Nathan Carswell seems to be a man of strong opinions: he loves the idea of building a cable car up kunanyi/Mt Wellington, admires cable car developer Adrian Bold and derides critics of the proposed project.
He has had comments published on Tasmanian Times as well as The Mercury website but – with one minor exception – only ever on the topic of the cable car.
Back in late 2012 Carswell even made a detailed submission to the Wellington Park Management Trust, urging the agency to change the management plan to accommodate the cable car. In his submission he even went so far as to argue against the practice of the Hobart City Council clearing the road to the summit of Mount Wellington after heavy snowfall.
Who exactly is Nathan Carswell?
Aside from his enthusiasm for a cable car on Mt Wellington, Carswell keeps a very low profile.
Finding Nathan
In some of his published comments such as in The Mercury, Nathan lists his address as being in Dynnyrne, an inner Hobart suburb which abuts South Hobart where the impact of the cable car project would be greatest.
However, the only Carswell listed in the White Pages in the suburb has no knowledge of anyone by the name of Nathan. However, that doesn’t mean Carswell doesn’t exist. A significant number of people only have mobile phones, have unlisted numbers or use unlisted voice-over-the-internet phone numbers and as a result aren’t listed in the phone book.
But Carswell does have a Facebook page. However, Carswell doesn’t have any Facebook ‘friends’ and there is just one solitary post from when Nathan joined Facebook on October 26, 2012 and added a graphic of “Face the Music: Music Industry Conference”. (The conference was an event held at the Arts Centre in Melbourne in mid-November 2012.) There is only one other site that he ‘likes’ – the Facebook page promoting the proposed Mt Wellington Cable Car.
Other than that, in the eighteen months since first joining Facebook Carswell has ‘liked’ nothing else, attracted no friends and not posted a single comment.
The only other information on the threadbare Facebook page is that Nathan “studied at the University of New England” and graduated in the “class of 2002.” However, the University of New England has no record of anyone by that name studying or graduating there.
So who is Nathan Carswell?
Perhaps Nathan’s online comments and his submission to the Wellington Park Management Trust provide some clues on how to find him?
The Phantom who writes
Early on the morning of the very same day that his Facebook page was created, Nathan Carswell dispatched a submission to the Wellington Park Management Trust arguing the case for a cable-car friendly management plan.
In it Carswell described himself as a “resident in the foothills of the mountain” and railed against the “prohibition” on commercial developments on the summit “that has scared off sensible development.” He objected to the idea that the former hotel site at the Springs should be “treated as the primary visitor node within the Park” and instead argued that the “commercial aspects would be better suited at the summit; if access can be improved and provided all year round without restriction.”
The cable car, Carswell argued, “is a must.”
As for the Hobart City Council’s practice of snowploughs clearing the road after snowfalls, Carswell was adamant it was the wrong thing to do.
”I don’t agree that the road should be plowed (and turned into mush) during and after heavy snowfall, just to allow access to the summit. This is a public expense which could be avoided if an alternative form of transport to the summit was available. The road, during snowfall, should be left unploughed to the enjoyment of visitors and tourists.”
Whenever it snows heavily on Mt Wellington, large numbers of people head for the top of Mt Wellington. For the proposed cable car, monopoly access to the summit after a major snowfall would be a major financial boost.
Private developers, Carswell also argued, “should be given or offered assistance in their proposal” to develop facilities for visitors. He also argued that the Trust should work “collaboratively with a commercial developer to continue and improve the preservation of the park.”
In closing, Carswell had a word of warning for the Wellington Park Management Trust:
“Don’t use the number of submissions to this draft plan as a consensus of whether the majority of Hobart want a cable car or not. I believe most people who support a cable car are simply too busy to bother submitting a response to you. If you really want to know the answer, request a referendum at the next election! Otherwise, start talking with the Mt Wellington Cableway Company. Find reasons to say YES to sensible development and not NO.”
