Home » Blogging » Boltwatch-watch

Category Archives: Boltwatch-watch

Jeremy Sear’s Own Goal Hat Trick

September 26, 2011 9:30 am / 9 Comments

Blogging is a funny old game, especially when you write about politics and engage in ongoing sniping across the political trenches. Now our learned friend was quite peeved when the Herald sun took up the story of Andy Blume and when that chap lost his job with Yarra Trams now our man at the bar thought that there was something terribly wrong and unjust that poor Andy has been forced into the ranks of the unemployed for the things that he has Tweeted and posted on the internet. It would seem that Jezza really likes to think that there should be no consequences for dising your employer on the net or for posting pictures of Tram passengers   to mock and deride them to your twitter followers. Anyway one of the elements of the Andy Blume saga was the fact that he was taking pictures from the cab of his Tram so our learned friend thought that he had the perfect counter strike when Andrew bolt published this post, another in his “from the window of a typical blog reader” series:

A fairly innocuous post and not something that really meets Pure Poison’s Mission statement (not that it ever seems to matter to Dave and Jezza) none the less our learned friend decided to write about it any way seeing an opportunity to “even the score” and this post was the result which in turn led to Andrew Bolt putting up this post  which is where I come into this picture because I posted this comment to Andrew’s post:

Jeremy Sear is a sad venial man who is seeking a revenge of sorts because the Herald Sun quite rightly highlighted the case of his personal friend Andy Blume’s very bad internet behaviour while he was employed by Yarra Trams. The delightful irony is that on this occasion he has completely misunderstood just what goes on at the pointy end of a modern Jet airliner and just how his attempt to draw a comparison between a jet cockpit and Tram’s driving compartment is just a total FAIL.
Its good for a laugh though LOL

This resulted in our learned friend sending me an email complaining about my comment and posting this comment in the thread of his Pure Poison post:

I would dearly love to share the email exchange but our learned friend is rather coy about what he had to say but the gist of it was that he claimed that I misrepresented him because I had no evidence that he was a “close personal friend” of Andy Blume, he maintained that he had met the man only twice at blog meet ups and that Blume was just one of the many people that he follows on twitter. In the exchange that followed (over several emails during the afternoon) he insisted that he did not want me to write a correction, and when I asked him why he was emailing me rather than posting something at Bolts Blog  to set the record straight on the nature of his relationship with Andy Blume Jezza made comparisons between Blume and syphilis and the communist witch-hunts. All rather entertaining on a quiet Sunday afternoon. Then I made a point of rereading my comment at Bolts blog and I noticed that I had not in fact used the adjective “close” at all (like who remembers the precise wording of every comment that posted on the internet?) After a hearty belly laugh at the realisation that our learned friend had spent the afternoon chiding me about making sure that one has evidence for the claims made on the internet. I wrote back to him pointing out that I had never suggested that he was a “close personal friend” at all. Top marks to the chap though for editing his comment (cited above) to correct the error, however you just can’t escape the fact that the whole episode is a great example of crusading blogger scoring a hat trick of own goals. In the first instance he was wrong to assume that the picture posted by Andrew Bolt represents any sort of pilot negligence or misdeed which makes his comparison with the Andy Blume affair  pointless, secondly he spent some effort trying to shame me into making some sort of retraction and public apology for something that I have not done, and finally it was he who has made a “correction” to what he has said about this matter (at my insistence) rather than yours truly.

Amusing stuff indeed Comrades

The Bolt Report must be doing fine if minions of the extreme left are so desperate to vilify it…

June 15, 2011 12:11 am / 27 Comments

Its no secret that I am rather chuffed about the clear success of the the Bolt report because it certainly has exceeded the expectations of its makers, blown away the latte-sipper’s predictions of utter failure. In fact despite a little stiffness in his presentation on the initial show it has become much smoother and more at ease with each subsequent episode.

