Gillard's underhanded attempt to shore up its numbers by luring the avaricious Slipper to abandon his party with $100 000s of perks and increased salary blew up in her face. Gillard was left trying to defend a tirade of the most awful texts from the man she chose to fill one of the most highly respected positions in parliament.

After Gillard failed to show judgement in keeping this weasel in parliament even after his position became untenable Slipper took the only decent action possible and resigned.

This and other deceits is what this Labor government will be remembered for.

SM I agree that the choice of Slipper was a poor one especially given his track record. Also the poor standard displayed about the legal process in attacking Ashby who was allegedley a victim. Whether he was or not is a matter for the Courts not the AG or PM to make public judgements. I couldn't see PM or AG making similar statements had Ashby been a woman.

However to correct you, the PM did not defend the Slipper text messages and went further by condemning them. There is certainly a double standard at play in pushing to keep Slipper in the role of Speaker, it is not difficult to imagine the government calling for the resignation of members of the Opposition should they have been caught in a similar act.

SM

Labor could not be seen to influence the judicial system or indeed the judge in a matter before the court. This would have occurred if Slipper was removed. Slipper did the right thing to resign.

The Australian Parliament was debased yet again by Abbott playing the cards in his usual way.

Hold on SM, the strategy of enticing a member of the opposition to become speaker and abandon his party was pretty damn good in the circumstances. You can hardly blame Labor for doing that.

What then transpired cannot be retrospected to make the original decision look underhanded or sleazy.

I am sure that in the same circumstances if the tables were turned, the Libs would be looking to do a very similar sort of thing if they could.

SM,

Here's an article on yesterday's political stoush...and your hero, Mr Abbotts, inane, ill-conceived, stupid retaliatory use of Jones's phrase.

"First he distances himself from Jones. Then he pinches his vile phrase."

Abbott not only misjudges (again), but he's not even original.

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/gillard-wins-a-verbal-stoush-and-maybe-an-election-too/

Pelican, BM,

The position of speaker carries a lot of responsibility in governing debates in the house, and as with a judge, the expectations of personal and professional integrity is far higher than others in the house, and is expected to be beyond repute. Given the release of hundreds of abhorrent texts, the sexual harassment suit and the cabcharge fraud accusations (that have not been dismissed) the motion for his dismissal was inevitable, and in fact should have come from the PM.

While the PM might have condemned the texts, her robust defence of Slipper and her re endorsement of him as speaker meant that she dismissed these texts as "not that bad". Juliar's faux offence at Abbott standing near someone with an rude poster is a joke.

As for Slipper's harassment case, Nicola Roxon's partisan treatment of Slipper and settlement with Ashby is a tacit admission that an incident occurred, and goes far further to cook Slipper's goose.

'Pop goes the weasal' indeed.

Labor thought they were so smart in appointing Slipper and it has backfired on them badly. Another public humiliation and another stuff up to add to the ever growing list. They have had many grand 'pie in the sky' schemes but have shown they cannot manage a pub raffle.

The sooner Labor goes, the sooner they can try to rebuild with some new blood.

History has shown Labor is far more effective in opposition than they are in government. This mob graphicly illustrates the point, they simply are not worthy to govern.

Poirot,

For anyone with even a tentative grasp of English would understand that the phrase "died of shame" is not vile, it is the context in which it is used, as are the words mussel, clam, etc.

If there is a scorecard of who came out better yesterday, Juliar came out with egg on her face, looking sleazy and bitter.

SM,

Reaallly!.....are you honestly trying to tell me that in the "very recent wake" (and furure) of Jones' "died of shame" comments, that you consider it was laudable and wise for Abbott to reprise them in parliamentary debate?

I'm beginning to think that you're as silly as Abbott is.

I was going to add Francis bacon's words that:

"Nothing doth more hurt in a state than that cunning men pass for wise."

...but Abbott isn't even cunning. He's still trying to get past "opportunistic".

Just before the 2010 election, with a lump still in my throat from Gillards rise, Rudd,s fall,.
I spoke about the great Australian attitude to elections.
Oh we blow our tops, shout in indignation about both sides, quite often from a position of not understanding what we are talking about.
Not now, it is gone, like it or not I an ALP activist, know Howard was a statesman compared to Abbott and his front bench.
Kim Beazly, indeed Kevin Rudd, too opposed to Gillard and those who put her there.
Hung Parliament? no not only that.
A willingness to utter lies, to use untruth, to prop up a man like Abbott.
Slipper had to go, Labor in not excepting another turn coat filling the position did the right thing.
Some one MUST return to CIVILITY in politics.
SM you stand out side the yellow arches, trying to sell rotting fish, at double the price, and wounder why you are getting knocked over in the rush to pass you by.
Julia Gillard yesterday won a great victory, for every woman in Australia.
And she put the skids under Tiny Tony, he fate is sealed.
Welcome Mr Turnbull, if I must see my government fall let it be to a coming STATESMAN.
We could return to Rudd, dig a great big hole and bury the past deep return to politics with respect.

Poirot,

I was unaware that Abbott had claimed that Juliar's father had died of shame. The link is weak and is at best an oblique stab at Juliar.

In the end this says it best

http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/neil-mitchell-blog/in-the-end-it-was-slipper-who-was-decent-and-gillard-who-was-not/20121010-27c3k.html

"The ‘super sleaze’ Speaker, Peter Slipper, in the end acted decently and properly. He resigned to save the parliament embarrassment.

He know he had to go, he knew it was the right thing.

But while the super sleaze did the right thing, that defender of women, that attacker of sexism and that crusader for decency, Julia Gillard, did not. This is extraordinary hypocrisy

It was indecent and in the end, the super sleaze understood that. Julia Gillard did not."

after watching parliament numerous times with tony turning his back to the Prime Minister and referring to her as she I thought only weasel in the parliament was tony Abbot

SM,

Forgive me...

How remiss of me to connect this weeks biggest story (which just happens to ride on the words "died of shame") with Mr Abbott's coincidental use of the same descriptive jargon.

You know, I really don't think he was trying to be clever. I think that somewhere in the vacant and airy corridors of his mind, he came across a door with the word "wit" emblazoned upon it. Upon opening it and peering inside, he spied a placard with the words "died of shame" scrawled in infant writing.

Right-O then, he thought. "I'll use that."

Most entertaining, if nothing else.

Belly, Belly, Belly,
How can you claim a victory for Gillard yesterday?

After your expressed views on Jones, you now think Gillard great for supporting Slipper.

After the revelations of his texts, anyone who voted to support him has no moral values. Such comments are certainly not fitting for the Speaker in the House. The vote was about Slippers character.

The women members who voted in support of Slipper should be doubly ashamed. They sold their morals for numbers.

Am very dissappointed to see you think Slipper is fit for the position. You often refer to 'grubs' well he fits the bill.

If the PM ever had any integrity she would have outsted him.

Once again perspective seems to be ignored in these posts.

Gillard was doing exactly what Abbott would have done in the same circumstances - protecting her slim majority.

Unlike Michael Kroger's advice that she "just lay down and die" she is doing her job.

Abbott's job is actually to debate legislation and submit alternatives but he has decided it is just to bring down the government and sabotage it's workings.

Gillard did NOT defend the content of the Slipper/Ashby texts and said she was offended by them. Perhaps all private parliamentary correspondence should be released to the public as well. I have heard women refer to each other in far worse terms than what was shown in those text messages.

Anybody who has ever laughed at a Blonde joke could also be labelled a mysogynist. I don't believe Abbott is a woman hater but he does have demonstrable issues with judgement, honesty, volatility and stability.

SM, will try again.

The Prime Minister could not 'remove' the Speaker given the case is being determined by the Court.

The leader of the Opposition knew this but still sought his sacking.

Slipper did the right thing by resigning - everybody acknowledges this.

Can you point to where the PM said Slipper's text messages "were not that bad"?

Or, is that just your interpretation?

Abbott's new look as a woman worshiper came crashing down yesterday, his plan in ruins, as is his pride.
He was fairly flogged by a female, to be reckoned with, and a world mouthpiece for women every where.

I like you Banjo, but put no value on your understanding of politics.
Kangaroo court has no place in this country Parliament.
After Abbott,s sleaze bag failed Independents and one, think about leaders of the house, fronted slipper and did what would have been done AFTER THE COURTS RULING.
Gillard took on rabid rabbit Tony AND FLOGGED HIM, NOT BEFORE TIME.
Love the one sided views some hold.
Weasel? tell you what Pyne looked much like one today a grinning one and empty headed too.

Wobbles,
You said, "I have heard women refer to each other in far worse terms than what was shown in those text messages".

Looks like you have a very high standard in regards to the company you keep. No woman I know would use that sort of language and I trust my kids would not frequent places where it is spoken.

By supporting Slipper, Labor deems it acceptable for the Speaker of the House to use such terms.

579,
Drean on boy. The voters will only remember that Gillard, and Labor, supported the sleaze bag slipper. I might just remind them, come the election.

Poirot,

Abbott used the phrase 17 times before in referring to Labor's dishonesty and deceit. Were all of these linked to Jones?

I like this from Fairfax:

"The dictionary defines misogyny as "hatred of women". It is an ugly word, an ugly accusation and an ugly fact of life. It is now the word that has driven Australian politics to its lowest point in decades. Yesterday, the mask fell away, the curtain dropped, the real driver of the politics of personal abuse was revealed.

After sending out two attack dogs, Gutter and Sewer, to do the dirty work, after hiding behind two political zombies, Insufferable and Unspeakable, to stay in power, after using the Minister for Innuendo and the Compromise-General to play the gender card, the mask has finally dropped away to reveal the driver of the politics of hate in Australia.

The mask fell at exactly 2.42pm in the House of Representatives. Looking on were the member for Gutter, Anthony Albanese, the member for Sewer, Wayne Swan, the Minister for Innuendo, Tanya Plibersek, and the Compromise-General, Nicola Roxon, and the independents who will do anything to avoid facing their electorates, Mr Insufferable, Robert Oakeshott, and his fellow regional zombie, Mr Unspeakable, Tony Windsor.

Someone had to set Gutter and Sewer loose. Someone directed Innuendo and Compromise to play the gender card. Someone paid the bill for Insufferable and Unspeakable. Someone's authority still rests on the vote of Craig Thomson. And someone had to approve making Peter Slipper the Speaker despite his being manifestly disrespected by either side of the house, a low point of political opportunism."

However loudly the lefties applaud Juliar's playing of the gender card, she is left stinking of sleaze in her defense of Slipper. The stench of corruption is still lingering from Thomson and from her dealings at Gordon and Slater.

This entire government under the leadership of Ms Gillard smacks of an atmosphere of illegitimacy. Particularly, after they ambushed the legitimate Prime Minister in the back. Her core promise at the last election,'...there'd be NO carbon tax with the Govt. that I'd lead...' A blatant lie, by an illegitmate Prime Minister.

I like this!

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/restaurants-and-bars/restaurant-removes-misogynist-urinals-20121010-27cvx.html

I think we have to have a reclaim the humor march.

Misogynist walk!

For all guys who don't hate women, use swear words without really thinking about genitalia or coitus, and are so sick of the word being bandied about to silence any criticism of feminist doctrine or 'women in positions of power'.

Pest, it appears you do not watch parliament very often.
Quite understandable, but if you did you would see that both sides
when the leader is sitting at the table turn around to consult, talk
or whatever with their front benches.

No one has ever complained of that as far as I am aware.
As for referring to her as she, what should he say;

"Will the PM tell me what he intends to do about ---"

Bit silly your comment wasn't it ?
But very suitable for this thread.

SM,

It seems Abbott visits his "wit" door regularly then : )

You now what I'm getting at. If the leader of the opposition isn't capable of reassessing his usual banter to avoid a particularly notorious phrase - under the circumstances - then he deserves to be ridiculed for his lack of common sense.

You won't get me riled up by laying into Labor. I'm not particularly enamoured of them either.

I'm criticising Mr Abbott for being stupid.

(Btw, kudos from me for the title of this thread - excellent!)

Poirot,

Thanks, I normally put some effort into the titles.

While I would probably have avoided the phrase, the reality is that the tirade it provoked from the PM was a pure playing of the gender card, and while it gained her some Kudos from feminists, in reality it left her looking weak, and unable to address the issue.

Given her already poor standing with men, playing the gender card to deflect criticism will simply reinforce it.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/loathing-for-abbott-the-reason-for-vote-20121010-27dko.html
The link supports the advice I posted earlier.
It too says that Slipper was always going to be told to leave.
Not forced out by a Kangaroo court.
Such at the hands of a Lynch mob lead by a person of the poor standing of the Temporary Leader of the opposition would have forever stained this country,s Parliament.
The best result has been achieved in the right way.

