Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Slippery Pete

Jump to new
dutchie said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
drsmith said:
Pedophile could be seen as a provocative illustration, but Sails made it clear that that it was only that.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.

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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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
 
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
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
Nonetheless, is he a fit person to be Speaker of our Parliament?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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......???
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.:eek:
 
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.
 
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.:eek:
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Top