Comments on: Philip Ruddock verses the brutal power of laughter.

By: James Farrell

James Farrell — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 11:49:20 +0000

It was indeed fantastic television. Jenny Brockie pulled off a very ambitious plan, it seems to me. Ruddock deserves credit for turning up and engaging. And I think it’s true that (unlike Howard) he has adhered to the presumption of innocence in his own choice of words about Hicks.

Could Michael Mori have imagined, five years ago, that he would one day be a national hero in Australia of all places? What a funny twist of fate.

Thanks for the tip, Rex.

By: J Simpson

J Simpson — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:46:19 +0000

Poor old Ruddock. Crossed the floor years ago on immigration. And then, Howard’s revenge – sucking Ruddock into two killer jobs, Immigration and then AG, which were bound to corrupt his liberal ideals. It must give Howard a warm glow to see the extent of the corruption. The Amnesty badge is for memory; deliberately exposing himself to the studio audience is perhaps an unstated recognition that he has been complicit in some terrible things.

By: Rex Ringschott

Rex Ringschott — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:42:46 +0000

I don’t think its so much about claiming victory Graham, I think it’s more a dawning realisation amongst the people, that we’ve been had. So I’m inclined to your skunk-out-of-a-hat option.

By: Graham Giblin

Graham Giblin — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 08:09:46 +0000

While I agree, and it seems tantalisingly close, I think it's too early to be claiming victory. As they keep saying, don't underestimate the bastardry. Howard probably hopes that Hicks going to trial will assuage what he calls "the mob", although I don't think it will, especially not if Moe Davis has confirmed that hearsay evidence will be admitted and in the same hour Ruddock has laid claim to "the rule of law". Not our law, it's not. On the positive side is that the electorate has seen Howard pull rabbits out of hats that they now know were actually skunks, so they'll be looking for it this time, and they hopefully won't be fooled again. Everyone understands that Howard was hoping the Hicks case would be an electoral plus for him but he's been hanging onto it for so long it's beginnning to stink, so when it turns out to be electoral pus, it would be poetic to see him hoist with his own petard (to mix a metaphor). But I'm not letting myself get my hopes too high this early. And by the way, how excited do you think he is to have Darth Vader in town?

By: vee

vee — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 05:51:32 +0000

Colonel Moe Davis – essentially the prosecutor came off quite badly if you watch his body language. And clearly Ruddock’s was just as bad but was much more controlled. Davis looked like a rabbit trapped in headlights.

By: James Hamilton

James Hamilton — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 02:31:26 +0000

There is now a vague feeling in the community that five years is long enough and it is time to see some progress. Up to this point we have been perfectly happy with the Government’s cynical handling of Hicks. Me I’d actually like to see some more cynical handling at least until the end of the year, but I am a bit of an enthusiast.

By: Paul W

Paul W — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 01:17:33 +0000

Will this be more than the Tampa, more than children overboard, more than Cordelia Rau? Is the government’s cynical treatment of Hicks enough to finally convince the electorate that it can not be trusted? This was superb television – not just because of the theatrics, but because it held the AG to account for his (in)action in a manner usually only possible inside a parliamentary chamber.