Saturday, March 21, 2009

Einfeld goes to jail

Former head of Human Rights Commission and perennial liar Marcus Einfeld has gone to jail for at least two years.  The left loved him as a personality judge. But he lied about a $77 fine (he had lied about traffic convictions several times before), lied about his academic qualifications (he bought degrees) and his past directorships and plagiarised past legal judgements.  Einfeld made a career as a well-paid, blow-hard moraliser. Aborigines, refugees, Cornelia Rau ...Einfeld was a great defender of humanity.  I can't help wondering whether his claims in this regard were lies too or, as I often sensed when I heard him speak, just pompous insincerity.

No-one should dance with joy to see Einfeld cop his due.  There is tragedy here - he is 69 and his health is poor.  But for once the legal system worked reasonably well * and extenuating circumstances were not evoked for a favoured son.

* The qualification reasonably because his sentence was reduced because of the pain he has suffered on account of the press coverage received.   But the press didn't persecute him - they only identified his lies.

13 comments:

geraldine said...

Former head of Human Rights Commission and perennial liar Marcus Einfeld has gone to goal [GOAL???] for at least two years. Einfeld made a career as a well-paid...Aboriginees, [aborigeNEES!!!].

I suppose economists don't need spelling skills..

hc said...

Geraldine, Corrected. No we need spelling skills. You win.

Anonymous said...

Einfeld in the 4 corners programme admits to lying, that's nothing new. I have known him to be lying since 1999. I have been telling the media for almost 10 years but it has been fallen on deaf ears.I hope the Attorney general would reconsider my case judged by Einfeld.Here is the URL of my case.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinosrch.cgi?method=all&query=einfeld+nejad&meta=%2Fau&mask_path=

Frank Nejad

observa said...

Is that Geraldine with a capital 'G' geraldine?

observa with a little o, o, o!

observa said...

Actually when the details of the case came up I bet the missus he'd get porridge, whereas she was taking the reasonable line that anyone who lost their job and reputation for such a first offence would no doubt get a slap on the wrist and a good behaviour bond. I was pretty sure the judge club would give him a token taste of porridge thinking 3-6 months max, but 3 bloody years? Vindictive bunch of bastards aren't they? It's moments like that I'll bet Einfeld was wishing he was black or a Mussie.

rog said...

I think that the point has been missed, intentionally or otherwise.

Einfeld is a habitual liar

observa said...

What you mean like this sort of bloke rog?http://www.kevinruddlies.com/lies/kevin.htm
What should we do with him then?

Anonymous said...

What is fascinating about this attack of yours Harry, is the manner in which you serve up your vitriol to some, and leave others off scot free. Have you yet taken the time to digest the Clarke Report into the case of Dr Haneef? If so, would you care to retract any of the ill-considered comments made on this blog about that matter? You may also wish to discuss the lies, and the lying liars who told them, which are exposed in that Report. The principal agents, such as Keelty, Andrews, and the Rodent himself, are persons who have made a career out of identifying victims who they can use to stimulate exactly the sort of knee-jerk fear and loathing demonstrated in your execrable posts on the topic.

hc said...

Normally I delete the cowardly crap expressed in the last bile-filled contemptible anonymous comment but, on this occasion, I'll let the shit-brained cretin hang himself.

Look you low brow, low-attention-span piece of fly shit, there were no liars on this issue. There was a well-justified inquiry which turned out to provide an innocent verdict.

Now crawl back under your rock maggot. And the next time you want to release some bile don't turn up on my blog.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
hc said...

Most of the anonymous poster's subsequent post I deleted. He said:

"My reading of your comments on matter is that you were prepared to assume the good doctor was in fact probably a terrorist, and, on a utilitarian calculation, you were prepared to allow any degree of 'inconvenience' to be inflicted upon him, in order for you to feel that the population was being kept safe".

I made no assumption of guilt at all. I didn't know if he was guilty or not but, on the basis of reasonable evidence - leaving the country with one-way ticket, family links with the terrorist etc - he was held on suspicion.

Nor did I encourage any degree of inconvenience on Dr Haneef at all. He was treated well and released and I assume will now sue the Australian government.

Not all prosecutions result in guilt. There are innocents who hopefully escape prosecution and Dr Haneef seems to be one of them.

Your assumption is that you only arrest people who you know for certain have committed a crime. If that assumption was correct the only role for the courts would be to assign penalties.

Your comments about my blog policies reveal a partial reading that is as dishonest as your remarks on Haneef. You must use an identifier if you wish to post on my blog. Otherwise I will delete your posts. Clear? Or are you too stupid to grasp that also?

darren carrow said...

Harry, I realise you have the privilege of deleting or publishing on your blog as you see fit. The difficulty I have with the deletion of my comments is twofold:

Firstly, having a conversation where only one side is published is a bit like the situation which confronted Dr Haneef, when he fronted the Megs Ct, and his solicitor was asked to go outside while the AFP discussed with the magistrate secret (and inaccurate) information, calculated to keep him in jail without charge for another period of time. It is a course of action which decreases accountability and transparency.

Secondly, if others could see my comments, they would be able to appreaciate that the bile, for want of a better word, has been flowing from your side only.

I am a bit surprised by your unwillingness to revisit this matter in a mature manner. You publish your views on matters and invite comment.

Surely this must mean you are robust enough to discuss your earlier points of view, and to take advantage of all of the information at hand which may inform you of developments in matters about which you have previously commented, and may even lead to a change in your point of view.

I invite you to desist from abusing me, which tends to confim my suspicions that you have no rational basis to support a continuation of your prior stance on this matter, and engage in a proper conversation.

hc said...

Well Darren, You certainly get greater chance to express your stupid views if you put your name to them. The last comment I assume means that the previous anonymous diatribes were yours.

Quote from one of these posts:

"and loathing demonstrated in your execrable posts on the topic."

Grow up boy. You cannot make abusive comments like that without at least expect a pile of shit thrown back at you. Generally I will delete comments of this type.

You are right about one thing - it is my blog and I will delete anything I like. I will also choose which topics I wish to debate and which I choose not to.

I chose not to reopen the Haneef debate because all your comments were deliberate misrepresentations. And what do these comments have to do with Marcus Einfeld anyway?