Foskey's break in

In this thread alone, here are some (but not all) statements where you purport to be using facts, but in fact aren’t:

But I think it’s a blooming great thing that this homeless/vagrant has done, that highlights the true injustice here;

And :

the fact that somebody has slept in her office as a gesture is what’s important

And then:

that Deb Foskey is riding the public trough, by occupying a public house

Plus this:

‘Full Market Rent’ is not equivalent to what the market is paying in rent.

In the same post:

that what Deb Foskey has been doing was wrong

Yet more from the same post:

She was exploiting (legally) a hole in the system, that was never intended to be subjected to greedy wankers exploitative subjectations

Another example where you state an opinion as fact yet give no evidence to back it up:

The housing policy was set up in good faith, that it was being set up to support homeless people, who needed assistance to get on their feet and into their own home

This one’s a bit amusing as you never actually put any facts on the table:

Your persistent denial of the facts that I have put in front of you

All of these are either opinions or out and out lies yet you list them as undeniable truths. You don’t have to use the phrase “the fact that” to claim to be stating a fact, although you do that as well, just by stating something is the truth you are claiming facts that there is no evidence of.

Areaman, since you are so good at cutting and pasting what I have already posted, please find me whichever article I have posted that I have ever claimed as “fact”.

In truth the actual facts are a long way from what you’re saying, but as I have already declined your offer of perusing the information you provided, as I am so confident that you have only read what you want to read, and intentionally disregarded the rest, I won’t be drawn back down to your level.

I don’t work for the greens, heck I don’t even vote for them, but it took me all of three seconds to find this: http://act.greens.org.au/public/wp-content/policies/Housing-September-2004.pdf

Roland GRNS,
Where would we find a document explaining the Greens views on public housing?

Maelinar, you can have a different opinion, and that’s fine with me, but it is that you keep claiming that they are “facts” that pisses me off. Especially when the actual facts are pretty much the opposite of what you’re saying.

Re Maelinar:
it’s not about being a puppet. My comment was that you have ascribed malintent to Deb, and continued to do so, rather than acknowledging we have a different view of the issue.

Advisors who personalise their politics – and their attacks on politicians – in that way are not what we where looking for.

Roland, the fact that I disagree with some of Deb Foskey’s policies is not necessarily a bad thing for an advisor. If you want a puppet, advertise for a puppet.

The fact that I disagree with Deb Foskey’s position on Public Housing has extremely little to do with the Greens Party, although as her advisor I would have offered that it was politically suicidal to maintain her stance, but we’ll wait for the next election to set that in concrete. Perhaps local voters really are goldfish.

Areaman, I will agree to disagree with you, as you are continuing, again, to reiterate past comments and offer nothing new.

As I said earlier, nothing you say to me here will change my opinion, and your last rant (more appropriately a cut and paste job on what I have already written) merely reinforces that you are running over tracks that have already been run.

I’m not going to bother going into the links you have provided, because the last time I did, I read the very next line, and found that you had selectively omitted that passage in an attempt to endorse your own culture of thinking.

Again, I’m so confident I would find it again, I’m not going to bother. I’m wasting my time. You have your own opinion, I have mine. They are different, get over it.

To my mind here is basis of the difference we have on the broader point:

It wasn’t wrong by virtue of law, but it was socially wrong. She was exploiting (legally) a hole in the system, that was never intended to be subjected to greedy wankers exploitative subjectations. The housing policy was set up in good faith, that it was being set up to support homeless people, who needed assistance to get on their feet and into their own home, which I’m sure the great majority of people who receive housing assistance do actually do.

You state this as fact, but it is actually an opinion, yet you don’t seem to see it as such but it is. Did you set up ACT housing? You put forward that it was created to get people in short term need back on their feet and then into the private market, but there is no evidence of this reading and indeed the “security of tenure” policy suggests otherwise, or at least it suggests a different current direction. I don’t see it as socially wrong that people aren’t kicked out of their homes due to changed financial circumstances. Does that make me right, not necessarily, but it doesn’t make you right either. It’s not about simply right and wrong, it’s about a different view of what public housing is for.

On the points of this thread in particular.

. I simply pointed out that I found it symbolic that somebody had resorted to sleeping in her office, and I likened it to a homeless person’s desperation at not receiving public housing.

