Skip to content Skip to main navigation


Part of the Canberra community
for over 30 years

Prufrocks vandalism costs him $1500

By bonfire - 5 May 2005 37

I see mr Prufrock [Aidan Bruford] has been fined $1500 [ABC Online] for his artistic endeavours.

[ED – The Chief Minister is taking a more conciliatory line in these comments on ABC Online.

“Aidan lost his job, he’s now unemployed and he’s suffered a very, very significant penalty, so he has I think really taken a significant [blow], but I concede he brought it on himself,” he said.]

What’s Your opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
37 Responses to
Prufrocks vandalism costs him $1500
Showing only Website comments
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
johnboy 5:37 pm 07 May 05

It wasn’t “Loyalty to staff” is was a belief that the rules which apply to the rest of us don’t apply to a select group. determined as is convenient to the Chief Executive.

Personally I think that’s a big issue.

I didn’t have anything else to say on the issue until the CM put out his bizarre childish rant.

simon 11:07 am 07 May 05

Oh, John, you’re hardly anybody’s father-confessor here.

Frankly, yes, he should have moved on from this – it’s not something that’s going to get better, no matter how much he talks about it. But, at the same time, it is kind of noble that he does show at least a little loyalty towards his staff. There are remarkably few bosses out there who’d do the same.

And it’s not as if you’re exactly “moving on” from this, either, are you? So what does that say about your soul? That you’re a typical journalist, and will chew away at anything without thinking much about what kind of effects it might have on people, and that the pursuit of the abstract “the truth” is always a good idea?

johnboy 10:34 pm 06 May 05

While the legality of the war in iraq is debatable, the worthlessness of international law in protecting the weak is well established.

Either way people will hold different opinions.

Aidan’s method of expression was fundamentally intolerant as he denied the property rights of others.

But it’s the CM’s inability to move on from this that has made it such an insight into his soul.

bonfire 4:06 pm 06 May 05

ahh i see – randomwanker is from the liberal bad labor good u.s. bad school. as i said – a softhead.

he has no real concept of the ideas and philosophys behind international events, no comprehension of the motivations of the various actors – he just parrots softhead mantras.

he still thinks its ok to damage a local businessmans property because of a causethat local businessman had absolutely no role in. why exactly should he be subjected to prufrocks criminal attention ?

only softhead logic, a nebulous and ever shifting furphy driven melange can answer that one.

Thumper 2:15 pm 06 May 05

I could add that the NVA and Vietcong murdered millions of South Vietnamese so it wasn’t just US violence.

Anyway, topics over as far as I’m concerned. The world would be a boring place if we all agreed on everything.


Randomwanker 2:04 pm 06 May 05

Sorry Ari, i should have known better. Your ‘way of life’, your way of thinking, is the best. Let’s assimilate or destroy all those that oppose it eh? That should lead to world peace.

Thumper: I wasn’t making an Iraq/Vietnam analogy, just using them as two examples of US violence.

Thumper 1:44 pm 06 May 05

Vietnam and Iraq are so totally different that any argument about them should be totally discredited in anyway.

Vietnam was fought in the 60s. Western ideaology at the time dictated what happened then. Iraq is totally different and it annoys me no end whenever anti Iraq war people use the analogy of the two.

My dad did two tours of Vietnam. His country asked him to do and so he did his duty. He has three kids at the time, me included, and a wife. Do you think he wanted to go to war?

As I said, there is no comparison except that Yanks are fighting in another country. Did it ever occur to people that the US was invited to South Vietnam?

Nuff said.


Ari 1:32 pm 06 May 05

Here we go with the moral equivalence, again.

Discussion over – pointless to continue.

Randomwanker 1:28 pm 06 May 05

yes, I thought that would be your response. The ultimate moral argument. My view is that opposition to one form of extreme violence (eg. bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki, attack on Iraq) does not equate to support for another (Imperial Japan, Saddam Hussein, terrorists). All are idiotic fancies of juvenile political egos. But supporting one kind of ‘moral’ violence over another is tantamount to supporting all forms of moral violence. It just reinforces the “I know better than you, so I am entitled to kill you” idea, which motivated Hitler just as it motivates Bush.

Ari 1:22 pm 06 May 05

I doubt if I’d change my mind, were Hitler and Imperial Japan to invade the ACT.

Randomwanker 1:15 pm 06 May 05

Yes, of course, it depends. No doubt the ones that left were happy to see their political enemy toppled, and no doubt the ones that stayed (and have lost their livelihoods, their loved ones, and their homes) would probably disagree.

As for the SC resolution, you may think he breached, as did the US, UK and Australian governments, but you don’t get to decide, the UN SC does. They disagreed. That’s how international law is supposed to function.

I think you know of all the examples of US war. I think all wars involve tyranny and yes, i include the firebombing of Germany and the nuclear attack on Japan in that list. Where we disagree is that you think the killing of hundreds or thousands of people is ‘worth it’, and I think you would change your mind on that if war ever came to Canberra, whatever the political stakes were.

Ari 1:02 pm 06 May 05

Depends which Vietnamese and Iraqi families you ask. I know people from both nations who were/are in favour of US intervention.

As I said earlier, Hussein had to comply with both destruction AND verification. He fudged verification so his neighbours (and us, incidentally) would be in doubt as to whether he had the weapons or not. This breached the UN Security Council resolution.

As for “assuming the US policy is never tyrannical” I don’t see that assumption in what I’ve said. Nevertheless, the US acts in what it sees as its best interests, as we would expect. Could you supply a few examples of it being “tyrannical”? I’ll take the old nostrums of Vietnam and Nicaragua as noted already.

For the most part US intervention in the rest of the world has been to the benefit of the regions involved (e.g. Europe in 1917, and again from 1942, Australia from 1942, the Marshall Plan).

Randomwanker 12:50 pm 06 May 05

Ari, I was too young to know what was happening at the time of the Iran/Iraq war, but now that I do know, of course I was opposed to US policy, as I am opposed to any government that stokes horrific wars and feeds arms and money into the perpetrators.

As for assuming the US policy is never tyrannical, well you might want to ask certin Vietnamese and Iraqi families about that. They would be the ones that have lost everything as a result of some cock-eyed view that we know what’s best for them.

As for you bonfire, they should sign you up for the George W Bush propaganda bandwagon… no, hang on, even the staunchest republicans have now acknoweldged there are (and were) no weapons. Looks like you are on your own.

Ari 12:44 pm 06 May 05

So you were against US policy at the time when it was propping up Hussein.

But when the US changes its policy and starts going after Arab tyrants you are against that as well.

Does that mean the best option is simply to stick our heads in the sand and hope it all goes away?

bonfire 12:43 pm 06 May 05

softheads often buy the party line and refuse to acknowledge facts.

there was a UN mandate for an invasion.

and as for there being no WMD’s, all i can say is that there is a hell of a lot of empty desert in Iraq.

Randomwanker 12:38 pm 06 May 05

yes, there was UN authorisation AND there were weapons stockpiles all over the place. I think the tooth fairy was also recently spotted handing out 5 dinar notes to malnourished and toothless Iraqi children.

Randomwanker 12:35 pm 06 May 05

But seriously Ari, the Iran-Iraq war? I thought ‘we’ were against the ayatollahs at that time. That was when Diamond Donny Rumsfeld was pictured happily doing weapons deals with “our friend” Saddam, so please, no crocodile tears now.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | |

Search across the site