[url][/http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/union-official-sues-tony-abbott-20120515-1yogq.htmlurl]

Tony is being sued.   Like Slipper, he should now stand aside whilst the legal process takes it's course

lisa.greek wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 4:51pm:

[/http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/union-official-sues-tony-abbott-20120515-1yogq.html Tony is being sued.   Like Slipper, he should now stand aside whilst the legal process takes it's course

lololol No he wont. He wont stand aside. He hasnt the balls.

SOB

I wish the only problems the labor party had was because someone said something. Unfortunately, labor have corruption or worse problems.

Will the lynch mob turn on their own ...


Union official sues Tony Abbott for defamation

A SENIOR union official has launched defamation action against Tony Abbott, claiming the Opposition Leader branded him a thug during a media interview.


Victorian CFMEU assistant secretary John Setka has launched defamation action against Mr Abbott after the comments were made at a Master Builders Association of Victoria conference in February.

In a writ filed before the Supreme Court, it is alleged Mr Abbott insinuated Mr Setka was a thug who intimidated members of the construction industry.

It is alleged Mr Abbott had been asked a question about an MBA campaign to support the Australian Building and Construction Commission.

“Because so many of you have got to go onto sites every day and you’ve got to deal with the John Setkos of this world every day and the last thing you need is home visits from some of the gentlemen associated with some of the industrial organisations,” Mr Abbott allegedly said.

“And those home visits we know take place. We know they take place because people like Mr Setko have told us they take place,” he said.

The comments were aired on Sky News, whose parent company Australian News Channel is also being sued.

The writ claims Mr Abbott’s comments suggested Mr Setko:

WAS a thug who intimidated construction industry workers.

ENGAGED in unlawful behaviour by visiting the homes of people working in the industry for the purpose of intimidating them.

VISITED the homes of workers to make demands “that amount to extortion”.

The writ claimed Mr Setka suffered grave injury to his reputation.

It is claimed Mr Abbott did not respond to a request for retraction or apology until almost three months after lawyers for Mr Setka first issued a concerns notice.

"In doing so he denied making any defamatory statement about the plaintiff and denied that the plaintiff had suffered any damage," the writ said.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/union-official-sues-tony-abbott-for-defamation/story-fn7x8me2-1226356339273

I am almost certain Abbott will get enough evidence to prove his case, thus no defamation.

progressiveslol wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 5:25pm:

I am almost certain Abbott will get enough evidence to prove his case, thus no defamation.

EVIDENCE?? SINCE WHEN DID YOU NEED EVIDENCE?? Hypocrite.

Temporary Tony is clearly guilty as sin. He should be sent to the cross benches! Lieberals should refuse his vote.

How could you possibly defame a union official?

Even if the unlikely event that the Thug Standoverman isn't a Thug Standoverman, defamation is a civil matter and not criminal, so TA has effall to worry about comrade pinkos. :D :D :D :D :D :D

Swagman wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 5:36pm:

Even if the unlikely event that the Thug Standoverman isn't a Thug Standoverman, defamation is a civil matter and not criminal, so TA has effall to worry about comrade pinkos. :D :D :D :D :D :D

Civil, not criminal? You mean like the Slipper charges?

TONY SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE HOUSE!!! THE LIEBERAL PARTY SHOULD RENOUNCE HIS LEADERSHIP IMMEDIATELY!!

Note: I won't mention Thomson as there are no charges.

Considering the union in question is very well known for its standover tactics, they might want to be careful about the pandoras box they are about to open.

I am almost certain Tony will say NO!

Verge wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 5:42pm:

Considering the union in question is very well known for its standover tactics, they might want to be careful about the pandoras box they are about to open.

Yeah, I am looking forward to next Monday when Parliament sits again.

Soren wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 5:52pm:

Verge wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 5:42pm: Considering the union in question is very well known for its standover tactics, they might want to be careful about the pandoras box they are about to open. Yeah, I am looking forward to next Monday when Parliament sits again.

We've got a few juicy days Soren. Slippers court case. Thomson's statement to parliament. Abbott's demotion to the cross benches. Should be a fun packed few days.

There goes another union official's parliamentary career.

No... wait. They guy will get a safe Labor seat, coz he's a victim, don't you know.

No.. wait... Er...  People identify you as doing union business and that's now bad.

No... wait...., it's good.

No... wait...



How does it work with the unions and Labor again?

lisa.greek wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 4:51pm:

[url][/http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/union-official-sues-tony-abbott-20120515-1yogq.htmlurl] Tony is being sued.   Like Slipper, he should now stand aside whilst the legal process takes it's course

I think he's safe. Apparently the brief has been handed to FWA to investigate. A response is expected in 2015.

angeleyes wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 5:30pm:

How could you possibly defame a union official?

More defamation matty angledust, well Abbott set the standard that he now must live by, there is a civil action against him he must step down. After all he is guilt as hell only an idiot can not see that.(statement a reflection of conservative opinion, read on behalf of all normal people)

Soren wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 5:52pm:

Verge wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 5:42pm: Considering the union in question is very well known for its standover tactics, they might want to be careful about the pandoras box they are about to open. Yeah, I am looking forward to next Monday when Parliament sits again.

I wonder what Tony Abbott can find in discovery.

hang on a sec.   Tony is being sued.  Slipper is being sued.  Slipper has stood aside.  The coalition must surely see that to leave tony in the chair is a tad hypocritical?  Tony must step aside until the charges are decided incourt.  I mean,you Libs want  justice right?   

lisa.greek wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 8:30pm:

hang on a sec.   Tony is being sued.  Slipper is being sued.  Slipper has stood aside.  The coalition must surely see that to leave tony in the chair is a tad hypocritical?  Tony must step aside until the charges are decided incourt.  I mean,you Libs want  justice right?

EXACTLY!!!

Anything else is hyper hypocrisy after all the hullabaloo the Lieberals have been going on with for a year now.

TONY MUST STAND ASIDE! 

I LOVE HYPOCRISY!

HYPOCRISY GETS ALL US WAR LOVERS WET WET WET!!!

Mr Abbott last month accused John Setka - assistant Victorian secretary of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union - of turning up at the homes of builders uninvited. The CFMEU said Mr Abbott had implied that Mr Setka was trying to ''stand over'' people.

''Because so many of you have got to go on to sites every day and you've got to deal with the John Setkas of this world every day and the last thing you need is home visits,'' Mr Abbott said at a Master Builders Association of Victoria conference on February 10.

''Those home visits we know take place. We know they take place because people like Mr Setka have told us that they take place.''

The comments, broadcast on Sky News, were in response to a question on how employer groups should campaign to save the Australian Building and Construction Commission from being scrapped by Labor.

They came just two days after a criminal case against Mr Setka collapsed after building watchdog inspectors admitted destroying evidence and changing key parts of their stories. As a result, a number of assault-related charges against Mr Setka were dropped and he was convicted and fined $750 for behaving in an offensive manner in a public place.

Slater and Gordon's Ben Hardwick wrote to Mr Abbott on February 21 demanding damages, a full retraction and costs within seven days. He wrote that comments were ''highly defamatory'' and imputed Mr Setka engaged in ''thuggery''.

Last night, Mr Abbott's office did not respond to requests for comment before deadline.

The CFMEU's national construction secretary, Dave Noonan, said legal action would be taken and said the comments from Mr Abbott were a ''blatant lie'' and an ''outrageous smear''. ''Tony Abbott who yesterday [Sunday] I saw on television talking about the importance of politicians telling the truth has told a blatant lie which he has calculated to injure Mr Setka's reputation,'' Mr Noonan said.

''He has said that John Setka not only visited people at their homes but that he had admitted to doing so, and both those allegations are false,'' he said. ''The implications of his statements are very clear, that he has done so to stand over people and intimidate them.''

Mr Noonan said Mr Abbott needed to ''be held to account in front of the courts if he is prepared to defame other people''.

In his comments to the Master Builders, Mr Abbott spoke of how senior building managers opposed his bid, as a Howard government minister, to set up the Cole Royal Commission into the building industry.

The fallout from the royal commission was the creation of the ABCC, which its advocates say has boosted productivity and reduced industrial action in the industry. The Gillard government is close to having it replaced with an inspectorate with watered-down powers.

Mr Setka has been anointed to be the next secretary of the Victorian branch of the CFMEU, one of Australia's richest and most powerful unions. In 2003, he was convicted and fined $500 after threatening to ''fix up'' a Grocon manager.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/abbott-to-be-sued-over-home-visits-comments-20120305-1uecg.html#ixzz1uvzVqrgT


That report is from 6 March.

Was he convicted and fined for behaving thuggishly? Yes. Did Abbott say what he did after Setka's conviction and fining? Yes.


Is he the next boss of a union? Seems so.Is this a case of attack as the best defence? Seems so.


