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 23rd Aug 2012 08:00

"misogynist nut jobs". Wonderful stuff. If this is a report back from our Sussex St correspondent then I am proud to be a misogynist nut job (of course I am neither a misogynist nor a nut job - I merely have a pathological dislike of this current inept government and its corrupt and incompetent leader. I felt the same about Krudd so at least I'm even handed with the sexes :E).

But, nice to know that our views are probably being reported straight back to the PMs office. :}

Worrals in the wilds 23rd Aug 2012 08:47

Cheers, +2 to Cooda. :)

I hate to burst your collective bubbles ;), but I think the PM was referring to Pickering, fair and square. I didn't notice PPRuNe getting a special mention.

FWIW I didn't think it was a bad denial, and the trouble with this sort of thing is that people will believe what they want to believe. If the same story were released about Abbott then the opinions on here and in the tea room would be much the same, but reversed.

The other problem with allegations is that when it comes to denying them, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. To use an analogy from the Sleb world (sorry Clare :\) take the allegations of homosexuality that have dogged (sorry again :}) several high profile male slebs. They can ignore it (a la Clooney), they can discuss it (a la Thorpie) or they can sue the pants off everyone who mentions them in print (a la Hollywood's Top Gun) but they just don't go away. Maybe that's because they're true? Sure. However, maybe it's because we all like to believe whatever skanky muck we read about public figures we don't like. :oh:

I tried to read the Pickering site and found the content had a very similar tone to the Nexus/New Dawn conspiracy theory magazines (which I read avidly in my youth :O). From what I remember there was a firm belief that the AFP have been covering up a lot of stuff, which assumes that 1. the AFP are Labor friendly (which they aren't, IME) and 2. that they are capable of organizing a cover-up :hmm:. Actually I think that's more far fetched than anything Nexus/New Dawn used to tout. Funnily enough, Nexus/New Dawn didn't always get it wrong. They were touting the dangers of trans fats long before the mainstream press acknowledged the issue, back when margarine was the Only Way and butter was the devil's spread. This is where it gets difficult; when is the conspiracy legitimate? What to believe? :confused:

Anyway, if anyone has evidence of wrong doing they should be taking it to the police. Given the undying hatred between the AFP and the state agencies I think it would be difficult to organize a cover-up that involved both groups, and in any case the allegations are now out in public.

That's not saying they're right or wrong (I think very few people would know the true answer to that) but now they're out there it's time to produce a few receipts. If we allow people (even unlikeable people) to be convicted by the court of public opinion and 'everybody knows' then it sets the precedent for more of it.

As a criminal barrister friend often jokes; 'Yeah, everyone hates lawyers. We're pretty hateable, right up until the time you're falsely accused of child molesting. Then...we're the only damned friend you've got.':E Anyone can accuse. The hard part lies with the proof.

Andu 23rd Aug 2012 09:03

Really interesting to read the many (and I mean MANY) comments on the BoltA site following his article on Leigh Sales' interview with Tony Abbott on the 7.30 Report.

I didn't see the interview, so can't comment myself, but opinions expressed are a bit of a mirror of what you see here - at, (and maybe beyond :) ), both extremes, with few if any in the middle. Leigh Sales was either totally out of control in her unconcealed, visceral hatred of TA - or doing her job wonderfully well; or Tony Abbott was extraordinarily self-controlled despite Sales' provocation - or totally unprepared, not fit for political office, and was utterly poleaxed by a wonderfully well-prepared, hard-hitting journalist.

SOPS 23rd Aug 2012 09:23

Is there a link to that interview anywhere?

Worrals in the wilds 23rd Aug 2012 09:25

7.30 - ABC
I think this is the one.

MattGray 23rd Aug 2012 09:40

Watch the clip but this just about sums it up..Then this morning, less than 24 hours later, the :mad: Abbott stands up with a straight face and claimed he had read it!!!

Liberals - no shame! :yuk:

SOPS 23rd Aug 2012 09:41

Thanks Worrals;)

RJM 23rd Aug 2012 09:57

Gillard professed loyalty to her boss, then knifed him to take his job.

She then made a significant, vote grabbing promise to win an election, then went back on her word.

