"How so?"

You're a smart girl Poirot; I'm sure you know who fathered your children.

Which part of the texts were harassing Ashby, certainly not the ones published.
Isn't this supposed to be about sexual harassment, not obscene writing on a text.
The case against Jones was building for years. Deserves every bit of backlash given.

579,

Asking the same naive question after already getting an answer to the identical question yesterday is pathetic.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5416#147830

Good morning all,

Well, have we reached an amicable conclusion, then?

Just to wrap things up:

First, let’s set aside the red herrings: Craig Thompson is a bad person; Ms Gillard once said married women are prostitutes; women themselves can be sexist; alpha women in the ALP and Greens don’t like women who adopt traditional roles; Peter Slipper’s texts were not sexual harassment; and Tony Abbott’s paternity from student relationships.

Interesting claims, but irrelevant.

Second, let’s dispense with the falsehoods: the Government wants to set up a censorship board; all Newscorp journalists must be lying all the time; Julia Gillard has a criminal past; the Destroy the Joint boycott is an orchestrated Labor Party campaign.

All easily shown to be untrue.

Third, let’s set aside assertions which may well be true but await further evidence: all Labor MPs knew the contents of the Slipper texts in May; Australia has a mendacious, corrupt and destructive government; Alan Austin is really stupid or delusional.

These all remain to be proven.

Now, to summarise the assertions in the article and subsequent discussion:

1. Alan Jones has a long history of fabrication, receiving corrupt payments, vilification, hate speech, abuse of subordinates, racism, sexism, misogyny and fake apologies.

2. These are damaging to the fabric of Australian society.

3. Commentators are perfectly free to express whatever opinions they want about any topic, however offensive or wrong.

4. Consumers are entitled to “clean their hands” of support for Jones by withdrawing their custom from the companies that pay his salary.

5. Consumers are also entitled to seek to have Alan Jones removed from 2GB if they believe this will contribute to a more harmonious, less violent, less corrupt, less racist, less sexist community.

6. Peter Slipper has also shown unacceptable sexist conduct. He, along with Jones, does not deserve support any longer to continue in an influential public role.

6. Politicians who continue to support Slipper or Jones in maintaining positions of authority must be condemned and voted out of office.

Agreed?

Thanks for the contributions. Excellent.

Cheers, AA

AA

This is as close to a slam dunk as it is possible to get:

"After days of claiming that legal professional privilege prevented her from saying when she first knew of the messages, Ms Roxon last night confirmed she learnt of them between May 28 and June 15 when the government filed its application to have the case struck out claiming it was an abuse of process.

"Yes, we were certainly aware of the range of material that was provided," she told ABC's 7.30 Report.

Roxon then used the court to suppress these texts, and spent $700 000 of taxpayer's money pursuing a frivolous motion to have the case thrown out as vexatious. The judge thought so little of the case brought by Roxon that this motion was dismissed with costs. Shortly after this Roxon settled with Ashby to avoid a long, costly and losing court case. After which the texts could be released.

Labor (not necessarily all labor ministers) knew well in advance that the texts would make it impossible for Slipper to remain as Speaker and was happy to spend nearly $1m of taxpayer's money to keep him in the chair. What they didn't count on was the unrepresented Slipper making the mistake of releasing the texts.

It now looks like Juliar's pet independent Thomson might be otherwise occupied.

Good morning SM,

Slam dunk? Hmmm. Don’t think so.

Check the slow motion replay.

Remember, you posted: “Every single ALP MP woman and man, while giving lip service to condemn Slipper's texts, (after having access to them for months) to a person voted to keep him as speaker.”

Question arising was: “This is a central point, SM, I agree. How do you know that they all had access for months?”

“ …they ALL” ?

If your info from the ABC is correct – and unfortunately that's no given these days – then Roxon would have been keen to keep the content of the texts from anyone other than those who needed to know.

So no evidence they all knew, is there? In fact, the opposite.

Your ball has bounced off the rim back into play, SM.

The other significant point – seeing the Slipper matter was brought up here as diversion from the offensive sexist attacks by Alan Jones – is that Jones’ slurs and sleaziness were all for public consumption. They were intended to hurt their female targets. Slipper’s texts were in private conversation to an intimate friend.

There’s a world of difference in both law and morality, isn’t there, SM?

Looks like the rebound is a goal against.

Cheers, AA