The Wellington Park Management Trust was in an accommodating mood: they supported removing the prohibition on a cable car on the summit and incorporated Carswell’s suggestion that the trust work “in cooperation” with private operators to implement monitoring programmes in the park was accommodated.
The following week a comment by Carswell was published in Tasmanian Times praising the proponent of the cable car, Adrian Bold.
“Adrian Bold has been pretty clear that he wouldn’t be advocating for a cable car and summit amenities that would damage the very reason we love the mountain so much. SO many positives to consider. Mr Bold met with Dr Chapman too and now has financial backers to finally test the feasibility. What an astounding achievement for a young bloke amongst such negativity in this State!! Best of luck to the smart cookie, we need more people like Adrian, let’s not scare him off!”
In May this year Bold was publicly pressing the Hobart City Council (HCC) to declare ‘in principle’ support for the proposal even though no development application had been submitted. A motion proposing a detailed list of information the council would require before considering in-principle support for the cable car was moved but ultimately defeated. Instead, the council voted to take no action on Bold’s pitch for ‘in principle’ support and simply treat it as it would any other proposal and assess a development application when one was received.
On The Mercury’s website Carswell railed against those who had voted against the cable car being treated differently from other projects.
“Ha! So Ruzicka, Burnet, Cocker, Briscoe and Christie all approved the long list of expensive criteria required before they consider granting permission as landowner at the committee last week, then when Mr Bold said that it was a ‘positive step’ the NIMBYS on council realised the proponent was willing and able to fund the long list thrown at them. So now they vote against their own criteria to kill the project. Pathetic HCC, Pathetic.”
Later on the same day, another comment on The Mercury website argued that Bold should hire staff or a qualified planner to compile the detailed information on the issues required to be addressed in a development application for the proposed cable car. Carswell leapt to the defence of the Mt Wellington Cableway Company.
“Lynda, looking at the proponents team listed on the MWCC website I think they are pretty experienced! You or I can’t just plan to build a shed on a neighbours property without seeking permission from that neighbour first. It seems MWCC are following the proper process despite mud being thrown from all sides, including various Aldermen. Council finally worked out what info they need from the proponent to consider granting permission as landowner (so MWCC can properly plan) and now the HCC Aldermen have voted to say they won’t even accept the info even if it was presented to them. Disgraceful!”
The following day Carswell was back on Tasmanian Times posting a comment on another thread:
“There is clear reason (for those willing to listen with an open mind) why a cable car is a far more respectful solution for our mountain than the road which condemns our pinnacle for a carpark. I think ‘Respect the Mountain’ is more about resisting change than anything else. Complete farce. Thank god this group didn’t form to save a particular Berridale peninsular from MONA.”
As for another commenter who questioned the economic viability of the project, Carswell was dismissive. “Clearly has no idea of economic reality,” he wrote.
After the Respect the Mountain group publicly complained that cable car supporters had attempted to appropriate its name on Facebook, Carswell was once more vocal. In a comment published on Tasmanian Times Carswell stated:
“Please, surely everyone respects the mountain, even the cable car proponents do! No harm in creating a group to promote this idea but has this author even been on many cable cars? If so, which ones? What factual reason can the author honestly give to oppose a cable car?
Anyone could make a facebook page to the same effect, Why point fingers at the proponents? Why be so divisive? Why the need to look for moral high ground on something so petty that could heal our community and do so much good for all of us?
Has this group even talked to the cable car proponents first to discuss their concerns, before setting up this group? If not, why not? It seems pointless dragging the media through this if there isn’t any disparity in this group and the proponents belief to respect the mountain after all.”
The one exception to Carswell commenting only on the cable car was when, in early October 2012 in Tasmanian Times he challenged Tasmanian Conservation Trust Director, Peter McGlone, for disputing the economics of another tourism project, the Three Capes Track. Prior to this McGlone had been publicly critical of the proposed cable car project.
