The Noisy Elephant's banner
The Noisy Elephant's profile picture

The Noisy Elephant

@TheNoisyTrunk5,896 subscribers

There are no words, Josephine.

Shorts

Ex-comedian #DaveHughes finds out his career is in DEAD END street, admits he owns a voLVo (WHy?) and turns into ET - "Phone home" - haha, the cooker. Why is he always whinging?

Ex-comedian #DaveHughes finds out his career is in DEAD END street, admits he owns a voLVo (WHy?) and turns into ET - "Phone home" - haha, the cooker. Why is he always whinging?

37,750 views

Pauline Hanson and Malcolm Roberts announce... PETROL at $0.27 cents a litre. #OneNation sniffing fumes

Pauline Hanson and Malcolm Roberts announce... PETROL at $0.27 cents a litre. #OneNation sniffing fumes

30,263 views

#LindaReynolds "It's all about me" followed by stomp, yell, sob, squeal. Linda 'I sue ' Reynolds is all pissed that she didn't get a mention in the film 'Silenced' From The Australian: In a statement to the Australian on Thursday, Ms Reynolds criticised Silenced for erasing a “critical piece” of her history. "The filmmakers of Silenced said they “respectfully disagree with the claims made by Ms Reynolds about our film”. “Silenced is a film that demonstrates how the law has been used by alleged perpetrators to silence survivors of gender-based violence and the journalists who report on these cases,” they said." Linda, you got a verdict, you bankrupted Brittany Higgins, and you STILL want it ALL TO BE ABOUT YOU. Just fuck off. This is the most incredible part: Reynolds “It cost me my job, my health, my reputation and the Liberal Party the election.” Linda, it didn't cost you your job; you cost yourself your job. You're just using that as an excuse. Furthermore, this didn't lose liberals the election; the fucking liberals did because they're all just like you. JUST. GO. AWAY. Off you fuck.

#LindaReynolds "It's all about me" followed by stomp, yell, sob, squeal. Linda 'I sue ' Reynolds is all pissed that she didn't get a mention in the film 'Silenced' From The Australian: In a statement to the Australian on Thursday, Ms Reynolds criticised Silenced for erasing a “critical piece” of her history. "The filmmakers of Silenced said they “respectfully disagree with the claims made by Ms Reynolds about our film”. “Silenced is a film that demonstrates how the law has been used by alleged perpetrators to silence survivors of gender-based violence and the journalists who report on these cases,” they said." Linda, you got a verdict, you bankrupted Brittany Higgins, and you STILL want it ALL TO BE ABOUT YOU. Just fuck off. This is the most incredible part: Reynolds “It cost me my job, my health, my reputation and the Liberal Party the election.” Linda, it didn't cost you your job; you cost yourself your job. You're just using that as an excuse. Furthermore, this didn't lose liberals the election; the fucking liberals did because they're all just like you. JUST. GO. AWAY. Off you fuck.

20,458 views

Pauline Hanson Self-funded retirees will get $35k IF THEY ARE ENTITLED TO? "The Pension age" HAHAHAHAHAH #OneNation cooking

Pauline Hanson Self-funded retirees will get $35k IF THEY ARE ENTITLED TO? "The Pension age" HAHAHAHAHAH #OneNation cooking

16,003 views

Kash Patel is confused - Spare me. So let me get this straight. We’ve got Kash Patel (a Hindu) standing next to Governor Cox (a Mormon) talking about Charlie Kirk (a Protestant) … and Patel sends him off with “See you in Valhalla.” Valhalla. The pagan Viking warrior afterlife where you spend eternity getting stabbed, healed, and drunk under Odin’s roof. Translation: A Hindu FBI man just promised a Protestant he’ll meet him in a pagan paradise while a Mormon governor nodded like it was all perfectly normal. American politics isn’t just culture war anymore. It’s mythological fan fiction with bad theology.

