4 ms·

This story follows a pattern of coordinated attacks on public services in The Guardian and other left leaning media outlets. Usually with the agenda of demandi

This story follows a pattern of coordinated attacks on public services in The Guardian and other left leaning media outlets. Usually with the agenda of demanding more money and funding. No doubt, mistakes happen in large bureaucracies but the story is usually slanted as some evil agency trying to destroy certain 'marginalised' sections of society. Whereas the truth is probably nothing like that. I cannot help but think it is agenda pushing, distortion of facts and playing on emotions. Read the woman's original article and see the emotional language and phrases used. I think it says a lot about the intent of these media pieces. Read the linked Centrelinks response and several things are refuted, so why in these comments is there an automatic pile on one side?

yosamino 10y ago
I think I can't quite follow your argument. Did you mean that the Guardian is trying to demand funding from someone, and they think they'll get this through this story somehow ? Would you mind explaining ? > No doubt, mistakes happen in large bureaucracies but the story is usually slanted as some evil agency trying to destroy certain 'marginalised' sections of society. Whereas the truth is probably nothing like that. The truth is that as an individual, especially one from a marginalized section of society, you are up against a powerful bureaucracy that has the ability to completely screw up your life, by mistake or not. So we as a society depend on holding these bureaucracies to very high standards. It is also true that in any large bureaucracy, mistakes inevitably happen from time to time. One would wish for a leadership of said bureaucracy to handle these mistakes with integrity and from a position of confidence. By, for example, contacting this women directly, quietly resolving this issue and then adding this problem to the yearly statistics to prove you run a good ship. Who knows, this woman might have written a blog post singing your praises, after you resolved her problem for her. Certainly the better PR strategy. If, on the other hand, you resolve to attacking your clients in public, violating their privacy rights in the process, then maybe you're too close to running an evil, rather than a responsible agency. > Read the linked Centrelinks response and several things are refuted, so why in these comments is there an automatic pile on one side? Did you read the refutation of the refutation as well ? I found the article presents the different viewpoints quite well. Including that this sort of pressure is able to stir up strong emotions.
- briane80 10y ago
  Well if you read the article they did not attack the client. Compare that with the inflamatory language used in her article such as "Centelink terrorised me", "Terrorised by Centrelink, I began to behave as the bureaucracy saw me: angry, emotional, confused, dependent and idiotic" Secondly the only additional information released seems to be the actual date of when she seperated from her ex and failed to lodge the change of circumstance which lead to the overpayment. She already stated her break up in the original article. Also have a look at her other articles in her blog. Poems about "blowjobs" and "Pussy" mixed in with the usual radical feminist nonsense. I thinkwe know exactly where she's coming from.
  - patrick-dd 10y ago
    > Also have a look at her other articles in her blog. Poems about "blowjobs" and "Pussy" mixed in with the usual radical feminist nonsense. I thinkwe know exactly where she's coming from. No mate, can you please be explicit? It almost reads like you're saying it's OK for someone to have their financial records released by a Government welfare agency if they publish the word 'blowjob' on a blog.
    - briane80 10y ago
      Where did they release her financial records? Have you read the original article?
  - yosamino 10y ago
    Original claim: > Ms Fox complained that her problem arose from the fact that she was chased by Centrelink for a debt actually owed by her former de facto partner. Centrelink rebuttal: > The agency says Ms Fox's debt [...] arose after she received more FTB than she was entitled to because she under-estimated her family income for that year. Counter-rebuttal: > As I outlined in my article, when your ex does not lodge his tax return for a year in which you received the Family Tax Benefit it seems your family income will be classified ‘under-estimated’. This is easily one of many possible scenarios that is not covered by standard procedures, of which I am sure there exist many every year, but which large bureaucracy are regularly unequipped to deal with, to the point that this behavior is a common trope in popular culture[0]. It's funny when it happens in a movie, but if you're actually on the receiving end of this sort of behavior where no-one listens to your most reasonable requests, takes the time to figure out that some sort of mistake has occurred and generally treats you with disrespect in addition to threaten the financial stability of you and your children, I'd put it to you that it's very human to get extremely frustrated and express that frustration. You provide an excellent example of this: > Secondly the only additional information released seems to be the actual date of when she seperated from her ex and failed to lodge the change of circumstance which lead to the overpayment. She already stated her break up in the original article. You're right in a way, the second article by her doesn't add any significant information and reads a little helpless, because if Centrelink had actually taken her initial complaint, when she went to their offices and the article she wrote, seriously, there would have been no further issue. Instead they chose to personally attack her. Which is quite different from attacking an organization. > I thinkwe know exactly where she's coming from. I don't actually. Would you mind explaining ? Does this play into the Guardian receiving funds somehow ? [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GI5kwSap9Ug https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GI5kwSap9Ug

