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 19th Aug 2012 05:26

The tsunami is gathering strength


Prime Minister Julia Gillard is refusing to discuss accusations regarding her resignation from a prominent law firm in 1995, saying it wouldn't stop the "malicious and motivated" commentary.

News Limited is reporting Ms Gillard left her job as a partner at Slater & Gordon as a direct result of a secret internal probe into controversial work she had done for her then boyfriend, a union boss accused of corruption.

The new claims have been made by a former partner at the firm, Nick Styant-Browne.

The prime minister says she refuses to dignify the "scurrilous" attack with a response.

"We are talking about matters 17 year ago which have been dealt on the public record," Ms Gillard told Sky News on Sunday.

"I am not going to get into a circumstance when we've got people blogging malicious nonsense and we're having some of this penetrate into the media.

"This is just nonsense and a distraction from the important work I've got to do as prime minister.

"I did nothing wrong. If you've got an allegation that I did something wrong then put it."

Ms Gillard said she had continuing good relationships with Slater & Gordon, and nothing about the allegations was relevant to her conduct as prime minister.

Manager of Opposition Business Christopher Pyne said there were very serious questions about the prime minister's integrity and she should make a personal explanation to parliament.

Files held by Slater & Gordon should also be released detailing the circumstances surrounding Ms Gillard's resignation.

"In the interest of clearing the prime minister's name, those files should be released," he told Sky News.

But Ms Gillard said she wouldn't make any comment because it would only feed the fire.

"The people who are dealing with this online in their malicious and motivated way would not stop no matter what explanation I gave," she said.

"That is why there is no point in flogging through all the details of this, because the people who are pursuing this malicious campaign will continue to do it. They are not at all interested in the truth."

Defence Minister Stephen Smith played down the issue.

"If people are asking questions about that they should make an allegation about her conduct," he told Network Ten.
"What does something that occurred 17 years ago, with respect to a law firm she was working with that she now has an ongoing good relationship (with), have to do with the big issues of running the economy and running our national security interests?"
It screams "GUILTY" and "CORRUPT".

Captain Sand Dune 19th Aug 2012 05:45

Let's not get personal about it guys. We know where it can lead. That's just what they want.

CoodaShooda 19th Aug 2012 06:44

If the Prime Minister enjoyed the public respect that one holding her office should have earned, this matter would not be gaining legs.

The pressure would be on her detractors to prove their case, rather than on her to defend it.

In that situation, her current response would be sensible.

But the broader public's opinion of her is such that they want her to be guilty.

Sticking to her long established strategy of "ignore the question" is only going to make her seem more guilty.

The genie is now out of the bottle and labor faces yet another crisis of it's own making.

On a side issue, Smith's assertion that events of 17 years ago are too old to warrant further attention brings into question his keeness to pursue 60 year old sexual harrassment allegations against the Defence Force. I think it will be another comment that comes back to haunt him.

Prudent ministers should be refraining from comment on this one; although I expect Julia's Greek Chorus will make strident claims on her behalf. But given the ammunition they've given the opposition's election campaign with their anti-Rudd declamations, I wouldn't classify them as prudent.

I wonder what Robert McClelland will do next.

Andu 19th Aug 2012 08:19

A Tamil "refugee", one of the flood coming to Australia on the daily boat, interviewed on Channel 7 News tonight:

Q: "Why did you leave Sri Lanka?"

A: "To make money."

That really says it all. They see us as such a soft touch that it's not even necessary to come up with a good yarn. Just tell it like it is.

Captain Sand Dune 19th Aug 2012 08:51

Watching the same thing now. Makes your blood boil.:mad:
Surely it must be clear to even a Greens voter that it is the promise - nay, guarantee - of a life on lavish (yep, "lavish"!) welfare payments that lures these poor buggers.
What really stuck in my craw was a senior Sri Lankan Naval officer saying that we need to show more resolve in protecting our borders by deporting them.
However Juliar is more interested in covering up her previous "naivety" to give a fcuk about protecting our borders.:mad::mad:

EffohX 19th Aug 2012 08:57

I think, in what I’ll call "normal circumstances", anyone (like Larry Pickering) attempting to dredge up something scurrilous from almost 20 years ago about a major public figure’s past would be roundly ignored by most people.

