The New South Wales Independent Commission against Corruption reports into the actions of prominent Labor figures, and well known businessmen, was yesterday tabled in State Parliament. There were no surprises with the findings, both the former Labor Minister Ian (Sir Lunchalot) Macdonald and 20 year parliamentary veteran Eddie (must be obeyed) Obeid have been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration of criminal charges. Along with the pair of Labor luminaries a number of prominent businessmen have also been referred to the DPP for possible charges, Eddies boy Moses as well as businessmen Travers Duncan, John Kingborn, Richard Poole, John Atkinson, John McGuigan and Ron Medich along with Medich’s former fix it man Lucky Gattellari.
Following the release of these reports what will be the political fallout for Labor, particularly in NSW, and currently, and more importantly at the national level. In the upcoming federal election this must add to the political woes of Kevin Rudd as Labor is contemplating the at loss of a swag of marginal seats in NSW. Such a loss would certainly guarantee victory for The Coalition. It is my opinion that these findings will ride above the general political and policy issues and deliver victory to Abbott.
Naturally Rudd has reacted to the findings with predictable indignation “I’ve been disgusted” as is his local lad, NSW Opposition Leader John Robertson, also disgusted. I think Tony Abbott got it right with his comment “a black day in the history of the Labor Party”. What is inescapable is the fact that all this corruption took place when Labor was in power in NSW. A few federal members have some questions to answer about the whole sorry mess, Bob Carr who as Premier appointed Macdonald a minister, Tony Burke who stayed at Obeids ski lodge, Senator Matt Thistlethwaite, who was assistant NSW general secretary at the time when Obeid was wheedling so much power in the state and is now running in the Sydney seat of Kingsford-Smith, along with would be senator, Sam Dastyari the present State General Secretary, what did he know of Obeid

Paul,

You forgot to mention the standing Labor MP Craig Thomson who in spite of declaring his innocence to the entire parliament, is now not challenging a single one of the charges against him, and is looking at a 5 year jail sentence for fraud and corruption.

Dudd has expressed outrage that so many labor MPs have been caught, and is determined to "fix" labor. His first act being to make it impossible to remove him, and make grandiose statements about NSW labor while apparently doing nothing.

The most important next step for Dudd, is to jet to PNG and have a party with some celebrities at the taxpayers' expense.

Perhaps Kevin Rudd should take over the title of "Sir Lunchalot"

Shadow Minister,

Wrong!

If you're insinuating that Thomson is admitting to the accusations.

That was selectively reported in the media.

Here's his statement:

http://twitdoc.com/view.asp?id=102173&sid=26U5&ext=PDF&lcl=STATEMENT-BY-CRAIG-THOMSON.pdf&usr=DobellThommo&doc=154664867&key=key-iac8ab59kkyiyrrj3l8

There is always anomalies between what was said and what they thought was said. Thomson must have a good chance of getting out of everything. Probably why he says he has done nothing wrong. Obeid and Mcdonald have a long way to go as yet, or are they going to be found guilty by the kangaroo court like Slipper and Thomson.

P,

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/craig-thomson-faces-claim-of-misleading-mps/story-fn59niix-1226686577492

FORMER Labor MP Craig Thomson's claims in parliament that Health Services Union rivals conspired to "set me up with a bunch of hookers" appears at odds with his lawyer's claim there would "very likely" be no dispute over the facts of his alleged abuse of union credit cards.

"As the former HSU national secretary prepares to mount his defence in Melbourne's Magistrates Court, his lengthy speech to parliament in May last year has been referred to the parliament's powerful privileges committee amid allegations he deliberately misled the House of Representatives.

Addressing the court last Friday, Mr Thomson's barrister, Greg James SC, said his client was unlikely to contest evidence he made the controversial purchases, meaning the case is expected to hinge on whether he was entitled to use HSU credit cards for personal expenses."

Thomson is allowed to say whatever he wants outside of court. What counts is what is said in court. That he has not fired nor contradicted his SC means that his defense is going to hinge on a claim that paying for prostitutes was not illegal.

Thomson is not in a financial position to prolong hearings, to shortcut time spent he is asking the court to verify that he was not allowed to spend on his credit card what ever he chose. That has got nothing to do with being guilty of anything.

So doog,

Your point is that he has hired a SC for >$100 000 who has accepted all the evidence, just to speed things up. Either he is the world's worst SC or the evidence is rock solid.

P.s. it would be cheaper and quicker just to plead guilty.

SM,

As I understand it, his lawyer said "...there is little dispute over most of the facts and little dispute over charges."

That pertains to the facts of the charges, what they contain, etc.

It does not equal admitting to the allegations contained therein.

"....It would be quicker and cheaper to plead guilty."

I suppose you'd do that if you felt you were the victim of false allegations.

(Notwithstanding that Shadow Minister had him prosecuted way back when)

We'll see.....

P,

I quoted one newspaper, and the Age said:

"Today his lawyer Greg James, QC, told the Magistrates Court there is little debate over most of the facts of the case and little dispute over charges."

The facts of the case are the evidence, they are not facts about the charges. i.e. the use of the credit card to pay for prostitutes, with his driver's license (not just the number) and phone calls from his hotel room etc are accepted as fact.

The little weasel is trying to argue on a technicality that unless prostitutes had not been specifically excluded, that using union funds to pay for them was not illegal.

I called it a looong time ago, and am now at the point where I can say I told you so.

Remember when all this evidence came out, the weasel still had the full support of Labor.

<the case is expected to hinge on whether he was entitled to use HSU credit cards for personal expenses>

What were the conditions governing its use?

Commenting generally and not on that case.
A CEO has fiduciary reponsibility to ensure that there is regular professional and comprehensive audit of all risks affecting the company/public agency and that those risks are satisfactorily managed through a system of well designed,robust controls that are regularly subjected to comprehensive independent audit. The Accounting Standards are also relevant.

However what if the CEO isn't concerned to have the audit committee and controls in place?

Might it be that the controls applicable to the credit card insofar as the CEO is concerned and maybe senior management are weak?

It isn't principled or ethical, but many a CEO has side-stepped accountability that way and most even manage to shift blame to others down the line for not making sure the controls were strong, regularly reviewed and going even further, to blame the junior accounts staff for not making the CEO aware of his card uses.

Of course any CEO who forgets that the organisation is not there for his private benefit and that its assets are not his own would not be likely to reward any subordinate who drew his attention to those facts. But that is why such 'minor' and 'stodgy' guides as accounting standards exist, and auditors too.

Yabber on as much as you like, SM

Thomson has admitted to nothing.

Despite and overly keen media response to his lawyer's rhetoric....which is why Thomson felt the need to release the statement.

You know, the one which goes "....Despite some media reports, I am not making any admissions..."

Notwithstanding your HUGE and insatiable ego.....you are not at the point where you can call anything.

P,

Wiggle as you try, while I don't have a signed confession from the weasel, accepting the evidence as fact leaves no room for doubt.

I would give up trying to defend the indefensible.

SM, I didn't forget to post about Thomson which is another (smelly) matter altogether. My partner resigned from the HSU over what had happened. She only recently rejoined and took on the job of union delegate. She feels very strongly about the damage the O'Farrell government is inflicting on NSW Health, but that's another 'john dory'.
The SMH devoted the front 7 pages today to the Macdonald/Obeid corruption scandal. My view is these ICAC findings will do enough damage to Labor to see it loose the federal election. I've been doing a bit recently for The Greens in my electorate, marginal Labor, and truthfully I'm not getting a good feeling from voters about Labor's chances, despite the polls having Rudd and Abbott neck and neck.

