PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   War in Australia (any Oz Politics): the Original (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/477678-war-australia-any-oz-politics-original.html)

allan907 21st Aug 2012 08:12

A tactic that the left are well practised in Anthill.

However, doesn't make it any better when the other side do it - unless it's to stop the previous leftist underhanded tactics :E

BTW: amateur

Ovation 21st Aug 2012 09:04

Larry Pickering certainly has either a good source or huge balls (or a terminal illness and couldn't give a sh.t).

Just for explanation, in a legal partnership each and every partner is able to be held responsible for the actions of another, even if they were completely unaware (as it may be in this case). This is why most of them keep their assets in a way that they can't be got at. Now read on....

Pickering Post Part VII - Is the Prime Minister A Crook


Slater & Gordon handle unfair dismissal claims in their thousands. Gillard herself handled a few, so she knew exactly what it meant when she was
called in for a taped interview... it was a precursor to her dismissal.

It's a moot point as to whether she was given the opportunity to resign or
not. All legal employees, short of an accusation of murder, are extended
that courtesy because a "dismissal" could both injure the firm's reputation
and terminally end the employee's career. Regardless, it appears to have
done both anyway.

The fraudulent document that allowed the "slush fund" to be set up was
first presented in Perth. It was taken to the Commissioner of Corporate
Affairs who promptly refused to allow it on grounds that it appeared to be
too much like a union.

Undeterred, Wilson asked Gillard to do it. Incredibly, Gillard agreed. It
was pointless to persist in Perth because the Commissioner had already
knocked it back so it was off to Victoria and the offices of Slater &
Gordon.

Now, even the most young and naive person on the planet would have known this was highly unethical at best and illegal on a number of fronts at
worst.

There were three other people present when this document was drawn up:
Ralph Blewitt, Bruce Wilson and senior equity partner, Bernard Murphy.
(Bernard Murphy was the anonymous name "The Australian" redacted in its
Page one story.)

In the record of interview Gillard stated that she "acted alone". She lied.
Was she protecting Bernard Murphy? If so, it didn't help. Murphy hurriedly
departed the firm on an agreed settlement prior to Gillard.

[Gillard was later to appoint Bernard Murphy to the Federal Court bench.
Why did she do that? Was she worried he would disclose critical information
relating to the blatant fraud?]

When the document was completed by Gillard it was signed by Blewitt. Wilson then took it to the Commonwealth Bank to open the now infamous account: The AWU Workplace Reform Association Inc.

It appeared on the record as an AWU account, it wasn't, but it was ready to
launder hundreds of thousands of dollars, attracting no tax, into Wilson's
pocket. More importantly the AWU had no knowledge of it. Yet the AWU was a client of Gillard's in the form of Wilson. The law firm itself acted for the Vic AWU.

In a classic conflict of interest, Gillard was actually facilitating theft by her boyfriend from her own firm's client, the AWU! Gillard was also improperly acting for her criminal boyfriend who was also a representative of the AWU client!

Slater & Gordon is obliged to keep the Law Institute of Victoria updated as
to who is operating on their Practising Certificate? The Law Institute
claims privilege on this information. We have reason to believe Julia was
removed from the Certificate in September and not in May the following year
as they now advise?

When the fraudulent activity was eventually discovered Peter Gordon hit the
roof, but his position was untenable because:

Slater & Gordon is hardly independent. Incredibly, if they sacked her, they
would be exposed to a reimbursement claim from their own client (the AWU)
for all monies stolen, plus costs. What a predicament Gillard had created.
No wonder they were angry.

Because Gillard did not open a file on the case, to appraise others in the
firm of her actions, her conduct may be subject to criminal charges and the
Professional Indemnity policy would not have been exposed (you cannot
insure against criminal activity).

Lawyers are now pitting their credibility against each other. In this fiery
battle of recollections and taped records Nick Styant-Browne will emerge
the winner.

That may sound a bit complicated. It is! And the more Slater & Gordon
wriggles the more it will need the services of a good Left wing law firm.

allan907 21st Aug 2012 09:39

Gillard is alleged to:

have engaged in fraud either knowingly or unknowingly

lied about the circumstances of her departure from Slater and Gordon

knowingly put the partners of Slater and Gordon in an invidious position regarding their exposure to criminality

failed to open a file to ensure that all the partners of Slater and Gordon were aware of what she was doing

failed to disclose a severe conflict of interest in her dealings with clients whilst at Slater and Gordon.