No you didn’t, you never said you found it symbolic you said that it was symbolic, and at the time you said that it was symbolic that it was done by a homeless person, it was only later that you stated that it didn’t matter who it was done by.

Take it from me, you are not winning the debate regarding security of tenure. ‘Full Market Rent’ is not equivalent to what the market is paying in rent. This has been told to you over and over.

By you and a couple of mates, but saying it again and again doesn’t make it any more true. From my understanding (again from other RA posts) she’s paying something like $300 for an old two bedroom weatherboard place, granted in Yarralumla, but as I showed with a number of links to allhome ads with cheaper or equivalent prices that is actually what the market rent is. Where is your evidence that it isn’t? Apart from conjecture and anecdotes from “friends of friends” I’m yet to see any.

Your persistent denial of the facts that I have put in front of you, due to the inclusion of personal attacks against you, have not changed the facts contained therein. You have a problem identifying those facts, as has been proven over and over again.

WHAT FACTS? You seem to run screaming from sourcing any independent facts and instead list opinions that my sound “truthy” but aren’t, in actual fact, true. Let’s look at some of the so called facts:

Opinion Deb Foskey is suckling of the public teat
Fact She pays market rent and as such gets no subsidy from the ACT government (which is more than people who got the $7,000 first home owners grant can claim) Source: ACT Housing Market Rent Policy.
Opinion Market renters take spots from more needy people
Fact Market renters subsidise ACT housing to the tune of 11 million dollars a year Source: Final Report on Affordable Housing in the ACT: Strategies for Action
OpinionPeople paying “market rent” are actually paying mach less than they would be in the private market
FactMarket rent is assessed by independent assessors annually, and from the evidence we have (she was paying about $300 for a two bedroom weatherboard place in Yarralumla) seems to be about right. Sources: ACT Housing Market Rent Policy Allhomes

Nice to know the offer is still open. Nontheless you appear to have continually subscribed questionable motives for Deb’s actions (rather than conceding that we may simply have a very different view of the role of public housing), and so I find it hard to take your interest in working with us seriously.

Good Afternoon Roland,

I would like to pass my regards to Dr Foskey at her decision to move out of public housing. I feel that although her motives may not necessarily be the most genuine, it is applausable that she is making the transition from public housing to private accomodation, now that she is on her feet financially.

My offer remains open, to be her advisor.

You might also read “privatisation will not satisfy housing need” Canberra Times 20 Jan 06.

Areaman, I’m not trying to twist this into a debate into the validity of Deb Foskey’s continued suckling of the public teat. I simply pointed out that I found it symbolic that somebody had resorted to sleeping in her office, and I likened it to a homeless person’s desperation at not receiving public housing.

On the personal attack front, don’t come swinging your big stick at me after comments such as Wow, you’re bringing this thread back from the dead, and being amazingly patronising about it while you’re at it. Apart from your continued use of a lie like “public teat” , and Wow you really are a joke aren’t you? I have no hesitation at firing personal insults back to you. I am behaving accordingly with the nature of the thread, and you can stick that up your “I think I’m winning when I’m not” counter-debate and smoke it.

Apart from signing on under a new nickname, you’re not getting too much support here fella, that’s what tells me I’m winning the debate. You are standing on your own, making personal attacks, claiming that you are practically holier than god by virtue of your protection of the sanctity of security of tenure, when in reality it has been consistently, and regularly beaten down by several other readers, including myself.

Take it from me, you are not winning the debate regarding security of tenure. ‘Full Market Rent’ is not equivalent to what the market is paying in rent. This has been told to you over and over.

The concept that the market renters are supporting the housing department provide housing to homeless persons has also been systematically broken down for you again and again.

Again and again, you have not listened, or read in this case. Effectively, it has not sunken into your head, after all this time, that what Deb Foskey has been doing was wrong.

It wasn’t wrong by virtue of law, but it was socially wrong. She was exploiting (legally) a hole in the system, that was never intended to be subjected to greedy wankers exploitative subjectations. The housing policy was set up in good faith, that it was being set up to support homeless people, who needed assistance to get on their feet and into their own home, which I’m sure the great majority of people who receive housing assistance do actually do.

