# Slippery Pete



## Garpal Gumnut (25 November 2011)

We are looking for someone to pull the winning ticket, at Raunchy Raffles just before Christmas, at the Hotel.

We need an eminent person without scruples, conscience or couth.

I normally do the honours, but will be away helping a mate sell some uranium forward in India.

Does anyone have the phone number of Slippery Pete, the Speaker of Federal Parliament, who I am reliably informed is well suited for the position.

This is a picture of said Slippery.







It was taken on T**s Out Tuesday late last year near the Discovery Nightclub in Darwin on my Kodak Brownie Camera.

gg


----------



## drsmith (25 November 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> We need an eminent person without scruples, conscience or couth.



Fits well with Labor.


----------



## noco (26 November 2011)

How long can this "KING RAT" last as speaker. 

I wonder when he submitted his resume  to Gillard for the job as speaker if she had checked out his back ground.

Maybe it the LNP's gain and the Labor Party's loss when it all hits the fan with the AFP.Check out the link on his history of expenses.

The Labor Party are already claiming the LNP are digging up dirt and creating more 'scare campaigns. To be expected of course.



http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...ls_were_about_to_sack_him_labor_promoted_him/


----------



## Knobby22 (26 November 2011)

He won't leave, he is getting an extra $80,000 a year, a fantastic office with a private garden and if he stays through to the next election his parlimentary super goes up by $15,000 a year plus he is allowed something like 30 business class flights every year for the rest of his life (that he can use to say up yours to his old parlimentary mates).

He won't go. Labor will now go full term.

Also I would point out his job is to be independant and I reckon he will be. He hates both sides and no one much likes him. 

The funny thing is Abbott wanted an independant speaker and now he has one!


----------



## Calliope (26 November 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> Also I would point out his job is to be independant and I reckon he will be. He hates both sides and no one much likes him.




Wrong. This is a man without principles. Like a mongrel dog he belongs to anyone who feeds him.


----------



## joea (26 November 2011)

Calliope said:


> Wrong. This is a man without principles. Like a mongrel dog he belongs to anyone who feeds him.




Yes you are correct!
And they are multiplying at a fast rate.

joea


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (26 November 2011)

noco said:


> How long can this "KING RAT" last as speaker.
> 
> I wonder when he submitted his resume  to Gillard for the job as speaker if she had checked out his back ground.
> 
> ...






Knobby22 said:


> He won't leave, he is getting an extra $80,000 a year, a fantastic office with a private garden and if he stays through to the next election his parlimentary super goes up by $15,000 a year plus he is allowed something like 30 business class flights every year for the rest of his life (that he can use to say up yours to his old parlimentary mates).
> 
> He won't go. Labor will now go full term.
> 
> ...






Calliope said:


> Wrong. This is a man without principles. Like a mongrel dog he belongs to anyone who feeds him.






joea said:


> Yes you are correct!
> And they are multiplying at a fast rate.
> 
> joea




This brings up an interesting dilemma.

He is the Speaker of our Parliament, and he was elected by members, the majority of whom are considered honourable.

Should he not then be accorded some level of respect, as respect for his office.

In other words, if he is pursued, does this in fact damage the office of Speaker.

gg


----------



## drsmith (26 November 2011)

The office of speaker allready looks, slightly wounded.


----------



## Julia (26 November 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> This brings up an interesting dilemma.
> 
> He is the Speaker of our Parliament, and he was elected by members, the majority of whom are considered honourable.
> 
> ...



"Pursued"?  By whom?  If he has abused his allowances he needs to be brought to account.
Nothing to do with the office of Speaker.

Let's see what happens with respect to the investigation into his expenses and into his office's possible wrongdoing.

And then let's see how he behaves as Speaker.  If he demonstrates impartiality and consistency OK.  But if he decides to abuse the office in order to pay back past grudges that's a whole different matter.


----------



## sails (26 November 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> ...Should he not then be accorded some level of respect, as respect for his office.
> 
> In other words, if he is pursued, does this in fact damage the office of Speaker.
> 
> gg





It seems that Slipper's large expenses paid for by taxpayers was well known.  I read about it a long time ago in the Sunday Mail.

Should someone with this sort of reputation be put in the office of Speaker at all?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (26 November 2011)

Julia said:


> "Pursued"?  By whom?  If he has abused his allowances he needs to be brought to account.
> Nothing to do with the office of Speaker.
> 
> Let's see what happens with respect to the investigation into his expenses and into his office's possible wrongdoing.
> ...






sails said:


> It seems that Slipper's large expenses paid for by taxpayers was well known.  I read about it a long time ago in the Sunday Mail.
> 
> Should someone with this sort of reputation be put in the office of Speaker at all?




Good points, my concern is though about the office of Speaker.

Does it suffer by any of the following

Slipper being Speaker
Slipper being investigated
Slipper being criticised for past behaviour

gg


----------



## sails (26 November 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Good points, my concern is though about the office of Speaker.
> 
> Does it suffer by any of the following
> 
> ...




Doesn't seem to be of any concern to the PM - she put him there against the protests of the libs.

I thought it was a traditional thing that the speaker is usually provided by the party in government.  But perhaps tradition is no longer important either.


----------



## Julia (26 November 2011)

"The Punch" sums it up pretty well:


> It will have a discernible impact on the quality of Peter Slipper’s life. It is worth stressing that there is no grand issue of principle behind his decision to quit. Far from it. Peter Slipper wants the payrise, the flash car, the pomp that comes with the job. He is a seriously unspectacular MP, famous almost solely for falling asleep in the chamber, and who is deservedly under fire for preselection in his Sunshine Coast seat from the vastly more talented and intelligent former Aboriginal Affairs minister Mal Brough. It is probably his last term, and he knows it, and he’s grabbing some extra dosh before he returns to a life of appropriate anonymity.


----------



## Calliope (26 November 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Good points, my concern is though about the office of Speaker.
> 
> Does it suffer by any of the following
> 
> ...




Of course it does. Take it up with Gillard. She's the one who put a low-life in the job.


----------



## todster (26 November 2011)

Calliope said:


> Of course it does. Take it up with Gillard. She's the one who put a low-life in the job.




Who put the lowlife in parliament?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (26 November 2011)

todster said:


> Who put the lowlife in parliament?




Who made him Speaker?

gg


----------



## todster (27 November 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Who made him Speaker?
> 
> gg




Uh read the bit  i quoted.


----------



## Knobby22 (27 November 2011)

Calliope said:


> Of course it does. Take it up with Gillard. She's the one who put a low-life in the job.




But not her low life, he is a Lib lowlife. 

Anyone in her position would do it to shore up their power. She now has a full term which she probably wouldn't have got.

And all this "holier than thou" on this thread is amusing.

I remember Mal Colston, now he was an even more vile character created by the Labor right, and yet the Coalition had no hesitation offering him a few pieces of silver. (Deputy President of the Senate). He defrauded the Commonwealth. Read his history if you don't know it.

If the shoe was in the other foot, do you think Abbott wouldn't have taken it?  If you think not then you are an innocent Cherub in the garden of Eden.


----------



## sails (27 November 2011)

Knobby,

I don't doubt that you are right.  Politics is a tactical thing and Gillard is sitting on the edge of a cliff with both Craig Thomson and Wilke's pokie issues waiting to blow.  However, Abbott certainly has a right to voice his opposition to yet another questionable move by a government desperate to stay in power.

I didn't agree with Howard's use of Mal Colston, but just because he did, doesn't make Slipper's appointment any better.  I don't know why anything questionable by Gillard has to be compared to a similar thing by Howard.  It doesn't make it any better.

Don't forget that Howard's mistakes not only eventually cost the libs government but he also lost his seat.  The voting public generally punish foolish and underhand behaviour with the ballot paper.


----------



## sails (27 November 2011)

Labor MPs are not so happy according to this article from the SMH:

Speaker deal spooks Labor MPs


----------



## Calliope (27 November 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> And all this "holier than thou" on this thread is amusing.




I readily concede gloating rights to you and Todster.


----------



## dutchie (27 November 2011)

I have no doubts that the Liberal party has the same capacity to do a dirty deed as Labor has done with Slippery Pete (see history).

Irrespective of the past, Labor owns' their decision to put SP in this position.  Knowing SP's history and still proceeding means that they now own him.

The bottom line is that, going by this governments incredible and continuous ability to make bad decisions, this will bite them in the long run.


----------



## drsmith (27 November 2011)

dutchie said:


> The bottom line is that, going by this governments incredible and continuous ability to make bad decisions, this will bite them in the long run.



It may bite dear Julia much sooner than she thinks.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23852


----------



## Knobby22 (27 November 2011)

sails said:


> Knobby,
> 
> I don't doubt that you are right.  Politics is a tactical thing and Gillard is sitting on the edge of a cliff with both Craig Thomson and Wilke's pokie issues waiting to blow.  However, Abbott certainly has a right to voice his opposition to yet another questionable move by a government desperate to stay in power.
> 
> ...




As you say, Gillard was in huge trouble, Wilke being more of a pain everyday and the Thompson thing that will blow up at some stage. I agreed with Howard doing the Mal Colston thing. He needed to do things and Labor had a rat in the ranks. He got his agenda done. Mal should have been kicked out of the Senate well before, he was a complete rat. By the way Slippery has been preselected 8 times according to Insiders. I was a bit surprised!

The Libs have less rats in the ranks than Labor has historically. Labor has been full of them and defintely still is at State level.

Slippery just saw an opportunity to better his wallet and will now be hated by everyone he worked with. I don't understand humanity sometimes.


----------



## noco (27 November 2011)

I think the Labor plot is starting thicken when I read on the link below how Albanese had been working with Slipper to take the speakers chair since 31st May 2011.

How can anyone be convinced that Gillard was not in on the act also.

Harry Jenkins, being the loyal Labor Party soldier, had decided to make himself the sacrficial lamb in order to shaw up an ailing Labor Party, but Gillard would have known weeks ahead as what would take place.

The mere timing on the last day of a sitting parliament for 2011; the mere fact Slippers wife came down from the Sunshine Coast to see her husband being dragged to the chair is very evident that the whole plot had been set weeks ago.

You can't tell me there are not some nervous Labor MP's crossing their fingers.


http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...o-speakers-chair/story-e6freon6-1226207034200


----------



## drsmith (27 November 2011)

Bob Katter's final point sums it up well.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-24/katter-pays-tribute-to-harry-jenkins/3691254

The danger for Labor is the extent to which the public sees it that way.


----------



## Ruby (27 November 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Good points, my concern is though about the office of Speaker.
> 
> Does it suffer by any of the following
> 
> ...




In my view the office of Speaker has been severely degraded and insulted by installing a man who is known to be dishonourable and dishonest.  He is clearly there only to look after himself - which is what he has been doing all along.  It disgusts me.


----------



## IFocus (27 November 2011)

todster said:


> Who put the lowlife in parliament?




Liberals did 7 times...............when it suited their purposes LOL.

I haven't laughed as long or as loud watching this week unfold.


----------



## drsmith (27 November 2011)

IFocus said:


> Liberals did 7 times...............when it suited their purposes LOL.
> 
> I haven't laughed as long or as loud watching this week unfold.



They didn't make him speaker.

Keep laughing. 

The sweet taste will be short lived.


----------



## sails (27 November 2011)

IFocus said:


> Liberals did 7 times...............when it suited their purposes LOL.
> 
> I haven't laughed as long or as loud watching this week unfold.





I would think his electorate actually put him there - they didn't have to vote for him.  The ALP candidate must have been worse?

Why else would they keep voting Slipper back in when his excess spendings have been so secret?

Slipper got 46% of the primary vote - alp got 30%.  So now tell me why you are laughing?  What was wrong with Cummins that he/she couldn't poll better than the spending Slipper?

http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2010/guide/fish.htm


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (27 November 2011)

drsmith said:


> They didn't make him speaker.
> 
> Keep laughing.
> 
> The sweet taste will be short lived.




I would agree Doc.

Labor will have their hand's full dealing with Slippery. All the dirt will come out, slowly and consistently as it did with whatisname from the HSU. Only for nobody will ever forget Slippery. He will go down in history. 

And he is Labor's problem now, they appointed him when the Libs were about to pull his rug.

gg


----------



## todster (27 November 2011)

sails said:


> I would think his electorate actually put him there - they didn't have to vote for him.  The ALP candidate must have been worse?
> 
> Why else would they keep voting Slipper back in when his excess spendings have been so secret?
> 
> ...




If you had bothered to read your own link you would have found he/she to be a he and the seat has been held by the CNP for about 1000years,one family for the most of them


----------



## IFocus (28 November 2011)

drsmith said:


> They didn't make him speaker.
> 
> Keep laughing.
> 
> The sweet taste will be short lived.




No they didn't instead  just made him government whip, parliamentary secretary to the prime minister, John Howard, parliamentary secretary to the finance minister, Nick Minchin

Still laughing..........hysterically.......


----------



## drsmith (29 November 2011)

IFocus said:


> No they didn't instead  just made him government whip, parliamentary secretary to the prime minister, John Howard, parliamentary secretary to the finance minister, Nick Minchin



Disendorsement was going to be the final act, but he jumped first, into the leaky boat with all the other rats.

Labor would make him PM if they thought it would get them an extra 5-minutes in office.


----------



## IFocus (29 November 2011)

drsmith said:


> Labor would make him PM if they thought it would get them an extra 5-minutes in office.




Don't think they would make Pete PM but he would likely fit in nicely with the NSW Right.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 November 2011)

IFocus said:


> Don't think they would make Pete PM but he would likely fit in nicely with the NSW Right.




My contacts in Sussex St. are trying to find him after hours to inculcate him with other Labor values thus far not possessed, but he does give folk the slip after 8pm of a night.

gg


----------



## IFocus (29 November 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> My contacts in Sussex St. are trying to find him after hours to inculcate him with other Labor values thus far not possessed, but he does give folk the slip after 8pm of a night.
> 
> gg





The speakers office comes with its own bar and supplies, Rudd of course would have closed the deal once he pointed this out.

BTW Labor apparently had a plan B and C i.e. other Liberal rats willing sell out.


----------



## drsmith (29 November 2011)

IFocus said:


> BTW Labor apparently had a plan B and C.



Labor's plan B is to reach into taxpayer's pockets as deep as it can, or is that plan A ?

It's Bob Brown's plan A, so it must be Labor's.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 November 2011)

IFocus said:


> The speakers office comes with its own bar and supplies, Rudd of course would have closed the deal once he pointed this out.
> 
> BTW Labor apparently had a plan B and C i.e. other Liberal rats willing sell out.




Do tell IF.

gg


----------



## Julia (29 November 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Do tell IF.
> 
> gg



Even the left leaning devoted Canberra press gallery take this with a grain of salt.
They seem to have no idea who these people might be.
Therefore concluded it is simply mischief making by the government.
Who'd have thought?!


----------



## noco (30 November 2011)

Poor old slippery Pete must now be uncertain of his future life style.

Looks like the locals about to attempt a lyching.

Poor old bugger. He must be a nervous wreck.


http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/speaker-proves-a-slippery-character/story-e6freon6-1226209651149


----------



## Knobby22 (30 November 2011)

noco said:


> Poor old slippery Pete must now be uncertain of his future life style.
> 
> Looks like the locals about to attempt a lyching.
> 
> ...




So he slipped past the Courier Mail reporters and they had to rwrite a beat up story - big hairy deal.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (30 November 2011)

noco said:


> Poor old slippery Pete must now be uncertain of his future life style.
> 
> Looks like the locals about to attempt a lyching.
> 
> ...






> So determined was the Federal Member for Fisher to give reporters the slip that he failed to show up at an Australian Tidy Towns Awards function at Caloundra yesterday.
> 
> The new Federal Parliament Speaker, installed after Labor stalwart Harry Jenkins' shock resignation last week, has resigned from the LNP - boosting both Prime Minister Julia Gillard's control of the hung Parliament and Mr Slipper's pay packet by about $75,000.
> 
> ...




I can commiserate with Slippery, I have on occasions been found circling the car park outside a Dan Murphy's liquor outlet, in the Arnage, and it is not a pleasant experience.

The press need to have a measure of decorum and not pursue this fine specimen of public service.

gg


----------



## nulla nulla (30 November 2011)

Probably trying to organise his xmas present for Julia, a box of fruit elixia. Those Dan Murphy car parks can be a bugger to find a parking spot.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (30 November 2011)

nulla nulla said:


> Probably trying to organise his xmas present for Julia, a box of fruit elixia. Those Dan Murphy car parks can be a bugger to find a parking spot.




I would agree, nn, it is so difficult to cater for mass tastes.

That model of appropriate incisive independent political thought, the Daily Telegraph in Sydney has paid it's twittering scribe, Joe Hildebrand, for the following observation on rats.


http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...er-peter-slipper/story-e6freuzi-1226209653020




> New Speaker Peter Slipper has objected to being depicted as a rat for twice deserting his party and experts agree. Rats are actually much nicer than disloyal pollies.
> 
> The president of the Warringah Rats rugby union team Mike Sheeran said comparing Mr Slipper with a rat was giving rats a bad name.
> 
> ...





This saga has some way to rat, sorry run.

gg


----------



## noco (1 December 2011)

Hick!!!! under section 49 hick!!!!!!!! you will leave the chamber hick!!!!!!for one hour hick!!!!!!!


http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...er-peter-slipper/story-e6freuzi-1226210659407


----------



## Calliope (4 December 2011)

It has been suggested that Slippery Pete should confess his sins to Julia and get it over with.







http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/the-sins-of-the-speaker-20111203-1oca7.html


----------



## noco (7 December 2011)

How is he going to escape his electorate and the people who voted him into parliament?

Please read the link and the comments.


http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...o-escape-bullies/story-e6freooo-1226215683487


----------



## Logique (7 December 2011)

Slipper is the classic maverick. They want Mal Brough back, and a good man, why wouldn't they. So Slipper I'm sure within the LNP has had some pretty rough tactics against him. He was already the Deputy Speaker. Given his history, surely this was a conceivable outcome for the Coalition. 

Barring some Act of God or Rudd's hypothetical resignation, I believe the 'latte coalition' minority govt was going to go full term anyway. 

But as others have said, this story has more to run. A maverick as Speaker, be careful what you wish for ALP and the Greens. Three net effects:
- Kevin Rudd now can't hold a figurative gun to the head of the govt 
- Andrew Wilkie has two chances of getting his preferred style of pokies reform 
- Parliamentary sittings will become even more of a freakshow

Something else, if all the pollies vote themselves a 30% pay rise, why single Peter Slipper out? Who are they to criticize him?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 December 2011)

Logique said:


> Slipper is the classic maverick. They want Mal Brough back, and a good man, why wouldn't they. So Slipper I'm sure within the LNP has had some pretty rough tactics against him. He was already the Deputy Speaker. Given his history, surely this was a conceivable outcome for the Coalition.
> 
> Barring some Act of God or Rudd's hypothetical resignation, I believe the 'latte coalition' minority govt was going to go full term anyway.
> 
> ...




Interesting times Logique, interesting times.

My contacts in the CFMEU tell me that a concerted push is now on to humble Kevin Rudd, who as you wisely pointed out is not as essential to the continuance of government as he was, since Slippery Pete defected to Labor.

They ( CFMEU) are, believe it or not in cahoots with Sussex St. to deliver a stake in to the heart of darkness.

Watch the SMH and Courier Mail for "leaks" and a resignation from Kev07. 

gg


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 December 2011)

It has been reported that Slippery Pete's office front has been defaced in the early hours of the morning.



> MP Peter Slipper's electorate office on the Sunshine Coast has been vandalised.
> Graffiti appeared this morning after the local member for Fisher, known as "Slippery Pete", wrote to his constituents defending his decision to defect from the Liberal National Party to take up the position of Speaker in the Federal Parliament.
> The insults "grub", "slimeball", "loser", "wanker" and "rsole" have been spraypainted on the glass windows of his Buddina electorate office. Devil horns have been drawn on his pictures.
> Advertisement: Story continues below
> ...




http://www.smh.com.au/national/slipper-comes-under-obscene-attack-office-defaced-20111209-1omhj.html

Said Slippery is renowned for gracing our towns and cities of an early morning in a tired and emotional state, and has had bouncers called to control his expressed feelings between midnight and matins, as his status as Chancellor of the Traditional Anglican Communion would demand.

One wonders if he has not more information about this incident. Or is it for the confession?

Calling him an rsole is not in the Australian canon.

The other epithets levelled at him may be applicable, then who can judge. 

gg


----------



## sptrawler (10 December 2011)

The knives certainly seem to be out for Kev, while Bob turkey slaps them around the media.
They really are looking fragile, Kev for all his faults is a polished performer.
It is a bit like the quandry Turnbull causes for the Libs.


----------



## noco (10 December 2011)

I think we are just starting to see the tip of the iceberg. 

There is a lot under the surface yet to be revealed.

Can't wait for the next siiting of parliament.



http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...the_man_in_charge_of_parliamentary_standards/


----------



## Calliope (10 December 2011)

noco said:


> Can't wait for the next siiting of parliament.




Yes, the thought of anyone bowing to this scumbag on entering and leaving the chamber makes my skin crawl. I can't see anyone in the Opposition with any self respect doing it.


----------



## noco (11 December 2011)

Peter Slipper has a hide as thick as a rhinoceros.

I googled some of the stuff he has subscribed to curtesy of the Australian TAX PAYER.

One that stands out is Madison. I may be wrong but Ashley Madison is a sex contact for men who are married but feeling unfulfilled.




http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...iermail/comments/slipper_sends_you_the_bills/


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (11 December 2011)

Slippery is an Aquarian, and I took the liberty of checking one of his faviurite magazines, Madison, to which he subscribes as part of his parliamentary entitlement, to check his horoscope for the month.

It is short and to the point.



> Month of December.You need to focus on your friends a little. Who is really special and will make the cut for 2012 and who is going to be left behind in 2011? And you also really do need to focus on yourself this month. Express yourself, take some time out for fun and generally remember that you're as important as everyone else.




Slippery needs to have more fun, it has been a busy year.

I would urge posters to have some respect for the Speaker, and to refrain from bringing him in to disrepute.

gg


----------



## Calliope (11 December 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I would urge posters to have some respect for the Speaker, and to refrain from bringing him in to disrepute.
> gg




A rat caught in the headlights with his hand in the cookie jar:


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (11 December 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Slippery is an Aquarian, and I took the liberty of checking one of his faviurite magazines, Madison, to which he subscribes as part of his parliamentary entitlement, to check his horoscope for the month.
> 
> It is short and to the point.
> 
> ...






Calliope said:


> A rat caught in the headlights with his hand in the cookie jar:




This is , Calliope, a slur on a priest, the Chancellor of the Traditional Anglican Communion.  

A man of god is continually open to derision.

Whether he purchases Esquire on parliamentary funds is a matter purely between he and his god, and should be separate from any inquiries in to his suitability as Speaker of the Parliament of all Australians. 






He is the Speaker. Leave him be. 

There is a certain punitive current passing through this thread on a fine MP at his best between 8.15pm and 4.00am.

gg


----------



## nulla nulla (12 December 2011)

I strongly recommend everyone posting on this thread view the movie "Libertine" starring Johny Depp and John Malkovich. Toward the end of the movie Mr Depp provides and insiteful definition of "A Good Man", very commendable.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 December 2011)

And now for Slippery Pete's horoscope for the past week, courtesy of his taxpayer funded magazine Madison, an essential publication for any serious politician.

http://www.madisonmag.com.au/stars/your-weekly-stars-aquarius-december-7.htm

I do wish I had been born an Aquarian.



> If you're no longer sure what you want to do, do everything you can to keep your options open. The end of this year is all about you working out what really matters to you, and how you want to live in 2012. Who is it most important to please – yourself or others? Financially this is the week to heal any fear you have re: cash, for example - budgeting too hard or ignoring bills.




gg


----------



## drsmith (13 December 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> And now for Slippery Pete's horoscope for the past week, courtesy of his taxpayer funded magazine Madison, an essential publication for any serious politician.



He might still be studying the front cover of Esquire.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 January 2012)

Slippery Pete must be limbering up somewhere in anticipation of presiding over the next session of parliament.

He has been quiet recently.

gg


----------



## noco (22 January 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Slippery Pete must be limbering up somewhere in anticipation of presiding over the next session of parliament.
> 
> He has been quiet recently.
> 
> gg




Just can't wait for the next sitting of parliament GG. Let the circus begin.


----------



## drsmith (3 February 2012)

noco said:


> Just can't wait for the next sitting of parliament GG. Let the circus begin.



This should provide a little fodder,

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/..._explain_these_king_cross_fares/#commentsmore

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2012/s3419102.htm

From the ABC article,



> PETER SLIPPER: There have been on a number of occasions, as I have pointed out previously, misunderstandings over the interpretation of what rules and regulations are. I have made a number of payments. I believe that I did not have to make those payments back.




A number of occasions ?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (3 February 2012)

noco said:


> Just can't wait for the next sitting of parliament GG. Let the circus begin.






drsmith said:


> This should provide a little fodder,
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/..._explain_these_king_cross_fares/#commentsmore
> 
> ...




There have been a number of posters, myself included, who have made some very hurtful comments about his Excellency the Chancellor of the Traditional Anglican Communion and Speaker of the Australian Federal Parliament.

I would henceforth like to disassociate myself from those comments.

Further being a pisspot, bad employer and a deserter without principles is no barrier to being a High Church official. St. Peter, after whom this lamprey is named was no angel.

Please leave him alone.

He is the Speaker after all.

gg


----------



## drsmith (3 February 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Further being a pisspot, bad employer and a deserter without principles is no barrier to being a High Church official. St. Peter, after whom this lamprey is named was no angel.



For our Pete, all that's missing is the halo, although he's got the temporary one from Julia.


----------



## noco (3 February 2012)

drsmith said:


> For our Pete, all that's missing is the halo, although he's got the temporary one from Julia.




He should change his name to Mr. Bean.


----------



## todster (3 February 2012)

Calliope didn't vote for him so he says!
So who got your vote


----------



## Calliope (3 February 2012)

todster said:


> Calliope didn't vote for him so he says!
> So who got your vote




Craig Thomson.


----------



## Glen48 (3 February 2012)

noco
 Think you mean Mr. Has Been.
Trouble is he goes another pops up like maggots on road kill.


----------



## todster (3 February 2012)

Calliope said:


> Craig Thomson.




No no no was it family first, or greens or are you a fibber like the PM


----------



## Calliope (3 February 2012)

todster said:


> No no no was it family first, or greens or are you a fibber like the PM



 Have you joined the thought police?



> Political privacy has been a concern since voting systems emerged in ancient times. *The secret ballot is the simplest and most widespread measure to ensure that political views are not known to anyone other than the voter.*



 Wikipedia


----------



## todster (3 February 2012)

Calliope said:


> Have you joined the thought police?
> 
> Wikipedia




Everyone knows who you voted for.
I'ts ok mate we all make mistakes.


----------



## todster (3 February 2012)

Calliope said:


> Have you joined the thought police?
> 
> Wikipedia



 Political privacy has been a concern since voting systems emerged in ancient times. The secret ballot is the simplest and most widespread measure to ensure that political views are not known to anyone other than the voter.

Bahaha yeah no one would know your political views,pure gold mate your one of a kind


----------



## Calliope (3 February 2012)

todster said:


> Political privacy has been a concern since voting systems emerged in ancient times. The secret ballot is the simplest and most widespread measure to ensure that political views are not known to anyone other than the voter.
> 
> Bahaha yeah no one would know your political views,pure gold mate your one of a kind




You don't make any secret of yours...loony left, and pure dross and certainly not one of a kind. You have joined the other bahaha clowns who contribute nothing but abuse.


----------



## todster (3 February 2012)

Calliope said:


> You don't make any secret of yours...loony left, and pure dross and certainly not one of a kind. You have joined the other bahaha clowns who contribute nothing but abuse.




Abuse cmon man you got caught tellin porkies man up


----------



## Calliope (4 February 2012)

todster said:


> Abuse cmon man you got caught tellin porkies man up




Your obsession about my veracity is very touching.:screwy:


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (4 February 2012)

Fr.Peter Slipper is being unfairly targetted in the media and particularly by the Australian newspaper, no friend of priests caught with their frocks up.

This needs to stop.

Fr. Peter Slipper is a priest. He has been ordained by God to deliver the Word of God to man, (and woman) on God's earthly realm.

Sometimes this necessitates him wandering in to the environs of sinners, as noted by the Australian and Bunyipitude.



> Government records show Peter Slipper, who is under Australian Federal Police investigation over alleged expense rorting, claimed a series of late-night trips to Kings Cross and another inner-Sydney nightclub hotspot.
> 
> Mr Slipper, who was ordained as a priest of the Traditional Anglican Communion in 2008, claimed for a taxi to Kings Cross on September 21, 2009, at 11pm.
> 
> ...




These taxi fares would easily be accounted for by the following:

Confessions at Kings Cross
Bennerdiction at Taylors Square
Early Sunday Mass at Kings Cross

This simple explanation, while fulfilling the Great Oral Tradition of the Church, does not fit easily in to the " everyone is a sinner " magisterium of the Press, nonetheless it is plausible.

So lay off the much laid upon Fr. Peter Slipper, Speaker of the Federal PArliament of Australia.

gg


----------



## Calliope (4 February 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Fr.Peter Slipper is being unfairly targetted in the media and particularly by the Australian newspaper, no friend of priests caught with their frock up




Frock up indeed.imp: Apparently he spent the night in Oxford Street.



> At 12.38am on September 22, his Cabcharge card was used for a trip to nearby Taylor Square in Oxford Street.
> 
> And at 7.24 that same morning Mr Slipper's card was again charged for a trip to Kings Cross, with "office" listed as the point where the taxi journey began



.


----------



## Knobby22 (4 February 2012)

My turn

It's your member that doing those things Calliope.  Hmmm sounds a bit rude.

No one mentioned before about Pete's drinking and other activities but as Calliope's member, his behaviour should have been displayed earlier for all the world to see and none of this would have happened. 

Sound better?


----------



## Glen48 (4 February 2012)

He is a member of the world oldest profession .....that is being in power in some form of government


----------



## Calliope (4 February 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> My turn
> 
> It's your member that doing those things Calliope.  Hmmm sounds a bit rude.
> 
> ...




Wrong again. His behavior has long been displayed for all the world to see. The Sunshine Coast Daily has outed him for years He would have been dropped at the last election in favor of Mal Brough except for the "grandfather clause."



> Slipper’s opponents thought they could remove him ahead of the last poll. When the Queensland divisions of the Liberal and National parties merged to form the LNP, he was saved by grandfathering clauses in the merger deal, clauses that were designed to minimise squabbling in the new party by protecting all its sitting federal members from preselection challenges.




It is easy to blame the electors for electing a low-life, but there are many in Parliament, including Windsor, Oakeshott, Rudd, Craig Thomson, Rudd and all the Greens.. Perhaps some of your venom could be directed at them.

Don't forget Slipper is your man now, and apparently Rudd's man too. He is in good company.


----------



## Knobby22 (4 February 2012)

I was trying to be funny, re-read it. Obviously fell flat. I was playing on the word "member" mixing yours with his.

Isn't Slipper's position mean officially he is no one's man?


----------



## todster (4 February 2012)

Calliope said:


> Wrong again. His behavior has long been displayed for all the world to see. The Sunshine Coast Daily has outed him for years He would have been dropped at the last election in favor of Mal Brough except for the "grandfather clause."
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Maybe the electors can take responsibility for their actions again and again,but not you no,you didn't vote for him.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (4 February 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Fr.Peter Slipper is being unfairly targetted in the media and particularly by the Australian newspaper, no friend of priests caught with their frocks up.
> 
> This needs to stop.
> 
> ...




Fr. Peter Slipper is a priest of the Traditional Anglican Communion, and as such is an easy target for those intent on bringing priests and religious in to disrepute.

I am quite sure that Calliope and other voters were encouraged to vote for Fr. Slipper, by his charismatic behaviour and Christian demeanour.

The fact that he is now working with the Labor party as Speaker shows his ecumenism and charity.

Calliope's member is a credit to all godbothering members, and it is further unfair in the extreme to target Calliope for the quality of his member, his member's length of service and his members breadth across other members.

If Knobby22 had a member as vigorous as Calliopes' who knows what inroads would have been made, sorry I must finish. I have to ordain some more Speakers in the Traditional Anglican Communion before Evensong.

Before I finish Todster, may I ask you to describe your member.

And leave Slippery Pete alone, it is unfair.

gg


----------



## sptrawler (4 February 2012)

todster said:


> Maybe the electors can take responsibility for their actions again and again,but not you no,you didn't vote for him.




What size hook do you use todster, when you go fishing?


----------



## Calliope (4 February 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> I was trying to be funny, re-read it. Obviously fell flat. I was playing on the word "member" mixing yours with his.




And you thought that was funny?:shake: You disappoint me.  I had always assumed that you were more intelligent than the average leftie.



> Isn't Slipper's position mean officially he is no one's man?




I'm sure you don't really believe that. Slipper sought Rudd's blessing before he put his hand up for the job. You will see whose man he is when it comes to a casting vote.


----------



## todster (4 February 2012)

sptrawler said:


> What size hook do you use todster, when you go fishing?





Live bait-berley-detonators


----------



## todster (4 February 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Fr. Peter Slipper is a priest of the Traditional Anglican Communion, and as such is an easy target for those intent on bringing priests and religious in to disrepute.
> 
> I am quite sure that Calliope and other voters were encouraged to vote for Fr. Slipper, by his charismatic behaviour and Christian demeanour.
> 
> ...