Bolt’s most strident critics over at “Pure Playschool” keep insisting that they are not going to watch it yet I bet that they do, Doctor Jason Wilson owes me a latte because he was one of those  who predicted its failure and I quite like Joel Silver’s take on the show which is very even handed in the way that it considers the program and why it is succeeding in the ratings;

The Bolt Report has rapidly gained itself a loyal following. I do not believe, however, that this is simply a flow-on from his column. Indeed, the program is a different kettle of fish from Insiders and its academic roundtable of journalists (perhaps explaining why Insiders and Meet the Press have only a stable, not growing, audience). The show is what might be called “editorial television”, programs that discuss, assess and often indicate a view on the issues. That does not make the program a trailblazer; Lateline has long editorialised, and that is fine. But Lateline is evening viewing, which the unengaged will only come upon if the sandman is left shivering on the side of the road after phoning into the RACV. By that point, they’ve watched the evening news, maybe caught up on the morning paper, and are too tired to hear more. Unfortunately for them, when the television is back on at 6.30, Virginia Trioli stands in the place of Tony Jones. And News Breakfast is certainly no Lateline, having been influenced by the “news-lite” approach taken by Today and Sunrise.

Bolt is a morning commentator. Problem is, I haven’t got patience to read his opinions at 6.30, or anyone else’s for that matter. But read it out to me, and you’ll have my attention. Better still, put him on television and radio, and the person who would have read it out can go about fixing my breakfast. That gives the program appeal: the type and quality of commentary on Lateline, morning radio and in newspapers, but which is rarely found on morning television. That Bolt fronts The Bolt Report is only part of the attraction, although few journalists could effectively engage with an audience that has just gotten out of bed. Had the ABC commissioned the show, it might well be called Lateline Mornings, Tony Jones having turned it down the role in favour of his morning siesta. And while The Bolt Report is an exclusively Sunday affair, if its strong performance continues, we could be seeing the beginning of a more engaging and editorialised breed of morning television news program.

And after reading the article  I naturally scanned the comments and who did I find sprouting hate but our old pal Richard Ryan:

Richard Ryan said in reply to Shinsko…

Well he is known as Melbourne’s “village idiot”,but methinks that is an insult to a village idiot.

Richard Ryan said in reply to Pia Robinson…

Andrew Bolt the promoter of the Lord Monckton tour of Australia—-and all his beloved bloggers ready to dish out their 25 bucks to see this British fake.

Richard Ryan said in reply to Leo Lane…

AND I expose Bolt as a stolen generation denier,who is a legend in his own mind, a nobody.

Richard Ryan said in reply to Rod…

Bolt will ask the hard questions to suit his political requirements——I class him as a media clown, with no principles—–but then it’s not his fault, he is of Dutch origin.

Richard Ryan said in reply to gordo…

gordo—the lover of all things Bolt!

Richard Ryan said in reply to Michael Sutcliffe…

AH YES! Andrew Bolt the Herald Sun’s resident nutter.

Richard Ryan said in reply to

Bill O’ Reilly is an Irishman with his brains knocked out—makes Bolt look like an altar boy. Go and listen to a real journalist like Julian Assange.

Richard Ryan said…

Andrew Bolt is a self-promoter, 800 bucks every time he appeared on ABC Insiders I hear,—-Bolt’s principles are in his wallet, but good on old smirkey

Richard Ryan said in reply to Elizabeth…

IF you want to hear vile comments, click over to Bolt’s blog, there you can pick from Muslim bashing, racist comments, boat people scorn, Aborigine bashing. Go away Elizabeth you are a Bolt blogger lackey. Bolt is a specialist in the art of Trolls, but David Marr cut him down to size—-when he had to say sorry to him, unlike his book, “Still Not Sorry” Shalom.

The thing that the anti-Bolt collective fail to realise is that their “arguments” for all of their piss and vinegar, just fail to  convince the vast majority of people who don’t have any  frothy residue on their top lips. Then again in my experience people like Richard( or our learned friend) have a view of politics that is far too black and white. There is no room for nuance in their world view, no appreciation that someone can hold a different view of politics and not be evil as a result , ah but that is the reason that People like Richard Ryan probably vote Green and dream of the undesirable and  unobtainable socialist utopia. Well they can rant insult and demean and all the while sensible souls will get it and enjoy the Bolt report…

Cheers Comrades

Andy on Ten?

April 6, 2011 6:38 am / 36 Comments

Click for source

I have only vaguely been following the coniptions that some lefties have been having over the possibility that Andrew Bolt may get his own TV show, frankly I think that such a show would be a great commercial success, The right thinking public will enjoy Andrew telling it like it is and Lefty fan boys like our learned friend will enjoy watching it because they want to show the world their own righteous indignation at the opinions of Andrew Bolt and to bemoan the fact that what he says so obviously resonates with the public. It has to be a commercial winner for network  Ten.

