth.

Dear ALTRAV,

You write;

“It is you who is "piss weak"”

Lol. Are you really going to do this mate? Do I now say “Nah it is you who is piss weak” and then you say “No way is you who is piss weak!” and so on?

Are you going to tell your mummy on me too for bullying you?

Grow up.

SR,

all I got was Oh yeah, Oh yeah, which only went so far as to confirm what we already suspected about you and your mindset.
You did not actually say anything.
Still I don't see why that would now suddenly change from any of your past submissions.
I'll just take your last comments as a momentary loss of consciousness, and give you the opportunity to gather your thoughts and try once more to make an attempt at a clear and relevant contribution to this topic.
Hope you get better soon.

SR pot calling the kettle black for me to give you advice but here goes
ALTRAV lives in a different place reality is not seen there
Yes his posts have got better
But his self confidence is badly misplaced
I note he likes to insult, those who hold differing opinions

Belly,

no I only insult those who seek to be insulted by making insulting or incorrect comments.
I do not suffer fools easily, that is why I am so critical and pedantic about details and making sure that the "truth" is always told.
Unfortunately, I have to accept that this medium promotes "opinions".
Well I don't, and if I come across an opinion which contradicts the truth about what the opinion is about, I will always attempt to alert the author of their mistake/s.
So I appologise if I do not accept "opinions" as the right for someone to spread lies or mis-information or just plain wrong.
Opinions may only be valid if they are of a strictly personal nature involving only themselves.
For example, a woman trying on a new dress, may comment, "I" think it's too .........., or "I"think it's..........
But if an opinion is given where there are facts that clearly differ from the authors "opinion", then they must be alerted to their error, and if the author persists, even though they have been shown the evidence which clearly exposes them and their error, then they are subject to and open to ANY form of abuse as is deemed necessary to bring the recalcitrant author back to reality and accepting the truth in place of their "opinion".
The reason for such seemingly, high levels of abuse, is because certain people are just too bloody minded, arrogant, self centred and just plain stubborn fools, who were never taught to be reasonable and that in life you can sometimes be wrong, and to accept it, learn from it and move on, not stand steadfast, headstrong ending up looking like a belligerent, stubborn fool, losing all credibility and respect, from those who were once your peers, and now only want to distance themselves from you.
Unless they suffer from the similar disease.

Altrav,

SR's modus operandi is to insult everyone and then go off in a huff when challenged.

That he tries to pass off an actual criminal physical assault as a lesser offence than a quip by a radio presenter shows his deteriorating mental faculties.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/i-must-be-doing-something-right-jones-hits-back-at-critics/news-story/385bdc74908cb5fa1fde1f9f70684f7a

That Alan Jones' program's ratings are still stratospherically above anyone else's shows that the consumers don't give a crap about left whingers' tantrums, and that the "enlightened" businesses that pulled their advertising so that their competitors can benefit will be learning that getting woke means going broke as Gillette is learning.

Alan will not last on radio, but he will flourish on Sky, a place truth is a refugee, much despised one too
And fake news was invented

The Pacific forum and these nations are being used to drive the climate change agenda, and force Australia into line a per this agenda.
I don't always keep up with local news facts; but if I'm not mistaken wasn't Tuvalu’s leader Enele Sopoaga being disrespectful towards Australia's generosity of 500 million in the week prior to the forum?

So for me, I think I decided at the time, that if I was PM I'd have cancelled the trip and sent some nobody in my place;
With instructions:

(This is the equivalent of the footy coach going into the dressing rooms before the end of the match and wrecking up the place, that way he won't have to say anything)

Go there but don't speak a word to anyone except to notify who you are. Have a drink, (half a drink, don't bother finishing it) then smash your glass on the floor in front of everyone and tip over a table of sandwiches and then go to the car then hop on your plane and leave.

In any case if I was PM the forum wouldn't have happened because I wouldn't have turned up to bend over for them in the first place.

How dare that foreign muppet spit in Aussie taxpayers faces after we coughed up half a billion?

Here's a thought:
- Bomb them with the recyclable waste that were now stuck with in Vic.
Load up the RAAF C-17 Globemasters with all that garbage, fly over their crappy island, and just dump it all out..

Disrespect towards Aussie taxpayers generosity shouldn't be rewarded;
And insults from ungrateful foreigners should indeed receive an 'appropriate' response.

PM Dodo isn't worth the time of day.
Everyone knows you should never argue with an idiot.
They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

What I'd like to have explained is how they can stop the islands from getting inundated by the wasting of more money ?

Careful individual, you're asking common sense questions
The left might start having conniptions.

Armchair Critic,
Paul1405 is highly conspicuous by his absence on discussing matters of logic. Or, do you think we should give him more time to consult his Leftie mates to come up with yet another insipid quip ?