And all this happened 17 years ago when she was "young and naive (mid 30s)".

Now - how could allegations of theft, shonky dealings, consorting with criminals, lying and corruption possibly have any relevance to her present position as prime minister?

Full written answers on a grain of rice please.

Andu 21st Aug 2012 09:43

Pickering's editor, Paul Gianelli (?) was interviewed on Sydney radio yesterday and quite happily revealed Pickering's main source, an ex-BLF senior functionary who's been trying to get this story aired for years, to no avail. (No one in the MSM will touch it.) I'm afraid I didn't note the BLF bloke's name, but Max may (stress 'may') have been his first name.

Anthill 21st Aug 2012 10:10

Amatuer- Ah, yes, thanks for that :\

The big problem is that we get the polies that we allow into parliament. Left/Right whoever, we collectively should be demanding a higher standard of ethics from those that we elect to serve us..bwahhahahhaha!! I knew I wouldn't be able to type that with a straight face :}.

Look, these assholes treat us with contempt. Why encourage them? In my opinion Gillard=Abbott= that silly girl..(what's her friggn name..) Hanson-Young=Human Garbage.

Guy Fawkes was probably the last man to enter Parliament with open intentions.

I feel that there is a strong possibility that the ALP will auto-desruct in the next few years. If the QLD election is any indicator of what is happening to them. Let's face it; they deserve electoral annilation! What WE don't deserve is a Parliament stacked with LNP scumbags.

:cool:

allan907 21st Aug 2012 10:49

....or union heavies with their patronage :eek:

Worrals in the wilds 21st Aug 2012 11:04


LABOR'S support has continued to rise after the introduction of the carbon tax in July and is now at its highest since the start of the year.
Personally I think this has a lot to do with the conservative state governments. A friend recently came up with the theory that Jeff Seeney (deputy Premier of Qld and National Pary redneck in chief) has actually been employed by Gillard as a clandestine PR person. :hmm::}

Many Queenslanders (including die hard city Libs) are now remembering the adage that a vote for the Libs is a vote for the Nats. :ouch:

What WE don't deserve is a Parliament stacked with LNP scumbags.
Ya gets what ya votes for. Unfortunately the options are 1. Rock and 2. Hard place. :(

Itís also timely to remind all of those ex Labor MPís that sitting around, waiting for Newman to hand you your seat back, also isnít an option, you were a large part of the problem, why would we want to see you back in power? Possibly the old argument that a bad Labor Government is better than a good Tory Government perhaps?

The fact is we had an extremely bad Labor Government and now weíve got an extremely bad LNP Government, rather than gazing at our navels, letís get some decent people involved in the ALP, Rank & File, working people, letís take the seats back from the clowns that see them as being theirs in 2015 and letís give working people some proper representation, not the disgrace that was the Bligh Government and most certainly not the abject disgrace this Newman Government is.
Peter Simpson, State Secretary ETU Qld.
Heavies aren't always wrong.

parabellum 21st Aug 2012 11:27

Why is it that when a new government takes over from an old government that has squandered all the funds and left a huge debt that the new government gets slated for taking the necessary but unpopular steps to redress the disgraceful state of affairs that the previous government left the sate/country in?

Anthill 21st Aug 2012 12:00



....or union heavies with their patronage http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...milies/eek.gif
Here I think that the days of the ALP are numbered. Why should the ALP exist for ever? Consider the plethora of political parties that have come and gone over the years: DLP, the Australia Party (not Katter's, the other one)Australian Democrats, Uniting Party... The ALP wont last forever. Their current manifestation of party who puts up candidates whose only qualification is that of 'union crony'.

Why do they deserve to exist? The ALP doesn't represent the worker, the battler or the common man. The electorate will eventually figure out the true relevance (or lack of) the ALP and they will cease to exist. Without having ALP candidates who have some 'real world' experience, why vote for them? It iritates me no end to observe the stream of Left-wing political theorists graduate from uni, go straight to employment as a "researcher" in a union and wind up as local candidate for the ALP. Or am I being cliche`? The ALP needs 'real' people as candidates. However their organisational structure and culture will prevent that from happening and that's why I think that they will disappear in the next few years.

