- Joined
- 28 October 2008
- Posts
- 8,609
- Reactions
- 39
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.
That's what Labor's done for the past five years when their policies have gone pear shaped.:dunno:
Chosen your words better? You clearly stated Justice Rares was appointed by Gillard.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.
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.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.
If I were a Labor Party disciple, I'd probably think such a suggestion was pretty reasonable. I'm not, so I don't.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.
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.)But it was alright for Roxon to interfer in the case before it even went court. Most unusaul for an Attorney General IMO.
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.I hope this relieves your enquiry mind.
That's what I would have thought.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.
What happened to the hour of internet access each week ?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
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
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.
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.
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?
The electors of Fisher will have the last laugh.
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.As opposed to being the laughing stock.
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.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.
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...
Would the Craig Thomson charges be at criminal law as opposed to common law?Craig Thomson will breathe a sigh of relief.
See my post above.Are you saying allegations about any crime (no matter how serious) is deemed political, then the actual case will never be heard?
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.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.
Agree.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...
Good question Ves. Do we have any lawyers here? Or do you know enough about this to expand on it?Would the Craig Thomson charges be at criminal law as opposed to common law?
I believe there is a massive difference between the two.
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?
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...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?