Tasmanian Times


Queries arise over Brown’s use-by date …

MARTIN GILMOUR, Deputy Editor, The Sunday Examiner

Judgement and the high moral ground are precarious positions to hold for extended periods THERE is a lot to be said for knowing when your time is up in public life.
During the week Kangaroos coach Dean Laidley surprised many with his sudden departure but also drew praise for his decisiveness.

One of Laidley’s reasons for going so quickly was a reluctance to “do a Terry Wallace” where the Richmond coach’s departure was tortuous.

During the week Peter Costello announced the end of his 19-year parliamentary career. Australia’s longest-serving treasurer won’t easily be forgotten but he left before his backbench distraction turned into a unlanced boil for the Liberals.

Parliamentary observers ranked Mr Costello as one of the best politicians not to be prime minister. Others said he would be remembered as Australia’s greatest treasurer and for paying off the country’s debt.

If that’s true, the current Treasurer, Wayne Swan, will be remembered somewhat differently.

The actions of another politician in the past fortnight have raised questions about political use-by dates.

Senator Bob Brown has been one of this country’s most influential politicians for two decades.

Love or hate his views, there is no denying that the Australian political landscape has been changed and become more balanced because of his passion for the environment.

But judgement and the high moral ground are precarious positions to hold for extended periods.

Senator Brown’s public appeal for $240,000 earlier this month to help “save” him from potential bankruptcy and disqualification from the Senate simply didn’t wash with most voters.

Senator Brown took on a legal challenge with Forestry Tasmania over protecting the Wielangta Forest and every lawyer will tell you that these types of challenges run the risk of significant costs if you lose.

Where Senator Brown made his political cry-wolf error was claiming that Forestry Tasmania was trying to force him out of the Senate. Senator Brown initiated the legal challenge – Forestry Tasmania was forced to legally defend itself.

Less that 24 hours after making that claim, Senator Brown was happily telling ABC Radio that he would be able to pay the fine and wouldn’t run the risk of losing his Senate seat!

It simply didn’t wash.

Perhaps Senator Brown was so fixated on political martyrdom that he lost sight of the stag beetle.

Read more here

Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]


  1. William Boeder

    August 3, 2009 at 2:22 am

    I wonder just why the Examiner has sided with the State’s stinko plundering corporate Baron, Gunns Ltd?
    What’s in it for the Examiner to prostitute itself to Gunns Ltd?

  2. Kerri

    August 2, 2009 at 11:47 pm

    Interesting. What is the bee that buzzes in Martin Gilmores bonnet? He seems to have one that is stirring him up, ie the unfair editing of a quote from Greens candidiate Peter Whish-Wilson from an ABC radio interview, and then this silly column about Bob Brown? With at least 15 issues on any given day in Northern Tasmania that could merit a real editorial report, this is what he comes up with. It’s another nail in the coffin of public perception of the the Gunns Gazette.

  3. don davey

    June 23, 2009 at 12:41 am

    By the way Susie, how do you know that Costello personally voted that way, were you privy to as to how each individual pollie Voted ? and please remember it was at the time a majority decision ,including the public !(had they been polled) at that time ! however if you have info to the contrary I am quite happy to listen.


  4. don davey

    June 22, 2009 at 11:10 pm

    Another “Kevin 11” supporter are you Sue ? , I’m just going to put that on file and remind you in approx 12 months when we find this country in the deepest shit since the Whitlam debacle, it’s already starting if you hadn’t noticed, in fact it started with his meetings with “Bourke” and the crap about spending much of his early childhood living in a car with his mum ! which his extended family rejected outright, and we won’t mention the strip club ! but i’ll bet the missus did.

  5. valleywatcher

    June 22, 2009 at 2:42 pm

    Re-read what Karl wrote, Don……Costello was one of the people who voted FOR the invasion to take place, based on a pack of lies. So much for the strength of his anti-war sentiments! Being leader/notleader/treasurer or donkey’s bum is irrelevant – he voted for it. I don’t believe Karl was being shrill at all, Don, just telling it like it is.