Update

Ten has confirmed it will launch a new Sunday morning program, The Bolt Report, hosted by Herald Sun journalist Andrew Bolt on 8 May.

The Bolt Report will air at 10am, before Meet the Press, Ten’s existing political program which will move to 10.30am.

source

Cheers Comrades

Racism and barely disguised anti Semitism

February 24, 2011 3:08 am / 46 Comments

The thing that I find endlessly amusing about our learned  friend’s criticism of Andrew Bolt is the way that he never  appreciates Andrew’s clear and obvious sarcasm. Its there for all to see if you click through to the original piece that Jezza is attempting to criticise here. Instead our learned friend takes that sarcasm and pretends that it is being said with deadly seriousness.

The very sad thing about Latte-sippers of our learned friend’s ilk is that they have this rather bizarre idea that Islam and the culture it underpins should be immune from any sort of criticism, Or that any criticism of that faith must be both wrong and made from base (racist) motives. Frankly given the way that our Jezza beats the Gay Marriage drum with such vigour I find this surprising. In many Islamic countries our friends of the shirt lifting persuasion face a rather nastier problem than not being able to call their unions a marriage, they face the rope. Yet there is never as much as a squeak out of him about it while he is prepared to pillory any Christian group which merely defends the idea that Marriage is a heterosexual institution.

Isn’t it time that minions of the left like our learned friend admitted that while we should be tolerant of human cultural diversity it is foolish to pretend that templates for  society propagated by people of faith are all equally good?  Especially when those templates are at such odds with the sort of modern secular values that he otherwise argues for with such vigour. Notions like women having equal humanity and the right to retain their clitorises or that we may all love whom so ever we please no matter what their gender may be. Or that we may mock and jeer everyone’s religion without some  nutter blowing us up or other wise threatening us with death  for doing so. Or even that we should not have to be unknowingly complicit in cruel methods of animal slaughter just because some people want to have animals killed as if the last 1300 years have not happened?

This is the problem with that “lets pretend that all cultures are equal” left they end up being strangled with their own contradictions. We all want to see Australian society and its cultural diversity work. I truly love the many types of faces I see every time I stroll through the public places of our cities. It is enriching for all of us to have that diversity but it is ridiculous to pretend that we have change to suit intolerant immigrants. My late father in law once chided his aged mother in my presence because she wanted to speak to him Dutch “this is Australia you speak English here” he said . Now I got where he was coming from, he was enunciating the notion that the onus is upon the newcomer   to fit in, but I also appreciated the way that my wife’s Oma wanted to speak to her son in her mother tongue. You need to have a balance between the different imperatives in play here and isn’t seeking that balance precisely how any culturally diverse society reconciles its differences?

The final “Elsewhere” aside in our learned friend’s post is most amusing because it exposes the the left’s often  ridiculous blind faith  support for the Palestinian cause. There is a sort of irony in this because for those of us who are critical of the left we  see the unwavering  attacks  of the state of Israel under the “anti Zionist” banner as being little more than barely  disguised anti Semitism, sadly for our learned friend he is defending an untenable position because the anti-Semitism of the Palestinians in particular and Muslims in general is very clear and openly enunciated. So accrding to his own logic (if you support racists then you must be racist yourself [paraphrase]) If you support Anti Semites then you must be one yourself…

Cheers Comrades

Half a million page views at the Sandpit

August 31, 2010 5:02 am

I know that statistical miles stones are really meaningless but that does not stop you feeling pretty good when you reach them. Well if you keep an eye on the hit counter at the bottom of the page some time today I expect that you will see the counter tick over t0 the magical “500,000″ mark . That is pretty good for a modest blog written as a bit of fun .

Thanks very much to all of those who take the time to read what I and my friends put up  here and a special thanks to all of those who take the time to comment and argue with what is on this web-page. Commentary and argument is the life blood of blogging and long may it keep pumping at the Sandpit.

