So when is a social media sackable offence not a sackable offence??

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

milkman said :

Robertson said :

Stanhope is desperate to be sent home.

In reality, he has seen the cashed-up Iranians having their boxes of TVs, laptops and other gear carried off the RAN vessels for them while they go straight to the medical officer to demand their botox treatments.

In reality, quite a few of these people arrive with very large wads of US dollars…

You don’t have to be poor to be persecuted, you know…

Yep, yet moronic rabid bigots don’t seem to understand this…

The thing the morons don’t understand is that a stable and wealthy country still needs effective border controls, and a means of ensuring that those who present as refugees are processed as quickly as possible to ensure the genuine cases are identified and helped appropriately.

But it’s much easier just to generalise and throw insults, isn’t it.

davo101 said :

So when is a social media sackable offence not a sackable offence??

When you are appointed by the Governor General to represent the Minister and not employed under the Public Service Act.

Hi Davo101, I think that should be:

“When you are appointed by the Governor General to represent the Monarch and not employed under the Public Service Act.”

To answer your question Masquara, it’s quite simple – the Administrator appointment that Stanhope holds is not a public service appointment. In fact, it’s not even a merit-based appointment – it’s a similar appointment to a Governor of a state. They are not bound by public service rules or codes, and they can express whatever views they wish. Of course most don’t, in an attempt to preserve opportunities for when their appointment expires but Stanhope is obviously not that intelligent.

Do a little research before making assumptions.

So when is a social media sackable offence not a sackable offence??

When you are appointed by the Governor General to represent the Minister and not employed under the Public Service Act.

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

milkman said :

Robertson said :

Stanhope is desperate to be sent home.

In reality, he has seen the cashed-up Iranians having their boxes of TVs, laptops and other gear carried off the RAN vessels for them while they go straight to the medical officer to demand their botox treatments.

In reality, quite a few of these people arrive with very large wads of US dollars…

You don’t have to be poor to be persecuted, you know…

Nor do you have to be persecuted to attempt to enter Australia as a refugee.

Look, a lot of these people are the real deal and their stories are sad as hell, but quite a few aren’t also. It’s just a shame our govt can’t process their applications a bit more effectively.

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

milkman said :

Robertson said :

Stanhope is desperate to be sent home.

In reality, he has seen the cashed-up Iranians having their boxes of TVs, laptops and other gear carried off the RAN vessels for them while they go straight to the medical officer to demand their botox treatments.

In reality, quite a few of these people arrive with very large wads of US dollars…

You don’t have to be poor to be persecuted, you know…

Yep, yet moronic rabid bigots don’t seem to understand this…

Maybe we can send our excess criminals to Christmas Island, with some of our homeless/public housing trash, and let Stanhope give them their human rights?

Is there gay marriage on Christmas Island yet?

Hell we are getting Stanhope, and he is still out on that rock . Imagine what it would be like if he was home here, with a federal conservative government; The crimes and 666 would be all over him. .. We need another rock . How about that Easter Island rock, might they want him. He has rock experience.

milkman said :

Robertson said :

Stanhope is desperate to be sent home.

In reality, he has seen the cashed-up Iranians having their boxes of TVs, laptops and other gear carried off the RAN vessels for them while they go straight to the medical officer to demand their botox treatments.

In reality, quite a few of these people arrive with very large wads of US dollars…

You don’t have to be poor to be persecuted, you know…

Robertson said :

Stanhope is desperate to be sent home.

I think he is Canberra-based still.

Robertson said :

Stanhope is desperate to be sent home.

In reality, he has seen the cashed-up Iranians having their boxes of TVs, laptops and other gear carried off the RAN vessels for them while they go straight to the medical officer to demand their botox treatments.

In reality, quite a few of these people arrive with very large wads of US dollars…

Stanhope is desperate to be sent home.

In reality, he has seen the cashed-up Iranians having their boxes of TVs, laptops and other gear carried off the RAN vessels for them while they go straight to the medical officer to demand their botox treatments.

c_c™ said :

That this has become an issue of free speech is Banerki’s doing to try and confuse the issue and deflect blame. And that a supposed legal practitioner would try to misrepresent the settled law of the country to such an extent just shows what a warped character she is. She should consider a career in criminal defence.

Certainly, she attempted (rather unsuccessfully) to conflate the issue of her conduct with the principle of free speech, but sophistry is a cornerstone of the legal profession. This affair highlights two adages in particular: first, that a little learning is a dangerous thing; and second, that the lawyer who represents him/herself has a fool for a client.

Masquara said :

I think you are wrong there. APS managers are warning their staff off expressing the mildest of disagreement with government policy – whether or not relevant to the portfolios they work for. The “Grog Gamut” days are long gone.