    I know you must be bitterly disappointed by the departure of that gurning, leering fool, because you believed him to be wonderful prime-ministerial material, where most of the rest of us saw a weak, vacillating, straw-in-the-wind man. Good riddance.

  6. Claire and Charles Gilmour

    June 22, 2009 at 2:35 pm

    Oh brother…..! how embarrassing. Though very appreciative that this article was linked to TT. Because in no way would Martin print our comment.

    Whistleblower indeed. A cry of foul to the greens and free kicks for the anti-green brigade. Is Martins exaggerated trash why there was a phone call from another family member telling me how dark green we were the other day! Maybe we should have taken it as a prelude warning perhaps. Sometimes I think you – Martin, tell these stories, just to deliberately piss me off. Can’t win an argument in person, so much easier to try and maintain control of the information and sift out any legitimate arguments that don’t fit your anti-green reporting.

    Where has it got you Martin? And where has it left us and all those concerned citizens who have their lives directly affected by your prejudice? Don’t know why you just doesn’t write a headline ‘I hate the green movement – and that’s a fact’, and be done with it. Because that’s about the only fact you can report on with any credibility when it comes to the desecration of the natural Tassie state and its people. Surprised Kim Booth was left out. Oh that’s right, you got that free kick in last week. But what can one expect from someone who lauds John Gay as a hero and denigrates any who voice their disagreement as un-Australian.

    When you think Martin, a heifer is breed of cow, is it any wonder you refuse to even try and look deeper into the debate about the negative effect of plantations on native forests. Have you ever considered the effect of plantations on good high rainfall farming land, the associated poison and water issues, let alone the monetary cost of it all?

    Oh the blindness of staring out from behind the desk at concrete and bitumen all day.

    Just because the passage of time has made you the deputy editor of the Sunday Examiner, does not automatically mean you are gifted with higher knowledge to know what you are talking about. It simply means you are in a better position to be swayed by vested interests and use that position to try and indoctrinate the public.

    Who are you blowing a whistle on … you are simply reporting on other peoples stories. Blowing bubbles in the spa more like it!

    Let me make you aware of your quote, “THERE is a lot to be said for knowing when your time is up in public life.”

    You once said to me Martin, that you knew when your time in umpiring was finished, I suggest to you that your time in reporting on these issues is up. Especially as you can’t seem to do it with any balance, let alone substantiate the facts.

    I thought you always said to me that a good journalist simply report the facts. Why then, and how then, did you all of a sudden become so god-like that you think the general public is interested in your opinion?

    The best work you ever did Martin was as a sports editor …. and you were good at it. That was a subject that people can have an opinion about … and most intelligent people don’t care about. You are now out of your depth, based on your life experiences in talking about, and ultimately denigrating people who wish to care for the environment, not for you or you immediate family, but maybe for your grandchildren. One day you will realise you should have remained the sports editor.

    Dr Bob Brown will be remembered and revered long into history, as a campaigner and an environmentalist for the green movement. His work and his continuing work far exceed your petty comments. Bob is a caring, compassionate and devoted Australian. He does his work not for personal need or greed, but he does it for YOUR grandchildren. And we are proud to call him a friend.

    Martin, if you really believe in what you say is true, then you should have the guts to accept my challenge of an online debate on Tasmanian Times. You know that cutting edge on-line newspaper, with an editor who allows all sides to be debated. And I’m fair dinkum ‘ol boy, it will make interesting reading and it might even prove to Fiona Reynolds, your editor, that you can possibly be an impartial journalist!

    You’ve just received a handball Martin…. what are you going to do with it?

    Note: Charles Gilmour is the elder brother of Martin Gilmour.

  7. don davey

    June 22, 2009 at 4:32 am

    “I believe Peter Costello is a war criminal.
    He voted to invade Iraq looking for Saddams WMD.”

    Karl ! that’s just the kind of shrill, unintelligent, uninformed ! statement one expects from diehard laborites .

    Since when was “Costello” the leader of the lib’s ? do you have to be reminded that he was the treasurer ! not the leader ! and many moons back ! stated that he didn’t personally agree with Australia’s role in Iraq.