Dear Shadow Minister,

You write;

“SR's modus operandi is to insult everyone and then go off in a huff when challenged. That he tries to pass off an actual criminal physical assault as a lesser offence than a quip by a radio presenter shows his deteriorating mental faculties.”

Oh dear. Mate, when have you even once seriously challenged me? Well a few years ago maybe but that was when you weren't the mindless mouthpiece for rightwing politics that you are now.

Re the egging I have replied to you any number of times yet you will not let it go. Arnold laughed off being clocked by an egg while your man turned, made sure it was some pimply faced kid who had plonked an egg on his scone then threw out a couple of right jabs until his embarrassed minder pulled him away.

I really am at a loss why you keep badgering on about it. Is it a sense that your side of politics is so bloody fragile and insubstantial right now?

Whatever it is it is certainly unbecoming.

Punch in the face?

My opinion here is:
'If you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.'

Or alternatively,

'Don't go egging people if your unsure of how they might react to it.'

SR,

Mate, you don't need me to challenge you, just idiom and logic seems to have you floored with this one. That Arnold S shrugged off an assault reflects well on him not the assailant and using your logic would imply that a husband that beats his wife is exonerated if the wife forgives him?

However AJ mangles an idiom, and you want him fired? This is the same crap that has got Rugby Australia in such hot water.

As for being fragile, your side of politics is so deep in crap with donations of cash in shopping bags etc, that you comment is laughable.

Dear Shadow Minister,

So some kid breaking an egg on a pollie's scone is the equivalent to someone beating his wife? It is a very binary world you live in old chap.

As to 'my side of politics' this old Australian Democrat left the party primarily because they started taking political donations from corporations. Never joined another.

SR,

I'm not sure whether you are simply trying to be obtuse or pretending to be illiterate. I never equated the common assault of egging someone with the aggravated assault of wife beating, just shone a light on your faulty logic of claiming that assault is OK if the victim does not complain.

Secondly, I mentioned your side of politics not your ex party. Given that the labor party is the asylum of most left whingers they are definitely your side of politics.

P.S. Since I have never joined any political party, what is the "my side of politics" to which you referred?

Dear Shadow Minister,

The equivalence you are trying to orchestrate is calling they both “criminal physical assault”. I don't accept that of the egging at all.

As to Jones he didn't mangle anything, he weaponised an old saying and meant every word of it.

If you truly are not a member of the coalition then why on earth are you in complete lockstep with everything they do even to the point of defending things they have apologised for?

SR,

sorry but you overreach in a sad attempt at desperately trying to make/win your point/s.
Jones is whatever he is, no matter what you or anyone else thinks.
He's a "shock Jock" and he's good at it.
He gets it right most of the time.
As for Arnold taking an egging and moving on; it's called "POLITICS 101"
Where-as Anning says and does it like it is.
He got egged by a smart-arse little glory seeking you-tuber, and I and millions of others are sorry that Anning was stopped by smashing this arrogant piece of scum into oblivion.
I would have settled for just one decent full-on in the face hammer hit, that would have rendered him requiring urgent medical attention.
Now that's a valuable life lesson the kid sadly missed out on because of the soft cocks in the world today.
His "minders" were just people, some were helpers, NO MINDERS, NO BODY GUARDS!
Now you need to soften your stance on backing the wrong horse.
You invest too much in semantics and foolishly believe that the readers cannot see through your egregious attempts at making mis-leading and incorrect comments, and your cunning ways of manipulating and distorting the truth by "bearing false witness".
A VERY BAD TRAIT.
One that is abhorant and divisive in life's interactions between people, assimilating to the much maligned PC language.
SR, shame on you!

"As to Jones he didn't mangle anything, he weaponised an old saying and meant every word of it."

What if he really did mean it?
I mean what if he genuinely 100% wanted ScoMo to cram that sock down her throat?
Who cares what's the big deal anyway?
He didn't say HE was going to do it, and people have minds of their own and are responsible for their own actions.
- No matter what AJ says, doesn't give anyone else justification to actually break the law.

Or are we frightened that he will encourage some low level morons that are incapable of controlling their own actions?

Newsflash: 'The daily blabber reports than a steady stream of people have been arrested trying to rush the NZ PM with socks. It's thought these people were trying to carry out Alan Jones call for the PM to have socks placed down her throat...'

I mean where the freaking hell are we? Pre School?

Why is he NOT permitted to say whatever he thinks?
- All he said was what many of us were already thinking or saying anyway -
What is this a bloody law on what people are or are not permitted to think now?
Might as well be.

'Weaponising' is what they've done to our democracy, with all this anti-hate, anti harm, minority-majority social justice, PC bubblewrap crap.

SR,

You must be a remarkable human, not only can you read AJ's mind with certainty, but you have found a loophole in the law that has eluded every legal mind in the western world.

Clearly, the arrest and court appearance of the pimply eggboy was a complete miscarriage of justice, and AJ was devastated that Morrison didn't stuff a sock down the insufferable Jacinda's trachea.