Celivia, "I did some googling yesterday to see if there was more info on this relationship, and came across some articles of around 2002-2004 that clearly stated that Craig Emerson had already separated from his wife before he started having a (2 year long) relationship with Julia."

That would be good news. What prevents either party from simply confirming dates to put the matter to rest?

Graham brought up the ethical questions regarding Mr Howard's reasons for committing our troops to war - and whether that is pertinent as a moral issue.(I think it is)
Mr Howard's decision to allow refugees to float around in the tropical sun on the deck of a container ship while he worked out his "Pacific Solution" should also be held up to moral scrutiny.

runner, you seem to have a very narrow lens through which you view the moral scruples of your leaders - I suggest you obtain a wider one.

Cornflower asks: "What prevents either party from simply confirming dates to put the matter to rest?"

The matter has nothing to do with Gillard's qualifications for being prime minister. Confirming or denying the matter would admit that it was relevant to her qualifications. It isn't.

However, Howard's public actions in regard to lying about child overboard or the presence of SAS troops in Iraq before the war are matters to be concerned about. If Gillard is also guilty of misconduct in her public role that is relevant to her qualifications for office. Her private life is not.

>> This topic is a disgrace.

Indeed. Before we had online discussion forums, the medium for this muck was the dunny wall.

The only redeeming feature of this discussion is that those lining up to cast stones at the PM are a tiny minority here.

A question for runner: does your mum know about the ordure you deposit on OLO? If she did, would she approve?

Cornflower asks:

"What prevents either party from simply
confirming dates to put the matter to rest?"

Nothing, except that neither party is 'on trial', or answerable to this Forum.

No obligation lies upon either party to put the matter to rest. The matter, but for its having been raised in a topic on this Forum, the very title of which contained a now-admitted false inference, was already 'at rest'. The affair was, and had been for some time, a matter of public knowledge. So, too, appear to have been any perceivably relevant dates. There had been no attempt at concealment of it. It was not unlawful. People have been free all along to make their own assessments as to its relevance to the performance of public duty by either party.

It was precisely, and perhaps only, because all this was already public knowledge that GrahamY was prepared to let the topic run, if I understood his earlier post correctly.

What I find incongruous is runner's seeming assumption of the mantle of some sort of morality policeman when his position on this matter is so at odds with that of the scriptural record, that same scriptural record he seemingly claims as the basis for his moral authority. To me his position is indistinguishable from that of those who demanded to know Jesus' position with respect to adultery, perhaps anticipating that with him being under the gun of a stoning about to commence at any time, he might make some statement in conflict with their law, armed with which they could commence to remove the perceived threat to their authority and status that he and his teaching evidently posed.

runner's answer to me with respect as to why John the Baptist lost his head is a bit trite. The record in Matthew 14, while it shows that JtB had been imprisoned by Herod the Tetrarch for the reason runner gave, and that indeed HtT once desired to kill him but feared public reaction thereto, also shows that HtT had subsequently repented from that position. Herod, SAVING FACE, executed JtB.

Dear Celivia,

Thanks for having read what I had posted
earlier and for your added information.
This may possibly quieten
the finger-pointers. At least I hope so.

Dear Cornflower,

In all honesty I'm not sure whether I would
or could, have an "affair," with a married
man. I'd be lying if I was to tell you,
"No, never!" Who knows what a person would
or wouldn't do depending on the circumstances?
I love my husband, and I am happily married,
but how can I judge another person's actions?
As the saying goes, "the heart wants what it wants..."
Anyway, I don't think it's my place to preach.
I think it's up to us as individuals to make
decisions concerning our private lives, and not
have politicians make them for us. The same as it's
not the business of politicians to have to divulge
the details of their private lives to us.

That may make me a bad person in your eyes, but at
least I'm being honest.