However, these are anything but normal circumstances. The Prime Minister’s behaviour and freewheeling style in handling what she sees as “the truth” since assuming the mantle of political power – (way up there with “I did not have a sexual relationship with that woman, Miss Lewinsky”/ “it all depends on the meaning of ‘is’” Bill Clinton for bare-faced, unabashed lying to the voting public when and as often as he/she feels is required) – makes many if not most feel that her lack of honesty so blatantly (and all too frequently) displayed since becoming PM might have roots on a more personal level in her earlier life.

Forget all the red herrings about whether she was at fault enough for her unprofessional behaviour as a lawyer to meet the requirements to guarantee a conviction in a court of law. Also forget whether she was treated shabbily by the other partners in her law firm – a law firm, it should be stressed, that specialised in compensation claims.

Instead, ask yourself this one question: does a PARTNER in a law firm, (not a clerk, nor a secretary, nor a paralegal, but a partner) voluntarily “offer her resignation” without first securing another, usually better job beforehand if that resignation was in fact voluntary? (Julia Gillard was unemployed for six months after her resignation from Slater & Gordon. Long enough to lose her practising certificate.)

Supplementary question: if that partner, who had made a very good living for the last decade or more, (the last eight years as a partner) with a firm specialising in making compensation claims, had felt that in being asked to offer her resignation, she really was being treated “shabbily” by the company, is there anyone out there who doesn’t believe she would have used those skills to sue the proverbial pants off that company within days of being dismiss.. sorry,“resigning”?

prospector 19th Aug 2012 09:17

For another version of the same story Shane Dowling site deals with the same facts but in a much more dignified manner. Some of the comments by Larry Pickering are not relevant to the story, and as he himself admits, he is giving himself a bit of poetic licence.

Some of the salacious prose he is using does nothing to improve the story, and it is quite rivetting by itself without all his embellishments.


parabellum 19th Aug 2012 09:36

On SBS news tonight they quoted, they said, from a Slater & Gordon statement which said Gillard didn't resign until a year after Slater & Gordon completed their investigations, during which they found no fault with her and that she resigned to pursue a political career. Doesn't quite add up though, six months unemployed for example, but S & G probably get a whole lot of business from the unions still, so we can hardly expect S & G to deliver her, can we?

500N 19th Aug 2012 10:28

Captain SD

"Surely it must be clear to even a Greens voter that it is the promise - nay, guarantee - of a life on lavish (yep, "lavish"!) welfare payments that lures these poor buggers."


The Greens are all for the welfare state, support etc, yes they know why they come but they want to give everyone a nice warm home supported by welfare payments. After all, that is how a fair few Greenies live.

The thing is, the Greenies who are so intent on saving everything make a complete pigs arse of any area they go into to save. It just doesn't get publicity.

MattGray 19th Aug 2012 11:26

And yet the Liberals voted en bloc with these same reviled Greens in both the House of Reps and the Senate in the last sitting of Parliament. :rolleyes:

It just doesn't get publicity.
And yet the Liberals were directly responsible for getting Adam Bandt elected. The first and only Green to ever sit in the Lower House. :rolleyes:

It just doesn't get publicity
.
Maybe it should.

The Party faithful seem to have have conveniently short attention spans.

500N 19th Aug 2012 11:40

The Fed Lib party (and anyone for that matter) would have done
any deal at the last election to get elected.


I think (happy to be corrected if wrong) that the only serious major party to have effed over the Greens in an Election was Baillieu at the last Victorian State Election where he blindsided the Greens two weeks out from voting day.

Luckily for Baillieu he got in and the Greens didn't do as well as expected.


Re
"It just doesn't get publicity"
"Maybe it should."

No way will the media in this country sully the good name of the Greens !!!

Andu 19th Aug 2012 11:41

Nice try, Matt.

But trying - really trying - are your continuing attempts to spin the debate away from the topic at hand.

hellsbrink 19th Aug 2012 11:44

Now you've reached a new low, Matt, unless you can tell us all how the party that got 21% of the vote in Melbourne 2010 is DIRECTLY responsible for the ALP losing the Melbourne seat to someone who was actually a former member of the ALP..........

allan907 19th Aug 2012 11:54

It is quite clear that Matt is living on a totally different political planet from the majority of people in Australia and his "contributions" to this particular discussion are pointless and irrelevant.