    You would do well to remember that there is such thing as “the party line” ! and what,s more , after 9/11 ! NO ONE spoke out about what was taking place.

    I don’t for a moment condone how it eventually escalated , and it’s all very nice to be wise after the fact, but as were Howards Gun Laws after Port Arthur a “knee jerk” reaction , so was the “Howard” “Bush” affiliation after 9/11 and NO ONE complained at the outset.


  8. don davey

    June 22, 2009 at 3:55 am

    The way I see it ,Martin Gilmore has made some fairly reasonable statements and although I may not agree entirely I don’t get the extent of the angst that they have drawn by some here, also it appears that there is an invitation for writers to subscribe TO the Examiner !

    Now I seem to remember all and sundry slagging off at the Ex. because they couldn’t get their letters printed and many of them are better writers than your’s truly ! so what is the problem ? let me tell you ! most who send letters do so under pseudonyms, and that may be fine here ! but not to the dailies, so ! have a good long think about it, if you have something to say and you are passionate about , sign your work and stand up to be counted ! and think about just how many people you reach by doing so.


  9. Garry Stannus

    June 21, 2009 at 10:36 pm

    μήνιν άειδε θεα Πηληϊάδεω Aχιλήος
    ουλομένην, η μυρί’ Aχαιοϊς άλγε’ έθηκεν.

    “Sing, goddess, the rage of Achilles the son of Peleus,
    the destructive rage that sent countless ills on the Achaeans…”

    Yes, I seem to remember the lines, but not sure where to place them. Is it after he had given up sulking in the tent, or maybe when dragging Hector around Troy in front of the father? I once worked in a mill for a few years and at lunchtimes I’d go and sit well away from the buildings, facing the bush, the big old gums, and away from the machinery and general noise. There might be the sound of maggies, crows here and there and others. Out of the wind, with the peppermints and the white gums, sometimes the sun, sometimes cloud and cold, I’d sit and scoff my lunch. Then I’d roll up a Champion Ruby and pull out a translation of the Iliad. As I read, my surroundings would drop away, and my woodland setting could have been anywhere. It was one of the sweetest pleasures. It was a surprise to me how the past came alive. It wasn’t so much that I thought that I was there with Achilles and the rest, but more that I felt close to Homer himself. It was as if I was hearing his words, fresh through 25 centuries.

    I’m glad I’m not Martin Gilmour, I know nothing about him, but really, I don’t imagine he himself could be feeling really proud of the piece that he has written. How should we judge such a piece? What criteria would we use? I think that if you want to attack a person, you should show respect for the person by the way in which you prepare your shafts, by the thought that you put into your preparation. Someone of Brown’s stature, and background deserves a critique that recognises the totality of the person, not this vulgar hit-and-run attack. I began my remarks to you Leonard, by saying that it is okay to question the treatment that Bob Brown gets. But in Gilmour’s case, was there no place for elegance? No place for balance? No attempt to analyse why it is that Brown might appear to get preferential treatment?

    It’s a poor thing that Gilmour did. If he happens to read this, he might accept my recommendation to read some of Hemingway’s despatches. “Byline” should do the trick. I don’t know that I’d be willing to lend him my copy, until he made a fitting apology to Brown and the others vilified in his piece.

    Perhaps Papa might inspire him.

  10. Claire and Charles Gilmour

    June 21, 2009 at 7:28 pm

    (21) Oh that’s very nice of you. Charles stormed off earlier in the day mumbling something about tossers, buying a hammer and needing to tap someone on the head… now doubt he will finish venting his spleen on line this evening… hopefully after he has calmed down. I know it starts with … Oh brother …! how embarrassing …

  11. Horse Badorties

    June 21, 2009 at 4:02 pm

    I like the other Gilmour – Charles – MUCH more!

    Understand that a former Catholic priest (L.C.) would probably have a big problem with Dr Brown.

    Have a dorky day.

  12. Leonard Colquhoun

    June 21, 2009 at 2:19 pm

    For Comment 19 –

    “Sing, goddess, the rage of Achilles the son of Peleus,
    the destructive rage that sent countless ills on the Achaeans…”

    – from ‘Iliad’ in Wikipedia. Googling gets the whole book in a variety of English translations.