For the next eighteen months nothing was heard from Carswell.
Then, as Adrian Bold’s push for the cable car was firing up earlier this year, he appeared once more.
In one comment in Tasmanian Times he lamented how Don Knowler’s description of a trip to Sphinx Rock was not possible for “the less-abled like my sister.”
”How nice it would if there was a way for more people, of all abilities to enjoy the mountain as Don does, to be amongst the sleet and mist, without trampling over the precious flora.
How nice it would be if the lucky ones weren’t so selfish as to not want to share this enriching mountain with anyone other than hikers.”
On July 1, Carswell was back posting another comment to Tasmanian Times. This time the editor deleted the comment and posted a note pointing to several provisions on the Tasmanian Times Code of Conduct, including the need to disclose any relevant interests and avoid comments which played the person rather than addressing the issue. It was the last time Carswell posted to Tasmanian Times.
But who exactly is Nathan Carswell?
The question remains though, who exactly is Nathan Carswell?
The Wellington Park Management Trust confirmed that when Nathan Carswell made a submission on the Mount Wellington Management Plan he did so via email and that no street address was provided. However, the Trust declined to reveal either the email address or even just the domain name the submission was made from citing the agency’s privacy policy. “As I’m not able to confirm that ‘Nathan Carswell’ is a fictitious name, I will have to abide by our privacy policy and not disclose contact information,” Axel von Krusenstierna, the Manager of the Wellington Park Management Trust told Tasmanian Times.
A hint as to how to track Carswell down was in the email address used when comments were submitted to Tasmanian Times. Two stated that Nathan’s email address was from the [email protected] and another two [email protected]. However, neither email address is currently active. (When submitting comments to Tasmanian Times the email address is added either manually or via autofill but is not necessarily a valid or accurate email address.)
According to Adrian Bold’s LinkedIn profile, Boom Creative was a Victorian real estate marketing company which he jointly founded and operated between January 2008 and June 2012. In mid-2012 Bold and his business partner, Manny Loupas, went in different directions. Boom Creative – which had been renamed Riser & Gain in December 2009 – became Bold’s personal company. Bold then moved to Tasmania and began working for the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and founded the Mt Wellington Cableway Company as the vehicle for the controversial cable car project.
Publicly available domain registration records indicate that the boomcreative.com.au address had been initially registered by Loupas and was still active in late 2011. The domain is now registered to another person in Victoria.
There was one more hint: one of the comments submitted to Tasmanian Times from the boomcreative.com.au domain by Nathan Carswell originated from the same internet address as three comments posted to this site by Adrian Bold on behalf of the Mt Wellington Cableway Company. Of the over 165,000 comments submitted to Tasmanian Times since 2005, the only matching server address for that particular comment from Nathan Carswell was with Adrian Bold and the cable car company.
Even so, that is not necessarily conclusive. An internet address can cater for a number of companies or individuals, so the commonality of the server address could potentially be simply a ‘false positive’.
Tasmanian Times sought to speak with Adrian Bold to discuss who Nathan Carswell is and his public advocacy for the cable car. For over a week numerous voicemail and email messages to Bold seeking to specifically discuss the issue of Nathan Carswell went unreturned.
“Nathan” outed as a fake
On Monday Tasmanian Times once more emailed Bold, this time directly asking whether he had posted comments to Tasmanian Times under the name of “Nathan Carswell”, whether he had created the Facebook page and also made a submission to the Wellington Park Management Trust under the same name.
In an email, Bold confirmed that “Nathan Carswell” wasn’t a real person but denied it was him. Bold stated:
“Nathan Carswell is a pen name used by a good friend. I’m not across where he has made comment or what your issue with him is, but as his comments and opinions are his own I’m not sure how this concerns me. I can find out if he’s ok to speak with you if that helps you?”
