Hi Anthony,

No, I think the logic is okay. We probably just have different approaches to understanding truth and falsehood.

On the matter of the PM and the AWU, I'm open to evaluating claims on the available evidence, as always.

Did you read this fairly grovelling backdown and retraction from The Age this morning, Anthony?

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/the-age-and-the-prime-minister-20121121-29q9y.html

And did you hear Jon Faine dealing with the matter of Ralph Blewitt's testimony?

http://soundcloud.com/bludger-sounds/jon-faine-774abc-2012-11-22-on

So at this stage there is still no credible evidence of any wrongdoing on the PM's part, is there?

And there remain no outstanding questions to which she hasn't offered answers that most fair-minded people find reasonable.

Things may change, of course, if further evidence emerges. So always happy to look at anything credible you may turn up, Anthony.

Meanwhile, as you have been following this, can you advise who paid for Mr Blewitt's trip back to Australia?

Cheers, AA

"So at this stage there is still no credible evidence of any wrongdoing on the PM's part, is there?"

She admitted to forging the purpose of the application for association. Do you understand the significance of that?

Who cares who paid for Blewitt's return; what are you implying?

Blewitt may or may not be a creditable witness; all witnesses have probative value; if Blewitt's assertion that Gillard was not present when he signed his POA is corroborated by other evidence such as Gillard's whereabouts when Blewitt signed the POA then it does not matter if he is Jack the ripper, his evidence indicts her.

My moral compass is superior to yours Alan in as much I don't care who the messanger is delivering the information because I do my own checking. I fear your bias against particular sources also prejudices you against the vital message they bring.

Morning all.

@stevenlmeyer: Re: “For those who claim a broken promise is a lie, which delegitimises a leader ...”

No, wasn’t including you, Steven. Pretty sure I understand your position. We agree almost entirely.

Just one query: “Gillard has been trapped in one definite lie. She did not witness a signature.”

It’s question though, Steven, not a disagreement: How do you know this is true?

Re: “If the change is as drastic as a GST or carbon tax they really should give the electorate a chance to have their say.”

Yes, agree with this too. But can you see the argument that in August 2010 the electorate actually rejected the “no carbon tax” policy? Voters didn’t allow Gillard to deliver on that. They put her in a coalition with Greens/independents who had different ideas.

@cohenite: Knowledge is based on evidence. Genuine evidence must be sifted from the bogus.

The unfortunate reality is that some ‘sources’ have been proven totally unreliable.

These include:

* Murdoch executives and employees who have been shown in multiple court cases to be blatant liars;
* Mark Baker whose own editor disowned his reportage this morning;
* John Howard, who was labelled “the lying rodent” by a Senator from his own side;
* Tony Abbott, who has had ongoing serious problems telling the truth since his own slush fund scandal in 2003 re Pauline Hanson;
* Ralph Blewitt, whose sister claims he is “he is as crooked as they bloody come. He's rotten to the core”;
* Internet nutjobs and radio shock jocks trying to feed off the Bolts and Blewitts of the world;
* And the IPA - which brings us back to the original article.

Anthony, you have to accept that all these ‘sources’ are quite useless.

If there is any real evidence of Gillard doing anything wrong, then let’s see it.

Meanwhile, can you advise who paid for Ralph Blewitt's trip back to Australia?

This matters for the same reason it matters with the IPA. They lie. They fabricate. They distort. They are paid handsomely to do so. But by whom?

Cheers, AA

Alan

LOL

I think you are an example of why fact checking is unlikely to have much of an impact. We as humans don't easily give up on our cherished beliefs.

Alan, you're on another planet; I repeat Gillard has admitted she forged the application for association.

Are you saying Gillard is an unreliable witness as well?

Your position is not only untenable but bizarre.

Hi again cohenite,

Regarding “Gillard has admitted she forged the application for association.”

What is the date of that admission? What were the PM's exact words?

With so many false allegations and sheer fabrications appearing in The Australian and elsewhere, this is not asking too much, is it, Anthony?

Let me give you some examples. Here are three exact quotes on the same matter:

1. From Phillip Coorey, who is not a fabricator, 22 August 2012:

“THE law firm Slater & Gordon and a former partner, Peter Gordon, have issued separate statements stressing there was no evidence Julia Gillard was involved in any legal wrongdoing while a partner at the firm.”

Coorey quoted Peter Gordon directly who said on 21 August that when he reviewed the case [Gillard and the AWU] in 1995, "I found nothing which contradicted Julia Gillard's explanation as to these events. I believed at the time that there was no explicit or indirect evidence that she was involved in any wrongdoing and that remains my view today."

Link here: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/law-firm-says-no-evidence-against-pm-20120821-24kr2.html

2. From Julia Gillard, 23 August 2012 at a media conference:

“My understanding is that the purpose of the association was to support the re-election of a team of union officials and their pursuit of the policies that they would stand for re-election on ...

“I am not the signatory to the documents that incorporated this association. I was not an office bearer of the association. I had no involvement in the working of the association. I provided advice in relation to its establishment and that was it.”

Link here: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1230_transcript.pdf

3. From The Australian online, 23rd August, 2012:

“Apology to the Prime Minister

“An article in today’s The Australian reported that Prime Minister Julia Gillard has set up a trust fund for her then boyfriend 17 years ago.

“This is wrong.”

Link here: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/apology-to-the-prime-minister/story-e6frg6n6-1226456413608

There you go, Anthony, Three documented quotes.

Can we please have the source and precise words for your allegation that “Gillard has admitted she forged the application for association”?

Thanks, Anthony.

Cheers, AA