Bali in relation to Schappelle Corby

[lovetravellingoz]

Guess there won't be an interview for now .....

Indonesia bans Schapelle Corby from doing TV interview

Had to laugh at this bit:

Mercedes responded that, "Despite his comments", Mr Newman had been "so interested in this story that his government gave $567,000 for the production of a film for the Nine Network called Schapelle. This film was biased and inaccurate. It was based on a book where the major source was a convicted criminal."

As opposed to what Schapelle claims, who is of course a convicted criminal!!!!

 

[Moody]

Had to laugh at this bit:

Mercedes responded that, "Despite his comments", Mr Newman had been "so interested in this story that his government gave $567,000 for the production of a film for the Nine Network called Schapelle. This film was biased and inaccurate. It was based on a book where the major source was a convicted criminal."

As opposed to what Schapelle claims, who is of course a convicted criminal!!!!

I have no opinion about the Corby family in general, but I think you have failed to understand the point that Mercedes was making. She correctly called out Premier Newman for being a hypocrite. Doing so does not make her guilty of hypocrisy.

 

[OATEK]

I have no opinion about the Corby family in general, but I think you have failed to understand the point that Mercedes was making. She correctly called out Premier Newman for being a hypocrite. Doing so does not make her guilty of hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy abounds it seems to me! If Mercedes introduced the issue about the source for the "biased" book being "a convicted criminal", it only adds another layer of hypocrisy given that any book or interview by Schappelle could be similarly condemned, which I think was what lovetravellingoz was intimating.

 

[Moody]

Hypocrisy abounds it seems to me! If Mercedes introduced the issue about the source for the "biased" book being "a convicted criminal", it only adds another layer of hypocrisy given that any book or interview by Schappelle could be similarly condemned, which I think was what lovetravellingoz was intimating.

lovetravellingoz and yourself have misunderstood who is being hypocritical. You need to go back to the start and read it through more carefully.

 

[Pushka]

A pox on the lot of them I say. Hypocritical politicians and Corby's alike.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

, but I think you have failed to understand the point that Mercedes was making. She correctly called out Premier Newman for being a hypocrite. Doing so does not make her guilty of hypocrisy.

And what in what I wrote would lead you to that conclusion?

Do you know the meaning of the word wry? I think not.

I am more than content with my wry comment.

I wonder how much longer they will stay in the luxury resort, which I strongly suspect is being provided at the media's largesse.

There have been many convicted Australian drug criminals released from jail, including some actual innocent ones. It would seem that it is only the good looking female ones that get the luxury resort treatment ( yes, another wry comment).

 

[OATEK]

And what in what I wrote would lead you to that conclusion?

Do you know the meaning of the word wry? I think not.

I am more than content with my wry comment.

I wonder how much longer they will stay in the luxury resort, which I strongly suspect is being provided at the media's largesse.

There have been many convicted Australian drug criminals released from jail, including some actual innocent ones. It would seem that it is only the good looking female ones that get the luxury resort treatment ( yes, another wry comment).

Still with you on this. If Merc had left it at Newman funding something from a convicted criminal, and he was wanting to block funds from a similar exercise it would have been straight forword. But she had to then add the bit about the bias of the book source coming from a convicted criminal. <redacted>

 

[Moody]

And what in what I wrote would lead you to that conclusion?

Oh come on now! Even your mate OATEK has outed you for accusing Mercedes of hypocrisy. Maybe you should just claim it was inadvertent and move on

Do you know the meaning of the word wry? I think not.

Think again.

I am more than content with my wry comment.

Well good on you! If you can't be right, then you may as well be happy.

[The rest of your post contains opinion about someone I have no interest in, so I'll let that go through to the chattering masses]

 

[Alanslegal]

I'd pay $$ to see this

If Schapelle Corby admits being guilty TV interview would go ahead | News.com.au

 

[burmans]

But she had to then add the bit about the bias of the book source coming from a convicted criminal.

Sorry but there is a logic gap here, Newman had made comments about the proceeds of crime laws but had paid a convicted criminal. Pointing out this is fundamental to the evidence supporting the claim of hypocrisy.

There may well be a huge amount of irony in Mercedes making this claim but not hypocrisy. As has been noted by others Mercedes has never made the suggestion convicted criminals should not be paid, it was Campbell Newman who suggested that. Indeed one suspects she is totally in favour since under Indonesian law the money can't be paid directly to Schapelle and no doubt she'll get a cut!

 

[lovetravellingoz]

Well good on you! If you can't be right,

It is a bit hard for me to be wrong in this instance as my post clearly stated what I found amusing. And in this , I am clearly the only needed authority, as I know what made me laugh.....

You have created your own tangent.

Also if you read my post again you might observe that I refererred to Schapelle...and not Mercedes.

I found it funny that one convicted criminal is reliable, but another is not.

 

[medhead]

It is a bit hard for me to be wrong in this instance as my post clearly stated what I found amusing. And in this , I am clearly the only needed authority, as I know what made me laugh.....

You have created your own tangent.

