As it's more than 100 days now, it has been suggested that a new thread was needed. The current govt has been breaking promises and telling lies at a rate so fast it's hard to keep up.
This below is worrying, "independent" pffft, as if your own doctor is somehow what? biased, it's ridiculous. So far there is talk of only including people under a certain age 30-35, for now. Remember that if your injured in a car, injured at work or get ill, you too might need to go on the DSP. They have done a similar think in the UK with devastating consequences.
and this is the 2nd time recently where the Govt has referred to work as welfare???? So when you go to work tomorrow (or tuesday), just remember that's welfare.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-20/disability-pensioners-may-be-reassessed-kevin-andrews/5400598
Independent doctors could be called in to reassess disability pensioners, Federal Government says
The Federal Government is considering using independent doctors to examine disability pensioners and assess whether they should continue to receive payments.
Currently family doctors provide reports supporting claims for the Disability Support Pension (DSP).
But Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews is considering a measure that would see independent doctors reassess eligibility.
"We are concerned that where people can work, the best form of welfare is work," Mr Andrews said at a press conference.
@monman12 wrote:"The ABC did not cover the protest, and that is that, to make It sound as if they did is poor form but hey, that's nothing new"
What silly obfuscation, how on earth my referring twice to the FACT that the ABC COVERED THE VISIT makes it sound as if they covered the protest
However, I await confirmation of this "definitive" comment :
"so whoever said the ABC covered the protest was INCORRECT"
Hands up "whoever "
PS
Why not let this silly story rest, because it appears that having reached rock bottom, apropos facts, all that is happening is that further posts are being produced by a few swinging pickaxes.
AB, I just had a look around for photos from the protest and the only ones I can find are 3 photos from the daily telegraph. So you must be right. the DT are hardly what I would call " the press" just an abbott propaganda paper. Maybe they were the only ones "allowed" to cover it due to their "special" relationship with the current govt.
"only ones I can find are 3 photos from the daily telegraph". Perhaps you should research again, because the Central Coast Gosford Express Advocate /Telegraph article HERE contains 7 photos, 5 of them featuring protesters which AB wrote were not allowed!
"Maybe they were the only ones "allowed" to cover it due to their "special" relationship with the current govt. "
Oh dear where does that put the ABC who also covered the visit? , or do they have a "special" relationship with the current govt."
the central coast gosford express advocate/telegraph is owned by newscorp, your link even has the daily telegraph in the top right hand corner- so they are pretty much the same paper and it appears that they are the only paper who had permission to publish the story and photographs from the protest. the ABC covered the visit and the LNP function, with a couple of sentences thrown in on the protest
"Maybe they were the only ones "allowed" to cover it due to their "special" relationship with the current govt. "
Oh dear where does that put the ABC who also covered the visit? , or do they have a "special" relationship with the current govt.
if the article from the ABC had not been looked at it sounds from your post as if the ABC had covered the protest and provided photos of it, ( which they did not, and you did not provide a link to their story)
"My point was that the ABC did not cover the protest nor post any pics of the protest and it was pretty irrelevant to bring up the ABC's article in the first place as it had very little to do with the protest and lack of reporting on it as was being discussed ( though it did prove AB's point)
AB's point actually was :
"So 150 people, together with father Rod from Gosford, attended a venue visited by Tony Abbott and made a silent protest by turning their backs on him. The protection staff wouldn't allow any of the press to photograph the protestors, according to father
Rod."
i.e no photographs. WRONG, there were 5 photographs of protestors.
" I just had a look around for photos from the protest and the only ones I can find are 3 photos from the daily telegraph"
Gosh and the DT, via their local outlet, actually printed 5, "the mystery of the missing (inconvenient) photos
".......it was pretty irrelevant to bring up the ABC's article in the first place ....."
Why? when someone (?) posted, apropos the DT, "Maybe they were the only ones "allowed" to cover it due to their "special" relationship with the current govt. "
FACT The ABC also covered the visit
"if the article from the ABC had not been looked at it sounds from your post as if the ABC had covered the protest and provided photos of it, ( which they did not, and you did not provide a link to their story)" ??????????
AGAIN : "the ABC covered the visit" is exactly what I have stated, TWICE, what it "sounds like" is akin to "what you imagine", and is just as irrelevant!
Finally: "and you did not provide a link to their story" REALLY? allow me to provide part of a recent post of mine:
Oh dear where does that put the ABC who also covered the visit?
The "insert/edit link" protocol is very useful, and makes for a neater presentation. Hint: if you click on ABC the wonders of digital communication will transport you here:
The hole is becoming even deeper!
"No, it's not me that's digging a hole for myself, you've proven that AB was right about the press being discouraged from reporting or photographing the protest by posting the ABC article... Thanks for that!" (but you assured me I never linked to it)
"discouraged" how far would that get in this day and age !
AB's point actually was :
"So 150 people, together with father Rod from Gosford, attended a venue visited by Tony Abbott and made a silent protest by turning their backs on him. The protection staff wouldn't allow any of the press to photograph the protestors, according to father
Rod."
"Wouldn't allow" now somehow becomes "discouraged from reporting" GOSH that is a "clever" transformation !
"the press discouraged from reporting or photographing" REALLY?, so why did the terrible DT produce 5 photographs of the protesters under the headline of :
Outspoken church leader joins protest over asylum seeker policy, job cuts during PM’s Coast visit
It would appear that the press were not being "discouraged" from reporting or photographing the protest (your version), and AB's:
The protection staff wouldn't allow any of the press to photograph the protesters, according to father
Rod." is just nonsense.
Jules Verne's Journey to the Centre of the Earth has a challenger.
@debra9275 wrote:
@*julia*2010 wrote:I take that as a firm " no " then
yep! you got it.
I already knew the answer to the question I asked lol
"The photographer Sue graham works for news corp. are there are other papers carrying the story about the protest and are there any other photographs around apart from hers? "
Why would you require more than 5 ?
As for the ABC being "being "discouraged" from reporting or photographing " Do you really "imagine" for one microsecond that would not make real news? It is as silly as indicating that "Wouldn't allow" somehow becomes "discouraged from".
AB's point actually was :
"So 150 people, together with father Rod from Gosford, attended a venue visited by Tony Abbott and made a silent protest by turning their backs on him. The protection staff wouldn't allow any of the press to photograph the protestors, according to father
Rod."
Which has been shown to be WRONG, among a few other comments in this sub debate e.g. " so whoever said the ABC covered the protest was INCORRECT"
However I am intrigued as why so much coverage of Abbott's whistle-stop tour of the Central Coast is required. It is but a minor PR event during the parliamentary recess, and like most of his public appearances would normally attract some protesters, as in this case, organised by a "handy" union presence e.g.
Anyone seen a "discouraged" and cowed ABC hiding somewhere?, perhaps that would make a good question for Q & A !