I dare say he'll go quiet for a while when:

a. Gillard resigns, is knifed, or charged.

or

b. When the ALP is kicked so far up the arse in an election they will be able to see Quisling's boots.

I heartily look forward to that day. Our 'loss' is Canada's gain :E

parabellum 19th Aug 2012 12:11

Surprise surprise, another boat off the CoCos Is.:rolleyes:

MattGray 19th Aug 2012 12:23

Not since the Salem witchcraft trials of the late 17th Century have we quite witnessed the spectacle of the religious right in such full hysterical cry as we see today.

"Guilty until proved innocent" they shriek like pubescent public schoolchildren meting out dormitory punishment on their hapless victim after lights out.

The atheist witch not responding to smears is proof positive in their book. What was it cooda? Ahh yes -

is only going to make her seem more guilty.
Reminds me of Giles Corey, an 80-year-old farmer from the southeast end of Salem who refused to enter a plea when he came to trial in September 1692.

The judges applied an archaic form of punishment called peine forte et dure, in which stones were piled on his chest until he could no longer breathe. After two days of peine fort et dure, Corey died without entering a plea.


What's next girls? Dunking stools in Lake Burley Griffin?

Liberals!! :yuk::yuk:

MattGray 19th Aug 2012 12:37

It probably won't mean much to the Party faithful economic numpties who peddle Tony's toxic tax doom and sniff derisively at AAA credit ratings but as of Friday the ASX has risen an impressive 6.7% since the carbon tax started.

The market capitalisation of the ASX has risen by about $74 billion. That should help pay a few bills.
:D

MattGray 19th Aug 2012 13:27

Hat tip to Mike Kelly, MP Federal Member for Eden-Monaro!
One of the few MPs I hold in some regard for his Iraq service which was studiously and disgracefully ignored by the Howard Liberal Government.


Tony Windsor well and truly belled the Abbott cat this afternoon. He told it like it is and he didn't miss

He sure didn't!!


MattGray 19th Aug 2012 13:40

Meanwhile today, outside the British High Commission in Canberra, Australian motorists show their approval to the assembled Julian Assange supporters.


hellsbrink 19th Aug 2012 13:43

But what did the Libs do to DIRECTLY ensure that Bandt was elected, Matt?

You made the statement, so will you back up what you said with any evidence?

MattGray 19th Aug 2012 13:49

About time!!!

When Jon Faine interviewed Tony Abbott on ABC's 774 on Tuesday, something unusual happened.
The Opposition Leader's careless use of words was actually challenged.
Abbott, discussing the asylum seekers issue, asserted:
Frankly, we've had 22,000 illegal arrivals, almost 400 illegal boats ...
Faine responded:
They're not illegal. Tony Abbott, do I need to remind you that the use of words in this is critical? They are not illegal arrivals. There is nothing illegal about seeking asylum when you are a refugee.
Abbott:
Well, I'm making my point Jon ...
Faine:
Well, so am I making mine! And I think it's been made to you before.
Tony Abbott did not further dispute the point. Like an errant school kid, he seemed to accept the admonishment. Yet within 24 hours, he was again referring to asylum seekers as illegals. Nobody in the media pulled him up. He knew they wouldn't. They rarely do.
For the record, he is wrong in domestic and in international law.
The Migration Act 1958 allows for those seeking asylum to enter Australia, with or without visas. The same situation is covered by the United Nations Refugee Convention, of which Australia is a signatory.
This is important for two reasons. Firstly, the truth matters. Secondly, the use of the word "illegal" suggests the Coalition is supporting tougher action against asylum seekers as "punishment" for breaking the law, whereas the publicly held position is that the measures are being adopted to discourage asylum seekers from taking a dangerous journey by boat.
Dennis Atkins wrote in the Courier Mail this week about Abbott's "relentless negative assault on the price impacts of the carbon tax", describing that, and his campaign to "brand Julia Gillard as an untrustworthy liar", as "the most reckless and audacious politicking most observers, including this one, can remember."
Atkins wrote:
The Liberal leader is taking the demeaning tactic of not caring what he says to new depths.
Now Mark Latham has taken up the same issue in the Financial Review, writing that:
In 35 years studying Australian politics, I have never seen a political leader so vulnerable to criticism yet treated so lightly by the media.
Perhaps the Canberra press gallery has become so accustomed to finding fault in Julia Gillard it has forgotten how to hold her opposite number to account.
Latham pointed to Abbott's claim that the carbon tax would be "a wrecking ball through the economy"; data since then has demonstrated employment is holding up and the economy is still growing strongly.

hellsbrink 19th Aug 2012 13:52

So you still won't explain your previous statement, Matt?

