Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Blogging » Boltwatch-watch

Category Archives: Boltwatch-watch

Jeremy Sear’s election woes


Victorian lefty Jeremy Sear has his own election rant, with an unpersuasive and long-winded post attacking the Coalition and advocating a vote for the Greens.

Firstly, Jeremy mocks the Coalition’s claims of waste, even though Labor has blown billions on  pink batts, overpriced school halls, massive subsidies to the highly unionised car industry, overpriced set top boxes, carbon tax compensation, a larger public service, the climate change department, green schemes, foreign aid directed at getting us on the security council, and so on.

Then Jeremy claims that the Coalition’s waste argument is discredited because their costings reveal only a modest improvement in the bottom line. So there! If there really was billions of waste, the Coalition would surely have brought in greater savings, right?

There are a few reasons why Jeremy’s argument is plain silly:

1) The Coalition’s reductions in government outlays are modest because they do not want Labor to mount an effective scare campaign. Anyone following the campaign will have noticed Kevin Rudd and Labor warning of Coalition cuts.

2) The Coalition’s paid maternity leave scheme is a costly promise which makes it a lot harder for the Coalition to substantially improve the bottom line. Jeremy is a support of PML. I am not. I am voting for the Coalition (LNP)  in spite of this policy.

3) Jeremy assumes that Labor if re-elected won’t introduce any new spending that again blows the bottom line, when the last six years of profligacy show that this is almost uncertainly a completely false assumption. Remember when Labor promised to restrict real expenditure growth to 2% per annum?  Remember when Labor promised to have a balanced budget over the business cycle?  Remember when Labor promised a surplus in 2012/13? All of these promises have been flagrantly breached.  Labor needs to be judged on its track record, not its promises.

4)  The Coalition will in its first term have a commission of audit, which will allow it to implement savings in its second term.

I also loved this howler:

Are you really set on voting Liberal no matter what they do?

Because your power bills are up? Only a very tiny percentage of that has anything to do with the so-called “carbon tax” – 90% of it is because the states run by Tony Abbott’s party have let the power producers increase all their other charges

As a matter of fact, the carbon tax has been responsible for a large portion of recent increases. But Jeremy seems to be suggesting that state governments should require their own ‘power producers’ to run at a loss. In which case the taxpayer picks up the tab.  So according to Jeremy, you should be glad if the state subsidises your power bills in order to prevent higher prices, even though you pay more in tax as a result.

Also amusing is Jeremy’s rather mild criticism of Labor:

Look, I agree that the ALP have been a disappointing government, blowing in the wind and fighting with each other. 

Presumably if Labor hadn’t engaged in any infighting or ‘blowing in the wind’ they would have been a good government, in spite of the many Labor policy failures I outlined in my last post. Talk about looking at the most superficial things rather than policy.

Like Ray, Jeremy fails to acknowledge those debacles. This confirms my view that anyone saying that Labor should be re-elected would have to. The more you list the facts, the more it becomes obvious that Labor needs to lose.

But the facts have never been on the side of Greenies. That’s why Jeremy has been so easy to dominate in argument over the years.

The million hit Blog


If you are reading this it means that the hit counter for the Sandpit has ticked over the one million hits milestone  which is worthy of note in anyone’s  language, more so in the case of this blog because for most of its existence there has been a sustained campaign to harass and denigrate yours truly and the other authors who post here.


I started blogging on a whim mainly because I needed to register with Blogger to comment on an Anti Andrew Bolt  blog, I have  changed the name and the platform on which this blog is published several times until I settled upon the current title and I am  very happy to n0w share this blog with three other regular contributors who ad greatly to the diversity of  the posts published here. The heart of blogging is not so much the posts themselves but rather it is the comment threads that those posts inspire and over the years we have had some very lively discussion threads that have given their participants lots of fun.


You see fun is what this blog is all about. Even when we have covered the most serious issues I like to think that we can do so with enough levity to keep it friendly.


So in the style of an awards night I have to offer a very sincere thank you, firstly to my fellow authors Ray Dixon (and his alter ego SockPuppet),  GD and to  Leon Bertrand, further I want to thank our readers for coming back on a regular basis to enjoy the musings on this page especially those of you who disagree with what I and the other authors write because without that disagreement we would not have the lively arguments in the comment threads. I also want to thank my wife and family for putting up with this sometimes grumpy blogger on a daily basis and last but not least I want to thank our family dog Bonnie for reminding me on a regular basis that I am only human and that nothing is more important than “walkies “

Cheers to all of our Comrades



Jeremy Sear’s Own Goal Hat Trick

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…

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?

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.


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.


Cheers Comrades

Racism and barely disguised anti Semitism

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

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

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 .


Consent is not a “furphy”, Andrew

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.


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



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… 🙄

## 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.


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?

%d bloggers like this: