Defending the Indefensible

The conduct and knowledge of Greens senators Scott Ludlam and Larissa Waters are things that the public is entitled to have examined by a court. The question is whether such entitlement will ever be enjoyed.

On the day of the Ludlam announcement, one of TMR’s colleagues (a lawyer, avid Ludlam fan and member of the Greens no less) had a crack at trying to defend Ludlam. To make things interesting, TMR handicapped himself with a few beers and some red wine before starting the great debate… via SMS!*

For your added entertainment, some of TMR’s post-debating notes and comments have been provided.

TMR: How’s that hero Ludlam of yours going?

Friend: OMG. I was waiting for this!!!!! Hahahaha.

Friend: He might have to pay back all his salary (with 5 x eyes wide open emojis).

Friend: Apparently a barrister emailed him and said, oh hey, did you know this was the rule?

Friend: Damn lawyers!

Friend: He’s so good looking – how could this happen to him!?

TMR: Haha, typical Greens! It’s ok, you’ve still got people like me around to set the right example.

TMR: Oh yeah, criminal charges are very possible. I don’t buy for one minute that there was an honest and reasonable mistake here. You don’t forget **** like dual citizenship.


Friend: I don’t think he ‘forgot’ – I think he just didn’t check the rules.

TMR: For nine freaking years! Yeah… ok.

TMR: LMAO (with crying with laughter emoji).

TMR: I can’t wait to get some of those taxpayer dollars back (emoji with dollar sign eyes and tongue).

Friend: This is funny (link to Forbes article on tax defenses: ‘I forgot’).

(Editor’s note: TMR did not read this link, still hasn’t… and won’t. Debating tip: this is is a largely pointless diversion designed to waste your time and take you off your train of thought, usually by way of a false equivalence – a VERY common tactic of the left. Don’t get sucked in. Not everything coming your way in a debate calls for a direct response. If you’re feeling particularly zesty, feel free to return fire in kind before promptly getting back to the substance).

TMR: I love funny, here’s a link to some of your fellow Canadians btw.

(Editor’s note: TMR instead sends a completely different link to a video showing the moment the Clinton News Network realises Trump has won the election):

(Editor’s note: please remember my handicap).

TMR: Sorry about that, wrong link. But still off the walls funny (emoji with winking smile).

TMR: I’ll source the Canadian one in a sec..

(Editor’s note: the ‘Canadian one’ was never sourced. SMS debating moves very fast).

Here it is now:

Friend: But really, what did Scott do that was so bad?

(Editor’s note: once the initial diversion dries up, and the focus comes back to the thing in question, all that is left for the left is to argue along the following broad lines:

  • the ‘it’s not that bad’ argument;
  • ‘the law (and not my intellectually challenged, sanctimonious and hypocritical hero) is wrong’ argument; 
  • more false equivalences (e.g. other people that happen to be from the opposite side of politics have done similar or worse things);
  • the tried and true – ‘we need new laws and ‘systems’ to prevent this from happening again’ argument; and
  • Donald Trump is a bad guy!

It’s important to stay the course and not get taken too far off the beaten track when the inevitable barrage comes your way).

TMR: He broke the law. Sorry.

Friend: I mean, did he steal or murder or not do his job?

Friend: I did too the other day – red light.

TMR: No, none of those. Just vanilla breaking the law.

TMR: Nine years of possible fraud is worse than some of those too.

Friend: Ok, possible fraud yes.

Friend: But even then.

(Editor’s note: this is where the ‘it’s not that bad’ argument meets its fatal doom. It’s time to prepare for some more false equivalences. NB: false equivalences will never end in a debate like this as there are limitless other relevant and irrelevant examples to point fingers at. It’s like whack-a-mole – swat one away and another will arrive soon enough. Again, just be sure to stay on track and use any bad example to poke fun at your opponent, preferably with sarcasm).

Friend: Is Obama American? (4 x laughing with eyes crying emojis).

TMR: Nine years of breaking electoral laws is also pretty bad.

TMR: Lol, yeah Obama is probably American. Probably.

Friend: Wasn’t someone supposed to check?

Friend: Like electoral HR?

(Editor’s note: and out comes the ‘we need systems to prevent this’ argument).

TMR: Yep. Ludlam was supposed to!!!

Friend: Under which law?

TMR: Stop expecting the State to solve everything!

Friend: And what if he was just negligent?

TMR: Citizens are expected to obey the law. You know that yeah?

TMR: You did crim law at uni didn’t you?

Friend: Maybe a bit of wilful blindness…

(TMR: any time the left’s argument is in the middle of being mercilessly unraveled, you can expect another false equivalence to come along to try and take you off course. The first one was Trump. Who’ll be next? Whoever it is, don’t take the bait – quickly swat it away and move back to the central argument).

Friend: Pauline Hanson – defamation.

Friend: Inviting hatred.

TMR: You know the section about ignorance of the law being no excuse ya?

TMR: Nice try on Pauline lol.

TMR: She’s a different discussion.