You would just prefer to use selective quotes from an interview where the interviewer refused to even let the person being interviewed answer a question?

So, come on, how were the Libs DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for Bandt's election?

Buster Hyman 19th Aug 2012 14:10

Hellsbrink...Waste of time mate. I don't think he's talking to us anymore (which is great btw), he's in some parrallel universe where the coutesy of answering a question doesn't exist.

It's a bit like this when you ask him a question...

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a1.../Tangent/2.jpg

...and this when he thinks he's debating...

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y29/mummy/cf9a1f2d.jpg

500N 19th Aug 2012 17:15

Matt

Hellsbrink's post made me think a bit further re your comment
"And yet the Liberals were directly responsible for getting Adam Bandt elected. The first and only Green to ever sit in the Lower House. :rolleyes:"

As hellsbrink said, how so ?
1. Preferences flow in all directions and
2. Melbourne was a safe labor seat - Lindsay Tanner was a long standing Labor politician as anyone who knows politics in Aust would know.
3. He reeived a hell of a lot of the primary vote and then after prefs well over 50%, some of which would have been from the Libs but that DOESN'T mean they were DIRECTLY responsible for getting him elected. Yes, it helped but you still have to get a good primary vote first to get the first Preferences.
Hell, even Labor candidates get elected WITH THE AID OF LIBERAL Preferences.

4. The Liberals do not like the Greens as they are a threat to the Liberals
- as are all Green candidates but particularly in the inner cities - or as we call them, the $100,000 a year Greenies - those who earn $100,000 a year and claim to be green because they take out membership !!!

The Libs will NOT make the same mistake again with preferences and
it shows what can be done (ref Baillieu - follow the strategy of the 2010 state election, when the Greens were shut out from the lower house after the Liberals preferenced against them in key inner-city seats.)


Oh, I forgot, Adam was NOT the first, the first in a general election but not the first Green in the House of Reps.

allan907 19th Aug 2012 22:05

In Lygon St last night (Melbourne, heart of latte left land, and trendy cafe/restaurant strip - for those not familiar) heard snatches of conversation and you could determine the hate towards Gillard.

If that's her standing in Uni land then she's done for. So let Matt rant and rave - it's no use. All he's doing is placating himself. He's utterly, utterly irrelevant.

CoodaShooda 19th Aug 2012 23:29

allan

Matt has every right to express his views, just as we should all do.

Indeed, I think this would become a very boring thread if we didn't have dissenting views expressed from time to time; even if the expression of those views does little to bring others to the expressor's point of view.

It's also interesting to see how "the other side" thinks.

The only problem I have with the expression of a differing view is when it is made with the malicious intent of closing down discussion - and we can be thankful that the mods have woken up to this ploy.

Otherwise, I'm happy to read the differing opinions and bask in the resultant warm glow of moral and intellectual superiority that they give me. :E

500N 19th Aug 2012 23:57

CoodaShooda

I also have no problem with Matt expressing different views,
but when they are plain wrong in fact and he only posts them
to support his cause, that gets a bit beyond a joke.

And when asked to provide facts to back up what he has posted,
it just gets ignored.


Matt
Maybe you posted before but what has someone in BC got to do with
Australian politics or are you just visiting over there having lived in
Australia before ?

CoodaShooda 20th Aug 2012 01:00

But that is the joke that is Australian politics 500N. Whatever it takes......:E

As far as ignoring questions, I don't think any of the anti-liberal camp have yet replied to my old "What has labor done to warrant your support?" question. Must be a few years old by now.

What we really see from Matt and his predecessors is similar to a political machine in action in the modern world.

Avoid the question, divert the conversation, attack the questioner, villify the opposition, twist the context, rewrite history, close down dissent........

Classic Hawker Britton.

As was seen in the UK and is now occurring here, the spin eventually wears thin and substance eventually triumphs.

