longy you are always going off about child sex offences in the labor party.

What do you say about the liberal Attorney general protecting this guy




Quote:

Transcript CHRIS UHLMANN, PRESENTER: Here is a story about an Attorney-General and a priest. One of the most senior lawmakers in the country is tonight make accused of making derogatory comments about a woman who alleges that she was abused as a child by a priest. Until last year NSW Attorney-General Greg Smith had a long association with his one-time Catholic priest Finian Egan, even praising him in Parliament. That appears to have ended some time after police began investigating allegations from five people that Finian Egan had abused them as children. Now 7.30 has been shown evidence suggesting the Attorney-General made insulting comments about one of Finian Egan's accusers, allegedly branding the child sex victim just after money from the church. Tim Palmer reports. ???: There was nowhere that was safe for me. I wasn't safe anywhere. The abuse started when I was in the later years of primary school. TIM PALMER, REPORTER: Father Finian Egan's more than 50 years as a priest took him to at least half a dozen churches in and around Sydney. But the priest's service in the Catholic Church came to an end when a number of women came forward to accuse him of abusing them when they were children. KELLIE-ANNE ROCHE (2010): I just tried to stop him from touching my breasts to show him that's not where I want his hands ... without saying anything, because he was - priests are one step down from God. TIM PALMER: Within weeks of 7.30 airing a series of stories in 2010 on Finian Egan, at least five people had gone to police and a widespread investigation was underway. But nearly two years later, the priest hasn't been arrested or charged. NIKKI WELLS: The wait's been absolutely horrendous. It's been really traumatic. The statements with the police were finalised in 2010. We've been told that the case is currently on the DPP's desk, but it's been on the DPP's desk for about seven months now. They keep telling us they're just waiting for a signature. So, to me, it's beyond me how it could be so long. You know, the case has been investigated. It's very clear the evidence is there from all of the witnesses. I don't understand why he hasn't been charged. TIM PALMER: Finian Egan has always maintained his innocence. As the case dragged on, questions were raised about the alleged sex offender's long-time association with the man who's now Attorney-General, Greg Smith. Mr Smith and Finian Egan go back some years, and when Greg Smith was elected to Parliament five years ago, he cited Finian Egan's influence in his maiden speech to Parliament. GREG SMITH, NSW LIBERAL MP (2007): ... Father Finian Egan charmed us with his Irish wit and his pastorally devotion to his flock. TIM PALMER: There are other connections to Greg Smith's office. Damien Tudehope is now the Attorney-General's chief of staff. He too knows Finian Egan well. He attended the priest's church and as a solicitor defended him against sexual abuse allegations. The ABC does not suggest that either Greg Smith or Damien Tudehope have interfered with the potential prosecution of Finian Egan. But 7.30 can reveal documents that describe discussions the Attorney-General had about the Egan matter. Last year, one of the alleged victims, Nikki Wells, spoke to another Catholic priest about her frustration at the delay. That priest, who the ABC has agreed not to name, says he then met Attorney-General Greg Smith last July. After that meeting the priest detailed his version of what was said in an email back to Nikki Wells, an email the ABC has obtained. The priest wrote, "I was with Greg Smith the other day and I raised your case with him. He commented that, '... you were just trying to get $1 million from the church.'" NIKKI WELLS: I was horrified. I was completely horrified that the chief lawmaker in the state could make a comment on an open criminal matter for a start, but secondly that he could pass judgment on someone he doesn't even know, and, you know, just disbelief about the whole matter that our Attorney-General could speak so publicly about me and my case and a criminal matter. Horrified. DAVID SHOEBRIDGE, GREENS MP: There is, for me, no political excuse for the Attorney-General of the day making derogatory comments about a victim when that matter is before the DPP for potential sexual abuse charges. TIM PALMER: The ABC asked the Attorney-General if the priest's email description of the meeting and what was said was correct. In response Greg Smith issued a statement saying, "The Attorney General recalls no such conversation and notes that 7.30 has failed to provide any details which would help his recall. He says he would never suggest any victim of sexual abuse was simply motivated by a desire to claim a financial payout." Against that the priest said today he did meet Greg Smith, they discussed Nikki Wells and the email remains his account of what was said. At the time Nikki Wells received the priest's email detailing the alleged comment by Greg Smith, she wrote back angrily. NIKKI WELLS (female voiceover): "Does he really think we're all lying? What kind of man says things like that about victims of abuse? He really should not be commenting on any case in these circumstances, let alone the character of a witness." Clearly he thinks I'm a liar and clearly he thinks other witnesses and other victims are lying as well about it, because I'm not the only victim in this matter; there's several of us, and there's probably a lot more that haven't even come forward yet. But a clear lack of empathy and devastating unprofessionalism. TIM PALMER: Beyond the alleged comment that Nikki Wells was just after money, the email raises other questions. In fact Nikki Wells had discussed a $1 million figure with the Church, not for herself, but as the loan for a charity she was running to care for survivors of childhood abuse. She was shocked that the Attorney-General would know anything about that $1 million figure, something she'd raised only with senior churchmen, and she said so in her email back to the priest. The priest replied: PRIEST (male voiceover): "... this is what he had heard and that concerns me where this had come from. He is well-connected within the church - he seems to know all the hierarchy - much more in the know than I am." DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: Well in my dealings with him on this issue, it's an attorney that's more likely to defend the Church than get out and defend the victims. TIM PALMER: The email raises several serious questions for the Attorney-General. Why was he discussing an ongoing criminal investigation with an outside party? Why did he choose to discuss it with a priest from the same church as the alleged sex offender? And why did he apparently denigrate the alleged victim of a childhood sexual offence? David Shoebridge put a series of questions to Greg Smith on notice in Parliament. Among them he asked the attorney whether he'd had any communication with anyone beyond the DPP regarding the Finian Egan case. But in his answers Greg Smith did not address that issue at all, only stating that his office hadn't been in contact with the DPP about it. DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: It's a remarkable lack of candour. It was a very specific question capable of a very precise answer and we simply didn't get that. ... If the half of the answer you don't give is the core of the information, you've got to ask whether or not that is misleading the person asking the question. NIKKI WELLS: Pathetic. His response was pathetic. And, you know, the Government shouldn't allow him to be able to respond to those questions. They were specific questions. He hasn't responded. He's answered five questions in one line. He's completely evasive. Why is he being so evasive? Why isn't he answering the questions? CHRIS UHLMANN: Tim Palmer with that report.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3471269.htm