So, who will fill the void? Katter's Australian party? They have some interesting policies: more Green than the Greens in a lot of ways, support Traditional Australian values (whatever that means), are against commerical monopolies in retail and media (:eek: Good Luck, guys!!) and are for developing local Australian industries. Having recently read Katter's manifesto, it would seem that he is an economic 'wet'. Also seems to adhere to the dictum shared by my Grandfather (a blue-collar man and Trade Union official of the old school :ok:): "If you aren't doing somthing productive, what gives you the right to eat?" We seem to have lost common sense somewhere. Probably with G Whitlam :rolleyes:

Worrals in the wilds 21st Aug 2012 13:09


Why is it that when a new government takes over from an old government that has squandered all the funds and left a huge debt that the new government gets slated for taking the necessary but unpopular steps to redress the disgraceful state of affairs that the previous government left the sate/country in?
Because they're so mean about it. Allowing trailbikes and horses in National Parks does nothing for the budget but apparently it's what we voted for. Spreads weeds and threatens walkers (not to mention the parks) but it's the National Party way. :yuk: The problem with vulnerable areas like Lamington is that there's only one chance to get it right. :mad: it up and it's :mad:ed forever. Most parks in Qld (including the mighty Lamington) already have weed issues due to the previous ALP government's relentless cost cutting so it would be best not to make it worse. However, gotta be sure of that trailbiking vote! After all, it wasn't like there was a majority or anything...:eek:

Likewise cutting health and skilling programmes. Giving people from feral families a chance to be non-feral is good for the long term budget, because some of them will become earners and not sponge off the state for ever after. This has been demonstrated, but to no avail. CUT! Result? More dole-ies in five to ten years. Of course the Nats are now in power so we can probably grind the ferals up for fertiliser with the government's blessing. :} Call it a Juvenile Justice policy and everyone will be happy...

Calling on the non political members of the Queensland Heritage Group to resign quietly does nothing for the budget either, but convinces a lot of people that the current government is planning to bulldoze everything Joh forgot about.

Fighting publically with ambos and firies is right up there with acting alongside children and animals in the Politics for Dummies Guide: Don't Do This 101, but they're doing it with gusto. :yuk:

Committing to mandatory detention and naming juvenile offenders (however minor their crimes) smacks of redneck justice delivered via a convenient rope and tree. Even the Tory lawyer brigade are a bit funny about this sort of thing.

Meantime, the middle managers, flunkies and advisors are hanging in there and still costing us money. Everybody knows that, because in Queenlsand everybody knows a bloke. For all of these reasons the new government are alienating many of the city people who voted for the Libs and got the Nats, even though the Libs won the majority of seats. :confused:

BTW, the DLP still exists and currently holds a seat in the Senate.
Democratic Labor Party

Katter is nothing more than a dissafected National and attracts similarly dissaffected Nats/right wing Labor voters like honey to bees. No solutions on offer, but he's got a great hat. :bored:

IMO the ALP has to wake up and smell the shit. I believe they've done that in Queensland but the feds are still living in sunshine/lollipop land, thinking people still believe the shit they're offering is roses and that the woebegone excuses they offer as politicians/'workers' really cut the mustard with the electorate. :(

Looking at Howes and Shorten (among others) they must think we're really dumb. :mad:

There are a lot of people claiming the high moral ground up here; if everyone who claims to have voted Labor at the last election had actually voted Labor then they probably would have won.

:mad:ing wusses. :yuk:

People in Qld didn't vote Labor at the last election because it was obvious that there was a cancer present within the ALP. Sometimes the only cure for cancer is to cut out the affected organ, despite the resultant disability that the patient has to endure. The alternative is for the disease to take over the whole body and kill it. IMO that was the diagnosis for the Qld ALP and the cure is better than the alternative. :sad:

That doesn't mean people like it. Unfortuately I believe the same cure is the prognosis for the federal party, because they just don't get that they suck.

CoodaShooda 21st Aug 2012 15:15

Welcome back Worrals. You've been missed.