Also if you read my post again you might observe that I refererred to Schapelle...and not Mercedes.

I found it funny that one convicted criminal is reliable, but another is not.

Your post not only stated what you found funny but the reason you found it funny. Your reason is wrong. Mercedes is not saying one criminal is reliable and another is not reliable. She is simply highlighting Newman's double standard. She is not attacking the other criminal, she is attacking Newman's stand against someone paying Corby money when he has already paid a criminal money. You created the tangent with your reason for laughing, which clearly misses the point.

Mercedes made a pretty obvious and simple point, even I got it. Glad you had a laugh but clearly you're laughing for the wrong reason.

 

[medhead]

Still with you on this. If Merc had left it at Newman funding something from a convicted criminal, and he was wanting to block funds from a similar exercise it would have been straight forword. But she had to then add the bit about the bias of the book source coming from a convicted criminal. .

Do try reading, that way you won't add in extra words. There is nothing in that comment about bias. You can't win an argue with anyone when your wrong and have to make up cough to support your case.

<redacted>

 

[Moody]

I'd pay $$ to see this

If Schapelle Corby admits being guilty TV interview would go ahead | News.com.au

In a sea of mediocrity, that article is pure drivel.

 

[OATEK]

Do try reading, that way you won't add in extra words. There is nothing in that comment about bias. You can't win an argue with anyone when your wrong and have to make up cough to support your case.

<redacted>

I read the SMH article right to the end, where inside the quote marks is the bias quote. Perhaps the journalist got it wrong, but it is there in print. She says the book is biased and based on a criminal. Hard not to see it as a related comment.

<redacted>

 

[drron]

Sorry but there is a logic gap here, Newman had made comments about the proceeds of crime laws but had paid a convicted criminal. Pointing out this is fundamental to the evidence supporting the claim of hypocrisy.

There may well be a huge amount of irony in Mercedes making this claim but not hypocrisy. As has been noted by others Mercedes has never made the suggestion convicted criminals should not be paid, it was Campbell Newman who suggested that. Indeed one suspects she is totally in favour since under Indonesian law the money can't be paid directly to Schapelle and no doubt she'll get a cut!

Sorry but the highlighted part is wrong.
A Queensland Government film body paid money to the Channel 9 entity that made the telemovie Schappelle.Is there any evidence you have that Cambell Newman even knew about that funding before it was made?
Even if we accept he personally made that decision who in the film crew was a convicted drug criminal?
Now the film was based on a book that the Corbys have been attacking for years.It was not written by a convicted drug criminal but a Fairfax journalist.
A very small part of the book was about an interview with a convicted drug dealer from South Australia.The Corbys claim that he was paid for an interview for an article that the journalist wrote for the Age.The journalist as is usual neither confirms or denies such payment.
Now even accepting that the criminal was paid for the interview for the Age article does that mean said criminal profited from the publication of the book.
Of course not because the article was in the public domain and there would be no reason the journalist would need to pay the criminal again.

Naturally unless someone has proof there was another convicted drug dealer that was paid by Cambell Newman then the charge of hypocrisy fails.

 

[Limewood]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

Do many actually watch this tripe?, its been done to death.

 

[admin]

I have deleted a whole bunch of posts which were off topic, overtly political, and generally argumentative. I ask once again that our members stay on topic, follow our posting guidelines, and respect the fact that there will be a diversity of views.

 

[medhead]

Sorry but the highlighted part is wrong.
A Queensland Government film body paid money to the Channel 9 entity that made the telemovie Schappelle.Is there any evidence you have that Cambell Newman even knew about that funding before it was made?
Even if we accept he personally made that decision who in the film crew was a convicted drug criminal?
Now the film was based on a book that the Corbys have been attacking for years.It was not written by a convicted drug criminal but a Fairfax journalist.
A very small part of the book was about an interview with a convicted drug dealer from South Australia.The Corbys claim that he was paid for an interview for an article that the journalist wrote for the Age.The journalist as is usual neither confirms or denies such payment.
Now even accepting that the criminal was paid for the interview for the Age article does that mean said criminal profited from the publication of the book.
Of course not because the article was in the public domain and there would be no reason the journalist would need to pay the criminal again.

Naturally unless someone has proof there was another convicted drug dealer that was paid by Cambell Newman then the charge of hypocrisy fails.

On the topic. 1) there is nothing to suggest Mercedes was referring to a convicted drug dealer. 2) the premier is responsible for all actions of his government. That is the standard expected and it is an apolitical statement.

 

[amaroo]

Geez, 10 years on and the family still isn't finish taking risks on her behalf... Schapelle Corby's TV appearance sparks backlash in Indonesia

"Schapelle Corby and her family spent nearly two hours on Monday explaining their Australian TV appearance to officials at the Bali Justice Office in the hope of resisting a push to revoke her bail and return her to Kerobokan prison."

“They sought permission to do the interview and we said no. Now, if they are doing it through the sister, we’ll have to see if that actually breaches her parole conditions,” Mr Denny said."