Pericles - I could be wrong but I believe what is being done is to avoid a prosecution that is successful would strip him of all benefits and entitlements as well as his indexed for life pension.
So now he gets to keep everything.

Phillip S any relation, other than your posts, to Shadow Minister?

Interesting theory, Philip S

>>Pericles - I could be wrong but I believe what is being done is to avoid a prosecution that is successful would strip him of all benefits and entitlements as well as his indexed for life pension. So now he gets to keep everything.<<

But surely, the settlement of a civil suit does not enable anyone to "avoid a prosecution"?

I suspect that the only case that would cause Slipper to lose his entitlements would have to be a criminal one, to which he is found guilty. For example, if he were to be found guilty of defrauding the Commonwealth through misuse of Cabcharge vouchers - a charge that has not been laid, by the way - I would expect the taxpayer to be freed of their obligations to keep him in luxury.

But what we have right now is a civil complaint that is now a matter to be resolved by the two individuals. As hizzoner stated yesterday, "...the parties... might have to compromise, including withdrawing allegations made against each other, to achieve a resolution."

Still sounds like a smart - and fair - move by Roxon, though.

In his final ruling the judge could say there is a strong prima facie case for criminal proceedings.
Don't forget that the longer it goes more things will come out about what he was doing even the cab charge could come into it.

If it was an ordinary citizen I would agree she did the right thing BUT in this instance I smell a cover up or they protecting him because he knows something they did wrong.

Belly,

PS is no relation except he has a brain.

Wobbles,

good of you to admit that the commonwealth was liable, and that Nicola Roxon lied in claiming it was a vexatious suit.

An intriguing concept, Philip S.

>>If it was an ordinary citizen I would agree she did the right thing<<

The law, surely, should always treat those who appear before it as "ordinary citizens". To do otherwise would be a mockery of the entire legal system.

>>BUT in this instance I smell a cover up or they protecting him because he knows something they did wrong.<<

What you appear to suggest is that Ms Roxon should have somehow handled the case differently to the way she would that of an "ordinary citizen", simply because of Slipper's political connections.

If she had, would you then have accused her of bias, for *not* treating him as an ordinary citizen?