Funny how, when speaking to builders about the CFMEU, when someone says 'home visit' everybody things 'thugggish standover tactics'. When Craig Thomson said 'home visit' it meant something entirely different.  Unless he called Madame Lash.;D

Soren wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 8:55pm:

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/abbott-to-be-sued-over-home-visits-comments-20120305-1uecg.html#ixzz1uvzVqrgT That report is from 6 March. Was he convicted and fined for behaving thuggishly? Yes. Did Abbott say what he did after Setka's conviction and fining? Yes. Is he the next boss of a union? Seems so.Is this a case of attack as the best defence? Seems so. Funny how, when speaking to the rank and file of the CFMEU, when someone says 'home visit' everybody things 'thugggish standover tactics'. When Craig Thomson said 'home visit' it meant something entirely different.  Unless he called Madame Lash.;D

Irrelevant Soren. Tony is now a defendant in a court matter. Under the new integrity rules as laid down by Tony himself, he MUST stand aside until this is cleared up by the courts.

THOSE ARE TONY'S RULES. TONY HAS TO LIVE BY THEM.

Now that is funny.  ;D


Mr Setka has been anointed to be the next secretary of the Victorian branch of the CFMEU, one of Australia's richest and most powerful unions. In 2003, he was convicted and fined $500 after threatening to ''fix up'' a Grocon manager.

In his statement of claim, Mr Setka says Mr Abbott refused to apologise or retract his comments. When asked in a subsequent interview why he would not apologise, Mr Abbott said: "... there are far too many threats made by unionists in the building industry and I would suggest that it would be better for them and better for the industry if they stopped making threats."

angeleyes wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 9:02pm:

Now that is funny.  ;D Mr Setka has been anointed to be the next secretary of the Victorian branch of the CFMEU, one of Australia's richest and most powerful unions. In 2003, he was convicted and fined $500 after threatening to ''fix up'' a Grocon manager.

IRRELEVANT!

Soren wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 9:03pm:

In his statement of claim, Mr Setka says Mr Abbott refused to apologise or retract his comments. When asked in a subsequent interview why he would not apologise, Mr Abbott said: "... there are far too many threats made by unionists in the building industry and I would suggest that it would be better for them and better for the industry if they stopped making threats."

IRRELEVANT!

Gist wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 9:01pm:

Irrelevant Soren. Tony is now a defendant in a court matter. Under the new integrity rules as laid down by Tony himself, he MUST stand aside until this is cleared up by the courts. THOSE ARE TONY'S RULES. TONY HAS TO LIVE BY THEM.

Where did he say that if a parliamentarian is sued for what he or she has said, he/she must stand aside?
I can't find any such pronouncement from anyone.

In any case, I though Gillard made Thopson stand aside and Slipper volunteered. You've heard differently?

IRRELEVANT!


Yes Gist you are.

Great thread, lisa.greek. Never a truer word said in jest.

Soren wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 9:06pm:

Gist wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 9:01pm: Irrelevant Soren. Tony is now a defendant in a court matter. Under the new integrity rules as laid down by Tony himself, he MUST stand aside until this is cleared up by the courts. THOSE ARE TONY'S RULES. TONY HAS TO LIVE BY THEM. Where did he say that if a parliamentarian is sued for what he or she has said, he/she must stand aside? I can't find any such pronouncement from anyone. In any case, I though Gillard made Thopson stand aside and Slipper volunteered. You've heard differently?

Glad you asked a relevant question. It was getting boring pasting that statement in.

Here y'are Soren, read it and weep:


Quote:

It is therefore incumbent on the Prime Minister, who used her numbers to install Mr Slipper as Speaker late last year, to require him to stand aside until these matters are concluded before the courts. http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2012/04/21/pm-must-act-slipper-abbott/

Be careful what you wish for, righties.  :D

lisa.greek wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 8:30pm:

hang on a sec.   Tony is being sued.  Slipper is being sued.  Slipper has stood aside.  The coalition must surely see that to leave tony in the chair is a tad hypocritical?  Tony must step aside until the charges are decided incourt.  I mean,you Libs want  justice right?

Slipper is gone because of the corruption allegation, because of the sexual harassment court case, not because he called someone out in public, not because he said something uncontroversial.

As much as you would love this to be hypocritical, you are dreamin.

No matter how you try to twist it Gist it's powder puff compared to Slipper and Thomson.

Abbott also said.........................................

"It's is important for our Parliament that the Speaker have the respect of colleagues and the trust of the community.

"There are now very serious allegations against the current speaker, Mr Peter Slipper.

"These allegations concern the sexual harassment of a staff member in Mr Slipper's office.

"In court documents lodged yesterday, there are further serious allegations regarding potentially criminal misuse of taxpayer funds and breaches of entitlements.

Gordon and Slater will have great difficulty arguing defamation. Still, great publicity and the Unions will pay them.

They will have to prove defamation by arguing that the comments injured Setka's professional reputation. Abbott will be able cite contextual truth, honest opinion, and especially qualified privilege in his defence. Considering the circumstances of the comments (at a Master Builders' Conference) and Setka's previous convictions, it will be very hard to prove that Abbott has said or implied anything that could not be said or implied anyone familiar with Mr Setka and his reported legal and professional history.
But it will be an interesting circus.

Gist wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 8:33pm:

lisa.greek wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 8:30pm: hang on a sec.   Tony is being sued.  Slipper is being sued.  Slipper has stood aside.  The coalition must surely see that to leave tony in the chair is a tad hypocritical?  Tony must step aside until the charges are decided incourt.  I mean,you Libs want  justice right?    EXACTLY!!! Anything else is hyper hypocrisy after all the hullabaloo the Lieberals have been going on with for a year now. TONY MUST STAND ASIDE!

To conservatives Justice and integrity are tactical words which can only be applied to their oponents.

Dnarever wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 9:21pm:

Gist wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 8:33pm: lisa.greek wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 8:30pm: hang on a sec.   Tony is being sued.  Slipper is being sued.  Slipper has stood aside.  The coalition must surely see that to leave tony in the chair is a tad hypocritical?  Tony must step aside until the charges are decided incourt.  I mean,you Libs want  justice right?    EXACTLY!!! Anything else is hyper hypocrisy after all the hullabaloo the Lieberals have been going on with for a year now. TONY MUST STAND ASIDE!  To conservatives Justice and integrity are tactical words which can only be applied to their oponents.

Please explain how you can connect justice and integrity to Gillard and the labor party?

Gist wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 9:12pm:

Soren wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 9:06pm: Gist wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 9:01pm: Irrelevant Soren. Tony is now a defendant in a court matter. Under the new integrity rules as laid down by Tony himself, he MUST stand aside until this is cleared up by the courts. THOSE ARE TONY'S RULES. TONY HAS TO LIVE BY THEM. Where did he say that if a parliamentarian is sued for what he or she has said, he/she must stand aside? I can't find any such pronouncement from anyone. In any case, I though Gillard made Thopson stand aside and Slipper volunteered. You've heard differently? Glad you asked a relevant question. It was getting boring pasting that statement in. Here y'are Soren, read it and weep: Quote: It is therefore incumbent on the Prime Minister, who used her numbers to install Mr Slipper as Speaker late last year, to require him to stand aside until these matters are concluded before the courts. http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2012/04/21/pm-must-act-slipper-abbott/ Be careful what you wish for, righties.  :D

Context, git, context. The matters Abbott is talking about are the sexual harassment AND the potential criminal changes relating to misuse of money.

I would like to see Gillard or anyone on the Labor side to stand up and say that Abbott should stand aside because he said Setka conducted non-medical home visits.  I want to hear what Labor has to say. Defending a union heavy would  blow up in their faces like you've never seen it before. This will damage Labor, not Abbott. Mark my word.

Abbott didn't say anything untruthful, so why should he stand aside?

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 9:49pm:

Abbott didn't say anything untruthful, so why should he stand aside?

What on earth are you saying?

Nearly everything Tony Abbott says is untruthful.

progressiveslol wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 9:13pm:

Slipper is gone because of the corruption allegation, because of the sexual harassment court case, not because he called someone out in public, not because he said something uncontroversial. As much as you would love this to be hypocritical, you are dreamin.

IRRELEVANT!

angeleyes wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 9:19pm:

No matter how you try to twist it Gist it's powder puff compared to Slipper and Thomson. Abbott also said......................................... "It's is important for our Parliament that the Speaker have the respect of colleagues and the trust of the community. "There are now very serious allegations against the current speaker, Mr Peter Slipper. "These allegations concern the sexual harassment of a staff member in Mr Slipper's office. "In court documents lodged yesterday, there are further serious allegations regarding potentially criminal misuse of taxpayer funds and breaches of entitlements.

And it is equally important for our Leader of the Opposition to have the respect of colleagues and the trust of the community. I would put it that the Leader of the Opposition as the leader of the alternative government is at least as important in the Parliament as the Speaker. So any measures to which the Speaker must be accountable must also apply to the Leader of the Opposition.