Kash Patel is confused - Spare me. So let me get this straight. We’ve got Kash Patel (a Hindu) standing next to Governor Cox (a Mormon) talking about Charlie Kirk (a Protestant) … and Patel sends him off with “See you in Valhalla.” Valhalla. The pagan Viking warrior afterlife where you spend eternity getting stabbed, healed, and drunk under Odin’s roof. Translation: A Hindu FBI man just promised a Protestant he’ll meet him in a pagan paradise while a Mormon governor nodded like it was all perfectly normal. American politics isn’t just culture war anymore. It’s mythological fan fiction with bad theology.

42,951 views

When will Linda Reynolds STOP? The Australian Reports "Linda Reynolds launches bankruptcy action on Brittany Higgins" 🐘 THE NOISY TAKE Linda Reynolds was never chasing justice – just blood. She’s now filed bankruptcy proceedings against Brittany Higgins, even after already winning over $1 million in damages and costs. Let’s remember: Before that defamation circus even began, Higgins’ parents offered Reynolds nearly $200,000 to settle - apology and cash on the table. Reynolds said no. Because this was never about closure. It’s about anger and hate. Now she’s trying to claw at the remains of a young woman’s life, even though Brittany’s $2.4m compensation payout was gutted long ago by tax, legal fees, and the price of surviving the media storm Reynolds helped feed. If Reynolds “wins” this, here’s what she gets: A slice of earnings above $87k a year for up to five years. That’s it. No lump sum. No magic money tree. By the time you subtract rent, child expenses, and legal costs, Linda might scrape enough to buy herself a Jenny Craig frozen dinner and call it revenge served cold. And in the public eye? Here’s the plain truth: bankruptcy only bites what’s on paper – the income you can see above about $87k. But in the real world, plenty of people earn through companies, contracts, or future-value setups that keep most of their worth neatly off the PAYG slip. Wages look small, life goes on. Equity here, deferred pay there, a director fee tucked away – all perfectly legitimate, just structured. The books stay clean, the creditor gets crumbs. Linda Reynolds knows this. She’s a Liberal, after all. Brittany walks out looking like a survivor hounded to the end, and Reynolds cements her reputation as the woman who destroyed her own legacy chasing a ghost of vengeance. Even if Reynolds “wins” – she loses. It’s over. All bar the chocolate cake.

When will Linda Reynolds STOP? The Australian Reports "Linda Reynolds launches bankruptcy action on Brittany Higgins" 🐘 THE NOISY TAKE Linda Reynolds was never chasing justice – just blood. She’s now filed bankruptcy proceedings against Brittany Higgins, even after already winning over $1 million in damages and costs. Let’s remember: Before that defamation circus even began, Higgins’ parents offered Reynolds nearly $200,000 to settle - apology and cash on the table. Reynolds said no. Because this was never about closure. It’s about anger and hate. Now she’s trying to claw at the remains of a young woman’s life, even though Brittany’s $2.4m compensation payout was gutted long ago by tax, legal fees, and the price of surviving the media storm Reynolds helped feed. If Reynolds “wins” this, here’s what she gets: A slice of earnings above $87k a year for up to five years. That’s it. No lump sum. No magic money tree. By the time you subtract rent, child expenses, and legal costs, Linda might scrape enough to buy herself a Jenny Craig frozen dinner and call it revenge served cold. And in the public eye? Here’s the plain truth: bankruptcy only bites what’s on paper – the income you can see above about $87k. But in the real world, plenty of people earn through companies, contracts, or future-value setups that keep most of their worth neatly off the PAYG slip. Wages look small, life goes on. Equity here, deferred pay there, a director fee tucked away – all perfectly legitimate, just structured. The books stay clean, the creditor gets crumbs. Linda Reynolds knows this. She’s a Liberal, after all. Brittany walks out looking like a survivor hounded to the end, and Reynolds cements her reputation as the woman who destroyed her own legacy chasing a ghost of vengeance. Even if Reynolds “wins” – she loses. It’s over. All bar the chocolate cake.