Hahaha love it
By describing my member i may give my identity away.
What about a photo with the head blackened out.


----------



## sptrawler (4 February 2012)

todster said:


> Hahaha love it
> By describing my member i may give my identity away.
> What about a photo with the head blackened out.




2/1 it probably is blackened out.LOL


----------



## Knobby22 (5 February 2012)

Calliope said:


> I'm sure you don't really believe that. Slipper sought Rudd's blessing before he put his hand up for the job. You will see whose man he is when it comes to a casting vote.




I don't think he gets a casting vote. But maybe he does under certain circumstances. 
Can anyone confirm?


----------



## Logique (5 February 2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_Australian_House_of_Representatives
"..the Speaker is not an active political figure like the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. He or she does not take part in debates in the House, does not vote in the House *except in the (rare) event of a tied vote*.."


----------



## Calliope (5 February 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> I don't think he gets a casting vote. But maybe he does under certain circumstances.
> Can anyone confirm?




A casting vote is much more likely, when the government's survival depends on a few 'independents."



> Speaker Harry Jenkins was required to make his first casting vote today following a tied vote in the House of Representatives.
> His vote prevented the lower house from voting on a Coalition motion calling for more mental health funding.
> It also prevented the government from losing a third vote since the hung Parliament began sitting in September.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/spea...ment-losing-20101118-17ylz.html#ixzz1lS1vCY9y


----------



## Knobby22 (5 February 2012)

Gee. I wouldn't want to be Gillard relying on that casting vote!

I'm pretty sure that Pete wouldn't be above accepting a promised post in an embassy overseas from Abbott, especially after a year as Speaker with all the stress and lack of alcohol drinking.


----------



## Calliope (5 February 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> Gee. I wouldn't want to be Gillard relying on that casting vote!
> 
> I'm pretty sure that Pete wouldn't be above accepting a promised post in an embassy overseas from Abbott, especially after a year as Speaker with all the stress and lack of alcohol drinking.




He has a Deputy Speaker, Ms Anna Burke, to take the chair when he is too pissed to get out of bed.


----------



## joea (8 February 2012)

Hi.

Well you can "knock me down with a feather."
I think Slippery is doing a better job than Harry. He shut Swan down!!!!!! lol
Of course I have to accept it's early days yet. I had a little "gecko" today!
joea


----------



## noco (8 February 2012)

joea said:


> Hi.
> 
> Well you can "knock me down with a feather."
> I think Slippery is doing a better job than Harry. He shut Swan down!!!!!! lol
> ...




Yes, he also put Albo in his place as well.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (8 February 2012)

Slippery is getting delusions of grandeur, he is going to reintroduce the Speaker's Procession in to Parliament.

Next he'll be ducking out to hear confession in the Member's Bar during Question time. 

What an utter and complete dill is Father Slipper.

From the ABC.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-08/former-senate-clerk-slams-slippers-ceremonial-changes/3819000



> A former clerk of the Senate says the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Peter Slipper, should focus more on his job than on rekindling the former traditions of pomp and ceremony surrounding the role.
> 
> Mr Slipper raised a few eyebrows on the first sitting day of the year when he chose to don long robes.
> 
> ...




I have met Harry Evans and he is an intelligent man, well versed in the traditions of parliament and their usefulness.

We don't need Slippery changing things before he disgraces himself and is ejected.

gg


----------



## noco (8 February 2012)

Even with all his pomp and ceremony I thought slippery Pete was doing a reasonable job.

In fact, IMHO he is doing a better job than old Harry Jenkins. He appears to be more positive and I can't recall him bellowing out "ORDER !" on not even one occassion.

I am surprised at the way he has handled the job of speaker. Not what I expected.

No warnings if a pollie misbehaves, out you go for one hour. Poor old Joe Hockey learnt that one pretty quick. He also appears to be even handed on both sides of politics and that is the way it should be.

Time will tell I guess.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 February 2012)

noco said:


> Even with all his pomp and ceremony I thought slippery Pete was doing a reasonable job.
> 
> In fact, IMHO he is doing a better job than old Harry Jenkins. He appears to be more positive and I can't recall him bellowing out "ORDER !" on not even one occassion.
> 
> ...




I'm quite sure noco, that Slippery is capable, except when he is incapable, if you get my drift.

gg


----------



## noco (10 February 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I'm quite sure noco, that Slippery is capable, except when he is incapable, if you get my drift.
> 
> gg





Yes GG, you are right and that is why I stated in my conclusion, "time will tell".


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 February 2012)

noco said:


> Yes GG, you are right and that is why I stated in my conclusion, "time will tell".




Agree noco.

I must admit I was surprised by his choice of a white bow tie.







A mate witnessed one of his "early morning performances" in a Canberra nightspot, and he does tend to slobber when on the turps.

Let's hope his staff keep the grog cupboard key hidden in the Speaker's Chamber.

Its a nice silk bow tie and I'd hate to see a formative golly, being subjected to the forces of both fluid movement and gravity, wending it's way down the satin.

gg


----------



## Julia (10 February 2012)

He looks ridiculous imo.


----------



## noco (10 February 2012)

Julia said:


> He looks ridiculous imo.




Julia, being a female, would you say he had sex appeal to women or would Tony have better prospects?


----------



## Knobby22 (10 February 2012)

noco said:


> Julia, being a female, would you say he had sex appeal to women or would Tony have better prospects?




Being gay noco, can't you make a choice? <groan>


----------



## noco (10 February 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> Being gay noco, can't you make a choice? <groan>




Phisssssssssssst, you have gone too far mate.

I hope Joe picks up on that rediculous statement of your's.


----------



## Glen48 (10 February 2012)

If Pete drools out both side of his mouth we know he is on the level, but not in thought.


----------



## Calliope (10 February 2012)

Julia said:


> He looks ridiculous imo.




He does not look too happy. Perhaps cross-dressing is not all it's cracked up to be. A wig modelled on Julia's hair would  be fitting.


----------



## Knobby22 (10 February 2012)

noco said:


> Phisssssssssssst, you have gone too far mate.
> 
> I hope Joe picks up on that rediculous statement of your's.




Well what a question, really. That's why I gave the sarcastic answer.


----------



## noco (10 February 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> Well what a question, really. That's why I gave the sarcastic answer.




Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit from an uneducated person.


----------



## todster (10 February 2012)

Still waiting for an answer from Julia on nocos cutting edge question


----------



## Julia (10 February 2012)

todster said:


> Still waiting for an answer from Julia on nocos cutting edge question



Um, todster, there are many responses I could make.  Probably best for all concerned if I make none of them.


----------



## Logique (11 February 2012)

I'm sensing some hostility on this thread. 

I'm sure GG only meant it as an homage to our new Speaker, That white bow tie says he means business.


----------



## Calliope (11 February 2012)

Logique said:


> I'm sensing some hostility on this thread.
> 
> I'm sure GG only meant it as an homage to our new Speaker, That white bow tie says he means business.




Like all turncoats (traitors, renegades, defectors, seceders, deserters, apostates, backsliders, recreants, tergiversators, rats) he is fair game. He has obvious character flaws and he is also a Rudd supporter.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (11 February 2012)

Calliope said:


> Like all turncoats (traitors, renegades, defectors, seceders, deserters, apostates, backsliders, recreants, tergiversators, rats) he is fair game. He has obvious character flaws and he is also a Rudd supporter.




I have not heard the word tergiversator for some years. 

A good description of Slippery.

It rhymes with testisevisceration.

The balls are in Slippery's court, but for how long?

gg


----------



## breaker (11 February 2012)

Shoulda been a white feather


----------



## joea (11 February 2012)

Hi.
I am sure Slippery is in no way a match for Harry in regards to character and integrity.
However Harry seemed to let Labor waffle on a bit, maybe the opposition as well.
It was the Independents who put forward cleaning up Question time a bit(as i recall).

So my comment in a earlier post was about the speaker  ensuring that the MP's stuck to their time limit.( after all it would be healthier for Swan to do so, as at times he looks like he will blow a blood vessel.)

For the rest, time will tell. 
joea


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (26 February 2012)

Slippery is much more intelligent than any of the mojos involved in the ALP death roll at the moment.

Take it away Slippery:



gg


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 March 2012)

Slippery being filmed just before his staffer allegedly threw a journalist's iphone in to the scrub, this morning.

http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2012/03/09/slipper-staffer-expense-melee/

gg


----------



## noco (21 April 2012)

Is this the catalyst for a federal election the majority of voters have been waiting for?

Is this the change to the state of the nation that GG predicted?

I guess Gillard will find a reason to save Slippers skin just as she has with herself and Craig Thomson.

Gawd, I hope she does not give it to Fair Work Australia to sort out.






http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...exual-harassment/story-e6freoof-1226334894507


----------



## dutchie (21 April 2012)

noco said:


> Is this the catalyst for a federal election the majority of voters have been waiting for?
> 
> Is this the change to the state of the nation that GG predicted?
> 
> ...




Why not, just _slip_ it under the carpet with all the other problems.


----------



## Calliope (21 April 2012)

dutchie said:


> Why not, just _slip_ it under the carpet with all the other problems.




Apparently a spurned lover. Slippery's sexual proclivities have been common knowledge for years. His frequent visits to Oxford Street and his penchant for dressing up are indicative.

I doubt that these charges will stick, but at least they will make the bugger squirm.


----------



## noco (21 April 2012)

Calliope said:


> Apparently a spurned lover. Slippery's sexual proclivities have been common knowledge for years. His frequent visits to Oxford Street and his penchant for dressing up are indicative.
> 
> I doubt that these charges will stick, but at least they will make the bugger squirm.




It will be another case of innocent until proven guilty.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 April 2012)

noco said:


> Is this the catalyst for a federal election the majority of voters have been waiting for?
> 
> Is this the change to the state of the nation that GG predicted?
> 
> ...




Sorry for the late reply, noco, my phone has been busy all morning with further allegations which will affect the Gillard/Green government's tenuous hold on power. 

It is also Raunchy Raffles next week at the hotel and we are expecting a large influx of southerners for Anzac Day. I was busy making sure that things were in hand.

Slippery has been busy of late, overseas and has only just returned to answer these sordid allegations. It may be worthwhile looking at the individual allegations as reported by Steve Lewis of the Courier , a reporter who I know to be exquisitely careful with the content of reports.



> Mr Slipper, who was last night flying back from overseas, is accused of making "unwelcome suggestions of a sexual nature" through mobile phone text messages and in private conversations.




I have always made it a policy of my own to only ever make welcome suggestions over the phone in text messages. 

Should this allegation contained in the Courier article be proven, Slippery will need to resign. An audit of all his text messages may be needed to ensure that such a high ossifer in the Australian Parliament has not been inadvertently making unwelcome suggestions to other Speakers about the globe, or other persons. 

Matters of a sexual nature are always messy, noco, as I am sure you and all asf members are aware.

Sometimes a parliament gives, this one keeps on giving.

I will rest for the moment, noco,  as it is difficult to type on a desktop keyboard while simultaneously pissing myself laughing and trying to organise a Raunchy Raffle to end all Raffles.

gg


----------



## StumpyPhantom (21 April 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Sorry for the late reply, noco, my phone has been busy all morning with further allegations which will affect the Gillard/Green government's tenuous hold on power.
> 
> gg




GG - You are an absolute font of knowledge.  Such that I'm thinking of signing a petition to replace one GG (Gillard/Green) government with another (Garpal Gumnut).

In anticipation of the protest posters, WHY THE HELL NOT?  We almost had an Abbott and Costello government...!!!

Do tell, pretty please.  Even if you only choose to be cryptic, the rest of us can't be defamatory for filling in the blanks with our imagination.


----------



## drsmith (21 April 2012)

The juicy allegations.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...in-federal-court/story-e6freuy9-1226334745457

I had to look up Twinks or Bears.


----------



## Calliope (21 April 2012)

StumpyPhantom said:


> GG - You are an absolute font of knowledge.  Such that I'm thinking of signing a petition to replace one GG (Gillard/Green) government with another (Garpal Gumnut).




Why not the ultimate GG... the Governor General, then he could dissolve the government on grounds of corruption. It is starting to stink to high heaven. 

Serial travel rorting was acceptable, because they all do it, but sexual harassment of your *male* assistant is beyond the pale. Many politicians in lonely Canberra employ a *female *assistant at our expense for their pleasure.


----------



## MrBurns (21 April 2012)

Jeez another bloody poof in the Gillard/Greens Govt (sorry if I offend but thats a good old Aussie word)


----------



## MrBurns (21 April 2012)

Calliope said:


> Many politicians in lonely Canberra employ a *female *assistant at our expense for their pleasure.




My mate Sir Les Patterson knew the drill, if a subordinate to you has a secretary with carpet burns on her knees you immediately pull rank and have her trasferred to your office.


----------



## drsmith (21 April 2012)

In defence of our fine upstanding speaker of the house, he is a politician, barrister, christian, a priest, is married and has two children.


----------



## banco (21 April 2012)

Why am I not surprised that he's a right wing Christian?  They seem to have more closet cases per capita than just about any other group.


----------



## Calliope (21 April 2012)

> "The allegations in News Ltd papers are denied!" he tweeted, later adding they were "a surprise to me".




It was not a surprise to the members of the electorate he is mis-representing.


----------



## MrBurns (21 April 2012)

If ever anyone could actually look like a dishonest sleeze it's him, I've thought that from the outset.

Gillard has surrounded herself with creeps of the highest order so much so that one starts to take a closer at her


----------



## Calliope (21 April 2012)

This is some of the sickening chatter that went on between our Speaker and his assistant. It only becomes harassment when there is a falling out;


A text exchange then took place --

 Ashby: "Haha where's Tim tonight?"

Slipper: "Missing".

Ashby: "Gone to pick up lol".

Slipper: "Do you think Timbo is closer to me than you?"

Ashby: 'Yeah but that's to be expected. He's known u longer. That sort of stuff doesn't worry me".

Slipper: "Gone to prick (sic) up to whom? And closer to you than pete?"

Ashby: "No he's closer to you. I hardly know him".

Ashby: "A random root lol!"

Ashby: "I've gotta stop being rude to my friends. Text u when I leave".

Slipper: "U getting roks off. Pity".

Slipper: "If you interested we could be closer?"

Slipper: "?"

Ashby: "I think we're good already. I'm happy seeing Tim being closest. I hate stepping on toes".

Slipper: ":"

Slipper: "Your call if u want to keep degrees of seperatation. No toes".

Slipper: "I told him positrion (sic) open".

Slipper: "But you're call and no hard feelings in that you only want businesslike contact. In that event of the difficulty in our personla".

Ashby: "I don't know what type of contact you expect Peter. Perhaps u should define that u would like and I can then be clearer on my position".

Slipper: "U want something more? U brillianmt (sic) at massages".

Ashby: "No I'm happy the way things are. I care for u Pete but the massage is at far as it goes. Life's a lot more simpler when it's business and a few drinks after work".

Slipper: "Oh".

Slipper: "No problems and thanks for (unclear)".

Ashby: "All good".

Slipper: "Sorry things not working out but appreciate your frankness. In future in circumstances please arrange all communcoations (sic)".

Slipper: "Thu tim as cannot guarantee availiability. Soo u missing syd harbour creises (sic: cruises)".

Ashby: "Am I missing it now?"

Slipper: "Suspect if you miss"

Slipper: "If you miss ok. Tim has girlfrien abd".

Slipper: "And pete needs to sort ou".

Slipper: "ok your call. Sorry? You still happy to ? come to can ? if not can cover".

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...in-federal-court/story-e6freuy9-1226334745457


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 April 2012)

Calliope,

While not harbouring any particular affection for Slippery Pete, I must say that to be fair to him it sounds to me just like two young people in love, having one of those texting conversations that could either end up in the highest ecstasy or the depths of rejection.

Yes two young people in love. I am on the verge of changing my mind on whether to send Nanny Whip around to Peter Slipper's place on his return from his overseas tax funded holiday to countries with many showers and doors. 

gg


ps I always shower with the door closed unless.....


gg


----------



## Julia (21 April 2012)

Yuk.


----------



## StumpyPhantom (21 April 2012)

Julia said:


> Yuk.




I agree - this harrassment can be totally subjective - having been someone who was falsely accused in the past by bitter twisted people.

Better left on their iphones.


----------



## drsmith (21 April 2012)

Andrew Wilkie hasn't taken long to seize the opportunity.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...xual-allegations/story-fn59niix-1226335101102


----------



## MrBurns (21 April 2012)

drsmith said:


> Andrew Wilkie hasn't taken long to seize the opportunity.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...xual-allegations/story-fn59niix-1226335101102





Now all we have to hear is Gillard, "I have full confidence......"

It's closing in on this shady lot of socialst looters and it's not before time.


----------



## drsmith (21 April 2012)

It's closing in on them, but I suspect that Wilkie just sees this just as an opportunity to deal hemself back onto the table to progress his pokie reforms.

Wilkie won't do anything that brings this government down. Neither will Oakshott or Windsor. They have all chained themselves to it for what's left of the rest of its miserable political life.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 April 2012)

Albo believes he has done a good job.



> Mr Albanese said any question of stepping aside was one for Mr Slipper to decide.
> ‘‘There aren’t allegations against anyone in the government,’’ he said.
> He believed Mr Slipper had done ‘‘a very good job’’ as Speaker.
> 
> ...




gg


----------



## sails (21 April 2012)

drsmith said:


> It's closing in on them, but I suspect that Wilkie just sees this just as an opportunity to deal hemself back onto the table to progress his pokie reforms.
> 
> Wilkie won't do anything that brings this government down. Neither will Oakshott or Windsor. They have all chained themselves to it for what's left of the rest of its miserable political life.




Yes, it seems they are as keen to cling to their newfound power as much as Gillard.  Can't see them doing anything to reduce their time in the sun.  Doing anything for the good of the country or as democratic representives of the majority in their electorates seems to be missing.


----------



## MrBurns (21 April 2012)

drsmith said:


> It's closing in on them, but I suspect that Wilkie just sees this just as an opportunity to deal hemself back onto the table to progress his pokie reforms.
> 
> Wilkie won't do anything that brings this government down. Neither will Oakshott or Windsor. They have all chained themselves to it for what's left of the rest of its miserable political life.




They could take the view that if they dump a very unpopular Govt they may retain their seats.
I'd take that chance rather then be associated with them any longer.


----------



## sails (21 April 2012)

MrBurns said:


> They could take the view that if they dump a very unpopular Govt they may retain their seats.
> I'd take that chance rather then be associated with them any longer.





I would think they have completely blown it with their electorates, not only by supporting labor's minority government, but also so glibly helping to pass legislation that has not been wanted by the majority of Aussie voters - such as carbon tax and opening our borders for starters.

I think they know they are finished so why would they bring their time of fame to an end prematurely in their eyes?


----------



## MrBurns (21 April 2012)

sails said:


> I would think they have completely blown it with their electorates, not only by supporting labor's minority government, but also so glibly helping to pass legislation that has not been wanted by the majority of Aussie voters - such as carbon tax and opening our borders for starters.
> 
> I think they know they are finished so why would they bring their time of fame to an end prematurely in their eyes?




Well........if they brought this Govt down they might get a lot of thank you votes...


----------



## Calliope (21 April 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Well........if they brought this Govt down they might get a lot of thank you votes...




Nobody trusts turncoats. The stench of volunteering to keep a corrupt and illegitimate government in power will never leave them.  I am a member of Slipper's electorate. How do you think we would regard him if he jumped ship again and tried to rejoin the coalition. This man is a rat and was completely despised here before the current scandal. 

There is nothing new in these revelations.  The irony is that it took a person with the same deviousness as him to strip away the veneer of credibility.

Windsor, Oakeshott, Thomson, Slipper, Wilkie and Gillard will have to be dragged away kicking and screaming. A few centuries ago it would have been to the gallows.


----------



## MrBurns (21 April 2012)

Calliope said:


> Windsor, Oakeshott, Thomson, Slipper, Wilkie and Gillard will have to be dragged away kicking and screaming. A few centuries ago it would have been to the gallows.




I guess thats out of the question now ?

Slipper Oakeshott and Thompson are toxic,  but I thought there might be a chance for Wilkie and Windsor, they dont seem quite so bad.


----------



## Eager (21 April 2012)

Calliope said:


> There is nothing new in these revelations.



Exactly right. They were there 9 years ago; Gillard should act in the same way as Howard at the time.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 April 2012)

Eager said:


> Exactly right. They were there 9 years ago; Gillard should act in the same way as Howard at the time.




They are going to court.

That is a big difference.

Gillard won't have the bottle to do anything until it is too late, and when she does she will be replaced by Rudd. 

gg


----------



## MrBurns (21 April 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> They are going to court.
> 
> That is a big difference.
> 
> ...




Yes but the ALP have only recently done another hatchet job on Kevy, hes gone for all time.'
They have no one now.


----------



## Julia (21 April 2012)

Just a practical point re the published text messages:  can these be proven?  i.e. can the phone records be presented to demonstrate that Slippery did indeed send those salacious messages?

FWIW, the complainant hardly comes out of it looking as pure as the driven snow.
i don't know anything about flirting between homosexuals, but he seems to have subtly participated, at least at the beginning.

I'd have to wonder, even, if he was from the start setting up Slippery?


----------



## Eager (21 April 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> They are going to court.
> 
> That is a big difference.



So, why didn't it go to court 9 years ago?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 April 2012)

Eager said:


> So, why didn't it go to court 9 years ago?




Ask Slippery.

gg


----------



## MrBurns (21 April 2012)

Eager said:


> So, why didn't it go to court 9 years ago?




Who cares that was then this is now.


----------



## MrBurns (21 April 2012)

Julia said:


> Just a practical point re the published text messages:  can these be proven?  i.e. can the phone records be presented to demonstrate that Slippery did indeed send those salacious messages?
> 
> FWIW, the complainant hardly comes out of it looking as pure as the driven snow.
> i don't know anything about flirting between homosexuals, but he seems to have subtly participated, at least at the beginning.
> ...




He did what he did set up or not, I dont really care about the sex lives of these people but it's now public knowledge and in the position he holds this is just not on. Goodbye Slippery.


----------



## banco (21 April 2012)

Julia said:


> Just a practical point re the published text messages:  can these be proven?  i.e. can the phone records be presented to demonstrate that Slippery did indeed send those salacious messages?
> 
> FWIW, the complainant hardly comes out of it looking as pure as the driven snow.
> i don't know anything about flirting between homosexuals, but he seems to have subtly participated, at least at the beginning.
> ...




If they came from his phone I can't imagine Slippery Pete being dumb enough to deny they did in the context of a court case.  He's a barrister and presumably knows it's not very smart to put things in affidavits etc. that later turn out to be proven to be false.


----------



## drsmith (21 April 2012)

Julia said:


> Just a practical point re the published text messages:  can these be proven?  i.e. can the phone records be presented to demonstrate that Slippery did indeed send those salacious messages?
> 
> FWIW, the complainant hardly comes out of it looking as pure as the driven snow.
> i don't know anything about flirting between homosexuals, but he seems to have subtly participated, at least at the beginning.
> ...



An interesting theory.

News initially ran the story full bore on its state based tabloids. Their flagship, The Australian however wasn't as quick to jump in and was much more restrained when it did. 

It's a curiosity at least as to why The Australian didn't also jump in, boots and all.


----------



## MrBurns (21 April 2012)

banco said:


> If they came from his phone I can't imagine Slippery Pete being dumb enough to deny they did in the context of a court case.  He's a barrister and presumably knows it's not very smart to put things in affidavits etc. that later turn out to be proven to be false.




All he said to the press was "Ã deny the allegations"but the look on his face said something more like "I'm finished"


----------



## Eager (21 April 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Who cares that was then this is now.



With that, aren't you simply acknowledging a case of double standards?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 April 2012)

Eager said:


> With that, aren't you simply acknowledging a case of double standards?




lol

What about Gillard getting Slippery to be Speaker.

gg


----------



## banco (21 April 2012)

MrBurns said:


> All he said to the press was "Ã deny the allegations"but the look on his face said something more like "I'm finished"




He can continue denying it and settle the case.  Make a statement saying the vast majority of the statements are untrue, it's all exagerrated but he wants to move on with his life.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 April 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> We are looking for someone to pull the winning ticket, at Raunchy Raffles just before Christmas, at the Hotel.
> 
> We need an eminent person without scruples, conscience or couth.
> 
> ...




Just a reminder that we could do with Slippery for Raunchy Raffles this Tuesday, a big day with lots of southerners in town for Anzac Day on Wednesday.

I'll try and catch him on Monday, but if anyone sees him can they pass on the invite.

gg


----------



## MrBurns (21 April 2012)

Eager said:


> With that, aren't you simply acknowledging a case of double standards?




The circumstances were probably different I repeat ...who cares..., it was a decade ago, you really are grasping at straws to even bring it up.


----------



## Eager (21 April 2012)

MrBurns said:


> The circumstances were probably different I repeat ...who cares..., it was a decade ago, you really are grasping at straws to even bring it up.



    

And you are grasping at straws to ignore it!!!!!!


----------



## MrBurns (21 April 2012)

Eager said:


> And you are grasping at straws to ignore it!!!!!!




Nice try but please stop embarrassing yourself by trying to compare the Howard days with now.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 April 2012)

Gillard will have to back him, in the short term, She must rue the day she ever moved against Rudd.

Slippery will retire on a Speaker's pension. 

gg


----------



## MrBurns (21 April 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Gillard will have to back him, in the short term, She must rue the day she ever moved against Rudd.
> gg




I doubt that , she's PM gg, thats all that matters to her.


----------



## noco (21 April 2012)

Windsor and Oakshot stated they would not stand for corruption in the Gillard Government.
If they moved a motion of no confidence in this corrupt government they could make real heros of themselves and even recapture the confidence of their electorate.


----------



## noco (21 April 2012)

noco said:


> Windsor and Oakshot stated they would not stand for corruption in the Gillard Government.
> If they moved a motion of no confidence in this corrupt government they could make real heros of themselves and even recapture the confidence of their electorate.




The attached link cofirms statements made by Windsor and Oakshot regarding  corruption in the Gillard government.
Sooooooo it just might happen.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...agile-government/story-e6frerdf-1226334888126


----------



## Calliope (21 April 2012)

noco said:


> The attached link cofirms statements made by Windsor and Oakshot regarding  corruption in the Gillard government.
> Sooooooo it just might happen.
> 
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...agile-government/story-e6frerdf-1226334888126






> By this time, Mr Slipper had been installed as the new Speaker of the House of Representatives and Mr Ashby resigned as a member of the Liberal National Party and accepted the job as an adviser to Mr Slipper on December 22 last year



.
What the hell does an adviser to the Speaker do? I'll rephrase that. What are his official duties?


----------



## drsmith (22 April 2012)

Peter Slipper will face a parliamentary vote if he refuses to stand aside, according to News.

It would however appear that Julia Gillard is confident of enough independents being on side in any such vote.



> But as the claims rocked the already-fragile Federal Government, Prime Minister Julia Gillard was standing by her Speaker last night.
> 
> Government sources indicated it was unlikely any parliamentary moves to oust him would be supported.




http://www.news.com.au/national/slipper-to-face-mp-vote/story-e6frfkvr-1226335289710


----------



## joea (22 April 2012)

Calliope said:


> .
> What the hell does an adviser to the Speaker do? I'll rephrase that. What are his official duties?




Well his primary duty is to be employed, and his secondary duty is to absorb his salary.
I would assume he would be like a clerk.(handle the paper work).
I just do not know how this can be cleaned up.
There must be thousands of people as public servants in this situation.

The first step is to change the government and hope they have the guts to clean up  the mess.

In regard to Oakshott and his mates comments on not supporting corruption in Government. When is a sex scandal, corruption?.
It seems all the (new news in Federal politics) never has anything to do with running the country.
joea


----------



## Calliope (22 April 2012)

joea said:


> In regard to Oakshott and his mates comments on not supporting corruption in Government. When is a sex scandal, corruption?.



 A corrupt government is one that was elected on a deception and retains power by the manipulation of a union-run FWA in order to avoid bringing Thomson to justice. The cross bench crew are a party to this.

They, of course will support Gillard in keeping  sleazy Slipper (and themselves) safe in his job.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 April 2012)

Wayne Swan on Insiders has refused to countenance the ALP Government moving against Slipper.

Crazy stuff.

gg


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 April 2012)

I have asked the Captain of Slippery's QF plane to divert it to Brisbane as I got the date of Slippery's return to Australia wrong by one day.

One of my offsiders, resident in the Pineapple Hotel at Kangaroo Point , Berocca Benvenuto, will assist him off the plane.

He is cycling out to Eagle Farm field as I post.

Berocca will text me on Slippery's arrival and resuscitation.

gg


----------



## Glen48 (22 April 2012)

Keep us posted GG, Is the bike a girls bike because if Slippery is sitting on the cross bar I would be suspicious also can you confirm S P doctors name is Ben Dover.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 April 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I have asked the Captain of Slippery's QF plane to divert it to Brisbane as I got the date of Slippery's return to Australia wrong by one day.
> 
> One of my offsiders, resident in the Pineapple Hotel at Kangaroo Point , Berocca Benvenuto, will assist him off the plane.
> 
> ...




Berocca got slippery a taxi, and is cycling back to the Pineapple Hotel with a pocket full of Cabcharge vouchers.

He wouldn't text anymore, said something about "evidence, nod as good as wink ??"

He signed of with an 0 not an x.

He will speak to me from a public phone in Kangaroo Pt. within the next couple of hours.

gg


----------



## Calliope (22 April 2012)

It beggars belief that Slipper would have the hide and the arrogance to front up in the Speaker's job in Parliament this week.

It will be amusing to see the government trying to control the house while bringing down a budget.


----------



## MrBurns (22 April 2012)

Calliope said:


> It beggars belief that Slipper would have the hide and the arrogance to front up in the Speaker's job in Parliament this week.
> 
> It will be amusing to see the government trying to control the house while bringing down a budget.




Yes and the look on his face says volumes, he's not taking this too well.


----------



## Calliope (22 April 2012)

*I'm buggered. I just can't keep up with the boys any more.*


----------



## Knobby22 (22 April 2012)

Slippery is a former long term Liberal MP. What do Labor care as long as he is independant (leaning more there way as the vitriol continues).

I am amused that all his faults are appearing now. Where were they in his previous terms?


----------



## noco (22 April 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> Slippery is a former long term Liberal MP. What do Labor care as long as he is independant (leaning more there way as the vitriol continues).
> 
> I am amused that all his faults are appearing now. Where were they in his previous terms?




Because there were never any charges laid against slipper in his previous terms.

On this occassion he has involved himself in two serious charges since becoming the speaker.

One is a criminal charge of fraud with his cab charge and the other is a civil case with sexual harrassment of  James Ashby his assistant.


----------



## McLovin (22 April 2012)

noco said:


> Because there were never any charges laid against slipper in his previous terms.
> 
> On this occassion he has involved himself in two serious charges since becoming the speaker.
> 
> One is a criminal charge of fraud with his cab charge and the other is a civil case with sexual harrassment of  James Ashby his assistant.




It's been alleged he did these things. There has been no charges, yet.


----------



## Calliope (22 April 2012)

McLovin said:


> It's been alleged he did these things. There has been no charges, yet.




The sexual harassment thingee  is just a lover's tiff between two turncoats.  No crime there. If he is charged it will be on his alleged Cabcharge voucher rort. And the main witness is James Ashby. When they kiss and make up, as they always do, Ashby's evidence will become the "I don't recollect" variety.

Gillard is safe. Slipper is safe except for the stench. :22_yikes:


----------



## Julia (22 April 2012)

Calliope said:


> The sexual harassment thingee  is just a lover's tiff between two turncoats.  No crime there. If he is charged it will be on his alleged Cabcharge voucher rort. And the main witness is James Ashby. When they kiss and make up, as they always do, Ashby's evidence will become the "I don't recollect" variety.
> 
> Gillard is safe. Slipper is safe except for the stench. :22_yikes:




I agree.   If the allegation of sexual harassment is based on the published text messages, I find it pretty hard to see much harassment there.  Mr Ashby could have been into a bit of entrapment judging by his remarks.  He also apparently has a less than perfect record himself.

But hell, I will never understand why these high profile people lay themselves open to these allegations by indulging in such stupid and risky behaviour!  Where is their common sense!

It would be nice if they'd just get on with the job the taxpayer pays them to do instead of focusing  on their sexual predilections.


----------



## Glen48 (22 April 2012)

Julia said:


> I
> 
> It would be nice if they'd just get on with the job the taxpayer pays them to do instead of focusing  on their sexual predilections.



 That's the problem they get on with the job and we suffer some more.


----------



## banco (22 April 2012)

Now that slipper has stepped aside Wilkie must be sharpening his knife.


----------



## Glen48 (22 April 2012)

Sex 



 Pete picks up a fag in the cross



"Hey, how much you charge for the hour, ducky?" he asks.



"$100," he replies.



he says,



"Do you do immigrant style?"



"No" he says.



"I pay you $200 to do immigrant style."



"No," he says, not knowing what immigrant style is.



"I pay you $300."



"No," he says.



"I pay you $400."



"No," he says.



So finally he says,



"OK, I pay $1,000 to do immigrant style."



