Hi again Anthony,

Look, you are doing it again: “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.”

No, she hasn’t, Anthony. Whenever she has addressed the matter – a number of times now – she has said precisely the opposite. Refer my links, above.

Nothing you have offered here bolsters your false assertions at all, does it?

Another porkie pie.

Incidentally, how did you go checking who is funding Ralph Blewitt and the internet nutjobs, Anthony? Are they being paid by an ALP slush fund to keep this 'scandal' ticking along so the PM’s popularity can continue to soar?

Cheers, AA

So Alan, your authority for saying the PM did not forge the application is Gillard's denial? Even though she has admitted that she knew the real purpose of the application was different from the declared purpose? Even though that difference satisfies the definition of forgery her denial is enough for you?

Since this issue is about Gillard's credibility it is ironic that you are prepared to be satisfied that Gillard is credible on the basis of her say so even if her assurance contradicts what she has said and done.

I suppose you regard Wilson's endorsement of Gillard as reliable too.

Hi Anthony,

No, it isn’t. No, she didn’t. No, it doesn’t.

No, this thread is about your credibility, Anthony, not Ms Gillard’s.

And no, I don’t implicitly trust Mr Wilson at all. He just happens to confirm the testimony of every other reliable witness.

All your assertions are untrue, Anthony. Once again.

All I am doing in the original article here, and in the subsequent discussion, is urging us all to check our facts, go with the clear evidence, question all unsubstantiated allegations, avoid being sucked in by proven fabricators – the IPA, Murdoch employees, Tony Abbott, Ralph Blewitt, internet nutjobs, et al – and seek to convey the truth at all times.

We have everything to gain and nothing to lose by embracing the simple straightforward truth in all areas of life. No?

Bon soir. A demain.

Cheers, A

I'm sure there are people reading this exchange who are as bemused as me about Alan's refusal to accept reality.

Let's go back to basics; this is the application for association prepared by Gillard:

http://michaelsmithnews.typepad.com/files/_92_04_22---application-for-incorporation---from-ic4.pdf

Alan I expect will say it's not because I have sourced it from Michael Smith's site. Let him prove it is not a copy of Gillard's application.

The declared purpose of the association is:

"Development of Changes to Work to Achieve Safe Workplaces"

Anyway, this is what Gillard said was what she understood to be the purpose of the association, firstly in her 1995 interview at S&G:

"it's common practice, indeed every union has what it refers to as a re-election fund, slush fund, whatever, which is the funds that the leadership team, into which the leadership team puts money so that they can finance their next election campaign"

At her press conference Gillard said this:

"First and foremost, the terminology that you used in your question [slush fund], 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."

So Gillard has confirmed her comment in her 1995 interview with Peter Gordon that she set up a slush fund; but she no longer likes that term; she now says the purpose of the association was:

"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."

That still has nothing to do with the declared purpose; NOTHING; and Gillard has admitted this. Yet Alan can't accept the word forge and argues that it is my credibility at issue; amazing.

Dear Cohenite

Contrary to your opening sentence I am not one who has any issue with Alan.

I am quite at a loss as to what you are about,though. Most of your arguments I find tedious to say the least.

Tell me, what do you think will come out of the lastest efforts by that seedy looking ex-AWU guy who's been sojourning in Malaysia and the twee "revelations" of that ex-Slater & Gordon partner who had gone to Uncle Sam's dystopia for some reason? Anything that will affect the capacity or fitness of the PM to carry out her role, especially if she does not have to attend to relentless antics of the dirty tricks brigade?

Try to answer questions, mate. Otherwise people might think that you are not straight.

cheers

chek

So Chek, you find my comments tedious, but you want me make more; that makes sense; are you a policy advisor for the Gillard government.

And you find Styant-Brown's "revelations" "twee"; twee? Anyway, whatever you mean, why tell me, tell him; I'm sure he'll find your well researched critique twee as well.

And you think Blewitt is seedy; I'll take your word for it; you obviously have more experience then me.