TONY MUST STAND ASIDE.

Soren wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 9:20pm:

Gordon and Slater will have great difficulty arguing defamation. Still, great publicity and the Unions will pay them. They will have to prove defamation by arguing that the comments injured Setka's professional reputation. Abbott will be able cite contextual truth, honest opinion, and especially qualified privilege in his defence. Considering the circumstances of the comments (at a Master Builders' Conference) and Setka's previous convictions, it will be very hard to prove that Abbott has said or implied anything that could not be said or implied anyone familiar with Mr Setka and his reported legal and professional history. But it will be an interesting circus.

IRRELEVANT!

TONY HAS TO STAND ASIDE. THOSE ARE HIS RULES.

angeleyes wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 9:26pm:

Please explain how you can connect justice and integrity to Gillard and the labor party?

IRRELEVANT!

Soren wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 9:30pm:

Context, git, context. The matters Abbott is talking about are the sexual harassment AND the potential criminal changes relating to misuse of money. I would like to see Gillard or anyone on the Labor side to stand up and say that Abbott should stand aside because he said Setka conducted non-medical home visits.  I want to hear what Labor has to say. Defending a union heavy would  blow up in their faces like you've never seen it before. This will damage Labor, not Abbott. Mark my word.

BULLSHIT,
SOREN,
BULLSHIT!

AND

IRRELEVANT!

Tony has laid out the rules. HE HAS TO ABIDE BY THEM. HE MUST STAND ASIDE!

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 9:49pm:

Abbott didn't say anything untruthful, so why should he stand aside?

IRRELEVANT!

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 9:49pm:

Abbott didn't say anything untruthful, so why should he stand aside?

That will now be up to the courts to decide.

Soren wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 9:30pm:

Gist wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 9:12pm: Soren wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 9:06pm: Gist wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 9:01pm: Irrelevant Soren. Tony is now a defendant in a court matter. Under the new integrity rules as laid down by Tony himself, he MUST stand aside until this is cleared up by the courts. THOSE ARE TONY'S RULES. TONY HAS TO LIVE BY THEM. Where did he say that if a parliamentarian is sued for what he or she has said, he/she must stand aside? I can't find any such pronouncement from anyone. In any case, I though Gillard made Thopson stand aside and Slipper volunteered. You've heard differently? Glad you asked a relevant question. It was getting boring pasting that statement in. Here y'are Soren, read it and weep: Quote: It is therefore incumbent on the Prime Minister, who used her numbers to install Mr Slipper as Speaker late last year, to require him to stand aside until these matters are concluded before the courts. http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2012/04/21/pm-must-act-slipper-abbott/ Be careful what you wish for, righties.  :D Context, git, context. The matters Abbott is talking about are the sexual harassment AND the potential criminal changes relating to misuse of money. I would like to see Gillard or anyone on the Labor side to stand up and say that Abbott should stand aside because he said Setka conducted non-medical home visits.  I want to hear what Labor has to say. Defending a union heavy would  blow up in their faces like you've never seen it before. This will damage Labor, not Abbott. Mark my word.

I'd have to agree with you on that one. It seems Tony is getting a lot smarter at picking his mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iI4c300Y76c&sns=em

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjklT59clE4&sns=em

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 9:49pm:

Abbott didn't say anything untruthful, so why should he stand aside?

How would you know? There wouldn't be a lawsuit if it was truthful now would there?

SOB

JuLIAR is trying to buy the invaders votes with massive handouts - thats why they have hundreds of thousands of people invading our borders every year...,we are robbed of our own wealth and assets. 8-) ::)

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 8:29am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 9:49pm: Abbott didn't say anything untruthful, so why should he stand aside? How would you know? There wouldn't be a lawsuit if it was truthful now would there? SOB

Betcha it won't get to court. It will be withdrawn by the union hack.

Remember the Thomson case?

Gist wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 5:40pm:

Swagman wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 5:36pm: Even if the unlikely event that the Thug Standoverman isn't a Thug Standoverman, defamation is a civil matter and not criminal, so TA has effall to worry about comrade pinkos. :D :D :D :D :D :D Civil, not criminal? You mean like the Slipper charges? TONY SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE HOUSE!!! THE LIEBERAL PARTY SHOULD RENOUNCE HIS LEADERSHIP IMMEDIATELY!! Note: I won't mention Thomson as there are no charges.

OH LOL, yes EXACTLY like Slipper only difference is phony Tony is the sold gold conga lines hero.

Note: I won't mention Thomson as there are no charges.


What have I missed?

Has Abbott been charged with something?

angeleyes wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 8:41am:

Note: I won't mention Thomson as there are no charges. What have I missed? Has Abbott been charged with something?

Abbott has been charged with the exact same thing as Slipper, IE, sweet FA. Are you outraged phony Tony has not stood down???? you are calling for Slipper to, you are not that big a hypocriter are you mel????????

Gist wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 11:34pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 9:49pm: Abbott didn't say anything untruthful, so why should he stand aside? IRRELEVANT!

Er... actually, telling the truth cannot be defamation. SO it is not irrelevant. As I pointed out earlier, defamation has to meet certain criteria and there are certain defences that rule out defamation. Truth is one. (this is why, BTW) Bolt was not sued for defamation but for hurting feelings under the discrimination laws. Setka can't resort to the discrimination laws because unionists are not yet a protected minority But he will not be able to prove defamation as his reputation, established before Abbott's comments, was already as described by Abbott. Defamation is ENTIRELY a matter of interpretation, unlike all the various offences Slipper and Thomspon are tainted with.

I understand that progs can only see the words 'legal action' on both sides and so imagine that they are identical, but that's progs for ya. You will repeat the mantra 'irrelevant' to every attempt to show you the differences between the various cases but since you do not understand any of it you will carry on chanting.

Interestingly, there was no mention of this Setka case on the ABC news today. It seems that the Government ae not as stupid as you, after all. Small mercies, what?

Soren wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 9:07am:

Gist wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 11:34pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 9:49pm: Abbott didn't say anything untruthful, so why should he stand aside? IRRELEVANT! Er... actually, telling the truth cannot be defamation. SO it is not irrelevant. As I pointed out earlier, defamation has to meet certain criteria and there are certain defences that rule out defamation. Truth is one. (this is why, BTW) Bolt was not sued for defamation but for hurting feelings under the discrimination laws. Setka can't resort to the discrimination laws because unionists are not yet a protected minority But he will not be able to prove defamation as his reputation, established before Abbott's comments, was already as described by Abbott. Defamation is ENTIRELY a matter of interpretation, unlike all the various offences Slipper and Thomspon are tainted with. I understand that progs can only see the words 'legal action' on both sides and so imagine that they are identical, but that's progs for ya. You will repeat the mantra 'irrelevant' to every attempt to show you the differences between the various cases but since you do not understand any of it you will carry on chanting. Interestingly, there was no mention of this Setka case on the ABC news today. It seems that the Government ae not as stupid as you, after all. Small mercies, what?

He was accusing the guy of illegal stuff. If it is true then there would be charges. If not then he is slandering like he does.

SOB

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 9:49pm:

Abbott didn't say anything untruthful, so why should he stand aside?

There has been no conviction against Slipper or Abbnott.

Abbnott has insisted that Slipper stand aside till the case is concluded.

By his own standards (if he had any) he should do the same.

Soren wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 9:06pm:

Gist wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 9:01pm: Irrelevant Soren. Tony is now a defendant in a court matter. Under the new integrity rules as laid down by Tony himself, he MUST stand aside until this is cleared up by the courts. THOSE ARE TONY'S RULES. TONY HAS TO LIVE BY THEM. Where did he say that if a parliamentarian is sued for what he or she has said, he/she must stand aside? I can't find any such pronouncement from anyone. In any case, I though Gillard made Thopson stand aside and Slipper volunteered. You've heard differently?

I agree that Abbott should be made to stand aside...

after FWA has come out with its report in 4 years time
after the party has taken a further 4 years to vacillate on the matter
after Abbotts workplace has been raided


sounds quite fair to me.

longweekend58 wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 10:19am:

Soren wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 9:06pm: Gist wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 9:01pm: Irrelevant Soren. Tony is now a defendant in a court matter. Under the new integrity rules as laid down by Tony himself, he MUST stand aside until this is cleared up by the courts. THOSE ARE TONY'S RULES. TONY HAS TO LIVE BY THEM. Where did he say that if a parliamentarian is sued for what he or she has said, he/she must stand aside? I can't find any such pronouncement from anyone. In any case, I though Gillard made Thopson stand aside and Slipper volunteered. You've heard differently? I agree that Abbott should be made to stand aside... after FWA has come out with its report in 4 years time after the party has taken a further 4 years to vacillate on the matter after Abbotts workplace has been raided sounds quite fair to me.