While Tasmanian Times expressed interest in talking with and meeting “Nathan”, there were other questions which needed to be addressed as well. After several more calls and emails, Bold called back mid-Tuesday. He had passed on my contact details to “Nathan”, he said, but he was currently in Brisbane.
Was it appropriate that “Nathan Carswell” made a submission to a review of the Mt Wellington Management Plan under a false name? “You can ask him that question, it’s nothing to do with me,” Bold said. “He supports the project and I talk about the project often with him.”
How was it that a comment submitted to Tasmanian Times by “Nathan Carswell” originated from the same internet address as that used by Bold just two weeks earlier when he had posted comments on behalf of his Mt Wellington Cableway Company? “I’d suggest that he made the comment using my computer … it would have been from my home address,” he said.
“He’s a good friend, he comes around often and we talk about the project … I think I can even recall that on one or two occasions – whether it was to your website or another blog or somewhere else – … I certainly let him use the computer every now and then,” Bold said.
Bold told Tasmanian Times that he respects “Nathan’s privacy” and that “if he wants to remain anonymous and use a pen name then fine.”
Did “Nathan” use an email address from Bold’s former company Boom Creative’s domain name with his permission for comments to Tasmanian Times? “I know he has made comments but what he says is his own business … He certainly didn’t have an email address, he probably just made it up,” Bold said.
As for the HCC practice of clearing the road after snowfall, Bold said he had no issue with that.
Awkward times for Wellington Park Management Trust
The saga of “Nathan Carswell” raises many questions.
For the media – Tasmanian Times included – there are challenging issues about how to fairly moderate comments.
The use by “Nathan Carswell” of the computer of cable car developer Adrian Bold will undoubtedly cause raised eyebrows amongst critics of the cable car project, media outlets and politicians.
But above all, Bold’s outing of “Nathan Carswell” as a fake puts the heat on the Wellington Park Management Trust.
The Trust is now in an untenable position if it seeks to insist on withholding the email address on the submission from “Nathan Carswell” on the grounds of privacy. Real people have privacy rights but phantoms don’t.
Even more significantly though is that in 2012, acting on the basis of an emailed submission from “Nathan Carswell” who didn’t disclose any verifiable street address or other details, the Trust agreed to modify a management plan. The modification may have been relatively minor but it illustrated that the management planning process can be gamed by an internet fake.
Having just started a new review of the Mt Wellington Management Plan to benefit the proposed cable car, the question remains as to how exactly the Wellington Park Management Trust will screen submissions to ensure that only those from real people are given any weight.
Download:
• Susan Smith, in Comments: Wow well done – reassuring to see that investigative journalism still alive and well. Thank you.
• Nathan Carswell, in Comments: Wow, what a beat up. Is friendship an offence now? I contribute to these debates under another name (as I’m sure many opponents equally do). I’m still a ratepayer, and my opinions expressed still count. I just prefer not to use my own name for privacy reasons. While Adrian has passed on your number, I have no inclination to talk with the reporter for the same reason.
• Alderman Eva Ruzicka, in Comments: This article raises some very serious concerns for any planning process. I have asked our Council’s General Manager what safeguards are in place to test the veracity of any representor submissions to a development application generally. Likewise, can he verify what safeguards that the Trust has? That Aldermen will likely have to assess any development application on its land on kunanyi/Mt Wellington, this article raises a serious allegation of perversion of the planning process. If people are salting the Trust process for assessing any changes to the Pinnacle Zone, how seriously can the Trust’s deliberations be taken?
• Nathan Carswell, in Comments: I’m Nathan Carswell and so is my wife.
• Respect The Mountain Re: Nathan Carswell: Trust must clamp down
• Phil na Champassak, in Comments: This is a forensic examination at its best. Making a public submission under a nom de plume is seriously misleading and has probably consigned the cable car project to oblivion.