He thinks, "Well, I've been in the game for over 10 years now.  I've had every kind of request from weirdoes from every part of the world.  How bad could immigrant style be?"



So he agrees and has sex with him.  Finally, after several hours, they finish.



Exhausted, the F*&kee turns to him and says, "Hey, I was expecting something perverted and disgusting.  But that was good.So, what exactly is immigrant style?"



Pete replies, "You send bill to Government."



AND THAT, MY  FELLOW TAXPAYERS, IS EXACTLY HOW THEY ARE SCREWING US!


----------



## Calliope (22 April 2012)

I saw the Bolt report this morning where he had Peter Costello as a guest. In the Slipper segment Costello neglected to say that he attended Slipper's second marriage.
Inge was probably well aware she was married to a low-life, but now the whole world knows, which must be devastating for her.



> The couple had a long courtship, with Inge at first reluctant to accept her older suitor's hand.
> 
> They married in 2006, in front of family and high-profile politicians like Kevin Rudd, Peter Costello and Bronwyn Bishop.
> 
> ...




http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...e-under-pressure/story-e6freon6-1226335250428


----------



## MrBurns (22 April 2012)

Calliope said:


> Inge was probably well aware she was married to a low-life, but now the whole world knows, which must be devastating for her.
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...e-under-pressure/story-e6freon6-1226335250428




Bloody creep deserves a good kicking.


----------



## banco (22 April 2012)

The love of dressing up and pageantry that he brought to the speakership makes a lot more sense now.


----------



## breaker (22 April 2012)

Pete,s pulled the pin


----------



## joea (22 April 2012)

Wonder how all this started?
House has been on a break.
Sort out the mess before the next election.
Job 1 get rid of slipper.
Job 2 take Swan's trophy away from him until he fixes the economy.
Job 3 be nice to the elderly.
job 4 kick s**t out of Tony Abbott.
job5 etc.etc.
...
...
job 1223 must look in to the Craig Thompson affair.
joea


----------



## joea (22 April 2012)

Wonder how all this started?
House has been on a break.
Sort out the mess before the next election.
Job 1 get rid of slipper.
Job 2 take Swan's trophy away from him until he fixes the economy.
Job 3 be nice to the elderly.
job 4 kick s**t out of Tony Abbott.
job 5 etc.etc.
job 6 must think about new hairdo before house resits.
...
job 1223 must look in to the Craig Thompson affair.

p.s. just transferred to iMAC must be a bit touchy.
joea


----------



## MrBurns (22 April 2012)

banco said:


> The love of dressing up and pageantry that he brought to the speakership makes a lot more sense now.




Doesn't it


----------



## Calliope (22 April 2012)

banco said:


> The love of dressing up and pageantry that he brought to the speakership makes a lot more sense now.




Now that he has been outed, he plans to march in the next Mardi Gras wearing a mini speaker's robe and a jock-strap.


----------



## IFocus (22 April 2012)

Is Pete still a member of the Liberal Party?


----------



## sails (22 April 2012)

IFocus said:


> Is Pete still a member of the Liberal Party?





I thought you knew everything IF...

No, he resigned from the libs and became independent.

Too bad about his constituents who voted for him as a liberal.  I reckon pollies shouldn't be allowed to do this - if an elected MP resign from their  party surely there should  be a bi-election to give the electorate chance to decide if they like their chosen MP to switch camps or vote someone else in who will continue to represent the party.

Surely that would be a better representation of democracy.


----------



## Julia (22 April 2012)

banco said:


> The love of dressing up and pageantry that he brought to the speakership makes a lot more sense now.







sails said:


> I thought you knew everything IF...
> 
> No, he resigned from the libs and became independent.
> 
> ...



 Yes, agree entirely.


----------



## drsmith (22 April 2012)

This might ultimately become known as the twink and bear affair.


----------



## drsmith (22 April 2012)

News, who broke the original story, is now going in for the kill.

http://www.news.com.au/national/mystery-trips-add-to-slippers-woes/story-e6frfkvr-1226335735288


----------



## joea (23 April 2012)

IFocus said:


> Is Pete still a member of the Liberal Party?




Please do not say that out loud!!
joea


----------



## Calliope (23 April 2012)

drsmith said:


> This might ultimately become known as the twink and bear affair.




The texting evidence suggests that Slipper was the "twink''.

So I nominate *Twinkgate.*

It is certainly a disgusting practice.


----------



## MrBurns (23 April 2012)

drsmith said:


> News, who broke the original story, is now going in for the kill.
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/national/mystery-trips-add-to-slippers-woes/story-e6frfkvr-1226335735288




Good.


----------



## Calliope (23 April 2012)

You only have to look at Slippery's eyes to see he is a  nocturnal animal.



Compare #201


----------



## Calliope (23 April 2012)

Innocent until proven guilty.





	

		
			
		

		
	
:


----------



## MrBurns (23 April 2012)

Gillard and that sleezy maggot Craig Emmerson are trying to throw this back on Abbott, it's all his fault.
They really are the pits ........a party full of liars, cheats and now perverts.


----------



## MrBurns (23 April 2012)

Now Roxon has joined in - 



> Federal Attorney-General Nicola Roxon has accused Tony Abbott of acting like the leader of a lynch mob over allegations of sexual harassment filed in the Federal Court against Speaker Peter Slipper.




I dont think the public are influenced on what to think about a bottom dweller (excuse the pun) like Slipper, Labor are totally out of control and their leader is away hiding overseas ......again.


----------



## IFocus (23 April 2012)

sails said:


> Too bad about his constituents who voted for him as a liberal.




Was it 7 times he was endorsed, last time by Abbott?


----------



## drsmith (23 April 2012)

The endorsement that will count most in the eyes of the voter, by far, will be Gillard's.

She welcomed him into Labor's bed when the Coalition was trying to kick him out of theirs.


----------



## StumpyPhantom (23 April 2012)

drsmith said:


> The endorsement that will count most in the eyes of the voter, by far, will be Gillard's.
> 
> She welcomed him into Labor's bed when the Coalition was trying to kick him out of theirs.




It won't be lost on the electorate (I hope) that Slipper himself showed more integrity than Gillard & Co by stepping down.

Do they not see the hypocrisy in insisting that Kafer stand down as head of ADFA but are prepared to leave the Speaker's chair stinking to high heaven?


----------



## Glen48 (23 April 2012)

You never know who is one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3S24ofEQj4&feature=related


----------



## dutchie (24 April 2012)

I'm sure the Thomson express will overtake in the long run.


----------



## Calliope (24 April 2012)

drsmith said:


> The endorsement that will count most in the eyes of the voter, by far, will be Gillard's.
> 
> She welcomed him into Labor's bed when the Coalition was trying to kick him out of theirs.




Chris Uhlmann on 7.30 last night attacked Abbott because the Liberals were alerted to Slipper's sleazy behaviour in 2003 and did nothing about it. 

Of course they didn't.  A high persentage of politicians in Canberra are getting a bit on the side, whether with gay or straight partners. To open this can of worms and take action to expel the members would result in many more sleazebags on the cross benches than there are now.

Nobody knows this better than Chris Uhlmann. He is married to a labor member and was a Journalist on the Canberra Times before gravitating to the ABC in 1999.

Both sides know who are the sleazebags across the benches and they keep dirt files.

Gillard said she did not know Slipper "personally."  Yet there would not be one aspect of his lifestyle that she would not know in detail before she degraded the position of Speaker by his appointment.

While sexual deviancy is not a crime. Rorting travelling allowance is. And he is a serial rorter. Why he was allowed to pay some of the money back and was not charged with misappropiation is a reflection on both sides.


----------



## drsmith (24 April 2012)

Peter Slipper's behaivour is a reflection on both sides, but in making him speaker, Labor has sunk lower than the Coalition's allready low bar.


----------



## joea (24 April 2012)

Calliope said:


> Chris Uhlmann on 7.30 last night attacked Abbott because the Liberals were alerted to Slipper's sleazy behaviour in 2003 and did nothing about it.
> 
> Of course they didn't.  A high persentage of politicians in Canberra are getting a bit on the side, whether with gay or straight partners. To open this can of worms and take action to expel the members would result in many more sleazebags on the cross benches than there are now.
> 
> ...




+1 Spot on!
joea


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (24 April 2012)

I am astounded that Slippery is still tweeting. Perhaps a still astounds Slippery. Go to twitter.com.

This Parliament never ceases to give.

What an utter joke.

gg


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (24 April 2012)

> Peter Slipper MP ‏ @PeterSlipperMP
> I am told that media have trespassed at my home;entered the garage and rubbed their hands over my wife's car etc. What about media ethics?




The media have been rubbing Slippery's wife's car.

gg


----------



## Eager (24 April 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The media have been rubbing Slippery's wife's car.
> 
> gg



Massaging it, perhaps?  

My take on the whole affair:
(a) If Slipper is found guilty of fraud, so be it; it will be dealt with in a legal sense. If he goes a row, again, so be it.
(b) If Slipper is found guilty of sexual harrassment, so be it; it will be dealt with in a legal sense. If he goes a row, again, so be it.
(c) The media is fixated. It is not really 'news.'
(d) I challenge any rusted-on coalition voter to convince me that Slipper has not been a good Speaker of the House.


----------



## StumpyPhantom (24 April 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The media have been rubbing Slippery's wife's car.
> 
> gg




Hey Slippery - didn't you know the media give great massages?  Didn't happen to hear your wife (or her car) groaning, did you?


----------



## MrBurns (24 April 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The media have been rubbing Slippery's wife's car.
> 
> gg




Well someone has to you've been rubbing someone elses.


----------



## drsmith (24 April 2012)

Eager said:


> (d) I challenge any rusted-on coalition voter to convince me that Slipper has not been a good Speaker of the House.




Peter Slipper is a politician, barrister, christian, a priest, is married and has two children. 

A man of such moral upstanding that we could not ask for more in our political representatives.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (24 April 2012)

Eager said:


> Massaging it, perhaps?
> 
> My take on the whole affair:
> 
> (d) I challenge any rusted-on coalition voter to convince me that Slipper has not been a good Speaker of the House.




He was a very good Speaker, on the floor of parliament.

gg


----------



## Eager (24 April 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> He was a very good Speaker, on the floor of parliament.
> 
> gg



 Yes, and that was my point.


----------



## sails (24 April 2012)

Eager said:


> ...(d) I challenge any rusted-on coalition voter to convince me that Slipper has not been a good Speaker of the House.





Eager, are you saying that it would also be quite acceptable for a known pedophile to be Speaker of the House provided he does his speaker's job well?

I'm not insinuating that Slipper is as such, however, have used that as an illustration.

Looking forward to your reply...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (24 April 2012)

Eager said:


> Yes, and that was my point.




And it was a very good point, and I only qualified it as I typed.

He was probably the best Speaker on the floor of Parliament for a generation.

gg


----------



## Eager (24 April 2012)

sails said:


> Looking forward to your reply...



Please refer to gg's reply.


----------



## sails (24 April 2012)

Eager said:


> Please refer to gg's reply.




Are you a chicken or what?  GG didn't answer my question.

Now answer my question...


----------



## Eager (24 April 2012)

sails said:


> Are you a chicken or what?  GG didn't answer my question.
> 
> Now answer my question...



On the one hand you may be claiming that Slipper is a known pedophile, but your signature states that your posts are just your opinion and my own research is required...

No.

Put up or shut up.


----------



## sails (24 April 2012)

Eager said:


> On the one hand you may be claiming that Slipper is a known pedophile, but your signature states that your posts are just your opinion and my own research is required...





Eager - now you are getting stupid.  Utterly stupid.  Are you not able to comprehend?  

I specifically said that I used that as an illustration and that I was not insinuating anything of the sort.  You are an utter idiot and entirely rude to twist my words in that way.  Shame on you. 

However, let me ask you that simple question again and see if you can answer it:

* "Eager, are you saying that it would also be quite acceptable for a known pedophile to be Speaker of the House provided he does his speaker's job well?*

What a twat you are...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (24 April 2012)

A statement tonight from Andrew Wilkie who I believe is an independent  MHR representing Orbost or Tasmania,  somewhere south of Townsville anyway.



> A Statement on Peter Slipper
> 
> I am of the strong view that Peter Slipper should not resume the Speaker’s Chair until all of the allegations against him are dealt with, including the allegation of sexual harassment.




gg


----------



## Julia (24 April 2012)

Eager said:


> Massaging it, perhaps?
> 
> My take on the whole affair:
> (a) If Slipper is found guilty of fraud, so be it; it will be dealt with in a legal sense. If he goes a row, again, so be it.
> ...



I disagree here.  It is genuinely news.

He holds the most important position in the parliament.

His background is dubious at best.  He only avoided charges of fraud over past expenses by quickly paying back the 'misclaimed' amount.

If he's proven to be guilty of a criminal offence that goes to more than just his own character.  It also reflects on the government's machiavellian move of getting rid of a perfectly OK Speaker in Harry Jenkins and replacing him with Slipper for purely political purposes.

The Coalition are not in any position to be too self righteous here either, considering they endorsed him 9 times.  Mr Abbott should just shut up on this and let matters take their course.

Even if Mr Slipper is able to return to the Speaker's position, he will for ever after be a laughing stock as everyone titters behind his back about his sexual activities.
Hardly what any parliament can sustain in The Speaker imo.



> I challenge any rusted-on coalition voter to convince me that Slipper has not been a good Speaker of the House.



Yes, he has been much better than anyone anticipated.  I've not heard a single complaint about his actual performance in the role, despite the silly fancy dress.


----------



## drsmith (25 April 2012)

Now his church is trying to cut him loose.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...tep-aside-from-church-job-20120425-1xkas.html

And this is somewhat desperate stuff from the good priest.


----------



## Boggo (25 April 2012)

drsmith said:


> Now his church is trying to cut him loose.




He is obviously not in the catholic church then


----------



## Eager (25 April 2012)

sails said:


> Eager - now you are getting stupid.  Utterly stupid.  Are you not able to comprehend?
> 
> I specifically said that I used that as an illustration and that I was not insinuating anything of the sort.  You are an utter idiot and entirely rude to twist my words in that way.  Shame on you.
> 
> ...



lol!

I once called someone an idiot and was reprimanded, and the comment removed. You call me an utter idiot besides the anatomical reference and all is well....hmmm....

But I digress. Ms sails, I will repeat the comment that you misunderstood which caused your anger management issue to come to the fore, as well as your near-potty mouth.

_On the one hand you *may* be claiming that Slipper is a known pedophile, but your signature states that your posts are just your opinion and my own research is required..._

Get well soon, luv. xx


----------



## Calliope (25 April 2012)

Slipper can use the excuse that he was drunk at the time of all the alleged offences.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (25 April 2012)

Slippery with a bear.

Peter is under the bear and out of shot.

What is a bear?







gg


----------



## MrBurns (25 April 2012)

Calliope said:


>




This man gets paid $300+k a year.

You work it out


----------



## drsmith (25 April 2012)

Eager said:


> _On the one hand you *may* be claiming that Slipper is a known pedophile, but your signature states that your posts are just your opinion and my own research is required..._






sails said:


> Eager, are you saying that it would also be quite acceptable for a known pedophile to be Speaker of the House provided he does his speaker's job well?
> 
> *I'm not insinuating that Slipper is as such, however, have used that as an illustration.*



Pedophile could be seen as a provocative illustration, but Sails made it clear that that it was only that.


----------



## dutchie (25 April 2012)

Swan is a goose

Shorten is a goose (when does the RBA meet again Bill?)

Now Roxon joins them.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...ong_slipper_assumed_guilty_under_labors_laws/


This just gets funnier and funnier by the day.


----------



## Julia (25 April 2012)

dutchie said:


> Swan is a goose
> 
> Shorten is a goose (when does the RBA meet again Bill?)
> 
> ...



That specifically refers to FWA.   Presumably Mr Ashby's accusation does come under FWA laws given he alleges the offence took place in the workplace?

However, on a broader front, surely we can't expect that anyone who is the subject of any allegation must be forced to stand down from their position until the matter is resolved?

e.g. If I were to accuse my local member of parliament of some dastardly deed, and be making it up for some spiteful reason, it hardly seems reasonable that he should be obliged to vacate the position while my allegations are investigated.

I'm with Nicola Roxon on this one (much as I'd dearly love to see Slipper tossed).
If the principle were other than she describes it we'd have half the parliament standing aside.


----------



## sails (25 April 2012)

drsmith said:


> Pedophile could be seen as a provocative illustration, but Sails made it clear that that it was only that.





Thanks Dr Smith!  I felt that Eager's question did not address the entire problem.  Sure, Slipper seems to have done a good enough job as Speaker and it was fun watching him pull Gillard into line.

However, I was wondering what his view point might have been if it were something knowingly criminal, does that mean such a person could continue as Speaker just because they are good at being Speaker?  Not meant to be provactive at all.  It was a genuine question.

But, I am done with Eager.  No more responses from me unless he dares to twist my words again.


----------



## drsmith (26 April 2012)

News has kindly provided an interactive map of Peter Slipper's cabcharges.



> Click on the Google Map locator for multiple Cab Charge Listings. There are several arrivals at the same locations. Simply click the small arrow in the right hand corner to see additional results. The Interactive Map is best viewed using Internet Explorer or Google Chrome




http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mo...rort-allegations/story-e6frf7l6-1226338391197


----------



## Glen48 (26 April 2012)

Think he will be out of office next election most likely work as a barrister at Starbucks as they support gay rights.
 Why is it pollie's  can use taxpayer funded vehicles  for private and use us bunnies have to have a log book.


----------



## Calliope (26 April 2012)

Julia said:


> However, on a broader front, surely we can't expect that anyone who is the subject of any allegation must be forced to stand down from their position until the matter is resolved?
> 
> e.g. If I were to accuse my local member of parliament of some dastardly deed, and be making it up for some spiteful reason, it hardly seems reasonable that he should be obliged to vacate the position while my allegations are investigated.




Perhaps if the text messages between you and your local member were as lurid as those between Slipper and Ashby, a reasonable person might presume that he or she was not fit to be a member of Parliament.


----------



## Surly (26 April 2012)

Julia said:


> However, on a broader front, surely we can't expect that anyone who is the subject of any allegation must be forced to stand down from their position until the matter is resolved?
> 
> e.g. If I were to accuse my local member of parliament of some dastardly deed, and be making it up for some spiteful reason, it hardly seems reasonable that he should be obliged to vacate the position while my allegations are investigated.
> 
> ...




Julia I think your analysis fails to take into account Slipper's position and the position of the person making the allegations.

It is also in the ALP's interest to make this investigation as rapid as possible whereas they appear happy to let the Thompson matter take as long as possible.

cheers
Surly


----------



## Surly (26 April 2012)

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/onus-on-peter-slipper-to-show-innocence-george-brandis/story-e6frfku9-1226339131038


But Senator Brandis says the sexual harassment allegations actually fall under the Federal Government's Fair Work Act.

He said the presumption of innocence was a criminal law concept.

"Under section 361 of the Fair Work Act there is a reverse onus, a presumption against the person against whom the complaint is brought," he told Sky News today.

"The Labor Party have tripped over themselves. They have been saying there should be a presumption of innocence.

"(But) they wrote into their own act - against the objections of the coalition at the time - a presumption of guilt."


cheers
Surly


----------



## Julia (26 April 2012)

Calliope and Surly, yes, point taken.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (26 April 2012)

Slippery would appear to be slip slapping away from any charges.

His accuser will need to come with the goods.

This is not yet a cut and dried case.

He has not been known as Slippery Pete for no good reason.

Nonetheless, is he a fit person to be Speaker of our Parliament?

gg


----------



## StumpyPhantom (27 April 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Nonetheless, is he a fit person to be Speaker of our Parliament?




Unfortunately, Slipper is tailor-made and fit for this Parliament.  In any other Parliament in history, he would look and smell like a rat.  But he actually looks quite good in this one.

When the slipper smells, you know some awful feet have been wearing it.


----------



## Calliope (27 April 2012)

StumpyPhantom said:


> Unfortunately, Slipper is tailor-made and fit for this Parliament.  In any other Parliament in history, he would look and smell like a rat.  But he actually looks quite good in this one.
> 
> When the slipper smells, you know some awful feet have been wearing it.




You got that right Stumps. Even Albanese, his greatest supporter coud not be stupid enough to believe that all the Cabcharge dockets were signed by the same person. 

Check them out here;

http://images.smh.com.au/file/2012/04/26/3249946/slipper.pdf


----------



## MrBurns (27 April 2012)

Albanese, what a cretin that one is, can hardly string 2 words together, nasty part is all these creeps are on huge salaries and perks and wil retire in comfort.......until the revolution shhhhhhh gg I won't tell.

Slipper, yes a few dodgy photocopied cabcharge tickets will get him off, well not really, he's gone , but again on full pension and perks.......until......???


----------



## dutchie (27 April 2012)

Slippery Pete is gone - he won't sit at the head of the table again.

Besides which the public has already made up its mind about him and Thomson.


----------



## StumpyPhantom (27 April 2012)

dutchie said:


> Slippery Pete is gone - he won't sit at the head of the table again.
> 
> Besides which the public has already made up its mind about him and Thomson.




How is it, that despite both these men's different physical appearances, they just EXUDE the sleazy look?

I can't get out of my mind Craig Thomson's forced smile, nor Peter Slipper's penchant for dressing in drag whilst walking up the chamber to his seat.

That's gotta be psychological, doesn't it?  A sign that the public (ie. me) has made up its mind.


----------



## dutchie (27 April 2012)

StumpyPhantom said:


> How is it, that despite both these men's different physical appearances, they just EXUDE the sleazy look?
> 
> I can't get out of my mind Craig Thomson's forced smile, nor Peter Slipper's penchant for dressing in drag whilst walking up the chamber to his seat.
> 
> That's gotta be psychological, doesn't it?  A sign that the public (ie. me) has made up its mind.




Spot on Stumpy. The majority of the electorate feel the same way.
Once a politician looses the respect of the electorate it is well nigh impossible to get it back.


----------



## MrBurns (27 April 2012)

dutchie said:


> Spot on Stumpy. The majority of the electorate feel the same way.
> Once a politician looses the respect of the electorate it is well nigh impossible to get it back.




Stumpy was observant, both Thompson and Slipper just look dodgy, it sticks out a mile, you think hang on I shouldn't judge people like that, but it's true you can see it on their faces, particulatly Slipper, gives me the heeby jeebies.


----------



## StumpyPhantom (27 April 2012)

This is (supposedly) a serious thread, so I've thought long and hard (ie 12 seconds) before putting this on, but "Thomson's forced smile" gives me images of the moment when his credit card spending habit reaches its climax, so to speak.

Like I say in my thoughts - "long and hard"!!

Now back to Slipper - I simply can't imagine him - no matter how hard I try.


----------



## Calliope (27 April 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Stumpy was observant, both Thompson and Slipper just look dodgy, it sticks out a mile, you think hang on I shouldn't judge people like that, but it's true you can see it on their faces, particulatly Slipper, gives me the heeby jeebies.




One thing stands out. That Gillard and her gang have confidence in low-life Thomson and want to restore sleazebag Slipper to the speaker's role, is an indication of the low levels to which they will stoop to retain power. Their decadence will be the end of them.

Even noted lefties on this thread appear to have deserted them. I think their "presumption of innocence" mantra has been supplanted by " guilty as charged of being a crud, degenerate, deviant, dip, dirtbag, dirtball, pervert, pig, scum, scumbag, scuzzbag, sleaze, sleazeball, slimebag, slimeball, slimebucket, slob, weirdo." 

Take your pick.


----------



## MrBurns (27 April 2012)

Calliope said:


> Even noted lefties on this thread appear to have deserted them. I think their "presumption of innocence" mantra has been supplanted by " guilty as charged of being a crud, degenerate, deviant, dip, dirtbag, dirtball, pervert, pig, scum, scumbag, scuzzbag, sleaze, sleazeball, slimebag, slimeball, slimebucket, slob, weirdo."
> 
> Take your pick.




All applies and we'll think of more as time passes.

Next News poll will be interesting.

Fairly soon the rats will begin deserting the sinking ship.


----------



## Julia (27 April 2012)

Calliope said:


> You got that right Stumps. Even Albanese, his greatest supporter coud not be stupid enough to believe that all the Cabcharge dockets were signed by the same person.
> 
> Check them out here;
> 
> http://images.smh.com.au/file/2012/04/26/3249946/slipper.pdf



There have been several reports published about him having charged a cab fare on a date when he was in another city.  If it's all just fine now, were the media making this up?
Further, is it considered quite fine for him to be swanning around inner Sydney throughout the small hours, criss-crossing suburbs?  I suppose it is.  Pretty hard to understand what sort of official business he was on at 4am.


----------



## drsmith (27 April 2012)

What's going on with the passenger's signature ?

There's a few variations amongst that lot.

Those cabcharge documents may raise more questions than answers.



> But the 13 photocopied Cabcharge vouchers released by Mr Slipper do raise another issue. Instead of detailing a specific pick-up point or destination, the passenger has simply written the word "suburbs" on many of the vouchers.
> 
> That makes it hard to determine whether the fare correctly reflects the journey.
> 
> ...




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-27/handwriting-expert-questions-slipper-cabcharge-copies/3975702


----------



## Miss Hale (27 April 2012)

StumpyPhantom said:


> This is (supposedly) a serious thread, so I've thought long and hard (ie 12 seconds) before putting this on, but "Thomson's forced smile" gives me images of the moment when his credit card spending habit reaches its climax, so to speak.
> 
> Like I say in my thoughts - "long and hard"!!
> 
> Now back to Slipper - I simply can't imagine him - no matter how hard I try.




I've been relctant to comment too much on this too because my gut reaction to both Slipper and Thompson is at this point is "Eeewww, I don't want to hear of or see either of them again, they make my skin crawl", which is not very objective


----------



## Calliope (27 April 2012)

Julia said:


> Further, is it considered quite fine for him to be swanning around inner Sydney throughout the small hours, criss-crossing suburbs?  I suppose it is.  Pretty hard to understand what sort of official business he was on at 4am.




King's Cross and Oxford Street were his favourite haunts I believe. Nothing to do with the interests of his constituents.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (27 April 2012)

I was privileged to dine last night at the hotel, with two of North Queensland and the Northern Territory's premier forensic readers and interpreters of signatures, dockets, IOU's and rain-sodden wills.

These two gentlemen have still not served time in either jurisdiction and are now well respected members of the financial advice industry.

We downloaded Slippery's cabcharge manual vouchers which he kindly tweeted to one of us. Thanks Slippery.

It would appear to all three of us, I myself am an expert on handwriting having served many years in Stylus School, that Slippery has been severely let down by his handwriting.

I accept that it is his signature, and would fight anyone who says otherwise, however, it appears to be not, on forensic examination.

The consensus amongst us at the stage at which we were imbibing Baileys and none too steady on our flippers, was, that the signatures appeared sufficiently different to require further forensic analysis.

Then again we were pissed.

Which we are sure our beloved Speaker was not, when he signed the dockets.

We will further pass the dockets past the keen eye of one of our region's premier forgers, who is due to be released from The Creek today, at the hotel's famous "Sunday Roast" to ascertain his view on Slippery's dockets.

gg


----------



## MrBurns (27 April 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I was privileged to dine last night at the hotel, with two of North Queensland and the Northern Territory's premier forensic readers and interpreters of signatures, dockets, IOU's and rain-sodden wills.
> 
> These two gentlemen have still not served time in either jurisdiction and are now well respected members of the financial advice industry.
> 
> ...




I recommend the Chteau Latour Pauillac 1990 to compliment the lamb.


----------



## breaker (27 April 2012)

MrBurns said:


> I recommend the Chteau Latour Pauillac 1990 to compliment the lamb.




or good old Coolibah goon, Lambrusco of course


----------



## Calliope (27 April 2012)

Senator Milne said it was right that Mr Slipper had stood aside at the weekend, but stressed that he was entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Wrong.

The sexual harassment allegations against Slipper were in a legal document lodged in The Fair Work division of the federal Court last Friday.

One of the nastiest provisions of the Fair Work Act ensures that the employers are deemed guilty unless they can prove they are not guilty of the alleged wrongdoing. The employers of Ashby are Slipper and the Commonwealth.

Employers usually agree to a settlement payoff to avoid an embarassing court action. Slipper will probably be forced to contest the matter in court to avoid accusation of public funds being used for a payoff. 

Slipper will have to pay his own court costs and these will be substantial.

(See article by Hedley Thomas in The Australian today, "Act's reverse onus a boon for victims")


----------



## drsmith (27 April 2012)

Poor Peter.

The answers just don't stack up.

A small limmo company that calls itself a cab company.
The driver has not used the manual card system in between Peter slopper using it weeks apart.


----------



## dutchie (28 April 2012)

The dockets that Slipper has submitted may well be dodgy. No doubt this will put him in even hotter water than he already is if that is the case.

One of the many ways that the system could be rorted - say a limo fare is $50 then the voucher issuer could say - I will write you, the limo driver, out a voucher for $100 if you give me $25 cash.


----------



## Glen48 (28 April 2012)

Good idea but they would never stoop that low..... wait they have sleeping in the car to claim hotel accom..Maybe don't vote form them is a good idea.


----------



## noco (28 April 2012)

The plot seems to thicken with Slipper exposing his cab dockets. It would appear he is less smarter than he looks.
The only ones he seems to have convinced that he is in the clear is Albanese, Gillard, Roxon and Emmerson.
The thing I cannot understand is why he did it? Surely it was not for finacial gain considering his level of salary. 


http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...rove-mp-19-times/story-e6freoof-1226338295219


----------



## StumpyPhantom (28 April 2012)

noco said:


> The thing I cannot understand is why he did it? Surely it was not for finacial gain considering his level of salary.
> 
> 
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...rove-mp-19-times/story-e6freoof-1226338295219




Are these dodgy 'taxi' companies a cover for the old-fashioned pimp?  That is, they manage 'rent boys' and drive their clients to them so that payment for services rendered turns up in the form of a cabcharge docket.

Now THAT would be explosive!!


----------



## Glen48 (28 April 2012)

Noco Iif guilty its one of the 7 deadly sin called... greed ,just like the fed Judge refused to pay his parking ticket only this time Slipper is needed for his vote so he has  some power in high place's


----------



## Calliope (28 April 2012)

Glen48 said:


> Noco Iif guilty its one of the 7 deadly sin called... greed ,just like the fed Judge refused to pay his parking ticket only this time Slipper is needed for his vote so he has  some power in high place's







> In the Book of Proverbs (Mishlai), King Solomon stated that the Lord specifically regards "six things the Lord hateth, and the seventh His soul detesteth." namely:
> 
> A proud look.
> A lying tongue.
> ...



(Wiki)

I guess the third one is the only one the Lord can't pin on him.


----------



## drsmith (28 April 2012)

Anything less than squeaky clean and Peter Slipper was a fool to draw even more public attention to those cabcharges. 

He should have realised that "anything you say may be used as evidence against you" not only applies in a court of law, it also applies in the court of public opinion. 

Otherwise, the court of public opinion does not operate in the same way as a court of law, and that's something Julia Gillard should have realised.


----------



## sails (28 April 2012)

drsmith said:


> ...Otherwise, the court of public opinion does not operate in the same way as a court of law, and that's something Julia Gillard should have realised.





I don't think Gillard has ever realised this at all.  One gets the feeling she thinks she is above democracy and SHE will decide what is best for the voters in this country.


----------



## drsmith (28 April 2012)

sails said:


> I don't think Gillard has ever realised this at all.  One gets the feeling she thinks she is above democracy and SHE will decide what is best for the voters in this country.



That's very much the impression I get.


----------



## MrBurns (28 April 2012)

sails said:


> I don't think Gillard has ever realised this at all.  One gets the feeling she thinks she is above democracy and SHE will decide what is best for the voters in this country.




Yep that's Gillard alright, well she's destroyed the ALP for a generation at least
with that attitude and seriously impaired any chance of another woman being given the chance at the job in future. 

Bull in a china shop all round I'd say.


----------



## drsmith (28 April 2012)

This sorry saga gets more fanciful by the minute.

Peter Slipper's cabcharges may have originated from the department of finance, but they were made public by Peter Slipper.

The explanation for the actual cost of the fares is beyond belief. 



> ANTHONY ALBANESE: The charge isn't whether Peter Slipper or any other Member of Parliament is unusual. The charge here is that Peter Slipper engaged in fraudulent conduct and handed over blank cab charges.
> 
> What has shown by this documentation provided by the Department of Finance is that that allegation is not correct.
> 
> ...




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-27/albanese-defends-unusual-slipper/3977106?section=qld


----------



## moXJO (28 April 2012)

Calliope said:


> One of the nastiest provisions of the Fair Work Act ensures that the employers are deemed guilty unless they can prove they are not guilty of the alleged wrongdoing. The employers of Ashby are Slipper and the Commonwealth.



 Section 361 I believe
Gillards own legislation that she wrote and she chooses to ignore it. So it's ok for employers to cop it so long as they are not Labor members


----------



## joea (29 April 2012)

noco said:


> The thing I cannot understand is why he did it? Surely it was not for finacial gain considering his level of salary.
> [/url]




Was it to finance his night time travels around the suburb's and certain districts.?
It appears he was a bit of a "night owl", as can be observed in his eyes as he sits over the lower house.
More to break on this subject!!
joea


----------



## Logique (29 April 2012)

noco said:


> ...The thing I cannot understand is why he did it? Surely it was not for finacial gain considering his level of salary...



