http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/14637616/wa-cash-given-to-union-slush-fund/

http://www.theage.com.au/national/sold-to-the-union-man-20121009-27b4e.html#ixzz28pjOuqT9

Noting this:

"Gillard told Shaw and Gordon the association was a ''slush fund'' designed to gather money for union election campaigning.

But the application for the association's incorporation in 1992 and the rules drafted under Gillard's advice make no reference to campaign funding and declare the organisation's objectives to be the promotion of workplace safety and training."

S&G's records say Gillard has admitted knowing it was a "slush fund".

She prepared the document which had a different purpose.

You obviously have a closed mind Alan; I don't; as I say I used to be amember of the ALP; what it is today is nothing like it used to be; but I have no inherent bias.

Rather than continue on this pointless exercise of trying to convince you our PM is a liar and possibly a crook, let me ask you do you think the association was a criminal exercise or do you have some excuse for it?

Hi cohenite,

This discussion arises from the IPA’s abhorence at the concept of truth-telling and fact-checking.

Some people and institutions value truthful statements and verifiable information. Others don’t. That’s our world.

I have simply asked you to show where and when and in what actual words “Gillard has admitted she forged the application for association”.

The links you have provided do not do this. In fact, they say the opposite: "As the Prime Minister again denied any wrongdoing over the 17-year-old financial scandal ..."

Your political party membership is irrelevent, Anthony.

Whether or not my mind is closed is irrelevant.

Your references to a “slush fund” are irrelevant. “Slush fund” is slang for “auxilliary bank account” in common usage worldwide, including in Australia.

Whether or not the association was ever a criminal exercise is also irrelevant.

But nice try with the diversions.

I’m simply asking you to show where “Gillard has admitted she forged the application for association”.

Where is her admission? It’s a simple request, Anthony. No?

If you can’t show us this, then you may wish to apologise for making an untruthful assertion.

Or, if you can’t do that, then perhaps just leave quietly.

Think about it, Anthony. Bedtime here. I’ll be back tomorrow.

Thanks. Bon soir. AA

I wait with baited breath, the factual evidence from Cohenite to support his claims!

Hold your breathe as long as you want Kipp, the deluded reality you and Alan subscribe to still won't be true; and just for the record Alan is the standard for nothing.

From Gillard's press conference:

http://resources.news.com.au/files/2012/08/23/1226456/939999-aus-news-file-pm-transcript-120823.pdf

"JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, one of the issues that’s been raised in recent days is the disparity between the creation of this association and what you said in 1995. The former being that it was the creation of a workplace safety association and then three and a half years later, you said it was a slush fund."

"PM: Well, let me answer your question and answer it in some detail because I agree that you’ve gone to a number of matters that have been raised in recent days.
First and foremost, the terminology that you used in your question, which was terminology I used in the discussion with Peter Gordon and Jeff Shaw some 17 years ago, is terminology with a particular overtone to it which I don’t think helps with understanding these events. I’m not going to use it again."

Gillard said:

"I’m not going to use it again."

Is that plain enough for you clowns?

Gillard then says:

"I will be far more precise than that."

She says:

"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."

What was the declared purpose of the association Alan? Is it the same as what Gillard says she thought the purpose was either as a "slush fund" or the euphemism she uses to cover her culpability?

And just for the record; the association file which Gillard set up is missing from WA.

The empress has no clothes yet Alan and his ilk are still admiring the imaginary bridal dress; and you want me to apologise; pathetic.

Good morning Cohenite.

Yes, interesting observations and questions. But nothing that validates your earlier assertion, is there?

Anthony, the word “admitted” has a certain meaning in the real world. The term “forged” has a specific connotation also. And the two words linked together “has admitted she forged the” conveys certain generally-accepted meaning.

In the quotes you have supplied, and in others available, Ms Gillard has repudiated your assertion. She has consistently and repeatedly said the exact opposite.

It remains the case that “Gillard has admitted she forged the application for association” is simply a porky.

I notice this same false assertion has also been offered recently by blogger Michael Smith - he whose mendacity on this matter was too much even for 2UE.

Just all a bit sad really.

Cheers, AA

"Just all a bit sad really."

We can agree about that, for different reasons no doubt; I think the legal standards of this nation are being trashed by the Gillard affair.

Forged:"to make or imitate falsely especially with intent to defraud"

Gillard has stated that she knew the document she prepared had a declared purpose which was not what its real purpose was. That is, it was a forgery.

That is beyond doubt except in the pixie world that you inhabit.

Gillard doesn't have to say she forged the document; her actions and admissions are sufficient.

What a deniar you are Alan!