37,192 views

Linda Reynolds — addicted to outrage, powered by spite. Six years on, and Linda Reynolds still can’t let it go. She’s suing everyone within reach — Higgins, publishers, governments, even the Commonwealth — because anger is all she has left. She leaked confidential material to Janet Albrechtsen out of “incredible anger.” She’s bankrupting a rape survivor while writing letters demanding new inquiries into the same events that broke her career. Every time you think she’s reached closure, she finds a new way to reopen the wound — as long as she can play the victim. At this point, it’s not about justice. It’s about feeding the addiction — fury, self-pity, and vengeance. The cruelty isn’t the byproduct; it’s the point. #NoisyTrunk

Linda Reynolds — addicted to outrage, powered by spite. Six years on, and Linda Reynolds still can’t let it go. She’s suing everyone within reach — Higgins, publishers, governments, even the Commonwealth — because anger is all she has left. She leaked confidential material to Janet Albrechtsen out of “incredible anger.” She’s bankrupting a rape survivor while writing letters demanding new inquiries into the same events that broke her career. Every time you think she’s reached closure, she finds a new way to reopen the wound — as long as she can play the victim. At this point, it’s not about justice. It’s about feeding the addiction — fury, self-pity, and vengeance. The cruelty isn’t the byproduct; it’s the point. #NoisyTrunk

34,737 views

We've analysed the #TreasurersDebate on the ABC last night, hosted by Snarky herself, Sarah Ferguson. This is Clip #1 – short clip – of a series where we point out a few interesting things. This isn’t the biggest deal in the scheme of things, but you’ll notice two things straight off: 1️⃣ Ferguson addresses Dr Jim Chalmers with "we’ll start with you", but immediately shifts tone and calls Angus Taylor simply “Angus.” Subtle difference, but it sets the tone. And in our view? Biased as fuck. 2️⃣ When she introduces Dr Jim Chalmers – and yes, he has a PhD – she follows up his point with: “I hope everybody at home heard that clearly.” What’s alarming is what she’s reinforcing isn’t the full context. Dr Chalmers clearly addresses it right after: “...but what that analysis ignores is that our government has engineered the biggest ever single-term improvement in a budget in our history – more than $200 billion. This year’s debt is $177 billion lower... we’ve found $95 billion in savings... and the reason that’s important isn’t just because we’ve delivered two surpluses – we’ve halved the deficit this year.” From that point on, Ferguson got snappier... and more #Glitchflared than usual. 🎓 Just a reminder that the guy steering Australia’s economy has a PhD in political science. That’s Dr Jim Chalmers to you. He doesn’t use the title – because he’s not a drivel-plop – but Ferguson SHOULD. Not a vibe merchant. Not a slogan slinger. A literal doctor of how governments work.

We've analysed the #TreasurersDebate on the ABC last night, hosted by Snarky herself, Sarah Ferguson. This is Clip #1 – short clip – of a series where we point out a few interesting things. This isn’t the biggest deal in the scheme of things, but you’ll notice two things straight off: 1️⃣ Ferguson addresses Dr Jim Chalmers with "we’ll start with you", but immediately shifts tone and calls Angus Taylor simply “Angus.” Subtle difference, but it sets the tone. And in our view? Biased as fuck. 2️⃣ When she introduces Dr Jim Chalmers – and yes, he has a PhD – she follows up his point with: “I hope everybody at home heard that clearly.” What’s alarming is what she’s reinforcing isn’t the full context. Dr Chalmers clearly addresses it right after: “...but what that analysis ignores is that our government has engineered the biggest ever single-term improvement in a budget in our history – more than $200 billion. This year’s debt is $177 billion lower... we’ve found $95 billion in savings... and the reason that’s important isn’t just because we’ve delivered two surpluses – we’ve halved the deficit this year.” From that point on, Ferguson got snappier... and more #Glitchflared than usual. 🎓 Just a reminder that the guy steering Australia’s economy has a PhD in political science. That’s Dr Jim Chalmers to you. He doesn’t use the title – because he’s not a drivel-plop – but Ferguson SHOULD. Not a vibe merchant. Not a slogan slinger. A literal doctor of how governments work.

24,618 views

Videos

TheNoisyTrunk's profile picture

This woman is deranged. LOWER CLASS AISTRALIANS??? = LOW PAID = SQUANDER their money - WTF???? She uses the words "And the lower class Australians, okay, the ones who are not on high wages..." Oh dear, she's going to dig a fucking hole right there. These are "The battlers" she cultivates [Farms] for support. OR she is specifically targeting the #unemployed who actually don't benefit from the tax cuts and live on an income below the poverty line. Meanwhile, SHE got a $105,000 PAY RISE THIS financial year. Pauline Hanson wants you to believe middle-income earners are forgotten, while she pockets: → $349K+ a year, →enjoys free luxury flights, → Private car paid for →Exceptional superannuation → Huge expense account →and cries about tax cuts that handed her $9K+ annually. Newsflash, Pauline: Middle-income earners DO get →Medicare, →tax cuts, →childcare subsidies, →and free hospitals. The only thing they don’t get? →A private jet →and a billionaire sugar mummy to bankroll their lifestyle. Maybe instead of whining about "squandering," you should explain why you’re against policies that help the very people you claim to represent. Or is this just another One Nation con job? THIS IS WHAT SHE SAID: They WANT ME [Oh dear, you're hardly ever at work] to forego tax cuts to give it more to them so they can just squander the money. And the LOWER CLASS Australians, okay, the ones who are not on high wages, they have tax benefit cuts A and B, they have health care, they have prescriptions, they have rental assistance, they have plus, plus, plus. But the middle-income earner [She's NOT a "middle income earner"] doesn't get that. You know, even childcare, the billions that goes into childcare, where's the accountability for that? I have had a gutful. ______ We have had a GUTFUL of you pauline, lying to the base that got you a seat in Farrer, lying to the BATTLERS all while becoming a multi-millionaire by the taxpayer. #PaulineHanson against the poor, against the worker, against #Pensioners #Jobseeker