    I’ve got a quite nice windcheater bought in Athens with the opening dozen or so lines; the damn thing has shrunk since 1998.

    Yes, I’ve tried to teach myself [classical] Greek (still have the 1966 reprint of “Teach Yourself Greek”), got as far as becoming more familiar with the alphabet (which came in handy on two trips to Greece) and recognising many words in modern Greek from their relatives in today’s English, but, as with my 1970s guitar lessons, the Greek lessons had an ignoramus for a teacher and a slacker for a student.

    The latest upsurge in interest in the Classics – new translations, based-on books, films and TV series, documentaries (the History Channel does show more than WWII), historical novels (the Roman world does better than the Greek, perhaps because Rome was the world’s first 20th century state) – shows that old stories never die, never, ever become irrelevant.

  13. Garry Stannus

    June 21, 2009 at 10:51 am

    I liked Leonard Colquhoun’s comment. It is fair to question the treatment that Brown gets. I wish Leonard had written the Examiner piece, rather than Gilmour.
    It’s the way Gilmour did it that I found objectionable, and it’s the apparent malice behind his piece that seemed so unprofessional.
    Is ‘malice’ too strong?
    Have to say, C.P.Snow has always been a pleasure to read. For me he was always pertinent, considered, enthralling, intelligent. His Lewis Eliot novels were – for me – engrossing studies in character. With ‘Corridors of Power’ in mind, how sad to see this southern Westminister outpost of government filled by weasels and stoats. How mundane and squalid those who fill our govt’s benches seem to be. How pedestrian the Honorable Sturges, Minister for No-Railways, how sordid the scandals. How difficult it is to remain untainted by them.
    Sorry for that little outburst.
    On a different note, I’d like to thank Leonard for the Greek. I’ve tried without success to learn to read the language, perhaps I should try again. Could you translate it for us please L.C.?

  14. pilko

    June 21, 2009 at 3:26 am

    I dont know what drugs you are on Leonard but i wouldnt mind some. Barns and Gilmour both deserve something and it aint a commendation mate.
    Your rather predictable and quite sweeping assumptions about Australian medias treatment of Brown and the Greens have no real substance. What is this paranoid and rather bitter obsession that conservatives have with the environment? Is it a generational thing Leonard?
    I would have thought the obvious discrepancy here and to me it stands out like dogs balls, is why that this weekend the Examiner have all but ignored the scandal sorrounding and subsequent resignation of one of Tasmanias upper house members whilst the Mercury led by Sue Neales have delivered a thorough and up to date investigation of the story to run alongside the electronic medias coverage. The Examiner are once again the odd man out. As someone else pointed out, the issue has been very well covered in most of the major media except for the Examiner. Very disappointing again for northern readers.
    The day after the resignation of Ritchie the Examiner sticks the story way back in the middle of the paper and Gilmour writes about the Brown issue which if not dead now should well and truly be in the next few days when it is totally buried by the ongoing scandal around Ritchie and state labor and the federal ute-gate scandal.
    If as Mike Adams says, Gilmour is just being provocative to try and sell papers(not sure how that works) well that shows what an adolescent he is. Is it parochialism at play here? Do they not have the budget to send someone to hobart to cover the story? I dont know.
    What I do think is that all the Examiner are achieving by choosing the ol’ greenie hatin option over a very live and important local political issue is to foster political ignorance and bigotry in the northern community.

  15. William Boeder

    June 21, 2009 at 2:52 am

    So the Examiner chiefs have given their newspapers soul to the devil, (not you will note to our Tasmanian Devil,) but to the Pulp-Mill spruiking has-been failed ex-Premier Lennon DEVILment?

    Amusingly for the people of the Northern portion of our State, is just what sort of mileage is there to be gained in this failing exercise?

    Yuk yuk, I’ve always been a bit of a greenie-basher, seems to think his point of view is relevant material to the current state of affairs in Tasmania?
    Why not a report written in the Examiner by the thug greenie-basher as to his contribution toward our disease-riddled last breath-gasping rail-network and infrastructure?

