Assange doomed by the weakness of a government behold to US interest

On Julian Assange

David Simpson writes: As much as I feel Assange has been victimised by the US/UK/Scandi court system and sympathise with his defence of “legitimate journalism”, I would like to hear the full story about his interactions with Russia, Russian media and his decision (I understand) to release Hilary Clinton’s private emails (more smoke than fire), which people more knowledgeable than me say substantially contributed to Donald Trump’s presidential win.

Was he trying to use Putin, was Putin trying to use him?

Play with fire and there’s always a risk of being burnt.

Chris Pettifer writes: Sadly, our government is captive to the populist right, furnished extravagantly by the Murdoch media and its client politicians. As Guy Rundle said, Pine Gap should be a negotiation point of leverage, after all it represents the free-for-all on our sovereignty by the USA.

For too long we have squibbed on our unique geographical position in the world with weak knees and sycophancy, a conga line of PMs — except Whitlam — have bent the knee to “greater” powers in an embarrassing show of cultural cringe.

Assange is doomed by this weakness in government and we are further destined to be a country subjugated to the whims of American hegemony.

On Qantas, price gouging and interstate rail

Tim Dangerfield writes: I see that one of the worst culprits for price gouging according to the Fels report is Qantas. Part of the problem is there is no competitive long-distance rail system in Australia, so air travel is it. Instead of endless studies into high-speed rail, we need a realistic upgrade of existing interstate rail lines (at vastly reduced time and cost) to allow higher speeds, along with government investment in rolling stock and extra services — a win for competition and the environment. The demand is there as we saw with services booked up well in advance during the worst periods of Qantas price gouging.

On resigning Woolworths CEO Brad Banducci

Steve Brennan writes: I didn’t see the Four Corners episode, but having read about the incident and the context of the interview, I believe Banducci certainly knows he stuffed up the whole thing. What’s worse I read an official response from Woolies stating the resignation had nothing to do with the interview. Obviously an official lie.

I think you can judge people from their behaviour and Banducci went into that interview knowing the company has been price gouging consumers and he simply couldn’t cover it up. So he tripped up badly. He’s been in that role for some time and upon reflection realised he’d lost credibility and the will to fight on. Who can really know why someone makes these decisions, but if you are the CEO of a major supermarket corporation with dodgy pricing tactics and the spotlight is on you, that plays into your tenure.

Glen Davis writes: Banducci got it so wrong he could not be saved by his PR advisers.

Every CEO knows how “off the record” works. This is not a complex matter. If it is an interview by a reporter, journalist or interviewer, all answers and comments are reportable unless a specific subject or observation is agreed (not merely stated by its source) as being “off the record”.

In this case, Banducci sought to impose the “off the record” condition retrospectively and unilaterally. He knew perfectly well that his request was way outside his rights. When the ABC reporter declined his request, he knew he was without entitlements. Banducci’s choice of a walkout was the choice of a man unqualified to be a corporate spokesman.

Do you have thoughts on anything we’ve published recently? Let us know by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.