Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Slippery Pete

Jump to new
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
That's what I would have thought.
 
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
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?

REPORTER: No. Some people have said they have trouble believing you. Can you understand why they might?

JOE HOCKEY: Well, they can go to hell, because I'm telling the truth. Anything else?
Click to expand...

The electors of Fisher will have the last laugh.:D
 
Macquack said:
As opposed to being the laughing stock.
Click to expand...
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.
 
McLovin said:
Good luck to them. Some people will find "bias" in anything that doesn't agree with their point of view.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
...
Click to expand...

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...
 
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
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. "
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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...
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Good question Ves. Do we have any lawyers here? Or do you know enough about this to expand on it?
 
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?



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.

Agree.


Good question Ves. Do we have any lawyers here? Or do you know enough about this to expand on it?
Click to expand...

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).
 
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...
Click to expand...

Ashby versus Slipper was not a criminal case. It was a civil case.
 
Top