Jones took on the role of publicist for the convicted murderer Andrew Kalajzich, forcing two public inquiries into his conviction, at a cost of about $5 million, when there was no evidentiary basis to doubt the conviction. At the time, Jones was using research paid for by Kalajzich, although he denied having discussions with the defence team.

Chris Masters is completely wrong on this. Kalajzich did not fund Alan Jones’ broadcasts in any way.

Tim Barton was employed by the Andrew Kalajzich to oversee the work being done by his legal team in preparation for the 475 Inquiry, and he was recommended by Alan Jones as an honest lawyer. He had been living in England before coming back to Australia and needed a job. Tim Barton has written about this in The Australian.

Later, much later, when Andrew Kalajzich had lost his money and was unable to pay his lawyers, Tim Barton was employed by Alan Jones.

Andrew Kalajzich writes about this on his website: http://www.kalajzich.com/jonestown.html

cash for comment, plagiarism,
humiliating teenagers in his employ…..

perhaps writing english was the wrong language if so I am sorry about that.

You and you only have raised that issue.

Master’s raises Jones playing favourites with teenagers and then men he likes.

If anything Master’s is alleging platonic love never sexual.

For petes sakes it was opening known what he was doing at Kings.
Do you think people would let that happen if it was untoward.

He is exceedingly generous with favourites and completely bananas with those who are not.

end of story

What ethical matter are you referring to? I assume you mean paedophilia. What other interpretation is there for this quote from you comment? You are alleging he intended or actually did something unethical. Perhaps you could nominate what breach of ethics you are getting at. “Inappropriate” is a meaningless weasel word, used by people who are too fearful of using frank language.

It appears to me that what you and Nicholas and Homer are saying is that Masters is alleging paedophilia and that the allegation is OK by you.

You comment descends into personal abuse (of me) Amused. Not that would worry you or Nicholas when the commenter being abused is on the other side of your ideological fence. What is amusing is that this blog holds itself out to be on a higher quality plain than say Catallaxy, where this sort of abuse is to be expected from commenters like Birdy (who I understand is banned here because of his “robust” style).

Straight out hypocrisy.

The reality is that the behaviour was inappropriate, and showed at the very least, a distinct lack of judgement. I do not suppose he actually ‘did’ anything at all to the boys, because if he had, we would be hearing about it now. What I took from the description was an example of Jones’ clear belief that rules of restraint and appropriate behaviour don’t apply to him, whereas everybody else who is subject to his scrutiny from the bully pit he occupies, must simply put up with whatever he dishes out.

An interest in youths is not necessarily paedophilia, and if the youth is over the age of consent it is not illegal either. The question and the issue here, is the appropriateness of Jones’ behavior in circumstances where he was in a position of trust-trust he owed to the boys in his care (in loco parentis), to the parents of the boys, and to the school as a whole. To the extent that the episodes described show that he cared little for these ethical matters, he deserves all the opprobrium that anyone else in similar circumstances would cop.
To argue that these episodes, which clearly have been reported to Masters by the boys concerned, should not be reported because some ignoramus like yourself might suppose he was having sex with the boys, says far more about you than it does about Masters. Jones’ behaviour simply speaks for itself as far as I am concerned. In these kinds of matters, I am rarely, if ever, amused.

My question remains. If a teacher (man or woman) was doing that to their charges at a school or even at uni (with boys or girls) should someone say something about it? Why? By your standards it just malicious gossip. If so, the behaviour continues. And the world is made a little safer for those who do perpetrate peadophilia.

Jones takes on favourites because he is attracted to them. No problem there .It happens in life to all of us.
What Masters documents with names given is how Jones turns on former favourites with a fierce force.
No-one knows why this happens.

Whyisitso your mind is simply in the gutter and you are a parody of those you criticise.

A paedophile does not leave an unlocked door nor let other people know he has other people in the room.

Moreover Parents would not merely want to change schools they would want indeed would belt the living daylights out of that person.

“Should they leave it out”?

Malicious gossip is malicious gossip, Nicholas, attributed or not. We all hear plenty of malicious gossip from time to time, without rushing into print. Even if concerns people we hate.

If you report it, you can’t really do so without some people drawing the conclusion that he was lusting after the boys. If the story is true he behaved inappropriately towards them. If I was a teacher and I did that with young girls in my care, it would be regarded as inappropriate and if someone was writing a bio of me they’d write it up. Should they leave it out, and if so why?

What do you think of the stories of the way Jones uses his power in the media (the original point of Margaret Simons comment)? Do you think he is behaving appropriately?

Case closed your honour

“By 1973, Alan’s impassioned support for some and lack of empathy for others became too great an issue to be ignored. There were continued late-night excursions to Jones’ room. Chris Simkin was often in the room with Alan Jones until late at night. “I was in there for hours. The door was never locked.” Simkin says they used to watch the Ernie Sigley Show on television.

Scott Walker, another constant visitor: “If you had muscle strain he would insist on strapping your legs. He would take you into the shower and tell you to take your clothes off. I was shattered with awkwardness. It was weird and uncomfortable and seemed voyeuristic.”

Housemate Brian Porter says: “I never saw a breach of fiduciary duty. I never saw evidence of predatory behaviour. But he was manipulative and voyeuristic. He would love watching athletes on television and film. He saw the beauty of the human form in full flight. He loved the strength, the freshness and the vitality of boys.”

Disquiet about Jones’ attachment to some boys grew during a term break when one of the masters found a letter, written by Alan Jones, to a boy that had been left behind in a classroom desk. In it Alan spoke of thinking about the boy late at night, expressing his love. While love letters to boys were hardly appropriate, neither were they regarded as smoking gun evidence of misbehaviour.

The innocent explanation was that Jones’ letters were Byronesque exhortations of love and inspiration. Jones has spoken of his belief that males should not feel ashamed of expressing love for one another. “You mean so much to me,” one boy remembers him saying when Jones drove him home. The English teacher often made a feature of his sensitivity, telling boys he was too affected by human suffering to teach history.

Nevertheless, the discovery of the correspondence was one more reason to be shot of Jones. The majority of the housemasters penned a letter of their own. Addressed to Headmaster Stanley Kurrle, the letter spoke emphatically of concern about Jones’ influence and control over some boys, describing it as “bad, very bad”. To these masters Jones had become a baleful presence, to one an Alcibiades, a charismatic and devious peddler of loyalty.

The question of when, even whether, the letter actually arrived on Kurrle’s desk is disputed or lost to memory. Kurrle is unsure about the letter, well remembered by others, including one who refused to sign it. Peter Spencer, who also lived in Broughton House, defended Jones and was not alone in seeing his colleague as subject to victimisation and jealousy. Part of Spencer’s support for Jones stemmed from a recognition that the law and understood values of the day lagged behind social reality.”

Your words Nicholas.

It’s not blue rinse that’s the problem. Our friend Whyisitso has a dirty mind. From what I saw, masters chronicled the closeness and claustrophobic nature of Jones’ relations with boys and young men. I’m not the only participant in this site that didn’t read Masters words as implying paedophilia.

You are no better than the people you are criticise.
Even the extracts did not even imply that.

Take a hard good look at yourself. You are viewing everyone through your bluerinse glasses