Yes I think this puzzles a lot of people Noco. An associate of PS recently noted 'thwarted ambition', and if we drilled down, that's what we might find. 



> http://www.shakespeare-online.com/sonnets/94.html
> Extract from Sonnet 94
> 
> ...But if that flower with base infection meet,
> ...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 April 2012)

Let us hope that Peter Slipper has the decency to give the nation a good laugh on his last day as Speaker in Parliament by giving us the " March of the Muppet ", as he parades in to Parliament to relinquish the Speakership to the Deputy Speaker.

For those who have missed the " Peter Parade ", here it is in all it's undisguised glory.



gg


----------



## MrBurns (29 April 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> For those who have missed the " Peter Parade ", here it is in all it's undisguised glory.
> gg




Wonder who the sad little servant is carrying the stick ?

The weekly bill for cleaning that floor could feed several hundred homeless people.


----------



## breaker (29 April 2012)

Why the big circle around the building


----------



## dutchie (30 April 2012)

Harry Jenkins must have the sh&ts with Julia.

He gave up this esteemed position and a family tradition for this farce!


----------



## Calliope (2 May 2012)

> UPDATE: The Australian Federal Police have begun a formal criminal investigation into allegations the federal parliament's Speaker, Peter Slipper, misused taxi dockets.




They expect the investigation to last at least three years.


----------



## Calliope (2 May 2012)

Now that their best customer has been scared off "Sydney's best gay sauna" is finding it hard to break even.



> It's been an icon of Sydney's gay community for more than 40 years, a safe place where even the powerful and famous could hide out in relative obscurity (or at least until they hit the footpath outside, as former police minister David Campbell learnt in 2010) but now Ken's at Kensington, Sydney's self-proclaimed "best gay sauna", is to close.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment...auna-closes-20120502-1xy2p.html#ixzz1thu7bdze


----------



## Calliope (5 May 2012)

What gives with Craig Emerson? He is like a yapping dog that has treed a goanna but can't do anything about it. Okay, Brough gave Ashby some advice. And that's part of a conspiracy? If exposing the antics of Slipper is a conspiracy then we should have more of them. Good men working  to expose nasty practices, that Gillard and Emerson are trying desperately to cover up, can't be a bad thing.



> Labor frontbencher Craig Emerson claims the meeting is further evidence the Coalition has been intimately involved in airing the allegations against Mr Slipper.
> 
> "It is inconceivable that a former senior minister in the Howard government would have told no one else about this when he himself has dramatically changed his story," he said.
> 
> "People are lying here. And this is what we've been saying - that there is a cover-up."




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-05/brough-denies-conspiracy-against-slipper/3993124


----------



## MrBurns (5 May 2012)

Calliope said:


> What gives with Craig Emerson? He is like a yapping dog that has treed a goanna but can't do anything about it. Okay, Brough gave Ashby some advice. And that's part of a conspiracy? If exposing the antics of Slipper is a conspiracy then we should have more of them. Good men working  to expose nasty practices, that Gillard and Emerson are trying desperately to cover up, can't be a bad thing.
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-05/brough-denies-conspiracy-against-slipper/3993124




My thoughts exactly.
Craig Emerson is on my short list of "those who need a good punch in the face"
He really annoys me.


----------



## Macquack (5 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Craig Emerson is on my short list of "those who need a good punch in the face"




Funny about that, you are also on my list of "those who need a good punch in the face".


----------



## MrBurns (5 May 2012)

Macquack said:


> Funny about that, you are also on my list of "those who need a good punch in the face".




As long as you don't mind a broken arm in the attempt go right ahead and try.


----------



## Macquack (5 May 2012)

Who is number one on your short list of "those who need a good punch in the face"? 

I suppose it is Julia Gilliard. Your such a tough guy Burns.


----------



## MrBurns (5 May 2012)

Macquack said:


> Who is number one on your short list of "those who need a good punch in the face"?
> 
> I suppose it is Julia Gilliard. Your such a tough guy Burns.




You're an angry old man aren't you, life not go as expected ?
Perhaps if you came out of the closet you'd feel better instead of trying to engage other men online


----------



## Macquack (5 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> You're an angry old man aren't you, life not go as expected ?
> Perhaps if you came out of the closet you'd feel better instead of trying to engage other men online




Your so clever Burns, always having the last say.

The only error in you post is you have just defined yourself.


----------



## MrBurns (5 May 2012)

Macquack said:


> Your so clever Burns, always having the last say.
> 
> The only error in you post is you have just defined yourself.




Ok Macquack you can argue with yourself from now on, this will go no where.
Over and out.


----------



## Julia (5 May 2012)

Imo it would have been better if Mal Brough, or any other Liberal for that matter, had had nothing to do with Ashby's allegations, let alone advised him what he should do.

Ashby himself seems to be a manipulative small player seeking to make himself feel important.  If he can prove his allegations, then I'll be the first to applaud the ousting of Slipper, but Ashby himself hardly comes across as an example of exemplary behaviour.


----------



## hja (5 May 2012)

He will still have an international job prospect once he goes!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=783GfqQpOPw


----------



## basilio (5 May 2012)

Mal Brough has been undermining Peter Slipper for 2 years to get pre selection for his seat.  I suppose while Peter was part of the Liberal party they couldn't really investigate him too closely because they would lose a precious vote..

But when he becomes effectively independent all bets would be off.  I wouldn't expect anything else of the Liberal party

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...lings-with-ashby-albanese-20120505-1y5ai.html


----------



## sails (5 May 2012)

basilio said:


> ...But when he becomes effectively independent all bets would be off.  I wouldn't expect anything else of the Liberal party...




haha - and I would expect nothing less of you let alone the carryings on in the labor party...

And don't forget that Gillard was very happy to put Slipper into the speakers chair even though his activities were well known to the public.


----------



## Julia (5 May 2012)

basilio said:


> But when he becomes effectively independent all bets would be off.  I wouldn't expect anything else of the Liberal party
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...lings-with-ashby-albanese-20120505-1y5ai.html



Are you suggesting the Labor Party would not equally relish the opportunity if the position of the parties were reversed?

In the end, it doesn't matter who had what meetings with whom.  The accusation of the sexual harassment stands and will be tested in court.

Ditto the investigation into the shonky cab charge vouchers will be hopefully be thorough and will not enjoy the delaying tactics displayed by e.g. the HSU investigation.

Or are you suggesting, basilio, that the Libs actually created the salacious text messages received by Mr Ashby, and that they similarly managed to manipulate Mr Slipper's signature on his blank taxi dockets and submit them to the cab charge company for payment?

Should we assume from your implied allegation that the Libs have somehow engineered this whole tawdry business that you believe it's all lies and unworthy of proper investigation?


----------



## drsmith (6 May 2012)

Watch this space.



> The Sunday Herald Sun can reveal a second staffer in Mr Slipper's office, press secretary Karen Doane, has gone on leave, a development conveyed by Harmers, the same legal firm representing Mr Ashby.
> 
> Harmers declined to comment on whether they were also representing Ms Doane.




http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mo...cuser-on-twitter/story-fn7x8me2-1226347626478


----------



## Julia (6 May 2012)

The above link seems unavailable to non-subscribers.  Could you give us the gist of what it's about?


----------



## Ruby (6 May 2012)

basilio said:


> Mal Brough has been undermining Peter Slipper for 2 years to get pre selection for his seat.  I suppose while Peter was part of the Liberal party they couldn't really investigate him too closely because they would lose a precious vote..
> 
> But when he becomes effectively independent all bets would be off.  I wouldn't expect anything else of the Liberal party
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...lings-with-ashby-albanese-20120505-1y5ai.html




Mal Brough doesn't need to "undermine" - if that is what you want to call it - Slippery Pete in order to get pre-selection for his seat.  No party will EVER again endorse Slippery, even if he manages to stay out of jail.  

Why all the fuss?   What did Mal Brough do that was wrong?   Ashby apparently approached him and asked for advice. Brough told him to get a lawyer.  All quite legit and above board.  Where is the conspiracy?   The increasingly desperate Labour Party is just trying to deflect blame from itself - as usual.


----------



## IFocus (6 May 2012)

The issue with Pyne and Brough is that they lied or implied an untruth of their actions not what they actually did typical Abbott form look forward to continued deceptive behavior once the coalition is in power.


----------



## sails (6 May 2012)

IFocus said:


> The issue with Pyne and Brough is that they lied or implied an untruth of their actions not what they actually did typical Abbott form look forward to continued deceptive behavior once the coalition is in power.




What if Ashby had gone to Pyne and Brough in confidence?  Would you expect to break any such confidence?  I think you are trying to brew a storm in a tea cup...




Julia said:


> The above link seems unavailable to non-subscribers.  Could you give us the gist of what it's about?




Julia, there is a small mention of it on page 14 of the Sunday Mail if you have it.

And a mention of it in this article:



> A second staffer in Mr Slipper's office, press secretary Karen Doane, has gone on leave, in news conveyed to the Speaker's office by Mr Ashby's legal firm Harmers. Harmers declined to comment on whether they were also representing Ms Doane.




http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...lipper-and-ashby/story-e6freuy9-1226347610375


----------



## Calliope (6 May 2012)

IFocus said:


> The issue with Pyne and Brough is that they lied or implied an untruth of their actions not what they actually did typical Abbott form look forward to continued deceptive behavior once the coalition is in power.




Yes. It would have been wiser to tell the questioners to *mind their own business.*


----------



## drsmith (6 May 2012)

Julia said:


> The above link seems unavailable to non-subscribers.  Could you give us the gist of what it's about?



There wasn't much more in the article about that specific issue than what I quoted. 

Through a Google search, the whole article vwas displayed, but clisk the link and it's indeed subscribers only.


----------



## StumpyPhantom (9 May 2012)

Oh, the sweet, delicious irony of it all:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...illard-in-corner/story-e6frgd0x-1226350265351

To think that this was Gillard's own legislation as Deputy PM, and just about the only thing she could look back on with pride (I'm sure she must be thinking legacy stuff by now).

If Slipper wasn't the speaker, then Ashby wouldn't have been an employee of the Commonwealth.


----------



## drsmith (15 May 2012)

The government doesn't want James Ashby to have his day in court, according to the following headline.

http://afr.com/p/national/govt_seeks_to_strike_out_ashby_claims_3H0oZNQvmUBCnz3F5ryqSP


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 May 2012)

drsmith said:


> The government doesn't want James Ashby to have his day in court, according to the following headline.
> 
> http://afr.com/p/national/govt_seeks_to_strike_out_ashby_claims_3H0oZNQvmUBCnz3F5ryqSP




Ashby needs to get on to his Union Rep.

He or she will sort it out.

Thank god for unions, eh, otherwise the workers would get rooted by emp...............

....... now where was I. this is like a bad dream.


Ashby needs to get on to his Union Rep.

He or she will sort it out.

Thank god for unions, eh, otherwise the workers would get rooted by emp...............

....... now where was I. this is like a bad dream.


Ashby needs to get on to his Union Rep.

He or she will sort it out.

Thank god for unions, eh, otherwise the workers would get rooted by emp...............

....... now where was I. this is like a bad dream.


Ashby needs to get on to his Union Rep.

He or she will sort it out.

Thank god for unions, eh, otherwise the workers would get rooted by emp...............

....... now where was I. this is like a bad dream.


gg


----------



## sails (15 May 2012)

drsmith said:


> The government doesn't want James Ashby to have his day in court, according to the following headline.
> 
> http://afr.com/p/national/govt_seeks_to_strike_out_ashby_claims_3H0oZNQvmUBCnz3F5ryqSP





Kangaroo Court of Australia has this to say on the judge chosen to hear the case (unless the government somehow circumvent it).  The writer of this article explains his claims:

Peter Slipper strikes it lucky and lands corrupt federal court judge Steven Rares to hear his sexual harassment case.


----------



## Julia (15 May 2012)

drsmith said:


> The government doesn't want James Ashby to have his day in court, according to the following headline.
> 
> http://afr.com/p/national/govt_seeks_to_strike_out_ashby_claims_3H0oZNQvmUBCnz3F5ryqSP



Another article which is unavailable to non-subscribers.
Of course the government doesn't want Mr Ashby to have anything to say at all, but I'd be interested to know how they're going to stop the process.



sails said:


> Kangaroo Court of Australia has this to say on the judge chosen to hear the case (unless the government somehow circumvent it).  The writer of this article explains his claims:
> 
> Peter Slipper strikes it lucky and lands corrupt federal court judge Steven Rares to hear his sexual harassment case.



Good heavens, that seems to make the writer open to a charge of libel.
I've never heard of the "Kangaroo Court" and  suppose no one knows who is behind it,  so he/she can say whatever they like.
What courage, huh!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 May 2012)

Mr. Ashby appears to me as an innocent cast way out of his league.

I do hope that the political machines do not conspire against him and destroy him.

gg


----------



## IFocus (18 May 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Mr. Ashby appears to me as an innocent cast way out of his league.
> 
> I do hope that the political machines do not conspire against him and destroy him.
> 
> gg






> Ashby's motives over Slipper allegations dubious, say lawyers







This has Abbott's and the Liberal party finger prints all over it Barnaby is only to well aware.

As for your innocent claim note Barnaby's comments.......



> He said Mr Ashby ''seems only slightly less dodgy than Slipper''.







> In an interview with the Herald, Senator Joyce cast doubt on Mr Ashby's bona fides after it emerged he met three times with Mr Slipper's sworn political enemy, the former Howard government minister Mal Brough.
> 
> Senator Joyce said if Mr Brough was ''going to play marriage guidance counsellor'', he should have heard both sides of the story before advising Mr Ashby on what action to take.
> 
> He said Mr Ashby ''seems only slightly less dodgy than Slipper''.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...say-lawyers-20120517-1ytnw.html#ixzz1vAkVFpGf


----------



## rumpole (18 May 2012)

It's hard to see that Joyce had an ulterior motive. Perhaps he was just telling it as he saw it.


----------



## Julia (18 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> It's hard to see that Joyce had an ulterior motive. Perhaps he was just telling it as he saw it.



Agree.  Such is typical of him.


----------



## Knobby22 (18 May 2012)

So Pyne lied and evidence shows much collaboration with Slipper"s accuser.

All I can say can be summed up in the following quote from Douglas Adams:

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.


----------



## joea (18 May 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Mr. Ashby appears to me as an innocent cast way out of his league.
> 
> I do hope that the political machines do not conspire against him and destroy him.
> 
> gg



 Well it will probably grind up Jackson, so I cannot see Ashby missing out.
The more sincere you appear to be, the more they dial up "damage mode"!
Just leaves us to wonder how many arms and fingers are competing to turn the knob!!!
joea


----------



## Julia (18 May 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> So Pyne lied and evidence shows much collaboration with Slipper"s accuser.



Do you mean with regard to having sent him an email?  Or have I missed something vitally more important?

I'm not at all defending any politician who is not truthful, but isn't it just a fairly unimportant side issue if he did email Ashby for his Parliament House email address?
Isn't the actual issue still whether or not sexual harassment occurred and if the text messages can demonstrate this?


----------



## Knobby22 (18 May 2012)

Julia said:


> Do you mean with regard to having sent him an email?  Or have I missed something vitally more important?
> 
> I'm not at all defending any politician who is not truthful, but isn't it just a fairly unimportant side issue if he did email Ashby for his Parliament House email address?
> Isn't the actual issue still whether or not sexual harassment occurred and if the text messages can demonstrate this?




He also said his contact with him had been brief and then it was revealed that they drank for two hours together, alone. 

So he has lied twice, what else don't we know?

It smells. That's the problem.  Ashby is also a serial trouble maker, hardly the "innocent" victim he potrays.

"Regardless of legal threats and what seems to be a continuation of Ashby’s life of dramatic escalation, confrontation, litigation and media manipulation, we’ll chase this story to the end, alleged human rights abuses notwithstanding."

http://www.vexnews.com/2012/05/life...illionaire-mate-for-pleasure-palace-partying/


----------



## rumpole (18 May 2012)

sails said:


> Kangaroo Court of Australia has this to say on the judge chosen to hear the case (unless the government somehow circumvent it).  The writer of this article explains his claims:
> 
> Peter Slipper strikes it lucky and lands corrupt federal court judge Steven Rares to hear his sexual harassment case.




Who wrote that article ?

Calling a Federal Court judge corrupt is not a matter to be taken lightly. I couldn't find the writers name anywhere. It seems pretty gutless hiding behind a web site. 

Have the judges decisions in any cases been overturned ?


----------



## joea (18 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> Who wrote that article ?
> 
> Calling a Federal Court judge corrupt is not a matter to be taken lightly. I couldn't find the writers name anywhere. It seems pretty gutless hiding behind a web site.
> 
> Have the judges decisions in any cases been overturned ?




They guy has written a book and his name is associated with it.

http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com...ven-rares-to-hear-his-sexual-harassment-case/

joea


----------



## StumpyPhantom (18 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> Who wrote that article ?
> 
> Calling a Federal Court judge corrupt is not a matter to be taken lightly. I couldn't find the writers name anywhere. It seems pretty gutless hiding behind a web site.
> 
> Have the judges decisions in any cases been overturned ?




The judge has been overturned (on at least 1 occasion I know) by the High Court, but that doesn't prove anything.

"Corrupt" is a pretty serious allegation and does not equate to "legally wrong".  There's been no overturning because of bias or something similar.


----------



## Julia (18 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> Who wrote that article ?
> 
> Calling a Federal Court judge corrupt is not a matter to be taken lightly. I couldn't find the writers name anywhere. It seems pretty gutless hiding behind a web site.



Agree.  I made the same observation a couple of days ago.
Imo if people are going to make significant allegations they should be prepared to attach their names to those allegations.


----------



## sails (18 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> Who wrote that article ?
> 
> Calling a Federal Court judge corrupt is not a matter to be taken lightly. I couldn't find the writers name anywhere. It seems pretty gutless hiding behind a web site.
> 
> Have the judges decisions in any cases been overturned ?




Rumpole, if you click on the "about" link on that webpage, it gives Shane Dowling's name.  I guess he is entitled to his opinions and has given his reasons as far as I can tell.

Not hard to find the author's name at all...lol

Here is the link: http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/about/
To find out more about the author, just scroll down the same page for comments.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (18 May 2012)

This may be Slippery's chance for an "out" from Parliament on a Speaker's Pension.

It looks as if Ashby's claims will hit some head winds and Slippery's lawyer has indicated that Slippery is now unwell with all the stress of the accusations. 

Perhaps he will move on to full-time godbothering and touring the world as an ex-Speaker.

I myself should have taken up godbothering. It seems such an easy way to get about.

gg


----------



## rumpole (19 May 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I myself should have taken up godbothering. It seems such an easy way to get about.
> 
> gg




Sure, just form a new religion and pay no tax.

The Mammon Church perhaps


----------



## joea (19 May 2012)

Well who represents who has been sorted, so that is a start.

http://www.afr.com/p/national/friend_at_court_Knzbb0MhIhJyr0eXbO4lTK

I just wonder if it will turn out to be a "slow boat to China."
joea


----------



## Glen48 (19 May 2012)

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=QarofaycN3c&vq=medium
This might help you to decide GG.

Prisoner 1  What are you in for
SP Arson
P1 Lit a fire
SP No Lit a boys.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 June 2012)

Evidence today would vindicate my support for Slippery.

From the SMH, a left wing rag, not known to conflate the truth.



> James Ashby, who worked as a media adviser to the Speaker of the Federal Parliament, Peter Slipper, worked to undermine his boss by giving information to a tabloid journalist and to his political rivals, a court has heard.
> David Chin, the barrister for Mr Slipper, told the Federal Court today that Mr Ashby's lawsuit for sexual harassment has been designed to cause "political and reputational damage" to the Speaker and for the "political advantage of his political opponents in the Liberal-National party", including former Howard cabinet minister Mal Brough.
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...ivals-court-20120615-20e55.html#ixzz1xq3BBSAK




Should Slippery slip out of these charges it will be a travesty, that a fine upstanding God fearing priest such as he was pursued thus.

How could any of us consider a parliamentary seat if a priest, contributor to the taxi economy and fine dresser when robed, is treated thus.

gg


----------



## Glen48 (15 June 2012)

Totally agree another blight on Australia s history right up there in the anals with the shooting of Mr.N Kelly and the sacking of Gough.
We need to pull together and come to some arrangement.  
Wonder why my shares in KY gel wentup.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 June 2012)

Thanks Glen

Nicola Roxon, a member of the frontbench of the ALP/Green Federal goernment, I believe she is the Attorney General on the ship of fools, has today quite rightly made an application to return Slippery to his former glory as chief of Silly Walks and Speaker.

From the Australian.



> THE commonwealth will allege former Howard government minister Mal Brough was involved in formulating a sexual harassment complaint against Speaker Peter Slipper for political gain.
> 
> Attorney-General Nicola Roxon today said the commonwealth had filed an abuse of process application urging the Federal Court to throw out the case brought against Mr Slipper by his former staffer James Ashby.




It is now incumbent upon Archbishop John Hepworth, head of the Traditional Anglican Communion, with millions of worshippers, somewhere, to welcome Slippery back as a priest able to perform all the sacraments of the Traditional Anglican Communion, and to be Chancellor of the Traditional Anglican Communion.

Enough is enough.

A priest who put himself up for parliament for selfless service, who travelled widely and supported the taxi industry needs to be rehabilitated.

Give Slippery a fair go.

Julia Roxon has.

gg


----------



## Calliope (16 June 2012)

The government, supported by the ABC is busy gathering all the dirt it can on Ashby and anyone he has ever sent an email to.

In my opinion anyone who has  assisted in trying to rid my electorate of the viral Slipper should be applauded. It is only natural that the Labor heavies , like Roxon and Albanese wiil stoop to to any level to protect this grub they have adopted.

Meantime back here in the electorate this man is despised and hated. We are without representation as Slipper represents no one but himself and his Labor masters. 

Yeah, yeah, I know - we elected him. As preferable to the Labour alternative. We knew the man has few
scruples, but to become a rat who could be bought out, puts him beyond the pale.

I imagine the Labor voters in Dobell have similar misgivings about Thomson.

Labor will will leave no stone unturned and no mud unraked to protect the votes of these two grubs, so in essence it is a corrupt government.


----------



## noco (16 June 2012)

Calliope said:


> The government, supported by the ABC is busy gathering all the dirt it can on Ashby and anyone he has ever sent an email to.
> 
> In my opinion anyone who has  assisted in trying to rid my electorate of the viral Slipper should be applauded. It is only natural that the Labor heavies , like Roxon and Albanese wiil stoop to to any level to protect this grub they have adopted.
> 
> ...




So in the Thomson case it was always innocent until proven guilty and the Labor cronies kept harping about the coalition wanting to be judge and jury and let the court handle it all in the course of justice..
What a mob of hypocrites when the boot is on the other foot.  Now who wants to be judge and jury on Ashby?.

http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...ments/roxon_slipper_a_victim_of_a_conspiracy/


----------



## explod (16 June 2012)

noco said:


> Now who wants to be judge and jury on Ashby?.




Some explanation there noco?


----------



## MrBurns (16 June 2012)

noco said:


> So in the Thomson case it was always innocent until proven guilty and the Labor cronies kept harping about the coalition wanting to be judge and jury and let the court handle it all in the course of justice..
> What a mob of hypocrites when the boot is on the other foot.  Now who wants to be judge and jury on Ashby?.




Ashby's only guilty of something if he lied, talking to others and taking advice means nothing, why shouldn't he, it doesn't even matter if he spoke up to help the Libs what does matter is if he lied and if Slipper is guilty of sexual harassment.


----------



## explod (16 June 2012)

Yes, all the proofs have to be established beyond doubt before the hammer can fall.

Noco, you are I think, unfounded.  Ever thought of going to Law School.


----------



## Calliope (16 June 2012)

explod said:


> Yes, all the proofs have to be established beyond doubt before the hammer can fall.
> 
> Noco, you are I think, unfounded.  Ever thought of going to Law School.




Don't lose any sleep over it Plod. Labor kangaroo courts will exonerate both of these grubs -  Slipper and Thomson. They are their lifeline. Ashby will be the villain.


----------



## explod (16 June 2012)

> kangaroo courts will exonerate both of these grubs




Kangaroo courts are the press and public opinion.  If there is a real case to answer they will be dealt with.

We do live in a reasonable place where some justice still prevails.  

Though Howard's mob covering up of the video taping of handlers at Sydney Airport placing the grass in Corbie s luggage I find a problem within me.


----------



## noco (16 June 2012)

explod said:


> Yes, all the proofs have to be established beyond doubt before the hammer can fall.
> 
> Noco, you are I think, unfounded.  Ever thought of going to Law School.




So tell your Labor cronies to butt out and leave to the courts.


----------



## explod (16 June 2012)

noco said:


> So tell your Labor cronies to butt out and leave to the courts.




Greens have no labour cronies.

Abbot has suddenly gone very quiet, dangerous ground in meddling with what is a job for the Courts.

You should go and have a talk to a tree, could *noco* some light.


----------



## Calliope (16 June 2012)

explod said:


> Greens have no labour cronies.




Rubbish! Your labour (sic) mates Slippery and Thomson are propping up a corrupt government, with the total support of Greens like you. You can't avoid the guilt and shame, unless you have a very thick skin.


----------



## nulla nulla (16 June 2012)

noco said:


> So tell your Labor cronies to butt out and leave to the courts.




After what Tony Abbott did to Pauline Hanson?  Take off the blinkers.


----------



## drsmith (6 July 2012)

Labor's counter offensive appears to have suffered a setback.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-claims-backfire/story-fndckad0-1226418811018


----------



## sails (6 July 2012)

drsmith said:


> Labor's counter offensive appears to have suffered a setback.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-claims-backfire/story-fndckad0-1226418811018




That depends on the media - same judge, same court case:

From the Australian: Ashby conspiracy claims backfire 

From the Age: Ashby faces prospect of criminal charges, court hears


----------



## IFocus (6 July 2012)

sails said:


> That depends on the media - same judge, same court case:
> 
> From the Australian: Ashby conspiracy claims backfire
> 
> From the Age: Ashby faces prospect of criminal charges, court hears




One way or another Ashby is canon-fodder for the Liberal cause.


----------



## joea (6 July 2012)

Calliope said:


> Don't lose any sleep over it Plod. Labor kangaroo courts will exonerate both of these grubs -  Slipper and Thomson. They are their lifeline. Ashby will be the villain.




I am just wondering if the courts are looking at the horizon with the next election, and may rule to
suit future politics!!

Very interesting to note, that they are probably picking the "fall guy" down south as we type.!!
joea


----------



## drsmith (6 July 2012)

sails said:


> That depends on the media - same judge, same court case:
> 
> From the Australian: Ashby conspiracy claims backfire
> 
> From the Age: Ashby faces prospect of criminal charges, court hears



Very different headlines, but The Australian offers a more detailed account of Justice Rares comments.


----------



## sails (6 July 2012)

IFocus said:


> One way or another Ashby is canon-fodder for the Liberal cause.





lol - you hope.

I think you underestimate the electorate in their desperateness to be rid of Gillard and labor.  In any case, Ashby is not likely to come anywhere near Thompson's 1200 page FWA report with allegedly nearly half a million taken for his own use and  some of that use was allegedly for prostitutes.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...


----------



## Julia (6 July 2012)

drsmith said:


> Very different headlines, but The Australian offers a more detailed account of Justice Rares comments.



ABC Radio's "PM" this evening provided an account pretty exactly mirroring that of "The Australian".
The gist was that the government had egg all over its face for politicising the matter.


----------



## IFocus (6 July 2012)

sails said:


> lol - you hope.
> 
> I think you underestimate the electorate in their desperateness to be rid of Gillard and labor.  In any case, Ashby is not likely to come anywhere near Thompson's 1200 page FWA report with allegedly nearly half a million taken for his own use and  some of that use was allegedly for prostitutes.
> 
> People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...




Nothing to do with the electorate or any other case including Thompson and every thing to do with if the Federal Police press charges like I said grist for the cause if it proceeds hope he is a true believer.


----------



## sails (7 July 2012)

Julia said:


> ABC Radio's "PM" this evening provided an account pretty exactly mirroring that of "The Australian".
> The gist was that the government had egg all over its face for politicising the matter.





Andrew Bolt agrees:  Labor’s threats helps Ashby’s case

Hmmm... has Fairfax put some spin into their reporting?...


----------



## joea (11 July 2012)

UPDATE

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/400000-bill-over-slipper-20120710-21twl.html

joea


----------



## noco (19 July 2012)

joea said:


> UPDATE
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/400000-bill-over-slipper-20120710-21twl.html
> 
> joea




Here is a further update. Slipper may yet face criminal charges by AFP.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...criminal-charges/story-e6freon6-1226430252613


----------



## drsmith (19 July 2012)

Does the AFP forward material to the CDPP as a matter of course for any investigation or only when someone has done something bad ?


----------



## noco (19 July 2012)

drsmith said:


> Does the AFP forward material to the CDPP as a matter of course for any investigation or only when someone has done something bad ?




Doc, you can bet your boots Gillard will have some influence through her close contacts in both the AFP and CDPP.

If she can have it thrown out she will. If action does place it will be the end of her for a by-election will have to be implimented in Slipper's seat


----------



## sptrawler (19 July 2012)

I am just waiting to see how this is Tony's fault.


----------



## drsmith (20 July 2012)

IIRC, Labor was a little cool on restoring Peter Slipper to the speakership even if he was cleared of the sexual harassment charges.

That would suggest something that at least makes it politically untenable.


----------



## Calliope (20 July 2012)

drsmith said:


> IIRC, Labor was a little cool on restoring Peter Slipper to the speakership even if he was cleared of the sexual harassment charges.
> 
> That would suggest something that at least makes it politically untenable.




The Speaker should be able to command respect in the House. It would be a mistake to place a known deviant in the job, no matter what he is cleared of.


----------



## joea (23 July 2012)

I put this in slippery's thread.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...mayoral-election/story-e6freon6-1226433008575

joea


----------



## drsmith (23 July 2012)

Madam deputy speaker will be keeping the chair warm for some time.



> But the proceedings came to an abrupt halt when lawyers for Mr Ashby moved to involve Australia's state and federal attorneys-general in the case.
> 
> They argued their client had an implied right under the constitution to expose the alleged wrongdoing of his boss.
> 
> ...




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-23/slipper-case-on-hold-as-staffer-denies-conspiracy/4147956


----------



## Calliope (2 August 2012)

All you need to know about the grubbiness of Slipper, Ashby and the ABC.

http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2012/07/30/ashby-facing-teen-sex-claims-abc/


----------



## Glen48 (2 August 2012)

Never leave his mates behind you can count on slippery..


----------



## drsmith (28 September 2012)

Tony Abbott's made some blues with his politicisations, but when it comes to shooting one's self in the foot, Labor always seems to be able to do better.



> “In the statement today by the Commonwealth Attorney-General, Ms Nicola Roxon, she has repeated the allegations against Mr Ashby that his claim is vexatious (and thus an abuse of process), despite the fact the commonwealth has agreed to withdraw its application alleging abuse of process.




This, after the government settled for $50k.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...and-commonwealth/story-fn59niix-1226483349747


----------



## Miss Hale (28 September 2012)

Another back flip, let's see what they make of this on Insiders


----------



## drsmith (28 September 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> Another back flip, let's see what they make of this on Insiders



T, T, T, Tanne, 

Abbott, 

F, F, F, Furge, 

Abbott, 

C, C, C, Con, 

Abbott, 

B, B, B, Boat, 

Abbott, 

B, B, B, Budge, 

Abbott, 

S, S, S, Slippe,

Abbott.

With normal transmissions having resumed from Gillard Labor, it will be back to being a wake and that's still with Craig Thomson's head currently below the sand.


----------



## Miss Hale (28 September 2012)

According to ABC TV news the settlement was made "to avoid a costly trial".  If the case was vexatious as Roxon said, why would the government have to pay any costs?


----------



## drsmith (28 September 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> According to ABC TV news the settlement was made "to avoid a costly trial".



Perhaps Labor's turning a new leaf on principal and financial management.


----------



## dutchie (28 September 2012)

Ashby is going to have a go at Roxon.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...and-commonwealth/story-fn59niix-1226483349747

Obviously he has a problem with women!


----------



## Julia (28 September 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> According to ABC TV news the settlement was made "to avoid a costly trial".  If the case was vexatious as Roxon said, why would the government have to pay any costs?



Exactly.  And when  has the expense involved in anything been even the slightest deterrent to Labor!
Never.
Although the sum is paltry, the principle is significant in this case.


----------



## nulla nulla (29 September 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> According to ABC TV news the settlement was made "to avoid a costly trial".  If the case was vexatious as Roxon said, why would the government have to pay any costs?






Julia said:


> Exactly.  And when  has the expense involved in anything been even the slightest deterrent to Labor!
> Never.
> Although the sum is paltry, the principle is significant in this case.




"Without prejudice"

With the onus being on the defendants (Federal Government) to prove the alleged "victom" was not a victom and the alleged perpertrator (Slippery) being what you might call an unreliable witness, it is a case that the Government would never win. Better to cut your losses and pee it off.


----------



## Happy (29 September 2012)

Yea, and it only took $700,000 in legal costs plus suppose undisclosed amount of 'keep your mouth shut' or should I call it settlement money, that will have a clause of confidentiality to be politically correct.

By the way we paid for it anyway, so suppose Government should be thanked for not wasting too much money.
Still not happy.