Paul as you are aware this is no secrete.
I have aired the NSW FILTH for a number of years.
I suspect your rehashing it is more about the greens.
A party unable to hit it off with middle Australia.
It lives by pirating Labors left refugees.
You are both wasting your time, and welcome to the rats leaving our ship.
My party is better for the coming prison terms to those you highlight.
And for Kevin,s head on approach to reforms.
As it was in the Askin/Wran days, plus Queensland white shoe Mafia, no links to federal Party,s can be found, made up? yes.

To me the case is plain and simple, if his credit card, supplied by the union was for business expenses only, then he has no defense, however, if it were part of his package and as such paid his personal allowance expenses, then I would suggest he is not at faul.

But, the only reason he was supported by labor was numbers. Nothing else.

I love how Rudd and all his cronies suddenly have amnesia about Obeid, when it is clear to the rest of us that with the power he wielded, it is unlikely that anyone in senior federal labor owed their positions in part to Obeid.

Dudd and all his cronies are trying desperately to ring fence this scandal and pretend that this is the end of it, but with ICAC now moving on other Labor ministers, this is starting to spread.

The huge corruption shown by Thomson and Williamson and the protection they were given shows that this is not just a NSW disease.

Will anyone actually be charged with anything, inquiries are one thing and convictions are another. Years have past and nothing. It's not exactly clean cut, as the SM would have us believe. it's best for the courts to decide. Anything else is wishful thinking.

Belly, I started this thread after the SMH had given it extensive coverage, I buy the SMH everyday and it was big news on Wednesday, its that or a Murdock fish wrapper. Its not about The Greens, although we may benefit from a spill of votes from unhappy Labor lefties, I think many more Labor conservative will switch to the Coalition over this.
My line is although there has been plenty of argiee bargee about issues like carbon tax, asylum seekers etc, I am of the thinking this corruption issue in NSW, through a home state backlash, will on its own deliver government to Abbott. Rudd can do little to counter this one, like he has with the political issues.
I spend a bit of time 'on the ground', and in 2010 the feeling I was getting from the locals was not too bad for Labor, and Labor retained the seat with a swing against. In 2013 I'm not getting the same feeling despite polls saying its neck and neck, and its the corruption issue which is hurting now. What do you think?

The corruption in New South Wales labour seems endemic. From the days of Rex Jackson and Al Grasby to Milton Orkopoulis, Eddie Obeid, Macdonald, Tripodi, Angela D Amore and Craig Thomson there has been a nasty smell.
How does this level of people get nominated and elected to government. Something is rotten in the state of New South Wales (Denmark)

Paul NSW once the driver of ALP Federal elections will suffer.
We both know that.
And while Robbo is in my view a giant after some we had, and started reforming the place before Kev came back, we have 2 more terms in opposition here.
But links to the federal party are phantoms.
Sillier are you aware, [not defending the filth] about the Fitzgerald findings in QLD?
Or Askin and Wran,s crimes while in office.
Lets stop avoiding this truth Vic Qld now NSW have seen, minor in comparison but still crimes committed by the other side count the fallen ministers.
We every one of us if we target only 9one side own the continuing betrayal of us all.
Paul may I take it you are preferenceing SM?

Paul 1405, "In 2013 I'm not getting the same feeling despite polls saying its neck and neck, and its the corruption issue which is hurting now"

I reckon you are right. Rudd must rush to an election, but too late!

To top it all off, unemployment is up, Rudd is now raiding workers' savings and the $30 billion debt for this financial year has been admitted. It was previously admitted to be $18 million, so it is a big rise.

While the $30 million is not horrific in itself, when the debts of State Governments are added to it there is a very frightening debt overall being passed on to younger generations. Six years Labor and it is said that it will take sixty years to repay it all if there is no more borrowing. That is very painful for the young working people who will have to carry the burden.

Boats are not forgotten. There are plenty of people who are asking exactly when the government's big heart and charity will be seen at home.

- There are 100,000 homeless of which at least 10,000 are children.

- There are thousands of aged being treated abominably in nursing homes. Their nightmare is not new either. The government's own auditor the Australian National Audit Office has had similar findings over some years. Despite the ANAO's reports being tabled in Parliament, nothing has changed.

So much for the government's concern about its own citizens and especially the aged.

I can't convict anyone until they have been through the court system.
Finding out if there should be a court action is not proof of nothing.
the findings don't sound good , but neither did Thomson or Slipper. No one is guilty of anything.

Paul,for that matter OTB yes some impact from a state issue will be seen in NSW votes.
Any thought Federal Labor is gone, because of something not of its making is premature.
Ignore it if you wish, but given current feelings seen in polling Any leader other than Abbott confronting Federal Labor would win.
Australia, on the day will not trust Abbott.

In one SMH article it was stated:

"There are two types of people in the Labor Party," one senior state MP says. They were "those who bent the knee and kissed Eddie's ring, and those who kept their distance because they thought him so odious""

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/rise-and-fall-of-the-godfather-20130802-2r4sb.html

It is a pity more did not find him odious. This sort of scenario happens even in the APS when people are to scared to speak up for fear of reprisals and loss of career. I imagine the bigger you are the harder the fall and thus people remained silent. This is another reason whistleblower laws need to be strong to protect those who report on corruption.

If more within the party had collectively rallied against what was obviously dirty politics these sorts of behavours might be stemmed.

Trouble is it takes one person to start the ball rolling and the risk is sometimes that person may be left holding the ball alone. The fear factor.

On the Federal level there is little oversight on ministerial entitlements and much of it is self-policed with little checking unless it is bought to the attention of the responsible agency through the media or another avenue.

The Register of Interests is poor and if you read through each members declarations there are holes and even one (if I remember correctly) that refused to give his wife's assets because it was deemed "no-one's business". So some politicians clearly hold the public in such disdain they remove themselves from accountability.

pelican like you I think it is shameful more did not find the maggot ofencive.
I too, have to say many including me, knew about him and others who should serve prison terms with him.
Hopefully long ones.
The Terrigal,s, that group met the maggot at his home in a place named that, may well feel shamed.
I truly and honestly think it is not party wide, but a NSW illness.
On the road treform, a long way to go, but progress is speeded up by Robinson, state Labor leader, and Rudd,s intervention.
Any hope that this disgusting mess will lift greens or sink federal Labor are unlikely to eventuate.
Greens have, no not bias fact, peaked,and are running as fast as they can from middle Australia.
Labor like other states, will pay in the place the crimes took place NSW.
no EXCUSES PLEASE NSW filth belong in prison and their cash in consolidated revenue.
Paul, please consider, you once haunted the ALP with your ever present wish for far left policy,s.
You more than any here should see the loss of Bob Brown and the rise of two squabbling women is pushing your vote down, not up.
If ever your party should gain votes it is now but clear polling tells us they are shedding votes.

A certain Mr Steve Dunn was mentioned. Is he the same Mr Dunn that NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell contracted as an 'independent' expert to do a job on the Games Council?

You really wonder what is going on in NSW politics.

<It is understood Mr Obeid lobbied several ministers over the leases. In 2009, NSW Maritime issued new 10-year leases to the incumbents along the wharves - including to the Obeids' front company - and again without a competitive tender. The minister at the time was Mr Tripodi, and the head of Maritime was Steve Dunn, Mr Obeid's chief bureaucrat when he was fisheries minister.