Cheers Comrades

Lets speculate

May 15, 2009 6:33 pm / 132 Comments

It has been a source of great amusement to me that the Pure Poison boys have been making such a dogs breakfast of going “big time” with their Crikey blog and now it has been Jeremy’s turn to have an online version of foot in mouth disease. Two days ago I emailed Jeremy to ask him what he thought about the Matthew Johns scandal and the essence of his reply was that he did not care about the story at all, because he does not follow rugby, Well that is fair enough he is a Melbourne lad after all and they follow a different football faith down there. Then Andrew Bolt wrote about it so suddenly my learned friend was interested and he wrote a short post at his personal blog but the keyboard had hardly cooled when he wrote a longer piece for Pure Poison but when you check the link you will find a new version and if you want to see the original text check out these screenshots from the Pure poison feed  from Blogotariat :

The reason you have to do this is quite simply because the Pure poison boys have, once again, stuffed up on some journalistic essentials, namely that any author should be very careful indeed when it comes to alleging criminality.

Scott Bridges “explains” why the post went off-line and is now “revised” with this comment:

Scott Bridges

Posted May 15, 2009 at 4:51 pm | Permalink

Some commenters have noted (in still-moderated comments) that this post was taken offline for a period of time. Alterations have been made to this post and no comment or speculation about the changes made or the reasons behind those changes will be published.

Thanks for your understanding on this matter.

Well the Pee Pee boys  may want to quietly forget this major faux pas  but those of us who find their antics so amusing can speculate to our hearts content. To make such speculation I have copied the post in question here and worked out just where changes have been made and you will find below that I have shown those changes in red .

PeePee1


Consent is not a “furphy”, Andrew

May 15, 2009 – 9:16 am, by Jeremy Sear

Regarding the NRL/Matthew Johns scandal, Andrew Bolt knows who to blame:

If Johns is sacked, why not Lumby?

Catherine Lumby’s crime offence?

[...]#

That’s not what he’s learned at all. Well – he’s learned that consent doesn’t trump the commercial interests of major entertainment corporations. He’s learned that he’d better stick to their arbitrary version of public “morality” – in this case, that group sex is WRONG BY DEFINITION – if he wants to keep those jobs. And if Lumby were his PR adviser, and had told him that Channel Nine wouldn’t mind if he were revealed to have engaged in group sex, then she’d certainly deserve to be sacked for that – clearly she’d have been astoundingly wrong.

But the main thing Johns is in trouble for is allegedly NOT following Lumby’s subsequent advice, that “informed consent” is vital.It’s that there’s an open question as to whether he stood by as the girl was effectively raped by the other team mates.It’s the allegation – which may be untrue* – that he stood by as a girl was effectively raped (again, only an allegation) by his team mates.

Because – and it staggers me that a prominent newspaper columnist doesn’t seem to get this – consenting to sex with two men does not equal consenting to sex with any man who happens to walk into the room. And standing by while a woman is raped would itself be a crime. (If that was what in fact happened, in respect of which all we know is that the NZ police have investigated those allegations and decided not to prosecute.)

It shouldn’t, in 2009, be all that difficult for any functioning adult to understand.

But Bolt thinks{…)#

Now, responses to this incident have run the gamut from the misogynist “if she said yes to two she said yes to all” to the puritan “group sex is wrong and should be punished”. Bolt’s attempt to blame it all on his cultural war opponents lurches awkwardly from one extreme to the other – if you were to try to tie it together, the only sense you could make is that he blames all participants for falling short of his personal moral code, and thinks that the harm described – the harm of a rape – is simply the consequence of such a failure. He wants to blame Lumby’s focus on consent for an incident that is claimed by the woman now not to have been consensual – for the players she advised allegedly NO FOLLOWING HER ADVICE. following her advice.


[...]#


*We have no idea what occurred on that night, and are not alleging anything. We are commenting on the general issues raised by the subsequent discussion. Mr Johns has not been charged with any offence, and the allegations against him that are being widely discussed in the national media are just that – allegations. We know nothing more on the specific incident that prompted the debate than that.

Update##

There have been some minor changes made to this post to make the above note doubly clear. Obviously, this post is about the general issue, not the specific incident in question. It is responding to Andrew Bolt’s thoroughly disturbing suggestion that consent is merely a “furphy” – and his ridiculous attempt to use the incident to try to get a “culture war” opponent sacked.

Of course the question that I would love to have answered is who complained?

Was It Lumby?

Was It Matthew Johns?

Was it someone from the NRL?

