Xtra Smileys
Flame Damnation
August 10, 2022, 02:41:55 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Login Register  
Post reply
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Message icon:
BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough|GlowShadowMarquee|Preformatted TextLeft AlignCenteredRight Align|Horizontal Rule|Font SizeFont Face
Insert FlashInsert ImageInsert HyperlinkInsert EmailInsert FTP Link|Insert TableInsert Table RowInsert Table Column|SuperscriptSubscriptTeletype|Insert CodeInsert Quote|Insert List
Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh? Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry Evil Azn Afro [more]
+ Additional Options...

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Topic Summary
Posted on: March 24, 2009, 12:04:21 pm
Posted by: caskurô
ABC media watch reports... watch this.



Posted on: March 23, 2009, 09:36:37 am
Posted by: caskurô
Gutter journalism...

Thank god for Media Watch, they do a fantastic job keeping trashy journalism in check:

Check out the Hanson story here: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2523852.htm

The video should be up by tomorrow morning at: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/

I hope Pauline Hanson wins big so she can then fight another election battle. We need her common voice in the Senate, there is no other alternative!

Posted on: March 22, 2009, 04:14:00 am
Posted by: caskurô
of course it was a plot....and a plot to sell newspapers.

They might not have a newspaper to sell a year from now. Time will tell.
Posted on: March 21, 2009, 10:53:09 pm
Posted by: Godfather
Nw you get see that newspaper, news channel is owned by a business man and he definately connected to a political party so,
 maybe a rival plot and they were successful.
Posted on: March 21, 2009, 04:44:20 pm
Posted by: caskurô
Excellent Comment.....from Banjo...

I'm no fan of Pauline, quite the opposite, but if I were she I'd be suing the arse off News Ltd. for defamation. There's no doubt in my mind that the Sunday Telegraph, by publishing the pics a week before polling and not admitting their fraud until the day after polling, deliberately, dishonestly and maliciously sabotaged Hanson's campaign.

I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend unto the death your right to say it.


Posted on: March 21, 2009, 03:15:50 pm
Posted by: caskurô
Too little, too late though. How dare you ruin Pauline Hanson's chance to speak for ordinary Australians!


The pics that caused a storm

March 21, 2009

LAST weekend, this newspaper published pictures we believed were of Pauline Hanson. Many people across the nation have had a say.

The pictures have also prompted a strong reaction from you, the readers.

The central purpose of The Sunday Telegraph is to serve our readers and the paper acknowledges many of you believe the paper overstepped the mark.

We received phone calls, letters and emails saying that, whether or not it was Pauline Hanson in the pictures, they should not have been published.

Every week the reporters, headline writers, photographers and dedicated staff of the paper work to produce a lively, fun and informative product that brings you the best news, sport and gossip.

The decision to publish was based on the fact that, firstly, we believed it was Pauline Hanson in the pictures and, secondly, she was a public figure, running for election in Queensland in a return to front-line politics, who had written a detailed book about her life in which she laid her private life bare.

In the autobiography, Untamed & Unashamed, Ms Hanson detailed at length her own sex life which began when she was a teenager. She had her first child at the age of 16.

The paper believed - and still believes - there is massive public interest in Ms Hanson's life.

As someone who has detailed her own life, who lives in, and courts, the public spotlight and who aspires to public office, Ms Hanson's life is open to scrutiny.

She has been a subject of intense fascination since she burst onto the national scene 13 years ago.

We knew the decision would be controversial but, in our enthusiasm to produce the best Sunday newspaper in the country, we published the pictures because we believed them to be a genuine news story.

We accept many readers disagree and many of you believe that publishing the 30-year-old pictures served no public interest.

In an attempt to address this issue and acknowledge the strength of feeling in the community, we have given over a large portion of the letters page (Page 36) to the Hanson controversy.

We believe readers are more than entitled to have a say and we encourage them to write in and, where they see fit, give us a whack.

Such an opportunity is a crucial right in a democratic society.

The Sunday Telegraph makes weekly judgments about all sorts of people, and many public figures have copped it from this paper. So if we're going to dish it out, we have to be able to take the criticism.

We're not politicians here. We don't try to spin our way out of a jam.

Last week there was plenty of criticism and we have taken that on board.

We thank our readers for corresponding with us and encourage them to keep doing so.

