Wednesday, November 10, 2004

More Pandagate

Crikey reports :

Andrew Bolt fires one back at Crikey

The Crikey editor has not read or followed the apparently childish blog bunfight involving Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt but we naturally get the personal blame and happily publish his typically feisty rebuttal:

Why can you be relied upon to inevitably tell untruths, Stephen, provided those untruths are to the detriment of people who know you for what you sadly are?

Here's just three of the untruths in your most recent abuse of me:

  • No, I was not "conscripted to their cause'' - the cause you identify as being the fight between some Melbourne University students and Michael Danby, a friend of mine. I have not written a word on that dispute, and have no intention of doing so. Indeed, I deplore some of the baseless slurs Michael has been once again subjected to since that dispute began - slurs I have gone in print to expose as false some time ago.
  • No, I have never met any of the students you mention, although months ago I did a Q and A interview via emails with one of them for Farrago, in which I talked about writing and politics. It is on this interview, I believe, that Mischa Schubert based her claim on Insiders that I'd given political advice to these students, seeming to suggest- falsely - I had advised them in the tactics that upset Michael.
  • No, I did not have any communications with a fictional character before writing my article, or write a syllable based on information provided by such a source. After my article appeared, I exchanged emails from someone posing (illegally) as a solicitor. The question now is how those emails came to appear on the site of a staffer for a Labor Senator, and why that staffer publishes highly defamatory and false material about several people in what seems to me to be largely a politically inspired campaign for Labor. This man may well be your own source, and we may well ask you about your own associations and motivations.

That you have published again such snide untruths, without seeking to establish the truth, or refused to judge my article by the arguments contained within, instead of by your jaundiced guess at my fancied motivations, should tell your readers all they need to know about the moral morass that now passes for your conscience.

Please publish this, so that the record is corrected.

Andrew Bolt
Web site:

And the mysterious Simon Hollins set the record straight

Dear Crikey,

I have no interest in helping clear Andrew Bolt's name, albeit tangentially, but even as a fictional character I feel I must contact you in the interest of the truth.

You wrote: "It seems that the Liberals had been sourcing their information from two fictional characters - one of whom Bolt had an email conversation with before writing his column."

This is incorrect. Robert Corr did not obtain or publish the dates and times of the e-mails concerned, but I can confirm that Bolt did not contact this address until after his column was printed. However, Bolt did have e-mail contact with Alex Lew the day before publication. I believe Bolt will be especially keen for you to correct this sequence of events.

I must say I found it extremely surprising, not to say amusing, that while Bolt's own research turned up no trace of Diana Elgar, he was nevertheless still eager to engage with me, a fictional person's fictional solicitor.

More surprising again is Bolt's latest effort: contacting Robert Corr's employer and accusing Corr of defamation, impersonating a solicitor and blackmail ("wrongly, I might add," to quote Bolt himself). Threatening Robert's employment in such a manner strikes me as astoundingly hypocritical, given Bolt accused me of threatening Alex Lew's future employment.

Yours fictitiously,
Simon Hollins

PS. I understand you may have concerns about obtaining information from a self-confessed non-entity. I'd like to state for Robert's sake that I am not Robert Corr, nor does Robert Corr know who I am. Robert Corr has had no involvement in the Diana Elgar/Brett Kleinitz/Simon Hollins correspondence.

Interesting no? Andrew Bolt refers to an incident with Mischa Schubert on Insiders, did anyone see this? The Simon Hollins email is fully % hilar though.
Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)
To see more details, click here.