Mr Obeid's diaries show he met privately Mr Dunn no fewer than 11 times. Records obtained by the Herald demonstrate Mr Dunn showing a keen interest in the Obeid leases at about the same time as these meetings.

On Friday, December 7, 2007, for example, they met at 10.30am at the Sydney Hospital cafe. Five days later, Mr Dunn, then the general manager of the Maritime property division, emailed another Maritime employee to ask for Mr Abood's telephone number.>
[
from investigations at SMH]

Belly, Nathan Rees said this scandal would cost Labor up to 3% in NSW. I think Nathan is being a little conservative about the impact.
Been told today the Liberals have some damaging Obeid info, on a NSW Labor luminary which will hit the fan next week. If true I'll be very interest as to what he has to say.
My partner had an intro to your man Robbo on Friday, she said she likes him, I told her not to be fooled by the bald head.
Beach the Obeid shops at Circular Quay, another dirty one that should make interesting reading. Its now clear that NSW was being run out of Obeid's parliamentary office and there are people in Federal Labor that need to explain their relationship with this scumbag, and if they can't, then Rudd should give them their marching orders, quick smart.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/murdochs-vicious-attacks-on-rudd-its-business-20130803-2r65x.html
It is my belief Nathan, a man whocame out with clean hands, said 2 percent.
Paul a warning.
My link, straight out of 1975 should remind those of us who care for this country of a fact.
Power and privilege, held in the hands this time of one little grub, not the two then, is about to inflict a single persons will on us all.
Murdock, is a walking talking action taking danger to all who know just what an Abbott government would do to our country.
Arjay, and others talk of conspiracy's, mostly unbelievable ones but this thread points to a real one.
Paul you have every right to HIGHLIGHT NSW FILTH.
But you by your wish to improve your partys vote, by stretching the truth?
You link your pony to your worst nightmare in the name of your self interest you serve an evil truth power beyond our belief is on the march..

Belly, how am I stretching the truth? Given the release of the Obeid diaries by the ICAC. Should Matt Thistlethwaite (trying to replace Garrett) the Labor candidate for Kingsford Smith disclose the content of the 15 meetings he had with Obeid,in Obeid's parliamentary office, at 4 of those meeting Joe Tripodi was present. These meetings took place from October 2008 to September 2009. What was discussed? All Thistlethwaite has said is the meetings were "private". Should the voters accept that explanation? I think not.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/07/29/13/16/hockey-throws-icac-taint-at-labor

Paul no more than two months before the Latham election/Debacle, I was one of many in a crowded room.
We came together to hear Latham tell us he had dropped the local branches pick Thisle what ever.
He hand picked, over the wishes of the locals the departing Minister,who had to join the part first!
I have no clue what Mat was doing in all those meetings.
And in fact join you in wanting an answer.
Be aware bloke, the very best of intentions can still harm if facts are ignored.
Are you prepared to answer two questions?
If you are
Number one, is your intensive anti Labor stand evidence you want to take voters from the ALP.
Two are you prepared to look at the seeming truth for every voter your side has *at least eight, maybe nine* want only your party,s death?
Consider the last with great care.
As rude as some will find it it too is quite true, only at the point of many guns could your party ever gain power here.

Belly,

You said "Power and privilege, held in the hands this time of one little grub, not the two then, is about to inflict a single persons will on us all."

I assume you are talking about Rudd the Dudd.

On the Beach,

I defer to your prescience:

" ... Rudd must rush to an election, but too late!"

Five weeks - it's going to be like a non-stop Marx Brothers movie, Monty Python and Yes Prime Minister, with a lot of Underbelly [no offence, Belly] thrown in as well.

Better than Jimmy Sharman ! Kiddies, ask your grand-parents.

Joe

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/a-21st-century-fox-playing-chicken-20130804-2r7ir.html
Again frantic stuff from our Shadow Minister, and a rather child like attempt at humor.
This link like my one above is from Australia,s only news paper group.
The other is a Gobbel,s like tool of a very dirty little Grub.
Conspiracy theorist can fish in their dry dams.
Buildenberg the lot, but hidden in plain sight, by those unwilling to see is a crime even bigger than the NSW FILTH.
At last, an election walking on the edge of a very tall cliff, not just my party but my country.
A Tony Abbott Prime Ministership, puppet like Murdock moving his strings terrifies,me.

Belly,

I am glad to see that my predictions that people were starting to wise up to the Dudd were vindicated, and he now is roughly where he was when he was fired as PM last time.

Firstly, as I have said before, any malfeasance on the part of the coalition will be broadcast, and wildly exaggerated by the left whingers such as yourself, and for me to say anything is a redundancy.

Secondly, the "crimes" of the liberal MPs are so mild it hardly bares comparison.

Finally, the defining difference between Liberal and Labor governments is that MPs guilty of unacceptable behaviour are demoted and/or lose pre selection. Whereas in Labor they are given plum positions such as Craig (brothel creeper) Thomson, and Slipper.

If you only want to hear the news that praises labor, perhaps you are more suited to read the New Matilda or Independent Australian where Labor apologists go to die.

SM,

Ahem... Brough was found to have colluded with his mate Ashby for political advantage in the Federal court case against Slipper.

Justice Rares not only made that finding, but then threw out the case as an abuse of process.

Abbott has stuck by his mate Brough regardless.

"Finally, the defining difference between Liberal and Labor governments is that MPs guilty of unacceptable behaviour are demoted and/or lose pre selection...."

That doesn't appear to be the case concerning Brough.

I think you're talking out of your hat.

Poirot,

Why was Brough's behaviour unacceptable?

Firstly, "abuse of process" is a procedural issue, not a crime, as the procedure is under the mentor ship of a judge at all times.

Secondly, the judge had many opportunities to terminate the case, but refused, as he was unconvinced that Slipper had no case to answer, and using your own measure, as the case is under appeal, and the verdict may not even stand.

Another abuse of process is for Juliar to keep Thomson and Slipper in senior trusted parliamentary positions with clear evidence of criminal behaviour.

For a start, Brough was in receipt of stolen goods (Slipper's personal diary) and was complicit in arranging the theft of that item from Slipper's employee.

Maybe people should be reminded of other shady things on his record, such as him fraudulently passing off a staff member as an aboriginal youth worker on TV in order to get his intervention policy through?

There are several other matters - such as Hockey's role in requesting financial assistance from Clive Palmer on behalf of Ashby (plus various other claims) - that may still come to light during the weeks ahead.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/tony-abbott-in-row-over-carbon-costs-at-meat-factory-20130805-2r8va.html
SM are you Little Tony,s script writer?
Think it seems familiar to some of your stuff.
Tony,s first move should be to sew his lips closed till 8/9 and sack his frenzied script writers/advisers, I hope he does not.

Wobbles,

Your ignorance is hilarious. Brough never had Slipper's diary. Slipper accused Brough of having access to extracts from it, i.e. information.

Belly,

It is starting to look as though Dudd would benefit from a few capable writers too. What a rotten egg of a budget.

SM well you see something in Labors honest report about our current financial situation I do not.
Can you tell me just what Hockey was on about?
He seemed to be saying our interest rates are too low.
Like Abbott he seems in over his head in financial matters.
He is no Costello and Abbott no John Howard.