    Both he and his use-by-date mate, Martin Gilmour, are riding raggedly upon the daily demerits earned by this Northern rag of a daily publication.
    Furthermore, only a loser organization would be prepared to allow this pro-Gunns Ltd Lennon oaf to be the big noise fronting their rather useless and dull presenting publication.

  16. Pensive

    June 21, 2009 at 1:02 am

    Crackling between my ears? Ah, have to write my column! Shivers, can’t think of one. Traffic problem? Footy? Dogs off leash?

    Bingo: A deep political analysis – Greeny bashing!

    Phew, have honorably earned my crust today. And not used one milligram of my precious gray matter. Still fully operational for my next whistleblow.

    I think I am a genius.

  17. Peter Sargeant

    June 21, 2009 at 12:51 am

    NOOOOOOO to Martin Gilmour. We don’t want Martin Gilmour!

    Nor Rural Press regional manager, Lloyd Whish-Wilson, nor former hairdresser Rachel Williams. They’re all of that one-eyed pro-forestry-at-all-costs ilk.

  18. Mike Adams

    June 21, 2009 at 12:48 am

    If sales are falling, then stir the pot.
    ‘Bound to get a reaction in the Letters page: the Greenies and Tappers have never failed to rise to the bait.
    Beats printing endless photos of Little Athletics.
    Whom can we have a go at next week??
    Gotta keep controversy going…’

  19. Freddi Mazoudier

    June 21, 2009 at 12:37 am

    Don’t you mean Paul Lennon.. Garry ??

  20. salamander

    June 21, 2009 at 12:20 am

    This does suggest a heightened level of stupidity, doesn’t it. Why was Bob Brown able to pay, Mr Gilmour? Might it have been due to over 1,000 people donating? Oh, no, I am sure Bob found the money growing on trees!

  21. Roderick Russell-Stone

    June 20, 2009 at 11:39 pm

    Question? Where did the $240,000 come from? Obviously not from voters. Get a life Mr. Gilmour and stop writing rubbish paid for by the wannabe forestry “establishment”. How about a more important topic like nepotism in government!
    You and the Examiner have just about reached your use by dates – on the mainland you wouldn’t even rate as the “local rag”.

  22. warren goodearth

    June 20, 2009 at 11:32 pm

    Bob has wanted to retire a few times, unfortunately there’s only one Bob, unlucky US, we’d be so much less in his absence

  23. Valleywatcher

    June 20, 2009 at 10:55 pm

    But it sure did wash with an awful lot of supporters right around the country, didn’t it Martin?

    Oh, how Dr Brown’s overwhelming support among voters rankles with the status crow dweebs – of whom Martin is a minor mouthpiece!

  24. TerryS.

    June 20, 2009 at 8:42 pm

    Provocative is a nice polite word Garry.

    When you are trying to promote a local rag that has more image space than text column inches then of course you are going to appeal to the lowest common denominator. So resorting to devisive inflammatory rabble rousing and sludge stirring invective is a natural progression.
    When you are catering to the mono-conceptual and the mini mono-conceptual there is no need for truths and facts of the absolute.

    If it wasn’t for the cute full front page kids n’ animal photos (oh, and of course the occasional “HORROR ………!!” headlines) and sports pages they’d have trouble giving it away.

    There is plethora of ‘free and delivered to your door’ local rags in Australia that easily outclass this once respectable newspaper. Only just a shadow of what it once was, it is now degenerated into a worn out provider of old news, not the news, advertisements and very ordinary images.

    Gilmour knows what side his bread is buttered on, and he placates those who supply his bread and butter.

    His reference to the Senator Sarah Hanson-Young story is another example of a purposeful misrepresentation and mischief-making of the lowest order.

    If this troubler used the same creative techniques for the sports pages and the local social news, his career aspirations would be altered quick smart.


  25. Brenton

    June 20, 2009 at 7:04 pm

    What a load of poop!!!!!