are you accusing Greg Smith of this abuse  as well..??

seems like it..

from what I understand 5 years ago smith supported and thanked this priest..one does have someone elses version of what he said at that meeting and in what context...

if its true of course he had no right to say that..but to be honest I can understand someone not believing someone they have trusted for years is capable of that crime.

it isnt quite in the same context of a trusted MP being charged with sexual abuse..

it is more of an MP standing by someone I can see as a friend..he has now backed right away I believe. and of course rightly so..


The ABC does not suggest that either Greg Smith or Damien Tudehope have interfered with the potential prosecution of Finian Egan. But 7.30 can reveal documents that describe discussions the Attorney-General had about the Egan matter.


so what is the ABC suggesting.?????

longy you are always going off about child sex offences in the labor party.

Which Liberal member is a child sex offender?


What do you say about the liberal Attorney general protecting this guy

If you think the Attorney General could ever over ride the DPP you are more nutty than I gave you credit for.

interesting this case 2 years..

THOMO case 3.5 years and counting..

cods wrote on Apr 5^th, 2012 at 7:11am:

interesting this case 2 years.. THOMO case 3.5 years and counting..

2010-05-17 the story was first aired on ABC.

And who was in power for nearly twelve months after the story was aired.

Own goal Valley Girl.

have you seen where even the A.C.T.U. is going to act after this disgraceful THOMO affair.

yet the bloody govt cant act.

Im not sure what I'm supposed to reply to. An untested and unproven allegation is hardly the same as a conviction. PLus my point is about liberal or labor child sex offenders no any other segment of society.

So while I am sure this was mean to be some kind of attack on the Libs but it came across as an

EPIC FAIL

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 5^th, 2012 at 7:28pm:

Im not sure what I'm supposed to reply to. An untested and unproven allegation is hardly the same as a conviction. PLus my point is about liberal or labor child sex offenders no any other segment of society. So while I am sure this was mean to be some kind of attack on the Libs but it came across as an EPIC FAIL

what he is saying longy is if you befriend a priest, and have faith in him.. then later on he is accused of doing something... then you are to blame for making him a friend.. at least i think thats it..

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 5^th, 2012 at 7:28pm:

Im not sure what I'm supposed to reply to. An untested and unproven allegation is hardly the same as a conviction. PLus my point is about liberal or labor child sex offenders no any other segment of society. So while I am sure this was mean to be some kind of attack on the Libs but it came across as an EPIC FAIL

A bit of a double standard haven't you longstupidtwat .... as far as I'm aware allegations against Thompson are untested and unproven and yet you and some of your other lynch mob mates are out there baying for blood .....gotta love the hypocrisy .....

Johnsmith wrote on Apr 5^th, 2012 at 8:53pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 5th, 2012 at 7:28pm: Im not sure what I'm supposed to reply to. An untested and unproven allegation is hardly the same as a conviction. PLus my point is about liberal or labor child sex offenders no any other segment of society. So while I am sure this was mean to be some kind of attack on the Libs but it came across as an EPIC FAIL A bit of a double standard haven't you longstupidtwat .... as far as I'm aware allegations against Thompson are untested and unproven and yet you and some of your other lynch mob mates are out there baying for blood .....gotta love the hypocrisy .....

the discussion was about liberal versus labor sex offenders. There are dozens on the labor side and zero on the liberal side - and that is just on the basis of convictions. Try and stay on topic, wil you?

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 8:01am:

Johnsmith wrote on Apr 5th, 2012 at 8:53pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 5th, 2012 at 7:28pm: Im not sure what I'm supposed to reply to. An untested and unproven allegation is hardly the same as a conviction. PLus my point is about liberal or labor child sex offenders no any other segment of society. So while I am sure this was mean to be some kind of attack on the Libs but it came across as an EPIC FAIL A bit of a double standard haven't you longstupidtwat .... as far as I'm aware allegations against Thompson are untested and unproven and yet you and some of your other lynch mob mates are out there baying for blood .....gotta love the hypocrisy ..... the discussion was about liberal versus labor sex offenders. There are dozens on the labor side and zero on the liberal side - and that is just on the basis of convictions. Try and stay on topic, wil you?

the response for when you have no response ... a bit of a cop out isn't it?... so your statement 'An untested and unproven allegation is hardly the same as a conviction' only applies to sex offenders?  even more hypocrisy .... your on a roll longstupidtwat, keep up the good work .....

Johnsmith wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 8:18am:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 8:01am: Johnsmith wrote on Apr 5th, 2012 at 8:53pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 5th, 2012 at 7:28pm: Im not sure what I'm supposed to reply to. An untested and unproven allegation is hardly the same as a conviction. PLus my point is about liberal or labor child sex offenders no any other segment of society. So while I am sure this was mean to be some kind of attack on the Libs but it came across as an EPIC FAIL A bit of a double standard haven't you longstupidtwat .... as far as I'm aware allegations against Thompson are untested and unproven and yet you and some of your other lynch mob mates are out there baying for blood .....gotta love the hypocrisy ..... the discussion was about liberal versus labor sex offenders. There are dozens on the labor side and zero on the liberal side - and that is just on the basis of convictions. Try and stay on topic, wil you? the response for when you have no response ... a bit of a cop out isn't it?... so your statement 'An untested and unproven allegation is hardly the same as a conviction' only applies to sex offenders?  even more hypocrisy .... your on a roll longstupidtwat, keep up the good work .....

sigh... 'context is king' in literary interpretaion and you shoudl try it sometime. the debate at hand was a COMPARATIVE one and I used convictions because the data is freely available and indisputable( except to skippy). An untested and unproven allegation is quite inferior to a conviction, but that does not mean it lacks any merit. There was a SA Labor MP whose child sex allegations remain untested because he offed himself before court but few doubt his guilt - even in the ALP. If the argument were about convicted felons then Thomson would not ne part of the discussion. But if the discussion is about dodgy pollies and those who shoudl be charged then he is very much part of the mix.

It must be embararssing for you to support a party which has such a long and appalling record of pedophilia, embezzlement and corruption.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 8:31am:

Johnsmith wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 8:18am: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 8:01am: Johnsmith wrote on Apr 5th, 2012 at 8:53pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 5th, 2012 at 7:28pm: Im not sure what I'm supposed to reply to. An untested and unproven allegation is hardly the same as a conviction. PLus my point is about liberal or labor child sex offenders no any other segment of society. So while I am sure this was mean to be some kind of attack on the Libs but it came across as an EPIC FAIL A bit of a double standard haven't you longstupidtwat .... as far as I'm aware allegations against Thompson are untested and unproven and yet you and some of your other lynch mob mates are out there baying for blood .....gotta love the hypocrisy ..... the discussion was about liberal versus labor sex offenders. There are dozens on the labor side and zero on the liberal side - and that is just on the basis of convictions. Try and stay on topic, wil you? the response for when you have no response ... a bit of a cop out isn't it?... so your statement 'An untested and unproven allegation is hardly the same as a conviction' only applies to sex offenders?  even more hypocrisy .... your on a roll longstupidtwat, keep up the good work ..... sigh... 'context is king' in literary interpretaion and you shoudl try it sometime. the debate at hand was a COMPARATIVE one and I used convictions because the data is freely available and indisputable( except to skippy). An untested and unproven allegation is quite inferior to a conviction, but that does not mean it lacks any merit. There was a SA Labor MP whose child sex allegations remain untested because he offed himself before court but few doubt his guilt - even in the ALP. If the argument were about convicted felons then Thomson would not ne part of the discussion. But if the discussion is about dodgy pollies and those who shoudl be charged then he is very much part of the mix. It must be embararssing for you to support a party which has such a long and appalling record of pedophilia, embezzlement and corruption.

You hypocrisy has no limits .... no one in the liberal party has been guilty of any of those? Is Palmer donating to the LNP in exchange for favourable outcomes any less corrupt? just because he hasn't een charged with anything doesn't make him any less guilty of corruption, get over yourself ... all parties are subject to their members, and personally i think that all politicians are scum, therefore more likely to embezell or corrupt ... as far as pedohiles go, I don't have time for any of them and for you to try and link them in any way to party politics is shameful .... thats low even for a liberal

Quote:

It must be embararssing for you to support a party which has such a long and appalling record of pedophilia, embezzlement and corruption.

Coming from a guy who supports the church?
The biggest paedophile sex club in history, embezzlement and corruption capital of the world.

Quote:

Gender: Posts: 15837   Im not sure what I'm supposed to reply to. An untested and unproven allegation is hardly the same as a conviction.

Yet you slander Craig Thompson everyday you hypocritical ignoramus.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 9:35am:

Quote: It must be embararssing for you to support a party which has such a long and appalling record of pedophilia, embezzlement and corruption. Coming from a guy who supports the church? The biggest paedophile sex club in history, embezzlement and corruption capital of the world.

God spoke to them ....

Johnsmith wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 9:37am:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 9:35am: Quote: It must be embararssing for you to support a party which has such a long and appalling record of pedophilia, embezzlement and corruption. Coming from a guy who supports the church? The biggest paedophile sex club in history, embezzlement and corruption capital of the world. God spoke to them ....

The best part is he actually believes that.