The Noisy Elephant

44,717 views • 1 month ago

TheNoisyTrunk's profile picture

And Tim Wilson gave us MORE. As if the "Salon" - which is seemingly a predominantly online business 'run' by an 18-year-old, wasn't enough, he gave us this also: See Speers very specific questions: David Speers asked at the #NPC: David Spears from the ABC. Thanks Tim Wilson for your address. The government says there's a whole lot of misinformation around its capital gains tax changes. I wonder if I could ask you to explain the example you just used in your speech. You talked about Sienna who started Tweenyskin five years ago, done well, business has grown. You said half of her profits will be taken by the silent shareholder, the Prime Minister. Can you just explain how that would happen? The government says existing exemptions for small business would remain. So how exactly would Sienna lose half her profit? And here is what goober TIM replied - Remember, NPC rules mean Speers cannot ask another question so Tim's reply goes unchecked. Read this bullshit, or better still, watch him say it. ▓ Skip the bit BETWEEN the bricks ▓ if you are going to watch the video, but read the explanation below. ▓ Tim's reply and its full of shit: Well it depends on when Sienna chooses to opt out of her business and sell it and for what price. I mean she started from her bedroom, her cost structures were zero so of course she's going to have a maximum uplift associated with her businesses. A lot of the people who are setting up businesses are the treasurers out there today spinning a message, as often he does, highlighting existing exemptions for CGT. Most of those are focused at the back end of people's lives, particularly as they head towards retirement and also based on the price at which they sell. I can't tell you what Sienna's going to sell but I can tell you the work, saving and sacrifice and everything they have put into it could, depending on the exit strategy and price, ultimately face up to 47%. But is it possible she could pay no capital gains tax as well? Well I can't give you, we're dealing with hypotheticals, I'm telling you what her story is. It depends on when she decides to exit, it depends on what she sells for, it depends on what stage of life she's at based on the current application of the law. But there are a lot of small business owners all around the country that are looking at the proposals put in this budget and not just do they think it comes in a tax them, they are looking at it and saying we worked, we sacrificed, we saved, we were there at 2am on a Sunday morning when nobody else was there. And all of a sudden the government, which traditionally takes some of the capital gain, no one's disputing that, is essentially working towards doubling that and in some cases it would be that much. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>▓ 1. The Hypothetical Dodge Tim Wilson explicitly admits his example is hypothetical: "I'm telling you what her story is. It depends on when she decides to exit, it depends on what she sells for, it depends on what stage of life she's at..." Translation: He has no concrete evidence that Sienna (or any small business owner like her) would face a 47% tax under the current or proposed CGT rules. Reality: The government’s proposed changes do not affect small business CGT concessions. Sienna, as a small business owner, would still qualify for: →15-year exemption (100% tax-free if she retires and owned the business for 15+ years). →50% active asset reduction (only 25% of the gain is taxable after discounts). Retirement exemption (up to $500k lifetime exemption). →Roll-over relief (defer CGT by reinvesting). Result: Her effective CGT rate would likely be 0–25%, not 47%. His answer is a word salad to avoid admitting the truth: His example is baseless. 2. The "Silent Shareholder" Myth - Tim claims: "...the government, which traditionally takes some of the capital gain, no one's disputing that, is essentially working towards doubling that and in some cases it would be that much." Reality Check: The current top marginal tax rate is 47% (45% + 2% Medicare levy), but this only applies to salary earners on income over $190k. For small business owners like Sienna: If structured as a company (Probably not she is under 18 or just turned 18, so likely, we will come back to this, 'held' by her ex-beautician mother/family): 25% company tax rate. If selling the business: 0–25% CGT after concessions. No scenario exists where the government takes 47% of her business sale profits under the proposed changes. The "doubling" claim is false. The budget does not double CGT for small businesses. It tightens loopholes for high-income earners (>$450k) and super funds, not small business owners. 3. The Emotional Manipulation Tim leans on melodrama: "...we worked, we sacrificed, we saved, we were there at 2 am on a Sunday morning..." Irrelevant to tax policy. Hard work doesn’t justify false claims about tax rates. Distraction tactic: He avoids the Speers direct question ("How exactly would Sienna lose half her profit?") by appealing to emotion. 4. The Press Club Rules Loophole David Speers couldn’t follow up due to Press Club rules. Tim knew this. He used the format to dodge accountability, knowing he couldn’t be pressed for details. TIM IS SPREADING MISINFORMATION like a PRO COOKER. Quote - Tim Wilson: "We're dealing with hypotheticals"