yosamino 10y ago

I think I can't quite follow your argument. Did you mean that the Guardian is trying to demand funding from someone, and they think they'll get this through this story somehow ? Would you mind explaining ? > No doubt, mistakes happen in large bureaucracies but the story is usually slanted as some evil agency trying to destroy certain 'marginalised' sections of society. Whereas the truth is probably nothing like that. The truth is that as an individual, especially one from a marginalized section of society, you are up against a powerful bureaucracy that has the ability to completely screw up your life, by mistake or not. So we as a society depend on holding these bureaucracies to very high standards. It is also true that in any large bureaucracy, mistakes inevitably happen from time to time. One would wish for a leadership of said bureaucracy to handle these mistakes with integrity and from a position of confidence. By, for example, contacting this women directly, quietly resolving this issue and then adding this problem to the yearly statistics to prove you run a good ship. Who knows, this woman might have written a blog post singing your praises, after you resolved her problem for her. Certainly the better PR strategy. If, on the other hand, you resolve to attacking your clients in public, violating their privacy rights in the process, then maybe you're too close to running an evil, rather than a responsible agency. > Read the linked Centrelinks response and several things are refuted, so why in these comments is there an automatic pile on one side? Did you read the refutation of the refutation as well ? I found the article presents the different viewpoints quite well. Including that this sort of pressure is able to stir up strong emotions.

briane80 10y ago
Well if you read the article they did not attack the client. Compare that with the inflamatory language used in her article such as "Centelink terrorised me", "Terrorised by Centrelink, I began to behave as the bureaucracy saw me: angry, emotional, confused, dependent and idiotic" Secondly the only additional information released seems to be the actual date of when she seperated from her ex and failed to lodge the change of circumstance which lead to the overpayment. She already stated her break up in the original article. Also have a look at her other articles in her blog. Poems about "blowjobs" and "Pussy" mixed in with the usual radical feminist nonsense. I thinkwe know exactly where she's coming from.
- patrick-dd 10y ago
  > Also have a look at her other articles in her blog. Poems about "blowjobs" and "Pussy" mixed in with the usual radical feminist nonsense. I thinkwe know exactly where she's coming from. No mate, can you please be explicit? It almost reads like you're saying it's OK for someone to have their financial records released by a Government welfare agency if they publish the word 'blowjob' on a blog.
  - briane80 10y ago
    Where did they release her financial records? Have you read the original article?
- yosamino 10y ago
  Original claim: > Ms Fox complained that her problem arose from the fact that she was chased by Centrelink for a debt actually owed by her former de facto partner. Centrelink rebuttal: > The agency says Ms Fox's debt [...] arose after she received more FTB than she was entitled to because she under-estimated her family income for that year. Counter-rebuttal: > As I outlined in my article, when your ex does not lodge his tax return for a year in which you received the Family Tax Benefit it seems your family income will be classified ‘under-estimated’. This is easily one of many possible scenarios that is not covered by standard procedures, of which I am sure there exist many every year, but which large bureaucracy are regularly unequipped to deal with, to the point that this behavior is a common trope in popular culture[0]. It's funny when it happens in a movie, but if you're actually on the receiving end of this sort of behavior where no-one listens to your most reasonable requests, takes the time to figure out that some sort of mistake has occurred and generally treats you with disrespect in addition to threaten the financial stability of you and your children, I'd put it to you that it's very human to get extremely frustrated and express that frustration. You provide an excellent example of this: > Secondly the only additional information released seems to be the actual date of when she seperated from her ex and failed to lodge the change of circumstance which lead to the overpayment. She already stated her break up in the original article. You're right in a way, the second article by her doesn't add any significant information and reads a little helpless, because if Centrelink had actually taken her initial complaint, when she went to their offices and the article she wrote, seriously, there would have been no further issue. Instead they chose to personally attack her. Which is quite different from attacking an organization. > I thinkwe know exactly where she's coming from. I don't actually. Would you mind explaining ? Does this play into the Guardian receiving funds somehow ? [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GI5kwSap9Ug https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GI5kwSap9Ug