Now she's characterising attacks, based on potentially damning evidence which should be tested, on her integrity as misogynist and nutty.

Should the apparent serious flaws in our prime minister - our 'first citizen' - be investigated, or papered over?

I say no conteszt.

Worrals in the wilds 23rd Aug 2012 10:12

Watch the clip but this just about sums it up..
Found some references for your previous post yet?
Lack of references is not the way to either an HD in Gov 101 or winning an argument in the middle of a dusty pit surrounded by heavy vehicles and associated drivers. :oh: It's arguable as to which is more valuable when it comes to IR/ forwarding the cause, but doubtlessly both are important.
P.S. wiki or blog posts don't count. :E
P.P.S. nor does 'just because', 'cos it's s'posed to' or 'because someone told me'. :E:E
P.P.P.S. the heavy vehicle drivers will be more direct with their feedback. The advantage is that it will be completely free, refreshingly honest and you don't need to use the Harvard Style. :ouch::}

RJM 23rd Aug 2012 10:17

Remembering that 'our ABC' is paid for by the taxes of all Australians, not just a certain slice of our demography, and it should strive to be even-handed in order to represent the views of all Australians. :*

CoodaShooda 23rd Aug 2012 11:21

The ABC was lost to the broader population in the early 80's when there was a signicant influx of left leaning personnel.

Source: A close family member who is slightly right of centre and was one of many pushed out after 25 years service by the putsch. He was obviously not up to scratch with the 'new' ABC hierarchy so had to settle for a late career consulting in international broadcasting instead.

MattGray 23rd Aug 2012 12:39

I won't hold my breath waiting for a response from The Brothers Grimm or indeed anyone else on yet another shining example of Liberal hypocrisy when it comes to the presumption of innocence.:ugh:
Open Letter To Senators Brandis and Abetz,

I am writing to you both in the hope that you may be able to share with myself, and my readers, some of your expertise on the presumption of innocence.

It has come to my attention, via the News Ltd press today, that there are calls for Kathy Jackson to resign
from the Health Services Union, for numerous allegations of corrupt practices.

I am also aware that there have also been calls for her partner, Michael Lawler, Vice President of Fair Work Australia, to resign also. This has come as a result of allegations of interfering with a Federal Investigation, and after revelations emerged that he would not co-operate with the internal investigation, initiated by FWA of which he is VP, in effect refusing to co-operate with his own investigation.

I understand that the leader of your Party, Tony Abbott, has made his opinion of Kathy Jackson quite clear, comparing her to Joan Of Arc, saying she is heroic, and worthy of great admiration.

I also note that it was Tony Abbott that appointed Michael Lawler to his current position.
However, I also trust that you are both entitled to form your own opinions on this matter, and are not required to share the opinion of your leader.

My opinions on both of these cases are well known, and I think that I have published enough material for people to determine my opinion of their innocence or guilt.

However, right from the outset of this matter, I have held onto the belief of the notion of “innocent until proven guilty”. This is a belief, and is in fact a right in this country, that I have held onto throughout the Peter Slipper investigation, and indeed the investigation into Mal Brough, and I have also clearly held onto this opinion throughout the campaign against Craig Thomson.

Given your continued calls, or demands, for Craig Thomson to resign, calls that were made on the flimsiest of evidence, and based on an investigation that has been shown to be fatally flawed, to the point of it being worthless, I seek your expertise on the Lawler and Jackson cases. Especially considering the overwhelming trail of evidence on Jackson in particular, and also bearing in mind that there appears to be more evidence against Lawler than there ever was against Thomson.

I also note that you both spoke out regarding Peter Slipper, and demanded that he step down from his position based on allegations that were seemingly ignored whist Slipper was a member of the Liberal Party.

With these things in mind, I am interested, as are my readers, to know whether you apply the same rules to Kathy Jackson, and Michael Lawler, as you have seemingly applied to Peter Slipper and Craig Thomson.

Whilst I encourage the media to give Jackson, and Lawler the same level of scrutiny as they afforded Craig Thomson in order to show balance, I would not like to see them being portrayed as guilty before being given the opportunity to defend themselves in court. Kathy Jackson may even show up for court to do that.

