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.

Hurt feelings

From the judgement of Justice Bromberg in the Eatock v Bolt case:

At the core of multiculturalism is the idea that people may identify with and express their racial or ethnic heritage free from pressure not to do so.

It is great for people to identify with their racial or ethnic heritage as long as that racial heritage doesn't admit them to a neverending stream of publicly funded benefits.

The way to stop this is to cease racially based welfare. Those who need assistance should receive it. Someone living in the city with the benefits and the opportunities available to every Australian should not be entitled to any extra benefit or opportunity based on their self identified race.

I wonder if Justice Bromberg's finding quoted above considers some of the cultural activities of some groups which are incompatible with, and unacceptable in, our communities?

Verdict in Bolt trial soon.

Interesting.

I understand the verdict is due on Wednesday 28 September 2011.

Good luck to free speech.

Update:

Bolt huddled inside Federal Court room number 1 with his legal team for about 20 minutes after the judgment. When they finally appeared outside the building, Bolt made a short address to the waiting media pack.

"This is a terrible day for free speech in this country," he said, which drew heckles from some supporters of the applicants in the case. 

Bolt responded with a glare and an appeal. "Can I at least have my free speech now?" he asked before returning to his hand-written prepared text.

Too bad about free speech and the right to state the bleeding obvious, and to question things which appear racist, and the ability of people to identify as a particular race to gain benefit.

To say I am disappointed is an understatement.

Bolt loses high profile race case.

AB's blog a politics-free zone, why is it so? Update II

I received an email from my Aunt who is concerned with Bolt's "Politics Free Zone" posted today.

This is very odd. Gillard phoned News Corp about Glenn Milne article which was subsequently removed from the Australian website. It is being reported she threatened legal action. If Bolt is being silenced and Milne then we should all be very worried about the abuse of censorship!!

Will Tim Blair be next?

Bolt had a piece on his blog with extracts (scanned) of an affidavit from a union official which outlined the crooked goings on in the union.

Catallaxy has had items about this recently… see links below.

It has been redacted from Bolt's site. (See Bunyipitude link below…)

http://bunyipitude.blogspot.com/2011/08/learned-friends-baffled-readers.html

UPDATE: Andrew Bolt’s post, up since the weekend, also has been redacted, despite many thousands of people having read the now-excised portions. The bits vanished are from the affadavit.

On the radio front, 2UE’s Michael Smith appears also to have had something resembling a lawyer’s hand clamped over his mouth – although this broadcast remains available.

Parliament, however, cannot be gagged nor Hansard trimmed of potentially embarrassing material. Readers curious to learn more about the lifestyles of other Fitzroy residents should go here. Make a point not to have a sharp object under the chin because the reference to $17,000 worth of dresses from Town Mode is guaranteed to make the jaw drop.

Oh, and well worth checking out is Catallaxy’s thread.

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2011/08/30/who-is-trynna-control-the-news/

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2011/08/29/censorship-at-the-oz/

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2011/08/29/censorship-at-allen-unwin/

(Sorry, no time to format prettily or add too much in the way of comment from me.)

Update:
Ben Fordham interview with Andrew Bolt and Paul Howes.

Update II:
Another Bunyipitude piece. http://bunyipitude.blogspot.com/2011/08/from-retreat-to-rout.html in Prof Bunyip's piece he links to all right all right for this: http://allrightallright.blogspot.com/2011/08/another-story-you-may-not-read.html.

UPDATE: Bolt litigation, Marcia Langton & Larissa Behrendt's twitter apology

Marcia Langton.

Professor... Yes! She's a Professor at a tertiary institution. Professor Behrendt repents, but not before denying the twitter by stating it was "taken out of context".

Integrity is in shifting shades of black and white, read letters from Susan Birch of Bronte, and others, in the Australian today.

Who tweets for Aborigines?

That Behrendt is herself involved in a racial vilification case against News Limited columnist Andrew Bolt adds irony to her comments. That action has people across the political spectrum concerned because of its implications for free speech. At its core is the identification by Behrendt and others as Aboriginal. This is not the place to argue the merits of the action, but Behrendt's professional career is central to the split exposed on Twitter. Like others who work in the urban indigenous industry, she has built a career on indigenous issues and policy. Like others, she argues against the 2007 intervention initiated in response to appalling levels of violence, addiction and child abuse. Difficult as it is to believe, this newspaper has been lobbied directly by Aboriginal leaders in Canberra to stop reporting on the despair of communities in the far-north, central Australia and the Kimberley, and to focus on success stories of urban Aborigines. In essence, these leaders have urged us to ignore the shameful state of affairs in so many areas and boost the good-news quota in our pages. Such a view is not just out of touch with the needs of remote Aborigines, it casts them as unworthy of attention. These urban dwellers are prepared to risk the health, education, physical safety and futures of other Aborigines in the cause of an out-dated, leftist agenda which privileges "rights" above well-being. There is a "let them eat cake" touch about it all.

Read more.

Update: 7:27pm 15/4/11
The comments on the article by Ms Langton are heartening.

In a nutshell - free speech is worth fighting for

Will this criticism be silenced along with Andrew Bolt - this criticism from a black Aboriginal of white Aboriginals? Read the last paragraph!

Another interesting article.

Insiders...

Andrew Bolt is in the centre seat...

Advertising by the government, taxpayer funded. Interesting how the finger is pointed at Howard, and the previous government, who spent $280M in today's money on advertising in their final year, whereas the ALP have only spent less than that much ($200M) in the past 2 years.

Funny, how much is it when you add up all the broken promises and the shemes and plans which have cost money? The batts, the $900 tax rebate, the grossly swollen costs of the BER, and so on.

BER? Building the Education Revolution? Ha. Shoulda paid more for more teachers...

Must reads

Andrew Bolt's The Fires and "Mouthed his silent thankyous and was gone".

Kev's cuts will cut deep

Andrew Bolt's editorial is excellent.

So what is Rudd’s noble example to a deaf world going to cost you?

Rudd claims your cost of living will rise just 1.1 per cent a year, mainly through a $6-a-week hike in power bills.

He’s kidding you. Even Rudd seems to doubt his own there-theres, since he’s giving poor families almost double that in compensation, leaving singles and the rest of us to pay for the lot.

And there will be much more to come, because Rudd has left the real pain until after the next election. That’s when he’ll have to ramp up the cost of the new licences to emit carbon dioxide that he’s issuing if he wants us to reach his crazy target.

So in three years, he says, he may include petrol in his emissions scheme, to make it so pricey you’ll think twice about driving. Farmers will also be included later, and must then pay for all their belching and farting cows, sheep and pigs. That’s food prices up.

Then there’s the new technology you’ll have to fund - through extra taxes and charges - as we switch to less gassy ways of doing business.

and

And here’s the last and maybe worst of the costs of Rudd’s grand scheme.

From 2010, he plans to rip at least $11.5 billion a year out of the economy by charging business for a licence to emit carbon dioxide, hoping to price some out of the market or into “cleaner” technology, some of which hasn’t even been invented or trialled.

Slapper v Bolt re Palin

With Fitzie's missus running interference.

I don't think the slapper had any valid points against Palin.