Again, your continued objection to this standard and concise rebuttal of your arguments has indicated to me that you have an issue comprehending what is in front of you, and I genuinely made the comment that I suggest you take remedial action to correct that. I’m sorry if this is news to you.

I know that you are a leftie, and I’m sorry if my calling you a pinko leftie has in any offended you, but you must accept that by posting on this website, you are opening yourself to personal attacks against you and the way you have written things, as well as what you have written about.

Your persistent denial of the facts that I have put in front of you, due to the inclusion of personal attacks against you, have not changed the facts contained therein. You have a problem identifying those facts, as has been proven over and over again.

This thread is about Deb Foskey’s office being broken into, of which I have commented that I find symbolic. STFU if you don’t agree with what I find symbolic, for I don’t give a rat’s ass what you think I should find symbolic buster.

Now you can read into my last comment there and gripe about the fact that I said “stuff you” to your hearts desire, infact I don’t really care one way or the other if you do or you don’t.

I will still believe that the incident was symbolic no matter what you come up with.

In regards to your issue about me “bringing this thread back to life”, I apologise, I did mean to address that issue earlier, however to explain to you that I was on holidays from Wednesday through to Monday morning seemed like my own personal affairs, and not relevant to you.

I elect to respond to posts on this site when I choose, and I will not be held accountable to you as to when and where I will post, at my own discretion, unless you want to pay me to do it, then we will discuss a contract.

Until then, I reserve the right to post on this site at my own discretion with JB and the crew’s consent, until they have their own issue with me.

I have never asked for you to agree with what I found symbolic, and yes, you are not smart enough to understand it.

Again I’ll point out that you did, by stating that the FACT that somebody has slept in her office as a gesture is what’s important, who knows if they did it as a gesture, you certainly don’t. And even if it was it was a pretty empty gesture if they were just a pissed staffers, but by claiming it’s a FACT you give me no choice to disagree. Again you feel the need to personaly attack me, maybe you don’t feel your argument is strong enough with out it?

I also mentioned that I have talked with her, and her advisors regarding this issue, again you are blatantly busted selectively reading what you want to read, and ignoring the remainder. I also mentioned that the sampling of RA readers I was discussing the subject live to, I had only met hours previously.

To presume that they were a selected bunch of right wingers is a little presumptuous on your part.

No, I’m not selectively reading anything, Weither you met with her or not is imertetial as you don’t go on to talk about what was said or the outcome, so I didn’t feel the need to address it. Instead you talk about how other RA members agreed with you and use that top justify your opinions. I never claimed that they were selected, but the general readership (or at least authorship) of RA is a fair distance to the right of general ACT opnion (look at the ACT election coverage, and the how I’m voting threads and compare it how canberra voted), so you were on pretty safe ground knowing that no one was going to disagree with you.

You’re only embarrassing yourself.

When you enroll at remedial school, tell the nice lady that you need to learn to read, it may help them place you faster.

You remind me of a French Pilot actually, full of bravado, saying the words that please the ladies, yet getting shot down in flames.

Wow, more personal attacks, you really are a weak, pathetic little man aren’t you (I’ve pretty much tried to stay clear of personal attacks and focus on the issues, but fuck it there’s only so much of your shit I can stand), you run out of aguments and so you resort to name calling, that’s very mature of you, are you going to try and steal my lunch money next? I think it’s funny that you think you’re winning this debate, you might want to read this.

think what Mael is trying to say is simply this.

You can in no way imaginable justify someone earning $100K plus living in public housing when there are working families on a total slary of $35K struggling to stay alive in the private rental market because there is not enough public housing available.

Go back to sleep thou sleeping dog!

Well that’s not what’s been said on this thread (and conversly I feel that you can in no way imaginable justify kicking someone out of their house just because they start to earn more money especially when they are subsidising the system so more of those stuggling families on 35K can also get a roof over their head). Anyway that’s not what this thread was about (not what we’ve been arguing about). If it the point that Mael is trying to make then just start a new thread (or bring back to life an old one).

Areaman, are you deliberatley standing the other way around throwing darts in the opposite direction to the board ?

I have never asked for you to agree with what I found symbolic, and yes, you are not smart enough to understand it.

I also mentioned that I have talked with her, and her advisors regarding this issue, again you are blatantly busted selectively reading what you want to read, and ignoring the remainder. I also mentioned that the sampling of RA readers I was discussing the subject live to, I had only met hours previously.