----------



## drsmith (29 September 2012)

Labor would have spent every last cent of taxpayer money and a lot if they thought the government's position was defendable.


----------



## Julia (29 September 2012)

drsmith said:


> Labor would have spent every last cent of taxpayer money and a lot if they thought the government's position was defendable.



+1.


----------



## drsmith (2 October 2012)

Peter Slipper no-show for Ashby court hearing.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/slipper-fails-to-appear-in-court-in-ashby-hearing-20121002-26wco.html

Inconvenient he says.


----------



## Calliope (3 October 2012)

The scenario for their meeting behind "closed doors";

They will both burst into tears and then they will hug and kiss and make up. It has been very costly lovers' tiff.



> SPEAKER of the house Peter Slipper will today face the former staffer who accused him of sexual harassment after a Federal Court judge ordered the two into mediation.
> 
> In theory the political and legal saga could be resolved in mediation in Sydney today, but The Australian understands James Ashby has no intention of settling the dispute with his former boss and friend.





http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-to-face-accuser/story-fn59niix-1226486897530


----------



## drsmith (3 October 2012)

Poor Pete. He's reduced to slipping through the back entry like the cockroach that he is.



> Speaker Peter Slipper avoided the media by arriving at the Federal Court building without court permission in a ComCar for mediation to resolve the sexual harassment case brought by his former staffer James Ashby.
> 
> The taxpayer funded government cars are given access to the building's private secure car park. By entering through the car park, Mr Slipper could use an internal lift to the mediation rooms, which are in a restricted part of the building alongside the offices of the Commonwealth Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General.
> 
> Mr Ashby, who was dressed in a grey suit, walked in accompanied by his barrister, Michael Lee, SC, public relations adviser Anthony McClellan and solicitor Michael Harmer.




http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...ediation-through-car-park-20121003-26yc7.html

James thuogh was not afraid to use the front entry.


----------



## Miss Hale (3 October 2012)

Peter Slipper, another one with delusions of granduer


----------



## drsmith (3 October 2012)

Mediation over and poor Pete's left looking for a way to slip out.



> Mr Slipper had not emerged to waiting media as of 7.30pm (AEDT) on Wednesday.
> 
> He came under fire earlier in the day after entering the court in a government car through the private car park, avoiding the media.
> 
> ...




James Ashby didn't look like he was in a compromising mood, and he wasn't.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...meet-former-boss/story-fn3dxiwe-1226487115860


----------



## Julia (3 October 2012)

drsmith said:


> Mediation over and poor Pete's left looking for a way to slip out.



Hope this is not provided for him, especially given his discourtesy to the court.  He can certainly afford to pay for legal representation even if he declined to appear personally.



> James Ashby didn't look like he was in a compromising mood, and he wasn't.



Hope he maintains such a stance.  The resumption of the case tomorrow will be interesting.


----------



## drsmith (4 October 2012)

Julia said:


> Hope this is not provided for him, especially given his discourtesy to the court.  He can certainly afford to pay for legal representation even if he declined to appear personally.
> 
> 
> Hope he maintains such a stance.  The resumption of the case tomorrow will be interesting.



It wasn't and he came out looking looking the worse for wear.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1698513/Slipper-is-PMs-problem-says-Abbott


----------



## drsmith (4 October 2012)

> PETER Slipper has alleged that James Ashby conspired with the Liberal National Party and a journalist to "destabilise the government".



This, from a man who betrayed his own party and his electorate for a few extra dollars. 

Was the extra pay worth it Mr Slipper ?

http://www.news.com.au/news/peter-s...ation-talks-fail/story-fnehlez2-1226488394592


----------



## Calliope (5 October 2012)

A blubbering Slipper apologises to the Court.



> PETER Slipper struggled to contain his emotions today as he told the Federal Court of the impact of sexual harassment allegations against him.
> 
> Maintaining the allegations brought by his former staffer James Ashby were an abuse of process, Mr Slipper also said the suit was “an attempt to destroy my marriage . I love my wife your honour”.
> 
> ...







	

		
			
		

		
	
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/emotional-peter-slipper-distraught-over-sex-case/story-e6frg6nf-1226489132611


----------



## Julia (5 October 2012)

Great cartoon.  Says it all about Slipper really.  A cane toad would have more genuine emotion.


----------



## drsmith (5 October 2012)

Julia said:


> Great cartoon.  Says it all about Slipper really.  A cane toad would have more genuine emotion.



That comment warrents an apology,

to cane toads.


----------



## drsmith (6 October 2012)

More texts, more twists and turns.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...-slipper-harassment-claim-20121006-2761u.html


----------



## Calliope (8 October 2012)

Roxon is a nasty piece of work.


----------



## drsmith (8 October 2012)

This just gets more entertaining by the minute.

Earl Slipper of Queensland ??

http://www.news.com.au/national/jam...st-peter-slipper/story-fncynjr2-1226490889008

He got to kiss the PM.


----------



## sptrawler (8 October 2012)

Calliope said:


> Roxon is a nasty piece of work.
> 
> View attachment 49257




+1 on that, from personal experience.


----------



## drsmith (8 October 2012)

sptrawler said:


> +1 on that, from personal experience.



You're competing with Peter Slipper here.

That must have been some "personal experience".


----------



## Julia (8 October 2012)

drsmith said:


> This just gets more entertaining by the minute.
> 
> Earl Slipper of Queensland ??
> 
> ...



So the content of the text messages is being dripped out, bit by bit.
I don't think most people could care less about the sexual stuff, but Slipper's comment about enjoying disciplining Sophie Mirabella goes to much more important considerations for when he was Speaker.

All up, it's hardly appropriate that the electorate should be entertained or titillated by the tawdry and salacious behaviour of the person in the parliament's most respected position.

Pretty disgusting all round.


----------



## drsmith (8 October 2012)

Julia said:


> Pretty disgusting all round.



It is, but entertaining too.

There'll be a telemovie for sure.


----------



## banco (8 October 2012)

Anyway you play it Ashby is dumb as you can get.  

Scenario 1: It wasn't a put up job to ingratiate himself with the LNP.  At most he gets a 5 figure settlement and is basically unemployable.  

Scenario 2: It was a put up job to ingratiate himself with the LNP.  In this scenario he's delusional enough to think he's going to get a standing ovation at the LNP AGM and a plum position working as a ministerial staffer when the coalition wins in 2013.  In the end at most he gets a 5 figure settlement and is basically unemployable.


----------



## Calliope (9 October 2012)

Julia said:


> So the content of the text messages is being dripped out, bit by bit.
> I don't think most people could care less about the sexual stuff, but Slipper's comment about enjoying disciplining Sophie Mirabella goes to much more important considerations for when he was Speaker.
> 
> All up, it's hardly appropriate that the electorate should be entertained or titillated by the tawdry and salacious behaviour of the person in the parliament's most respected position.
> ...




Just in case anyone had any doubts about the decadence of this Government and its toady independent supporters, then this has been resolved by their support of the odious Slipper to continue as Speaker. How could anyone in parliament respect him.:dunno: I would give him a scumbag rating lower than Alan Jones.


----------



## Miss Hale (9 October 2012)

drsmith said:


> It is, but entertaining too.
> 
> There'll be a telemovie for sure.




The word I would use to describe those text messages is puerile.  Do we have a man as our Speaker or a schoolboy?  Not suitable for the job IMO.


----------



## Miss Hale (9 October 2012)

Breaking news - Slipper resigns as Speaker


----------



## Calliope (9 October 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> Breaking news - Slipper resigns as Speaker




A win for Abbott. Slipper admits that he is unfit to occupy the role of Speaker.



> AFTER a day of high drama, an emotional Peter Slipper this evening resigned as Speaker.
> 
> Mr Slipper went into Parliament just after 7pm this evening and reported with "great sadness" he should not continue as Speaker. This came after earlier surviving a vote to remove him as Speaker by one vote.
> 
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ipper-as-speaker/story-fn59niix-1226492214007


----------



## MrBurns (9 October 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> Breaking news - Slipper resigns as Speaker




Now resign from Parliament please Mr Slipper..........


----------



## Aussiejeff (9 October 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> Breaking news - Slipper resigns as Speaker




Hahahahaha..........!!!!

Poor lil' Petey.....   ... my heart doth bleed... 

More champagne!!!


----------



## MrBurns (9 October 2012)

Slap in the face for Gillard......gee it feels good


----------



## dutchie (9 October 2012)

Slipper at least showed more respect for Parliament than 70 other members did.


----------



## sptrawler (9 October 2012)

Slipper was allways going to end badly, going on his past form.
Now we wait and watch, to see who is the next Labor sacrifice for the greater cause" the pension"


----------



## Miss Hale (9 October 2012)

I have some respect for Slipper for the fact that he resigned.  Even though I have been critical of him and his actions I do feel a little bit sorry for him, I think he might have some real personal issues he needs to deal with.


----------



## Ruby (9 October 2012)

Why *didn't *he resign from parliament?  He would have gone with a higher pension than he will by going to the back benches and waiting it out until he is removed at the next election.

It's my bet that he was dragged into Gillard's office, put on the metaphorical rack and told "This is what you will do:  you will resign - sadly - but stay on the back bench because we need your vote, and in return we'll support you and deflect the flack"   I don't believe for one moment it wasn't orchestrated.   Look at Craig Thompson.........  the govt is just shoring up the massive holes in the wall and hoping it can hold itself together until the next election.

I have no respect for Slipper at all.  He is the worst kind of grub.


----------



## Calliope (9 October 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> I have some respect for Slipper for the fact that he resigned.  Even though I have been critical of him and his actions I do feel a little bit sorry for him, I think he might have some real personal issues he needs to deal with.




Yes...explaining his vulgarity to his wife when he gets home, for starters, especially his female genitalia remarks. 



> FRIENDS of Speaker Peter Slipper say the scandal embroiling him could drive his devoted wife Inge to the edge.
> 
> The devoted couple were renowned for their public displays of affection often sharing public kisses and loving comments.
> 
> ...


----------



## Miss Hale (9 October 2012)

I feel sorry for his wife too, and not the least bit surprised this whole saga has taken its toll on her.


----------



## drsmith (9 October 2012)

The former Deputy, Anna Bourke has been elected as Speaker.


----------



## sptrawler (9 October 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> I have some respect for Slipper for the fact that he resigned.  Even though I have been critical of him and his actions I do feel a little bit sorry for him, I think he might have some real personal issues he needs to deal with.




As does a lot of the labor party, why doesn't Thomson follow suit?
Sorry Miss Hale, but save your pity and sympathy for people that deserve it. Slipper goes away with your tax funded pension, tax free and indexed for the rest of his life.
You may feel sorry and him sucking on a bag of onions pre speech, may nominate him for a logie, but spare the pity.


----------



## Miss Hale (9 October 2012)

sptrawler said:


> As does a lot of the labor party, why doesn't Thomson follow suit?
> Sorry Miss Hale, but save your pity and sympathy for people that deserve it. Slipper goes away with your tax funded pension, tax free and indexed for the rest of his life.
> You may feel sorry and him sucking on a bag of onions pre speech, may nominate him for a logie, but spare the pity.




I think I just have an attack of the guilts because I posted a mean comment about him then the next minute he resigned


----------



## drsmith (9 October 2012)

I feel about as sorry for Peter Slipper has he does for the constituents he allegedly represents.


----------



## sptrawler (9 October 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> I think I just have an attack of the guilts because I posted a mean comment about him then the next minute he resigned




Don't give it a second thought, Gillard won't. 

Also Swan will be happy, it keeps the focus off the fff witt.


----------



## MrBurns (9 October 2012)

Slipper said in his speech that Abbott is a person of *fine character *but that Gillard has *amazing stamina* - I think that says a lot.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-09/peter-slipper-resigns-as-speaker/4303966


----------



## banco (9 October 2012)

Ruby said:


> Why *didn't *he resign from parliament?  He would have gone with a higher pension than he will by going to the back benches and waiting it out until he is removed at the next election.
> 
> It's my bet that he was dragged into Gillard's office, put on the metaphorical rack and told "This is what you will do:  you will resign - sadly - but stay on the back bench because we need your vote, and in return we'll support you and deflect the flack"   I don't believe for one moment it wasn't orchestrated.   Look at Craig Thompson.........  the govt is just shoring up the massive holes in the wall and hoping it can hold itself together until the next election.
> 
> I have no respect for Slipper at all.  He is the worst kind of grub.




Your scenario makes no sense what leverage does Gillard have over him?


----------



## MrBurns (9 October 2012)

Tanya Plebisec looks like an idiot on Lateline

Trying to explain why 70 of these crooks voted to keep Slipper in the chair but they disagreed with his language.

Emma Alberichi was excellent


----------



## Julia (9 October 2012)

dutchie said:


> Slipper at least showed more respect for Parliament than 70 other members did.



Agree.  I find it just incredible that - after all the attacks on others about misogyny - the government could have even considered voting to retain such a total grub as Speaker.  It says as much about them as it does about Slippery himself.



Miss Hale said:


> I have some respect for Slipper for the fact that he resigned.  Even though I have been critical of him and his actions I do feel a little bit sorry for him, I think he might have some real personal issues he needs to deal with.



Well, get over it, Miss Hale.  He has been skating on thin ice, abusing the privileges of his position for years.
About damn time he began paying the price.
Reasonable, though, to feel immensely sorry for his wife and family who must be so humiliated by his behaviour.



Ruby said:


> Why *didn't *he resign from parliament?  He would have gone with a higher pension than he will by going to the back benches and waiting it out until he is removed at the next election.
> 
> It's my bet that he was dragged into Gillard's office, put on the metaphorical rack and told "This is what you will do:  you will resign - sadly - but stay on the back bench because we need your vote, and in return we'll support you and deflect the flack"   I don't believe for one moment it wasn't orchestrated.   Look at Craig Thompson.........  the govt is just shoring up the massive holes in the wall and hoping it can hold itself together until the next election.
> 
> I have no respect for Slipper at all.  He is the worst kind of grub.



Agree that he would absolutely have been told what to do.


----------



## dutchie (9 October 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Tanya Plebisec looks like an idiot on Lateline
> 
> Trying to explain why 70 of these crooks voted to keep Slipper in the chair but they disagreed with his language.
> 
> Emma Alberichi was excellent




Emma exposed the hypocrisy of this government.


----------



## Miss Hale (9 October 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Tanya Plebisec looks like an idiot on Lateline
> 
> Trying to explain why 70 of these crooks voted to keep Slipper in the chair but they disagreed with his language.
> 
> Emma Alberichi was excellent




Didn't she just, defending the indefensible.


----------



## Tink (10 October 2012)

Agree, Ruby, why do they stay there - I think he was spoken to as well.
Gillard has a nerve pointing fingers, to think we pay for these people.
With her big speech, talks alot but says nothing.
Still waiting for Thomson.

They are only in tears because they are found out.
I feel sorry for their families.


----------



## Calliope (10 October 2012)

One saving grace...he never mentioned "dying of shame" in his texting.


----------



## dutchie (10 October 2012)

dutchie said:


> Emma exposed the hypocrisy of this government.






These are some of the questions Emma asked Plibersek:

 Now that Peter Slipper has resigned do you think it was wrong for the Prime Minister to defend him so vociferously in the House today?

Do you think members of public would have been happy to see this man remain a Speaker, second to the Prime Minister, the highest office in the House of Representatives?

Do you regret Julia Gillard’s decision to install Peter Slipper in the Speaker’s chair in the first place for what were purely political purposes?

How can the electorate now ever respect Julia Gillard’s judgment again after this?

Today in the Parliament, Minister, the country’s first female Prime Minister and her female ministers were there defending the indefensible. Many women in this country would no doubt be feeling pretty outraged about that?

It’s hard to escape the impression, Minister, that within the Labor Party, keeping your jobs is more important than protecting the integrity of the Parliament. 


I would like to see the female Labor members answer any of these questions without using the word "Abbott"

Not a chance.


----------



## MrBurns (10 October 2012)

dutchie said:


> These are some of the questions Emma asked Plibersek:
> 
> .




She did well, revived my faith in the ABC.....


----------



## Aussiejeff (10 October 2012)

Calliope said:


> One saving grace...he never mentioned "dying of shame" in his texting.
> 
> View attachment 49281




SHAM* on you for mentioning the now-unmentionable word $ham*.

That disgusting word has henceforth been stolen from our vocab and is now associated forever with a certain politician and un-mentionable event.

Bit like the "gay" word. Overt meaning changed forever. Except at least you can still say "gay" in Parliament without being lambasted.

What a crying $ham* this all is.


----------



## Aussiejeff (10 October 2012)

dutchie said:


> These are some of the questions Emma asked Plibersek:
> 
> Now that Peter Slipper has resigned do you think it was wrong for the Prime Minister to defend him so vociferously in the House today?
> 
> ...




Actually, Plebersic seemed wont to harp on about some terrorist fella called "Abbott" who seems to be intent on "blowing up Parliament" and "smashing/destroying our democracy". Over and over she said it. Of course, she has a licence to slander however she sees fit. Say now, was she having a fit? A fit of pique? How amusing.....my faith in pollies is finally restored.


----------



## basilio (10 October 2012)

I thought yesterday was an excellent piece of political work by Julia Gilliard and the Independents over the Peter Slipper affair.

After the Peter Slipper texts came out it would have been impossible to continue having him as Speaker. However it was also unacceptable to have him sacked without due process and certainly not at the hands of Tony Abbotts "dying of shame " comments.

So the clever trick was having the Independents Tony Windsor and Rob Oakshott tell Peter Slipper that unless he agreed to resign they would vote him out. This at least gave Peter a more dignified exit and avoided the situation of Parliament summarily sacking the speaker without due process.

Tony Abbott then walked into the trap of continuing his personal abuse of the PM and giving her the opportunity to dismember him piece by piece in what will be remembered as a classic turning the tables.

Clever, ruthless work in getting the best out of an appalling situation...

__________________________________________________ _____________________________

The Age story today suggest this strategy.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/pol...010-27c5u.html


----------



## Calliope (10 October 2012)

basilio said:


> I thought yesterday was an excellent piece of political work by Julia Gilliard and the Independents over the Peter Slipper affair.
> 
> After the Peter Slipper texts came out it would have been impossible to continue having him as Speaker. However it was also unacceptable to have him sacked without due process and certainly not at the hands of Tony Abbotts "dying of shame " comments.
> 
> ...




Your continual refusal to criticize Slipper's disgusting misogynist texts, but readiness to falsely accuse Abbott of "personal abuse of the PM," gives a good indication of your ethical standards. Shame on you!


----------



## basilio (10 October 2012)

Further thoughts after my previous comment.

Ok lets accept that after the Peter Slipper texts came out his position as Speaker of the House should be reviewed. In the current social climate it was just too tacky (even if he was doing a fair job as Speaker)

A bi-partisan approach would have seen all parties have a quiet talk to the Speaker and offer him the opportunity to resign with some dignity. In that context we wouldn't have seen the Tony Abbott assault, Julia Gilliards ferocious counter attack and the public trashing of the Parliament. Instead the public would have viewed a constructive approach to keeping respect for the centerpiece of our parliamentary democratic system.

Would have been a better look wouldn't it ?

And on a broader note how many Parliamentarians on either side of politics could afford to have private emails, texts and comments publicly vetted for "being nice" ? How many of us could face similar scrutiny ? Would we expect to be summarily dismissed from our positions because some nasty piece of work chose to publicise the less attractive comments we made at some time in some place ?


----------



## drsmith (10 October 2012)

basilio said:


> I thought yesterday was an excellent piece of political work by Julia Gilliard and the Independents over the Peter Slipper affair.
> 
> After the Peter Slipper texts came out it would have been impossible to continue having him as Speaker. However it was also unacceptable to have him sacked without due process and certainly not at the hands of Tony Abbotts "dying of shame " comments.
> 
> ...



deja vu


----------



## moXJO (10 October 2012)

basilio said:


> Further thoughts after my previous comment.
> 
> Ok lets accept that after the Peter Slipper texts came out his position as Speaker of the House should be reviewed. In the current social climate it was just too tacky (even if he was doing a fair job as Speaker)
> 
> ...




I understand what you are saying, but watching labor pull the sexism card in parliament to vilify someone who not only has three daughters but surrounds his office in women in the top job really puts a bug up my ****. 
To me you are basically saying:
 "you hate your daughters because they are women". 
Misogynist is been banded about as a weapon in the same way the word pedophile was used to scare men into being uncomfortable around children. It is a vile label to score points on. Its even worse when used as a tool to deflect criticism of government performance. A PM playing the victim in such a way is new ground.
However I don't have a problem with it been used where A Jones is concerned.

Here's the rub, polling suggests if you win over the women before an election the men follow. Hence labors attack. The facebook society seem to be dumb enough to think Gillards speech was 'awesomely asskicking'. But I think labor just became a minor party in the long run. Labor is better than this and personally I regret  Kim beazley never getting a chance to be PM


----------



## Julia (10 October 2012)

moXJO said:


> The facebook society seem to be dumb enough to think Gillards speech was 'awesomely asskicking'. But I think labor just became a minor party in the long run. Labor is better than this and personally I regret  Kim beazley never getting a chance to be PM



I hadn't thought about Kim Beazley for a while, but you're quite right.  He had the standards of a civilised person.  Perhaps that's why he didn't ever cut it as a Labor leader.


----------



## Ruby (10 October 2012)

basilio said:


> I thought yesterday was an excellent piece of political work by Julia Gilliard and the Independents over the Peter Slipper affair.
> 
> After the Peter Slipper texts came out it would have been impossible to continue having him as Speaker. However it was also unacceptable to have him sacked without due process and certainly not at the hands of Tony Abbotts "dying of shame " comments.
> 
> So the clever trick was having the Independents Tony Windsor and Rob Oakshott tell Peter Slipper that unless he agreed to resign they would vote him out. This at least gave Peter a more dignified exit and avoided the situation of Parliament summarily sacking the speaker without due process.




Clever trick?  Oh, come on Bas - their backs were hard up against the wall and they were scrambling in desperation!!



basilio said:


> Tony Abbott then walked into the trap of continuing his personal abuse of the PM and giving her the opportunity to dismember him piece by piece in what will be remembered as a classic turning the tables.
> 
> Clever, ruthless work in getting the best out of an appalling situation...




I watched the exchange - Abbott did not use "personal abuse", and I hardly think Gillard dismembered Abbot "piece by piece in what will be remembered as a classic turning the tables"......   she has no powers of rhetoric or oratory, and just sounded like a screeching fishwife - as usual.    She and all members of the government should be ashamed - and I have no hesitation in using the word - for their grubby tactics and appalling hypocrisy.


----------



## MrBurns (10 October 2012)

Ruby said:


> Clever trick?  Oh, come on Bas - their backs were hard up against the wall and they were scrambling in desperation!!
> 
> I watched the exchange - Abbott did not use "personal abuse", and I hardly think Gillard dismembered Abbot "piece by piece in what will be remembered as a classic turning the tables"......   she has no powers of rhetoric or oratory, and just sounded like a screeching fishwife - as usual.    She and all members of the government should be ashamed - and I have no hesitation in using the word - for their grubby tactics and appalling hypocrisy.




Exactly she was hysterical to push a point as it it was valid but in fact it wasnt, she's unfit for office.


----------



## Calliope (10 October 2012)

Good demolition of basilio's post Ruby. As usual you got it right and as usual basilio got it wrong.


----------



## Tink (11 October 2012)

Agree with your post moXJO  -- this is just getting ridiculous.

I cant believe she can stand up there and say the stuff she said about women, yet she was quite happy to accept these people to stay on. 
Everytime Abbott speaks she is going to go on about this rubbish

She wants him out and this is how she is playing the cards.
The polls are talking and she is not happy.


----------



## MrBurns (11 October 2012)

Well it seems all your posts expressing respect for Slipper resigning we're misplaced as he was actually forced by Oakschot and Windsor
It took an hour for them to convince him
There's no honour there at all but that's consistent with everything else he's done


----------



## MrBurns (11 October 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Well it seems all your posts expressing respect for Slipper resigning we're misplaced as he was actually forced by Oakschot and Windsor
> It took an hour for them to convince him
> There's no honour there at all but that's consistent with everything else he's done




Correction, Oakshott, couldnt correct the typo on the iPhone.

He came out this morning and said Slipper wasnt forced, what a load of BS, Windsor clearly said yesterday that they went to Slipper and said if he didnt agree to resign they would vote against him throwing him out anyway.
Oakshott is pathetic.


----------



## drsmith (11 October 2012)

He was forced by Oakshott (and Windsor) by Oakshott's own admission.



> TONY JONES: But did Tony Windsor also say the same thing? In other words, two people came to him saying effectively they were going to vote for the no-confidence motion and he'd be removed under those circumstances, assuming the vote went as it did.
> 
> ROB OAKESHOTT: Yes, well, people can load up the two of us with all the power if they want to, but in the end we're only two members of Parliament. We chose, of all the options, not to grandstand on the floor of the Parliament and politically head kick.
> 
> *We chose to try and do it with a bit of diplomacy and to give the Speaker and the human being involved in this situation the opportunity to have a bit of control over the terms and conditions on how they resigned.*






> ROB OAKESHOTT: He in the end drew his own conclusions. I in the end don't have 76 votes. So all can I do is draw conclusions as to whether the position is tenable or untenable. I drew the conclusion he was never going to return to the chair. Therefore I let him know man-to-man that that was my view, and therefore, what can we do about it to resolve the situation.




Oakshott and Windsor clearly usec their balance of power to force Slipper from the speakership. In effect, they showed him the political gun and the only choice he had was how the trigger was pulled.

In one sense, Rob Oakshott's admission above is extrordinary. In laying bare what little choice Peter Slipper had, Oakshott stripped away any dignity he gained from resigning the speakership.

In relation to Labor's support for Peter Slipper on the floor of the house, Oakshott and Windsor hung them out to dry. Their is however the question to which Labor hung itself out to dry,



> ROB OAKESHOTT: Well those conversations were going on whilst the Prime Minister was on her feet, so I could hear that on in the television in the background. So, I'm not aware whether that message has made its way through.
> 
> *There were - obviously Anthony Albanese was coming in and out of the room because he was trying to control the House - that is his job as Leader of the House - and trying to work out the nature of the conversation and the nature of the numbers.* That's his job, as it is the Opposition House spokesman's job. And there were other MPs coming in and out like meerkats just to try and either provide some comfort to Peter Slipper through a difficult time or to try and manage the Parliament on a difficult day.




Did Labor seriously think that attempting to win a personal battle against Tony Abbott at the expense of fighting to the death over a lost cause was a good strategy ? 

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3608160.htm

My bolds.


----------



## Julia (11 October 2012)

drsmith said:


> He was forced by Oakshott (and Windsor) by Oakshott's own admission.
> 
> Oakshott and Windsor clearly usec their balance of power to force Slipper from the speakership. In effect, they showed him the political gun and the only choice he had was how the trigger was pulled.
> 
> In one sense, Rob Oakshott's admission above is extrordinary. In laying bare what little choice Peter Slipper had, Oakshott stripped away any dignity he gained from resigning the speakership.



And that, imo, was part of the strategy of Oakeshott and Windsor.  i.e. they created the impression, probably, with Slipper that the parliament and the public would be allowed to think the decision to resign was Slipper's alone, but they were both unprepared to let him off so lightly, so thus the interview with Tony Jones which was quite extraordinary for its candour on Oakeshott's part.

It was pathetic, sad really, to see Slipper dressed up in his formal robes to make the resignation announcement.

None of the above excuses Labor's hypocrisy in supporting Slipper.


----------



## drsmith (11 October 2012)

Julia said:


> And that, imo, was part of the strategy of Oakeshott and Windsor.  i.e. they created the impression, probably, with Slipper that the parliament and the public would be allowed to think the decision to resign was Slipper's alone, but they were both unprepared to let him off so lightly, so thus the interview with Tony Jones which was quite extraordinary for its candour on Oakeshott's part.



In doing so, he raises new questions about Labor's judgement and ultimately Julia Gillard's judgement.

Perhaps he's reached the point that he's now looking for a way out.


----------



## drsmith (14 October 2012)

The following piece from Fairfax puts some meat on the process by which Peter Slipper resigned from the speakership.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/politics/amid-the-fury-a-quiet-execution-20121012-27i7t.html

Of interest, had Tony Abbott not moved the motion, Rob Oakshott would have continued to support Peter Slipper as speaker.



> For Oakeshott, it was the moment Abbott moved the motion: "I'd been uncomfortable about Peter Slipper for a long time but I'd been in the camp of not making a political judgment on a court matter," he told the Herald.
> 
> "But his situation became untenable for me the moment Tony Abbott stood up in Parliament and moved a motion of no confidence against him."


----------



## Calliope (14 October 2012)

drsmith said:


> Of interest, had Tony Abbott not moved the motion, Rob Oakshott would have continued to support Peter Slipper as speaker.




The life of this corrupt government is now in the hands of three grubby turncoats, Windsor, Oakeshott and Slipper who all represent conservative electorates, and who defy the will of the people out of spite and self interest. What a farce.


----------



## Miss Hale (14 October 2012)

What sticks out here for me is the fact that Oakshott and Windsor wanted Slipper gone but they could not bring themselves to vote with the opposition on the issue but then went and pressured Slipper to resig anywayn, why didn't they just vote to get rid of him in the first place?  Hypocrites.


----------



## noco (14 October 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> What sticks out here for me is the fact that Oakshott and Windsor wanted Slipper gone but they could not bring themselves to vote with the opposition on the issue but then went and pressured Slipper to resig anywayn, why didn't they just vote to get rid of him in the first place?  Hypocrites.




Miss Hale, my view on the matter is if the house had voted for him to be sacked and that would have been dependant on Windsor and Oaakshott, he (slipper) may well have had no alternative but resign from parliament and I suspect that would have created a by-election.

So he resigns as the speaker and is able to stay in office as a backbencher.

I would also say the Labor Party were well aware of this also hence the reason they continued to support him. They are very cunning in deed and will do anything to stay in power.


----------



## Julia (14 October 2012)

From today's "Sunday Mail"


> Former Speaker Peter Slipper and his wife Inge-Jane Hall are desperately trying to offload two investment properties as the MP faces bankruptcy.
> 
> A shattered Mr Slipper has told parliamentary colleagues of his fears of a crushing legal bill, estimated at $450,000, from the court case involving staffer James Ashby.
> 
> ...




So maybe the vote to retain Slipper by the Labor Party was the pay off for avoiding his full resignation which would trigger the by-election?

What a messy, complicated web is woven when principles are tossed aside in favour of purely political strategy.

There is a final note in the article that "Mrs Hall has been seeking to sell two of the couple's eight investment properties on the Sunshine Coast".
Eight investment properties?  Unless they're all highly geared, I don't think we need to be passing around the collection plate to save Mr Slipper from bankruptcy just yet.


----------



## drsmith (16 October 2012)

Interesting admission from Nicola Roxon on 7:30 last night about when Labor knew about the text messages that ultimately caused Peter Slipper's resignation.



> *LEIGH SALES: When you say you were advised about it in the following period, when exactly were you advised as to the content?
> 
> NICOLA ROXON: Oh, look, I can't tell you the exact date. They were provided - and I don't think anything turns on that date because they were provided to the parties from 28th May.* We make no secret about that. That was provided to the Government solicitors at that time. I was briefed on many matters in this court proceeding. Thousands and thousands and thousands of pages of text messages were provided with firm undertakings made to the court.
> 
> ...




http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3611188.htm

My bolds.


----------



## drsmith (16 October 2012)

He's resigned from the speakership in disgrace, but the costs to the taxpayer go on.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-15/slipper27s-portrait-to-cost-2430k/4314372


----------



## drsmith (14 November 2012)

Poor Pete is never one for moderation,



> "My witness says Mr Slipper was extremely intoxicated and there is video footage of Mr Slipper making his way from one side of Oxford Street to the other,'' Mr Hadley told his listeners.
> 
> The  morning host said a black car had to suddenly stop to avoid hitting Mr Slipper.




http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.a...denies-being-thrown-out-gay-nightspo/1621810/


----------



## MrBurns (14 November 2012)

drsmith said:


> Poor Pete is never one for moderation,
> http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.a...denies-being-thrown-out-gay-nightspo/1621810/




Surely they can do something to stop this sleezy leech bludging off the taxpayer.


----------



## Calliope (12 December 2012)

Old Siippery gets away again.



> JAMES Ashby's sexual harassment case against former Speaker Peter Slipper has been thrown out of court.
> 
> Judge Steven Rares this morning ordered that the application contains "scandalous" allegations and to continue the case would be "manifestly unfair" to Mr Slipper and that some of the claims were done to "injure" his reputation.




http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/br...r-court-decision/story-e6frf7kf-1226535136025


----------



## MrBurns (12 December 2012)

Calliope said:


> Old Siippery gets away again.
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/br...r-court-decision/story-e6frf7kf-1226535136025




What a drain on the taxpayer this creep is........


----------



## Calliope (12 December 2012)

Read what Kangaroo Court had to say about Federal Court Judge Steven Rares back in April;



> PETER SLIPPER STRIKES IT LUCKY AND LANDS CORRUPT FEDERAL COURT JUDGE STEVEN RARES TO HEAR HIS SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASE.
> Federal politician and parliament speaker Peter Slipper has stepped aside as speaker as there is a huge shadow over him as he is being sued for sexual harassment by his staff member James Ashby and the federal police are investigating him for alleged fraud of his expenses. The problem is that the judge hearing his sexual harassment case, Justice Rares, has an even bigger shadow over him and is as corrupt as they come.




http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com...ven-rares-to-hear-his-sexual-harassment-case/


----------



## Calliope (12 December 2012)

Judge Rares' decision is purely political. It could have been written by Nicola Roxon.