It strikes me that a liberal federal government running a royal commission into union management might actually do labor a favour. Create the opportunity to cut out the cancer and rid Australian politics of this incestuous club.

500N 21st Aug 2012 15:24

I see that Gillard's Legal supervisor from 17 years ago has come out and
said she was not sacked.

I wonder whether that is the turning point and that bit of the whole dirt digging will die down ?

Poll results
Did anyone see the poll results ? Some interesting changes to the numbers
for the ALP / Libs and Gillard / Abbott.

RJM 22nd Aug 2012 01:06

A cynic might say that there could be a good payoff in saving the Prime Minister's a*se. After all, Bernard Murphy's now a High Court judge. But the supervisor's point should be easy enough to prove if it ever came to that (which should be by a proper enquiry if there's enough evidence to warrant mounting one, not this trial by media/mad cartoonist etc).

What struck me about the description of Julia's attempt at home renovation was how poorly she managed it, which could be seen as a sign of things to come.

500N 22nd Aug 2012 01:19

"What struck me about the description of Julia's attempt at home renovation was how poorly she managed it, which could be seen as a sign of things to come."


Julia and house renovation - that is a joke.

Have you seen here house in Altona ?
It looks more like a bachelor pad than a house owned by a lady.

RJM 22nd Aug 2012 01:58

Gillard's not really a homemaker, so a sparse sort of houss is no crime, but the house she had during her solicitor days - the one she renovated - is at 36 St Phillip Street, Abbotsford, and she's right, the fence is a mess. Gillard admitted that the brickie who built it had no proper instructions from her - a recipe for a bad result.

But she's not being criticised for a poorly managed home renovation, although that does say something about her capacities at the time at least.

The problem is that sghee seems to be lying now. She said recently that the dodgy union fund she helped set up was a training fund to which employers were pressured to contribute. Yet in the transcript of her interview with her unhappy employer she calls it a re-election slush fund for union officials. To which employers were pushed to contribute?

Gillard should have come clean straight away. If it weren't for her ongoing issues of integrity, I think she might have, and we might have believed that if there were indiscretions they were well in the past. But she's stonewalling, probably because she knows she's vulnerable in that area. Plus, of course, there's the suggestion, among other rumours, that she knowingly had reniovation bills paid from the 'slush fund'. Because there's a good cvhance this business won't go away, Gillard must clear the air, by giving a detailed statement at least. If she's as innocent as she and her supporters insist, then she has nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Meanwhile, Gillard's supporters claim that there's nothing to see, move on. A lot of journalists think the same. Yet no-one complains when Tanya Plibersek gets prime time media to say that Tony Abbott has a problem taking orders from women because he didn't like being benched from Parliament by the female deputy speaker.

Which story is more worthy of page one?

500N 22nd Aug 2012 02:04

Someone, not sure who, always brings up the Abbott and women
saga when ever the opportunity arises.

Considering he has 3 daughters and a wife PLUS a female 2IC who isn't exactly
a feeble minded shrinking violet (even if we don't hear her in public that much),
it does make me wonder.


I realise the house she renovated is a different one, I was making a general derogatory comment !

allan907 22nd Aug 2012 02:13


I see that Gillard's Legal supervisor from 17 years ago has come out and said she was not sacked.
Quite right. She was not sacked. Sacking is a long and involved process which leaves the employer fighting expensive battles for "unfair dismissal". Equally it leaves the employee in a dark place with an indelible stain against their character.

So no, she wasn't sacked. She was given the opportunity to resign.

Clare Prop 22nd Aug 2012 04:36

Can you "sack" a partner in a law practice?

Surely it would be called something more euphemistic but just as harsh in reality. Sacking is for employees, not partners.

allan907 22nd Aug 2012 04:42

She was a salaried partner - ie she was an employee. The word "partner" merely indicates a "rank" level.

Apparently she is now saying that, mea culpa, she should have opened a file. All she's doing is dragging this thing out with its inevitable conclusion (unless immense pressure can be brought to bear). She knows she's up against it - probably better to resign now than increase the ignomy of disgrace when it finally all comes out.

hellsbrink 22nd Aug 2012 05:29


She knows she's up against it - probably better to resign now than increase the ignomy of disgrace when it finally all comes out.
Isn't it too late for that?


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:41.


Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.