Can anyone point to any criminal offence that Peter Slipper has been convicted of?

Nope !!

This means we're a bunch of moralising, holier than thou judges and total hypocrites! What man, in his private moments with other men, HASN'T used the "c" or "f" word ever, what man HASN'T sworn, what man hasn't had fun using sexual innuendo and descriptions in discussions with other men? Peter Slipper has done what close to EVERY other man in Australia has done .... his mistake was he left a "written" trail.

This enabled all the hypocrites, who have used similar phrases themselves all their lives, to come out and self righteously judge him as some sort of pervert (for political purposes of course). I've read the texts, they are mere silly, blokey swearing and sexual innuendo .... the type of language used by probably 90% of Aussie blokes at various times. And many of the texts are so utterly innocuous you'd have to be Jesus Bloody Christ himself to take offense.

We've turned into a nation of self righteous, judgmental fundamentalists and hypocrites .... where the real crime is to get "caught".

Yes, well said DaimontPete.

We have such an enormous tendency to get hung up on minutiae, blow tiny things out of all proportion without realising the hypocrisy, and ignore the elephant in the living room.

Slipper, Thomson, Nuttall, Rudd’s dismissal, etc, etc. All of these things get commented on and analysed to the Nth degree.

Meanwhile, the really big things that actually do matter to our country and our future, go virtually unthoughtof.

The donations regime, which means that big business is effectively buying the politics they want. And the enormously antisustainable direction that this is taking us is. THIS is what really matters.

But alas, very few people who are interested in politics are at all interested in this sort of thing.

Pete now apply that logic to The Parrot's current troubles.

The language doesn't phase me it's the truley bizarre stuff about clams. It sends my weirdo meter through the roof.

'We've turned into a nation of self righteous, judgmental fundamentalists and hypocrites'

Turned into?

Look you have to put it in context.

Blame the government tactics. As a government that has spent the last couple of months building a case of Mr Rabbit being a misogynist, and being responsible for comments a shock jock with the same politics makes, they have set the context.

Hoist by their own petard, and Slipper is the sacrificial lamb.

<<“Die of shame”>>

What the hell was Abbot thinking?
Doesn’t he possess half a brain?
Didn’t he knoooow what he was saying?

To use that ill phrase, that vile phrase “die of shame”!

The fact that it might have been used some 300 times before in the current parliament is toootally immaterial [see footnote 1]

Didn’t Abbot know that the mere mention of that “vile phrase” would evoke deep and dreadfully painful emotions in Ms Gillard (and allow her to play-up the offended princess -- to the max ).

Didn’t he know the nit picking nature of the lefts Sancho Panzas who hang off his every word looking for an pretext to waddle into battle.

Hear ye, hear ye, let it be known that hence forth -- under threat of tarring & feathering --“ die of shame” is to be struck from the English language.
And no one, I repeat, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE, is permitted to use it –or even allude to it
The one small exception to this rule being: unless of course the left is ever in need of it to browbeat its opponents.

1. “CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Tony Abbott's used that phrase dozens of times. It certainly wasn't in his mind at the time that there were some parts of it that Alan Jones had also used” http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2012/s3607394.htm

PS: Can you envisage this lot giving up power peacefully if they are voted out?
Any adverse election result will be presented as a misogynist plot!

SPQR said;
PS: Can you envisage this lot giving up power peacefully if they are voted out?

Have you forgotten that the Liberals/CP won more seats than Labour at the last election ?

It was a dopey thing to even say the word "shame", but under that sort
of pressure thats what happens.

I think the measure of Julia Gillard was shown in her reaction to it.

Diamond Pete said;
Can anyone point to any criminal offence that Peter Slipper has been convicted of?

Nope !!

This means we're a bunch of moralising, holier than thou judges and total hypocrites!
end quote

The point is that the Speaker is supposed to be "holier than thou".
That is why he was stood aside, but when his texts were exposed in
sworn evidence and not contested then it makes no difference whether
he is ultimately found guilty or not.
Because such a fuss has been made about misogyny even the government
could not have ignored it.

So your argument that we are all hypocrites is not valid.

Abbott's carbon tax exercise is in ruins, He can-not handle women of power, or any other woman. Uses the same language as Jones. He has been caught out. He has now got to find something to say.
Slipper has been sentenced without a trial. Why were the texts released while a trial is in progress. We seen the juicy bits what about the rest, if any.
What ever the discussion, it won't contain the welfare of the country.
Abbott can't talk economics, as the power bills showed he is battling to add up. We are headed for another hung parliament.
Gillard has got the wood on Abbott, he can't say anything without it being used against him.
All his reborn image is in tatters, lasted 3 days.
The man is an international whimp, manhandled by a female.
What will the next installment be

579, are you on the circulation list for "Today's issues position"
sent out to all concerned by the PM's office ?

All your output sounds like it !

'The man is an international whimp, manhandled by a female.'

579 are you as sexist and misogynist too?

<< The point is that the Speaker is supposed to be "holier than thou". >>

Really Bazz?

But no one is holier than thou. Some of us pretend to be. And those who are good at the pretence actually win brownie points from their highly unholy peers! Pffff… what hypocrisy!!

Surely all that should matter is whether Slipper could do the job or not.

In fact if anything, his use of good old hard-core Australian vernacular, in a manner completely outside of his role a speaker, and in what was really private correspondence, should make him appear as a normal bloke rather one of those pretentious false holier than thou types… and thus actually WIN him a few brownie points amongst the hordes of the highly unholy!

This is not a Q and A forum. The weasel is in the undergrowth liking his wounds, and other things. When the macho Mr Abbott regroups and rearms it will not contain politics, any thing but. Wasn't it Keating that said he was a political illiterate.
Turnbull is in waiting, and no doubt gathering friends.
The lever of parliamentary political debate is at rock bottom, I doubt if Abbott can sustain momentum much longer.
A woman hater, Pledges in blood, International whimp, time to clear the bench and start again.

Belly,

That the way Labor voted was because of loathing for Abbott is true, but it was yet another spectacularly bad judgement from the PM.

It is clear that labor had no intention of making Slipper resign, as Nicola Roxon (leading Slipper's defense) had access to the abhorrent texts months ago, and if they had any conscience would have asked him to leave then. However, their action was simply to legally suppress the texts and hope they never came out.

Still, after the texts became public, Labor did nothing. Only when the motion against Slipper was raised by the coalition (one of many) did Labor realise that they had lost and went into damage control. The tirade by Juliar was because she had been whipped.

The opposition to the coalition's motion was shocking judgement, and left Juliar to support language against women that would make Jones blush.

This was yet another crisis that Labor could easily have avoided if it had any morals at all.

' should make him appear as a normal bloke '

If Rudd had said that he may not have been booted. Worked with the strip joint he went to.

Ludwig he cannot be a 'Normal Bloke', he is a homosexual and this is Australia:-0

As I said, the government set the climate, The Great Misogynist Witch Hunt, and then they were hoist by their own petard when one of their own was caught riding the broom stick.

Jilia did a sterling job. The speech was genius, the ultimate distraction. Like little Johnny used to do, he was a master of these perfectly timed sideshows.

She's gone up in my estimation.

And really, the old Julia, the pre-image-managed-into-a-patronizing-headmistress Julia, the Julia with a bit of spirit came out.

The old Tony came out too, the accident prone guy who people have been anticipating ever since he took the leadership. He's been so controlled but I think he's losing it.

Maybe he should put on more of the angry face like he did when they asked him about that 'Sh_t Happens' quote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wT9XS_TvzQ

Or Johnnys twitch was funnier

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICTHefHAZls

The texts were private. One on one. When do we see the rest of them, or is it all down hill from there. Why was these selected texts released.
It's going to be awkward if the bloke is found guilty of nothing.
Labor new the outcome of the slipper vote before it took place. Slipper didn't write his speech in five minutes. With-out judgement he had to be given the chance to resign.
I don't know what SM is going to do when Tony is there no more. He is certainly backing the man and not the party.

I quite like Houellie's analysis.

I don't think Abbott is necessarily a misogynist. I think he's from the old conservative school where gender lines were drawn a little more emphatically.....or perhaps (as Dr Spooner would maintain) he's just a little "shy of dames".

Ludwig,

The standards of probity required of a Judge are far stricter than that of a Lawyer because of the level of trust and control they have. That is why Justice Einfeld was jailed for 2 years for falsifying a statutory declaration for speeding where most people would get a fine.

Similarly the speaker of the house has always been expected to have a level of probity higher than other politicians (not jailed for > 1 year). Given Slipper's de selection by the coalition for dubious expense claims, he was a poor choice to start with.

The harassment claims, the dodgy cabcharge dockets, and finally the awful texts (that have not be contested by him) shows just how poor Juliar's judgement was.

Diamond Pete and 579 are playing down slippers texts and say he has not been found guilty of any law.

You are right, but I recall a GG that was hounded from office by Labor and the left, who was not found guilty of breaking any laws either and, if memory serves me right, a certain Tas governor resigning over something or other.

The point is they brought the office held into illrepute.

Labors defence of Slipper is offensive. It shows lack of morality.

Wonder if Gillard will now talk to wilkie about Pokies again, after telling him to 'go jump'

If people were not ever able to see the total lack of morals and decency with the handbag brigade before the Slipper revelations they will remain totally blind afterwoods. Just look at what Emily's list stands for and its enough to make one vomit. I am surpriesed the Government has not offered Deveny a ministry.

<<I don't think Abbott is necessarily a misogynist. I think he's from the old conservative school where gender lines were drawn a little more emphatically.....or perhaps (as Dr Spooner would maintain) he's just a little "shy of dames">>

“I don't think Ms Gillard is necessarily a misandrist. I think she’s just revisiting her old Marxist Leninist student roots which instilled in her the need to sling as much mud as possible at your opponents in the hope that some of it will stick...or perhaps (as Machiavelli might put it) "A prince[ss] never lacks legitimate reasons to break he[r] promise[s]" and everyone should just shut-up and accept it.

When a religious perspective, runner, allows you to view the world with the zeal of a missionary position it is not uncommon to imagine women as beneath you.

Slipper was after all ordained a priest of the Traditional Anglican Communion and at least Archbishop Hepworth believes he could still pursue a life as a fully functional priest.

Not sure what 'fully functional' means in this context, though.

Both Slipper and Abbott are very religious, both use sexist and sexual language in private male to male conversations, both swear like wharfies in private male to male conversations, both have a 50s perspective on the role of men and women, have both spent a very long time in the Liberal Party and have been continually re-endorsed, have been for many long years (until recent times) good, personal, close friends issuing MANY statements of strong public support for each other.

Says it all.

Abbott = the biggest liar (on carbon pricing) and the biggest hypocrite (on Peter Slipper).

Polling shows Gillard is the preferred PM, over Abbott ... BY FAR.

Polling shows Labor and the Coalition are 50/50 in the two party preferred vote.

Polling shows Labor steadily and slowly gaining, month after month after month.

Both Slipper and Abbott are very religious, both use sexist and sexual language in male to male conversations, both swear like wharfies in private male to male conversations, both have a 50s perspective on the role of men and women, have both spent a very long time in the Liberal Party and have been continually re-endorsed, have been for many long years (until recent times) good, personal, close friends issuing MANY statements of strong public support for each other.

Says it all.

Abbott = the biggest liar (on carbon pricing) and the biggest hypocrite (on Peter Slipper).

Polling shows Gillard is the preferred PM, over Abbott ... BY FAR.

Polling shows Labor and the Coalition are 50/50 in the two party preferred vote.

Polling shows Labor steadily and slowly gaining, month after month after month.

DP you really are out of touch.

2pp =54% Coalition 46% Labor

Juliar's lead over Abbott has fallen and probably will fall further.

Juliar wins the lying prize hands down with the No carbon tax promise.

Lies are a part of current Coalition ideology. Here's the truth as it's NOT told by SM .... Labor/Coalition are 50/50 on the 2 party preferred vote as proven by polling .... http://theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/newspoll-shows-boost-for-julia-gillard-and-alp/story-fn59nilx-1226475234900

Nice try SM, better luck next time.

DP,

I gave you the benefit of the doubt, 'cause I thought you had missed the last polling. However, you then try and defend yourself with polls from 17 Sept. Now I know that you were deliberately lying.

