Letter writer with thousands of names strikes again!

AKA, the Clarence Valley's serial writer of letters to editors, has struck again.

As reported on this site on Monday, in an item titled 'A word of caution for newspaper letters editors' there's a correspondent who regularly uses aliases when corresponding with newspapers.

AKA (also known as) has had a letter published in today's Daily Examiner. Sadly, the paper didn't take the advice provided on Monday and check the writer's bona fides.

To make matters worse, today's letter is the same one published by the Northern Star on Monday, give or take a few commas, apostrophes and altered paragraphing.

Today's letter is a little bit longer than Monday's, suggesting a number of possible scenarios.

Did the Star cut the letter's tale/tail?

Or did AKA, who has a penchant for using the old cc and bcc tactic when emailing, actually submit two letters that were virtually the same but the one to the Examiner was a few paragraphs longer?

Here's today's letter in the Examiner.

Abbott gets caught out manipulating a quote again

Crikey’s Jeremy Sear tells it like it is………………………

And now Tony Abbott misrepresents Flannery; will the media call him on it?

Further to the shameless and idiotic noisemaking of the trollumnists on which we commented yesterday, it now seems that the unpopular Liberal leader Tony Abbott is now outright misrepresenting Flannery’s remarks in Parliament:
But yesterday, as the role of the carbon tax in Labor’s massive loss in the NSW election dominated federal political exchanges, Mr Abbott quoted Professor Flannery as he ridiculed the tax as “the ultimate millenium bug”. “It will not make a difference for 1000 years,” the Opposition Leader told parliament. “So this is a government which is proposing to put at risk our manufacturing industry, to penalise struggling families, to make a tough situation worse for millions of households right around Australia. And for what? To make not a scrap of difference to the environment any time in the next 1000 years.”
What Flannery actually said:
If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years. "Not going to drop" is clearly not the same as "make not a scrap of difference". Nor is "several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years" the same as “not… any time in the next 1000 years”.
We’re talking about a system in which the temperature is increasing. The best we can hope for in the shorter term is to slow that increase down, maybe if we’re lucky stop it completely. The more countries that act, the better our chances, and the quicker we’ll reduce the damage. That Flannery thinks there’s a prospect of actually reducing the levels back to the levels of today, or pre-industrial levels, is very reassuring – but the time-scale he talks about is nothing to do with when there’d first be a difference between acting and not acting.
Even if it’ll take a long time to return the system to the earlier levels (and I’m glad to hear that that’s even possible), the immediate challenge is to reduce the increase. That’s what the proposed action is supposed to achieve, and that’s what we’re debating.
So Abbott’s misrepresentation of Flannery’s remark is not only dishonest, it also indicates that he hasn’t the faintest idea what his opponents are actually talking about……….

To recap. During the radio interview in question (audio here) Flannery made it very clear that the world would not immediately commence to cool if the international community was collectively addressing climate change because a) the system is already overburdened by CO2, b) it will take somewhere between 100 to 1,000 years for enough greenhouse gas absorption to occur which would noticeably lower temperature and, c) that no global action on climate change would inevitably lead to a continuous increase in the average temperature of the planet.

So there was absolutely no way the average person could misinterpret what Flannery was asserting and, Abbott's deliberate manipulation of the truth for his own base political ends is even more despicable.

Can a man who has absolutely no relationship with the concept of truth be seriously considered the alternative prime minister?

Clarence Valley young women win 2011 Westfield Project Be Styled

Pixie at work

Pixie Bella of Yamba & Woodford Island and Renae Mackenzie of Yamba & Iluka recently won the 2011 Westfield Project Be Styled competition in the Fashion Entourage section. Along with a $3,000 Westfield gift card, model Renae received a makeup artist contract and photographer Pixie received free access to Dallys Models for photoshoots, according to Pixie posting on Facebook. Congratulations to both young women on a well-deserved win.

Protecting your tax dollar in 2011

On 24 February 2011 the Australian Minister for Home Affairs issued revised Fraud Control Guidelines to take effect on 29 March 2011. The Fraud Control Guidelines were previously released in 2002.

Excerpt from the COMMONWEALTH FRAUD CONTROL GUIDELINES

4.4 Fraud against the Commonwealth may include (but is not limited to):
· theft · accounting fraud (false invoices, misappropriation etc)
· unlawful use of, or obtaining property, equipment, material or services
· causing a loss, or avoiding and/or creating a liability
· providing false or misleading information to the Commonwealth, or failing to provide it when there is an obligation to do so
· misuse of Commonwealth assets, equipment or facilities · making, or using false, forged or falsified documents, and
· wrongfully using Commonwealth information or intellectual property.
4.5 A benefit is not restricted to monetary or material benefits, and may be tangible or intangible, including the unauthorised provision of access to or disclosure of information. A benefit may also be obtained by a third party rather than, or in addition to, the perpetrator of the fraud.
4.6 Fraud against the Commonwealth takes many forms, and may target:
· revenue (e.g. income tax, GST fraud, customs duties)
· benefits (e.g. social security, health, child care, education/training, visa or grant of citizenship)
· property (e.g. cash, computers, other portable and attractive items, stationery) · information and intelligence (e.g. personal information or classified material)
· Commonwealth program funding and grants (e.g. education, childcare, employment)
· entitlements (e.g. expenses, leave, travel allowances, attendance records)
· facilities (e.g. unauthorised use of vehicles, information technology and telecommunication systems), and
· money or property held in trust or confiscated.
4.7 The risk of fraud can come from inside an agency, that is, from its employees or contractors. This is known as internal fraud. External fraud, on the other hand, is where the risk of fraud comes from outside the agency, that is, from external parties, such as clients, service providers or other members of the public.
4.8 Agencies also need to be alert to the risk of complex fraud involving collusion between agency employees and external parties. Complex fraud, which may also constitute corrupt conduct, can include instances where an employee or group of employees:
· are targeted and succumb to exploitation by external parties (bribery, extortion, grooming for favours or promises), or
· initiate the misconduct (including through infiltration of an agency by an external party).
Note that some forms of corrupt conduct, such as soliciting for bribes or secret commissions, may not cause a direct loss to the Commonwealth, but may distort the market for fair provision of services or inflate prices.

Full document versions here.