Saturday, October 22, 2011

Good thing she left

It strikes me that they were mismatched if  she now feels this way about his writing, and feels the need to sign statutory declarations stating she's not fibbing.

I'm not defending Bolt who's made  a clumsy blunder, but by golly, shouldn't the ex-fiance have kept mum about her relationship if it was all so painful and she'd moved on?
While I do not read Andrew's articles (I find that kind of journalism distasteful), I had become aware that a number of people had suffered nasty verbal attacks from followers of his blog, and also knew that some of my clients who abhor his views would be horrified by my previous association with him.
When the article was promoted on The Monthly's website, Anne contacted me to say Andrew had publicly denied that he had ever had a fiancee. I was shocked to the core, and immediately agreed to provide a statutory declaration and to show that I had evidence in Andrew's written correspondence.
I don't know how people found out who she was, I wouldn't  bother it doesn't interest me, but there'd probably be people out there who would expose her name to create mischief for Bolt and/or for her. Perhaps she would have benefited from keeping it quiet and not pursuing the matter publicly. If she had issues with her ex-fiance after twenty five years had passed and they'd both married it would have been an idea for her to contact him privately - or just let it lie.

Read the article at The Age. If you don't want to read it at the age...

It is with great reluctance that I feel I must make a public response following the recent profile of Andrew Bolt in The Monthly magazine. I am the woman who Anne Summers refers to as Andrew Bolt's former girlfriend and fiancee.
I want to set the record straight, following Andrew's public denial of the status of our relationship and the fact that my name has been made public against my wishes.


I met Andrew around 1980 when we were both working at The Age. He was a cadet journalist and I was working as an editorial assistant and secretary. I also worked as a belly dancer to help fund my studies to become a teacher. Since leaving The Age and working as a teacher I have progressed into a number of management roles in the public sector, and since completing my MBA and qualifying as a professional coach, I have been working as a business consultant, career strategist and executive coach.

Andrew and I lived together for the best part of six years in the early '80s and during that time we became engaged. Our relationship was no secret among family, friends and former colleagues at The Age. I ended the relationship, but Andrew and I have had occasional, cordial contact over the years. I was therefore shocked and insulted to see a demeaning reference to our relationship in the IPA Review in January, in which he claimed he had been ''a minder for a belly dancer'' who was his ''then girlfriend''.

I immediately contacted Andrew via email, under the subject line "Rewriting History", stating that I was "shocked, disappointed and hurt to see myself referred to, in a fleeting reference, merely as a 'belly dancer' and to you as my 'minder' ''.

''This is totally absurd, and inaccurate, as you well know,'' I wrote. ''I cannot imagine why you would want to reduce our six-year relationship, during which we were engaged, to this. I can only imagine that it was to gratuitously add some spice to your established conservative persona.''

Andrew promptly responded, and did not deny that we had been engaged: ''I do apologise. I was trying to amuse, and should have realised it might offend you - even though I gave no indication of your identity … I'm mortified to have unintentionally hurt you …''


I replied: ''Whilst I accept your explanation that you did not intentionally set out to hurt me, I wonder why you would set out to 'amuse' at someone else's expense …


''Even more important is the impact that this has had on me. It is as though a chapter of your life has been intentionally omitted …


''I am pleased that you are happily married and appear to have found some peace and satisfaction at last, as I certainly have.''


Andrew's response reads in part: ''I may be forgetful, I may be careless. You know perfectly well what a duffer I can be. But I have not suddenly become so mean that I would knowingly make a joke at your expense … Nor am I trying to wipe you from the record of my life …''


When Anne Summers contacted me, interested in my recollections of Andrew, I agreed to speak with her because of her established reputation, I wanted to put the public record straight, and on the basis that my anonymity would be maintained. I did not divulge any personal details about Andrew or his family.

While I do not read Andrew's articles (I find that kind of journalism distasteful), I had become aware that a number of people had suffered nasty verbal attacks from followers of his blog, and also knew that some of my clients who abhor his views would be horrified by my previous association with him.


When the article was promoted on The Monthly's website, Anne contacted me to say Andrew had publicly denied that he had ever had a fiancee. I was shocked to the core, and immediately agreed to provide a statutory declaration and to show that I had evidence in Andrew's written correspondence.


I still have the engagement ring Andrew gave me, as well as a Claddagh ring (Irish wedding ring) that he sent me from Dublin, with his hand-written message: ''With the heart worn down, pointing towards the hand it's an engagement ring; worn up, a wedding ring. Wear it down for now; we'll alter its position when I get back, if you don't mind.''