The latest polls: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/polling

Even when the 50/50 polls came out, they were far out from all the others. Juliar is the future ex PM. (in disgrace)

DP you have given a victory to my mate SM he the master of spin needs no own goals.
I like your miss placed optimism but it changes nothing we are not 50/50.
DP this much is true, such is the nature of entrenched anti Gillard, like me but for other reasons, including pure bigotry, she will never win an election.
Sit down consider the alternative, reality in fact.
This awful dysfunctional opposition is going to rule.
Because our party,s owners are putting their face before our impending pain.

Banjo; The Speaker and the GG are in similar elevated position.
They both have to be above derision and be holier than thou.

The GG Kerr was completely correct in dismissing Whitlam for illegal
borrowing but fell from grace by turning up at the Melbourne Cup well
under the weather. There were apparently a number of similar occasions.

It was very poor management of the parliament that the government did
not get Slipper to resign right at the start of the house that day and
then the government would not have had to defeat the "No Confidence"
motion put up by the opposition.

That would have been the best solution all round and for the life of
me I cannot see why that was not done.
I guess that would be Albanese's fault as leader of the house.

Ludwig>> Hold on SM, the strategy of enticing a member of the opposition to become speaker and abandon his party was pretty damn good in the circumstances. You can hardly blame Labor for doing that<<

Luddy, perhaps a slick bit of finagling, but the reason for it came from another Gillard lie. She traded Wilkie’s blind obedience for poker machine reforms…she of course lied to him, so she could not trust him anymore….then she put the slipper in.

No, no talent there, just hypocrisy and conspiracy.

Nothing commendable.

Bazz, people only want to see what they want to see.

The Prime Minister could not support the 'removal' of the Speaker given the case is being determined by the Federal Court.

Otherwise it would be seen to be prejudicial and any subsequent judgement could be appealed, not a good look for anyone - don't you think?

The leader of the Opposition knew this but still sought the Speaker's sacking, preferring to play the cards in front of a 'dumbed-down' electorate.

The Government, some in the Opposition (privately at least) and particularly a couple of Independents, saw the conundrum. Slipper, after being privately approached, did the right thing by resigning - everybody acknowledges this.

Yet some want to spin it out of orbit, why?

Bazz,
kerr was not the GG I was thinking of, it was Peter Hollingsworth,I think. He was hounded out of office by Labor and the Left. I don't recall who the Tassie governor was.

The point is that they cast the high office in illrepute.

The Speaker had to go for the same reason.

Apparently Roxon knew about the texts weeks ago, so the government could have confronted him and requested his resignation and thus avoided the situation of them having to defend the sleaze bag.

The government sold any principle they still may have had, for power.

Pop GOS THE WEASEL.
Yes good thread title.
He has popped out.
Gone to Bali with the PM.
Shame Howard will not make a comeback, will he?

Belly,

I didn't realise that Whine Swan was going too?

I noticed that All these Labor hypocrites only came out to condemn the sexist comments at the union meeting at which nearly all the cabinet ministers were present, after they became public.

I also noticed that Rudd was critical of Juliar's handling of the Slipper issue. Maybe he also has a problem with women?

No Bonmot, they could simply asked/told Slipper to resign without
stating why publically.
I am not sure it would matter anyway because the details were a matter
of court record and uncontested.

As we now know the government knew weeks ago, it would have been easy
to handle. Slipper could easily have said he was resigning because
he thinks the speaker should be involved in such a court case.

Was that the full extent of the texts, not emails, or just what the media wanted to publish.
Texts are personal messages, emails can be seen by anybody.
The judge has reserved his decision, till when.
Why was the evidence released before a court decision.

579;
Texts, emails, voice calls etc etc are all the same.
If they are conveyed by telecommunications they are covered by the
secrecy provisions of the telecommunications acts.

Once presented in court they are on a public record.
What I wrote still stands they could have hushed it all up by speaking
to the Speaker sooner and giving him the option.

SM sure you are not a kid? School yard stuff that.
Slipper was a grub, Labor owned him for 11 months.
Your mob for more years than that.
He is not too bright, he knew your side protects such as him far better than mine, should have stayed hidden.
John Howard looked ready to return very good.
Abbott, he seems to wobble in his cloths like jelly, every thing OK?
Not sure hope he got a chance to be rude to a woman, his day is not the same if he fails to.

Bazz

"Hushing it all up" sounds all very clandestine. Do you really think the Government could have got away with that? I'm not sure it would go down too well in the electorate, let alone in the Coalition, in the name of transparency and the national interest, and all that.

In any event, what makes you think Gillard didn't talk to the Speaker sooner or indeed, give him the option?

No Bazz, Slipper was not going to resign before any of those sleazy messages were made public - he didn't see it in his interest. I would agree though, that may be the reason the Government (as a respondent) cut Ashby loose with $50k knowing Slipper was on a very slippery slope anyway.

Subjudacy seems to be overlooked by many other commenters here Bazz, a criminal offence in itself which could bring a charge of contempt of court. Is that what you think Gillard should have done back then?

The Speaker eventually did do the right thing but unfortunately for him (and fortunately for everybody else) it is not the end of the matter - the Federal Court still has a judgement to make.

Bonmot,
It still would not matter if Slipper got up and resigned the
contents of his texts were public knowledge at that time anyway.
He would have resigned just an hour or two earlier than he did.

I had only watched TV extracts of the Gillard speach so I went and
watched it all. It surprised me that no one asked the speaker to ask
the PM to be relevant to the motion.

The worse part I thought was her petty comment on Abbott looking at his watch.
Would she have said it if he looked at the hour glass instead ?

My wife went to a local ladies do last night and she tells me that
Julia's speach was widely discussed and they were all, except one want
her gone asap.

I suspect women look at such speach by women differently than do men.

Bazz in bonmots post a word you seem unaware of is instructive.
Sub judiciary.
Bet you last dollar John Winston Howard would not have put that motion.
Abbott has hooked you using only a bait not related to the good of the Parliament or country.

Hello Bazz,
Ever since Turnbull and Rudd were 'knifed' the political 'debate' in Australia has been a race to the bottom.

The Government (and its leader) still has to govern, still has to think in the national interest, and still has to get legislation through Parliament. It has and will, until such time the next election is called.

The Coalition, on the other hand, can keep 'slagging' the Government and the Prime Minister for all its worth. Unsurprisingly, this is not a good look for anybody, but is typical of the tactics employed at the behest of the current Opposition leader. Moreover, the speech you (and your wife's lady friends) watched has gone 'viral', the world over.

Now, contrary to what you or your wife/lady-friends think - the world now sees the Prime Minister's speech (retort to the Opposition Leader) as something that should have been said. Tony Abbott can rightly claim primacy to what the world now sees as possibly the next Prime Minister of Australia.

I for one would be ashamed.

Bony, if the world like her they can have her. We'll even gift wrap her. We'd have too, just in case they saw her, & reneged on the deal.

As for getting to the bottom, I'm not sure if Krudd or Gillard actually represent the absolute bottom for labor, they could amalgamate with the greens & perhaps get just a smidgen lower.

However add Turnbull in there, & there is just no place lower to go. Even with a 10 ton excavator you could not dig below that lot.

"...add Turnbull in there, & there is just no place lower to go...."

I'm fascinated by the penchant of dyed in the wool Liberal supporters on this forum to pan Turnbull. After all, this is the man who was only defeated by a single vote in the leadership spill.

Can't help but luxuriate in the thought of him retaking the leadership mantle, and imagining the likes of Hasbeen reduced to crying in his beer while watching reruns of John Howard toadying up to his hero Georgie Dubya.

...Ah, the good ol' days.

As evidenced by Hasbeen's above post, all the far right wingers have is personal abuse. No real and properly costed policies ... just personal abuse.

Just look at Parliament over the past 2 years; we've had day after day after day of personal abuse and invective hurled at the government by quite a few Coalition members. The government did NOT reply in kind to anywhere near the same extent, until recent months. Now that Labor's replying in kind, guess what? The poor, mistreated Coalition wussies are now complaining about it. The Coalition's Christopher Pyne, even complained last week that a male Coalition member was called a "BLOKE" by a member of the government ..... ha ha ha ha ha ha. This was from Pyne, who CONTINUALLY raises vindictive and disruptive points of order, and who CONTINUALLY yells vindictive and immature comments across the Parliament's floor, and who continually talks over the Speaker Of The House after being told to just sit down.

So Hasbeen, continue on with your personal abuse, as you try to copy your heroes. It's the modus operandi of the Coalition these days (personal abuse, anger, disruption and yelling). By the time the election comes around, it will cost them dearly.

Turnbull will lead again, and Liberals will try to forget Abbott even existed, he Abbott, will leave politics.
DP your over overoptimistic chook,s will come home to roost.
But just maybe you will learn from it.
Labor needs those who can see our true position and needs them now.
You by the way are not locked in battle with right wing Conservatives.
Like you, they are locked in to one side and need for thought is left behind.
All they need do is find faults even if they do not exist, with the other side.

DP,

From what I see all the left whingers have left is personal abuse, non of their policies that have purportedly been fully costed have come anywhere near meeting their budgets, their time schedules or even their purpose.

After the failure of every single policy so far Labor labor cannot go to the election based on its record and is left with only vague unfunded promises for dental, education and disability, and the gender card to play.

Bonmot & Belly, can't you see sub-judicy does not come into it !

It was already public knowledge and uncontested evidence and it would
be an action by Slipper himself !

That is not subjudicy.
At the very least it would make him look better.

Goodness me thats easy to understand !

It really must be soul destroying for our lefties, wanting to have a party, or even a single politician they can admire, & have the only one they can come up with a "B" grade looser from the other side.

We know you like him, which displays your lousy taste in leaders.

Turnbull is another Rudd, acting a part, as the population would run a mile if they saw the real person behind the front. You couldn't see through Rudd, & you can't see through him, & some of you even refuse to see through Gillard.

Gillard tried it, with the "real Julia", remember. Of course she is not smart enough, or controlled enough to pull even that off. The mask kept slipping letting the viper out too regularly for her act to work.

Bazz bit off frequency there mate, until the judgment is handed down it is.
Hasbeen, watch this space Liberalism is not dead rabid defense of Abbott is good to see.
Knowing you will have to eat humble-pie after Turnbull takes over and without change rumps in.

Belly, you have STILL missed the point.
It would be Slipper resigning !

That has nothing to do with the case.

On Turnbull etc, I would not lose any sleep either way.
The whole thing about the Abbott Abbott Abbott campaign it looks like
an exercise in viciousness.

I wouldn't take any notice of anything that woman said !

Belly,

Given your record on predicting future politics, Turnbull is doomed.

Bazz:

>> Bonmot & Belly, can't you see sub-judicy does not come into it !

It was already public knowledge and uncontested evidence and it would
be an action by Slipper himself !

That is not subjudicy.
At the very least it would make him look better.

Goodness me thats easy to understand ! <<

Ok Bazz, I'll tell you what might be easy to understand:

It was public knowledge and uncontested evidence that lead to the arrest of Adrian Bayley, accused of Jill Meagher's abduction, rape and killing. I'm sure most would remember this most recent tragic event.

Anyway, the resultant brouhaha concerned Law experts and the Victoria Police Chief Commissioner so much that very public requests were made to have people refrain from saying and doing things that would prejudice the case or jeopardise Bayley's right to a fair trial and a successful prosecution.

Subjudice, plain and simple.

In the end, Slipper was made an 'offer' he couldn't refuse - he resigned.

Belly, consider these scenarios:

Gillard just scrapes through the next election,
Abbott is ousted as Coalition leader,
Turnbull is elected leader,
Liberals romp in after that.

or

Abbott romps through the next election but flip-flops with his promises,
Turnbull challenges because of wide public disdain and wins,
Liberals (under Turnbull) govern for as long as Howard/Hawke

Interesting times ahead, yes?

So what you are saying Bonmot, is that the judge could find Slipper
in contempt of court for resigning !

Is that what you are saying ?

Rubbish !

200 + messages from slipper and only half a dozen published. What happened to the rest or is that all the media was interested in.
When do we see the ones where slipper harassed the other bloke.

>> So what you are saying Bonmot, is that the judge could find Slipper
in contempt of court for resigning !

Is that what you are saying ?

Rubbish ! <<

No Bazz, I am not saying that at all.

I am saying that a very public "debate" in the Parliament about, inter alia, the Speaker's personal (and now public) text messages (abhorrent as they appear to be) could prejudice the case against the Speaker in its prosecution because it is still before a Judge of the Federal Court.

I am saying that is plain and simple subjudice before the Federal Court's determination.

I am saying that the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition ... in fact; you, me, anyone - could be in contempt of the Federal Court. I'm not saying we would, I am saying we could.