To presume that they were a selected bunch of right wingers is a little presumptuous on your part.

You’re only embarrassing yourself.

When you enroll at remedial school, tell the nice lady that you need to learn to read, it may help them place you faster.

You remind me of a French Pilot actually, full of bravado, saying the words that please the ladies, yet getting shot down in flames.

Wow you really are a joke aren’t you? You’ll argue with me until you’ve been beaten, then you’ll say that what I think doesn’t matter. You can’t have it both ways, either ignore me (and it would appear from you little rant you should also ignore anyone else who disagrees with you) from the start or be involved in an actual discourse. You’re the one who restarted this thread after a week.

As a matter of fact you did ask me to agree with what you found symbolic. You stated

the fact that somebody has slept in her office as a gesture is what’s important, not the background of how they got to be there.

as a fact, and you claimed a number of times that I had missed your point (the implication possibly being that I wasn’t smart enough to understand it) where as I simply disagreed with it.

As to discovering that other MLAs and RA members agree with you about security of tenure policies, not only is that off topic it’s also meaningless. If you want to hang around with a bunch or other right wingers and reinforce your own opinions that’s fine you are free to do so, but can’t claim that’s a representative sample. It’s like saying that 95% of death row inmates are against the death penalty, sure it’s probably true but is it really that informative or indicative of a broader point of view? Look if you just want to hear from people who agree with you that’s your prerogative, but a public forum on the internet is the wrong place to be looking for it.

Because I can make my own assumptions pinko.

I don’t feel the need to spruke the conglomerate verse like you and all your mates, if at all you have any.

I never asked you to agree with what I found symbolic either.

I no longer feel the need to respond to your accusations regarding Deb Foskey and public housing, as I’m not in the habit of repeating myself. You are merely attempting to revive your deceased lines of conversation that I have already shot down in flames.

And you’re not a phoenix.

There is a perfectly functional search and archives section on this site if you want evidence, of which I’m personally satisfied that you will research to find every nuance behind what I have previously said to either grammatically pick at or misinterpret, but of that I care neither. The fact of the matter is I got my message across about the way I feel about the issue, and it has been responded to.

I certainly know that my message reached the ear of Deb Foskey herself, in effect, I got to complain directly to the proponent of the issue. I have also discussed the matter with one of her advisors verbally, and have discussed the matter with other MLA’s, amoungst other RA members that I had only met hours before, who certainly didn’t disagree with what I have said regarding the ‘public teat’. (Infact the feeling I took from the table was that they wholesomely supported a ceremonial kick Deb Foskey out of public housing day)

You on the other hand, the knight savant of Deb Foskey in public housing and other pinko crap, have you had that opportunity, have you been called up ?

I think not.

Wow, you’re bringing this thread back from the dead, and being amazingly patronising about it while you’re at it. Apart from your continued use of a lie like “public teat” (as I’ve proven a number of times here, she gets no extra money from ACT housing and actually gives more to it that you or I do) I think a main point of difference is what constitutes symbolism. I say that having some drunk assembly staffer sleep off a hang over doesn’t in anyway symbolise anyone “taking refuge” just being a lazy pisspot, you do. Obviously something like symbolism is highly subjective, but would you say that someone slept in John Howard’s car it was symbolic of the way he treated asylum seekers looking for refuge? I wouldn’t, unless it was done by someone on a TPV, or who had lost people on the SIEV-X or similar. Maybe you would, but the fact that you needed to state that you thought it was a homeless person in your initial comment suggests otherwise. If it really didn’t matter why did it rate mentioning, especially when there was no evidence to support it?

Areaman, again you have missed the dartboard entirely in your anticipation at making a low shot at me.

The symbolism was somebody taking refuge, not the person, nor the ideals behind, who did it, in Deb Foskey’s office.

I could try rewriting your words, but you blemish yourself sufficiently enough using your own, so there hasn’t been a need.

Next time you feel like parading your pseudo-intellectual leftist pinko ranting, try to stick to the basics because you’re clearly exposing your leftie bias.