(Editor’s note: it wasn’t really a nice try on Pauline Hanson. Like Trump, she has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to this debate. I was just being polite – you don’t want your opponent becoming too antsy. Either way, the method for dealing with this type of argument always remains the same).

TMR: Back to dear Scott.

Friend: Why, it’s analogous (big winking smile emoji).

TMR: Nice try.

Friend: Hahahaha.

TMR: Scotty’s ignorance of the law has nothing to do with Pauline.

TMR: Wait a minute. Maybe she told him to do it?

(TMR: never forget to find some time to sarcastically poke fun at some of your opponent’s more outlandish arguments).

TMR: You know it, I know it, Scotty’s a law breaker and ought to be prosecuted. Maybe even for possible electoral fraud (big fingers crossed emoji).

Friend: Alan Tudge.

TMR: I’m not disputing whether Ludlam is the first.

Friend: So why so outraged?

TMR: He’s the latest in a long line. Although his one is pretty funky.

TMR: Lol, I’m not outraged. I’m p****** myself.

TMR: Ludlam is pretty holier than thou on this s***.

(Editor’s note: TMR really wanted to send this hilariously ironic video link from 25 May 2017 here, but it was buried in the internets and couldn’t be found quickly enough):


Friend: Sends link to Wikipedia page of Australian politicians convicted of crimes.

TMR: Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh!

TMR: So you’re admitting that you think Ludlam is a possible criminal?!!!

Friend: To be honest, it saddens me.

Friend: I know the law is the law.

TMR: Finally.

(Editor’s note: obviously, you’ll never get a concession like this on a TV debate. But among good friends, common sense usually prevails – especially when one is having a fun go at defending the indefensible).

Friend: He probably knew (in my opinion).

TMR: Of course he did (in my opinion).

TMR: And he ain’t the first (in my opinion).

(Editor’s note: just call me Nostradamus!)

Friend: As long as he did not enter into the employment contract unlawfully he did perform his part of the deal.

Friend: And is entitled to reasonable compensation.

(Editor’s note: as you can see, TMR’s friend really wants Ludlam to keep his ill-gotten gains. TMR would prefer to see him bankrupted!).

Friend: And like it or not he did do stuff that made him pretty popular.

TMR: 8% popular. Woo hoo.

(Editor’s note: never, ever forget to swat away any nonsense that the Greens are popular).

TMR: He’s gone. Ashes to ashes.

TMR: You’ll have to find another leftie with an awful wart between their eyebrows to admire. Seriously, what did you see in him?

(Editor’s note: having sealed victory, it’s time to indulge in some sledging).

Friend: Bet you 100 bucks he spins this into gold within 12 months.

TMR: No way.

TMR: You’re on. PS: I’m going to blog this.

Friend: Please do!

TMR: Now back to what you saw in Scott.

TMR: It’s a pretty bad wart.

Friend: He is so hot!

Friend: You can’t see it in photo shopped photos.


Friend: I am so sure he will rise like the proverbial Phoenix.

Friend: Maybe even write a book. That people can take with them on vacation and take photos of in awesome places.

(Editor’s note: this is a funny little swipe at what I did with Andrew Bolt’s book, something which I started at Lake Como in July 2016. If you haven’t got a copy, do yourself a favour and get one here).

TMR: Ok, let’s put a tenner on it.

Friend: It’s a deal.

TMR: Within 12 months?

Friend: 12.

TMR: Solid.

Friend: I think I will donate your 10 bucks to orphans…

Friend: Socialist orphans!

Friend: Hahahahaha (crying with laughter emoji).

TMR: Ok. Agreed. If I lose, I’ll help you with the arduous task of selecting a single socialist orphan.

(*) The SMS debate is one of the most challenging and fun because:

  • everything is on written record;
  • long waffling monologues aren’t possible;
  • there’s almost always fire being returned at you while you type; and
  • links and videos come into the equation.

Further editor’s note: this post has been amended to remove any instances of possible defamation. The materials contained in this post reflect only opinions. Scott Ludlam has not been charged or convicted of anything at this stage (and may never be) and is entitled to have his day in court. TMR sincerely hopes that he does.

Ohhhhhh… I think I see the problem now…

4 thoughts on “Defending the Indefensible”

  1. Starting to think that the status of being “our guy” trumps all with the New Class.

    The clue was Roman Polanski. Not only did he do it to a drugged minor…but it actually was rape-rape. (Enjoyed it so much he backed up for seconds.) The luvvies could only think of saving Roman from the rednecks.

    For the posh urban left, conservative Pell is their perfect monster even prior to proper investigation. Peter Roebuck, who ended investigation by defenestrating himself, “had his demons” and was “a complex character”. (Funny his Fairfax and ABC intimates knew those things but not the rest.)

    We shouldn’t be surprised if a much lesser infringement brings out the tribe in full warpaint.

    Ludlum and Waters deserve a hearing, as does Canavan, and their cases should be individual, not part of some “Nationalitygate” beat-up. But if they dudded unknowingly that’s one problem they have. If they dudded knowingly, that’s another. If they’re lying about either, another problem again. We all have problems. Those are their problems right now.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s