Here is what I think is "rubbish":

" ... the judge could find Slipper in contempt of court for resigning."

On a personal note Bazz, you are obviously very riled up (so many exclamation marks and so unlike you) so my sincere suggestion is to avagoodweekend - I have other things to do.

cheers

579

What part of "subjudice" do you not understand?

Bazz read slowly, turn Alan Jones off in the back ground.
The matter is before the courts.
It is quite possible the judge may condemn the Parliament breaking the law, by talking about the very things he is making a decision on.
Slipper was always going to be told to go, AFTER tthe COURT HEARING.
You are screaming but failing to give consideration to the truth, you do not fully understand what you are saying.
IF the judge rules as I say he may, your humble pie will be massive.
Abbott win or not bonmot has no intention of keeping his promise.s and no idea about costs or truth the bloke lies.

I can't see what Bonmot & Belly are on about.
If a motion to remove the speaker had not been made then sub-judice
would not have happened.
That was what I was saying, get him to resign before it was moved.
No discussion in parliament so no sub-judice.

I am disappointed, no females came on here to abuse me for saying
"that woman" !

I set a trap but they didn't take the bait !

I guess Julia Gillard has now made the phrase "that man" or "that woman"
legitimate now.
So go to it fellows, you can refer to Julia as that woman to your
hearts content.

"So go to it fellows, you can refer to Julia as that woman to your hearts content."

Wow, Bazz...cutting edge stuff, what!

@ "I set a trap but they didn't take the bait ! "

I understand now, Bazz ... it's just another race to the bottom.

Well done, not!

(A justified exclamation mark, imho)

Bazz you are getting old mate.
Once you would have been more than aware but sorry to say not now.
Leave your bias on the shed floor and we will try.
Abbott,s move against Slipper was opportunistic, he knew Slipper was to go,independents and Labor,knew too, AFTER THE COURT HEARING.
Post Abbott,s failed attempt at circumventing the LAW independents went , meeting Albanese there, to tell Slipper what he already knew, he had to go.
In resigning, not being sacked, the AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT saved an act we never had to do before.
The best possible out come.
BAZZ take notes,the judge has reserved his judgment.
IF he during his handing it down, is CRITICAL of Parliaments actions, he can be, Tony Abbott could be chucked out by his party.
One thing to refuse to see Bazz another to tell those who can it is they who are blind.
Abbott acted badly

that wo/man..calls m rabbit
but yes mr wabbit..and THAT*,..not man..ie not a male [free..but a bound and bonded feemale..yep sounds like THAT woman..

now how to spin it
that woman lies..that woman is calling people names
based on refuted and long obslolete lies..except when packaged together to distract from a true [but inhouse missoginist..yeah |THAT WOMAN..defends in house 'friendlies'..while attacking the mess-anger..

but those so put off by the ongoing lies
so want their woman in power..cause their union mates need a chick there to throw the flack..attack..

because it sadly measures a high tibe mark
for womanhoods...just as beasatly as any man..when defending their loved ones..

yes he is a pervert..missogionist
but what man aint?

at leastrhe takes commands from one..acting more male
than the man..miss ohgenist..speaker remaining si-lent
yet able to don the helpless tart in a heartfart..

poor girl..the best of womanhoods
acting like a girly girl..lol..wish she would get a specialist to groom her..she acts like that spoiled willsum...whilly but clever liar..shrewd shrew..who does favours for the boys club..on tic*.

only for the inhouse l;ot shes in bed with
but look at how words get taken out of context..
roll on newspoll

Belly,

You say "Abbott,s move against Slipper was opportunistic, he knew Slipper was to go,independents and Labor,knew too, AFTER THE COURT HEARING." - Bollocks.

Labor was using the court case as a delaying tactic. Once the texts became public it was clear he could not remain in the chair. That Labor had the texts months ago and covered by court secrecy meant that they hoped that this could continue until the next election. Roxon's settlement with Ashby let the cat out of the bag and left Juliar defending an indefensible position.

I am amazed that you cannot see this;

1. PM suggests Slipper resign.

2. Slipper resigns.

No motion to remove then necessary.

Where is the sub-judicy ?

One thing is evident despite the empahsis on Left and Right wingers is that the Labor and Liberal party are so closely aligned now on many policy issues that the only avenue left for engagement is on the trite personal comments of politicians, inappropriately used gender cards, he said-she said, hyprocisy and so forth.

It always amuses me to read about the supposed surge of left wingers of which there has not been any sign of in the last 20 years in Australian politics.

A woman interviewed by a journalist after calling an Obama a Communist was asked what she meant by that word and she said she had no idea. I think that sums it up really.

'Pale pink under the beds' does not sound as conclusive nor as derogatory.

Pelican,

You have hit the nail on the head.

What a great (and ultimately simple) analysis!

My problem, and something that has led to my recent disaffection with Aussie politics, stems from that very point - that it became increasingly difficult to differentiate between the two major parties. You're spot-on that all that is left for them to engage in are sniping, puerile and petty put downs...because, in the main, they are both media-driven and beholden to populist politics. ( I will, however, give Labor some kudos for introducing a scheme for the mitigation of human polluting practices - it's a start if nothing else)

Having said that, Mr Abbott inspires absolutely nothing that would make me reassess my Labor leanings. He is no alternative elixir.

(that communist bunkum aimed at Obama was part of a construction cooked up by Fox News under the auspices of Glenn Beck - before he overstepped the mark and was shown the door)

Do those text's that we seen, constitute sexual harassment, or has the goal posts shifted again.
200+ text's and we only see a few.
Was there reference to Ashby, or was it just obscene language.
I do not know why the text's were released before a decision, and why just those ones.
I say Ashby has had help in getting to court, by Payne and Abbott.
It seems pretty thin evidence that Ashby was harassed.

579 said;
I do not know why the text's were released before a decision, and why just those ones.

I have read plenty of reports of evidence given in court while the
trial was still in progress.
It is not unusual at all. Why else do we have court reporters ?

I think anyone can get copies of the evidence while the trial is current.
Very occasionally you see a judge suppress evidence from publication.
Do others agree with this ?

Pelican and Poirot,
I disagree, the big difference between the major parties is that Labor are far less compedent in financial management than Liberal. Labor started with about $20 billion in the bank and now has a $187.6 billion loan which must be repaid at some time. This has been because Labor has wasted the money on hair brained schemes which all failed. They have nothing, no infastructure or anything to show for the huge spending.

On the other hand Liberals have a well proven record of financial management.

I think labor puts far to much emphasis on their leader whilst the liberals rely more on cabinet decissions. Rudd's stupidity in reversing policy on the illegal boat arrivals is a classic example.

You will find boat arrivals would have increased in any case. it has something to do with the amount of disruption in the world.
liberals collapse the economy and create unemployment, Infrastructure spending goes by the wayside. Liberals are for the 1% economy.
That 20 billion has grown to 98 billion in the futures fund managed by Costello and co.

Banjo,

"....no infrastructure or anything to show for the huge spending."

You're joking of course?

What a silly bleat that is. I only have to cruise past a selection of schools in my immediate area - and every one of them possesses excellent and long-needed additions in infrastructure.

I'm also wondering why Australia's economic performance wasn't much dented by the GFC?

Can you give me an alternative scenario that somehow ignores the impact of the economic stimulus? After all, the opposition's line on the stimulus, isn't based on sound ideology, but simply on a "spoiling" mechanism - nothing but heckling from the sidelines.

btw, Banjo, thanks for your input - makes me realise there are more differences between the two majors than I've been taking into account.

Bazz, these links explain subjudicy better than I:

http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Manuals%20Volume%203/volume3_64.htm#fair

and,

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/odgers/chap1011

and,

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4285856.html

Should those text's have been released before the judge makes a decision the way i read it they should not.

579, here is an extract from the first link;

So, from the time that someone is charged with a crime - or, more
accurately, from the time when the police tell you that someone is
about to be charged with a crime - the case is sub judice.
From that moment on, until the court case is completed, you should
write nothing about the crime except *details* which emerge while the
court case is being conducted.
end quote * * my emphasis

I think the last sentence is directly applicable to this case.
The judge of course has the option to embargo all or any part of the
evidence.
The texts are clearly details that have emerged.
I believe that rule is similar to the reason a charged persons name
must be made available to avoid secret charges and trials.
Also the rule makes evidence available to the public so they can see
that the trial is being conducted fairly.
Otherwise court reporters would have no function.

I notice that Insiders this morning agreed with me that Slipper
should have been asked to resign before the opposition motion was put.
Then the whole nasty smozzle of Thursday would have been avoided.

579,

Ashby made a request to release the texts. This was unopposed by Slipper. Whether it was stupid of Slipper to allow this is history, but it was entirely within the law.

As Labor's economic competence, this is a joke. One can keep up growth employment etc if one keeps on spending. It is when fiscal discipline is required that the brakes come on. I notice that the unemployment is creeping up again.

I fail to see why the text's that we seen were harassing Ashby.

579,

Maybe we should use small words.

There were hundreds of texts.
The papers did not print them all as they don't want to dedicate pages, and printed those that it deemed new and/or of interest,
This does not mean that there are not texts on lots of issues.

Politicians lie,if you find one that does not bottle him! he will be worth stacks on ebay.
The saddest thing about this thread, and views in general?
ABBOTT LIES MORE THAN GILLARD!
Yet for the good of this country both should go now.
Comments about Labors financial credentials, IGNORE THE WORLD Envies US.
We see extreme right wing comment from folk who do not understand or think they are extreme or right wing.
Left? I am the new left, greens are the real left, I beg for new Labor, it will come.
But not until a Conservative government, yet again, after winning becomes so bad they hand government back to Labor.
UNLESS LABOR DROPS THOSE WHO ARE ONLY SELF INTERESTED.
But non core promises will be chin deep in the first year of Conservative government.
Unless Turnbull takes that party back to Liberalism.
Then?
My party, its near death at the hands of self interest will pay for ten years plus for the knifing of Rudd.
OR UNLOAD GILLARD PRE ELECTION.

Bazz, we will have to stop meeting like this :)

You say:

>> I notice that Insiders this morning agreed with me that Slipper
should have been asked to resign before the opposition motion was put.
Then the whole nasty smozzle of Thursday would have been avoided. <<

I'm impressed with your elevation as the 'go-to-guy' for the Insiders. Seriously though;

What makes you think the Speaker wasn't asked to resign, either when the texts became known to the Attorney General, or after Ashby was cut loose, or anytime before Abbott put the motion?

Do you really think he would have said sure, no probs, easy-peasy?

No Bazz, he was going to hang-in for all it was worth - politics can be a dirty game.

I'll say it again:

Neither the Prime Minister (nor the Attorney General) could publicly support the 'removal' of the Speaker given the case is being determined by the Federal Court.

Otherwise it could be seen to be prejudicial and any subsequent judgement could be appealed.

The leader of the Opposition knew this but still sought the Speaker's sacking in full Parliament - notwithstanding its primacy.

The Government, some in the Opposition and particularly a couple of Independents, saw the conundrum.

The Speaker, following the defeat of the motion and after being privately approached by some Independents, did the right thing and resigned.

Of course he would hang on as long as possible, but whether he was
pressured or not if he had just resigned no one could make a case that
it was sub-judice.
He would have had the chance to resign rather than being publically pushed as he was.

Piorot,
The BER (Builders Early Retirement Fund) was a fiasco. Even the smh, age and the ABC were running stories about the over pricing and consultants getting most of the monies. Schools were getting buildings they did not want but could not get what was needed. In short a fiasco.

Then you could add all the other money wasting failures. Home insulation which was dumped, again because of incompedent management. The chinese and US economies did well out of it by supplying the bats.

Then you have computers for schools with only half supplied thus far, with extra cost for parents. Green loans scheme dumped, and Green start program also dumped. Fuel watch scrapped, as was grocery watch and cash for clunkers. Then what about the $900 give away. GP super clinics where only 11 were provided and indigenous housing where very few have been built on last report. There are more Labor stuff ups than these.

Yeah labor are great fiscal managers.

The truth is we were greatly shielded from the GFC because the Chinese were still buying our coal, iron ore and gas. Mining has been the backbone of our economy.

The only way to pay off the soon to be $200 billion loan will be by increasing taxes and cutting expenditure.

I think this article in the SMH sums it up perfectly:

"The opposition moved a motion to remove the Speaker of the House, Peter Slipper, on an accusation of denigrating women, and obscenely so, in private text messages to a staff member.