My readers and I await your response and public statements on this issue, as the presumption of innocence is a right that the majority of Australian’s hold dear.

Thank you for your time.

Yours Sincerely

Peter Wicks
PO Box 6362
Rouse Hill Town Centre
Rouse Hill NSW 2155

allan907 23rd Aug 2012 15:42

To borrow and slightly bend a quote from another thread:

arguing with the left was like playing chess with a pigeon: "It knocks the pieces over, craps over the board and flies back to its flock to claim victory."

CoodaShooda 23rd Aug 2012 21:48

Thanks Matt

Further evidence of the corruption endemic in the union movement, from the pen of a failed labor candidate, no less.

Used to be that gaoled felons lost the right to participate in the electoral process. The prohibition should be extended to union officials and lawyers. :E

Also have to wonder why these party hacks try to make union corruption a matter for the liberals. It's labor that chooses to associate with these people.

Worrals in the wilds 23rd Aug 2012 22:32

Guess I won't be getting any references. :zzz::}

Re the letter, so everyone in the right wing unions have their snouts in the trough, including Jackson and Lawler? IMO that's what the average person is going to think when they read this, not 'oh poor Craig, he must have been Wrongly Accused'. Or have I misunderstood his point? :confused:

Of course there probably are some honest people in the HSU (somewhere :rolleyes:) , but good luck getting people to accept that. Their actions have smeared the whole movement with manure, not just their own cash cow / union.

A friend is an organizer for a state union and was paying for a boozy restaurant dinner with friends with his personal credit card one night. One of his members was also at the till and joked 'hope that's not our money, mate'! It was a joke, but very hurtful to someone who works 15 hour days like a Trojan and hasn't spent a cent of union funds on himself, ever. :( This is the legacy the alleged shonkies in the HSU have given to the rest of the movement. :mad:

Unfortunately it's like priests and child molesting. Asking the public for a fair go for anyone involved in the AWU or HSU at the moment is like asking for world peace. It'd be nice, it's undoubtedly fair, but it ain't gonna happen.

Also have to wonder why these party hacks try to make union corruption a matter for the liberals. It's labor that chooses to associate with these people.
Realistically, I think it's the only way it could be done. There are too many alliances within the Labor movement to expect people from within to be able to clean out the shonks. Effectively it would be a civil war. The Libs have the advantage of being the 'bad guys' from the start, but unfortunately the whole thing would probably become very vindictive very quickly. The ALP don't have the monopoly on nasty little power seekers.

CoodaShooda 23rd Aug 2012 23:16

The ALP don't have the monopoly on nasty little power seekers.
Never a truer word...............:(

This is the legacy the HSU and friends have given to the rest of the movement.
The friends being the scum that have floated to the top over the years and tainted the good work being done by the genuinely, committed union workers (?).

Andu 24th Aug 2012 06:30

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

Now flying in the boat people instead

Largely overlooked in the fuss over Julia Gillard’s press conference yesterday was the announcement to lift our refugee intake from 13,750 places a year to 20,000.

Noble gesture? No, ignoble surrender.

Farcically, the immediate aim seems to be to fly over boat people from Indonesia rather than have the navy pick them up from just off the coast.

Hear it from Immigration Minister Chris Bowen himself:

Accordingly, as part of that 20,000, 400 immediate places are being set aside for processing on Indonesia, in Indonesia for people who are considering whether to make that journey or not.

CoodaShooda 25th Aug 2012 01:18

Polling day in the NT today.

Was a time I could predict the seat by seat outcome to about 99% accuracy.

This time around, I can't get a clear handle on it.

Several seats have retiring members and our resident independent from a conservative seat did the Oakeshott/Windsor manouvre to support labor when the parliament became split one year into its 4 year term.

The general feeling is one of apathy.

Labor's has done so much to taint their brand locally and nationally they won't even put their name or logo on the election material. They deserve to go to the opposition benches.

But the conservatives have done nothing to warrant their elevation to the Treasury Benches.

The overall quality of candidate is poor.

