---

@nevynreally wrote:

---

@lurker172602 wrote:

---

@nevynreally wrote:

---

@lurker172602 wrote:

---

@nevynreally wrote:

Way to go being a SM groupie.

 

---

Sorry?  I have no idea what that means?

---

yes you do. Hashtag.

Thats okay, it's only serious here if it fits the agenda. 

🙂

---

Oh ok.  I'd forgotten that was there.  Still not sure how that's relevant to the topic, or my question?

---

You put it there, how long ago? But you can't remember when? Or why?

---

This morning.  

See above.

Because I was going to reply to something else but then chose not to.

Is that OK by you?

Again, how is your questioning my, now removed, signature relevant to the topic?

---

@bushies.girl wrote:

Just seems strange that such a high %  is going to such a small % of people    ......  Perhaps banning grog, drugs, petrol sniffing, encouraging them to go to school , get a job etc  would work better and cost the taxpayer less $$$$    .... Would like to know how this money is going to be spent to fix the prob   

---

Maybe some at least of the money is going to be spent in exactly the ways you suggest. As you say, we don't know the details yet, so kneejerk criticism is perhaps a little premature.

And out of the woodwork they crawl.

---

@lurker172602 wrote:

---

@nevynreally wrote:

---

@lurker172602 wrote:

---

@nevynreally wrote:

---

@lurker172602 wrote:

---

@nevynreally wrote:

Way to go being a SM groupie.

 

---

Sorry?  I have no idea what that means?

---

yes you do. Hashtag.

Thats okay, it's only serious here if it fits the agenda. 

🙂

---

Oh ok.  I'd forgotten that was there.  Still not sure how that's relevant to the topic, or my question?

---

You put it there, how long ago? But you can't remember when? Or why?

---

This morning.  

See above.

Because I was going to reply to something else but then chose not to.

Is that OK by you?

 

Again, how is your questioning my, now removed, signature relevant to the topic?

---

You got busted. Own it.

Ok. 

Still no idea what you are on about, but you go for it.

Meanwhile,

"Before we get too distracted by the detail, how do these numbers compare with the amounts cut from women's services recently"

---

@nevynreally wrote:

---

@lurker172602 wrote:

---

@nevynreally wrote:

---

@lurker172602 wrote:

---

@nevynreally wrote:

---

@lurker172602 wrote:

---

@nevynreally wrote:

Way to go being a SM groupie.

 

---

Sorry?  I have no idea what that means?

---

yes you do. Hashtag.

Thats okay, it's only serious here if it fits the agenda. 

🙂

---

Oh ok.  I'd forgotten that was there.  Still not sure how that's relevant to the topic, or my question?

---

You put it there, how long ago? But you can't remember when? Or why?

---

This morning.  

See above.

Because I was going to reply to something else but then chose not to.

Is that OK by you?

 

Again, how is your questioning my, now removed, signature relevant to the topic?

---

You got busted. Own it.

---

and you know what, whatever it is, I think I already did.

Oh my god you people are amazing!  I asked one simple question and got attacked because of my siggy, then accused of turning good news into bad.  Deflection much?

Can anyone tell us, was this a net increase in funding or are we replacing like for like.  Either way it's good if services are being restored, I'm just curious what effect it will have at the coal face.

$300m, Lurker. So, the funding recently announced goes a small way in redressig that but at least it is a start.