SM,

Actuuuuaallly.....Justice Rares "found" that Ashby was passing information from Slipper's diary to Brough:

Excerpt:

" Later on 29 March 2012, Mr Brough exchanged texts with Mr Ashby. Mr Brough asked whether Mr Ashby could email a document because, what Mr Ashby had sent is “hard to read”. Mr Ashby said that he would email it and Mr Brough later responded: “Will need to get daily printouts tomorrow with greater detail”. I infer that this exchange related to Mr Brough having been sent, and later emailed, copies of printouts from Mr Slipper’s electorate diary from 2009 made by Mr Ashby or Ms Doane. Earlier that day, Mr Lewis had emailed Mr Brough questions concerning Mr Slipper......"

"Mr Lewis’s email asked how many times Mr Slipper had travelled to New Zealand since July 2010 and asked for diary extracts for three date ranges in 2009 and 2010. Later on 29 March 2012, Mr Lewis emailed Mr Brough seeking further information on a date range in late 2009."

So all above board then?

(Now that's hilarious!)

P,

Actuuuuaallly.....Justice Rares "INFERRED" that Ashby was passing information from Slipper's diary to Brough:

Secondly, even if he was, the misconduct (i.e. the theft of information) was by Ashby not Brough. When Rudd the Dudd passed all the confidential information to the press to sabotage Juliar, was it the media at fault or Dudd? All you have on Brough is that he is nearly as ethically challenged as Rudd or Juliar.

I am still waiting to see what "crime" Brough committed, and how it compares to the fraud and theft by Thomson / Slipper, or even the huge lie by Juliar, or her giving Thomson and Slipper plum posts.

SM,

"....Secondly, even if he was, the misconduct (i.e. the theft of information) was by Ashby not Brough..."

: )

Excerpts: (Rares J)

"I am also satisfied that Mr Ashby and Ms Doane by about 29 March 2012 were in a combination with Mr Brough to cause Mr Slipper as much political and public damage as they could inflict on him."

"Conclusion

196 Having read all of the text messages on Mr Ashby’s mobile phone, as Mr Ashby’s senior counsel invited me to do, as well as the other evidence, I have reached the firm conclusion that Mr Ashby’s predominant purpose for bringing these proceedings was to pursue a political attack against Mr Slipper and not to vindicate any legal claim he may have for which the right to bring proceedings exists. Mr Ashby began planning that attack at least by the beginning of February 2012. As Mr Ashby and Ms Doane agreed in their texts of 30 March 2012 what they were doing “will tip the govt to Mal’s [Brough] and the LNP’s advantage”: [66]. It may be a coincidence that Mr Ashby suggested to Mr Slipper the idea of becoming Speaker just as Mr Brough began to move towards challenging Mr Slipper for LNP pre-selection for his seat and Mr Ashby ended up in an alliance in late March 2012 with Mr Brough to bring down Mr Slipper after he became Speaker. It is not necessary to make any finding about this or about whether Mr Slipper did sexually harass Mr Ashby in any of the ways alleged. It is also not necessary to consider whether these proceedings are “vexatious proceedings” within the meaning of r 6.02 or if that expression has a different meaning in r 26.01(1)(b) under which the Court can give summary judgment if “the proceeding is frivolous or vexatious”."

You've got a hide.

P,

Please get off your soap box and engage your brain. Vexatious court cases are not new and are frequently used by parties such as the greens, interest groups, political parties for various reasons, and with respect to severity on the scales of justice probably falls below jay walking.

The responsibility of the judge is to recognize these cases and dismiss them at the first hurdle. That the judge did not in spite of several pleas from government hired solicitors shows that there was definite merit in Ashby's case. That Ashby over egged the cake is not in doubt, and is the reason that the judge finally decided that the political ends of this case overrode the merits.

As for Brough, the judge refers almost exclusively to Ashby, and Brough is on the periphery.

So P, huff and puff as you may, this is a storm in a tea cup, and in no way compares to the theft and fraud that many Labor MPs are charged for.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-06/peter-dowling-accused-of-sending-explicit-texts-to-mistress/4867008
Shadow Minister likes me to post links.
He has told me so.
Says it at least is evidence I am not telling lies.
He, and others may well walk around this one.
It to them will look like the northern end product of a south bound Bull.
Normally they would gather it in, and use it instead of policy's, to throw at Labor.
Quite frightening in reality, see not the first not the last but one of many, fallen Liberals or their pet Nationals to fall.
Yet they are invisible, to such as SM, and others.
Who pretend the party the failures served is clean, and that is the frightening thing.
Abbott SM a thousand more want us to believe their side is populated by saints.
And too they reserve the right to lie/ make things up/miss lead Australia.

ICAC has made recommendations in regard to alleged corruption on a massive scale, perhaps in the tens of millions, of Obeid and McDonald.

Craig Thomson is facing more than a hundred charges of gross misuse of the union contributions of some of Australia's poorest women workers, in the hundreds of thousands, for pornography and prostitutes.

Mal Brough has been accused of getting access to material from the diary of a vile misogynist.

On a scale of 1 to 10, Poirot, how would you rate those offences ?

Cheers :)

Joe

No huffing and puffing at all, SM.

It's all here in black and white...a fascinating read of skulduggery!

http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2012/2012fca1411

"....Brough is on the periphery." (Chortle, snicker)

You should read it sometime.

Hi Poirot,

1 being not very corrupt, and 10 being extremely corrupt.

No hurry :)

Cheers,

Joe

P,

Read it, could not find any mention of Brough as plaintiff or co plaintiff. All I could find was mention that he used Ashby to bring down Slipper (very successfully) doing nothing illegal in the process. Notably the cab charge criminal case is still proceeding.

Dudd and Juliar did 3 underhand things before breakfast.

You have only crumbs and are trying to make a meal of it.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/slanted-coverage-has-one-asking-whats-in-it-for-murdoch-20130806-2rdbv.html
The link has many things to tell us.
It reminds of my warning about the 1970,s trashing of an ALP government.
Then like now some within Labor helped all they could, to destroy the government.
Then too, the raging news papers did not want truth, did not much care for it.
They knew/and know some will read the headline not the story, and even here, know the separation of state from Federal will not be made.
Too that while minor in comparison to NSW FILTH all three east coast governments are tainted by falling Ministers and members, we will not hear just how many, or see just how big the fall has been.
Such news does not serve the *POWER BROKER* playing with our country.
Rupert Murdock.
And just as always Labor must fear not Murdock, not Liberals.
We must fear those from our back ground and class, it always is them who turn on us, put the other side in power.
Without the slightest look at the policy,s and reality of how such an act will hurt them.
Tony Abbott, his supporters and Murdock, know you can fool some of the people most of the time.

Shadow Minister,

How uplifting to see that you admire the conspiratorial actions of these jokers.

It's 24 carat partisanship all the way with you : )

The cab charges presently being pursued are "not" those which Ashby first bandied about.

He dropped that aspect of his sham before things got underway.

My armchair theory is Ashby dropped the cabcharge aspect because he was warned about throwing stones in glass houses. It is well reported now that Slipper did use the Cabcharge dockets to visit wineries, not part of his parliamentary duties. There has also been media attention to Abbott's taxpayer funded book signing trips which has been well documented. It was reported that Abbott paid this money back. Nevertheless when an accusation is made the police have to investigate so the outcome of the Slipper case won't be known until the Court case has concluded.

The oversight on ministerial entitlements is poor with little scrutiny.

How often does this happen. Is the public to assume these rorts are rare or common?

Pelly,

Although Ashby dropped the cabcharge aspect before the case was assessed, the AFP did investigate them, but found no case to answer.

