Slippery Pete

[drsmith]

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]

This is an interesting point. Rares has opened up a can of worms.





http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...tive-for-inquiry/story-e6frezz0-1226536345448

You mean by resurrecting obscure the legal doctrine of "abuse of process"?

 

[drsmith]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I'm surprised. All your posts have been in defence of low-life Slipper.

I haven't defended him in a single post.

 

[waza1960]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Refer post #554.

Yes, I saw that. My point still stands.

 

[McLovin]

Yes, I saw that. My point still stands.

Well then, your point appears to be stating the obvious. Unless I'm missing something.

 

[noco]

Earlier, not knowing who appointed Justice Rares, I accepted your statement above.
However, catching up with "The Punch" this evening I see


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?

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.