Latham’s shed of evil

The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info

Last updated on August 9th, 2017 at 06:28 am

My old pal Ross Schultz—I worked with him one summer at the Wimmera Mail Times—meets Mark Latham:

The Daily Telegraph reported the former federal opposition leader and MP threw a punch at photographer Ross Schultz, injuring his wrist and then fleeing with [Schultz’s] camera …

Mr Latham emerged from a Hungry Jacks restaurant, where he had been having lunch with his two sons Oliver and Issac, the paper said.

Mr Schultz … said Mr Latham started screaming obscenities and ripped the camera from his shoulder.

The former Labor leader then drove off in his car with the camera, which he is believed to have smashed in the shed of his Glen Alpine home.

Latham runs his very own smashing shed? Excellent! (The guy should really stay away from fast-food joints. They angry up his blood.)

UPDATE. Editorial in the Daily Telegraph:

It’s nice to see Mark Latham has lost none of his raffish charm. On the first anniversary of his resignation as Labor leader, we attempted to catch up with the great man. Unluckily for our photographer, and particularly his camera, Mark Latham caught up with him first.

UPDATE II. Latham emerges from his shed:

Last night he handed the shattered remains of the camera, worth thousands of dollars, in to Campbelltown police.

UPDATE III. A January prediction, written last year:

Panic grips Sydney’s western suburbs after reports that Mark Latham has broken free of his keepers and is roaming loose.

UPDATE IV. Lew in comments:

Good to see he’s managed to overcome his aversion to “junk food”. In June 2004 he proudly announced his “Ban junk food advertising on children’s TV” Election policy. Now Mark and the kiddies are found chowing-down at Hungry Jack’s where the burgers are said to be better.

UPDATE V. Hand over the money, Mark:

The Daily Telegraph intends to seek $12,000 from former Labor leader Mark Latham after he allegedly seized and destroyed one of its cameras … “It looks like he spent a good hour hopping into it with a claw hammer, it’s incredible,” [editor] Mr Penberthy said.

Posted by Tim B. on 01/19/2006 at 09:10 AM
    1. Margo could probably loan him a few dollars to help pay for the camera, right?

      Posted by Major John on 2006 01 19 at 10:31 AM • permalink


    1. Geez, it just brings back memories of how scared I was prior to the elections, that he might get in.

      Posted by Melanie on 2006 01 19 at 10:44 AM • permalink


    1. Thank you, Mark Latham.
      The gift that keeps on giving.

      In an alternate world this fruitloop would have been Prime Minister of Australia.

      It will be many, many years before I stop giving thanks that this alternate world is only the stuff of nightmares.

      Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2006 01 19 at 10:52 AM • permalink


    1. Mark Latham is Prime Minister of Australia in another universe, according to some of the wacky, but scientific consisent, cosmoligical theories …

      Posted by Stevo on 2006 01 19 at 10:57 AM • permalink


    1. Oops … kant spel …

      Latham … now friend of the photographers as well as the cabbies … he’s a badly behaved big bully and needs a bloody belting behind the shed …

      Time to go …

      Posted by Stevo on 2006 01 19 at 11:08 AM • permalink


    1. “I saw something nasty in the woodshed!”

      [Apologies to the author of “Cold Comfort Farm”]
      Posted by paco on 2006 01 19 at 11:11 AM • permalink


    1. As an American, all I can say is this is too funny.  Are you sure Latham is not a right-wing mole designed to discredit the Aussie Left for a generation?

      Posted by Room 237 on 2006 01 19 at 11:14 AM • permalink


    1. A mark of the true progessive… having a dedicated building into which his enemies are marched, never to return…

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 01 19 at 11:15 AM • permalink


    1. So how many years does one get for assualt, battery, theft and destruction of property (or the Australian equivalent) over there?

      Posted by tim maguire on 2006 01 19 at 11:16 AM • permalink


    1. This story puts me in mind of a scene from the movie, “Break Down”, in which Kurt Russell, tracking his wife’s kidnappers to a barn, is working his way quietly through the loft, and stumbles across a mountain of cameras and other gear stolen over the years by the criminals (who presumably murdered their victims). Ross Schultz is lucky to be alive.

      Posted by paco on 2006 01 19 at 11:23 AM • permalink


    1. What I really loved was the witness statement from the Jazz U Up Beauty Salon across the road.
      “It’s just a nightly brawl
      in a tenement hall and all-that -ja-azz..
      Think on,if he (Latham) had become P.M. wouldn’t it have provided endless hours of innocent amusement watching hapless members of the international media making that fatal rapprochment…defiling the Latham Circle of Trust.

      Posted by crash on 2006 01 19 at 11:37 AM • permalink


    1. When Latham returned the camera, did he get his soul back?

      Posted by chinesearithmetic on 2006 01 19 at 11:50 AM • permalink


    1. That guy is crazy.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 01 19 at 11:56 AM • permalink


    1. #7 As an American, all I can say is this is too funny.  Are you sure Latham is not a right-wing mole designed to discredit the Aussie Left for a generation?

      Is it that obvious?  I really thought we did a fairly good job making him look like a latte lefty.  Even to the point of keeping his pinky finger up in the air when he drinks it.  Course that right wing minion predisposition to want to beat the snot out of people is hard to suppress.

      All things considered, maybe we should have gone with Stoop Davy Dave as the ALP candidate for PM after all.  But SDD couldn’t quite get the Aussie accent right (sounded too New Zealand-like).  And based on his sheep attack on Mugabe a couple months back, I’m not sure he would have been any less prone to beat up cabbies and photographers than Latham.

      Look folks, all I can say is John Howard is happy with our selection of Latham.  So is Prsident Bush and Karl Rove.  So I’m happy.  And you should be too.  If necessary, I’ll ask Karl to send out a directive instructing you to be.

      Posted by wronwright on 2006 01 19 at 12:05 PM • permalink


    1. Remember what the elevator did to Woody Allen, after he beat the toaster.

      Machines never forget.

      Posted by rhhardin on 2006 01 19 at 12:08 PM • permalink


    1. I’m going to be a dissenting voice for a bit…

      I’m sorry about your mate, but his job is crappy. I’m disgusted by the photographers who regularly snap ‘celebs’ or pollies just for the hell of it, or because they look ugly. Mark’s always ugly, we don’t need new photos- especially when he’s out with his kids. Give the failed politician some peace- he’s outta the game.

      That said, Latham deserves a bitch-slapping by the courts. His reaction was uncalled for.

      Aaah, forget it. Just put this post down to the fact I have John Lennon’s Imagine playing away.

      Posted by anthony27 on 2006 01 19 at 12:24 PM • permalink


    1. Nah, anthony – Lennon’s Imagine or no – I think you’ve accurately described the two sides to this story. He is a civilian now and he shouldn’t have to be harrassed while out with his children. It’s probable, however, that his boys were more traumatised by their father escalating the situation than they were by the situation itself. Depends how intrusively Schultz was behaving and photographers’ newspapers tend not to report those sort of details.

      Posted by C.L. on 2006 01 19 at 12:44 PM • permalink


    1. #14: Karl’s will be done. But if it isn’t presumptious to ask, and if you wouldn’t be divulging any classified information, just how does John McCain fit into Karl’s plan for the universe? I thoroughly distrust that bird; is it possible that he’s a mole placed by The Other Side? And why does Karl tolerate an Other Side?

      Posted by paco on 2006 01 19 at 12:48 PM • permalink


    1. C.L. – Latham did the dirty on many of his colleagues. There’s a bit of karma happening here. I don’t feel particularly sorry for any added attention he may receive as a private citizen – interest in him will fade in due course, but his indexed parliamentiary pension won’t. We may as well enjoy our investment while it’s still capable of raising a chuckle; we’ll be paying it off until maturity.

      Posted by James Waterton on 2006 01 19 at 01:20 PM • permalink


    1. Is that the same world where John F’n Kerry was inaugrated on Jan 20, 2005, or the one where AlGore is serving his second term?  Or is he PM in *two* alternate worlds?  Now *that* would be awesome.

      Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2006 01 19 at 02:44 PM • permalink


    1. Hillary throws a mean right hook, too. She and Markie would make a great Jell-o wrestling match.

      Posted by Gary from Jersey on 2006 01 19 at 02:58 PM • permalink


    1. 21: “Hillary throws a mean right hook, too.”

      Unless Hilary’s a natural southpaw (i.e. leading with her right), she’d use her right hand for an uppercut or a cross.  Her left hand would be used for a hook.

      Of course, I shouldn’t forget that she IS a woman of the Left.

      Posted by Bruce Lagasse on 2006 01 19 at 03:25 PM • permalink


    1. ‘Raffish charm?’  Is that Australian for ‘sassy?’

      Posted by Achillea on 2006 01 19 at 03:29 PM • permalink


    1. Latham has issues, indeed. Allowing your children to witness violence is a damaging thing.

      However, he was with his kids and he is a private citizen. I do acknowledge that he hasn’t always acted like one in the last year or what, but it’s the kids that make this situation different.

      Because Latham has done wrong and is an unpleasant person, doesn’t make what the other chap did right. What’s the interest in a picture of him coming out of Hungry Jacks, anyway?

      Posted by Major Anya on 2006 01 19 at 03:36 PM • permalink


    1. Now, uh, I’m no expert on Australian jurisprudence, but is there some reason Latham isn’t in jail right now (or out on bail, I guess, he having some money and presumeably being a slight flight risk), charged with assault and theft (grand theft?) and whatever else comes to mind?

      I mean, I know if I was to attack someone and steal a few thousand dollars worth of equipment, I would expect to be spending the night in jail, at very least.

      Posted by Sigivald on 2006 01 19 at 04:21 PM • permalink


    1. #25 – no, it takes quite a long time to review the video!

      Posted by blogstrop on 2006 01 19 at 05:03 PM • permalink


    1. A stint in stir would be an excellent outcome. Imagine how welcome a fresh pair of boobs will be.

      Posted by Henry boy on 2006 01 19 at 05:49 PM • permalink


    1. Here’s a question. Can an ex-politician in receipt of a lifetime indexed parliamentary pension ever be truly conisdered a private citizen?

      We own him. Let’s put him to work somewhere. Perhaps at a wrecking yard.

      Posted by Francis H on 2006 01 19 at 05:58 PM • permalink


    1. While we are on the topic of men who go a bit crazy at times, BBC is reporting that Jacques Chirac has announced France will use nukes on terrorists if they are attacked.

      Does this mean whole suburbs of Paris are just one more burning Fiat from becoming Europes flattest carpark?

      Jacques Chirac announces nuke policy for terrorists

      Posted by Villeurbanne on 2006 01 19 at 06:31 PM • permalink


    1. Re #29

      Jacques really wants Iran to speed up that nuclear programe doesn’t he.

      Posted by knuckleheadwatch on 2006 01 19 at 06:34 PM • permalink


    1. OT

      I reckon Big Kim Beazley must be spewing that Osama has changed policy on him without consulting caucus

      “… Osama has also offered a truce to build Iraq and Afghanistan, the conditions of which were not given.”

      Posted by knuckleheadwatch on 2006 01 19 at 06:36 PM • permalink


    1. sorry here is the exact Osama quote”

      “We do not mind offering you a truce that is fair and long-term, so that we can build Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no shame in this solution because it prevents wasting of billions of dollars to the merchants of war.”

      given that this is exactly what US and Aussie Troops are doing right now does that mean where off the hook OBL?

      Should france and the Co-alition of the un-willing be worried?

      Posted by knuckleheadwatch on 2006 01 19 at 06:41 PM • permalink


    1. Good to see he’s managed to overcome his aversion to “junk food”.In June 2004 he proudly announced his “Ban junk food advertising on children’s TV” Election policy.Now Mark and the kiddies are found chowing-down at Hungry Jack’s where the burgers are said to be better.

      Posted by Lew on 2006 01 19 at 06:50 PM • permalink


    1. I’m starting to wish I’d voted for Latham. Howard is a good leader, very reliable – but he can be quite dull at times.

      Latham as PM would certain put something in the papers worth reading and gain a bit of attention for Australia. I can see it now: Latham introducing the Queen to class warfare, Western Suburbs-style…

      Posted by Ian Deans on 2006 01 19 at 07:00 PM • permalink


    1. Scenario A: Latham has broken free, enraged by popping flashbulbs, and has been seen scaling the Centrepoint tower.  Sydney Special Operations Group Tiger Moth squadron has been deployed.  He was a king in his world.

      Scenario B: Cornered in his shed, Latham emerges wearing a mask made of human skin, brandishing a chainsaw.

      Posted by cuckoo on 2006 01 19 at 07:07 PM • permalink


    1. I blame the Hungry Jack’s food. Maybe Mark needs to go on a vegan diet.

      Posted by mr magoo on 2006 01 19 at 07:15 PM • permalink


    1. If Latham had got his way and become PM of Australia, Ross Schultz would have been the one putting in his resume to Hungry Jacks, not Mark Latham

      Posted by saw on 2006 01 19 at 07:27 PM • permalink


    1. Why do these Latham incidents always seem to happen when his ‘dad’ (aka Alan Ramsey) is on holidays, or flexing his ‘cut and paste’ finger or wherever he is.

      Alan was on holidays when the book came out, and returned to work as if the whole thing hadn’t happened, and as if thought we had all completely forgotten he had been the Nutcase’s chief cheerleader, complete with frilly skirt and pom poms.

      Now he is off again. Funny coincidence.

      Posted by Flying Giraffe on 2006 01 19 at 07:30 PM • permalink


    1. Let’s all laugh at Alan Ramsey. (Blog link)

      Posted by Ian Deans on 2006 01 19 at 07:43 PM • permalink


    1. Latham, from a PM hopeful, to a PMS faker.

      Posted by tmciolek on 2006 01 19 at 07:45 PM • permalink


    1. The NSW police hierarchy have a policy of not placing police in situations that may escalate. That Latham has not had a visit shows that this policy is still well in place.

      Posted by amortiser on 2006 01 19 at 07:46 PM • permalink


    1. Hmmm, the old country paper practice of putting the paper to bed at the close of office hours the night before returns to bite editorial bums.
      Wimmera Mail staff will turn up this morning to learn that bushfires swept within metres of the town of Goroke and only smart, brave firefighting saved the town. They’ll also learn that tornadoes battered Lake Bolac, turning wheat silos into metal pretzels.

      Posted by slatts on 2006 01 19 at 07:56 PM • permalink


    1. Firstly, this from the Daily Telegraph, which I’d like to ram, fair up the collective dates of the morons at Fairfax who brayed otherwise that we were ‘out of touch’:

      ONE year after he left the Labor leadership, Mark Latham yesterday reminded the public why he was unfit to lead the country.

      Secondly, its the ‘L’ factor I tell you. Lebanese, Latham, both can commit a crime and have no action taken. Who’s next?

      Posted by Nic on 2006 01 19 at 07:56 PM • permalink


    1. Tellegraph editor on radio before revealed that although Latham had an hour with the camera and a claw hammer in his shed, the one part he didn’t destroy was the disc containing images. Like his career, it was all for diddly.

      Posted by slatts on 2006 01 19 at 08:00 PM • permalink


    1. I hear on the Labor grapevine that Mad Mark’s defence to the paparazzi beating incident was that he believed the photographer to be a pedophile taking photos of his kids.

      Room 237 makes a good point. Latham is so outrageously bad that it can appear like an act. Sadly, it’s no act. It’s the real deal.

      Posted by Andrew Landeryou on 2006 01 19 at 08:15 PM • permalink


    1. “it looks like he spent a good hour hopping into it with a claw hammer”

      I hope the Daily Telegraph puts the remains of the camera on display. It would be an excellent memento of psychopathology in Australian politics.

      Posted by Evil Pundit on 2006 01 19 at 09:08 PM • permalink


    1. The article linked in Update V ends in a way that intrigues me.

      “Mr Penberthy said that in spite of the destruction of the $12,000 camera, the disk with the photos on had survived and the paper would publish the photos on Saturday.”

      I hope he got pictures of the enraged Latham charging!

      Posted by Evil Pundit on 2006 01 19 at 09:17 PM • permalink


    1. A dad who feeds his kids at Mackers, then yells obscenities in the car park.

      Must be a Howard voter.

      Posted by Inurbanus on 2006 01 19 at 09:19 PM • permalink


    1. “17. Nah, anthony – Lennon’s Imagine or no – I think you’ve accurately described the two sides to this story. He is a civilian now and he shouldn’t have to be harrassed while out with his children.”

      No, he released the diaries after he was out – if he wanted to be a civilian and immune from the game he just had to keep his head down.  He chose to play, he doesn’t get to choose when and where.

      Posted by Harry Buttle on 2006 01 19 at 09:22 PM • permalink


    1. Mr Penberthy said the paper would probably not take legal action over the attack on Mr Schultz but would pursue Mr Latham for the cost of the camera.

      There’s his big mistake.  Swear out an assault and theft warrant against the loser.

      Didn’t this guy want to be PM?  Looks like y’all escaped a nutcase, too, Oz.  😀

      Posted by Barbara Skolaut on 2006 01 19 at 09:48 PM • permalink


    1. Im shocked, but I’m not.

      Posted by lingus4 on 2006 01 19 at 09:52 PM • permalink


    1. #44 he must want those photos out there, the egotistical boofhead

      Posted by KK on 2006 01 19 at 09:58 PM • permalink


    1. Surely Latham’s legal team will be invoking the Twinkie defense.

      Posted by cuckoo on 2006 01 19 at 10:12 PM • permalink


    1. re #17, he’s bringing down $75,000 pa from the public purse via his superannuation. And I’ll lay odds he’s using his Gold Card and all the other perks of failed and retired pollies.
      Next thing you’ll be telling us that murderers should be allowed to go free because the murder happened prior to the arrest.

      Posted by Paul on 2006 01 19 at 10:15 PM • permalink


    1. 7 Network News today shows him in the car swerving at a camera crew. The hole just gets bigger.

      Posted by slatts on 2006 01 19 at 10:20 PM • permalink


    1. slatts

      Tellegraph editor on radio before revealed that although Latham had an hour with the camera and a claw hammer in his shed, the one part he didn’t destroy was the disc containing images. Like his career, it was all for diddly.

      The hour with a claw hammer was probably an effort to retrieve the disk after he couldn’t figure out how to get it out the conventional way. Frustration can do that to hotheads.


      Good to see he’s managed to overcome his aversion to “junk food”.In June 2004 he proudly announced his “Ban junk food advertising on children’s TV” Election policy.Now Mark and the kiddies are found chowing-down at Hungry Jack’s where the burgers are said to be better.

      The Telegraph should run the pictures with a caption consisting of the dictionary entry for “hypocricy”.

      Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 01 19 at 10:38 PM • permalink


    1. Come on, Harry. You’re suggesting he wouldn’t have been harrassed if he hadn’t written a book? As regards indexed pensions, Latham was actually the only politician who showed any interest at all in reigning them in. Much as I loathe the man, he should be able to go to Hungry freaking Jacks with his boys without some twerp sticking a camera in his face. If Tony Abbott did this, we’d all be saying the photographer deserved it.

      Posted by C.L. on 2006 01 19 at 10:47 PM • permalink


    1. I can’t believe this is the same idiot the stupid fairfax media journos and labor party was trying to tout as the “next best thing”. Good god, imagine how Australia would have faired if Latham became PM- he’d have made Paul Keating look like Moses.

      Posted by Wylie Wilde on 2006 01 19 at 10:53 PM • permalink


    1. CurrencyLad, I suspect if Tony Abbott whacked a photographer, stole a $12000 camera, drove off with it, took it to his tool shed, and smashed it up for an hour with a hammer that he would be submitting his resignation the following morning.

      I don’t much like pesky paparazzi either but Latham’s actions were outrageous, I think you’ll find when his relatively sane wife takes control of the matter, a quiet apology will be issued, a cheque drawn to News Limited for a replacement camera and the whole thing will go away.

      Til the next time…

      Posted by Andrew Landeryou on 2006 01 19 at 11:33 PM • permalink


    1. Mark Latham is Prime Minister of Australia in another universe, according to some of the wacky, but scientific consisent, cosmoligical theories …

      Stevo — I’ll have to reread my H. Beam Piper, but I believe that’s the one where the Great Eastern Mosque was built right on the edge of the Sydney Crater, wasn’t it?

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 01 19 at 11:34 PM • permalink


    1. Hungry Jack’s?  What is a Hungry Jack’s?

      Never mind.  I just visited their website.  I like the looks of the Big Beefy Baguette.

      Anyway, I’d like to address Tim for a minute.

      I think you journalists need to go in there and chow down a bit more.  The more beef the better.  Red meat, man, red meat!

      The reason why I’m saying this is because you journalists get your butts kicked with a fair amount of regularity.  Heck, even Bjork managed to slap down a journalist ten years ago.  She tips the scales at, what, 70 pounds?

      Latham isn’t a small guy, but he is a politician!  That’s just slightly less humiliating than getting beaten up by a librarian.

      Spread the word to your fellow journalists.  Get up from the desk and go to the gym.  Work off that typwriter tush!

      Posted by James R. Rummel on 2006 01 20 at 12:08 AM • permalink


    1. I knew he was a ‘hater’, but why hate cameras?

      Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2006 01 20 at 12:15 AM • permalink


    1. *sigh* you see, people?  You see what I have to work with here?

      We sent Stoop Davy Dave to deal with Mugabe.  Ordered him to swing by wronwright’s office and sign out a sheep.

      So why am I not surprised Mugabe was attacked by a goat?

      Honestly, Mark, sometimes I relate, I really do…

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 01 20 at 12:36 AM • permalink


    1. He is a man with a very short fuse. He should be able to take his family to anywhere now that he is a private person without the press hounding him.
      Everytime I hear Labor getting ambitious, I think of Latham. The ALP should have his picture plastered up everywhere so they never forget…

      Posted by waussie on 2006 01 20 at 12:45 AM • permalink


    1. If Tony Abbott did this, we’d all be saying the photographer deserved it.

      Speak for yourself.  Whenever they are in public, politicians are on duty.  See a camera, smile and wave: that’s not too demanding.

      Posted by slammer on 2006 01 20 at 12:54 AM • permalink


    1. He isn’t a politician slammer.

      Posted by C.L. on 2006 01 20 at 12:56 AM • permalink


    1. …Latham, I mean. Loathe him or loathe him, he was a father at a fast food joint with his children. The visceral reaction of many parents in these situations when children are present is well known. That Latham grabbed the camera tells me that Schultz wasn’t exactly 200 yards away with a telephoto lense. He got in Latham’s face and Latham returned the favour as far as I’m concerned. Schultz shouldn’t expect anyone to feel sorry for him. As for the shed antics, pathology pure and simple – precisely of the kind his critics warned about last year.

      Posted by C.L. on 2006 01 20 at 01:04 AM • permalink


    1. CL, you are right.

      Thinking of Latho and the intrusive arm of the media, I am reminded of a line from an Australian movie, “You’ve got no dignity, Muriel”.

      Posted by Major Anya on 2006 01 20 at 01:25 AM • permalink


    1. “Come on, Harry. You’re suggesting he wouldn’t have been harrassed if he hadn’t written a book? “

      I’m suggesting that he lost the right to complain about intrusion into his privacy the same time as he released a book that dumped a load on all his collegues and revealed a heap of private matters. He can’t have it both ways.

      You only occaisonally hear from Keating and Hawke these days and they don’t have cameras following them – if he wants privacy, low profile is the way to go, not write a book.

      Posted by Harry Buttle on 2006 01 20 at 01:30 AM • permalink


    1. Go Mark – I’m all for having a dip at journo’s…. especially News Corp ones…. they are the pits and deserve everything that comes their way…

      Go Mark Go !!!

      The Silent Majority is cheering for you

      Posted by Barry Bones on 2006 01 20 at 01:33 AM • permalink


    1. CL,
      I take your point. However,it would appear that the media’s fine when you are using it like a tart as Latham did having a press conference at his home with his young child a deliberate focus, but not when you ‘want a quiet moment with your kids’

      Can he have it both ways?

      Posted by Nic on 2006 01 20 at 01:37 AM • permalink


    1. I think if Mark had’a been elected, we’d have our own Gorbachev (coulda’ been another crazy Russian). I remember reading that Gorbachev told the Brits at a function the Russians could nuke their whole island and kill ‘em all or something like that. Nice dinner-time conversation. Mark no doubt would have told the NZ’ers he could destroy their island, and all their little kiddies… just because… mwhaaa ha ha hah!

      (O/T: My firefox browser is screwing up, everytime I press the forward slash key it brings up Find, and I cant navigate text fields with the arrows- its not just at Tim’s site either- any ideas??)

      Posted by anthony27 on 2006 01 20 at 01:41 AM • permalink


    1. Nic, I agree politicians play that sort of game a lot – mostly according to whim. But Latham is no longer an office holder so whatever use he made of the media as a pol is now irrelevant. He was buying burgers for his children ffs.

      Harry, I appreciate your point but since when has the Daily Telegraph become the masked avenger for disgruntled Laborites?

      Posted by C.L. on 2006 01 20 at 01:46 AM • permalink


    1. We know what us Blairites think of Latham, what here’s what that feral lefty Antony ‘Crazy Ant’ Loewenstein said last year:

      “tanned and fit”

      Tanned and Fit? Bwha ha ha ha!

      I never supported Latham nor voted for him.

      I now greatly admire many of the comments in his diaries.

      There is no doubt that [Latham’s] tactics are bold, aggressive and downright punchy.


      Interestingly, when he talks about the Latham Diaries, he manages to mention his own book every time. Aaah, the little closet capitalist.

      The Australian’s Paul Kelly dissects Mark Latham’s forthcoming personal diaries (disclosure: it’s being produced by my publisher, Melbourne University Publishing.) etc. etc..

      Posted by anthony27 on 2006 01 20 at 02:09 AM • permalink


    1. CL, I don’t think Latham can choose to “retire” from the public eye whenever it suits him, and expect himself to be taken seriously.

      If he actually showed any signs of ceasing to make public political appearances, that might be a convincing argument. But his last political speech was given a month ago, and he’s given no sign of stopping since then.

      After his recent, deeply personal series of verbal attacks on his political enemies and supporters alike, suddenly claiming to be exempt from public view or criticism is ridiculous. It would be akin to punching someone, then immediately saying they can’t hit you back because you’ve just given up fighting.

      Posted by Evil Pundit on 2006 01 20 at 02:20 AM • permalink


    1. All of which means he and his children should be harrassed at Hungry Jack’s.

      Come off it.

      Posted by C.L. on 2006 01 20 at 03:06 AM • permalink


    1. “All of which means he and his children should be harrassed at Hungry Jack’s. “

      C.L he put himself and the kids in the firing line, he can’t then complain that they get shot at.

      and it IS the medias job to report – he chose the ‘celebrity shit storm’ book as his path rather than to fade away quietly.

      In this case loss of privacy = self inflicted wound. no sympathy.

      Posted by Harry Buttle on 2006 01 20 at 03:31 AM • permalink


    1. Latham has form as regards fast food places and abuse.
      Last time it was Subway!

      I went to the same high school as the prick. No-one liked him there either!

      Posted by Gibbo on 2006 01 20 at 03:52 AM • permalink


    1. CL, were Latham or his children harrassed at Hungry Jack’s? The photographer was waiting outside, according to his story, and the witnesses report that the alleged assault occuirred on the street.

      Does attempted photography of a public figure in a public place constitute harrassment?

      Latham’s children weren’t involved at all, as far as I can tell—except for being mentioned in Latham’s own verbal abuse of his alleged victim.

      Posted by Evil Pundit on 2006 01 20 at 04:07 AM • permalink


    1. Where does Mad Mark live?

      How about everyone drops a fast-food voucher in his letterbox – a sure way to tempt him to pack some more carbs and fat into his manboobs – and hopefully shorten his life expectancy sucking from the tit of a equally-fat pension.

      Posted by der FRED on 2006 01 20 at 05:16 AM • permalink


    1. It just gets better and better. I just watched the evening news and it showed footage of Latham today swerving his car at a cameraman clipping him with the passenger side mirror.
      Apparently the cameraman deserved it according to the ALP voting relatives I’m staying with.

      Posted by Hank Reardon on 2006 01 20 at 05:24 AM • permalink


    1. Evil, the man was buying burgers for his children and probably a half dozen or so for himself. As far as I can tell, the arguments in favour this tabloid rubbish are that a) he receives an indexed pension; and b) he wrote a mean book about a bunch of Labor Party clowns. There is no public interest angle and there is no “right to know.”

      What there is is a man with a camera who got clobbered for seeking to publicise the private movements in a public place of a now retired politician. And his children are not public figures, did not co-author the Diaries and – in this weird day and age – do not deserve to have their images splashed across the pages of the Daily Telegraph.

      You might also find that Hungry Jack’s aren’t mad keen on men with cameras hanging around outside their restaurants – many of which have those children’s play areas.

      Posted by C.L. on 2006 01 20 at 05:38 AM • permalink


    1. C.L. – I would agree with you if he had retired from office in the traditional way, however the point is that Latham courted publicity *after* leaving office by publishing his diaries. He must have realised that by doing so he would generate an enormous amount of publicity. Thing about publicity is that it’s a double edged sword. He simply can’t pick and choose his moments – that’s not how the game’s played and he should know that. Just because the man’s a private citizen doesn’t mean he has a right not to be bothered by the media in a public place – at the end of the day, he made a Faustian pact with the media by writing and publishing his explosively controversial diaries. Now he’s experiencing the less desirable aspects of being an infamous ex-ALP leader. Self inflicted, as someone said above.

      And the way he’s reacting to the attention shows what an utter nutbag he is. Perhaps he’s been overdoing it a bit on the testosterone substitutes.

      Posted by James Waterton on 2006 01 20 at 06:07 AM • permalink


    1. Substitutes? I meant supplements.

      Posted by James Waterton on 2006 01 20 at 06:08 AM • permalink


    1. Hrm. On reflection, that was a bit mean. “Testosterone supplements”, “nutbag” and “Latham” in the same sentence.

      Posted by James Waterton on 2006 01 20 at 06:09 AM • permalink


    1. CL has a point, but only to a point. I would usually sympathise with someone who is being harassed by the media. However, it’s a little different when that someone is a practiced media manipulator. Thus, Ray Martin got his just deserts when John Saffran took a camera crew out to his house to go through his garbage – its not as if Ray hadn’t done that to others himself, at least metaphorically, so his outrage was a delight to watch. Latham’s case is a bit the same – sure he’s an ex-pollie but why should that necessarily let him off the hook. Would he, now or then, let an opponent of the hook because they were an ex-pollie. I don’t think so. The fact is Latham was a disgraceful bully all of his public life, and bullies deserve their come uppance, ready or not.

      Posted by hooligan on 2006 01 20 at 06:42 AM • permalink


    1. Hey Mark, Happy Anniversary…

      Posted by crash on 2006 01 20 at 07:04 AM • permalink


    1. #86 hooligan:

      John Saffran is a complete shit stirrer, and I admire him for such.  If any of the non-Oz readers have a look there, please let this thread know what you think.  Back to the one balled bovver boxing bully boy, he’s a media target like any other politician, ex politician, author and media user.  If Latham feels done by, use the new consolidated defamation laws.  BTW, he nearly run over a TV film crew with his Mitsubishi Magna.

      Posted by Stevo on 2006 01 20 at 07:27 AM • permalink


    1. Ha ha ha! Thanks for the site Stevo! Good stuff. I love it how it’s ‘written by his ex-girlfriend’.

      Posted by anthony27 on 2006 01 20 at 09:16 AM • permalink


    1. it’s times like this when i pine for the Latham blog, sadly no longer online (weeping)

      Posted by KK on 2006 01 20 at 09:49 AM • permalink


    1. What I want to know is how someone quite intelligent as Mark can so self destruct … I want to know because the Labor Party elected him as the leader … not that there was much opposition … I thought Latham as a breath of fresh air, but not for fucking long …

      Unfortunately Debnam doesn’t look too confident.  What can we do with Debnam?

      Posted by Stevo on 2006 01 20 at 09:52 AM • permalink


    1. James, your explanation is chiefly characterised by the kind of vengeance mentality exhibited by Mark Latham himself. He didn’t manipulate the media any more than Malcolm Turnbull and a dozen other politicians do. I dare say many Australian fathers – not as loopy as Latham – would also have become agro with some (apparent) weirdo photographing them with their children.

      Posted by C.L. on 2006 01 20 at 11:10 AM • permalink


    1. Yes, but Latham wasn’t “in power”. He used the paparazzi to his advantage back then when he had books to sell. The paparazzi turned on him. Fickle friends indeed.

      That’s what you get. Faustian pact, I say.

      Posted by James Waterton on 2006 01 20 at 11:41 AM • permalink


    1. 63 LCDR McEnroe

      We sent Stoop Davy Dave to deal with Mugabe.  Ordered him to swing by wronwright’s office and sign out a sheep.

      If you saw the condition of that sheep, and what Mr Wronwright was doing to it when I walked in, you wouldn’t have requisitioned it either.  Ew!

      So why am I not surprised Mugabe was attacked by a goat?

      What should surprise you, sir, is that I was able to tag him at all.  Never mind the problem of seeing thru those damn fake goat-eyes, no, I’d pretty much adjusted to that, after a few weeks in the field.  It’s the extra foldy-thing in my back legs here, it makes it hard to maneuver, especially in close-quarters fighting with a somewhat out-of-shape dictator.

      And speaking of that, it’s been a couple of weeks now, and well, um, I was wondering when the Disguise Dept was going to do the surgical reversal thingy, sir?  Mr PW doesn’t return my calls at all.  This arrangement makes me a foot and a half shorter, plus it’s hard to get up and down the ladderways and all.

      Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 01 20 at 12:16 PM • permalink


    1. OT: Has anyone pointed out the new sheep Ad yet? I like this one heaps better.

      Posted by anthony27 on 2006 01 20 at 12:35 PM • permalink


    1. There is of course the real possibility that Latham is genuinely mentally ill. Not just some kind of personality disorder aggravated by deep-seated bitterness and self obsession. To me the man has been obviously unstable ever since he came to widespread public attention. And I said so at the time.

      Forget Latham. He’s history. I wish him well and a speedy recovery. My concern is about how a man in his condition got as far as he did. And the fact thar nothing seems to be happening to ensure this does not threaten the country again does not inpire confidence.

      Posted by geoff on 2006 01 20 at 12:46 PM • permalink


    1. Oh for crying out loud.  I spilt a little bit of Turtle Wax on the sheep costume.  And Stoop Davy Dave goes nutso on me.  “It will take away from the convincing nature of my disguise”.  I think that’s what he said.  He slurred it with that fake New Zealand accent he adopted.  I can’t understand those dudes at all.  I’m not even sure it’s English anymore.

      So being the resourceful earnest wanting-to-help henchman that I am, I got out the upholstery cleaner and tried to clean off the Turtle Wax.  I asked SDD to wear the sheep costume for just a few minutes while I shampood the wax out.

      He went flying out of my office saying “I’m an actor, not a costume cleaner!  I’m telling Lord Rove”.

      But I got out the Turtle Wax.  It looks fine.  Check for yourself.  I gave it to the PETA chick to wear.  She didn’t mind a bit of Turtle Wax.

      Posted by wronwright on 2006 01 20 at 02:12 PM • permalink


    1. That disguise had problems:
      1/ Those gay-ass ram horns were TOO curly!  They reminded me of *somebody*s wiggly fingers, and not in a good way.  And they’d have been completely useless when it comes to inflicting puncture wounds.  Nossirreebob, when it comes to perforating the lower bowels of lowlife 3rd-world kleptocrats, what a chap needs is goat horns.  Or a bundi dagger, which was what I asked for in the first place.
      2/ Turtle Wax, especially pureed Turtle Wax, and ESPECIALLY especially pureed Turtle Wax shot from an enema bag, is NOT good for wool, for sheepskin, and damn well not good for quasi-mechanical ruminant-based assassin disguises.  Hell, it’s probably not even good for turtles, fake or otherwise.
      3/ That so-called upholstery shampoo apparatus of yours looked JUST LIKE a bubble-bath to me.  I am not, repeat, NOT putting on a sheep costume and climbing into a bubble-bath in Ens Wronwright’s stateroom, and I don’t recommend any other neocon or neoconnette do so either.
      4/ I did not go “flying” out of your office; I flounced.  Indignantly, yet rapidly.  And I’m not “an actor,” I’m an auteur, you oaf.
      5/ In fairness I’ve gotta admit, it DOES look better on the PETA honey anyway.  So all’s well that ends well, I guess.

      Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 01 20 at 05:39 PM • permalink


    1. Oh hells bells.  Stoop, this is what happened.  Rove asked for a volunteer and you leaped up with your arms waving.  (I would accuse you of trying to become the Teacher’s Pet except for the fact that you had just beaten me by half a second in spite of my having shoved Rebecca and Lonie to the ground).  He then made you a sheep.  You changed that to goat.  Fine.  Adaptation is a good thing in a minion.

      You then baa baa your way into Mugabe’s presence and in short fashion attempted to castrate the bugger.  Ok, yes, I’ll admit, nice job.

      Then later at the monthly Minion Meet Up, Rove gave you a trophy with a goat at the top and shaked your hand in congratulation.  And you would have thought that Karl just presented you with the Oscar for Best Actor.

      Stoop, for the record, you aren’t Laurence Olivier and you did not just do Hamlet.

      Actors.  Who needs em?

      Posted by wronwright on 2006 01 20 at 06:15 PM • permalink


    1. Richard Mcenroe (63). Thanks so much for introducing farmyard animals to this thread, O/T as it is. It gives me a chance to regurgRachy Crowther’s joke of the week:
      Kiwi walks into his bedroom with a sheep under his arm and says:
      “Darling, this is the pig I have sex with when you have a headache.”
      His girlfriend is lying in bed and replies: “I think you’ll find that’s a sheep, you idiot.”
      The man says: ” I think YOU’LL find that I wasn’t talking to you…”

      Posted by slatts on 2006 01 20 at 07:38 PM • permalink


    1. TV News on 7&9 last night showed a shot of his “defensive driving” display which was reported as having resulted in a cameraman being clipped by the nearside wing mirror.No kiddies were visible so perhaps the red mist just descends whenever he spots a camera.Nevertheless I think he deserves to be cut a little slack after all he drives a Mitsubishi Magna/Verada Shit-box,which is enough to make anyone perpetually angry.It also puts paid to Nic’s #43 Lebanese theory as no self respecting Leb thug would bother to vandalise a Magna let alone own one.The “L” connection is more likely related to LOSER.

      Posted by Lew on 2006 01 20 at 08:20 PM • permalink


    1. CL, I could give you a big cuddle if you weren’t up in Queensland, where I understand there are so many cowboys a gal can’t get a look in.

      Two wrongs don’t make a right.

      Taking photos of someone while they come out of Hungry Jacks or any of the other fast food outlets smacks of the kind of garbage we seen in women’s magazines every week.

      The photographer wasn’t looking for a happy snap of Latham smiling and looking contented with his kids. The children are the victims here, as they have been in the past when their privacy wasn’t respected by the party or their dad.

      Posted by Major Anya on 2006 01 20 at 08:37 PM • permalink


    1. “What there is is a man with a camera who got clobbered for seeking to publicise the private movements in a public place of a now retired politician.”

      The appropriate move for Latham would have been to approach the man with the camera and point out that he was living quietly in retirement to spend more time with his children. “Please make an appointment if you want do do an interview or a camera shoot.”

      In fact we get rage, shouted obsceneties, assault, theft, and then without the excuse of the heat of the moment, a major demolition job on a precision instrument that is also working man’s tools of trade. Pity the man’s children.

      Posted by Rafe on 2006 01 20 at 09:29 PM • permalink


    1. Yes, Rafe, paparazzi are famous for respecting those sort of arguments.

      Posted by C.L. on 2006 01 20 at 09:34 PM • permalink


    1. You’ve all missed the truth.  Latham’s dirt files book is on the skids and needed a publicity boost, so while he’s in Hungry Jack’s researching his next one on saving Australia through small business franchising, he was also doing a bit of aversion food therapy with his kids.

      Leave him alone, the man’s busy!

      Posted by Barrie on 2006 01 20 at 11:05 PM • permalink


    1. #97 Turtle wax? So now it’s a black sheep?
      C.L.—- Latham gets paid a fortune to be an ex politician -the hassles of being an ex politician are what the money’s all about.
      Also the freebees.Accordingly if you are paid the money maybe you should be able to force yourself to smile and wave and simultaneously improve your public profile.

      Posted by crash on 2006 01 20 at 11:40 PM • permalink


    1. It’s not nice to run around snapping pictures of famous peoples’ kids just because they are the kids of famous people, but that’s all the more reason for said famous people to act gracious and civilized about it, instead of sinking to the even lower level of thug and destroyer of valuable property.

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 01 20 at 11:52 PM • permalink


    1. I don’t think there’s any evidence that the photographer was interested in taking pictures of Latham’s kids.

      How many voters have the kids punched out, how many elections have they lost? Who knows, who cares?

      Nobody is interested in seeing or reading about Latham’s kids, but rather the man himself.

      Posted by Evil Pundit on 2006 01 21 at 12:33 AM • permalink


    1. #97-99
      Not so fast with that goat disguise, Wronwright.  We’ve just had a call from the casting agency that’s handling the sequel to Brokeback Mountain (Working title: Silence of the Rams, or The Lonely Goatherd, yodel-odelay-ee-YOWW!), and they’ve seen your portfolio.  Their people want to talk to your people.

      Posted by cuckoo on 2006 01 21 at 01:27 AM • permalink


    1. Ew!

      Stoop Davy Dave — I should hope so.  Tho you’re going a bit Margo with your spelling…

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 01 21 at 01:40 AM • permalink


    1. Photo of smashed camera here.

      This is the $12,000 camera that Mark Latham destroyed after throwing a trademark hissy fit outside a Hungry Jack’s restaurant.

      The failed former Opposition Leader smashed the camera into dozens of pieces—possibly with a sledgehammer—after attacking a Daily Telegraph photographer in Sydney.

      The Nikon camera is armour-plated and designed for use in war zones—but it was no match for the tortured mind of Mr Latham.

      Posted by walterplinge on 2006 01 21 at 02:06 AM • permalink


    1. The Nikon camera is armour-plated and designed for use in war zones—but it was no match for the tortured mind of Mr Latham.

      Oh my.  I think Agent Latham needs R&R at one of the RWDB tropical resorts.  Better set up an “extraction” with Karl.  He’s not going to like this.  He didn’t think Latham would blow for a few more years yet.

      Posted by wronwright on 2006 01 21 at 02:33 AM • permalink


    1. Have to respectfully agree to disagree, Evil. Most of the time those of us who can’t stand the man chuckle about how irrelevant he is. Now you’re saying people are interested in reading about his visit to Hungry Jack’s.

      As an experiment, it would be worth going to said restaurant and firing off tens of snaps as various men exited with their little children. You’d be shirtfronted in five minutes and royally clocked after about six.

      Posted by C.L. on 2006 01 21 at 07:58 AM • permalink


    1. #102 Major Anya:
      Absolute crap.  Latham is still a public figure, he’s still trying to sell his book by making public appearances.  He’s the person who could’ve become the Prime Minister.  I’m still interested to know why.  Most of my work colleagues were enthralled in Latham leading up to the last election, and my discussions with them put me on the outer for a few months.

      About gossip womens’ and celebrity magazines and the like, I don’t read them.  I know many do.  I read The Economist, New Scientist, the Daily Tele, and SMH online (won’t pay for that one anymore).

      BTW, my old man said to buy Latham’s book when it reached $5.  Can someone email me when it does.

      Posted by Stevo on 2006 01 21 at 09:32 AM • permalink


    1. I don’t think there’s any evidence that the photographer was interested in taking pictures of Latham’s kids.

      Well no, neither do I, but I’ll bet you that’s the angle Latham is going for in his own defense: “They were taking pictures of my kids!” At least, that’s what the celebrities over here do.

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 01 21 at 10:11 AM • permalink


    1. #114 just go & buy it now – it’s well worth it for the amusement, and the great mine of things to quote at lefty mates when they discuss the ALP

      #115 latham’s older child can look after himself – he’s already well on the way to being as stroppy as his dad & has the same borderline psycho unblinking stare

      Posted by KK on 2006 01 21 at 10:33 AM • permalink


    1. LCDR McEnroe

      Tho you’re going a bit Margo with your spelling…

      I’m sorry.  Amend my above un-annotated but still findable remark (94) to read “Ewe!”

      Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 01 21 at 07:16 PM • permalink


    1. 115—Yes, Andrea, that’s exactly the angle he’s taking. In fact he was reportedly yelling at the photographer and calling him a paedophile—as if there was no reason anyone would want a photo of a famous politician.

      113—Now you’re saying people are interested in reading about his visit to Hungry Jack’s.

      No, I’m not saying that at all. They just wanted a photo of Latham, who knows damn well that he is a public figure. Paparazzi are annoying, but there’s no excuse for his violent behaviour.

      Posted by Evil Pundit on 2006 01 21 at 07:33 PM • permalink


    1. #19

      …enjoy our investment while it’s still capable of raising a chuckle; we’ll be paying it off until maturity.

      I don’t think it’s ever going to mature…

      (crap, my quote thingys and my strike thingys aren’t working… well, they are only half working, only the start one is going in)

      Posted by kae on 2006 01 22 at 01:48 AM • permalink


Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.