But I think it’s a blooming great thing that this pissed staffer has done, that highlights the true injustice here; ie that Deb Foskey is riding the public trough, by occupying a public house. The symbolic gesture of somebody sleeping in her office should highlight to her that there are people much more needy than her, and as a representative of the people, she should remain committed to weaning herself off the public teat, so that people who need a roof over their heads don’t have to resort to such things as breaking into offices to find shelter.

Areaman, save it for your leftie mates pinko, they care what you think, I don’t.

I’d take those odds, maybe as it’s a current police investigation they aren’t allowed to talk about it.

Interesting that staff from the good Dr’s office are quiet on this matter, as they usually have something to say when Dr Foskey is the subject of discussion on this site…I’d wager the offender may well be one of them given that they be the holder of keys to the said office.

10/1 odds if anyone is keen!

Maelinar, I wasn’t claiming a homeless person was any less capable of braking in than any other member of the public, just less capable than a staffer who knows the place and has pass that will get them in the front door and past the internal security doors that are shut at night.

Claiming that who did this doesn’t affect the symbolism is bloody weak augment argument, and you know that. You initially wrote

But I think it’s a blooming great thing that this homeless/vagrant has done, that highlights the true injustice here; ie that Deb Foskey is riding the public trough, while the people that need that roof over their heads have to resort to breaking into an office to find shelter.

where as

But I think it’s a blooming great thing that this pissed staffers has done, that highlights the true injustice here; ie that Deb Foskey is riding the public trough, while the people that can’t be bothered catching a cab home break into a workmates office.

has much less effect. You can’t go both ways, either it’s symbolic because it was done by someone homeless (which it almost certainly wasn’t) it is symbolic at all. It can’t be symbolic without the afore mentioned symbol.

Areaman, firstly a homeless person has the capacity as does anybody else to break into the second floor of a secure building to find a place to sleep.

Secondly, it took intellect to see that I was commenting on the symbolism of the incident, instead of the incident itself, so regardless of it being a pissed staffer or a homeless person, the fact that somebody has slept in her office as a gesture is what’s important, not the background of how they got to be there.

Again, you have confused the argument with your posturing.

Wasn’t Stevenson around at the old assembly in the Nara building?

Maybe the ghost of Denis Stevenson is roaming around the building at night? He was rather fond of sleeping in his office at night when he was a Member.

Hmmm, John ‘mate’ Hargreaves doesn’t mind a drink!

If anybody really thinks that an actual homeless person could break into the second floor of a secure building like the assembly to sleep either being wilfully naive or woefully stupid. I agree with JB that it was probably a pissed (I’d guess liberal) staffer.

Anybody (Areaman) who disagrees that the public housing in Canberra is being ’supported’ by fat cats paying ‘market rent’ can stick this up their ass and smoke it, because they’re obviously wrong.

Wow with that well reasoned intellectual argument how could it be wrong. Just because you say it, that doesn’t make so and you’re going to need a hell of a lot more that just being offensive to convince me (or anyone else who doesn’t already agree with you, and if you’re only preaching to the converted then why not just shut up in the first place).

It couldn’t have been Maelinar – if it was him there would have been a chilled turd masquerading as tofu in Foskey’s bar fridge

I think it was more likely a staffer who’d made a new friend in mooseheads that night.

Thanks for the tip megan, any chance the website will be carrying interesting stories that didn’t make the front page some day soon?

For starters, it wasn’t me, nor did I suggest it to somebody else to do.

But I think it’s a blooming great thing that this homeless/vagrant has done, that highlights the true injustice here; ie that Deb Foskey is riding the public trough, while the people that need that roof over their heads have to resort to breaking into an office to find shelter.

Anybody (Areaman) who disagrees that the public housing in Canberra is being ‘supported’ by fat cats paying ‘market rent’ can stick this up their ass and smoke it, because they’re obviously wrong.

The true homeless have spoken louder than I ever could, now if only she would listen, and do what a responsible citizen should, and give up her house so that a needy person could occupy it.

The break-in was reported on page eight of The Canberra Times last Friday – before the Sun-Herald

couches pushed together to make a bed, bottles of wine lying around?

did the cops also find a barry white LP ?

sounds like it was a hot time in the greens office.

Personally I’m amused that over the weekend Dr. Foskey was upset at public housing redevelopments moving tenants to the edges of the city.

Obviously an area of concern.