The Noisy Elephant

25,563 views • 2 months ago

TheNoisyTrunk's profile picture

MURDOCH and HIS MULCH We received TWO emails within THREE minutes of each other just now (10:46 AM - 10:49AM). BOTH "BREAKING NEWS" in the subject line: The Australian (Murdoch) Breaking news: 'We don't want you here', shout hecklers, as PM cops spray over wind farms Sky News (Also Murdoch) 'We don't want you here': Albanese heckled by locals over offshore wind farms Hang on a minute, did the same person write both headlines? Let's just investigate what the fuck really happened and how #Murdoch's manipulation played this into something that it wasn't. There were two Bogans that turned up at an otherwise normal gathering, and these fuckers call it chaos. They actually use the word CHAOTIC - see footage attached, unbelievable. This is classic Murdoch media manipulation—two outlets under the same corporate umbrella pushing a misleading narrative through selective framing. Let’s break it down and compare Sky News' version with The Australian’s version, and then contrast it with what actually happened. 1. The Reality Albanese visited Lake #Illawarra to introduce #CarolBerry, Labor’s candidate for Whitlam, replacing Stephen Jones. Two bogan-looking men heckled him—literally two—and shouted anti-wind farm remarks. Albanese responded casually with "Nice dog, mate", then continued with the press conference. That’s it. Not a protest. Not "chaotic." Not even a significant disruption. 2. Sky News’ Version – Hyperbolic Sensationalism Headline: "Albanese heckled by angry locals over offshore wind farms" Implied Scale: They say he was "heckled by multiple local residents," exaggerating the situation. Word Choices: "Confronted," "angry locals," "heckled," and "taunting" — designed to create the illusion of a hostile crowd. Visual Trickery: Repeats the same two people multiple times, as if they are a larger group. Agenda: Pushes the anti-renewables narrative while making Albanese look weak or unpopular. 3. The Australian’s Version – Faux Serious Spin Headline: "We don't want you here: PM cops spray as wind farm anger boils over" Implied Scale: "Boiling over" suggests a major protest—when it was two random blokes shouting. Word Choices: "Cops spray," "boils over," "grave concerns" — again, all implying a groundswell of opposition when it was two people with a loud voice. Sneaky Misdirection:Buries Carol Berry’s name deep in the text—likely to downplay the real reason Albo was there. Frames the wind farm inquiry delay as "Labor-Greens controlled Senate holding it up" (ignoring LNP stalling tactics). Covers Trump’s tariffs, China’s fighter jets, and NSW rail strikes to drown out actual context. 4. Murdoch Playbook: How They Manufactured the Outrage Exaggerate a non-event: Two guys shouting = "chaos" and "heckling" Frame it as public backlash: Pretend two hecklers are representative of "the people" Push an agenda: Make offshore wind look unpopular & frame Albanese as weak Bury inconvenient details: Don’t name Carol Berry up front, downplay Albanese’s actual responses Tie in anti-Labor talking points: US tariffs, China, rail strikes—none of which were relevant to the visit Final Verdict This is Murdoch media propaganda 101—a coordinated effort by The Australian and Sky News to manufacture a narrative: 🔹 A "chaotic" visit that never happened. 🔹 A "massive backlash" that was two guys. 🔹 A "heated confrontation" that Albanese brushed off with "Nice dog, mate." If this was #PeterDutton, they’d call it "a spirited exchange with concerned Australians." If this was Morrison, it’d be "Scotty from Marketing greets passionate locals." Instead, because it’s Albanese, it’s "chaos," "heckling," and "boiling anger." Pathetic. Predictable. Murdoch media wankfuckery at its finest. #StaySharp #MediaBias #CarolBerry

The Noisy Elephant

58,417 views • 1 year ago

TheNoisyTrunk's profile picture

Liberal Leadership OR Labor Sworn in? - The #ABC had a choice, what did they do? 🎥 What you’re about to see is real. It’s taken directly from the ABC’s own YouTube channel — as shown in the clip below. No edits to change the story, just a spotlight on how the stories were told. From start to finish, this segment ran 3 minutes and 33 seconds. And here’s how they used that time: 88.7% was spent on the Liberal leadership circus Just 6.1% covered the Labor Government’s official swearing-in — a historic event And the rest — 5.2% — was neutral filler or transitions That’s 3 minutes and 9 seconds hyping up internal Liberal drama, vs 13 seconds acknowledging the formation of a new government. This wasn’t journalism. It was narrative. And it was bias. Pure and simple. To spare you the boredom of the full Liberal worship session, we’ve sped up their airtime, and played Labor’s 13 seconds at normal speed — to drive home the imbalance. But here's the kicker — even those calling out the lopsided timing missed this: 👉 While the ABC is talking about Liberal leadership drama, they visually overlay footage from the Labor swearing-in ceremony. They visually bury Labor’s history-making moment under a Liberal voiceover dialogue. Ask yourself: Why? This tactic — talking about the Liberals while showing Labor — is a trick straight out of the Sky News playbook. They did it before the election. They’re still doing it now. 📺 Watch closely. 📊 Look at the graphs. 🧠 Then ask: When is the ABC going to admit it’s joined at the hip with Murdoch media? This is not public broadcasting. It’s propaganda. And it’s fkng disgraceful. The full ABC clip remains live on their official YouTube channel — at the link visible in our footage. (We’re not typing it here for obvious reasons). Check it before they delete it.

The Noisy Elephant

50,412 views • 1 year ago