PAULINE HANSON will always remain the darling of Australian Politics!

Never quit Pauline, we need your voice in Parliament.

I hope Pauline's supporters will boycott that newspaper...

tabloid junk.

She lost the election losing the plot over the issue....she sounded like a shrew and could have done a more eloquent job of defending her stance......

On a side note, I hope all journalists from 7 and 9 who made a media circus of this subject, have their genitals rot off from a fungus infection and I genuinely wish that for them....I shall make sure I consult my oracle and be sure to make a request of it.
Posted on: March 17, 2009, 04:49:50 pm
Posted by: caskur

It's not Hanson: expert's verdict

Rick Feneley
March 18, 2009

A FORENSIC anatomist has analysed the photographs claimed to be of a young and semi-naked Pauline Hanson and delivered this verdict: "It is not her."

The young woman's neck is too short, her eyes too close together and her nose too narrow to be Ms Hanson, says Meiya Sutisno, who worked on identifications in the Falconio murder case and the 2005 Bali bombings.

Dr Sutisno, a senior lecturer at the University of Technology Sydney, compared pictures published in the Sunday Herald Sun with current photographs of Ms Hanson as well as images of her as a girl and young woman.

The good news for the newspaper, which Ms Hanson is suing for publishing the pictures, is that Dr Sutisno is convinced the photos are not doctored. She is convinced they are genuine images. The bad news: she is convinced they are of another woman.

At first glance, she concedes, the young woman is strikingly like the Ms Hanson of today, a candidate in Saturday's Queensland election. That is particularly so when considering the "most striking similarities in her features: the eyes and the thin lips Ö but that is a subjective assessment".

When Dr Sutisno subjected the photos to a more rigorous facial mapping analysis, she was left with little doubt.

"The most obvious difference is the nose. The young woman's nasal bridge is high, prominent and projecting, and more narrow. Pauline Hanson's nasal bridge is quite wide and thick." Might that not change with age? Or might Ms Hanson have had nose surgery? Perhaps, but then Dr Sutisno studied Pauline Hanson as a young child. "She already had a thick nasal bridge."

While the tip of Ms Hanson's nose was "fleshy", the other woman's was more defined and downward-pointing. "If Pauline was going to have surgery, you would think she would change her nose to make it look more like this young woman's."

Jack Johnson, who claims to have taken the pictures in the mid-1970s, told Channel Seven yesterday he still believed the photos could be Ms Hanson, but was not sure.

Posted on: March 16, 2009, 05:36:10 pm
Posted by: caskur
This comment is very good.

Should Pauline Hanson decide to sue then I wouldn't like being in the media's shoes if Jack Johnson is the defendant's star witness, relying on his testimony as to the validity of his claim.  You only had to listen to two minutes of his claims on TT and CA last night to realise the man's a nut job.

"But what if I'm wrong?" he asked.  Showing such a lack of confidence Johnson did with his own evidence, a good senior counsel acting for the plaintiff would rip him and the media to shreds.

I've never been a huge Hanson fan and couldn't care a fig about her political life, but this sort of gutter journalism's not on!  Take 'em to the cleaners Pauline!

Posted on: March 16, 2009, 04:08:10 pm
Posted by: caskurô
Jack Johnson's credibility is looking a little shaky,

Mr Johnson, who admitted he was not "the smartest cookie in the barrel", appeared last night with his face pixelated on Channel Seven's Today Tonight.

"I took them myself - they're real," he said of the photographs. "In my heart of hearts, I believe it's Pauline Hanson. But what if I'm wrong?"

He was unclear on many key details of the story. He said he was not certain when the pictures were taken, was not sure of the name of the resort they were taken at, and did not know the woman's surname. He said he met a "Pauline" in a Brisbane grocery shop - she was wearing a name tag - and they went out three times.

The photos were taken after a night of partying. But Mr Johnson said his memory was hazy from chemotherapy he has endured for 12years. "I don't know a lot of stuff that happened back in those days," he said. "I didn't lie. I told it straight up, and now all my mates bloody hate me."


Posted on: March 16, 2009, 12:59:22 pm
Posted by: caskurô
It was there on the front page.

what was there on the front page?
Posted on: March 16, 2009, 12:57:45 pm
Posted by: Godfather
It was there on the front page.
Posted on: March 16, 2009, 08:00:41 am
Posted by: caskurô
Here Arete....Pauline has opened her album to show people what she looked like when she was young....