Johnsmith wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 8:52am:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 8:31am: Johnsmith wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 8:18am: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 8:01am: Johnsmith wrote on Apr 5th, 2012 at 8:53pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 5th, 2012 at 7:28pm: Im not sure what I'm supposed to reply to. An untested and unproven allegation is hardly the same as a conviction. PLus my point is about liberal or labor child sex offenders no any other segment of society. So while I am sure this was mean to be some kind of attack on the Libs but it came across as an EPIC FAIL A bit of a double standard haven't you longstupidtwat .... as far as I'm aware allegations against Thompson are untested and unproven and yet you and some of your other lynch mob mates are out there baying for blood .....gotta love the hypocrisy ..... the discussion was about liberal versus labor sex offenders. There are dozens on the labor side and zero on the liberal side - and that is just on the basis of convictions. Try and stay on topic, wil you? the response for when you have no response ... a bit of a cop out isn't it?... so your statement 'An untested and unproven allegation is hardly the same as a conviction' only applies to sex offenders?  even more hypocrisy .... your on a roll longstupidtwat, keep up the good work ..... sigh... 'context is king' in literary interpretaion and you shoudl try it sometime. the debate at hand was a COMPARATIVE one and I used convictions because the data is freely available and indisputable( except to skippy). An untested and unproven allegation is quite inferior to a conviction, but that does not mean it lacks any merit. There was a SA Labor MP whose child sex allegations remain untested because he offed himself before court but few doubt his guilt - even in the ALP. If the argument were about convicted felons then Thomson would not ne part of the discussion. But if the discussion is about dodgy pollies and those who shoudl be charged then he is very much part of the mix. It must be embararssing for you to support a party which has such a long and appalling record of pedophilia, embezzlement and corruption. You hypocrisy has no limits .... no one in the liberal party has been guilty of any of those? Is Palmer donating to the LNP in exchange for favourable outcomes any less corrupt? just because he hasn't een charged with anything doesn't make him any less guilty of corruption, get over yourself ... all parties are subject to their members, and personally i think that all politicians are scum, therefore more likely to embezell or corrupt ... as far as pedohiles go, I don't have time for any of them and for you to try and link them in any way to party politics is shameful .... thats low even for a liberal

well if you want to play the blame game then dont come to the fight with no weapons. the FACTS are that dozens of labor MPs and officials have done time in jail for major crimes including child sex crimes. that is indisputable and the ration is massively one-sided towards labor. You can argue the reson but you cannot dispute the facts.

Longy, why do you support a pedo sex club?

a bit more longy


Quote:

The New South Wales Premier has jumped to the defence of his Attorney-General, Greg Smith, who has come under fire over comments he allegedly made about a woman who claims she was sexually abused by a priest when she was a child. On Wednesday the ABC'S 7.30 program aired allegations that Mr Smith told a different Catholic priest that the woman was only complaining to try to get $1 million from the church. No charges have been laid and in a statement the Premier, Barry O'Farrell, says he has been assured the Attorney-General did not influence legal authorities regarding the matter. "The Premier has been assured that neither the Attorney-General nor his office has been involved in the consideration by the state's legal authorities of allegations concerning Father Finian Egan," the statement said. "Mr O'Farrell has also been assured that this matter has been and will continue to be handled independently by the relevant legal authorities." Mr Smith says he cannot recall making the comments, but Opposition Leader John Robertson believes he has serious questions to answer. "Mr Smith has not denied making those comments," he said. "He needs to give a public explanation firstly why it was appropriate that he met with a priest from the church about that matter while it is being considered by the DPP and how he thinks it is appropriate that he should be making those sorts of comments." Mr Smith and the accused priest, Father Finian Egan, go back some years, and when Mr Smith was elected to Parliament five years ago he cited Father Egan's influence in his maiden speech to Parliament. "At St Gerard's, Father Finian Egan charmed us with his Irish wit and his pastoral devotion to his flock," he said in the speech. Damien Tudehope, now the Attorney-General's chief of staff, also knows Father Egan well, attending the priest's church and, as a solicitor, defending him against sexual abuse allegations. The ABC does not suggest that either Mr Smith or Mr Tudehope have interfered with the potential prosecution involving Father Egan, but critics argue there is an appearance of a potential conflict which the A-G should address. 'Inappropriate comments' The latest allegations centre on emails between a priest Mr Smith spoke to and one of Father Egan's alleged victims, Nikki Wells. Last year Ms Wells spoke to another Catholic priest about her frustration at the delay of a police investigation into Father Egan. That priest, who the ABC has agreed not to name, says he then met Mr Smith last July. After that meeting the priest detailed his version of what was said in an email to Ms Wells which the ABC has obtained. In the email the priest says Mr Smith told him he thought Ms Wells was trying to take money from the church. "I was with Greg Smith the other day and I raised your case with him. He commented that 'you were just trying to get $1m from the church'," the priest said in the email. Ms Wells says the conversation was completely inappropriate. "I was completely horrified that the chief lawmaker in the state could comment on an open criminal case for a start," she said. "Secondly, that he'd pass judgment on someone he doesn't even know and just disbelief that the whole matter that our Attorney-General could speak so publicly about me and my case and a criminal matter. The ABC asked Mr Smith if the priest's email description of the meeting and what was said was correct, and in response the Attorney-General issued a statement saying he "recalls no such conversation". "The Attorney-General recalls no such conversation and notes that 7.30 has failed to provide any detail which would help his recall," the statement said. "He says he would never suggest any victim of sexual abuse was simply motivated by a desire to claim a financial payout."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-05/ofarrell-defends-a-g-over-alleged-abuse-comments/3936466

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 9:46am:

Johnsmith wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 8:52am: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 8:31am: Johnsmith wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 8:18am: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 8:01am: Johnsmith wrote on Apr 5th, 2012 at 8:53pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 5th, 2012 at 7:28pm: Im not sure what I'm supposed to reply to. An untested and unproven allegation is hardly the same as a conviction. PLus my point is about liberal or labor child sex offenders no any other segment of society. So while I am sure this was mean to be some kind of attack on the Libs but it came across as an EPIC FAIL A bit of a double standard haven't you longstupidtwat .... as far as I'm aware allegations against Thompson are untested and unproven and yet you and some of your other lynch mob mates are out there baying for blood .....gotta love the hypocrisy ..... the discussion was about liberal versus labor sex offenders. There are dozens on the labor side and zero on the liberal side - and that is just on the basis of convictions. Try and stay on topic, wil you? the response for when you have no response ... a bit of a cop out isn't it?... so your statement 'An untested and unproven allegation is hardly the same as a conviction' only applies to sex offenders?  even more hypocrisy .... your on a roll longstupidtwat, keep up the good work ..... sigh... 'context is king' in literary interpretaion and you shoudl try it sometime. the debate at hand was a COMPARATIVE one and I used convictions because the data is freely available and indisputable( except to skippy). An untested and unproven allegation is quite inferior to a conviction, but that does not mean it lacks any merit. There was a SA Labor MP whose child sex allegations remain untested because he offed himself before court but few doubt his guilt - even in the ALP. If the argument were about convicted felons then Thomson would not ne part of the discussion. But if the discussion is about dodgy pollies and those who shoudl be charged then he is very much part of the mix. It must be embararssing for you to support a party which has such a long and appalling record of pedophilia, embezzlement and corruption. You hypocrisy has no limits .... no one in the liberal party has been guilty of any of those? Is Palmer donating to the LNP in exchange for favourable outcomes any less corrupt? just because he hasn't een charged with anything doesn't make him any less guilty of corruption, get over yourself ... all parties are subject to their members, and personally i think that all politicians are scum, therefore more likely to embezell or corrupt ... as far as pedohiles go, I don't have time for any of them and for you to try and link them in any way to party politics is shameful .... thats low even for a liberal well if you want to play the blame game then dont come to the fight with no weapons. the FACTS are that dozens of labor MPs and officials have done time in jail for major crimes including child sex crimes. that is indisputable and the ration is massively one-sided towards labor. You can argue the reson but you cannot dispute the facts.

A bit of embellishment isn't it longstupidtwat .... the FACTS are that TWO former labor MPs have been convicted of child sex offences ... where are the dozens you talk about? Was that one of the other voices in your head again? I suppose if each of the six different voices in your head tells you two, you add them together and get a dozen ... I wasn't playing any blame game .. I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy and double standard of you making a distinction between an untested and unproven allegation, and a conviction (and rightly so) .... when you are so blatantly determined to condemn Thompson .. . I don't care about the pedophiles... defend your hypocrisy if you can or don't,

The Attorney General as the chief Law Maker of the state should not make any comment on any cases being investigated by the police or any cases before the court, no if or no buts.

wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 10:08am:

The Attorney General as the chief Law Maker of the state should not make any comment on any cases being investigated by the police or any cases before the court, no if or no buts.

actually he is the cheif law ENFORCER - not law MAKER. BIG difference.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 11:07am:

wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 10:08am: The Attorney General as the chief Law Maker of the state should not make any comment on any cases being investigated by the police or any cases before the court, no if or no buts. actually he is the cheif law ENFORCER - not law MAKER. BIG difference.

Right but under the queens authority he has the power to stop laws from being made and impose any law the queen wants, so this is more then just an enforcer

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 11:10am:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 11:07am: wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 10:08am: The Attorney General as the chief Law Maker of the state should not make any comment on any cases being investigated by the police or any cases before the court, no if or no buts. actually he is the cheif law ENFORCER - not law MAKER. BIG difference. Right but under the queens authority he has the power to stop laws from being made and impose any law the queen wants, so this is more then just an enforcer

what rot. prure drivel the AG does not make laws. he is no more than the minister responsib;e for the courts and justice system. He can make no law of his own nor stop any. only parliament can do that.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 11:10am:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 11:07am: wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 10:08am: The Attorney General as the chief Law Maker of the state should not make any comment on any cases being investigated by the police or any cases before the court, no if or no buts. actually he is the cheif law ENFORCER - not law MAKER. BIG difference. Right but under the queens authority he has the power to stop laws from being made and impose any law the queen wants, so this is more then just an enforcer

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D MORON

Sorry thought use were talking about the governer general

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 11:07am:

wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 10:08am: The Attorney General as the chief Law Maker of the state should not make any comment on any cases being investigated by the police or any cases before the court, no if or no buts. actually he is the cheif law ENFORCER - not law MAKER. BIG difference.

you are wrong longy the Attorney general is the chief law maker

Do you know what happens to legislation before it goes to Parliamant. Who adviced Cabinet on Legislation if it is within the Constitution. who does the Governor General get advice from if she/he has any doubt on any legislation.

read this and you might learn something


Quote:

The Office of Attorney-General The Attorney-General at the Commonwealth and State level occupies in effect two offices: a common law office of Attorney-General and a ministerial office. The incumbent is therefore subject to at least three potentially conflicting responsibilities: as Attorney-General, as a Minister of the Crown and as a Member of Parliament. The duties and responsibilities of the two latter positions are well known. Less clearly understood are the duties and responsibilities of the common law office of Attorney-General. The duties and responsibilities of the Attorney-General derive from both the executive prerogative power at common law and from statute. The most significant prerogative powers include the power to initiate and terminate criminal prosecutions, advise on the grant of a pardon, grant immunities from prosecution, issue a fiat in relator actions, appear as amicus curiae or contradictor, institute proceedings for contempt of court, apply for judicial review, intervene in any proceedings involving the interpretation of the Commonwealth Constitution, represent the Crown in any legal proceedings, and provide legal advice to the Parliament, Cabinet and the Executive Council. Hence, the Attorney is often described as the ‘Chief Law Officer of the Crown’. Other law officers assist the Attorney in the performance of these duties: principally, the Solicitor-General, the Director of Prosecutions and the Crown Solicitor. Additionally, the Attorney- General is the nominal head of the Bar having precedence over all Queen's Counsel and Senior Counsel, advises on judicial appointments and has defended the judiciary from political attacks.

http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1120&context=blr&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fau.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%3Fp%3Dattorney%2BGeneral%2Bresponsibility%26rd%3Dr2%26fr%3Dyfp-t-501%26ei%3DUTF-8#search=%22attorney%20General%20responsibility%22

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 1:11pm:

Sorry thought use were talking about the governer general

even then you are wrong. the GG cannot MAKE laws and his power to not declare laws is not used.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 1:59pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 1:11pm: Sorry thought use were talking about the governer general even then you are wrong. the GG cannot MAKE laws and his power to not declare laws is not used.