It would be fair IF the thread were discussing Thomson and Abbott.  But it isn't - it is discussing Slipper and Abbott both of whom are now caught up in civil court actions.    Slipper stood aside to allow due process in the courts.  Why isn't Abbott?

lisa.greek wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 10:29am:

longweekend58 wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 10:19am: Soren wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 9:06pm: Gist wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 9:01pm: Irrelevant Soren. Tony is now a defendant in a court matter. Under the new integrity rules as laid down by Tony himself, he MUST stand aside until this is cleared up by the courts. THOSE ARE TONY'S RULES. TONY HAS TO LIVE BY THEM. Where did he say that if a parliamentarian is sued for what he or she has said, he/she must stand aside? I can't find any such pronouncement from anyone. In any case, I though Gillard made Thopson stand aside and Slipper volunteered. You've heard differently? I agree that Abbott should be made to stand aside... after FWA has come out with its report in 4 years time after the party has taken a further 4 years to vacillate on the matter after Abbotts workplace has been raided sounds quite fair to me. It would be fair IF the thread were discussing Thomson and Abbott.  But it isn't - it is discussing Slipper and Abbott both of whom are now caught up in civil court actions.    Slipper stood aside to allow due process in the courts.  Why isn't Abbott?

Great points, but don't expect an answer.

lisa.greek wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 10:29am:

longweekend58 wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 10:19am: Soren wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 9:06pm: Gist wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 9:01pm: Irrelevant Soren. Tony is now a defendant in a court matter. Under the new integrity rules as laid down by Tony himself, he MUST stand aside until this is cleared up by the courts. THOSE ARE TONY'S RULES. TONY HAS TO LIVE BY THEM. Where did he say that if a parliamentarian is sued for what he or she has said, he/she must stand aside? I can't find any such pronouncement from anyone. In any case, I though Gillard made Thopson stand aside and Slipper volunteered. You've heard differently? I agree that Abbott should be made to stand aside... after FWA has come out with its report in 4 years time after the party has taken a further 4 years to vacillate on the matter after Abbotts workplace has been raided sounds quite fair to me. It would be fair IF the thread were discussing Thomson and Abbott.  But it isn't - it is discussing Slipper and Abbott both of whom are now caught up in civil court actions.    Slipper stood aside to allow due process in the courts.  Why isn't Abbott?

Slipper has a CRIMINAL investigation in progress. PLus, the civil suit is serious while the Abbott defamation suit is frivolous in the extreme. imagaine being sued by a union official with a criminal record for violence because you called him a thug!!!

so If I sue Gillard for breach of promise, shoudl she resign?

longweekend58 wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 10:36am:

lisa.greek wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 10:29am: longweekend58 wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 10:19am: Soren wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 9:06pm: Gist wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 9:01pm: Irrelevant Soren. Tony is now a defendant in a court matter. Under the new integrity rules as laid down by Tony himself, he MUST stand aside until this is cleared up by the courts. THOSE ARE TONY'S RULES. TONY HAS TO LIVE BY THEM. Where did he say that if a parliamentarian is sued for what he or she has said, he/she must stand aside? I can't find any such pronouncement from anyone. In any case, I though Gillard made Thopson stand aside and Slipper volunteered. You've heard differently? I agree that Abbott should be made to stand aside... after FWA has come out with its report in 4 years time after the party has taken a further 4 years to vacillate on the matter after Abbotts workplace has been raided sounds quite fair to me. It would be fair IF the thread were discussing Thomson and Abbott.  But it isn't - it is discussing Slipper and Abbott both of whom are now caught up in civil court actions.    Slipper stood aside to allow due process in the courts.  Why isn't Abbott? Slipper has a CRIMINAL investigation in progress. PLus, the civil suit is serious while the Abbott defamation suit is frivolous in the extreme. imagaine being sued by a union official with a criminal record for violence because you called him a thug!!! so If I sue Gillard for breach of promise, shoudl she resign?

The newspaper article alludes to a lot of other things Abbott is supposed to have said which prompted the civil action by the respondent.    Regardless of criminal investigations for Slipper- those investigations are yet to
come up as actual charges - so he is innocent there until proven guilty.  On the civil matter, both Slipper and Abbot are defendants in a court action against them - once again they are both innocent until proven otherwise.   The issue is though - Slipper stood down whilst the actions are in progress.  Abbott did not..

As for suing Julia Gillard, I am sure the Liberals would be screaming for her to stand down to allow action to go ahead in the courts  If you agree she should, then you must agree that Abbott should stand aside also!

lisa.greek wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 10:49am:

longweekend58 wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 10:36am: lisa.greek wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 10:29am: longweekend58 wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 10:19am: Soren wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 9:06pm: Gist wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 9:01pm: Irrelevant Soren. Tony is now a defendant in a court matter. Under the new integrity rules as laid down by Tony himself, he MUST stand aside until this is cleared up by the courts. THOSE ARE TONY'S RULES. TONY HAS TO LIVE BY THEM. Where did he say that if a parliamentarian is sued for what he or she has said, he/she must stand aside? I can't find any such pronouncement from anyone. In any case, I though Gillard made Thopson stand aside and Slipper volunteered. You've heard differently? I agree that Abbott should be made to stand aside... after FWA has come out with its report in 4 years time after the party has taken a further 4 years to vacillate on the matter after Abbotts workplace has been raided sounds quite fair to me. It would be fair IF the thread were discussing Thomson and Abbott.  But it isn't - it is discussing Slipper and Abbott both of whom are now caught up in civil court actions.    Slipper stood aside to allow due process in the courts.  Why isn't Abbott? Slipper has a CRIMINAL investigation in progress. PLus, the civil suit is serious while the Abbott defamation suit is frivolous in the extreme. imagaine being sued by a union official with a criminal record for violence because you called him a thug!!! so If I sue Gillard for breach of promise, shoudl she resign? The newspaper article alludes to a lot of other things Abbott is supposed to have said which prompted the civil action by the respondent.    Regardless of criminal investigations for Slipper- those investigations are yet to come up as actual charges - so he is innocent there until proven guilty.  On the civil matter, both Slipper and Abbot are defendants in a court action against them - once again they are both innocent until proven otherwise.   The issue is though - Slipper stood down whilst the actions are in progress.  Abbott did not.. As for suing Julia Gillard, I am sure the Liberals would be screaming for her to stand down to allow action to go ahead in the courts  If you agree she should, then you must agree that Abbott should stand aside also!

if you seriously want to conclude that the allegations against Slipper - which include ciminal allegations along with a long history of fraud - stand up against a claim that a union official is a thug then you need your head read! AND the union official is from a buidling union. That is almost all the proof you need.

get serious. Serious allegations demand serious action. Frivolous ones shoudl be ignored. Adn guess what... almost everyone but you is ignoring it.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 9:16am:

He was accusing the guy of illegal stuff. If it is true then there would be charges. If not then he is slandering like he does. SOB

Like what 'illegal stuff', genius?

Soren wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 11:28am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 9:16am: He was accusing the guy of illegal stuff. If it is true then there would be charges. If not then he is slandering like he does. SOB Like what 'illegal stuff', genius?

Quote:

The opposition leader went on to explain that the reason for these ‘home visits’ were “for the purpose of making demands that amount to extortion”, underlining the very basis of the under the covers intimidation that goes on in the construction industry.

Extortion is illegal. So is thuggery I expect.

SOB

Just the responses I expected from the conga line of solid gold lying hypocrites. Longwhine never ceases to induce vomit in ones mouth.

lisa.greek wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 10:29am:

It would be fair IF the thread were discussing Thomson and Abbott.  But it isn't - it is discussing Slipper and Abbott both of whom are now caught up in civil court actions.    Slipper stood aside to allow due process in the courts.  Why isn't Abbott?

One reason, the essential reason is that Slipper is accused in his capacity as Speaker and as such, Ashby's boss. Ashby is accusing Slipper of misconduct in his position as Parliamentary Speaker and therefore the Commonwealth's agent, as it were, towards his staff. If you have a look, Slipper and the Commonwealth are the co-respondents to Ashby's accusations.
Slipper is also subject to criminal investigations by the police in relation to misuse of funds. Ashby has left this out of his final deposition only because the criminal ivestigations have been set in train by the police and so Ashby doesn't need to take it up in his own civil case.