I am at a loss to understand why Andrew would want to deny our engagement. It is all so silly, and ancient history, which Andrew could have chosen to leave in the past, had he not made an inaccurate and self-serving public reference to our relationship. This issue has been fuelled by Andrew, who created the situation in the first place and who has since made himself out to be the victim.


Andrew claimed on his blog that he was unaware that he had had a fiancee. This seems more like selective amnesia. It is though he is intentionally attempting to rewrite history.
 I do not know what has happened to the Andrew I knew so well. The person he has become bears no resemblance to the ethical, highly principled and idealistic young man I loved.

I find it difficult to reconcile Andrew's public image with his private persona, and can only conclude that they have become enmeshed. I understand he recently claimed he had been made into a monster by the media. It seems to me that he has, in fact, created his own monster.

15 comments:

stackja1945 said...

It is all about "...to create mischief for Bolt..." Bolt must be annoying all the right type of people.

Merilyn said...

Hmmmm do you get the feeling "they"are out to get Bolt?

Agree pretty much with stackja1945.

bruce said...

What 'clumsy blunder' Kae?

No I won't give The Age air by reading their hit-job.

Bolt said at the outset of the Monthly story he has a letter which proves he's right in this.

Or are you referring to the alleged 'mistake' of telling behrendt to 'ask her father' about her German surname? (Who else to ask? Even though it was her grandfather who was 'really' German, whatever). No mistake, just them loading his witty words with their misreading.

I am totally sick of media hit-jobs. Excuse me for saying this in mixed company, but that's what the Women's Weekly is for.

kae said...

Bruce

Andrew has said that he made light of the "engagement" in attempt at humour on his blog, and blundered by offending his ex girlfriend.

I thought the ex girlfriend had a life, it appears she hasn't.

If you don't read the article, here's the piece:

QUOTE:
I (the ex girlfriend) immediately contacted Andrew via email, under the subject line "Rewriting History", stating that I was "shocked, disappointed and hurt to see myself referred to, in a fleeting reference, merely as a 'belly dancer' and to you as my 'minder' ''.

''This is totally absurd, and inaccurate, as you well know,'' I wrote. ''I cannot imagine why you would want to reduce our six-year relationship, during which we were engaged, to this. I can only imagine that it was to gratuitously add some spice to your established conservative persona.''

Andrew promptly responded, and did not deny that we had been engaged: ''I do apologise. I was trying to amuse, and should have realised it might offend you - even though I gave no indication of your identity … I'm mortified to have unintentionally hurt you …''

I replied: ''Whilst I accept your explanation that you did not intentionally set out to hurt me, I wonder why you would set out to 'amuse' at someone else's expense …

''Even more important is the impact that this has had on me. It is as though a chapter of your life has been intentionally omitted …

''I am pleased that you are happily married and appear to have found some peace and satisfaction at last, as I certainly have.''

Andrew's response reads in part: ''I may be forgetful, I may be careless. You know perfectly well what a duffer I can be. But I have not suddenly become so mean that I would knowingly make a joke at your expense … Nor am I trying to wipe you from the record of my life …''
END QUOTE

In my early 20s a fellow I was knocking around with "proposed" marriage to me. But I'm sure that he wouldn't remember it - though odds are as he'd been married three times already he could probably say that he'd been engaged to every girlfriend he'd had. I didn't take it seriously, I was much smarter than that.

I think that Bolt should have told her to naff off after her email correspondence.

bruce said...

Thanks Kae,

"Andrew's response reads in part:"

- I very much want to see what he wrote next in full, until then of the woman's view I just feel, 'Maybe, maybe not'.

Very sorry to hear of your bad experiences. I know hearing from my wife that there are some horrific men out there, but I also know from mates and my wife's friends that there are horrific gold-digging lying women out there. I know quite a few cases in detail, both from men's perspective and women's bragging to my wife, and general observation too. It leaves me very mistrustful.

It's no reflection on honest decent women like yourself. The world is just so much more complicated then either of us probably imagined. I get more cynical with age.

I also grew up with a few Dutchmen, and they are often rude and, in one case, the most crude insensitive person I know. But scrupulously honest in every case. Truth fascinates and amuses them, the harsher the better. Others prefer to play with the facts and make dramas and and fables. Not Dutchmen - hard reality is even their entertainment.

bruce said...

Kae, 2 more things and I'll shut up.

Some of us men, of a certain age, were taken in by the tragic 'romance' of the Holly Golightly type of woman portrayed in Breakfast at Tiffany's. They go all gooey and 'hand over their wallets' to these women - apparently whimsical artistes who are too ethereal for this world.