He can on behalf of the queen
and on behalf of the queen he can stop laws

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 3:20pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 1:59pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 1:11pm: Sorry thought use were talking about the governer general even then you are wrong. the GG cannot MAKE laws and his power to not declare laws is not used. He can on behalf of the queen and on behalf of the queen he can stop laws

no he cannot make laws on behalf of the queen. did you learn nothing at school?

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 1:59pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 1:11pm: Sorry thought use were talking about the governer general even then you are wrong. the GG cannot MAKE laws and his power to not declare laws is not used.

However, they (the GG) can sack elected governments!

perceptions_now wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 4:08pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 1:59pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 1:11pm: Sorry thought use were talking about the governer general even then you are wrong. the GG cannot MAKE laws and his power to not declare laws is not used. However, they (the GG) can sack elected governments!

that is one of their reserve powers but not on their own initiative. the point is that PP is woefully wrong about the GG.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 3:56pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 3:20pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 1:59pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 1:11pm: Sorry thought use were talking about the governer general even then you are wrong. the GG cannot MAKE laws and his power to not declare laws is not used. He can on behalf of the queen and on behalf of the queen he can stop laws no he cannot make laws on behalf of the queen. did you learn nothing at school?

The queen using her represenative can repeal and create law

Quote:

A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 4:11pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 4:08pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 1:59pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 1:11pm: Sorry thought use were talking about the governer general even then you are wrong. the GG cannot MAKE laws and his power to not declare laws is not used. However, they (the GG) can sack elected governments! that is one of their reserve powers but not on their own initiative. the point is that PP is woefully wrong about the GG.

I was simply making a comment, without getting into the rights or otherwise of the discussion!

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 9:57am:

Longy, why do you support a pedo sex club?

I thought I would bring this thread and this post  back to the top so the ignorant and the blind can see it.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16^th, 2012 at 7:34pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 9:57am: Longy, why do you support a pedo sex club? I thought I would bring this thread and this post  back to the top so the ignorant and the blind can see it.

The church supports pedo's by covering up their crimes and making sure that they are not brought to justice..
Is this acceptable behaviour to you?

Do you have the balls to answer it longy?

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 16^th, 2012 at 7:37pm:

Do you have the balls to answer it longy?

Does it make you feel superior to question someones faith, saddle them with the crimes of others?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 16^th, 2012 at 7:40pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 16th, 2012 at 7:37pm: Do you have the balls to answer it longy? Does it make you feel superior to question someones faith, saddle them with the crimes of others?

What has his faith got to do with the crimes of an organization he supports?
How is it wrong to question someone for supporting an organization that supports paedophiles, given that he knows this and still supports them does that not make him in part a supporter of paedophiles?

But if his faith is actually in an organization that supports paedophiles then he does deserve to be critisized and called out for such actions.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 16^th, 2012 at 7:40pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 16th, 2012 at 7:37pm: Do you have the balls to answer it longy? Does it make you feel superior to question someones faith, saddle them with the crimes of others?

I have made complaint about the original post to perceptions_now who has refused to even consider it. I have forwarded it to FD who after a week has still done nothing.

The standard of moderation has always been erratic at best but this is truly pathetic. I dont believe anyone on here should be labeled a pedo or as a supporter of such. When I was moderator I suspended anyone who did so. Apparently the standards have dropped considerably.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16^th, 2012 at 7:45pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 16th, 2012 at 7:40pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 16th, 2012 at 7:37pm: Do you have the balls to answer it longy? Does it make you feel superior to question someones faith, saddle them with the crimes of others? I have made complaint about the original post to perceptions_now who has refused to even consider it. I have forwarded it to FD who after a week has still done nothing. The standard of moderation has always been erratic at best but this is truly pathetic. I dont believe anyone on here should be labeled a pedo or as a supporter of such. When I was moderator I suspended anyone who did so. Apparently the standards have dropped considerably.

Probably why you are not a mod anymore, you cant suspended people for speaking the truth.

Tell me, if protecting paedophiles and making sure they never face justice for their crimes is not supporting paedophiles...What is it?

This is not an attack on your faith
This is a simple question
Why not just answer it if I am so wrong like you claim..

And seriously you cannot complain, you verbally attack people in almost every post you make.
If I was as childish as you I could have reported you for hundreds of things but I dont and have the balls to answer your questions.
Now that is some cold hard fact for your ass

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 16^th, 2012 at 7:42pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 16th, 2012 at 7:40pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 16th, 2012 at 7:37pm: Do you have the balls to answer it longy? Does it make you feel superior to question someones faith, saddle them with the crimes of others? What has his faith got to do with the crimes of an organization he supports? How is it wrong to question someone for supporting an organization that supports paedophiles, given that he knows this and still supports them does that not make him in part a supporter of paedophiles? But if his faith is actually in an organization that supports paedophiles then he does deserve to be critisized and called out for such actions.

