This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Slippery Pete

Jump to new
IFocus said:
Nice dodge

How did they become public?

What did the judge say again about abuse of process?
Click to expand...
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.
 
IFocus said:
Then why did the Liberals nominate him 8 times for pre-selection?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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 ?
Click to expand...

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

Why is it one or the other? Slipper, Ashby and Mal Brough are all lowlifes.
 
Calliope said:
I'm surprised. All your posts have been in defence of low-life Slipper.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Why is it one or the other? Slipper, Ashby and Mal Brough are all lowlifes.
Click to expand...

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 ?
 
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:
Click to expand...
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.
 
noco said:
But, what else would you expect from a tirade Judge with a history and appointed by Julia Gillard.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.



http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...rt-him-20121214-2bf7l.html?rand=1355491305040
 

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

What is it with the right and denial? Climate change, Asylum seekers, The Federal Court..denial, denial, denial.

:dunno:
 

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.
 
McLovin said:
Well then, your point appears to be stating the obvious. Unless I'm missing something.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...