Posted on: March 16, 2009, 07:18:25 am
Posted by: caskurô
Well, it's not the same nose but maybe she had a nose job.

Pauline's jaw is squared....the other woman's jaw is oval shaped...

Pauline will be suing anyway....the newspapers will be parting with some serious dollars.

Pauline was happily married to her first husband when that photo was supposedly taken and breast feeding her second child......and not only that, the guy who claims he was the boyfriend and the hotel the pictures were taken in, wasn't even built, for another 10 yrs.....Pauline is prettier than the **** wench and was even prettier at the same age....she has already put her family photos up and she has the same nose back then as she does now.
Posted on: March 16, 2009, 06:07:03 am
Posted by: arete
Well, it's not the same nose but maybe she had a nose job.
Posted on: March 16, 2009, 05:38:53 am
Posted by: caskurô
The ABC media has stated that the times and ages of Pauline and the biker add up.

To make an allegation as boldly as the press has done with Hanson, there has to be some reasonable evidence of proof or indeed they are straight up libel and very costly to them, not only in penalty but also in reader loss.   

As a photographer myself I can see that resemblance in features to then old Pauline and the young Pauline that is not just coincidental...attention seeking for publicityand most probably told the ol' boy friend to sell the photos.

Shes good at pulling the wool over peoples eyes, the womans a meglamaniac.

somebody de-nut this bastard before I do!

If ABC or any other media outlet can't see the difference between the two schnozzes then they need to get glasses or find another job.

Posted on: March 16, 2009, 03:38:40 am
Posted by: caskurô
The press being their lying filthy selves are again at my Heroine. They are claiming she posed for **** photos 30 years ago.....of course the noses on both women are completely different, as is the eye colour and shape of jaw.....as an artist, I picked that up pretty quickly....she is going to sue now but too late, there would be a certain amount of people believing this rubbish...I'm reposting some of what was said from another place as a backup to their site being deleted....or whatever...

The original thread opener....

But who cares, she is still the darling of Australia:


Pauline Hanson **** photos could be a publicity stunt, says David Oldfield

March 15, 2009

**** photos of a teenage Pauline Hanson released one week before an attempt to revive her political career may be a political stunt, says a former colleague.

Former One Nation member and NSW MP David Oldfield today said he thought the timing of the release of the images was "amazing".

FULL STORY: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25189609-421,00.html

All is forgiven. We cant condemn a person for what they did when they were younger.

She always was, and always will be A ****.

An ugly one at that!

That isn't Pauline anyway....doesn't look like her....it is a likeness and an ugly one at that...

probably some **** from Russia.

Look at the fat nose....Pauline doesn't have a schnozz like that!
She claims today it is not her...

Hard to tell.

Ugly cow whoever it is.  Grin

Tell the corrupt Australian media they're talking out of their arses....it isn't the same woman.....fat nose doesn't compare to Pauline's loveliness...

The eastern block skank has a pointy nose with a wide bridge,.....Pauline's has a wider nose end but the bridge tapers elegantly, in...


Take off 30 years, see her before she got smacked in the schnozz...

Maybe?   Grin

Looks like she has copped one in the hooter at some stage.  Grin

Please explain: tit for tat over Hanson photos
Arjun Ramachandran
March 16, 2009 - 11:09AM

Pauline Hanson ... says the pictures published by the Sunday Telegraph, inset, are not of her. If it's not her, do you know who it is? Photo: Paul Harris

A war of words has erupted over claims that Pauline Hanson posed for **** photos 30 years ago.

A furious Ms Hanson says the pictures - published in The Sunday Telegraph - are not of her.

But the paper's editor today maintained the photos were authentic, even though he admitted there were holes in the story given by the man to whom News Ltd paid $15,000 for the pictures.


BWAHAHAH!!   "Tit for Tat"   Very clever.  Grin

photos were authentic

double speak here...they're authentic alright... of someone else, in other words not photochops of Pauline....

corrupt lying media are at it again...

I actually think the Daily Telegraph is in a lot of trouble!

I don't think these images are of Pauline Hanson.

Yes, they might not be "fake", but they don't look like Pauline, not even a younger version.

The **** looks like a Russian as caskur says, even the hair colour isn't correct.

Bookmark this site!
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy