Where corruption is concerned it could be a much cheaper option to adopt Judge Jeffery’s approach at the ‘Bloody Assizes’ in England. Round up all the usual suspects, and…...

‘Bring in the next prisoner and let us gaze upon his rascally face, and let him not waste the time of this court by pleading him innocent.’

To save time, appeals could be heard after the execution.

This headline is completely wrong (for some reason).

Read the article and it is obvious that Bartlett stepped in to save Lin Thorpe from the embarrassment of being kicked off the ICAC (or whatever its called now) committee by the Upper House. Thorpe would then have been replaced by Terry Martin.

Its fairly obvious that the ALP attempted to continue their hate campaign against Terry Martin, but the Upper House rejected their bid to exclude Martin from the committee, leading to Bartlett stepping in add one extra member to the committee, thereby saving Lin Thorpe, not Terry Martin.

Why has the reporter/sub chosen to misrepresent what actually happened?

and,

What is going on at the Mercury at the moment?