In Abbott's case, it's Abbott and a news channel. In other words, Abbott is not accused in his capacity as a parliamentarian but as an ordinary person.

longweekend58 wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 11:20am:

lisa.greek wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 10:49am: longweekend58 wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 10:36am: lisa.greek wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 10:29am: longweekend58 wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 10:19am: Soren wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 9:06pm: Gist wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 9:01pm: Irrelevant Soren. Tony is now a defendant in a court matter. Under the new integrity rules as laid down by Tony himself, he MUST stand aside until this is cleared up by the courts. THOSE ARE TONY'S RULES. TONY HAS TO LIVE BY THEM. Where did he say that if a parliamentarian is sued for what he or she has said, he/she must stand aside? I can't find any such pronouncement from anyone. In any case, I though Gillard made Thopson stand aside and Slipper volunteered. You've heard differently? I agree that Abbott should be made to stand aside... after FWA has come out with its report in 4 years time after the party has taken a further 4 years to vacillate on the matter after Abbotts workplace has been raided sounds quite fair to me. It would be fair IF the thread were discussing Thomson and Abbott.  But it isn't - it is discussing Slipper and Abbott both of whom are now caught up in civil court actions.    Slipper stood aside to allow due process in the courts.  Why isn't Abbott? Slipper has a CRIMINAL investigation in progress. PLus, the civil suit is serious while the Abbott defamation suit is frivolous in the extreme. imagaine being sued by a union official with a criminal record for violence because you called him a thug!!! so If I sue Gillard for breach of promise, shoudl she resign? The newspaper article alludes to a lot of other things Abbott is supposed to have said which prompted the civil action by the respondent.    Regardless of criminal investigations for Slipper- those investigations are yet to come up as actual charges - so he is innocent there until proven guilty.  On the civil matter, both Slipper and Abbot are defendants in a court action against them - once again they are both innocent until proven otherwise.   The issue is though - Slipper stood down whilst the actions are in progress.  Abbott did not.. As for suing Julia Gillard, I am sure the Liberals would be screaming for her to stand down to allow action to go ahead in the courts  If you agree she should, then you must agree that Abbott should stand aside also! if you seriously want to conclude that the allegations against Slipper - which include ciminal allegations along with a long history of fraud - stand up against a claim that a union official is a thug then you need your head read! AND the union official is from a buidling union. That is almost all the proof you need. get serious. Serious allegations demand serious action. Frivolous ones shoudl be ignored. Adn guess what... almost everyone but you is ignoring it.

Woah - hang on there - no need to be abusive! 

It doesn't matter whether the allegations are frivolous, serious, or anything else.  The courts and our justice system will decide that and either throw them out or pass judgement

The fact of the matter is, both Abbott and Slipper are being taken to court by someone who is agrieved.  Got that so far?

The salient point here is that Slipper stood down - as an innocent until proven guilty man - but Abbott didn't.

As stated before in answer to one of your questions - if Gillard was being sued for anything, then the Liberals would demand she stand down until the court system took it's course - as they did with Slipper.   

Time for Abbott to talk the talk and walk the walk as he did with Slipper and stand down

lisa.greek wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 11:43am:

The salient point here is that Slipper stood down - as an innocent until proven guilty man - but Abbott didn't.

The salient point is that Slipper is accused of misconduct in his job as a Parliamentary  Speaker towards his staff .

Soren wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 11:48am:

lisa.greek wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 11:43am: The salient point here is that Slipper stood down - as an innocent until proven guilty man - but Abbott didn't. The salient point is that Slipper is accused of misconduct in his job as a Parliamentary  Speaker towards his staff .

I don't belive Slipper was the Parliamentary Speaker at the time the alledged incidents occurred.   I understand he voluntarily stood aside after assumming the job of Speaker to protect the prestige of the position

Once again, Slipper and Abbott are both defendants in civil cases bought about by agreived people.  Slipper stood aside so should Abbott

lisa.greek wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 11:53am:

Soren wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 11:48am: lisa.greek wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 11:43am: The salient point here is that Slipper stood down - as an innocent until proven guilty man - but Abbott didn't. The salient point is that Slipper is accused of misconduct in his job as a Parliamentary  Speaker towards his staff . I don't belive Slipper was the Parliamentary Speaker at the time the alledged incidents occurred.   I understand he voluntarily stood aside after assumming the job of Speaker to protect the prestige of the position Once again, Slipper and Abbott are both defendants in civil cases bought about by agreived people.  Slipper stood aside so should Abbott

suppose you might be right. Shaking someones hand, touching, is the same as rape and both should be handled in the same way.

progressiveslol wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 11:59am:

lisa.greek wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 11:53am: Soren wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 11:48am: lisa.greek wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 11:43am: The salient point here is that Slipper stood down - as an innocent until proven guilty man - but Abbott didn't. The salient point is that Slipper is accused of misconduct in his job as a Parliamentary  Speaker towards his staff . I don't belive Slipper was the Parliamentary Speaker at the time the alledged incidents occurred.   I understand he voluntarily stood aside after assumming the job of Speaker to protect the prestige of the position Once again, Slipper and Abbott are both defendants in civil cases bought about by agreived people.  Slipper stood aside so should Abbott suppose you might be right. Shaking someones hand, touching, is the same as rape and both should be handled in the same way.

If that's your belief then fine - it is not mine though. and that is not the assumptions that this thread has taken until now

What I am saying is that Slipper and Abbott both have actions being taken by them in the civil courst by agrieved persons.   They are both innocent until proven otherwise.   Slipper voluntarily stood aside to protect the integrity of the Speaker's Chair until justice is served.  Abbot should do the same

lisa.greek wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 11:53am:

Soren wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 11:48am: lisa.greek wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 11:43am: The salient point here is that Slipper stood down - as an innocent until proven guilty man - but Abbott didn't. The salient point is that Slipper is accused of misconduct in his job as a Parliamentary  Speaker towards his staff . I don't belive Slipper was the Parliamentary Speaker at the time the alledged incidents occurred.   I understand he voluntarily stood aside after assumming the job of Speaker to protect the prestige of the position Once again, Slipper and Abbott are both defendants in civil cases bought about by agreived people.  Slipper stood aside so should Abbott

Slipper was a parliamentarian before he got the Speakership and was Ashby's boss. Ashby accuses him in his capacity as a boss in the Commonwealth parliamentary system.
PLUS there is now a criminal investigation about misusing parliamentary funds while being a parliamentarian. Every accusation against Slipper is in relation to his conduct in his job.

[quote author=2623392B642D382F2F214A0 link=1337064703/69#69 date=1337133955  They are both innocent until proven otherwise.   [/quote]

Incorrect. Regarding the workplace harrassment accusations against Slipper, under Gillard's Fair Work laws, the presumption is against the accused (Slipper) and he has to prove that the accusations are false.

In all other legal matters, the accuser has to prove his case. In any case, guilt and innocence are terms only in criminal law. There is no guilt or innocence in civil law, only liability.

Abbott won't stand down - end of story.

The real question is - who is paying for Abbott's legal costs.

If he expects the Liberal Party to pay for them, he is definitely being hypocritical as he has implied (if not stated) that both Slipper and Thomson should be paying their own legal costs.

Ahhh, I hear you all say, but the Labor Party was paying for Thomson's legal costs.

Yes, it was, just as the Victorian Liberal Party covered the legal costs of one of it's own MP's in a defamation case in 2011 to the tune of $145k (possibly more).

"THE Victorian Liberals paid at least $145,000 in legal fees to help senior government minister David Davis defend himself in a legal battle against the former state secretary of the Labor Party."

I'd post a link, but being a newcomer, I'm not able to.

Well there only seems to be a few options

Does Tnoy’s rules for others apply to himself? (ridiculous to suggest they should)

Can the conservatives spin it to look like a difference exists where it clearly doesn’t?

Are tnoy and co + their supporters hypocrites of the worst order? (consistent with their history).

I would think there are good reasons for not shortcutting the trial process to establish guilt or you can end up looking as incompetent dishonest mean spirited and opportunistic as Tnoy Abbnott does now.

By his own standard (or more accurately lack of) he has to stand aside, Impaled by his own petard

Quote:

Every accusation against Slipper is in relation to his conduct in his job.

Huh?  Care to explain?

Aussie wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 5:47pm:

Quote: Every accusation against Slipper is in relation to his conduct in his job. Huh?  Care to explain?

Abbott was on duty - doing an interview as leader of the opposition, it was not just a social faux pas.

It very much relates to doing his job.

Tnoy should be careful standing aside; from where he is starting he could go down a drain if he is not real cautious.

Dnarever wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 5:31pm:

Well there only seems to be a few options Does Tnoy’s rules for others apply to himself? (ridiculous to suggest they should) Can the conservatives spin it to look like a difference exists where it clearly doesn’t? Are tnoy and co + their supporters hypocrites of the worst order? (consistent with their history). I would think there are good reasons for not shortcutting the trial process to establish guilt or you can end up looking as incompetent dishonest mean spirited and opportunistic as Tnoy Abbnott does now. By his own standard (or more accurately lack of) he has to stand aside, Impaled by his own petard

This is unsurprisingly ridiculous. By your reckoning if anyone is accused of defamation he should immediately stand down from is job the moment the papers are lodged with a court official.

Aussie wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 5:47pm:

Quote: Every accusation against Slipper is in relation to his conduct in his job. Huh?  Care to explain?

Cab charges - commonwealth money, permitted for parliamentary business only.
Staff harassment - Ashby was his staffer in his parliamentary office.