Hmm so much remains unanswered and somehow I doubt that the Pee Pee Boys will be forthcoming with any answers however  the speculation has to be how long will it be before Crikey pull the plug on this troop of bumble headed ideologues?

Cheers Comrades

:)

#Update

The sections that are apparantly unchanged have been edited down to shorten this post please refer to the blogatarit screenshots. Because belive it or not Jeremy is throwing a hissy fit in the comments and elsewhere , about copyright, looks like its “cat pictures” all over again with threats  ect… :roll:

## JF Beck points out the latest  update to the post in question that I have added to my quote above, me thinks that the Pee Pee boys are not thinking straight my guess is that they will be on the piss drowning their sorrows and pretending that they are kings of the universe, until the rattle of the trains brings them back to earth.

Update 2

Another piece of the puzzle comes via a report in The Herald Sun which has the builder of the motel room in question saying that a key part of “Clare’s” story is physically impossible :

She claims that on the following night, Cronulla players climbed in through the bathroom window of Room 15, where she was having sex with Johns and Brett Firman.

Mr Butterfield, whose son built the motel-style unit, said that was not possible.

“There’s no way you can get through the window,” he said.

(Source)

As I see it this casts a great deal of doubt on other claims from “Clare” is she now going to suggest that the players teleporting into the room?

Make the call…

January 13, 2007 7:17 am

There is nothing certain when you are trying to lay a ghost and the general wisdom is that the longer a ghost has been haunting a house the harder it is to remove the malicious spirit. This is of course the case with the ghost that has been haunting this poor chap he tried valiantly to lay the Ghost of Edmund Blackadder but as all can see the wraith has returned to his place of honour, perhaps some one should tell him who he should call.

Update
The malicious spirit has been once again been exorcised from the top right hand corner of the page but he still manifests him self in every comment in the form of a tiny gravitar image and he still lays claim to the profile picture place .

There are a few dishonest scummy trolls out there on the interwebs pretending to be me – commenting on other blogs as “MrLefty” (using the Blackadder image above), copying my posts into new blogs (or trying to steal myactual ones) but slightly changing the text to invert its meaning, and generally being obnoxious in an attempt to sully my good, uh, pseudonym.

If you want that Ghost exorcised you have to do it right. Make the call!!! :o )

Bolt 15/9: “The battle of the Age”

September 17, 2006 10:23 am

Suddenly finding Crikey a credible source of information*, Andrew proudly boasts of some discord he thinks he’s inspired at The Age over whether they’d publish a letter he wrote. The letters and opinion editors figured Andrew has his own prominent soap boxes and they didn’t need to waste their space on the man; editor of the paper, Jaspan, figured it was only fair to print his letter, and over-ruled them. According to Crikey.Andrew’s conclusion?

( Jeremy Sear)

According to Jeremy this as all about Andrew being upset that the Age would not Publish “a” letter. Rather disingenuously Our Jeremy  ignores entirely the context of the letter in question.
The context is The ongoing stoush between Robert Manne and himself over the stolen generations myth . The age has given Manne a venue to put his case subsequent to the debate during the Melbourne writers Festival .Not unreasonably Andrew wanted a right of reply in that same venue. Now the point of his complaint was a matter of fairness and balanced reporting and we should be praising Jaspan for realising it does not matter that Andrew has his own soapbox when it comes to having a right to reply to Manne’s rather pathetic attempts to discredit Andrew’s position that there is NO credible evidence to support the stolen generations Myth.
Andrew’s explanation of the situation :

I have read in the gossip site Crikey that this letter I wrote to The Age caused a ruckus between the editor, Andrew Jaspan, and the editors of his opinion and letters pages, Ray Cassin and David Bernstein respectively.
It is said that Jaspan overruled Cassin and Berstein and ordered they run my letter, in which I informed Age readers that an article by Manne that damned me as worse than Holocaust denier David Irving contained a misquotation and several serious errors and misrepresentations of my position on the “stolen generations”. I also explained what the real issue of dispute between us was.

(Andrew Bolt)

So Jeremy is this your attempt at an ad hominem attack (again) on Andrew Bolt or are you just not quite brave enough to consider the real bone of contention that this post alludes to?

Portions of any work that are quoted are reproduced on the basis of the “fair dealing for purpose of criticism or review” section 41 of the Copyright Act 1968.

Post navigation

← Older posts
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 209 other followers

%d bloggers like this: