Actually Foxy, there is very good indication that JG was directly or partially responsible.

While the affair became public after the break up of the marriage was announced it was clear that it had been going on for some time. When JG was asked directly whether she had anything to do with the break up, she declined to comment. If she had no responsibility, she could easily have said so without offending anyone.

While might seem like judgement by omission, the reality is that if she were completely uninvolved, she would have had every motivation to say so, and no real reason to keep quiet. Ipso facto, her silence on the issue is due to the reluctance to admit breaking up a marriage, and the consequences of being caught in a lie if she denied it.

If you can find anything that shows that the affair did not begin before the separation, I would stand corrected. I have yet to find it.

*her silence on the issue is due to the reluctance to admit breaking up a marriage, and the consequences of being caught in a lie if she denied it.*

I'll have to agree to disagree on that one, SM. Marriage is
between two people, if anyone breaks it up, its one of those
two, not an outsider. None of us know what really happened.
It might be clever politics to try and dig dirt, but I would
never be that judgemental.

Personally I am far more concerend about Archbishop Pell
knocking on Tony's door and trying to influence Govt, as the
Vatican is infamous for doing, then about Julia's past love
life.

While we are on the business of distinguishing the facts from the speculation, no-one really knows if JG is responding to questions or deliberately publicising this relationship. There are some people who will think more of her because of this story. I wonder what her strategists are saying.

Examinator, you might send me the email where you claim I asked you to change a heading because it was biased. I don't recall doing that, but if I did I did. But as there is a rule against discussing moderation decisions on the forum because all you do is ventilate the material that is moderated out, please send it to me privately.

Julia her self may not find the threads title so offensive.
Yes runner with drew some of it but reading the whole thread will show most are unhappy with its title.
I ask this, is it better to have the chance to rebut things like this or are we asking GY to censor some things?
Let the title lay in the mud and be grateful we can stamp on it.

GY

My humblest apologies I forgot about the rule.
The incident was a long time ago (approx 18mths ago) in no way do I question/dispute your decision. I was attempting to make a point that no one is perfect (full stop). I won't do it again.

benk,

I envy you that the world and its complexity can be reduced to such economic wording and still maintain a sense of proportion.

I personally see a difference in intent and proportion between 'strident' and a rant etc.

Diplomacy is a tool I've yet to master but that doesn't stop me trying.