• Ted Cutlan, ROCC: Mountain assessment process flawed “The current process means that anyone can put in an anonymous submission. We call on the minister Matthew Groom to review the process and restore the integrity of the management of the mountain” “ROCC will be writing to the WPMT today, insisting that the current changes to the management plan should be abandoned until the integrity of the process can be assured.”
• Alderman Eva Ruzicka, in Comments: So I asked the questions: What safeguards does Hobart City Council have for determining the authenticity of development application representations? Is it possible for a person to fake an identity to lodge a representation and for Hobart City Council to not know? Further, given the land on Mt Wellington belongs to Hobart City Council, and the issues raised by Mr Burton, what measures can the Council take to test the veracity of any management plan submissions for amendment, either for or against? Especially now as there is a management plan amendment open for submissions and much is riding on the outcome? And the end result of my enquiries:
• Editors, in Comments: Pilko Steve & Ben: The “Who is Nathan Carswell?” story in the view of the editors does not disclose personal information and therefore the privacy issue does not arise.
phill Parsons
August 12, 2014 at 11:19
This is a job for Guy. A real ‘witch’ has been found trying to pervert ‘development’ in Tasmania. time for dunkings and burnings to find this personality of multiple locations if not bodies.
abs
August 12, 2014 at 12:39
well done, Bob. seems someone (now who could that be…??) has been caught out
ruth Whiteley
August 12, 2014 at 12:40
Could this be Manipulation of a statutory planning process to benefit a commercial enterprise…………. ?
Doug Nichols
August 12, 2014 at 13:44
Good work here. But we need the punchline. We need to pin down exactly who “Nathan Carswell” is. Actually I think the onus is on MWCC to name him, otherwise we are free to assume who it is.
Susan smith
August 12, 2014 at 13:59
Wow well done – reassuring to see that investigative journalism still alive and well. Thank you.
Nathan Carswell
August 12, 2014 at 14:24
Wow, what a beat up. Is friendship an offence now? I contribute to these debates under another name (as I’m sure many opponents equally do). I’m still a ratepayer, and my opinions expressed still count. I just prefer not to use my own name for privacy reasons. While Adrian has passed on your number, I have no inclination to talk with the reporter for the same reason.
Stu
August 12, 2014 at 14:45
There is so much about this project that doesn’t add up. Great article.
Alderman Eva Ruzicka
August 12, 2014 at 15:36
This article raises some very serious concerns for any planning process. I have asked our Council’s General Manager what safeguards are in place to test the veracity of any representor submissions to a development application generally. Likewise, can he verify what safeguards that the Trust has?
That Aldermen will likely have to assess any development application on its land on kunanyi/Mt Wellington, this article raises a serious allegation of perversion of the planning process. If people are salting the Trust process for assessing any changes to the Pinnacle Zone, how seriously can the Trust’s deliberations be taken?
Given that Hobart City Council owns the land concerning the Management Plan amendment, and has to decide both as planning authority and landlord, it must have confidence in what the Trust bases its deliberations.
B500
August 12, 2014 at 15:58
This is the best article I’ve read for a long time. I hope there is a follow up article for when the real “Nathan Carswell” is exposed. It makes you wonder about the legitimacy of the cable car proposal in the first place hmmm
abs
August 12, 2014 at 16:52
‘Nathan’, #6, no strawmen please. no one is stating you have committed an offence.
But you (who ever you are) have been caught out. so as Doug in #4 highlights: because ‘Nathan’ has used Adrian Bold’s computer (and possibly an email belonging to Mr Bold), and that the fictitious ‘Nathan’, and the ‘friend’, Mr Bold, do not seem intent on clarifying who ‘Nathan’ is, other’s are free to assume who the person is behind ‘Nathan’. I know who springs to my mine as the most obvious suspect.
‘Nathan’, how do you feel about the possibility that people may assume that Mr Bold is behind ‘Nathan’?
Does that bother you that your actions may actually hurt your ‘friend’s’, Mr Bold, commercial standing? (ie by having a supportive cable-car submission to the WPMT withdrawn due to deception around the identity of the submitter).
