question the government, page-21

motherhood comments in "best interest" are standard.

i've issued those words 20 times over the last 3 months in our company.

however, is anyone not picking up a key point here.

we have a minister saying nae, but some unnamed source inside a govt department saying yea.

the yea had a SIGNIFICANT effect on the SP of Linc. It reduced my personal wealth by 10% yesterday. is it factual? was it heresay? how was the information obtained? is it official policy? did the Australian not/ contact Linc for comment?

did the australian not/ consider the materiality of the information and the integrity of the source?

if this is a true departmental decision, did the govt department have a duty to disclose this to linc and other ctl ctg players to enable them to disclose to the ASX in a timely and orderly manner?

what role will ASIC play in this? will some suggest it is market manipulation? (note I'm not suggesting it is)

what role might journalists with undisclosed interests play one day? (note I'm not suggesting there are any now)

However. I do believe this is going to get dirty. So all i want to know, is, is PB's apparent "temper" matched by his choice of attack dog? As a shareholder in Linc I hope and expect so

In any regard, what do we care? we know they have coal, we know they are 2 or so weeks away from diesel glory. just makes for another chapter in the paul barry book to be written

watch the tv tonight and if you can even see the athletes through the "mist" ask yourself if the chinese would want this up there. end_of_story

its all a no-brainer. my question is, who is pulling whose strings in qld, the courier, the australian, the fin review, the brokers, the govt agencies, and the govt.

meanwhile, martin fergusson sums it up well enough for me "this is vital to our national security"