The moment Gillard rose to defend Slipper and keep him in office, she chose to defend the indefensible, to excuse the inexcusable. The government had spent a month vilifying Tony Abbott for having "a problem with women". But when one of the bulwarks of the government was exposed as having a problem with women, it was suddenly acceptable.

But isn't that what we've come to expect from all politicians - choosing power over principle? Don't they all do that? That is the point. If there was one thing that should have been different about Gillard's prime ministership, it should have been that Australia's first female prime minister should have been a flag bearer for women.
Remember when she ascended to the prime ministership? She was greeted with a surge of approval in the polls as Australians anticipated a refreshing change.

She started on her long trajectory of electoral disillusionment when, bit by bit, she revealed herself to be just another politician. That trajectory reached its lowest point yesterday when she showed she was prepared to defend even the denigration of women if it would help her keep power. If Gillard will not defend respect for women, what will she defend? Just another politician indeed.

Gillard berated the Coalition for endorsing Slipper as a candidate for Parliament in his former life as a Liberal before he betrayed his party to take the Speaker's job. But after abusing the Coalition for defending Slipper in the past, she mobilised her government to defend him in the present. The government managed to garner the barest majority, 70 votes to 69.

Four hours later, this was revealed to be a waste of political capital when Slipper resigned. He recognised what Gillard could not - that he was a lost cause.

Gillard's judgment was flawed. All she achieved was a serious loss of credibility.

200 plus text messages, and we see six. I presume they were the juiciest ones. The decision must be tough. 200 text messages would take a lot of printing paper , not to mention the ink.
It's pretty poor that six messages were singled out, to be chosen for print.

579 do not defend Slipper.
We had him for less than a year.
SMs mob hide him for 28!
He wrote some, the worst, of those things from their side.
SM dislikes him for his taking a vote from Abbott,s tent, nothing to do with filth and bad behavior.

I am not defending Slipper, I think it's odd only a selected few get published.
The ones that did get published were not harassing any one.
Abbott is sending mixed signals again in Indonesia.
What he says there is not what he says here. No doubt we will hear all about it.

So in the end, exactly what has Slipper actually done?

Has he been charged with anything? No.

Did he perform badly as Speaker? No.

Does he have a flawed character? Perhaps.

The "evidence" against him is some unsavory text messages between him and Ashby (at least one in response to Ashby originally calling Mirabella a "botch") - many of which were made while he was in the LNP and would normally never have become public.

Slipper's "crime" was to betray those LNP sponsors who supported him and concealed his private activities for years but then decided to hand his seat over to somebody else.

When it comes to self-righteousness, many others have questions to answer too.

579, Rache,

You labor supporters continually surprise me with how low your expectations of your representative MPs are. But considering the vile acts of Thomson, I shouldn't.

Ministers and particularly the speaker are held to a higher standard and as the police minister in Queensland had to resign for driving without a license (even though he claimed it was in ignorance) so a speaker of parliament is not expected to send vile texts to others.

This is not hard to understand, but maybe for the Labor voters I should use small words.

SM,

Link please to Thomson being charged - and/or found guilty of "vile" acts...or anything.

Or do you consider it honourable conservative practice to bandy about such views helter-skelter?

Please refer to the investigation by the statutory body responsible:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/fair-work-australia-finds-craig-thomson-spent-almost-6000-on-escorts-on-an-hsu-credit-card/story-e6freuy9-1226349197812

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/fair-work--moves-on-thomson-over-misuse-of-hsu-funds-and-escort-services-20120507-1y86c.html

Thomson is a crook, and Labor having spent $100 000s defending him jettisoned him from the party, but still relies on his vote.

The Slipper case was in court, it was supposed to be about sexual harassment. Has sexual harassment taken place or not. The texts we seen were just a sideshow. SM can use any size print he likes, it's the court decision that counts.

SM,

The FWA investigation was found to be flawed - remember?

Link please to any charges or findings of guilt regarding Mr Thomson.

SM,

...that's finding of guilt in a "court of law" - not a statutory body, that is represented close to the top by the partner of Thomson's chief accuser.

But wait....breaking news!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-15/fair-work-begins-federal-court-proceedings-against-craig-thomson/4313948

...based on a flawed investigation....?

Should be interesting.

Poirot,

You have a selective memory, KPMG, in finding the report flawed said that there were a number of incidents that had not been investigated sufficiently, but that they did not disagree with the conclusions drawn.

i.e. there should have been further investigations into more activities.

You're the one with the selective memory, SM.

From the ABC news report:

"The report by accounting firm KPMG says Fair Work Australia was not experienced in the conduct of investigations, was deficient in its planning, management and execution of the investigation, and there were no qualified or experienced investigators involved.

It also says that Fair Work failed to consider all sources of information which could have led to additional lines of inquiry, and security arrangements over documents were inadequate."

Sounds competent - not....

Well we will now see:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1701747/Thomson-charged-by-Fair-Work-Australia

http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/15124082/fair-work-begins-court-action-against-thomson/

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/fair-work-lays-charges-against-independent-mp-craig-thomson/story-e6frg6n6-1226496425245

FWA commenced proceedings in the Federal Court on Monday against Mr Thomson, who has been accused of using the Health Services Union credit card for personal purchases, including prostitutes, while he was the union's national secretary between 2002 and 2007.

FWA general manager Bernadette O'Neill confirmed the statement of claim lodged in the court was based largely on the findings of a three-year investigation that was concluded this year but said it included several additional allegations.

Ms O'Neill said the claim included 37 alleged breaches of general duties by officers of registered organisations and 25 alleged breaches of HSU rules.

SM has no memory, his task is to turn every thing on its head and claim white is black sky is down and Abbott is human.

Here we go again, 'Mr Wiggle-Waggle' (aka OLO's Shadow Minister) making unsubstantiated assertions:

>> Thomson is a crook <<

Maybe he is, maybe he isn't ... yet to be proven one way or the other, in the Court.

Seems 'Mr Wiggle-Waggle' could be in contempt of court for publishing his assertion - guilty until proven innocent.

Seems 'Mr Wiggle-Waggle' doesn't understand subjudice law either, not surprised.

I seem to recolect that the FWA organisation was going to turn the
evidence over to a legal firm to prepare the case.

It was suggested today that the case may fail because of statute of limitations.
If it does that will be a shocking scandal.

Mr Wiggles (BM)

I am fully aware of the law, as it appears that you are not. The worst I could be accused of is Libel, which would be very difficult for Thomson to prove. (though I would love him to try!)

Mr wiggles it would also appear that your understanding of English is limited, please look up the definition of unsubstantiated. My assertion is not yet proven beyond reasonable doubt, but is far, far from unsubstantiated.

Thomson is a Crook and is soon to be bankrupt and on the street. His wife should take note of the dozen or so hookers he has slept with and get checked for STDs, and dump his weasel backside while he still has a pot to piss in.

Wow - SM,

I hope you're not disseminating a view on the due process of law in an enlightened society.

Imagine if someone made allegations against your good self - and then an investigation was undertaken that lasted years by a statutory body that has as one of its senior members the partner of the person who is your chief accuser. Imagine then that an investigation of that investigation found that it was flawed, as in:

"The report by accounting firm KPMG says Fair Work Australia was not experienced in the conduct of investigations, was deficient in its planning, management and execution of the investigation, and that there were no qualified or experienced investigators involved."

Further to that, imagine posters on social media websites going around declaring you a "crook" resting on their own bias and relying on allegation and innuendo from partisan sources to reach their conclusion - untried in a court of law.

I imagine you'd think that that scenario flew in the face of what you believed was fairness under the laws and conduct of our society

...in fact, it's more akin to gutter conduct, IMO

I can hear SM now in my mind FAIRNESS! WHAT LEFTY ROT!
LAW!WHO CARES ! unless its one of ours.
Say something controversial SM,we may get this thread to 200!

Poirot et al,

Before loosely attaching your own understanding to the term sub-judice please look at a legal definition and if you can point out anywhere that I have strayed:

http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Resources/medialaw_in_australia_03.html

He is free to sue me for defamation, but considering the Labor party had to shell out $350 000 for his legal fees and payment to Fairfax

I am basing this on the forensic evidence linking his use of the credit card to hiring prostitutes on 12 separate occasions plus plenty more, and If I had this much evidence against me I would plead guilty and call it quits. Dragging out the court case with such overwhelming evidence is not likely to lead to a reduced sentence.

I repeat Thomson is a crook upon which Labor relies.

So, SM, what you're saying is that Mr Thomson is free to sue you for defamation...blah, blah, blah...

And you hold your conduct in repeatedly referring to a man not tried before a court on these issues as a "crook"......

- and you seem proud of that fact!

Makes me wonder why we bother with a process of law at all, with your kind of reasoning.

But we do bother with it - and attitudes like yours remind us why it's such a valuable principle.

So SM says:

>> Thomson is a Crook and is soon to be bankrupt and on the street.

His wife should take note of the dozen or so hookers he has slept with and get checked for STDs, and dump his weasel backside while he still has a pot to piss in. <<

He is right in one respect; Graham Young is technically the publisher of this vile vomit emanating from SM's 'kangaroo court'.

What will be interesting will be to see if the government or the labour
party pay his legal fees this time around.
Anyone know what the statute of limitations is on civil action embezzlement ?
Perhaps that is why the police have not acted.
It might be shorter on criminal actions.

If so you now know why the investigation took so long.

Oh BM you delicate flower, Not used to some robust vernacular?

I shall phrase it thus:

Mrs Thompson, having apprised herself of her husband's frequent partaking of entertainment of the horizontal variety with ladies proficient in this profession, should avail herself of the appropriate medical advice to ensure her health is not at risk from the unwanted consequences sometimes contracted from these activities.

Furthermore, given her husband's future economic outlook and opprobrium ,she should separate herself both physically and financially from him before she shares in his likely insolvency.

Is this better?

Low SM, Billy Macky Sneddon died on the job, and he was far from alone.
See the Weasel backed away in Indonesia, did not have the Jam Tart to say what he planed!
PS
Write any of those e mails?

You still don't get it, do you 'shadow'?

Neither you, nor I, let alone Mrs Thompson or indeed the Court, knows the guilt or innocence of Craig Thompson in these matters.

In fact, law abiding people in our society believe in the notion of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Except you, obviously.

You insinuate and assert some vile and vociferous things to Craig Thompson (and by extension 'slap it on' his wife and family) before it has even gone to court.

Your last flowery post just demonstrates to all who are watching that you haven't got a clue about what the issues really are.

You're spewing of vomitus does nothing to engender rational dialogue - it belongs in the gutter with others of your shadowy ilk.

Alan Jones and Tony Abbott must be taking notes.

BM,

Your knowledge of the law and the legal process is woeful.

"The presumption of innocence, is the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty. Application of this principle is a legal right of the accused in a CRIMINAL trial.

This does not apply to civil trials (which Thompson is presently facing)

In civil trials and in other matters people are given the benefit of the doubt, and are not assumed to have offended unless there is sufficient to believe otherwise.

In this case there is a huge volume of evidence, 12 separate cases where CT's card was used to procure prostitutes, and dozens of other cases of corrupt activities. The threshold required for reasonable conclusion of crookery has been buried under the volumes of misdeeds over the years.

While I understand your political leanings drive your desire to remain wide eyed and naive, but please don't assume that the rest of us are that stupid.

Considering the numerous and completely unsubstantiated accusations you level at Abbott and the Coalition you are hardly in any position to pontificate.

As for Mrs Thompson, I really feel sorry for her, she has children by this crook, and faces a very bleak future

SM,

Link please to "charges" preferred against Craig Thomson or court proceedings where he has been found guilty.

Are you referring to the credit card imprint that spelled his name "Thompson"?

You're making the same mistake - it's Mr "Thomson" and Mrs "Thomson".
Although I suspect a legitimate credit card wouldn't contain such an error.

You've reached the threshold required for a reasonable conclusion of bias.

I "used" to grant you some integrity, SM.

Still wiggling and waggling, SM.

While I understand your political leanings drive your desire to remain wide eyed and naive, please don't assume that the rest of us are that stupid.

>> Considering the numerous and completely unsubstantiated accusations you level at Abbott and the Coalition you are hardly in any position to pontificate. <<

HaHaHaHaHa

Hypocritical pontificator yourself.

Poirot,

Neither Thomson, the HSU or his defence have any time tried to claim that this was not the card issued to him. The only people trying to claim this as proof that the card was forged are some bloggers.

Company cards are issued in the companies name with the name of the user supplied by the company unchecked by the CC company as the company to whom the card is issued is liable. I have seen this happen more than once, and the card users continued to use the card until a corrected one arrived.