The cabcharge charges that are now underway come from a separate investigation.

I've had this discussion with SM before, in that Abbott was allowed to pay his $9,400 expenses back via the Minchin Protocol (which is standard procedure for parliamentarians who claim expenses they're not entitled to) Slipper was not allowed this action to repay the $900 because someone outside Finance (as yet unnamed) reported him to the AFP. If a case s reported to the AFP externally from Finance, the Minchin Protocol is not put in place.

Poirot,

So .... Abbott's $ 9,400.

Thomson's half a mill, or so.

Obeid and McDonald's tens of millions.

On a scale of 1 to 10 ?

Keep spinning,

Joe

P,

If you compare the devious and unethical abuse of parliamentary process that Juliar used to bribe Slipper (dis-endorsed by the libs for abuse of benefits) with hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax payer money to effectively join labor, the underhanded method used to expose Juliar's speaker was more than justified.

So before you get on your high horse and start pointing fingers with regards Slipper, you should look in your own back yard where the balance of crookery is well on Labor's side.

P.S. The cab-charge issue was dropped by Ashby's lawyers as not relevant to the case of harassment, and was instead referred to the police who subsequently charged Slipper.

SM,

They are not the same charges.

The original cabcharge investigation was over incidents in 2011-12 when Slipper was Parliamentary Speaker.

The new charges relate to 2010.

http://nofibs.com.au/2013/07/04/a-familiar-afp-smell-over-slipper-and-ashby/

"The allegations were baseless, a part of Ashby’s shock and awe plan to force the resignation of Slipper, and he dropped them in his subsequent statement of claim. In fact there is no evidence that Slipper rorted any entitlement during his time as Speaker."

"James Ashby’s false claims that Peter Slipper had rorted his taxi cab entitlements while Federal Parliamentary Speaker in 2011-12 have triggered a summons on three cab overpayments in 2010.

The history of Ashby’s allegations is as follows: two claims of travel rorts were dropped – after garnering maximum negative publicity for Slipper – while his last claim of sexual harassment was thrown out of the Federal Court in December as an abuse of process."

"However the AFP then delved back into his past as a Liberal Party MP, and finally charged him in January this year with an alleged 2010 travel rort, an incident which occurred shortly before Tony Abbott guaranteed that his travel entitlements were in order. (I note in passing that Mr Abbott has never been asked about the matter, and that Murdoch papers have falsely reported that the summons related to the 2012 matter alleged by Ashby)."

P,

You really are getting desperate.

The charges were dropped in the case because the case was about harassment, not because they were invalid. That the police chose not to prosecute on those particular cab charges does not mean they weren't abused, rather that there was not enough to make a criminal case, but was obviously sufficient for the police to investigate further.

As the cab charge dockets are submitted directly to Finance it is drawing a long bow to expect Abbott to have knowledge of them.

The case while being dismissed for abuse of process did not dismiss the original accusations, and served very well to expose labor's Speaker as a crook and pervert.

Yes, SM, we're well versed in your habit of finding "crooks and perverts" every time a partisan political accusation rears its head.

Here's Justice Rares on the original cabcharge allegation:

"186 Mr Slipper also contended that Mr Ashby’s abandonment of the 2003 and all Cabcharge allegations on 15 May 2012 when the statement of claim was filed, demonstrated that by then those allegations had served their intended purpose of harming Mr Slipper. Mr Slipper relied on the absence of any evidence on Mr Ashby’s part as to why the allegations had been made, only to be later withdrawn."

"188 Mr Ashby asserted that breach of the trust and confidence term can arise from a series of events over time,....He also argued that the Cabcharge allegations should be viewed as relevant to the breach of the safe system of work term of Mr Ashby’s contract:.."

"189 I reject those submissions....the test of whether an employee’s trust and confidence has been undermined is objective. Mr Ashby’s history given to Dr Phillips was simply that Mr Ashby believed that Mr Slipper’s actions “may have been unlawful”. Mr Ashby did not have any genuine disquiet when he raised the Cabcharge allegations in the originating application, for the reasons I have given."

"191 Here, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion, that I draw, namely that the inclusion in the originating application of the assertion that Mr Ashby intended to report the Cabcharge allegations to the police, offered him and Mr Harmer the opportunity to make a more serious public attack on Mr Slipper than would have been the case merely by making the balance of the Cabcharge allegations. That attack, in the form it was made, was a misuse of Mr Harmer’s privilege as a lawyer. The use of the Court’s process to make that attack in that form was an abuse of process."

SM, you make it up as you go along.

Ashby and his cronies had their case thrown out - lock, stock and barrel.

P,

"Yes, SM, we're well versed in your habit of finding "crooks and perverts" every time a partisan political accusation rears its head." - And all of them have either been charged and/or convicted. Your point?

Secondly, I still don't see Brough being mentioned. Why should I care about Slipper's staffer Ashby?

Finally, with regards the allegations of cab charge abuse,
A) they were irrelevant to the case, and were dropped,
B) Because they were withdrawn their validity was untested by the court,
C) By your own words "However the AFP then delved back into his past" and then charged him, so were indirectly vindicated.
D) Where was Brough other than on the periphery?

SM,

The 2011-12 cabchrge allegations were investigated by the AFP and found to be baseless.

Rares J:

"Even though Mr Ashby has now abandoned the 2003 and all the Cabcharge allegations, the features that I have criticised did the harm to Mr Slipper that Mr Ashby and Mr Harmer intended when those allegations were included in the originating application. A party cannot be allowed to misuse the Court’s process by including scandalous, irrelevant or damaging allegations knowing that they would receive very significant media coverage and then seek to regularise his, her or its pleading by subsequently abandoning those claims."

...........

"Secondly, I still don't see Brough being mentioned.....Where was Brough other than on the periphery?"

Oh really?

Conclusion:

" 199 Even though I have not found that the combination was as wide as Mr Slipper alleged in his points of claim, the evidence established that there was a combination involving Mr Ashby, Ms Doane and Mr Brough of that kind. Mr Ashby acted in combination with Ms Doane and Mr Brough when commencing the proceedings in order to advance the interests of the LNP and Mr Brough....."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/07/tony-abbott-race-of-life
The link is a view of the man Tony Abbott see,s in his mirror each morning.
It however is, in truth, not the man we will see if he becomes Prime Minister.
More and more the front bench, puppet like, repeat Abbott,s script word for word, unable to deviate from it.
More like a traveling sides show than a party.
Mumblings more suited to the fiction section in a library than any place we see, not a view of what they will do, but what they want us to believe they will do.

Hi Poirot,

While you're getting so much mileage out of Ashby and the Pervert, when you take a breather, perhaps you could get back to us and rank those activities - Obeid/McDonald's, Thomson's and Ashby/Brough's - and let's throw Gillard and her slush fund in the mix - on a scale of perfidy and nefarity and wickedness.

Oh, and Abbott looking at his watch - let's include that too. B@stard !

1 to 10. Not such a difficult task. Although diversion seems to be easier and more fun :)

No rush.

Cheers,

Joe

P,

Again I ask, "So what!"

"Even though I have not found that the combination was as wide as Mr Slipper alleged in his points of claim....Ashby acted in combination with Ms Doane and Mr Brough when commencing the proceedings"

The phrase "acting in combination" has a wide meaning, anything from encouragement to direct involvement.