Dnarever wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 9:21pm:

Aussie wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 5:47pm: Quote: Every accusation against Slipper is in relation to his conduct in his job. Huh?  Care to explain? Abbott was on duty - doing an interview as leader of the opposition, it was not just a social faux pas. It very much relates to doing his job.

Indeed. And that's why he refused to retract. This will burn Gillard and the unions far more than Abbott.

It is another boon for Abbott: there will be sustained discussion about union thuggery and intimidation, so much of it that no amount WorkChoices advertising could possibly buy its equal. 

Why do you thing the Government was eager to bring up a 30 year old harassment case against Abbott just last week but are completely, utterly silent on this? They know that this is gold for Abbott and poison for Labor.

But all you mentally negligible progs are prancing about triumphantly if this was bad news for Abbott and good for Gillard.

Carry on.i

Soren wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 10:31pm:

Dnarever wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 5:31pm: Well there only seems to be a few options Does Tnoy’s rules for others apply to himself? (ridiculous to suggest they should) Can the conservatives spin it to look like a difference exists where it clearly doesn’t? Are tnoy and co + their supporters hypocrites of the worst order? (consistent with their history). I would think there are good reasons for not shortcutting the trial process to establish guilt or you can end up looking as incompetent dishonest mean spirited and opportunistic as Tnoy Abbnott does now. By his own standard (or more accurately lack of) he has to stand aside, Impaled by his own petard This is unsurprisingly ridiculous. By your reckoning if anyone is accused of defamation he should immediately stand down from is job the moment the papers are lodged with a court official.

NO, FOOL. BY TONY'S RECKONING! NOT OURS!!! DO YOU UNDERSTAND ANYTHING???

THEY ARE HIS RULES. HE NEEDS TO ABIDE BY THEM!

Soren wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 10:46pm:

Dnarever wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 9:21pm: Aussie wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 5:47pm: Quote: Every accusation against Slipper is in relation to his conduct in his job. Huh?  Care to explain? Abbott was on duty - doing an interview as leader of the opposition, it was not just a social faux pas. It very much relates to doing his job. Indeed. And that's why he refused to retract. This will burn Gillard and the unions far more than Abbott. It is another boon for Abbott: there will be sustained discussion about union thuggery and intimidation, so much of it that no amount WorkChoices advertising could possibly buy its equal.  Why do you thing the Government was eager to bring up a 30 year old harassment case against Abbott just last week but are completely, utterly silent on this? They know that this is gold for Abbott and poison for Labor. But all you mentally negligible progs are prancing about triumphantly if this was bad news for Abbott and good for Gillard. Carry on.

IRRELEVANT!

EVERY

SINGLE

ONE

OF

YOUR

POSTS

IS

IRRELEVANT!

Dnarever wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 10:14pm:

Tnoy should be careful standing aside; from where he is starting he could go down a drain if he is not real cautious.

Julie Bishop needs to assume the leadership immediately until this issue has been resolved.

lol you pussy lefties are still crying about this. Have you wondered why no-one outside of your lefty little pussy group is not talking about this. It is because people dont care that Abbott told a thug he is a thug. They do care about sexual harassment and corruption.

progressiveslol wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 6:32am:

lol you pussy lefties are still crying about this. Have you wondered why no-one outside of your lefty little pussy group is not talking about this. It is because people dont care that Abbott told a thug he is a thug. They do care about sexual harassment and corruption.

He accused the guy of a crime. Extortion.

SOB

progressiveslol wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 6:32am:

lol you pussy lefties are still crying about this. Have you wondered why no-one outside of your lefty little pussy group is not talking about this. It is because people dont care that Abbott told a thug he is a thug. They do care about sexual harassment and corruption.

Can you prove this person you claim is a thug is a thug.


If so, Tony needs your help

Gist wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 12:00am:

Soren wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 10:46pm: Dnarever wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 9:21pm: Aussie wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 5:47pm: Quote: Every accusation against Slipper is in relation to his conduct in his job. Huh?  Care to explain? Abbott was on duty - doing an interview as leader of the opposition, it was not just a social faux pas. It very much relates to doing his job. Indeed. And that's why he refused to retract. This will burn Gillard and the unions far more than Abbott. It is another boon for Abbott: there will be sustained discussion about union thuggery and intimidation, so much of it that no amount WorkChoices advertising could possibly buy its equal.  Why do you thing the Government was eager to bring up a 30 year old harassment case against Abbott just last week but are completely, utterly silent on this? They know that this is gold for Abbott and poison for Labor. But all you mentally negligible progs are prancing about triumphantly if this was bad news for Abbott and good for Gillard. Carry on. IRRELEVANT! EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOUR POSTS IS IRRELEVANT!

Your intelligence and quiet confidence is coming through loud and clear.

Carry on. You know this issue is a boon for Abbott, poison for Gillard and the unions. But carry on banging on your pots and pans if you really think that this is irrelevant.

Soren wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 10:31pm:

Dnarever wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 5:31pm: Well there only seems to be a few options Does Tnoy’s rules for others apply to himself? (ridiculous to suggest they should) Can the conservatives spin it to look like a difference exists where it clearly doesn’t? Are tnoy and co + their supporters hypocrites of the worst order? (consistent with their history). I would think there are good reasons for not shortcutting the trial process to establish guilt or you can end up looking as incompetent dishonest mean spirited and opportunistic as Tnoy Abbnott does now. By his own standard (or more accurately lack of) he has to stand aside, Impaled by his own petard This is unsurprisingly ridiculous. By your reckoning if anyone is accused of defamation he should immediately stand down from is job the moment the papers are lodged with a court official.

How can your comprehension be that poor I do not think either should have been stood down.

This is Tnoy Abbnott's view on Slipper which now should be applied to himself.

The problem is that this is the standard that Tnoy has demanded be applied to others.

Its not what I think at all - Tnoy hoisted by his own petard.

Well? Has he stood aside yet?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 12:09pm:

Well? Has he stood aside yet? SOB

Has Gillard asked him to step aside because of this?

Dnarever wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 11:49am:

Soren wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 10:31pm: Dnarever wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 5:31pm: Well there only seems to be a few options Does Tnoy’s rules for others apply to himself? (ridiculous to suggest they should) Can the conservatives spin it to look like a difference exists where it clearly doesn’t? Are tnoy and co + their supporters hypocrites of the worst order? (consistent with their history). I would think there are good reasons for not shortcutting the trial process to establish guilt or you can end up looking as incompetent dishonest mean spirited and opportunistic as Tnoy Abbnott does now. By his own standard (or more accurately lack of) he has to stand aside, Impaled by his own petard This is unsurprisingly ridiculous. By your reckoning if anyone is accused of defamation he should immediately stand down from is job the moment the papers are lodged with a court official. How can your comprehension be that poor I do not think either should have been stood down. This is Tnoy Abbnott's view on Slipper which now should be applied to himself. The problem is that this is the standard that Tnoy has demanded be applied to others. Its not what I think at all - Tnoy hoisted by his own petard.

There is a formal police investigation of Slippers' cabcharge misuse and a workplace harassment case against him and the Commonwealth as the employer of both Slipper and Ashby
There is a formal police investigation into Thompson's credit card fraud.
Police involvement = criminal investigation.

The Abbott issue, by contrast, is a civil dispute about a repeatedly convicted person's reputation and whether it can be further damaged, considering he is annointed to be the boss of the Victorian CFMEU (nee Brickies' Labourers). No police will ever be involved as it is not a criminal matter.

SO on the one hand we have two criminal investigations and a workplace harassment case, and on the other, a civil dispute about how low a convicted union heavy's reputation can sink.



Are you progs telling me that you do not see any difference?

progressiveslol wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 1:24pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 12:09pm: Well? Has he stood aside yet? SOB Has Gillard asked him to step aside because of this?

I dont know. Was slipper asked to step aside? I thought he did it off his own bat. Why doesnt abbott just do the right thing without being asked?

SOB

Quote:

I dont know. Was slipper asked to step aside? I thought he did it off his own bat. Why doesnt abbott just do the right thing without being asked? SOB

Abbott won't stand aside - he has one rule for everyone else, and another rule for himself.

He is a hypocrite through and through.

And interestingly enough, who is paying for Abbott's legal defence?

According to Michelle Grattan, Abbott is receiving pro bono legal assistance from Arnold Bloch Leibler.

Hmmmm.

Lawyers generally don't like to do ANYTHING for free, so isn't it interesting that Kathy Jackson, James Ashby and now Abbott are all receiving pro bono legal representation.

Suspicious?  Perhaps.

But why can't Abbott pay for it himself?

Why is he relying on handouts - and more importantly - what do they expect in return?

Why is there no more of this in the news? SLipper and thompson get coverage every day. Abbotts transgression is instantly forgotten? Friggin media bias . . .