His faith is in a god, he probably had no choice in what sect his parents raised him.
Anyway he doesn't need me to defend him.
And yes I call him on the same events as you, the difference is I wait until he tries to tar another organisation as a ring of peado's.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 16^th, 2012 at 7:49pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 16th, 2012 at 7:42pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 16th, 2012 at 7:40pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 16th, 2012 at 7:37pm: Do you have the balls to answer it longy? Does it make you feel superior to question someones faith, saddle them with the crimes of others? What has his faith got to do with the crimes of an organization he supports? How is it wrong to question someone for supporting an organization that supports paedophiles, given that he knows this and still supports them does that not make him in part a supporter of paedophiles? But if his faith is actually in an organization that supports paedophiles then he does deserve to be critisized and called out for such actions. His faith is in a god, he probably had no choice in what sect his parents raised him. Anyway he doesn't need me to defend him. And yes I call him on the same events as you, the difference is I wait until he tries to tar another organisation as a ring of peado's.

Right then if is faith is in a god then shouldnt it annoy him that a human organization who have exploited his name are now supporting paedopiles?
He has tried to tar another organisation as pedos, I have seen him do it a few times in regards to the labour party.

So now what?

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 16^th, 2012 at 7:52pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 16th, 2012 at 7:49pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 16th, 2012 at 7:42pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 16th, 2012 at 7:40pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 16th, 2012 at 7:37pm: Do you have the balls to answer it longy? Does it make you feel superior to question someones faith, saddle them with the crimes of others? What has his faith got to do with the crimes of an organization he supports? How is it wrong to question someone for supporting an organization that supports paedophiles, given that he knows this and still supports them does that not make him in part a supporter of paedophiles? But if his faith is actually in an organization that supports paedophiles then he does deserve to be critisized and called out for such actions. His faith is in a god, he probably had no choice in what sect his parents raised him. Anyway he doesn't need me to defend him. And yes I call him on the same events as you, the difference is I wait until he tries to tar another organisation as a ring of peado's. Right then if is faith is in a god then shouldnt it annoy him that a human organization who have exploited his name are now supporting paedopiles? He has tried to tar another organisation as pedos, I have seen him do it a few times in regards to the labour party. So now what?

the difference O stupid one, is that I dont call labor supporters 'supporters of a pedo sex ring' like you do, despite the labor party having a proven record of this problem.

You need to learn the line that isnt to be crossed, before someone crosses it for you.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 16^th, 2012 at 7:52pm:

Right then if is faith is in a god then shouldnt it annoy him that a human organization who have exploited his name are now supporting paedopiles?

I'm sure it annoys the hell out of him.


bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 16^th, 2012 at 7:52pm:

He has tried to tar another organisation as pedos, I have seen him do it a few times in regards to the labour party.

Yes he does about once a month


bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 16^th, 2012 at 7:52pm:

So now what?

Drop the stupid questions and asking for an admission of guilt from him.

When he next brings up Labors kiddy fiddlers, remind him of the churches.

Simple really.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16^th, 2012 at 8:00pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 16th, 2012 at 7:52pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 16th, 2012 at 7:49pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 16th, 2012 at 7:42pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 16th, 2012 at 7:40pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 16th, 2012 at 7:37pm: Do you have the balls to answer it longy? Does it make you feel superior to question someones faith, saddle them with the crimes of others? What has his faith got to do with the crimes of an organization he supports? How is it wrong to question someone for supporting an organization that supports paedophiles, given that he knows this and still supports them does that not make him in part a supporter of paedophiles? But if his faith is actually in an organization that supports paedophiles then he does deserve to be critisized and called out for such actions. His faith is in a god, he probably had no choice in what sect his parents raised him. Anyway he doesn't need me to defend him. And yes I call him on the same events as you, the difference is I wait until he tries to tar another organisation as a ring of peado's. Right then if is faith is in a god then shouldnt it annoy him that a human organization who have exploited his name are now supporting paedopiles? He has tried to tar another organisation as pedos, I have seen him do it a few times in regards to the labour party. So now what? the difference O stupid one, is that I dont call labor supporters 'supporters of a pedo sex ring' like you do, despite the labor party having a proven record of this problem. You need to learn the line that isnt to be crossed, before someone crosses it for you.

The difference is that the church is a pedo sex ring

Once again:
Tell me, if protecting paedophiles and making sure they never face justice for their crimes is not supporting paedophiles...What is it?

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 16^th, 2012 at 7:49pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16th, 2012 at 7:45pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 16th, 2012 at 7:40pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 16th, 2012 at 7:37pm: Do you have the balls to answer it longy? Does it make you feel superior to question someones faith, saddle them with the crimes of others? I have made complaint about the original post to perceptions_now who has refused to even consider it. I have forwarded it to FD who after a week has still done nothing. The standard of moderation has always been erratic at best but this is truly pathetic. I dont believe anyone on here should be labeled a pedo or as a supporter of such. When I was moderator I suspended anyone who did so. Apparently the standards have dropped considerably. Probably why you are not a mod anymore, you cant suspended people for speaking the truth. Tell me, if protecting paedophiles and making sure they never face justice for their crimes is not supporting paedophiles...What is it? This is not an attack on your faith This is a simple question Why not just answer it if I am so wrong like you claim.. And seriously you cannot complain, you verbally attack people in almost every post you make. If I was as childish as you I could have reported you for hundreds of things but I dont and have the balls to answer your questions. Now that is some cold hard fact for your ass

keep em coming. bury yourself in defamatory stupidity. Oh maybe I should inform you that since quite a number on here (past and present) know my real name that the whole 'anonymous' defence aint that effective.

