LOL. You tell him what to think, Lexi. No sense in taking the risk of letting the man think for himself. Not controlling, much! ROFL

P,

The important comments from the Dept of finance to Slipper is that the incident was not being handled according to the Minchen protocol, which was supposedly for "inadvertent or mistaken claims". Whereas this is a pure case of fraud, and not covered by the protocol.

The AFP will not pursue an investigation unless there is a complaint from the offended party, so a reference from Ashby, Abbott, or even the pope would not prompt an investigation.

My understanding is that the Dept of finance does not deal directly with criminal matters, and will pass these matters to the DPP or similar, who will if necessary refer this to the AFP, or local police.

So whilst the complaint may not have been directly referred to the AFP by Finance, it is almost certain that for the AFP to proceed, that it originated there.

onthebeach,

I guess that sitting on the toilet -
is where you have your most contemplative
moments.

But do keep trying.

You're getting better in your posts.

SM,

What don't you understand about Finance having "no problems" with Slipper's travel expense claims on those days?

Why would a claim be referred to the AFP if Finance had no issue with it?

Even if Finance had had an issue with it, why wasn't the Minchin Protocal applied?

But or course, Finance did "not" have an issue with it.

As I understand it, the investigation into Slipper's cab charges were first raised by Ashby. He later dropped them from his Federal Court case. The present AFP charges were a flow on from that earlier investigation - they are not based on Ashby's initial cab charge claims that he took (and then dropped) to the Federal Court.

You know the one, where Justice Rares found Ashby, Doane and Brough had conspired for political gain - and threw the case out as an abuse of court.

Whichever way you tango, SM, you can't make a case for Finance referring Slipper to the AFP, either directly or indirectly.

The whole thing smells to high heaven.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/12/ashbygate-peter-slipper-james-ashby

Lexi,

You posted the exact same link to that shabby partisan site on two threads within minutes. That is not informing people. It is controlling.

Your post to direct a man on this thread in how he should be thinking before he could even reply is very controlling.

You're still making me laugh, otb.

So a site is a "shabby partisan site" if it tells the public things which MSM fail to divulge - or even investigate.

Can you explain to me the double standards between Slipper's and Abbott's treatment regarding travel expenses?

Because MSM is not even trying.

Can you explain to me why there hasn't been a comprehensive investigation into Ashby and Brough after they were found to have conspired for political gain?

I'm sure if the boot was on the other foot, and it was Labor who had pulled this (rather transparent) stunt on the Libs, you would be bellowing from the rooftops.

I'm afraid you can expect to hear more from sites like Independent Australia on issues that MSM prefers to sweep under the carpet.