Stephen Bennett
August 12, 2014 at 17:15
#6. “Nathan” states “I’m still a ratepayer, and my opinions expressed still count”.
They now do count, but so much more, to seriously question the relationship between Adrian Bold and “Nathan”. There is a commonality of expression and punctuation from “Nathan” in his posts consistent with a “friend” of similar age and education.
We watch with interest to see how Adrian responds.
Steve
August 12, 2014 at 17:23
Slightly off topic, it also raises the question of anonymity on forums.
I am occasionally chided for posting under a name that is not my own. Indeed some posters get quite heated on the topic and refuse to engage with “anonymous” contributors.
My feeling on the subject has always been that it is virtually impossible to enforce disclosure and that there is a certain fundamental honesty in accepting this and judging comments by the content, not the author.
In this instance, we appear to have a fake identity, complete with surname and locality, who is not only able to freely post comments under a false name, but is apparently also able to have submissions accepted.
One can but wonder how many more there are out there; fakes who are a bit more careful about their IP addresses?
Ben
August 12, 2014 at 17:34
This is not the first time Mr Bold has been associated with fake friends.
In April 2013 it was revealed that 74% of Mr Bold’s Twitter followers were also fakes (@Vote1AdrianBold).
Paul
August 12, 2014 at 17:38
What’s to say its not an anti-cc supporter playing a drawn out game to end up where we are now? The lengths that some of these people are going to at the moment are hilarious.
paul
August 12, 2014 at 17:39
I am quite sure the trust has not made any decisions on one persons reasoning. However it does make me wonder about the similarity of the few anti development submissions made to wpmt. Hope this potential problem is fixed.
russell
August 12, 2014 at 17:40
This has always had all the hallmarks of a tea party style assault on a public asset, now complete with the comics of closet subterfuge.
Thanks to the author for exposing some more of this. It does require a follow up of the now proven and acknowledged ‘bold/carswell’ links.
“Think tanks are paid to inject the greed of the corporation into the public policy making process.” https://twitter.com/AntiThinkTanks
As we have seen with Tarkine mining proposals, vested interest always paints a glowing picture.
With a resort to astroturfing one senses urgency.
Nathan Carswell-ish
August 12, 2014 at 18:00
Great job Bob Burton, well done!
Fair cop, I really should get my own computer so that I don’t have to use Adrian’s all the time.
john hayward
August 12, 2014 at 18:00
Nathan may be made of straw, but that’s just the material needed to cement an entrepreneurial deal in Tas.
i urge Guy Barnett’s team to add Bob Burton to their list of suspects.
john Hayward
—
Editor’s note: edited for legal reasons
davanjac
August 12, 2014 at 18:09
Very interesting article. If you are upfront and honest what have you to hide. Sounds like he is trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Sorry Mr. Carswell I can’t believe a word you have said.
Nathan Carswell
August 12, 2014 at 18:10
Cable cars own and youse lot have no lifes
Andrei Nikulinsky
August 12, 2014 at 18:13
Seems legit’
ruth Whiteley
August 12, 2014 at 18:32
#17, what on earth…. whose computer are you using to read Tas Times and post right now….. Obviously not yours. Computers are pretty cheap these days.
Claire Gilmour
August 12, 2014 at 19:15
This is a great investigative journalism article. Kudos for sure.
And whilst I can be of the opinion that sometimes hiding ones identity to protect family and friends on very sensitive articles can be appropriate, it does make me recall lots of Peter Hennings writings in regard to being open and honest about who one is when writing … especially when they are politically or self interest employed trolls etc!
Any who have written profoundly honestly (in their own name) over the years know the consequences … it’s not an easy road … you win some and you lose some, indeed if not quite threatened by some!
Tasmanian Times is the BEST independent voice that I have come across, I’m so glad it’s being used appropriately and fairly.
