To me it's the timing that's important.

Ashby appears to have no problems with the flow or content of text messages for two months prior to him accepting employment with Slipper.

To complain retrospectively about harassment is like buying a house near a runway airport and then complaining about the noise.

The other timing factor is that Ashby initially won Slipper's confidence by stating that he "couldn't stand" Brough and later repeated that claim while he was actively working for Brough behind the scenes.

So when does stealing and distributing personal diary entries stop becoming "advice" and start becoming a conspiracy?

Poirot,

In the work place, if I was found to have sent texts of that nature to an employee, I would be immediately dismissed, irrespective of whether the employee had complained or not. Let alone the rorting of expenses and the cabcharge fraud.

However, it appears that criminality is a cause for promotion not dismissal in Labor / union ranks.

Sexual harrassment is an objective standard; it does not matter if the alleged victim was capable of dealing with it or not; it does not matter if the alleged victim at times seemed to encourage it and at other times rebutted the overtures.

The harrassment intensified after Ashby's employment and what happened before that employment is not relevant except it goes to Ashby's character or lack thereof.

The defence seems to be that Ashby somehow 'entrapped' Slipper and was dealing with Brough and the media while it was happening; does that change the fact that it happened?

If persons of questionable character were prevented from claiming harrassment or even sexual assault [which is not claimed here] then for instance prostitutes would never be able to claim.

I think Rares J. has been influenced by Ashby's charcter here and on the law may have erred.

We'll see if there is an appeal.

cohenite,

That's interesting what you say...(being as you're a lawyer and I'm not)

It doesn't seem to me that the judge was deciding merely on Ashby's character. It seems he was guided by Ashby's behaviour in conjunction with the overarching scenario that was revealed by unravelling the sequence of events.

That the smutty talk was mutual, and that it had been formed prior to Ashby accepting the appointment is integral to that point. Why would Ashby accept an appointment from someone who "he knew" engaged in that kind of dialogue - if he had a problem with it? The fact that Ashby himself joined in with smutty and abusive talk further diminishes his claim.

From the judgment:

"...The texts demonstrated that Mr Ashby had no difficulty whatsoever in firmly putting forward his point of view, and in refusing to accept instructions from Mr Slipper on matters to do with Mr Ashby's conduct, even though that conduct may have impacted, or been seen to impact on Mr Slipper's public position....

The point of these exchanges which come most powerfully across was that Mr Ashby felt not the slightest inhibition in putting Mr Slipper in, what Mr Ashby considered, his place. It is difficult to believe that while Mr Ashby felt no inhibition in firmly and forcefully insisting that he was entitled to engage in political activities where Mr Slipper sought to restrain him from doing so, Mr Ashby would have felt inhibited in complaining to Mr Slipper about other conduct that he, Mr Ashby, did not appreciate. The contemporaneous documents in evidence do not reveal that Mr Ashby felt or expressed to Mr slipper or any of his friends any such inhibitions or any distress occasioned by the conduct he complained of in his origination application...."

Poirot,

Put to one side the why's and wherefores of the Slipper/Ashby affair for a minute, and concentrate on the larger picture of rorts and dishonesty within a government with 'faceless men' [should we call them previous union members?] using their positions to so blatantly abuse the trust we are asked to place in them. Lies and obfuscation comes daily from the top down.

One has to wonder also when JG will run out of derogatory terms for those members of the opposition who have the temerity to put forward a question she would rather duck than answer. She demeans not only her office, but also her person with offensive and personal hectoring rather than answering legitimate questions put to her.

Juvenile schoolyard bully tactics should have no place in politics.

worldwatcher,

Are you suggesting that the behaviour of the opposition in pursuing "government business" on behalf of Australians has been any better than that demonstrated by the government?

As far as I can see, members on both sides of politics are more interested in hectoring each other in a point scoring competition than they are in representing the electorates that put them there.

Wait until the election looms, when both sides will be vying for who can institute the most effective middle-class pork barrel.