As per the first line, "I have not found that the combination was as wide as Mr Slipper alleged" combined with Brough not being directly involved in the court case supports my assertion that while Brough was actively encouraging Ashby, his involvement was peripheral.

Brough did nothing illegal, and given Slipper's selling out his principles for money to Juliar he has no claim to the moral high ground.

Okay, SM,

We've probably gone as far as we can in this round.

I suppose Brough was "encouraging" Ashby for no reason?

I wonder why someone would encourage another person to steal information and then to pass that information on to the person who was doing the encouraging?

Beats me.....

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

Gotta run...just counting up a certain troll's latest tally.

: )

Hi Poirot,

My understanding of the meaning of 'troll' is someone who tries to divert discussion from a thread, usually by insulting participants.

This thread is supposed to be about Obeid/Mcdonald and political corruption generally.

But if you want to drag "Mussels" and Ashby into the mix, then let's play:

* how do you rank the behavior of Abbott (watch), Ashby/Brough (diary), Gillard (slush fund), Thomson (misuse of union members' funds), Obeid/Mcdonald (coal leases) ?

A troll would try, by any means, to divert discussion away from a legitimate thread topic. So what's your response, Poirot ? You are putting your bit in, after all, so it's only proper to assume that you might, just this once, stick to topic.

So how would I rank those above?

Abbott would off the scale, below the 1, nothing wrong with looking at your watch.

Ashby/Brough might, I'm not sure, be at no. 1.

Gillard and Thomson might hit a 6 or 7. What's half a million in kick-backs and stand-over money, after all ? Or half a million on prostitutes - that works out at barely 500 high-class prostitutes, or 1000 middle-range prostitutes. Might have kept Thomson going for a couple of years, and then what, poor bugger ?

Obeid and McDonald - if the allegations are substantiated, be up close to 9.

If you think I'm not going in to bat for criminals hard enough, just say so: how would you rank these various behaviors ?

No rush.

Cheers :)

Joe

Brough's motives were clear, and entirely appropriate to a weasel that had tried to sabotage his colleagues in the liberal party for cash offered by Juliar.

He did it legally, and very efficiently. Slipper after living an extravagant lifestyle at taxpayers' expense courtesy of Juliar, is now broke, facing criminal charges, and would probably have trouble getting hired as dog catcher.

Watch out. Shadow Minister, you'll get ticked off for referring to people other than "Obeid/MacDonald and political corruption generally".

But wait a minute, apparently if you and I are having a tete-e-tete about Slipper and Ashby, then it's only Poirot who gets pulled back into line....because chasing Poirot around the forum and parachuting in to put the boot in is what keeps Loudy going.

Then again, I shouldn't be too hard on his creepy habit...after all, in the 19 posts he's made since I politely requested he find another hobby, he's only either mentioned me or derided me in 10 of them.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=49098&show=history

Still, it's reassuring to note that the other men around here aren't traipsing around the forum with the sole purpose of harassing a particular poster.

(There's always one:)

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/rudd-calls-for-abbott-to-come-clean-on-nbn-discussions-with-murdoch-20130807-2rgx1.html
Kevin in the link asks Abbott to come clean about his boss Murdock.
If he was to explain the link between them it would be far from clean.
Not in any way under estimating the crimes of NSW FILTH.
But should the truth emerge?
Afraid in comparison to Murdock they are part small fish.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/07/rupert-murdoch-australian-election-2013
A different link to another paper.
But surely a reason for concern.
Every time the Murdock hand has fallen on a left of center party, New Labor in Britain Labor in Australia, Liberals, as is their right complain.
And yes I do now.
Every conspiracy theory in the world, stacked up against this immovable truth, fades in to the distance.
One of the world richest men, saying just how much joy he gets, from his interfering in politics.
How remote this little grub is, from the ordinary battling Australian!
Willing to do just about anything, to take away control of an election.
And too hide the out come we all face if truth is a victim of this campaign.

Topic, Poirot.

After all, diversion + insult may = 'trolling'.

On a scale of 1 to 10 (and now including that sleazebag in Queensland), how would you rate those behaviors ?

No hurry.

Joe

Loudmouth,

I don't intend to respond to you as rule in future on this forum - and up until last night, and since this post to you on 30th July http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15281&page=0#264044 , I hadn't been responding to your mentions or your jibes.

As I mentioned in that post, I find it puzzling that since you find my posting style and opinion so unsatisfactory, that you don't just ignore me...but of course that would spoil your warped fun.

Now I realise that the best way to deal with creepy behaviour such as yours is to ignore it. Nevertheless, I don't see why I shouldn't highlight your behaviour every now and then.

I won't be responding to you in general, but while you continue to harass me, I'll continue to expose your behaviour.

Cheers

While I have no sympathy for Slipper the actions of the LNP in trying to depose Slipper once his ascendancy to the Speaker's chairs is the stuff of 'hollowmen'. The LNP had no problem with Peter Slipper and allowed his behaviour to go on for years while retaining LNP support at preselection.

Lets assume for a moment that it's agreed Slipper was not a good candidate for the Speaker's Chair under normal circumstances and that his placement was purely for strategic purposes. The nonsense that followed by the LNP to unsettle the minority government was unbelievable. Then we had Mr Abbott denying his involvement in using ministerial entitlements to fund his book signings for Battlelines arguing his office arranged everything - 'it wasn't me'. Did he not realise he was stepping into a Comcar to go to these venues? Really!

Poirot don't worry about the strident LNP supporters. For some the LNP could commit murder and there would be some reason why it would be okay. You will always get the 'rose coloured glasses' syndrome from voters for their side of politics.

That is the part of the problem with Australian politics, it is one thing to support a party, but quite another to let them get away with stuff just on the basis of winning at all cost. Would rather there was a concerted and united effort to keep them ALL honest.

You're right, Poirot, it IS fun :)

So that's a promise ? You won't post any more ? If you can't stick to topic, you'll give it all away ?

Thank you.

Joe

Loudmouth,

I will continue to post where and whenever I please.

I'll not be responding to you in future except to draw attention to your harassment.

If it's good enough for you to stalk someone around the forum to get some perverse jollies, then it's good enough for that person to periodically highlight your twisted fixation.

As I mentioned, there are plenty of men around here with whom I don't see eye to eye, and we have some fairly full-on debates.......but none of them displays the creepy habit of following me about just to put the boot in.

That distinction is yours alone (and the worst thing is that you appear proud of it)

pelican,

While I agree with your final point perhaps your earlier defence is an example of what you criticise.

The latter is an example of the rhetorical trick often employed in defence of the government -who after all are in power and are wielding power and making decisions- that because the opposition has some failings either now or previously, then Labor ministers and union officials of today have some excuse for bad behaviour.

That defence is extended to the even more unreasonable and ridiculous demand that no Opposition member might criticise because s/he must share the guilt, real or alleged, of others, usually of people and events long gone.

At its simplest, that is childish tit-for-tat. However it is used very cleverly by people who know better to avoid all personal, ministerial and cabinet responsibility. Penny Wong is well known for it and is rarely challenged, because she then turns questioning along gender lines, another clever and over-used defence. That is done by some on OLO too and recently in this thread.

To cut to the chase, it is sly rhetorical trickery that maintains as you have just done, that it is hypocrisy for Abbott or his fellows to criticise corruption where there is suspicion or evidence of it. The rhetorical trickery seeks to nullify any criticism of the government by the Opposition and muzzle it.

Yet is it the role of the Opposition to keep the government honest. It is also a reasonable expectation that those who exercise the very broad powers of ministers or (say) are CEOs of unions should be held accountable for their actions.