I am also able to form an opinion without relying on the judgement of the court. If this was the only arbiter, then the DJ's CEO was not guilty of sexual harassment, nor was Richard Pratt guilty of price fixing as both cases were settled with admission of wrong doing.

For example can you honestly expect me to believe that in 12 separate instances prostitutes were paid for by Mr Thomson's card that has been forensically linked to him (ie signatures) and he has never once spotted the errors on his expense claim?

Tell me that in your heart of hearts you actually believe that all 65 separate charges were all a set up.

Mr Wiggles (BM)

Grow up.

"Grow Up"

Spoken like the OLO pontifcator you are.

Wiggle-waggle all you like 'shadow', but there is due process to follow.

From any perspective, you're still only leading a lynch mob from a kangaroo court of your own making.

All of the texts that related to any thing of a sexual nature have been published. Those half a dozen texts were it. So where is the sexual harassment, against Ashby as was supposed to be the charge.
No wonder a decision can-not be made.
A few filthy texts do not constitute a sexual harassment finding.
The driving force behind the court case was corrupted by other influences. Cab charges, and sexual harassment, along with the commonwealth failing to supply a safe workplace.
A return bout is needed to see where these charges originated from.

Good morning Shadow Minister for every day I have been here, you and I have not got on.
Only a missing contributor long gone, has been harder to like.
I love open debate, you have no idea of the terms meaning.
You called me liar, on the slimmest of, not existing evidence.
You add color to the place, not a nice color but color still.
You understand do you not?
I refrain from my true feelings about you being put in to print, you have every right to yours.
Me to mine, unstated.
IF you are not Christopher Pyne, you indeed do a fine job of looking like him.
Julie Bishop? Bronwyn? getting warm? Sophey Mirabella?
Enjoy your romp in the sand pit try not to piddle on too many feet on the trip.

The case about Slipper was designed to cause disruption, frustration, and annoyance, there was no sexual harassment.
The filthy texts were the sole reason behind the case.
The judges decision to reserve judgment may take three months before judgment is realized.
The whole case was designed solely to penalize Slipper for jumping camp, and have a filthy text released.
Several noalition members knew of the existence of slippers text to Ashby, and the whole setup was to get Slipper.
Slipper was meant to resign from parliament, and not just move seats.

SM,

If it's all so cut and dried, why hasn't Thomson been charged with...something...anything?

Are you honestly telling me that there's not a very foul smell emanating from this "whole" affair?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-26/jacksons-at-centre-of-hsu-allegations/4093190

And why do completely dismiss the pertinence of KPMG's findings that the FWA investigation was significantly flawed?

Bottom line - whether or not Thomson is guilty is something yet to be determined.

You display bad form in your recent rhetoric.

Belly,

Over the years you have never ceased in attacking me personally. I care not a jot.

Because I consider carefully what I write, and my opinions have strong foundations on the facts, articles or my personal qualifications in engineering, economics, and to some extent Law. Your rambling, and factually devoid personal attacks often don't warrant the effort to reply.

I enjoy engaging with those that motivate their opinions and know what they are talking about, what irritates me is when idiots confuse their opinions with the facts. The most recent example is the assertion that the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" applies in any way outside a criminal court.

Another irritant is those who have not progressed intellectually past kindergarten. Mr wiggles this means you.

SM,

Perhaps you should cut the holier-than-thou, conservatively couched "....my opinions have strong foundations in fact..." blather.

Anyone with a modicum of regard for fair dealings and civilised discourse would not indulge in rhetoric like this:

"Thomson is a crook and is soon to be bankrupt and on the street. His wife should take note of the dozen or so hookers he has slept with and get checked for STD's, and dump his weasel backside while he still has a pot to piss in."

You're splashing around in the gutter.

In the realm of the kangaroo court you are guilty until proven innocent in a court of law.
That sounds about right for a noalition door stop.
The FWA was out of date to start with, 2 year limitations,and FWA took three of them.
Thomsons lawyers have warned about bad mouthing their client.

SM I doubt your qualifications.
Law for sure, a clerk would understand the difference between JUDICIARY, and your red herring.
In the end I admit I go for you.
But want you to know, it is because unlike most who agree with my view of you, I tell you.
Grim? true but history rarely lets us write our own version of it.

The weasel has popped.

>> Another irritant is those who have not progressed intellectually past kindergarten. Mr wiggles this means you. <<

'sugar daddy'

Poirot,

I bet that Graham Young got plenty of requests to delete my comment, however, I carefully chose my words to convey my contempt and revulsion for this sordid little man whilst remaining well within the facts and requirements of decency and conduct for this site.

Since you also objected to the less robust prose I used, I assume that it was the content that offended you. Please indicate which of the following concepts is offensive and is completely unfounded:

1 Thomson is corrupt
2 Thomson has slept with prostitutes
3 The fines and legal action Thomson is facing is very likely to bankrupt him.
4 Thomson's intercouse with multiple partners is health risk to his wife. (I am surprised that you are sexist enough to suggest that Mrs Thomson to risk her health in order to stand by her husband.)
5 As a consequence of the above Mrs T would be well advised to get a divorce settlement while there is any money to be had.

Or in the face of the FWA findings, the 65 civil charges, and the pending criminal charges, are you seriously proposing that Mr T should be treated as pure as the driven snow.

As for Thomson's puffing that he will sue anyone that claims he slept with prostitutes, this is laughable considering that he tried this against Fairfax and lost with costs, and big sister had to bail him out to the tune of $150 000.

SM is not only a lawyer he is a doctor as well. When and if Thomson is found guilty, until then he will remain innocent of anything.
I would be careful of such accusations, in the light of a case that will be in court.
We try evidence and Thomson will get a chance to plead.
The noalition had him sentenced on the bases of a one sided enquiry. Evidence by word of mouth is not good enough to convict anyone.
I presume in 18 months we will now the outcome.

I'm supposing that Graham didn't receive any requests for your comment to be deleted - doesn't happen as often as you might suppose.

I'll leave you to it, SM...in your snug little world of flawed investigations that apparently pass with some people for integrity.

Should be interesting when it all comes out in the wash.

Shadow Minister, willing to bet no one asked for it to be removed.
I have my issues with you, left a few times over you, other have too.
But in the end I have no pretensions, you are far better educated than me, but it is wasted on you.
You display here, therefore in your real life, a self confidence bordering on, apart from miss placed, massive self deception.
Bloke it comes over every time you mount your hight horse and tell us how good you are.
I truly respect GY, understand his politics is far closer to yours than mine.
But after your grubby inflammatory post, one that saw me insult you, I can do better.
You verbally infer GY is on your side.
IF I got barred for life, my respect for you remains as YOU PLANTED IT, NON-EXISTANT.

1 Thomson is corrupt

I assume so, my personal opinion. There is a hell of a lot of smoke for sure, but the investigation was undertaken by people with a conflict of interest.

2 Thomson has slept with prostitutes

It sounds pretty likely, weren't there transactions on his credit card? It could be an elaborate set up, but based on the volume of evidence it is unlikely.

3 The fines and legal action Thomson is facing is very likely to bankrupt him.

Who knows. Perhaps the Labor party will foot the bill by some mechanism.

4 Thomson's intercouse with multiple partners is health risk to his wife. (I am surprised that you are sexist enough to suggest that Mrs Thomson to risk her health in order to stand by her husband.)

This is a baseless assertion as to whether he used a barrier method contraception at the alleged visits to prostitutes. Who knows, he may have cried on their shoulder about his impotence:-) As to 'sexist enough', I don't believe anyone suggested a course of action for the wife?

5 As a consequence of the above Mrs T would be well advised to get a divorce settlement while there is any money to be had.

I find it hard to advise anyone on a tactical divorce. Why do you assume they cant or don't want to sort out any marital conflict? How well do you know the couple?

[Deleted for abuse.]

I suppose my unscrupulous habit of checking my facts before I post puts me at an unfair advantage. I, however, do intend to continue with this unethical practice.

I also notice that when the personal attacks start, the left whingers have exhausted their intellectual capital. With some it happens earlier than with others. (Mr wiggles)

>> I also notice that when the personal attacks start, the left whingers have exhausted their intellectual capital. With some it happens earlier than with others. (Mr wiggles) <<

That from a man who sets the tone of the thread with this:

>> If there is a scorecard of who came out better yesterday, Juliar came out with egg on her face, looking sleazy and bitter. <<

S'pose that makes SM a 'real right whinger'

Mr Wiggles,

Do you have a point?

SM,

You're the one who's swaggering about on this thread telling us how diabolically clever you are - that you believe you can impugn, with apparent impunity, Craig Thomson based on a flawed investigation and without a court ruling.

You're the one who has crafted this discussion into a measure of your personal prowess.

On the contrary, it appears to me that you're the type who will ignore they myriad indications, shining like beacons, that this whole affair is significantly compromised. Who believes that if enough dirt is piled on someone sans actual judicial examination, that it's all well and good to shovel on some more - it doesn't actually matter whether they're guilty or innocent, what matters is the partisan nature of your conclusions.

Poirot,

After the stream of ad hominem attacks on me and my posts generally fueled by ignorance e.g. "do nothing to engender rational dialogue", I felt the need to show that I at least follow some intellectual rigour before posting. If this is swaggering, then so be it. Your lack of "swagger" is blindingly obvious.

If you had bothered to read the KPMG report, it indicates that the FWA report after 3 years has clearly not covered the scope it tasked to do (i.e. examine all the irregularities in the HSU) in the detail expected. There were gaps in leads not being followed, or people questioned.

However, it was also clear in that the evidence that was collected was sound, and found no fault with the conclusions. There was nothing to exonerate Thomson.

The myriad beacons to which you refer are figments of your imagination.

How can it be sound, with a FWA member being the team mate of the female in charge of the said union.
That has got to be an irregularity, to say the least. The door was wide open for corruption.
So how can the evidence be said to be sound, and who said so.
So why was the FWA rushed into releasing an inquiry that was incomplete.
It could be that the incomplete investigation is where the blame lies.
It's a taste test with a half cooked corruption pie.

A little more frankness is called for poirot.
Foxy/Lexi left because of it,I did twice maybe three times.
A belief Shadow Minister CAN, GO FURTHER THAN ANY POSTER.
I concede I am no Angel, but, unless I have missed something, this Conservative site, has no rule stopping Centrists or ALP voters counter punching.
I am yet again considering my future here.
Making a last visit to some threads.
Running out of posts this morning wakened me.
My habit of posting in evrery new thread, as a welcome is not working, for me.
Combating new posters with harsh views is not.
I am considering yet again is it worth it.
And for a time confining my posts to fewer threads.
THIS MUCH I KNOW SM has far more who do not place him as high as he places himself, one day we may be shocked if we find out who he is.

Sm,

The KPMG investigation wasn't set up to probe the conclusions. It was set up to probe the mechanisms in place at FWA to accommodate investigations.

Some of the findings:

* FWA did not have and did not refer to any relevant investigation standards and procedures.

* There is a lack of adequate documentation setting out the main process followed by FWA;

* FWA did not implement an adequate investigation case management system or process, which resulted in deficiencies in the planning, management and execution of the HSU investigations;

* FWA did not have sufficient appropriately qualified and experienced resources involved in the conduct of HSU investigations;

* FWA did not consider all potential sources of information, particularly electronic information, and did not appear to fully understand its rights to access potentially relevant sources of information;

* FWA did not have protocols in place for the collection and retention of documents; and

* The security arrangements over documents were inadequate

.......................

In addition;

KPMG requested FWA provide access to the following electronic data for the FWA Vice President based in Melbourne (the'Vice President'):

* Restored FWA archived email accounts as at December2011, December 2010, December 2009 and December 2008

* Extracts of the personal workspace hosted on the FWA network.

* A restored FWA archived personal workspaces as at December 2011, December 2010 and December 2009;

* FWA computers allocated to the Vice President; and

* Any FWA smart phones and handheld devices allocated to the Vice President.

KPMG has not been provided access to the FWA computers or any smart phones and handheld devices allocated to the Vice President.

...............

SM,

You can employ your conservative credentials any way you like, but you will find it hard to deny that any investigative mechanism resting on such dubious standards and protocols deserves criticism, not applause.

Poirot,

I have many times in previous thread said that the FWA handling of the report was incompetent. The investigations were handled unprofessionally, and evidence was haphazard and not put together in a manner that could be used for a prosecution. None of this contradicts anything I said in this thread, nor does it indicate that every shred of evidence collected again Thomson is false.