  26. Duncan Grant

    June 20, 2009 at 6:59 pm

    Clearly The Examiner is the Tasmanian Labor Party mouthpiece. One would think that given the scandals over the past two weeks, Gilmour might opine on the latest Labor stuff-ups. The Examiner, has long lost the moral high-ground. It has failed the people of northern Tasmania as our democracy is eroded on a daily basis.

  27. Leonard Colquhoun

    June 20, 2009 at 6:58 pm

    Sunday Examiner deputy editor Martin Gilmour, and Mercury columnist Greg Barns, each deserve commendation for their contributions to debate and discussion on Senator Brown, and for venturing way beyond the comfort zone of Brown’s usual sycophants, both inside and outside the media, both N and S of Bass Strait.

    Gilmour’s ‘Review’ in the Sunday Examiner of 21 Jun 09 looks at whether Senator Brown has reached his use-by date; Barns in the Mercury of Mon 15 Jun 09 examined Brown’s situation in the matter of his recent Wielangta Forest court case and its outcomes.

    Link – http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2009/06/14/79065_opinion.html

    The first main issue is very obvious to any impartial observer: Brown gets kid-glove treatment from the mainstream media, which generally present him as some sort of combo-clone of Mother Teresa, the Dalai Lama, Bambi and Dr Dolittle. Toss in Bono and Blanchett if you want celeb cheer-squads.

    Nice spin if you can get it.

    Even nicer if you can suck in so many donations so quickly from the gullible. If he gets sick of selling Gaia, there‘s a job spruiking a big bridge across our ‘Arbour up north, or those shorter ones across the Derwent and the Tamar.

    The more serious worry is the widespread ignorance of mathematics, science and the scientific method in that same media, a form of cultural illiteracy which subverts the public interest, a danger not lessened by the failure of our schooling arrangements to half-decently teach general science and maths in the K-10 years of compulsory schooling. That so many newspapers, even the self-styled quality broadsheets, offer unscientific pap such as horoscopes and psychics reduces their credibility even further.

    (You can spot a symptom of this deficiency in the way simple maths are routinely mismanaged in, say, converting foreign currencies to our own, with figures given to four decimal places, as if they are fixed and immutable. There are some equally silly conversions from imperial / US customary measurements to metric: have a chuckle at the next US tornado alley story in our media with converted wind speeds ‘of 282 km/h’; really LOL around the room if it’s given as ‘281.62 km/h’.)

    Furthermore, there is more than a suspicion that too many journalists are actually proud that they could not tell the Water Cycle from a watering-can (if, in fact, they know that there is a difference). This attitude is not helped with what passes as media training these days being in the hands of equally science-illiterate academics, some of whom are antipathetic to science as an evil, unnatural Western construct hostile to Gaia and to whatever oppressed minority or self-destructive Third World regime is the current approved victime-de-jour.

    A recent article in the UK Telegraph reminded us of a famous lecture 50 years ago, by C P Snow (1905–1980), English physicist and novelist, “who warned that science and arts were becoming ‘two cultures’ – but the problem now is far, far worse.

    “On 7 May 1959, the celebrated novelist C P Snow mounted the podium in the Senate House in Cambridge to deliver that year’s Rede Lecture. The title was ‘The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution’, and his theme the dangerously wide gap that had opened up between scientists and what he termed ‘literary intellectuals’.

    “He spoke of scientists who could scarcely struggle through a novel by Dickens, but more importantly of humanities professors who were ignorant of the Second Law of Thermodynamics^, who sneered at science as an inferior branch of learning that no really cultured person needed to trouble with. ‘If the scientists have the future in their bones’, he claimed, ‘then the traditional culture responds by wishing the future did not exist.’

    For the full article – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/5273453/Fifty-years-on-CP-Snows-Two-Cultures-are-united-in-desperation.html

    None of the above is to dismiss ecological matters as unworthy of consideration, but Chicken Little-cum-Boy Crying Wolf moral panic about climate changes – in whatever direction – is at best amusingly irrelevant, and at worst seriously unhelpful. As is premature beatification of a single-issue politician.

    ^ Note that C P Snow said ‘ignorant of’, in the sense of not even knowing of it; he did not expect humanities professors to easily understand it, anymore than a Professor of Physics could readily make sense of

    μήνιν άειδε θεα Πηληϊάδεω Aχιλήος
    ουλομένην, η μυρί’ Aχαιοϊς άλγε’ έθηκεν.