Will head off to the booth shortly, still undecided which nonenity to give my vote to. :confused:

allan907 25th Aug 2012 01:38

We need what they have in the UK - The Monster Raving Loony Party

The Official Monster Raving Loony Party » Policy Proposals

MTOW 25th Aug 2012 01:51

A few pointed questions to our Dear Leader from Larry Pickering. (Since she's such a busy little vegemite ruining.. sorry, running the country, perhaps Matt could take the time to answer any one of them on her behalf here.)

Well done, Julia. No, seriously, I mean that. Shot me down in flames you did. I really felt like crawling under a rock after that impromptu performance.

That was so brilliantly cunning to pounce on a typo in The Australian in order to pull on a Press conference claiming defamation of all things. What was the typo, "trust" instead of "slush", was it?

It was really good the way you gave absolutely no notice to the Press who were so obviously caught on the hop. No time for Editors to tell correspondents what they wanted asked! Wow, only two questions of any substance and you dodged them so beautifully.

I was impressed the way you praised the Press as being the cream of the country's journalists. Golly, only two tired old Lefties, Grattan and Bongiorno plus a few snotty nosed cadets were present.

Not one of the Press actually knew what to ask. They don't know the background to this. Brilliant Jules!

So, as a tired ol' newspaperman, could I humbly ask you to answer, just specially for me, the following, (I promise I won't tell anyone):

1. You said yesterday that you paid for your renovations. Why then did you previously say you couldn't be certain that you did?

2. You said you believed it was "slush fund". As an industrial Lawyer did you seriously not know a "slush fund" could in no way be an Association?

3. If you believed it was a "slush fund" why did you print on the Application Form that its intended role was to facilitate "worker safety and training"?

4. Is it true that the four people present in the room when you drew up this document were yourself, Ralph Blewitt, Bruce Wilson and Senior Equity Partner, Bernard Murphy?

5. An Association requires, by law, to have at least five members. Who did you nominate?

6. When you drew up a power of attorney for your friend Bruce Wilson to act for Ralph Blewitt, why did you not inform Mr Blewitt of the mortgage, now in his name, subsequent to going to buy the house with Mr Wilson?

7. When conducting the firm's conveyancing (again pro bono) for the purchase and sale of the Kerr Street house, did you take note of where the money was coming from and going to?

8. Why were the Association, the bank account, the purchase and sale of the house and the mortgage kept secret from the AWU.

9. How could the purchase of a house be consistent with either a "slush fund" or "worker safety and training"?

10. Why did you attempt to deliberately mislead the WA Commissioner for Corporate Affairs when setting up this Association?

11. Why did you not inform your firm's boss or your firm's client, the AWU, of any of your actions?

12. Do you agree it is your handwriting on the fraudulent form?

13. When the AWU discovered the fraud, why did that union's boss, Ian Cambridge, immediately sack
Slater & Gordon and call for a Royal Commission?

14. Why were you asked, by your employer, for a taped interview?

15. After you were dismissed why did you not renew your Practising Certificate? Did you beieve you would be unable to practise again?

16. Why is the six months subsequent to your dismissal missing from your CV?

17. Why did your boss, Styant-Browne say, and I quote: "...the company took a very serious view of these and other matters and accepted her resignation"?

18. What did Mr Styant-Browne mean by, "...a serious view of these and other matters?

19. Is Mr Styant-Browne, or Mr Gordon correct?

20. Why was Senior Equity Partner Bernard Murphy asked to make a settlement and leave at the same time as yourself?

21. When your ex-Attorney General Rob McClelland stated in Parliament, "...a third party may have benefitted from...", was this "third party" he referred to, you?

22. What did you mean by, "I was treated shabbily", when you were asked to leave the firm?

23. You refuse to make a statement in the House. Is it true you realise it would be illegal to lie when so doing?

24. And finally Ms Gillard, how can you profess to be a champion of the working class when you have clearly been complicit, with your boyfriend, in stealing their money?

Now, I don't expect you to answer all of these, just a few would be good... with the rest you can perform your normal stunt of evasion.

[P.S. And yes, I will be bankrupt for the next month or so. Lost my fast car, my helicopter and my kid to my ex. Then she bankrupted me, just for fun. Oh well, I'm running out of brood mares now.]

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:16.

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