For number 200, may I celebrate with three Bloopers? They are all crackers, but the third is already a short-priced favourite for Blooper of the year. It is spell-binding.
But Johnson’s camp was adamant the row was nothing more than a typical contretemps.
‘The couple intend to live together in No. 10 if he is elected Tory leader and to marry after his divorce is finalised’, a source said.
The Age, 25 June 2015.
Well, at least the police will not have so far to go for the next typical contretemps.
**
We are embarking on something new in the country, which is not new outside of the country, which is utilising all of this practice, utilising these examples, utilising this expertise as one of many inputs to better inform us so we can then write reports and provide the feedback.
James Shipton of ASIC in AFR, 29-30 June 2019.
It is little wonder that the same article reported someone as saying ‘The problem is we have a regulator that is deeply steeped in timidity’. That problem is not reduced by having hirsute he-men chasing the press and huffing and puffing and threatening to blow down whole houses. As for the English language, this looks like an attempt at assassination.
**
Almost all Christians believe in the reality of judgment and hell, as well as forgiveness, redemption and heaven. But even though I think Folau made a couple of mistakes, he is manifestly a good person. He was trying to help people not hurt them. And the disproportion of his punishment to his offence is absolutely insane. The idea that he should lose his ability to earn a living for the rest of his life for expressing his beliefs is truly shocking.
Greg Sheridan, The Weekend Australian, 29-30 June, 2019.
Of all the bullshit about Folau, this wins the prize. There are nearly as many errors as words. If you believe that Izzie was not trying to hurt people but to help them, you should seek urgent medical advice. Did Hitler try that line on with Mein Kampf? Did he say that he was trying to help the Jews by giving them a fair warning?
And where does a journalist get the right to pronounce on the ‘goodness’ of anyone? I would not allow Izzie into my house – not because I think that he is a dangerous religious fanatic with no moral judgment, and I do think that, but because I think that he has let down his team-mates and his country for reasons that can only be described as selfish. He put himself above his team, and no decent team would want to have anything to do with him.
Just two more things. Every time someone who professes that faith parrots stuff like this, you will be able to count the empty pews in church next Sunday.
And the editorial in the AFR was nearly as bad.
God help us all.
With Compliments 
Do I detect a little anger in #200?
Put the others to one side. What really gets to me about Folau is that in what the police would call a ‘domestic’, one party seeks to invoke God while he, a millionaire, asks other people of God to donate money to him so that he can sue other people – notwithstanding the Sermon on the Mount – for more money. Only a lunatic would fail to see how much damage that does to the cause of religion. In truth, in my view it proves the case against him – he is so obsessed with his own virtue, that he is unsafe at any speed.
Another piece in the same paper made two points. The legal issue is whether he was fired because of his religion. That should take five minutes. The writer gave a quote for $20K. That sounds about right. Only a lunatic would tell lawyers he is building a war chest of millions.
The other point was ‘issue-blockers’ preventing non-Christians from exploring Christianity – condemnation of homosexuality (33%) and talk of hell (24%). The top four ‘behaviour-blockers’ are church abuse (57%), hypocrisy (47%), religious wars (45%) and judging others (43%).
It’s as if Izzie – and I gather his dad – designed a campaign to drive people away from their brand of faith.