Justice Rares found Mr Ashby acted in combination with fellow staffer Karen Doane and former federal Coalition minister Mal Brough to “advance the interests of the LNP and Mr Brough”.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...er-peter-slipper/story-fndckad0-1226535087900


----------



## Country Lad (12 December 2012)

*Slipper case thrown out*



> The Federal Court has thrown out the sexual harassment case brought against former parliamentary speaker Peter Slipper by his ex-staffer James Ashby
> 
> In a scathing judgment handed down on Wednesday, Justice Steve Rares found that the case was an "abuse of process" which had been carried out for the "purpose of causing significant public, reputational and political damage to Mr Slipper". He dismissed the claim and ordered Mr Ashby to pay his former boss's legal costs.




..........purpose of causing significant public, reputational and political damage to Mr Slipper........

Well, that part worked.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/slipper-case-thrown-out-20121212-2b8o9.html


----------



## Julia (12 December 2012)

To be fair, I don't think any of us really imagines that Mr Ashby was some innocent, unused to sexual approaches from various quarters.  His own emails, or responses to Slipper's, hardly exhibited gross outrage.
So - much as I'm surprised at the decision, especially given the Commonwealth's payment to Ashby which you'd think represents an acceptance of the reality of the accusations, I'd reluctantly concede that Ashby's bringing of the action was motivated partly out of revenge on Slipper and partly for political purposes.

It certainly leaves the LNP, and Mal Brough in particular, in a difficult position, one which the government will be licking its collective lips about.



> "By paying Mr Ashby a very substantial sum and for all practical purposes, conceding that he was right all along, what the Commonwealth has in effect done is concede the accuracy of his claims against Mr Slipper," Senator Brandis said in October.


----------



## joea (12 December 2012)

Oh Timmy darling you just have to hear this

That lovely Peter Slipper I would love to kiss

He's innocent like me pure as driven snow

Now all the voters are going to know

I must get good old Roxon to promote the judge

You never never know when we may need to fudge

Isnt it just great the law of our land

Craigie Thompson in the dock will now never stand

We held his case back long enough to beat the statue of limitations

This calls for champange and merry celebrations

Now we can happily go to the next election

I'm sure voters will see in me pure perfection


----------



## Knobby22 (12 December 2012)

Such dishonety and abuse of our democracy. Mal Brough should resign as should some others.
Just as suspected. This is lower than any person should stoop.
No excuses are good enough.


----------



## joea (12 December 2012)

joea said:


> Oh Timmy darling you just have to hear this
> 
> That lovely Peter Slipper I would love to kiss
> 
> ...




That was a innovative poem from HC.


----------



## Calliope (12 December 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> Such dishonety and abuse of our democracy. Mal Brough should resign as should some others.
> Just as suspected. This is lower than any person should stoop.
> No excuses are good enough.




The court decision is actually the decision of the Labor appointed Judge Rares. In the electorate of Fisher where I live, Mal Brough is held in much higher regard than any Labor judge or the disgraced Peter Slipper. Labor talk of an enquiry is just hot air. They would not have the guts.

Bring on the election and we will see how your Peter Slipper rates against my Mal Brough. It is ironic to see a supporter of Gillard"s Peter Slipper talk about "dishonety (sic) and abuse of our democracy."


----------



## bellenuit (12 December 2012)

Interesting take on the Slipper decision by Michael Smith (audio):

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/201...er-reading-the-ashby-v-slipper-judgement.html


----------



## banco (12 December 2012)

Calliope said:


> Judge Rares' decision is purely political. It could have been written by Nicola Roxon.
> 
> Justice Rares found Mr Ashby acted in combination with fellow staffer Karen Doane and former federal Coalition minister Mal Brough to “advance the interests of the LNP and Mr Brough”.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...er-peter-slipper/story-fndckad0-1226535087900




Would you like to point out which parts of Judge Rares' decision where you think he got the law or the facts wrong?


----------



## bellenuit (12 December 2012)

bellenuit said:


> Interesting take on the Slipper decision by Michael Smith (audio):
> 
> http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/201...er-reading-the-ashby-v-slipper-judgement.html




Other than appeal the decision, which Ashby plans to do, are there other avenues by which this decision could be reviewed? For instance, could another member of the judiciary voice an opinion that Judge Rares acted politically, if he has such an opinion, and force a review of the Judge Rares' decision independent of any appeal?


----------



## moXJO (12 December 2012)

Calliope said:


> Read what Kangaroo Court had to say about Federal Court Judge Steven Rares back in April;
> 
> 
> 
> http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com...ven-rares-to-hear-his-sexual-harassment-case/




Interesting he predicted what would happen eight months out.  Does he have anything solid


----------



## banco (12 December 2012)

bellenuit said:


> Other than appeal the decision, which Ashby plans to do, are there other avenues by which this decision could be reviewed? For instance, could another member of the judiciary voice an opinion that Judge Rares acted politically, if he has such an opinion, and force a review of the Judge Rares' decision independent of any appeal?




It's funny that people who know as little about the law as you obviously do are saying the decision is wrong.


----------



## bellenuit (12 December 2012)

An interesting reply from an assumed knowledgeable person backing Judges Rares decision. This is from a response in Michael Smith's blog. I have added the bolds (what he is responding to) and italics (the response) for clarity.

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2012/12/the-slipper-case-thrown-out.html

*"The judge has portrayed Ashby as the perpetrator rather than the victim. This is a very dangerous precedent. This is akin to blaming a rape victim because she went out at night wearing a short skirt and high heels. "*

_Wrong._

*"Sexual harassment is not a trivial issue. The reasons given for throwing out the case are absurd. The allegations need to be heard on their merits, and only after the allegations have been heard should there be a decision one way or the other."*

_Read the judgement. Rares didn't think much of Ashby's case, although this was NOT why he made his decision on abuse of process.

The judge went through all the evidence. His judgement was 78 pages long. He considered every fact right from the start.

It was clear that he believed the case had little substance, and that Ashby had not been wronged.

* A medical certificate was provided when Ashby was not sick. He was drinking beer while telling Slipper he had an alleged "bladder infection". No certificate was provided until months later and then the dates were wrong. Justice Rares found this "odd".

* The judge found that Ashby did not ever mention being sick with a bladder condition or aggrieved by Slipper's actions to his friends.

*Ashby did not ever confront Slipper with this sexual discrimination matter, although he had no trouble confronting him on other matters related to his work.

* The Cabcharge allegations included a reference to the matter being taken to the police. The judge found this to be irrelevant to the substantive case and a breach of professional privilege by Ashby's solicitor, especially as this allegation was dropped soon after.

* Ditto for the "polo shirt" and Sydney harbour cruise allegations - they were dropped.

* The judge found Ashby's disdain for Steve Lewis andMal Brough did not gel with his later close and friendly co-operation with them.

* The judge found that "We will get him" DID refer to Slipper and not to finding the hire car driver.

* The judge found that there was no "urgency" involved in the situation, as Ashby claimed as his reason for not producing a "Genuine Steps" statement.

* He found that Ashby and/or Doane supplied Ashby's confidential diaries to Steve Lewis and Mal Brough - called this "a serious breach of trust".

* He found that Ashby supplied Slipper's travel plans and that the initial affidavit was deliberately filed to take place when Slipper could not defend himself (being in transit).

* The judge noted Ashby did not even see a psychologist for two months after claiming damage for mental distress, despite claiming mental distress as the very reason for urgency.

* The judge also noted that the psychologist gave an ambivalent diagnosis, i.e. he had his doubts about Ashby's story.

* He found that the dealings between Doane and Ashby and the LNP re. job opportunities showed they cared more about getting those jobs than prosecuting the case against Slipper on its merits.

* He found that a man concerned with sexual harassment would not volunteer to accompany his alleged harasser, at his own expense, on a 4 week trip to Hungary.

Many more finding were made..., but you should get the drift: the judge's decision was based not on whether Slipper sent "dirty texts". These were considered as irrelevant, and he found Ashby often instigated the exchanges, as well as noting they wouldn't have ever become public without the abuse of process in the first place.

He made his decision on the overwhelming impression he had of Ashby's case and his dealings behind the scenes, going back to early February, with the LNP, plus the relevant applicable case law.

Sorry to all those who believe justice was not served. It was. Todays decision was a comprehensive demolition of Ashby's bona fides, root and branch, neck and crop. Ditto Brough. Ditto Doane.

This is not a matter anymore of opinion. It is a binding judgement, which may or may not be appealed. Ashby lost. Slipper won.

As it has NOT yet been appealed (no papers filed as yet), anyone can comment on it, as you all are doing here. Roxon is on solid ground.

Read the judgement. All 78 pages here: http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2012/2012fca1411
_


----------



## bellenuit (12 December 2012)

banco said:


> It's funny that people who know as little about the law as you obviously do are saying the decision is wrong.




And I stated that where?


----------



## Macquack (12 December 2012)

Julia said:


> I'd reluctantly concede that Ashby's bringing of the action was motivated partly out of revenge on Slipper and partly for political purposes.




Julia, you are normally objective so why "reluctantly concede"? Blind Freddie could see Ashby's motivation.


----------



## Miss Hale (12 December 2012)

Regardless of motivation, shouldn't this have been judged on the evidence to determine whether sexual harassment has occurred?  If a case can be thrown out based on motivation without examining the facts of the case where does that leave future sexual harassment victims?  I think it fair to say that if you have been sexually harassed by someone it's quite possible (even likely) you would want to see that person discredited, this should not be sufficient for throwing a case out of court.  Surely the judge must consider *justice* not motivation when determining such cases?


----------



## Calliope (12 December 2012)

banco said:


> Would you like to point out which parts of Judge Rares' decision where you think he got the law or the facts wrong?




It was just one man's opinion, and coincidently  it was also Roxon's opinion.  The law and the facts had nothing to do with it.


----------



## banco (12 December 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> Regardless of motivation, shouldn't this have been judged on the evidence to determine whether sexual harassment has occurred?  If a case can be thrown out based on motivation without examining the facts of the case where does that leave future sexual harassment victims?  I think it fair to say that if you have been sexually harassed by someone it's quite possible (even likely) you would want to see that person discredited, this should not be sufficient for throwing a case out of court.  Surely the judge must consider *justice* not motivation when determining such cases?




It's all in the judgement.  

26.01      Summary judgment

         (1)   A party may apply to the Court for an order that judgment be given against another party because:

                (a)    the applicant has no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding or part of the proceeding; or

               (b)    the proceeding is frivolous or vexatious; or

                (c)    no reasonable cause of action is disclosed; or

               (d)    the proceeding is an abuse of the process of the Court; or

                (e)    the respondent has no reasonable prospect of successfully defending the proceeding or part of the proceeding.


----------



## banco (12 December 2012)

Calliope said:


> It was just one man's opinion, and coincidently  it was also Roxon's opinion.  The law and the facts had nothing to do with it.




Dennis Denuto: It's the vibe of the thing, your Honour.


----------



## So_Cynical (12 December 2012)

24 pages of politically motivated bile, pure politics from the ASF right with the usual BS result...2 face Tony tried to bring down the Govt with the usual noalition dirty tricks....dirty gutter politics from a man without ideas or any political honesty.

Proudly supported on this forum by a sad minority...shame on you all.


----------



## drsmith (12 December 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> 24 pages of politically motivated bile, pure politics from the ASF right with the usual BS result...2 face Tony tried to bring down the Govt with the usual noalition dirty tricks....dirty gutter politics from a man without ideas or any political honesty.
> 
> Proudly supported on this forum by a sad minority...shame on you all.



Is that the worlds smallest violin I hear playing for Labor and Peter Slipper ?

It was those lurid texts to James Ashby that brought him downs as speaker in the end, was it not ?


----------



## Macquack (12 December 2012)

Calliope said:


> It was just one man's opinion, and coincidently  it was also Roxon's opinion.  The law and the facts had nothing to do with it.




Calliope doesn't get the outcome he wanted, so NOW the law and facts have nothing to do with it?


----------



## Julia (12 December 2012)

bellenuit said:


> Interesting take on the Slipper decision by Michael Smith (audio):



Yes, he raises points which are echoed in Miss Hale's post below.



bellenuit said:


> Other than appeal the decision, which Ashby plans to do, are there other avenues by which this decision could be reviewed? For instance, could another member of the judiciary voice an opinion that Judge Rares acted politically, if he has such an opinion, and force a review of the Judge Rares' decision independent of any appeal?



Even if there were such other members of the judiciary, I doubt they'd be up for raising their hand to offer an opinion in this politically charged matter.
I hope it will go to appeal.



Macquack said:


> Julia, you are normally objective so why "reluctantly concede"? Blind Freddie could see Ashby's motivation.



That's a fair question Macquack.  As I've said, I believe the motivation in bringing the case was not one of pure virginal outrage by Mr Ashby.
However, that doesn't alter the reality of some pretty salacious and (insulting to women) text messages by Slipper.  So it seems basically wrong to me that the essence of the case being brought against Slipper has been ignored in favour of his motivation for so doing.

What do you think?  Do you believe it is realistic and fair that the essence of the claim, i.e. that Slipper did sexually harass Ashby, should be ignored ?




Miss Hale said:


> Regardless of motivation, shouldn't this have been judged on the evidence to determine whether sexual harassment has occurred?  If a case can be thrown out based on motivation without examining the facts of the case where does that leave future sexual harassment victims?  I think it fair to say that if you have been sexually harassed by someone it's quite possible (even likely) you would want to see that person discredited, this should not be sufficient for throwing a case out of court.  Surely the judge must consider *justice* not motivation when determining such cases?



Very well described.  Agree entirely.




So_Cynical said:


> 24 pages of politically motivated bile, pure politics from the ASF right with the usual BS result...2 face Tony tried to bring down the Govt with the usual noalition dirty tricks....dirty gutter politics from a man without ideas or any political honesty.
> 
> Proudly supported on this forum by a sad minority...shame on you all.



Oh, get over yourself, So Cynical.  Even you, with your uncritical adoration of this woeful government, surely cannot be suggesting Slipper has not demonstrated himself to be a slimy, gutter dwelling creature.
I'm sure the voters in his electorate will pretty clearly give you their opinion when they get the chance.

And if he's so pure and innocent, why did your beloved government encourage him to stand aside from the speakership.  Let's remember just for example his description of female genitalia as "pickled mussels".
Just disgusting.  If you really want to see someone like this in an important government role, you are even more deluded than you have thus far demonstrated.


----------



## IFocus (12 December 2012)

drsmith said:


> Is that the worlds smallest violin I hear playing for Labor and Peter Slipper ?
> 
> It was those lurid texts to James Ashby that brought him downs as speaker in the end, was it not ?




Just another expertly run smear campaign by a bunch of dogs.

What a grubby lot the Coalition are I think Abbott would sell his ar$e for government he is so power hungry at any cost its scary.

BTW where were the Coalition today?

Cowards, extraordinary none of them can do a simple interview.


----------



## Julia (12 December 2012)

IFocus said:


> Cowards, extraordinary none of them can do a simple interview.




How do you know whether they were asked?
"7.30" and all the ABC Radio current affairs programs have covered the matter in detail today.  If they ever approach someone for an interview and are declined, they say so.
There has been no such statement.
Maybe stop drawing inappropriate conclusions.


----------



## banco (12 December 2012)

Julia said:


> That's a fair question Macquack.  As I've said, I believe the motivation in bringing the case was not one of pure virginal outrage by Mr Ashby.
> However, that doesn't alter the reality of some pretty salacious and (insulting to women) text messages by Slipper.  So it seems basically wrong to me that the essence of the case being brought against Slipper has been ignored in favour of his motivation for so doing.
> 
> .




Might seem wrong but "abuse of process" isn't exactly a new concept in the common law world. The fact that they were insulting to women is  irrelevant as far as the court case goes. 

Ashby will almost certainly be bankrupted by the costs order against him so I can't see him appealing.


----------



## Ves (12 December 2012)

Maybe now we can go back to discussing issues of actual political substance in parliament after Christmas rather than pretend it is a law court.

Oh wait, there are still more courtroom discussions that need to be sorted before we can do that.

Perhaps by the end of the next term?


----------



## Calliope (12 December 2012)

Macquack said:


> Calliope doesn't get the outcome he wanted, so NOW the law and facts have nothing to do with it?




Ashby and Slipper are both disgusting characters, but the electorate of Fisher will be the final court of judgment in the case of Macquack/Banco/Slipper/Roxon/Rares versus Mal Brough and decency.

And, Macquack it will not be the outcome you want.


----------



## So_Cynical (12 December 2012)

Julia said:


> Oh, get over yourself, So Cynical.  Even you, with your uncritical adoration of this woeful government, surely cannot be suggesting Slipper has not demonstrated himself to be a slimy, gutter dwelling creature.
> I'm sure the voters in his electorate will pretty clearly give you their opinion when they get the chance.
> 
> And if he's so pure and innocent, why did your beloved government encourage him to stand aside from the speakership.  Let's remember just for example his description of female genitalia as "pickled mussels".
> Just disgusting.  If you really want to see someone like this in an important government role, you are even more deluded than you have thus far demonstrated.




Perhaps you need to re-read the judgement.

This case was %100 brought about by a politicly motivated individual with collusion by at least 1 Liberal party member if not more...this case was a total misuse of the judicial process, not only is the Noalition and 2 face Tony misogynistic but they are also homophobic.

What peter or anyone else texts is private, pickled mussel = who cares, its private and not offensive because it is private... what's he suppose to call it? a petunia, a blossoming lotus...perhaps he had a close up look at Bronwyn Bishop in the Liberal party change room and that particular part of her actually does look like a pickled mussel?

:dunno:



Julia said:


> How do you know whether they were asked?



 OH LOL my sides are hurting now. 

True colors showing Julia?


----------



## banco (12 December 2012)

Calliope said:


> Ashby and Slipper are both disgusting characters, but the electorate of Fisher will be the final court of judgment in the case of Macquack/Slipper/Roxon/Rares versus Mal Brough and decency.
> 
> And, Macquack it will not be the outcome you want.




The fact that Mal Brough got involved at all shows he's as thick as ****.  He has the pre-selection sewn up and he gets involved in a third rate caper with this idiot Ashby.


----------



## Calliope (12 December 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> What peter or anyone else texts is private, pickled mussels who cares, its private and not offensive because it is private... what's he suppose to call it? a petunia, a blossoming lotus...perhaps he had a close up look at Bronwyn Bishop in the Liberal party change room and that particular part of her actually does look like a pickled mussel?




*Sick, sick, sick.*


----------



## drsmith (12 December 2012)

IFocus said:


> Just another expertly run smear campaign by a bunch of dogs.
> 
> What a grubby lot the Coalition are I think Abbott would sell his ar$e for government he is so power hungry at any cost its scary.
> 
> ...



I'll ask the question again.

It was those lurid (sorry, offensive) texts to James Ashby about female genitalia that brought him down as speaker in the end, was it not ?


----------



## drsmith (12 December 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> What peter or anyone else texts is private, pickled mussel = who cares,



The great defender of the fairer sex Julia Gillard didn't, but Tony Windsor and Rob Oakshott did.


----------



## Julia (12 December 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> What peter or anyone else texts is private, pickled mussel = who cares, its private and not offensive because it is private... what's he suppose to call it? a petunia, a blossoming lotus...perhaps he had a close up look at Bronwyn Bishop in the Liberal party change room and that particular part of her actually does look like a pickled mussel?



I've had many reasons to take issue with you over various things, So Cynical.  I've also quite recently defended you against some remarks toward you I felt were unfair.
But I have never been so disgusted as I am after reading your remarks above.


----------



## drsmith (12 December 2012)

Julia said:


> But I have never been so disgusted as I am after reading your remarks above.



I think that might have been the intention.

These die-in-the-muddy-ditch Labor supporters are as bitter as their leader.


----------



## Ferret (13 December 2012)

No doubt Labor will try to spin this as a vindication of Slipper, which of course it wasn't.

What it was, however, was a damning indictment of Ashby.  It also casts a pretty long shadow on those who supported his case.


----------



## Knobby22 (13 December 2012)

Calliope said:


> The court decision is actually the decision of the Labor appointed Judge Rares. In the electorate of Fisher where I live, Mal Brough is held in much higher regard than any Labor judge or the disgraced Peter Slipper. Labor talk of an enquiry is just hot air. They would not have the guts.
> 
> Bring on the election and we will see how your Peter Slipper rates against my Mal Brough. It is ironic to see a supporter of Gillard"s Peter Slipper talk about "dishonety (sic) and abuse of our democracy."




Oh, so because he is on your side the evidence that the two staffers colluded with Mal Brough and other Libs to bring Slipper down and by doing so being promised to keep their jobs should be ignored. The evidence is clear. 

Saying the judge is corrupt will not wash. The fact is certain politicians and staffers were traitorous, making stuff up to bring down Slipper. If Labor did it you would be on your high horse but because its the Libs then its alright??
Remember  what happened to Pauline Hanson, they actually colluded both Labor and Liberal in this case to put her in jail. She was proven innocent later but not till after they destroyed her.

THeir is no excuse for this behaviour. Blaming the judge is just bull.
I think some people should be going to jail over this.


----------



## Julia (13 December 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> The fact is certain politicians and staffers were traitorous, making stuff up to bring down Slipper.



What did they make up?


----------



## nulla nulla (13 December 2012)

More hand wringing, hair pulling and teeth gnashing from the right. Another grand scheme to bring down the elected government before the completion of their term comes to naught. Get over it.


----------



## moXJO (13 December 2012)

nulla nulla said:


> Another grand scheme to bring down the elected government before the completion of their term comes to naught. Get over it.




Just like a labor policy it failed and left a bad stench. Its not over yet and if labor goes to hard they might not like the results


----------



## medicowallet (13 December 2012)

nulla nulla said:


> More hand wringing, hair pulling and teeth gnashing from the right. Another grand scheme to bring down the elected government before the completion of their term comes to naught. Get over it.




Sure 

I reckon the public is aware of Gillard's hyporcisy now, regarding her sexist speech.

That alone was worth it, and enough to counter Labor's limited, short term spike in feminist popularity.

2013 should be a great year.

MW


----------



## Calliope (13 December 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> Oh, so because he is on your side the evidence that the two staffers colluded with Mal Brough and other Libs to bring Slipper down and by doing so being promised to keep their jobs should be ignored. The evidence is clear.




Any attempt to bring the odious Slipper to justice is applauded in the electorate of Fisher. Labor supporters of Slipper must share the same odium whether they are Labor politicians, judges, or ASF posters.

Gillard's lapdog, Craig Emerson  says that Brough is not a "fit and proper person" to be a member of parliament. He is implying, of course, that Slipper and Craig Thomson and Gillard are.


----------



## Calliope (13 December 2012)

*And the winner is.....?*


----------



## drsmith (13 December 2012)

Peter Slipper could not contain his desire for extravagance. This combined with a poor sense of moral judgement, both privately and with the public purse was his undoing. 

He was never fit for public office.


----------



## sails (13 December 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> ...The fact is certain politicians and staffers were traitorous, making stuff up to bring down Slipper.




Please substantiate, Knobby.  That's a serious allegation.

To put it simply, what exactly was made up?


----------



## Knobby22 (13 December 2012)

sails said:


> Please substantiate, Knobby.  That's a serious allegation.
> 
> To put it simply, what exactly was made up?




The whole case!! It was a fabrication and abuse of justice.

People keep saying Slipper was not fit for public office - I agree, however this has nothing to do with this attempt to ruin a man and his family.

It was obvious from the start, the accuser was a chancer from way back, morals of an alley cat.
Certain politicians got involved when they should have had the morality to stay right out of it.  I hope Slipper sues all the instigators.
I think he would win against Brough and the accuser and his female helper. The others may get away with it.


----------



## Julia (13 December 2012)

sails said:


> Please substantiate, Knobby.  That's a serious allegation.
> 
> To put it simply, what exactly was made up?




I have already questioned this, so continue to await Knobby's justification for that allegation.


----------



## drsmith (13 December 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> People keep saying Slipper was not fit for public office - I agree, however this has nothing to do with this attempt to ruin a man and his family.



He may have been handed a loaded gun, but it was Peter Slipper himself who chose to misuse it.

We know who was a chancer and an alley cat from way back. Even in the limelight of public office, he couldn't be faithful to his partner.

Labor will want to be careful not to overplay this. It wasn't the reason he ultimately lost the speakership and the government itself settled with James Ashby, with $50k of taxpayers money.


----------



## Calliope (13 December 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> The whole case!! It was a fabrication and abuse of justice.
> 
> People keep saying Slipper was not fit for public office - I agree, however this has nothing to do with this attempt to ruin a man and his family.




The nasty, conniving, grasping, misogynist sleazy Slipper has only himself to blame for his descent into the gutter. Now his character has been exposed to the whole world and that is true justice.. 

What does his family have to do with this? They cannot have been so blind that they would have been unaware that they shared him with Ashby and Oxford Street. Naturally they are upset now that everyone knows. However in public life that is a risk you take when you have a dark side. He has had a good run.


----------



## banco (13 December 2012)

Julia said:


> How do you know whether they were asked?
> "7.30" and all the ABC Radio current affairs programs have covered the matter in detail today.  If they ever approach someone for an interview and are declined, they say so.
> There has been no such statement.
> Maybe stop drawing inappropriate conclusions.





That liar Mal Brough was asked to go on 7:30 report and didn't have the balls.


----------



## drsmith (13 December 2012)

The Coalition's put-up or shut-up to Labor over Peter Slipper,



> THE Coalition has challenged Labor to try to reinstate Peter Slipper as speaker if it believes he has been hard done by.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...er-peter-slipper/story-fndckad0-1226536036424


----------



## Calliope (13 December 2012)

banco said:


> That liar Mal Brough was asked to go on 7:30 report and didn't have the balls.




OK Banco it's time for *you* to put up or shut up.



> Mr Hockey said Mr Brough was “absolutely” in the clear, and would stand for the Liberal National Party in parliament. The people of Fisher would decide whether Mr Brough, or Mr Slipper, should represent them.




As a Labor Slipper supporter who do you back to win?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...er-peter-slipper/story-fndckad0-1226536036424


----------



## noco (13 December 2012)

Calliope said:


> OK Banco it's time for *you* to put up or shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Calliope, there is only one choice.


----------



## chiff (13 December 2012)

I can't get too excited about this...but does Ashby remind anyone of Gordon Grech?


----------



## banco (13 December 2012)

Calliope said:


> OK Banco it's time for *you* to put up or shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




He's a liar and a dumbass who is on the run from the media:



THE former Howard government minister Mal Brough appears to have changed his story about what he knew of claims of sexual harassment and misuse of travel entitlements by Peter Slipper.

Mr Brough confirmed yesterday he had met the former aide James Ashby three times and had sought legal advice on his behalf in relation to his claims against his then boss, Mr Slipper.

However, Mr Brough was quoted last weekend as saying any suggestion he had known of Mr Ashby's legal action before it was launched was ''nonsense''


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...-on-slipper-20120505-1y5lb.html#ixzz2EtWhZLiU


----------



## Julia (13 December 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> The whole case!! It was a fabrication and abuse of justice.



I wouldn't disagree that it was politically motivated, but don't know how you can say it was all a fabrication.
The emails were there for all to see and in the minds of most people would constitute sexual harassment.


----------



## Calliope (13 December 2012)

banco said:


> He's a liar and a dumbass who is on the run from the media:




Slipper on the other hand is a serial liar and a disgrace to his family and to his electortate. He is on the run from everybody. The only place where he can get solace is with the Oxford Street night life with his own kind, courtesy of Cabcharge.


----------



## banco (13 December 2012)

Calliope said:


> Slipper on the other hand is a serial liar and a disgrace to his family and to his electortate. He is on the run from everybody. The only place where he can get solace is with the Oxford Street night life with his own kind, courtesy of Cabcharge.




I'm no defender of Slipper but I see you've given up trying to claim that Brough isn't a liar.


----------



## drsmith (13 December 2012)

drsmith said:


> The Coalition's put-up or shut-up to Labor over Peter Slipper,
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...er-peter-slipper/story-fndckad0-1226536036424




Labor's wisely decided to limit itself to token background noises.



> Infrastructure minister Anthony Albanese says now is not the time to discuss Mr Slipper's political future, noting that Labor MP Anna Burke is in the Speaker role.
> 
> "Mr Slipper is playing a role as a member of parliament and Ms Burke is the speaker," he told reporters in Sydney.




A wise choice by Labor. Not even they are foolish enough to make the same mistake twice on this, although, I do wonder whether the question was put to messers Oakshott and Windsor beforehand.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/br...bor-over-slipper/story-e6frf7kf-1226535995525


----------



## Julia (13 December 2012)

> Julia Gillard's judgment and authority are again under attack from within her government after independents Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott took the initiative in forcing Peter Slipper to resign, leaving Labor as the Speaker's last defender.



from "The Australian" 11 October 2012

At the time Mr Oakeshott puffed up his chest with pride at his role in forcing Mr Slipper's resignation.
Now he is saying there was no case to answer.

Wow, Mr Oakeshott, great moral consistency there.


----------



## Calliope (13 December 2012)

banco said:


> I'm no defender of Slipper.




Now who's telling porkies.


----------



## banco (13 December 2012)

Calliope said:


> Now who's telling porkies.




Keep dodging the question.


----------



## Knobby22 (13 December 2012)

Julia said:


> I wouldn't disagree that it was politically motivated, but don't know how you can say it was all a fabrication.
> The emails were there for all to see and in the minds of most people would constitute sexual harassment.




I find myself quoting Maxwell Smart "Would you beilieve...".


----------



## Calliope (13 December 2012)

banco said:


> Keep dodging the question.




What question would that be banco? All I have seen from you are the usual loony-left boring accusations. 

They are easily ignored.


----------



## IFocus (13 December 2012)

drsmith said:


> I'll ask the question again.
> 
> It was those lurid (sorry, offensive) texts to James Ashby about female genitalia that brought him down as speaker in the end, was it not ?




Nice dodge

How did they become public?

What did the judge say again about abuse of process?


----------



## IFocus (13 December 2012)

drsmith said:


> Peter Slipper could not contain his desire for extravagance. This combined with a poor sense of moral judgement, both privately and with the public purse was his undoing.
> 
> He was never fit for public office.




Then why did the Liberals nominate him 8 times for pre-selection?


----------



## IFocus (13 December 2012)

Calliope said:


> Slipper on the other hand is a serial liar and a disgrace to his family and to his electortate. He is on the run from everybody. The only place where he can get solace is with the Oxford Street night life with his own kind, courtesy of Cabcharge.





No he is not Abbott went to his wedding all good.


----------



## Julia (13 December 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> I find myself quoting Maxwell Smart "Would you beilieve...".



Knobby, you're usually responsible and objective with your remarks.  So the rather silly quote above seems to me disappointing, surprising, and irrelevant.  I'm sure you can do better.  Maybe just concede that there wasn't actually anything 'made up'.


----------



## IFocus (13 December 2012)

Julia said:


> Knobby, you're usually responsible and objective with your remarks.  So the rather silly quote above seems to me disappointing, surprising, and irrelevant.  I'm sure you can do better.  Maybe just concede that there wasn't actually anything 'made up'.




Why don't you try being objective and read the judgement rather than personalizing


----------



## Knobby22 (13 December 2012)

Julia said:


> Knobby, you're usually responsible and objective with your remarks.  So the rather silly quote above seems to me disappointing, surprising, and irrelevant.  I'm sure you can do better.  Maybe just concede that there wasn't actually anything 'made up'.




I don't understand your viewpoint. 

It was all made up! The accuser set a trap and did it with the knowledge of his helper and with the promise of certain Liberal Party senior people. Its all proven in the emails.

This will go further. Heard Hockey today say he had nothing to do with any of it. He can smell the odour a mile off.

I for one want to see the full force of the law used and arrests made. If this is allowed then no one is safe including you and me.


----------



## noco (14 December 2012)

This is nothimg more than a storm in tea cup for Labor to trying gain some traction before the next elction.

But, what else would you expect from a tirade Judge with a history and appointed by Julia Gillard.

No doubt in my mind,  Gillard  wrote the script for this shaddy judge and maniputated the words to suit Labor and as usual, the Labor parrots have been given their instructions and are jumping all over it.

Labor wants an enquire as to who said what and when. It is a wonder Labor is not demanding a Royal commision be set up. I would sooner see a Royal commission into the AWU, HSU and the unions in general, but of cause that won't before the next electio.


Mal Brough will rump it in Who would want Slippery Pete in after his history.


----------



## moXJO (14 December 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> I don't understand your viewpoint.
> 
> It was all made up! The accuser set a trap and did it with the knowledge of his helper and with the promise of certain Liberal Party senior people. Its all proven in the emails.




Could you provide a link?


----------



## Knobby22 (14 December 2012)

It's the judges finding.

In his stunning judgment, Rares found Brough was a participant in a plot against Slipper; he has trashed Brough's earlier public account. He concluded: ''Mr Ashby acted in combination with Ms Doane [another Slipper staffer] and Mr Brough when commencing the proceedings in order to advance the interests of the LNP and Mr Brough.''