Also the assumption that the prosecution is based solely on the report is forgetting the 6 months that the FWA has had professional legal help to put things right.

Poirot lets stop the in fighting.
We will do it the SM way
You get the rope
I will find the tree
SM can do the rest.
We can find out if he was guilty after the trial.
IF there is one.
Only way to go we have been told.
SM is never wrong!
See Liberal/Conservative views are the only ones that matter!
YE HA redneck heaven!

SM,

With all due respect, I can't find any intimation contained in your previous posts on this thread to support your claim that: "I have said many times in previous thread that the FWA handling of this report was incompetent. The investigations were handled unprofessionally, and the evidence was haphazard..."

The main gist of your argument seemed to rest more on comments like this: "...that there were a number of incidents that had not been investigated properly....ie, there should have been further investigations into more activities."

That, sprinkled intermittently, with your calling Thomson a "crook" seems to have been your main theme.

That you consider a report that you admit was incompetent, unprofessional and haphazard, is acceptable to be employed as the basis for prosecution (even with 6 months of legal "help") says volumes.

Poirot, in the same persons post history, if you have a strong Constitution,you will find some interesting stuff.
ANY conservative charged EG SA female senator, we are told should be given air until convicted.
HERE
A man not yet charged is flogged verbally, his wife insulted and it leaves me this thought.
Why should I not as SM does here, plumb the depths for BRAINLESS INSULTS and see if I get away with it.
Well see I respect OLO and its owner, that is the difference.

Poirot,

Actually reading what I post before you reply would assist you in making sense. I clearly said:

"I have many times in previous threads said that the FWA handling of the report was incompetent."

This was precisely because it took 3 years and nearly a million dollars to assemble evidence that would have taken a few people in a professional law firm several months. To make it worse it didn't cover the full scope of the brief and wasn't laid out in a format that could be used by a prosecutor. But for a Labor appointed statutory body could you expect anything different?

In spite of all this the report contained a significant amount of solid evidence. Thomson is not being prosecuted on the basis of the report, but on the evidence that formed the basis of the report, and further evidence put together by a professional team over the last 6 months.

If a man shoots someone in front of 3 policemen and is arrested, before the court he is assumed innocent until proven guilty, however, outside the court process only the most delusional would kid themselves that he was pure as the driven snow until the final verdict.

Under what circumstances did this man shoot the three police men.
They may have been pulling his arms and legs off, for all you know.
Your assumption of Thomson is what you find in the kangaroo court.
Thomson was guilty on the release of the failed FWA documents, and that was before any six month review by anyone.
Your presumptions are not in anyones interest, besides propaganda purposes.
If Thomson is guilty of anything, he will be dealt with in the proper way.

SM,

What you actually wrote was:

"I have many times in previous "thread" said..."

I took it to mean previously in this thread.

"...Thomson is not being prosecuted on the basis of the report, but on the evidence that formed the basis of the report..."

Hee, bloody, hee (I thought you said you were an engineer, not a contortionist : )

Surely whatever formed the baisis of the report "is" the basis of the report?

But as we slip into the quicksand of semantics, I'm grabbing the nearest overhanging branch - see you on another thread.

Belly,

Stop lying.

I never said anything like "ANY conservative charged EG SA female senator, should be given air until convicted."

What I said on 22 August 2011 about a week before the trial was "The presumption of innocence is a valid position where the issue is being dealt with by the correct authorities, such as in the case with MJF, with a fixed time line to its conclusion at the trial on Sept 1."

The reason I call Thomson a crook is because of the piles of forensic evidence against Thomson for about $500 000 of stolen money. The evidence against MJF consisted of the word of one person that she had stolen about $70 of goods. As such the charge was dismissed.

Labor spent $350 000 on legal fees to prevent Fairfax from spilling the beans, and did whatever it could to slow the process whereas the coalition did nothing to defend MJF.

The moment there was a second case MJF was forced to resign. Juliar several times expressed her full confidence in Thomson.

It is important I do not become involved in a slanging match with this *Gentle man* Humor intended.
A man who I have, time and again spoken of in the harshest terms, including a call for imprisonment, if found guilty.
Has not yet, been charged with anything.
Forgive me, but in truth his crime, at this point, is keeping the ALP government in power.
In this matter I do not lie,AND THINK I NEVER KNOWINGLY HAVE.
My Government, my party, lead by Gillard, is headed for a loss, and a bad one.
Well past time,an honest look at our incoming government, and its policy's, other than Negativity and keeping a distance between truth and them, in truth Tony Abbott lies far more than any one.
In distancing my self from the poster above,I want to point out NARCISSISM a belief in self beyond reality, more often than not is self harm.
In an under achiever both over valuing their own worth and under valuing their opponents they, as is their habit, defeat their own augments.
Thankfully it is not an Australian habit to form lynch mobs .
To hang the not yet convicted.
It is and always has been and will be the true Conservatives view that only their view has merit.
Self deception, funny,but in the end? self defeating!

It is and always has been and will be the true ALP members view that only their view has merit.
Self deception, funny,but in the end? self defeating!

The post above mine is ,well extraordinary!
From a poster who asures us he is never wrong.
One who brings calls for some balance, from posters on his side of politics.
For all the time I have posted here,NO POSTER has come near criticizing his/her own party as much as me.
And time and again my challenge, to him and others to start just a single thread,about the problems on his side of the house, are left in the dust.
It is said Conservatives have more fears of what MAY happen driving them.
My side? more adventurous.
Both sides, yes both, must confront this.
A government has NEVER had more than 53% two party after election.
The victory in excepting the win, PROMISES TO RULE FOR EVERY ONE.
SM,a handful of others, some out of a mind too closed to understand, Condemn ALP voters to a lesser world.
Of them all, only this man I can not forgive, he alone appears to have the intellect to know better.
That, in my view, questions his ability to see the big picture.

Belly,

You also make more unsubstantiated and one eyed attacks than anyone else on Abbott and myself. Your claim of balance based on acknowledging some of the most blatant flaws in Labor is ridiculous.

I see the Labor MP / ex Union boss Craig Thomson is back in the news with a Police raid on his house and headquarters.

Thomsons lawler is defending him to the hilt. His lawler is going to systematically sue every one that had a share in the Thomson debacle.

579,

You make it too easy. He already sued Fairfax and lost. Please tell him to try and sue me, I would love to clean him out.

To help you:

Thomson is a crook that sleeps with prostitutes using his company credit card. That should be enough to get him going. The only thing he will need to win is for this to be false.

At this stage what charges have been laid against Craig Thomson.
Are you aware EVERY BRANCH OF EVERY UNION funds the local ALP person in an election, this funding increases if it is one of your own.
579, you are aware I am ex union.
Too that IF and WHEN this bloke is found guilty, I would see him go to prison.
I wait and hope,he is not, I Personally, have rang in to the office, from interstate, and booked up things on the Boss, Union branch Secretary, Gold credit card.
It could happen.
579, you and I are feeding a man so fixed in his views, we give him reason for his slanders.
You, as I do, know his claims of always being right, being better informed brighter than us are a joke.
Maybe covering a symptom of something else.
Quite a few are convinced they are the second coming or such.
I am weary of the bloke weary of feeding him my indignation.
If you insist in attempting to swim up a water fall I leave the increasingly strident Gent to you.

Belly,

I could not have slandered Thomson, as slander is spoken. I think you meant libel.

Libel is defined as:

A published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation

I don't want to go through the legal steps he would have to take to successfully sue me, but he has more chance of falling pregnant.

Was suspended for "abuse".

.

@ SM

>> I bet that Graham Young got plenty of requests to delete my comment <<

and

>> Mr Wiggles, Do you have a point? <<

Yes, you are a hypocrite.

.

@ Belly http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5416#148232

I've considered mine Belly ... adieu

Mon amie Poirot, au revoir

BM,

No loss. Go stamp your tiny feet elsewhere.

Not surprised you were suspended. When you complain, all the posts are read.

bonmot,

Mon ami, s'il vous plait rester.

..................

SM,

Your bravado, hollow shout into the blogosphere that it is, is only surpassed by your arrogance that your rants are somehow of consequence - they're not.

Poirot, il n'ya aucune raison logique pour moi de rester. Pour tout ce que cela vaut la peine, l'OLO est un site très conservatrice avec un lectorat relativement dumbed-bas et myope ... "Shadow ministre" un cas d'espèce.

Belly? Il veut bien, mais sa logique est simple et il est un défi pour beaucoup ... encore une fois, "Shadow ministre" un cas d'espèce.

J'ai aimé regarder et partager votre intellect, Poirot ... il me donne l'espoir. Néanmoins, je crains que le monde de demain sera toujours dans le dédain pour les goûts de OLO «ministre fantôme» ... et bien sûr pour les goûts de son rédacteur en chef qui donne si vertement, lui et son oxygène acabit. En effet, je l'ai sur la bonne autorité que l'éditeur me méprise ... mais bon, je n'ai pas beaucoup de respect pour lui non plus.

Comme je l'ai dit ailleurs, mon amie Poirot - J'ai des choses plus importantes à faire (vous pouvez / ne peut pas tout à fait bien comprendre). Avec une tristesse dans mon cœur, au revoir encore une fois bonne, B.

bonmot,

C'est triste a vous perdre, mais je comprends.

(Hope my wobbly French is intelligible - Cheers : )

SM,

"No loss. Go stamp your tiny feet elsewhere.
Not surprised you were suspended..."

Well that just about takes the cake after watching you swaggering up and down this thread - have you no humility at all?

Perhaps all of us non-conservatives should bugger off and leave you and yours to it. The list is fast dwindling around here of people to argue outside the majority mindset.

I totally understand where bonmot is coming from.

I'm inclined to join him.

BM

Your assumption that I cannot read French is misplaced.

Your suspension was not because the editor despises you, but because you had to compensate your lack of logic and facts with infantile taunts which eventually went too far and became abuse. The forum rules are clear.

While being sent to the naughty corner may have injured your puffed up Gallic pride, my experience is that those that dramatically announce their departure seldom do.

Poirot

"Your bravado, hollow shout into the blogosphere that it is, is only surpassed by your arrogance that your rants are somehow of consequence"

et tu aussi

I do not know what bonmot said but more frankness is called for.
We in my view have a problem here in OLO.
Bonmot a centerist often pulled me up, yet has been one of our best.
Laden down with SHADOW MINISTER and a few screamers who chant mindlessly of things that never happened, this site needs the bonmot,s.
It needs the poirots pelicans, it needs the Lexi and please forgive the other P,.
It has seen refugees, me included flee, but no we should stay, stand for free speech open discussion.
Abbittism, will die, the mess gillard,s self interested backers who stole my ALP and put PTY LTD behind it will burn.
A day comes rejuvenated Labor will see Cambell Knewman beaten and broken, VIC is near ours again.
NSW well on the way.
Abbittism, History,and even his party will try to forget it.
A test, like me or loath me[ do not get exited SM your loathing is a medal of HONOR to me]
Can any poster not know if the current rubbish in Victoria, and crime in Queensland was from my party, I would not have rushed in to print by now condemning them.
Now I await SM to do that!
Not really I am far from that silly.
BONMOT come back the site needs balance and it needs you, ten thousand times more than another like SM.

Poirot never consider leaving please.
I am aware, you lexi and others got very unhappy at times like the Muslim riot thread.
And too of the unhappiness with my views on boat people.
Once I too would have been just as upset, with my own words.
It is the very nature of men, and women, to squabble on such issues.
Yet gee forgive me the Pericles! got it, and some not mentioned, this site is not mine, but if left of center keep falling away, it will not be worth visiting.
I want to say I like GY have no doubt I am a burr under his saddle, maybe on top of it.
But his site is thanks to him,DESPITE SM the best.
It was my view SM post should have been taken down, no doubt it was flaming, but have promised to report only the worst.
SM in inferring GY supported that post, insults us all.
Poirot I am leaving SM hopefully never again will his flaming intrude on me here.
But will return to see if bonmot,s French can be put in to rough headed Aussie for me.
SM, if I am not a better man than you I am nothing, good by.

Belly have some pride.

You are beginning to look like OUG with your long incoherent attacks on me and everything else that bugs you. I understand your pain, I would also be distraught if the institutions I had supported for so long were run by corrupt and incompetent sleaze bags.

The forum rules are clear, but any wordsmith knows that you can convey much more venom by inference than direct attack.

Belly,

I wouldn't decry you for your opinions.
It's the style and vehemence in which opinions are delivered that are more likely to drive posters away.

SM, in assuming he carries some gravitas, delighted in striding around this thread bellowing vacuous puffs of ego - as if Thomson (or anyone or note) could be bothered taking remedial action against such a non-entity blogger.

