otb,

"What's with the "you're controlling" crap directed at Lexi?

This is her post:

"Dear Belly,

Here's a better perspective on what's really happening:

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/rudds-return-ruffles-reckless-abbott/X "

Where in that post does she instruct Belly what he should think?

She merely used "a better perspective" to introduce her link.

Over-egging your outrage pudding again......

P,

With all due respect, you and Margo are trying to drum up a phantom 3rd party, however, no matter how you bleat, the cold hard facts that the AFP will not respond to a reference from an uninvolved party nails your conspiracy theory.

The cabcharge fraud was to use the vouchers for purposes for which they were not intended. As the case had been given to another department, Finance would not have a problem any more.

If there is a nefarious 3rd party, please feel free to name suspects and indicate why the AFP would take up the case.

SM,

If Margo and I are "trying to drum up a third party", then you'd better include David Tune of Finance as well.

Here' what he writes to Slipper in a letter dated 27 November, 2012.
(David Tune PSM
Secretary)

"I note your references to 'normal procedures', which I referred to in my letter o 6 November,2012, in the context of assuring you that any 'mistakes or oversights' identified by the Department of Finance and Deregulation (Finance) in the future will be brought to your attention 'in accordance with normal procedures for handling such matters', which as you have noted may 'include communication with Members and Senators.

Such procedures are generally followed in circumstances where issues are identified internally by Finance. However, these procedures are not applicable in other circumstances where entitlements matters are under consideration by an external body such as the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and were referred to it by an external entity, as in this case..."

That's "..were referred to it by an external entity..."

That is an entity not being Finance - or a "third party".

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

(Along with David Tune's other communication to Slipper that:

"Prior to the AFP investigation, Finance had no concerns with your travel paid under entitlement for those days")

You saying once the matter was referred to the AFP, then Finance would not have a problem anymore is dumb...note Tune says "Prior to the AFP investigation" - they had "no concerns" in the first place.

So there it is in black and white from Finance that the matter was referred to the AFP by an external entity - it was not referred by Finance.

Over to you, SM. You've obviously been undertaking a course in reasoning at the same place as Mr Abbott.

P,

I would strongly suggest that you read what I have written before criticizing things that I have not written and making yourself look like an idiot.

In short I was saying that even if the reference of Slipper to the AFP did not come directly from the dept of finance, it almost certainly originated there. The reasons being that firstly Finance does not directly deal with criminal matters (and would have referred it to a dept that does), and secondly any reference to the police without the involvement of the aggrieved party would be ignored. That Margo does not have all the facts from on going investigation at her fingertips does not mean there is a conspiracy, only that she is ignorant.

You also were notably unable to name anyone that could refer Slipper to the AFP that would have a nefarious purpose.

SM,

Nice two-step, but you're a hopeless dancer.

It did not originate at Finance,

Finance had no concerns.

No concerns meant that there was no issue with Slipper's claims for those days.

Tune writes, regarding why the Minchin Protocol was not followed in this case:

"Such procedures are generally followed in circumstances where issues are identified internally by Finance."

Ergo, this issue was not identified "internally" by Finance.

This issue was referred to the AFP by an external entity.

Not identified internally by Finance means it did not originate there.

You are not arguing rationally...who's looking like the idiot?

You are very casual with taxpayers' money, Poirot.

Many of the taxpayers whose hard-earned $$ was used by Slipper only earn a fraction of what he does. They never had the VIP trips he had and they certainly cannot look forward to the golden taxpayer-funded retirement he gets.

It matters not how he was referred to the AFP. You don't see such endless quibbling over details like that when a housewife is pursued for minor shoplifting, or when a tradesman goes for .06 alcohol reading an hour after he was stopped in a random check and only five minutes from home.

One wonders what interest you have in defending Slipper when he is fortunate enough to be one of the elite, a barrister and as a politician, has all manner of contacts to use.

It is subject to police investigation and a court to decide. Let the die fall where it might. You reckon others are at fault too, but they are answerable to Parliament which should be recalled if the case/s you darkly refer to are serious enough. None of that excuses Slipper though.

If the allegations against any senior LNP figure had any legs at all of course Kevin Rudd would have recalled Parliament. Up until then there is only the scurrilous gossip machine, courtesy of someone's bag of dirty tricks.