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.