We all come here for various reasons. bonmot pointed out that he has more important things to do - we all have. Weighed against a site that by the day becomes less representative of broad opinion and more representative of right-wing expression, bonmot's sentiments are understandable.

If a site is attracting more of one ilk and less of the other, it gradually loses its sense of balance and integrity. Often threads quickly morph into a spruiking platform emotively fueling group-think. Humans are prone to that, especially if they are fearful.

Whatever the machinations at play, there is definitely a noticeable dropping off of people participating on this forum to counter the majority mindset. I think that makes for a less healthy atmosphere and a less robust forum in general...whatever the cause.

Poirot I can do nothing but agree, those fears haunt me, the fact we are getting some very weird posters.
Not a recent thing, I have been in deep contemplation for a few mounths about that.
But in truth, I can not settle in leftist only country.
My thoughts and my words, as is my love of Labor, shame at its faceless men, not faceless right wing union power brokers, see rubbish who got spot in SA first.
Shadow Minister, what can I say? he must be this sites biggest contributor.
All the less than intelegent posters are less a pain than him.
Not for his defence of his views but the refusal to see truth.
I increasingly question my self, why do I need OLO.
Read how this country is broke, how we soon will be as bad off as Spain as Greece, see the taunt, that the awful Gillard lies, yet Abbottism see,s his front bench lie every time their mouth opens.
A recent arrival flamed me all day you can bet one of the few sent him.
Poirot at our very worst the ALP gets two party preferred 47%
Yet not only Indy chants mindlessly we are betraying this country? for voting Labor.
You and I have some common ground and some we never will agree on,as is the case with some very good conservative posters and me.
But some now are land mines, I must avoid, that number is increasing with some CLEARLY THROWN out of other forums.
We are our own problem,avoid the ego driven insults of SM avoid those you feel are not worth the trouble.
The Australian Labor Party has a proud history and has played a big part in this country.
Increasingly, posters with suspect IQ claim we,all who vote for them are lessor humans, this site needs some who stand and fight such as SHADOW MINISTER or it is not going to be a two sided debating site.

Belly,

Just further to my previous point. I have in the past visited sites of a more left-wing flavour. Many of them served merely as forums for one particular point of view, and as such, mainly consisted of a cheer-squad for the left. The participants chased away any dissenting opinion. That is not the way to provide a balanced forum for debate.

OLO, is well-placed to provide such a balanced forum. As you note, it is superior in many ways to most blogging sites. Unfortunately, it seems a similar thing is happening here insidiously over time. We know there has always been a dearth of women contributors here, perhaps what I'm noticing is an extension of that phenomenon.

As the song goes: "A good heart these days is hard to find."....seeing people like Lexi and bonmot fall by the wayside saddens me.

I wonder if there's any point continuing to frequent a forum where there is little to find agreeable?

Poirot, what's happened to Lexi?

Ludwig,

To be honest, I have no idea.

The last time she was absent for any length of time, she mentioned ill health...so I'm hoping that she's all right. The other alternative is that she got weary of OLO, although she seemed to be a stayer in that respect, and consequently I'm surprised at her prolonged absence.

Poirot you know we have much common ground stay I need mates.
Too the site needs more women .
Lexi has heart trouble,gee we can hope.
She too as have many, has trouble with the boat people and Muslim riot threads.
We must stop.
Just consider.
Are we to add constantly to the list, the one forced down my throat and every one my age?
Do not talk about politics and God? is it to be refugees and Muslims too?
Not for me, Ludwig tell us what you think, not what you think I want you to say what YOU THINK.
Is free speech only for some things?
My fear? Lexi would have said good by, hope she is well.

Belly,

Yes I'll probably stay. There's little point in lamenting the dwindling number of posters of similar ilk to myself and then adding to it.

When all is said and done, this mode of interaction is rather strange, don't you think? We're all disembodied egos floating in the ether It's fascinating, therefore, how our affinities and antagonisms form, detached, as it were, from the usual checks and balances and contingencies of real life.

I feel quite balanced in all this really. I did a political compass and ended up close to Ghandi. I'm slightly more to the centre and more libertarian. Actually looking again I'm very marginally to the left of Mandella, exactly the same as The Dalia Lama, but much more libertarian than both.

I look funny on the American presidential candidates graph seeing as though they're all bunched up on the Authoritarian Right corner

I think it would be good to do these tests each 5 years to keep track of how one changes with age.

Anyway, I see this as being more populated by religious fundy type articles more lately, but I still prefer it to the feminist sites that just refuse to publish anything I dare to disagree with. I'm actually very polite because I know how touchy they are but I gave up. Those chicks really don't want any dissenting views on their site.

So I think Graham does very well, because I reckon he's a christian fundy boring old conservative Abbott lover, and he lets us have a say.

There's still a critical mass of Chardonnay socialists, we have pelican, Poirot, well Poirot's more of a basket weaver actually, and we have a union boss in Belly, and we have squeers and, Kipp and WmTrev, actually, I think it would be fun to list all the commie bastards we can think of. Anyone else? What about the new DiamanPete and 579 sideshow alley of stupidity, with more Gillard worshipping and one-eyed naive Abbott hating than Foxy. How can you guys say we're overrun when we have elements of the truly loony left here!

I think all our problems would be solved if Col Rouge returned. I miss the stories about Margaret.

While all you lefties are having a group hug and decrying the "great Satan" Shadow minister, I thought I would trawl through the thread.

What I saw was that there were several personal attacks from various of you before I made even one oblique comment, and there were several attacks on me for every one of my responses culminating in the direct abuse which was deleted and BM suspended for a few days. BM's first post on returning was not to recognise that he had done anything wrong, but to attack me and GY. Pardon me if his histrionics did not fill me with remorse. Belly's sole purpose appears to be to rubbish me, as he appears to add nothing to the debate. He claims that I am unwilling to see the truth, yet does not contest a single fact. Etc etc. (if you want me to change my mind I need more than your belief)

The hypocrisy here is rank.

Fortunately this being a blog I don't give a continental for how others view me. I would prefer rational discourse where opinions are based on information, and the validity and interpretation of these are discussed. These discussions are rare, but I have had a few that inspired me to look deeply into the issues and review my opinions, and I would like this again. It does however, require, a tad more than superficial treatment.

'Fortunately this being a blog I don't give a continental for how others view me'

And yet you were motivated enough to search through this entire thread of gibberish monkey talk.

I'm with you though. I may be left leaning in my politics, but I hate your stereotypical leftie. The main reason being is the victim positioning you have highlighted.

This Tony is the Devil and everything is his fault, given that the guy is in opposition, is the biggest government cop-out known to man.

OOh ooh we have government, but the mean and nasty opposition keeps arguing against us. If Labor intended Abbott to govern by default they should have handed him government so he could get on with it.

Rather than 'It's the economy stupid', they should have signs up that say, 'Hey, we're actually the government here'.

It seems the lefties on here are the same, more interested in making the earth shattering point that SM is slightly right of centre and tiresomely predictable, than actually arguing their case.

It's not like you, Houellebecq to make errors of ascription… was it my admission of 12 September?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14102#243763

What else would you like to hold against me? You cheeky devil of a mother! I might even be persuaded to say yes – without money changing hands (ie. from you to me. But these days, I'm less describable as value-for-money as to now be called cheap).

I don't even like Chardonnay – though I like the pretty pictures on some of the boxes it comes in. And of course, being essentially misanthropic I'm positively antisocialist.

For the record, my policy is to scale all politicians and politics between loathing and detestation. It saves subsequent disappointment.

As for problem-solving… Why did you overlook Formersnag?

('scuse the interrupt SM)

Houellie,

It's interesting the mental pics we construct of fellow posters - I'm confident you'd walk past me in crowd and not pick me as the "basket weaver" - but because I have chooks, grow vegies and tend to reject a harried existence, you assume I'm the basket weaving type - when the reality is that my choice to eschew the rat-race came from the (belated) realisation that in fact I didn't have to ride the conveyor belt.

SM,

There are plenty of oblique references from you at the outset of this thread, along the lines of: "....any wordsmith knows that you can convey much more venom by inference than direct attack."
However, I noted for the most part that the debate was adhering to the issue. I usually avoid political debates (especially with you), but for the most part I was reacting to your raucous tooting regarding Thomson. In the main, however, I'm not enamoured of either side of politics, so I expect I won't bother to seek out your threads for confrontation in future. After all, it's as predictable as daybreak as to how they'll unfold.

H Wm Trevor you two are an assett to this place stay forever.
Now do not tell any one, I am not talking to SM and I am not a lefty, but EVERY ONE IS left of him.
Abbott is gone,Turnbull will flog the ALP Dillard will be the only thing the day after the election to celebrate, she will be gone.
We are faceless people in all probability nothing like we see each other.
H never ever a union boss, all ways one of the blokes ,that was my wish and my best helper.
I as a ham radio nut can tell you we know enough about each other to make a judgment.

C'mon Poirot, I'm sure it was you that countered my Chardonnay Socialist call with a self admission of being a basket weaver once.

Unless it was pelican. I'm sure it was one of you two.

Anyway sorry to offend.

My visual image of your good self as I said once is either Noni Hazlehurst or Jessica Hecht. I think you said you pictured me of African Heritage too which amused me.

I've got a new picture now, someone in a similar vein, which is the wife of Cleaver Greene in Rake. You should watch that show it's quite amusing.

Belly whatever you say it always sounds stirring and definitive, with a touch of 'what do we want!';-)

'H never ever a union boss, all ways one of the blokes ,that was my wish and my best helper.'

When you wear a suit belly, it's a public declaration of whose side you're on! Which is why I refuse to ever wear one.

I like your challenge on another thread though. The righties seem to make it a point never to conced the barest inch of ground. I've heard many lefties on here concede 'yeah that was pretty corrupt, but...' about their own party, but SM in particular has never conceded anything. A true propagandist!

Trev,

It was your own words!

Thank you for accepting my preferred title of Mother. Only a PC bleeding heart lefty would be so sensitive to my Human Right to be recognized with whatever culture or sex I 'identify' as.

'my policy is to scale all politicians and politics between loathing and detestation'

hehe

PS: What did ever happen to Formersnag? And Boags David. Or Boaz was it? Yo uknow that weird christian Whack a Moizzie, and MIUAYG

Houellie,

I'm not offended!....I'm interested in this form of interaction where most of us are anonymous. We float in here and leave a mental picture, but it's only a partial representation of our complexities.

Yes, I remember the Noni Hazelhurst reference. I think I referenced a possible Caribbean heritage for you, but that was only because I think you mentioned a grandmother (or some such relative) with that heritage. Yes - No?

I'm pretty adept at remembering those little asides, helps me build a picture of who I'm talking to.

"It was your own words!"

What a disappointing attitude.

The next thing you know people will apply the same standard to all politicians all of the time and then where will we be?

...Uh, oh!

Poirot,

Firstly, the comment you quoted was near the end of the thread and nowhere near the outset. Secondly your reaction to my "tooting" of Thomson was more because nothing I said was incorrect.

Labor's blind, all encompassing assumption of innocence applies only to their own. Howard, and Abbott are cheerfully accused of all manner of things either without a shred of evidence, or on unsupported innuendo. Yet Craig Thomson cannot be called a crook in spite of the mountains of evidence against him, because he has not been convicted yet? This is beyond ridiculous.

And yes, my reaction to this threadbare pseudo logic is predictable.

Belly,

"I am not a leftie" who are you trying to kid?

I am centre right in that I am fiscally conservative, and socially liberal. There are plenty far more conservative than me.

Deary me, SM, that comment I posted (from you) wasn't meant to be an example of an "oblique reference". It was your own summation of how clever one can be in conveying "venom" through inference. These are often neatly couched in your posts, where you take a swipe at someone's capacities, most "obliquely", then you get all huffy when they reply in kind - not so obliquely.

Yeah, you're just like all the rest of us around here, full of little obsessions and vanities, except some of us realise it.

He is Gerard!

Can you bear it?

I'll have to start calling him Nancy.

http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/media-watch-dog/

Poirot I firmly think it is socially unacceptable to comment after some one breaks wind.
So will refrain.
I am however left handed should I cut it off?

Poirot,

I very seldom make disparaging remarks unless provoked, and while I don't claim to be innocent, I very seldom throw the first stone. Similarly others should not get so huffy when I reply in kind.

"Yeah, you're just like all the rest of us around here, full of little obsessions and vanities, except some of us realise it." - Really, I have yet to see anyone admit their own weaknesses.