But while the public debates distract us, in the background they are rushing ahead with their reform agenda....which is anyone's guess - but appears to focus around building a politically correct society which eschews individuality in favour of big government and a culture of entitlement. No longer government of the people by the people for the people but a playground for the self appointed political elite.

500N 20th Aug 2012 01:05

Agree.

I am not that political, don't go into it much but when I can refute the crap spouted by Matt regarding a person I detest and what he stands for (Adam)
and how Baillieu sideswiped the Greens with taking away preferences, it really does say that Matt hasn't done his homework before posting.

A bit like bringing a knife to a gunfight.

Sorry Matt but you really do need to do some research before posting.

MattGray 20th Aug 2012 02:07


Oh, I forgot, Adam was NOT the first, the first in a general election but not the first Green in the House of Reps.
Thanks for the correction 500N - I'd forgotten about the by-election.

Buster Hyman 20th Aug 2012 03:13

http://images.thevine.com.au/resourc...ver-seen_h.jpg

Ovation 20th Aug 2012 04:01

I have a cunning plan.


Start a separate thread entitled: "The ALP Propaganda Thread"

And reserve it exclusively for those who can't help themselves from twisting the facts, while not annoying those of us who are smart enough to understand the difference between substance and spin. :)

500N 20th Aug 2012 04:09

Buster

Do you have to post those type of photos ?

They remind me of a lefty, feminist Greeny Lesbian vegan and I really
don't want to have to put up with it more than what I see on
the 6pm news:O


Edit
Sorry, I just described Clover Moore:O

MattGray 20th Aug 2012 04:20


allan

Matt has every right to express his views, just as we should all do.
Thanks cooda :ok:


Indeed, I think this would become a very boring thread if we didn't have dissenting views expressed from time to time; even if the expression of those views does little to bring others to the expressor's point of view.

It's also interesting to see how "the other side" thinks.
"the other side" Cooda???

Could you please explain??? Bearing in mind that I absolutely accept and absolutely believe your recent assurance that you hadn't voted Liberal in many, many years. So how, logically, am I on some "other side" to you? :confused:

You seem a smart fellow - so don't tell me you have swallowed the repeated groundless (and brainless) Sussex Street slurs? :confused:


The only problem I have with the expression of a differing view is when it is made with the malicious intent of closing down discussion - and we can be thankful that the mods have woken up to this ploy.
I have already assured the Mod that nothing I have ever posted has that motivation.

Moreover I hold in contempt and ignore the two or three obsessed keyboard cowards that have repeatedly made that completely unfounded allegation. :=


Otherwise, I'm happy to read the differing opinions and bask in the resultant warm glow of moral and intellectual superiority that they give me.
That works oh so well for me too cooda! :D

In fact if this site ever goes behind a paywall I'd happily fork over good money just to continue reading some of the priceless gems which regularly appear here. Best part is the frisson of schadenfreude one feels watching such gems pass into history as fact without a single peep of dissent, challenge or comment.

Even better is posting some irrefutable fact and then watching the LibeRatty (collective term) scurrying back and forth making a complete fool of itself.

Frustrated by their inability to counter facts they resort to shooting the messenger, playing the man or juvenile electronic dunny door scribbling.

See for example the true-blue faithful currently in furious denial of their beloved Party's role in electing a Green and in the process displaying their abject ignorance of just how the Australian electoral system works. There's none so blind.......................


500N 20th Aug 2012 04:30

Matt

"See for example the true-blue faithful currently in furious denial of their beloved Party's role in electing a Green and in the process displaying their abject ignorance of just how the Australian electoral system works. There's none so blind......................."


Are you including me in the above ?

What I wrote was factual, just with LESS emphasis on it than you had.


Even you have to admit that the way the Preferences flow at election time
the Libs help Labour and Labour help the Libs, sometimes solely to stick it up Greens and Independents.

MattGray 20th Aug 2012 05:07

The behaviour of the party faithful is certainly consistent with that of their parliamentary representatives.

The Opposition Treasurer Hockey, Pyne and one other (Member for Dawson?) just turfed from the House of Reps by Madam Deputy Speaker. :D



Edit to add Anna Burke 'You just couldn't help yourself...' to Abbott when asking him to withdraw without qualification

The Man who would be Prime Minister himself ejected from the Chamber as well under 94A!

