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