But Robert Hughes in his autobiography revealed the harsh undercurrent of this 'romance'. His wife's self-destructive self-deception from 1960's London onwards, his son's suicide in the home of a certain asian-australian who happens to be sort of a neighbour of mine.

These women, those who survive in this cruel world, are very good at spinning self-serving yarns - as with 'Miss Golightly' it's what keeps them going.

kae said...

Bruce

I have a neighbour who is of close Dutch origin (he still has a strong accent). He's a smart arse and can be quite rude (I guess that's him being honest and blunt). He always has more rain at his place and it's hotter/colder than two doors up the street. I'd like to think that not all Dutch people are like that, though. Don't get me wrong, he's not a bad person, but he annoys the crap out of me.

Breakfast at Tiffany's was a movie. I've never had a man open his wallet and shower me with gifts. If I sat and thought about gifts received from boyfriends/husband over the years it would make a very short list.

On the side, my friend's relationship with my ex has ended. And I've discovered that it's not 'me' who had the problem. Nuff said.

Please, don't shut up! You're welcome here, Bruce. (Is that B of WA? Or B of ?)

kae said...

Oh, Bruce
The self serving yarn by this person may be a CYA (cover your arse) attempt by her after being associated with Bolt.
She should have just shut up about it if she was so embarrassed about the connection, perhaps never spoken with the author at all.
Anne Summer's established reputation? RAOTFLMAO. Yeah, whatever.

cav said...

I think if Bolt comments on others then he is fair game for others to comment on him.

If we are concerned about truth/lies/distortions it's easy to cherry pick as no one is perfect and we can pick mistakes in most opinion pieces.

I also fail to see why journalists keep crapping on about other journalists and their opinions - this isn't news, but gee it gets a lot of airtime and blog time.

We are a tribal society, we belong to two main opposing groups: Labor and Liberal/National. Our opinions are distorted by that ideology.

So no rational debate is possible in Australia any more.

kae said...

Cav, I'm not talking about Bolt here.
I'm talking about the ex whatever-she-was who spoke with a journalist about her relationship with Bolt.
She wanted to remain anonymous.
When she was named she was concerned that her relationship with her clients would be damaged.
If she wanted to remain anonymous, if she didn't want to be associated with Bolt she should not have spoken with the journalist.
Simple.

Regarding the book by Susan Mitchell which is an opinion piece, and Mitchell has shown her complete inability to discern fact from supposition, particularly hearing her interview on MTR with Bolt and Price during the week.

bruce said...

Sorry Cav that's wrong.

No one's trying to protect Bolt from criticism, least of all he himself - he invites debate because it pays his wages. If he was untouchable he'd be broke because no one would read or watch.

And rational debate does go on. Just watch the Bolt report, he has more ALP people on there than Libs! And they all get to say their piece. He had Bess Price on yesterday, it was brilliant, because no one else dares to have her on.

What I'm objecting to is media-assassination by innuendo, the opposite of open debate - smear campaigns and attempts to undermine and destroy people personally.

bruce said...

Just to fill out the backstory Cav, I was raised Irish Catholic. My schoolmates were card-carrying members of the Communist Party. One started the Gay Mardi Gras. They were also in Bill Mundey's Burwood ALP branch at the time he started the Green Bans - probably launching the global Green movement (via Germany). Of course we were in the Moratorium. And we attended Soviet poetry readings at Sydney Uni. As I got older I questioned all that.

The polarity back then wasn't Labor/Liberal, but DLP/ALP.

The Libs back then were Anglo-Scottish Protestants, northside toffs, the 'blue-rinse' set, 'born to rule'. Till Nick Greiner came along.

Never in our wildest dreams did we imagine a conservative Catholic would lead the Libs. Never!

bruce said...

That would be Jack Mundey of course. It was a ling time ago. And he's a bananabender too!

http://www.australianbiography.gov.au/subjects/mundey/

bruce said...

PS, the lazy mass media fails to report that the current struggle is as much between right and left factions of the ALP as anything else, still reflecting the old DLP/ALP split.

Michael Costa, of the NSW Labor Right, would agree with just about everything Bolt says. Costa was the first leader to come out with strong arguments against the 'climate change' hysteria.

bruce said...

And yes Cav. We were flirting with communists, including the 'cultural programs' of the Russian embassy and chanting slogans in the streets, when you guys were dying fighting against it in Vietnam.

I was a teenager, but I am deeply sorry for that.