Taking the foolishness to its limits, it is to say that anyone who has acquired a parking ticket (or maybe a member of their family has similarly transgressed) should not comment on a politician who has been broadly criticised by his peers for unseemly conduct.

OTB Pelican is probably the most balanced poster we have.
Even when taking the stick to me.
Slipper lived at the heart of both Nats and Libs for nine elections.
His fall was eye opening for those who can consider the question why only after he left?

OTB
I wasn't defending putting Slipper in the Speaker's Chair, I fully disagreed with this move and have said so on other posts. It was a frightful choice.

My 'let's accept' part of that earlier post was to get it out of the way as we all know it happened and why and that it was a poor move no matter the reasons. The problem with politics today is that it is more about strategy than principle. That was the point I was attempting to make.

Thank you Belly. I don't think I have taken the 'stick' to you - that sounds a bit violent. We disagree on occasion but I hope mostly we do it with respect even if there is passionate debate involved. :)

OTB
Just to take you up one point. There is nothing wrong with bringing up past misdemeanours if someone is claiming to be as pure as the driven snow or still has questions to answer eg. Battelines.

I don't vote Liberal or Labor so have no allegiance to either, although to be fair I have less affinity with the LNP as they do not, I believe, govern for all Australians, certainly little care is paid to those who are most disadvantaged. Both parties get a big fail as far as the widening gap between rich and poor.

Both are also failing in the area of transparent and accountable government. Any person in politics (or elsewhere) should call out corruption - that is only right. All I ask is that each be honest about their own transgressions instead of trying to blame others or obfuscate when questioned.

If a politician points the finger at another but has not yet fully addressed accusations against themselves, is it not reasonable to point the finger back?

Hi Poirot,

I'll defend to the death your right to post wherever and whenever you please, but just remember that when you get in the ring and take a few swings at somebody, they may - perhaps unreasonably - think that they can take a few swings back at you too. You can't just smack somebody in the chops and then duck out of the ring, until their back is turned again, then dart back in again, ad infinitum.

In other words, if you have something to say, don't whinge if someone holds you to account for it. Yes, you do have the right to make brainless comments, obviously off the top of your head, cheap digs and easy slurs, but equally others have the right to respectfully draw your attention to flaws in your arguments - before you have time to duck out of the ring, as it were.

Back to topic: sixty boats have been intercepted since Rudd's PNG non-solution (which, I'm surprised to say, may just work). Some two thousand people have arrived since that day, but Manus island can currently take only a few hundred, slightly fewer if the people there burn the place down. Well, that's always an option.

So will the smugglers call Rudd's bluff, and persuade enough people to get on boats, in order to over-load the system ? When will Rudd - or Abbott after the election - get around to treating people with dignity and, after making sure they are healthy and well-fed, fly them straight back to their point of departure, with some compensation to the host country for the inconvenience ? And fund better or quicker refugee-processing facilities in Indonesia ?

Just wondering. A dumb idea / Get stuck in, if you like, I can take it ;)

Joe

Yes Pelican it was just a few words not a real difficulty.
I have very few that do not sometimes get my admiration here.
This mornings news Joe, is again telling us boat people are asking to go home and not leaving to come.
How many of us have been involved in resolving a dispute?
Let me tell you this for free.
The opposition is damaging the process.
Saying every thing Rudd try,s will not work, in relation to the boats, then saying they will copy most of it?
Smugglers are sure to use it to sell their product.
Still election of a Liberal government will stall the boats but for how long?
How about some here who insult the Current government, just for a short time.
Look at the other sides likely and promised actions in power?

Pelican,

Agree with your comment above.

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

Loudmouth, your last post here takes the cake. One of your favourite tactics for sledging Poirot is that (according to you) I hardly ever post on topic (wrong)...yet after you gave me a mouthful above:

"Yes, you do have the right to make brainless comments, obviously off the top of your head, cheap digs and easy slurs...."

(which, funnily enough, describes exactly your technique for sniping Poirot)

Then you devote two paragraphs to refugees.

That is "not" the topic of this thread.

(Hypocrite much)

Hi Joe,

A good insightful post.

I particularly liked the way you picked-up on how <<Snouts in the trough and rats in the ranks>> might aptly refer to the gluttonous behavior of the refugee industry as it seeks to benefit from the continual inflow of illegals. And to individuals within that industry's willingness to rat on their own country for person gain.

Cheers

Oh Bravo!, SPQR, for your brave attempt to somehow connect Joe's lapse with the topic at hand.

Actually, I understand exactly what happened in that last post of Joe's.

It was a systems failure....

Most of his supposedly "on topic" spiel to Poirot is an elaborate camouflage for his digs in my direction.

He has a repository full to the brim with disingenuous questions and strawmen which he whips out to fulfill his obligations to "topic".

His usual strategy is to devote a portion of his post to bagging Poirot. However, the problem with his last post was that once he had completed his minimum of bagging, he reached into his cache to collect his cover spiel for the post...but, Quelle Horreur! - he clutched at the wrong spiel! (They all tend to look the same late at night after a couple of red wines)

Hence, we have the commentary on refugees daubed over the bottom of his post.

The upshot being, that if you employ an elaborate "on topic" subterfuge to mask your true intent of sledging a fellow poster, you have to concentrate at all times to make sure you select the right article to complement the sledging at hand.

pelican,

I suggest you understand perfectly the point I made, which was that a real or implied taint against a person or his family, friends, connections or affiliation does not in itself dispel and nor is it a defence against any genuine complaint or allegation, for instance of corruption, s/he might make against another person.

Or would you say that a woman's past sexual history and alleged permissiveness is a defence against a rape offence? Hey, she wasn't as white as snow so what right does she have to complain? Hypocrisy! Dismiss the charge!

Hi Poirot,

Yeah, sorry about getting my threads mixed u, but I'm an old person and am entitled to a bit of mental confusion. I'm sure you can't say the same :)

Oh well, back to topic: if we are going to criticise politicians for corruption, etc., then it's reasonable to get some sense of proportionality. Some offenses are, after all, more heinous than others.

You may consider Brough's offense worse than Thomson's, or than Obeid and Mcdonald's, but with respect, I don't see it that way.

Now this sleaze Dowling has rocketed the Libs into and up the ranks of heinousness and perfidy, I'd be the first to agree with you, if you raised it.

So my ranking, from 1 (mild) to 5 (outrageous), would be:

Ashby/Brough
Dowling
Thomson
Gillard
Obeid-McDonald

How would you see it, Poirot, now that you are participating in this thread ?

Cheers :)

Joe

OTB
I certainly did not understand your point in it's entirety as you appeared to completely misunderstand mine. You have a very aggressive approach in the way you 'speak' to people so I will attempt to get my point across again. I generally mean exactly what I say. Take it or leave it as you will. Your choice.

"Or would you say that a woman's past sexual history and alleged permissiveness is a defence against a rape offence? Hey, she wasn't as white as snow so what right does she have to complain? Hypocrisy! Dismiss the charge!"

That is a completely apples and oranges analogy and basically you are saying that promiscuous behaviour means someone deserves to be raped. The woman in your scenario is innocent. You and I disagree completely on that viewpoint.

When I talk about 'pure as snow' I am referring to both party's failure to address claims of wrongdoing and the fact they should not be surprised if when pointing the finger that someone will point back if you have also been seen to be less than honest. I am afraid I fail to see the analogy with your rape scenario. The rape victim is an innocent in that scenario.