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 5:16pm:

Why is there no more of this in the news? SLipper and thompson get coverage every day. Abbotts transgression is instantly forgotten? Friggin media bias . . . SOB

Absolutely - particularly in the Murdoch media where Abbott is virtually untouchable, printing his lies as if they were the truth and never questioning Abbott's statements.

Almost every single day Abbott lies to the media and to the Australian people and yet, the gullible swallow it up as if it were fact.

Soren wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 1:54pm:

There is a formal police investigation of Slippers' cabcharge misuse and a workplace harassment case against him and the Commonwealth as the employer of both Slipper and Ashby think they already concluded that the cabcharge was rubbish There is a formal police investigation into Thompson's credit card fraud. Police involvement = criminal investigation. nothing to do with Thompson The Abbott issue, by contrast, is a civil dispute about a repeatedly convicted person's reputation and whether it can be further damaged, considering he is annointed to be the boss of the Victorian CFMEU (nee Brickies' Labourers). No police will ever be involved as it is not a criminal matter. SO on the one hand we have two criminal investigations and a workplace harassment case, and on the other, a civil dispute about how low a convicted union heavy's reputation can sink. Are you progs telling me that you do not see any difference?

All lame excuses - in other words you got nothing.

Just defending the leader at all costs.

progressiveslol wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 1:24pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 12:09pm: Well? Has he stood aside yet? SOB Has Gillard asked him to step aside because of this?

FOOL! It isn't up to Gillard. SHE doesn't pick the leader of the opposition. THE OPPOSITION DOES.

JULIE BISHOP should be demanding he stand aside! Why is that not happening? If Tony's rules don't apply to Tony, they should NOT apply to anyone else.

Tony must stand aside or else Slipper must return.

Even the stupidest righty should be able to understand that.

Soren wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 1:54pm:

There is a formal police investigation of Slippers' cabcharge misuse and a workplace harassment case against him and the Commonwealth as the employer of both Slipper and Ashby There is a formal police investigation into Thompson's credit card fraud. Police involvement = criminal investigation. The Abbott issue, by contrast, is a civil dispute about a repeatedly convicted person's reputation and whether it can be further damaged, considering he is annointed to be the boss of the Victorian CFMEU (nee Brickies' Labourers). No police will ever be involved as it is not a criminal matter. SO on the one hand we have two criminal investigations and a workplace harassment case, and on the other, a civil dispute about how low a convicted union heavy's reputation can sink. Are you progs telling me that you do not see any difference?

Sexual harrassment is a civil charge, so no different to Abbott's case. And Ashby is dropping his charges of misuse of Cabcharge dockets, so you can bet that was never going to fly.

And none of this has anything to do with Thomson.

Three strikes. You're OUT! You lose Soren.

The mob stormed the castle and there was nothing there  ;D

adelcrow wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 6:45pm:

The mob stormed the castle and there was nothing there  ;D

But all the shouting was fun.  :)

PhonyTonyAbbott wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 5:41pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 5:16pm: Why is there no more of this in the news? SLipper and thompson get coverage every day. Abbotts transgression is instantly forgotten? Friggin media bias . . . SOB Absolutely - particularly in the Murdoch media where Abbott is virtually untouchable, printing his lies as if they were the truth and never questioning Abbott's statements. Almost every single day Abbott lies to the media and to the Australian people and yet, the gullible swallow it up as if it were fact.

There is nothing to report because Labor is lying doggo on this. Why? because they know, even if you progs don't realise it, that this is much worse news for Labor and the unions than Abbott and the Libs.

Everything they might say against Abbot in this case in defence the union heavy will be taken down and used against them. That's why they are silent. There is absolutely nothing they can say that would not backfire.

But you ijits keep thinking th soilence is due to some friggin' directive from Rupert. As if he would issue directive, especially in the middle of the British media enquiry.

Shurely shome mishtake.

Gist wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 6:40pm:

And Ashby is dropping his charges of misuse of Cabcharge dockets, so you can bet that was never going to fly. And none of this has anything to do with Thomson. Three strikes. You're OUT! You lose Soren.

Ashby has dropped the cab charge accusation from his civil case because thy are criminal allegations and a formal police investigation has already started into them. There is now no point in his clogging up his own civil case with criminal issues that the police have already well in hand and will prosecute regardless of is civil case.
The main reason both Stinking up the place is their misuse of commonwealth and union funds. Fraud, in other words.
For a married Speaker to hound a staffer for homo sex is normal behaviour only around Darlinghurst. Hollingsworth was chased out of the GGship for a whole lot less. In such positions appearances and perceptions matter very much.

For a liberal politician to hint at union thuggery is what everyone would expect and there is nothing in it for Abbott to worry about. If he loses the case, it would be an even more massive political win for him than if he won it.

Dnarever wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 5:54pm:

All lame excuses - in other words you got nothing. Just defending the leader at all costs.

You mean you don't understand the differences.

News yesterday:
"We believe it is important that the formal criminal investigation into Mr Slipper, previously announced by the AFP, be allowed to proceed independently of the civil action being taken by Mr Ashby," Mr Ashby's spokesman, Anthony McClellan said in a statement on Tuesday.

Mr Ashby is assisting police, as a witness, in their criminal investigation.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/ashby-drops-peter-slipper-taxi-claims-20120516-1ypo6.html

It's actually happening, Reggie,  it is actually happening.

PhonyTonyAbbott wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 3:49pm:

Quote: I dont know. Was slipper asked to step aside? I thought he did it off his own bat. Why doesnt abbott just do the right thing without being asked? SOB Abbott won't stand aside - he has one rule for everyone else, and another rule for himself. He is a hypocrite through and through. And interestingly enough, who is paying for Abbott's legal defence? According to Michelle Grattan, Abbott is receiving pro bono legal assistance from Arnold Bloch Leibler. Hmmmm. Lawyers generally don't like to do ANYTHING for free, so isn't it interesting that Kathy Jackson, James Ashby and now Abbott are all receiving pro bono legal representation. Suspicious?  Perhaps. But why can't Abbott pay for it himself? Why is he relying on handouts - and more importantly - what do they expect in return?

At last, a left sock. I didn't ever think I was going to make a pair.

As far as they want in return, may I suggest, a muzzle might be the gift of choice.

MOTR wrote on May 18^th, 2012 at 6:48am:

PhonyTonyAbbott wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 3:49pm: Quote: I dont know. Was slipper asked to step aside? I thought he did it off his own bat. Why doesnt abbott just do the right thing without being asked? SOB Abbott won't stand aside - he has one rule for everyone else, and another rule for himself. He is a hypocrite through and through. And interestingly enough, who is paying for Abbott's legal defence? According to Michelle Grattan, Abbott is receiving pro bono legal assistance from Arnold Bloch Leibler. Hmmmm. Lawyers generally don't like to do ANYTHING for free, so isn't it interesting that Kathy Jackson, James Ashby and now Abbott are all receiving pro bono legal representation. Suspicious?  Perhaps. But why can't Abbott pay for it himself? Why is he relying on handouts - and more importantly - what do they expect in return? At last, a left sock. I didn't ever think I was going to make a pair. As far as they want in return, may I suggest, a muzzle might be the gift of choice.

Did you forget to take your medication this morning? Its only early - go take it now.

SOB

Delted - that was weird

Soren wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 9:11pm:

PhonyTonyAbbott wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 5:41pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 5:16pm: Why is there no more of this in the news? SLipper and thompson get coverage every day. Abbotts transgression is instantly forgotten? Friggin media bias . . . SOB Absolutely - particularly in the Murdoch media where Abbott is virtually untouchable, printing his lies as if they were the truth and never questioning Abbott's statements. Almost every single day Abbott lies to the media and to the Australian people and yet, the gullible swallow it up as if it were fact. There is nothing to report because Labor is lying doggo on this. Why? because they know, even if you progs don't realise it, that this is much worse news for Labor and the unions than Abbott and the Libs. Everything they might say against Abbot in this case in defence the union heavy will be taken down and used against them. That's why they are silent. There is absolutely nothing they can say that would not backfire. But you ijits keep thinking th soilence is due to some friggin' directive from Rupert. As if he would issue directive, especially in the middle of the British media enquiry.

Murdoch doesnt have to give a directive. Dont you get it? Thier policy is to back liberal party. The managers and executives just follow policy how they see fit. There isnt even anything illegal about this.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 18^th, 2012 at 7:52am:

MOTR wrote on May 18th, 2012 at 6:48am: PhonyTonyAbbott wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 3:49pm: Quote: I dont know. Was slipper asked to step aside? I thought he did it off his own bat. Why doesnt abbott just do the right thing without being asked? SOB Abbott won't stand aside - he has one rule for everyone else, and another rule for himself. He is a hypocrite through and through. And interestingly enough, who is paying for Abbott's legal defence? According to Michelle Grattan, Abbott is receiving pro bono legal assistance from Arnold Bloch Leibler. Hmmmm. Lawyers generally don't like to do ANYTHING for free, so isn't it interesting that Kathy Jackson, James Ashby and now Abbott are all receiving pro bono legal representation. Suspicious?  Perhaps. But why can't Abbott pay for it himself? Why is he relying on handouts - and more importantly - what do they expect in return? At last, a left sock. I didn't ever think I was going to make a pair. As far as they want in return, may I suggest, a muzzle might be the gift of choice. Did you forget to take your medication this morning? Its only early - go take it now. SOB

It made sense to me. New boy PhonyTonyAbbott looks like a sock for a regular poster, bit of a change from all the right wing socks we have around here.