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...-on-inquiry-20121213-2bceg.html#ixzz2EyHbLiSe


----------



## Calliope (14 December 2012)

IFocus said:


> Why don't you try being objective and read the judgement rather than personalizing




So you think the judgement was objective? You're a gullible old galah.


----------



## Knobby22 (14 December 2012)

I give up. 
The judge is a corrupt biased idiot and the emails were all faked to make Mal Brough and his collegues look bad.
If only i wasn't so gullible to fall for this.


----------



## explod (14 December 2012)

Calliope said:


> So you think the judgement was objective? You're a gullible old galah.




Arrr, we are starting to be very nice about it all.

Perhaps take your bat and ball and go home.

When some leave the sinking ship the truth on this whole crap will come out and Abbot will be sunk from his place on the ship


----------



## noco (14 December 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> It's the judges finding.
> 
> In his stunning judgment, Rares found Brough was a participant in a plot against Slipper; he has trashed Brough's earlier public account. He concluded: ''Mr Ashby acted in combination with Ms Doane [another Slipper staffer] and Mr Brough when commencing the proceedings in order to advance the interests of the LNP and Mr Brough.''
> 
> Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...-on-inquiry-20121213-2bceg.html#ixzz2EyHbLiSe




A stunning judgement with manipulated words by  a "SHADDIE jUDGE". THAT IS FOR THE NAIVE TO SWALLOW and the Labor Party to use as a tool.

as a tool to wedge out Mal Brough but it ain't gonna work

Like the joke I heard about a little dusty old lady who road her mule into a one horse town, She tethered it to the rail outside the pub.

Out of the bar comes this whiskey tanked up young ringer.

He pulls out his six shooter and says to the little old lady do you know how to dance? Yes I can she replies but is has been a long time but I will try, so the ringer fires off his six shooter untill all six bullets have been fired around her feet. When had finished his little prank, she says hang on young man and with that pulls out double barrel shoot gun.
Honey, have you ever licked a mules ar$e.

"NO" he says, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO TRY.


----------



## noco (14 December 2012)

Maybe Abbott should  agree to an enquiry. Bethca, the Labor don't want one.

If Sipper has done  "NOTHING WRONG " then Abbott should insist he be reistated as Speaker. Does Labor really want him back?

I don't thing so.


http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...ipper-conspiracy/story-e6freoo6-1226536525563


----------



## nulla nulla (14 December 2012)

Calliope said:


> So you think the judgement was objective? You're a gullible old galah.




There is an interesting aside in todays paper in respect of the judge that handed down the decision re: Peter Slipper. He is also the judge that handed down the decision in respect of the case of the Councils versus Lehman Bros and the dodgy derivatives they hived off.

I'd respectfully suggest he is no-ones fool/tool.


----------



## banco (14 December 2012)

Calliope said:


> So you think the judgement was objective? You're a gullible old galah.




Again you are unable to cite any factual errors or errors of law in the judgement.  I doubt you've even read the judgement.


----------



## orr (14 December 2012)

Calliope said:


> So you think the judgement was objective? You're a gullible old galah.




When the 'right' falls foul of the law you wouldn't recognise it if it was 15lb mackerel being slapped around your ears. Just go back to your apologies in the "Ethics and the Murdoch press" thread ( the glory of indelible memory) . But you are a wonderful window on the lunar fringes views on due process.


----------



## moXJO (14 December 2012)

banco said:


> Again you are unable to cite any factual errors or errors of law in the judgement.  I doubt you've even read the judgement.




Was there any mention of Roxons involvement in the case ?


----------



## banco (14 December 2012)

moXJO said:


> Was there any mention of Roxons involvement in the case ?




Try to keep up.  She was providing instructions on behalf of the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth settled the case against them a month ago.  Most of the people criticising the judgement have no clue how the court system works.


----------



## moXJO (14 December 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> I don't understand your viewpoint.
> 
> It was all made up! The accuser set a trap and did it with the knowledge of his helper and with the promise of certain Liberal Party senior people. Its all proven in the emails.




Is there a link to the actually emails that prove this?

I couldn't see any evidence the judge was corrupt off that other link.
His judgement is correct in that it was political, but imo sexual harassment did occur whether Ashby was fazed by it or not.


----------



## Calliope (14 December 2012)

banco said:


> Again you are unable to cite any factual errors or errors of law in the judgement.  I doubt you've even read the judgement.




You all keep harping about judgement and "factual errors". It's just *one man's opinion.No evidence was heard.*

Is it just a coincidence that he shares the same opinion with Slipper, Roxon, Emerson, Gillard, banco, Knobby, Orr, Focus etc, or are you all reading from the same spin sheet..

Ther is littlle doubt that, like Gillard, you are all Slipper supporters..

I don't notice any female ASF backers of Slipper...and for good reason.:headshake

Your hero is a disgrace..


----------



## noco (14 December 2012)

banco said:


> Try to keep up.  She was providing instructions on behalf of the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth settled the case against them a month ago.  Most of the people criticising the judgement have no clue how the court system works.




Rares is like a crooked sixpence who walked a crooked mile. 

You all know the rest of the poem.

Don't forget to read all the attached links.

http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com...-rares-in-the-peter-slipper-james-ashby-case/


----------



## noco (14 December 2012)

Should we have an enquiry into Rares?  Why not?

http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com...oxon-in-the-peter-slipper-james-ashby-matter/


----------



## Calliope (14 December 2012)

banco said:


> Try to keep up.  She was providing instructions on behalf of the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth settled the case against them a month ago.  Most of the people criticising the judgement have no clue how the court system works.



Rubbish. Roxon was giving her subordinate clear instructions on how to frame his judgement;



> Nicola Roxon herself has said things like “*The Commonwealth strongly believes that this process has been one which is really for an ulterior purpose, not for purposes of an ordinary workplace complaint,”* and,
> 
> ”*A number of other participants other than the applicant [Mr Ashby] were party to formulating this complaint with the clear intent of publicising it before it was filed, with the clear intention of harming Mr Slipper and advantaging his political opponents.*”




http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com...-rares-in-the-peter-slipper-james-ashby-case/


----------



## explod (14 December 2012)

Calliope said:


> You all keep harping about judgement and "factual errors". It's just *one man's opinion.No evidence was heard.*
> 
> Is it just a coincidence that he shares the same opinion with Slipper, Roxon, Emerson, Gillard, banco, Knobby, Orr, Focus etc, or are you all reading from the same spin sheet..
> 
> ...




Rubbish ole Pal, there was no evidence to support the charge, so fall on your sword.

And I do not believe there are too many ALP supporters here but many who can see the situation at law.

There is however little doubt that the action was a poorly judged attempt to unseat Gillard and co.  And interestingly enough it could be the last straw for Abbot and co, in the eyes of the electorate so that Gillard may just scrape home again next year.


----------



## Calliope (14 December 2012)

explod said:


> Rubbish ole Pal, there was no evidence to support the charge, so fall on your sword.
> 
> And I do not believe there are too many ALP supporters here but many who can see the situation at law.
> 
> There is however little doubt that the action was a poorly judged attempt to unseat Gillard and co.  And interestingly enough it could be the last straw for Abbot and co, in the eyes of the electorate so that Gillard may just scrape home again next year.




Rubbish ole Plod. I will add you to the list of Slipper supporters along with Christine Milne..


----------



## sails (14 December 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> It's the judges finding.
> 
> In his stunning judgment, Rares found Brough was a participant in a plot against Slipper; he has trashed Brough's earlier public account. He concluded: ''Mr Ashby acted in combination with Ms Doane [another Slipper staffer] and Mr Brough when commencing the proceedings in order to advance the interests of the LNP and Mr Brough.''
> 
> Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...-on-inquiry-20121213-2bceg.html#ixzz2EyHbLiSe




Are you waying that slipper's vile text messages were made up?

 Those text messages are the obvious elephant in the room, imo.

And, does this mean that politicians can commit crimes and then have it thrown out of court because the person reporting such a crime is seen to be politically motivated?


----------



## Ves (14 December 2012)

sails said:


> Are you waying that slipper's vile text messages were made up?



Maybe we should do a national enquiry on everyone's phones whilst we are at it.

Jesus christ, they were tame compared to some of the stuff I have seen - and yes both males and females were involved.

What a ****ing beat up this whole affair is - and proof that our politicians don't do what they are supposed to be doing - making policies for our future interests (rather than squabbling like class room lawyers).


----------



## moXJO (14 December 2012)

Ves said:


> Maybe we should do a national enquiry on everyone's phones whilst we are at it.
> 
> Jesus christ, they were tame compared to some of the stuff I have seen - and yes both males and females were involved.
> 
> What a ****ing beat up this whole affair is - and proof that our politicians don't do what they are supposed to be doing - making policies for our future interests (rather than squabbling like class room lawyers).




I will agree that since Julia and Abbott entered the fray it has become a joke. I am under no illusion that these two will do whatever it takes to stay in the top spot.


----------



## McLovin (14 December 2012)

My team lost, so I'm going to say the ref was biased.


----------



## explod (14 December 2012)

Calliope said:


> Rubbish ole Plod. I will add you to the list of Slipper supporters along with Christine Milne..




Has nothing to do with the personalities, in fact slipper is a d.ck head in my humble view.

The umpire has blown the whistle in the legal sense, so get over it.


----------



## explod (14 December 2012)

moXJO said:


> I will agree that since Julia and Abbott entered the fray it has become a joke. I am under no illusion that these two will do whatever it takes to stay in the top spot.




And wouldn't you.   

The whole charade is so unimportant as far as running the country is concerned, the whole thing is now a farce.


----------



## explod (14 December 2012)

Ves said:


> Maybe we should do a national enquiry on everyone's phones whilst we are at it.
> 
> Jesus christ, they were tame compared to some of the stuff I have seen - and yes both males and females were involved.
> 
> What a ****ing beat up this whole affair is - and proof that our politicians don't do what they are supposed to be doing - making policies for our future interests (rather than squabbling like class room lawyers).




Good post, sorry I did not read it before posting up the last.


----------



## Knobby22 (14 December 2012)

sails said:


> Are you waying that slipper's vile text messages were made up?
> 
> Those text messages are the obvious elephant in the room, imo.
> 
> And, does this mean that politicians can commit crimes and then have it thrown out of court because the person reporting such a crime is seen to be politically motivated?




Of couse they were there. he will never be Speaker again.
But that wasn't what the court case was about, was it ????? I think you are looking in the wrong room.


----------



## Ves (14 December 2012)

McLovin said:


> My team lost, so I'm going to say the ref was biased.



You're not far from the truth here.


----------



## dutchie (14 December 2012)

No doubt Slipper will be reinstated as Speaker.


----------



## sails (14 December 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> Of couse they were there. he will never be Speaker again.
> But that wasn't what the court case was about, was it ????? I think you are looking in the wrong room.




lol - I thought the text messages were part of the sexual abuse allegations.  I thought they were the evidence.

Was this court case then no more than a political event?

Did the text messages have nothing to do with it?  If so, how come Slipper is cleared if the actual allegations if the evidence was not  judged?

Maybe I'm on the wrong planet...lol


----------



## nulla nulla (14 December 2012)

dutchie said:


> No doubt Slipper will be reinstated as Speaker.




So what? The liberals really have to come to grips with the fact that they are in opposition not government. Not long to go now and then we will have another muck slinging campaign and this time the liberals should be able to get enough votes to govern, with the assistance of the nationals, in their own right.


----------



## McLovin (14 December 2012)

sails said:


> Was this court case then no more than a political event?




Yes. That's why the case was tossed out.

If you want to spared the details, head straight to paragraph 196.

http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2012/2012fca1411


----------



## Miss Hale (14 December 2012)

McLovin said:


> My team lost, so I'm going to say the ref was biased.




But this is not a game is it, this is the law.

It's not unreasonable to expect to see laws applied without political bias.


----------



## noco (14 December 2012)

I am disappointed that the rusted on Labor supporters have not commented on the links I gave regarding the character and credentials of Judge Rares and the close association this fraud has with Nicola Roxon


----------



## Julia (14 December 2012)

explod said:


> There is however little doubt that the action was a poorly judged attempt to unseat Gillard and co.  And interestingly enough it could be the last straw for Abbot and co, in the eyes of the electorate so that Gillard may just scrape home again next year.



Um, don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.  The whole matter has already been dropped from the news, even on the biased ABC.  My guess is that the electorate is much more concerned about the rabid corruption within the AWU, and the Prime Minister's questionable role in this.



explod said:


> And wouldn't you.



(That comment referred to the statement that both Gillard and Abbott will do anything to stay in power) 
My response is 'no.'  If our politicians had any integrity they would draw boundaries around acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, as would most Australians.  But they do not and should hang their heads in collective shame.



> The whole charade is so unimportant as far as running the country is concerned, the whole thing is now a farce.



Agree.   But here you have much of the reason for the anger in the electorate.  We are all utterly sick of these vicious, artificial power struggles.


----------



## Knobby22 (14 December 2012)

Julia said:


> Agree.   But here you have much of the reason for the anger in the electorate.  We are all utterly sick of these vicious, artificial power struggles.




Never a truer word.


----------



## banco (14 December 2012)

noco said:


> Rares is like a crooked sixpence who walked a crooked mile.
> 
> You all know the rest of the poem.
> 
> ...




Geez you guys are thick as ****.  Anyone involved with the court system will tell you that the Federal Government loses quite a bit in the Federal Court (as they do at all levels of the Court system).


----------



## Calliope (14 December 2012)

This is an interesting point. Rares has opened up a can of worms.



> *According to the judge's "firm conclusion", Ashby's predominant purpose for bringing the proceedings was to pursue a political attack against Slipper and not to vindicate any legal claim he may have for which the right to bring proceedings exists*.






> As this case stands - Ashby has indicated he intends to appeal - then judges will have to carefully examine motive in other cases and certainly when sexual harassment is alleged. Which makes one wonder how the federal government stands with its promised commission into institutional sexual abuse.* It appears patently obvious that a significant number of the claims made against the Catholic Church have been made by people whose primary aim is to raise "scandalous and damaging allegations, knowing that they would receive very significant media coverage"*




http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...tive-for-inquiry/story-e6frezz0-1226536345448


----------



## drsmith (14 December 2012)

IFocus said:


> Nice dodge
> 
> How did they become public?
> 
> What did the judge say again about abuse of process?



That was the issue that brought him down as speaker, not the sexual harassment claim.

In the end, both Peter Slipper and James Ashby got their just desserts. As for the political fallout for the major parties, it's worse for Labor than it is for Liberal. Labor lost their appointed man as speaker whereas Mal Brough is only wounded. Evan if Mal Brough was to fall, that's not as bad for the Coalition as it is for Labor losing its anointed speaker.

This whole sorry episode has been political skulduggery all round.


----------



## banco (14 December 2012)

Calliope said:


> This is an interesting point. Rares has opened up a can of worms.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You mean by resurrecting obscure the legal doctrine of "abuse of process"?


----------



## drsmith (14 December 2012)

IFocus said:


> Then why did the Liberals nominate him 8 times for pre-selection?



Every cat has nine lives does it not, including mangy old alley cats. The Coalition were at least trying to put it down before Labor decided it had a use for it.

So, who took this smelly, sore riddled, mangy, matted and emaciated old political animal down at its last life with worms crawling out of its bottom and stood it up in the high office of Speaker, knifing one of their own to do so ?

It was another fine judgement by Julia Gillard and Labor.


----------



## Calliope (14 December 2012)

drsmith said:


> So, who took this smelly, sore riddled, mangy, matted and emaciated old political animal down at its last life with worms crawling out of its bottom and stood it up in the high office of Speaker, knifing one of their own to do so ?




Which surprises me why he is regarded as the heroic victor by many contributors to these pages, who took his side against Ashby (another low-life) and are crowing over his victory. :screwy:


----------



## drsmith (14 December 2012)

This whole sorry episode was a pox on both their houses.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...bbott-over-ashby-judgment-20121214-2be28.html

Peter Slipper though is no longer speaker, so in a pure political sense, it's a win to the Coalition, and one I imagine Julia Gillard would find personally, very hard to take.



> Behind the scenes, key crossbenchers were twisting Slipper’s arm and he quit within hours. But if the path Gillard advocated publicly had been followed, Slipper would have still been Speaker when this week’s court judgment came.


----------



## banco (14 December 2012)

Calliope said:


> Which surprises me why he is regarded as the heroic victor by many contributors to these pages, who took his side against Ashby (another low-life) and are crowing over his victory. :screwy:




Why is it one or the other?  Slipper, Ashby and Mal Brough are all lowlifes.


----------



## Calliope (14 December 2012)

banco said:


> Why is it one or the other?  Slipper, Ashby and Mal Brough are all lowlifes.




I'm surprised. All your posts have been in defence of low-life Slipper.


----------



## Ves (14 December 2012)

Calliope said:


> I'm surprised. All your posts have been in defence of low-life Slipper.



No. His posts have been in defence of the legal procedings.

The binary coding of your brain seems to be preventing you from seeing this simple reality.


----------



## banco (14 December 2012)

Calliope said:


> I'm surprised. All your posts have been in defence of low-life Slipper.




I haven't defended him in a single post.


----------



## waza1960 (14 December 2012)

> Why is it one or the other? Slipper, Ashby and Mal Brough are all lowlifes.




  Its going too far to label Mal Brough a lowlife IMO. He was a very good minister and at worst had a slight error of judgement.
      What have the other two contributed to public life except their own self interests ?


----------



## Julia (14 December 2012)

Calliope said:


> Which surprises me why he is regarded as the heroic victor by many contributors to these pages, who took his side against Ashby (another low-life) and are crowing over his victory. :screwy:



Aren't the police still investigating his cab charges etc?  Might be a bit too soon for Mr Slipper to paint himself as pure as the driven snow.

Even before this current distasteful affair, he was widely known for his rorting and excessive travel claims.

Imo if Mr Brough has been (via Ashby) associated with  an attempt to bring down Slipper purely with the aim of having himself elected, he need not have risked his reputation.
I cannot for a moment imagine the voters of Slipper's electorate voting him back in even without the public knowledge of his lurid and salacious emails.


----------



## Julia (14 December 2012)

noco said:


> But, what else would you expect from a tirade Judge with a history and appointed by Julia Gillard.



Earlier, not knowing who appointed Justice Rares, I accepted your statement above.
However, catching up with "The Punch" this evening I see


> Judge Steven Rares, appointed to the court by then Liberal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock in 2006, dismissed court action against Mr Slipper on sexual harassment claims, branding it an abuse of process.




Perhaps you could tell us why you stated that Justice Rares was appointed by Julia Gillard?
And at the same time, maybe explain what a 'tirade Judge' is?


----------



## drsmith (15 December 2012)

As one would expect, Peter Slipper's not even in the hunt come election time.

At 2.7% support, he would obviously be a fool to contest and ultimately, I doubt he will.



> THE sexual harassment claim against the former speaker Peter Slipper has been thrown out of court but his constituents still appear intent upon throwing him out of Parliament - with just 2.7 per cent of voters in his Queensland electorate saying they supported him.






> Despite the criticism of the pre-selected LNP candidate, Mal Brough, in the judgment - it said he had acted ''in combination'' with Mr Slipper's former staffer James Ashby in order to advance his own political interests - the former Howard government minister appears set for an easy victory in next year's election if he remains a candidate.
> 
> He would receive votes from 48.4 per cent of those polled, with 21.2 per cent saying they would support Labor's candidate.
> 
> But only 41.8 per cent said they had a favourable opinion of Mr Brough and 37.7 per cent said Mr Brough's involvement in the Ashby case had made him less likely to win their support.




http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...rt-him-20121214-2bf7l.html?rand=1355491305040


----------



## McLovin (15 December 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> But this is not a game is it, this is the law.
> 
> It's not unreasonable to expect to see laws applied without political bias.




Refer post #554.


----------



## Miss Hale (15 December 2012)

McLovin said:


> Refer post #554.




Yes, I saw that. My point still stands.


----------



## McLovin (15 December 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> Yes, I saw that. My point still stands.




Well then, your point appears to be stating the obvious. Unless I'm missing something.


----------



## noco (15 December 2012)

Julia said:


> Earlier, not knowing who appointed Justice Rares, I accepted your statement above.
> However, catching up with "The Punch" this evening I see
> 
> 
> ...




Julia, yes, I was well aware of Rares was apointed by the previous government as it was clearly memtioned by the Kangaroo Court paper and perhaps I should have choosen my words a little better.

Between Gillard and Roxon, who is Rares superior, these two made sure Rares was allocated to the Slipper Case as mentioned. Rares was given guide lines and instructions on how to make Slippere come out smelling of roses and that was also mentioned in the Kanagroo Court. Not sure where though. I could have been in one of the sub links. Nevertheless, it was a politcal ploy by Roxon.

The Labor Party say there should be an enquiry into, "who knew what and when about the Coalation" trying in their endeavours to implicate as many members of the coalition as possibble. 

But it was alright for Roxon to interfer in the case before it even went court. Most unusaul for an Attorney General IMO.

I hope this relieves your enquiry mind.


----------



## So_Cynical (15 December 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> I give up.
> The judge is a corrupt biased idiot and the emails were all faked to make Mal Brough and his collegues look bad.
> If only i wasn't so gullible to fall for this.




What is it with the right and denial? Climate change, Asylum seekers, The Federal Court..denial, denial, denial.

:dunno:


----------



## banco (15 December 2012)

noco said:


> Julia, yes, I was well aware of Rares was apointed by the previous government as it was clearly memtioned by the Kangaroo Court paper and perhaps I should have choosen my words a little better.
> 
> Between Gillard and Roxon, who is Rares superior, these two made sure Rares was allocated to the Slipper Case as mentioned. Rares was given guide lines and instructions on how to make Slippere come out smelling of roses and that was also mentioned in the Kanagroo Court. Not sure where though. I could have been in one of the sub links. Nevertheless, it was a politcal ploy by Roxon.
> 
> ...




I'm struggling to find words for how stupid you are.  In no court in Australia are the cases allocated by the execuive.  They are either allocated by the Chief Justice of the Court or (in lower courts) you'll get a certain magistrate based on what day of the week it is.  

Plus Gillard and Roxon are not not a Federal Court Judge's superior in any sense of the word.  They can't remove them, can't give directions, they basically have no powers over them.


----------



## Miss Hale (15 December 2012)

McLovin said:


> Well then, your point appears to be stating the obvious. Unless I'm missing something.




Your original comment suggested that the only reason some people are not happy wth the result is because 'their team' lost. My point is that it has nothing to do with teams, some people are not happy with the result because it appears that the judgement handed down is politically based.  It's not a game, it's the law and needs to be applied without political bias.


----------



## drsmith (15 December 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> :dunno:



That's what Labor's done for the past five years when their policies have gone pear shaped.

It's impulsive now. They can't stop.


----------



## Julia (15 December 2012)

noco said:


> Julia, yes, I was well aware of Rares was apointed by the previous government as it was clearly memtioned by the Kangaroo Court paper and perhaps I should have choosen my words a little better.



Chosen your words better?  You clearly stated Justice Rares was appointed by Gillard.



> Between Gillard and Roxon, who is Rares superior, these two made sure Rares was allocated to the Slipper Case as mentioned. Rares was given guide lines and instructions on how to make Slippere come out smelling of roses and that was also mentioned in the Kanagroo Court.



Really?  That's quite a claim.  Do you have any means of substantiating this allegation which is essentially saying Justice Rares is entirely corrupt?  And I don't think many people would consider the "Kangaroo Court", whatever that is, to be a widely recognised source of validation.



> The Labor Party say there should be an enquiry into, "who knew what and when about the Coalation" trying in their endeavours to implicate as many members of the coalition as possibble.



If I were a Labor Party disciple, I'd probably think such a suggestion was pretty reasonable.  I'm not, so I don't.
However, it's probably not so different from the Libs wanting an enquiry into anything which might even vaguely make the government look bad.



> But it was alright for Roxon to interfer in the case before it even went court. Most unusaul for an Attorney General IMO.



How exactly did she interfere in the case?  (other than showing obvious favouritism to Slipper by allowing him backdoor access to the court early on which was extremely silly of her.)



> I hope this relieves your enquiry mind.



My "enquiry mind"?  Not sure what that means.   I don't feel relieved or otherwise.  I'm disgusted by the entire event where no one concerned has covered themselves with glory, and on the contrary they have all ended up much tarnished.  I'm particularly disappointed in Mal Brough, whom I'd previously had a lot of time for when he was a Minister in the Howard government.

Slipper and Ashby deserve each other.  They are excellent examples of bottom dwelling slime.



banco said:


> I'm struggling to find words for how stupid you are.  In no court in Australia are the cases allocated by the execuive.  They are either allocated by the Chief Justice of the Court or (in lower courts) you'll get a certain magistrate based on what day of the week it is.
> 
> Plus Gillard and Roxon are not not a Federal Court Judge's superior in any sense of the word.  They can't remove them, can't give directions, they basically have no powers over them.



That's what I would have thought.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 December 2012)

Slippery is a Grub. Plain and simple.

ALP are on a loser using a Judge to justify his gross misogyny.

He is a Grub.

ALP Topcats are out of touch with ALP ground. 

gg


----------



## drsmith (15 December 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Slippery is a Grub. Plain and simple.
> 
> ALP are on a loser using a Judge to justify his gross misogyny.
> 
> ...



What happened to the hour of internet access each week ?

I can only assume the nuns kept you fully occupied.  

It's good to see you back.


----------



## MrBurns (15 December 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Slippery is a Grub. Plain and simple.
> 
> ALP are on a loser using a Judge to justify his gross misogyny.
> 
> ...




Agree with all of that.

Filthy scumbags leaching on the taxpayer.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 December 2012)

drsmith said:


> What happened to the hour of internet access each week ?
> 
> I can only assume the nuns kept you fully occupied.
> 
> It's good to see you back.




Thanks Doc.

One's mind does become focussed in an enclosed space.

Speaking of which I glanced upon Slippery in the Chairman's Lounge on my way back to Townsville and he did not appear to be a happy camper. So much so that I felt like giving him a bowl of tepid predictable Qantas 11am soup.

gg


----------



## noco (15 December 2012)

Julia, perhaps if you read the whole of the Kangaroo Court links I gave you, plus all the sub links that form part of it, you might just something new.


----------



## McLovin (15 December 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> Your original comment suggested that the only reason some people are not happy wth the result is because 'their team' lost. My point is that it has nothing to do with teams, some people are not happy with the result because it appears that the judgement handed down is politically based.  It's not a game, it's the law and needs to be applied without political bias.




Good luck to them. Some people will find "bias" in anything that doesn't agree with their point of view.

And that's why it's like watching a bunch of kids whose sports team has lost. Good for a laugh, don't get me wrong.


----------



## Calliope (16 December 2012)

As Joe Hockey says the detractors of Mal Brough "can go to hell." ...and they probably will as they are Gillard/Roxon Slipper supporters.



> The shadow treasurer Joe Hockey's denied he ever discussed the sexual harassment case in his meetings with Mal Brough.
> 
> JOE HOCKEY: Are you calling me a liar?
> 
> ...




The electors of Fisher will have the last laugh.


----------



## Macquack (16 December 2012)

Calliope said:


> The electors of Fisher will have the last laugh.




As opposed to being the laughing stock.


----------



## drsmith (16 December 2012)

Macquack said:


> As opposed to being the laughing stock.



That's what they are at the moment courtesy of their elected representative, but their revenge on Peter Slipper at the ballot box is coming. Labor won't be spared either. They are the devil Pete did the deal with.


----------



## Julia (16 December 2012)

McLovin said:


> Good luck to them. Some people will find "bias" in anything that doesn't agree with their point of view.



I can't speak for Miss Hale, but although I acknowledge the action was politically motivated, that seems to have meant that no sexual harassment actually occurred, in the Judge's mind.   The emails and reported remarks and actions by Slipper seem to me to be sexual harassment.   So I still question the decision on that basis.

It would be pretty funny if it were overturned on appeal.


----------



## banco (16 December 2012)

Julia said:


> I can't speak for Miss Hale, but although I acknowledge the action was politically motivated, that seems to have meant that no sexual harassment actually occurred, in the Judge's mind.   The emails and reported remarks and actions by Slipper seem to me to be sexual harassment.   So I still question the decision on that basis.
> 
> It would be pretty funny if it were overturned on appeal.




It doesn't mean that at all.  Even if Ashby had a legitimate cause of action if the Court finds the predominant purpose in bringing the lawsuit is an improper one they can still throw it out.  

The Judge does make some comments on the substance of the sexual harassment allegations:

"As I have found, the contemporaneous texts messages and other documents do not reveal any trace of psychological or emotional suffering or complaint by Mr Ashby arising from any sexual harassment. Mr Ashby’s request in early to mid March 2012 to accompany Mr Slipper overseas, at Mr Ashby’s own expense, reinforces the obvious lack of any, or any perceivable substantive damage that he may have suffered from any inappropriate conduct by Mr Slipper. "

Plus the Judge notes that even if all of his claims against Slipper and the Commonwealth had been made out he wouldn't have got more than $50000 altogether from both of them.


----------



## sails (16 December 2012)

banco said:


> It doesn't mean that at all.  Even if Ashby had a legitimate cause of action if the Court finds the predominant purpose in bringing the lawsuit is an improper one they can still throw it out.
> ...




Are you saying allegations about any crime (no matter how serious) is deemed political, then the actual case will never be heard?

If so, that is unbelievable!

This doesn't seem like the Australia I grew up in...


----------



## Calliope (16 December 2012)

sails said:


> Are you saying allegations about any crime (no matter how serious) is deemed political, then the actual case will never be heard?
> 
> If so, that is unbelievable!
> 
> This doesn't seem like the Australia I grew up in...




Craig Thomson will breathe a sigh of relief.

Thomson;   "But your Honour, the accusations against me were politically motivated.":

Judge:        "Then you are as innocent as Mr Slipper. Abbott and Pyne are the guilty ones. They* used you* to     try to bring down our beloved leader.


----------



## Ves (16 December 2012)

Calliope said:


> Craig Thomson will breathe a sigh of relief.



Would the Craig Thomson charges be at *criminal law* as opposed to *common law*?

I believe there is a massive difference between the two.


----------



## Ves (16 December 2012)

sails said:


> Are you saying allegations about any *crime* (no matter how serious) is deemed political, then the actual case will never be heard?



See my post above.


----------



## Julia (16 December 2012)

banco said:


> It doesn't mean that at all.  Even if Ashby had a legitimate cause of action if the Court finds the predominant purpose in bringing the lawsuit is an improper one they can still throw it out.
> 
> The Judge does make some comments on the substance of the sexual harassment allegations:
> 
> "As I have found, the contemporaneous texts messages and other documents do not reveal any trace of psychological or emotional suffering or complaint by Mr Ashby arising from any sexual harassment. Mr Ashby’s request in early to mid March 2012 to accompany Mr Slipper overseas, at Mr Ashby’s own expense, reinforces the obvious lack of any, or any perceivable substantive damage that he may have suffered from any inappropriate conduct by Mr Slipper. "



I read that part of the judgement.   How about considering an analogy:  say a woman experiences sexual harassment from her superior in the workplace.  She has the capacity to not fall apart in hysteria as a result, so does not display visible distress,  but believes it is her right to have the matter addressed.   She brings an action such as Ashby has done.

Can this equally be thrown out because the judge could say she was motivated e.g. by her dislike of her boss? 



> Plus the Judge notes that even if all of his claims against Slipper and the Commonwealth had been made out he wouldn't have got more than $50000 altogether from both of them.




I don't see that that means much.  If I were aggrieved about something to the point of wanting it addressed legally, the money that could eventuate would be entirely unimportant to me.  The whole point of taking action for me would be that people should not be able to take sexual or psychological advantage of anyone in their employ or with whom they are working.


sails said:


> Are you saying allegations about any crime (no matter how serious) is deemed political, then the actual case will never be heard?
> 
> If so, that is unbelievable!
> 
> This doesn't seem like the Australia I grew up in...



Agree.



Ves said:


> Would the Craig Thomson charges be at *criminal law* as opposed to *common law*?
> 
> I believe there is a massive difference between the two.



Good question Ves.  Do we have any lawyers here?  Or do you know enough about this to expand on it?


----------



## banco (16 December 2012)

Julia said:


> I read that part of the judgement.   How about considering an analogy:  say a woman experiences sexual harassment from her superior in the workplace.  She has the capacity to not fall apart in hysteria as a result, so does not display visible distress,  but believes it is her right to have the matter addressed.   She brings an action such as Ashby has done.
> 
> Can this equally be thrown out because the judge could say she was motivated e.g. by her dislike of her boss?
> 
> ...




Of course you can hate the person you are suing.  A better analogy would be if a woman in a large company experiences sexual harassment and then tells her brother to make a large short investment in the company as they think when the allegations come out the share price will take a large hit.  In the meantime she's text messaging everyone about how much money her and her brother are going to make. To make it even closer to the Ashby case her lawyer includes in the court documents irrelevant material about possible auditing problems at the company.



As for the money spent versus possible outcomes. Again it was the whole picture.  Racking up hundreds of thousands in legal fees and PR company fees when at best you were going to recover say $30,000 in damages isn't the way you'd play it if your concern was the sexual harassment allegations.  It hasn't got that much attention but as Richard Ackland has pointed out at the end of the judgement the Judge is practically inviting Ashby to seek an order that his lawyers pay Slipper's costs (at the moment Ashby has to pay Slipper's costs).


----------



## banco (16 December 2012)

sails said:


> Are you saying allegations about any crime (no matter how serious) is deemed political, then the actual case will never be heard?
> 
> If so, that is unbelievable!
> 
> This doesn't seem like the Australia I grew up in...




Ashby versus Slipper was not a criminal case.  It was a civil case.


----------



## McLovin (16 December 2012)

sails said:


> Are you saying allegations about any crime (no matter how serious) is deemed political, then the actual case will never be heard?
> 
> If so, that is unbelievable!
> 
> This doesn't seem like the Australia I grew up in...




First of all, this was not a criminal case it was a civil case, sexual harassment is a civil offence. Ashby v Slipper, not R v Slipper. The Justice has every right to ascertain the bona fides of the applicant. Otherwise the courts would be clogged with vexatious litigants.

Secondly, the case was thrown out because it was seen as a misuse of the court. When you read the judgement and the evidence presented it's pretty clear that Ashby's primary motivation was to further his own and Mal Brough's political career.

Thirdly, it's a dangerous precedent to set. Allowing people to sue for no other reason that smear someone else's reputation (however smeared that reputation already is). Refer: vexatious litigation.


----------



## sails (16 December 2012)

McLovin said:


> First of all, this was not a criminal case it was a civil case. Ashby v Slipper, not R v Slipper. Because it was a civil case, the Justice has every right to ascertain the bona fides of the applicant. Otherwise the courts would be clogged with vexatious litigants.
> 
> Secondly, the case was thrown out because it was seen as a misuse of the court. When you read the judgement and the evidence presented it's pretty clear that Ashby's primary motivation was to further his own and Mal Brough's political career.
> 
> Thirdly, it's a dangerous precedent to set. Allowing people to sue for no other reason that smear someone else's reputation (however smeared that reputation already is).





Fair enough on some of it...

However, how could it further Brough's career?  Slipper resigned from the Libs and Brough was pre-selected to stand in his place.  Polling shows slipper has 2.7% support.  Brough would have romped it in easily, so for this to be politically motivated on his part remains a total mystery to me.


----------



## Julia (16 December 2012)

McLovin said:


> First of all, this was not a criminal case it was a civil case. Ashby v Slipper, not R v Slipper. The Justice has every right to ascertain the bona fides of the applicant. Otherwise the courts would be clogged with vexatious litigants.
> 
> Secondly, the case was thrown out because it was seen as a misuse of the court. When you read the judgement and the evidence presented it's pretty clear that Ashby's primary motivation was to further his own and Mal Brough's political career.
> 
> Thirdly, it's a dangerous precedent to set. Allowing people to sue for no other reason that smear someone else's reputation (however smeared that reputation already is). Refer: vexatious litigation.



So could you discuss the actual difference between criminal and civil?  It's an area about which I'm pretty ignorant and I suspect others are also.

If this action was inappropriate, what means would Ashby have of having his claim of sexual harassment addressed?
viz my earlier analogy.


----------



## Ves (16 December 2012)

Julia said:


> So could you discuss the actual difference between criminal and civil?  It's an area about which I'm pretty ignorant and I suspect others are also.
> 
> If this action was inappropriate, what means would Ashby have of having his claim of sexual harassment addressed?
> viz my earlier analogy.



Common Law is based on precedent - ie judgments in previous court cases.  These cases involve someone claiming damages against someone else. In Australia we are heavily influenced by the (historical) precedents set under the English Law system.

Criminal law is based on statutes.  Statutes are the written law of society (Commonwealth, State etc).  In this case you are prosecuted under the law. As far as I know there are different jurisdictions, and depending on which law you breach, the jurisdiction that covers that law will take up prosecution against you.


----------



## McLovin (16 December 2012)

Julia said:


> So could you discuss the actual difference between criminal and civil?  It's an area about which I'm pretty ignorant and I suspect others are also.




Criminal offences (rape, murder, burglary etc) are considered crimes against society or the state. They are prosecuted by State or Commonwealth governments through the DPP "Regina v ....". They can be either codified in legislation or be common law offences. Most states, and the Commonwealth have removed common law offences. Obviously, common law still works in practice through the binding of lower courts by the decisions of higher courts.

If you commit a civil offence, then whoever has been wronged can sue you for damages. 

That girl from DJ's who sued McInnes is a good example. The police had nothing to do with it because a criminal offence had not been committed. In the case of Slipper, the Commonwealth DPP's only interest was in the Cabcharge dockets.




Julia said:


> If this action was inappropriate, what means would Ashby have of having his claim of sexual harassment addressed?
> viz my earlier analogy.




He can appeal.


----------



## McLovin (16 December 2012)

Ves said:


> Common Law is based on precedent - ie judgments in previous court cases.  These cases involve someone claiming damages against someone else. In Australia we are heavily influenced by the (historical) precedents set under the English Law system.
> 
> Criminal law is based on statutes.  Statutes are the written law of society (Commonwealth, State etc).  In this case you are prosecuted under the law. As far as I know there are different jurisdictions, and depending on which law you breach, the jurisdiction that covers that law will take up prosecution against you.




The distinction is between criminal and civil law. Common law is just case based law, it can be civil or criminal.


----------



## noco (16 December 2012)

sails said:


> Fair enough on some of it...
> 
> However, how could it further Brough's career?  Slipper resigned from the Libs and Brough was pre-selected to stand in his place.  Polling shows slipper has 2.7% support.  Brough would have romped it in easily, so for this to be politically motivated on his part remains a total mystery to me.




Yes, I agree Sails, he would have been home and hosed without  the aid of Ashby.

Who would have wanted that Slippery Pete back in with his record of cab charge misappropriation hanging over his head. 

The Labor Party have tried to blow it up out of all proportion.

From what I recall from the past, Ashby went to Brough for advice and as far as I recall Brough told him to take it to the police,

I hope Brough makes an appeal against the decision.


----------



## banco (16 December 2012)

noco said:


> Yes, I agree Sails, he would have been home and hosed without  the aid of Ashby.
> 
> Who would have wanted that Slippery Pete back in with his record of cab charge misappropriation hanging over his head.
> 
> ...




As he's not a party Brough would have a rather hard time appealing the decision.


----------



## Ves (16 December 2012)

McLovin said:


> The distinction is between criminal and civil law. Common law is just case based law, it can be civil or criminal.



Thanks - you're right.  Wrong terminology on my part.


----------



## McLovin (16 December 2012)

banco said:


> As he's not a party Brough would have a rather hard time appealing the decision.




Yes, but this is a kangaroo court, so anything goes!!!


----------



## Calliope (16 December 2012)

McLovin said:


> When you read the judgement and the evidence presented it's pretty clear that Ashby's primary motivation was to further his own and Mal Brough's political career.




The "judgement" hinges solely on one man's opinion, that of Rares. "It's pretty clear" that his "primary motivation" was to cast a slur on the credibility of the Liberal leadership and destroy Brough's political career. 

A less biased judge would have been content with just throwing out Ashby's case, but no, he had to go down the Roxon path.


----------



## MrBurns (16 December 2012)

Calliope said:


> The "judgement" hinges solely on one man's opinion, that of Rares. "It's pretty clear" that his "primary motivation" was to cast a slur on the credibility of the Liberal leadership and destroy Brough's political career.
> 
> A less biased judge would have been content with just throwing out Ashby's case, but no, he had to go down the Roxon path.




He certainly did showing clear bias.


----------



## Julia (16 December 2012)

Julia said:


> I read that part of the judgement.   How about considering an analogy:  say a woman experiences sexual harassment from her superior in the workplace.  She has the capacity to not fall apart in hysteria as a result, so does not display visible distress,  but believes it is her right to have the matter addressed.   She brings an action such as Ashby has done.
> 
> Can this equally be thrown out because the judge could say she was motivated e.g. by her dislike of her boss?






banco said:


> Of course you can hate the person you are suing.  A better analogy would be if a woman in a large company experiences sexual harassment and then tells her brother to make a large short investment in the company as they think when the allegations come out the share price will take a large hit.  In the meantime she's text messaging everyone about how much money her and her brother are going to make. To make it even closer to the Ashby case her lawyer includes in the court documents irrelevant material about possible auditing problems at the company.



You are creating an overly complicated situation here.  Why not just answer my original hypothetical scenario as above?
Just indulge me and pretend it's a real situation.  Heaven knows, it happens every day in the workplace.
What should the harassed employee do?


----------



## Ves (16 December 2012)

Julia said:


> You are creating an overly complicated situation here.  Why not just answer my original hypothetical scenario as above?
> Just indulge me and pretend it's a real situation.  Heaven knows, it happens every day in the workplace.
> What should the harassed employee do?



The whole point of taking someone to court over a civil law matter is to seek damages.  How could you take a case to court where you could not (or would not want to) prove  that you were 'damaged' (in such terms as you require compensation from the other party) in any way? What are you trying to gain by doing so?

Your example does not seem to give enough information in this respect???


----------



## banco (16 December 2012)

Julia said:


> You are creating an overly complicated situation here.  Why not just answer my original hypothetical scenario as above?
> Just indulge me and pretend it's a real situation.  Heaven knows, it happens every day in the workplace.
> What should the harassed employee do?




Based on the fact scenario you give it wouldn't be thrown out as an abuse of process.  The fact that she hated her boss and didn't show any visible signs of distress would probably come up in the proceedings particularly if it was a he said/she said case ie "she's lying she's had a vendetta against me".  

There was a recent case actually where two Commonwealth Bank executives were sued for sexual harassment and the judge found that the applicant was a pathological liar and ruled against her.  

http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/sex-lies-and-banking/163/


----------



## McLovin (16 December 2012)

Caliope said:
			
		

> The "judgement" hinges solely on one man's opinion, that of Rares.




Yeah, and? Juries are virtually non-existant in civil trials. So pretty much every civil case hinges on one man or woman's decision. I know that you may like to think this is some great travesty of justice, but it's just business as usual.

If he wants to appeal to the full bench, let him. The lawyers will make a packet.

My own opinion: Slipper is a pretty seedy sort of guy, Ashby doesn't seem much better. No wonder he worked for him for so long.


----------



## Calliope (17 December 2012)

McLovin said:


> Yeah, and? Juries are virtually non-existant in civil trials. So pretty much every civil case hinges on one man or woman's decision. .




Exactly. It was just the luck of the draw for Slipper. However, in the Federal Court, the chances of drawing a conservative judge are pretty slim.


----------



## banco (17 December 2012)

Calliope said:


> Exactly. It was just the luck of the draw for Slipper. However, in the Federal Court, the chances of drawing a conservative judge are pretty slim.




You've yet to point what part of the judgement is factually wrong or any errors of law.  I assume you are incapable of doing so.


----------



## Knobby22 (17 December 2012)

banco said:


> You've yet to point what part of the judgement is factually wrong or any errors of law.  I assume you are incapable of doing so.




Yes, good point. 
Calliope, show us where you believe the judge erred in his judgement and so on what basis the appeal can take place.


----------



## McLovin (17 December 2012)

Calliope said:


> Exactly. It was just the luck of the draw for Slipper. However, in the Federal Court, the chances of drawing a conservative judge are pretty slim.




And let me guess, this issue of bias exists all the way up to the High Court. Why do super righties always try and play the victim?


----------



## Calliope (17 December 2012)

banco said:


> You've yet to point what part of the judgement is factually wrong or any errors of law.  I assume you are incapable of doing so.




The fish are biteing well today.

Not judgement. Opinions. Opinions are often wrong. As yours are, despite your great legal brain.

Knobby's contribution. Banco's ventriloquist doll.



> Yes, good point.
> Calliope, show us where you believe the judge erred in his judgement and so on what basis the appeal can take place.




And the third Roxon/Rares luvvie chips with the admission that it's the luck of the draw and the statement that "Slipper is a pretty seedy sort of guy." Well who'd have guessed it.



> Yeah, and? Juries are virtually non-existant in civil trials. So pretty much every civil case hinges on one man or woman's decision. I know that you may like to think this is some great travesty of justice, but it's just business as usual.
> 
> If he wants to appeal to the full bench, let him. The lawyers will make a packet.
> 
> My own opinion: Slipper is a pretty seedy sort of guy, Ashby doesn't seem much better. No wonder he worked for him for so long.


----------



## McLovin (17 December 2012)

Calliope said:
			
		

> And the third Roxon/Rares luvvie chips with the admission that it's the luck of the draw




Don't put words in my mouth, thanks.

All your posts are so ridiculously anti-everything that isn't Liberal, I'm wondering, do they pay you by the word or by the post?


----------



## Calliope (17 December 2012)

McLovin said:


> Don't put words in my mouth, thanks.




These were your words;

 "So pretty much every civil case hinges on one man or woman's decision."

 i.e. the luck of the draw. This case hinged on a Roxon/Rares decision. A conservative judge - a rare beast in the Federal Court -  may not have thrown out the case.



> All your posts are so ridiculously anti-everything that isn't Liberal, I'm wondering, do they pay you by the word or by the post?




Please don't follow Gillard into the gutter.


----------



## McLovin (17 December 2012)

Calliope said:


> These were your words;
> 
> "So pretty much every civil case hinges on one man or woman's decision."




And there's a process. It's not just Judge Smith waking up and saying "Oh today will be a guilty day". If it was merely "luck of the draw" then why aren't there far more people appealing cases successfully?



Calliope said:


> Please don't follow Gillard into the gutter.




People in glass houses...


----------



## Calliope (17 December 2012)

McLovin said:


> . If it was merely "luck of the draw" then why aren't there far more people appealing cases successfully?




That's an easy one. Because it is too costly. If you lose the appeal you will be bankrupt. Justice doesn't come cheap.


----------



## McLovin (17 December 2012)

Calliope said:


> That's an easy one. Because it is too costly. If you lose the appeal you will be bankrupt. Justice doesn't come cheap.




So then how do you explain the high number of unsuccessful appeals? If what you say is true, then it only seems logical that one wouldn't appeal unless they thought they had a sure thing. And yet the success rate for civil case appeals is around 15%.

If you're in court, then you have money. Otherwise you settle way before that time.


----------



## Calliope (17 December 2012)

McLovin said:


> So then how do you explain the high number of unsuccessful appeals? .




I've no idea. I guess the appellant runs out of money. Good legal representation doesn't come cheap.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 December 2012)

Could someone enlighten me.

If Slippery runs again for parliament in the upcoming Election in March 2013 and loses does he get a bigger pension/payout than if he doesn't run?

gg


----------



## drsmith (17 December 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> If Slippery runs again for parliament in the upcoming Election in March 2013 and loses does he get a bigger pension/payout than if he doesn't run?



We'll know the answer to that by whether or not he runs.


----------



## noco (17 December 2012)

drsmith said:


> We'll know the answer to that by whether or not he runs.




I will bet pounds to peanuts , Labor will not be endorsing him so he would have to stand as an independant.


----------



## Julia (17 December 2012)

noco said:


> I will bet pounds to peanuts , Labor will not be endorsing him so he would have to stand as an independant.




He is an Independent.  Has never been recognised as a member of the Labor Party.
I can't imagine that he will risk further humiliation by standing and being thoroughly trounced in the next election.
If I were as mortally wounded as is Slipper, I'd be leaving the country.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 December 2012)

Julia said:


> He is an Independent.  Has never been recognised as a member of the Labor Party.
> I can't imagine that he will risk further humiliation by standing and being thoroughly trounced in the next election.
> If I were as mortally wounded as is Slipper, I'd be leaving the country.




I believe if he runs, even if he gets only one vote, he may get a bigger payout.

On his form he may be tempted to run as an independent.

Many other politicians have done this.

gg


----------



## banco (17 December 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I believe if he runs, even if he gets only one vote, he may get a bigger payout.
> 
> 
> gg




...and you'd be wrong.


----------



## Calliope (19 December 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I believe if he runs, even if he gets only one vote, he may get a bigger payout.
> 
> On his form he may be tempted to run as an independent.
> 
> ...




Phil Coorey, a Fairfax, Labor leaning hack journalist says;



> Federal Labor believes it can take back Peter Slipper’s Queensland electorate of Fisher following the Federal Court ruling which criticised the Coalition candidate for the seat, Mal Brough.




Senior minister Anthony Albanese visited the seat on Tuesday along with the ALP candidate, Bill Gissane, to capitalise on the court judgment, which criticised Mr Brough as being a party to an abuse of legal process for political purposes.

There is no doubt, it is the silly season, and Albanese if the performing clown.


----------



## explod (19 December 2012)

Calliope said:


> , which criticised Mr Brough as being a party to an abuse of legal process for political purposes.




What's untrue about that ?

The sheer bias of some of you on here makes me laugh.


----------



## Julia (19 December 2012)

explod said:


> The sheer bias of some of you on here makes me laugh.




Oh, the irony.


----------



## explod (19 December 2012)

Julia said:


> Oh, the irony.




Good, 

can always count on you to agree when the truth is clear Julia


----------



## noco (21 December 2012)

They say there always two ways to skin a cat and Judge Rares day is about to come.

This may put that crook judge back in his box for good.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...y-case-adjourned/story-fndckad0-1226541680385


----------



## banco (21 December 2012)

noco said:


> They say there always two ways to skin a cat and Judge Rares day is about to come.
> 
> This may put that crook judge back in his box for good.
> 
> ...




He hasn't even got leave to appeal yet you fool.


----------



## noco (21 December 2012)

banco said:


> He hasn't even got leave to appeal yet you fool.




You obviously have not read the link you fool, as it refers to Ashby taking the sexual harrassment case to Fair Work Austrlia.

The appeal will come later.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 December 2012)

explod said:


> What's untrue about that ?
> 
> The sheer bias of some of you on here makes me laugh.






Julia said:


> Oh, the irony.






explod said:


> Good,
> 
> can always count on you to agree when the truth is clear Julia






> banco  He hasn't even got leave to appeal yet you fool.






noco said:


> They say there always two ways to skin a cat and Judge Rares day is about to come.
> 
> This may put that crook judge back in his box for good.
> 
> ...






banco said:


> He hasn't even got leave to appeal yet you fool.




As an unbiased observer, may I just say that we should await the slow turn of the Law to decide these matters.

I feel a bit left out not being called a fool, by the way.

gg


----------



## explod (22 December 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> As an unbiased observer, may I just say that we should await the slow turn of the Law to decide these matters.
> 
> I feel a bit left out not being called a fool, by the way.
> 
> gg




gg., there are those who *slip* in the puddle,

those who fall in,

or walk round it,

and those who stir (you do) it well.

Who could go crook at an expert


----------



## banco (22 December 2012)

noco said:


> You obviously have not read the link you fool, as it refers to Ashby taking the sexual harrassment case to Fair Work Austrlia.
> 
> The appeal will come later.




Going to the FWA is a stunt for a quick headline.  "oh he's taking it to the FWA it must be serious"  

All the FWA can do in these circumstances is hold a conciliation conference (no affidavits, no cross examination etc.).  Normally if the conciliation conference falls over a next step would be to consider going to the Federal Court but we know that's not really an option for Ashby.


----------



## Bushman (7 January 2013)

Looks like those pesky members of the AFP also have it in for poor 'ol Pete now. Those cabcharge vouchers rear their ugly heads again. 

A malignant trio, a trident of trouble for our connoiseur of the ocean's finest delights. All allegedly so, off course. 

Oh dear sigh Wayne and Julia ...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 January 2013)

Bushman said:


> Looks like those pesky members of the AFP also have it in for poor 'ol Pete now. Those cabcharge vouchers rear their ugly heads again.
> 
> A malignant trio, a trident of trouble for our connoiseur of the ocean's finest delights. All allegedly so, off course.
> 
> Oh dear sigh Wayne and Julia ...




From The Australian



> FORMER federal parliamentary speaker Peter Slipper will face charges over the alleged misuse of taxpayer-funded taxi vouchers.
> 
> The Australian Federal Police today said in a statement it had served on Mr Slipper's lawyer a summons, “in relation to three offences of dishonestly causing a risk of a loss to the commonwealth.”
> 
> ...




As an uninterested observer and a keen follower of Bob Ellis' Tabletalk, I would guess this is a setup, as Bob Ellis avows that Slippery is an honest man.

From a recent conversation I had with Mr.Ellis.

http://www.ellistabletalk.com/2012/12/19/from-peter-slipper/



> Reply
> Bob Ellis December 20, 2012 at 4:39 am
> So he was a bad person then.
> Or not?
> ...




I then banned Bob Ellis from http://www.ellistabletalk.com

He may be right though. It could be a huge conspiracy against a "good and decent man"



gg


----------



## explod (7 January 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> He may be right though. It could be a huge conspiracy against a "good and decent man"
> 
> gg




Again gg, hat off ...spotless observation

+1

But I have to say he is a slimy undercutting for himself sleezebag IMHO of ourse. 

Julia take note, description of another type of man.

The AFP do a great job and attend to all queries and complaints in a professional and serious manner under the oath of the Crown and the Statute of the our wonderful free to occupy land if you own it or can maintain the mortgage.

The filing system is both computer driven and manual.  All letters are filed, numbered and not written off till a full explanation at Law can write it off to the dustbin.

I have no doubt a lot of queries about this sleaze bags use of taxpayers money. Little Johnny and Crud and Julia use it to go to the footy to be seen Helaluia,, *are raised.* often by the restless Indians and sheeple as well.

We still do not know about our ole sleeze bag mate yet, but the AFP have another catigory when all is done and dusted, and that is the *Vexatious Litigant* catigory.

I think that slippa da sleza da Pete (AWU jargon mind) will come out okay but the Abbott fans behind this will be put in the Vexatious tray to be shredded in due course.  And all good, nothing gained or lost.   

Spare an ole man.


----------



## drsmith (7 January 2013)

Today is just further proof of Labor's poor judgment in the associates it chooses. The upcoming shredding will be of this decaying corpse of government by the electorate. 

As for Pete himself, he's left somewhat friendless.


----------



## drsmith (7 January 2013)

I wonder how long it will be before it's Craig Thomson's turn ?

Unlike poor Pete, he still has friends in politics, at least for the duration of this term.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 January 2013)

drsmith said:


> Today is just further proof of Labor's poor judgment in the associates it chooses. The upcoming shredding will be of this decaying corpse of government by the electorate.
> 
> As for Pete himself, he's left somewhat friendless.






drsmith said:


> I wonder how long it will be before it's Craig Thomson's turn ?
> 
> Unlike poor Pete, he still has friends in politics, at least for the duration of this term.




doc, I may have to report you to the misogyny circle.

This is over the top bullying of Gillard, Roxon, Macklin, Wong,and Plibersek.

Pure misogyny according to the Macquarie Dictionary.

Shame, shame, shame.

gg


----------



## drsmith (7 January 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> doc, I may have to report you to the misogyny circle.
> 
> This is over the top bullying of Gillard, Roxon, Macklin, Wong,and Plibersek.



Pleeease no.

I don't want them on my back.

Oh the pain, the pain!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 January 2013)

drsmith said:


> Pleeease no.
> 
> I don't want them on my back.
> 
> Oh the pain, the pain!




50 Shades of Red mate.

Just say nothing.

gg


----------



## Julia (7 January 2013)

When the Ashby case was thrown out by Justice Rares, Mr Slipper triumphantly announced that he felt vindicated.
He might not be feeling quite so happy today.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 January 2013)

Julia said:


> When the Ashby case was thrown out by Justice Rares, Mr Slipper triumphantly announced that he felt vindicated.
> He might not be feeling quite so happy today.




He has quite an intriguing personality.

Once he is dead, as we all will be , the truth will be interesting to see.

I do hope I outlive him.

The rats will be abundant.

gg


----------



## Calliope (8 January 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Once he is dead, as we all will be , the truth will be interesting to see.




I would be interested to know what he got up to on his frequent visits to Oxford Street, all courtesy of taxpayer funded Cabcharge!


----------



## nulla nulla (8 January 2013)

Being summonsed to appear is one thing. Being convicted is another. We will just have to be patient while this little saga, another chapter in the sleazy life of Pete, runs it's course..


----------



## drsmith (8 January 2013)

More details emerge.



> A summons document in the ACT Magistrates Court alleges that on three occasions in 2010, Mr Slipper took a hire car to visit wineries that included the top-rated Clonakilla winery, well known for its $85 Shiraz Viognier.






> ''He filled in the trip details on the dockets by showing false information,'' including the pick up and put down locations and the amount of the fare. The documents further allege that Mr Slipper travelled to wineries again in April and June 2010.
> 
> Together the three trips cost about $900.




http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...ries-at-taxpayers-expense-20130108-2cea4.html

The ABC are also now running the story, though not with as much detail.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-...travel-dishonesty-charges/4455978?section=qld


----------



## drsmith (9 January 2013)

Canberra's wineries have a new tourist attraction.

Peter Slipper's Commonwealth Cabcharge Tours.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/slipper-summonsed-for-winery-tours-20130108-2cet1.html


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (6 February 2013)

Rumour about the hotel that Slippery has resigned.

I'm awaiting confirmation. Will call Richo.

Just rumour.

gg


----------



## sptrawler (6 February 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Rumour about the hotel that Slippery has resigned.
> 
> I'm awaiting confirmation. Will call Richo.
> 
> ...




If it is advantageous for Pete to Slip out, I'm sure he will.


----------



## So_Cynical (15 February 2013)

I stumbled onto Senator Mal Colstons wiki page a few minutes ago and thought that there were some bizarre similarity to the Pete Slipper situation...ill quote the wiki.



			
				http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mal_Colston said:
			
		

> Malcolm Arthur "Mal" Colston (5 April 1938 – 23 August 2003), Australian politician, was a Senator in the Parliament of Australia representing the state of Queensland between 1975 and 1999. He was a member of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) until 20 August 1996, but then resigned from the party and sat as an independent until his retirement from the Senate.
> 
> Resignation from the Labor Party
> After the 1996 election, the Labor Party refused to nominate Colston to become Deputy President of the Senate. In a bid to win him over, the Howard Coalition government offered to support him. Colston resigned from the Labor Party by fax message at 11:30 a.m. on 20 August, and he took his seat as an independent that afternoon. In the evening, he was elected Deputy President, on the nomination of the Coalition. Whilst he opposed the Coalition's industrial relations package, he voted for the sale of a third of Telstra and some other government initiatives. Colston subsequently sat as a "Queensland First" senator.
> ...




So Slipper was basically payback for what the noalition had previously done.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 February 2013)

So_Cynical said:


> I stumbled onto Senator Mal Colstons wiki page a few minutes ago and thought that there were some bizarre similarity to the Pete Slipper situation...ill quote the wiki.
> 
> 
> 
> So Slipper was basically payback for what the noalition had previously done.




It basically proves that there are vermin on both sides of politics.

Politically parties need to clean out vermin.

Basically I agree with your content SC, but not with your "everyone is agin us" ALP conclusions.

Could someone repost this to SC as he has told me he has me on ignore.

gg


----------



## drsmith (15 February 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Could someone repost this to SC as he has told me he has me on ignore.



But can he resist temptation ?


----------



## pixel (15 February 2013)

drsmith said:


> But can he resist temptation ?




apparently not:


----------



## Aleeza (15 February 2013)

I think that we will need attorneys to claim the situation for those who say they are Individuals With Morality, and thus permitted to signify individuals in parliament, and obviously we will need to set up a Judge with Most judges to figure out this query.


----------



## So_Cynical (15 February 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It basically proves that there are vermin on both sides of politics.
> 
> Politically parties need to clean out vermin.
> 
> ...




Agree, its a bit of an eye opener reading back over some of the silly things that have gone on in politics over the decades....and continuing.




Aleeza said:


> I think that we will need attorneys to claim the situation for those who say they are Individuals With Morality, and thus permitted to signify individuals in parliament, and obviously we will need to set up a Judge with Most judges to figure out this query.




Aleeza WTF are you talking about...you write like a Nigerian romance scammmer.


----------



## drsmith (15 February 2013)

pixel said:


> apparently not:
> 
> View attachment 50969




Classic.


----------



## drsmith (9 April 2013)

After attempting to seek another delay, Peter Slipper's lawyer has entered a plea of not guilty on his behalf over allegations he fraudulently used taxpayer-funded taxi vouchers.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...-plea-entered-for-slipper-20130408-2hh99.html


----------



## drsmith (21 April 2013)

Pete's courtroomophobia is getting worse,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-19/slipper-22dithers22-in-missing-deadline/4640212


----------



## Calliope (27 June 2013)

Slippery Pete kisses Gillard. Note the quizzical look on the woman on the right. I hope Julia wastes no time in washing that hand.


----------



## drsmith (27 June 2013)

Calliope said:


> Slippery Pete kisses Gillard. Note the quizzical look on the woman on the right. I hope Julia wastes no time in washing that hand.



That's his thank you to Julia for the pay rise and his 5-minutes of fame as Speaker. 

Had he just stayed with the Libs and accepted his time was up at the end of this term, he could have perhaps left public life with some dignity. As it was, his poor judgement was his undoing. 

While the specifics are different, Julia Gillard and Peter Slipper were both let down by poor judgement and both have politically have paid the price accordingly. In the former's case, the nation has also paid a significant price as well but then, it was the nation that gave her the opportunity in 2010.


----------



## drsmith (15 August 2013)

Peter Slipper is going to hang on to the plank a little longer and dangle helplessly leaving it to his electorate to hack it off.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-15/slipper-to-recontest-seat-of-fisher/4889348


----------



## Ruby (17 August 2013)

The sheer arrogance of the man is unbelievable.  He has treated the people of his electorate with utter contempt, and now he expects them to vote for him.  His wife called him a "nice, decent, kind-hearted guy".  "Decent" is one thing he is *not*!


----------



## drsmith (9 October 2013)

With the current discussion about the use of travel entitlements, Peter Slipper feels he's been hard done by.

The following article offers a potential explanation as to why Pete's situation might be different,



> Even though the car had eftpos facilities, four Cabcharge vouchers were manually processed through what is known as the Farrington card imprinter. They were broken up as $87 from Parliament House to suburbs; $80 from suburbs to Parliament House; $75 from suburbs to suburbs; and $95 from suburbs to suburbs.
> 
> The Commonwealth says that breaking up the total travel cost in that way, using the manual system of payment processing and describing the trips as to and from suburban destinations, shows Slipper was trying to hide his misuse of his cabcharge.
> 
> He must therefore, it says, have had the requisite knowledge or belief of his alleged wrongdoing.




http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...different-to-pms-weddings-20131008-2v6ei.html


----------



## drsmith (28 July 2014)

*Guilty.*



> Former federal parliamentary speaker Peter Slipper has been found guilty in the ACT Magistrates Court on three counts of dishonesty over the misuse of his parliamentary Cabcharge allowance.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-28/peter-slipper-guilty-of-dishonesty-over-cabcharge-use/5626974

He will be sentenced on September 22.


----------



## Glen48 (28 July 2014)

The Honorable member will be put to work in the showers and after dark.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 July 2014)

Glen48 said:


> The Honorable member will be put to work in the showers and after dark.




Is what he did any worse than using taxpayers funds to go to a wedding ?


----------



## Glen48 (28 July 2014)

Yes and No depends on who is in power and if their vote is needed for the party to stay in power.


----------



## drsmith (28 July 2014)

Peter Slipper deluded by a sense of self entitlement crapped in his own nest pure and simple and the other chicks therein didn't take too kindly to that.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 July 2014)

drsmith said:


> Peter Slipper deluded by a sense of self entitlement crapped in his own nest pure and simple and the other chicks therein didn't take too kindly to that.




Let us hope he gets a sentence that will compromise his superannuation entitlements. 

He has profited much, from very little contribution to the good of our nation.

gg


----------



## Julia (28 July 2014)

I almost felt sorry for him until I remembered that he has made a career out of excessive claims of entitlement.

Nonetheless, I'd still take Rumpole's point that others have also abused the privilege of entitlements and have escaped by simply paying back the amounts concerned.    When comparing Mr Slipper's transgression in the case before the court with that of Craig Thomson, it does seem relatively trifling.  However, I suppose the intent is the point rather than the actual amount.
Silly bugger.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 July 2014)

Yes he is a silly bugger and I wonder how much this court case cost the taxpayer compared to the amount Slipper actually defrauded and why the whole thing could not be settled out of court.

 What a waste of our money, again.


----------



## IFocus (29 July 2014)

More Liberal party corruption should be a royal commission into it


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 July 2014)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Let us hope he gets a sentence that will compromise his superannuation entitlements.
> 
> He has profited much, from very little contribution to the good of our nation.
> 
> ...




My legal contacts tell me that his super entitlements will be zero, should he get a term inside. 

Let is hope and pray it happens.



IFocus said:


> More Liberal party corruption should be a royal commission into it




A reasonable barb, IF.

I reckon any corruption on either side including folk who don't shave should be addressed and those guilty punished.

gg


----------



## banco (29 July 2014)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> My legal contacts tell me that his super entitlements will be zero, should he get a term inside.




Your legal contacts don't know what they are talking about.  He would have had to have been convicted while still an MP for that to occur.

*PARLIAMENTARY CONTRIBUTORY SUPERANNUATION ACT 1948 - SECT 22*
Certain disqualifications

                   A member whose place becomes vacant by reason of his or her becoming subject to any of the disabilities specified in paragraphs 44(i) and (ii) of the Constitution, or by reason of his or her having directly or indirectly taken or agreed to take any fee or honorarium for services rendered in the Parliament to any person or State within the meaning of paragraph 45(iii) of the Constitution, shall be entitled to a refund of his or her contributions, but to no other benefit under this Act.


----------