I have clearly said that both parties should endeavour to be honest and respond to the claims put to them.

Pelican,

Don't worry yourself too much...you, as usual, are a most reasonable poster.

otb, has a habit (and I recall he's targeted you before) of deliberately misconstruing a posters intent, then launching into all sorts of misrepresentations constructed o his own fallacious line.

I've had to confront him a few times on similar issues.

Not much you can do if someone is out to misrepresent the meaning in your posts.

I've noticed he tends to hang onto his line like a terrier on a trouser hem...so good luck with trying to reason with him.

Poirot
Yes I can't work out sometimes if those types of responses are intentionally misrepresenting or misreading. I can understand the latter but the former I just don't get at all. What is the point. Life is too short to carry around that sort of anger. It is not healthy.

Live and let live I suppose.

pelican,

It is interesting that your first choice is to attack me,

"very aggressive approach in the way you 'speak' to people".

That is what I am talking about. Go back to your post of 8 August 2013 9:29:54 AM, you are just playing politics, right?

otb,

Here's the crux of what Pelican said:

"While I have no sympathy for Slipper the actions of the LNP in trying to depose Slipper once his ascendancy to the Speaker's chairs is the stuff of 'hollowmen'. The LNP had no problem with Peter Slipper and allowed his behaviour to go on for years while retaining LNP support at preselection.

Lets assume for a moment that it's agreed Slipper was not a good candidate for the Speaker's Chair under normal circumstances and that his placement was purely for strategic purposes. The nonsense that followed by the LNP to unsettle the minority government was unbelievable. Then we had Mr Abbott denying his involvement in using ministerial entitlements to fund his book signings for Battlelines arguing his office arranged everything - 'it wasn't me'. Did he not realise he was stepping into a Comcar to go to these venues? Really!"

How you get from that to:

"I suggest you understand perfectly the point I made, which was that a real or implied taint against a person or his family, friends, connections or affiliation does not in itself dispel and nor is it a defence against any genuine complaint or allegation, for instance of corruption, s/he might make against another person."

...is beyond me.

She was referring to the gross hypocrisy of the LNP to not only countenance Slipper's behaviour while he was with them, but to then suddenly heap scorn and criticism upon his character when he was aiding the other side is gross hypocrisy.

The other issue of Slipper being referred to AFP, while Abbott gets the Minchin Protocol treatment, stands alongside as just as whiffy.

Abbott did deny wrongfully claiming travel allowance - even after Kingston revealed the letters which told that he had been made to pay the money back.

And, yes, how could you not know you were abusing entitlements while riding in a comcar to your own book promotion?

What's yer beef with Pelican?

Good point, Poirot.

So how would you rate, in order of awfulness and hypocrisy, [alphabetically]

Abbott - Brough - Dowling - Gillard - Obeid/McDonald - Thomson ?

Actually that's almost my ranking, from minor to major.

What's yours ?

Quick ! Duck out of the ring again !

We'll still be here when you venture back, to talk about hypocrisy :)

Cheers,

Joe

No you don't Joey.

I'm choosy about who and what I take on "in the ring".

What is it with you? You stump up with some totally irrelevant confected questions which have absolutely no relevance (as far as I'm concerned) to the present debate....and proclaim to the world that if they are not addressed then somehow they are being "ducked".

No substance, matey...it's a shame, but there you go.

(I'd get back to sorting out your repository of spiel. We don't want another unfortunate mix-up, do we)

Cheers.

Hi Poirot,

Relevance ? This thread is about corruption at the highest levels in the NSW Labor Party. Shat did you think it wAS ABOUT ?

You're entitled to drag somehow Brough and Abbott into the ring, to maintain the metaphor, but don't complain if someone wants desperately to stick to topic.

Unless I misunderstand you, you maintain that the conduct of Brough and Abbott has been in some way more reprehensible than that of Obeid/McDonald or of Thomson. Or of Gillard, if you'll forgive me for adding another ingredient to the sh!t pie of political dealings.

If you do not wish to seem to be trying to divert the discussion on this thread away from the conduct of Obeid/McDonald and Thomson, and if you wish to focus on the conduct of Slipper and Ashby/Brough and Abbott, then it's quite reasonable to request, respectfully, that you might attempt to rank the relative behaviors of all of those politicians.

Notice I am in no way attacking you, simply asking if you will put your concerns in context, and relate your condemnation of Brough and Ashby's conduct to that of Obeid/Mcdonald, and of Thomson, to assert openly that you think the behavior of Brough, Ashby, Slipper and Abbott (and Dowling) to be more reprehensible than that of Obeid/McDonald or Thomson (and Gillard).

i.e. to have the courage to make a judgment. Of course, even if you actually have nothing to add, you are still entitled to make a 'contribution'. But it would be nice if you could try to see the broader picture.

Cheers :)

Joe

Loudmouth,

Paul started this thread about Obeid and MacDonald.

Shadow Minister introduced the subject of Thomson (didn't see you ticking him off for that)

Shadow Minister also first introduced a reference to Slipper in this thread (didn't notice you ticking him off for that)

You see, don't you, that apparently it's just hunky dory with you if anybody (except Poirot) meanders off track...and (according to you)if Poirot happens to go with them, then it's all Poirot's fault.

You say:

"If you do not wish to seem to be trying to divert the discussion on this thread away from the conduct of Obeid/McDonald and Thomson, and if you wish to focus on the conduct of Slipper and Ashby/Brough and Abbott, then it's quite reasonable to request, respectfully, that you might attempt to rank the relative behaviors of all of those politicians."

So now, because it's convenient and that others have gone with the Thomson angle - that now this thread is about anyone you want it to be about...Thomson, Gillard is okay added to the list, even though neither were mentioned in the opening post.....but (wait for it) apparently because Poirot replied to SM's mention and inclusion of Slipper - that somehow means she has violated Joe's "topic" rule.

So when you say: ".....but don't complain if someone wants desperately to stick to topic."

I shakes me head.

(I'm not interested in your puerile "rankings")

Yes, you may be right, Poirot. So will you condemn the [alleged] conduct of Obeid and McDonald, or will you seek to bring Abbott and Brough into the picture ? i.e. go off-topic?

Just asking.

Joe

Joe,

Apparently going "off topic" is just fine with you - as long as it's on Thomson or Gillard.

(I think I've just filled my quota of conversing with hypocrites today)

The thread is about Labor miss fits, as seen through the eyes of the Greens Ambassador at large.
So please refrain from including coalition miss fits.
There is not enough room here to include them.
Please too continue to make a case that the defeat of Labor will see us as dwelling in a Conservative heaven and better for it.

Yes, Poirot, me too ;)

Cheers,

KJoe

Had to get you past the ton Paul.
Have noted your absents and wondering why hope its just campaign mode.
Been doing a bit myself, and being reminded every day I am no longer young.
Yes had the time and reason to relook at the NSW FILTH and todays papers say it all.
The filth will get to keep the money!
If we Australian,s looked at the things that we share, not what divides us, what an even greater country this could be.
One day some one will start another web page one that has room and a welcoming for all sides.
Just think if only 100.000 of us and it could be many more!
put our names to a Demand all assets of such as these be taken.
And that people power is here now but not an open to every one thing, yet.
By the way no matter what party is in power to actually get them to act?
Send the finished poll to the press the day before it is sent to the white wash place.

NO! until it is removed remember thi8s is likely to be phishing stay away