Tony's benefactor is where some of Australia's leading corporations go to lawyer up, particularly in matters relating to the ACCC, our anti competition watchdog.

The mystery of the missing socks, watchdog, muzzle, o.k. forget it, I'll take my tablets.

MOTR wrote on May 18^th, 2012 at 8:07am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 18th, 2012 at 7:52am: MOTR wrote on May 18th, 2012 at 6:48am: PhonyTonyAbbott wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 3:49pm: Quote: I dont know. Was slipper asked to step aside? I thought he did it off his own bat. Why doesnt abbott just do the right thing without being asked? SOB Abbott won't stand aside - he has one rule for everyone else, and another rule for himself. He is a hypocrite through and through. And interestingly enough, who is paying for Abbott's legal defence? According to Michelle Grattan, Abbott is receiving pro bono legal assistance from Arnold Bloch Leibler. Hmmmm. Lawyers generally don't like to do ANYTHING for free, so isn't it interesting that Kathy Jackson, James Ashby and now Abbott are all receiving pro bono legal representation. Suspicious?  Perhaps. But why can't Abbott pay for it himself? Why is he relying on handouts - and more importantly - what do they expect in return? At last, a left sock. I didn't ever think I was going to make a pair. As far as they want in return, may I suggest, a muzzle might be the gift of choice. Did you forget to take your medication this morning? Its only early - go take it now. SOB It made sense to me. New boy PhonyTonyAbbott looks like a sock for a regular poster, bit of a change from all the right wing socks we have around here. Tony's benefactor is where some of Australia's leading corporations go to lawyer up, particularly in matters relating to the ACCC, our anti competition watchdog. The mystery of the missing socks, watchdog, muzzle, o.k. forget it, I'll take my tablets.

Heh oh yeah duh. Prolly not a good idea to draw attention to it though. Seems its the "righties" that get preferential treatment around here.

Yeah so tony lawyered up but theres still nothing new in the media about it. Ridiculous.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 18^th, 2012 at 7:56am:

Murdoch doesnt have to give a directive. Dont you get it? Thier policy is to back liberal party. The managers and executives just follow policy how they see fit. There isnt even anything illegal about this. SOB

Ah, so the Murdoch press backing Rudd in 23007 was just another cunning plan? I get it. Even when they are not backing the Libs, they are backing the Libs. That's just sooo, like, deeply cunning, isn't it.

Soren wrote on May 18^th, 2012 at 10:00am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 18th, 2012 at 7:56am: Murdoch doesnt have to give a directive. Dont you get it? Thier policy is to back liberal party. The managers and executives just follow policy how they see fit. There isnt even anything illegal about this. SOB Ah, so the Murdoch press backing Rudd in 23007 was just another cunning plan? I get it. Even when they are not backing the Libs, they are backing the Libs. That's just sooo, like, deeply cunning, isn't it.

I have explained this before.

I dont know if they backed rudd in 23007 because I didnt/wont have a tv then but they switch sides. They do it now and then and @ the moment they are backing libs. Rebekkah brooks explained it in the inquiry.

SOB

Soren wrote on May 18^th, 2012 at 10:00am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 18th, 2012 at 7:56am: Murdoch doesnt have to give a directive. Dont you get it? Thier policy is to back liberal party. The managers and executives just follow policy how they see fit. There isnt even anything illegal about this. SOB Ah, so the Murdoch press backing Rudd in 23007 was just another cunning plan? I get it. Even when they are not backing the Libs, they are backing the Libs. That's just sooo, like, deeply cunning, isn't it.

;D ;D ;D

don't bother when dealing with rationalising loonies like borg

JC Denton wrote on May 18^th, 2012 at 10:08am:

Soren wrote on May 18th, 2012 at 10:00am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 18th, 2012 at 7:56am: Murdoch doesnt have to give a directive. Dont you get it? Thier policy is to back liberal party. The managers and executives just follow policy how they see fit. There isnt even anything illegal about this. SOB Ah, so the Murdoch press backing Rudd in 23007 was just another cunning plan? I get it. Even when they are not backing the Libs, they are backing the Libs. That's just sooo, like, deeply cunning, isn't it. ;D ;D ;D don't bother when dealing with rationalising loonies like borg

Brilliant argument! You have convinced me!

Idiot.

SOB

Soren wrote on May 18^th, 2012 at 10:00am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 18th, 2012 at 7:56am: Murdoch doesnt have to give a directive. Dont you get it? Thier policy is to back liberal party. The managers and executives just follow policy how they see fit. There isnt even anything illegal about this. SOB Ah, so the Murdoch press backing Rudd in 23007 was just another cunning plan? I get it. Even when they are not backing the Libs, they are backing the Libs. That's just sooo, like, deeply cunning, isn't it.

backing Rudd in 23007

The Liittle slip on the date to produce a more likely real number outcome for when the Lib supporting media would be likely to change.

The Media in 2007 lagged community opinion and many elements of the media fought for every conservative inch reluctantly given up. The community gave the media no option in 07 but it was still a long way from what the media wanted.

Abbott demanded that Slipper stand aside to face a civil charge.

Now that Abbott is facing the same type of charge he should show that he has as much integrity as Slipper.

Dnarever wrote on May 18^th, 2012 at 10:45am:

Soren wrote on May 18th, 2012 at 10:00am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 18th, 2012 at 7:56am: Murdoch doesnt have to give a directive. Dont you get it? Thier policy is to back liberal party. The managers and executives just follow policy how they see fit. There isnt even anything illegal about this. SOB Ah, so the Murdoch press backing Rudd in 23007 was just another cunning plan? I get it. Even when they are not backing the Libs, they are backing the Libs. That's just sooo, like, deeply cunning, isn't it. backing Rudd in 23007 The Liittle slip on the date to produce a more likely real number outcome for when the Lib supporting media would be likely to change. The Media in 2007 lagged community opinion and many elements of the media fought for every conservative inch reluctantly given up. The community gave the media no option in 07 but it was still a long way from what the media wanted.

I think you are somewhat harsh on the Liberals. The media drive extreme views not liberal party views. Just because these often intersect does not mean there is a conspiracy. The media want to sell papers, this is the business to make a profit, as is the current view in business that profit is more important than people, community and truth. So news papers will print any rubbish and conjecture to sell papers and that will suit the more short sighted and self absorbed liberal thinking. It of course is a disaster for the labor party who love to supply the days headline.

Dnarever wrote on May 18^th, 2012 at 10:45am:

Soren wrote on May 18th, 2012 at 10:00am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 18th, 2012 at 7:56am: Murdoch doesnt have to give a directive. Dont you get it? Thier policy is to back liberal party. The managers and executives just follow policy how they see fit. There isnt even anything illegal about this. SOB Ah, so the Murdoch press backing Rudd in 23007 was just another cunning plan? I get it. Even when they are not backing the Libs, they are backing the Libs. That's just sooo, like, deeply cunning, isn't it. backing Rudd in 23007 The Liittle slip on the date to produce a more likely real number outcome for when the Lib supporting media would be likely to change. The Media in 2007 lagged community opinion and many elements of the media fought for every conservative inch reluctantly given up. The community gave the media no option in 07 but it was still a long way from what the media wanted.

I think you are somewhat harsh on the Liberals. The media drive extreme views not liberal party views. Just because these often intersect does not mean there is a conspiracy. The media want to sell papers, this is the business to make a profit, as is the current view in business that profit is more important than people, community and truth. So news papers will print any rubbish and conjecture to sell papers and that will suit the more short sighted and self absorbed liberal thinking. It of course is a disaster for the labor party who love to supply the days headline.

Quote:

Just because these often intersect does not mean there is a conspiracy.

Why are you calling it a conspiracy? Its not a conspiracy. Its their policy to back the liberal party. Policy. Rebekkah Brooks said so. Its obvious anyway.

SOB

It should be surprising - but its not, you know all the people baying for due process to be abandoned in the Slipper case etc when it lined up with their personal agenda's.

But when the shoe is on the other foot and it's Mr Abbnott in question it is an entirely different matter, now we must apply due process of course.

The independants were aoung those demanding that Slipper stand down and threatening to support a motion against him staying as speaker, Why have they had nothing to say about Abbnott in the same position.