Anyone recall the last time this happened?

CoodaShooda 20th Aug 2012 05:31

Matt

"The other side" as in "find it very hard to say anything positive about the current government due solely to its performance", rather than slavishly following a liberal line.

I'd even go so far as to suggest that most contributors here are of a similar mind. :E


Frustrated by their inability to counter facts they resort to shooting the messenger, playing the man or juvenile electronic dunny door scribbling.
Could equally apply to the current labor front bench.

Let's face it. Neither major party has done anything to gain respect or support from the broader electorate. But labor has done such a great job of making itself so totally unpalatable that its made the libs look like the preferable alternative.

(And if you want an idea of what a society looks like after several decades of "big government" control and having a culture of entitlement, take a look at the aboriginal communities in the NT.)

500N 20th Aug 2012 05:37

"Let's face it. Neither major party has done anything to gain respect or support from the broader electorate. But labor has done such a great job of making itself so totally unpalatable that its made the libs look like the preferable alternative."

+ 1

If Abbott wasn't so unpopular with certain sections of the electorate,
he would romp it in.

Or if the Libs had someone charismatic like Hawke, the Libs would romp in the next election as not too much separates the two parties.


"And if you want an idea of what a society looks like after several decades of "big government" control and having a culture of entitlement, take a look at the aboriginal communities in the NT."

At least thy are STARTING to get there with some of the policies that have been implemented. Other areas of Aboriginal society are just a bloody disgrace and I see a fair bit of communities that are normally off limits to whites / Non Gov't employees.
.
.

MattGray 20th Aug 2012 06:03

PREFERENCES 101
 
HOW THE LIBERALS ELECTED A GREEN CANDIDATE - Part I


As Natasha Stott Despoja said here


Preferences are one of the least understood areas of politics and with good reason. How they are calculated and distributed can be complex

No wonder the poor old LibeRatty is so confused.


Tony Abbott has a new mantra: Labor is in government, but the Greens are in power!

Well, actually they’re not, and the fact that they have rather more influence than they are used to is entirely the Liberals’ fault; it was, after all, Liberal preferences that put the Green Adam Bandt and the ex-Green Andrew Wilkie into parliament. And it is true that this sudden elevation has given the Greens delusions of grandeur; endorsed by none other than Mark Latham, they are all but serenading us with the Horst Wessel song, ‘The Future Belongs to Me’. Mungo Wentworth MacCallum

One of the most significant points in the November 2010 Victorian election came when the Liberal Party decided to preference Labor ahead of the Greens in the lower house, effectively killing off the latter’s hopes of winning up to four inner-city seats. Liberal preferences had been critical in the Greens’ victory in the seat of Melbourne at the federal election, a point often overlooked in the minor party’s post-election triumphalism.

It appears that a proportion of Liberal voters simply regard Labor as the “real enemy” and seek to damage it, unconvinced that the Greens are as threatening as conservative demonology suggests, or perhaps of the view that the end of civilisation is unlikely to be triggered merely by the Greens’ winning a few seats.

All this is of more than passing interest to Greens Melbourne federal MP Adam Bandt, who probably cannot survive without Liberal preferences: loss of Liberal support would see him as a “oncer” – unless Labor polls so badly as to come third. •

Paul Rodan is an Adjunct Professor in the Institute for Social Research at Swinburne University of Technology.

Ovation 20th Aug 2012 06:07

MG wrote:


The behaviour of the party faithful is certainly consistent with that of their parliamentary representatives
As you seem to be (without question) one of the party faithful, I'm taken aback that you should compare your own behaviour with that of your Dear Leader? She has a lot to answer for.


Anyone recall the last time this happened? (ejection)
Can't recall myself, but it certainly could have happened.

I'm not at all surprised the Speaker would eject LNP members, given the way that the ALP minority government have prostituted the workings of this parliament.

Without knowing all the facts, was it because your hero Gillard was asked a question about:

Her previous association with criminals and fraudsters,

Her protection of a current member who frequents brothels on HSU members nickel, or,

Her sudden departure from Slater and Gordon,

the allegations about Peter Slipper being a pillow biter,

Or her airbrushed CV that doesn't stand scrutiny.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:57.


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