FD and pinhead might be ineffective, but I am not.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 16^th, 2012 at 8:02pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16th, 2012 at 8:00pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 16th, 2012 at 7:52pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 16th, 2012 at 7:49pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 16th, 2012 at 7:42pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 16th, 2012 at 7:40pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 16th, 2012 at 7:37pm: Do you have the balls to answer it longy? Does it make you feel superior to question someones faith, saddle them with the crimes of others? What has his faith got to do with the crimes of an organization he supports? How is it wrong to question someone for supporting an organization that supports paedophiles, given that he knows this and still supports them does that not make him in part a supporter of paedophiles? But if his faith is actually in an organization that supports paedophiles then he does deserve to be critisized and called out for such actions. His faith is in a god, he probably had no choice in what sect his parents raised him. Anyway he doesn't need me to defend him. And yes I call him on the same events as you, the difference is I wait until he tries to tar another organisation as a ring of peado's. Right then if is faith is in a god then shouldnt it annoy him that a human organization who have exploited his name are now supporting paedopiles? He has tried to tar another organisation as pedos, I have seen him do it a few times in regards to the labour party. So now what? the difference O stupid one, is that I dont call labor supporters 'supporters of a pedo sex ring' like you do, despite the labor party having a proven record of this problem. You need to learn the line that isnt to be crossed, before someone crosses it for you. The difference is that the church is a pedo sex ring Once again: Tell me, if protecting paedophiles and making sure they never face justice for their crimes is not supporting paedophiles...What is it?

congratulations. My contribution to this thread is now ended. The followup to this will be done via somewhat different channels.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 16^th, 2012 at 8:02pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 16th, 2012 at 7:52pm: Right then if is faith is in a god then shouldnt it annoy him that a human organization who have exploited his name are now supporting paedopiles? I'm sure it annoys the hell out of him. bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 16th, 2012 at 7:52pm: He has tried to tar another organisation as pedos, I have seen him do it a few times in regards to the labour party. Yes he does about once a month bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 16th, 2012 at 7:52pm: So now what? Drop the stupid questions and asking for an admission of guilt from him. When he next brings up Labors kiddy fiddlers, remind him of the churches. Simple really.

Any civilized person with even the smallest amount of decency would not continue to support an organization they know supports paedophiles, probably one of the lowest things someone could do.

So if he does it so often why is it so bad for me to do it?
Some people follow labour like a religion too.

Hey he is the one who started this crap, I just finished it with a question he doesnt have the balls to answer

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16^th, 2012 at 8:05pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 16th, 2012 at 8:02pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16th, 2012 at 8:00pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 16th, 2012 at 7:52pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 16th, 2012 at 7:49pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 16th, 2012 at 7:42pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 16th, 2012 at 7:40pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 16th, 2012 at 7:37pm: Do you have the balls to answer it longy? Does it make you feel superior to question someones faith, saddle them with the crimes of others? What has his faith got to do with the crimes of an organization he supports? How is it wrong to question someone for supporting an organization that supports paedophiles, given that he knows this and still supports them does that not make him in part a supporter of paedophiles? But if his faith is actually in an organization that supports paedophiles then he does deserve to be critisized and called out for such actions. His faith is in a god, he probably had no choice in what sect his parents raised him. Anyway he doesn't need me to defend him. And yes I call him on the same events as you, the difference is I wait until he tries to tar another organisation as a ring of peado's. Right then if is faith is in a god then shouldnt it annoy him that a human organization who have exploited his name are now supporting paedopiles? He has tried to tar another organisation as pedos, I have seen him do it a few times in regards to the labour party. So now what? the difference O stupid one, is that I dont call labor supporters 'supporters of a pedo sex ring' like you do, despite the labor party having a proven record of this problem. You need to learn the line that isnt to be crossed, before someone crosses it for you. The difference is that the church is a pedo sex ring Once again: Tell me, if protecting paedophiles and making sure they never face justice for their crimes is not supporting paedophiles...What is it? congratulations. My contribution to this thread is now ended. The followup to this will be done via somewhat different channels.

Tell me, if protecting paedophiles and making sure they never face justice for their crimes is not supporting paedophiles...What is it?
Tell me, if protecting paedophiles and making sure they never face justice for their crimes is not supporting paedophiles...What is it?
Tell me, if protecting paedophiles and making sure they never face justice for their crimes is not supporting paedophiles...What is it?
Tell me, if protecting paedophiles and making sure they never face justice for their crimes is not supporting paedophiles...What is it?
Tell me, if protecting paedophiles and making sure they never face justice for their crimes is not supporting paedophiles...What is it?
Tell me, if protecting paedophiles and making sure they never face justice for their crimes is not supporting paedophiles...What is it?
Tell me, if protecting paedophiles and making sure they never face justice for their crimes is not supporting paedophiles...What is it?
Tell me, if protecting paedophiles and making sure they never face justice for their crimes is not supporting paedophiles...What is it?
Tell me, if protecting paedophiles and making sure they never face justice for their crimes is not supporting paedophiles...What is it?
Tell me, if protecting paedophiles and making sure they never face justice for their crimes is not supporting paedophiles...What is it?
Tell me, if protecting paedophiles and making sure they never face justice for their crimes is not supporting paedophiles...What is it?
Tell me, if protecting paedophiles and making sure they never face justice for their crimes is not supporting paedophiles...What is it?
Tell me, if protecting paedophiles and making sure they never face justice for their crimes is not supporting paedophiles...What is it?
Tell me, if protecting paedophiles and making sure they never face justice for their crimes is not supporting paedophiles...What is it?
Tell me, if protecting paedophiles and making sure they never face justice for their crimes is not supporting paedophiles...What is it?
Tell me, if protecting paedophiles and making sure they never face justice for their crimes is not supporting paedophiles...What is it?