BLOCKED! I must have done

something right in order to get "blocked" by one of Downunder's "journalists". 

He was appearing regularly in my timeline - retweeted by other people. He also has a blog in which he tells us that he is investigating "corruption" among politicians, the legal profession, people of influence etc. His activities have led to charges of contempt of court and time in prison.  Some of you will know who I am talking about.

I have little sympathy for him. He is a trouble maker. And I probably should have known better than to try and point out that he was wrong. The story sounded great. A politician had said she was under pressure not to do something - and that the pressure was coming from her own party. Now yes, up to a point the story was true - up to a point. What our "journalist" was not saying was why she was under pressure. It had nothing to do with what the politician wanted to do - and everything to do with a parliamentary practice known as "pairing". 

"Pairing" is an informal arrangement that exists by convention. It occurs when one MP needs or wants to be absent and the opposition agrees to have one of their side stand aside for a vote. This might occur if someone is ill or is otherwise unavoidably absent. It is a process which is open to abuse in many ways. The person who has agreed to "pair" is under no obligation to do so.

What was happening yesterday was that the politician in question was under pressure because she would not have been granted a pair or, if granted a pair, she could not be sure that her opposite number would honour the arrangement. She was not, as the story tried to suggest, under pressure because the government did not want her to attend the event in question. And of course if the media had acknowledged this then there would either have been no story or it would have harmed the present opposition - who are almost certainly going to win the upcoming election. It's a fine example of how the media manipulates the facts in order to tell a story.

Interestingly the news program running the story on Twitter did not include it in their main news bulletin. I imagine by then they had been ordered to withdraw it because it not the full story and it gave a false impression.

I am sorry the "journalist" in question "blocked" me. I don't like his work but knowing about it does allow people to try and point out when he is abusing his position.