Nathan Carswell
August 12, 2014 at 19:17
I’m Nathan Carswell and so is my wife
Nathan Carswell
August 12, 2014 at 19:59
I’m sorry guys
Shaun Wilson
August 12, 2014 at 20:04
I think Nathan might be an interesting character for the next episode of Noirhouse.
Stu
August 12, 2014 at 20:20
What is at issue here is the corrupting of public processes and the bullying of people who question the MWCC.
I don’t for one second believe that Mr Bold would let someone use his computer, without having full knowledge of what was being posted… let alone the creation of a submission.
Doug Nichols
August 12, 2014 at 21:33
Here we have a company that wants to build a large commercial development in an extremely prominent location in a public reserve that everyone loves. They haven’t got permission yet and will need to convince at least the Hobart City Council before they get it. One would imagine they would want to be perceived as conducting themselves in a professional manner at all times.
And then there is #17, #20, #24 and #25. Hmm.
Pete Godfrey
August 12, 2014 at 22:04
Writing fake submissions is a Tasmanian trait. Timber Communites Australia did the same when the pulp mill enquiry was happening. A few of their branches made submissions to the RPDC that used the same grammar and syntax errors that were made by Barry Chipman in some of his writings.
Odd that disparate members would all make the same errors in their understanding of the English language.
If a developer has decided to multiply his submissions to push his own cart he will certainly not be the first.
O'brien
August 12, 2014 at 22:10
Business as usual…
Tony Hale
August 12, 2014 at 22:37
Who cares? He is entitled to his opinion, even if it is at odds with my own and I dare say Bob Burton and a few others.
Regards,
Tony Hale
Opossum Bay
Nathan Nocarswell
August 12, 2014 at 22:56
Get over it, you knockers. I’d just like to say that the road to the top of Mt Wellington should be closed so people will have to use my mate’s cable car.
Ben
August 12, 2014 at 23:08
Well I for one always visit my mates when I want to make positive internet comments about their business.
I am totally not a sock puppet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)
Nathan Carswell, Mild Mannered Reporter
August 13, 2014 at 00:16
Guys I’m definitely not Adrian Bold, he’s a super guy though
Paul
August 13, 2014 at 11:39
Same dirt slinging and muddying tactics as other campaigns. Desperate measures by a desperately selfish minority worried that people will spy on them from a cable car while they walking on Mt Wellington. Trying to deny thousands the economical and social benefits of Hobartians and surrounds to suit themselves. Get over it. One comment by who. No proof just acusations and lies.
Phil na Champassak
August 13, 2014 at 11:56
This is a forensic examination at its best.
Making a public submission under a nom de plume is seriously misleading and has probably consigned the cable car project to oblivion.
abs
August 13, 2014 at 13:04
nice try Paul (or is it Nathan, or Adrian????).
a formal submission to the WPMT has been found to be made under an apparently fictitious identity: there are rightly suspicions about who that submission came from and it is logical to assume that it will damage MWCC position. all this amounts to relevant news for those affected. you are free to act as if it does not (perhaps by not commenting ;).
can you provide evidence to back you accusation of “lies”? or do I take that accusation from you as desperate mudslinging tactics?
btw, I am the REAL Paul (although sometimes i go by the alias, Nathan)
phill Parsons
August 13, 2014 at 13:37
So now multiple Nathan’s appear to prove the witch hypothesis.
Mass hysteria Salem style.
Will Will appoint Guy Tasmania’s first Witch Finder General.
It is strange when the opportunity to be a bigot, racist, homophobe, misogynist etal is cut off what they will turn to for the apportionmne tof blame for all their failures.
The list [no not the one with tas.gov.au after it] so far
1. The On again off again hemp industry is now completely confused. The metadata on industrial hemp and medicinal and non medicinal oil is in. The poppy growers are okay with it but still no movement.