    Wikipedia has some ‘plain language’ explanations of concepts like entropy which are fundamental to the Laws of Thermodynamics (which I readily confess didn’t take me very far, not even with my far-off 1950s matriculation Physics).

  28. Richard Butler

    June 20, 2009 at 6:29 pm

    You obsequious little stunt. Are you writing on brief from that droning little jerk Abetz ?

    At least his (Abetz) ideas are original – well unique – and he doesnt resort to repeating himself in less than a few lines, (as you have) because he has run out of useful things to say.

    Show readers the research that led you to your compromised view ‘it didnt wash’ with most voters. No doubt a quick whip around of the crowd in your bathroom.

    How many did you ask – who did you ask and where ? What was the segmentation used to apply the research.

    Youre good for a laugh here, Martin – a sick one and not for long.

    This piece is a product of one of your lesser days – and those days seem to be coming with quicker repetition as that light-weight creative energy starts to evaporate. On the face of this useless piece of toilet paper writing – you have many grey nothing days ahead.

  29. Dave

    June 20, 2009 at 6:09 pm

    The irony of the provincial right wing rag that is the Examiner talking about judgement and the high moral ground is probably lost on them. If ever there was an entity that does not cope well with criticism it is the EX.

    So the Ex’s campaign against the Australian Green rolls on with the Examiner editor and deputy editor writing the same criticisms about Senator Brown within a week. Whilst one of the most disgraced and unpopular Tasmanian politicians ever is given a page to spruik the Gunns pulp mill.

    Now the EX is actually campaigning for Bob Brown to quit politics with Marty “the whistleblower” Gilmour suggesting that Brown is past his used by date. When was last time Martin Gilmour ever blew the whistle on anything that mattered in Tasmanian politics? You might look to the Greens for some lessons there Martin and perhaps consider a more realistic name for you column like …. “Shitstirrer”.

    Couple of questions Gilmour? Where is the so called evidence that the Brown handling of the FT legal bill issue didnt “wash well with voters”?

    The very discerning Antony Green (ABC morning spindoctor) who is far better qualified to comment on such matters saw this issue very differently. He argued that nationally Brown is as popular as ever and that he had worked this issue to his benefit.

    Prophets are never accepted in their home town, yet as Green pointed out amongst the wider australian community (yes Martin it does exist!) Brown is as popular as ever and bodies like Forestry Tas -the logging arm of the Tasmanian government are as on the nose as ever.

    But just not as far as the mighty Launceston Examiner is concerned .

    Just because the same old army of slack-jawed greenie haters from TCA send a barrage of emails, sms and letters to the Tasmania media does not constitute the wider community. And just because the Lil’ ol Launceston Examiner says its so probably infact means that it isnt.

    And what a classy piece of writing this is from the Examiners deputy Editor with lines like

    “Senator Brown was so fixated on political martyrdom that he lost sight of the stag beetle”….ho ho ho ho yukka yukka yukka.

    Who wrote that line for ya Martin? Bazza Chipman?

    Gilmour has even dragged out the hoary old chestnut about the ABC being the Greenies friend

    “More locally …ABC television must have suffered withdrawal symptoms filling her (Putt) 7.10pm time slot”

    Classy Mr Gilmour, very classy.In the space of one article Gilmour takes shots at Mckim, Putt, Senator Hansen- Young, Senator Brown, the stag beetle and just the whole bloody Green party in general.

    Yep thats my Examiner!

  30. Garry Stannus

    June 20, 2009 at 5:17 pm

    I have to say, this is provocative. I’ll never forget it. This is vintage. Oh my God.

    Gilmour must be writing for the mono-conceptual. This piece doesn’t even pretend to argument.

    John Lennon: ‘you can wear a collar and a tie, you can go to church and look quite cute, you can live a lie until you die, one thing you can’t hide, Mr Gilmour, is when you’re crippled inside.’

    Cheers Mr Gilmour
    I’ll never forget this.

To Top