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