Indeed, I may be wrong. However, Stanhope’s comment doesn’t even qualify as “mildest disagreement”, it’s only implied disagreement, which is in stark contrast to the Banerji case. There is also still no evidence of some sort of journalistic distortion.

Perhaps, rather than trying to whip people into some sort of foaming rage about politicians being given unfair advantage, you could have just said “Not sure if this line of public engagement is sensible from Stanhope, given that public departments are becoming less tolerant of dissent, for example, Michaela Banerji.” This is where you seem to have ended up and it’s a very long way from your original post. It is, however, a lot more sensible and defensible.

beejay76 said :

In order to be censured the criticism has to be ‘harsh and extreme’.

I think you are wrong there. APS managers are warning their staff off expressing the mildest of disagreement with government policy – whether or not relevant to the portfolios they work for. The “Grog Gamut” days are long gone.

Masquara said :

Stanhope was wording the journalist up very cautiously – but it was clear that his message is that he found the previous government’s policies inhumane – so given that the present government’s policies are more strenuously of the direction that Stanhope dislikes, he is clearly criticising the current government policies. The fact that he is going about it in a wily way goes with the “former politician” territory. The present government could presumably take issue with his comments. But, as he isn’t a powerless junior public servant, he gets away with it. I don’t agree with Banerji’s MO. But I think that, as she was caned and sacked for expressing her opinions, it’s surprising that Stanhope is being kept in a role where isn’t content to simply disagree in private with his bosses – past and present (the way all other public servants are required to, if they so disagree). He is proactively going on the record to publicise his opinions.

In order to be censured the criticism has to be ‘harsh and extreme’. Nothing he has said is either of those, by any stretch of the imagination. All Stanhope has said is that he disagreed with Labor policies. There is absolutely no similarity, on any point, with the Banerji case.

You state that he is being “cautious” and “wily”. How about: he’s not violating the APS code of conduct and therefore hasn’t been ticked off by the government? I’ve never received a speeding ticket. That doesn’t make me somehow “wily”. I just obey the rules.

beejay76 said :

I disagree. He is not referring to the present day, only insofar as his views are well known and can therefore be extrapolated. Quotes from Stanhope such as “I find the Labor Party’s current position on asylum seekers odious” are hardly evidence of some collusion of journalists trying to “disguise” Stanhope’s aversion to Coalition policy. He’s said the Labor Policy on asylum seekers is not consistent with the values of their supporters. This is not an ambiguous statement. How on earth you can make the leap to that being a ‘harsh and extreme’ criticism of the Coalition I have no idea. He has prudently avoided all mention of the content of Coalition policy, stating only that he acknowledges widespread public support for it. You would have done better to argue that the *previous* government treated the two cases differently, rather than the bit about journalists “disguising” things.

Stanhope was wording the journalist up very cautiously – but it was clear that his message is that he found the previous government’s policies inhumane – so given that the present government’s policies are more strenuously of the direction that Stanhope dislikes, he is clearly criticising the current government policies. The fact that he is going about it in a wily way goes with the “former politician” territory. The present government could presumably take issue with his comments. But, as he isn’t a powerless junior public servant, he gets away with it. I don’t agree with Banerji’s MO. But I think that, as she was caned and sacked for expressing her opinions, it’s surprising that Stanhope is being kept in a role where isn’t content to simply disagree in private with his bosses – past and present (the way all other public servants are required to, if they so disagree). He is proactively going on the record to publicise his opinions.

I’m wondering if the OP has actually read Banerji’s tweets for which she was sacked. A lot of them weren’t intellectual contributions to the debate, and some of them constitute personal attacks on individuals in the public service. Quite different to offering a mere opinion on an issue.

If you rang up your branch head on the phone and called him an inhumane scumbag, you wouldn’t be shocked to find yourself facing disciplinary action. So a tweet doing the same things shouldn’t be any different.

That this has become an issue of free speech is Banerki’s doing to try and confuse the issue and deflect blame. And that a supposed legal practitioner would try to misrepresent the settled law of the country to such an extent just shows what a warped character she is. She should consider a career in criminal defence.

I disagree. He is not referring to the present day, only insofar as his views are well known and can therefore be extrapolated. Quotes from Stanhope such as “I find the Labor Party’s current position on asylum seekers odious” are hardly evidence of some collusion of journalists trying to “disguise” Stanhope’s aversion to Coalition policy. He’s said the Labor Policy on asylum seekers is not consistent with the values of their supporters. This is not an ambiguous statement. How on earth you can make the leap to that being a ‘harsh and extreme’ criticism of the Coalition I have no idea. He has prudently avoided all mention of the content of Coalition policy, stating only that he acknowledges widespread public support for it. You would have done better to argue that the *previous* government treated the two cases differently, rather than the bit about journalists “disguising” things.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

It’s early days yet, but perhaps the new Government has decided (if so, shrewdly in my view) to deny Stanhope the pleasure and honour of martyrdom.