Flax has been legal since times ancient and yet we don’t see that industry continuing beyond the end of WW2. What was the causative factor there. The Irish did it cheaper or we gave it to Poland as war reparations.
2. The Baroque festival dies along with who knows what else giving reduced publicity and fewer reason to come on down.
3. We hold am inquiry into legal business activities that will result in no outcome as the export woodchip industry has gone. If something was to be raised from it’s ruins it will not be the sort of high value industry Tasmania needs.
Feel free to add to the list. Perhaps Lindsay will run a diary page we can all post to. I suggest tne Witch Finder General as a name for the page. Guy Barnett should be immortalized.
Kevin Guy
August 13, 2014 at 14:34
Nathan Carswell is not Nathan Carswell. I am Nathan Carswell and you’re not.
William Boeder
August 13, 2014 at 16:56
This Nathan Carswell thingy seems to me to be little more than a nuisance distraction from more serious needs for discussion and comment, better we dwell on the negative and grossly incompetent State’s Liberal party.
Could I suggest an article featuring the deplorable outcomes from 50% of our GBE’s that spend all year fiddling about to make an annual loss yet still enjoy their fat salaries?
The latest Gutwhine statement of woe published in the State’s media could be interpreted as there is every reason to believe the Will Hodgman Libs cannot manage nor lead the State of Tasmania.
Natty
August 13, 2014 at 17:27
@6,17,20,24,25,34,39. Excuse me, but would you false claimers please stand down.
I am Nathan and @ 24 my wife is not me, I am.
I repeat, I am Nathan.
signed
Natty
Andrew
August 13, 2014 at 17:44
Wow, Paul #14, that is a long bow you are drawing, suggesting that someone who is anti-cc gained entry to ABs residence and used his computer to make comments (on more than one occasion) to muddy the waters. That would imply a number of illegal activities on their part, unless of course Adrian was party to the whole affair and allowed it.
I think you missed reading the part where Adrian admitted allowing his ‘friend’ Nathan to use his personal computer for comments.
Actually, I don’t really think you missed reading that part. I think you just wanted to take a swipe at people who oppose the cable car. Ironic you accuse others of dirt slinging.
Matt
August 13, 2014 at 17:44
Bold is Carswell (that is, he is very bold).
Paul
August 14, 2014 at 01:57
Andrew 42. Actually did not read it. Got a bit over it in the first paragraph and started yawning.. Still haven’t read it all but sounds like whatever happened it would be con screwed twisted and fabricated to suit. So it was one of his mates, employees or ?? Who cares. Easy fix. Referendum. Don’t think you lot would like that much.
Tim Thorne
August 14, 2014 at 14:24
It might be true to say that Nathan Car’s well, but as for his brother Cable…
Cathy Craig
August 14, 2014 at 16:09
The question I am left to ponder now is the validity of the 90 signature petition referenced in footnote 1 on page 3 of the 2012 Draft Management Plan as linked above.
Steve
August 14, 2014 at 16:10
Is this a matter for the Integrity Commission?
Steve
Ian M
August 14, 2014 at 18:11
Starting with the fake WPMT submission may have grabbed the attention of those who like to post before reading, but at least you have the ABC’s ear:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-15/group-says-mount-wellington-cable-car-supporter-does-not-exist/5673398?section=tas
abs
August 14, 2014 at 18:22
so we see that Paul #44 acknowledges making earlier posts from a position of wilful ignorance, interesting approach for trying to make a point.
Scott
August 14, 2014 at 19:13
This is a little reminiscent of the Gunns employee posting on this site without revealing his pecuniary interest in getting the Pulp Mill proposal approved. A person of the same name had previously had multiple Letters to the Editor published in The Examiner and had made a submission to the RPDC. The letters and submission all expressed gushing support for the mill.
For anyone interested in ancient history, see the comments section of the story below:
http://www.oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php/article/taken-to-the-limits-a-beaconsfield-review