Tim Blair

BUSTED!!!!

Interesting time frame though!

Aus election on the way. Good time to throw a smear against the good guys.

Dem's need to recover lost ground. Lots of feet on ground to reverse fortunes! No more leave allowed(?)!

Conspiracy theories are wonderful are they not?

Ho hum. Another 5th columnist exposed.

What the hell was this silly b*tch doind in that position anyway? Hill should take a good ahrd look at the twits in his employ.

thank fuck she's uncompromising because i'd never want to be in a compromising position with her.

As soon as I read about this woman I thought "Andrew Wilke" and wondered how many weeks it would take for her to get a nomination for the Greens. These people stink of political ambition. Thanks Tim for exposing another fraud.

The most disturbing news here is the complete failure of the media to mention an important and relevant fact. This stinks.

I thought I heard it mentioned on ABC tv news tonight that she was a former democrat.

Robert Hill's response is interesting:

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9250933%255E1702,00.html

Brisbane's "Courier Mail" mentions Errey's party allegiance in this report, and also the more plausible reason for why she was sacked (not turning up for work tends to have that consequence).

And this ABC report mentions that Errey "has previously stood as a candidate for the Australian Democrats in the ACT".

More.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9256788%255E1702,00.html

I can't see her winning the Wilkie vote with this record. She sounds like a disgruntled troublemaker, nothing more.

I think she'll quickly fade into oblivion in the mainstream press, as distinct from our favorite junior intelligence analyst and Greens candidate for Benelong.

The two serious questions to be asked here are:

1. As Murph alluded to: How the hell did she get her security clearance? Blind Fredddy could see that her background should be ringing warning bells.

2. As Evilpundit notes: Where is the basic fact checking of the reporters involved? For crying in the wet, throw the name into Google and out pops a veritable rap sheet of political activism.

I see this crap all the time. For my trouble, I am called a Nazi and a fascist at home and at work (to which I politely respond by pointing out that the Greens and Socialists are far closer in political philosophy to Adolph and co than a conservative libertarian such as myself).

Off topic:

http://www.aljazeerah.info/News%20archives/2004%20News%20archives/April/11n/US%20attacked%20in%20Baghdad,%20offers%20Fallujah%20truce.htm

Check the last sentence:

"...A US tank was set on fire west of Baghdad and locals said a 10-year-old boy had hit it with a rocket-propelled grenade."

Kind of blurs the distinction between children and legitimate targets, doesn't it?

More updates:

http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9256788%255E1702,00.html

Given that the parliamentary committee that Ms Errey gave testimony before included Robery Ray, Kim Beazley, and Leo McLay (all ALP members and, one would consider, eager to stick the boot in the Howard government), why has not one capitalised on her "sex- up claim" by attacking the government in parliament or, at the very least, making reference to her testimony in the findings of the committee report? Is it because her claims are groundless and the ALP would be stuck with their pants down when the government counter attacked?

However, Andrew Bartlett, who isn't on the committe nor is any other Australian Democrat) had this to say:

"It does raise concerns, it does unfortunately have a ring of truth about it and those allegations should be certainly be properly investigated and publicly investigated. I don't think it's good enough to say it's an internal matter when it's now become public and Ms Errey has made the decision to make a public allegation that she was sacked because of her refusal to be part of dismissing serious internal concerns that were attempted to be communicated to the Government."

Under section 44 of our Constitution, a public servant cannot be elected as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives (as Phil Cleary found to his disappointment in 1992: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/HCA/1992/60.html?query=title+%28+%22cleary%22+%29),has Errey

Will Errey be running in the next Federal election and this a way of getting her name known by the electorate? What does Andrew Bartlett have to say about this?

On thing i've noticed about lefties: if there's an MI6 staffer who's "uncomfortable" and gins up some story, then everyone else tries to find one of their own.

So, it's not possible to support an opposition party and still be part of the public service in Howard's government?

So, in Howard's Australia it's perfectly justified to sack someone from the public service if they have views at variance from the government of the day?

Hey bloghead, can you grab that list from your bottom drawer and publish it. You know, the one naming all the Liberal Party apparatchiks that currently choke the ranks of the Australian Public Service.

Gone are the days when an Australian government could call on independent advice, delivered without fear or favour. Today it's a case give them what you know they want to hear or risk losing your job.

Shown up for any work lately, Miranda?

Her working hours are intermittent; it depends on when her cell phone rings.