Hang on here a minute, is this the same Kevin Rudd who uses his father’s death, and to create sympathy, then lies about the cause of his father’s sad demise, just to get on the Misery train?

Let me explain, A Falk in the road of Rudd’s psychology is to claim his father’s death was the responsibility of the Hospital and the medical system;

Unfortunately for a Falk in the road Rudd seemed to miss is the pathology report and witness statements attribute Kevin’s Fathers demise was due to the over abundance of alcohol and sleep whilst driving.

Yes Australia should be worried; at least Mark Latham only placed a caveat on his mother’s house to prevent her from selling it.

Something about Labor aspiring Prime ministers; What ever it takes.

Bring on that Royal Commisssion; lets “LOBBY” for it.

Why did the WA government sack their members, must have been all bull as dear ole kr is still standing, must be standing for the labor and union way of coruption and deciet

Well lets keep going i went to look at labors veteran affairs policy, clicked on veteran affairs policy and what did i find a speech, no policy.

Same with education nice glossy book withs pics and tables but no policy.

So for labor what is policy or is it we wont tell them that way we can scr#w them later.

Have a look for yourselves for real policy's
and if you find them let me know, not speeches, but policy what they are going to do.

www.tapp.org.au

I realise kevin Rudd wasnt 100% correct on his fathers demise, but remember that he was 11 at the time. You tend to go off what you know. He could have pulled just as big a sympathy factor and got another policy footing had he known and communicated publicly that his father died due to driving while drunk. So, given that he would have got the sympathy vote anyway, I am inclined to think that he truly never read the coroners report, and gave what he thought to be the truth of the situation.

"Meetings with disgraced Ministers. Who cares?" asks TurnLeftTurnRight.

This is the type of complacency on morals and ethics, where we will reap what we sow.

Ministers consorting with ex gaol birds is no longer considered unethical.

And the status quo will continue to profit a few and the constituents who put these thugs into parliament will continue to be ignored.

Since all heads of Departments of Environment and the EPA (WA) are under investigation for colluding with industry lobbyists, one needs to ask how on earth can you lobby against an environmental assessment? These assessments are scientific and should be assessed without influence, to protect the environment and communities from industrial fall-out.

Industry lobbyists have influenced cabinet members on these decisions where community appeals have been ignored and heads of department, unbelievably defend pollutant industries. Therefore,the environment and taxpayers have suffered greatly to the benefit of the industry barons.

Lobbying on environmental issues should be prohibited.

One need not look far to see that the ecology has been seriously degraded as a result of unethical decisions made by senior bureaucrats and their ministers whose self-interests are paramount.

And the sheep will return these crooks to parliament in future elections. Who cares - no worries, mate!

All

If you took the time to read the coroners report it states the cause of death was peritonitis, ie Abdominal Sepsis.

Given that this is fatal is less than 10% of patients and only then when antibiotics are not given in time. One could assume that because he was already in hospital Kevin Rudd's father should not have died of a hospital induced sepsis.

But hey who cares, he will be our next Prime Minister and I wonder how many skeletons will be unearthed about the economic miracle con job that the Libs have been bullsh8ting about for years.

I can almost hear the shredders warming up. :)

Good effort, dickie.

>>This is the type of complacency on morals and ethics, where we will reap what we sow.
Ministers consorting with ex gaol birds is no longer considered unethical.<<

Tell me, where do place the AWB saga on your scale of morals and ethics?

Where, then, do you place the AWB principals on this scale of morals and ethics?

And having done that, what action would you propose to take against any government minister who has had lunch with one of those principals?

Is there in fact a great deal of difference, morally and ethically speaking, between an ex-gaol bird and one who is yet to be convicted?

Legally, of course, there is a huge difference. But we are just talking morals and ethics here, aren't we?